Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Hearings Officer Packet - 12/15/2004
HEARINGS OFFICER WEDNESDAY - DECEMBER 15 2004 - 7:00 PM Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments and qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. Hearings are held in Town Hall at the City of Tigard at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Staff reports are available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 "APPEAL" OF STONECHASE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00010 ITEM ON APPEAL: On November 1, 2004 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 20-lot Subdivision of a 4.51 acre site for detached single-family homes. On November 16, 2004 an appeal was filed concerning lack of information within the required impact study, street trees, tree removal, notification, and failure to maintain a complete file. LOCATION: 11225 SW North Dakota Street; WCTM 1S134DB, Tax Lot 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.745 and 18.790. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 . 0 00 XGesl)o rem 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: DECEMBER 15, 2004 PAGE 1 OFD FILE NAME: "APPEAL" OF STONECHASE SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00010 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT - (Speaking Against) Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 C~~ --------------_I__-_ Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name, Address, Zj"R ode and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone o. I 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. -I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I -1- Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • COMMUNITY NEWSPAMEDINg 1325 SW Custer Orlve, Portland, OR 07210 • PO Box 370 • Beaverton, OR 07075 Phone:503.884.03BO Fax: 503.820.3433 Email: legaladvertisiog@commRowspspars.eam AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of the Tigard/Tualatin Times, a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard Public Hearing Item Subdivision (SUB) 2004-00010 Appeal of Stonechase Subdivision CNI TT10502 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for . successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues November 25, 2004 LLO.aok Charlotte Allsop (Accounting nilanager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this November 25, 2004 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OVON My commission expires vv Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Size Amount Due $16-P 3v remit to address above • CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM The following will be considered by the ward Hearings Officer on Wednesdav December 15, 2004 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Mathew Scheide er at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00010 > APPEAL OF STONECHASE SUBDIVISION < ITEM ON APPEAL: On November 1, 2004 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 20-lot Subdivision of a 4.51 acre site for detached single-family homes. On November 16, 2004 an appeal was filed concerning lack of information within -the required impact study, street trees, tree removal, notification, and failure to maintain a complete file. ~ LOCATION: 11225 SW North Dakota Street; WCTM 1S134DB, Tax Lot 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community) Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.745 and 18.790. i MY C( ncIrerr MAP TT 10502 Publish November 25, 2004 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLUER, VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development SkapingA Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON WEDNESDAY,, DECEMBER 15. 2004 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.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2004-00010 FILENAME: APPEAL OF STONECHASE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: Vince Biggi APPLICANT'S Planning Resources, Inc. 17660 SW Kramien Road REP.: Attn: Ken Sandblast Newberg, OR 97132 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223 OWNER:. Stonechase, LLC APPELLANT: Sue Beilke 9550 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy. 11755 SW 114t' Place Beaverton, OR 97005 Tigard, OR 97223 ITEM ON APPEAL: On November 1, 2004 the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 20-lot Subdivision of a 4.51 acre site for detached single-family homes. On November 16, 2004 an appeal was filed concerning lack of information within the required impact study, street trees, tree removal, notification, and failure to maintain a complete file. LOCATION: COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: 11225 SW North Dakota Street; WCTM 1 S134DB, Tax Lot 400. Low-Density Residential District. R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5' zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.745 and 18.790. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. 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. 2438 (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•21TTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROP.-,:D 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 OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. 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 THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. 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 (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER AT 503-639-4171, TIGARD. CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. X\ v vlommY MAP SUB2004-00010 STONE(HASE SUBDIVISION I a ' 1--' H~ki , r. T Ca wj0avoopmedt Q City ofrWd RW dam: Nd 1%2 w: c:a,oc~cuaacicaa.naN • • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an appeal of an administrative decision ) FINAL ORDER approving an application for a 20-lot subdivision ) on a 4.51 acre parcel in the R-4.5 zone at 11225 SW ) SUB2004-00010 North Dakota Street in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Stonechase Subdivision) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, Vince Biggi, requests approval of a preliminary plan for a 20-lot subdivision of a 4.51-acre parcel located at 11225 SW North Dakota Street; also known as Tax Lot 400, WCTM 1S134DB (the "site"). The applicant proposes to remove an existing dwelling and outbuildings from the site and to develop each of the 20 new lots with a single family detached dwelling. The applicant will extend SW Fir and Forest Lanes into the site from their existing stubs at the west boundary of the site. The applicant will extend a new north-south street, proposed SW 113`h Avenue between the east ends of Fir and Forest Lanes, creating a loop street on the site. The applicant will extend a second north-south street between SW Forest Lane and SW North Dakota Street. The applicant will also dedicate right of way and construct frontage improvements along the site's SW North Dakota Street frontage. The applicant proposes to collect storm water from imperious areas of the site and convey it to an underground stormwater facility within the right of way for Fir Lane and 113`h Avenue for treatment, detention and discharge to the existing storm sewer in Cottonwood Lane north of the site. All proposed lots will be served by public water and sanitary sewer systems. The applicant proposes to remove 34 of the 69 viable regulated trees on the site. I 2. On November 1, 2004, the Tigard Planning Manager (the "manager") issued a Type II decision approving the application subject to conditions of approval. On November 16, 2004, the City received an appeal of the Director's decision on behalf of Sue Bielke, Director of the Biodiversity Project of Tigard and area resident. The appeal alleged that the proposed development violates the City's Tree Protection Ordinance and certain other approval criteria. On December 15, 2004, Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. City staff recommended the hearings officer deny the appeal and affirm the manager's decision. See the Memorandum to the Hearings Officer dated December 8, 2004 (the "Memorandum"). Representatives of the applicant testified in support of the application. Ms. Bielke and Tigard resident John Frewing (the "Appel lants")2 testified in support of the appeal. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the record held open. Ultimately, at the request of or with the support of the applicant, the hearings officer held open the record until February 4, 2005. The principal issues in the appeals include the following: a. Whether the hearings officer's decision to reopen the record prejudiced the appellants' substantive rights b. Whether and to what extent specific issues fall within the limited scope of appeal permitted by TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b; I Based on the applicant's revised Tree Survey dated January 13, 2005. 2 The hearings officer uses the term "appellants" to refer to Ms. Bielke and Mr. Frewing, both of who testified in support of the appeal filed by Ms. Bielke and the Biodiversity Project of Tigard. c. Whether the impact study required by TDC 18.390.040.B.2.e is required to address impacts to existing trees on and near the site; d. Whether TDC 18.810.080 requires that the site be retained as a park; e. Whether it is feasible to accommodate stormwater runoff from the site and surrounding area in compliance with TDC 18.810.090; f. Whether TDC 18.745.040.E requires that the applicant preserve existing trees on the site as street trees; 18.790; and g. Whether the application complies with the Tree Removal Ordinance, TDC h. Whether the City's alleged failure to maintain and preserve a complete application file violated the appellants' substantive rights. 3. Based on the findings and conclusions contained herein and the testimony and evidence in the public record, the hearings officer denies the appeals and affirms the administrative decision conditionally approving the application with certain modifications for the reasons provided herein. B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on December 15, 2004. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony and evidence offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Matt Scheidegger summarized the appeal and his December 8, 2004 Memorandum in response to the appeal. He argued that many of the appellants' arguments are based on personal opinion. They are not supported by substantial evidence. a. He testified that the applicant's tree mitigation plan overestimated the amount of mitigation required, because it included mitigation for "orchard" trees and 12- inch diameter trees, which the Code does not require. b. He testified that the majority of the undergrowth vegetation on the site consists of blackberries. c. He noted that the conditions of approval require that the applicant comply with the City Forester's comments. d. He argued that the Code allows, but does not require, the applicant to modify the subdivision design to preserve additional trees. 3. Planner Ken Sandblast and attorney Phil Grillo testified on behalf of the applicant.' Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 2 a. Mr. Sandblast testified that the revised tree inventory list and tree removal plan accurately identify all of the regulated trees on the site. The revised tree inventory identified 35 additional trees less than 12-inches in diameter that can be removed without mitigation. The revised tree inventory also identified two additional two dead trees on the site. The applicant revised the removal plan during the review period to include all trees that might potentially be removed to allow the proposed development. The applicant may be able to preserve some of the trees that are identified for removal in the final plan, depending on the final grading and construction design and the location of utilities and other improvements. The City Forester concurred with the applicant's inventory and removal . plans after meeting with the applicant's arborist on the site. L He testified that the applicant's tree mitigation plan proposes more mitigation than the conditions of approval require, because the applicant's plan includes orchard trees and 12-inch diameter trees, for which the Code does not require mitigation. ii. He testified that no trees were removed from the site within one year from the date the application was submitted. The applicant's arborist and the City Forester concluded that the trees were cut more than one year ago based on their review of the stumps on the site. iii. He argued that an upstream drainage analysis is not required on this site, because the existing topography directs all offsite drainage away from the site. iv. He testified that the majority of the existing vegetation on the site consists of invasive, non-native species. The applicant will preserve a substantial number of mature trees on the site. b. Mr. Grillo noted that the Code limits appeals of Type II decisions to the issues raised in the appeal. The appellants raised a number of issues that exceed the scope of the appeal. He argued that TDC 18.745.030.E.1 & 2 must be read in the context. TDC 18.745.030.E requires the preservation of existing vegetation "as much as possible." Subsections 1 and 2 modify this requirement, limiting the preservation requirement to areas that will remain undisturbed by construction. It is impossible to preserve understory vegetation on individual lots. In addition, the appellants' arguments about understory vegetation exceed the scope of the appeal, which was limited to preservation of trees. The appeal does not mention preservation of understory vegetation. He argued that it is impossible to preserve understory vegetation on the entire site. TDC 18.745.030.E only requires preservation of vegetation outside of proposed lots and development areas. 4. Sue Bielke director of the Biodiversity Project of Tigard and Tigard resident John Frewing testified in support of the appeal. a. Ms. Bielke summarized her written testimony dated December 15, 2004. i. She argued that the applicant's impact study is inadequate, because it does not address changes in stormwater runoff that may impact trees retained on and near the site. In addition, the impact study should have addressed whether there is adequate access between the site and existing parks in the area and the potential use of the site as a park. She argued that there is no safe pedestrian access between the site and existing parks in the area. The site "is the last upland forest left in this part of Tigard that is relatively flat." The site would be a good candidate for a small park. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 3 ii. She argued that the proposed development is inconsistent with TDC 18.745.010 and 18.745.030, because the development does not retain existing street trees and native shrubs and other vegetation on the site. TDC 18.745.030.E requires that "existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible." The site contains a variety of native shrubs, ferns and other herbaceous vegetation in addition to trees that the proposed development makes no effort to preserve. The applicant could adjust the sidewalks and planter strips, as allowed by the Code, to preserve trees located near the SW North Dakota Street as street trees. iii. She argued that the director's decision is inadequate, because it does not include a finding that the proposed development complies with TDC 18.745.040.C, regarding the size and spacing of street trees. iv. She argued that the applicant's tree plan does not contain all of the information required by TDC 18.790.030 and it is inconsistent with TDC 18.790.030.A, which provides that "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." (A) The tree plan does not identify all of the existing trees on the site that are larger than 6-inches in diameter as required by TDC 18.790.030.B(1). (B) The tree plan underestimates the size of some trees. Trees that are listed as 10 or 11 inches in diameter in the applicant's tree inventory may actually be 12-inches or more in diameter, based on her observations. She summarized her experience in tree measurement from her work with the U.S. Forest Service. She argued that the applicant's measurements should be verified by an independent third party. (C) The tree plan did not include a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction as required by TDC 18.790.030.13 (4): The director's decision requires submittal of a complete tree plan, but there is no finding that it is feasible to do so. v. She argued that several of the trees the applicant identified as "hazardous" are actually viable and should be retained. The City Forester also opined that several trees the applicant identified as hazardous are not. She argued that the City must resolve this dispute prior to preliminary plat approval. The director's decision defers the final determination regarding hazardous trees to final review, precluding public comment on the viability of the trees. vi. She argued that the applicant's revised tree plan constitutes a "significant change" in the application that requires submittal of a new application. The March plan proposed to remove 89 trees. The September plan proposed to remove 126 trees. She requested that the City notify her within seven days of receipt of any changes to the tree plan, but the City ignored her request. In addition, the plans are confusing, because they are inconsistent in the way they depict trees. Trees proposed for removal on the September Tree Removal Plan are not "crossed out" as they were on earlier plans and the plan does not show building envelopes for the proposed homes. She argued that the application should be denied, "because the September Tree Plan is incomplete and does not reflect what is stated in the Decision." vii. She noted that the director's decision is inconsistent with the applicant's tree plan. The tree plan shows 379 inches of "mitigation'requircd." However the director's decision only requires mitigation for 365.6-inches. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) page 4 0 0 viii. She argued that several trees were removed from the site less than one year prior to the date the current development application was submitted. A neighboring resident told her that "to the best of her recollection" the trees were removed in August or September 2003. Ms. Bielke testified that she noted trees "missing" from the site about the same time. TDC 18.790.030.C requires that the applicant include such trees in the mitigation plan. ix. She opined that TDC 18.790.040.A requires that the applicant lay out the streets and lots to protect mature trees. The applicant made no effort to do so. There are several fir and cedar trees on the site that are "well over two-hundred years old" that could be retained and incorporated into the development with innovative planning; adjusting lot dimensions and narrowing sidewalks and planter strips. The applicant could preserve more of the larger trees by relocating the street to the east edge of the site, opposite existing SW 112`h Avenue. She argued that TDC 18.790.040.A gives the planning director discretion to apply the listed incentives, not the applicant. x. She testified that the City's file for this application is incomplete, because it does not contain email comments from the City Forester and several letters and emails from the appellants. xi. She requested the hearings officer hold the record open to allow her to review and respond to the new evidence submitted by the applicant. b. John Frewing testified in support of the appeal. L He argued that the applicant's impact study is incomplete, because it did not consider stormwater entering the site from upstream as required by TDC ,18.810.100(A). The proposed development will alter stormwater runoff in the area, which may impact trees on and near the site. ii. He argued that the applicant failed to address TDC 18.745.030.E, which requires that the applicant protect existing vegetation "as much as possible." The site contains a variety of native vegetation that applicant the applicant can and should be required to preserve and protect during construction. iii. He noted that the conditions of approval are inconsistent with the applicant's tree mitigation plans. The mitigation plan lists between 365 and 406 inches of tree mitigation. However the conditions of approval require that the applicant mitigate 365.5 inches. Staff's practice of not requiring mitigation for removal of fruit and nut trees is inconsistent with the Code. The applicant should be required to provide 406-inches of mitigation. iv. He argued that the City must determine exactly which trees require mitigation prior to preliminary plat approval. The director's decision unlawfully defers this required finding that it is feasible to comply with TDC 18.790. v. Page 19 of the director's decision requires that the applicant record a deed restriction prohibiting removal of retained trees. This requirement is not reflected in the conditions of approval. In addition, the City Forester's comments set out at page 26 of the decision discuss a number of tree protection standards that should be included as conditions of approval. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 5 • in the City's file. vi. He argued that the applicant's tree protection plan is not included vii. He requested the hearings officer hold the record open for one week to review and respond to the new information submitted by the applicant. 5. City Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff argued that TDC 18.745.030.E does not require that the applicant preserve all existing native vegetation on the site. Such a requirement would preclude permitted development. 6. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the public record held open for one week for the appellants to introduce new evidence and testimony. The hearings officer ordered the record held open for a second week for the applicant to respond to the new evidence and submit a closing argument. On December 29, in response to the applicant's request, the hearings officer issued a written order extending the open record period until January 14, 2005 for the applicant to submit new evidence in response to the appellants' submittal, until January 21 for the appellants to respond to the new evidence and until January 28 for a final written argument by the applicant. The hearings officer subsequently extended the appellants' response period to two weeks, until January 28. The record closed at 5 p.m. on February 4, 2005. The applicant volunteered to toll the 120-day clock during the open record periods as allowed by ORS 227.178(5). C. DISCUSSION 1. The appellants argued that the hearings officer's decision to grant the applicant's request to reopen the record prejudiced their substantive rights. . a. The hearings officer finds that the December 15, 2004 hearing was the "initial evidentiary hearing." Therefore the hearings officer was required to hold the record open for a minimum of seven days in response to the appellants' request. TDC 18.390.050.D.2.3 The hearings officer held the record open for a second week to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit a final written argument as required by TDC 18.390.050.D.4.b. b. The appellants submitted new evidence during the open record period. After reviewing the new evidence, the applicant requested that the hearings officer reopen the record to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit new evidence in response to the evidence submitted by the appellants. The hearings officer was required to grant that request. TDC 18.390.050.D.4.4 The hearings officer ultimately held the record open for a second two-week period to allow the appellants to respond to the evidence submitted by the applicant and for a final week to allow the applicant to submit a final written argument as required by TDC 18.390.050.D.4.b. 3 TDC 18.390.050.D.2 provides that the hearings officer "shall grant" a request to hold the record open when such a request is made during the initial evidentiary hearing. (Emphasis added). TDC 18.390.050.D.4 requires that the hearings officer hold the record open for a minimum seven-days. 4 TDC 18.390.050.D.4 further provides: [A]ny participant may file a written request with the City for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. If such a request is filed, the hearing, authority shall reopen the record pursuant to paragraph 5 of this section. (Emphasis added). Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 6 • • c. The appellants requested that the hearings officer allow them more time to respond to the new evidence, because Mr. Frewing would be out of town during the appellants' response period provided in the continuance order. The hearings officer could not grant that request without violating the time limitations of ORS 227.178, which requires that the City issue a final decision within 120-days after the application was submitted. TDC 18.390.050.D.4.a provides that the 120-day clock continues to run during the open record period, unless the applicant requests or agrees to the extension. In this case the applicant expressly agreed to "stop the clock" during the second five week open record period. The 120-day countdown resumed at the end of the open record period. The hearings officer could not extend the open record period further without violating ORS 227.178. 2. TDC 18.390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of Type II decisions, such as the city's decision conditionally approving the subdivision application. TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b provides that appeals: [S]hall be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, as provided under Section 18.390.040.C, unless the Hearings Officer, at his or her discretion, allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The Hearings Officer may allow such additional evidence if he or she determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case. The intent of this requirement is to limit the scope of Type II Administrative Appeals by encouraging persons with standing to submit their specific concerns in writing during the comment period. The written comments received during the comment period will usually limit the scope of issues on appeal. Only in extraordinary circumstances should new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer on appeal of a Type II Administrative Decision. a. The hearings officer finds that the applicant's request to reopen the record did not expand the scope of the appeal. The appellants or any other interested party were entitled to submit new testimony and evidence and raise new issues related to the new testimony and evidence submitted during the open record period. TDC 18.390.050.D.5. The hearings officer finds that the new evidence submitted by the applicant did not raise any new issues outside the scope of the appeal. The new evidence merely clarified issues raised in the appeal. 3. The hearings officer finds that the applicant submitted an impact study discussing the impacts of the development on the listed "public facilities and services" including the drainage and parks systems, fulfilling the requirements of TDC 18.390.040.B.2.e. The hearings officer finds that the impact study is not required to address the impact of the proposed development on trees, because trees are not a "public facility or service." In addition, TDC 18.390.040.B.2.e is expressly listed as an application requirement, not an approval criterion. This section does not include any standards for review of the information submitted. 4. The hearings officer finds that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed development does or can comply with the'street and utility improvement standards of TDC 18.810. a. The appellants argued that there is a need for additional parks in the area. The proposed development contributes to the need for parks. However this need exists Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 7 0 largely because of existing development. It would be inequitable to require this applicant to bear the full burden of parkland dedication and improvements where the proposed development is only responsible for a small portion of the problem. The need for parks is one that exists generally in the area, and is a need to which all properties in the area contribute, not just the lots being created in this case. The hearings officer cannot delay action or deny approval of the application to allow the City an opportunity to purchase the site as a park. The applicant proposes to divide the site. If the application complies with the applicable standards and criteria in effect when the application was filed, then it must be approved, whether or not the site could be used as a park. i. TDC 18.810.080 provides that the City may require dedication or reservation of a park or open space area within a subdivision site where such facilities are "shown in a development plan adopted by the City" or "where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies..." and the dedication or reservation is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. In this case there is no substantial evidence that the site is identified as a park site on any adopted plan or that development of a park on this site is "[c]onsidered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies..." In addition, preservation of the entire site as a park would clearly exceed the roughly proportional impacts of the proposed development on the need for parks. ii. The hearings officer finds that issues regarding the accessibility of existing parks in the area exceed the scope of the appeal, because such concerns were not raised during the initial written comment period. b. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development can accommodate stormwater runoff from the site consistent with the requirements of TDC 18.810.100, based on the applicant's Preliminary Drainage Report dated April 24, 2004. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. The applicant will collect stormwater runoff from the site, convey it to a stormwater facility within the SW 113`' Avenue right of way for treatment and detention. The applicant will release treated stormwater to the public storm sewer system a rate equal to or less than the predevelopment rate. As the applicant noted, the topography of the site directs the majority of stormwater away from the site. The hearings officer finds that it is feasible to accommodate the small amount of runoff entering the site from adjacent properties consistent with TDC 18.8 10. 100.C. The applicant can enlarge the stormwater facility if necessary to accommodate the additional runoff. The potential impact of the altered drainage flow on trees on and near the site is irrelevant to the applicable approval criteria in TDC 18.810.100. 5. The hearings officer finds that TDC 18.745.010 is a purpose statement, not an applicable approval standard. The purpose statement is not relevant unless the implementing regulations that follow are ambiguous, and resort to the purpose statement is necessary to determine the context and meaning of ambiguous terms. 6. The hearings officer finds that issues regarding TDC 18.745.030.E were not raised with sufficient specificity during the written comment period to preserve any right to raise such issues on appeal. Ms. Bielke's August 15, 2004 letter cited TDC 18.745.030.E, but her arguments focused on the standards of TDC 18.745.040.E. Appeals are " limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period..." TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b. The hearings officer finds that a citation to a particular section of the Code, without more, is insufficient to raise an issue. Therefore the hearings officer finds that issues related to TDC 18.745.030.E are beyond the scope of the appeal as defined by TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) page 8 0 0 7. The hearings officer finds that the application complies with TDC 18.745.040.E. This section allows, but does not require, that the applicant retain existing trees as street trees, based on the plain meaning of the words in the Code. TDC 18.745.040.E provides that "existing trees may be used as street trees..." TDC 18.120.020.D provides that "the words `shall' and `will' are mandatory and the word `may' is permissive. The applicant did not propose to utilize existing trees as street trees. Nothing in the Code requires that the applicant do so. 8. Condition of approval 3 requires that the applicant comply with the street tree size and spacing requirements of TDC 18.745.040 (C). The hearings officer finds that it is feasible for the application to comply with those standards. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. 9. The hearings officer finds that the application complied with TDC 18.790.030, based on the following: a. The hearings officer finds that the application complied with TDC 18.790.030.A, because the applicant submitted a tree plan prepared by a certified arborist outlining the proposed planting, removal and protection of trees on the site. Whether the applicant could save additional trees on the site is irrelevant. Although this section further provides that "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible," the applicant is not required to maximize the number of trees preserved on the site. As described by LUBA: The ultimate standard that the [tree preservation ordinance] imposes is not a standard that requires protection of trees. Rather it is a standard that favors protection of trees but allows trees to be removed so long as any loss of more than 25-percent of large trees is mitigated. Miller v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 2003-133 (2004). b. The hearings officer finds that the applicant's original tree plan did not comply with the submittal requirements of TDC 18.790.030.B(1), because it did not show the location of all existing trees on the site. The applicant's tree survey listed the size, species and condition of all trees on the site. However the tree plan submitted by the applicant only showed the location of trees 12-inches or more in diameter. TDC 18.790.030.B (1) requires that the applicant submit a tree plan showing the "[l]ocation, size and species of all existing trees..." The hearings officer further finds that the applicant's latest Tree Inventory Plan, dated January 14, 2005 does comply with TDC 18.790.030.B(1). The Tree Inventory Plan shows the location of all existing trees on the site. The attached tree survey shows the size, species and condition of the individual trees shown on the Tree Inventory Plan. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the application complies with the submittal requirements of TDC 18.790.030.B.1. i. The hearings officer finds that the revised Tree Inventory Plan and Tree Mitigation Calculations do not "significantly change the application." TDC 18.390.080.D.4.b. The "application" in this case is for a 20-lot subdivision. The revised submittals do not significantly change that application. The number of lots and the layout of the streets and lots remains unchanged. ii. Ms. Bielke requested that the City notify her of any revisions to the tree preservation plan. The City should have done so as a courtesy and to facilitate public participation in the development process. However the Code does not require such Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 9 0 0 additional individual notice. Therefore the City's failure to provide the requested notice does not constitute grounds for denial of the application. iii. The appellants disputed the accuracy of the applicant's tree survey, based on Ms. Bielke's personal observations from the boundaries of the site. The appellants argue that several trees are larger than the applicant's plans indicate. The hearings officer finds that Ms. Bielke's testimony is substantial evidence. However the hearings officer finds that the testimony of the applicant's certified arborist is more persuasive, because it is based on actual measurements of the individual trees on the site. Ms. Bielke did not measure the trees. She estimated tree diameters based on her observations from the boundaries of the site. c. The hearings officer finds that it is feasible to comply with TDC 18.790.030.B.2, based on the applicant's revised Tree Mitigation Calculations, dated January 14, 2005. i. TDC 18.790.030.13.2 requires that the applicant identify a program to save existing trees or mitigate the removal of trees over 12 inches in caliper. The site contains 143 trees larger than 12-inches in diameter, based on the revised Tree Mitigation Calculations. However the applicant's arborist concluded that 74 of the existing trees are "non-viable," defined as trees that are dead, dying, diseased or hazardous.5 See the December 8, 2004 letter from Raymond Myer of Tree Care & Landscapes Unlimited, Inc. Therefore the site contains 69 viable trees over 12-inches in diameter, based on the applicant's calculations. ii. The applicant proposed to retain 35 of the existing viable trees larger than 12-inches in diameter on the site (51-percent of the regulated trees). Therefore the applicant is required to provide mitigation in accordance with TDC 18.790.060.13 for 50-percent of the trees removed. TDC 18.790.030.13.2 c. (A) The applicant proposed to remove 813 caliper inches of viable trees larger than 12-inches in diameter. Therefore the applicant is required to provide 406.5-inches of mitigation trees, or 203 two-inch caliper trees. Condition of approval 1 should be modified to that effect. (B) Mr. Scheidegger testified that it is the City's practice to exclude "orchard trees" (non-native fruit and nut trees) from the mitigation requirements. The hearings officer finds that this practice is inconsistent with the Code. Nothing in the Code distinguishes between native and non-native trees. The fact that other sections of the Code distinguish between native and non-native vegetation6 while the Tree Removal Ordinance does not supports the conclusion that the City Council did not intend to exclude orchard trees from the mitigation requirements. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required to mitigate for the removal of all viable trees larger than 12-inches in diameter.? 5 No mitigation is required for removal of dead or.hazardous trees. TDC 18.790.040.B. 6 See e.g., TDC 18.775 cited by the applicant and Mr. Frewing. 7 The hearings officer finds that the appellants could not raise this issue during the initial comment period. There is no evidence that the appellants were aware of the City's practice of excluding orchard trees from the mitigation calculations and therefore could have anticipate the issue. The hearings officer finds that the Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 10 0 a (C) TDC 18.790.060.E authorizes the Director to accept monetary compensation in lieu of tree replacement. The appellants argued that such a requirement is unenforceable, because of alleged lack of enforcement by the City in prior cases. However there is no substantial evidence in the record to that effect. The hearings officer cannot deny this application based on allegations that the City will not enforce valid conditions of approval. iii. The City Forester questioned the applicant's arborist's hazardous tree determination.8 The City Forester opined that "[s]everal of the trees designated as hazardous were not." p. 26 of the Planning Manager's decision. Condition of approval 2 of the Planning Manager's decision requires that the applicant's arborist and the City Forester review the trees and resolve any disputes about which trees are hazardous as defined by the Code. Condition 2 further requires that the applicant revise the mitigation plan as necessary to reflect any changes. (A) The hearings officer finds that the determination of which trees constitute "hazardous trees" as defined by TDC 18.790.020.A.3 is a technical issue that may be resolved during the subsequent administrative review process. Meyer v. City of Portland, 67 Or App 274, 678 P2d 741, rev den 297 Or 82 (1984). "[C]onditions of approval may include conditions that specific technical solutions to identified development problems be submitted and reviewed and approved by the government's technical staff. Id., 67 Or App at 274 n 6. The hearings officer finds that determinations of whether and to what extent a particular tree is affected by "disease, infestation, age, or other condition..." (TDC 18.790.020.A.3) is such a technical issue, requiring the application of professional judgment, specialized knowledge and experience. (B) The hearings officer finds that it is feasible for the City Forester to determine which trees qualify as hazardous trees as defined by the Code during the final review process. The applicant must revise the mitigation plan to provide additional mitigation if the City Forester determines that trees the applicant identified as hazardous do not qualify as hazardous trees. This is required by condition of approval 2 of the director's decision. d. The applicant's revised Tree Inventory Plan identifies all trees that are proposed to be removed. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.790.030.B.3. e. The applicant submitted a "Tree Protection Plan," a checklist that outlines certain standards and methods that will be used to protect trees during and after construction. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.790.030.B.4. i. The appellants argued that the proposed protection measures are inadequate. However this issue was not raised during the initial comment period and therefore is beyond the scope of the appeal. In addition, TDC 18.790.030.B.4 only requires appellants must be allowed to raise the issue on appeal in order to "[t]o resolve the case." TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b. 8 This issue was not raised during the initial comment period. However the hearings officer finds that the appellants could not raise this issue below, because the City Forester's comments were not available for review, based on the appellants' undisputed testimony. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the appellants must be allowed to raise the issue on appeal in order to "[t]o resolve the case." TDC 18.390.040. G.2. b. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 11 • 0 that the applicant submit "a protection program..." It does not set out any standards or criteria for the review of the program. Condition of approval 5 requires that the applicant submit and the City Forester approve a final Tree Protection Plan prior to any land disturbing activities on the site. f. The appellants argued that the applicant's tree inventory is inadequate, because it did not include trees removed from the site within one year of the date the application was submitted as required by TDC 18.790.030.C. However the hearings officer this issue was not raised during the initial comment period and therefore it is beyond the scope of the appeal. i. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that any "trees" as defined by TDC 18.790.020.A.6 were removed from the site within one year of the date the application was submitted.9 Timothy J. Gross, a neighboring resident, testified that he "In early August of 2003 [he] witnessed a crew of workers using chainsaws to cut down trees and bull dozers to clear debris [on the site]." However he did not testify about the size of the "trees" that were removed. The applicant testified that the prior owner cut down "overgrown brush," including small hazelnut trees, in order to remove machinery from the site. This may be the activity that Mr. Gross observed. The applicant's arborist and the City Forester inspected the site looking for stumps. The only stumps they found were from Alder trees that had been cut down substantially more than one-year before, based on the amount of decay they observed. 10 10. The hearings officer finds that TDC 18.790.040.A is inapplicable, because the applicant did not propose to utilize the tree preservation incentives. Whether the applicant could modify the development to preserve additional trees is irrelevant. The Code encourages, but does not require, the preservation of trees. Contrary to the appellants' assertion, this section does not authorize the director to require that the applicant modify the development design in order to preserve trees. The dictionary defines "incentive" as something intended to induce (persuade) a particular course of action. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000 Houghton Mifflin Company). The hearings officer finds that this section is intended to induce applicants to preserve more trees in exchange for certain benefits including greater density and reduced parking and landscaping requirements, among other things. Such incentives would be unnecessary if the Code authorized the director to require alterations to a proposed development that would preserve additional trees. 11. Condition of approval 27 requires that the applicant record a deed restriction requiring the preservation of retained trees consistent with TDC 18.790.040.B. 12. The appellants argue that the City failed to maintain and preserve a complete application file in this case, because the City file did not include copies of emails from the appellants and the comments from the City Forester. 9 TDC 18.790.020.A.6 defines "tree" as: [A] standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level. 10 See p. 5 of Mr. Scheidegger's December 8, 2004 Memorandum and the December 8, 2004 letter from December 8, 2004 letter from Raymond Myer of Tree Care & Landscapes Unlimited, Inc. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 12 a. The hearings officer finds, based on the appellants' unrebutted testimony, that certain exhibits were missing from the City's file when the appellants reviewed the file. The City subsequently placed the missing exhibits into the file. The appellants had an opportunity to review and respond to the missing exhibits during the appeal. There is no evidence that the missing exhibits precluded the public from raising any issues during the initial comment period, other than issues related to the City Forester's comments. The hearings officer allowed the appellants to raise those issues on appeal. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the missing exhibits did not prejudice the rights of the appellants. b. The hearings officer strongly encourages the City to ensure that all exhibits and correspondence, including emails, are immediately included in the relevant file to ensure that all parties have a full and fair opportunity to review and comment on a particular application. 13. The hearings officer finds that other issues raised in the appeal, at the hearing and during the open record period that are not directly addressed in the above discussion exceed the limited scope of appeal permitted by TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b, because they were not raised with sufficient specificity during initial comment period. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the appeal should be denied, because the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed subdivision does or will comply with the applicable approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, subject to conditions adopted by the manager, and the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence or evidence of equal or greater probative value to the contrary and/or failed to persuade the hearings officer that the application violates the applicable approval standards based on such evidence. Therefore the hearings officer should affirm the manager's decision with minor modifications. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and incorporated herein, the hearings officer hereby denies the appeals, affirms the decision of the planning manager and approves SUB 200400010 (Stonechase Subdivision) subject to the following conditions of approval: ;THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO (COMMENCING ANY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING DEMOLITION; ;GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: i Submit to the Planning Department (Mathew Scheidegger, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 1. Provide a tree mitigation plan for 406.5 inches, except as amended by Condition 2. 2. The applicant is required to hold a field meeting between the project arborist and the City's arborist to discuss any discrepancies of the hazardous trees. Any changes must be reflected in a revised tree protection/mitigation plan. 3. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit revised construction drawings that indicate street tree type, to be approved by the City Forester, at the required spacing standards of 18.74 .040 (C). Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 13 i • 4. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. The applicant shall submit a final Tree Protection Plan that shows exactly how far the tree protection fencing will be from the face of each protected tree (including those on neighboring properties where construction occurs within the trees' driplines) that will be impacted by construction activities within its dripline. The applicant, through their Project Arborist, shall justify the close proxirmty of the construction activities to the trees. He shall certify that the activities will not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of each tree. Any construction that occurs within the neighboring trees' driplines should be justified by the applicant and approved by the City Forester and neighboring property owner(s) Work may proceed within the driplines only with the approval of the City Forester. 6. The Project Arborist shall submit written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall and long- term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 7. The following text shall be included in all construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of the tree removal chapter (including but not limited to removal or damage to trees not approved for removal) shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and B. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 8. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in the public right-of-way. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 14 • • plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 9. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnershipp, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat. 11. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 12. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to construction. 13. The aplicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part o tthe Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of North Dakota Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include. A. City standard pavement section for a Neighborhood Route from curb to centerline equal to 18 feet; B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. Concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a 5-foot planter strip; F. Street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. Street striping; H. Streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. Underground utilities; J. Street signs (if applicable); K. Driveway apron (if applicable); and L. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW North Dakota Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 14. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 15. A profile of North Dakota Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 15 • 0 16. No lots shall be permitted to access directly onto SW North Dakota Street. 17. The applicant's construction plans shall show "No Parking This Side of Street" signs along one side of the internal streets. 18. The applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary sight distance certification, with list of required improvements, with PFI application. 19. Prior to construction, the applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation, for review by the City (Kim McMillan), of the downstream capacity of any existing storm facility impacted by the proposed development. The design engineer must perform an analysis of the drainage system downstream of the development to a point in the drainage system where the proposed development site constitutes 10 percent or less of the total tributary drainage volume, but in no event less than 1/4 mile. 20. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 21. The applicant shall provide a water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final Tans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (pKim McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 22. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 23. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 24. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: Submit to the Planning Department (Mathew Scheidegger, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 25. A note will be placed on the final plat that restricts fences to be placed in the visual clearance intersection of SW Gallo and North Dakota and Gallo and SW Forest Lane on proposed parcel #1. 26. The applicant shall provide a plat name reservation form signed by Washington County staff. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 16 0 27. The appplicant shall record a deed restriction (either separately or as part of the CC&R s) that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with the approved tree plan may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 28. 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 tract(s). 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 tracts(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 29. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner s association. 30. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 31. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private access will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 32. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay $1,516.00 to the City for the striping of the bike lane along the frontage of North Dakota Street. 33. The final plat shall show ROW dedication for North Dakota Street to provide 29 feet from centerline. The plat shall also show the internal, public streets with a ROW width of 46 feet minimum. 34. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW North Dakota Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $13,868.05 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 35. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: ♦ GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. ♦ By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) page 17 • • 36. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2421). C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Ti D. The right-of-way dedication for North Dakota Street shall be made on the final plat. E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit three mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or city Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department (Mathew Scheidegger, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 37. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 38. Prior to issuance of building permits the Project Arborist shall submit to the City Forester a final report describing how the Tree Protection Plan was implemented and detailing any failures to comply with the Tree Protection Plan. The report shall also describe the health of all remaining trees on the site, with details provided as to any tree that has had its root system disturbed or that has otherwise been damaged. 39. Only those trees authorized for removal by this decision, and any trees that are exempt may be removed by the applicant. If in the process of constructing improvements, it is found that removal of a tree designated for preservation must occur, as determined by the City Forester and Project Arbonst, the applicant will be subject to an additional Type II approval. Any additional trees other than those mentioned on the removal plan are damaged or removed without prior City authorization will constitute a violation. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 40. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). 41. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as- built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) page 18 • • of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 42. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant's engineer shall provide a post- street construction sight distance certification. 43. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide a maintenance plan and/or agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. IIN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN, EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Imurovement Agreement: Before Cityy 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. 18.430.090 Bond: As required by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 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. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 19 • • Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. 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. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prereauisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 20 18.810.180 Notice to Citv Reauired Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 EnLyineer's Certification The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. DATED this 15`h day of-February 2005. Joe Turner, Esq., AICP f City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision) Page 21 0 0 "TAB A" Testimony Received at the Public Hearing. ICIILLE I NASHLLI' A T T O R N E Y S Phillip E. Grillo phil.grillo n millernash.com (503) 205-2311 direct line A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner City of Tigard Hearings Officer 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 • Miller Nash t.t.P www.millernash.com 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-3699 (503) 224-5858 (503) 224-0155 fax 4400 Two Union Square 601 Union Street Seattle, WA 98101-2352 (206) 622-8484 (206) 622-7485 fax 500 E. Broadway, Suite 400 Post Office Box 694 Vancouver, WA 98666-0694 (360) 699-0771 February 3, 2005 (360) 694-6413 fax Subject: Appeal of Stonechase Subdivision ((SUB) 2004-00010) Dear Mr. Turner: I am writing to provide the Hearings Officer with the applicant's final written argument pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(e). 1. Scope of the Appeal In general, the scope of this Type II appeal is limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, as provided in Tigard Municipal Code ("TMC") Section 18.390.040(G)(2)(b). We would ask the Hearings Office to read this provision limiting the scope of this appeal in conjunction with ORS 197.195, which applies to Limited Land Use Decisions such as this one, and also limits the scope of local appeals. Both provisions clearly limit the scope of local appeals to those specific issues raised in writing prior to the expiration of the initial comment period. Even then, issues raised during the initial written comment period must be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the decision-maker to respond to the issue. In this case, four letters were received during the written comment period, but only one, namely the letter dated August 15, 2004, from Ms. Sue Beilke, writing on behalf of the Biodiversity Project of Tigard, raised any issues that were later pursued during the appeal. Therefore, for all practical purposes, Ms. Beilke's letter of August 15, 2004 defines the scope of this appeal. As explained below, much of what was testified to at the hearing and what was contained in subsequent letters from Ms. Beilke, Mr. Frewing, and Mr. Gross, raise issues that go well beyond the specific issues raised during the initial written comment period. In our responses below, we have identified the specific issues that we believe are outside the scope of this appeal. We would ask that the Hearings Officer determine whether the particular issues noted below are within the scope of this appeal. Regardless of whether or not a particular issue raised by the opponents is within the scope of this appeal, we have responded to each of the 0 • M I L LEE I NA S IHI LLI> A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -2- February 3, 2005 issues raised. As discussed below, we do not believe that there is any basis for denying this application or for granting the appeal. II. Issues Raised During the Initial Comment Period A. Impact Studv (TMC 18.390.040 (B)(2)(e)) During the comment period, the only issue raised regarding the impact study was Ms. Beilke's allegation that we did not consider the impact of development on the drainage and park systems. With regard to the drainage system, the specific issue raised was that development might weaken remaining trees on site and might shunt water away from the remaining trees' roots. It should be noted that this particular criteria requires the applicant's impact study to address the effect of development on certain "public facilities and services." Trees located on private property are not "public facilities or services" as that term is used in the code. The fact that trees absorb and use water does not mean that they are part of the public drainage system. Further, even though certain types of tree removal, like certain types of land development, are regulated by the City's land use code, such regulation does not mean that trees are "public facilities or services" for purposes of doing an impact analysis under Section 18.390.040(B)(2)(e). This section of the code does not require a complete ecosystem analysis for uses permitted outright in the zone, before such uses can be approved. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the text and context of the impact analysis requirement and would also be contrary to the intent of ORS 197.307, which encourages the availability of needed housing as a matter of statewide concern, and requires cities and counties to provide clear and objective standards for approval of permits for residential development. As a matter of law, the applicant is not required by TMC 18.390.040 to demonstrate in its impact study that its proposed residential development-a permitted use in the zone-will affect the amount of water going into nearby tree roots. There is simply nothing in the text or context of Section 18.390.040 that requires such an analysis. That section only requires an analysis of "public facilities and services." With regard to parks, the only issue raised during the comment period was that this land should be made into a park. This land is zoned R4.5 and the applicant is proposing to develop the site for needed single-family housing at an appropriate density level that is permitted outright in the zone. Under ORS 197.307, the City cannot reduce the proposed housing density for a residential development permitted outright in the zone. It certainly cannot deny the application based on the preference of a neighbor to use the land for a park. With regard to the above-mentioned code section, the opponents have once again gone beyond the specific issues raised during the initial comment period. For example, Mr. Frewing argues that the development's quantitative impact on "uphill drainage" as it relates to backyards and houses in the area, should be examined. With regard to the above-mentioned • • MI LI[eER IETAS IHI LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -3- February 3, 2005 drainage issues, our certified arborist testified that the proposed development will have no detrimental impacts on existing trees. At this point in the development process, our civil engineer has quantified the expected storm drainage impacts for the proposed development through his preliminary drainage calculation analysis, which recommends on-site detention. The stormwater runoff will be designed to flow into an existing public drainage system located in Cottonwood Lane via gravity flow. As depicted on Sheet C1.1, Existing Conditions Plan, the existing topography within the S.W. North Dakota public right-of-way flows from west to east across the southern boundary of the subject site and is then collected in an existing stormwater system at the southeast corner of the subject site. As depicted on the same sheet, the existing topography also "crowns" in the southwest corner of the subject site. Both of these existing topographic conditions effectively eliminate offsite surface water flow onto the subject site from the south. With regard to parks, there is no evidence in the record that this site needs to be reserved as a public park. There is no evidence in the record or in the City's comprehensive plan that this neighborhood is park deficient. The fact that the opponents would like this land to be developed as a park does not mean that the neighborhood is park deficient. The record indicates that future residents will use the existing Englewood and Summerlake parks located north and west of the site. As stated in the application materials, the impacts to existing park facilities in the area will be minimal given the small number of lots in this proposed subdivision. B. Landscaniniz and Screening (TMC 18.745) During the initial comment period, only two specific issues were raised regarding this code section. First, it was alleged by Ms. Beilke that the purpose of the criteria is to "enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the city" and that the current proposal fails to do this because it fails to protect trees, citing Section 18.745.010(A)(1), which discusses the protection of "existing street trees." Second, it was alleged by Ms. Beilke that "the large ponderosa pine and many of the large firs" provide shade, wildlife habitat, and contribute to the aesthetic environmental quality of the city and that Section 18.7445.030(E) states that existing trees may be used as street trees. In other words, the specific issue raised during the comment period with regard to Section 18.745 was that trees should be protected as much as possible and that certain existing trees could be used as street trees. Now, on appeal, Ms. Beilke and Mr. Frewing attempt to change the focus of their argument, and in doing so, raise completely new issues. They now argue that Section 18.745 is violated because the applicant is not protecting all existing vegetation. The provision in Section 18.745.030(E) regarding vegetation was not discussed or referenced at any time during the initial comment period. All of the comments during the comment period with regard to TMC 18.745 focused exclusively on trees, not vegetation in general. Nonetheless, as explained • • M I II.eICIeER I NAS IH[ LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -4- February 3, 2005 during the hearing, most of the site will need to be cleared for construction except for the areas immediately around trees that will be protected as shown in the tree protection plan. Given the need to prepare the site for housing, roads, and utilities, it is only possible to protect the trees shown on the tree protection plan. If, during the course of construction, it is possible to jog sidewalks to avoid particular trees, those decisions will be made in the field during construction, in consultation with the City Forester and the Director of Public Works. On this site, only the trees shown on the tree protection plan can be saved. It is not possible to protect other vegetation during the construction process, because of the proposed design of the development and the need to build streets in the particular locations shown. The street plan requirements essentially dictate the design of this small subdivision. The existing trees are being protected as much as possible and the applicant has satisfied the City's tree plan requirements, as noted below. C. Tree Plan Reauirements (TMC 18.790.030(A) and (B)) During the comment period, only two specific issues were raised concerning these sections. First, it was alleged that the tree protection plan, tree removal plan, and tree preservation plan were confusing. Second, Ms. Beilke questioned whether the fee in lieu of cost is enforceable. Nonetheless, on January 14, 2005, the applicant submitted a revised Tree Inventory Plan, Tree Removal Plan, and Trees to be Saved Plan, along with a revised Tree Survey and Tree Mitigation calculations. These revisions were made specifically in response to the comments received by the public. These documents eliminate any confusion about the trees on site, whether they will be saved or removed, and whether they are subject to mitigation under the code. Ms. Beilke's latest response to this revised information confirms that any confusion has been eliminated. For the reasons explained in our letter transmitting those documents to the City, we do not believe that this information constitutes significant change in the application, as only one additional regulated tree was found, and it is being saved. With regard to the in lieu of payment, staff has already explained how the provision is enforced. In this appeal, Ms. Beilke and Mr. Frewing have gone further than the two specific issues raised during the comment period, and allege that the City cannot exclude "fruit and nut" trees from the tree mitigation requirement. This specific issue was not raised during the initial comment period and we believe that it is therefore outside the scope of this appeal. Staff testified at the hearing that it is the City's longstanding policy not to protect fruit and nut trees (i.e., non-native orchard stock). As Mr. Frewing alludes to in his letter of December 22, 2004, non-native vegetation removal is exempt from the requirements of Chapter 18.775. It was therefore completely consistent for the City not to require fruit and nut tress to be included in the mitigation requirements under this chapter. The applicant was merely following staff s policy and the longstanding practice of the City. Nonetheless, the applicant has submitted revised tree 0 • MILLER I NA S IH[ LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -5 - February 3, 2005 mitigation calculations showing all trees 12 inches and greater to be removed, including all viable fruit and nut trees that are of that size. All of the viable fruit and nut trees that are greater than 12 inches in diameter have been included in the applicant's revised tree mitigation calculations dated January 14, 2005. Therefore, even if this new issue is within the scope of this appeal and even if the opponents are correct in their interpretation of the code, the applicant's mitigation plan satisfies the opponents concerns because all viable fruit and nut trees greater than 12 inches in diameter have been treated as regulated trees and are included in our mitigation calculations. Finally, with regard to this section, Ms. Beilke asserts in her December 21 letter that she was not invited to an on-site meeting with the arborist and the applicant. She cites to no provision in the code requiring that surrounding property owners be invited to all meetings between the City staff and the applicant during the course of an application. We are not aware of any provision in state or local law requiring the City to invite neighbors to on-site meetings between the applicant and City staff during the course of the land use approval process. We therefore believe that this concern does not provide any basis for her appeal. D. Incentives for Tree Retention (TMC 18.790.040) The final issue raised during the initial comment period by Ms. Beilke was her request to reconfigure the site plan to save more trees. While her letter cites to TMC 18.790.040, this section does not expressly or implicitly require the site plan to be reconfigured. As discussed in our response dated December 13, 2004, TMC 18.790.040 provides a list of incentives for the applicant, not a list of requirements. There is no requirement in the code or in state law requiring the applicant in this case to reconfigure the site plan or to reduce the proposed number of lots. In fact, ORS 197.307 would prevent the City from applying tree retention or landscaping standards in a way that would deny or condition an application for needed housing or reduce its proposed housing density, based in whole or in part on aesthetics. It should be noted that aesthetics is expressly included as one of the purposes of the regulations in Chapters 18.790 (Tree Removal) and 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). Therefore, to the extent that these regulations apply to requests to subdivide and use land for needed housing, as that term is defined by ORS 197.303, these regulations are subject to the limitations in ORS 197.307. The later statute expressly prevents the City from reducing density, or denying this application based upon discretionary standards. 0 • M I I[.aLER I NABS IH[ LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -6- February 3, 2005 III. Issues Raised That are Outside the Scope of the Written Comments Received During the Initial Comment Period A. Tree Removal (TMC 18.790.030(C)) As noted in our December 13, 2004, letter, we believe that the issue of tree removal is outside the scope of this appeal, because it was not raised in writing during the initial comment period. Nonetheless, as we noted in our prior testimony, our arborist revisited the site based upon the allegations contained in Ms. Beilke's appeal. The applicant has not removed any trees during the time that it has owned the property. Based upon the on-site inspection of our arborist and the City's arborist, it does not appear that any recent tree removal has occurred. The arborist's report indicates that no recently cut wood or stumps were found on site. The letter from Mr. Tim Gross is of little evidentiary value relative to the approval criteria, because it does not indicate what trees were allegedly cut and what size they were. Prior activities by the previous owner of the site were geared toward the removal of old machinery that was embedded in overgrown brush. Some blackberry vines and small hazelnut trees were apparently removed during that process, but as far as we know, the removal of this machinery did not involve the removal of regulated trees. Mr. Gross does not allege or offer proof that whatever trees may have been removed by the prior owner involved the removal of regulated trees. For purposes of 18.790.030(C), we have taken reasonable steps to determine whether any trees appear to have been removed, and if so, where they might have been located and what size they might have been, so that we could determine if they were regulated. Our arborist, along with the City arborist, did not find any evidence of recent tree removal. B. Tree Protection Plan (TMC 18.790) In Mr. Frewing's December 22, 2004, letter, he states that the trees to be removed and saved have not been identified. Again, this issue was not specifically raised during the initial written comment period. Nonetheless, the applicant's revised materials, submitted on January 14, 2005, eliminate any possible confusion with regard to what trees are being saved, what trees are being removed, and what trees are being mitigated. In his December 22 letter, Mr. Frewing also alleges that the applicant did not indicate how trees will be protected during construction. Again, this issue was not specifically raised during the initial written comment period. Nonetheless, the record contains a document titled "Tree Protection Plan" that contains a checklist of tasks and requirements that will be followed in order to provide the proper protection before, during, and after construction. This tree protection plan will be followed during the course of this development. This plan satisfies I~ I LL ER I NABS IHI LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -7- February 3, 2005 the code requirement for a tree "protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction." (See TMC 18.790.030(B)(4)). Mr. Frewing's detailed comments about the content of the applicant's plan are not connected to any detailed requirements in Section 18.790.030(B)(4), because there are no detailed requirements in that code section. The applicant's tree protection program defines standards and methods that will be used to protect trees during and after construction. Nothing more is required. No code-required standards contained in the above-mentioned section have been deferred. The fact that certain decisions about how to protect specific trees will be resolved on a case-by-case basis, pursuant to the applicant's tree protection program, is not an unlawful delegation of any standards or criteria contained in the above-mentioned code section. The Hearings Officer can find that the proposed tree protection program satisfies the relevant criteria. C. Storm Drainage (TMC 18.810.100) In his December 22 letter, Mr. Frewing states that the applicant's impact study did not quantitatively address the effects of uphill drainage on to the site. He asserts that this is an approval criteria under Section 18.810.100(C) of the code. Again, this issue was not raised during the initial written comment period, so we believe that it is outside the scope of this appeal. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the applicant's preliminary drainage report clearly indicates that the site drains to the northeast with an average slope of approximately 6%. As depicted on Sheet C1.1, Existing Conditions Plan, the existing topography within the S.W. North Dakota public right-of-way flows from west to east across the southern boundary of the subject site and is then collected in an existing stormwater system at the southeast corner of the subject site. As depicted on the same sheet, the existing topography also "crowns" in the southwest corner of the subject site. Both of these existing topographic conditions effectively eliminate offsite surface water flow onto the subject site from the south. IV. New Issues Raised in Response to New Evidence Submitted by the Applicant On January 14, 2005, in response to public testimony, the applicant submitted a cover letter and revised Tree Inventory Plan, Tree Removal Plan, Trees to be Saved Plan, and supporting material. This material was submitted in order to eliminate any confusion about our tree inventory and tree removal plan. The changes between the earlier inventory and the January 14, 2005, inventory are easily seen on the overlay of the March 2004 inventory. Similarly, by providing a tree saving plan, in addition to a tree removal plan, it is easier for the public to see exactly what trees will be saved. As noted in our January 14, 2005, cover letter, the substantive differences between the revised documents and the earlier documents is insignificant. The main difference is that the new documents are much easier to read. In the course of conducting a new survey, we found one more regulated tree and were able to save it. • • M I LLE I NABS IH[ LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -8- February 3, 2005 Nonetheless, pursuant to ORS 197.763, the public has a right to raise any new issues in response to the new evidence submitted. This is our reply to Ms. Beilke's response of January 27, 2005. A. TMC 18.390 and 18.790 Ms. Beilke believes that the changes made in the tree plans are significant and that a completely new application should be submitted. We respectfully disagree. The 37 trees overlooked in the original tree inventory is not a new issue. This issue was raised and discussed at the hearing. The plan merely shows their locations, sizes, and species of these trees. For purposes of the applicable criteria, because there is only one additional regulated tree shown on the plan, and it is being saved, it cannot be said that this change constitutes a significant change in the application. If that were the case, any minor change made in response to public testimony would trigger a new application. Such a result would create a disincentive for applicants to provide additional information in response to neighborhood concerns. Our additional information was provided in a good faith effort to be responsive to the concern that the original tree plan was somewhat confusing. We believe that the new materials make the original plan much more understandable and that the small amount of new information contained in these documents does not constitute a significant change in the application. It should also be noted that trees 522 and 527 are both Oregon Ash, and are properly labeled on all of the latest documents submitted on January 14, 2005. With regard to saving more trees, we have continually asked Ms. Beilke to identify which specific trees she would like us to consider saving during the course of construction. (See, for example, my letter of January 14, 2005.) The code simply does not require the applicant to redesign the subdivision to save more trees. On the other hand, we have expressed an interest in saving more trees if it is possible to do so by reasonably jogging the sidewalk as shown in photos submitted by Ms. Beilke. B. TMC 18.810.070(C) As mentioned above, we are willing to be flexible during the course of construction to try and save additional trees along sidewalk areas. The code section cited by Ms. Beilke does not re uire the applicant to eliminate planter strips or to jog sidewalks, it merely allows such flexibility to save trees. Again, we would prefer to work with Ms. Beilke on these details during the course of construction, so that our energies and efforts can be focused on saving particular trees where it is feasible to do so. MILLER I NAS IHI LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -9- February 3, 2005 V. Conclusion For the above-mentioned reasons, we ask that the appeal be denied and that the application be approved. Very truly yours, Phillip E. Grillo cc: Mr. Vince Biggi Mr. Matt Scheidegger Ms. Sue Beilke Mr. John Frewing January 27, 2005 • RECEIVED PLANNING JAN 2 8 2005 Mr. Joe Turner, Hearings Officer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD Dear Mr. Turner; Subject: Appellant's response to additional evidence submitted by applicant on January 14, 2005, in regard to STONECHASE SUBDIVISION SUB 200400010. 18.390 and 18.790. - We received in the mail on January 15, 2005, a packet from Miller/Nash,LLP, which included a completely revised tree inventory plan, tree removal plan, trees to be saved plan, etc. We appreciate the additional work that the applicant has gone to in order to revise these parts of the application. We want to point out here that in our original comments on this application, dated August 15, 2004, about five months ago, we stated that the tree plan did not meet code, it was confusing, it did not depict all of the trees on the ground, that the legends were confusing and not correct, that more trees could be saved, etc. We asked the city planner on several occasions about this, and. stated we would like to meet with the applicant and city arborist on the ground to discuss these issues. Instead, we received no. response until five months later after an appeal was filed. We argue here that these most recent changes in the tree plan, etc. are significant, and as such should require that a new application should be submitted. We also pointed out in our December 15th comments, that we believed the changes made in the tree removal plan from March-Plan to the September Plan was significant, since there was a difference in 37 trees between the two plans, among other omissions, The new trees to be saved plan depicts only 36 trees to be saved out of a total of 143. We believe more could be saved with a little more creative planning. We also ..question the tree mitigation calculations table, _for,it_states that,.for example,.Uees # 522 and.527 are Oregon ash, but the removal plan depicts them as maples. We were told by the owner of this land on November 16, 2004, that the city told him to remove any trees that were questionable. "Questionable" is not a word in the development code in regard to tree removal, and we are very concerned that this type of hidden standard is actually what is driving some of the tree removal on this site and in other parts of the city. We have heard this from several other developers that they were told the same thing by the city. We are hereby requesting this be :investigated immediately for it violates both the development code and comprehensive plan. We request that this application be denied based on all of the above information. 18.810.070C - This section illustrates the flexibility in the code, which states that planter strips do not have to be required where there are "significant natural features (large trees) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required......" . We argue here, as we have, in previous statements, that there can be more flexibility in the design of this subdivision to allow for more trees, thus preserving to a greater extent a larger number of trees than are currently to be saved. An example of this flexibility is shown on the photo (see attached) taken on January 23`d, of a development occurring just down the street, to.the west, on SW North_ Dakota. The developer eliminated the planter strip in one area and curved the sidewalk in order to save the two, big, ponderosa pine trees at the southwest corner of the property. We are delighted that they did this, for these trees are unique to the Willamette Valley and provide shade and a high aesthetic quality to the 1~ V V neighborhood. There are other examples in Tigard where this has been done, including on SW Hall street across from the Target store. In this case the sidewalk curves around a number of large fir trees, making for a very aesthetically appealing sidewalk, while also saving a number of.large trees for shade, etc. We argue here this can be done in this proposal, and would add to the value of the houses to be built and those already in the neighborhood. .18.510 and 18.71.5 - These sections of the code refer to zoning and density computations. The current zoning allows from 16 to 21 lots, the applicant is proposing 20 lots. We argue here that with this flexibility in the code, by reducing the total number of lots to 16, lots would be much larger in size thus allowing for a much larger number of trees that could be saved. This would make for ainore.interesting and appealing development. Regarding 1he density, we have .asked the city on numerous occasions to provide citizens with calculations on whether Tigard has already met their density as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. We are asking that this be done in regards to this application, so that citizens have an answer to this question, for it directly affects how our neighborhoods are affected by development. We standby all of our other previous comments on the applicable code criteria and will not repeat this information here, but rather refer to all of our previous comments made on August 14, 2004, November _16, 2004, December 15, 2004,.and December 21, 2004, and submitted to the city and the hearings officer. We want to reiterate again, that we care deeply about our neighborhood and how it is changing. This application proposes to develop the very last upland forest, though small in size, in our neighborhood, which in and of itself is extremely significant. It still harbors and is home to a large variety of native trees, shrubs, ferns, birds such as woodpeckers and towhees, and numerous salamanders and frogs. If and when the bulldozers come in, all of that will be lost. That is an additional loss of biological diversity that is our heritage and our children's heritage and once gone cannot be replaced. We ask everyone who is involved in this proposal to seriously consider the implications and ramifications of this loss and to ask how we can all work together to save at least some of it. Filed this 28th day of January, 2005, by email to City of Tigard, to Matthew Scheidegger, who is requested to transmit copies to all parties. Susan Beilke, Director The Biodiversity Project of Tigard 11755 SW 114' Place Tigard, Oregon, 97223 ~~eSsOS TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MINUTES DATE: a - C)--A S 2~? . Q ~a~tv 300~~ M~a^tt Schw - Re: Stonechase Rec equest Page 1 From: "Joe Turner" <jtpc@qwest.net> To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 1/26/2005 11:55:04 AM Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request Matt, I did receive a letter and attachments from the applicant dated January 14, 2005 (once I dug out the pile of mail on my desk). The applicant agreed to toll the 120 day clock to allow the Appellant and other parties until January 28 to respond to the applicant's submittal and until February 4 for the applicant's final argument. I will extend the open record period to reflect that agreement. The record will close February 4, 2005 and I will endeavor to issue a written decision by February 18, 2005. Thanks again Joe Turner Tigard Hearings Officer On Jan 20, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Matt Scheidegger wrote: > Attached e-mail is from the appellant. > From: "SUE" <sbeilke@europa.com> > Date: January 19, 2005 5:26:39 PM PST > To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> > Cc: <jfrewing@teleport.com>, <aeg@csgpro.com> > Subject: Fw: Stonechase Record Request > Hi Matt, > On January 15th we received in the mail a packet from the applicant > regarding new materials introduce into the record. In this > packet, the applicant has stated they would waive the additional 7day > period and agree to a response period going through January 28th for > the appellants. We would like you to forward our response to Mr. > Turner and the applicant, and let them know we agree to the new > response period for the appellant ending January 28th. In addition, > we ask that Mr. Turner respond to the issue we raised in the January 4 > (see attachment) correspondence, regarding interpretation of the code, > we still await Mr. Turner's response. The code states that when the > record is re-opened, "any person may raise new issues which relate to > the new evidence, testimony, or criteria for decisiosn-making which > apply to the matter at issue." We believe this may be different than > how the applicant is interpreting the code, for in their packet of > January 15th, they state "it is our understanding that their rebuttal > will be limited to new evidence and argument regarding the new > information we submitted on January 14, 2005." 1 would have > responded sooner but have been sick since last Friday and Monday was a > holiday. > Thank you for your assistance with this matter. > Sincerely, > Sue 1306 Matt Sche, i Re: Stonechase Reco equest IV > Original Message > From: SUE > To: Matt Scheidegger > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:09 PM > Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request > Matt, Page 2,1 > Attached is my response to the decision to re-open the record by the > Hearings Officer, Joe Turner, dated 12/29/04. Please distribute this > to Mr. Turner and the applicant as quickly as possible. > Thank you. > Sue > <Stonechase, Reply to Re-Open Record.doc> Blatt SchiAz3eg w - Re: Stonechase Rec--6,Dequest _ r. Page From: "Joe Turner' <jtpc@gwest.net> To: "Matt Scheidegger' <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 1/26/2005 11:07:48 AM Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request Hi Matt. I just got back into the office today. I have not seen anything from the applicant regarding the extension of the record. I assume, from the attached email from the appellant, that the applicant did agree to toll the 120-day clock for an additional week. So the record will close on February 4, 2005. Is that correct? As to the issue the Appellant raised regarding the scope of the record, I do not believe that the applicant's request re-opens the record to any and all issues as alleged by the Appellant. I believe the Appellant is limited to the issues raised in the written appeal. However I will consider the Appellant's argument and address it in detail in my final order. If necessary I will exclude from the record evidence that exceeds the scope of the appeal if I conclude that the Code limits the parties to the issues raised in the appeal. Please print this email and all prior emails and include them in the record for this case. Thank you Joe Turner City of Tigard Hearings Officer On Jan 20, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Matt Scheidegger wrote: > Attached e-mail is from the appellant. > From: "SUE" <sbeilke@europa.com> > Date: January 19, 2005 5:26:39 PM PST To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> > Cc: <jfrewing@teleport.com>, <aeg@csgpro.com> > Subject: Fw: Stonechase Record Request > Hi Matt, > On January 15th we received in the mail a packet from the applicant > regarding new materials introduce into the record. In this > packet, the applicant has stated they would waive the additional 7day > period and agree to a response period going through January 28th for > the appellants. We would like you to forward our response to Mr. > Turner and the applicant, and let them know we agree to the new > response period for the appellant ending January 28th. In addition, > we ask that Mr. Turner respond to the issue we raised in the January 4 > (see attachment) correspondence, regarding interpretation of the code, > we still await Mr. Turner's response. The code states that when the > record is re-opened, "any person may raise new issues which relate to > the new evidence, testimony, or criteria for decisiosn-making which > apply to the matter at issue." We believe this may be different than > how the applicant is interpreting the code, for in their packet of > January 15th, they state "it is our understanding that their rebuttal > will be limited to new evidence and argument regarding the new Matt Schi~egy?r - Re: Stonechase Rec eguest- > information we submitted on January 14, 2005." 1 would have > responded sooner but have been sick since last Friday and Monday was a > holiday. > Thank you for your assistance with this matter. > Sincerely, > Sue Beilke > Original Message > From: SUE > To: Matt Scheidegger > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:09 PM > Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request > Matt, > Attached is my response to the decision to re-open the record by the > Hearings Officer, Joe Turner, dated 12/29/04. Please distribute this > to Mr. Turner and the applicant as quickly as possible. > Thank you. > Sue > <Stonechase, Reply to Re-Open Record.doc> d W Page 2 !ktt Scheidegger - R From: To: Date: Subject: To all: e: Stonechase Recofequest "Joe Turner" <jtpc@qwest.net> "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> 1/24/2005 10:01:01 AM Re: Stonechase Record Request Joe Turner's computer received the attached email message last Thursday. Mr. Turner has been out of the country since January 7 and is expected to return to the office January 26 (Wednesday). I believe he is now in transit and cannot be reached readily. I have been tracking his messages, but failed to note earlier the attached messages about Stonechase. I regret that. I cannot respond to the substance of the attached email, but Mr. Turner informed me prior to his trip that the applicant might agree to extend the open record period so the new evidence could be introduced and responded to. Regarding the issue of the scope of the response, he anticipated addressing the merits of the issue in his final order. I understood he expected the appellants to proceed according to their understanding of the scope of the permitted response, and, if he disagreed with that scope, he would exclude or not consider evidence and argument as warranted. I will bring this email to Mr. Turner's attention when he returns to the office and will forward it to his home so he can read it before then. Larry Epstein On Jan 20, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Matt Scheidegger wrote: > Attached e-mail is from the appellant. > From: "SUE" <sbeilke@europa.com> > Date: January 19, 2005 5:26:39 PM PST > To: "Matt Scheidegger' <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> > Cc: <jfrewing@teleport.com>, <aeg@csgpro.com> > Subject: Fw: Stonechase Record Request > Hi Matt, Page 1 > On January 15th we received in the mail a packet from the applicant > regarding new materials introduce into the record. In this > packet, the applicant has stated they would waive the additional 7day > period and agree to a response period going through January 28th for > the appellants. We would like you to forward our response to Mr. > Turner and the applicant, and let them know we agree to the new > response period for the appellant ending January 28th. In addition, > we ask that Mr. Turner respond to the issue we raised in the January 4 > (see attachment) correspondence, regarding interpretation of the code, > we still await Mr. Turner's response. The code states that when the > record is re-opened, "any person may raise new issues which relate to > the new evidence, testimony, or criteria for decisiosn-making which > apply to the matter at issue." We believe this may be different than > how the applicant is interpreting the code, for in their packet of > January 15th, they state "it is our understanding that their rebuttal > will be limited to new evidence and argument regarding the new > information we submitted on January 14, 2005." 1 would have > responded sooner but have been sick since last Friday and Monday was a If "Aft Scheideg.ger - Re: Stonechase Recor equest > holiday. > Thank you for your assistance with this matter. > Sincerely, > Sue Beilke > Original Message > From: SUE > To: Matt Scheidegger > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:09 PM > Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request > Matt, > > Attached is my response to the decision to re-open the record by the > Hearings Officer, Joe Turner, dated 12/29/04. Please distribute this > to Mr. Turner and the applicant as quickly as possible. > Thank you. > Sue > <Stonechase, Reply to Re-Open Record.doc> _Page 2~f CC: "home Joe" <jtpc@coho.net>, " KenSand blast" <kens@priland use. com> j{ MatX§_ghe1 egger - Fwd: Fw: Stonechas cord Request _ Page 1 JI Request Matt Scheidegger To: Sandblast, Ken; Turner, Joe Date: 1/20/2005 10:32:06 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Stonechase Record Request Attached e-mail is from the appellant. ~I Matt;.Schei egger - Re: Fw: Stonechase ord Request Page 1 to 0 J From: Matt Scheidegger To: SUE Date: 1/20/2005 10:32:36 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Stonechase Record Request Sue, I sent your e-mail to Ken Sandblast and Joe Turner. "SUE" <sbeilke@europa.com> 1/19/2005 5:26:39 PM Hi Matt, On January 15th we received in the mail a packet from the applicant regarding new materials introduce into the record. In this packet, the applicant has stated they would waive the additional 7day period and agree to a response period going through January 28th for the appellants. We would like you to forward our response to Mr. Turner and the applicant, and let them know we agree to the new response period for the appellant ending January 28th. In addition, we ask that Mr. Turner respond to the issue we raised in the January 4 (see attachment) correspondence, regarding interpretation of the code, we still await Mr. Turner's response. The code states that when the record is re-opened, "any person may raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony, or criteria for decisiosn-making which apply to the matter at issue." We believe this may be different than how the applicant is interpreting the code, for in their packet of January 15th, they state "it is our understanding that their rebuttal will be limited to new evidence and argument regarding the new information we submitted on January 14, 2005." 1 would have responded sooner but have been sick since last Friday and Monday was a holiday. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Sue Beilke Original Message From: SUE To: Matt Scheidegger Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:09 PM Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request Matt, Attached is my response to the decision to re-open the record by the Hearings Officer, Joe Turner, dated 12/29/04. Please distribute this to Mr. Turner and the applicant as quickly as possible. Thank you. Sue ~I Matt-Scheidegger - Fw: Stonechase Rec Request V- - - From: "SUE" <sbeilke@europa.com> To: "Matt Scheidegger' <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 1/19/2005 5:24:29 PM Subject: Fw: Stonechase Record Request Hi Matt, On January 15th we received in the mail a packet from the applicant regarding new materials introduce into the record. In this packet, the applicant has stated they would waive the additional 7day period and agree to a response period going through January 28th for the appellants. We would like you to forward our response to Mr. Turner and the applicant, and let them know we agree to the new response period for the appellant ending January 28th. In addition, we ask that Mr. Turner respond to the issue we raised in the January 4 (see attachment) correspondence, regarding interpretation of the code, we still await Mr. Turner's response. The code states that when the record is re-opened, "any person may raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony, or criteria for decisiosn-ma king which apply to the matter at issue." We believe this may be different than how the applicant is interpreting the code, for in their packet of January 15th, they state "it is our understanding that their rebuttal will be limited to new evidence and argument regarding the new information we submitted on January 14, 2005." 1 would have responded sooner but have been sick since last Friday and Monday was a holiday. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Sue Beilke Original Message From: SUE To: Matt Scheidegger Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:09 PM Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request Matt, Attached is my response to the decision to re-open the record by the Hearings Officer, Joe Turner, dated 12/29/04. Please distribute this to Mr. Turner and the applicant as quickly as possible. Thank you. Sue Page 111 CC: <jfrewing@teleport.com>, <aeg@csgpro.com> ~r M I LL ER I N S H LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Phillip E. Grillo phil.grillo@millemash.com (503) 205-2311 direct line Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer, City of Tigard Larry Epstein PC 1020 S.W. Taylor Street, Suite 730 Portland, Oregon 97205 • Miller Nash Lt.P www.millernash.com 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-3699 (503) 224-5858 (503) 224-0155 fax 4400 Two Union Square r1 601 Union Street )LIn,JJ Seattle, WA 2352 -8484 ( (206)622- J~9 ~o 500 E. Broadway, Suite 400 o~ Post Office Box 694 ~y Vancouver, WA 98666-0694 v e ` (360) 699-4771 - J January 14, 200~ (360) 694-x413 fax Subject: Appeal of Stonechase Subdivision ((SUB) 2004-00010) Dear Mr. Turner: I am writing on behalf of the applicant to clarify our tree inventory and tree removal plan. After reviewing the comments raised at the hearing and in subsequent materials submitted by Ms. Beilke and Mr. Frewing, we thought it would be helpful to provide a revised graphic representation and table of our tree inventory and tree removal plan. We believe that these documents will be much easier to read than the original versions. A summary of each document is as follows: Tree Inventorv Plan (Revised January 14, 2005) The original graphic of the tree inventory plan contained a variety of symbols and was slightly inconsistent with the original survey on which it was based. In the January 14, 2005, revision, we have simplified the symbols on our tree inventory plan and have clarified the legend. The revised tree inventory base map shows exactly the same trees the original tree inventory map did. The only changes are: a. The legend has been clarified. b. The symbols have been simplified. C. The reference to types and size of trees has been eliminated for readability purposes. These details about each tree are found on the corresponding tree survey described in item 4, below. On top of the tree inventory plan described above, is a clear acetate overlay, showing several new trees. Most of these new trees are unregulated trees (exempt), because of their size or condition. These unregulated (exempt) trees are shown in a lighter shade of red on M I LLER i NVS H LLP i A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -2- January 14, 2005 the inventory overlay. Only six of the "new" trees shown on the overlay are regulated trees and only one of these six trees is actually a newly surveyed tree. Five of these "new" regulated trees were included in the original tree survey table, which is already part of the record, but were inadvertently omitted from the tree inventory plan graphic. Tree number 679 is the only new regulated tree that was missed in the original survey. All of the "new" regulated trees are shown in a darker red color on the overlay. Again, only tree number 679 is truly a "new" regulated tree that was missed during the earlier survey. 2. Tree Removal Plan (Revised January 14, 2005) Our prior tree removal plans contained a variety of symbols that were somewhat confusing. In the January 14, 2005, revised plan, we have simplified the graphics and have double-checked tree locations against the new inventory, to eliminate any confusion. All trees shown on this plan will be removed, unless, during the course of construction, it becomes possible to save a specific tree. On this graphic we have shown lot lines, streets, sidewalks, and building envelopes (i.e., setbacks), so that the location of specific trees relative to these areas will be clear. While we do not yet have specific house plans at this stage of the development process, we will work with our neighbors as much as we can, during the course of construction, to try and save additional trees. Trees to be Saved Plan (January 14, 2005) This is a new graphic that shows what trees will be saved. At this stage of the development process, we are confident that homes can be designed to save these particular trees. While there may be some opportunities during the course of construction to save more trees, this is the most feasible plan we can offer for saving trees at this stage of the development process. 4. Tree Survev (Revised January 13, 2005) In response to the comments received at the hearing and during the comment period, we re-surveyed the site. This re-survey produced both this revised tree survey and the overlay shown on our tree inventory plan (item 1). This re-survey found several unregulated trees that are exempt from city mitigation requirements due to either their size or condition. It also found one new regulated tree, namely tree number 679. This is a 15" Douglas Fir that is in fair condition. This new tree will be saved, as shown on our "Trees to be Saved Plan." 5. Tree Mitigation Calculations (Revised January 14, 2005) Based upon the revised tree survey and removal plan, we have recalculated our tree mitigation figures, as shown in this table. For purposes of the city code, there is no net change in our total tree mitigation, because while one additional viable tree was found, it will be saved. M I LLER I N!t H LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer -3- January 14, 2005 In closing, we trust that his information will clarify any previous confusion that existed with regard to our tree inventory and tree removal plan. We would invite Ms. Beilke and Mr. Frewing to identify specific trees they would like us to try and save, during the course of construction. While we cannot save trees located in streets, during the course of construction there may be opportunities to save specific viable trees near sidewalks and in building envelopes or yards. It would be helpful for us to know what specific trees the neighbors would like us to focus on during the course of construction. In the spirit of cooperation, we are willing to waive an additional 7-day period, pursuant to ORS 227.178, between January 21 and January 28, to provide Ms. Beilke and Mr. Frewing with a two-week response period. In doing so, it is our understanding that their rebuttal will be limited to new evidence and argument regarding the new information we submitted on January 14, 2005. If the hearings officer is inclined to grant this extension, our closing argument would then be due on February 4, 2005. Very truly yours, Phillip E. Grillo cc: Mr. Vince Biggi Mr. Matt Scheidegger Ms. Sue Beilke Mr. John Frewing rti 1104CE INVENTORY LEGEND 937 REGULATED TREE (Black Color) 934 ` EXEMPT TREE (Grey Color) 451 52 I REGULATED TREE (Red Color) 4 ' 447 r I EXEMPT TREE (Lt. Red Color) 526 I 936 I ' # I 1027 - 466 933 469 I 442 ,38 n ,:YYt•4 461 I _ .i('•7. 932 673 ,t!J• 662 929 ' 672 928 ' rs3t; 930 L_ . - 6 92 1021 9 1 1015" 67 '--927 925 921 g 'r--"924 i•-?'W w 67 _ o I 919 • I • ' c 918 920 1035 !M1 w,. 917 l • 1036 938 ~W I 916 J98 99 915 99114 913 I 6 8 0 800 797 9100 0911 912 902 909 701 209 796 801 I. 1.~;. 908 7 906 225 I V, I 802 x)e; 905 r 901 I tiF.::. I 795 _ 803 , I 904 I ,~;`•1] I4903 I ~F•y`} i~ 194 -TREENWIVTORYP pi~nningResourcesinc. SCALE 1" = 60' SUBDIVISION land use and aka planning QA TE Jan 14, 200.f m &a NORTtiDAKOTA b 4 l 7w SM484-IOU Fs. V/ PROJECT 1'04-TAU-200 NCEB/GGl - 511 - . g - . - 0 I 0504 502 TREE INVENTORY LEGEND 529 485 I 528 0 REGULATED TREE (Black Color) 0 0 EXEMPT TREE (Grey Color) 474 455 472 448 ' I 52Z) 525 522 0 00471 446 4,53 454 ' I 467 0 * 470 440 441 p"'E443 h! 427 I 521 439 430 426 I 25 42 463 437 431 I I . 858 462 433 435 4 . 434 -0659 68 '...a 6 415' 1 ' 883 0664 856 655 I 87yy8yy,, 'V 665 4f ,+y geg x 396 356 %411 669 66e 395 I 0410 677 681 0 .y * 674 0 61716 0 334 6800] 695 3911 0 I 6840 0 696 697 2 662 6850 683 695 699 706 „w. 1~y,707 713 1 0 712 I 3 6860 894 , 4° ;7 711 0693 7 0 5 692 0 ' 8~89 "~y F 690 9 3 5x1 y 704 4117691 703 3570 ()358 0,702 216 I 348 3 700 I 363 I ,,++~~cp 377 375'i )o 361 362 P21 13~ 7il~FS 2217 0 . 376 373 360 210 218 374 366+365` 8 232 369 367 219 0 241 ll~ 240 239 t S 193 192 1'•l 194 205 172 y2 id 742 198 197 - - - - - - - --Rf fNV /VT-01?YPLAN planningRescurce sinc. SCALE 1 " = 60' SUBDIVISION ■ F-"7 land use and site planning DA TE.• MARCH 2004 NORTH DAKOTA LJ 7180 SW Rr L.M. S .B. 201 503684-1020 PmtWna OR 97223 503884-1028 F. WNCE BIGGI PROJECT X04-TAU-200 i 0 0 504 g 592 Z I a. 0 a79 ~ I 5~ 0 528 1 0 )WO > 456 I Q m i I(j 474 448 0,,4x2 I it 0 ~ 7 472 0 i x25 - 0 447 453 Q 470 I w U 936 I - - - - - - - -7 440 z 19v 4se 1 2 I W N I 46 43a f 31 h" 9ss ~ 463 - vs ~y \ 461/ I 'i3 I W 932 873 59 86¢ 66 I I It I 62 I I ~ 928 V. I i _ 672 In 930 iitt,. ? ff 655 I ° S,] 0734 J~S~j ' J `126 I I I & I ~ 678 ~ 92 ~1 6927 I I 92 ur 822 6 i 7r.,,~ 924 69 ()411 17 1 ;3 I I 4 f 0410 681 666600 I I °7 R I ~y819 a 354 W f 34 417 978 920035 iS ! f] I ! 1 I ~fi~i696 I 707 I 7121 I t i 11 y~ 695 ri 4 7 3 ci i 7.;.._ 708 ~ 9~ 711 ~ 1036 i 69 o 693 V.. yy / 011798 799 ~ y a,~ I 0 8 91s ~^c 4 704 x66 B'~iv 1 0 y7 lfoo 0 914 908 (0911 912 216 01 -y'a"~'.lY„,1 .r•~ 902 _j ,,ao 796 1~ 35'7 :.y 75o ' ~ 802 I 905 0 & 3 96, 375 37 3,10& 362 786 0 1 f11E ~ >r' ~ I 0 No ~:IC 213 1 I 1 376 93 A 04 1 1 369 3660 0 ?232 I I 240 0 36 It )803 219 r 220 241 i•.J 742 I QD 253 Kzil 95 11 TTv N DAKOTA STREET 98 ----7 TREE REMOVAL PLAN TREE REMOVAL LEGEND C (Revised January 14, 2005) REGULATED TREE (Black Color) g R j NOTE: ALL TREES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN WILL BE REMOVED 0 EXEMPT TREE (Grey Color) y f , UNLESS THEY CAN BE SAVED DURING SITE CONSTRUCTION e~~c - I I • 465 ~I I I 455 I ~ I 454 • / ~ 71F I 42J& 26 I I 433 I ~ ~ 434 I I I I 415.5 I I 'ry I I I 679 I S9 I I 69 I I I 9s e I I I 69 391 31 I I ~2 I 8 i 699 I ~ I I I / I I I X363 I Z Z 0 ZLn O' LL l] W W tyWW Z W O WW Cn I.L a yO zz °d v ~y ~f8 9 M C a I I 1 36 I 397 \ 172 _ ~ - • - ~ 19 19 192 I g8 91 N DAKOTA STREET TREES TO BE SAVED PLAN • - 30* _ NOTE: Streets. Lot Lines and Building Envelopes (i.e. setbacks) are depicted on this plan. All trees shown on this plan will be saved. Houses will be designed within the building envelopes (setbacks) to accommodate the saved trees. 1 11 6_ ra 4 Na a c ~J TREE SURVEY Planning Resources, Inc. January 13, 2005 Ken Sandblast RE: SW North D akota Tigard, OR ID# Common Specie DBH Condition Additional Viable/ Name Comments Non-Viable 142 Apple I Malus 1 14 1 Poor I Structural defects I Non-Viable 172 I Walnut I Juqlans 120 I Good I I Viable 191 I Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 38 I Good 1 1 Viable 192 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 28 I Good 1 1 Viable 193 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 22 1 Fair I I Viable 194 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 13 1 Poor I I Viable 195 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 11 1 Poor I No top, hazard I Non-Viable 196 I Pine I Pinus 1 10 1 Poor I Poor structure, hazard I Non-Viable 197 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 I Poor 1 No top I Non-Viable 198 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 26 1 Good I I Viable 205 1 Alder I Alnus 1 15 1 Poor I Leaning Non-Viable 209 I Cherry Prunus 130 I Poor 1 Viable 210 Flowering 12 Fair Viable Crabapple 213 I Cedar I Cedrus 1 40 I Good I I Viable 216 I Douglas Fir 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 48 1 Good I I Viable 217 I Hazelnut 1 1 12 1 Poor I Decay I Non-Viable 218 I Hazelnut 1 1 12 1 Poor 1 Decay I Non-Viable 219 I Hazelnut I 1 12 1 Poor 1 Decay I Non-Viable 220 I Hazelnut I 112 I Poor 1 Decay I Non-Viable 225 Filbert Corylus 10 I 1 I Poor 1 Decay, diseased INon-Viable 232 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 34 1 Good I I Viable 239 I Alder I Alnus 1 24 I Poor I Dead top I Non-Viable 240 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 24 I Poor I Double top I Non-Viable 241 I Pine I Pinus 1 40 1 Good I I Viable 258 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 24 1 Poor 1 Double top I Non-Viable 348 I Douglas Fir 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 12 1 Poor 1 Structural defects I Non-Viable 351 I Douglas Fir 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 24 1 Poor I Leaning 1Non-Viable 354 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 14 1 Poor 1 Structural defects I Non-Viable 356 ( Alder I Alnus 120 1 Poor 1 Rot, decay I Non-Viable 357 I Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 28 1 Poor I Structural defects 1 Non-Viable 358 1 Cherry 1 Prunus 1 18 1 Poor I Leaning 1Non-Viable 359 1 Maple I Acer 1 20,20 1 Poor 1 Decay, split Non-Viable 360 1 Cedar 1 Cedrus 1 12 1 Good Viable Page 1 of 5 Residential and Commercial Spraying - Fertilizing - Pruning - Landscape Installation - Landscape Maintenance - Consultation MEMBER Tree Care Industry Association - International Society of Arboriculture - Oregon Association of Nurseries Oregon Golf Course Superintendents' Association - Oregon Landscape Contractors Association State Licensed Tree Service #62635 - Landscape Contractor #5659 - Chemical Application #000231 - Insured P.O. Box 1566 - Lake Oswego, OR 97035 - 503-635-3165 - Vancouver 360-737-2646 - Fax 503-635-1549 Visit our website at www.treecarelandscapes.com - E-mail: treecarelandscapes@earthlink.net • ID# Common Specie Name 361 I Douglas Fir 362 I Douglas Fir 363 I Douglas Fir 364 I Douglas Fir 365 I Douglas Fir 366 I Douglas Fir 367 I Douglas Fir 368 I Pine 369 I Alder 373 I Douglas Fir 374 I Alder 375 I Douglas Fir 376 I Alder 377 I Alder 391 I Douqlas Fir 392 I Douglas Fir 395 I Douglas Fir 396 I Douglas Fir 410 I Douglas Fir 411 I Douglas Fir 415 I Big Leaf Maple 425 I Douglas Fir 426 I Douglas Fir 427 I Douglas Fir 430 I Douglas Fir 431 I Douqlas Fir 433 I Douglas Fir 434 I Douglas Fir 435 I Douqlas Fir 437 I Douglas Fir 438 I Douglas Fir 439 Douqlas Fir 440 I Douglas Fir 441 I Douglas Fir 442 I Douglas Fir 443 I Douglas Fir 444 I Douglas Fir 446 I Douglas Fir 447 Douglas Fir 448 I Douglas Fir 451 I Douqlas Fir 452 I Douglas Fir 453 I Maple 454 I Douqlas Fir 455 I Douqlas Fir 458 I Douglas Fir 461 I Douqlas Fir 462 Alder Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pinus I Alnus I Pseudotsuga menziesii Alnus I Pseudotsuga menziesii Alnus Alnus Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii Acer macrophyllum Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii Acer Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii Alnus 463 I Alder 466 I Douglas Fir 467 I Alder 468 I Douglas Fir 469 I Douglas Fir 470 I Alder I Alnus I I Pseudotsuga menziesii I I Alnus I I Pseudotsuga menziesii I I Pseudotsuga menziesii I I Alnus • DBH' Condition Additional Viable/ Comments Non-Viable 43 I Poor Split trunk, hazardous I Non-Viable 16 I Good I I Viable 30 I Good I I Viable 12 I Fair I I Viable 28 I Good I I Viable 11 I Poor I Shared root system I Non-Viable 18 I Good I I Viable 36 I Poor I No top I Non-Viable 14 I Poor I Dead top I Non-Viable 14" I Poor I Leaning I Non-Viable 24" I Poor I Decay I Non-Viable 12 I Poor I Structural defects I Non-Viable 13 I Poor I Leaning I Non-Viable 18 I Poor I Dead top I Non-Viable 41" I Good I I Viable 18 I Fair I Leaning, one-sided I Viable 47 I Good I Double trunk I Viable 35 I Good I Double trunk I Viable 43 I Good I I Viable 13 I Poor I No top I Non-Viable 18" I Good I I Viable 39 I Fair I Double trunk I Viable 40 I Fair I I Viable 24 I Fair I I Viable 32 I Good I I Viable 21 I Good I I Viable 24 I Good I I Viable 34 I Good I I Viable 34 I Good I I Viable 35 I Good I I Viable 12 I Fair I I Viable 15 I Fair I I Viable 17 I Fair I I Viable 23 I Good I I Viable 10 I Poor I No top, hazard I Non-Viable 13 I Poor I Structural defects I Non-Viable 17 I Good I I Viable 22 I Fair I I Viable 7 I Fair I I Viable 19 I Fair I I Viable 8 I Poor I No top, hazard I Non-Viable 11 I Fair I I Viable 12 I Poor I Structural defects I Non-Viable 28 I Good I I Viable 27 I Good I Viable 16 I Poor I No top Non-Viable 32 I Poor I Structural defects I Non-Viable 21,20, Poor Structural defects Non-Viable 14 21 I Poor I Dead top I Non-Viable 10 I Poor I No top, leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 16 I Poor I Leaning I Non-Viable 16 I Fair I I Viable 11 I Poor I Leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 19 I Fair I I Viable Page 2of5 ID# 471 472 474 479 485 502 504 505 511 521 522 525 526 527 528 529 530 655 656 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 Common Name Douglas Fir Douglas Fir I Alder Douglas Fir Douglas Fir Oregon Ash Douglas Fir I Alder Douqlas Fir I Oregon Ash Oregon Ash I Oreqon Ash Oregon Ash I Oregon Ash I Oregon Ash I Oregon Ash Alder Alder Alder Douglas Fir Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir Alder Douglas Fir Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir Douglas Fir Douglas Fir i Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir Douglas Fir Alder I Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir Alder I Douglas Fir I Douqlas Fir Douglas Fir Douglas Fir Douqlas Fir I Maple I Douglas Fir Douqlas Fir Douglas Fir Douqlas Fir I Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir I Douglas Fir Specie DBH' Condition Additional Comments Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Alnus Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia Pseudotsuga menziesii Alnus Pseudotsuqa menziesii Fraxinus latifolia I Fraxinus latifolia Fraxinus latifolia Fraxinus latifolia I Fraxinus latifolia Fraxinus latifolia Fraxinus latifolia I Alnus i Alnus I Alnus I Pseudotsuqa menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Alnus I Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuqa menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Alnus Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Alnus I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Acer I Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii I Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii I Pseudotsuqa menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii Pseudotsuga menziesii 24 . 15 18 16 20 23 20 22 16 21 34 _J Good Poor Poor I Poor Good Poor I Poor I Poor 30 10 12,12 25 12 17 14 132 116 16 116 114 11 22 26 14 14 10 22 10 10 17 10 111 24 110 116 112 i 12 15 24 14 1 12 116 12 12 i 28 1 14 120 12 120 112 12 1 28 Fair Fair Poor I Poor Poor Poor I Poor Poor Poor I Good Poor I Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor I Poor Good Poor Good Good Poor I Poor Good Poor Fair I Poor Poor I Fair Poor I Poor I Poor I Poor Poor Fair Good Poor i Poor Poor Fair I Poor Poor Good No top No top No top Dead Severe lean One sided, dead top Rot, decay Structural defects Structural defects Rot, decay Structural defects Structural defects Dead top Half dead Structural defects Leaning, hazard Structural defects Structural defects Conks Conks Structural defects, lean Dead Lean, hazard Leaning, hazard Sparse, dead top No top, hazard Structural defects,hazard Leaning, hazard No top Structural defects Leaning Leaning Structural defects Structural defects,hazard Leaning Structural damage No top No top Viable/ Non-Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Non-Viable Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Non-Viable Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Non-Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable Viable Page 3 of ti • • ID# Common Specie DBH' Condition Additional Viable/ Name Comments Non-Viable 695 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 16 I Poor No top I Non-Viable 696 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 16 I Good I Viable 697 I Douglas Fir 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 14 LGood I Viable 698 1 Douglas Fir 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 20 1 Good I 1 Viable 699 1 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 20 1 Good Viable 700 Cherry I Prunus 1 16 I Fair I I Viable 701 1 Cherry 1 Prunus 1 10 1 Fair 1 1 Viable 702 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 20 Good 1 1 Viable 703 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 20 Poor 1 No top 1 Non-Viable 704 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 13 Poor 1 Structural damage, hazard 1 Non-Viable 705 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 20 1 Poor 1 Leaning 1 Non-Viable 706 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 16 1 Poor 1 Leaning 1 Non-Viable 707 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 48 1 Good 1 Viable 711 1 Cherry I Prunus 1 30 Fair 1 1 Viable 712 Western Red Thuja plicata 28 Good Viable Cedar 713 I Apple I Malus 148 _ 1 Poor I Decay, structural damage I Non-Viable 795 Apple Malus 1 7" 1 Poor 1 Diseased 1 Non-Viable 796 Hazelnut Corylus 7" Poor Re-growth @ base, diseased, Non-Viable structural defect 797 Hazelnut Corylus 6" Poor Re-growth @ base, diseased, Non-Viable structural defect 798 Hazelnut Corylus 7" Poor Re-growth @ base, diseased, Non-Viable structural defect 799 Hazelnut Corylus 6" Poor Re-growth @ base, diseased, Non-Viable structural defect Boo Hazelnut Corylus 7" Poor Re-growth @ base, diseased, Non-Viable structural defect 801 Hazelnut Corylus 10" Poor Re-growth @ base, diseased, Non-Viable structural defect 802 Hazelnut Corylus 6" Poor Re-growth @ base, diseased, Non-Viable structural defect 803 Hazelnut Corylus 8" Poor Re-growth @ base, diseased, Non-Viable structural defect 901 I Big Leaf Maple I Acer macrophyllum 1 6" 1 Poor 1 Leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 902 I Cherry 1 Prunus 16" 1 Fair 1 I Viable 903 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 7" 1 Poor 1 Broken top, hazard 1 Non-Viable 904 I Cherry I Prunus 1 7" 1 Fair I Viable 905 I Cherry I Prunus 16" 1 Poor I Leaning, hazard Non-Viable 906 I Cherry I Prunus 1 7" I Poor 1 Leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 907 I Cherry 1 Prunus 1 6" 1 Poor 1 Leaning, hazard 1 Non-Viable 908 I Cherry I Prunus 17" I Poor I Leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 909 I Cherry I Prunus 1 8" I Poor 1 Leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 910 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 17" 1 Poor 1 Leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 911 I Walnut I Juqlans 19" I Poor I Leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 912 I Plum I Prunus 19" 1 Poor 1 Broken top, hazard 1 Non-Viable 913 I Plum 1 Prunus 19" 1 Poor 1 Broken top, hazard ; Non-Viable 914 I Cherry I Prunus 1 9 I Poor I Broken top, hazard I Non-Viable 915 I Alder I Alnus 1 8 I Dead I I Non-Viable 916 Big Leaf Maple I Acer macrophyllum 18 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 917 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 9 Poor 1 Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 918 I Cherry I Prunus 1 6 I Poor 1 Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 919 I Cherry I Prunus 1 6 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 920 I Cherry I Prunus 1 6 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 921 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 7 1 Poor I Lean, hazard 1 Non-Viable Page 4 of 5 s • ID# Common Specie DBH Condition Additional Viable/ Name Comments Non-Viable 922 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 17 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 924 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 17 I Poor I Broken top, hazard I Non-Viable 925 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 19 I Fair I I Viable 926 I Alder I Alnus 114 I Dead I I Non-Viable 927 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 17 I Poor I Broken top, hazard I Non-Viable 928 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 18 Fair I I Viable 929 I Alder I Alnus 110 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 930 I Oak I Quercus 114 I Dead I I Non-Viable 931 I Oak I Quercus 114 I Dead I I Non-Viable 932 I Alder I Alnus 110 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 933 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 110 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 934 I Cedar I Cedrus 19 I Fair I I Viable 935 I Alder I Alnus 110 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 936 I Alder I Alnus 110 I Fair I I Viable 937 I Alder I Alnus 110 I Poor I Lean, hazard I Non-Viable 938 I Willow I Salix 13@8 I Poor I Structural damage, hazard I Non-Viable 1015 I English Laurel I Prunus laurocerasus 15 I Poor I Leaning, hazard I Non-Viable 1021 I Cherry I Prunus 17 I Poor I Multi-leader, hazard I Non-Viable 1027 I Alder I Alnus 18 I Poor Multi-leader, hazard I Non-Viable 1035 I Alder I Alnus 16 I Poor I Leaning, hazard Non-Viable 1036 I Holly I Ilex 16 I Good I Viable NOTE: Trees # are non-viable trees and not included in the total D.B.H. inches. Non-viable is defined as diseased, dead, dying, hazardous or nuisance trees as per the city's nuisance tree list. Respectfully, Raymond Myer, General Manager Tree Care & Landscapes Unlimited, Inc. Certified Arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture, # PN-0160 Oregon Landscape Contractors Lic. #11604 Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Commercial Pesticide Applicators License #77915 Page 5of5 Tress 12" and greater. 14-Jan-05 STONECHASE SUBDIVISION - TREE MITIGATION CALCULATIONS Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed Trees Not Viable Trees Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count Size Count Size Count Size 142 ADDle 14 1 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 1 172 Walnut 20 Viable 191 Douglas Fir 38 Viable 192 Douglas Fir 28 Viable 193 Douglas Fir 22 Viable 194 Douglas Fir 13 Viable 197 1 Douglas Fir 18 Non-Viable 1 18 1 18 1 198 Douglas Fir 26 Viable 205 Alder 15 Non-Viable 1 15 1 1 15 209 Cherry 30 Viable 1 30 1 30 210 Fruit tree 12 Viable 1 12 1 12 213 Cedar 40 Viable 1 40 1 1 40 216 Douqlas Fir 48 Viable 1 48 1 48 217 Hazelnut 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 12 218 Hazelnut 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 12 219 Hazelnut 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 12 220 Hazelnut 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 12 232 Douglas Fir 34 Viable 1 34 1 34 239 Alder 24 Non-Viable 1 24 1 24 240 I Douqlas Fir 24 Non-Viable 1 24 1 24 241 Pine 40 Viable 1 40 1 40 258 Douqlas Fir 24 Non-Viable 1 24 1 24 348 Douqlas Fir 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 12 351 Douglas Fir 24 Non-Viable 1 24 1 24 354 Douqlas Fir 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 356 Alder 20 Non-Viable 1 20 1 1 20 357 Douqlas Fir 28 Non-Viable 1 28 1 28 358 Cherry 18 Non-Viable 1 18 1 18 359 MaDle 40 Non-Viable 1 40 1 40 360 Cedar 12 Viable 1 12 1 12 361 Douqlas Fir 43 Non-Viable 1 43 1 43 362 Douqlas Fir 16 Viable 1 16 1 16 363 Douqlas Fir 30 Viable 364 Douqlas Fir 12 Viable 365 Douqlas Fir 1 28 Viable 367 Douqlas Fir 18 Viable 368 Pine 36 Non-Viable 1 36 1 36 369 Alder 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 373 Douqlas Fir 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 374 Alder 24 Non-Viable 1 1 24 1 24 I • • Tress 12" and greater. 14-.tan-05 STONECHASE SUBDIVISION - TREE MITIGATION CALCULATIONS Survey Common Tree Size Tree I Removed Trees Not Viable Trees Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count Size Count Size Count Size 375 I Doualas Fir 12 I Non-Viable I 1 I 12 1 12 376 Alder I 13 Non-Viable I 1 I 13 1 13 377 Alder I 18 Non-Viable I 1 I 18 1 18 391 Doualas Fir I 41 Viable I 392 Doualas Fir I 18 Viable I I 395 Doualas Fir 47 Viable I I 396 I Douglas Fir 35 Viable I I 410 I Doualas Fir 43 Viable I 1 43 I 1 43 411 Douqlas Fir 13 Non-Viable 1 13 1 13 415 Maole 18 Viable 425 Doualas Fir 39 Viable 426 Douqlas Fir 40 Viable 427 Douqlas Fir 24 Viable 430 Douqlas Fir 32 Viable 1 32 I 1 32 431 Doualas Fir 21 Viable 1 21 1 21 433 Doualas Fir 24 Viable 434 Doualas Fir 34 Viable 435 Douqlas Fir 34 Viable 437 Douqlas Fir 35 Viable 1 35 1 35 438 Doualas Fir 12 Viable 1 12 1 12 439 Douqlas Fir 15 Viable 1 15 1 15 440 Doualas Fir 17 Viable 1 17 1 17 441 Douqlas Fir 23 Viable 1 23 1 23 443 Doualas Fir 13 Non-Viable 1 13 1 13 444 Douqlas Fir 17 Viable 1 17 1 I 17 446 Douqlas Fir 22 Viable 1 22 1 22 448 Doualas Fir 19 Viable 1 19 I 1 I 19 453 MaDle I 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 12 454 Douqlas Fir 28 Viable 455 Douqlas Fir 27 Viable I 458 I Doualas Fir 16 Non-Viable 1 16 1 16 I 461 Douqlas Fir 32 Non-Viable 1 32 1 1 32 4602 90L HIUCf Alder 55 I IVOfI-VIdDIC I 1 77 I I I 55 463 Alder 21 Non-Viable I 1 21 I 1 21 • • Tress 12" and greater. 14-Jan-05 STONECHASE SUBDIVISION - TREE MITIGATION CALCULATIONS Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed Trees Not Viable Trees Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count Size Count Size Count Size 467 Alder 16 Non-Viable I 1 I 16 1 16 468 Douqlas Fir 16 Viable 1 16 I 1 16 470 Alder 1 19 Viable 1 19 I 1 19 471 Douqlas Fir 1 24 Viable I 472 Douqlas Fir 15 Non-Viable 1 15 1 15 474 Alder 18 Non-Viable 1 I 18 1 18 479 Douqlas Fir 16 Non-Viable 1 16 1 16 485 Doualas Fir 20 Viable 502 Oregon Ash 23 Non-Viable 1 23 1 23 504 Douqlas Fir 20 Non-Viable 1 20 1 20 505 Alder 22 Non-Viable 1 22 1 22 511 Douqlas Fir 16 Viable 521 Oregon Ash I 21 Viable 1 21 I 1 21 522 Oregon Ash I 34 Non-Viable 1 34 1 34 525 Oregon Ash 30 Non-Viable 1 1 30 1 30 527 I Oregon Ash 24 Non-Viable 1 24 1 I 24 528 Oregon Ash 25 Non-Viable I 1 25 1 25 529 Oreqon Ash 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 I 12 530 Alder 17 Non-Viable 1 17 1 17 655 Alder 14 I Viable 1 14 1 1 14 656 Alder 32 Non-Viable 1 I 32 1 32 658 Douqlas Fir 16 Viable 1 16 1 16 659 I Douqlas Fir 16 Viable 1 I 16 I 1 16 660 Douqlas Fir 16 Non-Viable 1 16 1 16 661 Alder 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 I 14 663 Douqlas Fir 22 Non-Viable 1 22 1 22 I 664 Douqlas Fir 26 Non-Viable 1 26 1 I 26 I 665 Douqlas Fir 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 666 Douqlas Fir 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 1 668 Douqlas Fir 22 Viable I I 671 Douqlas Fir 17 Viable 1 17 I I 1 17 674 Douqlas Fir 24 Viable IC-71C V/V I 1'1......1as Fir VVU4IOJ F-1 1 e 1V Viable V1 U ' I 677 Douqlas Fir 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 12 678 Douqlas Fir 12 Non-Viable 1 1 12 1 12 679 Douqlas Fir 15 Viable 1 680 Alder 24 Non-Viable 1 24 1 24 681 Douqlas Fir 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 682 I Douqlas Fir 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 12 683 I Douqlas Fir 16 I Non-Viable 1 16 1 16 1 is 0 Tress 12" and greater. 14-Jan-05 STONECHASE SUBDIVISION - TREE MITIGATION CALCULATIONS Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed Trees Not Viable Trees I Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count Size Count Size Count Size 684 Douglas Fir I 12 Non-Viable I 1 12 I 1 12 685 Douqlas Fir 12 Viable 686 Maple 28 I Viable I I 688 Douqlas Fir 14 I Non-Viable I 1 14 1 I 14 689 Douqlas Fir 20 I Non-Viable I 1 20 1 20 690 Doualas Fir 12 Non-Viable I 1 12 1 12 691 Douqlas Fir 20 Viable 1 20 1 20 692 I Douqlas Fir 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 I 12 693 Douqlas Fir 12 Non-Viable 1 12 1 I 12 694 Doualas Fir I 28 Viable 1 28 I 1 28 695 Douqlas Fir 16 Non-Viable 1 16 1 I 16 696 Douqlas Fir 16 Viable 1 16 I 1 16 697 Douqlas Fir 14 Viable I 698 Douqlas Fir 20 Viable I 699 Doualas Fir 20 Viable I 700 Cherry 16 Viable 1 16 1 16 702 Douqlas Fir 20 1 Viable 1 20 1 20 703 Doualas Fir 20 Non-Viable 1 20 1 20 1 704 Doualas Fir 13 Non-Viable 1 13 1 13 705 Douqlas Fir 20 Non-Viable 1 20 1 20 706 Douqlas Fir 16 Non-Viable 1 16 1 16 707 Doualas Fir 48 Viable 1 48 1 48 711 Cherrv 30 I Viable 1 30 1 I 30 Western Red 712 28 Viable 1 28 1 28 Cedar 713 Apple 48 Non-Viable 1 48 1 48 926 Alder 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 I 930 Oak 14 Non-Viable 1 1 14 1 14 . 931 Oak 14 Non-Viable I 1 14 1 14 938 Willow 24 I Non-Viable I 1 24 I 1 I 24 TOTALS 3128 108 2253 74 1440 34 813 Tress 12" and greater. 1"an-05 STONECHASE SUBDIVISION - TREE MITIGATION CALCULATIONS Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed Trees Not Viable Trees Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count Size Count Size I Count Size (Sept. 2004) (Jan 14, 2005) ORIGINAL REVISED DIFFERENCE TOTAL # OF TREES 132 143 + 11 TOTAL # OF VIABLE TREES 68 69 + 1 TOTAL # OF VIABLE TREES RETAINED 34 35 + 1 % OF VIABLE TREES RETAINED 50.0% 50.7% +0.7% MITIGATION AS PER CITY CODE MITIGATION % REQUIRED BASE UPON THE ABOVE RETENTION 50% 50% 0 TOTAL INCHES OF VIABLE TREES REMOVED 813 813 0 MITIGATION INCHES REQUIRED 406.5 406.5 0 EQUIVALENT TOTAL # OF 2-INCH CALIPER REPLACEMENT TREES 203 203 0 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED MITIGATION COST $40,750.00 $40,750.00 $0.00 • 0 11 Patty Lunsfofd -.Stoechas Subdivision In ation you requested From: Patty Lunsford To: Phillip Grillo Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:15:01 PM Subject: Stoechas Subdivision Information you requested Phil, The information you requested is attached in pdf format. Please let me know if there is any problem opening it or if you need anything else. Thanks! Patricia Lunsford, Planning Secretary City of Tigard, Oregon (503) 639-4171, ext. 2438 patty@ci.tigard.or.us Page_ 1_ CC: Matt Scheidegger Matt Scheidegger -Fwd: Re: Stonechase Record Request Pagel. From: Matt Scheidegger To: Beilke, Sue; jfrewing@teleport.com; Sandblast, Ken Date: 1/5/2005 12:15:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Stonechase Record Request Hearings Officer's response to Appellants 01/04/05 e-mail concerning more time to respond to new evidence submitted by the applicant is attached below. F matt Scheidegger - Re: Stonechase Rellyd Request From: "Joe Turner" <jtpc@gwest.net> To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 1/5/200510:39:00 AM Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request Matt, I would be willing to extend the open record period for an additional week to give the Appellant and other members of the public two weeks to respond to the applicant's new information, IF the applicant will grant a further extension of the 120-day clock for that purpose. This would allow all parties an equal opportunity (two weeks) to submit new evidence. The new schedule would be: January 14, 2005 for new evidence from the applicant January 28 for new evidence from the Appellant, February 4 for the applicant's closing argument, without new evidence I cannot grant such an extension unless the applicant is willing to further toll.the 120 day clock for that period. I believe that the applicant tolled (stopped) the 120 day clock by requesting that the record be held open. The applicant did not waive it entirely. Therefore the clock will "restart' at the end of the open record period requested by the applicant. The applicant is not required to grant such an extension. ORS 227.178(10). Would you please contact the applicant and see if they are willing to grant such an extension. Please make sure that all contact is through City staff, to avoid any issues with ex parte contact. Also please be sure that all email and other correspondence is included in the record for this case and available for public review. Thanks Joe Turner City of Tigard Hearings Officer On Jan 4, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Matt Scheidegger wrote: > Attached is an e-mail from the Appellant, Sue Beilke > From: "SUE" <sbeilke@europa.com> > Date: January 4, 2005 1:09:48 PM PST > To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> > Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request > Matt, > Attached is my response to the decision to re-open the record by the > Hearings Officer, Joe Turner, dated 12/29/04. Please distribute this > to Mr. Turner and the applicant as quickly as possible. Page 1. > Thank you. d _ _ _ Matt Scheidegger - Re: Stonechase Ad Request_ Page? I > Sue > <Stonechase, Reply to Re-Open Record.doc> • ~ E NINt~ ✓ AUG 1 8 200 CITY All e-e oe- -;04 V J / )bp !J vvv . 7,2 ji. p I a Rio ' r t ,1 • • Page 1 of 2 Matt Scheidegger - Land Use Application for Stonechase. Subdivision 2004-00010 From: "Dennis Trune" <trune@teleport.com> To: <matts@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/16/2004 9:50 PM Subject: Land Use Application for Stonechase Subdivision 2004-00010 CC: <trune@teleport.com> August 16, 2004 Mr. Mathew Scheidegger Associate Planner, Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Stonechase Subdivision (Sub 2004-00010), 11225 SW North Dakota St. Dear Mr. Scheidegger: We are residents whose property adjoins that of the proposed Stonechase Subdivision on 11225 SW North Dakota. We are responding to your notice to us of the Pending Land Use Application. I am not familiar with the Applicable Review Criteria as they were only listed by code number. However, we are concerned that the property is zoned for duplexes and attached single-family units. The proposal calls for detached single-family and we trust that the city will limit the builder to such dwellings and not permit duplexes and apartment buildings. We were told by the builder in the meeting that they would build a 6-foot high, good-neighbor fence along the entire length of the recently surveyed true property line between our existing homes and the new houses. We trust the city will require the builder to guarantee this fence along the true property line and not use the existing fences, which are not on the true property line. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\matts\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00004.HTM 8/17/2004 Page 2 of 2 We and our neighbors on SW Cottonwood Lane live in single story homes. We were very surprised to hear in the preliminary meeting with the builder that he is planning 2 story homes that can have gables as high as 35 feet. This will create such a disproportionate size difference between our homes that it will detract from the aesthetics of our neighborhood. It also means the houses will be so high that it will be possible for the homeowners to look into our homes. We would like the city to consider restricting the height of those homes that are adjacent to our existing one-story homes. If the city is not willing to do that, we would like the city to consider making it a provision that the builder plant arbor vitae or some other tall shrub border along the fence they build to restrict the impact of such high houses on'our smaller existing homes. We don't believe this is totally unreasonable because we will have to make adjustments and additional expenses as well in our own homes to compensate for this lack of privacy. We trust these comments are helpful in your decisions regarding the potential impact of this new subdivision on our existing neighborhood. While we understand that development of unused land is part of the development of Tigard, we are concerned that the livability of our current homes and quality of our neighborhood are preserved. We appreciate the recent survey from the City of Tigard letting us know that you also are concerned that the livability of our city is maintained during development and growth. Sincerely, Dennis & Tara Trune 11075 SW Cottonwood Lane Tigard, OR 97223 503-590-8272 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\matts\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00004.HTM 8/17/2004 August 15, 2004 City of Tigard, Planning Division Attn: Mathew Scheidegger 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Scheidegger: We are writing to comment on the proposed Stonechase Subdivision, File No. 2004-00010, located at 11225 SW North Dakota street; WCTM 1 S 134DB, Tax Lott 400. Our neighborhood group, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard, is an all volunteer, citizen based group dedicated to the long term protection and preservation of our remaining native habitats and wildlife, including rare species such as the west side ponderosa pine, red-legged frog, and many others. 18390.040(e) - All Type H applications shall include an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. Our concerns are regarding the drainage system and the parks system. Currently, the site has a large (138+) number of trees, many mature firs, with a large root system, located on the property. These trees have a complex and large root system, and thus require and can store large amounts of water in the soil. Under the current plan, water from the site, including street runoff, would be shunted to an underground system. We believe this proposal would seriously weaken any remaining trees on the site, since it would shunt water away from remaining trees and roots. The large area of impervious surface that would be created by the houses and street, etc., would contribute to the altered drainage system, and would negatively impact remaining trees on the site. Off site trees would be affected as well, since water that would normally flow underground to the neighbors trees, including those on the church site immediately to the east, would have less water available under the proposal. We saw no impact study regarding how this proposal would address/affect the parks system in Tigard. We believe this site would make a wonderful addition to the parks and open spaces in Tigard, and thus should be purchased for this purpose. All of the neighbors would support this proposal, since there is a dire lack of small, neighborhood parks available in this area. A small park would allow for the protection of many more trees on the site, as well as wildlife, which is abundant, and would thus help to offset the shortage of parks and open spaces as addressed in the Tigard Parks Master Plan. We are requesting this proposal be brought to the attention of the Parks department and City Council. 18.745 - The purpose of addressing this review criteria is to "enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the city." The current proposal fails to do this, since it fails to protect existing street trees (18.745.010). As noted on the tree preservation plan, the large ponderosa pine and many of the large firs would be removed that currently exist along the property along North Dakota street. These trees help to provide shade in the neighborhood, and important wildlife habitat, and greatly contribute to the aesthetic environmental quality of the city. 18.745.030(E) states that existing trees may be used as street trees......., and provides for an adjustment if approved by the Director. 0 0 We believe that adjustments can and should be made in the sidewalk and planter strip area that would allow for the preservation of more native trees, thus actually meeting this criteria. The sidewalk and planter strip could be narrowed or curved where necessary to accommodate existing trees. The current proposal does not meet this criteria. 18.790.030 (A, B) - Tree Plan Requirement - While reviewing this file for this application, we found that the tree protection plan, tree removal plan, and tree preservation plan identifying the existing trees, what was to be saved or removed, was very confusing and possibly misleading,. since none of the three plans had the same trees identified, some trees that appeared on one plan were missing from another plan, etc. In addition, the symbols used in the legends to note which trees were to be saved or removed is not the same on all plans, and some symbols do not even appear in the legend that are on the plans. A visual inspection we conducted from the adjacent properties showed that some Douglas firs, maples and other trees actually on site did not appear to be even shown on one or more of the three plans noted above. It is not possible to be able to comment on this proposal without consistent and accurate representation of what trees are on the ground and where, what is to be preserved, etc. Therefore this criteria is not met and the application should be denied. We note that under the current mitigation requirement, 758 inches of viable trees are proposed to be removed, with 379 inches being mitigated for under the 50% requirement by the city. The applicant states that the total mitigation cost is $38,000.00. Does the applicant intend to pay the city in lieu of planting native trees on another site? We believe that this requirement as it stands is currently unenforceable, since the city currently is not enforcing this section of the code on some other sites, refuses to collect mitigation costs on some sites, and refuses to address violations of the tree plan code on some other sites. 18.790.040 - We also believe many more trees could be.saved on the site if plans were changed. For example, the 7 lots packed into the center area could be changed to fewer, larger lots, say 4 instead of 7, allowing for the preservation of more trees in this area. The proposed Gallo street could be moved to the opposite corner of the site so that it is opposite SW 112th. This comer of the site has far fewer existing native, large trees and would make a better street entrance. In summary, we ask that this proposal as it currently exists be denied by the Director for the reasons stated above. This site is the last remaining upland forest in the neighborhood dominated by Douglas firs, with a diverse mix of alders, ash, and other species. It currently provides habitat for many species of birds, small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, etc. It has high aesthetic value for the neighborhood, and would make a wonderful addition to the parks and open spaces in our city. We will be requesting that the city purchase this site for ALL of its citizens to enjoy, so that it may be preserved and protected for the greater good of the community. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Sue Beilke, Director The Biodiversity Project of Tigard ILMatt Scheidegger - Fwd: Re: Stonechase hcord Request 4D Page 1 From: Matt Scheidegger To: Beilke, Sue; jfrewing@teleport.com; Sandblast, Ken Date: 1/5/2005 12:15:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Stonechase Record Request Hearings Officer's response to Appellant's 01/04/05 e-mail concerning more time to respond to new evidence submitted by the applicant is attached below. Mat-Scheidegger - Re: Stonechase Rec Request Page 1, YJw From: "Joe Turner' <jtpc@gwest.net> To: "Matt Scheidegger' <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 1/5/2005 10:39:00 AM ub~ect: Re: Stonechase Record Request Matt, I would be willing to extend the open record period for an additional week to give the Appellant and other members of the public two weeks to respond to the applicant's new information, IF the applicant will grant a further extension of the 120-day clock for that purpose. This would allow all parties an equal opportunity (two weeks) to submit new evidence. The new schedule would be: January 14, 2005 for new evidence from the applicant January 28 for new evidence from the Appellant, February 4 for the applicant's closing argument, without new evidence I cannot grant such an extension unless the applicant is willing to further toll the 120 day clock for that period. I believe that the applicant tolled (stopped) the 120 day clock by requesting that the record be held open. The applicant did not waive it entirely. Therefore the clock will "restart" at the end of the open record period requested by the applicant. The applicant is not required to grant such an extension. ORS 227.178(10). Would you please contact the applicant and see if they are willing to grant such an extension. Please make sure that all contact is through City staff, to avoid any issues with ex parte contact. Also please be sure that all email and other correspondence is included in the record for this case and available for public review. Thanks Joe Turner City of Tigard Hearings Officer On Jan 4, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Matt Scheidegger wrote: > Attached is an e-mail from the Appellant, Sue Beilke > From: "SUE" <sbeilke@europa.com> > Date: January 4, 2005 1:09:48 PM PST > To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> > Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request > Matt, > Attached is my response to the decision to re-open the record by the > Hearings Officer, Joe Turner, dated 12/29/04. Please distribute this > to Mr. Turner and the applicant as quickly as possible. > Thank you. Matt, Pcheidegger - Re: Stonechase Recc Request Page 2 ~ -4 i > Sue > <Stonechase, Reply to Re-Open Record.doc> Patty L~ ford- Re: Stonechase Recordequest Page 1 From: "SUE" <sbeilke@europa.com> To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:07:43 PM .Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request Matt, Attached is my response to the decision to re-open the record by the Hearings Officer, Joe Turner, dated 12/29/04. Please distribute this to Mr. Turner and the applicant as quickly as possible. Thank you. Sue Susan Beilke BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF STONECHASE SUBDIVISION & RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 12/29/04 SUB 2004-00010 OPENING THE RECORD Pursuant to TDC 18.390, an appeal hearing on the Stonechase Subdivision proposal was held on December 15, 2004. At that hearing, appellant presented evidence, thereby establishing themselves as parties before the Hearings Officer, who at the conclusion of the hearing, ordered the record held open for one week for the Appellant and other members of the public to "submit new testimonv and evidence and for a second week for applicant to respond to the new evidence and submit a closing argument." Rather than follow this schedule as originally set, the applicant has now requested, in an email dated December 28, 2004, to the Hearings Officer, that the record period be extended until January 28, 2005, to "submit additional evidence in response to evidence submitted by the Appellant and to allow the public to respond to the new evidence submitted by the applicant." The Hearings Officer has granted this request. 1. The Applicant in this case has requested and been granted that the record be re-opened. When this occurs, according to the TDC 18.390.050, "any person may raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony, or criteria for decision-making which apply to the matter at issue." Thus, the Appellant is requesting the following: 2. Since the Applicant has been requested the record be re-opened, we are hereby requesting that the record remain open for a longer period of time than was requested and granted by the Applicant. This will allow the Appellant and other persons the necessary time to respond to the new evidence introduced by the Applicant and for "any person" to raise new issues that relate to the new evidence, as the Development Code clearly states. This then, will more fully serve the interests of a full and fair understanding of the relevant law, and will provide the process which affords the "public" a meaningful opportunity to respond to the new evidence, as well as raise any new issues that relate to the new evidence submitted. 3. We are requesting that the Record be held open as follows in order to fully allow the above request to be fulfilled: • Keep record open for Applicant until January 19, 2005. • Keep record open for Appellant, and members of the public to respond to new evidence, introduce new evidence and raise new issues, until February 11, 2005. • Keep record open for Applicant to respond to materials submitted by Appellant, other members of the public, without introducing new evidence, until February 18, 2005. 4. Since the record has now been re-opened, the only fair manner in which to conduct this re- opening is for a new notice to go out so that "any person" may be able to respond to the new evidence introduced by the Applicant. 5. If the requests as stated above are not granted by the Hearings Officer, we are then requesting that the request by the Applicant to reopen the Record be Reversed, in light of the fact that the Applicant had sufficient time during the first period when the record was held open to respond to testimony and evidence submitted by the Appellant and others of the public. The record was originally held open after the Appeal Hearing because the Appellant requested the record be held open for seven days, in which to respond to the new evidence introduced at the Hearing by the Applicant. The Applicant was then granted seven days in which to respond to the Appellants and others' testimony, etc. This time period has been what has been granted in the past by the Hearings Officers at other Appeals and is what is noted in the Development Code, and is the reasonable amount of time needed for respondents. Any extensions granted, such as has been done in this case for the Applicant, should be done in such a manner as to be "fair" to all parties. The new, current time schedule allows the Applicant a total of 3.5 weeks in which to not only respond but introduce new evidence. It only gives the Appellant and other members of the public one week in which to respond to new evidence, this is not a fair manner by any means in which to conduct this re-opening of the record. The Appellant hereby requests that the same amount of time granted to the Applicant also be granted to the Appellant and other members of the public in order for this to be conducted in a fair and lawful manner. Filed this 4th day of January, 2005, by email to City of Tigard (Matthew Scheidegger) who is requested to transmit copies to all parties. Susan Beilke, Director The Biodiversi~ Project of Tigard 11755 SW 114 Place Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-3519 Matt Scheidegger - Re: STONECHASE: F EWING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERAW From: "Joe Turner" <jtpc@gwest.net> To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 113/2005 1:59:25 PM Subject: Re: STONECHASE: FREWING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Matt, I do not intend to further extend the open record period in response to this request. I will respond to the specific arguments raised in my final order. Please be sure that a copy of the applicant's email requesting that I reopen the record is included in the City's casefile. Thanks Joe Turner City of Tigard Hearings Officer On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Matt Scheidegger wrote: > Attached e-mail is from the appellant. > From: "John Frewing" <jfrewing@teleport.com> > Date: December 30, 2004 4:54:26 PM PST > To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> > Cc: "Sue Beilke" <sbeilke@europa.com> > Subject: STONECHASE: FREWING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION > Matt: Please distribute this to applicant and hearings officer as > quickly as possible. Thanks. > John Frewing > BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER 7 > FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON > > MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF > SUBDIVISION > ORDER 12/29/04 OPENING THE RECORD STONECHASE SUB 2004-00010 > Pursuant to TDC 18.390, an appeal hearing on the Stonechase > Subdivision was held on December 15, 2004. At that hearing, appellant > presented evidence and public member Frewing presented evidence, > thereby establishing themselves as parties before the Hearings > Officer, who at the conclusion of the hearing, set a schedule for > actions leading to a final decision. Page 1 Matt Scheidegger - Re: STONECHASE: F EWING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERAW A 1 > Appellant and public member Frewing duly submitted comments on the > three admitted issues for appeal on December 22, 2004. On December > 29, 2004, the Hearings Officer issued an Order reopening the record > for addition of new evidence by applicant and setting a new delayed > schedule leading to a final decision. > As stated in the Order, applicant requested the reopening of the > record in an email dated December 28, 2004. Such email was not made > available to appellant or public member Frewing and is not available > yet. > Public member Frewing hereby moves for reconsideration of the Order, > asking that it be disapproved or modified in order to allow all > parties at least a reasonable opportunity to review the request and > argue for or against the Order: > A Tigard TDC Section 18.390.010 establishes the purpose of the > chapter as being to establish a series of standard decision-making > procedures that will enable the City, applicant, and all interested > parties to reasonably review applications and participate in the local > decision-making process in a timely and effective way. The action by > Hearings Officer to issue an order reopening the record and proposing > a new delayed schedule without opportunity of review and comment by > other parties prejudices the substantial rights of appellant and > citizen member Frewing to participate in the Tigard local land use > decision. > B Communication between applicant and Hearings Officer without > distribution of the matters discussed to all parties constitutes ex > parte proceedings which prejudice the substantial rights of appellant > and citizen member Frewing to a fair decision-making process. > Appellant and citizen member Frewing, by such closed communications, > cannot reasonably participate in the local decision-making process in > a timely and effective way. > C Without knowing the substance of the applicant's email to Hearings > Officer, public member Frewing argues that reopening of the record is > not justified because applicant had full opportunity at the appeal > hearing to present whatever evidence he desired on the three (known in > advance) subjects of the appeal and any reopening at this point simply > is offering him a 'second bite at the apple'. Such request to reopen > the record could continue ad infinitum, denying appellant and citizen > member Frewing a clear local decision on the land use application in > the reasonable sequence outlined in TDC 18.390. Appellant and public Page 2 Matt Scheidegger - Re: STONECHASE:FREWING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERAW Page 3,1 > member Frewing did not enlarge the scope of the appeal process or > otherwise create a condition demanding the reopening of the record. > > D Hearing Officer notes that the purpose of reopening the record is > to allow applicant to introduce "new evidence" but argues that such is > "warranted to serve the interests of a full and fair understanding of > the relevant law....". Unless applicant made argument in his > email (yet unreviewed) as to why "new evidence" was necessary, any > request for reopening should be denied and Hearings Officer should > proceed with a schedule for final argument (no new evidence) and a > written decision. The phrase "warranted to serve the interests of a > full and fair understanding of the relevant law" is the same as saying > that applicant did not read all of the relevant law and did not > understand what he did read. Such justification does not address the > need for new evidence. The applicant takes on the burden of reading > the law and understanding it or hiring representatives who read and > understand the law when he submits his application and the Hearing > Officer decision must be made against the application, as supplemented > by the appeal hearing. The subject matter of the appeal is not an > editorial or typographical issue; therefore there is no need for > catering to the shortcomings of the applicant as proposed in the > Order. > E Reopening the record and issuing a new delayed schedule for > submittals of evidence, rebuttal and final argument are not the most > efficient way of reaching a final resolution as noted by Hearings > Officer. More efficient would be to deny the request for reopening > and call for submittal of final arguments immediately. It prejudices > the substantial rights of at least public member Frewing to > accommodate this late and substantial change in schedule > (approximately one month delay), which is stated in the Order. Public > member Frewing will be away from the city during the central part of > January, 2005, which is the time proposed for his review of the "new > evidence" and filing of rebuttal. Hearings Officer as a minimum > should offer applicant the option of agreeing to a two month delay in > filings (ie new evidence due on February 4, 2005 and other filings to > follow after seven days) or no delay at all. Because "applicant" has > requested the extension of the schedule (presumably in his email of > 12/28/04), Hearings Officer is not now bound by the 120-day rule and > can set a more reasonable schedule if the request is approved at all. > See TDC 18.390.040 G.2.c and TDC 18.390.050 DA.a. which uses the word > "or" in its conditions for exempting the time limit normally > applicable to final decisions. > Filed this 30th day of December, 2004 by email to City of Tigard (Matt > Scheidegger) who is requested to transmit copies to all parties. Matt Scheidegger - Re: STONECHASE: FREWING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERAW Page 4 S > > John Frewing > 7110 SW Lola Lane > Tigard, OR 97223 > 503-245-5760 jfrewing@teleport.com 0 • From: "Ken Sandblast" <kens@priland use.com> Subject: Re: Stonechase Date: December 29, 2004 5:32:06 AM PST To: "Joe Turnrt" <jtpc@qwest.net> Cc: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Grillo, Phillip" <Phil.Grillo@ MillerNash.com> Joe, Thank you for the prompt response during the holidays. Yes, please draft an order this morning. If you can email it to both myself and Matt, then Matt can get copies to the other two parties of record. Thank you for your consideration and approval of this request. Happy New Years to you and enjoy your vacation. Ken Original Message From: Joe Turnrt To: KenSandblast Cc: Matt Scheidegger Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 5:59 AM Subject: Re: Stonechase Ken, consider this a cc of my message to Matt. I was out of the office today and just got both of your emails. Yes the amended briefing schedule is fine with me. (Ok, its GREAT, since I don't have to write this until after I get back from vacation). I assume you want me to draft an order reopening the record with the amended briefing schedule? Then you could send that to the parties, so everyone knows what the schedule is. Let me know if that would work for you, or if alternative (email or phone) notice is sufficient. I was out of the office today, but will be happy to write the order tomorrow. Thanks Joe On Dec 28, 2004, at 3:09 PM, KenSandblast wrote: Joe, Please see below emails. We are requesting you to reopen the public record in • • accordance with the below schedule. Please respond today if at all possible given tomorrow's applicant final response deadline. Thank you. Ken <image.tiff> Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP Planning Resources, Inc. 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223 503-684-1020 Fax: 503-684-1028 -----Original Message----- From: Matt Scheidegger [mailto:MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us] Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:33 PM To:kens@prilanduse.com Subject: Stonechase Ken, I've attached Joe Turner's e-mail address. I think you should send your request directly to him. Please send me a copy for the file. jtpc@qwest.net -----Original Message From:KenSandblast [mailto:kens@prilanduse.com] Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:40 PM To:'Matt Scheidegger (matts@ci.tigard.or.us)' Cc: 'Phillip E. Grillo (phil.grillo@millernash.com)' • Subject:Stonechase Record Request Matt, In response to the materials submitted during the open record period, the applicant requests the hearing officers reopen the record to allow us the time necessary to clarify and respond with further materials, particularly the tree plan. The applicant proposes the following: Friday - January 14th - Record open to the Applicant for submittal (new information allowed) Friday - January 21 st - Record open for responses to all parties Friday - January 28th - Final argument for applicant (no new information) Friday - February 11 th - Hearings Officer decision Please contact the hearings officer today for a response given that tomorrow (12/29) is the applicant's deadline for response as per the December 15th public hearing. Thank you. Ken <image.tiff> Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP Planning Resources, Inc. 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223 503-684-1020 Fax: 503-684-1028 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 12/26/2004 • • To: 'Matt Scheidegger (matts@ci.tigard.or.us)' Cc:'Phillip E. Grillo (phil.grillo@millernash.com)' Subject:Stonechase Record Request Matt, In response to the materials submitted during the open record period, the applicant requests the hearing officers reopen the record to allow us the time necessary to clarify and respond with further materials, particularly the tree plan. The applicant proposes the following: Friday - January 14th - Record open to the Applicant for submittal (new information allowed) Friday - January 21st - Record open for responses to all parties Friday - January 28th - Final argument for applicant (no new information) Friday - February 11 th - Hearings Officer decision Please contact the hearings officer today for a response given that tomorrow (12/29) is the applicant's deadline for response as per the December 15th public hearing. Thank you. Ken <image.tiff> Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP Planning Resources, Inc. 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223 503-684-1020 Fax: 503-684-1028 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 12/26/2004 Matt Scheidegger Re Stonechase From: Joe Turnrt <jtpc@gwest.net> To: "KenSandblast" <kens@priland use. com> Date: 12/28/2004 6:00:50 PM Subject: Re: Stonechase Ken, consider this a cc of my message to Matt. I was out of the office today and just got both of your emails. Yes the amended briefing schedule is fine with me. (Ok, its GREAT, since I don't have to write this until after I get back from vacation). I assume you want me to draft an order reopening the record with the amended briefing schedule? Then you could send that to the parties, so everyone knows what the schedule is. Let me know if that would work for you, or if alternative (email or phone) notice is sufficient. I was out of the office today, but will be happy to write the order tomorrow. Thanks Joe On Dec 28, 2004, at 3:09 PM, KenSandblast wrote: > Joe, > Please see below emails. We are requesting you to reopen the public > record in accordance with the below schedule. > Please respond today if at all possible given tomorrow's applicant > final response deadline. > Thank you. > Ken > <image.tiff> > Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP > Planning Resources, Inc. > 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 > Portland, OR 97223 > 503-684-1020 > Fax: 503-684-1028 > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Scheidegger [mailto:MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us] > Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:33 PM > To:kens@prilanduse.com > Subject:Stonechase > Ken, Page 1 Matt Scheidegger - Re: Stonechase > I've attached Joe Turner's e-mail address. I think you should send > your request directly to him. Please send me a copy for the file. >jtpc@qwest.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Sandblast [mailto:kens@prilanduse.com] > Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:40 PM > To: 'Matt Scheidegger (malts@ci.tigard.or.us)' > Cc: 'Phillip E. Grillo (phil.grillo@millernash.com)' > Subject:Stonechase Record Request > Matt, > In response to the materials submitted during the open record period, > the applicant requests the hearing officers reopen the record to allow > us the time necessary to clarify and respond with further materials, > particularly the tree plan. > The applicant proposes the following: > Friday - January 14th - Record open to the Applicant for submittal > (new information allowed) > Friday - January 21st - Record open for responses to all parties > Friday - January 28th - Final argument for applicant (no new > information) > Friday - February 11th - Hearings Officer decision > Please contact the hearings officer today for a response given that > tomorrow (12/29) is the applicant's deadline for response as per the > December 15th public hearing. > Thank you. > Ken > <image.tiff> > Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP > Planning Resources, Inc. > 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 > Portland, OR 97223 > 503-684-1020 > Fax: 503-684-1028 - - - Page 2 Matt Scheidegger - Re: Stonechase > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 12/26/2004 - -Page 31 CC: Matt Scheidegger <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> 11Matt Scheid-ger - Re: Stonechase RecoRequest T From: Joe Turnrt <jtpc@gwest.net> To: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 12/28/2004 5:59:07 PM Subject: Re: Stonechase Record Request Yes the amended briefing schedule is fine with me. (Ok, its GREAT, since I don't have to write this until after I get back from vacation). I assume you want me to draft an order reopening the record with the amended briefing schedule? Then you could send that to the parties, so everyone knows what the schedule is. Let me know if that would work for you, or if alternative (email or phone) notice is sufficient. I was out of the office today, but will be happy to write the order tomorrow. Thanks Joe On Dec 28, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Matt Scheidegger wrote: > Mr. Turner, > I've attached an e-mail from the applicant for the Stonechase Appeal. > From: "KenSandblast" <kens@priland use. com> > Date: December 28, 2004 2:40:23 PM PST > To: "'Matt Scheidegger<matts@ci.tigard.or.us> > Cc: "'Phillip E. Grillo"' <phil.grillo@millernash.com> > Subject: Stonechase Record Request > Matt, > In response to the materials submitted during the open record period, > the applicant requests the hearing officers reopen the record to allow > us the time necessary to clarify and respond with further materials, > particularly the tree plan. > The applicant proposes the following: > Friday - January 14th - Record open to the Applicant for submittal > (new information allowed) > Friday - January 21st - Record open for responses to all parties > Friday - January 28th - Final argument for applicant (no new > information) > Friday - February 11th - Hearings Officer decision > Please contact the hearings officer today for a response given that > tomorrow (12/29) is the applicant's deadline for response as per the > December 15th public hearing. > Thank you. > Ken > <image.tiff> Page 1 Matt Scheidegger - Re: Stonechase RecoRequest > Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP > Planning Resources, Inc. > 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 > Portland, OR 97223 > 503-684-1020 > Fax: 503-684-1028 > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 12/26/2004 Page 2 ; > <image002.gif> I, Matt Scheidegger - FW: Stonechase Pagel, • w ,ft From: "KenSandblast" <kens@priland use. com> To: <jtpc@qwest.net> Date: 12/28/2004 3:11:07 PM Subject: FW: Stonechase Joe, Please see below emails. We are requesting you to reopen the public record in accordance with the below schedule. Please respond today if at all possible given tomorrow's applicant final response deadline. Thank you. Ken HYPERLINK "file:HCA\Documents and Settings\\Owner\\Application Data\\Microsoft\\Signatures\\./KLS_files/image002.gif' Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP Planning Resources, Inc. 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223 503-684-1020 Fax: 503-684-1028 -----Original Message----- From: Matt Scheidegger [mailto:MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:33 PM To: kens@prilanduse.com Subject: Stonechase Ken, I've attached Joe Turner's e-mail address. I think you should send your request directly to him. Please send me a copy for the file. HYPERLINK "mailto:jtpc@gwest.net"jtpc@qwest.net -----Original Message----- From: KenSandblast [mailto:kens@prilanduse.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:40 PM To: 'Matt Scheidegger (malts@ci.tigard.or.us)' Matt Scheidegger-_ FW: Stonechase i Cc: 'Phillip E. Grillo (phil.grillo@millernash.com)' Subject: Stonechase Record Request Matt, In response to the materials submitted during the open record period, the applicant requests the hearing officers reopen the record to allow us the time necessary to clarify and respond with further materials, particularly the tree plan. The applicant proposes the following: Friday - January 14th - Record open to the Applicant for submittal (new information allowed) Friday - January 21st - Record open for responses to all parties Friday - January 28th - Final argument for applicant (no new information) Friday - February 11th - Hearings Officer decision Please contact the hearings officer today for a response given that tomorrow (12/29) is the applicant's deadline for response as per the December 15th public hearing. Thank you. Ken Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP Planning Resources, Inc. 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223 503-684-1020 Fax: 503-684-1028 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 12/26/2004 - - - - Page 2 ' Matt Scheid egger - FW: Stonechase _ Page 3 -0. i CC: Phillip E. Grillo"' <phil.grillo@millernash.com>, "'Matt Scheidegger"' <matts@ci.tigard.or. us> N' 4 0 • From: "Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Subject: Fwd: Stonechase Record Request Date: December 28, 2004 2:45:40 PM PST To: jtpc@qwest.net 1 Attachment, 3.8 KB Mr. Turner, I've attached an e-mail from the applicant for the Stonechase Appeal. From: "KenSandblast" <kens@priland use. com> Date: December 28, 2004 2:40:23 PM PST To: "'Matt Scheidegger"' <matts@ci.tigard.or.us> Cc: "'Phillip E. Grillo"' <phil.grillo@millernash.com> Subject: Stonechase Record Request Matt, In response to the materials submitted during the open record period, the applicant requests the hearing officers reopen the record to allow us the time necessary to clarify and respond with further materials, particularly the tree plan. The applicant proposes the following: Friday - January 14th - Record open to the Applicant for submittal (new information allowed) Friday - January 21 st - Record open for responses to all parties Friday - January 28th - Final argument for applicant (no new information) Friday - February 11 th - Hearings Officer decision Please contact the hearings officer today for a response given that tomorrow (12/29) is the applicant's deadline for response as per the December 15th public hearing. Thank you. Ken ~_7 %.f r,-d we ~mL-A * zte Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP Planning Resources, Inc. 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 f 9 • 503-684-1020 Fax: 503-684-1028 No virus found in this outgoing message. _..g Matt Scheidegger -Stonechase From: Matt Scheidegger To: kens@prilanduse.com Date: 12/28/2004 2:33:01 PM Subject: Stonechase Ken, - - - - Page 1 ;1 I've attached Joe Turner's e-mail address. I think you should send your request directly to him. Please send me a copy for the file. jtpc@qwest.net Matt Scheidegger - RE: Stonechase Comwts Page 1 From: Matt Scheidegger To: Mossberger, Laura Date: 12/23/2004 4:34:19 PM Subject: RE: Stonechase Comments Laura, I've attached the Dec. 15th info as well. "Mossberger, Laura" <Laura.Mossberger@MillerNash.com> 12/23/2004 12:31:50 PM Thanks so much for e-mailing these comments! So this is all that was submitted between the 15th and 22nd, and includes anything that might've been submitted at the hearing? (Besides our submittals, of course.) I was under the impression from Phil that it would be more, but he was sort of in a hurry when he was giving me the details - so I could have misunderstood. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Scheidegger [mailto:MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us] Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 12:20 PM To: Mossberger, Laura Subject: Stonechase Comments Stonechase Appeal comments Matt Scheidegger - Stonechase Comme Page 1 From: Matt Scheidegger To: laura.mossberger@millernash.com Date: 12/23/2004 12:20:14 PM Subject: Stonechase Comments Stonechase Appeal comments Matt Scheidegger - Stonechase Commen Page 1 16 0 From: Matt Scheidegger To: jtpc@qwest.net; kens@prilanduse.com Date: 12/23/2004 12:18:33 PM Subject: Stonechase Comments Stonechase Comments from Mr. Frewing. Matt Scheidegger - Stonechase Subdivisig~((SUB) 2004-00010) From: "Dan Jung" <danj@priland use. com> To: "TIGARD-Matt Scheidegger" <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 12/13/2004 4:22:05 PM Subject: Stonechase Subdivision ((SUB) 2004-00010) Matt, Please find the attached Appeal Response in regards to the Stonechase Subdivision. A copy is being mailed to the Hearings Officer. Please contact either myself or Ken Sandblast with any questions or concerns. thanks, Dan Jung Planning Resources 7160 SW Fir Loop, Ste #201 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 684-1020 (503) 684-1028 fax Page 1 CC: "Ken" <kens@prilanduse.com> Matt Scheidegger - Stonechase Subdivisi'(SUB 2004-00010) Appeal 0 From: "Dan Jung" <danj@prilanduse. com> To: "TIGARD-Matt Scheidegger' <MATTS@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 12/10/2004 4:01:29 PM Subject: Stonechase Subdivision (SUB 2004-00010) Appeal Matt, In regards to the Stonechase Subdivision appeal, please find the attached Arborist Appeal Response. Please contact either myself or Ken Sandblast (kens@prilanduse.com) with any questions or concerns. Note: I will also be sending a faxed copy. thanks, Dan Jung Planning Resources 7160 SW Fir Loop, Ste #201 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 684-1020 (503) 684-1028 fax - Page 1 CC: "Ken" <kens@priland use. com> Matt Scheidegger -_Fw: comments on StV hase 0 _ Page 1 From: "Sue Beilke" <sbeilke@europa.com> To: <matts@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/31/2004 10:04:46 AM Subject: Fw: comments on Stonechase Matt, Here is what I sent on the 17th. Sue Original Message From: Sue Beilke To: matt@ci.tigard.or.us Cc: Brian Wegener ; John Frewing Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 6:44 AM Subject: comments on Stonechase Matt, Please find attached our comments on the proposed Stonechase subdivision. I attempted to talk to you while at city hall yesterday but you were in a meeting. I then called and talked to Gary Pagenstaker, who said he would call me back but did not, regarding questions I had on tree preservation, etc. I am requesting that I be notified of any changes to the tree plan, etc. within 7 days. Sue • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an appeal of an administrative decision ) ORDER OPENING approving an application for a 20-lot subdivision ) THE RECORD for 4.51 acres in the R-4.5 zone east at 11225 SW ) SUB2004-00010 North Dakota Street in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Stonechase Subdivision) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, Vince Biggi, requests approval of a preliminary plan for a 20-lot subdivision of a 4.51-acre parcel located at 11225 SW North Dakota Street; also known as Tax Lot 400, WCTM 1S134DB (the "site"). The applicant proposes to remove an existing dwelling and outbuildings from the site and to develop each of the 20 new lots with a single family detached dwelling. The applicant will extend SW Fir and Forest Lanes into the site from their existing stubs at the west boundary of the site. The applicant will extend a new north-south street, proposed SW 113`h Avenue between the east ends of Fir and Forest Lanes, creating a loop street on the site. The applicant will extend a second north-south street between SW Forest Lane and SW North Dakota Street. The applicant will dedicate right of way and construct frontage improvements along the site's SW North Dakota Street frontage. The applicant proposes to collect storm water from imperious areas of the site and to convey that storm water to the stormwater system within the right of way for Fir Lane and 113`h Avenue for treatment, detention and discharge to the existing storm sewer in Cottonwood Lane north of the site. All proposed lots will be served by public water and sanitary sewer systems. The applicant proposes to remove 78 of the 108 regulated trees on the site. 2. On November 1, 2004, the Tigard Planning Manager (the "manager") issued a Type II decision approving the application subject to conditions of approval. On November 16, 2004, the City received an appeal of the Director's decision on behalf of Sue Bielke, Director of the Biodiversity Project of Tigard and area resident (the "Appellant"). The appeal alleged that the proposed development violates the City's Tree Protection Ordinance and certain other approval criteria. On December 15, 2004, Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. City staff recommended the hearings officer deny the appeal and affirm the manager's decision. See the Memorandum to the Hearings Officer dated December 8, 2004 (the "Memorandum"). Representatives of the applicant testified in support of the application. The Appellant and one other person testified orally and in writing in support of the appeal. 3. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the hearings officer ordered the record held open for one week for the Appellant and other members of the public to submit new testimony and evidence and for a second week for a the applicant to respond to the new evidence and submit a closing argument. By email dated December 28, 2004, the applicant requested that the hearings officer extend the open record period until January 28, 2005 to submit additional evidence in response to evidence submitted by the Appellant and to allow the public to respond to the new evidence submitted by the applicant. This order is issued in response to that request. B. DISCUSSION 1. Under Tigard Development Code (the "TDC") 18.390, every party is entitled to an opportunity to be heard and present and rebut evidence. Nothing in the TDC precludes keeping the record open after the public hearing, provided the public has an opportunity to respond in writing to any new evidence the applicant introduces. 2. The hearings officer finds that keeping the record to allow the applicant to introduce additional evidence is warranted to serve the interests of a full and fair understanding of the relevant law, provided the process affords the public a meaningful opportunity to respond to that new evidence. Accordingly the hearings officer concludes that the applicant's request to keep open the public record should be granted subject to appropriate procedural safeguards. In so doing, the hearings officer acknowledges that, because the applicant filed the request to keep the record open, the 120-day rule under ORS 215.428 is tolled during the open record period. 3. The hearings officer finds that re-opening the record to allow the parties an opportunity to submit additional evidence in the case is warranted to serve the interests of a full and fair understanding of the relevant law and is the most efficient way of reaching a final resolution. C. ORDER 1. The hearings officer orders the public record to be held open in the matter of SUB2004-00010 (Stonechase Subdivision), subject to the following schedule: a. The record is hereby ordered open until 5 P.M., Friday, January 14, 2005, for the applicant to introduce new evidence and testimony. b. The record is hereby ordered open until 5 P.M., Friday, January 21, 2005 for the Appellant, other members of the public and City staff to respond in writing to the new evidence; and c. The record is hereby ordered open until 5 P.M., Friday, January 28, 2005, for the applicant to submit a final argument without introducing any new evidence 2. Any new evidence and testimony must be in writing and must be received by the City by 5 P.M. of the relevant closing date. 3. As soon as practicable, the City shall mail a copy of this Order to all persons who are parties in this matter. 4. The hearings officer will issue a written final order within ten (10) working days after the close of the record (i.e., by February 11, 2005). DATED tV2%tAv of December 2004. e Turn 4sq., AICP -i -A ty of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer SUB2004-00010 Order opening the record (Stonechase Subdivision) page 2 r * • December 21, 2004 Mr. Joe Turner, Hearings Officer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Turner, • RECEIVED PLANNING DEC 2 2 2004 CITY OF TIGARD Subject: Sue BeilkeBiodiversity Project of Tigard, Comments on Stonechase Appeal Hearings officer Mr. Joe Turner has left the record open for the appellant and the opposing parry (Mr. Frewing) to file comments on issues raised at the 12/15/04 appeals hearing. My comments are as follows: 1. Impact Studv (18.390.040.B.e) We stated that the Impact Study in the applicant's file fails to address that there is no safe manner in which to access Summer Lake and Englewood Parks, etc. The code specifically states that the impact study "shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services" and shall propose improvements necessary to meet City Standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large". Also, there is no Finding associated with this section of the code in the Decision, page 24/30, which makes the Decision incomplete and in error. The Decision on page 1/30 states that this section is among the "applicable review criteria", and not just application requirements as the applicant argues in their letter dated December 13, 2004. We ask that the application be denied based on this information and the lack of information and consideration in the applicant's impact study addressing the Parks System. 2. (18.745.030) We stated that the code explicitly states that "existing vegetation shall be protected as much as possible". The applicant argued that "vegetation" only means trees. However, the code, at 18.120, states that the dictionary meaning will be used unless it is defined in this chapter, and it is not a defined term in the code. We include here the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary definition of vegetation which is "the sum of vegetable life; plants in general". We argue here that more vegetation can be saved in this proposal, including native ferns, shrubs, and even small trees. The proposed lots do have building setbacks on all the lots and with care, more existing vegetation could be saved and would add to the value of the home, would be valuable for wildlife, and would help to preserve some of the remaining biological diversity in this neighborhood and in this city. We ask that the application be denied based on not meeting the requirements of 18.745.030 3. (18.7901 We have asked the city planner on numerous occasions to be included in an on-site meeting with the applicant's and cry's arborists regarding the issue of tree removal, then we find out at the meeting on December 15 that an on site meeting was held on December e. This is another example of how concerned neiahbors are beina shut out of the input process. where had we been at the meetine we could have asked auestions and mavbe had some of our concerns adeauately addressed regardine the tree removal and protection. In the Arborist's Report dated 12/08/04, it is noted that all of the trees were re-measured on November 22, 2004, and a revised tree survey was provided. It also states that Matt Stein had done some measuring as well. • We did not find any record of this revised tree survey in the file, nor did we see any record of Mr. Stein's work, comments, etc. in the file regarding this on-site visit in November. We also note that this work was done after the Decision was made and thus does not provide the required public decision making procedures that are part of the Tigard Development Code. We ask that the application be denied for the failure to determine which trees are to be removed and which are to be saved under the Tree Protection Plan under this section of the code. 4. In the discussion of the Tree Plan for this application, Mr. Brewersdorf stated at the meeting on December 15'h that "fruit and nut trees" are not excluded from inclusion in the tree removal/mitigation plan required for any proposal in the city. We also note that on the tree removal plan, it appears that at least some of the fruit and nut trees are included. Since there is no distinction in the code between native and non-native trees for mitigation requirements except on sensitive lands (18.775), we ask that the application be denied for failure to include the fruit and nut trees on the site in the mitigation requirements for this proposal. 5. Under this section of the code, the Tree Protection Plan submitted by the applicant does not meet the requirements of the code since it does not show where the tree protection fencing is to be located in relationship to where the building footprints will be. Even the city arborist as noted in the Decision, page 26/30, stated that the Plan does not meet the requirements of the code. We also want to point out that the Tree Protection Plan Legend notes two types of trees, those with (Removed Tree) and those without (Regulated Tree) an X across it. One must assume then, that any tree on the Plan that is not crossed out is going to be saved. This cannot be the case however, since some of the regulated trees appear in the footprints. In addition, there are various types of shadings of trees that do not appear in the legend. We counted at least 5 types of trees drawn on the Plan, not 2 as the legend depicts. This Plan is not complete and confusing to discern as we have noted earlier in our earlier comments and needs to be revised to accurately portray what will happen on the site. 6. (18.790.03001 Regarding the early removal of trees issue, as we stated in our previous comments, we talked with several neighbors one of whom recalled they were removed in August or September of 2003. We include here (see attached) a letter from a neighbor who lives on Cottonwood Lane, Mr. Tim Gross, and who was home at the time the trees in question were removed in August, 2003. This removal of trees falls within one year of when the application was submitted, which was on May 6, 2004, as noted in the file on the Land Use Permit Application. These trees should have been part of the inventory done for the site, no matter if they were healthy or hazard trees, for some may have been part of the mitigation requirement for this project. As stated under this section of the code, "trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. We here ask that the application be denied since this section of the code has not been met. Sincerely, \ Sue Beilke, Director The Biodiversity Project of Tigard Tim Gross 11085 SW Cottonwood Tigard, OR 97223 City of Tigard Attn: Joe Turner Hearings Officer 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Turner, I am writing this letter in regards to the appeal to Stonechase LLC's application for a subdivision. I am hoping to provide you, Matthew Scheidegger and other officials involved in the appeal process with more complete information for the appeal. Sue Beilke had mentioned in her appeal, Issue #4, the 'Early Removal of Trees.' My property is on the north side of the site in question. In early August of 20031 witnessed a crew of workers using chainsaws to cut down trees and bull dozers to clear debris. I believe that these trees were not inventoried, which would allow for mitigation for Tigard residents. I am aware that no information about this tree removal operation has been submitted to the City of Tigard, though I am sure there is some record of it with the previous owner of the property and the business that conducted the work. I feel it is important to have a complete picture of the site so that its abundant natural resources can be conserved as much as possible. I am concerned that Stonechase LLC's proposed street entrance to the subdivision would eliminate far too many large, older trees, which provide wildlife diversity, noise reduction and many other benefits. I trust you will consider these comments for the fair appeal to Stonechase LLC's proposed subdivision plan. Thank you. Sincerely Timothy J. Gross December 22, 2004 Mr. Joe Turner, Hearings Officer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Turner: Subject: John Frewing Comments on Stonechase Appeal d Hearings officer Turner left the record open for appellant and opposing party Frewing to file responses on issues discussed or introduced at the 12/15/04 appeals hearing. Following an additional seven days for applicant final argument (not new evidence) and ten days for the hearings officer to review the record, a decision is expected in accordance with 18.390.050 E. Frewing responds to issues discussed in the 12/15/94 appeals hearing as follows: A Re 18.390 and its impact study requirement, I stated that the development's impact on drainage facilities of the city were not quantatively addressed in that uphill drainage on to the site was not considered in the application. This is an official `approval criterion' of the code. The only place where drainage IS considered is in the drainage report, which is responsive to 18.810.100, specifically subparagraph C and it is this drainage report which does not consider uphill drainage on to the development site. Certainly the impact study itself in the application does not consider uphill drainage on to the development site; found there are only conclusive statements without supporting facts, despite the standard that the impact study shall "quantify" effects of the development. Uphill drainage is important because, following development, it can cause flooding or high water levels/mud flows in backyards or around houses. Further, it can kill remaining trees on the site because of changed flow patterns caused by construction and placement of houses and streets. (This was the concern of appellant Bielke and was indeed acknowledged by applicant's arborist in his supplemental report of December 8, 2004.) Applicant said that uphill drainage along the frontage of SW North Dakota will be handled by the street drainage system; while there is no quantification of this impact, it may be fine for that boundary, but the west boundary of the four acre development tract also has uphill topography (the site is noted to slope at about 6 percent to the northeast) which is not so controlled and not addressed at all. I ask that the application, which is to be evaluated "as submitted", be denied based on lack of consideration of uphill drainage from the west. In other decisions, LUBA has found that such incompleteness results in findings "not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record as to facts". B Re 18.745 and its landscaping requirements, I stated that the applicant's proposal did not "protect" existing vegetation on the site as much as possible. Specifically, the applicant did not provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process and plants to be saved were not noted on any plans in the application. This is another incidence of the decision being "not supported by substantial evidence". This was not contested by applicant. This requirement is an official `approval criterion' of the code. Instead, applicant argued that `vegetation' means trees, and that the provisions of 18.745 should be read to mean that a Tree Protection Plan, submitted in response to 18.790, should suffice to meet the requirements of 18.745. I would simply rejoin with the following: The code at 18.120 regarding definitions states that `all of the terms in this title have their commonly accepted, dictionary meaning unless they are specifically defined in this chapter or the context in which they are used clearly indicates to the contrary'. Vegetation is not a defined term in the code; Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines it as `the sum of vegetable life; plants in general'. This is clearly more inclusive than the definition of trees contained within 18.790. In 18.790, trees are defined as having a diameter of six inches or greater and it is agreed by all that this is appropriate for 18.790. However, there is much vegetation on the site other than this 18.790 definition of trees. For example in 18.120, definition 140 defines a tree as `a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is two inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from the ground.' These trees smaller than six inches in diameter are thus included in `vegetation' as well as the numerous smaller bushes which are acknowledged by all to grow on the site. That such vegetation can be saved, ie is `possible', is determined by the fact that building setbacks exist on all lots, where no construction is planned. With regard to applicant's suggestion that a special interpretation be given to the word `vegetation' in the code, I would note that the code specifically has provisions for special interpretations, namely, Section 18.340. This code section requires the Director to maintain a complete file of interpretations; I ask that the hearings officer take official notice of this file and the fact that it does not include any interpretation of the word `vegetation'. No request for a special interpretation has been requested by applicant. (I have previously asked for an interpretation of the code (on another matter) and was told that it cost $488. See Tigard Fee Schedule attached.) If applicant or hearing officer seeks an interpretation of the code in order to read the code with a different meaning than the English words in the code, the same formality of a Director's Interpretation should apply. I ask that the application be denied based on not meeting the requirements of 18.745.030 E. C The same argument as noted in B above also apply to city's interpretation that `trees' in 18.790 do not include fruit and nut trees. A mitigation plan for removal of trees is a required `decision criterion' of the code. There was no evidence that this interpretation, excluding fruit and nut trees, has ever been applied before by City of Tigard and the code makes no reference to fruit and nut trees in any other section regarding subdivision development. Only in the section on sensitive lands (18.775) does there appear any distinction between native and non-native vegetation; this is not an applicable section for the Stonechase development and the reference in 18.775 does not limit itself to trees. I ask that the application be denied for failure to include fruit and nut trees in considering mitigation requirements as part of 18.790 provisions. D Regarding the designation of which trees are to be removed and which are to be saved as part of the Tree Protection Plan (18.790), the city's written decision before the hearings officer defers the required decision to an onsite meeting between applicant's arborist and city arborist. This is a required `decision criterion' of the code. Deferring this part of the development decision to a post-approval ministerial decision will not provide the required public decision making procedures of the Tigard Development Code. This decision will require the exercise professional opinion of arborists; it is not a simple decision governed by straightforward existing guides, but involves discretionary opinions of these professionals. I ask that the application be denied for 9 0 failing to reach the required determination of which trees are to be removed and which are to be saved as part of the Tree Protection Plan (18.790). E The Tree Protection Plan submitted by applicant does not meet the requirements of the code as noted by the city arborist on page 26/30 of the decision. City arborist states clearly that "no indication is given as to how they (save trees) will be protected during development. The plans should show where the tree protection fencing will be located in relation to the building footprints." There is nothing in the record which changes this conclusion of the city arborist at a later date. The code at 18.790.030 B.4. states the same requirement, "standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction." No such location of tree protection fencing is shown on plans. The only drawing showing building envelopes (not footprints, which are more precisely located) was superceded by later applicant submittals. a-The applicant assertedly submitted a two page "Tree Protection Plan" but it does not meet the above noted code requirement. For example, it states (item f. on page 1) regarding a tree protection fence, that "for every inch in diameter of the trunk (DBH) allow UP TO 1 foot radius from the trunk as the protected area." (My emphasis added). The words UP TO allow any lesser radius to be used. In the city's written decision, the city arborist's recommendations simply state the requirement of one foot radius for the TPZ for every inch of tree diameter - none of this "up to" wording exists. b-The same item of the applicant's "Tree Protection Plan" states "this allows some encroachment within the drip line. This should be determined on a case by case site conditions reviewed (sic)". The applicant's "Tree Protection Plan later states (item II.h.) that `the ISA Certified Arborist' shall be contacted for encroachment evaluations; the city's written decision requires that the city arborist be contacted for encroachment evaluations - these two evaluators are different people with different interests. The applicant's "Tree Protection Plan" refers to "NAA standards" in item I. c. on page 1; the city arborist asks that tree protection adhere to International Society of Arborculture (ISA) guidelines - these are different levels of protection and city requirements should be met. c-For tree protection fencing, applicant's "Tree Protection Plan" states that fence posts should be "located on 10' centers as a general rule". City arborist states (page 27/30) that "each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet." The city arborist specification should be met. d-One might feel that all these differences could be resolved by concluding that the city arborist conditions supercede the "Tree Protection Plan" submitted by applicant, but in fact, the finding for 18.790 only incorporates the "conditions" of the City Forester see page 28/30 of the decision). Hence, the specific conclusions and recommendations of the city arborist (also called the City Forester) are to no effect in the decision and the "Tree Protection Plan" of the applicant does not meet the "standards and methods" requirement of the code. e-Finally, the deferral of a plan beyond the development permit stage is not in accordance with the code. Section 18.790.030 A. clearly states "Tree plan required." Deferral injures the substantial rights of appellant and the public to examine what tree protection measures will be enforced as anticipated by the code. There is no finding of feasibility that a later tree plan can be approved by the city, considering the complex professional opinions involved in such a plan. Such `feasibility' finding is a minimum standard for deferral of some decisions. As a result of comment E and subcomments a- through a-, I ask that the application be denied because of lack of an approved tree protection plan meeting code requirements. F Even though the applicant, in the 12/13/04 letter (last paragraph of Issue C) states that 37 trees were overlooked in the original inventory but identified in the 12/8/04 supplemental arborist's report, they are NOT identified in the 12/8/04 document and it does not indicate that any attachments were submitted along with it. Hence, the inventory requirement of the code is still not met. The application should be denied because of the lack of inventory of all trees with six inches and greater caliper. G Applicant's letter of 12/13/04 asserts that the impact study requirements of 18.390.040 B are not "approval criteria" but only "application requirements". However, the Decision itself, at page 1/30 states that this section is among the "applicable review criteria". Hence, SOMETHING must be reviewed in the impact study. I don't think that such review is complete or was done because there is no finding associated with code Section 18.390 (see Decision, page 24/30). The code at 18.120, definition 70, makes clear that a finding is a critical part of a decision, in that it contains "A written statement of the facts determined to be relevant by the approval authority as the basis for making its decision. The approval authority applies the relevant facts to the approval criteria or standards in order to reach its decision." While a submittal acceptance was made, it in no way "applie(d) the relevant facts to the standards in order to reach its decision" (in writing). The lack of finding in the decision makes the decision incomplete and in error and it should therefore be denied on review by the independent hearings officer. Sincerely, John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Attachment `City of Tigard Land Use Applications Fee Schedule' CITY OF TIGARD LAND USE APPLICATIONS FEE SCHEDULE PROCEDURE FEE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT--_ 1 Sul I ANNEXA1ION I $1,006 1 (APPEAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION (TYPE II) TO HEARINGS OFFICER I $15U EXPEDITED REVIEW (DEPOSIT) ~r I $300 HEARINGS REFEREE I $5UU PLANNING COMMISSION/HEARINGS OFFICER TO CITY COUNCIL I $7,016 APPROVAL EXTEM $ BLASTING PEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INITIAL 1 $4,114 MAJOR MODIFICATION I $4,114 MINOR MODIFICATION $461 DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM (DET)- RECOMMENDATION (DERM) I $ DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISION REVIEW SINGLE-FAMILY BUILDING PLAN 1 $41 COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAVINSTITUTION I $164 1 EXPEDITED REVIEW LAND PARTITION 1 $3,10/ SUBDIVISION I $3,901 + 83hot SUBDIVISION WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT I Add $5,111 HEARING POSTPONEMENT 1 HISTORIC OVERLAY/REVIEW DISTRICT HISTORIC OVERLAY DESIGNATION 1 $3,114 REMOVAL OF HISTORIC OVERLAY DESIGNATION 1 $3,114 EXTERIOR ALTERATION IN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT I $493 NEW CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT I $493 1 DEMOLITION IN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT I $493 1 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (ORIGINAL PERMIT) TYPE I HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT I $32 1 TYPE II HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT I I $22 INTERPRETATION WM CO $4w 1 LAND PARTITION I 1 RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL (3 LOTS) I $1,991 1 1 RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL (2 LOTS) I $1,461 1 1 EXPEDITED I $3,51U FINAL PLAT I $811 LOT LINE ADPR~M I $ MINOR MODIFICATION TO Aff-APPROVED-PLAI $_qF NON-(ONFORMING USE COM I $ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW $5,111 1 DETAILED PLAN REVIEW Applicable SOR Fee I I $196 1 1 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW I 1 WITH EXCESSIVE SLOPES/WITHIN DRAINAGE WAYS/WITHIN WETLANDS (TYPE 11) I $1,931 1 WITH EXCESSIVE SLOPES/WITHIN DRAINAGE WAYS/WITHIN WETLANDS (TYPE III) 1 $1,080 1 1 WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (TYPE III) I $1,080 1 1 SIGN PERMIT 1 EXISTING AND MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SIGN (NO SIZE DIFFERENTIAL) I $31 1 TEMPORARY SIGN (PER SIGN) I $15 1 I SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MAJOR MODIFICATION I UNDER $1,000,000 $1 MILLION/OVER MINOR MODIFICATION SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT WITHOUT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAT PLAT NAME CHANGE I TEMPORARY USE PERMIT DIRECTOR'S DECISION SPECIAL EXEMPTION/NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION I REE REMOVAL VALATION (STREETS AND S) I VARIANCE/ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE I DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL ADJUSTMENTS - ADJUSTMENT TO A SUBDIVISION - REDUCTION OF MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 1 - ACCESS/EGRESS STANDARDS ADJUSTMENT 1 - LANDSCAPING ADJUSTMENT (EXISTING/NEW STREET TREES) PARKING ADJUSTMENTS - REDUCTION IN MINIMUM OR INCREASE IN MAXIMUM PARKING RATIO - REDUCTION IN NEW OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT/TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT - REDUCTION IN BICYCLE PARKING - ALTERNATIVE PARKING GARAGE LAYOUT - REDUCTION IN STACKING LANE LENGTH SIGN CODE ADJUSTMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT ADJUSTMENT TREE REMOVAL ADJUSTMENT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ADJUSTMENTS - SETBACK FROM NEARBY RESIDENCE - DISTANCE FROM ANOTHER TOWER ZONING MAP/TEXT AMENDMENT LEGISLATIVE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGISLATIVE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE QUASI- UDICIAL I ZONING ANALYSIS (DETAILED) ]DINT APPLILAIION PLANt INU a $3,556 $4,641 + $5/Each $10,000 Over $1 Million $461 $4,10/ + 83/Lot I Add $5,112 1 $1,315 1 $25U $241 -0- $150 $1T65--Ueposit + Actual Costs $493 $211 $211 1 $211 I $493 $248 $493 $493 $493 1 $211 1 $493 1 $493 1 $493 1 $211 $493 1 $211 $1,134 1 $2,804 1 $2,510 $ 100% of Highest Planning Fee + 50% of All Additional Fees Related to the Proposal I EFFECTIVE DATE: OCTOBER 29. 2003 (Updated according to Resolution No. 0349) (Resolution No. 03-59, Repealing Resolution No. 02-38, Repealing Resolution No. 98-58, Repealing Resolution No. 96-30, Repealing Resolution No. 91-01) * - Established by state statute NOTE 1: WITHDRAWN APPLICATIONS: In cases of withdraw of an application; refund of fees may be applicable, less costs incurred, as determined by the Director. Generally, refunds of 80 percent will be made for applications received and withdrawn prior to sending out request for comments to agencies and notice of public hearing being sent. Fifty-percent refunds will be made where notice of public hearing has been sent but no staff report has begun. NO REFUNDS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR APPLICATIONS FOR WHICH A STAFF REPORT HAS BEGUN. NOTE 2: PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: For all Type 11, III and IV applications, applicants must submit two (2) sets of pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes for all property owners of record within 500 feet of the subject properties. The very most current records of the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation shall be the official records for determining ownership. Contact the City of Tigard to request 500-foot property owner mailing labels. H:\patty\masters\Tigard Fee Schedule.doc (updated: 8/11/04) • ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO CITY OF TIGARD FOR THE APPEAL OF STONECHASE SUBDTVLSION (SUB 2004-0014) AXpea1 of ype H Decision Dated: December 15, 2004 Appellant: Sue Beilke, Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard Standing: I submitted timely written comments upon notice of pending decision. A copy of my comments demonstrate that the specific issues raised below were raised during the comment period and subsequent appeal. Today I am including additional information (which is underlined) as well as responses to Mathew Scheidegger, (also underlined) Planner with the City of Tigard, in his December 8, 2004 Memorandum regarding this Appeal. My Additional Comments and Responses are as follows: 1. We start our comments by noting that both Attachments 3 and 4 were missing from the packet sent to the Appellant via mail which included the memorandum of December 8, 2004. 2. Impact Study (18.390.040. B.e) As stated in my original comments, all applications are required to include an impact study on the effect of the development on public facilities and services. This includes drainage system and water systems. I am concerned that any remaining trees on the site, as well as nearby offske trees, would seriously be weakened since water under the current plan is to be shunted away from the site, in an underground system. The Decision states that the applicant has provided a tree protection plan, but this does not address the drainage or water systems as required. In addition, the statement in the Decision that "the city of Tigard cannot respond to whether or not the addition of impervious surfaces will "shunt" water from the existing trees to an extent.that will cause harm", is erroneous, since this can be accomplished by the applicant doing a more thorough impact study on drainage and water systems as required by this section of the code. These are required, as stated in the code, "to minimise the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users." We note that in the Impact Study conducted, it states that it is `required to accommodate existing flows from adiacent parcels...... ,vet this was not done, we believe, since it is not shown on the drainaae calculations on file. Several neighbors wrote letters to the city, noting the water that flows from this site onto their properties. We do not believe the study. conducted addressed these situations properly, including how the development would impact the adiacent properties. AND the trees to be preserved on site, as well as those trees on the adiacent properties affected by the chanae in hydrology that will occur due to this development and its affects. Hence this part of the code has not been met. The impact study which addresses parks is inadequate as it currently stands. It does not evaluate how this parcel if developed, which is included on the "buildable lands" inventorv map prepared by the city. and which is also used by the city to identify parcels that may be suitable for park land acquisition, would affect the available quantity of land for parks for the city. and in particular for this neighborhood. We state here that this is the LAST upland forest left in this Dart of Tigard, that is relatively flat, and would be a verv good candidate for a small Dark for adults and children. The impact study done by the applicant also fails to note that even though Englewood and Summer Lake Parks are within one mile. there is no SAFE, wav in which to access these parks from this neighborhood There are NO sidewalks along SW North Dakota all the wav to SW 121'.making it extremely unsafe for MODle to trv to get to SummerLake Park. There are also no sidewalks along Dart of SW North Dakota street going east, also making it unsafe for neoDle to trv to get to Englewood Park via the Fanno trail. We believe that this part of the code has not been met and therefore this application should be denied. 3. Landseaaine and Screening (18.745.010,18.745.030). As stated in the August 15'h comments, the purpose of this section of the code is to "enhance the aesthetic. environmental quality of the city," The current proposal fails to meet this section of the code, since it fails to protect existing street trees, as well as native shrubs and herbaceous species still remaining on the site, including snowberry and sword fern (18.745.010). Many of the large trees, including the Ponderosa pine on the northwest corner, would be removed under the current plan. Section (18.745.030) (E) of the Code, states that "existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible", and provides for an adjustment if approved by the Director. Adjustments can and should be made in the sidewalk and planter strip (make them narrower) area to allow for the preservation of additional native trees near SW North Dakota Street. This would not be a hardship on the developer, for it would only affect the width of the sidewalk and planter strips. Even though Pumose statements are not review criteria, thev are what drive how the review criteria is interoreted, since thev are what is used to iustifv having the "review criteria" in the first place, and thev help to determine how the city wants its developments. and hence its neighborhoods, to look like. Mr. Scheideeger stated in his comments that "the Tigard DeveloDment code reouires applicants to submit a reafiv* tree Drotection/removal and vegetation plan % Nowhere in the Code can we find the word "realistic". Rather, the Code in this section. states explicitly that "exisiting vegetation shall be protected as much as possible". not as "realistically" as Dossible. We note here also there are no steps taken anvwhere in the DroDosal to protect anv existing native shrubs. ferns, etc., of which there are some on the site. We conclude from our review of this section of the code that as the proposal currently stands. it does not meet the existine code. hence the application should be denied. We also note that under this review criteria, "E" states that "Existinz trees may be used as street trees if no cutting or filling takes place within the drib-line of the trees unless an adiustment is aDDroved by the Direction....." We argue here that some of the existing native trees currently near SW North Dakota street could and should be saved to make the proposal more aestically appealing for the neighborhhod, to Drovide shade, and to add value to the existing and new homes. Therefore we ask here that an adjustment be made by the Director to provide for the protection of some existing trees on the site so they can become "street trees". 4. In the Notice of Tvve II Decision for this proposal, there is no "Finding" for the Review Criteria 18.745, hence this part of the code has not been met. 5. Tree Plan Inadequacy (18.790.030B). The applicant did not submit a tree plan which meets the requirements of this part of the code, which states that "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." The plan submitted does not meet the plan requirements. Specifically, - It did not identify the location, size and species of all existing trees, of which there is evidence that there are trees over 6" which do not appear on the plan. - It appears that the size (caliper) of some trees was underestimated, specifically some trees that are listed as "10" or "11" d.b.h. may be "12" or over. These trees should be re-measured and verified by someone other than the applicant. 6. From viewing of the trees from the property line, we believe some trees that were measured as less than "12" dbh, are actually "12 or greater. The appellant worked for the U.S. Forest Service for a number of years, and is able to visually measure trees from a distance with a great degree of accuracy from her experience in the field. it did not include a program defining standards and methods that will be used to protect trees during and after construction. (The decision states that a complete tree plan must be submitted later, but makes no findings of feasibility that this can be done.) Per the decision, there is no clear determination of what trees are proposed to be removed. There is controversy over the viability of some trees and the matter is defered to a site meeting of city and applicant arborists with no finding that resolution is feasible. The City decision on viability of some trees (as written in the decision) appears to have been made by planning staff rather than the professional arborist (City Forester) employed by the city. In order for the citizens of this community, as well as the appellant, to adequately comment on this project, the viability of trees must be decided prior to the final decision on the application. 7. We argue here that some of the trees listed as "hazardous" are actually not; from visual inspection-from the properly boundary some of the "hazard trees" appear to have possibly a broken top, or are slightly bent. These trees are still "viable", defined in the dictionarv as "capable of living". We also note here that the city's own arborist, his comments noted on page 3 of the Memorandum, state that "...in my opinion., several of the trees designated as hazardous were not", also finds that some trees with defects should not be considered hazardous. We argue thus that this discrepancy should be settled before a final decision is made in order to allow the public to comment and weigh in on the decision for the greater good of the neighborhood. The Findings in this case are based in part "on a meeting that may be held in the future, no date is set, and it may be that no agreement can be reached. These Findings are thus based on an erroneous assumption and thus this part of the code has not been met. - The appellant had to go to city hall in October and found out there was a `%ew" tree removal plan, which appears to remove trees previously "saved" even though these trees are not listed as "hazardous". The appellant had requested to be notified within 7 days of a tree plan change but was not notified by the city planner. The tree removal plans and tree preservation plan are confusing and not consistent in the manner in which they depict trees, for each plan shows a different variation of trees to be saved/removed, and some of the plans appear to not show trees that are on the ground and over 6" in caliper. 6. We araue here that the chances in the Tree Removal Plan. from the March Plan to the September Plan. are "significant", since approximately 89 trees are notes on the March t)hm while approximately 126 trees are noted on the September plan. a difference of approximately 37 trees. The "Tree Survey" list, listing trees by number, species, etc., fails to list all of the trees over 6" d.b.h. . On the list of trees "12" and greater, showing the mitigation and total mitigation cost, it shows "379" of "Mitigation Inches Required", but the Decision states under the Conditions, the applicant shall provide a tree mitigation plan for 365.6". There is a discrepancy here that needs to be addressed. 7. We found in the file. several different versions of the Mitigation reauired, with variations includine 378". 379" and 365.5" We believe that all of these may be incorrect, based on our belief that more trees should be mitieated for than under the current Dian. I did not ever mention "orchard trees" countine as mitigation so I do not know why the city mentions that in their comments of December 8 h. We -are referring to native trees. including some Doualas fir which we believe are reallv over 12" in dbl. such as # 688. We argue here that these discrepancies in the Mitigation inches required should be corrected before this application can be approved. 8. Earlv Removal of Trees (18.790.030C). Certain trees were removed within one year prior to the development application and were not inventoried nor identified as trees to be replaced. These include trees on the west and north sides of the proposed project site. This section of the code has not been met. We spoke to a neighbor who stated that trees on the site were removed.to the best of her recollection, in Aueust or September of 2003. This is within the "one vear prior to the development application".We also note that the Appellant noted that trees were "missine" about this time after a drivebv of the property. 9. Incentives for Tree Retention (18.790.040.A) There has been no apparent attempt in any of the tree plans to lay out the lots and streets in such a manner as to protect as many trees as possible. There are several trees, firs and cedar, that are well over two hundred vears old, that are listed as in "good" condition, and with some innovative planning, these trees could be saved and incorporated into the project. For example, lot width and depth could be changed to save more trees, as well as narrowing sidewalks and planter strips. The neighbors would rather have older, taller, native trees that provide shade and are pleasing to the eye, than the little, puny, non-native lollypop trees, typically planted in the planter strips. As stated in the August 15th comments, the street into the site could moved to the east end of the site, opposite SW 112h, so that more of the bigger trees could be saved. Incentives could and should be used to "assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees", as this part of the code requires." This has not been done, and so this part of the code has not been met. We argue here that this section of the code, since it includes "incentives" for tree retention, is not uv to the discretion of the applicant, but rather as written, is up to the discretion of the Director, since it states that the "Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review avvroval." This is stated as such in order to. as stated, "assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees. Since this has not been done in this application, we argue here the code has not been met. 10. Changes to the Application (18.390,080,D.4). Documents relied upon by Tigard staff to make the decision were submitted and apparently accepted subsequent to declaration of the application as complete (6/28/04) which "significantly change" the application in matters which were subject of appellant's comments. Staff did not make a proper determination that these changes were significant and therefore did not follow the procedures of the code. Specifically, the `tree removal plan' was modified by applicant to remove a number of additional trees, above and beyond those that were shown by the original application. In addition, the modified `tree removal plan' (Sept.) removed from the earlier `tree removal plan' (March) any building envelope limits on the lots of the development (which were earlier used by staff in evaluation of the `tree removal plan'). A request was made by the appellant via email to be notified by the city within 7 days if the tree plan changed, but this request was ignored. According to Section 18.390.080.D.4.b, we believe that staff should have found that the new tree removal plan submitted with the changes in September. DID significantly change the application of trees changes from apvroximately 89 to 1261. Staffs comments note that the only changes were the trees removed in parcel #8. However. there are manv other trees in other parcels to be removed on the September Tree Removal Plan that are NOT noted on the March Tree Removal Plan. We also note that on the September Tree Removal Plan, the additional trees to be removed in parcel #8 are NOT crossed out. onr are other trees that are to be removed. Therefore we argue this application should be denied since the latest Tree Removal Plan is not complete and does not reflect what is stated in the Decision. The latest September Tree Removal Plan does not include the footprint of the houses. The Decision states that the "applicant has shown building envelopes on the tree removal plan". This is incorrect if thev are referring to the September Plan. The staff comments on page 17 of the Decision. last paragraph. state "the applicant' is reouired to hold a field meeting...... to discuss any discrepancies of the hazardous trees". We argue here that we cannot adequately comment on this part of the code when the meeting is scheduled sometime AFTER the Decision has been made. This essentially shuts out public I ~ ' Is • comments and input and we argue this is not legal. Especially in light of the fact that we believe some of the "hazardous" trees are not, but are actually viable trees that should remaK or if removed, should be mitigated for. The comments go on to sav that "In the event anv additional trees are needed to be removed after the initial decision for reasons such as thev are found to be dead by wav of a more thorough arborist evaluation.thev may be removed without additional mitigation". This statement implies that the original arboris evaluation was not "thorough", and it does not state whose arborisL the applicant's or the city's. We argue here therefore that this part of the code has not been met. 11. Lack of Record for Review (18.390.080. EA. The Director has failed to maintain and preserve a complete file for this application. Specifically, though comments were requested from the City Forester, he replied that an email contained his comments; no such email is contained in the record. In addition, the appellant sent several emails to the planner, Matthew Scheidegger in August and September, and these are also not in the record. We reviewed the file and still cannot find a cony of Matt Stine's email in the file. Signed: Dated: )2 p " Matt Sct%;,deaal ,_-.Appeal Response - Jo urner (hearings officer) re appeal of 2004-00010.pdf Paqe 1_.1 _ V V ME plannin0es®urcesinc. as la use panning -site design 7160 S.W. Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, Oregon 97223 Tel: 503.6841020 Fax: 503-6841028 December 13, 2004 Mr. Joe Turner Hearings Officer City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject Appeal of Stonechase Subdivision ((SUB) 200400010) Dear Mr. Turner: 1 am writing on behalf of the applicant in response to the appeal filed by Ms. Sue Beilke, on behalf of the Biodiversity Project of Tigard ("BPT'). It is our understanding that Ms. Beilke's appeal was filed on behalf of the organization she directs. We have also reviewed the December 8, 2004, memorandum from Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner with the City of Tigard, and agree with his response to BPT's appeal. The purpose of this letter is to supplement staffs written response to each issue raised by Ms. Beilke in BPT's appeal. Issue A. "Tvpe 11 Procedure (18.390.040 B.e)" Section 18.390.040(B)(2) describes the "Submittal Information" required for Type II actions. In particular, Subsection (B)(2)(e) describes what is required in an "impact study,", the purpose of which is to quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. Staff correctly noted that the applicant submitted an "impact study" that addresses the impact of the transportation, drainage, park, water, and sanitary sewer systems, i.e., the relevant public facilities and services. Section (13)(2)(e) does not require the applicant to address the impact of development on trees in their impact analysis, because trees are not "public facilities and services" for purposes of the impact analysis. Trees are regulated in Section 18.790 (Tree Removal). It should also be noted that the "Impact Study" requirements in Section 18.390.040(B) are not approval criteria-they are application requirements. The application requirements in Section 18.390.040 do not serve as a basis for approval or denial of an application, but rather, are relevant to whether the application was complete enough for review. This application was deemed complete by staff on July 28, 2004, and was therefore determined to be complete enough for review at that time. Issue B. "Landscaping and Screeninq (18.745.010, 18.745.030)" We agree with staff that Section 18.745.010 is a purpose statement and is not an approval criterion. Section 18.745.030(E) was also cited by the appellant in BPT's appeal. In particular, Ms. Beilke points to the phrase "Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as Matt Scfi tdegg~jr - Appeal Resoonse - Jo~urner .(hearings_officer) re appeal of 2004-00010.odf Page 2 possible." This phrase in Chapter 745 must be read in context. Chapter 745 does not require all trees to be saved as much as possible, because Chapter 745 regulates landscaping and screening, including new street trees. Tree removal is regulated by Chapter 18.790, and is discussed below. Issue C. "Tree Plan Inadeouacv (18.790.030 B)" Again, we agree with staffs detailed responses to each of the eight sub-issues discussed by Ms. Beilke in her appeal. in order to better understand the relationship between the City's Tree Plan inventory requirement in Section 18.790.030(B)(1) and the City's Tree Plan requirements to save or mitigate trees, both of these requirements should be read in context. First, the inventory requirement in Subsection (13)(1) is an application requirement that applies to "trees." Section 18.790.020(A)(6) defines the term "trees" as follows: "6. Tree' means a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is sox inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level." Under this definition of "tree," the applicant is required by Section 18.790.030(B)(1) to inventory trees that are six inches or greater in caliper, four feet from ground level. Second, once the inventory under Subsection (B)(1) is complete, Subsection (B)(2) requires the applicant to save or mitigate trees that are twelve inches in caliper or greater. Therefore, even if certain trees that are greater than sic inches in caliper but less than twelve inches, were overlooked on the tree inventory, such as oversight would not be relevant to the approval criteria, because Section (B)(2) only requires the applicant to save or mitigate trees that are twelve inches or greater. Nonetheless, based on BPT's appeal, the applicant has identified 37 trees that were overlooked in our original inventory. These trees are identified in our supplemental arborist's report, dated December 8, 2004, which has been reviewed by the City's arborist. Of the 37 overlooked trees in the original inventory 35 are less than twelve inches in caliper and 2 are dead. Section 18.790.040(6) does not require the applicant to save or mitigate trees less than 12 inches in caliper or trees that are dead, therefore this oversight has no bearing on the relevant criteria because none of these 37 trees are required to be saved or mitigated. Issue D. Early Removal of Trees (18.790.030 C) The appellant did not raise. the issue of early removal of trees during the comment period. The only letter received by the City from the appellant during the comment period was the August 15, 2004, letter from Ms. Beilke. In that letter BPT does not mention the early removal of trees. Pursuant to Section 18.390.040(G)(2)(b) (Scope of Appeal), the appellant is limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, as provided under Section 18.390.040(C), unless the Hearings Officer, at his or her discretion, allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The Hearings Officer may allow such additional evidence if you determine "that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case." The intent of this requirement is to limit the scope of Type II Administrative Appeals by encouraging persons with standing to submit their specific concerns in writing during the comment period. The written comments received during the comment Matt Scheide,gef - Appeal Response Joggfiprner (hearinqs officer) re appeal of SAM 2004-00010.Ddf Page 3 ;1 period will usually limit the scope of issues on appeal. Only in extraordinary circumstances should new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer on appeal of a Type II Administrativ a Decision. Nonetheless, as discussed by the December 8, 2004, arborist's report, and further described in the staff report, we have verified that no trees have been removed within the one-year period prior to filing this application. Therefore, the evidence in the record shows that early tree removal has not occurred in this case. Issue E. Incentives for Tree Retention (18.790.040 A) We agree with staff. Section 18.790.040(A) provides the applicant with incentives for preserving and retaining trees. The applicant is not required to use these options. Issue F. Chances in the ADDlicatlon (18.390.080 D.41 Staff has explained why the minor changes in the applicant's tree plan occurred after the original application was submitted. Staff has properly determined that this change did not, in their judgment, change the application in any significant way, pursuant to Section 18.390.080(D)(4)(b)-(d). We would be happy to provide a further explanation as to why these minor changes occurred, if requested by the Hearings Officer further.. . Issue G. Lack of Record for Review (18.390.080 E.81 Section 18.390.080(E)(8) is not an approval criteria-it is a procedural section applicable to the City, and is outside the applicant's control. Section 18.390.080(E)(8) therefore cannot serve as a basis for approval or denial of this application. To the extent that the comments of the City Forester were not in the record previously, they are now. The applicant can now discuss this evidence in relation to her appeal. Therefore, the appellant's substantial rights have not been prejudiced by this minor procedural issue, and it cannot serve as a basis for approving or denying the application. Conclusion The appellant's appeal focus on tree protection issues and related procedures. For the reasons discussed in the staff report, the December 8, 2004, arborist's report, and this letter, we believe that BPT's appeal should be rejected, and the director's decision should be affirmed. We nonetheless appreciate the role of BPT and the efforts of Ms. Beilke as the organizations' director. We believe that the Stonechase Subdivision satisfies all of the relevant approval criteria and that it will be a good fit within the neighborhood. If Ms. Beilke or BPT have any other questions with regard to our development plan, we would be pleased to meet with her to discuss them. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Ken Sandblast cc: Mathew Scheidegger Vince Biggi Matt Sa"eldggger -.Stonechase - ArborisUri peall Response. pdf _ Page 1 46 Ap DEC-08-2004 16:04 t$llmliei5 TREE CARE UNLIMITED l~g9BIST REPORT Address of the Report. Stonechase Subdivision Tigard, OR Date of the Report: . December 8, 2004 Report Submitted To: Planning Resources Attn: Ken Sandblast 503 635 1549 P.02i05 The purpose of this letter is to respond to the issues raised during the public response period regarding the tree related issues on the site. A number of concerns have been brought to our attention and I will try to address each of them adequately in this letter. On December 6, 2004 I met with Matt Stein, City of Tigard Arborist at the site to review these issues. Perhaps a little site history is In order. This site was the home of an excavation/logging contractor. Much of the site has had heavy equipment activity over the past few decades which as adversely affected the trees on this site. Still today, there is abandoned machinery nearly everywhere on the site. There had been an attempt to salvage some of it in the past few years. To do so, some brush, mostly blackberries & Hazelnut trees had been removed. Ideally, it would have been best if a brush mower could have cleared the site as it was difficult to find all of the stumps and fallen trees under the blackberries and stinging nettles. However, due to the amount of metal and cables.laying around the site, this would have.been impractical due to equipment damage concerns. This did Impede the thoroughness of the tree survey and subsequent report as not all stumps and fallen trees were visible or apparent and Matt Stein concurred. Several years ago a dozen or so Red Alders had been fallen and are buried under blackberries 4' to 6' deep on the north and west sides of the property. If the existing Alders, all of which are half dead, are any indication, the Alders removed were in the same conditions. Residential and Commercial Spraying • Fertilizing • Pruning • Landscape Installation • Landscape Maintenance • Consultation MEMBER: National Arbodst Association • International Society of ArboricuRwe - Oregon Association of Nurserymen Oregon Golf Course Superintendents' Association • Oregon Landscape Contractors Association State Lic©nsed Tree Service #62635 • Landscape Contractor #5659 • Chemical Application #000231 • Insured P.O. Box'1566 • take Oswego, OR 97095. 503-635-3165 • Vancouver 360-737-2646 • FAX 503-635-1549 Visit our website at www.treecarelandscapea.com Matt Scheidegger - Stonechase - Arboris peal Response.pdf_ Page 2 96 DEC-08-2004 16:04 TREE CARE UNLIMITED 503 635 1549 P.03/05 The Alders I could uncover had been there long enough that the branches and bark have rotted off the logs or is In the process of doing so. The average size of these fallen Alders is 14" D.B.H. Each of the trees have indications of dead tops and the City of Tigard arborist, Matt Stein concurred. There has been discussion about the age of the trees on the site. In particular, the Douglas Firs, the largest trees on the site. My best guess is no tree is over 120 years based on my experiences with removing Douglas Fir trees larger than the ones on this site. For example: We recently removed a Douglas Fir tree In the West Llnn area that was over 50"-54" D.B.H. and the tree was 106 years old. Tree. determination can be done through core testing. The likelihood of any tree over 100 years old In the Tigard area is near impossible due to the fact the area has been heavily logged over the past 100 years. All indications of Douglas Firs that would be in excess of 150 years old have only been found in secluded, difficult to access sites such as river banks, deep canyons or other areas that deterred logging from removing the trees. Another concern raised was that a number of trees 6" or over-were left off the submitted plan, We revisited the site and identified 37 additional trees. Of 37 trees, 35 were under 12" D.B.H. and only 2 were over 12" D.B.H. and were dead and standing trunks. None of which were viable, approximately half of which are just now 6" to 7" and were under 6" D.B.H. a season ago when the tree survey was done. None of the additional trees were of regulated sizes. We even accounted for dead. and severely leaning trees, which were growing out of clumps or shared root systems. We did not count fallen trees or Hazelnut brush and Matt Stein concurred. The issue was brought up regarding tree sizes. You could have 10 arborists using a D.B.H. tape to review 100 trees and you could expect a 5% to 100/6 error ratio due to ground height, root burls, trunk defects and growth; there will be a variance in sizes, generally only 1 to 2 inches either less or more. Trees such, as low crotched fruit or flowering trees are measured at the narrowest-point below the branching below D.B.H. standard of 4 1/i from the ground. This could explain why someone may disagree with sizes of trees. We did ~e-measure all of the trees on November 22, 2004 and provided a revised tree survey. Matt Stein had done some measuring and concurred with our measurement abilities. Another issue brought up was that a few of the trees with structural defect issues that we determined as hazards. Matt Stein would be willing to discuss the trees as would we. Again, 10 arborists would disagree with 5 to 10 percent of trees. The defect Is an Indicator of failure potential that can be triggered by an event, i.e. wind, ice, snow. 11 Matt Sdheidegger - 6tonechase - Arboris peal Response.pdf _ Page 3.j Y 1 DEC-08-2004 16:05 TREE CARE UNLIMITED 503 635 1549 P.04/05 A tree protection plan has been provided and the exact location of the tree protection fence will be determined and approved by site and city arborist at the appropriate time. The city arborist, Matt Stein, may opt to add to the tree protection plan I provided, Non-Viable trees consist of trees under the regulated D.B.H. requirements and are dead, dying, diseased or hazardous and nuisance trees generally determined as invasive species. Dead means dead, no live foliage. Dying means In severe decline, Irreversible. Diseased means determinable rot, decay, conks, root disease, Cambium layer, heartwood, foliage, diseases and fungus. Another issue was the assertion that impact of site development would cause shunting of water away from the trees. Some site developments have at time created too much water, causing drainage problems that can drown trees. This is the opposite of shunting. I don't agree that any shunting will occur and the proposed site use will provide future watering needs for these trees. A provided tree protection plan will be used to protect and monitor such impacts. Matt Stein concurred. Some defects can be pruned, removed, cabled or treated to remove or lessen the failure potential, if steps are taken to treat the tree and monitor its situation. Hazardous, means visible signs of structural, basal or root defects. Such as co- dominant or split trunk attachments, weekly.attached regrowth from past topping or damaged stems. Rot or decay that weakens trunk, limbs or roots. Leaning caused by poor root to ground attachment or significant lean that could be uprooted by a storm event. In general I believe all multiple tops or regrowth on Conifers as assumed hazards. There are exceptions however, a more concise' determination may only be determined by climbing to the topped portion of the tree and perform various inspections. Any regrowth attached to a decayed stem of any tree is a hazard in my opinion. In regards to hazard trees, nearly all tree failures have visible indications or defects that can be determined in advance. Recently there has been an attempt to rate the degree of hazard as Imminent or not. There is a rating system established by the I.S.A. Some communities require this rating system to be used for individual trees. It is based on degree of failure potential, size of part and target use. It is a time consuming and expensive process when a number of trees are suspect. JLMatt Seheidegb.er ;Stonechase_Arboris peal Res_ponse.pdf _ _ Page 4 DEC-08-2004 16:05 TREE CARE UNLIMITED 503 635 1549 P.05/05 To use the determination of imminent hazard is risky and I don't subscribe to it. Therefore unless using the ISA Hazard Evaluation Form a tree with a defect is a hazard. A'tree without this evaluation is not, black and white; It's either hazard or not. The gray area can be assessed by further Investigation if required. If a known defect is there it only requires a trigger (snow, ice, wind, foliage, weight change) to activate the failure. Who can accurately predict such a trigger? Tree failures occur year around. Some species such as Cottonwoods, can fail without any sign or reason. Therefore, they should be considered a hazard in any close proximity to a target whether property or life. Respectfully, Raymond Myer, General Manager Tree Care & landscapes Unlimited, Inc. Certified Arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture, Lic. # PN-0160 Oregon Landscape Contractors Lic. # 11604 Oregon Dept.. of Agriculture, Commercial Pesticide Applicators License # 00187 TOTAL P.05 • "TAB B" • Applicant's Materials & All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development Shaping A Getter Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Joe Turner, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner DATE: December 8, 2004 SUBJECT: Stonechase Subdivision (SUB 2004-00010) Appeal Sue Beilke, Director of the Biodiversity Project of Tigard and area resident, has filed an appeal with the City of Ti and in regard to the approval of the aforementioned subdivision. The appellant has requested your review of the City's approval based on several particular issues as enumerated in her letter of appeal received November 16, 2004. The issues concern lack of information within the required Impact Study, street trees, tree removal, notification and failure to maintain a complete file. The subject bite is located on the north side of SW North Dakota Street, between SW 114th and SW 112"' Avenue within the R-4.5 residential zone. The appellant's issues and staff's responses are identified below. Issue #11IImpact Studt (18.390.040.B~ As stated in my onggiinna comments, all applications are required to include an impact study on the effect of the development on public facilities and services. This includes drainage system and water systems. I am concerned that any remaining trees on the site, as well as nearby offsite trees, would seriously be weakened since water under the current plan is to be shunted away from the site, in an underground system. The Decision states that the applicant has provided a tree protection plan, but this does not address the drainage or water systems as required. In addition, the statement in the Decision that "the City of Tigard cannot respond to whether or not the addition of impervious surfaces will "shunt" water from the existing trees to an extent that will cause harm" is erroneous, since this can be accomplished by the applicant doing an impact study on drainage and water systems as required by this section of the code. These are required, as stated in the code, "to minimize the im act of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users." Hence this part of the code has not been met. 12/15/2004 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 6 RE: SUB2004-00010/Stonechase Subdivision Appeal • • Applicants are required to address the impact of the development on public facilities and services. Section 18.390.040.B.2.e. of the development code gives specific systems to address. The applicant submitted an Impact Study that addresses the impact on the transportation, drainage, park, water and sanitary sewer systems. Section 18.390.040.B.2.e does not require an applicant to address the impacts the development will have on trees. The development code has a specific chapter with criteria that deal with trees, Section 18.790 (Tree Removal), which has been addressed in the body of the decision. The Requirements of the tree plan are as follows: A. Tree Ian required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of alp existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2.. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: According to the tree plan requirements, the applicant is not required to address the impact that a drainage system might have on trees. Issue #2 landsca in 18.74 .010. 18.745.030 As stake in the August comments, a purpose of this section of the code is to "enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City". The current proposal fails to meet this section of the code, since it fails to protect existing street trees (18.745.010). Many of the large trees, including the Ponderosa Pine on the northwest corner, would be removed under the current plan. Section (18.745.030) (E) of the Code, states that "existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible, and provides for an adjustment if approved by the Director. Adjustments can and should be made in the sidewalk and planter strip (make them narrower) area to allow for the preservation of additional native trees near SW North Dakota Street. This would not be a hardship on the developer, for it would only affect the width of the sidewalk and planter strips. If this were to be done, this section of the code could be met, but as it stands, it does not meet the existing code. The appellant has quoted the purpose statement of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening). Purpose statements are not review criteria. Protection of existing vegetation as much as possible is the decision of the applicant. In order to develop the subject site, the applicant has proposed to remove as much or little vegetation as needed in order to develop to Tigard's density. The Tigard Development Code requires applicants to submit a realistic tree protection/removal and vegetation plan. The cost of mitigation is far less than the consequences of illegal removal. The appellant makes reference to a large Ponderosa Pine that could be saved if the applicant applied for an adjustment to reduce the width of the sidewalk. However, the applicant did not apply for the adjustment, nor are they required. There are no criteria that specifically define what "enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City." The structure of the ordinance allows only application of the tree plan and tree removal standards, not a subjective judgment of what would be termed enhancement. 12/15/2004 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 6 RE: SUB2004-00010/Stonechase Subdivision Appeal Issue #3 Tree Plan Inadequacy (18.790.0WB According to fhe appe anffthappncant not submit a tree plan which meets the requirements of this part of the code, which states that "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." The plan submitted does not meet the plan requirements. Specifically: 1. It did not identify the location, size and species of all existing trees, of which there is evidence that there are trees over six-inches which do not appear on the plan. The applicant's arborist did identify all trees greater than six-inches (see attachment #4). However, the plan submitted only identified trees greater than 12-inches for mitigation. 2. It appears that the size (caliper) of some trees was underestimated, specifically some trees that are listed as 10 or 11 d.b.h. may be 12 inches or over. These trees should be re-measured and verified by someone other than the applicant. The applicant submitted a tree report prepared by a certified arborist. The appellant is basing this statement on an assumption. It is the City's stance that the arborist is the expert in the field of Arboriculture. Therefore, the City has no reason not to trust the Arborist's report. If evidence to the contrary is available it should be provided. 3. The applicant's plan did not include a program defining standards and methods that will be used to protect trees during and after construction. (The decision states that a complete tree plan must be submitted later, but makes no findings of feasibility that this can be done). The applicant's protection plan gives specific details on protection before construction, during and after. A copy of the proposed tree protection can be found in the applicant's submittal information. 4. Per the decision, there is no clear determination of what trees are proposed to be removed. There is controversy over the viability of some trees and the matter is deferred to a site meeting of City and applicant arborists with no finding that resolution is feasible. The City decision on viability of some trees (as written in the decision) appears to have been made by planning staff rather than the professional arporist (City Forester) employed by the City. In order for the citizens of this community, as well as the appellant, to adequately comment on this project, the viabifity of trees must be decided prior to the final decision on the application. The required meeting was a result of the City Arborist's comments as follows: "The submitted arborist report indicates that there is a high number of hazardous trees onsite. I inspected the majority of the trees (the ones that had tags) and, in my opinion, several of the trees designated as hazardous were not. I agree that all of the trees designated as hazardous do have varying degrees of defects, but I do not think that most of the defects are severe enough o classify the trees as hazardous. I would suggest an onsite meeting with the arborist to look over these trees in question." The appellant has stated that planning staff appears to have made the decision on the viability of trees instead of the City's Arborist. The findings were based on the submitted arborist report. 12/15/2004 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 3 of 6 RE: SUB2004-00010/Stonechase Subdivision Appeal • • In response to the appellant's comments about inability to properly comment due to the viability of trees; the only outcome would be a larger number of viable trees, which would cause an increase in the proposed mitigation. The applicant proposed to remove the hazardous trees. If changes are made as a result of the arborist meeting, a revised tree protection/mitigation plan has been conditioned. A revision of the tree plan or a revised comment from the appellant would not change the City's approval. 5. The appellant had to go to City Hall in October and found out there was a "new' tree removal plan, which appears to remove trees previously "saved" even though these trees are not listed as "hazardous". The appellant had requested to be notified within seven days of a tree plan change but was not notified by the City Planner. The Tigard Development Code does not have a provision that requires notification of a change in the tree plan. According to Section 18.390.080.D.4.b. "When documents or other evidence are submitted by the applicant during the review period, but after the application is deemed complete, the assigned review body may determine whether or not the new documents or other evidence submitted by the applicant, significantly changes the application." It was the City staffs determination that a change to the tree plan would not significantly change the application. Street layouts did not change, nor did the layout or number of the proposed lots. Therefore, no additional notification was required. The fact that the appellant was able to review the new tree plan indicates that the information was available. 6. The tree removal plans and tree preservation plan are confusing and not consistent in the manner in which they depict trees, for each plan shows a different variation of trees to be saved/removed, and some of the plans appear to not show trees that are on the ground and over six inches in caliper. The applicant revised the tree removal plan during the review period. Therefore, there are different variations of the tree removal plan. A copy of the final tree plan is located in the file under the tab "Arborist Report". The tree plan is attached to the tree survey and removal plan marked "Revised tree plan." The applicant's tree inventory does include all trees greater than six inches. However, the tree removal plan only indicates trees greater than 12 inches in diameter for mitigation purposes. The applicant has indicated that trees between six and 12 inches will be removed Mitigation is not required for trees 12 inches and below. 7. The "tree Survey" list, listing trees by number, species, etc., fails to list all of the trees over six inches in diameter. During the review period, staff asked the applicant if the tree survey included all trees greater than six inches. The applicant called the project arborist andconfirmed that the survey did include all trees greater than six inches. A copy of the survey is located in the lnnri-i ices files i inriar tha tah " rhnrict Rannrt" 8. On the list of trees 12 inches and greater, showing the mitigation and total mitigation cost, it shows 379 inches of mitigation inches required, but the decision states under the conditions, the applicant shall provide a tree mitigation plan for 365.6 inches. There is a discrepancy here that needs to be addressed. We also believe that this requirement as it stands is currently unenforceable, since the City has in some situations not enforced this part of the code by not collecting mitigation fees, or by not fining developers who cut down trees marked as "saved". 12/15/2004 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 4 of 6 RE: SUB2004-00010/Stonechase Subdivision Appeal % 0 • It is the City does not to count orchard trees toward mitigation (fruit and nut). These types of trees are planted for production and not part of original stands. Therefore, staff did not include the property's cherry or apple trees in the mitigation calculation. The City has never done so. The appellant indicates that mitigation is not enforceable. Staff included a condition in the decision that the applicant provides a mitigation plan prior to site work for 365.6 inches, which cover trees other than fruit trees. The applicant will be responsible for that mitigation. Failure to complete the mitigation will constitute a violation and the applicant will be cited into Tigard Municipal Court. Issue #4 Early Removal of Trees (18.790.030.C) Certain trees were removed within one year prior to the development applicant and were not inventoried nor identified as trees to be replaced. These include trees on the west and north sides of the proposed project site. This section of the code has not been met. The applicant did not indicate that trees were cut on the property within a year of the subdivision submittal. The City's Forester, Matt Stine conducted a site inspection with the project arborist on December 6 2004 to search for stumps or any sign of recent tree removal. Both arborists concluded that trees were cut on the site, however, not within a year of this application. According to Matt Stine, the stumps were overgrown with blackberries and showed signs of decay to the degree that they would have been considered hazardous. Issue #5 Incentives for Tree Retention (18.790.040.A There has been no apparent tempt n any of the wee plans to lay out the lots and streets in such a manner as to protect as many trees as possible. There are several trees, firs and cedar that are well over two hundred years old that are listed as in "good" condition, and with some innovative planning, these trees could be saved and incorporated into the project. For example, lot width and depth could be changed to save more trees, as well as narrowing sidewalks and planter strips. The neighbors would rather have older, taller, native trees that provide shade and are pleasing to the eye, than the little, puny, non-native lollypop trees, typically planted in the planter strips. Incentives for tree retention, Section 18.790.040.A allows density bonuses, lot size averaging, lot width and depth adjustments, commercial parking reductions, and commercial landscaping reductions as incentives for retaining trees. The applicant has not requested relief to any of the development standards. The incentive section is not part of the applicable review standards unless the applicant requests relief based on tree retention. The appellant's comment about the neighbor's tree preference is an opinion not a code section that can be reviewed or appealed. Issue #6 Changes to the 62plication 18.390.080.D.4) Documents relic upon by I agar s to ma e e decision were submitted and apparently accepted subsequent to declaration of the application as complete (06/28/04) which "significantly change" the application in matters which were subject of appellant's comments. Staff did not make a proper determination that these changes were significant and therefore did not follow the procedures of the code. Specifically, the tree removal plan was modified by the applicant to remove a number of additional trees, above and beyond those that were shown by the original application. In addition, the modified tree removal plan (Sept.) removed from the earlier tree removal plan (March) any building envelope limits on the lots of the development (which were earlier used by staff in evaluation of the tree removal plan). A request was made by the appellant via email to be notified by the City within seven days if the tree plan changed, but this request was ignored. 12/15/2004 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 5 of 6 RE: SUB2004-00010/Stonechase Subdivision Appeal 64 • • According to Section 18.390.080.D.4.b. "When documents or other evidence are submitted by the applicant during the review period, but after the application is deemed complete, the assigned review body may determine whether or not the new documents or other evidence submitted by the applicant, significantly changes the application." City staff did not consider a change to the tree removal plan to be substantial enough to make a written determination that a significant change in the application has occurred. The applicant revised the tree plan to include the additional removal of trees based on a conversation with City staff. In the conversation, staff notified the applicant that a driveway serving proposed parcel #8 would most likely damage existing trees. Therefore, the applicant revised the tree plan to include trees that would most Likely be damaged as a result of construction. In response to the appellant's statement regarding notice, City staff is not required by the Development Code to notify neighbors of changes within time frames set by them. Notice of the decision notifies parties to a decision of the analysis and issues. Issue #7 Lack of Record for Review 18.390.080.E.81 Tfi-e-Directoas of Tto maintain anci preserve a complete file for this application. Specifically, though comments were requested from the City Forester, he replied that an e-mail contained his comments; no such e-mail is contained in the record. In addition, the appellant sent several a-mails to the planner, Mathew Scheidegger in August and September, and these are also not in the record. The comments of the City Forester were sent to staff via e-mail, which were cut and copied into the decision under Section VII. (Other Staff Comments). The appellant is correct, at the time the appellant reviewed the file, a copy of the City Forester's e-mail was not in the file. Since the appellant made staff aware ofthe issue, a copy has been placed in the file. The e-mails sent to staff within the comment period contained the appellant's comments, which were included in the file. The e-mail itself was not. Staff is not required to include additional comments in the land-use file after the comment period has closed. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision request satisfies the general approval criteria and standards of the Tigard Development Code, and that the appeal should be denied. ATTACHMENTS: I . AppeafFiing Form and Appellant's Comments 2. Notice of Decision 3. City Forester's Comments dated 8/4/04 4. Applicant's Application Submittal 12/15/2004 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer RE: SUB2004-00010/Stonechase Subdivision Appeal Page 6 of 6 % 0 • ATTACHMENT RECEIVES APPEAL FILING FORM Nov 15 2004FOR LAND USE DECISIONS CITY OF TIGAR Y W Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phonelfax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Case No.(s): csft-bQa04 - D°O j O Application Being Appealed: J~VIQG~o-,~_~~,v►st-,e, Case Name(s): ~-}ane CLS~. ZZ.S S 17 Ner t~ ko . Receipt No.: a.oo4 --*4q70 How Do You Qualify As A Party?: Application Accented By: Date: Appellant's Address: '0- City/State N --rXY4"2 Zip: v Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(°03 &3q- Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: 1/- 4-0 V Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: 8-0 l -0 q Specific GGro-u1^nds- For Appeal or Review: ~i-- 1/1 TA/ 1'x'1 c~ t U~+~ w ~ ✓1SV^ l r CI - *11 r t'v1 4A e t✓.J ~11~ Approved As To Form By: Date: Denied As To Form By: Date: Rev. 15-Aug-02 i:\curpln\masters\revised\appeal.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Appeal Filing Form (completed) u Filing Fee (based on criteria below) ➢ Director's Decision to Planning Commission $ 250.00 Expedited Review (deposit) $ 300.00 Hearing Referee $ 500.00 D Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City Council $1,952.00 Transcript) Signature(s) of Appellant(s): APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Line Items: Case No SUB2004-00010 Payments: Method Check Receipt 27200400000000004970 Date: 11/16/2004 Tran Code Description [LANDUS] Appeal DD-to HO Payer SUSAN G BEILKE User ID CAC Revenue Account No 100-0000-438000 Line Item Total: Acct./Check Approval No. How Received 7155 In Person Payment Total: SUSAN G. BEILKE 9@ 18.707813250 7155 11755 SW. 114TH PL. 503 638- TIGARD, OR 87223 3518 t:" ` . ` ~ Date • WR Pay to the Order of da SD CaeO ~ "'m Dollars 8 ° WASHINGTON MUTUAL BA NK BURLINGAME FINANCIAL CENTER PORTLAND, OR 97219 205 - , ~ PAY THRU: SEATTLE, WA : . : - For 1:3 250?0?601: 205060 27 ?911' 7 i55 , ® IMAGE CHECKS. 1887 WILDLIFE 1-800-662-8768 WWW.lm&0*chxks.rnm Page 1 of I 11/16/2004 2:46:33PM Amount Paid 250.00 $250.00 Amount Paid 250.00 $250.00 • • ij ~1 NOTICE OF APPEAL (STONECHASE SUBDIVISION) 11/16/04 Anneal of Tvne II Decision Dated: November 16.2004 Appellant: Sue Beilke, Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard Standine: I submitted timely written comments upon notice of pending decision. A copy of my comments demonstrate that the specific issues raised below were raised during the comment period, except for late filed information from the applicant which was not available to me. Specific Issues Raised on Appeal: A. TvQe H Procedure (18.390.040. B.e) As stated in my original comments, all applications are required to include an impact- study on the effect of the development on public facilities and services. This includes drainage system and water systems. I am concerned that any remaining trees on the site, as well as nearby offsite trees, would seriously be weakened since water under the current plan is to be shunted away from the site, in an underground system. The Decision states that the applicant has provided a tree protection plan, but this does not address the drainage or water systems as required. In addition, the statement in the Decision that "the city of Tigard cannot respond to whether or not the addition of impervious surfaces will "shunt" water from the existing trees to an extent that will cause harm', is erroneous, since this can be accomplished by the applicant doing an impact study on drainage and water systems as required by this section of the code. These are required, as stated in the code, "to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users." Hence this part of the code has not been met. B. Landscaping and Screeninn (18.745.010.18.745.030). As stated in the August 15" comments, the purpose of this section of the code is to "enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the city." The current proposal fails to meet this section of the code, since it fails to protect existing street trees (18.745.010). Many of the large trees, including the Ponderosa pine on the northwest corner, would be removed under the current plan. Section (18.745.030) (E) of the Code, states that "existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible", and provides for an adjustment if approved by the Director. Adjustments can and should be made in the sidewalk and planter strip (make them narrower) area to allow for the preservation of additional native trees near SW North Dakota Street. This would not be a hardship on the developer, for it would only affect the width of the sidewalk and planter strips. If this were to be done, this section of the code could be met, but as it stands, it does not meet the existing code. 196 C. Tree Plan Inadequacy (18.790.03081. The applicant did not submit a tree plan which meets the requirements of this part of the code, which states that "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." The plan submitted does not meet the plan requirements. Specifically, It did not identify the location, size and species of all existing trees, of which there is evidence that there are trees over 6" which do not appear on the plan. It appears that the size (caliper) of some trees was underestimated, specifically some trees that are listed as "10" or "11 d.b.h. may be "12" or over. These trees should be re-measured and verified by someone other than the applicant. it did not include a program defining standards and methods that will be used to protect trees during and after construction. (The decision states that a complete tree plan must be submitted later, but makes no findings of feasibility that this can be done.) Per the decision, there is no clear determination of what trees are proposed to be removed. There is controversy over the viability of some trees and the matter is defered to a site meeting of city and applicant arborists with no finding that resolution is feasible. The City decision on viability of some trees (as written in the decision) appears to have been made by planning staff rather than the professional arborist (City Forester) employed by the city. In order for the citizens of this community, as well as the appellant, to adequately comment on this project, the viability of trees must be decided prior to the final decision on the application. The appellant had to go to city hall in October and found out there was a "new" tree removal plan, which appears to remove trees previously "saved" even though these trees are not listed as "hazardous". The appellant had requested to be notified within 7 days of a tree plan change but was not notified by the city planner. The tree removal plans and tree preservation plan are confusing and not consistent in the manner. in which they depict trees, for each plan shows a different variation of trees to be saved/removed, and some of the plans appear to not show trees that are on the ground and over 6" in caliper. The "Tree Survey" list, listing trees by number, species, etc., fails to list all of the trees over 6" db.h. On the list of trees "12" and greater, showing the mitigation and total mitigation cost, it shows "379" of "Mitigation Inches Required", but the Decision states under the Conditions, the applicant shall provide a tree mitigation plan for 365.6". There is a discrepancy here that needs to be addressed. We also believe that this requirement as it stands is currently unenforceable, since the city has in some situations not enforced this part of the code by not collecting mitigation fees, or by not fining developers who cut down trees marked as "saved". D. Early Removal of Trees (18.790.03001. Certain trees were removed within one year prior to the development application and were not inventoried nor identified as trees to be replaced. These include trees on the west and north sides of the proposed project site. This section of the code has not been met. E. Incentives for Tree Retention (18.790.040.A) There has been no apparent attempt in any of the tree plans to lay out the lots and streets in such a manner as to protect as many trees as possible. There are. several trees, firs and cedar, that are well over two hundred vears old, that are listed as in "good" condition, and with some innovative planning, these trees could be saved and incorporated into the project. For example, lot width and depth could be changed to save more trees, as well as narrowing sidewalks and planter strips. The neighbors would rather have older, taller, native trees that provide shade and are pleasing to the eye, than the little, puny, non-native lollypop trees, typically planted in the planter strips. As stated in the August 15'h comments, the street into the site could moved to the east end of the site, opposite SW 112" , so that more of the bigger trees could be saved. Incentives could and should be used to "assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees", as this part of the code requires." This has not been done, and so this part of the code has not been met. F. Changes to the Application (18.390.080.D.4). Documents relied upon by Tigard staff to make the decision were submitted and apparently accepted subsequent to declaration of the application as complete (6/28/04) which "significantly change" the application in matters which were subject of appellant's comments. Staff did not make a proper determination that these changes were significant and therefore did not follow the procedures of the code. Specifically, the `tree removal plan' was modified by applicant to remove a number of additional trees, above and beyond those that were shown by the original application In addition, the modified `tree removal plan' (Sept.) removed from the earlier `tree removal plan' (March) any building envelope limits on the lots of the development (which were earlier used by staff in evaluation of the `tree removal plan'). A request was made by the appellant via email to be notified by the city within 7 days if the tree plan changed, but this request was ignored. G.. Lack of Record for Review (18.390.080. E.8). The Director has failed to maintain and preserve a complete file for this application: Specifically, though comments were requested from the City Forester, he replied that an email contained his comments; no such email is contained in the record. In addition, the appellant sent several emails to the planner, Matthew Scheidegger in August and September, and these are also not in the record. Filing Fee: Attached is my check for $ Signed: Dated: l - - O~ Attachment: Beilke Comments dated August 15, 2004. August 15, 2004 City of Tigard, Planning Division Attn: Mathew Scheidegger 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Scheidegger: We are writing to comment on the proposed Stonechase Subdivision, File No. 2004-00010, located at 11225 SW North Dakota street; WCTM 1 S 134DB, Tax Lott 400. Our neighborhood group, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard, is an all volunteer, citizen based group dedicated to the long term protection and preservation of our remaining native habitats and wildlife, including rare species such as the west side ponderosa pine, red-legged frog, and many others. 18390.040(e) - All Type II applications shall include an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. Our concerns are regarding the drainage system and the parks system. Currently, the site has a large (138+) number of trees, many mature firs, with a large root system, located on the property. These trees have a complex and large root system, and thus require and can store large amounts of water in the soil. Under the current plan, water from the site, including street runoff would be shunted to an underground system We believe this proposal would seriously weaken any remaining trees on the site, since it would shunt water away from remaining trees and roots. The large area of impervious surface that would be created by the houses and street, etc., would contribute to the altered drainage system, and would negatively impact remaining trees on the site. Off site trees would be affected as well, since water that would normally flow underground to the neighbors trees, including those on the church site immediately to the east, would have less water available under the proposal We saw no impact study regarding how this proposal would address/affect the parks system in Tigard. We believe this site would make a wonderful addition to the parks and open spaces in Tigard, and thus should be purchased for this purpose. All of the neighbors would support this proposal, since there is a dire lack of small, neighborhood parks available in this area A small park would allow for the protection of many more trees on the site, as well as wildlife, which is abundant, and would thus help to offset the shortage of parks and open spaces as addressed in the Tigard Parks Master Plan. We are requesting this proposal be brought to the attention of the Parks department and City Council. 18.745 - The purpose of addressing this review criteria is to "enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the city." The current proposal fails to do this, since it fails to protect existing street trees (18.745.010). As noted on the tree preservation plan, the large ponderosa pine and many of the large firs would be removed that currently exist along the property along North Dakota street. These trees help to provide shade in the neighborhood, and important wildlife habitat, and greatly contribute to the aesthetic environmental quality of the city. 18.745.030(E) states that existing trees may be used as street trees......., and provides for an adjustment if approved by the Director. i We believe that adjustments can and should be made in the sidewalk and planter strip area that would allow for the preservation of more native trees, thus actually meeting this criteria The .sidewalk and planter strip could be narrowed or curved where necessary to accommodate existing trees. The current proposal does not meet this criteria 18.790.030 (A, B) - Tree Plan Requirement - While reviewing this file for this application, we found that the tree protection plan, tree removal plan, and tree preservation plan identifying the existing trees, what was to be saved or removed, was very confusing and possibly misleading, since none of the three plans had the same trees identified, some trees that appeared on one plan were missing from another plan, etc. In addition, the symbols used in the legends to note which trees were to be saved or removed is not the same on all plans, and some symbols do not even appear in the legend that are on the plans. A visual inspection we conducted from the adjacent properties showed that some Douglas firs, maples and other trees actually on site did not appear to be even shown on one or more of the three plans noted above. It is not possible to be able to comment on this proposal without consistent and accurate representation of what trees are on the ground and where, what is to be preserved, etc. Therefore this criteria is not met and the application should be denied. We note that under the current mitigation requirement, 758 inches of viable trees are proposed to be removed, with 379 inches being mitigated for under the 5001a requirement by the city. The applicant states that the total mitigation cost is $38,000.00. Does the applicant intend to pay the city in lieu of planting native trees on another site? We believe that this requirement as it stands is currently unenforceable, since the city currently is not enforcing this section of the code on some other sites, refuses to collect mitigation costs on some sites, and refuses to address violations of the tree plan code on some other sites. 18.790.040 - We also believe many more trees could be saved on the site if plans were changed. For example, the.7 lots packed into the center area could be changed to fewer, larger lots, say 4 instead of 7, allowing for the preservation of more trees in this area. The proposed Gallo street could be moved to the opposite corner of the site so that it is opposite SW 112th. This corner of the site has far fewer existing native, large trees and would make a better street entrance. In summary, we ask that this proposal as it currently exists be denied by the Director for the reasons stated above. This site is the last remaining upland forest in. the neighborhood dominated by Douglas firs, with a diverse mix of alders, ash, and other species. It currently provides habitat for many species of birds, small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, etc. It has high aesthetic value for the neighborhood, and would make a wonderful addition to the parks and open spaces in our city. We will be requesting that the city purchase this site for ALL of its citizens to enjoy, so that it may be preserved and protected for the greater good of the community. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Sue Beilke, Director The Biodiversity Project of Tigard 0'. ATTACHMENT 2 120 DAYS = 11/25/2004 SECTION 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CASE NO.: Subdivision (SUB) STONECHASE SUBDIVISION SUB2004-00010 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a 20-lot Subdivision of a 4.51 acre site for detached single-family homes. The property currently contains a single-family residence and outbuilding that will be removed. APPLICANT: Vince Biggi OWNER: Stonechase, LLC 17660 SW Kramien Road 9550 SW Beaverton Newberg, OR 97132 Hillsdale Hwy. Beaverton, OR 97005 APPLICANT'S Planning Resources, Inc. AGENT: Attn: Ken Sandblast 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Single-Family, Low-Density Residential. ZONE: R-4.5; The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. LOCATION: 11225 SW North Dakota Street; WCTM 1 S134DB, Tax Lot 400. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notrce x rs hereb rven that the Cr of TI and Commurnty :;Development D:iGector's "desrgnee tY 9.: rAPPROVES the,Sub0rvrsion The fndrngs ancF conclusions on which the decision is based_ are noted :in ectron UI of this Decrsron NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 1 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~u mit to th Planning Department at ew Scheidegger, 6314M, ext. or review ancf approval: 1. Provide a tree mitigation plan for 365.5 inches. 2. The applicant is required to hold a field meeting between the project arborist and the City's arborist to discuss any discrepancies of the hazardous trees. Any changes must be reflected in a revised tree protection/mitigation plan. 3. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit revised construction drawings that indicate street tree type, to be approved by the City Forester, at the required spacing standards of 18.745.040 4. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arbonst and City Forester must be noted before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. 5. The applicant shall submit a final Tree Protection Plan that shows exactly how far the tree protection fencing will be from the face of each protected tree (including those on neighboring properties where construction occurs within the trees' dripplines) that will be impacted wil construction activities within its dripline. The applicant, through their Project Arborist, shall dusthe close proximity of the construction activities to the trees. He shall certify that the activities not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of each tree. Any construction that occurs within the neighboring trees' dnplines should be justified by the applicant and approved by the City Forester and neighboring property owner(s). Work may proceed within the driplines only with the approval of the City Forester. 6. The Project Arborist shall submit written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports ate not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 7. The following text shall be included in all construction documents: Notwithstanding anv other provision of this title. anv party found to be in violation of the tree removal chapter (including' but not limited to removal of damage to trees not approved for removal) shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and B. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 2 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION 0 Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 8. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in the public right-of- way. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard. Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 9. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering. Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photomylar' copy of the recorded final plat. 11. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the pity Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in'the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed. by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 12. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to construction. 13. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of North Dakota Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a Neighborhood Route from curb to centerline equal to 18 eet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a 5 foot planter strip; F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable)- K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW North Dakota Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 14. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees,. streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. NOTICE OF DECISION SUB2004-00010-STONECNASE SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 30 15._ A profile of North Dakota Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 16. No lots shall not be permitted to access directly onto North Dakota Street. 17. The applicant's construction plans shall show "No Parking This Side of Street" signs along one side of the internal streets. 18. The applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary sight distance certification, with list of required improvements, with PFI application. 19. Prior to construction, the applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation, for review by the City (Kim McMillan), of the downstream capacity of any existing storm facility impacted by the proposed development. The design engineer must perform an analysis. of the drainage system downstream of the development to a point in the drainage system where the proposed development site constitutes 10 percent or less of the total tributary drainage volume, but in no event less than 114 mile. 20. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 21. The applicant shall provide a water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. . 22. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of'the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 23. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the. street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 24. 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. Tx cr `°s° SHE FO~xQ1AfFNTCONDtTIONS SHALL BE SATlSF1E6 ' s r 4 ' v ~RtDR Tt APP, -7;77 ©F` TFfE FINAL PLAT Vubmit to tfie Planning Department at ew Scheidegger, 63M, ext. 2421"or review ancf approval: 25. A note will be placed on the final plat that restricts fences to be placed in the visual clearance intersection of SW Gallo and North Dakota and Gallo and SW Forest Lane on proposed parcel #1. 26. The applicant shall provide a plat name reservation form signed by Washington County staff. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 4 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDMSION 27. The applicant shall record a deed restriction (either separately or as part of the CC&R's) that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with the approved tree plan may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified "arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 28. 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 tract(s). 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 tracts(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 29. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. 30. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 31. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private access will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 32. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay $1,516.00 to the City for the striping of the bike lane along the frontage of North Dakota Street. 33. - The final plat shall show ROW dedication for North Dakota Street to provide 29 feet from centerline. The plat shall also show the internal, public streets with a ROW width of 46 feet minimum. 34. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW North Dakota Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $13,868.05 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 35. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control. network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 36. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) pa er copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2421). C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes.(ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for North Dakota Street shall be made on the final plat. E. NOTI=Washin ton County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. NOTICE OF DECISION SUB2004-00010-STONECHASE SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 OF 30 F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit three mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). approval: 37. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 38. Prior to issuance of building permits the Project Arborist shall submit to the City Forester a final report describing how the. Tree Protection Plan was implemented and detailing any failures to comply with the Tree Protection Plan. The report shall also describe the health of all remaining trees on the site, with details provided as to any tree that has had its root system disturbed or that has otherwise been damaged. 39. Only those trees authorized for removal by this decision, and any trees that are exempt may be removed by the applicant. If in the process of constructing improvements, it is found that removal of a tree designated for preservation must occur, as determined by the City Forester and Project Arborist, the applicant will be subject to an additional Type II approval. Any additional trees other than those mentioned on the removal plan are damaged or removed without prior City authorization will constitute a violation. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 40. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of . asphalt, 3 any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City appart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model F~ome permits). 41. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1 3 mil mylar, 2 a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings-shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide.the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 42. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant's engineer shall provide a post-street construction sight distance certification. 43. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide a maintenance plan and/or agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. AQDI'FO~iTHIAP}PI~tCQ►NT SH~t1LD BE A1Al!ARE OF THE- FOLLQWtNG SECTIONS F .'".THE e~;;1,lll ~ ~~`~~E~QPNT COD..E, THIS IS`NOT AN' E~CLUSIYE rIST. ~ - - NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 6 OF 30 SUB2004-0001 0 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 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 speck conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required-by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by.a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filingand Recordinq: Within brays of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of-the subdivision piat prepared-by a an 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. . NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 7 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes contorming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines IncEding, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required Ali improvements Installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite ol6fancT-dIvlslon improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except.after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Reguired oar- s-Fall not begin untlfthe City Fias been noted in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 En ineer's Certification The an divider's engineer s 1l alf7provide 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: The subject site has an existing single-family home located on-site associated with the subject property. No land-use cases are Site Information and Proposal Descripption: i he applicant is requesting approval for a 20-lot Subdivision of 4.51 acres of land. The site is currently developed with a single-family home and outbuildings that will be demolished. Vicinity Information: The propsed-development is on the north side of SW North Dakota Street, between SW 114th and SW 109 Avenue. The abutting parcels are zoned R-4.5 and developed with single-family homes. However, the property to the east is developed as a church. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 8 OF 30 SUB2004-0001 0 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION • 6 1 SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET The City sent notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject proposal. Four letters were received from neighbors with the following concerns: • The builder is going to build two story homes, when existing homes around the subject site are all single-story. Staff Response: The maximum height allowed in the R-4.5 zoning district is 30 feet. The City cannot restrict developers from building to the standards allowed in that particular zone. Buffering is not required between single-family homes and single-family homes. • The R-4.5 zone allows duplexes and attached single-family homes. The developer indicated that single-family homes were to be built. Can the City restrict the building of duplexes and attached single-family homes? Staff Response: All of the lots have been proposed to be built as single-family homes. There is only one lot that could technically be constructed with a duplex. However, the owner of the proposed parcel would have to apply for a conditional use permit. Neighbors would again have a chance to comment. • The proposed storm water treatment will "shunt" water from the remaining trees and seriously weaken them. Staff Response: The applicant has been conditioned to provide a protection plan for the trees on-site and those trees that are in close proximity to the subject site. The applicant has also been conditioned to provide an additional tree protection plan and evaluation at time of building permits to ensure that trees to be saved were not harmed by infrastructure activity. The City of Tigard cannot respond to whether or not the addition of impervious surfaces will "shunt" water from the existing trees to an extent that will cause damage. • The applicant has not addressed the impact of the development on park systems in Tigard. The neighbors would supportthe proposal of developing the parcel as a park. Staff Response: The applicant has submitted an impact study that addresses parks. According to the study, future residents will be in close proximity to existing Englewood and Summer Fake Park. The law allows development of the parcel. The only way to have the property as a park would be to purchase the property for that purpose. The property is not in the City's park plan. • More trees could be saved on the site if plans were changed. For example, the seven lots packed into the center area could be changed to fewer, larger lots, say four instead of seven, allowing for the preservation of trees in this area. Staff Response: The number of lots proposed, is within the limits of the allowable density for the property. Therefore, to suggest fewer lots would only be a suggestion. The applicant could legally remove all of the trees located on the property as Iong as the mitigation standards of 15IV are followed. Therefore, the City can only condition the protection and survival of the trees proposed to remain. There are no requirements in the law which would allow the City to arbitrarily limit the number of lots if the development meets density requirements. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 9 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION • •1 SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this decision are as follows: A. Subdivision Tab B. AAp licable Develo ment Code Sections 18.510 --'Rest en la zoning Is acts) 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.715 Density) 18.745 Landscaping and screening) 18.765 Off-street parking and loading requirements) 18.775 'Sensitive Lands Review) 18.790 (Tree removal) 18.795 (Vision clearance) C. Street and Utili Improvement 'f$$T6Ttree. an Utility Improvement Standards) D. Decision Making~ Procedures i$~~mpac~dy) . The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of these Specific Development Standard Code Chapters: 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units), 18.730 (Exceptions to Development Standards), 18.740 (Historic Overlay), 18.742 (Home Occupations), 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations), 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming situations), 18.785 (Temporary Uses), .and 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities). These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A - SUBDIVISION GENERAL PROVISIONS: Future Re-Division. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Ap royal Authority shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future revision in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. The largest lot in the subdivision is 10,202 square feet and therefore cannot be re-divided. Lot Size.Averagingg: Section, 18.430.020.D states Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not less than allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district. The applicant has proposed to use the lot averaging option. The average of all lots is 7,548. square feet. The smallest lot is 6,000 square feet, which is 80% of the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size. This standard is satisfied. Phased Development: The Approval .Authority may approve a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases, but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than two years without reapplying for a ppreliminary plat; The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal are: a.)The public facilities shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy; b.) The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities: For purposes of this subsection, a temporary public facility is an interim facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; and The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as a part of the approval of the preliminary plat. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 10 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION • • ) The application for phased development approval shall be reviewed concurrently with the preliminary plat application and the decision may be appealed in the same manner as the preliminary plat. The applicant has not proposed a phased development; therefore, this standard does not apply. Determination of base flood elevation. Where base flood elevation has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at feast 50 lots or five acres whichever is less). This proposal is for 20 lots and is 4.51 acres in size; therefore this standard does not apply. Approval Standards - Preliminary Plat: Me- ie proposed preliminary pcomplies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations.. Compliance with the specific regulations and standards of the zoning ordinance will be addressed further within this decision. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. , The applicant has -not provided evidence that the plat name "Stonechase" has been approved by the Washington County Surveyor's office and is reserved for this property. This standard is not met. The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. Streets and roads are discussed in greater detail under Tigard Development Code (TDC) Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation) and Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements as required and, therefore, satisfied this criterion. Specific details of the proposed improvements are discussed later in this decision under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section. FINDING: The applicant has not provided evidence of a plat name reservation: With the following condition, these standards can be met. CONDITION: The applicant shall provide a plat name reservation form signed by Washington County staff. B- APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS Residential Zoning Districts (18.510) isL'lss~he description of the residential Zoning District. The site is located in the R-4.5: Low-Density residential zoning district. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 11 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION The R-4.5 zon district has the fol minimum Lot bize Detached unit Duplexes' Attached unit j1 -Average Minimum Lot dimensional requirements: Detached unit lots Duplex lots - Attached unit lots maximum Lot Coverage Minimum Se backs Front yard ! Side facing street on corner & through lots Side yard Rear yard Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district Distance between property line and front of garage Maximum Height Minimum Landscape Requirement 7,500 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. 90 ft. f. 20 ft. 15 fL 5 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 30ft. [7] Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units in one grouping. The proposed lots range in size from 6,000 square feet to 10,202 square feet. Based on the lot averaging standards of Section 18.430.020.D, lot sizes.can be reduced to 'a minimum of 6,000 square feet as long as the average lot size for the entire subdivision is at least 7,500 square.feet. The average lot size for the 20 lots proposed for this subdivision is 7,548 square feet All of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and averaging requirements of the code. All lots meet the minimum lot width requirements, based on the dimensions provided on the plan. The applicant will be required to comply with the setbacks, height and lot coverage/landscape requirements during the building permit review process for the homes on individual lots. There is one lot with adequate area for a duplex, the maximum density on the site is 21 units and the applicant is proposing 20. Therefore, proposed parcel #4 could be developed as a duplex with conditional use approval. The applicant is proposing two tracts, one at the entrance of the subdivision (tract A), and one at the northeast corner of the subdivision, which will need to be maintained by the property owners of the subdivision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the residential zoning district standards are not satisfied. If the applicant complies with the conditions below, the zoning standards will be met. CONDITIONS: Prior to approval of the final lat, 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 tract(s). 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 tracts(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's'association. Access. Eress and Circulation 08.705): Chapter X8.705 estaB sties standards and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and. for general circulation within the site. Table 18.705.1 states that the minimum vehicular access and egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one, 10-foot paved driveway within a 15-foot-wide accessway. The minimum access width for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement The access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this decision under the Street and Utility Improvements Standards section of this decision. Access to individual lots will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit phase. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 12 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION • • Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Scaled site plans have been submitted that indicate how the requirements of access, egress, and circulation are met. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and, egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, eases or contracts to establish the joint use; and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Joint access has not been proposed. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Public street access. All vehicular access.and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. All lots' access and egress shall be via a new public street which connects to SW North Dakota Street. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.' Curb cuts shall be. in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Curb cuts will be addressed under Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements Standards later in this decision. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed. as needed for safety purrpposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Public sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the proposed public street. Sidewalks shall be constructed per city standards (i.e. hard-surfaced, 4 foot width). Inadequate or hazardous access: Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 13 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION 0 Based on the preliminary plan submitted by the applicant, the intersection of SW North Dakota and SW Gallo Avenue does not appear to have any hazardous attributes. Sight distance certification will be required to assure that hazards at this intersection are minimized. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. All lots will take access from local residential public streets. Direct access to SW North Dakota Street has been addressed later in this decision (18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards) . In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. No service.drives are associated with this development. This "criterion does not apply. Access Management Section 18.705.030.Hl motion 13.705.030.114.1 states tit an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stackingg needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington Counfy, the City and AASHTO. The applicant did not rovide information regarding sight distance at the proposed intersection of Gallo Avenue and North Dakota Street. The applicants engineer shall provide a preliminary sight distance certification, with a list of improvements required to meet the standard, with their PFI submittal. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final sight distance certification upon completion of half-street improvements along North Dakota Street and the construction of the Gallo Avenue intersection, prior to final plat approval. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the. applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. North Dakota Street is classified as a Neighborhood Route; therefore this standard does not apply. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. North Dakota Street is classified as a Neighborhood Route; therefore this standard does not apply. Minimum access requirements for residential use: Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; As all the lots have frontage to a public street, individual access will consist of standard driveways to each house. This will be reviewed as part of the building permit application. Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units; NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 14 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION No multi-family structures are proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform fire Code; There are no residential drives that will be subject to Uniform Fire Code requirements. Section 18.705.030.H.4 states that Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning, around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. There are no access drives that exceed 150 feet. This criterion does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. CONDITION: Provide a preliminary sight distance certification, with a list of improvements required to meet the standard, with their PH submittal. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final sight distance certification upon completion of half-street improvements along North Dakota Street and the construction of the Gallo Avenue intersection, prior to final plat approval. Density Computations and Limitations: napter implements-ffie Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of dwelling units that may be developed on a site. Based on the formulas in Chapter .18.715 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, the maximum and minimum number of units permitted on the site is based on the net developable area, subtracting sensitive land areas, land dedicated to public parks, land dedicated for public right-of-way, and land for private streets from the total site area. According to the Residential Density Calculation provisions within the code, the number of dwelling units permitted on this site can be calculated by dividing the net area by the minimum lot size, which in this case is 7,500 square feet. The net area, in this development, is derived by subtracting the public right-of-way from the gross acreage. The density computations for Stonechase are as follows: Net Area Calculation for Subdivision Plat Gross square feet 196,455 square feet (4.51 acres) Minus rights-of-way 38 126 square feet equals Net Area subtotai ' 68,329 square feet17,500 square feet = 21 units Minimum Dwelling Units Required: 21 X.80 = 16 units Total Units Proposed: 20 units FINDING: Because the applicant has proposed 20 units and 21 units is the maximum permitted based on the net acreage of the site; this standard has been satisfied. Environmental performance standards (18.725): These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: noise, visible emissions,. vibration and odors. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 15 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 ofTfie Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning a stnct~here sfaR be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a pproperty line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 40-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is ermi&d in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property Pine of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily fable at any point beyond the property line .of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or. heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or createa health hazard. This is a detached single-family project, which is permitted within the R-4.5 zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be met. However, ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigard's' Code Enforcement Officer. The surrounding properties are private residences and under-developed land. The applicant states that compliance with state, federal, and local environmental regulations are the continuing obligation of the property owner, and will abide by the applicable standards FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. Landsca in and Screening (18.745). Lhap et r contains ianic scaping provisions for new development Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be planted in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet long. A proposed planting list must be submitted for review by the Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury. Section 18.745.030.E states that existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible (for example, areas not to be disturbed can be fenced as in snow fencing which can be around individual trees). The applicant has not specified street tree type and spacing. The City Forester will need to review and approve the street trees on the final construction drawings. Section 18.745.040.C contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 16 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION i► The applicant has not indicated street tree type. Therefore, spacing cannot be determined. This will be reviewed as part of final construction drawings. Section 18.745.050 contains the provisions and requirements for buffering and screening. The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening when a single-family detached residential use is proposed adjacent to existing detached single-family dwellings. The. Stonechase Subdivision site is surrounded by detached single-family homes and under-developed parcels with R-4.5 zoning. Therefore, this section does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicant's plans lack street tree information. CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit revised construction drawings that indicate street tree type, to be approved by the City Forester, at the required spacing standards of 18.745.0 (C). Off-Street Parkin and Loading Requirements (18.765): Chapter 13.765, a e. requires t a single-family residences be provided with one (1) off-street parking space for each dwelling unit. Compliance with this standard will be enforced during the building permit review process. Since the Code requires 20 feet from the property line to the face of a garage, this will insure that at least one .car can park off of the street, outside of any garage. FINDING: Because each individual home will be reviewed for compliance with this standard during the building permit phase and it is feasible that this standard will be met by providing driveways and garages, this standard has been satisfied. Signs 18.780 Chapter 13. regulates the placement, number and design criteria for signage. No signs are proposed in conjunction with this development. The applicant ma applyy for sign permits to erect subdivision entry signs as authorized in Section 18.780.130(A)~3}. ~4ny future signage will be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. There has been a proliferation of sign violations from new subdivisions. In accordance with a new policy adopted by the Director's Designee, all new subdivisions must enter into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. FINDING: To expedite enforcement of sign violations, a sign compliance agreement will be required. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. Tree Removal ((18.790 "Chapter. fIF790 requires mitigation of trees over 12-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) removed as part of the development of the site. A tree removal plan has been developed and reviewed by a certified arborist, including the location and species of all existing trees greater than 12 inches. The plan identifies individual trees for removal or retention. There are 108 trees on-site that are greater than 12-inches and of those 78 are to be removed. However, 47 of the trees are exempt because of their condition and do not apply towards mitigation calculations: Therefore, 31 (28%) viable trees are to be removed. The applicant is reserving 72% of the healthy trees greater than 12 inches. As a result the applicant will mitigate for 50% of the inches removed in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of the Tigard Development Code. However, the City's arborist disagrees on the number of hazardous. trees. The applicant is required to hold a field meeting between the project arborist and the City's arborist to discuss any discrepancies of the hazardous trees. Any changes must be reflected in a revised tree protection/mitigation plan. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 17 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION Total Caliper inches removed = 731 731 X 0.5 = 365.5 mitigation inches. In the event any additional trees are needed to be removed after the initial decision for reasons such as they are found to be dead, dying, diseased, dangerous by way of a more thorough arborist evaluation, they may be removed without additional mitigation. If in the process of constructing improvements, it is found that removal of a tree designated for preservation must occur, as determined by the City Forester and Project Arborist, the applicant will be subject to an additional Type Il approval. Any additional trees other than those mentioned on the removal plan that are damaged or removed without prior City authorization will constitute a violation. The tree protection plan indicates the methods for tree protection but does not show the location for the proposed fencing. The applicant has shown building envelopes on the tree removal plan which are the maximum permissible limits of construction. A final construction document shall show the location of all required tree protection fencing including fencing for trees located off site, but whose canopies extend over the property line. Consideration for utility trench alignments and grading shall also be a part of the protection plan. Subsequent removal of a tree. .An tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval fora conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. The applicant will need to record a deed restriction for all trees to remain on-site, either independently or for all lots in the subdivision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tree Removal standards will be met, if the applicant complies with the conditions of the City Forester listed under "Other Staff Comments" and the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS: Provide a tree mitigation plan for 365.5 inches. The applicant is required to hold a field meeting between the project arborist and the City's arborist to discuss any discrepancies of the hazardous trees. Any changes must be reflected in a revised tree protection/mitigation plan. The applicant shall submit a final Tree Protection Plan that shows exactly how far aL- a-.... -4-4- i......:.... .:11 L... t-..m 4L..: t ce ..t L. -4-4-A f-.... rl:.,.. UIC UGC PIULULAIVII 1=111-111V VVIII VC 11V UIC 10 VI Ca..Vll P1VLW%,LCV LIVV 111 1-_144 1114 those on neighboring properties where construction occurs within the trees driplines) that will be Impacted byy construction activities. within its dripline. The applicant, through their Project Arborist, -shall justify the close proximity of the construction activities to the trees. He shall certify that the activities will not adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of each tree. Any construction that occurs within the neighboring trees' driplines should be justified by the applicant and approved by the City Forester and neighborin property owner(s). Work may proceed within the driplines only with the approval of he It , orester. The Project Arborist shall submit written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, as he monitors the construction activities and -progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 18 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION certify that the construction activities to the trees did not ' adversely impact the overall and long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the. TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arbonst. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. Prior to issuance of building permits the Project Arborist shall submit to the City Forester a final report describing how the Tree Protection Plan was implemented and detailing any failures to comply with the Tree Protection Plan. The report shall also describe the health of all remaining trees on the site, with details provided as to any tree that has had its root system' disturbed or that has otherwise been damaged. Only those trees authorized for removal by this decision, and any trees that are exempt may be removed by the applicant. If in the process of constructing improvements, it is found that removal of a.tree designated for preservation must occur, as determined by the City Forester and Project Arborist, the applicant will be subject to an additional Type l approval. Any additional trees other than those mentioned on the removal plan are damaged or removed without prior City authorization will constitute a violation. The following text shall be included in all construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of the tree removal chapter (Including but not limited to removal or damage to trees not approved for removal) shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $50D pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. The applicant shall record a deed restriction (either separately or as part of the CC&R's) that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with the approved tree plan may be removed only if the tree dies. or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. Vision Clearance: Chapter f8795-applies to all development and requires that, clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways and at the intersection of.a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The applicant has indicated the vision clearance areas on the site plan and has not proposed any structures or vegetation in the vision clearance area. Construction plans for the streets will need to be reviewed and approved that satisfies the visual clearance requirements. Subsequent grading and vegetative removal may be imposed during infrastructure construction to assure that this standard is met. A note will be placed on the final plat that restricts fences to be placed in the visual clearance intersection of SW Gallo and North Dakota and Gallo and SW Forest Lane on proposed parcel #1. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 19 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION W FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance criteria have not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the vision clearance criteria will be met. CONDITION:A note will be placed on the final plat that restricts fences to be placed' in the visual clearance intersection of SW Gallo and North Dakota and Gallo and SW Forest Lane on proposed parcel #1. C - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS (SECTION 18.810): Street And Utili Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter provides constructions na#-dars for tFie mplementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a Neighborhood Route to have a 58 foot right-of-way width and 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and. bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW North Dakota Street, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map: At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW north of centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should' dedicate additional ROW to provide for 29 feet from centerline. SW North Dakota is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct half-street improvements. The applicant's plans indicate that they will be constructing local streets within the proposed development. The applicant has cited the ITE Manual for trip generation. The proposed development will generate approximately 10 daily trips/unit, for a total of 200 daily trips. The adjacent parcel to the west is expected to generate another 170 daily trips. Therefore, approximately 370 daily trips will be generated, which is below the maximum allowable of 500 daily trips. The applicant's plans indicate they will dedicate 46 feet of ROW for the proposed local streets. The applicant also indicates that a 24 foot paved section will be constructed, providing parking on one side. The applicant has submitted a traffic flow plan in support of the skinny street option. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.E states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and, proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is. necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de- sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant has submitted a future streets plan and profile. This plan indicates that the proposed internal streets can be extended to the west to connect to 114' Place. Staff agrees with this configuration. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 20 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDRASION •I Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, .1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign,,or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not~possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The proposed internal streets and future extensions meet this criterion. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 120/6 on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of. no greater than 250 feet). Centerline. radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The proposed street grades are less than 4%, thereby meeting this criterion. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs Tor convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. No blocks will be created as a result of this development. The a1Rplicant has submitted a future streets plan that shows the proposed streets connecting to SW 114 Avenue, which would create a block, approximately 1,260 feet in length. Therefore, the proposed future block will not exceed the maximum length allowed (2,000 feet). Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. .J The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed streets meet block perimeter standards. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 21 OF 30 SUB2004400010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION 0 The minimum lot size of the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet. Based on the standard above, none of the proposed parcels can be more than 2.5 times the average lot width unless they are less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size (7,500 square feet). The largest of the proposed lots (lot #4 has an average lot width of 61 feet and .a depth of 136 feet. Therefore, none of the proposed lots are 2.5 times the average lot width. This criterion is satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet Proposed lot #9 has the least amount of frontage of any of the proposed lots (26 feet). Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be' located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. The applicant's plans indicate that sidewalk will be constructed on both sides of the local streets and along the half-street improvement to North Dakota Street, thereby meeting this criterion. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.81.0.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's plans show the construction of a public sewer within the ROW of the proposed local streets. The sewer would be extended to the existing 8-inch sewer in Cottonwood Lane. The applicant has proposed that they will obtain a 20 foot public utility easement for the extension on the adjacent properties. Storm Drainage: General Provisions:. Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to.make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large. enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no upstream drainage ways that impact this development. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 22 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION In 1997 Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin studyy of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Greek Watershed. Management Plan. Section V of that Dian includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The site slopes downward from the southwest to the northeast. The applicant is proposing to construct a public storm sewer in the new public streets. This public system will discharge into the public storm line in Cottonwood Lane. A public storm sewer easement will be required on the adjacent property. This easement will be 20 feet wide in order to install both storm and sanitary sewer lines. The applicant's plans indicate that detention will be provided by installing oversized pipes in the public ROW. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathwayys: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the Citx's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. SW North Dakota Street is classified as a bicycle facility. The applicant will be dedicating adequate ROW to provide for the required bicycle lane along North Dakota Street. The striping of the bike lane will be covered during the PFI permit issuance. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and. related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed pprior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW North Dakota. If the fee in-lieu is it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The rontage along this site is 396.23 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $13,868.05. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 23 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDNISION •1 ~ 1 E. - IMPACT STUDY motion s tes that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system,.the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.050 states that when a condition of a proval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authorZ shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the . impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Bo Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32. percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF fora detached, single-family dwelling is $2,530. The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the need for these streets is created by the subdivision.. Because the need for the internal streets is created by the development, the impact of the private street is directly proportional to the cost of dedication and construction of the internal streets. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF s totaling approximately $50,600 ($2,530 x 20 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $158,125 ($50,600 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full. impact, is considered as unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $50,600, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $107,525 $158,125 - $50,600). Given that the estimated cost of the dedication and half-street improvements on SW North Dakota Street is $89,892, the value of these improvements is less than the value of the unmitigated impacts, the exactions are proportionate. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS City of Tigard Public Works Manager has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Based upon the storm calculations provided, they show onsite detention will be provided. If that holds, then Public Works supports the, project. Without detention, however, they would need to ' I a_ v 1L c el Af n^A ma'ke some downstream storm system unpioven-lents, nuith of JVV Bo.mood lit. City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. City of Tigard Long Range Planning has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. City of Tigard Urban Forester has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 24 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDMSION •I •1 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C, Installation Recc ~giire~~ments The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: A nandscaping sfairbe installed according to accepted planting procedures. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as tt e standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10thh edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 18.745.030.E. Protection of Existingi Landscaping, Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possife: The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). See comments under "Tree Removal". 18.745.030.G. Conditions of Approval of Existing Veq~et~ation. The review procedures and stan ad rT r requiredlandscaping and screening shae specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum. 18.745.040 Street Trees A. Protection of existin vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a privat~iveway more than 100 feet in length approved after-the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10 edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 25 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Il~an required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection . of trees reparea by a certified arborist shall. be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of Pots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional. use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.0601) of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; C. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3: Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and afer construction. As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by Tree Care & Landscapes Unlimited. The plan contains three out of the four required components of a tree plan, and, is therefore, unacceptable. The tree plan does not outline the tree mitigation requirements. The applicant indicated on page 9 of the application under "Tree Removal" the retention spreadsheet was included. I could not locate that spreadsheet. The submitted arborist report indicates that there is a hi h number of hazardous trees onsite. I inspected the majority of the trees (the ones that had to sI and, in my opinion, several of the trees designated as hazardous were not. I agree that all of the trees designated as hazardous do have varying degrees of defects, but I do not think that most of the defects are severe enough to classify the trees as hazardous. I would suggest an onsite meeting with the arborist to look over these trees in ni iactinn The submitted plans indicate that there are numerous trees that will be preserved on various lots throughout the development, but no indication is given as to how they will be protected during development. The plans should show where the tree protection fencing will be located in relation to the building footprints. It is difficult to determine if any construction will occur within the trees' driplines. If construction does occur within the driplines, the Project Arborist must explain or set guidelines for how the tree roots will be protected. Below are my suggestions for the applicant to follow for tree protection guidelines: NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 26 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION 0 Prior to construction, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed. construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester with notations as to when tree protection devices will be either installed or removed throughout construction of the project. A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. All tree protection devices shall be Visible. Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. Between each. post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning. of construction. Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. To determine the size of the tree protection zone (TPZ) the project arborist should follow the guidelines listed below: For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4'h feet above the ground, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 15' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line method, whichever is greater. Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown in "Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development" by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark. The project arborist may propose an alternate method for the establishment of the TPZ, provided the effort is coordinated with the City Forester. if it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 27 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION W & RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall submit a final Tree Protection Plan that shows exactly how far the tree protection fencing will be from the face of each protected tree (including those on neighboring properties where construction occurs within the trees' driplines).that will be impacted by construction activities within its dripline. The applicant, through their Pro ect . Arborist, shall justify the close proximity of the construction activities to the trees. He shall certify that the activities will not adversely impact the overall and long-term health. and stability of each tree. Any construction that occurs within the neighboring trees' driplines should be justifiied by the applicant and approved by the City Forester and neighboring property owner(s). Work may proceed within the driplines only with the approval of the City Forester. The Project Arborist shall submit written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall and long- term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if. it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. Prior to issuance of building permits the Project Arborist shall submit to the City Forester a final report describing how the Tree Protection Plan was implemented and detailing any failures to comply with the Tree Protection Plan. The report shall also describe the health of all remaining trees on the site, with details provided as to any tree that has had its root system disturbed or that has otherwise been damaged. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR) has reviewed the proposal and endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (UFC Sec. 9.2.1) Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. Diagrams of approved turnarounds are available from the fire district. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.4) Provide turn-around dimensions and radii. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. - (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1) Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily y distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,00 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (Design criteria on back) (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 28 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION 0 0 The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) - (See diagrams on back) Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810 - 98.812" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide b18 inches high and shall have black or red fetters and border on a white background. (UFC Sec. 9&.4.5. 1) The proposed parking plan is not acceptable. The entire lengths of the 24 feet wide roadways shall be posted as fire lanes and parking shall not be allowed. Fire hydrants for single family dwellings, duplexes and sub-divisions, shall be placed at each intersection. Intermediate fire hydrants are required if any, portion of a structure exceeds 500 feet from a hydrant at an intersection as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along appproved fire apparatus access roadways. Placement of additional fire hydrants shall be as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.2) Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15. feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4) Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly.. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) The minimum available fire flow for single family dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(p is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to L C Appendix Table A-111-A-1. (UFC Appendix III-A, Sec. 5) Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704) SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON NOVEMBER 1, 2004 AND EFFECTIVE ON NOVEMBER 17, 2004 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.39Q.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 29 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time o time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON NOVEMBER 16, 2004. Questions: Tt you Have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. _ November 1. 2004 PREPARE, B hew S ei gger DATE Associate Planner November 1. 2004 ff DATE APPROVED BY: Richa4Mnagerr PlanniAcurpln\mat hew\sub\sub2004-0001 0(Stonechase )\sub2004-00010decision.doc NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 30 OF 30 SUB2004-00010 -STONECHASE SUBDIVISION i ~iI~ZANITA IOTA ST / I-Ij - i LLI CITY of -D GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAh SUB2004-000 0 f STONECHASE o -OND SUBD VS ON JS I l N _ BACK J FENIV-L. I COTTOW GOD- . / N GENEVA ST ST I ~T1 MOTHYPL I DR t I I Community Development ~1 a w { vJ~/ c - DAKOTA- TORLAND ST. N 0 100 200 300 400 Feel Q 1"= 310 feet I I I I 1C%ty-,of Tigard 00 b I Information on Ws map is for general location only and 0 should be verified Mth the Development Services Division. I 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 0334171 hffP.,/Mww.cI.(igard.or.us Plot date: Aug 2, 2004; Q Imagic\MAGIC03.APR Tigard Area Map is= ; ,f:,; taz tet too ,as I lee . {:i 1C';1. r, t'T~rC? it III , 2!H C5 '-,7-17- E 97J. 72) on n ~9:V'34' E 92...G' I umor ll+J _ _n• N 89'35'34" E 395.96 1.1.5)'^- _ -r • n• ,r t ....B' . I 13 12 _ 11 - 10 : I 9 1 r2(....B). j~ 7, 575 SF ~j 7, 575 SF ~ 7, 575 SF 6, 787 SF i 8, 943 SF 'I L_ zr M1HR VWn Nrv I I 490,1(nJ I I - - 1 II I ~ I 1 L_ - - - - r ---SW FIR 8,185 SF 14 - - - = - - » - y -3 I 14 15 UA I I 6,286 SF } Z I I al 6,790 Sr ~ r 1 6,790 SF 8,140 Sr N1 17 a ' ' I ~°sl I I rl rl --"r-- 6,000 Sr I 6 i h! T Ni 20 19-- h~ 8,140 SF a I I 18 -1 , I 1 6,790 SF 6,790 SF I 6, 300 SF I i i a 5 is - I r ~:.SW FOREST LANE . a, ~3a SF q c+_ I 4 .~i I I V1,11, I All 10, 2o2 sF I O Ir'~ i 8,257 SF 7585 SF I 7,921 Sr \ \ I , I ~I 5 8951"ZB- E J95.7J" I 96__ ~ 1 ,aa' non J ~ i SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET em:w raAdo C ~ OF T GARD T-- - SUB2004-00010- - SITE PLAN N STONECHASE SUBDIVISION (Map is not to scale) 'Ma`t Scheidegger - StonechaseSub.8-4- OC Page 1 * ATTACHMENT 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Matt Scheidegger FROM: Matt Stine, City Forester RE: Stonechase Subdivision DATE: August 4, 2003 As you requested I have provided some comments on the "Stonechase Subdivision" project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments please contact me anytime. 1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C. Installation Reauirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. • The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturitv. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. Matt Scheidegger - StonechaseSub.8-4- OC Page 2 0 . 4 0 18.745.030.E. Protection of Existina Landscagina. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). See comments under "Tree Removal". 18.745.030.G. Conditions of Annroval of Existina Veaetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum. 18.745.040. Street Trees A. Protection of existina vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity,. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. Matt Scheidegger - StonechaseSub.8-4-O OC 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030. Tree Plan Requirement is Page 3'~ A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.0601); c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.0601); d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. • As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by Tree Care & Landscapes Unlimited. The plan contains three out of the four I' Matt Scheidegger - StonechaseSub.8-4-O~pOC Page 4 required components of a tree plan, and, is therefore, unacceptable. The tree plan does not outline the tree mitigation requirements. The applicant indicated on page 9 of the application under "Tree Removal" the retention spreadsheet was included. I could not locate that spreadsheet. The submitted arborist report indicates that there is a high number of hazardous trees onsite. I inspected the majority of the trees (the ones that had tags) and, in my opinion, several'of the trees designated as hazardous were not. I agree that all of the trees designated as hazardous do have varying degrees of defects, but I do not think that most of the defects are severe enough to classify the trees as hazardous. I would suggest an onsite meeting with the arborist to look over these trees in question. • The submitted plans indicate that there are numerous trees that will be preserved on various lots throughout the development, but no indication is given as to how they will be protected during development. The plans should show where the tree protection fencing will be located in relation to the building footprints. • It is difficult to determine if any construction will occur within the trees' driplines. If construction does occur within the driplines, the Project Arborist must explain or set guidelines for how the tree roots will be protected. Below are my suggestions for the applicant to follow for tree protection guidelines: Prior to construction, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected_ • Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester with notations as to when tree protection devices will be ai+har inc+allari nr ramnuarl thrni inhni it r•nnc+ri ir+inn of +hc nrnicr+ • A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. 0 0 ATTACHMENT 4 20-Lod SubdMsbn Appkatbn 7ogard, Oregon OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Vince Biggi 17660 SW Kramien Rd Newburg, OR 97132 APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Ken Sandblast Planning Resources, Inc. 7160 SW Fir Loop, Ste 201 Portland, OR. 97223 Tele. (503) 684-1020 Fax (503) 684-1028 PREPARED BY: Julie Scott Planning Resources, Inc. 7160 SW Fir Loop, Ste 201 Portland, OR. 97223 Tele. (503) 684-1020 Fax (503) 684-1028 July 20, 2004 planningResourcesinc. 00 0 11225 S W/1 MORTH DAKOTA, ymm, OP, S7223 20- L07 SUIRINVOOM AIPIPUCATM I Political Boundaries City County Planning Information Urban Growth Boundary Zip Code Zoning Local Designation Minimum Lot Size Generalized Classification Environmental Findings Flood Plain (FEMA 100 yr.) Watershed Basin Watershed Subbasin Service Providers Fire Protection Parks School District Sewer Water Tax Assessment Details Tax Lot Number Mult. Co. Account No. Tax Lot Size Site Address Tigard Washington Co. Inside 97223 R-4.5 Minimum lot - 7,500 sq. ft. SFR Outside TUALATIN RIVER FANNO CREEK Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue City of Tigard TIGARD-TUALATIN No. 23J Clean Water Services District City of Tigard 1 S134DB00400 R269248 4.51 acres 11225 SW NORTH DAKOTA 7Q B LIE OF COMY[EMYS Pages Project Description .......................................................................................i Site Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph ............................................................ii-iii City of Tigard Applicable Policies and Findings ...........................................................................1-11 Supplemental Maps. Illustrations. and Exhibits o Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat o Impact Statement 0 0 pROOJLC Y Do IES °UMOM The applicant proposes to subdivide the 4.49 acre subject site as a 20 lot subdivision, consistent with the underlying R-4.5 zoning and other applicable requirements of the Community Development Code. Zoning district R-4.5 allows for detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The proposed development will create lots from 7,500 S.F. to 10,202 S.F. At the southwest corner of the subject site, a new street will be created to allow access into the site and will curve around the site creating a stub for future extension along the western boundary. The new street is proposed with a pavement width of 24-feet (curb-to-curb), within a 46-foot wide (total) right of way. The entrance of the new street is just to the west of SW Gallo Ave (which dead-ends into the south side of SW North Dakota Ave). Existing Conditions: The site is located amongst existing single-family detached subdivisions. The site is a north-south rectangular shape, with a minimal southwest-to-northeast slope. The site is zoned R-4.5, as are surrounding parcels. The majority of the surrounding lots are completely developed and occupied by single-family residences, as well as a church adjacent to the east. Existing vegetation consists of numerous evergreen trees spread throughout the site, small-to-medium shrubs, and understory vegetation. Public Facilities and Services: 1. Sanitarv Sewer: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is an 8-inch line which is located within the Cottonwood Lane public right-of-way and will be served via gravity. The proposed development will extend the public sanitary sewer system into the subject site via a 20-foot wide utilities easement. The easement will cross adjacent property connecting Cottonwood to allow for connection to the public system. 2. Water Service: Water service will be provided by the City of Tigard's public water system. The system is located in SW North Dakota and will extend through the subject sites in the new public right-of-way. 3. Storm Sewer: The storm water runoff will be designed to flow into an existing public drainage system located in Cottonwood Lane via a 20-foot utilities easement across adjacent property. A storm water management facility will be constructed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. 4. Streets: At the southwest corner of the subject site, a new street will be created to allow access into the site and will curve around the site coming to a dead-end along the western edae. The new street is proposed with a pavement width of 24 feet (curb-to-curb), within a 46-foot wide right of way. The entrance of the new street is just to the west of SW Gallo Ave aligning with the existing SW North Dakota and SW Gallo Intersection. Five-foot wide sidewalks with curb-tight planter strips and street trees are proposed within the new public rights-of-way throughout the entire site. Half-street improvements along SW North Dakota St are proposed, including concrete curbs, storm sewer and other underground utilities, 5-foot concrete sidewalk with curb-tight planter strips, street trees, street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights, and a 2-year streetlight fee. Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningRcscz=ccsinc. i City of Tigard Subdivision Application 1 1 J O + ° i i -'tea 1 1 h 0 F1 0 It, O ~ 4.;~~ 0 !'a1 L_ 0 ;v ~ n 13 o0 11 I f (7 , ~ ~ ~ Ate:'' Figure 1: Vicinity Map Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningResoinrcesinc. ii City of Tigard Subdivision Application Figure 2: Site Aerial Map Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningResa inrcesinc. iii City of Tigard Subdivision Application FEM MHa3 APPLICANT'S REQUESTED APPROVAL: Preliminary Plat approval for the creation of a twenty (20)-lot subdivision with internal street system. APPROVAL CRITERIA: This narrative will address the applicable standards and review criteria of the City of Tigard's Development Code. This application involves subdividing the subject site into a total of twenty (20) lots from the existing 4.51 acres of Tax Lot 00400 of Tax Assessor's Map 1S-1-34DB. The subject site is relatively flat in slope (0-10%). The lots being created meet the minimum square foot lot sizes of the R-4.5 zoning district. The development will be served via frontage on SW North Dakota. The following chapters and sections of the City of Tigard Development Code are applicable to this subdivision application based upon: (i) existing conditions present upon and surrounding the subject site, (ii) requirements conveyed by Tigard staff during the pre-application meeting held for this project, (iii) a review of Title 18: CHAPTER 18.390 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES 18.390.040 Type ll Procedure (A) Pre-Application Conference: A preapplication conference is required for Type 11 actions. Preapplication conference requirements and procedures are set forth in section 18.390.080C APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: A pre-application conference was held on October 07, 2003 with City of Tigard Planning Division staff, Brad Kilby. (8) Application Requirements: APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As part of the submittal information, an application including the information requested has been provided; the narrative herein below addresses the relevant criteria for review and action; the applicable application fee of is provided; and the mailing materials have been provide by the City of Tigard and submitted as part of this package. CHAPTER 18.430 Subdivisions 18.430.050 Approval Criteria A.I. The proposed subdivision complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As addressed by this narrative, the subject site complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations applicable to a subdivision application. A.2. There is adequate public facilities available to serve the proposal APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As proposed, there are adequate public facilities available to serve the subject site: Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningResourccsinc. City of Tigard Subdivision Application • Discussions with City staff have determined that half street improvements including (but not limited to) 5-foot concrete sidewalks and street trees along the SW North Dakota frontage of the subject site will be required. • Sanitarv Sewer: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is an 8-inch line which is located within the Cottonwood St. public right-of-way and will be served via gravity. The proposed development will extend the public sanitary sewer system into the subject site via a 20-foot wide utilities easement. The easement will cross adjacent property connecting Cottonwood St. to allow for connection to the public system. • Water Service: Water service will be provided by the City of Tigard's public water system. The system is located in SW North Dakota and will extend through the subject sites in the new public right-of-way. • Fire protection is provided by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. • A drainage plan is depicted on the preliminary plat submitted with this application. • Storm Sewer: The storm water runoff will be designed to flow into an existing public drainage system located in Cottonwood via a 20-foot utilities easement across adjacent property. A storm water management facility will be constructed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. A.3. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Half street improvements including the construction of a 5-foot sidewalk and street trees along the entire frontage of the subject site will be necessary along SW North Dakota and full improvements to the internal streets All street improvements will be in accordance with the standards required by the City. A4. All proposed lots conform to the specific requirements below: a. The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district b. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation. c. Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement d. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. e. When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located to maximize separation from existing structures. f. A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an access way is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.745.050. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development g. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an access way would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. h. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement, which will ensure access, and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As proposed, lots being created through this subdivision exceed the minimum width required through R4.5 zoning. As proposed, lots created through this subdivision exceed the minimum lot size required by R4.5 zoning. There are no flag lots proposed through this application. Lots Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningResc rccsinc. 2 City of Tigard Subdivision Application 0 0 created through this application exceed the minimum 25-feet frontage. As proposed, all lots being created are capable of meeting the minimum setbacks required through R-4.5 zoning. None of the lots being created through this subdivision are flag lots. Therefore, the provisions of the flag-lot section are not applicable. No common driveways access ways are proposed. A.5. Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress, and Circulation. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: There are no common driveways or access ways proposed. A.6. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The subject site is not within the one-hundred-year flood plain. Therefore, the provisions of this section are not applicable. 18.430.60 Final Plat Submission Requirements A. Submittal. All final plats for partitions shall be accompanied by three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor or engineer licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The final plat shall incorporate any conditions of approval imposed by the Director as part of the preliminary plat approval. B. Standards. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05) and by Washington County, as described in detail by information provided by the Director at the time of application. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The provisions of this section will be satisfied during the City of Tigard final plat review and approval process. 18.430.70 City Acceptance of Dedicated Land A. Acceptance of dedications by City Engineer. The City Engineer shall accept the proposed right-of-way dedication prior to recording a land partition. B. Acceptance of public easements by City Engineer. The City Engineer shall accept all public easements shown for dedication on partition plats. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The provisions of this section will be satisfied during the City of Tigard final plat review and approval process. 18.430.80 Recording Partition Plats A. Recording requirements. Upon the Director's approval of the proposed minor partition, the applicant shall record the final partition plat with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City, to be incorporated into the record. B. Time limit. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded minor partition survey map to the City within 15 days of recording, and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on the re-configured lots. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The provisions of this section will be satisfied during the City of Tigard final plat review and approval process. Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planninglResouumcesinc. 3 City of Tigard Subdivision Application CHAPTER 18.510. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.510.020 (D) R-4.5: Lode-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As proposed, this subdivision will accommodate an detached single-family homes upon the subject site. Lots being created meet the 7,500 square feet in size including the up to 20% reduction provided by code, the R-4.5 zoning designation. Therefore, this proposed (20)-lot subdivision satisfies the provisions of this section. 18.510.030(A). Types of Uses. A. Types of uses. For the purposes of this chapter, there are four kinds of use: 1. A permitted (P) use is a use which is permitted outright, but subject to all of the applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted used under the provisions of Chapter 18.230, APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As proposed, the intent for this subdivision is for future construction of a detached single-family houses. Further division of the lots will not be possible under existing zoning regulations. Detached household living is an outright permitted use within the R-4.5 zoning district. 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities (A) Purpose-The purpose of this section is to establish minimum and maximum densities in each residential zoning district. To ensure the quality and density of development envisioned, the maximum density establishes the ceiling for development in each zoning district based on minimum lot size. To ensure that property develops at or near the density envisioned for the zone, the minimum density for each zoning district has been established at 80% of maximum density. (B) Calculating minimum and maximum densities-The calculation of minimum and maximums densities is governed by the formulas in Chapter 18.715, Density Computations. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Using the computations referred to in Section 18.715, the minimum density for the subject site is 16 units and the maximum density for the subject site is 20 units. This application is proposing 20 lots for single-family detached dwelling use. 18.510.050. Development Standards. A. Compliance required-All development must comply with: (1) All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370, (2) All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. B. Development Standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As proposed, this subdivision will accommodate an detached single-family homes upon the subject site. Lots being created meet the 7,500 square feet in size including the up to 20% reduction provided by code, the R-4.5 zoning designation. Therefore, this proposed (20)-lot subdivision satisfies the provisions of this section. Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planninglRescuuu•cesinc. 4 City of Tigard Subdivision Application 0 • CHAPTER 18.705. ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION. 18.705.030. General Provisions. A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the City. B. Access Dlan reauirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress, and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. C. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: 1. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2. Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: This (20)-lot subdivision complies with the provisions of this section by continuing access onto the subject site through the use of the proposed public internal streets with access onto SW North Dakota, a local public street, posing no inadequate or hazardous access. No joint access will be utilized through this application, each lot will be provided its own access. Any curb cuts and walkways will be constructed in accordance with Section 18.810.030N and Section 18.810.070 respectively, and shall be approved during the building permit process. CHAPTER 18.715. DENSITY COMPUTATIONS (A) Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area (s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property to be developed: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; c. Drainage ways, and d. Wetlands. 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: a. Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; b. Multi-family development: allocate 15% of gross acreage. 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The subject site is approximately 4.51 acres in size. The following computations determine the minimum and maximum number of dwellings allowed upon the subject site under the R-4.5 zoning designation. Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningResou irccsinc. 5 City of Tigard Subdivision Application • R-4.5 Zone Gross Site Area Net Site Area (80% of Gross) Divided by Max. Densitv Max Permitted Units Min Permitted Units • TOTAL 196,455 S. F. 157,164.5 S.F. 7.500 S.F./Unit 20.9 Units 16 Units CHAPTER 18.725. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 18.725.020 General Provisions (A)Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non-point source pollution control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules shall by this reference be made a part of this chapter. (B) Evidence of compliance. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director may require submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations and receipt of necessary permits; these include Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) or Indirect Source Construction Permits (ISCP). (C) Continuing obligation. Compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations is the continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: This subdivision satisfies the provisions of this section by complying with state and federal regulations pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer, or stream systems. This application anticipates no activities hazardous to the environment with the proposal of a (20)-lot subdivision and the construction of single-family detached houses. In accordance with this section evidence of compliance will be approved during the building permit process. CHAPTER 18.745. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING. 18.745.030 General Provisions E. Protection of existina veaetation. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees). F. Care of /andscaoina a/ona public riahts-of-wav. Appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials shall be provided by the owner of the property abutting the rights-of-way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. G. Conditions of aDDroval of existina veaetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. H. Heiaht restrictions abutting Dublic riahts-of-wav. No trees, shrubs or plantings more than 18 inches in height shall be planted in the public right-of-way abutting roadways having no established curb and gutter. Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningRescu rcesinc. 6 City of Tigard Subdivision Application 0 0 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Discussions with City staff during the pre-application conference have determined that no landscape buffer is necessary. 18.745.040 Street Trees A. Protection of existina veaetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040. C. B. Street tree Dlantina list. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause personal injury. Approval of any planting list shall be subject to review by the director C. Size and saacina of street trees. 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Section 18.745.040. C. 2 below, APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: This application complies with the provisions of this section by planting street trees as a requirement for all projects fronting a public street. As the subject site fronts SW North Dakota and it is considered a public street, this application will take into consideration all of the provisions of this section on Street Trees. Specifically the applicant will take into account the size and landscaping of street trees as per the provisions of section 18.745.040 (C) 1-2a-I. CHAPTER 18.755. MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.765.030. Purpose and Applicability APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: This application is for a 20-lot subdivision and according to provisions of this section is not subject to the standards of this chapter. Provisions of this chapter regulate recyclable storage standards for non-residential and multi-use development. The development proposed through this application is for single-family detached residential units. CHAPTER 18.765. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. 18.765.030. General Provisions. (A) Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. (B) Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s); APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As proposed, the off-street parking for each lot will be contained within the respective lots, no joint parking will be established. 18.765.40. General Design Standards. (B) Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 1. Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningl esouurccsinc. 7 City of Tigard Subdivision Application 0 0 2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 3. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; 4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; 5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and 6. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Any driveways constructed upon the subject site will be reviewed as part of the building permit process and shall comply with the provisions of this section. This (20) lot subdivision complies with the provisions of this section by continuing access onto the subject site through the construction of an internal public street system with access onto SW North Dakota, a local public street, posing no inadequate or hazardous access. No joint access will be utilized through this application, each lot will be provided its own access. Any curb cuts and walkways will be constructed in accordance with Section 18.810.03ON and Section 18.810.070 respectively, and shall be approved during the building permit process. 18.765.50. Bicycle Parking Design Standards. E. Minimum bicycle parking requirements. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Single-family residences and duplexes are excluded from the bicycle parking requirements. The Director may reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type 11 procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020. C. 5. e. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The installation of bicycle racks is not required within detached single-family residential zones. Therefore, the provisions of this section are not applicable. 18.765.60. Parking Structure Design Standards. A. Maintenance of parking areas. All parking lots shall be kept clean and in good repair at all times. Breaks in paved surfaces shall be repaired promptly and broken or splintered wheel stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: No parking structure is being proposed through this application. Therefore, the provisions of this section are not applicable. 18.765.70 Minimum and Maximum Off-street Parking Requirements. C. Measurements. The following measurements shall be used in calculating the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H: 1. Fractions. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space; 2. Employees. Where employees are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the employees counted are those who work on the premises during the largest shift at the peak season; 3. Students. When students are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the students counted are those who are on the campus during the peak period of the day during a typical school term; Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningReso urccsinc. 8 City of Tigard Subdivision Application 4. Space. Unless otherwise specified, where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be gross floor area under the roof measured from the faces of the structure, excluding only space devoted to covered off-street parking or loading. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The minimum number of parking spaces required in the R-4.5 zone is 1.00U. Adequate parking is available as part of the development of individual driveways for each lot. At the time that the site is developed with single-family detached dwellings, conformance to the provisions of this section will be required. No maximum is applied to the R-4.5 zone. CHAPTER 18.790. TREE REMOVAL. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city, 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Included is tree removal plan, tree preservation plan approved by a certified arborist, an arborist report and retention calculation spreadsheet. CHAPTER 18.795. VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS. 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningRescu ircesinc. 9 City of Tigard Subdivision Application 9 0 C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or permanent obstructions shall be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent of the required clear vision area. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: As proposed, there are no obstructions which would cause a reduction in proper sight distances from vehicular movements. The tentative plat provides a clear vision area for lots free from obstruction wall structures of vegetation. Therefore, the provisions of this section have been met. CHAPTER 18.810. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.810.030 Streets (A) Improvements. E. Minimum rights-of-ways and street widths APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The proposed street is 46-feet in width and according to table 18.810.1 it meets the width criteria for a residential access street with less than 500 ADT. The width minimum for the street is calculated by using the ITE manual trip generation of approximately 10 trips per/unit. Based on this, the proposed development will generate 200 trips per day based on a design of 20 lots. The site to the west could be developed with 17 lots that allows for a total of 370 trips per day. Given this information the proposed development's street width is determined by the criteria for a residential street with an ADT of less than 500. The width of 46-feet meets this criterion. K. Partial street improvements- Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: Discussions with City staff have determined that partial street improvements including 5-foot concrete sidewalks and street trees along the entire frontage of the subject site will be required. Also, full improvements are required to the proposed internal street including 26-feet of curb-to- curb and street trees. 18.810.090. Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is an 8-inch line which is located within the Cottonwood St. public right-of-way and will be served via gravity. The proposed development will extend the public sanitary sewer system into the subject site via a 20-foot wide utilities easement. The easement will cross adjacent property connecting Cottonwood St. to allow for connection to the public system. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions-The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningRes cuurccsinc. 10 City of Tigard Subdivision Application V 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street, and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The storm water runoff will be designed to flow into an existing public drainage system located in Cottonwood via a 20-foot utilities easement across adjacent property. A storm water management facility will be constructed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. CONCLUSION Based upon compliance with all applicable review criteria as addressed herein above, the applicant requests the City of Tigard approve this application for a twenty (20)-lot Subdivision that includes the construction of an internal street system. Mr. Vince Biggi - SW North Dakota planningResouurcesinc. 1 l City of Tigard Subdivision Application 0 • IMPACT STUDY 11225 SW North Dakota Land Division The following provisions of Sections 18.390.040 are applicable to this Type II Application, a subdivision without planned development: CHAPTER 18.430 SUBDIVISIONS 18.390.04(2)(e) Type 11 Procedure - Impact Study APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: The various public facilities and services listed in this section are addressed as follows: Transportation Svstem The subject site is located adjacent to a church and fronts onto SW North Dakota Ave. The frontage improvements for the site include half-street improvements along SW North Dakota St including concrete curbs, storm sewer and other underground utilities, 5-foot concrete sidewalk with curb-tight planter strips, street trees, street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights, and a 2-year streetlight fee. The new internal street is proposed with a pavement width of 26 feet (curb-to-curb), within a 46-foot wide right of way. The entrance of the new street is just to the west of SW Gallo Ave aligning with the existing SW North Dakota and SW Gallo Intersection. Five-foot wide sidewalks with curb-tight planter strips and street trees are proposed within the new public rights-of-way throughout the entire site. The public pedestrian access and street trees will be improved to meet City of Tigard standards. The sidewalks will accommodate the limited amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated given the street design and overall topography of the area. To meet City standards, land division complies with the provisions of this section by continuing access onto the subject site through the use of the internal street system within the development and the potential for extension of the street system to the western boundary of the site. Access onto SW North Dakota Street, a local public street, posing no inadequate or hazardous access. Joint access will be utilized through this application, each lot will be provided its own access. Any curb cuts and walkways will be constructed in accordance with Section 18.810.030N and Section 18.810.070 respectively, and shall be approved during the building permit process. To minimize impacts to adjacent property owners and the public at large this application does not propose transportation connection through the site to any other street due to significant topography and existing vegetation. The applicant accepts the on-site dedication and improvement requirements proposed for both the public and private streets involved in this application. The subject site is within a reasonable distance to public transportation to the east, north and west. Drainaae Svstem As depicted on the preliminary plan set included with this application submittal, a stormwater collection, detention and treatment system is proposed for construction to serve the subject site. The preliminary drainage report provides a full analysis of the drainage system proposal. To summarize, roof run-off from the landscaped, roof and road areas will be collected and conveyed into the detention system. . After detention, all runoff will receive water quality treatment prior to discharging into the proposed storm system in SW Cottonwood Lane. This drainage system will be designed to meet City standards and these standards have been adopted to minimize impacts of development on existing public facilities. The drainage system for this i • appliQation will be required to accommodate existing surface water flows from adjacent parcels to minimize, and likely improve, drainage in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. Parks Svstem There are no parks proposed through this application. Residents of the future single-family detached homes built upon the subject site will utilize existing Englewood and Summerlake park sites located north and west of the site. The impacts to these existing facilities will be minimal given the total lots of this subdivision application. Water Svstem Water system improvements necessary to serve the subject site consist of extending the existing public water line in the SW North Dakota public right-of-way into the site and installing individual water meters serving each of the lots. The water main extension will occur entirely within a public right-of-way. Impacts to the general public, existing public water system and affected private properties will be minimal. Sanitarv Sewer Svstem As depicted on the preliminary plan set included with this application submittal, a public sanitary sewer system is proposed for construction to serve the subject site. The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is an 8-inch line which is located within the Cottonwood St. public right-of-way and will be served via gravity. The proposed development will extend the public sanitary sewer system into the subject site via a 20-foot wide utilities easement. The easement will cross adjacent property connecting Cottonwood St. to allow for connection to the public system. Noise Impacts This application involves a subdivision creating single-family detached residential lots. Given the subject site lies within an area of existing single family residences, noise impacts associated with development of the subject are compatible based upon land use and will therefore be minimal. There will be short term noise associated with site development. These impacts are mitigated through conditions imposed by the City during the plat approval process. QTY OF TIGARD * • PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are .Valid for Six (b) Months) RESIDENTIAL Jrnuu:.~~av.e ~•.i.n:rmv:~v.n:rvvouxe~~ru uuenu.nn.r:uv-::,`-m~+rxwe...+.:...v~.n:v.e:.:-.::r_n~.~ FTf Fff? MG D41E ~ ns 9?#~'IU'Ft'~FFP: Gk. KM APPLICANT: ~Xt Phone: ( ) tsol PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): If ^)15 W oopcl t., O Nlrn-r" -is 13 y-C)LB - ocLi cp NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: ,0';t IM) AGENT: Phone: ( ) yT1.of 'fl'WRb..'oatnon Cotrsmunity oevebFment StiapirigA Better Community PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION:` if, e n COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R L~. S CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18. \0 MINIMUM LOT SIZEd.W. sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: 50 ft. Max. building height: 30 ft. Setbacks: Front D D ft. ' ' Side S ft. Rear 1S ft. Corner 1 ~S_ ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: GARAGES: ft. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout] THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S), AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submittinq your application or the aDDlication will not be acceDted. NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9 Residential Appkation/Planning Division section 1011"NAIRRATIVE [Refer to Code Chao 18.3901 is The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on. the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to cor►sider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. [IMPACT STUDY [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE. AN IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18365) f Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: ib ❑ WALKWAY REQUIREME (Refer to Code Chapter 18.705) Within all AVdIling ED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA, CO OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151- SEE EXAMPLE BELOW. The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: ti0l.~ All sensitive lands areas includina: ➢ Land within the 100-year floodplain; ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; on ➢ Drainageways; and NCB t5'~ I i~ t 1 ➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. Public riaht-of-wav dedication: _ IL, ➢ Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or ➢ Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or ➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: E)CAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single-Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8,712 so. ft. (20%) for public right-of-way NET: 34,848 square feet 3,050 (minimum lot areal TMntts ear cre Multi-Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 6,534 so. ft. (15%) for public right-of-wav MET: 37,026 square feet 3.050 (minimum lot areal TMnits er cre The Development code repuires that the net site area etastfor the next whole dwelling unit. NO BOUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. Minimum Pro lect Oensfty Is 80% of the maximum allowed density. TO OETEBMINE THIS STANDARD, MULTIPLY THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS BY.S. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Residendd Appricaton/Rlanning Division Section Page 2 of 9 SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to CI&Section 18.730) ➢ STREETS: feet from the centerline of ➢ FLAG LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures. ➢ ' ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multiple-family residential developments. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. [See applicable zoning district for the primary structures'setback requirements) ❑ FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PR ISIONS [Refer to Code Chapter 183301 MAXIMUM HEIGHT O 11/2STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2%2. stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R /I or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are satisfied. ❑ BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapte 8.7451 In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND T EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjace developments, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUF ER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in rms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees an shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obsc ing screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, an walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in th Development Code. The ESTIMATED REQUIJI3f_:D BUFFERS applicable to vour proposal area is: Buffer Level / along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary. Buffer Level / along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGWT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: V/LANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 18.7051 STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when. measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. dRECYCUNG [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9 Residential AppGcaBorVRanning Division Section PARKING (Refer to Code Chap'ie 18.765 a 183051 ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. , Single-family............ Requires ➢ Multiple-family......... Requires 0 One 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and One .1 ~ space per unit less than 500 square feet. 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking. NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. ❑ BICYCLE RACKS [Refer to Co7eaucks on 18.7651 BICYCLE RACKS are ired FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicy shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. ❑ SENS[T[VE LANDS [Refer to Code Chapter /,ON The Code provides REGULATIONS NDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO ARHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND ARSLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON- UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on aformation. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identifv sensitive land areas. and daries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensith/e lands must be clearly indicated on glans submitted with the develooment application. Chapter 18.775 also provide regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEV OPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 5.070.C1 When STEEP SLOPES exist, rior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses t approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The port shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommen tions for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. deLEANWATER SERVICES [CWSI BUFFER STANDARDS [Refer to R & 0 96-44/USA Regulations - Chapter 31 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. Desian Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 9 Residential Appricabon manning Division Section OBLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS 0 SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAURESOLUTION a ORDER 96-44 -SLOPE ADJACENT = :WIDTH OF-VEGETATED... SENSITIVE AREA DEFINI -1 - TO SENSITIVE AREA 'CORRIDgR,PER;Slb, . • Streams with intermittent flow draining: 0 10 to <50 acres f > 50 to <I 00 acres <25% 15 feet 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre • Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: 1 10 to < 50 acres 1 > 50 to < 100 acres • Existing or created wetlands • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres Natural lakes and ponds 25 feet <25% 50 feet > 25% 30 feet 50 feet > 25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure in 25-foot increments from the starting point to the top of ravine (break in <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine' 'Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delinealed spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 2Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 3The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. Restrictions in the Veaetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the USA Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a. separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider letter is not required. Q~SIGNS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.CJ A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 ResidendalAppricabon/Planning Division Section THE TREE PLAN SHALLOLUDE the following: 0 ➢ Identification of the location, size, species, and condition of all existing trees greater than 6_ inch caliper. ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. 2/MITIGATION [Refer to Code Section 18390.060.EJ REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. i CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7951 The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. The applicant shall show the clear vision areas on the site plan, and identify any obstructions in these areas. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9 Residential Applica6on/Planning Division Section Rf FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENS*8F STREETS [Refer to Code Section 18.030.1`3 A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: ➢ . Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. ➢ Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future.division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. ~I/ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'/Z TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1'/z times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. [BLOCKS [Refer to Code Section 18.810.0901 The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330 (conditional use) - 18.340 (Director's Interpretation) 18.350 (Planned Development) _ 18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.370 (variances/Adjustments) 18.380 (Zoning Map/rextAmendments) 18.385 (Miscellaneous Permits) 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) - 18.410 (Lot Line Adjustments) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.430 (Subdivisions) 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) - 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) 2 cq~ 18.620 (Tgard Tria (off street Partcinglloading Requirements) l9 18.630 (washingt01 t (Sensitive Lands Review) / II 18.705 (AccesslEgrj (Signs) 18.710 (Accessory key uo i (Temporary Use Permits) 18.715 (Density Computations) _Z_ 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.795 (visual Clearance Areas) 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities) 18.730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) Y 18,810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) / 18.742 (Home occupation Permits) 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) / 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ✓ 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Residential Appl c on/Planning Division Section Page 7 of 9 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENT* 0 -;,F C SI(tiC, G~.r i - 1i1=:FY'C r)rx' (flTi(',.~ {`(7< V t , -7~,IU`•1QQt`Sl~~.)P fYlt~~_~" Q~~~rPSS 4~~ G:.~~n,a In G~c;.(J-t•{'.^~ 1:,,-~1.. C; C'.~-•P.<"-i~•- Y'(~G~I` C~1'l 1 L C.L3S S~rJ:e,~ `~ftDJ (~Qr 'PitPf ~7 t i Nl 1iZ~a' ~'c~(*•1'Pc-~~ C•,-~ f ~i Pc,.r~JC: ~ N\ cj~, ;744fr_ ~~teP~ 1'~Cin p ~ 4 t ! V PROCEDURE / V Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. The Plannina counter closes at 4:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1). 8'/2" x 11" map of a proposed proiect should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision.. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application. and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Applicabon Conference Notes Page 8 of 9 Residential Appfication/Ranning Division Section The administrative decisio public hearing will typically occur ap imately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as ng complete by the Planning Division. pplications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would e heard by the Tigard A basic flowchart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the prima Community Development Code requirements applicable to'the potential development of a particu ar site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION (County Surveyor's Office: 503-648-88841 PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are reauired to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the Citv's r)olicv is to aogly those svstem development credits to the first buildina_permit issued in the develooment (UNLESS. OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE-OTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects rela ego site planning that should app)y to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the CoWe shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DI~ISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (S03) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 E-MAIL (surfs first nafne)@ci.tigard.or.us TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: wwwxi.tlgard.or.us H:Ipattylmasters\Pre-App Notes Residential.doc Updated: 26-Jun-02 (Engineering section: preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Appiication Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 Residential ApplicAon/Planning Division section PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Maplsh 1S134DB Tax Lolls): 400 Use Type: Subdivision The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a proiection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-wav 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: ® SW North Dakota to 29 feet from centerline ® SW Internal Street(s) to 50 feet total ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet Street improvements: ® Half street improvements will be necessary along SW North Dakota, to include: ® 18 feet of pavement from centerline ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk with curb-tight planter strip. ® street trees ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 Englneering Department Sectlon ® Full street improvements will be necessary along SW Internal Street, to include: ® 28 feet of pavement curb-to-curb ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk with curb-tight planter strip ® street trees ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ® Other: Alianment at intersection with North Dakota Street may have to be revised. ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW. , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk CITY OF TIGAR0 Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 6 Engineering Department Section ❑ street signs, traffi*ntrol devices, streetlights and a twoear streetlight fee. ❑ Other: Aa reement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (2.) Overhead Utility Lines: Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility Lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 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 North Dakota. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located in North Dakota Street. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to extend the public sewer line into the development within the proposed public road ROW. Water Supply: The City of Tigard (Phone:(503) 639-4171) provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-7010] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 Engineering oepartment section - --i---J . , VII ICI questions related to fire prote n. • Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall.be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. Detention is required if the net new impervious area exceeds 5000 square feet. Storm Water Qualitv: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from 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 will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require. ® Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. Other Comments: 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. 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 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 6 Engineering Department Section circumstances, payment oft TIF may be allowed to be deferred I the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payWt until occupancy is permissible when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. Pay the fee. PERMITS Public Facilitv Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE: If an PFI Permit is required, the applicant must ohtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Buildina Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BLIP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 Engineering Department section Master Permit (MST). is permit is issued for all single and Iti-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for biting construction, including sub-tra*(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 hornebuilder 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 corners of the building. PREPARED BY: q• no- 0-') ENGINE ING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE Phone: [503) 639-4111 Fax: [503) 624-0152 documenl2 Revised: September 2, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 Engineering Department Sectlon Tree Protection Plan SITE ADDRESS 7G/~`~f'G ~~(<.~T/ ✓ISt~rt Follow the below listed instructions in order to provide the proper protection before, during and after construction for tree # :5 7"~'`~~~4~-~-t I. Before Construction: App. Man-App. Identify and number the trees to be protected, verify by mapping-and/or tagging and note their size in D.B.H. (Diameter.at. Breast Height), variety, health and structural conditions, review plans. _2' ❑ b. Check with local government agencies for tree protection ordinances. c. Remove any low limbs that may be in the way of construction equipment, and prune as needed to adhere NAA standards. fr7 C7 d. Leave a protective covering on the soil, i.e., existing groundcover or mulch. ❑ e. Notify all other contractors that these trees are to be saved and protected, f, Install a temporary 6' high fence to protect the trees and their root systems. Install tree protection sign on fence. Posts located 10' on center as a general rule. For every inch in diameter of the trunk (D.B.H.) allow up to 1 foot of radius from the trunk as the protected area. (Example: 24" D.B,H. = 24' radius of protected root system.) Ideally, we need to protect more than the drip zone. The drip zone into the trunk is the supporl: roots that hold the tree up. The roots from that drip zone out provide nutrition, water and oxygen. Try to avoid loss of more than 30% of root on any one side. This allows somA,_ encroachment within the drip lire.-.This should be determined on a case by case site conditions reviewed. SEE ENCLOSED SITE PLAN) ❑ ~1 g. Identify any insect or disease problems that may require treatment. j~L] h. Engineer and design proposed structures and construction to avoid root loss. Bridge type foundations can save major roots. Q-'la i. Design landscape islands and planting areas large enough to accommodate trees at maturity. O J. Plant.the right tree in the right place. Avoid future conflicts with buildings and utilities. O 91 k. Have an experienced Arborist review landscape plan to assure the right tree is planted in the right place and proposed changes don't kill retained. mature trees. P1 ❑ I. Consider tree removals adjacent to trees to be saved for wind related stability concerns. ApL !`ion-AM • m. Check for past and; proposed grade and drainage changes, consider the effects. .e' p n. Check trees for stability. 12r_,❑ o. Remove all trees that would not survive the effects of change. Remove all hazardous trees. B'" O P. Minimize environmental changes. II. Qudn Construction: , '*-o a. Keep equipment off of the root system to avoid compaction, b:. Keep equipment away from structure to prevent damage to trunk and limbs. ❑ c. Don't allow chemicals to be dumped on the ground near the tree, i.e., gasoline, diesel, paint, herbicide, cleaner, thinners, etc. ❑ d. Provide means of temporary irrigation if the project runs through the summer. e. If roots or limbs are cut or damaged, have them inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist and repaired or treated according to his/her recommendations. f. Protect the trees from excessive heat, i.e., equipment, paving and/or burning. ❑ g. Avoid trenching through the root systems, boring under them or hand digging can save roots. ❑ h. Contact the ISA Certified Arborist familiar with the site prior to and during any activity within the drip zone or tree protection fencing for consultation. III. After [ onstruction: . a. Carefully landscape the area under the tree, being careful of the roots and structure, Use plantings that will :live under the same conditions as that of the tree. ❑ Provide insect and!disease control, fertilization and pruning as needed or adhere to long term protection plan if provided. ❑ c. Avoid direct irrigation spraying onto the trunk. The amount of irrigation needed to keep new plantings alive can often be enough to kill mature trees. ❑ d. Do not cover existing root systems with more than Z" of soil. The more soil you add, the greater the chances of damaging the root system. zo__ e: Provide irrigation and/or drainage to emulate pre-construction conditions. NOTE; It would be impossible to provide all of the above protection measures, however the more roots that can be:saved and the least amount of surrounding environmental changes that we can prevent; the greater the chances of saving existing trees. Often it is best to replant with the right tree in the right place so it can grown in the new environment. TOTAL P.03 rRA i. R. I -G7~GYJCJN J QFR H OCT 29 2004) UST-13:27/No-6806 ' 572282 P 1 1 J • c 1 ~ i I[CC l.h4Ct UI`~ 11'I 1`ft' ' ~ JbJ bJJ 1J47 t' . ►~G~ 1~' /a 74 So3• d~~-• ~z y~. TREE SURVEY Planning Resources, Inc. ken Sandblast RE: SW North Dakota Tigard, OR* February 18, 2004 IDa .Common Specie DOM Condition I Addlition■1 Viable/ Name I I Commontto ' Non-Vlabte 142 1 Apple I Malus 1 14 1 Poor I Structural defects I Non-Viable 172 1 walnut I Juolans 1 20 1 Good I I Viable 191 1 Douolas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesli 1 38 1 Good I ) Viable 192 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 28 1 Good 1 I Viable 193 I ou [as Fr I Pseudotsuga menziesil 122 I Fair l I Viable 194 1. Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 13 1 Poor I Structural defects I Non-Viable 195 1 Douolas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 10 1 Poor I No top I Non-Vtable 196 1 Pine I Pinus 1 10 1 Poor I Poor structure I Non-Viable 197 1 Douolas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesli I I8 I Poor I No toD I Non-Viable 198 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesli 1 26 1 Good I I Viable 205. 1 Alder I Alnus I is I Poor I Leaninv I Non-Viable 209 1 Cherry I Prunus 1 30 1 Poor I Structural defects I Non-Viable 210. 1 Fruit tree I 1 12 1 Fair I I Viable 213 1 Cedar I Cedrus 1 40 1 Good I I Viable 216 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsugs menziesil 1 48 1 Good I I Viable 217 1•Alder I Alnus 1 12 1 Poor I Decav I Non-Viable 218- Alder I Alnus 1 12 I Poor I Decav I Non-Viable 219 I. Alder Alnus 1 12 I Poor I Decay I Non-Viable 220 1 Alder Alnus 1 12 1 Poor I Decav I Non-Viable 225 1 Alder I Alnus 1 10 1 Poor I DeCay I Nori:Viable 232 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesli 1 34 1 Good I 1 Viable 239• I Alder I Alnus 1 24 1 Poor I Dead too Non-Viable 240 1 Douolas Fr I Pseudotsuga menziesli 1 24 1 Good 1 Viable 241 1 Pine I Pinus 1 40 1 Good I I Viable 258; I' Douolas Fr I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 24 1 Good I I Viable 348 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 12 1 Poor I Structural -defects I Non-Viable 351 Douolas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 24 1 Poor I Leaninq I Non-Viable 354 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesli 1 14 1 Fair I I Viable 3S6. I Alder I Alnus 120 1 Fair I I Viable 357 1 Douglas Fir t Pseudotsuga menziesli 1 28 1 Poor I Structural defects I Nan-Viable 358 - 1 Cherry I Prunus 1 18 1 Poor I Leanlna I Non-Viable 359 1 Maple I Acer 120,20 1 Fair I I Viable 360 1 Cedar I Cedrus 1 12 1 Good I I Viable Flasidentiial and Commerclat Spraying • Fertilizing • Pruning • Landscape Installation • Landscape Maintenance • Consultation MEMBER: National Arbodst Association • Intemational Society of Arboriculture • Oregon Association of Nurserymen Oregon Golf Course Superintendents' Association - Oregon Landscape Contractors Association State Licensed Tree Service #62635 • Landscape Contractor 05669 • Chemical Application #000231 • Insured P.O, Box 1566 • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 • 503-635-3165 • Vancouver 360-737-2646 • FAX 503-635.1549 Visit our website at wwN.treecarelandSCapes.com FROM (FR i) OCT 29 2004 108/ST.13:27/No-6806572282 P LkI-2y-2004 13!22 WREE CARE UNLIMITED 503 635 1549 P.03/05 1071 Common Specie Name 361 1 Douolas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 362 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 363 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesli 364 I Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesil 365 I Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesli 367 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 368 I Pine I Pinus 369 I Alder I Alnus 375 I Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 376 1 Alder I Alnus 377 1 Alder I Alnus 392 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuoa menziesii ^395 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 396 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 410 I Douglas Fir { Pseudotsuqa menziesii 411 I Douglas Fir ( Pseudotsuqa menziesii 425 J. Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 426 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 427 (.Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 430 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 431 1 Douglas Fir { Pseudotsuqa menziesii 433 1 Douglas Fir 1. Pseudotsuqa menziesil 434 1 Dou"I % Fir PF_0g,0_gts a menziesli 435 1 Douqlas Fir Pseudotsuqa menziesii 4377 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesil 438 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 439 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesli 440 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 441'.1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 442 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 443 1 Douqlas Fr I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 444' 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 446 1 Doualas Fr I Pseudotsuqa menziesli 447 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 448 1 Doualas Fr I Pseudotsuaa menziesli 451 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 452 1 Douglas Fri Pseudotsuqa menziesii 453 I Maple. 1 Acer 454 I Douqlas Fir { Pseudotsuqa menziesii 455 Douala$ Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesli 458 { Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 461 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 462 I Alder I Alnus 463 i Alder i Alnus 466 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 467 1 Alder I Alnus 468 1 Douglas Fr I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 469 1 Douolas Fir 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesli 470 Alder I Alnus 471 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 472 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesli 474 I Alder I Alnus 419 I Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 485 I Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 502 I Maple I Acer OBH 1 43 116 1 30 1 12 1 28 1 i8 1 36 1 LO 1 12 1 13 118 _ 118 1 44 126 143 1 13 139 1 40 1 24 1 32 1 21 1 24 1 34 1 34 1 35 112 115 117 1 23 19 1 13 1 17 1 22 17 1 19 I8 111 1 12 1 27 1 27 1 16 132 121,20,14 {21 1 10 1 16 116 111 11.9 1 24 I is 118 116 1 20 1 23 Condition Additional Comments I Good I Good I Good I Fair I Good (-Good I Good I Poor I Poor I Poor { Fair I Fair I Good Good I Good I Poor i Fair I Fair I Fair I Good I Good I Good I Good j Good Good I Fair I Fair I Fair I Good I Poor I Poor I good Fair. I Fair { Fair I Poor Fair I Poor I Godd I Good I Poor I Poor I Poor I Fair I Poor I Poor I Fair i Poor I Fair Good I Poor I Fair I Poor I Good I Fair I Dead top I Structural defects I Leaninq I Leaning, one-sided Double trunk Double trunk No top Double trunk 1 I I I 1 No top i Structural defects I 1 I I No top I I Structural defects I I I NO too I Structural defects I Structural defects I i No top, leaning I Leaning I I Leaninq I l I No too 1 i No top I I Viable/ -Non-Viable J Viable I Viable I Viable i Viable Viable Viable I Viable I Non-Viable I Non-Viable I Non-Viable i Viable ..I Viable i Viable I Viable I Viable I Non-Viable _I Viable I -Viable i Viable 1 Viable 1 Viable M Viable I Viable I Viable i Viable ! Viable I Viable I Viable I Viable I Non-Viable i 'Non-Viable Viable :Viable I 'Viable I :Viable I Non-Viable I Viable , - I Non-Viable 1 Viable I Viable I -Non-Viable i Non-Viable Non-Viable I .Viable I'Non-Viable I Non-Viable -Viable I Non-Viable I Viable 1 Viable I Non-Viable i Viable I -Non-Viable { Viable Viable FROM (FROOCT 29 2004 1~8/ST. 13:27/No.6806572282 P 3 U-s l 1.S: 23 WEE CARE UNL 1 M 1 I Ell are o a 1JY J IDO Common'. Spede DSN Condition Name S04 I Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuga_menziesii 1 20 1 Poor 505 1 Alder • I Alnus 1 22 1 Fair 511 - + Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 116 I Fair 521 Maple I Acer 1 21 1 Fair 522 1 Maple I Acer 1 34 1 Fair 525 i Maple 1 Acer 1 30 1 Poor 526 1 Maple I Acer 1 10 1 Poor 527 1 Maple I Acer 1 12,12 1 Fair 528 1 Maple I Acer 1 25 I Poor 52.9 1 Maple I Acer 1 12 I Poor 530 1 Alder I Alnus 1 17 I Fair 655 1 Alder I Alnus 1 14 1 Good 656 1 Alder I Alnus 1 32 1 Poor 658 1 Douglas Fie I Pseudotsuga menziesil 116 I Good 659 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuaa-menziesil 1 16 1 Good 660 1 Douqlas For I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 16 1 Poor 661 I Alder I Alnus 1 14 1 Poor 662 1 Doualas Fib I Pseudotsuaa menziesil 1 11 1 Poor 663 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 22 1 Poor 664 1 Douqlas Fir I PseudotsuQa menziesii 1 26 1 Good 665 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesli 1 14 1 Good 666 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuga•menzlesli 1 14 1 Poor 667 1 Douolas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 110 I Poor 668 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 1 22 1 Good 670 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 10 1 Good •671 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii ( 10 1 Good 672 1 Douqlas Flr I Pseudotsucia.menziesli 1 10 1 Poor 673 1 Alder Alnus 1 11 1 Fair 674 1 Douqlas Fir Pseudotsuqa menzlesii 1 24 1 Good 675 I•D.ouglas Fir I Pseudotsuga•menzlesii 1 10 1 Poor 676 - Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 16 1 Fair 677 TDouglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii F12 I Poor 6_76 - Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuaa•menzlesii 1 12. 1 Poor 679 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 10 1 Poor 680 1 Alder I Alnus 1 24 1 Poor 681 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 14 Poor 682 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesil 1 12 1 Poor 683 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 1 16 1 Poor 684 1 Doualas Fir I PseudotsuQa renziesli 1 12 1 Poor 685 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesli 1 12 1 Fair 686 1 Maple I Acer 1 28 1 Good 686 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 1 10 1 Good 689 1 Douqlas Fir i Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 20 1 Poor 690 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesii - 1 12 1 Poor 691 1 Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesil 1 20 1 Fair 692 I Doualas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 12 1 Poor 693 1 Douqlas Fir i PseudotsuQa ~menzlesii 1 12 1 Poor 694 1 Douqlas Fr I Pseudotsuga menziesil •1 28 1 Good 695 1 Douglas Fir I Ps:audotsuga menziesli 1 16 1 Fair 696 1 •Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 16 1 Good 697 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 14 1 Good 698 1 Douqlas Fr I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 20 1 Good 699 1 Douqlas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 1 20 1 Good 700 1 Cherry I Prunus 1 16 1 Fair 701 _ Cherry I Prunus 1 10 1 Fair 702 Douqlas Fir I PseudotsuQa menziesii 120 _ i Good Additional Vlablo/ Comments Non-Viable Severe lean i Non-Viable I One sided I Viable I ) Viable' I Viable I I Viable I Structural defects 1 Non-Viable I Structural defects I Non-Viable I I Viable I Structural defects I Non-Viable I Structural defects I Non-Viable I 1 Viable 1 I Viable I Half dead I Non-Viable 1 I Viable I I Viable. I Structural defects I Non-Vlable I Leaning I Non-Viable I Structural defects I Non-Viabie i Structural defects I Non-Viable I Viable I I Viable I Structural defects I Non-Viable I Dead _ I Non-Viable I I Viable I I Viable- I I Viable I Leaning -1 Non-Viable I Sparse I Viable I i Viable I No too I Non-Viable y Viable I Structural defects I Non-Viable Leaninq I Non-Vlable I Structural defects I Non-Viable I No too I Non-Viable I Structural defects I Non-Vlable I Leaninq I Non-Viable i Leaning I Non-Viable I Structural defects i Non-Viabic I I Viable i I Viable I I Viable I Leaninq I Non-Viable I Structural damage i Non-Viable I Viable No top 1 Non-Viable I No too I Non-Viable Viable I IViable I I Viable I I Viable 1 I Vlable I I Viable Viable I viable I _ - i Viable rnum W (FROOCT 29 2004 9/ST.13:27/No.6806572282 P 4 E Ul..i -Gy-Ge~4 1S: 2.S GWE UN L 1 m 1 I tL Jr~J w_. . ~ ID# specie Common I DBH ( Condltion Additional Viable/: I I Name Comments Non-Viable 703 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziestli 1 20 I Poor I No top Non-Viable 704 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga meralesii 1 12 1 Poor I Structural damage Non-Viable = 705 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 20 1 Poor I Leaning Non-Viable 706 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 16 1 Fair I I Viable 707 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuna menziesii 1 48 1 Good 1 I Viable 711 1 Cherry I Prunus 1 ~0 I Fair I Viable_ 712 Western Thuja plicata 128 Good Viable .Red Cedar 713 1 Apple I Malus 1 48 1 Poor I Decay, structural damage I Non-Viable NOTE: Trees # are non-Viable trees and not included in the total D.B.H. Inches, Non-viable is defined as diseased, dead, dying, hazardous or nuisance trees as per the city's nuisance tree list. Tress 12" and greater. d TAX LOT !Cj Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed Trees Not Viable Trees Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count ( Size Count } Size Count ( Size 142 1 Ap ----~e........--~. 14 --Non-Viable-----....(--- --1 ~4- i..............i------------- - -14 172 Walnut F 20' Viable I i I 191 1 Douglas Fir 38-• I Viable 192 1 Douglas Fir { 28 { Viable 193 1 Douglas Fir I .22 • Viable ( 1 { 194 1 Douglas Fir 13 ! Viable 197 1 Douglas Fir I --18 I iNonW-. rb Iee~ C1' -18- 1 18 I 1 198 Douglas Fir I 2 } Viable-- . - - - - . - - - ` - 2 05 Alder - - 1.5 I FNan-7cCia' Z2Te _1,), { A- 15 1 15 209 I Cherry 30- Viable I ' 30 _I 30 210 Fruit tree I 12 Viable 1 I 12 1 12 _ 213 Cedar 40 Viable i 1--9 40 1 I 40 216 . Douglas Fir . . . 48 , . Viable ! 1 48 1 1 i 48 217 _ i Hazelnut _ - 12 Non-Viable ! 1 12 1 I 12 _ I __---_._.._f 218 Hazelnut : 12 Non-Viable { 1 I 12. 1 l.. 12 219 Hazelnut - - - 12 1 - - - Non-Viable 1 ( 12 I 1 _ I 12 220 - Hazelnut I 12' i Non-Viable__ I ~ 1 I 12 I 1 I 12 232 I Douglas Fir - -34% i Viable I 1•'° 34 I I 1 1 34 239 Alder = 2'41 : { 7t=T/11~1......-} ......._..:1~ _24 - - 1.........- 1 -24---..... - - ...L 240 - - Douglas Fir . - - 24'' I - rNon=Viab1e'P ( Gk 24 1 } 24 241 I Pine I -404 Viable ( _1=_- 40 f ( I 1 40 258 I Douglas Fir 24 i I Non-Viable- I 1 a I 24 I 1 I 24 I 348 Douglas Fir 1 I Non-Viable I 1 12 I 1 12- { I 351 l Douglas Fir -24 l . FNcrrVia-bT--:) 1 -1__ 24 1 24 1 354 Douglas Fir -14 j I r=Noft-1Ta6i8-F~ 14 1 14 356 357 Alder I l Douglas Fir l 20" I -78-f- I rNo",' iabfLm I r1V itp;~..... 1 I -:1..:... 20 28 I 1 1 1 i 20 I 28 I 358 I Cherry 18 I Non-Viable 1 18 359 Maole 40 } 1 I 40 - - 360 Cedar 2 • I Viable I 1 12 - . . i 12 361 Douglas Fir -43- (No-n--Wa-Me } -.1> 43 ~ -1-- 43 362 I Douglas Fir - 16-. Viable ( =1-- I 16 1 { 16 363 I Douglas Fir -30-° Viable I 364 { Douglas Fir 12 - Viable I I I 365 I Douglas Fir I --28! ' ! Viable i 1 367 I Douglas Fir i _-18- I Viable - I - - 368 Pine - - - - - : °36' -ia12 9 { 36 1 - 36 ..i 373 Douglas Fir . _ 14_!T . Mon~ViabtBi - , I' i --14 1 14 - - - _ 374 - Alder - 24'' - - . ttVoll=1/~atit8 1 A- 24 1 } - 1 24 _i-_- 375 I Douglas Fir I 12r- Non-Viable 1 1 12 I 1 1 12 1 ^ - - . - - - _ rr ~7g ; s': Tc-u s ey4 ms e- S •!~c w~r~~Q _ i S o~ e~ q7 12- I r /~/bii i, rCAL I 2-3 r• ) r~ 7-2 4f:;~ fe I. 6 ~O ~ 5c ,1 ov~v~ _71n~;fa& v% t ~S 7? 1 _x066 731=%15,-S- Tress 12" and greater. TAX LOT Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed Trees Not Viable Trees Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count { Size Count { Size Count { Size 376 I Alder -13' ! 146nWi-a-Ere, ( -1' { 13 y 1 I 13 I ! 377 I Alder - 18 i ,a/Jab7e~ I '1 I 18 I 1 18 I I 391 Douglas.Fir.- ....-41..%...... Viable Viable - - - - - - . 392 . Douglas Fir _ - 18, { Viable I 395 I _ Douglas Fir I --47 ' I Viable I 396 1 Douglas Fir I _35-- • i Viable I ! 410 1 Douglas Fir I -43• I Viable 43 I _ I I 1 I 43 411 1 Douglas Fir I - 13 •NOOHY16151e ! -1° 1 13 _ _ 1 I 13 1 415 I Maple I -18__,_ _ Viable I i I { 425 Douglas Fir. - _ 39 • I Viable . - - 426 I Douglas Fir -40- I Viable 427 I Douglas Fir -24- I Viable 430 I Douglas Fir 32• j Viable I cl 32 j 1 I 32 431 Douglas Fir I 21 Viable _`1:' _ 21 - 1 - - - 21 4 33 Douglas Fir I 24- ' Viable j 434 1 Douglas Fir -34- ! Viable l I I I 435 I Douglas Fir -34 ! Viable I I I 437 Douglas Fir I -35 - i Viable 1 35 ; 1 r 35 438 Douglas Fir 12 - I Viable j 1 12 1 j I 1 j 12 439 Douglas Fir I -1-5-, , I Viable ( '1 15 15 440 Douglas Fir r47- ' ~ Viable . .._=r..-------_-..._. -1~ - - - _ 441 Douglas Fir - 23- . . Viable -=1 23 1 23 443 Douglas Fir -1-3- ! (fjlrin-Viabl'& I =1- 13 I . 1 I 13 I - - - - 444 1 Douglas Fir --17• ( Viable 17 I __-1 ! 17.--- 446 I Douglas Fir 22 Viable 22 - _ I 1 _ 448 I Douglas Fir _ 19 • Viable I =1 I 19 453 I Maple I 12' Non-Viable 12 1 12 454 Fi r Doug las -28:-1 ...1. ----Viable - - I-- - - ---I- - - - 4 55 - a r s i oua D -27 ~ ' Viable I . _ _ . - I 458 _ I I Douglas Fir - -16- • I_ on-.-b1e D~_; -=1- 16 I 1 _-16 _ 461 I Douglas Fir I - 32- - I - Mon- ,l(e l 1 ~1- 32 1 _ I 32-- 462 Alder -55- rNb-a Vtab~P..{.---- d -55---- ----55..... - _ 463 . Alder -2-1-- - ~ eNon=ViabUi ~1- • 21 1 1 21 _ 467 Alder I 16- _ r °NOf1`t2~ I cl 16 16 468 , Douqlas Fir I I -16 l ! Viable i -1 { 16 I f 1 1 16 470 , I Alder 1 ---19- - - Viable I lv.- - 19 I 1 I 19.............. 471 I Douglas Fir I x-24 - Viable 1 - - - - ..--1.. - - - - - i - 472 I DDouglas Fir 1-5 - - - Ko-W-Wa er 1 11- I 15 j 1 I 15 474 Alder - ' ~ ab 1-8 . - ._18 479 . Douglas Fir - -T6-= AVO~t= wblejl "Z 16 _ 1 ----_---16_---- I 279 Tress 12" and greater. TAX LOT Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed Trees Not Viable Tree~s} q Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count Size Count ,SKe Count Size 485 1 Doualas Fir I 20---- Viable I I o a l 502 1 Oreoon Ash I _23- lion--_V aaWe 1 23 1 1 23 f 504 1 Douglas Fir - °20 I-------D4f. l- Ie 20 - ---QO 505 1 Alder 22- 1 N0-n--. 2ibb6Z-- Y ° 22 1 I 22- 511 I Doualas Fir -16 I Viable I I I ( r+ 1 ! 521 I Oreaon Ash _ _21 - Viable I Z;1' I 21 ` I ?__-----_-___-•_21 522 1 Oreqon Ash 34• . 1 N;orC=lYidble I .1• I 34 I 1 34 525 1 Oregon Ash ( -30--. 1 f-:N.o",k- 61e~ 1 1 30 I 1 30 1 527 1 Oreaon Ash I 2'4 _ 1 c (Icon= abfew ( ~l« ' 24 I 1 24 ! - -528......... __Oregon Ash X25LVon=--------`1:-------..... . -..._..._25..._-.._....---- -1 -._......_-25 529 Oreoon Ash 12 Non-Viable .i 12 1 12 530 1 Alder -17`•-- tU6.n_Yi5q 1 17 1 17 1 1 655 1 Alder - 14 • Viable I =1 14 I 1 { 14 32 - 656 Alder - 3.2...._'...........' N.o rci 32 - .UIabT...~ ...................1° 658 Doualas Fir 16._-_--.---! Viable 4, I 16 1 I 16 659 1 Doualas Fir -16-- _y. Viable I 1 16 I 1 I " 16 NOin,-,%IabJC-._ 1.__ 1 16 16 I! 660 I Doualas Fir 16 663 Douqlas Fir I --22 I MoMV-•ia -re'-,? 11 ' I 22 1 ! 22 664 Douqlas Fir I 26-• ftffi- -ab-W' v I 1 26 665 Douglas Fir _I d -14 I ~NAri~lia5lel I 1 ; I - 14 1 1 14 666 Dou las Fir 14 r.NonWiable b 14 _-1 - 4......... - - - - - - - 668 Doualas Fir -2 2 - 1 - - Viable L__.. - - 671 Doualas Fir - 17 i _ Viable 1 1 - 17 1 - 674 1 Doualas Fir 24 . Viable 1 676 1 Doualas Fir ,--16 I Viable I _1 680 1 Alder 1 -24--- I NfialC I r - 24 1 I 24 I 681 1 Douqlas Fir 1 14-- I f1Go" [aW 1 r 14 1 I 14 I 682 Doualas Fir 1 12' 1 Nan-Viable i_-~'- 12 I 1 f 12 683 Douqlas Fir 1 16.- 1 (Non-vla-ble: _,`j .1 16 I 1 16 684 I Doualas Fir I, 12 • I Non-Viable __:=L1 12 1 I 12 1 685 Doualas Fir { 12 -_-_---__-_Viable 1 I Maple oua '28 .._Viable - • 689 D . las Fir ~20 • rlVZin=Vii ~l 20 _ 1 20 l 690 Doualas Fir 12 ! _ Non-Viable ! 12 1 12 Tress 12" and greater. 5S TAX LOT Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed T rees Not Viable Trees Impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count Size Count Size Count Size 691 I Douqlas Fir 1 -,--20- Viable 20 I I 1 20 692 I Doualas Fir 1 12 Non-Viable I 1 12 11 I 12 I 693 i Douqlas Fir 1 12 Non-Viable - 1-- 12 ~....._...-........1 -12 - { 694 Douqlas Fir I 28- 1 28 28 695 I Douqlas Fir I -1-6-; I 1e I 1 16 1 i 16 { 1 696 I Douqlas Fir_I r6-..._ Viable I 4 I 16 1 1 1 - , 16 - - 697 I Douqlas Fir.- ..---1.:" - Viable - - - - - - - 698 1 Douqlas Fir --20--- - -Viable - - - - - - - - - - - 699 Douglas Fir I -20 : Viable - - . - - , - _ - - 700 C her ry 16 ' Viable . - ---1- . . . - 16 702 . Douqlas Fir - - _,20- - Viable 11 - 1 20 L 1 20 703 Douqlas Fir 20.: Nomliable f fi 20 1 1 20 I 705 I Douqlas Fir '"'20`- "oeJEia le. I 1' 20 ( 1 20 1 { 706 las Fir Douq ---16-~- . 4oP;6Aable--• d - 16 1 1.6 . 707 - - - Doualas Fir ¢.48•• Viable 1 48 1 48 711 I, Cherry ` 30• Viable ',1 30 I I 1 30 712 Western Red -28-- , i Viable 11, 28 Cedar i _ 1 28 713 I A?ple Non-Viable--,,, 48 1 I 48 I I TOTALS 2968 97 2082 64 1295 34 813 TOTAL # OF TREES V 132 TOTAL # OF TREES RETAINED TOTAL # OF VIABLE TREES 35 68 TOTAL # OF VIABLE TREES RETAINED 34 -%-0.. VIABLE TREES RETAINED ....._...........50.0%. MITIGATION AS PER CITY CODE MITIGATION % REQUIRED BASE UPON THE ABOVE RETENTION 50% - TOTAL INCHES OF VIABLE TREES REMOVED 813 MITIGATION INCHES RE6UIf2ED 406.5 EQUIVALENT TOTAL # OF 2-INCH CALIPER REPLACEMENT TREES 203 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED MITIGATION COST 840,750.00 so 511 .r-.--• 505 FIR+ 18 ALDER+ 22 I ~14~0 ~ 5sn2 I d A + 2J + I ~R+ 485 j 529 530 58 FlR+ 20 ASH+ 1?. I ER+ 17 R+ 16 55 ,f 2s 0AALRt 18 R48 1 DF + 2 2 45 j 527 d d52 ; 47 ASN+ 2-12 FlR+ 15 A - - - - - - - - 522 X± 34 ' X11 7~` IR+ 13 + R I FlR} T2 R FIR+ 23 3n Fl v,O I- 1 ~I j--- - ,066+ 2\+ 37 31 4 2 20 14 ~cR II + a I Fl&+`', I~iri+Ye , R6 12 t~ I d I A 4 CC I Y E+ 18 j ALDESv 2 14 h{p + ti b , 7 R+ 6 6 6 I I FI1+g V; ni FIR+ ,3 ALDER+.20 38 NIP, Fdt g I j FlR+v~~11, 4 F1a+~43 I I ALDER + 34 5 4~ 2 +82D , Iz I 3 8,,1 R 14 7(~ I I ~FlR+g~1' Fl R+81 + +g 20 ~ 9,748 9 a. ~n ~5 PP2 FlR06t6 1LE 48 FIR 7 + .IAPlE++ p 5 Y+ 30 FIR + n / .70~D I FlR+2 + 1,§plb FIR+ 4$ 359 49 - / j j 00+ Is MAPLE .20+02 3 0 xg L Z +3 I 1 +.18 FIR ~J, Y+ 30 9 j 331 1 1+8 17 F R+.' - 1 + •1 AZELNUT+ 12 . AID + 46 CRABAPPLE+ 12 d~ .-L)4UT+ 12 1 ALD _R?. I 1 ALDER+.1 3~j ~wa W& jp N.4Z-WUT+l 1 d IS AZE NUT+ ,Z NORTH PIN Q24 FlR+. 8 ~7EY 3fi X28 1y177L2n``~}} 41.4 _ _ y`~Al.NU1AoPLE+ 14 * 4- -1. - - - m- * + 28 A planningResourcesinc. SCALE 1"= 60' SUBDIVISION land use and site planning 7180 SW Fr Loop. Sulu 201 ,r5503184-IOM DA 7E- SEPT. 2004 NORTHDAKOTA P.J.4 OR 97M SOU84-1028 F. PRO,ECT /04- TAU-200 VINCE BIGGI of :O U~ilimlt~~ OUTDATED MATERIAL (Can be Tossed after end of TREE SURVEY appeal period of final decision) REVISED 4/15/04 Planning Resources, Inc. Ken Sandblast RE: SW North Dakota Tigard, OR ID# Common Specie DSH NaLTre,_ ~ t _*'+RSLMpp4eW~'=4 I Malus 1 14 172 1 Walnut , I Juglans 1 20 191 ( Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 38 192 I Douglas Fr • I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 28 193 I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 22 194 .1 Douqlas Fir _ I Pseudotsuaa menziesil 1 13 E'N97A I1Mobalas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 1 18 198 . i Douglas Fir ' I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 26 MIAI~I~AIder I AIrSUS 115 209 .1- Cherry I Prunus 1 30 210 •1 F1owerinq Crab6DDle- 1 1 12 213 ' 1 Cedar . 1 Cedrus 140 216- Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 48 Hazelnut I 112 ,3ZW& I. Hazelnut I 1 12 T~51 Hazelnut I 1 12 Hazelnut: I 1 12 232 1 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 1 34 Q~I Alder - I Alnus 1 24 WRY, - I. Douglas Fr I Pseudotsuoa menziesii 1 24 ' 241 1 Pine I Pinus 1 40 I Douglas Fr , I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 24 -I; Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesll 112 1M, Douglas Fir (,Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 24 - 5§FItDo6gIas Fir , I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 14 J I Alder I Alnus 1 20 Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesll 1 28 _I' Cherry I Prunus l 18 k` 1 Maple ,597 I Acer 120,20 360 v Cedar I Cedrus 1,12 M•I Douglas Fir I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 43 ,13. ~t Condition I Poor I Good I Good I Good I Fair I Poor I Poor I Good I Poor I Poor I Fair I Good Good I Poor I Poor I Poor Poor Good Poor Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Poor February 18, 2004 Additional Comments structural defects No too Leaning Decay Decay Decay Decay Dead top Double tot) Double too Structural defects Leanino Structural defects Rot, decay Structural defects Leanino Decay, salit Split trunk, hazardous Viable/ Non-Viable I Non-Viable I Viable I Viable I Viable Viable I Viable I Non-Viable Viable I Non-Viable I Viable I Viable I Viable I Viable Non-Viable I Non-Viable I Non•Viable { Non-Viable I Viable I Non-Viable •(,.-Non-Viable I Viable I Non-Viable 1 Non-Viable Non-Viable 1 Non-Viable I Non-Vlable I Non-Viable I Non-Viable I Non-Viable I Viable Non-Vlable Residential and Commercial Spraying - Fertilizing a Pruning - Landscape Installation - Landscape Maintenance - Con~ultatlon MEMBER: National Arborist Association • International Society of Arboriculture o Oregon Association of NurseryrreT) Oregon Golf Course Superi ntendents' Association a Oregon Landscape Contractors Association State Licensed Tree Service #62635 - Landscape Contractor '#5o59 - Chemical Application ;#0002:31 Insured P.O: Box 1566 • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 ^ 503-635-3165 ° Vancouver 360-737-2646 - FAX 503-635-1549 Visit our website at %,vNw.tic,,ecarelandscapes.corn XD# Common Name 362, 1 Douglas Fir 363 ' I Douglas Fir 364 I Douqlas Fir I 365 1 Douqlas Fir I 367 .I Douqlas Fir i Pine . { 3EL311 Douglas Fir 0,11"AW, Alder l i ra`7'I Douqlas Fir I KIM" 11 Alder I f. 93ftW-!' Alder I 391 -1 Douglas Fir 392-( Douqlas Fir i 395 I Douglas Fir 396 I Douglas Fir 410 1 Douglas Fir 415 { Biq Leaf Maple 425 • I Douqlas Fir 426 • I Douglas Fir 427 I Douqlas Fir 430 I Douglas Fir 431 I Douglas Fir 433 • I Douglas Fir 434 I Douqlas Fir 435 I Douqlas Fir 437 d Douqlas Fir 43:8'w:1-.pouglas^.Fr.1 439 . I Douglas Fir 440 . I Douqlas Fir 441 I Douglas Fir I K*44,3-~, I Douqlas Fir -444- I Douglas Fir 446 I Doualas Fir 448.1 Douglas Fir I? 1 Maple 454.1 Douqlas Fir 455. 1 Douqlas Fr I Douqlas Fir I Alder Alder tI Alder 46'8-e,1;41~:~DouglasrFl 470, 1 Alder 471 1 Douglas Fir Viq,~Z,1 Douglas-Fir 'l 4tM Alder 7~1 Douqlas Fir ' 485 •1 Doualas Fir 1 Oregon Ash ©41, Douglas Fir %D Alder 511 I Douglas Fir 521 I Oregon Ash Specie DBH Condition Pseudotsuqa menziesii 116 i Good Pseudotsuqa menziesli { 30 I Good Pseudotsuga menziesii 112 I Fair Pseudotsuqa menziesii 128 I Good Pseudotsuga menzlesil 118 I Good Pinus 136 I Poor Pseudotsuqa menziesii 114" { Poor Alnus 1 24" 1 Poor Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 12 I Poor Alnus 1 13 I Poor Alnus 1 18 I Poor Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 41" I Good Pseudotsuqa menziesli i 18 I Fair Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 47 Good 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 35 I Good I Pseudotsuga menziesll 143 I Good I Pseudotsuga menziesii 113 I Poor I Acer macrophyllum 118" 1 Good Pseudotsuqa menzlesil { 39 i Fair Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 40 I Fair { Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 24 I Fair I Pseudotsuqa menzlesil 132 I Good I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 21 I Good I Pseudotsuqa menziesil 124 I Good { Pseudotsuqa menziesii 134 I Good Pseudotsuqa menziesii 134 Good Pseudotsuqa menzlesil 135 Good Pseudotsuqa menziesii 112 { Fair Pseudotsuaa menziesii 115 1 Fair Pseudotsuaa menziesll 1 17 I Fair Pseudotsuga menziesii 123 I Good I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 113 ( Poor I Pseudotsuqa menzlesil 117 I Good I Pseudotsuqa menziesll 122 1 Fair Pseudotsuga menziesii 119 1 Fair I Acer 1 12 1 Poor I Pseudotsuqa menziesll 1 28 1 Good I Pseudotsuqa menziesA 1 27 I Good I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 116 I Poor Pseudotsuqa menziesii 132 I Poor 1 Alnus 121,20,14 I Poor I Alnus 121 1 Poor I Alnus { 16 I Poor I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 116 I Fair I Alnus 1 19 I Fair I Pseudotsuaa menziesii 1 24 I Good I Pseudotsuga menziesli 15 Poor I Alnus i 18 1 Poor Pseudotsuqa menziesii { 16 1 Poor I Pseudotsuqa menziesll 1 20 I Good I Fraxlnus latifolia 1 23 I Poor I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 20 I Poor I Alnus 1 22 I Poor I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 116 I Fair I Fraxlnus ladfolia 121 I { Fair 10) Additional Comments No top Leaning Decay Structural defects Leaning Dead top I Leaning, one-sided Double trunk I Double trunk I I No top I Double trunk 1 I I' I I I I Structural defects I I I I Structural defects to top structural defects ;'tructural defects )ead top -eanina No top No too No too Dead Severe lean One sided. dead too Viable/ Non-Viable 1 Viable { Viable Viable Viable I Viable I Non-Viable I Non-Viable Non-Viable I Non-Vlable i iron-Viable I Non-Viable I Viable I Viable I Viable { Viable Viable Non-Vlable Viable 1 Viable . I Viable Viable Viable Viable i Viable i Viable I Viable { Viable Viable Viable ( Viable ( Viable I Ron-Viable I Viable I Viable I Viable I Non-Viable Viable I Viable I Non-Viable I Non-Viable Non-Viable Non-Viable I Non-Vlable I Viable ( Viable Viable I Non-Viable I Non-Viable i Non-Viable I Viable 1 Non-Viabie I Non-Viable I Non-Viabie Viable Viable l ID$ Common Specie Name M2zul, Oregon Ash' l 52,1,6 4r1 Oregon Ash r5`,?6,` Oregon Ash 1 ~:S27 Oregon Ash - I 15401 Oregon Ash • G5:2 11; Oregon Ash 1 D51,ROWI Alder - I 655 d Alder I A-51% I. Alder I 658 •1 Douglas Fir I 659 • 1 Douglas F•ir 1 Douglas Fir I 6~I Douglas Fir I a56~ • Douglas Fir 1 ?5= Douglas Fir Douglas Fir W18 I hDoucilas Fir Doualas Fir 670 I Douglas Fir - .''671x;IxDou:glas.'cf'if i4 I Alder 674 • 1 Douglas Fir - 676, 1. Doualas Fir Alder M I Doualas Fir 5?Il Douglas Fir G 11) Doualas Fr 8 1 Douglas Fir 685 • I Douglas Fir 686 • 1 Maple "6p Douglas Fir dfl Douglas Fir 691.1 Douglas Fir , Fli Douglas Fir t tMI Douglas Fir _694.1 Douglas Fir i tb9:`i' Doualas Fr 696 Douglas Flr ' 697 1 Doualas Fir 698 1 Doualas, Flr 699 -1 Douglas Fir • 700 Cherry 702 ' J Doualas Fir ae, : l Douglas Fir 6 7'U 'S1 Douglas Fir - U? 6W, Doualas Flr 707 • 1 Douglas Fir 711 • I Cherry 712 , 1 Western Red Cedar i71 I Apple ' . 1 DBH Condition Aaditional Viable,/ Comments Non-Vpable Fraxinus latifolia 1 34 Fraxlnus latifolia 130 Fraxlnus latifolia 110 Fraxinus latifolia 1 12,12 Fraxinus latifolia 125 Fraxinus latifolia 1 12 Alnus 1 17 Alnus 114 Alnus 1 32 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 16 Pseudotsuqa menzlesll 1 16 Pseudotsuqa menzlesll 116 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 11 Pseudotsuqa menziesii ( 22 Pseudotsuga menziesii 126 Pseudotsuqa menzlesll I 14 i Pseudotsuqa menziesii 114 I Pseudotsuga menziesii 122 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii ( 10 I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 17 1 Alnus 1 11 Pseudotsuga menzlesll 1 24 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 16 1 Alnus 124 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 14 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 12 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesil 1 16 I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 12 Pseudotsuga menzlesll 1 12 I Acer 1 28 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 20 I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 12 l Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 20 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 12 I Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 12 1 Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 28 I Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 16 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 16 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 114 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 20 1 Pseudotsuq_ a menziesli 1 20 1 Prunus 1 16 1 Pseudotsuga menziesil 1 20 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 20 1 Pseudotsuqa menziesii 1 20 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 16 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 48 1 Prunus 1 30 1 Thuia plicata 1 28 1 Malus 1 48 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Poor Good Good Poor Poor Poor I Poor Poor I Poor Good 1 Good Good Poor I Good I Fair I Poor I Poor I Poor I Poor I Poor I Fair I Good I Poor I Poor I Fair I Poor I Poor Good I Poor I Good I Good I Good I Good I Fair I Good Poor Poor I Poor Good I Fair I Good I Poor Rot, decay ( Non-Vlable Structural defects ( Non-Viable Structural defects I Non-Viabie Rot, decay ( Non-Viable .Structural defects I Non-Viable Structural defects I Non-Viable Dead top I Non-Viable Viable Half dead Non-Viable I Viable I Viable Structural defects I Non-Viable Structural defects I Non-Viable Structural defects I Non-Viable Conks I Nan-Viable I Conks Non-Viable Structural defects, lean Non-Viable ( I Viable 1 ( Viable I I Viable Sparse, dead top I Nori-Viable I Viable I Viable I No top I Non-Viable I Structural defects I Non-Viable I Leaninq I Non-Viable I Leaninq 1 Non-Viable I Structural defects I Non-Viable I I Viable I Viable 1 Leaninq I Non-Viable 1 Structural damage I Non-Viable I I Viable No top I Non-Viable I No top I Non-Viable 1 1 Viable I No too I Non-Viable 1 I Viable I Viable 1 I Viable I I Viable 1 I Viable I I Viable No top I Non-Viable I Leaninq Non-Viable I Leanina Non-Viable I I Viab.le I 1 Vlable I 1 Viable I Decay, structural damaqe i Non-Viable NOTE; Trees # are non-viable trees and not included in the total D.B.H. inches. Non-viable is defined as diseased, dead, dying, hazardous or nuisance trees as per the city's nuisance tree list, TOTAL P.84 Tress 12" and greater. TAX LOT Survey Common Tree Size Tree Removed Trees Not Viable Trees impacted Trees Point # Name (Inches) Condition Count Size Count Size Count Size 142 1 Amle 1 14 1 Non-Viable I 1 I 14 1 1 I 14 I I 172 I Walnut 1 20 I Viable I I I I I, 1 191 I Douqlas Fir 1 38 I Viable I I I I I I 192 1 Douqlas Fir I 28 I Viable I I I I 1 I 193 I Douglas Fir I 22 I Viable I I I I 194 I Douglas Fir I 13 I Viable I I I I I, I 197 I Douqlas Fir I 18 1 Non-Viable I 1 I 18 I 1 I 18 198 I Douglas Fir 1 26 Viable 205 I Alder I 15 I Non-Viable I 1 15 I 1 I 209 I Cherrv I 30 I Viable I 1 1 30 I ( I 1 I 30 210 I Fruit tree 1 , 12 I Viable I 1 1 12 I I I 1 I 12- 213 1 Cedar I 40 Viable I 1 40--_---__ I 40 216 1 Doualas Fir I _ 48 J _ Viable I 1 48 I I ( 1 48 217 I Hazelnut I 12 1 Non-Viable I 1 I 12 I 1 I 12 I I 218 I Hazelnut 1 12 1 Non-Viable I 1 I 12 I 1 I 12 I I 219 I Hazelnut 1 12 I Non-Viable I 1 I 12 I 1 I 12 I I, 220 I Hazelnut I 12 I Non-Viable I 1 I 12 I 1 I, 12 I I 232 I Douglas Fir I 34 I Viable I 1 I 34 I 1 I 1 I 34 239 I _ Alder I 24 I Non-Viable 1 I 24 I 24 1 1 1 1 1 24 1 24 I I 240 I Douqlas Fir I 24 1 Non-Viable 1 241 I Pine I 40 1 Viable I 1 1 40 1 I I 1 I 40 258 I Douqlas Fir I 24 I Non-Viable I 1 1 24 I 1 I 24 I I 348 I Douqlas Fir I 12 I Non-Viable I 1 1 12 I 1 I 12 I 1 351 I Doualas Fir I 24 I Non-Viable I 1 1 24 I 1 I 24 I 354 1 Douglas Fir I 14 I Non-Viable 1 1 1 14 I 1 I 14 I 356 I Alder 1 20 1 Non-Viable I 1 1 20 I 1 1 20 1 I 357 I Douglas Fir I 28 I Non-Viable I 1 1 28 I 1 I 28 I I 358 I Cherrv I 18 I Non-Viable I 1 1 18 I 1 I 18 I I 359 I Male I 40 I Non-Viable I 1 1 40 I 1 I 40 I I 360 I Cedar Y2: -__-----.Viable I 1 12 1 12 361 Doualas Fir 43 Non-Viable I 1 43 1 43 362 1 Doualas Fir I 16 I Viable I 1 1 16 ( I I 1 I 16 363 I Doualas Fir 1 30 I Viable I I I I I I 364 I Douglas Fir 1 12 I Viable I I I I I I 365 I Douqlas Fir 1 28 I Viable I I I I, I I 367 Doualas Fir 1 18 I Viable I I I I I I 368 Pine Non-Viable 1 36 1 I 36 373 _ Douqlas Fir 14 Non-Viable 1 14 1 14 374 1 Alder I 24 1 Non-Viable I 1 I 24 I 1 I 24 I I 375 1 Douqlas Fir I 12 1 Non-Viable 1 1 1 12 I 1 I 12 I I Tress 12" and greater. Survey Common Tree Size Tree Point # Name (Inches) Condition 376 I Alder 1 13 1 Non-Viable 377 I Alder 1 18 1 N6n-Viable 391 I Douglas Fir 1 41 1 Viable 392 I Douglas Fir 1 18 1 Viable 395 1 Douglas Fir 1 47 I Viable 396 I Douglas Fir I 35 I Viable 410 I Douglas Fir I 43 I Viable 411 I Douglas Fir I 13 I Non-Viable 415 I Maole 1 18 1 Viable 425 Douglas Fir I 39 1 Viable 426 I Douglas Fir I 40 I Viable 427 I Douglas Fir I 24 I Viable 430 1 Douglas Fir 1 32 I Viable 431 1_PpLLglas Fir 2 1 1 Viable_ 433 I Douglas Fir I 24 I Viable 434 I Douglas Fir I 34 1 Viable 435 I Douglas Fir I 34 1 Viable 437 I Douglas Fir I 35 I Viable 438 I Douglas Fir I 12 I Viable 439 1 Douglas Fir I 15 I Viable 440 I Douglas Fir 1 17 1 Viable 441 I Douglas Fir 1 23 1 Viable 443 I Douglas Fir I 13 I Non-Viable 444 I Douglas Fir I 17 I Viable 446 I Douglas Fir I 22 I Viable 448 1 Douglas Fir 1 19 1 Viable 453 I MaDle 1 12 1 Non-Viable 454 I Douglas Fir 1 28 1 Viable 455 I Douglas Fir I 27 I Viable 458 I Douglas Fir I 16 I Non-Viable 461 I Douglas Fir I 32 I Non-Viable 462 I Alder I 55 I Non-Viable 463 Alder 1 21 1 Non-Viable 467 I Alder 1 16 1 Non-Viable 468 I Douglas Fir 1 16 1 Viable 470 I Alder 1 19 1 Viable 471 I Douglas Fir 1 24 1 Viable 472 Douglas Fir 1 15 1 Non-Viable 474 Alder 18 I ~ Non-Viable 479 Douglas Fir 16 1 Non-Viable TAX LOT Removed Trees Not Viable Trees Impacted Trees Count Size Count Size Count Size I 1 I 13 1 1 I 13 I i I 1 I 18 I I, I I I 1 I I I 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 43 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 43 I 1 I 13 I I I 1 I I 13 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 32 I I I I I I 1, 1 i 32 1----- 21 I I I 1 i I 21 I I I I I 1 I 35 I I I I 1, I I 1 I 35 I 1 I 12 I I I 1 I 12 I 1 1 15 I I I 1 I, 15 I 1 1 17 1 I I 1 I 17 I 1 1 23 I I I 1 I 23 I 1 I 13 I 1 1 13 I I 1 I 17 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I, I 17 I I I 1 I 12 I I I 1 1 I I I I 12 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 16 I I 1 I I, I 16 i I I i 1 1 32 I 1 I 32 I I I 1 I 55 I 1 I 55 I 1 I 21 I 1 1 21 I 1 I 16 I 1 1 16 I I 1 I 16 I I I 1 I 16 1 I 19 I I I I i 1 I I 19 I 1 I 15 I 1 1 15 1 I I 16 16 • Tress 12" and greater. Survey Common Tree Size Tree Point # Name (inches) Condition 485 1 Douglas Fir 1 20 1 Viable 502 I Oreoon Ash 1 23 1 Non-Viable 504 I Douqlas Fir 1 20 I Non-Viable 505 1 Alder 1 22 1 Non-Viable 511 1 Douqlas Fir 1 16 1 Viable 521 1 Oregon Ash 1 21 1 Viable 522 1 Oregon Ash 1 34 1 Non-Viable 525. 1 Oreqon Ash 1 30 1 Non-Viable 527 I Oreqon Ash I 24 1 Non-Viable 528 1 Oregon Ash I 25 1 Non-Viable 529 1 Oreqon Ash 1 12 1 Non-Viable 530 1 Alder 1 17 1 Non-Viable 655 1 Alder I 14 1 Viable 656 1 Alder I 32 1 Non-Viable 658 1 Douqlas Fir 1 16 1 Viable 659 1 Douqlas Fir 1 16 1 Viable 660 1 Douqlas Fir 1 16 1 Non-Viable 663 1 Douqlas Fir 1 22 1 Non-Viable 664 I Douqlas Fir 1 26 1 Non-Viable 665 I Douqlas Fir 1 14 1 Non-Viable 1 666 I Douqlas Fir 1 14 1 Non-Viable 1 668 I Douqlas Fir 1 22 1 Viable 1 671 I Douqlas Fir 1 17 I Viable 1 674 I Douqlas Fir 1 24 1 Viable 1 676 1 Douqlas Fir 1 16 1 Viable 1 680 I Alder 1 24 1 Non-Viable 1 681 I Douqlas Fir 1 14 1 Non-Viable 1 682 I Douqlas Fir 1 12 1 Non-Viable 1 683 I Douqlas Fir 1 16 1 Non-Viable i 684 I Douqlas Fir 1 12 1 Non-Viable 1 685 1 Douqlas Fir 1 12 1 Viable 1 686 1.... Maple 1 28 I Viable 689 1 Douqlas Fir 1 20 1 j Non-Viable 690 1 Douqlas Fir 1 12 1 Non-Viable I TAX LOT Removed Trees Count Size I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 20 22 21 34 30 24 25 12 17 1 1 32 1 16 I 16 i 16 I 22 I I 14 I 14 I I 17 I I I 24 I 14 I 12 I 16 I 12 1 I 20 12 I Not Viable Trees Count I size I 1 I I 23 I 1 I 20 I 1 I I 22 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34 1 30 I 24 I 25 I 12 I 17 I 1 32 I I I 16 22 I 26 14 I 14 I I I I I I I I 24 I I 14 I 12 I I 16 I I 12 I I I 20 I 12 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Impacted Trees Count Size I I I I I 1 I 21 I I I I i I 1 I 16 1 I 16 I I I I I I 1 I 17 I I I I I I Tress 12" and greater. Survey Common Tree Size Point # Name (Inches) 691 1 Doualas Fir 1 20 692 1 Doualas Fir I 12 693 I Douglas Fir I 12 694 I Douqlas Fir I 28 695 I Douqlas Fir I 16 696 I Doualas Fir I 16 697 I Douglas Fir I 14 698 1 Douqlas Fir 1 20 699 I Douqlas Fir 1 20 700 I Cherry ___I 16 702 I Douglas Fir 1 20 703 I Douqlas Fir 1 20 705 I Douqlas Fir 1 20 706 I Douglas Fir I 16 707 I Douqlas Fir I 48 711 I Cherrv I 30 712 Western Red 28 Cedar 713 I APDle 1 48 TOTALS 2968 Tree Condition I Viable I Non-Viable ( Non-Viable I Viable I I Non-Viable I I Viable I I Viable I I Viable I I Viable I I Viable I I Viable I I Non-Viable I I Non-Viable I Non-Viable I I Viable I I Viable I, Viable I Non-Viable I TAX LOT Removed Trees Count I Size 1 I 20 1 I 12 1 I 12 1 I 28 1 I 16 1 I I 16 i 1 I 16 1 I 20 1 I 20 1 I 20 1 I 16_ 1 I 48 1 I I I I I I I 30 Not Viable Trees Count size I I 1 1 12 I I 1 I 12 1 I 1 I I I 6 1 I I I 1 I I 20 1 20 I 1 _ I ~ I I 16 I I 1 28 1 1 48 1 94 2027 TOTAL # OF TREES 132 TOTAL # OF TREES RETAINED 38 TOTAL # OF VIABLE TREES 68 TOTAL # OF VIABLE TREES RETAINED 37 .%o OF VIABLE TREES_RETAINED.-----......... 54.4%... MITIGATION AS PER CITY CODE MITIGATION % REQUIRED BASE UPON THE ABOVE RETENTION 50% TOTAL INCHES OF VIABLE TREES REMOVED 758 MITIGATION INCHES REQUIRED 379 EQUIVALENT TOTAL # OF 2-INCH CALIPER REPLACEMENT TREES 190 1 1 48 I 64 1295 Impacted Trees Count Size 1 I I 20 I 1 I 28 1 1 I 16 I 1 _ 16 1 I I 20 1 48 1 1 30 1 I 28 I 31 758 9 TOTAL MITIGATION COST $38,000.00 ,,~Ir ,t -,°i: ~;F; -'?',Y,['" -,,r'... ._r'•' ;v;r-.; - .,r~, - fix,.-w;,; y..: t.- ia= OUTDATED MATERIAL °r (Can be Tossed after end of appeal period of final decision) f 15 . i. Y +l { •-y., P l # r:! :ice - RE+ =s- 4'r _ 1-1+ ~i- cr - n• ~e rt 'Re's ' .y - es .:.Inc.' rye, : `'r `a-.: e n ri. a d b a~ _ s t' 5 RE. 5', W i't a.kota:-• - - - - - - T l :r a d" O'P2 9. ' .z 1. 46 'Jr •'sJi• - ~tY ~i rf i " 1 i 4]#• ,cVl~j.mo~ ~ t 1~ ~ti a<{- b rJ~, ' S,peci.e Di~H CondI Aa d'drti abie/ Name n A oval nts _ I;. Non V~:a'tale . Kalu o•mrn 142 'I e s Vi f, Appl e C ra'G de`f - uetu 1'.Z2 ' W'ai'nuk; ] t ' tr ects N, I °..Non-li'a'ble R a '1' U4 aris y i 2:0 ":1FGo"od 191 as Pi_rT`,I Pseudotsu Vi'able?, I Dougl g °mer}zi ~ sra ~s:Crood,_ cable d 9 ~e is ' & I :V 15.E Douglas Fir l.P'se'udots: a;menz r= I `Viable 3 `_r 1 2_ Xt :M I Gao 19 !6 'Dougla's Ffr,Il?su.clgt pp 194, . I !Doug,I'as'plrr_il =PseddotsiJq , ttur.dt, , .efec 1 Nogl X i 7b,lek , r I, , .W r ~ls~?~;euciaCS.uga,.rll4~~~ - Noi~-;~i~i'M1t%~ X11 "6,, h^,:_,,:,:„' ` a a ~Li'''.J:,C •3:c;t 00 a^,o P:, fti „ vG-rpG,w,z IeoF stru,~ur t 197 -j? :©:o.u '{as Farr`- 'I pew°tiotsii' --F. ,r ' ' , °r 9 ~r.- f ; m~nzi~sii;~a _198 S' f 2 t. , su .a-m'en'lesi - Via d' S - er - - ~ .AIn.US; . l`A'.r1< ci ~~'PO;Or~M~ _,~~k;:~eaf17r1g~ - •..i, '2'O9`.1.'Ciierr.-y i:Pruriws', j ~Y• t-y'y- il'}+`^`k cc- > F:-;=..,~~:.r''~k'fi~`.inhi i.r~4'r~:eF~'Swf,.f,~`.. .,'i--~, --.t.:i: .1•~~ir_! is r'„'. 210 Fru't ree t . ;'fly" .1:•, -~-Z13 I. Cedar-, - d t55: s ' GSM F { - 6 y,.g: 2d 7 IIaer; `i ;":a:~' Alli!u >r > a . F' /~y r YY. '+W; k4:,',•~,.T-»~ i3`1 ua~;TA slxitVQ 2:15 r ~a " :Ide *a~il ',22:O ~ 22'5: l Ald g%g pl v c of j1 ' er Ir AltiU 41 * fi;~'~~',zE~lilD,1 232' it' Dou P ;~eudo:ks a ri~ ha..tizfiesr ' y a • t. 235" - A 'd er: 240; I `orJgllas Frr:.: 4?5'-:cotu a m'=' 4. ,_r;e%:.=_:Itj-.~4ql..-n;al~C~no -24 •1?ir ; ' 1.-::boo` 258, :D:o:u' ?Pseudo'tsU.:a' g , merFeSdJY;? ~Ukpo 3'48 ` l DQ'itQ~Ias,~i[ Ps~~i`dbtU: meie5]r x`12, t 51 4 I ~bo 3, I' D'qulasxPr , :Peu'do 00 mer,Cires` .2" 335,6 a yy Sao 35,4 - ,l . D;o:ugla Fir'";1 R's- eittidi*swA, : ier zregtr: js1 ; j- - •wY':; ~ k l bP3air: , I'd 'I A e : - r. n~ J.. A4 us=' - wif 5 0 3 :D - r eiFdo 358'- .l I:~~oar 016 r~ = L. r ; niws: - - rte. Viers - '3 • eda - r -tedt: - `G ics -Ipo _F 1=1 i ll v D~cav:° ~ ,~~;1,.~~4'1;:IV%~ZVi~atal'e„~-~' e'. I,°:N o'n Vii y,' r z Grp- II:VIabfief~ r$r x : ( "Yma l~e y "~tr~~t~ir,,'g'l':~,~,f,•e~.l`~ ~ r^;. {N"~ ,I +.~1'ah ~Iiab~'.~;~:`^ :~r,:•" Viblo Vtab d", -vi .S' '-_4 + SAN" _ - t Friuli tare Qregpq. W- n--of •`War... : <rrte Ea~ci~~a~,~,eca~trac~~~s4~ssoca'~fpr~ _ _ ~s 42 i tZiar 4 `F,f1.'~ 44, - - - V' _ - v.1'-• 1-Y1C _ --11-- - 'Y'om:-..,.,fn. u Lam"' 'fa . f yr•~''•~•~- V 1. I .1 Z. > T`'. _ a f 11 _ t '•ts ) - i; ] r. : , ~ , , , . , I . . . . . - , , ~ ri 0 - , R n J•i I , * > 75 ~ 7" v#'' rri' on - r z:: to rn. S. a i:e r w ..Y'. .S'o, `,1:1 "!y,' . , :Y! `o: fir:v'°3. .~'::.r:. •.o.''' ..yam A'rV~a ,,ek q b "ri .I: _w. C. x:, mmen,ts a , l'e _ - . r,_ u ' Dolas'Fir I''. PseudoCs f - : :i' 36,1-- q G :q:a.rn'enaesii' `,:43' ; :.Good' . . = 3 c ytA Y a 62..I 4.Dou 1as Fir: : ~r j.,: q . :I 'Pseud6tsuq. - menz esii': ':l'-1,6 Good 1. : 1i wi r , , Y... . 0 laS:F` I• Q 363 •ps'.eudot'su 9 a'.",erii%iesii: 30 0' ; :D it ' t:' 1': ~ f h r.. ,ah:: 'q d il'' - ,~'I `Ui:a b1 e: hµ•..1,,,• ,a - - tt; ,1. ;i Y 3:64,' ~ yr• . Fi ;'t 'oia~ti ~:i.' D Pas , 1 d. su'° a ,in,e• 2i:esn;- ':1~ 'k:- a'ir. ~ v* 3' u 5'r `li "D'v4 i:a i iI~`'P r`, se~udotsu a`-:m:e:nzies`ii' . '8~' ,~~oo' .367 .o - d u , q - q. .''I Go-oa:: .Fh. „I,- - - , °sy, ,i.Ufab.fe~:_ las 'Fir P' - - D seu` A •I'~ dotsu:; ~a+arxrenzt " ~i.i:-` "18; • `a' 36' e - - .'4: - 8'• I`: Pin ~ I. 'Pines 3' I'. 6' . a,. I:_'G'ood,. _ I'+'; Pip. ~t ''s- • Viable, - s 36''9 ' 'Ald'er l;,A'I lus : ti'' I' - I 4 : - 31 ,1x0 :4M it 'P;ob I r .De'a t.tgR. l k; , ! n.14`' 1i Non.-,Via' 41e:.-, 1 375 I`:~'ougl'aslir I,;PS.ged;otsuq'a;`menziesn Ix,tr2 Po&r v :,I;S6rWc~ur41`46fe0, 1(+Non=Via'blE; , 3.76: 'I AI'der it •:Alms ' = . l' -13' _ ,~.P , : 1 1e+anin~ ` sy. _..:1' •N on Vi I,, 3.77 ;I A'Pd'e'r' I; Aln;us . ' l '18+ ab :I :Fait ~ { `Viable . C , 392 ;1': ib'ou.glas',Fi~ Pseudots'ia ^,a'":m:enzi: 18 Y .!F=ai r - - - q :I; .1 e,an;i'rF v;rre'si ° a : - _ L L'J... 4. q.T Vi'abl'e:': ,r' r ' I: Y, - - :r , 39.' :p =aw" I `F`r' ':P, Ps'se' x ai, $ p 4 14s, i u'd''ts i a--irien`~f6eiu; 44." Coo'd?::,: Dd , l as,: r . P._ 4_. i-11 N,_ t u!1:egru,nk.'.,.', i,' x L'~Yia'61eti'. ` I. o ' i V 3~'6 u ,,eudot" 'R q F ;I~ su.q,e'mnzies~'i''a,.:2 S-i,.I d;Goo:~+ - w , 6., Iuleiri,lt. 410 I Dow'91as Fir j, "Pseud,ots 'q:a` rim'enziesii:' I.-4 ~w Good l'. 'I":Viable-' _ 4.11 - I'• D'o'uglas Fir 1 :Pseud6ts gq,a menzAe~ii' ` I" ,1`3 ,'I: F?0•or , (Vo `ttr { . '425 'I, :DOuQ,las; fiir „';Ps udotsu I pY Non Viable , ) ga,meJizie0 ,'•IM,3,9 1.:Fair ' Doub#e trumk ! R ll Viable : .11 42.G `,I! Do'ugla's Fir';{II';IPs udot yf., ' i, min' PesP`'•, I40x'~~t-. ;a ; t r :11 : A x: , ►,.,Fa' r 1 ti f34e 4 .7 I':[~o:iigla5,R~i 'I:'?Rseu'et' tid$ u a. r' I ii' ; P , , e, Fr 4 I Fair I I''~/iable 430 .I Qouglas,Fuel,'Pseudotsuga'rnen2'ie~i`I 3:2l Good aY I Viable ::L 431 I; Dqu~,Pas Frr I ?Psu'dotsu a [n 'nn'lesrr { 2Y "'I`Good { , } 4'x,3; •;l.'Dvuc~I,as .F;ii"` j tPseudq'ts~iQ,a: i~e~i~z'i , i~. i ;24 ('1'14.01 'd; ,1, -„r5 k< ° x I. Unable , ,`e. 4 4 '.CJ~~' S' r: ii a ' .f t er : . , :,'gr':i.rs' 4 ";'r Vi=able:5: , !F a fi ,.I , eu oltf' wp;.,*n,zj.es_Pi i ,tObioS! , .:~I,i , , z x; A I~ 4`35 : 'f:'Dour l: 'Frr { gip, "_'A" I.-Ii a ;A;~d e's t' wF: G'.ootl.:.;:. f _ _ f I` z =1:: to 437 I Q`otigl'as ` ir,' : PSeu ii-t" `uxr "a" err i;`esai. ' t .r~, s: f d' _ [i _ . X:_._..... ah. :G o..d°._-:', .:I' ' . t3 - P ~,s.: '.viabl ' 1 ; a, - ',7 a 'rc, :'f,C Hr~-,. - D u las Fi . 438 I d 0 ''s ray. s'. 'u I e < " 7' r s m' ~.I. 2':. lair--': - -y...A.,:h; enz'r s,i. a. n' - - '9 . a. _ v " 1 ' t'a r `n i t.¢; 439_ x ,Do:gl'as Ft'r, IP, 'eia:doa :a?n=iie ,w,;i.; 7li';i`5 S kt:;F'ir 44q Ix'D`oUC11aS`f ~r 7F?PSC l~S~4;is i'a'ltue' 5 :q . ° RlxrF .i'~'` Ala 4 , t,+'y , 1a 'l'.r, l w.. ..w ~:,.~r,,~=y; i~ Uiabie f r> :t' - a=' x: •.ti, y,., 's ''r< 5r C',a,:',.;,r" . ` • : t , r u , r I r :Y• 441 ,41-' 0 Q`1'6, I"r K,V, 6.06 ,l v4 rl I,c~SP~ '3, q` ' t (n~ !1 , u S S r. t,: a 3 { h E ti r `.'~{r,.aUla,gd t'{;`'«•',: s J ; '•f'- _rJ, ~~'.71k- 3. . s`?':4.If' 1C;IQ•~11 C? f~ 44'2 :iI::D'od' las ;Rtr ' . 'd "t,' - `r• h , . rar <<" :L" 1: £ , f. Q I,- ,5. itsci,gazi>jei z ~ 'i: l _ 11A aQr No; op:.,~. h:_ , i Pi.t_ ''I'.,N,orr-~/i. bid { ; 44 ' '1 I7ou llas' Fir`s= ; "i`t u i s - 4 ; R.r:::~. ' " , , 4. ~P 4. o' U 11 . ?11? 13 4 I Ponr I StrddC ca(d f c ' fiLz,. . a I,i N`orj-\li : 1-1 - 4 I , uq;le:s_~Fi: Ls d' : is of i,e-s• `.~'l - . , r`, . yf'~ .fin mi:z. lv f ~I Q <.:,:.:la,d :1.=^;:' ,.A.'~;'.,.e9nt >;r: a - : 4.11- - - ;%i;' i~ • i ~ 1 pear: •.~..-q 4 D fas.:fir" ud"rs ~.,~r„• " li; ,Q~,. , z," evr ~ .'{ii:~:' F ' rrZ- fi,.. fir's;'.:,'° Y_. _ ~ ,.:=:E,.~;~:ate;,. ~~r.-:,.a..,,vt~"_: ~,{~;~iable~,~=`~~~;.,*.. ' .,,v,,• "J : 2 , a 5•S'-§:t?Vi'i't u;,' . -11:.'x""*a' ;',:,-"H g.. 447.:.={..,D'o1x'41:asV.O°F' ` 1aiz~' 7 ` '1~ ~ rs;_t , r ,_r. r,~.d sit•Q_ sv~ :I,. , ' ..x ,:u_~a. <s rt l~ ~E _v, 14;Viab'Ie:,:~; ti;. >,-5. !11,,,I,, _ ~'y'"5' l*• 2W`-'SYw-1-.; • rY, - - - t, .fir+,eq. .~r., '•a. sx ;i..`- .tC:' ry{• .SS•:'. 448'N :Pas .FiK 'u '05 tkl,I' . IF 5 ,'l t[5a-, q T,'1kl., . a, ecga:.m . ri,es ::7- .Y .1¢ faa' an_.. Zs.~rh,;k,.,,, , wig r ` :r - ~Q, _1y'. - t :=[3'Oids..Fi~r <Pse /yc'``tC~ `=1. p lt" ~ ^.dx"+ .I .I., _I x~ ~~l`1 J~ ~4 ..M1 ~'el+lllf V-. ~•~1:K •.~'©r~;~e.: =T/:ate i'1-a-..-. :~•a. t '.3+•:' A"CC 1. ~ „ „ ~~l~':N4as ~f~:. ..~F<r+ . ~;N' i<i - U~ ,t~ie='~ ray . r y t•. - : . • 1_111. 'r i F4 t~ ° 5 it ' 1 YA , „r. . v ' ,4-;:,,,`J,%, R_ ' 1-.r ~ aiw : t.Fd!ir r :Y,,ru F I i a ,L , t" < ;ai 4;:: ,:,L as ;F4 .,k~ _ .u, `,r . ;a:r.: '2 x : a'~A '?%'y: 't±^:: ' ' . Vi17'~'~~;, . `,,.,.'a Y4^ : !,t.,r"'=?~ a i 1;Ka^X.:}µr .,,}c. ~e'• >a T. , nn„_4• y3•: ,.~'.~a~.: "-;s-..u,r r.: t'c~- ti. . .y 453,'.1 T1'e ,~,,r,. 9 "6~1 u • :s;,.r tom 3.-,. i •1, .rl r i N ? _a e£S~, iS. ' t~•t"r.S 'h ~,j'~0 r.,1°''~_ '{,e, F3LS 1~~-1,A$"" ,1 -d, f' "'r r. ,.o-.'l :y~~'%t€:r•r`5e•„a:+:-AI•,-~• v 4"T „~xalai~ 'C.'t>;:: ?w:k #5 `z ` ~ti; y ..LL „45:4- D'o ; _ sA- 't.. ,I i. q s .1i~PseudAt~S"y 7, -~~~bod;-.. - ti.~':~~~:,~ - y, 4 , . ' 4'5S Q'u" 'a'.i E _ s s tlot;su, . ci. 'i?'.:' a.s ~''Pseudots'+` ..A f' - i ;'P. 'rner z►es l,.,if~ t ti; I Foor d~,ly:o;';f6a M' _ <r N,O: 4S8 { D a I 1/i~: 'dl r'~;er ~a•a W1 "st - t°..... Y'v JK3. 'C 'm,y:`n .1., •r..~ , ONO _ , y 4,6,5 ,I,P,urfiasi`F%r'`rtPsE,ud: ;aa;.~t::>','-r:.ti,.~f.-. :''ix. q Q>_ nz1 _-i.:iil ..Z.,..~.~:i 1,-,p 'ars ~ s.I.r%0_VRRI ;.-.W'fgC s.~5rb s,.:.r L'r . ~:.:Vi'a'ii;i~ , C:rx, ,rte -f;- r` 1 i" - - _ - ^s i- - _ n i 4 M1=I: 6' 1' - - - . - - 'rte 2' i1.06r, . . =1; _l 2:c3! 'nhi P0,o' Al r 5 t': 1- I rY s, :.t.'= 46 e, r' Al, ? _ _ t ,Do ,t, - , .4.-.i - 4,,- - - - 66' _ .46:6 ys. - I`as'Fi'r i ter' , U'i' - .sP~'e ' ' me'' _ Y N_I•Pior o :I:-'+n „ , _ _ :I: _ rp;;_ .q I:'Nod Vi'ti~ .t° a.. t.. - r. : - 'i: _ r 6. s i' . - . ~ ^AI'n : e 1. r io Vii.:=;>:>.` ^ o 7 u _._,u..1L .,4--~4't,i~:=N~:;ir ~ t : ` ,vi-:~'~ 1~ ' E ^ ' =1 4 . e u las', ,r:.Psed ' s t r ¢ ; ; . r:N b' 9. _ Q a:li,en'i'e 'ui,' i6 " i'. >a}r:< .9- -Y _tiN. ,fi: ,I, _I.. tr.,1': ~''1.~`t;;.I'"~,.s:S~:'~'•~.. - :.':~I:'iV•~a~_'w.~..a! i' ''f ~s . ' - «D.o' ; q s'. u' is :fie, °Rs : :d s _ 469 =F q vt -menzi, 1 U.,oo`r'' i _ iI ltear' 'r , y:fit: :r, I: No_n`~Viafi[e, ,;I - - - - - - - - - - I - - _ 410, Ai er d ;r : us A. `~9 ° ` - - ~:,.r, _ '4. 1:' Qo a' a u - - FP` .I~ • .uiaias~:`~i;Ps~e `d`ais:' a~i~er~i° :'1~-:'; `'d• ...•t'. ~ Do't<.- 472 U.. _-zW. I: R;o~r: - 1; xIU.P ia~.,3:.-"= r}:^~`::.:.-j-t.[V,'iatile 474 ,i d' r.: l' s i' - 4T9'.-Deis . h q a r:. <PSeudot u a' zi" ;l men esii. .,l 1fi ' i~ omb' ° tVa:to ` v i 4'85' u I'. a F - E., t~ :Fat f'_P_' - dot-su:'".,a, e6z d..54 0 :`o: ` t i:: Do` q s:i { - ' - " : , ' - 5 h 2 M"' e' Ater t ~x:::.'. r F _ r ~ } tr ' r, a'. tr ` i- i - rf%c ' . ''a 5 e' 't $ ^ i ';yr Yt - 1: _ .l ' 4 1, r -x } _ _ -"Y,'!•'.. tea' " _x a}: 7 , 7 ^ r•-.t::- - y _k:TS si FE• n ' _a ' - r - ~.~.1.ti .ice; . - 'n% - -any it.. - . - - S•R':.:' _ a1~.•t',.t°`'_ } xi< ''I•.. t . "t r• f,: u < ar<i >•:r, vY C.'`t.`A . t =`''t':~ .L_, -TMt " t om' r '~i>^~ .•6. :7ti"' a:" >t.•:' :-sr,;... ~ ,:l'~. 9.m a e of ,S,-^ .,I ter, >'Ld•,.--:5 r.r8'f.^d r, r x - r .rr...ii=i, ,.'r+ - <..',1r ,t,k r . o7a . :a L ,n ..e?~4:.E. `r.. .t_..---kie rF- i... t': - v,.., .,F.,1 - t'"r l` }r*. ,'n,'_•_1'1;;^ ,+y- - e~n'•- ;F":•-1, x_, rrc ,y`- : ~..'-'-vc^1-H, `4' ,t'' ti - - if ',C,. 4 r 5,' • t', r1 h_. ^ ini,•. R, , V•T• _ - 3" F V 1 1- t.t 1 u... ;i #k C ~ninlti:rl: r. ,3 x$ ' - ~'.~k'i - r,r a,• 'l J .L, - I 'o ' DB'H; r' : :Condition' Ai`d'iiEi' ;r :1:°,` ir,: a~ a me N a:.. . .NCO , - ~~s;'• ml'n~ 'n k _ Yal.e': il~' Douglas' Fir' Pseudot-su • at ln',0 i si'i° 20 ' 3:, , ; y:r g z o 1`1 _ , 'f: P.' r 171 °,I ,Sev.'er"e ,Lean '`N'on-VI' ' le',' 1:_ 22 . 505 -Alder j I' . s: I> Alms ; f Fair 'Orre; s.i:d'e a I. ?,4 µ 'I' r:: ",r., F 5+' 1 OU• 4 I'as''. :s Flr i- y.'~.'M1 Ir',D 'Pseud`o. • ~I:• t~~u ~a`m'en'zi~esii:'' 16° .,,Fail: J~;',:~'' q, a;_ ,a, a? I_ r s'',..:°`w'... 4Ia`YiabCe' L 5 1 i 2' M d le: - Aces. ,1 ~ : a' `r' - - • l:~F. ~ 3;, .,j "Via e: Il It - =,w r.. . 522 T Maple , - F A'c . . . 5,2:5 I r` J"`3,4a; Fair; :I'.,:Viab'le: , _ - - ` -r Maple ce'r• y. ' I A 3'0-- :,oof . St'r CCU -ri - , 1I,_, -1 ,u ral::;defEets'.~4 . r ( ;:I No,n' Viable' 52'6 Aces I.:M P I. , - ~:o::; Foo :I, r'.:-.~ 1; z~ ,5 tructural~,' ~e~' e.cte:'• 'I ~ 5. i 2 I 'M p • Ace I 1. - P, -111 52$:: Mai l'e 'Ace - I" p I r.' , . . 215r~ :-Pbor. .L_ - 'I_- s; . IrS'tructural:defecfs h''No,n-Viable 529 '1 -;Matile.. :I°..Acer . I .12:. .-Vor;` .'I =St,-ctura•J #4zfects ` W L!Nori 9jab1e 53O Ir aldeP,. I :AInLs'• I:'',17'= I ~arrt ;a4 I F'•, r- t ~J -*u 'tj;i•Ir ViabieJ~y c• -t 'a i1;, 6; wM1: I. d. I': iI ,'Viabl'e; . '656 -,A'tder 1, ;1'p o~I ~:;;Ha''I;fdead' - ,I-'NoJi Viable , 658 .1• Douglas Fir 'I `PseudOt' ' as Menziesii <.I ;L6 - 1 Good I - 11/iable ; 65~ 1 ;Do.ugla `Fi I r 'Pseudotsuq,a ,Mnenzlesli I ~;6 f iaod fir' . ° k x I 'k liable r f _ , 660 ,f',[)O,, ,,4,5,Fiir'J, ,P,'.e(A ,,O.,t uq,!,r e~n~iei°, z1.,46 , ',Poor. f ' StK ti~;r~ i' ' ! "-1 66~ . ;h'Alde"r. I' 'Air}t~s,' { I w;c el:.defect"s,.~r- I Non Yi~bhe I .,4 ;I Foor I ,I, 1 Lea'n4nq _ i4 :I Non Vla,ble 662 'I'?D00glas Fir.• 1, P,seudoksu a. menziesrl I •1 r- ,odJ' $ructural,defects , 9 1 k I - -1 •Non' Vra61,e gig,. 663' D;ou ; , ;I. gl': FI1 ~I' Pseud g ts.u,.;a: efR .:es'~'z'=.: w22.' 'Y a' i7 I . _ m . 1. I-.~_<:;rl=? oat, t 11 . .k, _ tru et.i~r-a 'drr,1OtOt:~;<__ on-Vi. u I f- le r. p { •664:' II-::Do641Aa Flr I'':+Piekid' ,t~suq ter z!'e5i,L, :lirl6~✓s "ir-'IfloAo~d, + ".12: , r _,w tit:: ; , ~ ° rl-.,l le } 6'6'5 ,I ;Dchu' ?I'a`s Fcr; I?seu ,otsii' ` s,: ' a'ky : ,:;A; ; :~A : t y c._ : , , 4 P: d qa, i11 r z'ies~l ,I,'~14a , oo.d, , f Viable; 1 66:b D'ou 41a's Fi e. $ . q n. I. _ ,1, - . I ,F,gor." I,,$- #bctu'r."dl-'d efe t ' - :,f rS''Ps'. ~tdot u ''a ri~'e ' i:efs"`i:, : , ..14rt i 6'67' , = . I . N'o~i-Via,fle 7 , .I,:Do'Ugla`s,Fir. [`Rseudptsu:4a:meTizr"esll~-Ifo*-- u-,-":Y~;l :l? 'Or DeaCl .,.^'r li:•Non#i t~jlf'',";. '?fit 668 ]:;<DoJr,glas,LEir, f,'PS, ui~.ot " a:-ixl', I> l,i;i.,h +.~~'ti „wl © L ,5 67' I''D;o''u I".,,.r, -„PS..ud.tsU.•iF•', i; Fir., _J., y..,. ,r°::•,:: e.s able 871, t "U , ' r t ; - :°1 Doiii~las Ir I'.lP'seuiiQt ref' a rnenziesll '1f 1- f ~s~•I_G ;4zi :x I _ iQ,~. . 'Viable u"' a , f Y q r r-- 672 ,1f''DgUC7IasFI,I ,I,.Psei~.dots r ~ - ~l esPl ,z0 I ©ar e q i* an n 11'- I ryorx~Vi:ab{~...:, 7 :~tiA~`I,de~,, ; .'I!.~AIn •i ` L; i ~ rir - , 6 s w I ~ y { ,pt3rs 1/G bli ` ;r.,;'~- f1.: ' ~ 't2olti' 'ptas.~r: .'11:':se - d o. , '•;:}:x',,> , , ° t.; 67 # l ;P. ..4 tsuq6 ?I re ur.•a1u, ~.r s:° a od~~,~~,.%r~ J k y sl:.~/ra`bl .r .T,, S., r 67'5 I,''D iUej,ld5''f{art l v~Ef1CjOtStJ 'as 111. Jl' 1, ,4L ti . F'' © y ' , .p nv .f - ~ t~ _ I,- , T~'' q e ,zle , I,; o f ,SOP 1 I :.on. . 4-b.Le, n,,: ti 676 D u h-:, , t .t'..;„,;:~'•., table I, b .gl'es;'Fi:i~t;~; Pseudo'su9e`°meJazlesii .:L-,~16 .I~Fair ft . " x 3 F'1,, s ; ;r; : 6.7.7 =DouAla Fair 3: Rs'eiiio su XI'li ,e izlesta ..kM 'A.lo. li(`Ra`or~, ~ ~~II` riJCfiu Ja'I d. 5' Y , xi,•>~li-t 11l_ Je~ K K., " r• t.4,~ la r~', i, ;4" ,n;r••'Mit k3• '1,y +.5' '7-'~.~''-°'r"3'"R.x.,4; i ,%u6, ~;wvi, at n,[r a ;e`: x,.,y,• 'i, -jw I 678 ,4?bugltasFr',,1,?S'lld&t31A,"{'~;eFZtP~II ~L~'INPQat~r.I1 ,L $;c.''%5,' t. 1~{.~ t 'y ~IIot-Vi~ab'ht ; . ~7,q,,,errs{,),Ae4,,ni a:C~T~i'r' Nl::'D'eta,'a7~A1•e.,h A, Fi.rri,- i.iro'nm`.-''~Nl"~n,w/swM,-HPw`':fi',.yt,-,vjEI~~-'--r: t,.~,.a*s -l"'iL":. 4. a v..r°..., . . ,u1. 25 . ~ 4,'A :L:&..., ;i--M s:J .x,; 8 . A '•yil : . s+' 1,1 K ' .A13.1 . r .•k=:w t- - ll- . I . _ s u _ s: > I M'oh Viablefi,;;, « q~~ S.r `y.z, I C, 3' 8.l' : ;I U.. 6a ';Fic -''L'-Pseu'dotsls`'a`ru1je'n~ i':i` : ~ q, q I` °=_.~~k~ el :rk: S'e,oct{o`rAv4,,d :,I?f~7b :ri ; fable u a,lr, = nY. , Y . ~I' . a _ •~I', .d.©its~u:: `.,r<rr° l - - t - • ~ 4 'ea _ _r:,~ .f ~:.,1:?P ~,gn4,`:~~;':.~~: Y-1~o:n p. M0.83 , - _ - B; H",i'`~:...;»ll.-1_L '~VI'tjU.~iy..n'o6i'.~ r''s' - , x U., 2f I.T_, 'pseudo. v;4;'~= :u'.,~ . 4 q r ',I t5u' i1eri.esr r;,I~ P=o"f , s: I;ea't`riiTg:.. a u ; I~.~i- ,I, , C~ > pA C ;tan r, . tis:$. .t,r ;.F'.'..gc`:iy'[ 6 1 aD'o',tigfas_'F r.'.; Pseudtsu'a:;rier>ies. u•. i1 `try - - ~lkirX 1. WC' ia05de t'ects ~ _ , ' No.n'',-V Ie 6 - ' s t: . r. . . 8'S' Do` Q-a' 'f"~P t U a': 1~--'li i.» - r` •s'e' ''o~•s mod- Q. ,l,- 1. .t, FG<'i ' "r..' i s: ; - L .6 :I apI sh.c e,r Y„' ~t...r>3`.,.:,tsrt, ,lf?41 LI ;fi",•.. w. ' ,I, ~/Ia6'l: ' t "r4rne , t ii, 3 w •J It r A 7 1,s. - - _II 4.' y4 :K- i, JT'! i' •lj-.I' Pseu o:f s' :,,6,8' $ I' ~:bUq,la tFtir,du,q~ r ie ' I, : ZO,dr • Y 6'89 . D4.u" II' .'s. Fir. f ';P :eu'.ddtsuatne- ~ :e i! ' , - yt, .l " . _,F a , I' }x Q? , s q ..sl b Pbor.: I.°Leanrh4'; ;f N;or~V,ble 69q,,,,I bowq _ _g 11 l ''.Fi(;il'.PSe'udQlsu'd'C-.,z , eSJI'zs `e -tiY. .F OQr =i ,.1 i r. 4 J: i. ri 1 ru-ciural:.damage ~a'Narl: Vl Wv ta a _m rai'i ' ii' `~.r', Q-.~i- 4l? a lr':-: ; r 591. I:'. 1310 Fp0' ra u l:as-'r a,: t; s' P_ _e:d o u ' tiff N . { -z-;tl, - _ ll.. ` li f has'-cps if 4P''9010(010-k su ki'cilal.`. 1.,:,, - lI . , . I f` = 1, a1-4- al!" t :td`p'`',_ x"4 :4 I :b - - - - u lam ' :'i`~ '-1 J ;h'Se a©:ta4 1: u `'a"menre' i° - rJ `u t ~7 CI _F 'II', q . S1' ,'4'w '`I ?:C?. OI"'s O.xO'p' i ` ; 1 - s,' P dbzsu ' a' , - - Y --0 i u .t. I r'r'teiizee's' 9 ~ - las - - ' s f. C `do u' - < . ~ ~ _ - - - - i' . s'., - F', _ =a 95 6 %b r,; _ Ir Ps' _R Y : _ - s _.1~ Viable ~Y• T`~ xY YSs >`~A. uq:l'a IFj_,il:_ ecr_dtigazr?'i'..akri`„`:;. Looc]~",z... }J:: . „;:,;.r.,; ~ .,v ~Orell, 11 _ , 47 i.'' - `lam - :f ~ - - - : ;..y, - -i.: `~Y 69T' rsau la`s=' <I iPseu` ~ < . :,f q F c ci tsar 'an:eesii' Z`x -Gao. f.r"' ` - - 4 9$ o 6 las .I:p u a Fir'• l` s P' ` ectors a' :iesik' ' Fr t: _ c. _ - =1 _ oc : I .Viable' 99 Se 8 :'I;: Dou Pfir: 'P udol'su 'ar;inexi ie ii•.: 0o' _V t :I _i'~,.-'y 7O.a' y f 1 n' ru "s' :Y' i ~ 1. Che° !Y , i~ , _ 4 ,h •V .1 -1,," - cx:r. 7- 7 Cher ' ` -P.rViA 5 + - a' euc~atsu aeJ4z'e' 2:Q boa g ol:r P..._... 9. _►i si ab'I~- e' r r . __.i.- r' . _ wlb_ - • ' •.t _i - - - - - - r • - ; :r l:`.S ^q. s t-" k . t - •i. ..}'l Y~• i yy 5" _J . _ ^t f ~ : 'C" "tn'iv _ •?ys j a?+ Ir. r. i'v - .f ' E .-_'i- 2. •->r~' Jam, - dC' .•P T - ;t3 .y : ' # 'af i'' - ` - - - y.. s. t:.. r ''W ;yt« -mil' , :x 'z"55• - J t ~1 a `f. . L`+ C i .A ~ ( ,]C f c'r -A r:frte: ; _ - v4r.'~"ice . v,v. s. F, k?: - - Y~'- ."'~::s',:,_.'.a-,.^...1-~~.:~Er",~:3-~c.:S~~~:':a"~':°: .•~;:te~r'S£.hx.,.. ~_~w,_ - `-'r^.: .:F+.• s, 1 . ~`ti?_:'-ri•...a..•.~:::~1~:'.ti:..^S.:'....nr i'-..,.'aJ ta`a ! -~J !ti bytim - :rt. , { i a Fn ~i ~u , 11 - &n i _ - ,Y , 5b t _ r , a. ` t-r:' •s ,c' 4 ~ . ~ - , . , 1. . , O - . , , , I . ~ - ,-il . - ~ - - - . - , ,Vi 1, . , , " Y e 4 -7" - I C:' m e ie' _ .DBN' Condi{tio%.:a`Addi. o5 1' , m. r a - - `:V,i'a 61 e' ~ ;i r .:a;.- i, r•': r. a c 4 r. ' Jx . 4 hl .e m' x' t'Co ` :;1 <k't' nt.. ;Y; Non,:Vi'a'tile": - I 703 ; •'•ou las'Fir , I' D q ;k Ps'.eud:otsu: a' ieni'e 'i'; 0 ' oo` q z s i;"'G..2 : r ' '-f: P. r„ ,.1A.:N;o-.top;) f~' ,-p . Non:,Via } : If— . . 7 0- q l :I . Fse,ud'0_ts'iria:; ies'ii;;Pooi`° F' Stru.ctliral a ` _q n _ °l`. I_ -'I _ _ Al ,m.ag:e•, `'N'on-\(iabae: . 7 u q F'" t'"c 'U a {r- ,:FS.e,ud:otsu `'.m'en 1-, 05 I 4 I' a ii. Ea; 20. '±C':Poor:- C Leari'i'n, sc<`c aN'onY=.~/; : 706' I ' ''as`=F' : Do'uqI - Jr'' I ',seud:otsu'a, 4iA, s n. b" fl a'ir= ' = ' .P - 4_ .rn n._ . r l f.- I ="`I' - ate- Viable 11 y'^ X7, 's' S',F . I" ' r U a$' - l'~Pis. u''C5u'' ~a`ii~''n'zi~e 'ii~ ~.RO q. e s .:~~~-4..'$:: - aI,.;Good~~' :`Viabl !s,~ P r. " I "G.hefry`` rumu's 30 Faic'. . -J 11~' '.,,•,.:.a: •-tit::' 2. Valester,n, 7h.w' a i`ca:ta.':. 8r {r 'ti 'F:.Yt. f_, a 't'' ,c, ed'%Ce da` iZ. . r _ . ' e i PO _ 7• 13' _j;: , ' iw's ..al , a" : 4.8~. o:r`~:: , ',`Deca ~st~ " ctu - ; . R A' , AP I . , NI , , -y , _ C ) tI• . xy. - ra`I :daariage',1:_ ` ? „ ;Non;'VEa:til-; 2: t i. 4'y' ~'01,', •1^ .;V'i'i' it=` _ :q,..` a' - . _ ,1 " - :'t • a-F ` 't - 4 - Y. i J n v t . . - - A. - Y. 1 ` F' `rk t:. f . L U. , 3 I ,ri •i, ':2' r n" P c i. `r . rwk 3j.v r t. _ ~ - - - T' r ati'-„' Ct . 1"` C Y I t R _ _ •t,t i . :tiy" 'F';>.`• -"-'','S - ;.t''r 4 i {tom»- Y r e:Y' i ,fi" 'i i y ,v ,rhty r 3'-' ~L _ 4 14:' `{iz Agxt r s" ALy ~,r t y "r"<' , :ey, { : , , w '•r m k'r qC',,,r 4 tft }!rt aev„yk~ "t?, .r ,y,~+,.: ,t.4 'j f:'df `.`1:.. ;'.jT. ,,4,4 Y t i } ' .f'' 'A"":_ J r,~,t~µ„• cz , .ti: s d .a -r `r: -t' h;l• r -,F 1,, ar' c 3 ,yam, r_i 3 F ,t , ;y;:« 1 - , l: •'L,: • i „i g r 'g c • ,qtI _ is L `s.n.a}, 4:;' yn~ - t, a 1- .a, t`,3, '.r,, SJ I"3 r".i..` "f, ,c. 3-t ,r'-ro. t r yr , >\~`r~ - r -''.j.:; =y'J, ~t+r 5.. "'no- S. -z .9e r,r,. ,.'r.?:,,, t%• ;.i fi , F, e r ti ,,y};w,r .t a' kksF , . 4 t,., vpw,' .r'•,".' -'•7a:?`;,i-s~,+ n. . r:C :f,,,: t _jy : :n t, at~iy~,{' . ,;t `,jr•..i~S,:.,X~'~ ,a'i. I ~r.' 'sGi KF; y.:'r n ,x, t •.o.;A.~' ~:y:'~ .t.;'-t` - .):t".=,.7-,;A,_,,,, .s.:° sue.,: ~tti n;-` . y~ 2`ti_ fiY s- :',ll..-,c£, ^`-,a ='.l,`t;_; rt'.zr,; ,1„^4 °.c' .'':'-'t"r lr. ~ „r.. "2 .a ' i•,,f t% `I , 7 - t } ~q'y t ty[,: l i'; -I-.,, u .x. '1;!U--,'Y S'g't I-t ;~f ''p` .A r,.,y'!e a. •f ,r e-x t ~S':r. : x I -'k ,c•.a°;::t 4,,':` Y': ,r"c.::. ..'r,«:,., °r sr~,~' } •l.e~ _ _ :Yr h• ( °y , s`i::r'rP'P F' \ t iq' s t x !t -T"t - a4kn:!t° y , t ';r ';i ' 1: _ , R•'..•,,y. >r.- .per _ a:,~* l . :t . t t,.~,, .,,r. Y a..~ did . v", % •-R,.:r'.: } x -l'-;i}' ai. N ro~$ a - 1, q`,? , '.'fi r r" ~~1. .'i , - q,v - , - w . m" L ~ - ~ , ~ t .4 ' - om`-''a ' - -t t} r::n, . . rj `,-,-,2,7,,.,,N,,,-.- y'.J`i'~' w:. 7' : - a. .-y%x . 5- , tt .a _ 3Y{:. _ t z- ~T r.. E -t" - y - . y~ y. y,h, < ,T n9:- . , ^ y de.. t 'i{4t.: [,y ? tr. '4 .1' ' _ .N}:, icy^,d "'iY' -v~: 'P. aV'' : -.r.. y (•i ,i:`.,, . ~ rtd'rs, - ,4; i.} r'j„ - L,° : ;a ; + .A? '+F ; t F '<iY b , t' ' ' " V - .•+':'i>u„~a 't g,S :t... ' ✓'t.° - - '.i,^ a. . ;,,q .,f:';, • ,1,,y. :."-a,. . °1~',< - .it: > 'S4cd tl,. - - ajy'~,,',^', ;'':yy.•a'A .c. _-'7 -i. - , - :4,9'', xx<~j}, _ ~i,.`i 7 !K iia$.'-c'.`wX:. .x, s1 -.,T"..`,".C:~>3'YaK? a. _ eg, - , 'Y' %ir , :i is=;'i„ .`.b.,......,?'..=^: . :'f{ +"'i, ie~._+, - x, )J ''FF' 4 .t :..t . •s:=•+..- ^.:F`, :f:~ -:t.t f 2-.. ~i, :h. f- '4 .w:,~§U .'".A .A p•n' L, ,.i o v `•fit fit.... ' .,y„?, .•f r, 4.: t ,d'`>' t, ,eta''.k. :r uG;,! 9.• _ .C.. _ 4.. '2 r! - at tt'-:'_ ~_3 3v C- `=Y . d' 4- bz = .,t1 Cx - 1 y'Lti " , F x~' T i i:3`` a- Tit: - 1= G: 3 ri 1° P, y 'e'ar .V.. F st. _r r H'+ _ - tJ, a, e r or i 4, B - _ -N " f !,1 r rA. ^ _ -•lrrt, r4 ' r -1 1.. '.L ..tQ•,_' •5~.'Y:.:,~. r;G 'r: a~,: ,s:: u,. a :•'t'•Y!>,.,:`(,r.,, , ":r«:,~.`'It,-, -.i' •ii.; '.'S.• „~.,~`3 - ,ry t;, 11 , 7i %"G: ?'.tFJ.•.i9. -,ri r :,ia .,.,1 b-~?:.; r',~r";:.••c a:;' f ` ' I - r'. :•A•, ~C : t.. ,lam S: - t, . li y .`A',.x r .;1;:'~~^v; . , a,' , . a. "f : t".{ ' 4 '.W I',,,., k ,.-n . , 4 "i , s~ A;f... f' °a: : ' t : a '.4,. .r': . s' - ti 5 •'.z+ ,d' • a ? . ':t = , r. r s w,t , -1 ••h . ,C ; v: ,t, :9r' , ' 1` r.Y . y `n Cs X, ' ' :t om ~~t , - i x Y ' r'' . y,. ~S.I ' .~~.:.F'. , . Y• { ,t n :r ':rE. L'. '~'r•- - } apt-' a~' . i., `.,iv,., rot.. R .:a . ?f .::.~r.. , :vr;: - k 'ti ~F_''t ' 'i ~ R-, ,.v;: -i' ' kx i q fi fi ~ ` W : ' - N Qt b r F y X - 6 , as S, . 4t' •`''r' - - 'i' ' _ r~ ..kv x t, 4" .'to- f' P , k, - rt. . l` .;wy. sr'; Wi " ' F ~ C i _ to .rr •N %x tir < 1 r }k ` gin} ~ ~ y t 4 R1 2• - _ ~i - _ rr . k i : y :3 ' - _ t t` t. L 1 .!3e . f / :p . t' r Y ,'t k" 3 r,- < f I • i.i•.V' - --F' , 4" l.:V ,ta s t'- rS If,,. . S. ° a p.:., n i%- "-,at: C., 6.. ,fix `3 Y 3 a r_' S # F : , - .htr.. r r,3M_ • '•k-' - - a - > s' 1' : `r - H:• f' . -:j- - V,~t. : • G - "I t , , { ' . a y i r r ' V• f... . F', ` a.._.` n.n 4 h - k,. . 'flak= > . .t't'r: ~ yi ~ Vii: • - - r • 1r wt 'r ,i ,r i;.arj -'d - - trs'r - ' "C . ' %C. '-A. ''j;J' -~4,{.F . 'n,.;?`:'%`~.' ..~"r ,3"__3 1x, i:, a3. 7' f t ?ors v-.5-<_ .Y .L '-T'i. - .Y."•, ,`f' ~ .3 . ` a e 1 r~`, , ,t , , - «'a." b „r'':,.'1 - - 3i ,S-..''r J ll:_, ce 'c:% S A k v nT ~J . 1r'`'' - [ R. M _k , ,'•'3 ._.t' _•-^~iF3c'~:^.aJi.A~ii'Tk.'.`T_ n.."_. v_. . r... _ - TREE INVENTORY 1END _ rewuiO MtM 1 . REMOVED tRa: I .--.-~•I: -.--.--Q Q-.--. T FlR+ 16 ~ALDER+ 22 65' 65 5" 55' 76' 1 0 0 20 I co 4 FIR+ 1485 5130 474 i / ~ADER+ 18 FlR+ 19 FlR+ 22 4~5 2 7MAPLE+2 2 0 VIE2 7 I 34 + 7 + i 5~ E+ 21 - - - All + 3 t~ 4 6, I ~5 I 14+ 21 R 3 Z 4 n •~1, 391 + I I I I I i 60' I I 14 5 G: h 5 R+ T- 65' II 1 I ~MAPIJ-E+ 1B I ~ I FlR+ 2 Z {G` G~{G~ _ L ER+.20 RFl T 2 66 I I 65' F1 1 I i ~ + 43 I 60' 60' o I Q5*) A7 R+ 24 I I54s + 65' I I 15' I + qR+ 14 7(~~ I • I FlR+6 2 F1+9 : Ik7T1+~ i I ~ I os 65' r* ~~jj E 8 R MAPLE8 i l FlR+ Z8 `Q 30 r- i ~9~D I v I -e7- ME / TREED I6 359 I 1 MAPLE .20+Q2 +.,6 1 69 FlR .2 I 1 ~pJ+6 213 I a CmAR+ 40 ~ . O +.,2 12 I 4 7 ALIWI. 1 NORTF 1 K 4 38360C 66' I 7~ 90' S IPINE4,b 8 6+.444 - R 28 - - 1 UT+ 20 44 F{R~Fl + 38 i I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TREE R MOVAL P Al planning eQc) . ~'°twe: inc. SCALE 1"= 60' OUTDATED MATERIAL ® BID land use and site planning DA TF• MAR 2004 7160SV, OR 9P,Sie201 50~-,020 (Can be Tossed after end of PONBnQ OR 87223 503-684-1028 F. PROJECT 104-TAU-200 appeal period of final decision) 65' l6 1 LUU4 D J ,~pR 2 2 1 CleanVVater Services; . - IJ,CI/Jilllv~f i v 4~yiLJJy F' 2 Pilc Number 1413? k,011,,,,,T„ CC 11 :S re-Screening Site Assessment Jurisdiction Map & Tax Lot Site Address Proposed Activity Y N NA City of Tigard 1S-1-34D8, T.L. 400 11225 SW North Dakota ST Portland. OR 97223 Subdivision Date April 23, 2004 Owner Vince Blaal Contact Ken Sandblast, AICP Address 7160 SW Fir I.oor) #201 Montana, OR 47223 Phone (503) 684.1020 Oft/AI use only below This line Y N NA Qg a ❑ Sensitive Area Composite Map ❑ ❑ Rg Stormwater infrastructure maps Map # __(S/y~) 0 QS # _ c121$_ ❑ p~ Locally adopted studles or maps ❑ ❑ Other oA d >a.,/o L~ Specify Specify Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order N d lym ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feat on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED, THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. ❑ The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: f ~T~nli4l/y Sftfiri;~/w1 , a~[1lIM~ rD .Q sL A' ow'. Reviewed By: 1-0419.- Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 I # of pages ► To From 12 a4r A~~SN:" Co. ICo. ~ C `Dept. / /gu IPhone "55 33 9/ 5 60 /av Fax #rz 3 OlD "l I Fx ft Date: /o C/ Returned to Applicant Mail Y Faux Couiter_, ,Date r/O y Bye WASHINGTON COUNTY i J Dept. of Land Use & Transp. ROM Land Development Services KN 155 N. First Ave., Spite 350-13 I ~'.'IM, ° Hillsboro, OR 97124 Ph: (503) 845.37151 Fax (503) r~ ~-~yt7t; http://v,•ww.co.wash ington.or.«S REQUEST FOR STATEMENT " P SERVICE AVAILABILITY WATER DISTRICT,- FIFE DISTRICT: TRI-DIET - TUALATIN HILLS PARK & REC_ DISTRICT CITY OF D (7I.P.AN WATER SERVICES PROPOSED PROJECT NAME: STONECHASE PRE-APPLICATION DA APPLICANT, COMPANY: Planning Resources, Inc. CONTACT: Kenneth Sandblast ADDR1=SS; 7150 SIN Fir Long, Suites P01 - Portland, OR 97223 PHONE: (503) 684-1020 G IiGNER(S), NAME: Taurus Homes, Inc. ADDRESS: 19130 Sw Alexander St. Aloha, OR 97006 PHONE: (~U~) a'a-1Uf3 Property Desc., Tax Map(s): Lot Number(s): IS-1-0-16B 400 Site sire: 4.51 ACRES Site Address: 11225 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST Nearest cross street (or direotionS to Site): SW 112TH AVE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACT 10 N: rorvr_L0PMM'JT RL°VI EVV, SUPpIVI 10111, PARTMON,iiPt(:IALUtit) S►JBDIV]SION E7 15TINC~ US'F;: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PROPOSED) USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IF RESIDENTIAL; IF INDUSTP.IAUCOMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: NO. OF GWEI.I..JNGUNITS 20 TYPF nP I IRP NO. SO. F7 SINGLE FAM. 20 MULTI-FAM. U IJO, OF SQ. FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) NO. STUDENTS/EMPLOYEESIMEMBERS; SERVIC.:E PROVIDER: PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE rACE-C}L#ATE OR INADCQLIAT"f_) AND RETURN TO THE APPLICANT AS LISTED ABOVE_ SERVICE LEVEL IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Please indicate what improvements, or revisions to the proposal are needed for you to provide adequate service to this project. SIGNATURE: POSITION: DATE; 1 I S WRIVICE. LEVEL IS INADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Flea indict,Ite why the service level is in2decluat-0, TriMet considers an area to be served by transit if it it within a 1/4 mile walk of a bus stop or a 1/2 mile walk::lof-a light rail station. The proposed project /is beyond these distances and is therefore not sse ed by transit. '21636 NIA TUP.E: J_ /~TJT G•A TE: POSITION: ^IiC2 i 4/29IG2 WASHINGON COUNTY DeptOot Land Use & Transp., ' Land Development Services - 155 •N. First Ave., Suite 350-13- Hillsboro, OR 97124 Ph. (S03).64e-676:1. Fax (603).646-2906 . http;//www.co,washington.or.us REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF`SERV1CE7"ACtLa131L•I7Y" . PRE-APPLICATION DATE. APPLICANT: COMPANY: Planning ources, Inc. CONTACT:, . .Kenneth Sandblast. ADDRESS: 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223, PHONE: (503) 684-1020 OWNER(S)' NAME: Taurus Homes, Inc. ADDRESS: 19130 Sw Alexander St. Alohra"OR !970061 PHONE: (503) 356-1975 Property Desc.: Tax Map(s)., Lol Number(s) IS-1.34DB drin 'WATER'DISTRIC7 % Q:.FIREDISTRICT:.Tualatin Valley.Fire ' ❑ TRI-MET Sie Size: 4.51. 'AC`Rt=S SiteAddress: 11225 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST Q TUALATfN HILLS PARK & REC' DISTRrCT Nearest cross street (or directions to site): ❑ GITV OF SW 112TH AVE ❑ CLEAN WATER SERVICES PROPOSED PROJECT NAME--_ STONECHASE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION: IocvcLormcNTF%MtW,3v3DMZ1ON,rnMTITION,srcaAL v3c1 SUB[TtVi510N " EXISTING USE . 31.NQLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED. USE:... SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IF RESIDENTIAL: IF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: • NA GIF nN7F1•I IN(:•IINITS•. 2.II.-.. TVRF-AFIISF••.. .NQ. SCI .F7. SINGLE FAM. 20 MULTI-FAM. 0 NO. OF SO. FT. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) NO, 5TUDENTSIEMPL0YEE51MEM6ER5: THIS IS NOT AN APPROVAL. The Fire District has personnel and equipment in the area that can respond to an emergency incident and implement such actions as may be necessary for fire and/or rescue operations. For planning purposes, access and fire fighting water supply complying with fire code requirements shall be included on plans submitted to Washington County for their approval. See approved (stamped) plan for additional information. cl P l U t. Date J = ~J" Jerry Renfro Deputy Fire Marshal II Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue WASHINGTON COUNTY Dept. of Land Use & Transp, Land Development Services 155 N. First Ave-, Suite 350-13 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Ph. (503) 846-8761 Fax (503) 846-2908 www.co.washington.or.us REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF SERVICE AVAILABILITY FOR SCHOOLS ® SCHOOL_ DISTRICT NO.: Tigard-Tual #'23J PRE-APPLICI APPLICANT., COMI"ANY: CONTACT: AbOR.ESS: Oa NT [ON Planning Resourcoz. Inc, Kenneth Sandblast 7160 SW Fir Loop, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97223 PHONE- (503) 684-1020 OWNER(S): NAME; Taurus Homes, Inc. ADDRESS: 1913D Sw Alpxancfer St. Aloha, OR 97006 PHONE: (503) 356-1975 Property Desc,: Tax Map(s): Lot Number(s): I5-1-34DB 400 Site Size: 4-51 AUKLS Site Address: 11225 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST NealGSt U1 sheet (or directions to site): SW 112TH AVE PROPOSED PROJECT NAME; STONECHASE PROPOSED DP'VFI nPMENT A.CTION:tor,VGLOPMaNTFEvIEw,eVRDIVIGION,MINORPM,TITIQN.:IPFrIA4U;E7 SUBDIVISION EXISTING USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IF RESIDENTIAL IF INDUSTRIALICOMMERCIAL: IF INSTITUTIONAL: NO. OF DWELLING UNITS: 20 TYPE OF USE: Nn sn FT SINGLE FAM. 20 MULTI-FAIJI. 0 NO, OF SO, F'r. (GROSS FLOOR AREA) NO. STl IDENTSIErvIPLOYEESIMEN48FRS. SERVICE PROVIDER: PLEASE INDICATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE (Arsel~~ ATE OR INADEQUATE) AND RETURN TO THE APPLICANT AS LISTED ABOVE. I CE LEVEL IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Please indicate what improvements, or revisions to the proposal are needed for You to provide adeouete acrvice to this proiPct. SIGNATURE DATE:4~72Z r POSITION/ r~ ❑ SERVICE LEVEL IS INADEQUATE TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. It the pr,sent or luture ssrvirs Iava.I is inadequate, please provide information documenting your inability to provide an adequate level of service. Additionally, provide it I(orm-,aeon w9ardin9who(hor the use of attemabve rneans c2n bra nmoloyed to orovide an adeQuale service level. Documentation of adequacy and alternatives to provide an adequate service level may include, but not be limited to, thu 'lollowing: 1. Amount of bonded;ndnbtAdnas-: ? OR- Of dout)le shiKing; 3. EXtEnclad school poriod^,; A Sussing to undGruh1iz6d facilities: S. Yoaror-Ind schgol: rj. Construction of nr,w racildios. 7. Portable Classioorns; B. Impact tees; 9. Any combination of these or other alternatives. SIGNATURE: POSITION: Sarvice Pro Sohoo15 8115199 19 FIDAVIT OF MAILINCO STATE OF OREGON ) )SS. City of Tigard ) I, . 71 J. ''L ` cc c 1 being duly swom, depose and say that on OZ /I O / 04 -19,04 1 caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) I (225 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 OiTlce located at In ( +-I v' 1_0 OD with postage prepaid thereon. nW - Sign&,ur~ (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETTiNOTARIZD Subscribed and swom/affirmed before me on the NOTA,R`+ , ,`::UC-OfiEGC~N : ,'q0. 337036 MY COFnr, !r'IRES ~'.UG. ' , 04 NO' day of PUBLIC OF OF~B( mmission Expires: ( rpolk-2nt. olease complete information below for proper placement with urcoosed pro)'e=) r`'AtifE OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED ;L7_l~:- 11l TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVEL0PNMN-T: 1 Name of Applicn.ni!Owner. 1 / l.t.l `[/1 S r;rvt _ addzess or Ceaecal Locado❑ of Subject ?roper,7. S 1 J 7 I~r~ r~fl~ n(.C~IL : SZ~ r vj U i Gti C. Subjec P:-oce=., Tax titao(s) and Lac T(s): 15 I ~lh -1 (A ` L- i--;1'~ n:SOgvi-clctyrnas.~rsa~.a~.r..S CITY TIGARD G E OG RA I`n IC, INFORM ~ TION ,v5TCM AREA NOTIFIED (500') QV FOR: Julie Scott 4 OR \N1% "LE 'ommunity Development 131xeemeo6' r 1 . ,/51]40681600 1 r 131140602]00 •151x0602400; ~13130602000 I I 1]1340602100 - I I I-t- I O NORf~ DAKQTA i SD400023 317408 i~466637t d0. i7ine6s4 6 I si gas . s xoeb] o3L ~ QQ~! s13411e077of u»r66a64 - Stx666]tei 1713fueoxea 90 13 4060 00- t 1x060630 340181[ 1s x66 66 SW TORL l -T: 13 740606600 ~7`9 , ~ _ 0 . x0606 16, 1s xi6669 0'• - / -161x0607700 ls1 40lir ii I- Q I~ 00 O RE: I S 134DB, 400 Property owner information i is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map- N 0 - 100 _ 200 300 400 Feel 1'= 312 feet l Inforntation at this neap is for general lu7at- only and 1 should be verified voth the DevelolHnenl Services Divisial. 13125 SW Hall Blvd _J Tigard. OR 97223 L (503) 639.4171 http.1/ wW.Ci.lick;ard.or.us Plot date: ADr 29. 2004: CAmarli(- MA(,l(-.n3 APR City 01 I ig; lyd 1 S 1 34AC-02 632 1S134AC-02648 AGUON EDWARD J T/BARBARA J BONACKER GERALD N N E 11095 SW COTTONWOOD LANE 11060 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-05.400 1S134AC-02619 ALBERS DEBRA L & BROOKS JERRY D & SUSAN P TERRANCE L 11225 SW WILLOW WOOD CT 11280 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-06900 1S134AC-02618 ALWAY BARBARA L CAMPBELL CAROL 0 11011 SW GENEVA ST 11235 SW WILLOWOOD CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-01600 1S134DB-00200 ANDERSEN CARL H AND CARNAHAN EDITH TR SHERRILL L 10985 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 11180 SW 115TH ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S1340B-00201 1S134DB-07100 BAILEY JOHN M & CAUFIELD JOHN R & LESLIE A BAILEY SHAWNIE HANSEN 11133 SW TORLAN ST 11027 SW 110TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD. OR 97223 1S134DB-06000 1S134DB-07600 BAILEY JOHN M & SHAWNIE H CHAN WENG C & 11027 SW 110TH AVE LEUNG JACQULINE TIGARD, OR 97223 11222 SW TORLAND ST TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02641 1S134DB-05900 BECKMAN MARGARET E TRUST CHRISTIAN K GENE & MICHELE K BY MARGARET E BECKMAN TR 11009 SW 110TH PLACE 11005 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD. OR 97223 1S134AC-02640 1S134DB-03100 BELL LARRY E & CLARK MARIE M SUSAN H 11140 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11015 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-01000 1S134AC-04400 BENSON PAMELA G CLARK THOMAS L & TRACY K PO BOX 793 10980 SW BLACK DIAMOND WAY SHERWOOD, OR 97140 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-04200 1S134DB-01100 BIENERTH JODIE CONNER STEVEN L & 11068 SW BLACK DIAMOND WAY CONNER CONNIE L TIGARD, OR 97223 11045 SW 114TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-00300 1S134AC-05300 CORPORATION OF THE DUNNING KRIS L PRESIDING, BISHOP/CHURCH OF 10954 SW GENEVA ST JESUS CHRIST OF L D S TIGARD, OR 97223 50 E NORTH TEMPLE 22ND FL SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84150 1S134DB-07200 1S134DB-00400 CORRADO ANDREW J & KELLY S ELLSON WALLACE C 11119 SW TORLAND ST VIOLET K TIGARD, OR 97223 11225 SW NORTH DAKOTA TIGARD. OR 97223 1S134DB-06500 1S134DB-06400 CRAWFORD ROBERT J & KRISTA S ENGLE DALE W & SHARON R 11311 SW 112TH AVE 11287 SW 112TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02642 1S134DB-03300 DAVENPORT KEVIN S AND ESPY BRENT AND GEORGIA KATHLEEN V 3418 SW HAMILTON ST 10980 SW 115TH PORTLAND, OR 97201 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02658 1S134013-03400 DEAN BRADLEY L JR & TONI A ESPY BRENT E & GEORGIA L 11330 SW COTTONWOOD LANE 11060 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-07000 1S134D13-00600 DELL LINDA L & FEHRENBACHER REV LIV TRUST CARTALES LARRY S BY HELEN J FEHRENBACHER TR 11147 SW TORLAND ST 11685 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-04000 1S134DB-05700 DICK GARY R AND DARLENE J GALLAGHER RON M 10817 SW 111TH AVE 11048 SW 111TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134AC-07700 1 S 134 DB-02000 DICK TILLIE TRUSTEE GARCIA HERNANDEZ JOSE MELECIO & 10995 SW 111TH PL GARCIA HERNANDEZ LIDIA TIGARD, OR 97223 11492 SW 115TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02639 1S134AC-02621 DIERINGER THOMAS J & ANDREA E GILMAN DOUGLAS RAY & LINDA 1 11025 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11205 SW BOXWOOD CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-06900 1S134AC-02630 DOVER DANIEL P & DANIELLE F GODSEY MICHAEL R AND ANN B 11102 SW TORLAND ST 11115 SW COTTONWOOD LANE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S1340B-OOB00 1 S134AC-02300 GOETZ HOWARD V. HUMPREY HERBERT R 19 11145 SW -.14T'H PL HART SUSAN P TIGARD, OR 97223 10939 SW BLACK DIAMOND WAY TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134AC-02649 1 S134AC-02652 HALSTEAD JOHN & CAROL HUNTER JOHN R BETTY 0 11070 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11150 SW COTTON WOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134DB-07300 1S134AC-02626 HANSON-TORLAND LIVING TRUST HUSEBY JOHN AND BY HANSON-TORLAND MARY TR BARBARA 11100 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 11155 SW BOXWOOD CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 134AC-067 0 1S134DB-03700 HA NDING OWNERS OF JABS WILLIAM M LOT 5- 10970 SW NORTH DAKOTA AVE 0 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134AC-026 50 -03500 HAYN ES KENNETH R& KELLY D I M M AB 11080 SW COTTONWOOD LANE >J 0RTH DAKOTA AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 , OR 223 1 S 134AC-026 54 1 S 134D B-06100 HENNINGSEN CHRISTOPHER R JACKSON NATALIE S & CHAD H 16916 NW BERNIETTA CT 11230 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST PORTLAND, OR 97229 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134AC-04100 1 S 134 DB-01400 HIGGINS WILLIAM L & SUNKI JACYNO JOHN 10863 SW 111TH AVE 7165 SW ASHDALE DR TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97223 1 S134DB-05200 1 S134DB-05500 HOPKINS DARRELL D SR JEFFERS CAROL L 11240 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST MCDONNELL MICHAEL P TIGARD, OR 97223 11013 SW 111TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134013-01701 1 S134AC-02609 HUFFORD ARLY R & ANNETTE J JOHNSON WALTER G JR & LETICIA 0 11200 SW 115TH AVE 11325 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 134 D B-01700 1 S 134 D B-01800 HU ARLY R & ANNETTE J KALSCH LAWRENCE P 112 S 115TH AVE 4441 SE WITCH HAZEL RD T ARD, OR 7223 HILLSBORO, OR 97123 1 S 134AC-02657 KARRIGAN ERIN C 10 1 S 134AC-02629 LEVINE EUGENE P & CIOTINA R 11322 SW COTTONWOOD LN 5720 TOTH PLACE TPGARD, OR 97223 AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 1S134AC-02625 1S134AC-07900 KING-SANCHEZ EVELYN M AND LOCKWOOD ROBERT L & LESLIE A SANCHEZ SAMUEL M 11044 SW GENEVA ST 11165 SW BOXWOOD CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134 DB-00500 1 S 134AC-02647 KOENIG RONALD M & PEARL D LUDDEN CONSTANCE F 11329 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11050 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134AC-02645 1 S134AC-08300 KONSTEN ARMIN & HUBERTINA MALLETT JAMES A & MARGARET 11030 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11135 SW COTTONWOOD LANE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134AC-02644 134AC-02626 KYLE WILLIAM B & SARAH K MA TT J ES A & MARGARET 11020 SW COTTONWOOD LN 1113 OTTONWOOD LANE TIGARD, OR 97223 ARD, OR 7223 1S134DB-07400 1S134AC-02631 LAFOUNTAIN DALE B & MARTIN EDWARD III & KATRINA L LAFOUNTAIN CHARLENE E 11105 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11202 SW NORTH DAKOTA TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134AC-02660 1 S 134AC-02610 LAMONT CHERYL A MIETH RICHARD C & BETTY M 11338 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11315 SW WILLOW WOOD CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-07800 1S134AC-02656 LANGE MATTHEW S & TERESA G MULLEN PATRICK & PATRICIA 11076 SW GENEVA ST 11328 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-01300 1S134AC-04300 LEDOUX ROGER L & ELLEN C NELSON SCOTT R 11020 SW 115TH AVE 11036 SW BLACK DIAMOND WAY TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134 D B-06600 134AC0 LEE CAROLE E NI 11170 SW TORLAND ST 0 TIGARD, OR 97223 I 4AC-082 1 S134AC-02636 NIEM J ROBINSON CHESTER LO 0 11055 SW COTTONWOOD LANE TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134AC-06800 1 S134AC-02637 OPATRNY JENNIFER RENEE ROOKS JAMES A & RITA R CO-TRS 10987 SW GENEVA ST 11045 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134 DB-07500 1 S 134AC-07100 PARKER TERESA RAE ROSE PAULA M & MARC 11228 SW TORLAND ST 10914 SW 111TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134DB-06700 1S134AC-02633 PHILLIPS WILLIAM & ROSENBERG RACHEL I & PHILLIPS DENISE C GROSS TIMOTHY J 11156 SW TORLAND ST 11085 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134AC-07000 1 S134AC-05200 PIERCE ROBERT E & KRISTINE A ROSETTE DAVID T & JILL R 11049 SW GENEVA STREET 10965 SW GENEVA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134DB-01500 1 S134AC-02638 PRATT MARION RUTHERFORD KENT N & CARY E M 11150 SW 115TH AVE 11035 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134AC-07200 1 S 134 D B-01900 REESE LYLE A & MARCELLA D SCHLEICHARDT JASON L 10898 SW 111TH AVENUE 11500 SW 115TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134AC-02653 1 S 134AC-02651 REYNOLDS ROBERT E & SCHOPPE ALLENE BONNIE HESTER JUDITH L 11110 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11218 SW COTTONWOOD LN PORTLAND, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-03900 1S134DB-02400 RICE DALE & SUZANNE M SCOTT SAM R JR ERMA L 10795 SW MARY PL 11370 SW NORTH DAKOTA TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134 DB-06800 1 134 DB-02500 RIES DAVID E & LORI A SC S JR ERMA L 11124 SW TORLAND ST 1137 RTH DAKOTA TIGARD, OR 97223 T ARD, 0 R 97223 -1S134AC•02608 1S134DB-05600 SKIDMORE FAMILY TRUST TU XIN & • BY SKIDMORE ROBERT F & JOANNE E TR YUAN CHUNG-CHENG 1 T335 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11057 SW 111TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 1 34AC-08000 1S134DB-00700 SMITH JASON C & LINDSEY J VIOLETTE LORITTA COLLEEN & 11022 SW GENEVA ST LOUIS E TIGARD, OR 97223 11175 SW 114TH PL TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134DB-01802 1S134AC-02611 STONE MATHEW G WAHL VIRGINIA E 11200 SW 115TH AVE 11305 SW WILLOW WOOD CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02627 1S134AC-07400 STREIGHT KENNETH L JANET WANG CHEN & 11145 SW COTTONWOOD LN LI YANPING TIGARD, OR 97223 10921 SW 111TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134AC-02646 1 S 134 D B-02100 SWEARINGEN LARRY WASSERMAN ROBERT A ROBERTA BY DONNA DOCKINS 11040 SW COTTONWOOD LN 2160 SW SUNSET DR TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97239 1S134AC-07600 1S134AC-07300 THOMSON LINDA M WEBER STEPHEN T & SUZANNE K 10967 SW 111TH PL 10897 SW 111TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134 D B-01200 1 S 134 D B-02300 THRASHER HAROLD DEE AND WERNER STACEY L & MARIL KOVAC LISA THRASHER c/o FERREL DORIS L LIFE ESTATE 11015 SW 114TH PL 11400 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02659 1S134DB-00900 TICER LAURA D WERNER STACEY L & MARIL 11334 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11400 SW N DAKOTA ST PORTLAND, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02643 1S134AC-07500 TREBER RICHARD L MARIE H WITTKE FAMILY TRUST 11010 SW COTTONWOOD LN BY WALTON UMARILYN A WITTKE TRS TIGARD, OR 97223 10939 SW 111TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02634 1S134DB-05300 TRUNE DENNIS R AND TARA L WOLFE DUSTIN 11075 SW COTTONWOOD LN 11260 SW NORTH DAKOTA TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 IS 134AC-02 635 • • WOOD WILLIAM G & MICHELLE M 11065 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134 DB-06 300 WYNKOOPDANIEL L & DEBRA K 11245 SW 112TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S134AC-02655 YOUNT PHILIP R & DONNA MAE H 11222 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 134 DB-05 8D0 YUSEM GUSTAVO JAIME & SUZANNE HELENE 11020 SW 111TH PLACE TIGARD, OR 97223 1S134AC-02620 ZWINGLI WALTER SCOTT 11215 SW COTTONWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97223 Brooks Gaston 3206 Princess Edinburg, TX 78539 Don & Dorothy Erdt 13760 SW 121st Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Ellen Beilstein 14630 SW 139th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Martha Bishop 10590 SW Cook Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Vanessa Foster 13085 SW Howard Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Susan Beilke 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 Patricia Keerins 12195 SW 121st Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 • CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 • CITY OF TIGARD - CENTRAL CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpln\setup\labels\CIT Central.doc) UPDATED: 23-Feb-04. AFFI*kVIT OF POSTING NOSCE -WITHIN SEVEN (-,)CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: Planning Divisioa::.:, 25 SW Ha1I Bdulevard . . Tigard, OR 97223 I, do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed ~c 1 ~7) affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) if no ddress(_s)and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) 11.22,E 7)w ~~G~~~ and did on the 10 "n^ day of A an A 19 to personally post notice indicating that thelsite may be proposed for a '~,tAMi>I1S+-D n application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at 1122-'S- S i,,J i J (state location you posted notice on property) Signature ~41n presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COWLEMNOTAR2D . Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me onthe day of l... , OFFICIAL SEAL JEAN L. FIORST NOTARY PUBIS-; i);zECON COMMISSPI MY COMMISSION C''!' f)Od NOT{ BL1C OF ORE My o Isslon Expires_ t-' (_-~ppEr-nt, please comolete information L-elow for proper placemenc wicn proposed proje n) ---------"--------------------------------------------------------I -'-'Y2E OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED iv.A.'YE: ~ TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: I I Na-me of ApplieindOwner: Add.nss or General Location of Subject Property. ; I i 15ub)ect P--ocery Tax flap(s) and Lot T(s): _J n:'Sog T~.a¢yYrastcs~'oosi.:'A COMMINITY MEETING SIGN-IN*SHEET 11225 SW North Dakota Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue-Station # 51, Wednesday, February 25, 2004 6:00 P.M. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE ~I i9- 9.G) n , ~ I I 1 ! l D ICJ (~i`~~,~ 1~~~1 • ~,I ~`1 ~ ~~o ; ~ ~//rs / ' J /'/,'RA ~l-~.PvN ~ ~j r I//c~75 SCG) C.:v.~cJa-ems L ~nJr I Sod - S `7Q" c5~,~_~ p r " / i,/ ✓Jll/ hCL6ZZU~/tJfl~ I /~liJ SG(~~iil:nGU(GG)l~fi7~ I Jul - J ✓v 3 r~ ~ ~~fil/U (~~~--r i~//' GA..~r I ~ .d' i i~i~.a~'i3~r~ ! f~ . ~ ✓ ~ i ~7o~ti 13F I.~ I Ile2?Ski rl~f`C'i I°3°~68/o2S e l7b,.~ It. I ~j.S I I i Z VO ,Sc.U N .1) WC67W 5 I -s63- 6a6--~05S I , M 400 %r. 4 ~5 vi 'IIN M41 11-f ! ')~~r-r,~~' •r 1'E•l~ ~(~J~o~S I ilr~.~ S.Cz`',G~,~~n~!~~~u ~.n/I5o3-~yv-0~'7~ )Ow c.a ~ i ~ ~ ~vr I G oo-/ S .t w ,6;f^nvti tr r- - I S T - U ( 6 7 1 DESIGN, INC. DBE / WBE FIRM Preliminary Drainage Report for Stonechase Subdivision Tigard, Oregon Prepared for: BIGGI Attn: Vince Biggi 17660,Kramier Rd. Newburg, OR 97132 Prepared By: DL Design, Inc. 9045 SW Barbur Blvd., Suite 101 Portland, Oregon 97219 .,~~q,~p PROFFs G ttiG ~ N~~ s/y 52321 R 15, D. I EXPIRES 12-31-2004 f April 24, 2004 TAU6 9045 SW Barbur Boulevard, Suite 101 0 Portland, Oregon 97219 ♦ Phone: 503.225.1679 ♦ Pax: 503.525.9266 • PROJECT OVERVIEW • The residential development project is located on the north side of SW North Dakota Street between SW 116th Avenue and SW 109th Avenue in Tigard (See Figure 1). EXISTING CONDITIONS The site has a topographic gradient to the northeast with an average slope of approximately 6%. A map of the existing property is provided in Figure 2. The site is currently has approximately 1,543 sq. ft of impervious surface that includes a house and a shed. Runoff on this site is currently draining to northeast comer of the property. The Soil Survey of Washington County identifies the site soil as Aloha silt loam (1) and is classified as Hydrologic Soil Group C and is poorly drained. The runoff for the soil is described as being slow, and hazard for erosion is slight. Soil information from the Soil Survey is contained in Appendix B. PROPOSED DRAINAGE Stormwater runoff for the development will be managed as described below. Figure 3 is included for reference, which shows the proposed storm system improvements, as well as the development's road and landscaped area. Roof runoff from the landscaped, roof, and road areas will be collected and conveyed into the detention system. • After detention, all runoff will receive waterquality treatment prior to discharging into the proposed storm system in SW Cottonwood Lane. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS Hydrologic analyses for the site have been completed according to the SCS Type IA method, with modeling by the WaterWorks computer program. This program enables the user to develop runoff hydrographs. Analysis calculations, supporting information, and computer output are contained in Appendix A. Impervious and Pervious Surface Areas The site covers approximately 4.52 acres. The impervious and pervious areas for the pre- development were estimated from topographic survey. For the post development, an estimated area of 2,640 square foot is assumed for the roof and driveway. The road area is actual area. The areas used for the analyses are summarized in Table 1. The net increase of new impervious area is approximately 2.69 acres. Preliminary Drainage Report DAK01 Dakar Car Lot Page 1 04/24/04 • • Curve Numbers Curve numbers used for the analyses are based on characterization of the site's soils as primarily Type C soils (as described above). The curve numbers represent values appropriate for wet antecedent moisture conditions, which is typical of the wet-weather conditions for the area. Curve numbers of 86 and 98 were used for pervious and impervious, respectively. Time of Concentration The pre-and post-development times of concentrations are summarized below. Calculations are presented in Appendix A. Impervious and Pervious Areas Area D,eS~ri scion,. Pervious Surface Impervious Surface Time of Concentration Ixistin„ Site Ac; a (acre) CN 4.48 86 0.04 98 26.5 minutes 1)evel9 ped Site .r~{a ('acre) C:N; 1.79 86 2.73 1 98 16 minutes WATER QUANTITY Detention storage will be provided in an underground pipe. Discharge from the facility will be controlled by orifice openings in flow-control outlet structure. The detention facility and orifice openings for storm water facility were sized using the following design information. • The stage-storage relationship for the proposed storm water facility-was developed from.the preliminary. geometry as shown in Figure 3. A stage-storage table is provided in Appendix A. • Flow control from the facility will be provided by orifice openings in a riser located within the control structure. The orifice openings and the flows through them at the designed stages are summarized in the following table. Preliminary Drainage Report DAKO1 Dakar Car Lot Page 2 04/24/04 61111( rNo iu Il4c'nualioll ~Ck)- ,i r Sv(, h_Ic 1tin11 2104.-' =i16.42 Orifice I 5.2" dia. I 202.50 1.09 1.24 1.33 I 1.45 Orifice 4.4" dia. 204.72 0 I 0.39 I 0.52 0.67 Orifice 3.10" dia. 205.50 I 0 0 0.14 0.25 ..C4b ~ -NF K 5 v~ a! lliach.IIJi r[?ru[11,p ultYu l7=~ i.nU. - I-.n~ 1.%1 MV WATER QUALITY Design Criteria and Treatment Flow Runoff from the development will be treated in the Stormwater Management vault. In accordance with the requirements of Cleanwater Services, the peak treatment flow is generated from 100% runoff from a basin's impervious area for 0.36 inches of rain falling in a 4-hour period. The net increase in impervious area is used to size the stormwater management vault (See Appendix A for Waterquality Calculation). ~aalysis Paraineter Precipitation Duration Impervious Area Water Quality Volume Water Quality Flow ~'aiuc 0.3 6 inches 4 hours 2.69 acres 3515 of 0.24 cfs Preliminary Drainage Report DAK01 Dakar Car Lot Page 3 04/24/04 N r 01991.1997 ~ Cfeo9ysl~s Glo6a1 Crap. PROJECT LOCH nON L VI CI1 I TY MAR L& Ql F- 14L4B' $ I y LM OiW-19143' 1. E. OUT N - 391.31'' Ol Ll 1 1 -~_sm 4 i Sim i a61 197.77' NV - 198.5?' 19 - 16367 9ANrrARY MANHOLE # 659 E R1M - 199,91' . LR OUT xv - 19371' LS IN 8 - 199.79' w SAMMARY RMIOL,E 1 872 i 8 RIU - 206.10' f' + ' 15INW-199.76' 1E. IN 9 - 199.80' LE. OUT HE 199.60' SW COTTONWOOD LANE 00, .Ld 1c~rx~.; l.':i7ti.tkr} 311 iT..ff,1` age Sk1+i ~.0}'S _ p,. p(4.y.M19.1 1 1'~q•1.e8~ t . li I q~. 1~8 <I~ ,6.00 a, 21Q Yiv til 0 C) , v A, 224 , I zap ~ hY ~ c rN1ET /1 I 2ta.os' 0A1 RAM 586 67nr44 LW1xOLS ¢203 v=-949 I G u 7.86' STORW N it4 224.69' / / y+* Cum ~ni1T,E - .a<' a N RIV LS. lvy OUT R - 221.00' " ffc"Cf ra m 11, D; 214i00' 6 LE 1N 116/0 W, i La oy i , IY,,L~, +c-! _ i `y^_-•`= .P1 n °'t9,-ay`-w. ;•,-wi--1-`'t w+~~.xG-ui; F%_~'6AS `y-~.s~+~$--_vH-.w-vw n.: w+--s.u- s.rt-sw* wi 1,:sH~ :rH,•~~D \ _.-1 7f T~ I A s ELT 'o%` - r" SANTARY WMOLL t 299 :t - - / ~I'- Sl9RM ?tAgNOta ;89 8 RM - 222.86' SAMMY MARE LS 6fy I .max :t1if - 21B.91' r - LS IIt A 208.87 N}I37,tNi J S RIM - 218.90 LE 12' IN A - 21318' LE. IN s Tom- 207.07^ - Li: 12. 6t 8 2L5.2V 19 OUT 8 - 208208..82' LE M 70' LE 111 S -209.10' L€ 12' OUT E - 21311' LE, IN SE 191.40" . ~W- v• I.F.. IN S a 191.40' i~ LE IN W; f9i.C3' I A$IN J 6F7 Y { I.E. (N1T N e ifli.JT' C 197.77' f 1 • L NW - 19=' _ I.E. IN 5 19].57' sw- cw 1 SANITARY MANHOLE 160 E Rim. 0 199.9f' • 'X1 LE. OUTNW- 19,171' ~ 1 L E fN S ~ 19J.79' 1N1El.IC SIM, DP.QH-/ 1 ` J I !i>y) I oI ( v 13~ PFjO'oD 5 6~0 SANIYARY MANHOLE j 572 , p E 1L.E E RAIN 9 . W1.01.9190.'75' / e,(T~ 5 170- IN 5 v 199,00' ! 4'_/ I.E. OUT NE 199.60' _ SW COTTONWOOD LANE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MAIMECT Rl EXISTING FL %JC SOW? 195 194 199 192 191 190 189 ENGI EWOOD VIII E 92172) N 89'3534' E 924.16' 1 1 i I UftUT}' EASFBIENY, 188 10 C I f 37Q-v f)T 0-- F F 217.0 ' FF 215.0 I FF 214.5 FF 2150 ' i ' °J I 11 12 I PUC STREET IE 20 E50 w-I i I °...~y FT 215.0 l f= 0 2 1 7 0 !fV fF 218.0 ~ FF 216.0 FF 215.0 FF 216.0 ' / \ ' \ sn~Le 1i1aE _ FF 2160 I I "17 h .1p d i7 fF218.0 02 FF 224.5 FF 224.0 wEt 7 S; x123' 0 \ DR, M4~ J \ b 15 e oJTIO I ly---/-Z---- FF•222.0 I ° - - PUBL I'C STREET I - \ ' I \ FF 22J 0 FF 224.5 FF 223.5 FF 22JA 111 11 I I -CD LET JI . 18.03' I I CATCH BASIN F85 STORM MANHOLE J293 I I 4 Tp' ` 2 7'19 CRATE ..17.55' N RIM a 224.09' 1 .E 1 T c 215.8 LE: 12 IN W a 214,00' H Albf LE 12, OUT W - 221.00' ! f - LE 12" OUT E = 21J.75' '.L a N- rnv _ easnr_ rtslG rte .A Svr---57}I~-YN--WI.-y.~•----S.W---NN-JN-.-.24N~iVi-SV(-SA+'-6l'I-YN-- ,SW-Y,y--Sl4 ' S/Jt-YM-:/H~ w 3 N wx~- ~_-gym-BJ yzo~_Iro~ 4-H~•i-x_o-.. xm~X47 k7(i-slxn-DluAK- OTA STREET ~p-xp_~ .T,_ • - -SAN/TARY NANHa,EJ S.4/A, - 222.85' SANITARY MANHOLE .d9. I Im - 21aJ1' - - LE Mi W = 20,107 I 5 RfM a 2/E.90' !.E. Ir"' W 113 E' I.E A' S = 208.82' LE. IN W = 207.67' I.E. )2' I N 5 m 2;3 21' 9.E. OJT E - 200.70' I r LE !k S a 109.40' IF 12' OUT E - 27~..fP • • Appendix A Calculations & Supporting Information ,4/24/04 2:54:4 pm• Shareware Releado page 2 STONECHASE SUBDIVISION TIGARD, OREGON LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAK-> OUTFLOW STORAGE < DESCRIPTION > (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id (cfs) VOL (cf) 2-YR. STORM EVENT 1.09 1.96 PIPE ORIFICE 204.72 1 1.09 2127.67 cf 5-YR. STORM EVENT 1.62 2.56 PIPE ORIFICE 205.34 2 1.62 2924.53 cf 10-YR STORM EVENT 1.94 2.92 PIPE ORIFICE 205.77 3 1.98 3429.85 cf 25-YR STORM EVENT 2.37 3.39 PIPE ORIFICE 206.42 4 2.37 3999.47 cf 4/24/04 2:52:24 pm Shareware Release page 1 STONECHASE SUBDIVISION TIGARD, OREGON. STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. ORIFICE Description: CONTROL STRUCTURE Outlet E1ev: 202.50 Elev: 202.50 ft Orifice Diameter: 5.2000 in. Elev: 204.80 ft Orifice 2 Diameter: 4.4000 in. Elev: 205.50 ft Orifice 3 Diameter: 3.1000 in. STAGE <--DISCHARGE--- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE > (ft) ---cfs-- - (ft) cfs 202.50 0.0000 203.60 0.-7696 202.60 0.2320 203.70 0.8038 202.70 0.3282 203.80 0.8366 202.80 0.4019 203.90 0.8682 202.90 0.4641 204.00 0.8987 203.00 0.5189 204.10 0.9282 203.10 0.5684 204.20 0.9567 203.20 0.6139 204.30 0.9845 203.30 0.6563 204.40 1.0115 203.40 0.6961 204.50 1.03.77 203.50 0.7338 204.60 1.0634 STAGE <--DISCHARGE--- > STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> (ft) cfs - (ft) ---cfs-- 204.70 1.0884 205.80 2.0012 204.80 1.1129 205.90 2.0690 204.90 1.3029 206.00 2.1327 205.00 1.3952 206.10 2.1933 205.10 1.4710 206.20 2.2513 205.20 1.5380 206.30 2.3071 205.30 1.5994 206.40 2.3611 205.40 1.6565 206.50 2.4134 205.50 1.7105 205.60 1.8443 205.70 1.9277 p 4/24/04 2:54:0 pm Shareware Release page 1 STONECHASE SUBDIVISION • TIGARD, OREGON STAGE STORAGE TABLE UNDERGROUND PIPE ID No. PIPE Description: UNDERGROUND DETENTION PIPE Diameter: 4.00 ft. Length: 328.00 ft. Slope...: 0.0010 ft/ft upstr: dnstr: STAGE < STORAGE----> STAGE STORAGE----> (ft) ---cf--- --AC-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- 202.50 0.0000 0.0000 203.70 851.82 0.0196 202.60 4.1846 0.0001 203.80 967.87 0.0222 202.70 23.490 0.0005 203.90 1087 0.0250 202.80 64.227 0.0015 204.00 1209 0.0278 202.90 115.66 0.0027 204.10 1333 0.0306 203.00 179.48 0.0041 204.20 1460 0.0335 203.10 254.61 0.0058 204.30 1588 0.0364 203.20 338.64 0.0078 204.40 1717 0.0394 203.30 430.11 0.0099 204.50 1847 0.0424 203.40 527.94 0.0121 204.60 1977 0.0454 203.50 631.29 0.0145 204.70 2108 0.0484 203.60 739.45 0.0170 204.80 2239 0.0514 STAGE STORAGE----> (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- 204.90 2369 0.0544 205.00 2498 0.0573 205.10 2626 0.0603 205.20 2753 0.0632 205.30 2878 0.0661 205.40 3001 0.0689 205.50 3121 0.0716 205.60 3238 0.0743 205.70 3351 0.0769 205.80 3461 0.0794 205.90 3565 .0.0819 206.00 3665 0.0841 STAGE <----STORAGE----> (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- 206.10 3758 0.0863 206.20 3844 0.0883 206.30 3922 0.0900 206.40 3990 0.0916 206.50 4042 0.0928 2'06.60 4089 0.0939 206.70 4114 0.0944 206.80 4122 0.0946 206.90 4122 0.0946 Orifice Calculation Verification Project No.: TAU6 Orifice Equation Q = CA(2gH)o.s Where C = 0.62 Orifice 1 Orifice 2 Orifice 3 Enter Diameter: 5.2 4.4 3.1 Orifice Area: 0.14741 0.10554 0.05239 Enter Orifice Elev. 202.50 204.80 205.50 Enter WSEL 1: 204.72 204.72 1 204.72 Height 1 = 2.22 -0.08 -0.78 Total Flow Q = 1.09 #NUM! 1.09 Enter WSEL 2: 205.34 205.34 205.34 Height 2 = 2.84 0.54 -0.16 Total Flow Q = 1.24 0.39 #NUM! 1.62 Enter WSEL 3: Height 3 = Q= Enter WSEL 4: Height 4 = Q= 205.77 205.77 205.77 3.27 0.97 0.27 Total Flow 1.33 0.52 0.14 1.98 206.42 206.42 206.42 3.92 1.62 0.92 Total Flow 1.45 0.67 0.25 2.37 TAU6-Control-Structure 4/24/2004 0 0 WO CALCULATION Project No. TAU6 WQ (Q) =1' 0:24 cfs Number of Cartridges (N) = 7.18 Use 7 cartridges Where N = Q (cfs) x 449 gpm/cfs x 15 gpm/cart Note: One cartridge can treat up to 15 gpm (per manufacture). Use a 6x12 precast stormfilter per manufacture. TAU6-stormfilter 4/24/2004 Selecting and S' ing your StormFilter 011 • PRE-C ST CONCRETE VAULT OUTLET PIPE Precast StormFilter Tfi4Y • INLET PIPE a.1 Overview R+DPL FLOW CARTRIDGE (TfP) 5'x.12' PRECAST STORMFILTERT'- PLAN VIEW SCALE: N.T.S The Precast StormFilter can consist of one or more precast concrete vaults ranging from 6'x8' to 8'x18' in size. These units treat peak water quality design flows up to 2.0 cfs. Precast units can be placed in series or in parallel to treat higher flows if needed. The Precast units have an internal bypass capability of 2.2 cfs. If peak flows to the system exceed 2.2.cfs, a high flow bypass is needed. See the "StormGate" section for more information. Typically, a Precast StormFilter is installed online with the storm system. It can be installed with a traffic-bearing lid for parking lot applications, and it takes up no land area. However, if detention, pretreatment, or bypassing is required, the Storm Filter can be installed offline of the storm system. For examples of possible offline StormFilter configurations, see our web site at: stormwaterinc.com Design operation The typical precast StormFilter unit is composed of three bays: the inlet bay, the filtration bay, and the outlet bay. Stormwater first enters the StormFilter vault and the inlet bay through the inlet pipe. The stormwater is then directed through a flow spreader and over an energy dissipator into the filtration bay for full treatment. The flow spreader in the inlet bay acts as a baffle, trapping some floatables, oils, and surface scum as the stormwater is directed towards the filtration bay, Once in the filtration bay, the stormwater begins to pond and percolate horizontally through the media contained in the filter cartridges. After passing through the media, treated water that has collected in the cartridge center tube is directed into the outlet bay by an under-drain manifold. The treated water in the outlet bay is then discharged through the single outlet pipe. Applications The Precast StormFilter can be used for the following applications: • Parking lots • Roadways • Residential developments • Retail/commercial developments • Business/industrial sites • Maintenance facilities Special Considerations When designing the Precast StormFilter into your system, you should consider the following: • The base of the Precast StormFilter should always be set level. . • The single or series precast units should maintain 2.3 feet of drop from the invert of the inlet to the invert of the outlet. • Stormwater Management recommends a minimum of 4.5 feet of headroom inside the vault for maintenance access. • For depths greater than 12 feet, contact Stormwater Management for information on additional vault requirements, c800.548.46-67 F .,E).56 ; ,'I 7 i '1! stc r~j::v, terirle.con SF-37 . Selecting and S'ng your StormFilter . Sizing the Precast StormFilter To determine the size of your Precast StormFilter: 1. Determine the number of cartridges required to treat your water quality flow rate. See "Determining the number of StormFilter cartridges" for instructions on how to calculate this value. 2. Locate the number of cartridges in the Precast StormFilter sizing table below. 3. Use the corresponding StormFilter size. Note: Availability of vault dimensions may vary with region. Contact the Stormwater Management Engineering Department to verify the dimensions available in your area. Table 5. Precast StormFilter vault sizes StormFilter Size Number of Cartridges Normal Exterior Footprint Width Length 6x8 1 to.6 7 9 6x12 6 to 11 7 13 8x16 12 to 26 9. 17 8x18 b 26 to 33 9 19 6x12 / 8X16 26 to 44 9 35a 8x16 / 8x16 45 to 59 9 398 8X18 b / 8X18 b 60 to 66 9 43a a Allows F between units. b Only available on the East Coast. o K 12 e 0 • SF-38 i 800.`48.4667 F5Ci0.: CI ! . i f i s :CC lllri 'r~ilrlC.CCB#1; WATER QUALITY DESIGN, Project No.: TAU6 Design By: TDM SUMMARY: f, #DIV/0! WQ Orifice ' ..m 3 0.24 CWS WQ flow rate s,« #DIV/0! Computer model WQ flow rate 3515 WQ Volume Depth (ft.) 0.000 Depth without the 2/3 A (ac) = 2.690 Effective impervious area only where: WO Volume = 0.36 (in) x Area (sf) / [12 (in/ft)] CWS WQ flow rate = WO Volume (cf) 1 [14,400 sec] or 0 CWS WQ flow rate = [ 0.36 (in) x Area (sf) / [ 12 (in/ft) (4hr) (60min/hr) (60sec/min)] Orifice Size: D = 24* [Q/.(C[2gH]^.5)/3.14 ]^.5 Q=WQV1(48*60*60) C = 0.62 H = 2/3 Detention Depth per CWS Standards NOTE: The model calculates a flow at the WQ volume stage higher than CWS WQ flow rate. This is because the CWS sizing equation uses H = 2/3 (Depth) and the model uses H = Depth. BASIN SUMMARY Project: TAU6 PRE DEVELOPMENT AREA: PERVIOUS AREA (ac): 4.,45;; IMPERVIOUS AREA (ac): 0.04 ROOF & DRIVEWAY AREAS (sf)' 943 ROAD & SIDEWALK AREAS (sf) u,. TOTAL AREA (ac): 4.05 2; POST DEVELOPMENT AREA: PERVIOUS AREA (ac): 1.79 IMPERVIOUS AREA (ac): 2.73 ROOF & DRIVEWAY AREAS. (sf) 5 001 ROAD & SIDEWALK AREAS (sf) 253284 TOTAL AREA (ac):52 WQ IMPERVIOUS AREA (ac) 2.69 NOTE: ASSUMED 2,640 sq. ft. OF ROOF & DRIVEWAY AREAS PER LOT. TAU6-Basin Summary 4/24/2004 VELOCITY CHECS TAU6 Sewer Pipes English Units Civil Tools for Windows (04-24-2004, 12:51:25) Flowrate Diameter Friction Slope Velocity (cfs) (in) (fps) 45.42 48.00 0.013 0.10 3.61 fA I N . 2 k-lr 0 + 'CAPACITY CHEA rAU6 Sewer Pipes --English Units Civil Tools for Windows (04.24-2004, 12:55:33) Flowrate Diameter Friction (cfs) (in) 3.39 12.00 0.013 • Slope Velocity (fps) 0.91 4.32 Time of Concentration Calculations Project: Job Number: TAU6 D,eveIOP4 0t:Coiidt0us ..v.- Flow Flow Length Slope P velocity Segment Tc kccum. Tc Segment Flow Type Mannings n (feet) (ft/ft) (inches) (fps) (minutes) (minutes) Point 1 Sheet Flow 0.24 300 0.060 2.5 25.05 25.1 2 Shallow Conc. 190 0.035 2.20 1.4 26.5 3 Shallow Conc. 0.030 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4 Ditch Flow 0.005 0.00 #DIV/0! #DfV/0! 5 Ditch Flow 0.005 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/O! Equation for Sheet Flow: where: n Mannings roughness coefficient L flow length (ft) I 24-hr rainfall (in) S slope of the hydraulic grade line (ft/ft) Tt travel time (min) Equation for Shallow Conc. Flow: velocity (fps) = 2.20 v=k*s^.5 where: k= 11 s (ft/ft) = 0.04 v=k*s^2 Tt = 0.42 (n* L)0.8 / up)0.527(S-0.4)1 Time of Concentration Calculations Project: Job Number: TAU6 ~;;fwx " ; ? • sw. ?Post Develi tne~it Coiiclitiovs ~ . , Flow Flow Length Slope P velocity Segment Tc Accum. Tc Segment Flow Type Mannings n (feet) (ft/ft) (inches) (fps) (minutes) (minutes) Point 1 Sheet Flow 0.24 100 0.020 2.5 16.14 16.1 2 Shallow Conc. 0.035 0.00 #DN/0! #DIV/0! 3 Shallow Conc. 0.030 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4 Ditch Flow 0.005 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/01 5 Ditch Flow 0.005 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Equation for Sheet Flow: Tt = 0.42 (n*L)o.a 1 [(P)0.527(S-0.4)] where: n Mannings roughness coefficient L flow length (ft) I 24-hr rainfall (in) S slope of the hydraulic grade line (ft/ft) Tt travel time (min) Equation for Shallow Conc. Flow: velocity (fps) = 2.20 v=k*s^.5 where: k= 11 s (ft/ft) = 0.04 v=k*s^2 r 4/24/04 12:54:43 m Shareware Rele se page 1 _=====BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: 10-PRE NAME: 10-YR PRE DEVELOPMENT SCS METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 4.52 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPEIA PERV IMP PRECIPITATION....: 3.45 inches AREA..: 4.48 Acres 0.04 Acres., TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN.... : 86.00 98.00 TC.... : 26.50 minim 26.50 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 1.94 cfs VOL: 0.75 Ac-ft TIME: 510 min BASIN ID: 10-PST. NAME: 10-YR POST DEVELOPMENT SCS METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA........: 4.52 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPEIA PERV IMP PRECIPITATION....: 3.45 inches / AREA..: 1.79 Acres 2.73 Acres,/ TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN.... : 86.00 98.00 TC.... : 16.00 min / 1 6.00 min j ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 2.92 cfs VOL: 1.01 Ac-ft TIME: 510 min BASIN ID: 2-PRE NAME: 2-YR PRE DEVELOPMENT SCS METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 4.52 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPEIA PERV IMP PRECIPITATION....: 2.50 inches AREA..: 4.48 Acres 0.04 Acres/ TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN.... : 86.00 98.00 TC.... . 26.50 min/ 2 6.50 min i ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 1.09 cfs VOL: 0.46 Ac-ft TIME: 510 min BASIN ID: 2-PST NAME: 2-YR POST DEVELOPMENT SCS METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 4.52 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: ' ' TYPEIA PERV / IMP PRECIPI ATION....: T 2.50 inches AREA..: 1.79 Acres ~ 2.73 Acres / TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 86.00 Z 98.00--' TC....: 16.00 min 16.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 1.96 cfs VOL: 0.68 Ac-ft TIME: 510 min ' '4/24/04---1254_43 ~ ------r----Shareware-Rel e ----gage- _ -2 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: 25-PRE NAME: 25-YR PRE DEVELOPMENT SCS METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.:.....: 4.52 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPEIA PERV IMP PRECIPITATION-.: 3.90 inches AREA..: 4.48 Acres Z 0.04 Acres,/ TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 86.00 98.00 TC.... : 26.50 min -l" 26.50 min l ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 2.37 cfs VOL: 0.90 Ac-ft TIME: 510 min BASIN ID: 25-PST NAME: 25-YR POST DEVELOPMENT SCS METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.....:.: 4.52 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPEIA PERV IMP PRECIPITATION....:. 3.90 inches AREA..: 1.79 Acres 2.73 Ac re s,,,, TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 86.00 98.00 TC.... : 16.00 minim 16.00 min,, ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 3.39 cfs VOL: 1.16 Ac-ft TIME: 510 min BASIN ID: 5-PRE NAME: 5-YR PRE DEVELOPMENT SCS METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 4.52 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPEIA PERV IMP PRECIPITATION....: 3.10 inches / AREA..,:. -4.48 Acres 0.04 Acres TIME INTERVAL : 10.00 min CN.... : 86.00 98.00• TC.... : 26.50 min 26.50 min.,," ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 1.62 cfs VOL: 0.64 Ac-ft TIME: 510 min BASIN ID: 5-PST NAME: 5-YR POST DEVELOPMENT SCS METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 4.52 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE.... : TYPEIA PERV ' IMP % PRECIPITATION....: 3.10 inches AREA..: 1.79 Acres 2.73 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 86.00 98.00 TC.... : 16.00 min 16.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 PEAK RATE: 2,56 cfs VOL: 0.89 Ac-ft TIME: 510 min 1 4 l Appendix B Soils Infotmation I Mile 5000 feet ~O 300 SOIL SURVEY 'Hembre soils are well drained. They have a surface layer of dark reddish-brown silt loam and a subsoil of dark reddish-brown, reddish-brown, and yellowish-red silty clay loam over basalt bedrock. Effective rooting depth is 40 to 50 inches. Klickitat soils are well drained. They have a surface layer of dark reddish-brown cobbly loam and a subsoil of dark-brown and reddish-brown cobbly and very cobbly loam over basalt bedrock. Effective rooting depth is 40 to 50 inches. These soils are used for timber production, recre- ation, and wildlife habitat. Availability of food, cover, and water controls movement and number of birds and animals. Runoff: is mainly from. areas where the plant cover has been removed. Sedimentation from runoff is high. Maintaining maximum cover and using water control practices on roads and logged areas minimize soil loss. These soils provide good sites for most recreational uses. As a result. of the heavy precipitation, these soils are a major source of water supply. These soils provide good habitat for game animals and some birds. Descriptions of the soils This section describes the soil series and mapping units in Washington County. Each soil series is de- scribed in detail, and then, briefly, each mapping unit in that series. Unless it is noted otherwise, what is stated about the soil series holds true for the-mapping units in that series. Thus, to get full information about any one mapping unit, it is necessary to read both the description of the mapping unit and the . description of the soil series to which it belongs. . An important part of the description of each soil series is the soil profile. That is, the sequence of layers from the surface downward to rock or other under- lying material. Each series contains two descriptions of this profile: The first is brief and in terms familiar to the layman. The. second is much more detailed and is for those who need to make thorough and 'precise studies of soils. Color terms are for moist soil unless otherwise stated. The profile described in the series is represen- tative for one of the mapping units in that series. If the profile of a soil in a given mapping unit is different from the one described for the series,.these differences are stated in describing the mapping unit or they are differences that are apparent in the name of the map- ping unit, or both. As mentioned in the section "How This Survey Was Made," not all mapping units are members of a soil series. Udifluvents, nearly level, for example, do not belong to a soil series, but nevertheless, are listed in alphabetic order along with the soil series. Preceding the name of each mapping unit is a num- ber, or number and letter, which identifies the mapping unit on the detailed soil map. Listed at the end of each description of a mapping unit is the capability unit, wildlife group, and woodland group in which the map- ping unit has been placed, The page for the description of 'each, capability unit and a listing of the wildlife group and woodland group can be found by referring to fly J~ the "Guide to Mapping Units" at the back of this survey. The acreage and proportionate extent of each map- ping unit are shown in table 1. Many of the terms used in describing soils can be found in the Glossary at the end of this survey, and more detailed information about the terminology and methods of soil mapping can be obtained from the Soil Survey Manual (11) ,i Aloha series ~ e Aloha series consists of somewhat noorl Y drained soils that formed in alluvium or lacustrine sz.t on broad valley terraces. Slope is 0 to 3 percent. Ele- vation is 150 to 200 feet, Where these soils are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly Douglas-fir and some Oregon white oak, shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Average annual precipitation is 40 to 50 inches, aver- age annual air temperature is 52° to 541F, . and the frost-free period is 165 to 210 days. In a representative profile the surface layer is dark- brown silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil is a dark-brown and dark yellowish-brown, mottled silt loam about 38 inches thick. The substratum is dark yellowish-brown, mottled silt loam and very fine sandy loam about 19 inches thick. The profile is medium acid throughout. Permeability is moderately slow. Available water capacity is- 11 to 13 inches. Water-supplying capacity is 18 to 20 inches. Effective rooting depth is 40 inches to more than 60 inches. These soils are used mainly for orchards, irrigated vegetable crops, irrigated berries, small grain, hay, pasture, and legume seed production. Other uses in- clude wildlife habitat, recreation, and homesites. Representative profile of Aloha silt loam, 0 to 3. per- cent slopes, located 200 feet south and 40 feet east of the,end of the county road in the NW1/4,SW1/4NWV4 section 16, T. 1 S., R. 2 W.: Ap-0 to 8 inches, dark-brown (10YR 3/3) silt loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; inod- erate, fine, subangular blocky structure; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; common, fine, irregular pores; common fine shot; medium. acid (pH 6.0) ; abrupt, smooth boundary. 6 to 9 inches thick. B1-8 to 15 inches, dark-brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam, light yellowish-brown (10YR 6/4) dry; common, medium, faint, dark grayish-brown, brown, and dark-brown (10YR 4/2, 5/3 and 7.5YR 3/2) mot- tles; moderate, fine, subangular blocky structure, slightly hard, friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; common very fine roots; many, fine and very fine, tubular pores; medium acid (pH 5.8) ; clear, wavy boundary. 0 to 9 inches thick. B21-15 to 22 inches, dark yellowish-brown (10YR 4/4) silt loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; common, fine, faint, 'Italic numbers in parentheses refer to References, p, 135. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON • 9 TABLE 1.-Acreage and proportionat e extent of the soils symbol Soil name Acres Percent s~Mabpol Soil name Acres Percent 1 Aloha silt loam 28,801 6.3 19E Helvetia silt loam, 20 to 30 2 Amity silt loam 6,092 1.3 percent slopes 225 0.1 3E Astoria silt loam, 5 to 30 20E Hembre silt loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes 2,115 0,5 percent slopes 13,140 2.9 3F Astoria silt loam 30 to 60 20F Hembre silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 1,746 0.4 percent slopes 10,965 2.4 48 Briedwell silt loam, 0 to 7 20G Hembre silt loam, 60 to 90 percent slopes 566 0.1 percent slopes 2,003 0.4 58 Briedwell stony silt loam, 0 to 7 21A Hillsboro loam, 0 to 3 C percent slopes 7 to 12 Briedw ll ilt l m t 939 0.2 percent slopes 3 t 7 1,472 0.3 5 e s ony s oa , percent slopes - 193 218 (1) o Hillsboro loam, percent slopes 2,062 0.5 5D Briedwell stony silt loam, 12 to 20 21C Hillsboro loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 171 (1) percent slopes 543 0.1 6B Carlton silt loam, 0 to 7 21D Hillsboro loam, 12 to 20. percent slopes 578 0.1 percent slopes 260 0.1 6C Carlton silt loam, 7 to 12 22 Huberly silt loam 2,864 0.6 percent slopes 299 0.1 238 Jory silty clay loam, 2 to 7 76 Cascade silt.loam, 3 to 7 ercent slopes 228 0.1 percent slopes 2,510 0.6 23C clay loam, 7 12 Jo - 7C Cascade silt loam; 7 to 12 percent percent slopes 694 0.1 percent slopes 3,308 0.7 23D Jory silty clay loam, 12 to 20 7D Cascade silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 563 0.1 percent slopes 2,919 0.6 23E Jory silty clay loam, 20 to 30 7E Cascade silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes 648 0.1 percent slopes 1,459 0.3 23F Jory silty clay loam, 30 to 60 7F Cascade silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 1,503 0.3 percent slopes 1,188 0.3 24G Kilchis-Klickitat complex, 60 to 90 8C Chehalem silty clay loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes 3,362 0.7 percent slopes 1,407 0.3 25E Klickitat stony loam, 3 to 30 9 Chehalis silty clay loam, occasional percent slopes 1,725 0.4 overflow 5,917 1:3 25F Klickitat stony loam, 30 to 60 10 Chehalis silt loam, occasional percent slopes 9,064 2.0 overflow. : 1,984 0.4 25G Klickitat stony loam, 60 to 90 1 1 0 Cornelius and Kinton silt loamms, percent slopes 6,436 1.4 2 to 7 percent slopes ' 7,941 1.7 26 Knappa silt loam 1,203 0.3 1 1 C Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 27 Labish mucky clay 1,975• 0.4 7 to 12 percent slopes 9,877 2.2 28B Laurelwood silt loam, 3 to 7 HD D Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, percent slopes 6,191 1.4 12 to 20 percent slopes 8,654 1.9 28C Laurelwood silt loam, 7 to 12 HE Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, . percent slopes 8,712 1.9 20 to 30 percent slopes 4,782 1.0 28D Laurelwood silt loam, 12 to 20 11 F Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, percent slopes 13,440 2.9 30 to 60 percent slopes 2,007 0.4 29E Laurelwood silt loam, 3 to '30 12A Cornelius Variant silt loam, 0 to 3 , . percent slopes 855 0.2 percent- slopes 1,124 0.3 28E Laurelwood silt loam, 20 to 30 12B Cornelius Variant silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes . 5,852 1.3 percent slopes 389 0.1 29F Laurelwood silt loam 30 to 60 12C Cornelius Variant silt loam, 7 to 12 , percent. slopes 4,196 0.9 percent slopes 200 (1) .30 McBee silty clay loam 9,494 2.1 13 Cove silty clay loam 2,968 , 0.7 31B Melbourne silty clay loam, 2 to 7 14 Cove clay 2 042 0.4 percent slopes 823 0.2 15_ Dayton silt loam ie 2,672 0.6 31C Melbourne silty clay loam, 7 to 12 I6C Dei ena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes 3,429 0.8 percent slopes 1,665 0.4 31D Melbourne silty clay loam, 12 to 20 17B Goble silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 4 857 1.1 percent slopes _ 634 0.1 31E Melbourne silty clay loam, 20 to 30 , 17C Goble silt loam, 7 1 o 12 percent slopes 3,021 0.7 percent slopes 1,534 0.3 31F Melbourne silty clay loam, 30 to 17D Goble silt loam, 12 to 20 . 60 percent slopes 3,603 0.8 percent slopes 1,774 0.4 32C Melby silt loam, 3 to 12 17E Goble silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes 1,093 0.2 percent slopes - 632 632 0.1 32D Melby silt loam, 12 to 20 18E Goble silt loam, 2 t; o 30 H percent slopes 540 0.1 percent slopes 5,904 1.3 32E Melby silt loam, 20 to 30 18F Goble silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 414 0.1. percent slopes 2,813 0.6 33E Melby silt loam, 2 to 30 19B Helvetia silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 18,711 41 percent slopes 7,763 1.7 33F Melby silt loam, 30 to 60 19C Helvetia silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 16 373 3.6 percent slopes 3,797 0.8 33G Melby silt loam, 60 to 90 , 19D Helvetia silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 1,242 0.3 percent slopes 1,102 0.2 .34C Glyic silt loam, 5 to 12 Percent slopes 814 0.2 y I. 10 -i. • SOIL SURVEY TABLE 1.-Acreage and proportionate extent of the soils-Continued Map Soil name Acres Percent symbol Soil name Acres Percent symbol 34D Olyic silt loam, 12 to 20 848 38E 2 0 34E percent slopes Olyic silt loam, 20 to 30 . 38F percent slopes 684 0.1 39E 35E Olyic silt loam, 5 to 30 287 15 3 3 35F percent slopes Olyic silt loam, 30 to 60 , . 39F percent slopes 21,090 4.6 40 35G Olyic silt loam, 60 to 90 850 3 8 41 0 36C percent slopes Pervina silty clay loam, 7 to 12 , . 42 36D percent slopes Pervina silty clay loam, 12 to 20 1,112 0.2 43 36E percent slopes Pervina silty clay loam, 20 to 30 3,217 0.7 44B 36F percent slopes Pervina silty clay loam, 30 to 60 3,550 0.8 44C percent slopes 2,142 0.5 44D 37A Quatama loam" o to. 3 percent slopes 7,613 1.7 45A 37B Quatama loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 4,581 1.0 37C Quatama loam, 7 to 12 45B percent slopes 1,565 0.3 37D Quatama loam, 12 to 20 45C percent slopes 670 0.1 38B Saum silt loam, 2 to 7 45D percent slopes 1,876 0.4 38C Saum silt loam, 7 to 12 46F percent slopes 2,043 0.4 38D . Saum silt loam, 12 to 20 47D percent slopes 2,519 0.6 1 Less than 0.1 percent. dark grayish-brown, brown, and dark- brown (10YR 4/2, 5/3 and 7.5YR 3/2) mottles ; moderate, fine, subangular blocky structure ; firm, hard, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; common, very fine roots ; many, medium, fine and .very fine, tubular pores; few thin clay films in pores; few black coatings on peds ; few medium shot; medium acid (pH 5.8) ; clear, wavy boundary. 5 to 9 inches thick. B22-22 to 31 inches, . dark yellowish-brown (10YR 4/4) heavy silt loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; many, medium, dis- tinct, dark brown, dark-gray, and dark yellowish-brown (7.5YR 4/2, 10YR 4/1 and 3/4) moist mottles; weak, medium, subangular blocky structure parting to moderate, fine, subangular blocky; firm, hard, slightly sticky and slightly plas- tic; slightly brittle; few very fine roots; many very fine pores and few, fine, tubu- lar pores; few, thin, dark-colored coatings or cutans on vertical surfaces of peds and in pores; common fine shot; medium acid (pH 5.8) ; gradual, wavy boundary. 6 to 13 inches thick. B3-31 to 46 inches, variegated brown and dark- Saum silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes 1,701 0.4 Saum silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 3,373 0.7 Tolke silt loam. 5 to 30 percent slopes 15;473 3.4 Tolke silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 2,111 0.5 Udifluvents, nearly level 2,219 0.5 Urban Land 652 0.1 Verboort silty clay loam 6,756 1.5 Wapato silty clay loam 11,548 2.5 Willamette silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 5,155 1.1 Willamette silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 1,666 0.4 Willamette silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 293 0.1 Willamette silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 211 (1) Woodburn silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 20,300 4.4 Woodburn silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 10,877 2.4 Woodburn silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 2,124 0.5 Woodburn silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 726 0.2 Xerochrepts and Haploxerolls, very steeu 1,238 0.3 Xerochrepts-Rock outcrop complex- 629 0.1 Water 1,550 0.3 Total 458,200 100.0 brown (10YR 5/3 and 4/3) silt loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; many, me- dium and fine, faint and distinct, dark grayish=brown and reddish-brown (10YR 4,/2, 5YR 4/4) moist mottles;. weak, coarse, subangular blocky .struc- ture, hard, firm, . slightly. sticky and slightly plastic ; brittle ; few fine roots; many very fine pores and few, fine, tu- bular pores; common, medium, black coatings ; common fine shot, common micaceous fragments; few, thin coat- ings or cutans on vertical surfaces of peds; over .60 percent of the horizon exhibits gray, clean sand and silt parti- cles in a patchy pattern along surfaces of peds and in the larger pores; medium acid (pH 6.0) ; gradual, wavy boundary. 0 to 18 inches thick. C1-46 to 60 inches, dark yellowish-brown (10YR 3/4) silt loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) and yellowish-brown (10YR 5/4) dry; common, coarse, dark grayish-brown. (10YR 4/2) mottles and streaks; few, black coatings; massive; firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; slightly brittle; few, coarse, tubular pores and many, fine and very fine tu- bular pores; micaceous; medium acid V, y • WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON • - 11 (pH 6.0) ; gradual irregular boundary. 12 to 16 inches thick. C~60 to 65 inches, dark yellowish-brown (10YR 4/4) very fine sandy loam, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) dry; mas- sive, slightly hard, friable; nonsticky and nonplastic; common or many firm nodules; very fine tubular pores. The solum ranges from 30 to 60 inches in thickness.. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. The A horizon is silt loam or loam. The B horizon is a silt loam or loam that is 18 to 27 percent clay and less than 15 per- cent rock fragments coarser than very fine sand. The lower part of the B horizon ranges from slightly brittle to strongly brittle. The C horizon is silt loam, loam, or very fine sandy loam. 1-Aloha silt loam. This nearly level soil is on smooth terraces. It has the profile described as repre- sentative of the series. Included with this soil in mapping were areas of Amity, Cornelius variant, Woodburn, Quatama, and Huberly soils which make up as much as 10 percent of this mapping unit. Runoff is s w and the hazard of erosion is slight. Capability uni w-l ; wildlife group z. Amity series The Amity series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in old alluvium on valley terraces. Slope is 0 to 3 percent. Elevation is 150 to 240 feet. Where these soils are not cultivated, the vege- tation is. grasses, low shrubs, and scattered Oregon white oak. Average annual precipitation is 40 to 45 inches, average annual air temperature is 52° to 540 F., and the frost-free period is 165 to 210 days. In a representative profile the surface layer is very dark brown over very dark grayish-brown silt loam about 12 inches thick and very dark gray silty clay loam 4 inches thick. The subsurface layer is dark gray, faintly mottled silty clay loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is dark grayish-brown and grayish-brown, distinctly mottled silty clay loam about 20 inches thick: The profile is medium acid in the surface and subsurface layers and slightly acid -in the subsoil and substratum. Permeability is moderately slow. Available water capacity is 9 to 12 inches. Water-supplying capacity is 18 to 20 inches. Effective rooting depth is more than 60 inches. These soils are used for irrigated vegetable crops, irrigated strawberries, small grain, grass and legume seed production, hay, pasture, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Representative profile of Amity silt loam, located about 150 feet east of the road in SW1/4NE1/4, section 20, T. 1 N., R. 3-W.: Ap-0 to 6 inches, very dark-brown .(10YR 2/2) silt loam, grayish-brown (10YR 5/2) dry; weak, fine, granular structure; slightly hard, friable, nonsticky and nonplastic ; many very fine roots; many, very fine, irregular pores; medium acid (pH 5.6) ; abrupt, smooth boundary. 5 to 8 inches thick. .04 A12-6 to 12 inches, very dark grayish-brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam, grayish-brown (10YR 5/2) dry; weak, medium, suban- gular blocky structure breaking to rnod- erate, fine and very fine, subangular blocky; hard, friable, nonsticky and slightly plastic; many very fine roots. common, fine and medium, tubular pores; medium acid (pH 5.6); clear, smooth boundary. 5 to 10 inches thick. A13-12 to 16 inches, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) light silty clay loam, grayish-brown (10YR 5/2) dry; moderate, fine and very fine, subangular blocky structure; hard, friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; many very fine roots; common, fine, tubular pores; medium acid (pH 5.8) ; clear, smooth boundary. 0 to 7 inches thick. A2-16 to 20 inches, dark-gray (10YR 4/1) light silty clay loam, light gray (5YR 7/1) dry; few, faint, dark-brown (7.5YR 3/2) mottles; weak, medium and fine, subangular blocky structure; hard, fri- able, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; many fine roots ; many, fine and very fine, tubular pores ; medium. acid (pH 5.8) ; clear, smooth boundary.. 5 to 7 inches thick. B21t_-20 to 28 inches, dark grayish-brown (10YR 4/2) silty clay loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; common, fine and medium, distinct, dark reddish-brown (5YR 3/3) mottles ; moderate, fine and very fine, subangular blocky structure ; hard, firm, sticky and plastic; few fine roots; com- mon, fine, tubular pores ; slightly acid (pH 6.4) ; clear, smooth boundary. 6 to 9 inches thick. B22t-28 to 33 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) silty clay loam, pale.brown (10YR 6/3) dry; common, distinct, dark-brown (7.5YR 3/2) mottles; moderate, fine, subangular blocky structure; hard, firm, sticky and plastic; few fine roots; many, fine, tubular pores; common, black coat- ings on peds ; thin continuous clay films on peds and in pores; slightly acid (pH 6.4) ; clear, smooth boundary. 4 to 8 inches thick. B3t-33 to 40 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) silty clay loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; many, medium, distinct, dark- brown (7.5YR 3/2) mottles; moderate, fine, subangular blocky structure; hard, firm, sticky and plastic; few fine roots; common, fine, tubular pores; many, medium, black coatings on peds and in pores; few, thin, clay films on peds and in pores; slightly acid (pH 6.4) ; abrupt, smooth boundary. 0 to 10 inches thick. C-40 to 60 inches,-light olive brown (MY 5/4) silt loam, very pale brown (10YR 7/4) dry; few, fine, faint mottles; massive; Q SOIL SURVEY ,4 • • TABLE 13,E , [Absence of an entry indicates the feature is not a concern. See Glossary for description= Hydro- Flooding y Y Soil name and logic map symbol group Frequency Duration Months Aloha : 1,C U None Amity : 2 C None ° Astoria: 3E. 3F B None Briedwell : 46, 5B, 5C, 5D B None Carlton 6B,6C B None Cascade: 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, 7F C None Chehalem: C None Chehalis: 9. 10 - B Common Brief Nov-Mar Cornelius : M ' 1 1B, ' I IC, ' I I D. 1 1 1E. ' I I F: Cornelius part C None 11inton part C None - Cornelius Variant: 12A, 1.2B, 12C C None Cove: 13, 14 D Common Brief Dec-Apr Dayton : 15 D None Delena: 16C D None Goble: 17B. 17C. 17D, 17E, 18 E, 18 F C None Helvetia: : i~ 19B,19C, 19D, 19E C None Hernbre : 20E, 20F, 20G B None Hillsboro: 21A, 218, 21C, 21D B None Huberly: 22 D None - Jory: t 23B, 23C, 23D, 23E, 23F C None " Kilchis: '24G: Kilchis part C None - - Klickitat part B None e MV L6r DimN 1 • WtcoM: 1 ruRwsda ruax^so w..d..e t rl ) y C ~ • _a TIGARD, OREGON T1 S, R I W, SECTION 34 / / 7 I I 1 ~ DESIGN INC. 9045 SY Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 . Portland, OR 97219 (503) 225-1679 I EIPNES a.Vwa U) 0 11.1 Q (9 11.1 I L12-~j rzn 0 N w 1L~ Z~ 0g 0 - APPLICANT o LAND USE PLANNER oSURVEYOR oCIVI L ENGINEER BiGG CONSIRUC716N PLANNING RESOURCES KEENON LAND SERVICES OL DESIGN INC 17660 KRAMIER RD 7160 SW FIR LOOP STE 201 1224 ALDER Sr 9045 S .W BARBUR BLVD. NEWBERG, OR 97132 PORTLAND, OR 97223 VERNONiA, OREGON 97064 SU17E 101 CONTACT.- WNCE BIGGI 503-684-1020 503-429-6115 PORTLAND, OR 97219 ' KEN SANDBLAST CONTACT.- KEENON CONTACT 503-225=1679 . CONTACT.' GARY DARLING. P.E. GENERAL NOTES - UTILITIES/S ER VI CES I. ALL CCNSTRUCRON SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS AND SPEaFlGWaHS FOR THE CITY EE RGARO, ME - WATER: CITY OF 77GARD, OREGON CYX6I77ONS OF APPROVAL FOR WE PRO.ECT, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE APPEWY CNAP7ER 33 D•CAYARON AND OU&MG, SEWER: CLEAN WATER SERVCES (CODS) AND 7HE AGREEMENT AUOBINC THE DEVELOPER TO CON57RUCT PUBLIC MPROVEMEN7S SEE S°EOT7CA77ONS FRONDED. POWER: PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC (PGE) V OF ALL CANNERS CO INCLUDING N MITT ALL PRON9C OF m 757.511 7O 757.576 2 WE IXGVAia7 MUST COWL Y GAS: N.W. NATURAL GAS E COMMA UNOERIY7CIAM1 FACUTfS A AT ISi 48 HOURS BUT T NOT MORE IRAN 10 BU9NES5 DAY; CL'FGRE CWMENaNC ANY EXCAVATOR. DA LE PHONE.- VERIZON 3: THE COVWNACTOR IS ,vs sBlE FOR C0V7ROUJNG SEDIMENT 77?ANSK.RT MWSR THE PROECT UMRS USNG--ZED N CABLE- COMCAST METHODS FOP EROSION CC RRC AS APPROVED BY THE aTY a~ wAw.. 4. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO LEAVE THE PRO"T FREE OF DEBRIS AND UNUSED MA 7E VATS UPON COMPIfl S THE CON7RACTOR SHALL COORDINA7E THE' WSTALLA77MI OF THE UTUTY SYSTEMS SUCH AS POMER, IELEPHCNE GA.S CABLE TV. ETC, M7H EACH INDIWDUAL U77UY COMPANY, PRIOR TO FINAL NSTALUTaN OF THE ~,u,.. 6. WE C.W7RACT RR SHALL MAINTAIN AND PROTECT EUS7ING PUBLIC AND PAYVA TE UDUTY LINES AND OTHER PUBLIC U77UTY SMUC77JRES 7HE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL PUBLIC PROPERTY TO 17S CGCINAL COND1770H UPON COMPLETION OF WORK 7. TEMPORARY ER09oV CON7RC ME7NOD5 MUST REMAIN IN PUCE AND BE MAINTAINED UNnL PERMANCN7 EROSION CWTROL METHODS ARE IN PUCE AND OPERA 77CNAL 8. ALL AREAS 70 RECEIVE Fat SHALL BE SnUPPED OF ALL VECETADOH AND 07HER DELETERIOUS MATEi6ALS ALL SUCH MAMWALS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM 97E A T THE CON7RACTORY EXPENSE 9. ALL NaFMETALUC SANITARY AND SR;kW SEMEN SERWE LATERAL PIPING SHALL HAW AN ESECWUCALLY CWDUC77VE INSULATED 12 CA GREEN COPPER 7RACER MERE THE FLU LIN07H OF 7HE PISTALLED PIPE IM NO MA7ERIAL SUBS77TU77ONS OR DESIGN CHANGES SHALL BE MADE M77HOUT PRIOR PERMISSION OF ME ENGINEER AND ME CITY ENaNEEM 11. A FILL SET OF THE APPROVED PLANS wrH ALL CURRENT REN9OLS AND AMENDMENTS SHALL BE MAMTAWED ON ME SITE AT ALL WANES DUMNG CONSMCWOL 11 ALL FILL SHALL BE PLACED ON 12• LIFTS AND 9MLL BE COMPACTED to AASHTO 95X DENSITY. THE CONMACTOR SHALL EMPLOY A GEO7ECTHMCAL ENGINEER 77 TEST ALL FILLED LOTS TEST REPORTS SHALL EE $LAWITIED TO ME aTY AND 70 ME ENaHEER, PER CE07EGNICAL ENGNEERAIG REPORT. I11: I ~ I PROJECT SITE I • = 60, SHEET INDEX REV. DATE BY CO COVER SHEET C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C 1.2 DEMOLITION PLAN C2.1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C2.2 TRAFFIC FLOW PLAN C2.3 PRELIMINARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PLAN AND PROFILE NUMBER TA0006 D.E. 6DRN1 C2.4 TREE REMOVAL PLAN Sale: AS NOTED C3.1 PREL I M I NARY GRAD I NG AND EROS I ON D- By: LHP CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS L>-Igea BY U& C4.1 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN aakeBy. GID C5.1 PRELIMINARY STREET PLANTING AND LIGHTING PLANS C6.1 OFF-SITE CIRCULATION PLAN C O AldT 1137 _ Lbod • 1 p~tuoh: 1 Fsd.?7 - ow-LOGO rAl.W&IF IALW6,10 A110O6r50 ALW&70 UAFIPUM SANITARY MANHOLE 572 E RIM = 206.10' LE. N W = 199.75' LE. NS=199.80' LE. OUT NE 199.60 SW COTTONWOOD LANE i __sm-SAN-SAN-6M 195 194 1') 241.52' 188 11(144.61') / 144.75' ✓ZZ4 ~ < I E[ S Jj 1 STORM MANHOLE }293 19.19' N RDA = 224.09 OUT E _ ~ LE Be OUT W = 22100' 0- 3l` NECT TO N C WA 9~u 06, 3 8951'28%E1~98.23'~~ ' °-Sw- ~v-sAF -sno-~sw~-IS1x susw-S,w-SAN- ~"su+-sw-sup 5Ar1-w+ sw6w1Nyry S 5 E 3465.42 IY UHIYwQ~A .~T 1 JX'p~Q-Nm SANITARY MANHOLE # 238 < W 5y S RIM = 222.85' L?15NN0 RRE SANITARY MANHOLE 195, S RIM = .90' c a I.E. IN W = 208.87' HIDRANT I.E N W218207.67' LE IN S = 208.82' Ol I.E INS 209.40' LE OUT E = 208.70' I.1- OUT E = 207.60' 193 192 191 190 2(N 8927'17' E 92372') N 8935'34' E 924.46' 11(75.00') 11(75.00') 11(75.00') 9 11 75.01' A;--=7_103' 74.98' _ N 955'34' E 395.98' N _ I a ~ J fob I a f °0 1 1 a I 1 • 2 i e n' 10 44.48' 6(44.49') 1 12(44.48') N INN I~w N 11 12 If- I I~ SCALE, 1 =40' 2010 0 10 IO 0 10 AN SANITARY MANHOLE R 654 E RIM = 198.13' 1. E. IN SE= iB1.40' LE. IN S = 191.48' LE INW=191.43' LE. OUT N = 191.3 7 -sax-sAx -{5) i CA'T'CH BASIN f 651 ORATE - 197.77 I.E. OUT NW = 193.52' I.E. 12' IN S=19357 SANITARY MANHOLE E RIM = 199.91' LE OUT NW = 193.7 1 1•Q 1' I 1 LE. IN S - titl I y~. e I SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION SYMBOL LEGEND • SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND I ❑ CATCH BASIN - hI WATER METER FIRE HYDRANT WATER VALVE ~a I TREE I TREE ~I TREE *I TREE lO SANITARY MANHOLE I ICI POWER POLE I@I STORM MANHOLE 1®I WELL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON "WB12" FROM GEODETIC CONTROL SURVEY NO. 40 (GC-40). -WB12- = 213.72' 1 L DESIGN INC. 9045 SII Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 225-1679 Z (L w z Z 0 0 I L F U 0 -0 y W Z Q O O Lo Z N X w 1 a ° I REV. DATE BY ° REGISTERED LAND cn SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR l PRROOFESSU IOON& l z ~ TAURUS DEVELOPMENT LLC. ON 404 z w IN THE CITY OF TIGARD w E1 IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, .;'mmmeOFFICE COUNTY I - - R"E3N x cn T1S, R1W, W.M. n JANU t 11 93 (n Nun D. WATIACE OR 1224 ALDER Sr. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 7601 76WIOHIA OR V1064 RENEWAL DATE 6/30/04 (503) 42V-6L15 SCALE 1" = 50' JANUARY 29, 2004 _ OxAral er A6• Jmn mnsY/~In.k.v.,..,.: crnw~..sw uoe nuw-au Iv®m.•r Ra w-mx .>Qecm vxulw 1 ~ I • CA BASIN #8X86 STORM MANHOLE #47 GRA 27. PROJECT LE 2' IN , 21400' N RIM = 216:25' NUMSER TA0006 S LE I'OUT =21375' I.EIN W=207.19' ~LH OUT E = 207.14' Dah 06/0104 cp`-a~ opt '-Oi 6wk: 1•=47 prang BY. IML 0V 6' ° M1ti D-rg d Sr. LML uT"-}gyp HXI--~N70-110 -N4- / 1 ) Choked ay GIO STORM MANHOLE /88 , N RIM-215.31 I.E. IV IN W - 21318' LE 12' IN S OUT 21321' C 1 LE 12 W OU7E=213ll' SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION ti0~ V ~ I 1R8T UST LbaM 1 pibroA: 1 Ra+eM1?e ` L➢D-LOGO TALYA6+II Vnna'+N _ LI000&1O rA000ae0 MkU0&70 UMATPLAN 195 194 193 192 ENGLEWOOD III 2(N 89-2r17- E 92172) N 89.5634' E 914,46' VFW T I ~•N~ I 1 I ~ N ;I 1 i a I I STORY M ABO RRm = mmaw / L& a2' mm 179= 23 N~S~u111Pz S6V I 5/N ~1xto-roxtm~': x xto xm- ~R1 M- a SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION I SANITARY Ffi7(N461ES&5972 E OM = $®IW, LE. IN7 VIP =19991)55' LE Im-$B 199mo, LE 100TNEE1999560' f SW COTTONWOOD LANE - yH - sw- sa- sr I \ 11p, $E3'7TC les 10 - it 12 \ \ ~.22 OECL?11M/SS~VED 1 \ \ u; \ ~ ?III 1 EXISIINO OUSE EM-TING WEtt DOS77NG NE( 7~ i / Too I Lo~' 71mar \ Le aP MMEE=121®94 CONNECT 10 DOS77NG PtNC WA LER -YJ~-SIN- S~iywf ~ SW-.SAN-S0.V~,W~f7-~SI~N(n-~SA~N ~~9W~-SAN SN J H -xm ou2 o-,xm.y~'Yxz7-'14o'='t„x7o L'H~ to -t e °9 SANITARY f*;MH 1EE Qrm .4 S RM =899&)5' EgSIWG TYNE SANITARY LE IIN NN=ccvmol I N>A9ANi SR11L=P~~' LE. lNI.S=~cnmm~ 4 q I " C& IIN VN=209.U0Y CE dUU EE=22BBiDD'~ LE L3N$=2E99:4'0' LE. ®12TEE=289)500' I ~ t SSr4LE, 1'x40' TP;--m, I 2010 0 40 SANI'LWY IxAW4D1 ,=6684 E M1x = I®115 LE IIN %E=1991400' LE. IIN M =1991448' LE IIN W =1991443' CATCH SISM 0 M1 LE. amrpN=?991777' I GRATE _ 197mr \ LE ONT MW _13g=' -Sw4-'SAX 9aI LE az' ILNS';=1393:x7 SWa sANlTasr rrsmmmEET a E eM = i®93L' .9 LE QUT NM 199777 I I ; 7 LE 9' kN 9 J3 1 . IN B SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION SYMBOL LEGEND •I SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND I EI CATCH BASIN I INI WATER METER ICI FIRE HYDRANT (ja I WATER VALVE 3I TREE TREE ®I TREE I *I TREE lei SANITARY MANHOLE I ICI POWER POLE I 101 STORM MANHOLE II ®I WELL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON 'WB12' FROM GEODETIC CONTROL SURVEY NO. 40 (GC-40). 'WB12' 213.72' LAND I SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR moncscclnuu mATT TTO nV1rLTnou~um 7 T r \ I AND SURVEYOR I 6- l 111V11VJ LL YliLVI ry 111 LW. z S IN THE CITY OF-TIGARD w IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, SUIMlOR$ COTINW OFFICZ JEN 993 I C T1S, ROW, W.M. "o BE N4D D. WAUACE 1R L224 AMER WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 7601 VMIXOXX OR RENEWAL DATE 6/30/04 (603) 429-au5 SCALE 1" = 50' JANUARY 29, 2004 _ 1811..E c.:.u. Ir81R 11111/1 8 8 /8X8 p5.r.:..,.. U,`,fJ1U/-..bW 1188 Na 1M-N8 IPMVGT Ilu Urxllk 1/LN/W CA' H a4ASDNAPES STORY MANfffiPE¢,c97 . iB IW 22W00' NRR4=a3ffia';5' Trz- LK k;1 =228815' LE. INNVTl=2WA99' . V \ ? ,~,-LE 101YT EE 2097144' 11 xio---~xto wto- m- xa~-~'xto f' STORIL Mwaa ow w. if N DJ9L - X2B.2f I LE. If IRI VW=223383' L& a2' IIN=2=1311' at taUl'EE=223311' LE. f L DESIGN INC. 9045 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 225-1679 dZ Q Q Q ILd z 00 _0 Ld - F- 0~ 0 Ill 0 REV. DATE BY PROJECT NUMBER TA0006 DaN: 063X04 Sale: 1-40 Dawn By. IML D-Wned BY IML Checked BY. GID C1.2 VR LbroN' 1 RybrW: R-td D D-LOCO TZ= M AW&to 'W06+50 w.odAe 1 I I I I 1 l c;A 19 i t i9 389 I 188 1 ( ,I 11, 1 SA'f I3 ' { i' r' l IC 1 Buc uwn 99'27'x7` C 923.7_'f I EAAMfNT( ) N 8>t' -1924.46' P. j I N 89'35'34" E 395.981 y - - - - - - - ♦ - - ' /s' - " - - - # 44.48'.-. . _ 241.52' 75 112(44.48) - 13 12 11 10 a l 9 7, 575 SF o 7,575 SF o 7,5 75 SF o 6, 787 SF 8,94J SF I° { IAN 10' PI11A/C U11UTY N CO EASEWNT (nP.) N N 3.3 I~CN Zono\. 90' . 75-_____ _____75_ - - - g I F-1R-SANE _24.08,185 SF l II \ 1 \ ; 1 I 14 16 15 6,286 SF , Q I 7 I -1 ~I 6, 790 SF 8,140 SF I 6, 790 SF ' ' - - Ina' j 17 ~1N 6,000 SF 11D' 1 h W~h I I I ~ I I rco { - I - I ~rl.D ~IV- 6 20 19 too' 24.0 8140 SF ~I 18 -IE.O-~ o vl M Lo. I 6,790 SF v~ 6,790 SF 6,300 SF ! I _ Ito' I to a~2/ 1 M I 1 t ~ o I ! I 5 to 8,JJ8 SF 1 . / ~ I n _-:0-=24B-- FOREST LANE gI 72 11.0 -j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - jl \ 4 Ix ~ ' 1 el 2 I 3 N 10, 202 SF N I Q,~~~ m %18 'I 8,257 SF el 7,585 SF 8 7,921 SF j Ji I I \ I' I I I rr.O ~ n.a 10' --1 - - y - ---"~Y------ -61 - . . log j S 89'5128" E 396.23' ! 96' ' DUVCA 77aV N DAKOTA STREET ROW - - 10 I< i 1 I R.O.W. R.D.W. 1 16.0' 8.0' PUE 11.0' 1 120' 12.0' 11.0' 8.0' PUE 0.5' I 10' 0.5' 50' 1 5.5' I PARKING 5.5' 5.0, CLASS 'C' A.C. Of CLASS 'B' A.C. 1 . 5.•7 MAX 2X 2.5X 2.58 2X MAX ~p1 5:1 MAX T• 1 SDEWAX ///9 COMPACTED J1I'_0' ~y 1'LANDNC 57RIPJ LEWUNC COURSE CURB AND GUr7ER COMPACTED SUBCRAOE 70 95X AASHTO r-I80 couPACrED 1 r/2'-o' BASE COURSE PROPOSED STREET TYPICAL SECTION SKINNY STREET OPTION N.T.S. ROW 9' ROW OEOUCA DON 55' 5.0' PIANTINC 1.5' 90EW" STRIP PLANTIIC - PROPOSED 29'ROW CL 20'EXISTING ROW 1&0' 05' CURB PROTECT EXIST AC SLOPE VARIES STANDARD CLRS AND CA.C ON OMPACTED ! 111._0. CLASS 'C'' A.G ON 9ASE'CORSE CLASS 'B' A.C N DAKOTA TYPICAL SECTION N.T.S. i DESIGN INC. 9045 SR Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 225-1679 Islas 0 Cw 1 ~DA4yv REMRES +2a1.05 z g Ld (L L( O f LLI _x ~ W a p Q _z w LL REV. DATE BY I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT NUMBER TA0006 Date: 630101 Sala: 1• = 30 Drawn BY LML Desigred Br. IML Checked By. DID C2.1 rR7 I: LbcaN: 1 iiGCV1.: / M.dnd OLD-L= STAVFVD rA0006.10 UU006-W twsaon.d 0 • INC. .._.........__._.._..._...._...._...._._.__~(y~ - - -A- I # DESIGN 8045 Slf Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 13 12 / I O I F4 Portland, ( 03) 225-18 91B ~ I I I I ~ I I I I I / ~ 4 Ialw ♦ f I FIR LANE 1 ~ 6kViBES 12-31.05 1 AREA PARKING Of OAN UPON DRIVEWAY LOC14 I I . i 16 \ ` I - - - - ' 15 I 7 I / I I ~ ~ I I TRAFFIC z FLOW PLAN 17 z< 500 BPD 0 0. I / I 6 It I I I I U o 20 I 79 I 18 z ~ LL ' I a LD LL % I I I AVAILABLE AREA LL O PARKING DEPENDANT V J 'Q UPON DRIVEWAY LOCA RON / I I NO _ ~ PARKING'. _ l FOREST LANE 2 N I ,l IIl D 1 3 I REV. DATE I BY I I~ O I I I I I SCALE D 15Z5 0 - _ PROJECT N DAKOTA STREET NUMBER TA0006 0 :ZE Date: 6r3M1 Scale: 1'_30 N Drawn Br. IML O S DesiWIed By-- II& ' Clmd[edBy DID I 3 ! i l l I G2.2 ~ lip • • . PitxvM: 1 h' 1 Feml_aJ_ LVD_LOGO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SwPwo 12+21.84 11+00 11+00 10+00 d 9+00 FIR LANE 8+00 ugwo~e_ L..._.......L.._..- j ............._....I_..,.__..........._.I............. _ ._p, _ I... . _...._L...... I_ j , FUTURE DEVELOPMENT aI I 1 J I ~ 74 75 I I \ ';g I t ` PC L%3PL I I j 3 SCALE. q I I JD~5; Jo I 17 I CI N I I I I ~I 20 79 I 18 - g co I I I I I I I ' N ^ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT + I 1 i % DESIGN INC. 9045 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 225-1679 -...2J5---- u 6 5 N 1 H I ~ 5~D0/ J+00 4+00 r 7 ` 0+0.10 rA~...........__,___{..__._..._..__._-I.. FOREST LANE I I C-)% 1 I 4 I I D. I 2 3 D' I I r~' ~ I 1 2J5 2J01 2251 220 zi.; i i I I q 41~ ~o vi KK h H Ny N 0+50 W-.---- .-430- 3 I o 0 LOSING ELEvAnavs n?O.V th 8 ~m FL TURE! DEVFL OPAIE Is I n ?d l I d i ; 2f5-' i q~ q .'6 b hry N 9+50 hg b 1 qI~ b 7"~ O nK m N N aq N O h N N h N N c i h 10+00 10+50 I1+00 Ialeo • r 2J5 rb O n 1RV I DAR~\ EXPIRES 12-31-0E j 230 . Topo I i ":275 220 w W 215 J w 0 Z o q ~ h m ny) hry tn a Q ~ V N N hN n hN nN ry = W ~ LL O C) O 11+50 I1+00 Z° OZ O z !Y Q _ZD L J W i ~ i ~ 900' V>; V CROUND l LOSING E1FI'A.nONS17((MCAEWAE_TCPO_ q _ REV. DATE By 9S: h I- Dv + + Ph STA X1+70.94 } N ' i WN + PN aEV,v 22J28 'UTURE DEVELOPMENT 'f7/OSH GRADE tr{ A0. - -'270 v1 33 JJ Y W 0 ROAD GL . I I ~H Y m X a 33.33 1 -2601 ccr m ( W ^50.0' VC g v~~_I I I n I `cow PC NT Errv . z,+.a g q I I b e I , 1Er- - a b aw-PdNr-su-- 6+1170 j PN STA a 8+ 272 PN IELEV = 2' 200 y ,f D._>6.55 W IX Jfl19 i[3. I 1 PROJECT N[M BER TA0006 s I - Sct: T=3p ry ^N b ♦q ry~ ry b7 NI O~ • h~ ♦ '1'I bm bb hh D bN O N N♦ ryh bN bh qN yNA N b O ^ 7 n b K h b h ♦ b b r Dyn By., IML ryK n NK n n~ n n♦ n rv♦ n w♦ h nK hNry hN nN N NN h Kq m n^ b KK iK H~ N~ N~ H~ Nib Hd ryK KK hN h hN h NN N hN h hh h hh h hh h hN hN hH h NN h NN h "N N N hN NN NN hN hN hN NN NN NN NN D.V-d B1, RA 1+00 1+50 2+00 1+50 J+00 J+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 Click dBy.. GID PRELIMINARY ROAD PROFILE SCALE: NOR. I'- 30'/ VERT. I" - 5' C 2.3. • • 1RFF D~7 Fawox: 7 OLD-LOGO STAWPOV - TAUOOIS~W rAUOO&60 1 rAUpJL70 j I 1JEWOOf_3 'I r p, 89'27'1" (0 0,7j,72 ) n9°. 5'34" c'. 92.4 ' I I r FIR 16 I pi4a?~' ,.2', rl ~ 1 1 _ J •i °Ml:i~E4 TS y PROP ROW7i1P.f \ Y ' ' i \ ~APLE j21...~......... FI\R\ LANES \_\L _ 'y .75 PRA ROW (1VP.) IR-16 IR-16 e....1IR-116 ~r i':.:2 1\FIR 20 \ I Ye'~y T RR 14 RED 1„9 RED WOOD I; RED WOOD I RED WOOD & , Dmvm, 188 \ X11 9 1~ ' dAER 24 ti SU al 20 ALDER19 I- 11 "min- --111PTIP 27 FIR 22 -VK . \ I r f ~ _r 24 . I FIR }S - 1 \ . .x&2_2 2V • 14 1 \ 1 Q I I I ALDER I ' I I " I I I `p...,_7~a XAJitEh3 ZB 2711\11s~ 48 + 12 a 2-0 i\ ~ EE+y 30 PRLWPUE PLE+ 28 1_1_ _ I ___r1P. - __A___ -r u R} :2 \ Y1. FOREST LANE ! ; 1 \ 12 TREE PRESERVATION LEGEND \ APLE 1B \ NABLE REOULA7ED 7REE (TO BE SAVED) Nor VIABLE TREE (REMOVE) 2 .Z ?X5 VIABLE TREE (REMOVE) ^I 1 ~ i - , R 41 FI0. 18 1 I ' I F1E+ IB I 20 : V ri'I:Rt 7Z 1`1 -/ITR+ 2B tPROP ROW hYP.I r•'J'; R+ 28 PRQP flOp..)__ 4/10\R+ 211 I I I 1 O LEDM.30 I C 1 Fut .2a~ t I FIR .16 Al 1~1 REE, -2 / I 1 CEDAR 40 AN I 1 I0 Ad a `y RIB )I'll(' TREE 12 : I - 1 _1U~ R J/ ~ l I ~i D I ' 2 ` V 05 FlR+.1~E+..-z f 12!\ AIE.' 1=:T 1F 1 i-q:23 FlR , \ \1f122 i PRQ°PLI£,ffYP. x: ~y \t Z5 0 30 0 _P8S H4WI7Ii'.1 ye Y'Pt NLLT+~3 ^ / _ _ _ lut 26 ' ~ -~~~~t----_ _ T"'% ~ ex75nNC aow L) _ _ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ z x N DAKOTA STREET n. \ f 1 DESIGN INC. 9045 SW Barber Blvd. Suite 101 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 225-1679 P OfYAtl r+ I G 1 E-ES ,1.3,-0. I QZ Wz a 0 = U0 0 Z~ Ld O rQn LV_L r NW LL REV. DATE BY I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT NUMBER' TA0006 Date: 06.50104 Sole: I•=3o D.-Br. IML Ohm By IML Cre&k d BY GID C2.4 0 • USr [ ! '.j FILTER STITCHED LOOPS i FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL FABRIC / OVER 2'x 2' POSTS '.t I C I I: / 36' WIDE ROLLS MATERIAL Rrx+!.0~ I I I I RED WOOD 12~f i:9 1~1? 1~J. i ;,90 i85 ~ui~. 188 I~ ] OLO-Loco T ; ~ / r 6 DESIGN INC, 7Al1006..10 , RED WOOD 12- - ` , \ • ti ~4%" o . ( L. 4uoJa D r 4 a ~7` 7 C ~%.'•,1 HEtiF FENCE RED vrooD I A CR 24 0 1 9045 SA Bar6ur Blvd,' z3 RED wood 1z F, I : Suite 101 uucn~2o I + e. 34° E 1:;24.oi;' ccoaR ID Portland, OR 97219 F, a/nlJti~r N~ ~I q„r„one_ (503) 225-1079 6' (MAXIMUM SPACING) -K DAX 1 , , - - _ - - - ( _ FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW ,EQEDPROf :.:1 I 1 •I I `1 ~ I I r I ,t,~, ~S ~c,xe+~'a I r....., 4T) 4 \ ,I^ 1 I I. I rr I O I \ r r ANGLE BOTH ENDS OF FILTER FABRIC v IYIw 13 I I P, I' _ I -V I I I All 20 FENCE TO ASSURE SOIL IS TRAPPED FF 170 FF 215.0 'FF 215~0 I FF 215.0 r. FF\216.4',, x NOTES I F . I. BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER FABRIC 6 VERTICALLY I~ I `,•1 I i \ ~i.,... /^I~ '~i MAPi 17 ~I VERTICALLY BELOW FINISHED GRADE FIR INTERLOCKED 1241-OS 2 2'x 2' FIR, PINE OR STEEL I exruts I I - 2' POSTS l { I L\'J1 FENCE POSTS. 7__ STI I ;I ail v AN D ATTACH INSTALLED L 'I P 27 t..-----.~; lllQR,2,' 3, DOWNHILL L SIDE TO BE SLOPE. PCIRARY to nlmr BA A nER,s ` \ f \ ✓ _ ` IQ)? Y.J.E.PL 4. COMPACT ALL AREAS OF FILTER FABRIC 4- 17 --a ;n - TRENCH. `..216,.0- I~ 2, SEDIMENT FENCE J R „ C3.1 N.T.S. Z l~ ~1\ \ /1 a» I. 49 72 V 21 1 \ \ \ 1 \ 1 \l R- 6 i i R 3a"=1___ ~"`-max x r.V FLOW W (.1.) Z I , 1 FF 218 0 FF 216, 0 F 215.0 \y i \ SC4LE• r•=.w' oiTa BOTTOM C) Lu -7 Q 1 l FF 217 MAPLE ,B ao rszs o is ® Q o LLI ALDER-Ids - ~I SECTION A-A Z Q \ 1,, P-- - \ F-- \ \ 7640 DITCH INLET W 0 Z \ \-F1R+~2z FF`T1$.0 R44~ AREA DRAIN z g V1, - 4 IL _ 7 _ I I Ip \ \ _ L \ \ \ , . r I MAY BE USED SHORT TERM f-- /-w/ UTILITY \ U) (Y DEVELWORN ANDOPMFNf W/ O \ \ h- I \ I Fl I F~F 219.5 1.J PHASING OF A A 1 7 _ nR ~D ✓ J I - I I FLOW \FlR 141 I V I•. 7 iN ` \ FIR tdt ~ ~ I L y \ ~lll t J { '--II I \FF FF 224.5 O I I Iyi_ 1 til +-x~ \ FlR 1e 1 II/..,'.: 1 _j + 12 , L---------I ' -2s1 1lI R 2oL----------3 I PLAN \ Q.APLE+ 28 ; EE 3D , IpINE+ 18 CATCH BASIN W IL FF 222.0\ \ 2 2D TEMP, 810-BAGS FORE~r,~ `I LANE R+28. C,3,1 N.T.S. 2n \ 111 REV. DATE BY R+ 28 CR , IIon :.,n -1C77CA' I F Q CEDAR.30 8 fNTRANC£ ','•`4. t i ! FIR 24 L RR .16 I \1\t \\FF 223.0 \ > - t FF 224.5 1 FF 22,x. 5 p223.0 ; C AR+1 1 CE 4 / T 1 ham, { y pePcW I{ II R t is ItKK.tJ++ 12 / \ I /I ' \SS\PPO~ I N° R R 34 ) 1 1 \ / I f~' Ip ::a . r .G1 tRi r, 5i fTl I FlR+.t V L------- L ; \ • c e ' , - . ~IJUf~11YrR/2B / _ \,Y_1~ - - - - 25RIMIN~ PROJECT s ------`--------,-~7.r~. .a`br` `t• ,,..~?n~ •~'Sv7n yr-. ......w,.. i - s J \ t A OEI 's NUMBER TA0006 8 _ - rv -p} ._Ft _ _ s - - _ _ -.---ti_-,. _ •''-~.1;}~W CLEAN PIT RUN OR 2'-MINUS GRAVEL Kt7" F SLBORADE REINFORCEMENT Dale: 06/30104 N._ DAKOTA ST CEOTEXTILE'AS REWIRED IN. Sale: 1'=30' DEPTH 0- BY IML 9 J,.,..._~-~~•~ - 1 / ' x20' MIN. FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL / \ j V1 r.. Designed By. IML GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - - - - - - - / - - - - - - - - - - - . I N.T.S. Checked Sr. CID (C3.1 9 r \ ' ° C3. • • Ltxvk I Portxak: I Renhrd DLD-LOLV ,SIAYP= TADL05.10 TALW6150 7AUOO&70 UIII7T1'RI.LY zs~ SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION T EvSnNO PUBLIC { SERER 9A14ITARY MAIJHIXE j 572 I E RIM - 206.10 LE. IN VI = 199.75 I.E. IN S = 19980' 1E. OUT NE 199.60' _ _ ^ _ N SW COTTONWOOD LANE f\~ SA.N--..-. Sid: ! - •V - - CONNECT l0 DGSRNC PUBLIC SE71ER \ I ~ N- 183 182 1rJ2 194 1.89 ~ " I 1B8 ENGI.`I, W01093D III ~ I u ~r EASala° 2(N 8927'ir E 923,72'N 89'3534' E 924.46' I 9 1,3 i 12 3 11 STCWN FlL,TER 10 120' Puauc unuTr I ° nRE TURN - "r EASEMENT (T... ° AROUND SAN SENER I P634JC SANITARY - UT (TIP.) DOUBLE WATER 4 I SEVER (TFP.) I SERVCE (TYP.) I / J `S70RM LAT FIR I LANE f-) 8 I ~ I SS- w W L---1-I---------//_ l - I~ WBUCB'J ~16 ~ \ u 14 W" (TYP) 15 PUBLIC STORM , SAN SEWER I~ M777OY I l (Ar I STORM LAr ° _(TYR) w 17-QI . l _ l _ _I .t I o l 1 I ~I I \ PUBLIC FIRE . HYDRANT I 1 DETENTION I r-- 4e' PPE _ 7 . 1/' PUBLIC B' WA TER I . :I I r 14 J`>✓ 12 I SCALE., 1'=40' I 40 2010 o e0 6 I 20 19 S,r SEVER . 18 L LATERAL (TYP.) . l I I i I PUBLIC a' l PUBLIC SAN ' I STORM LATERAL (r... I FATER (TYP.) i SEINR (TYP') 1 :'USUC STORM DRAIN (TYP.) iJ -----------L - - DOUBLE WATER Q l 1" z... , _ SIRWCE 'METER a f ~ ~ / ~ (TYP.) l fI EJOS77NG WELL TO W- Wr-t w ; i \ CCMI9WrED 1 o j N (FOREST LAND ~HYY1 RANT a ° i l 4 j i 11 D ll 1 i 2 3 BAASHH TD BED PUBLIC FIRE I FIELD INLET /108 I RECONSTRUCTED ° i 1 I r. I HYDRANT ME = 218.03' v CATCH 21BASIN265' j85 §iORM MANHOLE 293 I 03 ` I TOR ° 218.19 STORM MANHOLE 47 ARIM Q i I CONNECT ID 11 r 1{ PUBLICI 12 LE. 12' IN W = N RIM = 116.25' Q 12' = OUT 224. W 09_' 211.00' - - ° - J~ m ~PUBUC WA IERI EXISTM'G / 57QRM1 I.E. t2Ui E = 215.94' GRATE = N W 20719 LE y~ l I I.E. 12" OUT f ?I21JO75' OUT E 107.14' }1r `_i'" STAR- STMSTM - o - Se.'+_- SAN - S, N- SAN- .zhh' SA naM'S 7- SA: s $A?i- Sa+; - S+U4- SA, - S4N SAN- SAN- ~7777T~~~ y ~H~ y N DAAKOTA STREET y~~ _y) ~Ja 0 0 fl~i y jaD HY H[p~ 11[0 W ~7~~-A9A:C0 [IH-~HC~~ filtj~ ,I, xq3°- Ii~a~ D klyn' ,il~q~-3T,II ~mLO~ H~GT~ IiLO~ H~d~ HI7~ O _ _ IXI_I Dlq. O 10 SANITARY MANH _ ~0•RM MANHIXE je O 5 RIM = 222.85O'LE 3 I SANITARY MANHIX~c fA7STNC FIRE 1 I TRIM = 718.31' Q I.E. IN W = 108.87 HYDRANT JJJ 5 RIM = 278.90' 1 \ LE. 12' IN W = 113.18' h I.E. IN S = 208.82' I.E. IN W = 207.67' I.E. 12' IN S = 213.21' ! Vr' I.E. OUT E = 208.70' ( t` I LE. IN S = 209.40' I.E. 12- OUT E = 213.11 I.E. OUT E = 20760' SANITARY MANHOLE j 654 E RIM = 198.13' I. E. IN SE = 191.40' LE. IN S = 791.48' E. IN W = 191.43' E. OUT N = 791.37' SAN I °I PUBLIC STORM DRAIN kN CONNECT TO DOS77NO PUBLIC STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN j 551 GRATE = 197.77' I.E. OUT NW = 193.52' I.E. 12- IN S = 193.57' t\ SANITARY MANHOLE I E RIM = 199.91' I. E. OUT NW - 193.71 it LE. IN S = 193.79' l , I EE I SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION LEGEND SYMBOLS - PROPOSED STORM SEWER LINE -54- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE PROPOSED WATER LINE -CAA- COSTING GAS LINE °---''1--- COSTING POWER LINE - 5..-- COSTING WATER LINE -r2a------- COSTING VERIZON PHONE LINE Q STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ■ STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN ® SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE BT WATER METER @ WATER VALVE BLOW-OFF ASSEMBLY Q FIRE. HYDRANT ASSEMBLY ABBREVIATIONS SDAIH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE CB STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN RD RAIN DRAIN CONNECTION TO STORM SEWER SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SSCO SANITARY SEWER CIEANOUT SWSC SINGLE WATER SERVICE CONNECTION DWSC DOUBLE WATER SERMCE CONNECTION BO BLOW-OFF ASSEMBLY FH FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY L DESIGN INC. 9045 SIF Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 Portland, OR 97219 (503) 225-1679 P"4 1r1a0 073COM Y I, i B 17-1 105 I r 4z J W 0. U) z = O J W 0 5 Q 0< z J w Q. REV. DATE BY i I I I I ~ I I I I I PROJE3T NUMBR TA0006 Date: 0630104 Scab: 1'=47 Dra-BZ IML D tlgMCly: I.ML C,eckedlf GID C4. 1 e t LhwA-. PaYxaN: I R..~ DID-LOCO STA1rfaD rAU006x10 rALC06.50 00006.70 UfAm9La R k' 3 A ti I s • ) s ) n 13 ) 12 ( 11 { 10 9 ( l I i ) ! t i 3 s i I ( PROPOSED 1 TREE (TYP.) PROPOSED N I 9 UG14T (TYR) tt I r FIR LANE SCILE 1.40' l ~aS f.~ 40 10100 40 j 14 ' 15 16 PROPOSED W / I t 7REE (TTP.) 17 l l i 6 I j 20 19 I ~ l 18 as ~ PROPOSED I' I ( l LIGHT (TYP.) 1 1 5 i FOREST LANE I I PRO r 1. f LIGH POSED (71P.) ! PROPOSED ) to fTl l TREE (IYP.) ~ I '_-_.=~~y u_.,.. 'ail .A. .ore N DAKOTA STREET NOTES 0 1. B&B STOCK MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH CONTAINER STOCK OF EQUAL GRADE. 2. CONTAINER STOCK MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WASH BNB STOCK OF EQUAL GRADE. 3. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM WITH AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, ANSI Z60.1, 1986 EDITION. 4. ALL TREES SHALL BE BRANCHED. 5. MULCH ALL PUNTING BEDS WITH 2' MIN. LAYER OF SPECIFIED MULCH. 6. IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THIS MATERIAL LISTING AND THE DRAWINGS, THE DRAYANGS SHALL GOVERN THE PLANT SPECIES AND QUANTITIES RED. 7. IN THE EVENT OF QUESTION OR LACK OF CLARITY ON ORAVANGS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS TO CALL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING. CONTRA 8. TO INSTALLATION OFCPLANTOR IS TO MATERIAL / GNDSCAPE REEN SICHITECT DE 9. ADJUST PUNT LAYOUT AS REQUIRED TO FIT IRRIGATION COVERAGE PATTERN. LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS I. I ANDSCADF rr`IIBAQM: The Landscape Contractor must hove an Oregon Landscape Contractor's license and be banded In the State of Oregon. 2. SS.4BB Furnish labor, materials, equipment and supervision necessary to complete all work shown an the Drawings and In the Speclficotlons. 3. GUARNTFF AND REPLACEMENT : Guarantee all new plant material after final acceptance for duration of one lull growing season or one year, whichever is langer. Replace plant material not surviving or In poor condltion; except only loss or damage due to freezing, wndallsm x acts and neglects an the part of others. 4, GRADES Final rough grade will be entabllshed by the General Contractor, fine finish grade by Landscape Contractor. Crown landscaped areas to provide adequate drainage. 5. TOPS0I1-: Landscape Contractor to verify with Owner and Gerlerol Contractor who Is responsible fa supplying and Installing the topsoil. Impaled topsol to be representative of the area, fertile, friable, free horn roots, noxious weeds, sticks, clods, stones, grovel, or other foreign mutter. G.C. to figure 60 yds, of topsoil in his bid to be used as leveling course. 6. FFRTIt 17FRS: A. General: Approved brands meeting requirements of applicable slate fartlizor laws. Uniform in composition, dry and free flowing. B. Commercial Mix 'A' - 50x Slow Release Nitrogen, Inorganic 16-I6-16-5 C. Colprl Lime D. Commercial Mix 'B' - Webfoot 10-15-10 Slow Release E. Agricultural Gypsum F. BEST-PAKS (Planting Fart Packets). Supplier. Turf Center, 145-2140. 7. TE~XI stft,L c01L AMENDMENT: Gordon Care Compost, as provided by GrImm's Fuel Co. Sherwood, Or (503) 625-6532- 8. TREE GLn ING AND STAKING MATERI I S Refer to deton on Drawings. 9. MUCH MATERIAL ; Free from noxious weed seed and all foreign material harmful to plant life. Hemlock or fir, medium grind, -1.5 + 3/4' slzs 10. EXECUTION: Remove stones, mortar, concrete, rubbish, debris and any material harmful to plant life from all planting areas If. SOIL PREPARATION AND P ANTIN• TRFFS aRIHe xND CR wDCOYER: Broadcast the following materials evenly over topsoil placed N each planting area. Rototin materials into topsol- 4 to 6' deep. Amount/1.000 square feet 2- Soil Amendment 15 Ibs Commercial Fert1'lizw 'A' SO lbs. Gypsum 12. P ANTIN• TREES Aa SW mS• Plant upright and face to give beet appearance a relotiship to plant and structures A All planting holes shall be excavated twice the size of the tree, shrub or groundcover root ball or root system. B. Prior to placement of each tree and shrub, place BEST-PAKS bogs (according to manual recommendation) in the bottom of each hole C. loosen and remove twine binding and buriop from oround top of each ball. D. Cut off dearly all broken or frayed roots. E. Place and compact backfill *oil mixture carefully to owid h)ary to roots, fill all wide. F. When planting hole is three-fourths filled. spread evenly around outer circumference of planting cavity (Commercial Mix '8 1. All one-galon contains I Teaspoon 2. MI two--gollan canioiners I Tablespoon 3. All three to five gallon eontalnerr, 2 Tablespoons 4. All evergreen a deciduous trees: 2 lbs. for each catipa Inch measured 4-Inchw above tap of root bal. G. When hole Is nearly filed, completely scak and allow water to 'oak away. Flt holes to finish grade and prepare fa other work indicated. Initial watering-In of tress and shrubs by the Irrigation. system not permitted. 13. PLAN7INC BED GRAOES• Grad" and slopes in accordance with ra99h- ~Ialsh grades es tablished by anthem plus Increase resu lting fran addition of bark mulch in all plonling bed areas. Grade to 2 to 2 1/2 inches below bordering paving, curbs, walls, etc., before application, of mulch. 14. DES: %p.%gtlans of herbicides to all pfanling areas shou a one p or to mulching, according to manufacturers recommendations, fa weed control. 15. lAtl7J1+G.BFOS; Mulch shrub planting beds with 2 Inch minimum l0y~ 0 geciTied bock within 2 dap after planting. Coves entire plantlnq bed, apply evenly. 16. MAINTENANCE: Begin maintenance immediately after each shrub and tree are panted. Protect and maintain plantings fa a period of 90 dap after acceptance. Be responsible fa the following work Items during maintenance period. Water, weed, cultivate, maintain mulch depth as specified, reset plants to proper grade or upright position, and do any other necessary work Items. 17. TURF REQUIREMENTS/SOD LAWN A, 02tL, Remove from all sod areas, stones (I-Inch and lorger), asphalt, rubbish, debris and any other materials harmful to plant life B. I. ay 3 required to eradicate all existing grass", noxious weed growth and roots. Schedule application to enable effective kill prior to subsequent wank, Licensed applicator raqulred. 7- Kill achieved by working col is not permlesible, C. Broadcastmoua the fallowing S materials evenly own topsoil. Rolotili Into topsol 8 Inch" deteepp while in a moist condition. PQ, FT, A mcn" lex Ural Sob Amendment 25 Ube. Coommadot Mix 'A' Weed dedication and sot preparation some ore for seeded turf areas. 0. Sod cod shill be weed and pal Gee. It shelf be Bentgrase free and contain no mane than Ix of othergnomes, none of which shall be coarse textured grass. 2. Sod shall be healthy; (hick. even stand of grass. 3. Approved wurc": Oregon Turf Forms and J.BB~.rr,yySod. F SODD EPARATI~ e . Immediately m required Myy p t prior to ealablLSflsuc flnn bring e6enlany compacted sod tied free of high or low spots. Scarify surface to establish a friable fine textured sod bed F. Place and handle In accordance with standard and accepted olloggw pints and butt edges Byhtly..On anyy slopes, the sod run perpendiwlar to the elope Rol lawn dlogonally, leveling irregularities and waling pints 0. MAINTENANCE 1. 30 days .after placing sod, top-dress with ammonium sulfate at the rate of 3 lbs./1,000 sq.ft Water thoroughty to wet the son several Incises beneath the sod 2. Protect and maintain b wofeAng mowing, re-soddingg and weeding for a minimum of 90 dap =1 ace tame by the Owner or his reprwentaliw. 3. Maw grass at I-1/2Inches In height when it attains a height of 2 inrhw. Ramow gross dlVpMgo and dispose of off site. 4. Top-drove wHh Comm. Mfx .go a rate of 5 Ube.11,000 ey, f. at the end of the maintenance period. 2'x 2' P.TD.F. 8'-0' Tree Stakes Do Net Penetrate Root Ball. 0 Tree Des/Rubber Hoe. w/ 12 G ..a E / vein: nre. Tree Wrap - From Ground To First / dr. on. Cut A Review Bolton Of Wire Basket name" u a-p--&--Tne mom mop Of Boll After Slaking Plana Top Ot Rootball 3 Min. Above Adjacent Finish Grade Of Planting Cr Turf Area. Mulch Circle Water Basin 1 1/2' min. ,7 j / --P / Min. 24' wale Ba,k Mulch ride m tun seas Backfill Sol Mature As Specified Scority Walls R Bolton Of Plontina_ "p'. Tree Root Barricade Model RB-18 Ameri can Drohagga 4 U-ls As Dlstrvbuted 9y Naizan Inc Set Roothall On Undisturbed Soil. BEST-PAKS As Specified. Trees 3 Shrubs Typ. ROOT BARRIER: REQUIRED WERE TREES ARE WITHIN 4'-0' OF ANY CURBS OR SIDEWALKS EDGES - 6'-0' MIN. LENGTHS REQUIRED. TREE PLANTING DETAIL (SHRUB PUNTING SIMILAR) STREET LIGHTING LEGEND a" DUMOR STREET UOIT:35-fool, grey, «un4 tapered, drat bury, M1 10t Pala with a 200X, 240 Vdl, MM "Geis-Head' styli. Fmiwi. (Drop teal aaet.d a o 6-foot mastom 30-feet drew the r-it. y. OPTION 'B' OIANTTY REQUIRED: POISE (3) lights L~ i DESIGN INC. 9045 SR Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 Port.land, OR 97219 (503) 225-1679 ~ 4 19160 ~ r OlzaaN1 G I EXPIRESI 12-406 z I 0 LLJ V ~ W C) z~ 4 REV. I I (7 z t-- zU) z LL WCL WU Z i= Q J z W Lnl. DATE BY I i I I I PROEC-T NUAeER TA0006 Date: 06r301131 Scale: I•= 3a Drewr3yn IML Dw'gm By-- IMIL Cheda By- GID VAME.'G.'ITA00061DDITAU006-C6.f.dwgDATE:JUL02,2004 TIME:8:42AM is 0 c;u 3 m cmi 5 71 "'I D m D g YS ° 1•~1 52 0+ < STONECHASE TIGARD, OREGON CIRCULATION PLAN q O O ~ O- of O O- " .K fci ° ~ m Y oo V ~ m ^ ^ . btl ul ' q Q° $ Y A Mc CA z ' Y • m d