Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PDR2011-00001
• a = LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION rTIGARD 120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 FILE NO.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 (MODIFICATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003) FILE TITLE: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION APPLICANT/ OWNER: Hawthorne Block LLC C/O Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels; Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 1S136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: El TYPE I ❑ TYPE II ® TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV COMMENTS WERE SENT: N/A COMMENTS ARE DUE: N/A ❑HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ®PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: 3/7/2011 TIME: 7:00 PM ❑CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DA l E OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM ❑ STAFF DECISION (TENTATIVE) DA l E OF DECISION: COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION ® VICINITY MAP ❑ DRAINAGE PLAN ❑ IMPACT STUDY ® SI FE PLAN ❑ STORM WATER ANALYSIS ❑ WETLANDS DELINEATION ® NARRATIVE ❑ TREE PLAN ❑ OTHER: MISCELLANEOUS STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner (503) 718-2434 , • 4111 •120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 DATE OF FILING: 3/14/2011 V DATE MAILED: 3/15/2011 CITY OF TIGARD . , au° Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 Case Name: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS Applicant's Name/Address: Hawthorne Block LLC c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 Owner's Name/Address: Same as Applicant Address of Property: North of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue Tax Map/Lot Nos.: ' Washington Co.Tax Assessor's Map No. 1S136DB,Tax Lot 01000 and 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. • A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 7, 2011 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE FINAL ORDER. Request: > The applicant requested modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification will allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details will provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethom espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. Zone: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District with PD: Planned Development Overlay. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. Action: > ❑ Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: © Owners of Record within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties © The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 15,2011 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 30,2011 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223. — — — T-HEDEADLINE—FOR—FILING-ANAPPEAL—IS-5:00-PM-ON-MARCH 29,-2011. — - Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at(503) 639-4171. . . NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC PLANNING COMMISSION • = FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T,�I GA D: A FINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF DETAILED PLANS FOR THE WHITE OAK VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/PDR2006- 00003 (COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER NO. 2007-02 PC). THE MODIFICATIONS ALLOW DETACHED OR ATTACHED UNITS ON LOTS OF CHOICE INSTEAD OF THE APPROVED ATTACHED "DUET" SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND PROVIDE A TALL EVERGREEN TREE SCREENING ALONG THE PROPERTY'S WEST BOUNDARY. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE MODIFICATION, THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN (PROPOSED AT 4/16/07 PC HEARING) AND THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (SHEET C6.1) ARE VOID. THE COMMISSION HEARD AND APPROVED THE REQUEST AT ITS MARCH 7, 2011 HEARING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ITS DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE AND PLAN SET (APPLICATION TO MODIFY PDR2006-00003,WHITE OAK VILLAGE),AND THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION CASE NO.: Planned Development Review(PDR) PDR2011-00001 (Modification of Planned Development Review(PDR) 2006-00003) APPLICANT/ Hawthorne Block LLC OWNER: c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide a tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels; Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) IS136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. ZONE/ COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: R-12, Medium Density Residential. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. [Applies to majority of the site] Planned Development Overlay (PD): The property has a planned development overlay designation. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through — — the-application-of-flexible-standards-which-consider and-mitigate-for-the-potential-impacts--to----- the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, WI-IITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 1 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINN.,ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC • • use of open space,innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning rocedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Planned Development Modification meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, the Planning Commission APPROVES the proposed Planned Development Modification subject to the following Conditions of Approval: CONDITION OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-718-2434. 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to provide higher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The White Oak Village subdivision was approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC. The planned development process was requested by the applicant to accommodate a private street that serves more than six dwellings and the sub-standard lot sizes averaging 1,926 square feet, when the R-12 zone requires 3,050 square feet. In exchange for flexibility of the applicable standards under the PD process, the applicant offered public benefits which incluce two open space pocket parks, a landscaped pedestrian pathway connection to Pacific Hwy, and retention of a significant oak tree. Most subdivision improvements have been made with the exception of some fencing, landscaping, signage, and the second lift of pavement on the private street. The applicant states that recording of the final plat is imminent. Vicinity Information: The site is located within a massive block bounded by Pacific Hwy, SW 78th Avenue, SW Spruce Street, and SW 71st Avenue and, specifically, at the terminus of SW 74th Avenue south of Spruce Street. The subject site is bordered by developed land zoned R-25 and R-4.5 to the north and C-G to the south. The site is approached from SW Spruce Street on SW 74th Avenue through a single-family detached neighborhood built from the mid-1940s through the __ 19-50s.More recent mule=family housing borders die site to the north but is fenced off an buffered-bp Tract C; containing the preserved White Oak tree. The RAZ Transportation bus depot extends the full length of the subject property on the west. Continuation of SW 74th Avenue through the subject site will eventually access the adjacent portion of the RAZ property zoned R-12. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 2 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC SECTION IV. SUMMA•OF PLANNED DEVELOPME•MODIFICATION ISSUES Proposal: The applicant requests two modifications of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots ofpchoice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes as shown on the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) and Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1). In addition, revised landscaping details would provide higher screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall as shown in the Water Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet L3). The applicant notes that no changes to conditions of approval of the PDR or Subdivision are requested. In addition, no changes to the streets or lots are requested as shown in the Site Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet C2.1) and Subdivision Final Plat (4/1/8 Survey, Sheets 1 and 2 of 3). Detached or Attached Units on Lots of Choice: During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the applicant described the proposed housing type: "The units will be duet homes — there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each home is on a separate, individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all `end units'." [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 3]. There was some discussion whether duets could qualify as an innovative "building grouping" within the context of earning a density bonus. [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 9]. However, the project did not pursue the bonus based on that criterion. During the April 16, 2007 Commission hearing, the Commission conditionally approved a site plan titled Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing), which is the approved site plan in the Final Order. The plan shows one single-family detached unit on the stand alone lot 26 with all other units paired as duets. The applicant's request to build either detached or attached housing unit types housing type on the approved lots is a modification of the conditionally approved site plan. However, detached and attached housing unit types are allowed in the R-12 zone and there are no specific development code standards or conditions of approval relating to housing type or this proposed modification. The applicant further requests that as a consequence of the modification, the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) and the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) will be voided. The Commission may consider whether the proposed modification to allow either housing type and without any architectural plans, meets the applicable Purposes and Concept Approval Criteria of the Planned Development Chapter, as reviewed below on Pages 4/5 of this Staff Report. Revised Landscaping and Screening: The applicant has proposed substituting some combination of Bamboo, Leyland Cypress, Magnolia, Ash, and Maple for the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry wall on the west property line adjacent to the RAZ Transportation site. The proposed modification to the approved Water Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet L3) would provide a higher screen than the six-foot wall and potentially improve screening of the adjacent commercial use. During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the issue of higher screening was discussed but did not resolve in a motion to amend the proposed landscape plan. The proposed modification in this application is supported by the Commission's previous deliberation. [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Pages 5/8] SECTION V. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE USE CATEGORIES: SECTION 18.130 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is seeking modifications to the approved attached "duet" housing type to additionally provide single- ___ family detached units. The lots are proposed to be developed with either attached or detached single-family homes____ without specifying which units will be developed on which lots. The site is located within the R-12 zone, Medium Density Residential District. Household living,which includes both detached and attached single-family housing types, is a permitted use in the R-12 zone. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 3 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC _ • SUMMARY OF LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The original Subdivision/Planned Development was a Type III-PC Application. No procedure is identified for modifications of a planned development. As such, modifications to the decision are also processed as a Type III-PC application to ensure any changes are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision and to provide notice to potentially affected parties. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. SECTION VI. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. Notice was mailed to property owners within 500 on February 14, 2011; the site was posted with a hearing notice on February 15, 2011; and notice was published in the Times on February 17, 2011. Staff received no comments regarding this application. SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicable review criteria are addressed in this report in the following order: 18.350 (Planned Developments) 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts) 18.745* Landscaping and Screening) 18.390 Decision Making Procedures, Impact Study) *According to Section 18.350.100 of the Planned Development Chapter, these chapters are utilized as guidelines, and strict compliance is not necessary where a development provides alternative designs and methods that promote the purpose of the PD Chapter. 18.350—(PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS) The following Purpose Statement and Concept Plan Approval Criterion are similar and provide some guidance in considering the proposed modification: 18.350.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone include: To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria The concept plan may be approved by the Commission only if all of the following criteria are met: The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers. The applicant's narrative does not address this purpose of the Planned Development Chapter or this Concept Plan Approval Criterion. However, the applicant specifically requests the Commission to void the previously approved Architectural-Plans-(Sheet-C6,1)-and-the Conditionally-Approved-Site-Plan (Proposed-at-4/1-6/07 PC Hearing),—which -- shows building envelopes. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 4 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC In support of this request, the apant seeks expanded opportunity to adnally provide single-family detached units to avoid complicating issues associated with shared-wall duets such as: reciprocal insurance;exterior maintenance covenants restrictions, and conditions, limited mortgage offerings and terms; conflicts with utilities at common lot lines; and disaster recovery (fire, etc). Analysis: The applicant requests the Commission void the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) to provide more flexibility of housing type and architectural style. On the one hand, the uniform duet housing type creates a distinctive neighborhood. However, detached units would be more compatible with the existing dwelling types along SW 74th Avenue. Giving the developer flexibility to build either type may help the development of White Oak Village in a timely manner given the current challenges in the housing market. Other values in the purpose and concept approval criterion continue to be met with the compatible street layout and transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with open space buffers associated with the pocket parks in Tracts C and D. Is the Commission satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision,will build a housing product that will achieve a unique neighborhood and integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision? 18.350.060 Compliance with Specific Development Standards: This section requires compliance with base zone development standards, with the following modifications allowed with discretion by the Commission: The applicant's proposed modification is consistent with the approved subdivision and planned development base zone development standards, specifically the setback standards as summarized in Table 18.510.2, below. However, without building envelopes and architectural plans specified, lot coverage, landscaping, and building heights would need to be verified at the time of building permit review. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; In the R-12 zoning district the minimum lot size is 3,050 square feet, with no average lot width. The zone has no minimum lot depth. The approved lot sizes are between 1,836 and 2,748 square feet, averaging 1,926 square-feet per lot. The Commission approved a density bonus and 27 total lots. The applicant does not propose any changes to approved lots. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-12 zone is 80%, including all impervious surfaces. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and The base development standard height limit in the R-12 zone is 35 feet, but does not apply to planned development applications, giving the Commission discretion in determining building height. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application, which showed units 30 feet to the peak. Without Commission review of the height standard, consistency with this standard would be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and be subject to the base standard maximum of 35 feet. Structure setback provisions: _ - Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 5 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC approved bdin envelopes • The original decision appro b ding e velopes on each lot within the development consistent with this standard. For this application, the applicant's narrative includes a Setback Table, which shows the required perimeter setbacks at 15 feet, but proposes to delete the reference to the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1). As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls; The applicant's narrative indicates 3-foot side yard setbacks will be used on all internal side yards, subject to comphance to firewall standards. Provided dwellings associated with these reduced side yard setbacks meet the UBC requirements for fire walls, the proposed setbacks are consistent with this standard. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided The applicant's narrative Setback Table describes interior front and rear yard setbacks of 10 and 13 feet respectively, and a 20-foot minimum garage setback for all lots, consistent with these standards. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. The applicant's narrative Setback Table describes street side yard setbacks of 8 feet, consistent with the Commission's approval of a two-foot reduction of the 10-foot street side yard standard. FINDING: The applicant is requesting the Commission void the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) to allow greater flexibility of housing type and architectural style, without providing any alternative plans. If the Commission is satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision,will build a housing product that will integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision, then the Commission may approve the applicant's proposal. However, the Commission may wish to place parameters on the modification, which both allows flexibility for the applicant and provides some specificity as to the mix of attached and detached units and/or minimum architectural style. The base zone standards, as varied by the Commission, continue to be met with the proposed modification. However, without Commission stipulation of the height of buildings, height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.510—(RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Single-family attached and detached residential units are permitted in the R-12 zone. The Commission approved an average lot size of 1,926 square feet. The applicant does not propose any changes to the lot size. Development Standards: Section 18.510.050.B states that Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below: The lots created with the subdivision are designated R-12, Medium-Density Residential. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 6 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINN,ORDER NO. 20114)1 PC 1111 TABLE 18.510.2 • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-12 PD STANDARD Proposed Approved SF DU* Minimum Lot Size NA/ -Detached unit 1,926 sq. ft. 1,926 sq. ft. 3,050 sq. ft. Consistent -Attached unit Avg./unit Avg./unit per unit with density -Duplexes in 18.715 -Boarding,lodging,rooming house Average Lot Width Approx. 28 ft. Approx.28 ft. None NA/18.715 Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 10/15 (P) 10/14/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone(P) -Side facing street on corner&through lots 8 ft. 8 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. -Side yard 3 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft. [1] NA/UBC -Rear yard 13/15 (P) 13/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone(P) -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district NA NA 30 ft. 30 ft. -Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20/8 ft.[3] Maximum Height None shown 30 ft. (to peak) 35 ft. NA Maximum Lot Coverage [2] None shown 80% 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement None shown 20% 20% 20% [1]Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2]Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3] Minimum setback for garages/minimum setback for garages for attached sfd facing a private street with required off-street parking met. * Single-family dwelling unit(attached or detached) (P)Perimeter FINDING: The applicant proposes to void the White Oak Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1), which shows building height and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing, which shows building envelopes. The applicants narrative Setback Table shows continued compliance with setbacks approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC or required in the base zone. However, if the Commission grants the request, then the height, lot coverage, and minimum landscaping will not be specified for the subdivision. Consistency with these standards will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.745– (LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING): *PD Guideline Chapter Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Buffering and Screening- Section 18.745.050 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter(Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). FINDING: Adjacent uses to the subject site include multi-family dwelling units to the north, single family to the north and south, and commercial uses to the south, west and east. The Commission approved buffering and screening as indicated on the Landscape Plan (Sheets L2/3). The applicant's proposal to modify the approved landscape plan replacing firethorn espalier with a selection of trees along the west boundary would potentially increase screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot and benefit the White Oak Village residents. CONDITION: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to provide higher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. — WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(I'DR2011-(x)001) PAGE 7 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL,ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC • . 18.390— ECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY): SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. 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 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 of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. FINDING: Impacts to City systems were adequately addressed in the original land use decision. No further impact study is required for the proposed housing type and landscaping modifications. SECTION VIII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS No other staff comments were received on the subject application. SECTION IX. AGENCY COMMENTS • No agencies were notified of the proposed modification as none have jurisdiction over the proposed changes. SECTION X. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED, Planned Development Review (PDR2011- 00001) —WHITE OAK VILLAGE MODIFICATIONS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. PASSED: THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. David Walsh,P . . 'ssion President Dated this 1 'day of March, 2011. I:\CURPLN\Gary\Subdivision and PD\PDR2011-00001(White Oak Village Modification)\PDR2011-00001 PC Final Order.docx • WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICiVI'ION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 8 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC 1T 4 = _ , . i I I �. > VICINITY MAP 00 ..._II - f:.r � '. _ ~ . '.� PDR2011-00001 ', tN L •' _ i -; � .• � f WHITE OAK VILLAGE --�_ SUBDIVISION MINOR illpn . : MODIFICATION �' �' : MOD FIC ON 0 G-. IR 0 ��� Subject Site,.....:::„!:,::.., J '� i� ir -0,' 4 4 r - Iiii --7. : O' ,,", , . ,,,,.:, oil if? ...,, l'. I 444 -41!:.. : 1. AIM ' ..,,„ 1 Mill ..,,: r °I • 41,41411‘‘. If > w 1 R , , ,,,,,-- � zil ~ . . . f , ill _ I f i A F F LLE 5T > > ' in*ormaaon on inks map is tor general location ' < ct ,� _' •. only and should be verified with the Z ,-rte Development Services Division. �` � "� '/� .1' ^^''� rd 'v.; ^ Approx.scale 1•a uuu-1 In='ss's II I+ Map paaleo at In..lo rM on Utl- e13-1 T IP '`,r,'�' ' • DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY OF TIGARD �.,+'• MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE //` CONTENT,ACGVRAGY,TiMGLINGS OA COMPLGTGNGSD OP ANY OP �/� THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE COY OF TIGARU SHALL ASSUME NO - LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACI,S IN THE /'� iNrVNMATVnrnWI urtc w JJ Cm nvW VAU cU eity OT I"gam •••'*'.. \ f 13125 SW Hall Blvd Feet TIGh .iiaP$ Tigard,�&417123 r 0 500 / ° e 1rAt� A-S—� f www.tigardor.gov TI CARD tyfez..- I „......, \ LEGEND i . . I •••--- .fACILOI emsest• •elmwor ,POMO ... .......,g....0........, Li L . __..._ •....... . IP.K.,WM= .0 1 0403,000 ., . ■ ■•■.--.-• -...- . ' .■-•-- =x:eegc.. .., 7- .........zfxuw..... .,, ,,.. .,„._,:v:,1....,.....:_-..,— --.—.7.7.77.7:tenat 7 ,,,"--,...-:, • T-1-----... rP DESIGN GROUP INC — .-- ----- . '- 44■-■-- .-:,..----..... ; '' , F.,..,...7 4.9', 7;.: - - 1!.:7'.2.errm---- ' 14025SW FARMINGTON R = , s'• .4,■6201621MMIgIMMEMIEMIININIELEMMUMMNIIMERVEMEINMS6STRINitilialfinr4 •V.K7'.7X••••'1: -..-- 1\ MANAGE oumt-L 01, . - ---•—ow 1,4101 LK ==.1,-..T=Mt SIC.WW1 • I : • 4--I-2aao• Sults 270 , 91X I BEAVERTON(503)644-4OR 9713215 VP - SITE PLAN . __ , ,-.,..m. 4 r,pt.0444 r.., 20 1 • • ....,,,, ) ] • - e IOW.Sorinfr Scgro • Ela --Zip"1. 1 . 1-,----'' Itc„,01riwn xi. mu PER RCM 4' `1t-r;•::k-'i-j7:.:d. . Sta OA Mir,T, MD Val - r,...___.- ..‘ lek .-, .77.`- ...7.- ... --------- .-----Z'.-.,--•-=--n. . . - - -.go o II ,z,„ , „ „ - ._.............._.,_........_......_ .. 4 *CP I • ' 11.1111•01•111111.ii iSr. '4152.-tIll'-'.-.. 1 `;,M.7.. -..,. .,, I..16...!,...:4:11.1111M109111, - ..■110/MONMEN/M. ......„..., ,101 .I ..,a'.' 7---.7 -'44"-6114-.■.T.Z.*427'•Mil,. „ „. , , . ..11111 De -' •fftt 1 ., . , , 4#0.until.).EA A4ENT 71111r-fg. tanidi"".'"'''' "kit'"'C) 11112=ZEN • -`-:.•4 '.0''.*Wo,,.1,;..lwaggimantXtleamiimu .11!R.IWANCOMS90111, UM 1 ,...2 1 4 ', I 1---1-''. . 0 .1.' El, --- - --- -_t.--M 'L.._., ._ _r , a P,, MB L gm swot' 11.1. \ '.., .3 I • l■ 413+ • -_--___mt.__ 1, q 14:7% ., - . -_i_r ,7,-- •7- ad I . 8 s,IP • 8 1 /rah I . 1 i I I AIM i 1 TOY I MOUNT Str q...8 , 57fil 1 C i 1 NM • .,,,„. 1 5 LOT 24 11 1 1, 1 , • , 1 sh 1 , 5,.,,,..1„...r , li.„...,_. 1 i , , LI-20.00.--117 r....1 1 i 1 IC rant RA.. I Cn 1 ii _ 1 i , m R. . 1,-; . ,..„ 1...t• - - -BM-- d !NI I 8 •' G.' .... , .... . _ :6., I 1• 1...,. 1 ; TRACT C TURNING DIAGRAM DIMENTIONS • 1--,11, -, , :-.., 2 ■ 2 0 I '.2 0 ...,,, I LOT 25 ' I I I I I 1 . W 0 • I , 1 11--,, . . 1 .• . • I 1 :I . CITY 6F TIGARD7 ----- - -• - - i C, -- ______ __ __ srtse ________—.._,- 1 <• W j 0 i- - --,,,7—-„,,•7±4.,,1 I i '4 , ' mOINIABLE OM I I I— I—A oved i PIN . 1 . . 4 c 1 • 1 I /Amin a',11021=0,Mr . • ,I I I VEID I I ' ii '''' r 4 1 5 I- °I PCP OCIA1L(3 r. il L 1 I I I I Conditionally App oved I/ - 1 . I ,, 1 _,11,___i_ ,,..Li_ 4:2 I Y • ' l' 11 :rria'' 2 : z I For only the workras described In: r a . I 1 . I-0--I---60---1-- --r___,__H_,-; ; - . 2 1 2 2 I 2 I ':.3.,, I ' I 8 ro-1E) I • , PERMIT NO. . P012 10(1 - CO bi 0 I 1,e0014.12 CURA ank , "D" , • ; See Letter to: Follow w 1 la7 • i I,i=E.-,,,„,3, — -.s., .,k1SION MANGLE Att&h .1 ii •,,, ),•:,. ' 7-1--7-1.- -I...7-=_Ej ,7:7- i:::::(E=1....-•2. 4:27-'1_71. IT 7:...11 pi ..<„.,'• ._. ,, , I J 1 1. \I .'s;, f.43''''411101115Efil;f-il,...-',`,Tr -,,•Y!!'..- '-!:',-'-' -INIMMYREAREft s'Z'' 4. I i- : Job A . e : I .. • : .' ,1 --1.4 _L_ ',..,_WPM • -1 • BY: . • Date: 3'1/5'// • 40' \ .51.eam,..2.,AL-....21,,„,..__ , _, , i, ., . _ • < ".,„1 -, .., NM w'ri . t -r- " 'IT T1 •erliii -.® 1 1 I - 1 1 t ••. -••■■ 1 i t • ,■-•• .. .... .. t ,51., __`'.__25•3 I 1 1 . -- • i 1.I-.• • I : I • , 1 I I I . A AV • , . , , 1 1 1 a R005 1 n$0975 IL 10045 1 . n.,0505 I 't i -----I 11 1 I I I , i 1 fi • , I . . . , t d ,..'''' 1 2 8 2 .71 •r-4 gl I.: C I" tl N 11 gl -. 1:I ''':'' I 2 9 I . I I i I A 1 12 1 (3 ..., 1 2 1 s_.,, 1 1 v ..4 0 'c'S ; , , . 1, 1 . ! ANA I k 1 I 1 ■ I . E .,.-1 ; ; : 1 1 : , . „ I \ 1_ • _,... . I r ■ — '. .... PM ----7--;.----- — --h--- •I' - v , ,__,_ e1'•?4•.. •11....=it:- 1 --- 4 ! . .,,. BER CALOR N 2 ' I i I - LI--'-- --.-- •:•1 .4 1 I I 1615 0- - a •PA- -247 —p44 ---1:-:71711--:X+,7---, --,.... 0 20' I kir 1 )r-. , : , g . I rinlIMIIMM.Ii ( - I.,/ SW 7 4TH A VE1 '8. • , __ __op.0 . . • ....,E,,•.20' K I . . L__','";; •,:i ,...., a”0044 a 10970 I q t - ___ " . 11.10910 I CL, ......" .. i !c\I . I . I • • .9 I SITE PLAN . c\pC)1 C2. 1 • 1111 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 7,2011 CALL TO ORDER President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Walsh Vice President Anderson Commissioner Doherty Commissioner Hasman Commissioner Muldoon- late Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Shavey Absent: Commissioner Ryan Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Sr. Administrative Specialist; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Duane Roberts, Project Planner; and Darren Wyss, Senior Planner Others Present: Applicant: Foster Finch;Jerry Palmer Stakeholder Advisory Committee Members: Scott Bernhard;John Bucsek;Dave Leinberger; Eric Lindstrom; Doug Vorwaller; and Paul Whitney COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES February 7 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 7 minutes; there being none,Walsh declared the minutes _._.appro_v_e _aLaubmitted. - - -- -- _ _- -- -_ I:\L$PLN\Ramon Commission\2011PC Packets\3-7-11 PH White Oak Village,BOA Meg Trail System MP Progress Report\1PC Minas 11-11.doc Page 1 of 7 • • PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR)2011-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION REQUEST The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition,revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Walsh read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide.There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None Site visitations: Commissioner Anderson—6 months ago. No challenges of the jurisdiction of the commission; no conflicts of interest. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner,went over the staff report (the staff report is available to the public one week before the hearing.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Planned Development Modification will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards as outlined in this report. Therefore, Staff recommends approval, subject to the recommended Condition of Approval and Findings within the staff report. QUESTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS Did the ownership change since the last time this was brought before us? Yes— the current applicant is the owner. So, just to be clear, the only thing they're requesting in this case is to change the height and style from the attached to detached, or to do either.And,in doing so, are we opening up anything else that we approved? Or is this opening everything up for fair game when we look at this one issue? No. The subdivision itse f_the_d gn nd. ll he f etues—_everything_ __ remain the same. So we're just talking house style. That's it? Right. We're just talking the building type and the architectural style. MANN Commission\2011 PC Packeu\3.7-i1 PH White Oak Village,BOA Mtg,Teal System MP Progress Report\TPC Minutes 3.7-11.doc Page 2 of 7 • • APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION: Jerry Palmer, a civil engineer and technical consultant to the LLC,noted this is a finished subdivision. He explained to the commissioners what was already done. He said they are dealing with the market now as it is versus what it was in 2007, [when this was first approved]. The request is to allow the attached or detached out of choice - so there will open up a variety of housing for this development and not just have the attached duets. That variety is important in that it offers some flexibility in the marketplace—which is very important today. He explained the financial implications of owners choosing attached or detached. When the Planning Commission considered in '07 —they had a plot plan that had them all attached and,with the approval, that plot plan became a part of the record. So what they're asking is to remove that plot plan so they can have that variety of housing. Palmer went on to say "The second one is—and I have pictures of it (Exhibit A) —adjoining us on the west side is RAZ buses. At the time the Planning Commission originally considered this, there was quite a bit of discussion that there needed to be higher vegetation to have visual screening for that west side, particularly. We wish to do that. With a beautiful wall we want to get height above it so we can block the view of those buses. We want to create that visual barrier. So,in summary, we concur with the staff report, their findings and their proposed condition of approval. Times are very different. The financing—the price point—and the loan qualifications are most important these days and we need to open up the marketplace to get these lots on market with homes being built on them." Foster Finch, the applicant, spoke at this point- saying the main thing they're after is having a more saleable product and, by having the units detached, believes they will sell more quickly. The driving force behind this request is to get them sold. He is about 99% sure they will be all detached, not attached—because that would simplify the HOA. QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS So will you build this yourself? I'll probably build it myself. But, potentially, you could sell a few lots here or there—so you want the flexibility for a builder to come in and have some say? Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT TESTIMONY IN FAVOR City Councilor, Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Place,Tigard, said the 2007 hearing on White Oak was the very last hearing she participated in as a Planning Commissioner. She said she was there to be available to the commission if anyone had questions. There were no questions. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION: None. L•\LRP1N\Phoning Commis lon\2011 PC Packets\}7d1 PH Whim Oak VOyge,EOA kitg.Trail System MP Progress Report\TPC Minutes 3.7.11.doc Page 3 of 7 • CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING At this point,President Walsh opened the meeting up for deliberations. DELIBERATIONS There was no further discussion and a motion was made. MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt: "I move for approval of application PDR2011-00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report that was received. This motion includes the landscaping plan." The motion was approved unanimously. WORK SESSION—PROGRESS REPORT—TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Duane Roberts, Project Planner, told the commissioners that the Parks Manager, Steve Martin, and he, are co-managing the development of the Greenway Trail System Master Plan. He said he brought with him 6 of the 8 citizens who had devoted considerable volunteer time and effort to providing oversight of the plan's preparation. He gave a brief overview of the planning work done to date. For the record, and as pointed out in the packet material the commissioners had received already, the purpose of developing the trails master plan was to give some direction for completing the Greenway Trail network identified in the Park System Master Plan,which was adopted in 2009. Referring to the project list that had been included in the commissioners packets, he said it's a work in progress. In final form, the project list will be revised to include committed Fanno Creek Trail projects and also to include a placeholder for future Westside Trail projects as well as any other changes that Council directs. He gave some information on the next steps: • April 11th Steve Martin and Duane Roberts will give a presentation on the draft plan to the Parks Board. • April 19th—Planning Commission is invited to a presentation of the draft plan in a joint Council and Planning Commission workshop—which will include opportunities for Planning Commission and City Council input. • In May—as required by the IGA with ODOT for grant funding, staff returns to the Planning Commission, and later Council—with Comprehensive Plan and Transportation-System-Planning-(FSP)-amendments-relate-d to the-Trail Ma-ste Plan. L\LRP111\Phmning Commission\2011 PC Padres\17-11 PH White Oak Village,EOA Mtg.Trill System MP Progress Report\TPC Minute,3-7.l1-doc Page 4 of 7 • • These will be minor amendments, such as "the City shall develop guidelines for trails roadway crossing improvements"-that kind of generic language. • Steps after that are under review and will be decided later on. Roberts noted that the purpose for bringing the group of citizens there before them was to give the commission an idea of the process used to develop the trails plan and the views and impressions of the citizen committee that helped put it together. In addition, the citizen committee wanted to be available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have about the plan and process. Roberts introduced the following SAC (Stakeholder Advisory Committee) panel who are 6 of the 8 members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. Before that, he thanked them on behalf of the City for all the tremendous work they put into this, and told them that their efforts are greatly appreciated. The following SAC members were introduced: Paul Whitney, Dave Leinberger, Scott Bernhard, Doug Vorwaller,John Buscek,and Eric Lindstrom. They each gave a short talk explaining their various reasons for interest in this, and for getting involved. COMMENTS/QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS The commissioners thanked the committee for all their hard work and passion. There were some questions regarding how the priority items came to be. Roberts said there are combinations of factors-the consultant will talk about those on the 19th of April at the Planning Commission/City Council joint workshop. WORK SESSION-ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS (EOA) COMMITTEE MEETING Darren Wyss, Senior Planner, thanked the Commission for all the time and effort they'd put into going through this process. He noted there'd been some very productive conversations, and he knew it wasn't always easy to maintain the narrow focus of the EOA,given the Commission's interest in the larger topic of economic development. He told the commissioners that staff really appreciates their dedication to focusing on the task at hand. He said the purpose of the meeting was to have this final review of the draft EOA before the scheduled April 4th public hearing. Wyss gave a short recap of recommended changes and then went over a few changes that had been made to the recommendations based on the last meeting. He noted one of the new policies based on CEDOs is the removal of the term "smart _gr "—whichisreplaced with_some_descriptive-elements-of-"smart-growth" ------_...-.------__....-.-.----- development. In addition, there is an added recommended action measure regarding the monitoring of economic developmental efforts of other jurisdictions for risk/reward. He I:\LRPIN\Harming Camminioa\2011 PC Packets\i7-11 PH Nada Oak Village,ROA Mtg,Trail System MP Progress Report\TPC Moores 17.1l.doc Page 5 of 7 • • reminded them that they'd had a conversation regarding high speed rail and the need for Tigard to be engaged in the conversation. He hoped everyone had sufficient time to review the draft EOA and that staff was looking for final feedback. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS One of the commissioners said "I think this is well written." Another noted: "We've seen all the components;it's now been nicely put together." At this point, Susan Hartnett,Assistant Community Development Director, said they're talking about a 10 year horizon. She encouraged the commissioners to look ahead and ask themselves "What's coming 8 or 10 years from now that maybe we ought to be paying attention to?"The first bell that gets rung for her is high capacity transit. She said that was addressed at the previous week's presentation on Economic Development- how high capacity transit and the redevelopment opportunities that we have are as much a part of the future as any of the other economic development strategies that were laid out for them. She encouraged the commissioners, telling them that if they have thoughts on work-plan items, the Council is interested in hearing what their thoughts are. President Walsh spoke a bit about the previous week's Economic Development presentation. He noted Downtown Tigard was a major topic and that he would have liked to have also heard more about—given the location,what is the most productive use of land. Hartnett said part the Council goals for this year addresses the Tigard Triangle. She noted the commissioners can make a recommendation on that or simply show their support of that goal. One of the commissioners suggested that the economic development focus should be on other areas and not just Downtown. He said Downtown is important;however, there are other areas in Tigard that are also important—particularly Washington Square. He noted most people,when at Washington Square, don't even know it's in Tigard. He said more people frequent areas such as that than the downtown area. Another commissioner mentioned Multnomah Village as being a place to look at to get ideas for Downtown. Darren Wyss went over the upcoming EOA schedule: • April 4th—EOA Public Hearing May 10th—It goes to Council The commissioners would like Sheila Martin back for a more focused conversation. They felt the previous week's discussion was more broad-brushed and introductory. Hartnett agreed. I:\LRPiN\Plann{.g Commissioa\2011 PC Packets\}7-ll PH White Oak Village,EOA Mrs Trail System MP Progress Report\TPC Minutes 3-7-I l.dx Page 6 of 7 • • • OTHER BUSINESS Susan Hartnett told the commissioners that the Planning Commission "matrix"is being updated and she will be sharing that with them soon. She said on May 17th there is a joint meeting with Council scheduled. She said the commissioners will want to share the Planning Commission goals for the year (that will have been worked on the month before) —and also the regulatory improvement initiative. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning . ,mmission Secretary ATTk!ST: President Dave Walsh 1c\1RPW\Pkmoin Commiuio,\w11 PC Packets\3.7-11 PH White Oak Village,HOA Mtg,Trail System MP Progress Repot\TPC Manes 3-7-1 1doc Page 7 of 7 . . ... - ;it, '041. t -- •!.: . ... ..-oo- . ,.. -- „ . .-. -. .._.. .. ., '!• ---.-',4:.-•,•-,,:;A: - .:- - •••••i:.. ,.. ..4, if ie. . .. ........, .. .:,.+;.:• _ - --;.- $.t, ... . . • - ••••,.. .im- ••• - :.-. , :,----04v.. .7,N>.. ' • - - ■ . . -.• ,'-',0-'>41:1,i;--.-: . :.- - •-. - • . ., •- :.:4111111111111111P!'"".:. "'"Fe.---- • ik - - .....b. . . • 01.44:r°.t''',.:----'.''''''''''',. -----..-- 1.... ..;.,...).,....r.'.i.4"1.1..... . ,..,........,y,,........;i............... ''' . ...-t...;;.4,,.;;".,...... .7.;.."....‘1,.1 i'''' . '- -r ...: A'i',,,- 4.' jrr-• .4.::'•ark:•%4 itit...!"-:".. '''.."1,r'.."-':-...:Iiir.P.:.":!`...i:....:! •• ••''''''``.•• ••"-`''. ••'+' •'..---.. '•••.......4...• ' .....,......... • '.......,..-- .......i. • '''.■•:::".iii"..'.."...:W•.'..'3".4..::•...i::: '.'.::::...:....' .rar:..94D.:4•:m.Y..rn.15:•:!:::.FIttt,;.tt. . . ..„,„:„.„:„...,,,,,..: •I.,r• --.:•' ..0. .:.:.•••.:•.::::4;.,:•,:•.:-:::,•!•••: :-.7.1.3::::::z:•,-.4.•iz::1•,-,f.:- -:'• •,.-4.::•-•:.•::•:.••.•-::-.t.n.4••.,..... : .-.,... .••:,...::.1:7:••„.:••••:,•:!•',1•1%....••:,...,;;;, 7-rg.:46,,,y...,;:m.:gi.,10:.s.4. 4::••;... •- ...., • .'••••;'!•••••;!..?...5.„,;:•';:: :•••;:i.,:,„ ,t•-....,.,4w, .:!••.4!r. :- - .•-•:;t;7.,::.kivattk.•S''•...--- •••T''•••••::::..:";::W.::::!...."I:.:... . •:::..E....„:!;;Pi:•:;!Ft::!::,t't..•".. .::::.% - - .1. c'.-••••:."'.:-.:.::ni:-.:i.'''.:77.r.!:' •. :-..,,, ul 1,11..,...Ate:..41..,-4 rlt*".s.-?•;.:-..;-;.-::-•.A • -:--......:- .....:. . . ..... is . .-.....•. ... ... ........... -v.••".:.. ::..0.%;:lb-......::1:::-!':::•'.1"..::....,;;;41r.t:."„,, :.:?...ibcf....... :;•::.:„........-.' • .1.- ....1::•.7.....osri344- '... "olftilitOteo,*.i.:-:-.--:::1414- -'...,..4014::, .':. ,..'s... „. ...-` ....1'.- .. ..".... ... . ..i.•jii•4:!..1!:••••-•:4-.:-7.•"..• .-'.... .:...••••:4. .....:'.... •:'.::...!.1••::-•':46::'.':.7'...........:........t.L"::' :;:i:-:".'• .' - .1. - 0Ailit . '1. .S'• • i .. :-• • ..: 4"'•''gr:s.' IC'•e:qr-IT'''.•'...-,-f. .. :. .....:::,..0.41,:-.,....•... - -.......:.:-:-.. -st•z. .. 7..,1.,...!::-• ,-..,' , . 7... •.., .,:'Li f,'+'' .. :.. .- r!,:': .:• :::„..qt:4044t,',1... ,\Atillit•". ''''.,'' . • •,.'..::!!:: •...i.,:-,..' • -•• -', • ,.,E+1,,i ., T•:.'.'''0".""4..j$01 .*=-4k..•I,.,...3, :...,:.:„..•:.....4iiiii • , • jiopi.. -.I.. - ,---... '-- • • •• „...gilti:%;I: tf4‘• :V:-.:-'--.•s" ..:'•:::. • .:.::.s- '..,.. „,,_•:.:.E.::: ...:.: *-"" •It....s....:::::•:.:-... ; " • .• '•• ' ''' :.•,h'i': • ••4414.t..P."W.'":14.43::.".. - '-- ' 6,4;:le.:...• '".L'.:.. •-. . .'E .. .:..'+'''.-.4.''71' '••:::,::..4•. . 4.•'.• '"-D'''.: •••„;i •:- '.14:'-• :'•••• .L.+.• ' .1)': ••••.7:::''' 1:•-...• -• "?1-" -•; 1•••••••: •'''''• • . .'1.!4:61b irAifit •- .,! I.:.:.:'•:;;:. ''' .":4:.:":-••••.. ....Pt...LA:::....:::...7:- t.....1.-.. ••:•..':•_.::A..:...1 ' .•-• : :. ' '' . 7.,•. os... .. 7:*541.11.:„:::..',....:...." ....":4.9Wil'"::... '''::... ••-•4`.... 111' - : - • • - . • •2..4.,....: .:vs,.:s:...s,...:::..s...... .. _ . ..,-.. ... . ...... .-...:.. •• ...:'.. :-,- _,.... -,;,.....1. ...;s.:::_q• .....4,..:.:.,,,,.... _::.:0;i1..."-•• - . "!'•:.':...:.:: f..,,,.... ....••;..7....-........: ..„Iikl ... .. ............am.::• -....4...:. •• :::,,. ..KR-4- v-vp:*.,;-..:•- ., 1.1., -t.:. •..m- -..i-.. ...••••••'''A...,••:•;:4--...- "-.NI.t.••.:A...-:•••A44: 1.'r• 14,,:••:•,::-"'.: d o • hit•-s.,..,...,....; 4•7 -7 ......• - a sz ... -- ..- •44...... ...:.:..,;,...• s 31:0 . #-:-..- ss--e%s•...,:::.: o'::-. •::-. ---:• ..••,•"-.• - • .... ........* ...,-.E.,7- :. . • ... ,"-;.'7711.. . -.:.. -' NS' -.., -- • t..A'.."'-:::. . • . ,........ -ir. : A '.,-41. .i • '... . ,..•-i..,.,'.::..:A.d.xt.., .. • '.•.; • . - •.,i .. - .' •45:: :,'....t.:.s•ma.s..•• . i...i.: ....i. ••, •44•Afit4r.. •`•• • :C7%.'''Illitbiiiiiiki .444-...z.:•••::- • - • • :::••••'.e.:: . " . . .•'•::!. i -- .47:•••-• 41"•^:'Vrk!.-`•'.• ,1„. , :1,.•' • :"f'..- i •••• - 7 • 4.....•r-'' ' •- • • . .•••.....:, ,.,,A,-.::_'_.: • '.'••••■ ..,-• ' •.0'.- --NA.-4, 11 °. .. /07••-•:-.1... -.4" •' '4.-•-•..0,..' ..•:'..;'i'j ' ••'•• • •rA4.-- . _ . ...- &- • A-=Af:,....•••4•-'' • .:. . • ••.so... - 4'4'.'- -•- ....`4°.•.\...• - _ s .. - ,... 11111 - - •-• - • +Me- - :N. ' ""`" -,16.1 •. ". • .,.... ........ ..: , .. ,„. _ . .. .. -.': -:: .;:: ••77: •."5--1.:: ' . -- • t :.,• .. . ,.. . . •'•..••••.1.`.. ..:. .• .... .. .... - i ' •-• • •• -,. -‘...,' :: ..;*.,•kt,..4 i ' ••••"""'",• ...- . _.,-.. .,s,.."...I.71..,,,,,..•",.,4 ....t,..... ...,...•..:,. . .4.11,,...:(t..:tit-. ,-•--•••. -.■■: •••'.2;-0".4.."':.••...-- • " .•::::44ilar.7: •::::• ::•.. •..- • .. •• . , -':-. 1r41.41444::: :^i ..11,1t. 64:4..e-,.,....... ''',1S:47.7.:r . '. •• 4... .... - '. .". --°"..- .. -A.•. •.......5.'4.,•:•.2.T.,;r:s••••""• .....s •--.:?"Anr:- "-.40,..-)0111g '4,14r.. -__....,:'-`14., . ...... YlZ'. ,"..•....77•-•;1‘ - ... 4-,S.....1 .4.,...„..1.1::,4,;.mak.,..x ;•; .NI.• ...4i .„ •t .e.4rek.L.• :-..p.„slt• ..1..•••••:...-..., •-..,d, --- -.i‘Pz..- 4:......e.4..‘-... --•!!!'•'RV. -2riNC.*:%•-•%;.s17•17-74.--''••••••'4 -•'%4"":.''' ' .•7:gyiii,'--. ...... '••••••..vik, ...•;i4., -1 !.4•11t• : .•::•'.::.:•6.'" '''..4...••••:'' . ::5%.944:',0 -;•• ..":..."••; ..,47:::-• .- .1t: '. '.....,1-:,41, ,,,,:,...!!:...1S;.?..,._1.,...: '''''"....1.:t1Ft..1•1*....i.:..:,----re-' .-7::.....:::?.41-.4i: ":-.--'' -:. . ---,..: . %..-.- ... .,:::..i,...-...... :,..0.-•• ::.... ,..:.--.''. b. .-;„,, ...7,.or ..:, ..•: -4;:j...4.7, ..,,Sit- .• . ';‘.....I;.... .r.: :;;:ltrik•-•,....,.7:. 0.5,:.:. 1,-.:.!cp. ' .„.. ,, .. ., ,._,...... ..., .. . ,. :, ,, . .. . . - .• , .. . r,, •,,, ,..r.'t."••••.:.;: 11:, "•••••••41," •••• ••,-, •:, •-"-.•:14',;•Aial'.')k-'1.t'''tY.4.5•,j".:'-• ••••- --.4-.r. - , ,. - :.• 4:-.'7/.....-1.- -. . •A:ft.s...,...... ,.N.,-.• ,: - .../ - .--.1••...-.. ' .„ • - - • • • .•:-. •' .... • ./0"16i4:'''....• • ''•• ••"•••0■••••:' -.1%*...#0'•:•- -:.'"':%,,•',,?!.. -'• ''r:.. . •• 1,VP..1....,,i. :Al. _.......... . , ..„.... .. ,.:*,..... •.- - ... :.:.. • 4 : ...- -.?-r.'11- . •-.:'..*•,,,cy :: '1, .:" --.0e.V..,-7.4.4': . :'....'".---:- • -e "". " • • - - •"ow.' • - •••• •:: .• - - - •-•->-. , •-•-:•.•.....q•-•.•-;:.,........,••••:t.-A,•;•• ••..-:.- V".•,.-.1. .,-.-.-• :6.,a.. ,„,;::.4,...7„:..0,.. ..... • -: .-., ••_,1,- ,ji,........,.... . •„-,-,,,-0.,......%.-..-...„:,..• . . .. ......-...,:-...:;,,,....„,An.e:,.. i..,...---..-,..,„ ..„.....,..•........:::1 ...._..1:::-.7-!;--;:c.--,:: •-4!,0.: .4-k....1:3/4 f'N.-..;.is- .. .... 4.:;'•.-....... +::::!:'.;.- ,.. ... ;'. * -4' y .:',,t;•: ...*.. .:40.-, 7.•••• ''-' : ''"..‘,.. . 0.••": 4:,.....1.:.:11t.441 :77"....:..„:7:-...... ....- -• .!. ........:%..s:...• - ••id-. ...,.7.<4 : ...••'r""-",.... 4,...4"4:47r:.' 1•;•••i-Ilk"-'`'.: ''. -.A...7•••i;'..."..".• ''••tqi'-i• i''''.-.,.4311W. •':'i'•44,: ::.-07....'...-■...-'1;-.1.;....:•.r.:::':.1 -•::-,;:,*"'''It4'.e•eig-7.••. '''''''•"- • 'P 'r • • •••. 1/4::• : ' it '''••-'. .'ilei...- ' 4 :.,.,.f•".4:,...1 - -' • :i",,,..••/%+.''. .. :-..'Ir.. ;. : ".414_-...,A.'::.":..::+:...„ s,„ .s.•-,4.4.,-4.*:„..=.,.•1}-•.:.:..-`\...f...:;....1....,..7..-v •:• Ir*.!:•"4.-•:'4.:-e-t,„-:-4's.' - '•- ';•': .j ' -4.•' -.: : • •.'-,q--i.-,..",:i,.. ':.,-,4-..,,,- .- . - . ..'-• :::-Ii,'"7:4:.-." --.'e•l.'"*.o.:O.-TA ;: • .*4 -•• los-... - ----: s .•,....;;r • -22 s., - .. -;-!. . - : ... „,:-..\-4. - . .. • ,*..-,.::. -.(.;•:170. -..t.-.......,q,..:10:',.-• •...%:- •.... -.. . .t,s;: ,. ..,17--•I.,- ! .:,.... ..., . ..s.. .•,.. .„ . . „ . „.., s. ...- -.• 7'i • -.... . ' .. "'t-'•*.TW%t• ''.11;CC--; ".6"4--....:,.,-74.7 4,€44. ..•..... .i. .71-'414A-. ,ci•'•'.' r'r:7".,:t•Peh..••• . :!'"4‘...•r'',.," • .. • . - -1 ... ' -- ; .:•:-.......4,-#:.-• . .1'.fr ''..,,,„o•'.....• .,.."'..: . . . • . ... . „i..v 1,r, :,..e,..„ .. :. • s:. . •,.....•.1.4:.,...k:".••7. ••••'.-45.:41:.•••1".:71,:i 4: ..t._. .'• 1.'''• '.., -• . A4. •IA `"•+.... ••. 41.••"•.+; 4. ':- ,., .. •::r.".. '.'.„'1) . .. •M :,.. . ... f „.4.,..„„ ...„:... ., .....- :........, .....•,..„....,"•,,:.. .4...L.,..y.•.fr-e+.:::1•.-,::•--..%7N4.)...,-.4;bp.,., ... -4 ,....... . i'..:00. .•.-. --•:"i'.. ';•"..4•1:-... '. :II``. -- ' ..e.....,:.,.'i or,..-..! •-.;.:, •i'...,• -. A. ••••!-..."' 47.7...-. .- •...•t: '- -:•-0" 41'.•;.:•• ..r•"."' '''. *41...:.:••.;;S'o.,... ..4"--'s.... 0. .••.:.....41,. . -,' '.:.;-•,-•t.• _ ••••';‘.-7 -.7/'Att.. t''',,;44*A„„..,. • .,... , -....;,,r.„,,.. I: -.. 7••• : NV..,.:•.:': t. - " •- .4- • -.... 1 • , ...- ta,,, • . .N. .:-• ' .•• t• ..,,:: .. -....,L'''.i.'-::4::tk, '."•tf0. ,i'.......* .207... .■••. :.: F... . ' 4 077:.i;. ''.■ ..... '4 ti- '. . ; • •.,. - -IL.I-.P.• ..-4..7 7...0. ..5i..-.„,-. -- .--.. .• _-. . . . -- '. ' - Ir''"•,* .4,-. ---.:1.-- y. ....:, - -• ,-,-,.=.1,...-::',s,- - . . ...,-. ....44... ... '..1,14P'. .1' ..,•' "- .. • ...-..Ar 7, ..-•:•4:--.. .,•,-:;••1.•.1^-•-..,--,,.. -,,_. , .?''-1••••:-,;7:7;:-- • • . ..,.. .. .. , ...... \,....-',lit:- ...",,„::...-.1......-. ..„....0 .,.e.....,,,..„.... 1 -:• - • .. ..._ .... . .... _ ... " .....„ ..,„ ...,. ,.... ...::., .. •..1%tesd. - • ,• ,41/4,... ....,• .,•44,,... ~ • • • • raii,•,•::•• ••••.. • ....Itil „„ ••••alli .. -••••••••••••... '44.:•..r•Alr'1..n.r....`• . iPPO...:.' . .tdrA:...;.:q. f I • • • • • • • III ;OP••.'' -:'-' • ..'..•-•(....,..•:•:.. „n..!4.A.:,4r. .. '11.1...E.,„.44,..,.....i...eft.3..".„.•:"4 7 • ::.. )41Serri,:*' • ?..„,••S".......;,.2i,;14t1•1414,:k..„, . , r,,,,,, • ,...i,;....rw. ...„L„,, . , .!:::4,1.-kisri..!•••..:-.• ...: ••4:4' ':J." .4.44",;."::1•4:.•.. . r4. •-: . .:41 t:•; ' , . -:• Irptit • 41Ik 41•44 .....4 .:.... • > y ..^r » .,...• .... y4 :. i:::: > Vi! •� '..:4401, ..: •'. A 1:.. 4S .i hi ,a .. i � a ,.. ri . . ..:A..4.".::.. y'. .;1 i•� rtyip• .'�M1: .f .. - 4""L. ttt • ,t 11 1i• .. • : •.. 1 � .•� r •. _1. � .. .ms'• .. v. y or • • r 4 :a,: '..,..;...:F•`..�,...' ..' R' w .. b'M 'i• Y.',�s' t, `r 7V,- 4 �:�.•.....:. � •. : dv� `p,.`,•y'•!' `fi'''t.•' ,�Y..: .�. �`'f .:r • ••� �. d S' : . .. .:. •. fit• ' '(;: 4' ..t' ' :. :. . t:' •t .. ! •.:d Wr_:.r ::lC..: Cti rR : 't ' ••:die:'. : .::.:.::........ ::::: . :: . . .:' • •" i T 1: , :J! ' < `9' •,.., �:.. .:« d,� • }M.... 1 ee • • io ` w n $•• iq, d e:I.$ w"4 �y" # •w'�'� . T' 7s '4: n,j �>> a ro ....t.7......#.. R .! . , 4 w_ . . ,. � •.t ''ROiu . . . *. • • t%.• R•. .� ,.tg, - f • PLEASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission TIGARD Agenda Item # 5, ` Page L of Date of Hearing 3 �] Case Number(s) ( I --ccc o I Case Name �\'Nc)tc.- DA-V. ,1 ,cl�o� L�NJ•5�O r1 Kdbr Kock, es2A0Q5k- Location On & SW eac��i� VV Q A-Letr.3 k'e-T [YR-SLY? tf If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the pro osal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): • Name:�Jn c� � Name: Address:/2 c5 i, J ,el ki Address: City, State, Zip: 9 >>_Z 3 City, State, Zip: + Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: • • ° City of Tigard Planning Commission Revised Agenda TIGARD r.:... 1 MEETING DATE: March 7, 2011; 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard —Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING —7:05 p.m. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 -WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium- Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. 6. WORK SESSION —7:35 p.m. PROGRESS REPORT—TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 7. WORK SESSION —8:35 p.m. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS COMMITTEE MEETING 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9:00 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT 9:05 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- MARCH 7, 2011 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 • <" City of Tigard -,„.;":.61 Planning Commission Agenda �+ �£ Ciao MEETING DATE: March 7, 2011; 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING —7:05 p.m. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 -WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74`s Avenue involving two (2) parcels COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium- Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. 6. WORK SESSION — 7:35 p.m. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS COMMITTEE MEETING 7. WORK SESSION —8:35 p.m. PROGRESS REPORT—TRAIL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9:00 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT 9:05 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- MARCH 7, 2011 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 • • -*: City of Tigard Z� Memorandum To: President Dave Walsh and Planning Commission Members From: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Re: White Oak Village Planned Development Modification/PDR2011-00001 (March 7, 2011 PC Hearing) Date: December 28, 2011 Please find attached the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the proposed Modification to the approved White Oak Village PD (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). Two additional attachments (3 & 4) are included to supplement the applicant's submittal materials to provide reference to the narrative in the Staff Report. Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission, February 28, 2011 Attachment 2: Vicinity Map Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes, April 2, 2007 Attachment 4: Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) Attachment 5: Applicant's Application Materials • • ATTACHMENT 1 , Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date: March 7,2011 Time: 7:00 PM • • S g M g IEPORT TG TAl S PLANNING:COMMISSION • . OR THE CITY OF_`I`IGA , O GON • TIGARD. .�.�_._....�_.__. 120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION CASE NO.: Planned Development Review (PDR) PDR2011-00001. (Modification of Planned Development Review(PDR) 2006-00003) APPLICANT/ Hawthorne Block LLC OWNER: c/o Foster Finch • 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site ('ina1 Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide a tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethom espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels; Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 1S136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA, Tax Lot 01700. ZONE/ • COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: R-12,Medium Density Residential. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. [Applies to majority of the site] Planned Development Overlay (PD): The property has a planned development overlay designation. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6) To - provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. WI IITI OAK VII SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF 1t1;POR"1'(SUB2011-00001) PAGE 1 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION I If,ARING 3/7/2011 • • • APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends:that:the Planning.Comtnission:find;that the:proposed.P:lanned:Development Modification,Will not adversely:affect_the-health,safett and,welfare of the;•City;and,meets;the Approval Standards as=outlined in'this;report:: Therefore,Staff reconiinends APPROVAL,,subject to:-tlie-following recommnended'`Condition of..Approval and Findings within this;staff report:: - - - CONDITION OF APPROVAL : THE FOLLOWING CONDITION;SHALL BE-SATISFIED:PRIOR:TO ISSUANCE OF ANY • '`BUILDING'.PERMITS:.: °?.: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-718-2434. 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to providehigher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The White Oak Village subdivision was approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC. The planned development process was requested by the applicant to accommodate a private street that serves more than six dwellings and the sub-standard lot sizes averaging 1,926 square feet, when the R-12 zone requires 3,050 square feet. In exchange for flexibility of the applicable standards under the PD process, the applicant offered public benefits which induce two open space pocket parks, a landscaped pedestrian pathway connection to Pacific lwy, and retention of a significant oak tree. Most subdivision improvements have been made with the exception of some fencing, landscaping, signage, and the second lift of pavement on the private street.The applicant states that recording of the final plat is imminent. Vicinity Information: The site is located within a massive block bounded by Pacific Hwy, SW 78th Avenue, SW Spruce Street, and SW 71st Avenue and, specifically, at the terminus of SW 74th Avenue south of Spruce Street. The subject site is bordered by developed land zoned R-25 and R-4.5 to the north and C-G to the south. The site is approached from SW Spruce Street on SW 74th Avenue through a single-family detached neighborhood built from the mid-1940s through the 1950s. More recent multi-family housing borders the site to the north but is fenced off and buffered by Tract C containing the preserved White Oak tree. The RAZ Transportation bus depot extends the full length of the subject property on the west. Continuation of SW 74th Avenue through the subject site will eventually access the adjacent portion of the RAZ property zoned R-12. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION ISSUES Proposal: The applicant requests two modifications of the -approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision •and planned development (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes as shown on the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/0 PC Hearing) and Architectural Plans Sheet C6.1). In addition, revised landscaping details would provide higher screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethom espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall as shown in the Water Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet L3). WI-II I'J OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF REPORT(SUB2011-00001) PAGE 2 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 1-TEARING 3/7/2011 • • The applicant notes that no changes to conditions of approval of the PDR or Subdivision are requested. In addition, no changes to the streets or lots are requested as shown in the Site Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet C2.1) and Subdivision Final Plat (4/1/8 Survey, Sheets 1 and 2 of 3). Detached or Attached Units on Lots of Choice: During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the applicant described the proposed housing type: "The units will be duet homes — there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each _come is on a separate, individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all `end units'." [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 3]. There was some discussion whether duets could qualify as an innovative "building grouping" within the context of earning a density bonus. [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 9]. However, the project did not pursue the bonus based on that criterion. During the April 16, 2007 Commission hearing, the Commission conditionally approved a site plan titled Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing), which is the approved site plan in the Final Order. The plan shows one single-family detached unit on the stand alone lot 26 with all other units paired as duets. The applicant's request to build either detached or attached housing unit types housing type on the approved lots is a modification of the conditionally approved site plan. However, detached and attached housing unit types are allowed in the R-12 zone and there are no specific development code standards or conditions of approval relating to housing type or this proposed modification. The applicant further requests that as a consequence of the modification, the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) and the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) will be voided. The Commission may consider whether the proposed modification to allow either housing type and without any architectural plans, meets the applicable Purposes and Concept Approval Criteria of the Planned Development Chapter, as reviewed below on Pages 4/5 of this Staff Report. Revised Landscaping and Screening: The applicant has proposed substituting some combination of Bamboo, Leyland Cypress, Magnolia, Ash, and Maple for the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry wall on the west property line adjacent to the RAZ Transportation site. The proposed modification to the approved Water Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet L3) would provide a higher screen than the six-foot wall and potentially improve screening of the adjacent commercial use. ' During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the issue of higher screening was discussed but did not resolve in a motion to amend the proposed landscape plan. The proposed modification in this application is supported by the Commission's previous deliberation. [April 2,2007 PC Minutes, Pages 5/8] SECTION V. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE USE CATEGORIES: SECTION 18.130 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is seeking modifications to the approved attached "duet" housing type to additionally provide single- family detached units. The lots are proposed to be developed with either attached or detached single-family homes without specifying which units will be developed on which lots. The site is located within the R-12 zone, Medium Density Residential District. Household living,which includes both detached and attached single-family housing types, is a permitted use in the R-12 zone. SUMMARY OF LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The original Subdivision/Planned Development was a Type III-PC Application. No procedure is identified for modifications of a planned development. As such, modifications to the decision are also processed as a Type III-PC application to ensure any changes are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision and to provide notice to potentially affected parties. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF RI TORT(SUB2011-00001) PAGI?3 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 3/7/2011 • • • SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. Notice was mailed to property owners within 500 on February 14, 2011; the site was posted with a hearing notice on February 15, 2011; and notice was published in the Times on February 17, 2011. Staff received no comments regarding this application. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicable review criteria are addressed in this report in the following order: 18.350 (Planned Developments) 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts) 18.745* (Landscaping and Screening) 18.390 . (Decision Making Procedures, Impact Study) *According to Section 18.350.100 of the Planned Development Chapter, these chapters are utilized as guidelines,and strict compliance is not necessary where a development provides alternative designs and methods that promote the purpose of the PD Chapter. 18.350— (PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS) The following Purpose Statement and Concept Plan Approval Criterion are similar and provide some guidance in considering the proposed modification: 18.350.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone include: To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria The concept plan may be approved by the Commission only if all of the following criteria are met: The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers. The applicant's narrative does not address this purpose of the Planned Development Chapter or this Concept Plan Approval Criterion. However, the applicant specifically requests the Commission to void the previously approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing),which shows building envelopes. In support of this request, the applicant seeks expanded opportunity to additionally provide single-family detached units to avoid complicating issues associated with shared-wall duets such as: reciprocal insurance; exterior maintenance covenants restrictions, and conditions, limited mortgage offerings and terms; conflicts with utilities at common lot lines; and disaster recovery (fire, etc.). Analysis: The applicant requests the Commission void the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) to provide more flexibility of housing type and architectural style. On the one hand, the uniform duet housing type creates a distinctive neighborhood. However, detached units would be more compatible with the existing dwelling types along SW 74`h Avenue. Giving the developer flexibility to build either type may help the development of White Oak Village in a timely manner given the current challenges in the housing market. Other values in the purpose and concept approval criterion continue to be met with the compatible street layout and transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with open space buffers associated with the WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF REPORT(SUB2011-00001) 1'AGE 4 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 3/7/2011 • • 4 pocket parks in Tracts C and D. Is the Commission satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision,will build a housing product that will achieve a unique neighborhood and integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision? 18.350.060 Compliance with Specific Development Standards: This section requires compliance with base zone development standards, with the following modifications allowed with discretion by the Commission: The applicant's proposed modification is consistent with the approved subdivision and planned development base zone development standards, specifically the setback standards as summarized in Table 18.510.2, below. However, without building envelopes and architectural plans specified, lot coverage, landscaping, and building heights would need to be verified at the time of building permit review. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; In the R-12 zoning district the minimum lot size is 3,050 square feet, with no average lot width. The zone has no minimum lot depth. The approved lot sizes are between 1,836 and 2,748 square feet, averaging 1,926 square-feet per lot. The Commission approved a density bonus and 27 total lots. The applicant does not propose any changes to approved lots. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-12 zone is 80%, including all impervious surfaces. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and The base development standard height limit in the R-12 zone is 35 feet, but does not apply to planned development applications, giving the Commission discretion in determining building height. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application, which showed units 30 feet to the peak. Without Commission review of the height standard, consistency with this standard would be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and be subject to the base standard maximum of 35 feet. Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The original decision approved building envelopes on each lot within the development consistent with this standard For this application, the applicant's narrative includes a Setback Table, which shows the required perimeter setbacks at 15 feet, but proposes to delete the reference to the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1). As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls; The applicant's narrative indicates 3-foot side yard setbacks will be used on all internal side yards, subject to compliance to firewall standards. Provided dwellings associated with these reduced side yard setbacks meet the UBC requirements for._fire walls, the proposed setbacks are consistent with this standard. As_a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided WI IITE OAK VIIJ.AGF.SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF REPORT(SUB2011-00001) PAGE 5 00 8 PLANNING COMMISSION I IEARING 3/7/2011 • . The applicant's narrative Setback Table describes interior front and rear yard setbacks of 10 and 13 feet respectively, and a 20-foot minimum garage setback for all lots, consistent with these standards. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. The applicant's narrative Setback Table describes street side yard setbacks of 8 feet, consistent with the Commission's approval of a two-foot reduction of the 10-foot street side yard standard. FINDING: The applicant is requesting the Commission void the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) to allow greater flexibility of housing type and architectural style, without providing any alternative plans. If the Commission is satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision,will build a housing product that will integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision, then the Commission may approve the applicant's proposal. However, the Commission may wish to place parameters on the modification, which both allows flexibility for the applicant and provides some specificity as to the mix of attached and detached units and/or minimum architectural style. The base zone standards, as varied by the Commission, continue to be met with the proposed modification. However, without Commission stipulation of the height of buildings, height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.510 — (RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Single-family attached and detached residential units are permitted in the R-12 zone. The Commission approved an average lot size of 1,926 square feet. The applicant does not propose any changes to the lot size. Development Standards: Section 18.510.050.B states that Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below: The lots created with the subdivision are designated R-12, Medium-Density Residential. Table 18.510.2 on following page • • WHITE OAK VII.]AG]i SUBDIVISION MODIFICA'I1ON STAFF RI?PORT(SUB2011-00001) PAGI G OF 8 1'].ANNING COMMISSION I TEARING 3/7/2011 • II 4 . TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-12 PD STANDARD Proposed Approved SF DU* Minimum Lot Size NA/ -Detached unit 1,926 sq. ft. 1,926 sq. ft. 3,050 sq.ft. Consistent -Attached unit Avg./unit Avg./unit per unit with density -Duplexes in 18.715 -Boarding,lodging,rooming house Average Lot Width Approx.28 ft. Approx. 28 ft. None NA/18.715 Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 10/15 (P) 10/14/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone(P) -Side facing street on corner&through lots 8 ft. 8 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. -Side yard 3 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft. [1] NA/UBC -Rear yard 13/15 (P) 13/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone(P) - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district NA NA 30 ft. 30 ft. -Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20/8 ft.[3] Maximum Height None shown 30 ft. (to peak) 35 ft. NA Maximum Lot Coverage [2] None shown 80% 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement None shown 20% 20% 20% [1] Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3] Minimum setback for garages/minimum setback for garages for attached sfd facing a private street with required off-street parking met. * Single-family dwelling unit(attached or detached) (P) Perimeter FINDING: The applicant proposes to void the White Oak Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1), which shows building height and the Conditionally A?proved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing, which shows building envelopes. The applicant s narrative Setback Table shows continued compliance with setbacks approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC or required in the base zone. However, if the Commission grants the request, then the height, lot coverage, and minimum landscaping will not be specified for the subdivision. Consistency with these stancards will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.745 — I SCAPING AND SCREENING : *PD Guideline Cho.ter Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Buffering and Screening- Section 18.745.050 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). FINDING: Adjacent uses to the subject site include multi-family dwelling units to the north, single family to the north and south, and commercial uses,to the south, west and east. The Commission approved buffering and screening as indicated on the Landscape Plan (Sheets L2/3). The applicant's proposal to modify the approved landscape plan replacing firethorn espalier with a selection of trees along the west boundary would potentially increase screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus.depot and benefit the White Oak Village residents._ _ _ CONDITION: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to provide higher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. WI-lI'I'L'.OAK VIL1.AGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF REPORT(SUB2011-00001) PAGI?7 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 1-TEARING 3/7/2011 • • • 18.390 ECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY): SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. 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 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 of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. FINDING: Impacts to City systems were adequately addressed in the original land use decision. No further impact study is required for the proposed housing type and landscaping modifications. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS No other staff comments were received on the subject application. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS No agencies were notified of the proposed modification as none have jurisdiction over the proposed changes. LA/ February 28, 2011 PREPARED BY: Gay Pagenstecher DA'Z'E Associate Planner 4"16 410 February 28 . 2011 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director • WHITE OAK VII„IAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION STAFF REPORT(SUB2011-00001) PAGE 8 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 1-TEARING 3/7/2011 LiI1 _ ±TH _ J ' ; ° VICINITY MAP _ is- ^'�� I PDR2011-00001 • WHITE OAK VILLAGE �L SUBDIVISION MINOR ® @ g — __. MODIFICATION ---4 ...------ 71 10 p p ® p ,..... al .1, • _ rii, Akas'MI Subject Site • VIIIIII rJ -.• _____ _ : sk iII '217 N414.4 r Ail >'`. \ l r 7 hr. • '�, •mot.._ _ , ...• r I _� ► I . LI � - . • • •_� ,. • ;.r.. Intormauon on tms map is for general location ry, only and should be verified with the --z 1 ,, Development Services Division. + \ "l . 5 5 ! *f Approx.kale 1 4 UU0-Tin='s's�it 3 J \ r- Ma rile°al Ul2D rM On Uti-l-eD-1 l H t �` `{ 1l ,,I . 5 5 DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARO 11 MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE J '�' CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMCUNCSJ OR COMPLETENESS Or ANY Or ^ 1 THE IMTA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO lH !✓Y - '� LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE ' \ __—"I�JJJ , O MgTMV rR VIUCUHeCYNO JJ</r ttiw GAUxU, ,fl •1 \ J laity Ot IVara Lit 5 13125 SW Hall Blvd Feet \ Twilit Tigard,OR 97223 • 0 500 _� T 50363941:71 Ij www.6gard-or.gov r.���•3,y� y NJ Ittella /4. r • • ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 2, 2007 The Planning Commission met at 6:00 p.m. in Red Rock Creek Conference Room to greet new Planning Commissioners and to discuss meeting protocol. 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh Commissioners Absent Commissioner Hasman Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager;Kim McMillan,Development Review Engineer; Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Ron Bunch invited the Commissioners and the public to open houses on the Comprehensive Plan on April 18th and April 21st. The open houses will provide the public an opportunity to become familiar with the Comp Plan Update process,provide input on the Tigard 2007 Resource Report, confirm community values,review draft goals, and sign up to participate further. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the March 19, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioners Fishel,Muldoon, and Vermilyea abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON)2007-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 1 • • REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 27-lot subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed with attached (duet) single-family homes. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 1,926 square feet. Two pocket parks and a pedestrian tract/open space are proposed totaling approximately 54,681 square feet. LOCATION: The project is located north of Pacific Hwy. at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving three (3)parcels at 11625 and 11645 SW Pacific Hwy. and 11030 SW 74th Avenue;WCTM 1S136DB,Tax Lots 01000 and 02300 and 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium- Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. Commissioner Vernzilyea and President Inman declared conflicts of interest and recused themselves. Vice-President Walsh took over as Chair for the public hearing. Commissioners Muldoon and Walsh reported site visits. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher provided a general overview of the structure of a staff report, followed by specifics for this application. He noted that a new Planned Development Code was adopted last November. This application would be processed under the old code. He advised that this applicant has asked for a private street to serve more than 6 units and lots that average significantly less than the minimum allowed in the R-12 zone. To get both of those things, they have proposed to save a significant tree and provide several open space tracts. They also propose a pedestrian pathway from the development out to Hwy. 99W. Issues that arose during the review included density computation, landscaping and screening, and street improvements. The density computation question for the Commission is if the applicant should be allowed 27 units as proposed or 23 as staff found to be allowed in the standards. For landscaping and screening, the Commission has the discretion to require greater screening than would otherwise be allowed under the standards. For street improvements, the public street was proposed as a "skinny street" and our standards require a full section— a difference from 44' to 52'wide. The density calculations revolve around the definition of flag pole and whether or not the flag pole that extends from Hwy. 99W to the development can be included or should be excluded from the net developable area. Also, our standards require that the pedestrian access in the flag pole be public right-of-way. We also require a utility easement to the water quality swale. These requirements have caused disagreement between staff and the applicant with regard to the density allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 2 • • Pagenstecher referred to a memo from Dorothy Cofield dated March 30th and a memo from Clean Water Services dated March 22nd (Exhibits A and B). The Cofield memo includes a revised density calculation which has increased from what was in the staff report. Pagenstecher has not had a chance to review the new calculations; however, he agrees with the basis of the calculations. Staff is in agreement with the second scenario (without the flagpole in net area); so 25 lots would be appropriate with the revised numbers. Pagenstecher noted that parking on the 20'wide private street would not be allowed. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Dorothy Cofield, 12725 SW Millikan Way, S-300, Beaverton, OR 97005 and Kirsten Van Loo,Alpha Planning, 9200 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, OR 97008 spoke for the applicant. Cofield advised that the applicant is in agreement with the staff report except for the density issue. She presented a new density analysis (Exhibit C). She referred to the 1994 Dolan case about whether or not the company could be made to constitutionally give a bike path to allow the public to go on their property and not use that property for development. The U.S. Supreme Court said there must be rough proportionality. In this case, the developer is being asked to dedicate open space, easements, and right-of-way. About 50% of the land that the developer owns is being given to the public. The developer agrees to do all of this, but in exchange, he would like to develop it with 27 lots. The development will be innovative and should be allowed to develop at maximum density (27 lots). Kirsten Van Loo provided details of the proposed development (Exhibit D). She noted that the long pathway to Hwy. 99W was the original access point to the property. She advised that the applicant has been granted an easement from an adjacent property owner for an access point to SW 74th Ave. The proposed public street would also connect to the property to the west. It could provide access to that property if it ever redevelops. The units will be duet homes —there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each home is on a separate, individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all "end units". The plan shows extra head-in parking spaces along the public street; however code standards do not allow them so they will have to be removed. Van Loo said that once they build the public right-of-way, the project is no longer a flag lot. Approximately 25% of the property will be in open space tracts. The circulation system adds up to another 25% of the site. A planned development allows flexibility in exchange for benefits for the City. The applicant believes the duet units provide an affordable ownership opportunity. Protecting the existing oak tree is a mandate and the park space in tract C is a good size piece of land for this zoning district. It's designed so that when the adjoining property develops, the park can continue. Van Loo reviewed the newest density analysis (Exhibit C) and advised that staff believes the flag pole cannot be counted for density. Their attorney does not agree, saying that all the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 3 • • 4 , land within the legal description is included in the parcel. Taking the flag pole out of the computation gives them 24 units for a base density. With all the amenities included in the project, the applicant believes they should qualify for density bonuses. Possible density bonuses include 3% for undeveloped open space, 3% for developed open space, 3% for focal points or creating vistas, and 3% for architectural style, housing types, unique character of the development. The maximum allowed for density bonuses is 10%. With the maximum density bonus, this development should be allowed 26.88 units. Van Loo said that most jurisdictions round up with the units. Tigard rounds down. She encouraged the Planning Commission to round up and give the development 27 units. The Planning Commission discussed the density bonus issue. Commissioner Doherty does not believe that duet homes qualify as being unique. She sees this type of development in other parts of Tigard. Van Loo said that the uniqueness lies in the fact that the duet homes are close to an arterial, shopping, employment, etc. Homeowners can walk to shopping or church, plus they have access to public transportation. Commissioner Muldoon referred to the memo from the applicant's attorney saying that people could access 99W through a neighboring commercial parking lot. He does not believe this is a viable option. He asked if the applicant believes the pathway to 99W makes the development unique and,without that designation as a right-of-way (ROW), it would not be unique. Van Loo agreed. Gary Pagenstecher noted that the matrix provided by the applicant is helpful. There is still disagreement about the new public ROW calculation. A marginal difference in the calculation might make a difference with the unit number. The applicant is asking for a 9% density bonus, but staff is only in agreement with the open space and focal point density bonuses (6%). It's up to the Commissioners to decide if an architectural style has been met to award another 3% bonus. Nothing has been submitted to make that determination; however the Commission could consider the option of"innovative building orientation or building grouping" for the additional 3%. Pagenstecher advised that the public pedestrian access is required by the code under Section 18.810.040.B.2. In addition, water quality access is also required by code. Dick Bewersdorff said that the Commission could dispense with the argument of the parcel being a flag lot or not. It's not relevant in this case. What's relevant is the issue of public easement that's required by the code. Dorothy Cofield agrees that there is a code requirement for the public pedestrian path for connectivity; however, that does not mean it's constitutional. The property owner does not have to dedicate to the public's use land that isn't related to the impact of what he is creating. The impact of what this applicant is creating is about 270 vehicle trips. The whole impact area is about 12,000 trips. The amount of land he is being asked to dedicate compared to what he has is over the allowable ratio. The applicant may have to dedicate the public pedestrian path, but he doesn't have to do it for free—he has to be compensated. Staff responded that the issue is if they meet the standards;this applicant has not met the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 4 • • standards. If they argue proportionality on that basis, the only option the Commission has is to deny the application because they have not met the standards. Cofield disagreed, saying that the developer can say he believes it's unconstitutional, but go ahead and make a dedication and then make a claim for just compensation. This applicant agrees with the dedication and is asking for 27 lots as compensation. Van Loo referred to a memo from their traffic engineer (Exhibit E) that substantiates a 46' ROW. The ROW dedication is based on the vehicle trips that will be carried on a portion of a public street. They believe that this project plus the potential development of the adjacent property will generate less than 500 vehicle trips per day. Having less ROW will give the applicant a little more land for their density calculations. Kim McMillan disagreed with the 46'.ROW. The City also takes the existing neighborhood into account. The adjacent parcels have 32 dwelling units and this development is proposing 27. Added together, it is already over 500 trips. Having 54' for the public street will absorb the head-in parking, but will allow for some parallel parking. Commissioner Muldoon asked about the net gain and loss for parking and if there was a gain in green space. Van Loo said there is a potential total loss of 9 spaces and a potential gain of maybe 5. She advised that the Development Code requires 1 parking space per unit. The applicant is proposing 2 spaces per unit. Over the long term, the public street will build out to full development which will allow for more parking. Commissioner Walsh said that the parking spaces are not realistic for this development. It was also noted that there will be no parking allowed on the private street. Van Loo said that reciprocal parking arrangements with neighboring properties have not been considered. Also, eliminating some of the units to put in more parking is not feasible. The Commissioners expressed major concern about the lack of parking. Van Loo suggested that people could park in neighboring businesses. Going back to the number of units recommended by staff, it was advised that staff is agreeable to 25 units. With regard to the access on 74th Street, Van Loo said that it will be repaved to 24'wide to a section that meets City standards —approximately 500 lineal feet to Spruce Street. Len Dalton,White Oak Village, LLC, 7955 SW Hall Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97008, owner of the property, reported that he is following the recommendations in the arborist's report to care for the Oak tee. Screening and buffering were discussed. It was advised that there will be a 6'wall between the development and the bus storage lot. Commissioner Muldoon doesn't think this will be enough screening. He asked if the developer would consider planting higher vegetation. Van Loo said that a final landscaping plan would be submitted as part of the final development plan. If the Commission wants, the developer will put in higher vegetation. It was advised that the tree is probably over 200 years old and in very healthy condition. The homeowner's association will maintain the park and protect the tree. Also, the developer will comply with the Police Department's request for lighting along the pathway. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 5 • • Marty Weil, Remax, 9790 SW Nimbus Ave., Beaverton, OR spoke about the affordability of the proposed homes. He noted that end units are very desirable and add a lot of value to the property. Regarding style of the units, Len Dalton advised that every unit will have some sort of stone veneer on the front elevation as a unifying theme. Vice-President Walsh asked about the 3% bonus for architectural quality and style concept. He asked if there were any examples of how that has been applied in the past. Staff answered that, typically, drawings showing unique architectural details would be submitted. The Planning Commission would approve the drawings agreeing that they were unique. With this application, no drawings were submitted. Walsh noted that with the new PD code (which does not apply with this application), that aspect of the bonus could include such features as environmentally friendly materials, impervious pavements, etc.,which would be over and above the standard. PUBLIC TESTIMONY—IN FAVOR Susan Frohnmeyer, 10900 SW 76th Place #24, Tigard 97223 testified that she lives on the other side of fence adjacent to the proposed development. She is supportive of the project but expressed some concerns about density, traffic, and protection of the tree. The developer has assured her that they will keep the tree. She hopes that all the other issues can be resolved so that a quality project can be constructed. There will be more noise; however, there is already noise night and day from the Raz buses. Mitch Gensman, PO Box 1626, Sherwood, OR 97140, testified that he owns property to the south of the proposed development. He is pleased about the development and asked the Commission to consider allowing development to fullest extent possible. He had questions about the setback for the one way street next to his property. Van Loo advised that the setback is 4' from the curb to the property line; the Uniform Building Code requires that they stay at least 2' back from the property line during grading and construction. Also, there will be a masonry wall and buffer to separate a portion of the site from the adjacent property. Staff provided details on the drainage and detention system that will be on the site. The water quality facility will be maintained by the City. Mr. Gensman asked that after the subdivision is recorded,if it would be possible to release a current access easement that runs along his property to the proposed development site. The applicant agreed. The Planning Commission advised that this is a matter that needs to be resolved between the two parties outside of the public hearing; the City does not have authority over this. Mr. Gensman is concerned about public access through the area next to the Union Gospel Mission. He noted that there are homeless people living in the back of the building. He asked if two fences could be tied together to prevent pedestrian egress in that area. Van Loo PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 6 • • believes that because the adjacent parcels are not part of this application, the City cannot mandate offsite conditions. The Planning Commission advised that this is beyond the scope of this application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY—IN OPPOSITION Ken Zsoka, 10945 SW 74th Ave.,Tigard 97223 spoke about the impact on 74th Ave. with overflow parking from the development. He asked if there are any provisions for the construction equipment and contractor vehicles. He does not want to see their dead end street flooded. He also asked who will be responsible for the sidewalks, curb, and gutters. Staff answered that the applicant has to provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for the project. They will come down 74th and will be expected to park on their site to do all their work for the bulk of development. There will only be street paving on 746; no curbs and sidewalks will be put in. The homeowners won't be tagged for any improvements. Anyone can park along a public street, but they can't block driveways. Neighbors can call the Engineering inspector if there are problems with construction vehicles. Sandi Moxley, 11005 SW 74th,Tigard 97223, is concerned about lighting in the park area. She thinks that it will become a high crime rate because it will be boxed in with a fence. People could congregate there after dark and cause problems. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Kirsten Van Loo advised the following: • Regarding the 200 year old tree,the client is not opposed to putting the tree on the historic register in order to provide maximum protection. • There currently is poor connectivity on 74th; the continuation of 74th will provide the next link to eventually connect to 78th. • Parking and construction management concerns were answered by staff. • The 24' wide paving on 74th will be an improvement to the street. It will provide more encouragement for people to park on the street rather than on people's yards. • Issues about fencing were discussed; the client will do the best he can to restrict unauthorized passage on private property while maintaining balance with the community. The new pedestrian pathway may be longer, but will be a more pleasant experience. • Regarding lighting in park—if places are lighted at night, they become attractive nuisances and people tend to congregate there. The client will defer to the Police Department and follow their recommendations to the best of his ability. • The two lots next to the park will be fenced. Dorothy Cofield said that they would like to conclude tonight if possible, or to have some inclination as to what the decision will be. She feels they have met the burden of proof for 27 lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 7 • 1110 • PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Doherty does not think that public access to Hwy. 99W warrants going against the staff recommendation for density. She is very concerned about the lack of parking and the small yards. She is leaning toward the staff recommendation of 25 lots. Commissioner Muldoon disagrees with diverting access to the north. He believes that the pedestrian access and the ROW are indisputable. He thinks that cutting through the adjoining Mexican restaurant's parking lot is not adequate. The screening by Raz still needs to be addressed; higher vegetation could help with screening. There's a huge amount of work involved to rip up the entire walkway and change the pathway to something that's wheelchair accessible. He doesn't see anything in the code that allows for granting an extra 3%in recognition of all this work. Commissioner Caffall believes that to get the extra 3%, the applicant needs to come back with additional drawings showing the type of architectural design that will be used. Commissioner Anderson agreed. He thinks it could be a great project,but the Commission just can't tell yet. He's leaning toward staff's recommendation of 25 lots, or possibly even 26. Commissioner Caffall suggested continuing the hearing to give the applicant a chance to re- present the material. Dick Bewersdorff said the hearing could be continued to a time certain (April 16th). The applicant can come back with architectural drawings and revised density calculations. Staff cannot recommend using the pathway for density calculations—the code requires that public right-of-way be excluded. They will also have to deal with the street width that the Engineering Division recommends. Commissioner Fishel agreed with Commissioner Doherty on the parking issue. Vice-President Walsh said that there are a lot of positive aspects to the development with the parks and open space. The tree is great,but it won't live forever; the Planning Commission has to look beyond that. He thinks there could have been more work done with staff before the hearing to get some of the details worked out. As far as the number of lots, staff has given guidance as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. To him,it's clear that the public ROW cannot be included. He noted that it's the Planning Commission's discretion whether to grant density bonuses or not. Given the information presented at this time, he does not see how they can go beyond 25 lots. He is also very concerned about the parking. It was noted that the Commission wants more parking,but the applicant already meets the code. Commissioner Doherty moved to recommend approval of the application as submitted,with the staff recommendation of 25 lots; everything else would stay the same. The Commission was reminded that the applicant had asked to speak again before the decision was made. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-April 2,2007-Page 8 • Dorothy Cofield asked to either 1) continue the meeting for 2 weeks so the applicant can return with design drawings, or 2) get approval for 25 lots with the ability to get 1 additional lot with a plan showing that it is feasible to meet the design bonus. For#2,the Commission would make a finding there is enough evidence in the record, in terms of the stonework and type of design that could be done,that the density bonus could be met. Commissioner Doherty still had concerns about lack of parking and lighting in the park. Cofield noted that the parking standards have been met and that transit is also available. Len Dalton said that,with either 24 units or 27 units,the parking issue won't change. Vice-President Walsh noted that the applicant is requesting to put a lot of units on the site, using the Planned Development process. The PD process allows the Planning Commission to use their discretion about granting density bonuses. The Commission wants to have a livable neighborhood. Commissioner Muldoon asked staff if diagonal parking could be allowed on the far southeast corner lot or if the lot was too small. Staff responded that all the cars would have to back out, which doesn't work on that lot. Kim McMillan said that if the 2 homes by the oak tree were taken out,the applicant might be able to gain a couple of spaces. Dick Bewersdorff noted that it's also possible to take out the 2 units by the horseshoe and put in angled parking. The cars would still have to back out onto the private street. Cofield asked the keep the record open for 2 weeks so the applicant can come back. The Commission said that they would like to see something unique. The applicant noted that one of the standards the Commission could consider is building grouping. He feels that having duet units could qualify as a unique grouping of homes. Staff agreed that innovative building grouping is one of the standards listed in the code. If the Commission determines that duet homes satisfy that language,they could award the additional 3%. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Doherty moved again to recommend approval of the application as submitted, with the staff recommendation of 25 lots. Commissioner Fishel seconded the motion. Staff advised that the applicant has submitted sufficient information to show that the original 23 units recommended should be changed. Two additional units would be consistent with the findings;however, that number would be subject to additional information which would verify that the calculation was accurate. Dick Bewersdorff recommended giving the applicant the opportunity to re-compute the numbers and provide the evidence to the Commission along with evidence to warrant more density bonuses. The Commission could then make their decision. Commissioner Doherty withdrew her motion. Commissioner Caffall moved to continue the hearing to April 16th. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vice-President Walsh asked staff to check the records to see how density bonuses have been applied in the past. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 9 • i 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary • Al l'EST: Vice-President David Walsh • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 10 • = ATTACHMENT 4 l'-- XREF UST ID Carole: I • PslIstole: I L.., • Rosol.ed 1--77 --- b --- , ._, fl... OlL007.01 • 1-1 ■ ' OLD-LOCO • I . DESIGN GROUP INC. . 57AMPCID I ., i : :. - ............... .. .. i. . 9045 SW Barbur Blvd. DALOO7DX70 . Unresolved 1 1 ecensAtamm, . • ■ 1 O4L007DX50 ......--- 1 i . ,os,...n.,,.. : i 1 - . • Suite 101 • dol007x10 k---31 -1'1 ' i , ■ . -----__ .---1 Portland,OR 97219 .., dol007s20 1. I . I F. - s (503)225-1679 • • OD ‘ - , I I ......?, .• • . . i -.-." • 1---r-- ,,`; 11-__ _l • . , . . .....- ...e.....: ••=v.t. IN • - I 11 „„,,,„,,,„,... I g i 1 ' , ....L._.,_I i 1 ' MIIIIII . 1.11Ii . 1 I I' - I _\. I i! '' 1 I i I Irilli I i ig.iiii: I __....iiiii...iu i! ,,. --___,„..7„...1 --IF-16' ......... ir., • m.. , , ..... ,, !I EF1G 1 . 1 .- ...Z., . - - . 1 1111 ., ______ n ; ., I . ' ii W. 1,61,11kj: ' FIM 1 - ,I • .,,.... A. 19110 +-4,1:.- IL---1114;1111111111.11PP',11, I.1:10:- •, „.,, 1F-.-- I :____"7— ■ il--4 ......„..,-.ioti,„:., 0 -:,1111111111 — 17H—•-4---'..---.I -.--9,7—•_7E71 t — El \I-. 'T 1 , i , 1 . ,:—:,......, ,_. mm ....... il — 11 ILT-1---ii• : _/-, . a `../ .• ..-- 1,I. /\__.. [ ,, - 1 1 II 1 , . 11=1;41,1111111 . • —111111.--1 eXPIRES 0.3,07. I 1 ! ' --AZi ■ ,, ■Il --- ---- -- V' 1 ./ 1 • 411.■7.e.... 1 /7==■BINN/PZ=ZX ....„7.,_,„ . ,,,,.,_, .....,:no, : . I/\■ .. I ■ .... eil , i: =11.g inn ligif - 1,,„, 1 : , , 1,_ litl.....! Du,;00173•;... . - - __ . — . , ! s ,[1. '• ' /\ i 1 ■ I :,--ja. • ' 1=11=i5. Gb1; I Do• tint• .......... _.. -A-\./..,1 , 10 . 1 , . 1.--:-''...---.'I 0,---1.:MONNi . I , 1 , I I - ' —rj 1 . i.------.- - 7.1,,mot='-'-- ------ - [.1-">. ..9..,,,,._".„,,?: i 1 a.,,,,,,,,„,„,,,___ 1 ,r,.., ,A--, 1 ! • ...... 1 . . e ^ II .... I ii . •■ , • I _ . 1 ■ ............_ ............. .._______. • I I ■....----, i____-.._, ............- I I . I ! . . I i . . . . I ' i I .1 (f) ' • tamm sm.RSA .f."/"-1::t kl.411i_P-CCR.,[0.....__. IRYEE1.2.1420.2lAN 111 . ...... Etigs-Lif ' •••■,, • (....D • . . . . . a_ • __1 x __I . . > o . - CC0 . 0. . . .• ‹t .9.1i 1-- . . • O2 U • . Di E- 1-- • 1-- . 2 . . . I (..) . . IY. < • ,----,, .. • i i I i 1 i i .• .• .• .• . .• .• .. 4 I . .I • I :•1 . . : ! I .....v.:A.0.,, I , ,• . . . . , I . . -,. -_-,..,-- , .• . . i i— • „ .• . I 11...(71__c_11 VII . • .. :t-,1 1.0. . i. , .• , • .• Li__....„___„... . ... : , r_i . , , ,,,__..., .• . . . _.., . '4' ..• -- c L., REV. DATE BY e......7._ ...3.±11 ■ , . i i ..1..........„. it,,,,.... ..,.. 11 .• ... .. •i .... . • ' N. la. ''' .• , ; ' 1 • 2 -. II 1 ikA:. ' T—.7.,7277:tr.T p. i ; , 1 . .. i , ' - 1P-11„„..„ .-?7 ;- *--Ii. 1"1 •:\ i -;• —11- (t) 'c3. 1 .....0,t, /2--01.7.:_v..7.1 i I 11---1.11-T-1 I , -1.---=_J1 : 1 I irii: •s. i • ••—•. : I ZA i91 NN ------r r) 4 -...' <N, 1.'" '''' 1\j 1 ,_ • co i 1 . : :1 I gin!' ,.., .„„--I! ; [7: '`.11._ ' ' 'f,=••, .› : , : c., . • ::,=1:.: _ ----' 3 i : ,.i . ' li • 111-1; '-L,. __ i ,, • ! . ,, :, - . : . • 7 1 ___ 11. "ii1TTITI I . :0;11-. [1 _r.j. : I '..c...,..;" ---- .5. i -----•••'. 1 .a •:----t -L._I! 1! i ' ! "..'11. i - ' • .., i i .■ . • . —. •iii:',, -.:• -"'' - ' ,1----T..-----•;I i : : • ____ _ • f•-:: :I=7/., N•:..--_,•,.-...-.,_..;:• —•=,__ . , . ibii i , ,.. , . _ : . ,- , ,, llie....a. I; ! 1 .N.C59.1. •--4 --- 3- .----4-- • s.. . - -,:-7.--.._. _., i - , .• ---'.'ITN ''...' ' ';!,1,........... ,',:i ! 1 1 ■, . . . . • ,-. :•---,, :....,/A. :,,•-•-•••171:\..1 ,71. '... EJME5 ti j .4y __[,---,,,.:- __ _ ,„ _.E11„,, . ••1 . ..... . , . _..._._ . . _•,, _,, „,,DD,., ! :IT-777, . _ -, , i , .:!,. ..... ________ ___. rNi ;.=_.-.7._:=----.:.1: ,•,.!=lf )P1-,-, i; ; . . : : 1 - .1 p u L..F...7-_17.,..--.7.-7,911P----1;;I c:: . ttl • .. , u4 -..1. 1.........'.I.CIL.71..PIL`--7 .._ :1 ,ili:‘,.)1..1,_,:li i,..,...., ii, ! , , : ,, -, - , ... . 0...._ _..,.. CZIMO"1 -T i : • . , 1 i . . • • • 6606LakMriaN . E-1, • _.r.3 •-•• tii ,...41. 13,EytipoN r.,... . 1: , , ', ! • I ..-- 1 , !• PROJECT 1.- . NUMBER DAL007 • • i HL___ i i LI- - *-7 . , . • • __I -----, 1 . g • i - .• c-n i .• : 1 • Date: 11/06/06 i . I i , , ■ , I i I . 1 I1.-----I I I . Scale: AS SHOWN (...) L . t r■ - : -------- • • Drawn By: MRC 0 . . 0 -.■ unsfs_agoR...k. „,.... ....,....4:-..4._........,...... Y...kft-L..1...1;?...-r-_ed . Designed By MRC ----7:-..,-,. -..... -..... .z..., =.• 0 ...... ........ . Q - . - Checked By. CID 0 i< 0 ... 0 . --I . - Q . . CI 6 - s . 06 . 1 z., .... 6 III , • t • , COMMUNITY M NEWSPAPERS 6605 SE Lake Road,Portland,OR 97222 PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97269-2109 Phone:503-684-0360 Fax:503-620-3433 E-mail: legals @commnewspapers.com , r - - -- -- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS r PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, The following will be considered by the depose and say that I am the Accounting q Tigard Planning Commission on Monday Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, : March 7,2011 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic 9 ( 9 9 "I . Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of Tigard, Oregop. Both public oral and written general circulation, published at Beaverton, TI G ARD testimony is invited. in the aforesaid county and state, as defined The public hearing on this matter will be ,r by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that 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 ' City of Tigard.' , forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing Public Hearing!PDR•2011-00001 prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing TT11524. Ic., only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point l' ,- prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or A copy,of which is hereto annexed, was evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an,opportunity published in the entire issue of said to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board newspaper for of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion 1 from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based week in the following issue: on that criterion. February 17,2011 A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant andthe applicable w C1'ui y criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff j41-t. Ck,LL1 - 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 Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Mana er) , also be provided at a•reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division Subscribed and sworn to before me this (stiff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., February 17, 2011. Tigard,Oregon 97223,by calling 503-718-2434,or by email to garypatigard-or.gov. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW lach) a. /�, (PDR)2011-00001 �./lL( WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION • NOTARY PUBLIC FOR O ON , MINOR MODIFICATION- My commission expires REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development Acct#10093001 on a 2.38 acre site(Final Order No.2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of Attn: Patty Lunsford choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family City of'Tigard ' homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide 13125 SW Hall Blvd' . ` tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary_ Tigard, OR 97223 ink stead ofthe approved firethom espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall.LOCATION:Theproject is located Size: 2 z 10.5" north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two(2)parcels;Washington County Tax Amount Due: $175.35* Ma p(WCTM)CTM 1S136DB,Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA, 'Please remit to address above. Tax Lot 01700._COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12:Medium- Density Residential District.The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. . . 1 I -: C . - I 1 - - - VICINITY MAP . 8 ' WI limmiEll Ili® ... oo. — EE W.gE Am � N IINFOR g) PI I I m li- Pill MODIFICATION saxsam MP , r :,,.511 I. p11e= , gg.` =" 17..:; :— v„i,r, Mil v'nt 1 TT11524 EWE`9l AtlW S3HIdX3 NOISSIWW00 AW S8ZL£t'ON NOISSM1100 NOO]JO O119nd AHVION SS391ifl8 V N1901:1 1v3S 1vI013d0 ob listings available. ions are available now! LS ®ClN E SPA ERRS disirict's SROs For the past 11 or so years now,I've made every effort to show up at a variety of school functions—activities events and fundraisers,concerts,plays,aca- demic award nights and athletic events.All have been extraordi- nary and given me a chance to ,+ get to know and talk to commu- nity members,teachers,parents and,of course,our students. But there's another group,a group I suspect our community doesn't often hear about or even see unless they attend some selected middle school activities and our high schools'athletic events.These men and women are our school resource officers (called SROs)—members of Tigard's and Tualatin's police force who spend an enormous number of hours before,during and after each school day watching out for our kids. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS PORTLAND TRIBUNE I Advertising Spac MARC!' Contact Micaela Ki 503-546-9866 or 111VUVa.)•u.aVJ`i.u,.,% %#Vt.a'- teachers and other school staff. members. Their take-home message to me that night was that our schools often provide the only stable elements in some of these kids'lives.Our SROs know- how important school is,for communities,families and our kids.That's why they do what they do,getting to know our students and their families,and helping them get through it all. So when you happen to be at one of our schools between now and the end of the school year, and see any of our SROs,like Andy Pastore,Glen Scruggs, Steve Gaytan,Kristan Rinell, Wes Giardi,Mark Waddell,Eric French(and perhaps remember some of our past SROs,like Jack Rose and Danny Gill,to name just a few),take a minute, introduce yourself and shake their hand,and thank them for being the buffer,the understand- in ear,strong shoulder and pil- i .anoge ssejppe o>pW9J eseeld. ,9£'9L6$ :aria lunowy „9•01. x Z :ez!S £ZZL6 210 '1Due6!1 .Pn19.IleH MS 9Z1.£1• pue61.}o Al10 puo}sung Ailed :idly, 600£6006#loo`d sauldxe uolsslwwoo,w NO -0 2JOd 0118ld A2lV1ON •I1.0Z 'L6 tienugad slyl aw auo}aq of WOMS pue pagluosgn5 (ua euew 6ullun000y) dosIly alloluey3 cl\? 1111/0 111 R))/I' 6602 `L6 fuenigaj :enssl 6umMollo}ayl ul )laem 6 uo}uadedsMaq pies}o enssl aullue ayl ul paysllgnd seM `pexeuue olauay sl yolgM}o•Adoo y =+:•big L L11 L0000-140Z.2idd'16uLieeH ollgnd _-pae61. to A;10 leyl 'OZO'£66 PUe 01.0'£61. S2jO 'q pain}ap se 'alels pue i(lunoo plesauo}e eq ul 'uolJenea8 le paysllgnd 'uollelnoulo leueue6 }o uadedsMeu e '(pooNueg5 'g ulleienl 'pue6ll 6ulnuas) sawn eta }o ua6eueN 6ullun000y NI we 1 leyl Aes pue esodep 'uuoMS Amp lsul}ayl 6ulaq 'doslly ellolJegO 'l SS 'uol6ulyseM}o,luno0 'uo6au0}o awls NOI1VOfend JO iIAVQIddV woasJadedsMauwwo3®sle6al :l1eW-3 £E6E-(J 9-£OS:Xe3 09£0-P99-EOS:auogd 6012-69216 HO PUeRJod 602Z X00 Od ZZZL6 HO'Puelluod'PeoH wlel 3S S099 S���'dSM3ly AiINf1WW0D • 011 I • • i NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, v IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY MARCH 7, 2011 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.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 (MODIFICATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003) FILE TITLE: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION APPLICANT/ OWNER: Hawthorne Block LLC c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels;Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 1S136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MA 11'ER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 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 QUALIFIF.DD 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 OT EN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSOACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESEN 1'ED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRI1-II N TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 GRAN TED 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 PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LIS TED OR OTHER CRI FERIA 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-NO 1ED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25 ) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RA'Z'E 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 RAIL CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER GARY PAGENSTECHER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER AT (503) 718-2434, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, OR BY E-MAIL TO GARYP @TIGARD-OR.GOV. �a Y y ®■wpm- ? VICINITY MAP — FDR20t,d000l :T.__`- y— SPAUCF Sl -- fl SUBDIVISION OAK V MINOR -'®. line �L-�-�L� , - - ' � �. SUBOMSION MINOR MODIFICATION (s I• �;,f;/ L'_-___ l� Subject Site . 77 _�'... t( ... — -:--' '-' k {i.griv- 14,V."_• 1 --. -1.1 i•_: •- „ ! - --.1, _ '\ - . Q FNt 500 f 1—` 4 ,T�o y,tli RR>V+. IL III • a •- . AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE . . , OF A LAND USE PROPOSAL TIGARD IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS AFFIDAVIT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE SITE. In the Matter of the Proposed Land Use Applications for: Land Use File Nos.: PDR2011-00001 Land Use File Name: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION I, Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner for the City of Tigard, do affirm that I posted notice of the land use proposal affecting the land located at (state the approximate locatio s) IF no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) 7L114 (s 'T ( /i ewu/W L13 and did personally post notice of the proposed land use application(s) by means of weatherproof posting in the general vicinity of the affected territory, a copy of said notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the /S day of fE73 , 2010. 67:,-;"'. I., .!s _l Signal",f Perso Who Performed 'osting h:\login\patty\masters\affidavit of posting for applicant to post public hearing.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING., __:„) The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday March 7, 2011 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 Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and the rules of procedures adopted by the Planning Commission. 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 and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code 4 Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 by calling 503-718-2434, or by e-mail to garyp@tigard-or.gov. 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. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 - WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION - REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached o attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revise landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels; Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 1S136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA, Tax Lot 01700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. & U5T FR CO,41A1&JTS / SY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOFSMMENTS /S cop (6s I�17 R. ��NOTIFICATION�D�rT FOR LAND USE FILE NAME DEVELOPMENT Vi 1(14-74,„NS FILE NOS.: ! CITY OFFICES C.D.ADMINISTRATION/Ron Bunch,CD Director _DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/Todd Prager,Assoc.Planner/Arborist _PUBLIC WORKS/Ted Kyle,City Engineer -_C.D.ADMINISTRATION/Susan Hartnett,Asst.CD Director _BUILDING DIVISION/Mark Vandomelen,Building Official _HEARINGS OFFICER(+2 se s).. _CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder _POLICE DEPARTMENT/Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer PLANNING COMMISSION +12 sets DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/Planning-Engineering Techs. _PUBLIC WORKS/Brian Rager,Assistant PW Director X FILE/REFERENC +2 sets X DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/Gus Duenas,Development Eng. _PUBLIC WORKS/Steve Martin,Parks Manager SPECIAL DISTRICTS N P _ TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.*_ TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE* _ TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT* _ CLEAN WATER SERVICES* Planning Manager North Division Administrative Office Development Services Department 15707 SW Walker Road John K.Dalby,Deputy Fire Marshall 1850 SW 170x'Avenue David Schweitzer/SWM Program Beaverton,OR 97006 14480 SW Jenkins Road Beaverton,OR 97006 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway Beaverton,OR 97005-1152 Hillsboro,OR 97123 LOCAL AND STATE 1 'ISDICTIONS vv yr ,t CITY OF BEAVERTON * — CITY OF TUALATIN '_O-rtSEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE _OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS _ Planning Manager Planning Manager El.,abeth • ther,Habitat Biologist Melinda Wood(WLUN Fonn Required) _ Steven Sparks,Dev.Svcs.Manager 18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue J.rth Will.', ette Watershed District 775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100 PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 ,+':330 N ‘.auvie Island Road Salem,OR 97301-1279 Beaverton,OR 97076 ' - ''t - -ortland iR 97231 . _ OR.PUB.UTILITIES COMM. • METRO-LAND USE&PLANNING* c;, r•PT.OF GEO/&'MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street NE _ CITY OF DURHAM * 600 NE Grand Avenue ' t 800 NE Oregon Str ,Suite 5 Salem,OR 97310-1380 City Manager Portland,OR 97232-27 :• ,„, 'ortland,OR 97 2 17160 SW Upper Boones Fry.Rd. _ Joanna Mensher,Data Resour•'--.- ter'-'w..,.o.ted)' _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,OR 97224 _ Paulette Copperstone,(ZCA-RF.,•ly) _ •R.DEPT.O LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. Kathryn Harris(Maps&Cws Letter Only) _ O. :raid Uba, -h.' • .cvz Mara Ulloa� omp.Plan Amendments&Measure 37) Routing CENWP-OP-G _CITY OF KING CITY o 635 Capjt� Street NE,Suite 150 PO Box 2946 City Manager ,� `x1 Salem R 97301-2540 Portland,OR 97208-2946 15300 SW 116th Avenue King City,OR 97224 ,:, t WASHINGTON COUNTY OR.DEPT.OF . -4 Y(Powethn.in Area) _O DEPT OF AVIATION(Monopole Towers) Dept.of Land Use&Transp. Bonneville Power A:tv' .;, tratio om Highland,Planning 155 N.First Avenue _ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO* Routing TTRC–Attn: ' -' e F• rera /3040 25th Street,SE Suite 350,MS 13 Planning Director PO Box 3621 Salem,OR 97310 Hillsboro,OR 97124 PO Box 369 ••rtland,OR 97208-3621 ? _Naomi Vogel-Beattie(General Apps Lake Oswego,OR 97034 y°" _Brent Curtis(CPA) 'R.DEP .a,,, !.1.::'%ALITY(•J•) ODOT,REGION 1 * _Assessment&Taxation(ZCA)MS 9 —CITY OF PORTLAND I ■for Wetlands and Potential Environmental I Acts) _Development Review Coordinator _Doria Mateja,Cartography(ZCA)MS 14 Planning Bureau Director Re: 'nal Administrator f _Carl Torland, Right-of-Way Section(Vacations) 1900 SW 4x'Avenue,Suite 4100 2020 Fourth Avenue,Suit3 400 123 NW Flanders Portland,OR 97201 Portlan. •R 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037 r _OR.PARKS&REC.DEPT. _WA.CO.CONSOL.COMM.AGNCY —ODOT,REGI c. 1 -DIST-I T 2A* _ODOT,RAIL DIVISION STATE HISTORIC Dave Austin IwcccA)"911"(Monopole Towers) Chad Gordon,Assistant District anager (Notify if ODOT RIR-Hwy.Crossing a Only Access to Land) PRESERVATION OFFICE PO Box 6375 6000 SW Raab Road Dave Lanning,Sr.Crossing Safety Specialist (Notify if Property Has HD Overlay) Beaverton,OR 97007-0375 Portland,OR 97221 555-135 Street,NE,Suite 3 725 Sumner Street NE,Suite C Salem,OR 97301-4179 Salem,OR 97301 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES 1$J J —PORTLAND WESTERN R/R,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Buffington Northern/Santa Fe RJR Predecessor) Bruce Carswell,President&General Manager 200 Hawthorne Avenue SE,Suite C320 Salem,OR 97301-5294 —SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.R/R —METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS —COMCAST CABLE CORP. —TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer(Annexations only) Gerald Backhaus(s..M..br aea conract) Of Project is Within''/.Mile of a Transit Route) 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Twin Oaks Technology Center 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Ben Baldwin,Project Planner Portland,OR 97232 1815 NW 169th Place,S-6020 Beaverton,OR 97005 710 NE Holladay Street Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 Portland,OR 97232 —PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY —VERIZON _QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Mike Hieb Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. John Cousineau,OSP Network Lynn Smith,Eng.ROW Mgr. 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue 4155 SW Cedar Hills Blvd. 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97005 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J_BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 _COMCAST CABLE CORP. _COMCAST CABLE COMMUNIC. Teri Brady,Administrative Offices Jennifer Garland,Demographics Alex Silantiev (seeru.ownmacariiaa) Brian Every cn,o,E.IHaWN.or 99w) 6960 SW Sandburg Street 16550 SW Merlo Road 9605 SW Nimbus Avenue,Bldg.12 10831 SW Cascade Avenue Tigard,OR 97223-8039 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Beaverton,OR 97008 Tigard,OR 97223-4203 * INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500'OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY/ALL CITY PROJECTS (Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify). h:\patty\masters\Request For Comments Notification List.doc (UPDATED: 19-Oct-10) (Also update:is\curpin\setup\labels\annexations\annexation_utilities and franchises.doc,mailing labels&auto text when updating this document) vrnAi6- 5EcRr4Ry frS,4TERL4LS < • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ii • TIGARD I, Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Planning Assistant for the City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: {Check Approprote Box(s)Bdow © NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: PDR2011-00001/WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION (File No/Name Reference) ❑ AMENDED NOTICE HEARING BODY: HEARING DATE: ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ® Tigard Planning Commission (3/7/2011) ❑ Tigard City Council A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", and by reference made a part hereof,on February 14,2011,and deposited in the United States Mail on February 14,2011,postage prepaid. ij /, ,,,, ,,,d, (Person that P >,ared Notic STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the a day of of \ ,2011. • (, = w .' OFFICIAL SEAL r, SHIRLEY L TREAT , V"J NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.418777 N ARY PUB IC OF OREGON Li I, I(' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 25,2011_0 My Commission Expires: `-C • • EX : NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER THE TIGARD DEVFT.OPMFNT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, V IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY MARCH 7, 2011 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.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 (MODIFICATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003) FILE TITLE: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR MODIFICATION APPLICANT/ OWNER: Hawthorne Block LLC c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving two (2) parcels;Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 1S136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MA FI ER 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 PLANNING COMMISSION 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 IN I ERPREI ERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL IN I ERPRE IERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (1'DD-'TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. • • ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRI T IEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL 'TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 DA'Z'E, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRAN TED 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 PLANNING COMMISSION 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 LE TIER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, ACCOMPANIED BY STA 1'EMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25 ) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RA 1'E 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 RA'Z'E CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER GARY PAGENS'1'ECHER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER AT (503) 718-2434, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD,TIGARD, OREGON 97223, OR BY E-MAIL TO GARYP @TIGARD-OR.GOV. a ' i / _ __ _ VICINITY MAP,,__ .la 1.11111111E111 111E1 lir $ ■■ Main - POR2011-00001 SPRUCE ST 111111111111 ■■■�, WHITE OAK VILLAGE MOR �. SUBDMSION MINOR ,�r� ■ ® ®®„ in�{pp�y MODIFICATION ■ ■ _^■ � Subject Sile,,,,,,.ti . , no' 1 44:::Temm z c ,al frmasEp A „i■ r=■ ■ E - FA FLY5 4 .0 )7.0 t 1 i 7 -'. ' 1..on,I...1,1 4,.4,V..”17-11 FMt 9,0 1111L ' r T5'�"R�' ,�^' - • • 11623 SW CAMERA,GEORGE 11623 SW PACIFIC HWY LLC CAMERA,GEORGE NICHOLAS PO BOX 1626 10900 SW 76TH PL#47 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CD01501 1S136CA01800 A Q DEVELOPMENT,LLC CANYON AUTO LLC BY CASCADE PROPERTY SERVICES INC 11643 SW PACIFIC HWY 4380 SW MACADAM AVE STE 210 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97239 1S136DB01700 1S136DB01400 ABBOTT,BRUCE&REBECCA CARLASCIO,GIL E 10850 SW 74TH AVE PO BOX 43 TIGARD,OR 97223 KIHEI,HI 96753 1S136CA01600 1S136CA90341 AMAN,WALTER S CREDIT SHELTER TR CATHEY,CORRIN K AMAN,WALTER S MARITAL TRUST ET AL 10900 SW 76TH PL#34 BY STEPHEN D AMAN TR TIGARD,OR 97223 19217 SW 119TH AVE TUALATIN,OR 97062 1S136CA90581 1S136DB02400 ARBOW,JEANNE TRUST CHAMPION,RONALD V& 10900 SW 76TH PL#58 CHAMPION,ROBERTA E TIGARD,OR 97223 16449 LEXINGTON CT LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1S136CA90191 1S136CA90591 BALDWIN,TESSIE J COLEMAN,TEDRIC V&KARYN S 10900 SW 76TH PL#19 16367 S IVEL RD TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERCREEK,OR 97004 1S136CA90501 1S136CA07600 BENOLKEN,CAROLYN A COOK,CAROLE 10900 SW 76TH PL#50 11030 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA00100 1S136DB00700 BRUCE,LISA& CORBIN,GROVER D TRUSTEE BRUCE,SCOTT BY TBC TAX UNIT#016600 7510 SW SPRUCE ST PO BOX 35370 TIGARD,OR 97223 LOUISVILLE,KY 40232 1S136CA90151 1S136AC03801 BRUDERS,EARL CROWDER,DONALD L TRUST 10900 SW 76TH PL#15 BY MARC CROWDER TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 591 COLUMBIA CITY,OR 97018 1S136CA01000 1S136DB02700 BYRD,LISA M DALTON,LOREN G& 11220 SW 78TH AVE DALTON,ANNETTE TIGARD,OR 97223 414 ASHLAND CT CAMERON PARK,CA 95682 • • 136DB02800 1S136CA06000 DA N,LOR G& FERGUSON,ADAM P&ALANA M DALTO NETTE 7640 SW SPRUCE ST#B V41 HLA CT TIGARD,OR 97223 MERON PA ,CA 95682 1S136CA01100 1S136CA90531 DELANCE,JOHN M FLOYD,PAMELA G&JAMES R 1355 SW MAPLECREST DR 10900 SW 76TH PL#53 PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90371 1S136CA01200 DINAN,JUDITH L FOLEY,GREG P 10900 SW 76TH PL#37 11280 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01600 1S136BD03700 DORRELL,DONAL N FRAZIER,GARY B 10885 SW 74TH ST 7535 SW SPRUCE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01500 1S136DB00201 DORRELL,DONAL V G DELMA FRED MEYER STORES, INC PO BOX 230482 BY NICKEL&COMPANY LLC TIGARD,OR 97281 STORE#375 PO BOX 35547 TULSA,OK 74153 1S136CD01601 136AC03402 DOUGHTY FAMILY TRUST FR' • MEYER S *RES, INC BY C THOMAS DAVIS TR BY NI c EL& ••MPANY LLC 12220 SW FIRST ST STORE " BEAVERTON,OR 97005 PO :!' 3 - 7 - SA,OK 7.153 1` 36CD01600 1S136CA90281 DOU► TY FA ' TRUST FREEL,HEATHER M& BY C T :,'. • DAVIS TR JOHNSON,FALONA P 122 • F ° ST 10900 SW 76TH PL#28 •VERTON,OR 97005 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90561 1S136CA90241 EMMETT,KATHERINE G FROHNMAYER, SUSAN V 10900 SW 76TH PL#56 10900 SW 76TH PL#24 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90311 1S136CA90481 ENGLEHART,MICHAEL FUJIOKA,AIMEE& 8423 SW POINTER WAY#B FUJIOKA FAMILY TRUST PORTLAND,OR 97225 FUJIOKA,MASARU/SHARON CLAIRE TR 13713 NW 46TH AVE VANCOUVER,WA 98686 1S136CA90451 1S136DB00800 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN GALVAN,SALVADOR R&MERCEDES PO BOX 650043 PO BOX 23051 DALLAS,TX 75265 TIGARD,OR 97281 • • 1S136DB00500 1S136CA90141 GGE TIGAR LLC HENNESSY,JEFFREY R 11619 SW PACIFIC HWY 10900 SW 76TH PL#14 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90651 1S136CA00700 GORDON,JOHN A HERKOMER,MICHAEL N&TAMMI L 10900 SW 76TH PL#65 BY VETERANS ADMINISTRATION TIGARD,OR 97223 1220 SW 3RD ROOM 1255 PORTLAND,OR 97204 1S136CA90322 1S136CA90642 GRAHAM,RHONDA L HILGART,JAMES M 10900 SW 76TH PL#32 10900 SW 76TH PL#64 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90521 1S136CA90621 HALL,BARBARA T HILL,SUSAN L 10900 SW 76TH PL#52 10900 SW 76TH PL#62 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA01601 1S136CA90231 HALL,DONALD W&GRACE L& HOLTE,SECELIA E HALL,JOHN G ET AL 10900 SW 76TH PL#23 BY FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TA TIGARD,OR 97223 8435 N STEMMONS FREEWAY DALLAS,TX 75247 1S136CA90511 1S136DB02601 HANES,LISA M HWY 99 LLC 10900 SW 76TH PL#51 2655 MARYLHURST DR TIGARD,OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068 1S136CA90441 1S136CA07100 HATTING,KATHRYN L JABAEZ REAL ESTATE LLC 6100 SW RADCLIFF ST 1125 SE MADISON ST#201 PORTLAND,OR 97219 PORTLAND,OR 97214 1S136CA01700 1S136CA90201 HAWTHORNE BLOCK LLC JACOBSON,KEVIN 621 SW ALDER#605 10900 SW 76TH PL#20 PORTLAND,OR 97205 TIGARD,OR 97223 136DB01000 1S136CD01401 HA■•• s' BLOCK LLC JOHNSON,JULIE A LIFE ESTATE AND 621 •_•ER#605 RICHARDSON,BERNY ••RTLAND, •R 97205 19430 NE HASSALO PORTLAND,OR 97230 1S136CA01500 1S136AC03800 HAWTHORNE VILLA LTD PARTNERSHIP JONES,KEVIN L&JANICE A BY TVHP 7302 SW SPRUCE ST 6160 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 • 1S136CA90131 1S136CA90381 JUNG,JAMES H LOPEZ,STEPHANIE A 10900 SW 76TH PL#13 10900 SW 76TH PL TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA00800 1S136CA90291 KASTEN,CHRISTOPHER& MACY,TIMOTHY&NANCY NAPIER,JESSICA 35351 NE WILSONVILLE RD 11160 SW 78TH AVE NEWBERG,OR 97132 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB00200 1S136DB01900 KBF II LLC& MAGLEY,PAMELA L JGF II LLC 10910 SW 74TH AVE 602 THIRD ST STE#94107 TIGARD,OR 97223 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94107 1 136DB00501 1S136CD01400 KB II LLC MASSIH,ABBAS JGF I 0836 SW CURRY ST#400 602 IR T STE 94107 PORTLAND,OR 97239 N FRANC CO,CA 94107 1S136DB02502 1S136CA90011 KESSLER,JULES MATTSON,ROBERTA BY KAREN LILLEBO 10900 SW 76TH PL#1 6312 SW CAPITOL HWY#443 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97239 1 136DB02500 1S136DB01800 K SLER,J S MICKLEY,WILLIAM BY LILLEBO 10880 SW 74TH AVE 63 APITOL HWY#443 TIGARD,OR 97223 'ORTLAN',OR 97239 1S136CA90022 1S136CA90541 KIMBALL,PAULA A MIHO,NANCY GREENWAY& 10900 SW 76TH PL#2 MIHO,PAIGE YUIKO • TIGARD,OR 97223 10900 SW 76TH PL#54 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA01400 1S136CA90091 LEE FAMILY TRUST MILLER,JODI A BY BEN H LEE TR 10900 SW 76TH PL#9 7745 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02100 1S136CA90172 LEWIS,BENJAMIN NOLAN MISKA TRUST 10970 SW 74TH AVE BY MISKA,EDWARDS P& TIGARD,OR 97223 PHYLLIS A TRS 745 THIRD ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1S136CA01300 1S136CA90272 LOPEZ,RICARDO BELTRAN& MITCHELL,PATRICK W LOPEZ DEBELTRAN,DOLORES 10900 SW 76TH PL#27 7775 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 • • 1S136CA90461 1S136DB00190 MOHR,DARIN OREGON DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 10900 SW 76TH PL#46 ATTN PROPERTY MGMT#06948 TIGARD,OR 97223 MS#2 4040 FAIRVIEW INDUSTRIAL DR SE SALEM,OR 97302 1S136ACO2102 1S136CA90222 MOREHEAD,RODNEY N ORI,JEFFREY F 7383 SW SPRUCE ST 10900 SW 76TH PL#22 PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136BD04100 1S136CA90401 MORGAN,STEPHANIE J PAPPAS,MICHAEL W& 7615 SW SPRUCE ST DAVENPORT,CANDY J PORTLAND,OR 97223 10900 SW 76TH PL#40 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90071 1S136DB01200 MOTLAGH,ZENAIDA F& PATELZICK,JOHN J JR& MOTLAGH,MEHDI SARY PATELZICK,CYNTHIA A 10900 SW 76TH PL#7 10975 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DC00502 1S136BD04000 MOYER,MARILYN TRUST& PERRI,JOANNE M REVOC LT TMT DEVELOPMENT BY JOANNE M PERRI TR 805 BROADWAY STE#2020 15975 SW ROYALTY PKWY PORTLAND,OR 97205 KING CITY,OR 97224 1S136ACO2101 1S136CA90411 MURDOCK,ANN B PETERSON,THOMAS B& 7415 SW SPRUCE ST CORNILS,CANDICE L TIGARD,OR 97223 10900 SW 76TH PL#41 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90491 1S136CA90262 NAIMO,GARY L PICKRELL,CLARENCE B JR& 10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 49 KATHRYN E REVOCABLE TRUST TIGARD,OR 97223 807 CEIBA PL NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 1S136DB02000 1S136AC03900 NELSON,ROBERT L SHIRLEY POUNDS,JUSTIN J& 12316 NW CORNELL RD KNUTSON,KELSEY B PORTLAND,OR 97229 10815 SW 74TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90061 1S136CD01500 NICKLEN,JEAN C POWERS PEARL LLC 10900 SW 76TH PL#6 11660 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA07000 1S136CA00600 OLSEN,LORIE ANN PRESTON,LARRY A& 1447 LAKE FRONT RD FREY-PRESTON,KRISTIN LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 11070 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 • S 1S136BD03600 1S136BD03900 PULSINELLI,CHRISTINE M SCHMIDT,DAVID W AND 7515 SW SPRUCE ST ANNETTE M TIGARD,OR 97223 7575 SW SPRUCE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90361 1S136CA90101 PURDIN,WESLEY BRYAN&TERI KOBI SHOEMAKER,KELLEE A 10900 SW 76TH PL#36 10900 SW 76TH PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90632 1S136CA90051 QUARTON,PRISCILLA S SHORB,ANN M 10900 SW 76TH PL#63 10900 SW 76TH PL#5 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90111 1S136DB01100 REESOR,LOUISA SIMONSON, KATHRYN A 10900 SW 76TH PL#11 11065 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA02009 1S136CA00900 RONNIE,JULIE S SLOAN,EUGENE E&BARBARA G 10900 SW 78TH AVE 11190 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA06900 1S136CA90332 ROUSE,CHARLES& SPANGLER,JEROME GENDE,DIANE M PO BOX 55394 11916 SW ELEMAR CT PORTLAND,OR 97230 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90611 1S136BD03800 RUFOLO,CHRISTINE E SPRING,BRADLEY B 10900 SW 76TH PL#61 LINDA L TIGARD,OR 97223 7555 SW SPRUCE PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90431 1S1360802600 SANTILLI,KRISTIN L STEWART,PHYLLIS T AND 10900 SW 76TH PL#43 STEWART TRUST TIGARD,OR 97223 BY US BANK BOX 64142 ST PAUL,MN 55164 1S136DB02200 1S136DB02602 SATHER,RONALD A STEWART,PHYLLIS TRUST 11000 SW 74TH AVE BY US BANK TRUSTEE TIGARD,OR 97223 REAL ESATE ASSET ADMIN PO BOX 3168 PORTLAND,OR 97208 1S136CA90212 1S136CA90351 SCHAEFFER,CAROL STILLWELL,JEAN 10900 SW 76TH PL#21 10900 SW 76TH PL#35 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 • 1S136CA90551 1S136CA00400 SUAREZ,DAVID VENIEGAS,RUTH M 10900 SW 76TH PL#55 10980 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90601 1S136CA00702 THOMPSON,KRISTY L VOGT,PAUL J& 10900 SW 76TH PL#60 PATRICIA R CO-TRS TIGARD,OR 97223 11100 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 136CA9000 1S136CA07700 TI D DS,A CONDO COMMUNITY WALSH,JENNIFER& UNIT ERS WALSH,KEVIN 0000 11050 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02503 1S136CA90391 TOM MOYER THEATRES WASHELESKI,KRISTINE J 805 SW BROADWAY#2020 10900 SW 76TH PL#39 PORTLAND,OR 97205 TIGARD,OR 97223 136DC0050' 1S136CA90571 TO MO ' THEATRES WATKINS,CAROLE M 80 -•' :ROADWAY#2020 10900 SW 76TH PL#57 •RTLA . OR 97205 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02603 1S136CA90301 TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN WERRES,KATHLEEN MARIE TRANSPORTATION DIST OF OREGON 10900 SW 76TH PL#30 ATTN:NICK STEWART TIGARD,OR 97223 710 HOLLADAY ST PORTLAND,OR 97232 1S136CA90032 1S136DB02501 TSAI,DAVID L WESTSIDE HOLDING CO LLC 10900 SW 76TH PL#3 BY MELLANIE HENIFF TIGARD,OR 97223 11632 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA02003 1S136CA05900 TURNER,JOHN A AND WHITE,MICHAEL L&NANETTE M BALLARD-TURNER,WENDY J 7670 SW SPRUCE ST 10950 SW 78TH TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB00600 1S136CD00102 TYSON FAMILY TRUST& WILSAL LLC ZAPP,RANDAL K&ARNOLD-ZAPP,PAMEL 834 SW ST CLAIR ST BY TACO BELL STORE#16600 PORTLAND,OR 97205 PO BOX 35370 LOUISVILLE,KY 40232 1S136CA90081 36CD001 VANDIJK,CAROLYN L WIL L 10900 SW 76TH PL#8 834 LAIR ST TIGARD,OR 97223 RTLAND, 97205 • • 1S136CA90161 WINANS,EMILY 4901 PARKVIEW DR#M LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 1S136CA90121 WISCHMEYER,SARAH M 10900 SW 76TH PL#12 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90041 YOUNGREN,PATRICIA M 10900 SW 76TH PL#4 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90251 ZEIS,IRENE C REVOC LIVING TRUST 10900 SW 76TH PL#25 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90421 ZHANG,KUI 10900 SW 76TH PL#42 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01300 ZSOKA,KENNETH& NICHOLS,TIFFANYE 10945 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90182 ZVAIGZNE,BRIAN 10900 SW 76TH PL#18 TIGARD,OR 97223 • • Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. Shannen Williams Rappold Norris Beggs & Simpson Marketing/Business Development Manager Perlo Construction 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 7190 SW Sandburg Street Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97223 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4M Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 13-Dec-10 -- . . . . PNIE St• .. • i i us .• •• :, 1 > .• • . . • .• .• :t 144 a.. .• . .• . • . .• . $ ' . . •! .. >: .• . .• . i : . • . ..: • • i l• a: • .• • . X I .• • . • $$.4 „a. • . i i''°1 • . Area N et I e a (50 0... F t) i•1.• . . : 0* , i: • . . . a : . . '• r•••••. . .: . : 4< < I 4.•-• • I ; - ,tC• . t'''' i .... ' ' • ::' '-'. .'"'-'I '.--<•••--7 a.... I '''' ,, • • I 144 ..4....1 .• .• .• , • I • . .• .• . . . „ff.++;ri:M 1);ii!lit'•; (.......4 v....1.lb,. .• .• .• .• • : . . . .• . • .• .• : ii. .... . ... Q. vp• .... 49; 0, .... 4 ....4 ' '4.11.4 0, •'''''' .........4 • .• .• . . .• .. ..• ••• • . .• .• • .• •• - .4.H•••• SPRUCE Sl• r .......''....•' 1 I ... •• .• Um ...•i 1 1 1 1 i .\.....d 1 .• %All••Ii14.:'t....}.•1$ ':::::;'.6,h14.1.::.lar!l'Or.....•• ..,'1 h.' a $.■ 4.•a $, ow . ,,, ,, ,„.i , i „..i .• --...-_,.• , ° '4 fc••=1-,Z...,'„,,,••••01 I f,i1,..Z,IIIi'... ,. . . .6...., ., . 1••••-*--<•za '''''<" - i-1kg^7..-1.... :: .• .• : , • ..• • • • I es. :.?... ,..“:: .1::.•".c..).(.3(..A 1 ic1:) ... .: ......., • • • .m.ti.f' 8 a I N .---...i......._____ ...,......,,,RE.:143. I 0:::.,E, ..• I i , . .0 . • • i1/4 • ••••1 i I THORN ST • . .:•,,,,' g .< i • . 1 .• .• .• . • . •'• ............}1 OW •' :i• • . • • .P"" 4,,D\ :I • . : ... ..!., / . .• .• .• .• • • . 1 . -----$...,-,-,, .• / .• .• . 1,---.----, --.1 ••1'..--"..---.......----_,i '..,! ! .• .• i i .• .• . • . 1, i . , 1 I I • • .• . .• : .• ! • ••• .• .• .• • .• I l• .• • • .• .• • • ,t,,,Nr • •• •• •• 1 : • • •• •• • • ... c,s\t, •••• • •• 1 • • •: •• • •• •• • •• I .. • 'QC"' • • •• •• •• I •• • • •• • •• • •• •• • • . . . •• •• 1 I . • • • •• • • •• • • • • • • :: i4 , .• • 4 i l• • • .."............• :. 1 • . • • .1.I • • • ''' • • • . • I i .• .• . : 1...,.. i . a.........1 1 ..... a ? i • ! > . .• . .• .• • . :•>•"'"\■ .• • .• . . • $ .• . _ • . ........;... 1 • • -., . • >"" • : .• . . . • ""'• •-•••--4• 1 i> . • . .• . . • .• .• . .• .• .••• . $t 1 .• .• ::::• • .!!•• .• .•••• .• i•I ; • i. .• i . 't"-: i i --• . •.. .• .• .• .• at. :f„,„„r•••••-••••• i I $ ..... . i .• . . i• ,.. 1 • • . . .• .• .• .• . . . .• . .• I 1 1 I . .• .• • ,. • • . -.....i.,.. • I • <-'''''''e ; I I . .• .• , i ..." f .• .• • • i I I Pr•AFELE Siu—s......- ---...— -----". i .. .• i I ., t .i < .• .• I l• • IN-1 = . .• I 1 R • 1,,,,,,,„„„,,..-Pu< '''''''. l• . i . .• . • \ \ , 1"---- Vt .'. 0 • I Z 1 1 .• • • • \\...",,,V ..... ‘ I .1 , „,r....z„...,„....,Z; i r:4,4 1 1 I 1 • •Z C ...... \ \ \\] _...1,...... i .• . . \ .• , 1Vw‘'.' •, • • • . ...• .. . . . •. 1 i ,O. .. . .. . . . 1 i \\,,,,/ • 4''''''''''\ I , • •• • I i 1.• . - 4 C.,),••• \ .• \ L . I .. .• • •,.1;4:,.4: I•• , .,,•:••,, .. : i,••,...'.,: i 1 ..1 1 '. . '• t,.,a1C' • '''`...% 4, . .• .• • :t I '•• ,I I I •• r . .0. i I • At■3/4\ A . * ,uST--- .N. . .,. , .4: 1 • lie, • . •i IN•Rik'Nf.„„N‘; •',,,,:.••••• 1: : I I . < • 1S136DB00900 1S136CA90471 11623 SW PACIFIC HWY LLC CAMERA,GEORGE NICHOLAS PO BOX 1626 10900 SW 76TH PL#47 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CD01501 1S136CA01800 A Q DEVELOPMENT,LLC CANYON AUTO LLC BY CASCADE PROPERTY SERVICES INC 11643 SW PACIFIC HWY 4380 SW MACADAM AVE STE 210 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97239 1S136DB01700 - 1S136DB01400 ABBOTT,BRUCE&REBECCA CARLASCIO,GIL E 10850 SW 74TH AVE PO BOX 43 TIGARD,OR 97223 KIHEI,HI 96753 1S136CA01600 1S136CA90341 AMAN,WALTER S CREDIT SHELTER TR CATHEY,CORRIN K AMAN,WALTER S MARITAL TRUST ET AL 10900 SW 76TH PL#34 BY STEPHEN D AMAN TR TIGARD,OR 97223 19217 SW 119TH AVE TUALATIN,OR 97062 1S136CA90581 1S136DB02400 ARBOW,JEANNE TRUST CHAMPION,RONALD V& 10900 SW 76TH PL#58 CHAMPION,ROBERTA E TIGARD,OR 97223 16449 LEXINGTON CT LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1S136CA90191 1S136CA90591 BALDWIN,TESSIE J COLEMAN,TEDRIC V&KARYN S 10900 SW 76TH PL#19 16367 S IVEL RD TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERCREEK,OR 97004 1S136CA90501 1S136CA07600 BENOLKEN,CAROLYN A COOK,CAROLE 10900 SW 76TH PL#50 11030 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA00100 1S136DB00700 BRUCE,LISA& CORBIN,GROVER D TRUSTEE BRUCE,SCOTT BY TBC TAX UNIT#016600 7510 SW SPRUCE ST PO BOX 35370 TIGARD,OR 97223 LOUISVILLE,KY 40232 1S136CA90151 1S136AC03801 BRUDERS,EARL CROWDER,DONALD L TRUST 10900 SW 76TH PL#15 BY MARC CROWDER TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 591 COLUMBIA CITY,OR 97018 1S136CA01000 1S136DB02700 BYRD,LISA M DALTON,LOREN G& 11220 SW 78TH AVE DALTON,ANNETTE TIGARD,OR 97223 414 ASHLAND CT CAMERON PARK,CA 95682 • • 136DB02800 1S136CA06000 DA N,LOR G& FERGUSON,ADAM P&ALANA M DALTO NETTE 7640 SW SPRUCE ST#B 41 HLA CT TIGARD,OR 97223 MERON PA ,CA 95682 1S136CA01100 1S136CA90531 DELANCE,JOHN M FLOYD,PAMELA G&JAMES R 1355 SW MAPLECREST DR 10900 SW 76TH PL#53 PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90371 1S136CA01200 DINAN,JUDITH L FOLEY,GREG P 10900 SW 76TH PL#37 11280 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01600 1S136BD03700 DORRELL,DONAL N FRAZIER,GARY B 10885 SW 74TH ST 7535 SW SPRUCE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01500 1S136DB00201 DORRELL,DONAL V G DELMA FRED MEYER STORES, INC PO BOX 230482 BY NICKEL&COMPANY LLC TIGARD,OR 97281 STORE#375 PO BOX 35547 TULSA,OK 74153 1S136CD01601 ,136AC03402 DOUGHTY FAMILY TRUST FR' • MEYER S •RES, INC BY C THOMAS DAVIS TR BY NI. EL& ••MPANY LLC 12220 SW FIRST ST STORE BEAVERTON,OR 97005 PO =! ' 3 "•7 SA,OK 7.153 1` 36CD01600 1S136CA90281 DOU. TY FA ' TRUST FREEL,HEATHER M& BY C T DAVIS TR JOHNSON,FALONA P 122 • F - ST 10900 SW 76TH PL#28 •VERTON,OR 97005 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90561 1S136CA90241 EMMETT,KATHERINE G FROHNMAYER,SUSAN V 10900 SW 76TH PL#56 10900 SW 76TH PL#24 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90311 1S136CA90481 ENGLEHART,MICHAEL FUJIOKA,AIMEE& 8423 SW POINTER WAY#B FUJIOKA FAMILY TRUST PORTLAND,OR 97225 FUJIOKA,MASARU/SHARON CLAIRE TR 13713 NW 46TH AVE VANCOUVER,WA 98686 1S136CA90451 1S136DB00800 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN GALVAN,SALVADOR R&MERCEDES PO BOX 650043 PO BOX 23051 DALLAS,TX 75265 TIGARD,OR 97281 • S 1S136DB00500 1S136CA90141 GGE TIGAR LLC HENNESSY,JEFFREY R 11619 SW PACIFIC HWY 10900 SW 76TH PL#14 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90651 1S136CA00700 GORDON,JOHN A HERKOMER,MICHAEL N&TAMMI L 10900 SW 76TH PL#65 BY VETERANS ADMINISTRATION TIGARD,OR 97223 1220 SW 3RD ROOM 1255 PORTLAND,OR 97204 1S136CA90322 1S136CA90642 GRAHAM,RHONDA L HILGART,JAMES M 10900 SW 76TH PL#32 10900 SW 76TH PL#64 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90521 1S136CA90621 HALL,BARBARA T HILL,SUSAN L 10900 SW 76TH PL#52 10900 SW 76TH PL#62 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA01601 1S136CA90231 HALL,DONALD W&GRACE L& HOLTE,SECELIA E HALL,JOHN G ET AL 10900 SW 76TH PL#23 BY FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TA TIGARD,OR 97223 8435 N STEMMONS FREEWAY DALLAS,TX 75247 1S136CA90511 1S136DB02601 HANES,LISA M HWY 99 LLC 10900 SW 76TH PL#51 2655 MARYLHURST DR TIGARD,OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068 1S136CA90441 1S136CA07100 HATTING,KATHRYN L JABAEZ REAL ESTATE LLC 6100 SW RADCLIFF ST 1125 SE MADISON ST#201 PORTLAND,OR 97219 PORTLAND,OR 97214 1S136CA01700 1S136CA90201 HAWTHORNE BLOCK LLC JACOBSON,KEVIN 621 SW ALDER#605 10900 SW 76TH PL#20 PORTLAND,OR 97205 - TIGARD,OR 97223 -.136DB0100 1S136CD01401 HA' • • • BLOCK LLC JOHNSON,JULIE A LIFE ESTATE AND 621 1-,1' • DER#605 RICHARDSON,BERNY ••RTLAND, •R 97205 19430 NE HASSALO PORTLAND,OR 97230 1S136CA01500 1S136AC03800 HAWTHORNE VILLA LTD PARTNERSHIP JONES,KEVIN L&JANICE A BY TVHP 7302 SW SPRUCE ST , 6160 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 • 0 • 1S136CA90131 1S136CA90381 JUNG,JAMES H LOPEZ,STEPHANIE A 10900 SW 76TH PL#13 10900 SW 76TH PL TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA00800 1S136CA90291 KASTEN,CHRISTOPHER& MACY,TIMOTHY&NANCY NAPIER,JESSICA 35351 NE WILSONVILLE RD 11160 SW 78TH AVE NEWBERG,OR 97132 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB00200 1S136DB01900 KBF II LLC& MAGLEY,PAMELA L JGF II LLC 10910 SW 74TH AVE 602 THIRD ST STE#94107 TIGARD,OR 97223 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94107 1 136DB00501 1S136CD01400 KB II LLC MASSIH,ABBAS JGF I 0836 SW CURRY ST#400 602 IR T STE 94107 PORTLAND,OR 97239 N FRANC CO,CA 94107 1S136DB02502 1S136CA90011 KESSLER,JULES MATTSON,ROBERTA BY KAREN LILLEBO 10900 SW 76TH PL#1 6312 SW CAPITOL HWY#443 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97239 1 136DB02500 1S136DB01800 K SLER,J S MICKLEY,WILLIAM BY LILLEBO 10880 SW 74TH AVE 63 APITOL HWY#443 TIGARD,OR 97223 ORTLAN ,OR 97239 1S136CA90022 1S136CA90541 KIMBALL,PAULA A MIHO,NANCY GREENWAY& 10900 SW 76TH PL#2 MIHO,PAIGE YUIKO TIGARD,OR 97223 10900 SW 76TH PL#54 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA01400 1S136CA90091 LEE FAMILY TRUST MILLER,JODI A BY BEN H LEE TR 10900 SW 76TH PL#9 7745 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02100 1S136CA90172 LEWIS,BENJAMIN NOLAN MISKA TRUST 10970 SW 74TH AVE BY MISKA,EDWARDS P& TIGARD,OR 97223 PHYLLIS A TRS 745 THIRD ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1S136CA01300 1S136CA90272 LOPEZ,RICARDO BELTRAN& MITCHELL,PATRICK W LOPEZ DEBELTRAN,DOLORES 10900 SW 76TH PL#27 7775 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 • • 1S136CA90461 1S136DB00190 MOHR,DARIN OREGON DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 10900 SW 76TH PL#46 ATTN PROPERTY MGMT#06948 TIGARD,OR 97223 MS#2 4040 FAIRVIEW INDUSTRIAL DR SE SALEM,OR 97302 1S136ACO2102 1S136CA90222 MOREHEAD,RODNEY N ORI,JEFFREY F 7383 SW SPRUCE ST 10900 SW 76TH PL#22 PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136BD04100 1S136CA90401 MORGAN,STEPHANIE J PAPPAS,MICHAEL W& 7615 SW SPRUCE ST DAVENPORT,CANDY J PORTLAND,OR 97223 10900 SW 76TH PL#40 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90071 1S136DB01200 MOTLAGH,ZENAIDA F& PATELZICK,JOHN J JR& MOTLAGH,MEHDI SARY PATELZICK,CYNTHIA A 10900 SW 76TH PL#7 10975 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DC00502 1S136BD04000 MOYER,MARILYN TRUST& PERRI,JOANNE M REVOC LT TMT DEVELOPMENT BY JOANNE M PERRI TR 805 BROADWAY STE#2020 15975 SW ROYALTY PKWY PORTLAND,OR 97205 KING CITY,OR 97224 1S136ACO2101 1S136CA90411 MURDOCK,ANN B PETERSON,THOMAS B& 7415 SW SPRUCE ST CORNILS,CANDICE L TIGARD,OR 97223 10900 SW 76TH PL#41 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90491 1S136CA90262 NAIMO,GARY L PICKRELL,CLARENCE B JR& 10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 49 KATHRYN E REVOCABLE TRUST TIGARD,OR 97223 807 CEIBA PL NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 1S136DB02000 1S136AC03900 NELSON,ROBERT L SHIRLEY POUNDS,JUSTIN J& 12316 NW CORNELL RD KNUTSON,KELSEY B PORTLAND,OR 97229 10815 SW 74TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90061 1S136CD01500 NICKLEN,JEAN C POWERS PEARL LLC 10900 SW 76TH PL#6 11660 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA07000 1S136CA00600 OLSEN,LORIE ANN PRESTON,LARRY A& 1447 LAKE FRONT RD FREY-PRESTON,KRISTIN LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 11070 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 • S 1S136BD03600 1S136BD03900 PULSINELLI,CHRISTINE M SCHMIDT,DAVID W AND 7515 SW SPRUCE ST ANNETTE M TIGARD,OR 97223 7575 SW SPRUCE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90361 1S136CA90101 PURDIN,WESLEY BRYAN&TERI KOBI SHOEMAKER,KELLEE A 10900 SW 76TH PL#36 10900 SW 76TH PL TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90632 1S136CA90051 QUARTON,PRISCILLA S SHORB,ANN M 10900 SW 76TH PL#63 10900 SW 76TH PL#5 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90111 1S136DB01100 REESOR,LOUISA SIMONSON, KATHRYN A 10900 SW 76TH PL#11 11065 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA02009 1S136CA00900 RONNIE,JULIE S SLOAN,EUGENE E&BARBARA G 10900 SW 78TH AVE 11190 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA06900 1S136CA90332 ROUSE,CHARLES& SPANGLER,JEROME GENDE,DIANE M PO BOX 55394 11916 SW ELEMAR CT PORTLAND,OR 97230 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90611 1S136BD03800 RUFOLO,CHRISTINE E SPRING,BRADLEY B 10900 SW 76TH PL#61 LINDA L TIGARD,OR 97223 7555 SW SPRUCE PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90431 1S136DB02600 SANTILLI,KRISTIN L STEWART,PHYLLIS T AND 10900 SW 76TH PL#43 STEWART TRUST TIGARD,OR 97223 BY US BANK BOX 64142 ST PAUL,MN 55164 1S136DB02200 1S136DB02602 SATHER,RONALD A STEWART,PHYLLIS TRUST 11000 SW 74TH AVE BY US BANK TRUSTEE TIGARD,OR 97223 REAL ESATE ASSET ADMIN PO BOX 3168 PORTLAND,OR 97208 1S136CA90212 1S136CA90351 SCHAEFFER,CAROL STILLWELL,JEAN 10900 SW 76TH PL#21 10900 SW 76TH PL#35 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 • 1S136CA90551 1S136CA00400 SUAREZ,DAVID VENIEGAS,RUTH M 10900 SW 76TH PL#55 10980 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90601 1S136CA00702 THOMPSON,KRISTY L VOGT,PAUL J& 10900 SW 76TH PL#60 PATRICIA R CO-TRS TIGARD,OR 97223 11100 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 136CA9000I 1S136CA07700 TIt''D :•DS,A CONDO COMMUNITY WALSH,JENNIFER& UNIT ' ERS WALSH,KEVIN - 00000 11050 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02503 1S136CA90391 TOM MOYER THEATRES WASHELESKI,KRISTINE J 805 SW BROADWAY#2020 10900 SW 76TH PL#39 PORTLAND,OR 97205 TIGARD,OR 97223 136DC0050' 1S136CA90571 T• MO ' THEATRES WATKINS,CAROLE M 80 ' ' :ROADWAY#2020 10900 SW 76TH PL#57 •RTLA • OR 97205 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02603 1S136CA90301 TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN WERRES,KATHLEEN MARIE TRANSPORTATION DIST OF OREGON 10900 SW 76TH PL#30 ATTN:NICK STEWART TIGARD,OR 97223 710 HOLLADAY ST PORTLAND,OR 97232 1S136CA90032 1S136DB02501 TSAI,DAVID L • WESTSIDE HOLDING CO LLC 10900 SW 76TH PL#3 BY MELLANIE HENIFF TIGARD,OR 97223 11632 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA02003 1S136CA05900 TURNER,JOHN A AND WHITE,MICHAEL L&NANETTE M BALLARD-TURNER,WENDY J 7670 SW SPRUCE ST 10950 SW 78TH TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB00600 1S136CD00102 TYSON FAMILY TRUST& WILSAL LLC ZAPP,RANDAL K&ARNOLD-ZAPP,PAMEL 834 SW ST CLAIR ST BY TACO BELL STORE#16600 PORTLAND,OR 97205 PO BOX 35370 LOUISVILLE,KY 40232 1S136CA90081 36CD001 VANDIJK,CAROLYN L WIL 10900 SW 76TH PL#8 834 S LAIR ST TIGARD,OR 97223 RTLAND, 97205 1S136CA90161 WINANS,EMILY 4901 PARKVIEW DR#M LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 1S136CA90121 WISCHMEYER,SARAH M 10900 SW 76TH PL#12 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90041 YOUNGREN,PATRICIA M 10900 SW 76TH PL#4 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90251 ZEIS,IRENE C REVOC LIVING TRUST 10900 SW 76TH PL#25 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90421 ZHANG,KUI 10900 SW 76TH PL#42 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01300 ZSOKA,KENNETH& NICHOLS,TIFFANYE 10945 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90182 ZVAIGZNE,BRIAN 10900 SW 76TH PL#18 TIGARD,OR 97223 • Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Todd Harding and Blake Hering Jr. Shannen Williams Rappold Norris Beggs & Simpson Marketing/Business r ttui Development Manager 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200 7190 SW Sandburg Street Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97223 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4M Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 13-Dec-10 . III ;� j � L,� �!!J 14 ° City of Tigard 2 FEB 0 3 20i1 T GARD Request for 500' Property Mailing Labels ,� .P ..... 4� . . .. . E .. - - -- - PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION IS VALID FOR 3 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF YOUR REQUEST PHONE: 503-718-2438/FAX: 503-718-2748/E-MAIL:patty(ci)tigard-or.gov PLEASE INDICATE ALL MAP &TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. 1S134AB,Tax Lot 00100) THAT ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PROJECT OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: (If more than one (1)tax lot or if the parcel has no address,you must separately identify each tax lot associated with the project.) IS134p(_A T.L. (16 7 1AtLo 16167e. T; L . (a 2 cpeYul i I (C2s it I I cP45 suv' WA c 14ItaI+Wgti( /3 )t ate `JY.k('—14111 A-',IE ONLY 1 SET OF LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME FOR HOLDING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. After submitting your land use application to the City, and the project planner has reviewed your application for completeness,you will be notified by means of an incompleteness letter to obtain your 2 final sets of labels. IF YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY PLANNING TO OBTAIN YO R LABELS, PLEASE INDICATE BELOW THAT YOU NEED 2 SETS OF LABELS. m leteness et r Rec 'ved I dicati ';-�2 Sets of En elopes w/ ed Address La el a uired . The fins s€ts of labels need to be lac�envelo es (no serf-adhesive envelopes please) with first class letter-rate postage on the envelopes in the form of postage stamps (no metered en elopes and no return address) and resubmitted to the City for the purpose of providing notice to property owners of the proposed land use application and the decision. The 2 sets of envelopes must be kept separate. The person listed below will be called to pick up and pay for the labels when they are ready. NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: --lEv ( go-ip. PHONE: (`503 )-775 - 7 NAME OF COMPANY: i .1=P,(Mr ALH LoNsOLTIhi-el FAX: ( )- fr f u EMAIL: J 62,Sw.r M fle•'/1. This request can be sent by e-mail, US mail, faxed, or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person listed will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in 'Will Call" by the company name (or by the contact person's last name if no company) at the Planning/Engineering Counter in the Permit Center. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost cannot be pre-determined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list,plus $2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then,multiply the cost to print one set of labels by the number of sets requested. - EXAMPLE - - COST FOR THIS REQUEST - U 4 sheets of labels x S2/sheet=S8.00 x 2 sets= S16.00 d sheet(s)of labels x S2/sheet=S&x / sets= 4 i _____ I sheets of labels x S2/sheet for interested parties x 2 sets= S 4.00 sheet(s)of labels x S2/sheet for interested parties= x i sets= dreC,e GENERATE LIST = S11.00 GENERA'I E LIST = .•. TOTAL = S31.00 TOT S4 LAST) O( 7,./. I:\CURPLN\Shirley\Pre-App Packets\500'Property Owner Mailing Labels Request.doc (Updated:29-Sep-10) • • Patty Lunsford From: Patty Lunsford Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:26 PM To: 'ferry@jerrympalmer.com' Subject: Request for property owner mailing labels Hi Jerry, Your request for mailing labels is ready to be picked up. The cost is $29.00. I will leave them in "will-call" at the planning/engineering counter in the permit center under the name "Jerry M. Palmer Consulting". If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me anytime. Best Regards, Patty Lunsford Planning _Assistant City of Tigard/Current Planning 503.718.2438/patty @tigard-orgov • 1 • • 1 S136DB01000 HAWTHORNE BLOCK LLC 621 SW ALDER#605 PORTLAND,OR 97205 1S136CA01700 ril ad/2 a ei HAWTHORNE BLOCK LLC ALDER#972 PORTLAND,AND,OR 97205 • • T�IiG RD City of Tigard February 7, 2011 Hawthorne Block LLC C/O Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 RE: Application Completeness Review for White Oak Village (Case File No: PDR2011-00001) Dear Mr. Finch: The City received your supplemental application materials February 7, 2011 for modification of the White Oak Planned Development (SUB2006-00010, PDR2006-00001) to allow detached or attached units on lots of choice and to revise landscaping details on the approved 27-lot subdivision between SW 74th and Pacific Highway. Staff's completeness review found that the application is now complete. A hearing with the Planning Commission has been set for March 7, 2011. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, / I j Gary Pagenstecher,AICP Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov • • 4 GA.RD Cr\N \\-JJ City of Tigard 201 January 31, 2011 CITY 07 F;(3 Hawthorne Block LLC C/O Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 RE: Application Completeness Review for White Oak Village (Case File No: PDR2011-00001) Dear Mr. Finch: The City received your application January 25, 2011 for Minor Modification of the White Oak Planned Development (SUB2006-00010, PDR2006-00001) to allow detached or attached units on lots of choice and to revise landscaping details on the approved 27-lot subdivision between SW 74`'' and Pacific Highway. Staff's completeness review found that the application is incomplete, including the following deficiencies: 1. Title Transfer Instrument Of Grant Deed. This item was not included in the application submittal. Please include it in a revised application. 2. Copy of Pre-Application Notes. This item was not included in the application submittal. Please include it in a revised application. 3. Filing Fee. This item was not included in the application submittal. Please include it in a revised application. 4. Maps and Plans. These items were not included in the application submittal. Please include the following in a revised application: Existing Conditions or Public Improvements/Streets Plan Map (may use asbuilt plans) Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map (or recorded Plat) Site Plan (use approved site plan exhibit at 4-16-2007 PC Hearing) Landscape Plan (showing prior approved and proposed landscaping) Vicinity Map (typical) Once this additional information is submitted, staff will review the additional materials to determine if the application is substantively complete. If substantively complete, then 15 copies and 1CD will be required, as well as two sets of stamped envelopes (per request for 500-foot Property Owner Mailing Labels from Patty Lunsford, 503-718-2438). If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, s' • - -- Gary Pagensteclier,AICP Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov LAND USE APPLIC ION Project: ® - .�,1/ 1114-q� Date: I / o// COMPLETENESS REVIEW COMPLETE [N.INCOMPLETE _,,STANDARD INFORMATION: CA' Deed/Title/Proof of Ownership ft, Neighborhood Mtg.Affidavits, Minutes, List of Attendees Impact Study (18.390) USA Service Provider Letter Ay . -Construction Cost Estimate ❑ Envelopes with Postage(Verify Count) erii I l #Sets Of Application Materials/Plans- "Paper Copies" ,-f Pre-Application Conference Notes 22 / #Sets Of Application Materials/Plans-"CD's" PROJECT STATISTICS: /VA ❑ Building Footprint Size ❑ %of Landscaping On Site ° ❑ Lot Square Footage ❑ %of Building Impervious Surface On Site • PLANS DIMENSIONED: "VA ❑ Building Footprint ❑ Parking Space Dimensions(Include Accessible&Bike Parking)❑ Truck Loading Space Where Applicable ❑ Building Height ❑ Access Approach and Aisle ❑ Visual Clearance Triangle Shown ADDITIONAL PLANS: L❑„J!Vicinity Map ❑ Architectural Plan ❑ Tree Inventory ;,' ❑l Existing Conditions Plan C07 Landscape Plan ZEDSite Plan ❑ Lighting Plan • TREE PLAN I MITIGATION PLAN: Ai tt- ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ADDITIONAL REPORTS: (list any special reports) "l it ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ . RESPONSE TO APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: ❑ 18.330(Conditional Use) ❑ 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) ❑ 18.340(Director's Interpretation) ❑ 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) ❑ 18.780(Signs) 18.350(Planned Development) ❑ 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 18.360(Site Development Review) ❑ 18.715(Density Computations) ❑ 18.790(Tree Removal) ❑ 18.370(Variances/Adjustments) ❑ 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) ❑ 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) ❑ 18.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendments) . ❑ 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) ❑ 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) (❑) 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) ❑ 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) ❑ 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) ❑ 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) ❑ 18.740(Historic Overlay) ❑ 18.420(Land Partitions). ❑ 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) ❑„__,8.430(Subdivisions) ❑18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) ❑.-18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ❑ 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) ❑ 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) • ❑ 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) ❑ 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) ❑ 18.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) .ADDITIONAL ITEMS: • • I:\curpin\masters\forms-revised\land use application completeness review.dot REVISED: 6-Jun-07 • • MN MI =I MI • MN MO • NM — — — — — — — — • 2 z • cS x. JAN. 24. 2011 9: 37AM Cilli PRINTING NO. 660 P. 2 N a E Cp,”,,,/,-i j RECEIVED FEB 0 _i_011 , JAN 2 5 2011 CITY c); 1 �, ::D CITY OF TIGARD . " City of Ti PLA!\!1',Va 'sr gRe Pt. 'P1"I`'� Qar NF IG' UPI i ,4 ''.`''`S• L Use Permit fr Application • • }� }� y� .v. 4r.. •a . .•.. .:4- r..�...a. i ..r....V Yi.f..• .. 'r .ri<.y' -..-..♦..r.��T•r.r rw•...en...v. .. •'•1•� � ..... .. .... FAe# 1 pp ttIoW -0000 II. O'htkCaaeIt .f S08 2,Z6--ero1 _•P17e-2494- 1 i 2 r Date MUM B• , ) l e Recei.t#• = Pee 3 31 '3 �'� Date Cam• ' E OF P_ERMIT YOV ARE,APPLYIN OR . ❑Adjustment/Variance(I or II) ❑Historic Overlay(U or III) ❑Site Development Review(II) ❑Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) ❑Home Occupation(II) ❑Subdivision(II or III) ❑Conditional Use(III) [I Minor Land Partition(II) ❑Zone Change(III) 0 Development Code Amendment(IV) 1g Planned Development(III) ' _ ❑Zone Change Annexation(IV) ❑Downtown Design Review(II,III) ❑Sensitive Lands Review(I,II or III) • / N pR•••974 !—r--• c1 j ti •el I' .rnt (ig 4 l 164.5 sw L. 'r J 114&>Sur • 't TV .n• - l L•T • . ---,-- , 1 gr47 CA Tr E••• nee kAlio 1S 1 vet TL. IWO +2. Tour...srrE.st ZONING CLASSIFI rzON -...-_. 2,02 g-11... Fog. tax -* / L 1 rnS APPLICANT* 1314 r1rX' ��-IV 1_L G MAILING ADDR .STcr zf/SrATE/Z(P '— Es % FtWre.0 B kACA*k /- •.$7 W 6tstar'H QUA_ * , 'g1Z25 PHONE NO. / r P -PPEATY COMER/DEED HOLDER(Attach list Westin tlan one) MAIUNG ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP _. PR(1NE NO. FAX NO. .... �� *When the owner and the applicant are different people; the applicant must be the purchaser of record ox a•lcasee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL fiJMMAR (Please be spedLw) C , • '∎ • &Pt t_.-4.41, d L • S+-7.\%7 '►♦, - • li. ..A 111.1 *7 __Jii■..r4 iA III:'1' ilicia.e,1 t.01-r{•t GR . 2 7-•o c CPag-t - 1) _,A 4''W1- . t A ,j i - J_ L�` /A — ri :G' NHS • C ',. .? �tv]�. T...-..f_ r� ''(��/��'IlL . I IIT,a 01.4* -: .....IA���( 4E. •• _A.A. • C '. ,e...5 to Salt. _I 7/ aT \_..L • is\cuxpla masters\land use applications other land use applications.doc City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-718•2421 I wtvw.tigard-oo.gov I Page 1 of 2 JAN. 24. 2011 9:31AM COAORINTING NO. 660 P. . 3 THE APPLICANT Sk/Ai i CERTIFY THAT: • • If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any emit issued,based on this application,map be revoked if it is found that any such statemecits are false. s The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,including the policies and criteria,and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). . SIGNATURES OF FACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. • • • ,• H`er's Signature : OF PE.fTi G.4 Date • • • Owner's Signature r Date•Owner's Signature Date • Owner's Signature Date • • Owner's Signature Date • • Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date • • • . City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-718-2421 I www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 2 of 2 • CITY OF TIGARD RECEIPT g 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard OR 97223 503.639.4171 TIGARD Receipt Number: 181361 - 02/04/2011 CASE NO. FEE DESCRIPTION REVENUE ACCOUNT NUMBER PAID PDR2011-00001 - Detailed Plan Review(Previous Hearing) 1003100-43116 $2,016.00 PDR2011-00001 Detailed Plan Review(Previous Hearing) 1003100-43117 $297.00 -LRP Total: $2,313.00 PAYMENT METHOD CHECK# CC AUTH.CODE ACCT ID CASHIER ID RECEIPT DATE RECEIPT AMT Check 1008 KPEERMAN 02/04/2011 $2,313.00 • Payor: FD PROPERTIES, LLC Total Payments: $2,313.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Page 1 of 1 • • City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application 1.0A R.D APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL SUBMITTALS. ALL ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED AT ONE TIME. > This form is required to complete your submittal. The applicant must check the box next to the item verifying that the information is present. Staff will check off the items at intake. > Three (3) copies of all materials are required for the initial review process. The balance of the copies will be requested once your submittal is deemed substantially complete. > Each packet must be collated. > Plans are required to be a minimum of 24"x 36"or 22"x 34". > Plans must be FOLDED,rolled plans are not accepted. Applicant Staff Documents, Copies and Fees Required Completed Master"Land Use Permit"Application with property owner's signature or name of agent and letter of authorization Title transfer instrument or grant deed 0,-)r W ✓ Written summary of proposal Narrative demonstrating compliance with all applicable development standards and approval criteria (as specified in the Pre-Application Conference notes) Documentary evidence of Neighborhood Meeting:Neighborhood Meeting Affidavits of /1) 1 Posting&Mailing Notice,Minutes, Sign-in Sheets fil,/A Service Provider Letter Impact Study per Section 18.390.040.B.2(e) l) Copy of the Pre-Application Conference notes / C UV E Filing Fee (see fee schedule) al 2 1 ( , g iff+ Preliminary Sight Distance Certification ' 1U /i Preliminary Storm Calculations 0.1)9 Arborist Report )1/-A Traffic Report(if Required) Maps or Plans (Plans must be at least 24"x 36") ? Architectural Drawings (elevations& floor plans) 4 1,-1- -14. 14-11 v E 7 . Existing Conditions Map (A 5 8U/LT-0 A-Pp(&n ✓` b. 'lll b site P Icy Landscape Plan - S 61 c l h.o l®e /- Preliminary Grading/Erosion Control Plan / J/# Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan ,l(J 4 Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan iv) ja- Preliminary Utilities Plan f� Public Improvements/Streets Plan has 8 u/l.73 /14 Site Development Plan Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map . Race).61,0,4 1)1 orb tj,i , ttt/II- Topography Map pa*, Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan Vicinity Map ➢ Once your application has been deemed substantially complete you will be notified by the Planning Division in the form of a completeness letter indicating that you will need to provide the following: Two (2) sets of stamped, addressed#10 envelopes for all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property (the 2 sets must remain separated for the purpose of 2 mailings). Mailing envelopes shall be standard legal-size (#10), addressed with 1"X 4"labels (please see envelope submittal requirements). Property owner mailing lists must be prepared by the City for a minimal fee (please see request for 500'property owner mailing list form). I:\CURPLN\Masters\Submittal Requirements Check List.doc (updated:21-january-10) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPLICATION TO MODIFY PDR 2006-00001 • Final Order No. 2007-02PO • • Case Name: White Oak Village Subdivision • • • Applicant: Hawthorne Block LLC %Foster Finch • 7235 SW Newton Place • Portland, OR 97225 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • S • • REQUEST: • The applicant requests two modifications to an approved 27 lot subdivision and planned development known as "White Oak Village" subdivision. The development was approved on • April 16, 2007 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. • • The two requests are: 1.To allow detached or attached units on lots of choice and • 2. Changes to landscape screening details. • • PROPOSAL: • The applicant does not request any change of conditions of approval for the PDR or • Subdivision. . The subdivision improvements have been completed with the exception of final items of work, i.e. fencing, landscaping, signage and final lift of asphalt on the private street. In fact, by the • time of the Planning Commission Hearing on this modification request all improvements and • City acceptance may be completed. • There are no changes to the lots and streets that were approved. Again, in fact the Final Subdivision Plat may be recorded by the time of the Planning Commission consideration of this • modification request. • So why this request? The case file includes certain material the Planning Commission considered in their decision that suggest this modification request should be reviewed by the Commission. The • material previously presented by the previous owner/applicant for the case file included: 1. Presentation of attached units (duets) detailed plans and a lot level plot plan, and 2. Presentation of landscape plans that included detailed buffer screening. • • It is the current development owner/applicant desire to expand the opportunity to allow detached and attached units and not be limited to just attached duets. Attached units present issues such as: reciprocal insurance; exterior maintenance covenants, restrictions and conditions; limited mortgage offerings and terms; conflicts with utilities at common lot line; and disaster (fire, etc.) recovery. • The above issues have implications to costs and loan availability to buyers since they result in HOA monthly dues up to 2%to 3 times a detached unit. This modification, to allow attached and detached • units on lots of choices responds to the economic conditions which will stimulate construction activity. • It is also desired to improve the buffer screening along the south and west to provide planting that will • result in higher vegetation. • The specific landscape plan change is to eliminate the firethorn espaliered on the sound wall since the wall has a architectural finish that should not be covered. More importantly the espaliered firethorn will • not provide a desired taller screen. The substitution plantings will be trees that will provide a desired higher visual buffer. Trees under consideration are: • • Bamboo • • Leyland Cypress • Magnolia • • Ash • • Maple S S S • FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST: • • • • • • • • 1. To allow detached or attached units on lots of choice: • • a. The applicable criteria in the Development Cope is found in Section 18.510-030. Single- • family attached and detached residential units are permitted in the R-12 Zone. The previous case file had building envelopes, plans (C6.1 and C2.1) for attached units and Exhibit C which will be voided with this request. • • • • • As Previously As Requested • Approved • Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 10/14/15 ft.* 10/15 (P) - Side facing street on corner &through lots 8 ft. 8 ft. - Side yard 3 ft. [1] 3 ft. [1] - Rear yard 13/15 ft.* 13/15 (P) • - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district NA NA • - Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. [1] Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line when the units are attached (P) Perimeter • .. , .- = . : � - - - , = , : ; -- • - DELETE • • • • 2. Changes to landscape screening details. • • a. The applicable criteria in the Development Code is found in Section 18.745.050. The Landscape Plans were considered in the previous PRD application. The only requested • change is the plantings adjacent to RAZ Transportation to the west. This change achieves a • taller buffer screening. b. The requested modification more adequately meets the Code standards by providing bettering screening. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • EXHIBITS • • • Vicinity Map • • Existing Conditions - II Constructed improvements • Site Plan As Approved • Subdivision Final Plat • Landscape Plan • Modification Request • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • fll 111 111 111 011 411 III III 111 411 411 III III 111 111 III III 111 • 111 III 111 III 111 111 111 III 111 111 111 111 111 • Ill • 411 111 11! 411 III 41, III 111 111 .'�4d T 1 \ '.�.•c •cart I i ra I 1 Coral-st .•` ?• :.d azoWSt Sear'Amin. gytvient � f - "f , S•.L•at14au 1 a ' ', „. • # , vs t i , 'mss I < ( ! I _ 4 a1w eilea:Si o+ ; I ” * 2%a 1 Sw Oak Ways.. .. - Th.. —.1- ••- " " ` _ . .:_ £w Oak' • .• !::: i•St `� • . _..... — i r ""W • . :_@ r � &'` •` ~ �t 1:.-• Brit' , CA Y� --I .te --�, ° r" j I. • t sue,• , ,C ti :,m. _ . ti Sf .i.:(,,!".....)" I I ,,-3 .. i • i / pp rf{ �°]qv x`11_••4 31� 41+1•^ «r-• l_ .. - t .aQ4-�)r� ,e y - '/F '/ T! ��i4�1w ^_t. �R. , � + - y FY':5�: fit.•^�I. �r! 2.*t. 1 ��771`" CF tCx n'yn�s i� , iii.g k LOCA7►0N A11aRti 5t• ` ®'•�• '` ; �' .1 I •rl. ( is 1 ,' it• .•....:r�I ..(fit ti !i • - r`S I 11 C f_4!!eGCt! �` . d ........... .14 . .4 . . • . =AA h � 2Z ��q 9S .. Vb.C_1itbIT t ,i .• a.,. I) I R • `•.:.„JJ}} 0 T. _...fig Iii i —i gt. •l I...i....t`•. '� .'75s.'" . ..�.•v I 11 I • 0I ;I kk r'_ ; e <. . � , 1;� •4 f ,r t,(;.�? z...T ,,, . `•* -..,, r�..l' �. I g .'a •��i �i l F ,-f Via'` ?.,x a3 F M tilt '•S _ ,r 1%/Il ill i �r F.1 n'+.11a�•- �y 5 �. € ..yam. §, ,7-•, l h - t1 t ' l 1%4..c4N 1 ( t 6 tZ dx�k. k . �'C• T ....„:„.:...„.„,,,,_„,:•:,..;:::,„,,,..,,.:.,,,„,..„,„„...„:„:„..,...„..,:.....:::„...,,,..„.„.„,„:.„,..„,„:„:„...,:r..„.„:„.„.„-„,„,,,,..„.„::;„.„:„.„,..„,,,,,,:,„:„.,.,„,,.,,,,„,„,..„., , .. ....„.,, ...„ ......, -.1 . ....ic, .1 T y )yyn- 3:p y( c ( 7() dtt --1:1 . 1 • sREF UST – • [Waft:1 \ I '� LEGEND -----7a00•-1 R.,oMed •,• \\ I _ b FACILITY PROPOSED . E,TSIWG 1 D • DAL007CX10 – – – — – e . _i —_ – _ _ – - - • • QFYtOOT LMT/Jtr SEWER MANHOLE —I WATER uETER L- STORM m SEVER uAw1pE I .4i14-6•Q.LDD)t.+f',D .. / – – – TMWST 111000 CORMS.Pala I D DALDU'JLxsD .9 – – –– – --c�— –_-.. ^'6�` o c� ��_. — — 9 DIT01 PRET =ORM POtRT ––––��/• v B _ DESIGN GROUP INC. • aumraso 1 •(. - :Y::/I` _ 1 �� R_ 't:. er .i i _:—wtDP r.rcrt T c - WATER METER o \ o. �am� .%�, - I�9"�. ."•-•'—} m°'�--". —•s- PROP suRrARr sE n CATCH DASH \ $ 14025 SW FARMINGTON RD • nt�DODL�o v \ - -_ Pwcv s,oau auo, sPRUaaEn HEAD + Suite 270 >a' SrAUPG' • \. _. - - ---- `. - .. �,�, f ``�_ w urA+r POLE - E,157 SANITARY SEWER I I BEAVERTON.OR 97005 . .l. '�, I . -- --UST WATER UHE I 1 (503)644-4628 1__�I • unn,oAad ♦ :. "\ © - ••=c,:-EXIST STORY DRAM I-2a 00" • DRAINAGE CHANNEL SITE PLAN . - . r--1-ia00. 1•' – 20 1 Ott. G i H.4.--4o +� I 4. 191 SD O - - 6'HlCN MA DETAIL SOUND © I 'S '164 n 04' HG 1H1£ELCHA/R RAMP WALL PER DETAIL ---` c • • �Aa KEYSTONE R£TAII�NC WALL I - g 1 PER 0£UIL r----.� I EXPIRES uawn - Dip - S- - - sS--:S— :s--,---- - SL - ' Ss - 5 ,---s.; � p • kry i - 1 1 . 1 w 1 i - `� 6+00 ; + ; :`V• �..-_--.._.._._—__ - �_ _l + -- • 1.,D UTILITY£AS MENT "sa y: >.�. e r ;tie e. �: �` .._.. _.`; N 1 I . - TRACT A -� ` 'yi '7 _ } I__i_ • I ! i�. i I z yrIj 1 meA&Pla. r•-1---% n I I }ti 1$ 1.--j zao°' z• 'D' J4,-i © •,Ii_ — �. –L —• _I -I- I_ r______, r-_t- -ti .03- I JS ll79 .m.. — I + 0 I! r I I I MOUNTABLE p/R9 I ;� I 1 I 11E1 32.r�' �ii I I 1 �.• - LOT 24 _ F I I NC IYHEELC/MIR RAMP N9pN Ibn/ANGLE II ® 1 I[-. I I N N N N o,l �' I b I a s o c Y i•. I ; I {-7aa°'—! M la -– X70– – 1 II .� I ° ° ° 1 ° I °I 1 ° 1 OJ} 1 ° 1 ' t — I : TRACT C TfJRNING DIAGRAM DIMENTIONS. _ LOT 25 i I . . I Y I s<. o" ! Q' Z C I 1—PUf 1 W 0 I ;20. ■ i I 1 CD a - >3i —— — — —_ - - _ - - _I _ - - - _3068• v, „ L:�■ Q W• � � m I MOUNTABLE B I ( J _ - - - -i - - - - - �_ H —• 6'HIGH MASONRY ,I :-'_ 11 i I 1 ' 1 i 1 1 I I- - (A • SOUND WALL I t� �L 1 I I I 1- J4- T -1-i4i--f 1 I >I .V J• PER D£TA2 IrV PU£ I I I I. ~_ mo—� —� I „D Q f- I I 1 I I I • I I 1 • - `\ I I 1 MOUN7A8LE CUR(I 1 r;RIFE _ • I`� •.Ik.2 •,∎ - 1737 �N90N TRIANGLE •)0.44 I R1C71T OF tY..,l j I • 1 • . . . \ \-jrsh •z•,-gam -•-T: -;7::!,..;:-::::::-'...;!., '1',:' _ .r. ,: _ ':.:v\':.>I — I• ( I • • \ I. I- � _i`- f r, ,�.'-.•I-....t .�d.- -x',-�-T' �I t--1.1- I JI-• _'_.�_—. V ' . • b .o' ..J- i sr,--1----,xfz-s_r-_— --i -----T-T-:--I----is°-n;-V-1-TRAGT:h—r__i_() co 1, o ■ i 1 i i _ 1 , I , _ I i -- i 1 I•\ 1 5.00' V i o- I I-1_' l.?: I ! _._f t35.Lj.S I t. -`I 'T` II I I ' I I c-1 16.PO 1 1 .i I. 1 I I REV. DATE BY • 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I; I ` 11 I R 11085, I TL 10975 I R 10945 . - 1 .- I I 1 I 1 I •} , I • rt.10915 , s/0Jy71 JEM L - iI , I 1 , - ©•-B/J0/07 „E'M N _ ell t\ OI 10 wl gl of 1•i til F.. �I t•,...;. ( :� I I 9/2 4/D7 LHP In oil TN1 ..-p ' 1 1 OJ I I I I lJ 1 .V (g Y- I ' I ,5 V A I!0/30/°71 .EM • N 1 I I I I I 1 / .is s - I i ! I I 1 ��1 p t i 11/f9/07I:.EM • N •tvrtlrE OAK NLLACE�SICrL I _1_-- ---1-I`_ - --- I -- ------ - -- -------- N I s.' • .i i • ti 2 n030, ! �I — _ _II I �,¢O NI \ � L__i--- --------------- - _ UMBER DAL007 -.f.:_i -KENT'S- .5/21%07 • R 11615 I -i.`y-- _ r —__... _-._sT\r- c • N •I ...Y•1, —_ ,'S=b_j__poi 7 —s N ,,cN 7..-el =?' =-�' JV 4t.L. MS ,I I I•":••'••`: a6011M )iDO aqM •r vJ • • • • - . - • • WI III' E _ VITI --- IA RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. • LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4, NW 1/4, AND THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, DATE OF SURVEY : APRIL 1, 2008 • RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ' •• Fun 3/4"IRON B42 BENT, CURVE DATA TABLE • s o0'110o'w o.58: HELD 'TIGARD WOODS, MMUNI7Y" END:2 -5/e"1R WITH Y.P.C. OFFSET 30 0 30 60 90 • EAST-WEST, END. BY(1)(3)(4) OIpNIUM CO 200'W AND 200'NORTH ! CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA _ CHORD CHORD BEARING E-W 6'IY000 FENCE ON LINE A COND / OF THE SE. CORNER OF 71CAR0 WOODS 2 1/?"BRASS DISK 1 28.06' 40.00' 4011'15" 27.48' N71'01'57°E TRUE POINT FELL IN CONCRETE A CONDOMIMIIM COMMUNITY" STATION DESIGNATION CC 021-065 SCALE: 1 30' • FOR FENCE POST. NOT SET I \ INSCRIBED bEA INC.; (2) PUBLISHED.STATE PLANE COORDINATES 2 35.27 40.00' 50'31'26" 34.14' N25'40'37-E • r- = 589-07'12"E 100.80' \ NORTHING. 655,391.693 3• 63.33' 40.00' 90'42'41- 56.92' N45'46'15°E • A 1 �SEEDETA/L •A' EASING: Z621,105.564 4 77.74' 46.00' 96'49'45" 68.81' S46'48'08°W . t 7 GRID FACTOR:0.99990594 19 9.47' 15.00' 3610'26° 9.31' N70'47'12"W \ 1 22 25.76' 46.00' 3205'01' 25.42' N68`4429'W / ' 3.33' I AND. 5/8'lR. Mill Y.P.C. S 78'2418 • 1 / INSCRIBED ,OSIER IS 1934" �`:=3 12299,5S7;/y 26 2.69' 1.50' 102'55 22' 2.35' N38'011 253°W • 526?!,,ply ,9� • • REDJ b - t N 7NrTLlL PoIN7° S 84'31.29-7 -__ LEGEND • co O SET 5/B°X 30`IRON ROD WITH YELLOW •TRACT C j3p2 77505' --go PLAS7IC CAP MARKED FOSTER LS 1934 °• •12,031 SO FT 03 / 2008' CND. 2 I/2"BRASS DESK ON APRIL 1, 2008 • 2.00' 110• t�I STATION DESIGNATION GC 022-028 M( SET 5/8"X 30°IRON ROD WITH I-1/2" 'py - PUBLISHED STATE PLANE COORDINATES iSOB'S2253' + Sy = NORTHING:654,647.083 ALUMINIUM CAP MARKED 'FOSTER LS 1934 ' • 31.00' I EASDNC. 7.674,3/5.384 ON APRIL 1, 2008 • V ,._11,,... 4. GRID FACTOR:0.99990579 !1 SET 1:05"BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE CURB g ^ • MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934'ON APRIL `l, 2008 4 $ / I`� • FND 5/8"IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC ..,4- / cn CAP MARKED "FOSTER PLS 1934"AS SET • $ vi h.. o �" 1 I IN SN 30539 • $ o °o W . / O 80'6 • El SET 5/8' X 30"IRON ROD WITH YELLOW '' > o TIVIIIAL PO1Nl' N I 3000' .PLASTIC CAP MARKED "FOSTER LS 1934 ° • �' o° 8 fT/D 5/8'ER. WITH VAC ON APRIL 1, 2008 IN MONUMENT BOX 0 20.00' g1 f 2� 2 INSCRIBED 7-OSTER LS 1934' END. 1/Y IRON PIPE p147 2.00' • END. FOUND • (1), END. 3/4"LP. DOWN 0.10: HELD 2p0- 3331 SN 'SURVEY NUMBER, WASHINGTON COUNTY•^-, 32.00' 6890E S 513946"E 0.61'IN(I) (O.U.)DESTROYED Q NO • SURVEYORS OFFICE er O OESTFOrF0 BY CONSTRUCTION, v BY CONSTRUCTION. L=63.33% 0�'• g 58852'253 10090' f 'O 1 / v NOT RESET ^1 0 CURVE NUMBER - SEE CURVE DATA TABLE • w, NOT RESET S N jam, $ / - 5.43' / h uhf TRACT�' Y.P.G DENOTES YELLOW PLASTIC CAP • • S88'5225 E j 159.08, - - `'49.94' - - _- _ _ _ SW TORCHW000 STREET_ - -_ o.ss' S8B5225E ME DENOTES NS/ON CLEARANCE EASEMENT _ DETAIL 'A' FOR THE BENEFIT OF 7HE CITY OF TIGARD 5885153 23337' - �06 \1\ SCALE 1""=5' g N4539'I2�� 28. P.UL DENOTES PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT • $ law. n 26.66'- 1.� 4111 200 N�-\ 16.58' `�' 58857253 19.0!' ao I A - RIGHT-OF-Dir DEDICATION PE DENOTES PARKING EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT . W 227.37' 16.90' r 19 m 11 PER DOCUMENT NO. o 1�•I/1 1 �a''_10. 37.18' 7-90 " ,..°1 C,1 2008-83162 OF THE OWNERS OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 27 • A- ' _ _ 7301' 7 i\, -11 y4� 16.51'-73.01'_ �P \ 4- �0' IJ l,pu.£. zp °jv OOG N0 DENOTES DOCUMENT NUMBER 0 I 17' N4533JI 1 24.16106' J'�> I C ✓ ,��'1S �`i DELTA =9649'45' • 2 I a 13.22' h / I 1 I 1y- W SO FT DENOTES SQUARE FEET 2 m "� LOT 18 ti W LOT 16 17.00' �' 19.01' TRACT D °. = 4G�' a I I 2.406 SO FT �W 2 349 SO Fr ti N 11,318 SQ FT `� LENGTH = n.74' SW TORCHWOOD 5714777 LP. DENOTES IRON PIPE 4 ; J CHORD= 68-81' 296' • > - a Ca 20.50 N892904W a CHORD BEARING= \ N88'S125W LIZ DENOTES IRON ROD o 58929 043' 73.00' h 589'29 041 73.00'DO' �: 69.68' w NO- 7 N 4648'08'E = • 1 a $ I LOT 19 L" $ 'd LOT T5 $ I� 2.I g oo�01'073� 05L=269' • (DU.) DENOTES ORIGIN UNKNOWN Y v n .: LOT 1 a�, 2 TRACT A Q a N 1,971 SQ FT g N � N N137b'T83 m o N8929041Y o:N 1,977 SO FT N 1,880 SO FT 9,267 SO F� I m 8.7?' o o TRACT (2) DENOTES'SURVEY REFERENCE NUMBER 589'29 043' 7,L00' 589 29'04 73.00' a I` 21.46 4. V m a "� V N89'29041Y 69.63' e't V¢ $g 0 P.SE DENOTES PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT o R 2 77.LO P.U.E& Q w • W 3 S I LOT 20 o P.SE °' gI 8'-° 25 Q ,� 1,971 SO FT ' LOT 14 - $ ti n LOT 2 ,� I. O 589'1904 E g h N 1,971 SO FT I a , I N 1,879 SQ FT N o L=1.58' 23OD' z SURVEY REFERENCES ,1 �',- (r '! r = <n II ¢I F-6.50'P.U.E. O cp 0 11 . 41 - u 589'19'043 7L00' 56979'041 73.00' 3 I (1) SN 30,539 '•1 �1 `MI 1;4 r' 11.50'P.U.£& N89'2904"W 69.58' - LOT 1 (2) SN 28,174 • ' NO 93'0', g I $ LOT 21 $ LOT 13 $ o $I LOT 3 S bum_ b_ I (3) SN 19,519 SO.VIV `O r� . 1,971 SO FT 1 c 3 •_,I 1 N I' `r 1,877 50 FT �, NO'�� SCALE 1-10' I (4) SN 15,467 $ Igo 1,971 SO FT `r I N U $ ( p0C' 115 2 a I 58979041 73.00' N89?9041Y 7300' I r1 20p7, noNti„ilkkar, ;.,• o N8919041Y s253' NOTE SURVEYED BY: 1 I g LOT 22 LOT 12 I 3 I ,: 1'r P( n�a �: . 1,971 SQ FT 1 $ $ y LOT 4 $ 1 BASIS OF BEARING AND FOSTER&MADDUX SURVEYING,INC. €?: j1 A I1 I I - s-' '• 1.971 Sq FT N 1,876 SO FT ^., REGISTERED 708 238TH PLACE • \I 1 `� \ N N I I I BOUNDARY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL ' .1 WOODVIU.AGE OREGON 97060 20.00' I 58929043 73..00" N8979'041Y 73.00' IS PER S.N. 30.539. I \ls7 I 7-8307 b `� I N8979'041Y 69.48' d LAND SURVEYO' 11 �, • 589'29'043 170.17' - I (�`V • MATCH TO SHEET 2 OF 3 ORE .0 DEG 18, 1980 • 'THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED USING HEWLETT PACKARD PRODUCT �� F0.STER NUMBER C4844A ON CONTINENTAL POLYESTER RiM JPC 4M2.• SHEET 1 OF .3 • . RENEWED THRU 12/31/2011 • , • • - ' • • III • • • I T E OAK _ V_ L A G RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. • • LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4, NW 1/4, AND THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, DATE OF SURVEY: APRIL 1, 2008 RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY,- OREGON SET MONUMENT • NO 5/8"HEWN ROD FD 5/B'LR. (2), DN. 0.06' a FD.3/4"1; HELD FROM TRUE V 8.5 POSITION NO CAP. HEW,DESTROYED BYBY (2} - DESTROYED 8Y CONSTRUCTION S 69'49 00"f O DESTROYED BY • CONSTRUCTION; RESET= S 54'1225'W 19.77'(L7fORDJ NOT RESET 11.00' N00"11001- 944.37' '''O L=6.65' CONSTRUCTION, 4.17' AS SHOWN o. 604.29' NOT RESET 91.46' • 82.44' • 105.00" 120.00' o i - o v /17.58' 14'RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION N 00'1Ivo"E 120.00' TRACT A X291427E 16.11' j9•� 9 17.50 PER DO VMENT N0 2008-101252 0 9,267 SO FT \ E� \ 1 Aq9 zp0 0 O' L,59.48 I&1�_N10011011P 199.847_ -I- • }5Y/ `� �_FD 1/2"IRON P!P£ 500'11 00 tiY 418.76' S 8949 00 E � u'AD • • 2 - 500'11001Y 1199.51 • ---S54•002214 0.55' \,• •. 0. -lit p, 200' Z.DO' co F 27.00' 27.OD' o TRUE CORNER FALLS W �- CORNER OF CATCH BASIN FD 5/8"IRON ROD-/..../._ HELD lVORTTI--SOUTH . L' T S 89'49'00"E 529l427iY /647y 1=639' 4j _5816' • ' o', ' ' 6) 9.00' 5890502E O.lY '0 iS 1=1.12' �►, �O.16,'- 1"-- 61.60'}�� \-y�-, 'Po gyp• (O.U} a N00'OB'47� 6874' pre L� y2� '" ,(i 4� TRACT F o v 17 L- O.DO '-(._-ii $� N �' - C1' 9 <v 'K, L=8.88' ^ \. <o 0 o <o • WATER QUALITY FACILITY LOT 26 Nor 0 N r , \. °`o a. Co a 1,320 SO FT F N D. 5/8" HELD, (0.U), DESTROYED BY * S 1,975 SO FT m WOW" I N o °p m�•vO o • cy' '�' CONSTRUCTION, NOT RESET,'END 3/4"LP. 66.13' r a oc, v O ti ^i �,in � ?2 • yo .� oo"; a olu ' )N N 9•39:14"£2.20'(O.U.), DESTROYED BY X00 08'47 E 68.13' I th o 'l v k` �+ -I • \1O ao. , CONSTRUCTION, NOT RESET FND 1/2'LP. v+ ,, 6.50' . o rn O c". ~ -+ ° _ �,- CURVE DATA TABLE (o.u.)s4'22'25°E0.40' w cor27 PU.L o �; g Sry ° • \ ; g 1,979 SQ FT SEE i - NOW'1100 E 68.33" DETAIL G° n 1 l.56' 32.01' 27.00' 27.00' `I CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING END MONUMENT • O O • DESTROYED BY 500'08'47 bV 64.12' �]� 3201' 27.00 2700 'y.• 6 75.68' 48.00' 90 19'S4� 68.08' 545'20'57"W '1� p 800'P.V.E. & y CONSTRUCTION, SEE DETAIL B" 7 a J I,� 2S£. 2 cb= 7 10.00' 48.00' 11'56'09" 9.98' - X83'31'01"W LOT 27 NOO'08'47f • . 1 z 12 • 8 6.39' 5.00' 73'12'36" 5.96' 565'50'45"W NOT fD 1/2"I.P (0-U)• 4.2! ,- b ti �o��• LEANING WEST, HELD < �`o° +� _ O v" ° 9 18.06' 68.00' 1512'53" 18.01' X61'52'23"W S 47725"E N 9�T934"E 4D.82" ,; e o _ o :,4,,,.. pi 6.65' 5.00' 76'08'52" 6.17' X5'49'58°W 2.20 NORTH - SOUTH a 4.'s O a y " • 10 0.40' OESIROYEO BY 327 SO FT ti I°a !7,-'1u) �^~ °° 11 39.45' 48.00' 4T05'24° 38.35' N23'21'42"W , gyp' $ CONSIRUCT10N a k' � O o N v ,, v 12 44.15' 28.00' 90'19'54° 39.72' N45'20'57"E oy9 NOT RESET 0 2Q �� y o!�c w • 13 43.82' 28.00' 89'40'06" 39.49' 544'39'03"E END. MONUMENT �' ,yy} $� a -T, .$ a "' °o O 14 21.13' 48.00' 25'13'32" 20.96' Si 2'47'46"W DESTROYED 8Y 'I' >+ �1 • NOT $' NOT RESET �rn m 1 3.89' 15 28.96' 48..00' 3433'53"_ 28.52' 542'41'29°W NOT TO SCALE NOT RESET ' Is 8 7 " 61.41' J • 16 25.59' 4-8.00' 30.32'29° 25.29'' S75'14.40°W L=2559' p. . �O 7' 27.00' 27.00' 17 8.88' 48.00' 10'35'43° 8.87 N134-11'14"w s L1 t 18 1.12' 48.00' 1'20'26" 1.12' N78'13'10"W �1 99? 19746 12,949 SOFT. • 20 59.92' 38.00' 9019'54" 53.90' S45•20'S7'W 1 1957• �S�°c 7,�s �-50011'0011 • 21 - 59.46' 38.00' 69'40'06° 53.59' X44'39•03"W � I p - ^. 23 25.82' 16.50' 89'40'06 2127 _._X44'39'03"W I I I O/T'•�• 27.00' 2700' 24 26.01' 16.50' 90'19'54" 23.40' X45'20'57"E LOT 27 I LOT 25 6.Q` !46.52 - • 100.08'41' Q f v '' _!I N m x 4.21' I 4r <0 2 _ 2 _ w • 6.50'_� I i00'x two'ANCHOR w� rn° e -' ',° 'co 4. W N ° P.u.E • EASEMENT TO PORTLAND i -I o o v t- v I- `o• • CF,V£RAL ELECTRf;---- O° '° W" o '�O cj N O ° r., LEGEND S00'08'47 1' 69.12' ?0"i'�:: I i yo o f o m o, ® SET 5/8"X 30`IRON ROD WITH YELLOW FND- MONUMENT 4 or' I LOT 9 6.50'P.U.E.-► c, v • PLASTIC CAP MARKED FOSTER LS 1934" DES7ROYE0 BY a ° �_ n'Oi -1 F. - e "" a '' ON APRIL 1, 2008 CONSTRUCTION, NOT o 15"x 20"SANITARY 550. r� A m c" RESET DUE TO 6.0 EASEMENT PER BOOK 550, N 00'00'00'W 8.00' • U SET 1 1/2"BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE CURB FOOT CONCRETE WALL O Iq I PAGE 610. (4/30/1965) 14.00�r 1 32.00' 2700' , 27.00 O 27.00' MARKED FOSTER LS 1934"ON APRIL 1, 2008 FOOTING TRACT E v 1� �- 11300' • DI SET 5/8"X 30"IRON ROD WITH 1-1/2" I 500'17'05V 285.49' v FD 1/2'IRON PIPE J / ,, DOWN 0.80" HEW 5.48' • ALUMINIUM CAP MARKED FOSTER LS 1934 • • ON APRIL 1, 2008 C" (O.U.} • FD 5/8"IRON ROD WI'771 YELLOW PLASTIC SCALE 1'=30' �y0y16 �� TEED • CAP MARKED FOSTER LS 1934"AS SET PELSER PIS 2801" 06'7 • IN SURVEY REFERENCE (1) OR AS NOTED ' (5). HELD,'MO. 3/4•LP. EMI FOUND • 30 0 30 60 90 (Cu.)S 8013'17°W 0.75' S I SURVEY NUMBER, WASHINGTON COUNTY .__ � "THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED USING HEWLETT PACK W0 PRODUCT �.,. ` O • SURVEYOR'S OFFICE NUMOCR C4844A ON CONTINENTAL POLYESTER FILM JPC-4M2- • 10 CURVE NUMBER - SEE CURVE DATA TABLE SCALE: 1"-=30' (O.U.) ORIGIN UNKNOWN • PILE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PRO ESSIONA 01 DENOTES IRON ROD LAND SU• •R q SURVEYED BY: FOSTER&MADDUX SURVEYING,INC. Fmktv,. -.;-- _,,..,.,i..-_,,lis) • IP. DENOTES IRON PIPE SURVEY REFERENCES �k'/%� j.i 708 N.E.238TH PLACE (2) DENOTES SURVEY REFERENCE NO. • 0� 0 N I I •I WOOD VILLAGE,OREGON 97060 • (2)SN 15,467 <: 1930 F 3 I 503-667-8307 OIL NO- DENOTES DOCUMENT NUMBER (5) SN 25,721 DAVID FOSTER 1934 • P.0.5 DENOTES POINT ON SPIRAL (6) SN 19.735 RENEWED 11-RU 12/31/2011 . SHEET 2 OF 3 • PSE DENOTES PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT • • • • • • • • • • • I _ RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. III• - T OAK v I L T A G E DATE OF SURVEY: APRIL 1, 2008 • LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4, NW 1/4 AND THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON • . CITY OF TIGARD APPROVALS • SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE DECLARATION APPROVED THIS DAY OF ,2010 • KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT HAWTHORNE BLOCK,LLC I DAVID A FOSTER.HEREBY CERTIFY TNAT I HAVE CORRECTLY SURVEYED AND MARKED WITH PROPER MONUMENTS THE LAND CITY ENGINEER AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND REPRESENTED ON THE ATTACHED SUBDIVISION RAT.THE BOUNDARIES BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: • REPRESENTED ON THE ANNEXED MAP AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED THAT TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY DEED TO HAWTHORNE BLOCK,LLC,AN OREGON UMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,RECORDED BY: IN THE ACCOMPANYING SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE:AND DOES HEREBY IN DOCUMENT NUMBER 2010-096164,WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS,SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWESTONE-OUARTER, • DECLARE THE ANNEXED MAP TO BE A CORRECT MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST ONE OUARTF�i OF SECTION 38,TOWNSHIP 1,SOUTH,RANGE 1 WEST, OF SAID PROPERTY;AND HAS CAUSED THIS SUBDMSIQN PLAT TO BE WILLAME71t MERIDIAN,CITY OF TIGARD,WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON.BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS PREPARED AND THE PROPERTY SUBDMDED AS SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE APPRQVEp THIS __ DAY OF 2010 • FOLLOWS: WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 92 OF OREGON REVISED STATUTES: CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND DOES HEREBY GRANT ALL EASEMENTS AS SHOWN OR NOTED BEGINNING AT THE INITIAL POINT.BEING A FOUND 5/8 INCH DIAMETER IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED'FOSTER • ON SAID PLAT;AND DOES I IEREBY DEDICATE TO THE PUBLIC PLS 1934'BEING SOUTH 89°0712 EAST A DISTANCE OF 3.33 FEET AND SOUTH 00°0847°WEST A DISTANCE OF 16247 FEET FROM BY: FOR PUBLIC USE THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF-WAYAS SHOWN. THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PIAT OF'TIGARD WOODS,A CONDOMINIUM COMMUNTM;THENCE FROM SAID INITIAL POINT • TRACT'F'IS HEREBY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD.TRACTS Q B,G D.AND E ARE HEREBY CONVEYED TO THE WHITE OAK VILLAGE EA SOUTH 88°5225'FAST A DISTANCE OF 159.08 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID WHITE OAK VILLAGE,LLC TRACT;THENCE SOUTH 00°1T05°WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WHITE OAK VILLAGE,LLC TRACT.A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. DISTANCE OF 285.49 TO A FOUND 12 INCH IRON PIPE;THENCE NORTH 89°2206"WEST A DISTANCE OF 158.37 FEET TO A FOUND WASHINGTON COUNTY APPROVALS • 5/8 INCH IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED'FOSTER PLS I934';THENCE SOUTH 00'0847"WEST A DISTANCE OF _ 64.12 FEET,TO A FOUND 5/8 INCH IRON ROD:THENCE NORTH 89°0502 WEST A DISTANCE OF 85.13 FEET:THENCE SOUTH 00 ° • 11•00'WEST A DISTANCE OF 418.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF S.W.PACIFIC HIGHWAY BARRY MENASHE.MANAGER (NO. THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE ALONG A50.00 FOOT OFFSET TO A250.00 FOOT • HAWTHORNE BLOCK LLC CENTERLINE SPIRAL CURVE(a=0.2.s=00°37'301,THE CHORD OF SAID OFFSET SPIRAL CURVE BEARS SOUTH 54°01.49'WEST • DISTANCE OF 19.82 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID WHITE OAK VILLAGE,LLC,TRACT NORTH 00°11'00'EAST A DISTANCE OF 944.37 FEET TO APOINT ON THE SOUTH UNE OF'TIGARD • WOODS.A CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY';THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH UNE SOUTH 89°0T12"EASTA DISTANCE OF 100)30 FEET; ACKNOWLEDGMENT THENCE SOUTH 00°0847"WEST A DISTANCE OF 162.47 FEET TO THE INITIAL POINT. CONTAINING 104,104 SQUARE FEET. • • STATE OF OREGON APPROVED THIS DAY OF ,2010 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON / PLAT NOTES WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYOR • THIS INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON 1. 'THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PER CRY OF TIGARD CASE FILE NO. BY: • BY BARRY MENASHE AS A MANAGER OF HAWTHORNE BLOCK,LLC. SUB 2006-00010. 2. TRACT"B',A PRIVATE STREET AND PARKING AREA,SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE 'WHITE OAK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'.SAID TRACT 13'IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC • WATER UNE EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY. SAID TRACT"B'IS SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT OVER APPROVED THIS_. DAY OF 2010 ITS ENTIRETY FOR PRIVATE FRANCHISE UTIUTIES.SAID TRACT'Er IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC STORM • NOTARY SIGNATURE SEWER AND PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY.SAID TRACT'S'fS SUBJECT WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO AN EASEMENT FOR PUBUC PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS OVER ITS ENTIRETY.SAID - TRACT IS SUBJECT TO AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT OVFA ITS ENTIRETY. • BY: _, NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 3. TRACT'S'IS SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 1 • COMMISSION NUMBER: THROUGH 27.TRACTS W AND"E"AND 111E CITY OF TIGARD. . 4. TRACT W SI IALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE WHITE OAK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ' • MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ASSOCIATION".SAID TRACT"A'IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER,PUBLIC STORM SEWER, APPROVED THIS DAY OF ,2810 PUBUC SURFACE WATER AND PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND DETENTION EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY. DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION • SAID TRACT"A'IS SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS OVER ITS ENTIRETY. SAID TRACT"A'IS SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY (WASHINGTON COUNTY ASP.FSSOR) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CRY OF TIGARD. • BY: _.-_ '5, TRACT'F'IS A WATER QUALITY FACILITY AND SHALL BE OWNED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. SAID • TRACT SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A MAINTAINCE AGREEMENT RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS. • "IHIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED USING HEWLETT PAC KARD PRODUCT 6. THERE SHALL BE NO DIRECT MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS TO OR FROM TRACT IA ONTO S.W.PACING NUMBER C4844A ON CONTINENTAL POLYESTER FILM JPC-4M2.' HIGHWAY NO.99 UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY HAVING JURISDICTION OF SAID ATTEST THIS DAY OF __ 2010 • ROAD. • DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION EX-OFFICIO COUNTY CLERK • f REGISTERED 1 7. THIS SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO COVENANTS.CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED AS PROFESSIONAL t DOCUMENT NO. .WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS. LAND SURVEY;/ _ __�1� \ �\ 8. TRACTS•C"3"AND"E`ARE PARK AREAS AND SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE'WI-8TE �Y DEPUTY • , i..���� . OAK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'. -ORE• DEC t5. • DAVID k FOSTER 9. WHEN THE SIDEYARD DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON ABUTTING LOTS WITHIN THIS • `-- 1934 J SUBDIVISION IS LESS THAN TEN(10)FEET.A SIX(6)FOOT WIDE PRIVATE ACCESS AND STATE OF OREGON ) SS RENEWED THRU 12/31/2011 MAINTENANCE EASEMENT BENEFITING THE ADJOINING LOT SHALL OCISTBETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ) WASHINGTON • BUILDINGS ON SAID LOTS. SAID EASEMENT SHALL ABUT AND RUN THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING ON THE BENEFITTING LOT. I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS • 10. THE'WHITE OAK VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECEIVED FOR RECORD ON THIS • DAY OF 2010 _ SURVEYED BY: MAINTENANCE OF THE SOUND WALLS IN TRACTS'A A. C',AND E.LOTS 8,17 AND Z7,AS SET FORTH AT O'CLOCK......M.,AND RECORDED IN THE COUNTY CLERK RECORDS •• ' FOSTER&MADDUX SURVEYING,INC. IN THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. _y T. 708 N.E.238TH PLACE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS. SHEET 3 OF 3 X000 VILLAGE,OREGON 97060 11. LOT 16,18 AND TRACT 17 ARE SUBJECT TO VISION CLEARANCE EASEMENTS TO THE CITY OF • 11 ,71/ I 503-667"8307 TIGARD AS SHOWN.SAID EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE CRY OF TIGARD VISUAL CLEARANCE DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK AREA STANDARDS(RGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.795). • • • • • • • • ..................-----_.....—,---.-.........,.............,—...... .._ __ . D L DESIGN GROUP INC. • •-.. j 9045 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 101 s Portland,OR 97219 • ii 411 (503)225-1679 411 KEY MAP —NTS O ,GT ER�c+ 599 O E • I KEYSTONE MASONRY • OUI EV • ' , • DITCH Wei up11+a BOUND .el OREGON ti, 'o ti,„ ARCY • 9 , _ ice\/\.\- /\. , \ A � r � 1Q'�' 11 A ► •1.11 „,,,r4....7.0-14:, ..� - ._ . _ .....�'.� �o� - :7\ - o���. n',ulvr >:,,.,;.. L, 1, ., 4 �. ♦. .•, ...__•. .�a��t��Oc!•D:_a P1J �'b7�f11�i .�---e - ---_- �• a ufgG \\\\\ �/ �� ., .1 - — - : �1._.�u.OcOuIG_� � T -• •` - .�a��I�la��\�\\\���r�\\\\\\`'v.\\\�\��\\\��Ir/f'iii�Iii�ild—.11^.. irC:-f yVU.�.- -= __ ...�`e.-.� . - �•��%".• --..:411.111!4111 1X110✓jr(•4��<��g90W'����`�'�e,le Z.7-,:#,--. \wio ) 4'>aam I�• titx..♦ ♦fit A .♦O, CT 011oaire ill - r ����������������i i i= 1:4f ( l®�/ v • • - ..o LOT 24• I I I ryv3 TREES fm Boa .rouse oer...ea Mfr iO.•CM afr wanes. .i•�� W o..-�fast a w.r.owed.a•1�e,ve.e .r..r. ,' i■ — — ;;' l` I I LOT 23 I LOt 22 I `, 7 t IA mr•rr a w.a Mona .1 WA V ►/� Q • /+'� . 3'CA- /4 MO. ACM C.C.A. .4...4 x .1....•••••••• `"�0-•i MO. a 6•MASONRY WALL It./ I N •— V� (— • ./( _ \ . Tut Y sw�. own ALMA wo iu.�a '� n+•'+r• Foomo - . ;140'. LOT 25 t _v 0 1—" . 411 •7`-Y/ • r ec el ww wwe mesa see.cwur mole sera%mere oomcon z y„-a I= (Vfl O• r YYWN r.YCO....anYw ,...� — f\J V S — N, S __-- �3- - J Q U. • ► x NERBACEe7U9 PLANTS for TREATMENT AREA x..a I i I V V 7.CAI- Y 040374 f'/a.•a.Yr4Pae CCU... 17.44.4 sane ofplr M.0- on .ua.a OP..oe•teeII sure mete. • ♦ . • . sa,...* Sp,e, rm.s •w.. CA..•..w awe.DOan. I I 0� • - : I W �' W Q�., 3°°, • Y em Y.tl. Mt.H G•T.IY.T e.rr C•6. MO awn ® w-- 1 I LOT e I I N Q • 1:;:-.( U a l MS s...rE•pow r s•ar fm o..mod C.O.ag 1 111 LOT 9 ��n, • I I0 1 I rWe AA few rJM.mee cbUP..•eY.% HERBACEOUS PLANTS fd SWALE BOTTOM ' IiiV) t r:: I I I W 0 0 0 aim• f1R 11330 Sag x.cn. eOrYlrx Mfa fa0letlN h.r, • j TI omnw ma ro.ouw en r ac•i ¢�- CO.a+.w sa"9•mW �, . i 1 r^ L,•./ m, r ac.r r,•.. ..o ve-. Foos.O. TRACT E IL l\\ V/ E. Z • SHRUB an .m x.cmn canes NAND ze+.l•c• N.mncroue 0.44.1 MCC r.C.n COMA.. 'i-„ - 2 0 . snot AO Seen. } Al e f..t Y MD. .. OW. e.n.CS r ' PD.„� .rl..6rr YG.AGM.Y. I .,._n...pt....•.b la..Is.fw l�e. ® I..L AO .rL st ...a. ..tot .• .. .a,.,.a•a.. ...•-,a......r•a,.._a.to.....en.....� I ;�. �il�I��®�1 10 3 Se_ AS team its fiOM.e.Kr men: .1Cr AQ W.xGr 1gLY prey e0/YaC.t Mfr -e ,o.Nf! •.I r . I Z. . x D..1.... ..ts, b l^•Y%:tt�i.:`:.R.::. D I fee_ Y rtlrl TefY....nEC.um11EAlf unll.eYM AOC! CIa m..l. 0.30,...O. ]! I . -�MI • e . ]4.4 Y fYCV• DMA...DD... 1.0.5..... br•.•pYYa q.,-sn . • • ., ,..,_ Y.tlew ef•s.f..... IEDI\PVJ..P.Y.Y. Y Y-..4 1..• C. 6-1••re«•v+ Draw.awr• a I �. • -' /] n N O.. AS 0.04 M.MCC.. !.Tar DON • e . 14.t ....M erw:r.0.1.404 of4.sa...rw.r. s,e• •.r-...,.... \ O >. ].0 Yf..w. .T..•IOIC.NpO..tee .em.4owr .-tl,....27.=°- an.,/.a. _ fmre•Irra®ems ..rerr ve.0 w•.....ter.•enn«vu REV. OATS eY » !OK N•••=0 vAcconet ev.•n M.S®.•mmemY • • Q O..r•-e sw-....M>to...a•r0 a.pro.4.1.30. earmee.see ,Comte nee •of Ma. - B•MASONRY WALL I ■ • I.wxl.•.O,.a• Ovule-t.f••... b R'env 55 PTMCn•4 eorAnrG.L Sn5 COMO.Mfa ROWS.$ .:J d-P••ow f....M. 10 It, Ir ' r s a•t x OP ..CMO.r4.1.AS W..01 O.K.= a :��� np,.,w'r CA.•.e..er' . I LO f pa 1 1. I ' 1 ice$• . W • GRASSES err .la ef•.c.. eorf•c.t own cP+.oM MYf 00•.1C• t CA m PIAMOa DC CUED WAIN flee+5 m re rc I I Oil,'ri,� I" ' ;I 1 oik. I • a I6•L Y e,Cwl •PtMAY .Opvnnr IuneA r.00 Y55.111 r a nE fn aaT ne90r.IW 11f/r®lL1dK AM M PIT. _- ��, � _ s : i no own cmr tf FO f.1 no s Nos w mC0 ammo esma rar IYD run lees.nee ..=� O!1_ �1 t.a o x avr.u.na..eS�n.YZ sr dTA.MS soma .�� 1 tow w/m,.P2PU+fQ K moan',er.E...m...cr roam 0C fIIfA M 9.1 ff101\t ' 77rT1 b\� I 0 Gnr.arose DC 05.00.M MMDN OT 11517 045.me£5-C[P0q I DC ~ , --se 0.017 5101 nmrlduCE NO.7 m.5I..IL 4511 m DC a.OL Ei ge D FENCE orb NUM BER DAL007 04514057• • I SCALE sf.le: AS SHOWN m o 10 m a0 • tl 1,''- ' �r ` i '7 I Br • 1 IN-20 FT checked gy Yr 411 f.• . _ FI�U ,, alpha • !`,1•-'y • • _-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ■ 0 a c (/1 l'hem 5C3{St0007 i , /T\•.'tif 1-"I--••._._ • _'� 97L0 Sw 1mOUi A+.. FacSON32aMJ • eetrw6.0er04?0700r a�amnnatit.o. N:\p o(2V-0I I\dwg\1 \CDY\1'4701 IiAND.dwg -91&7:PINT(I) Ox 19.07-199 PM cN • • • • • • - 1 D TREES tan. .a �..,� �,•„�„� 441-4104 0.100 ,�.� 04-1. :s3•"- 1. DESIGN GROUP INC., _ • 041.4 b}KM Am.014,+'1 Yoe MK. 1 _ 1l ugni 9045 Suite Barber Blvd a , PorUarW,OR 97219 • r c. b 1,004 A.ra P+..A OW.uxx - ' �� {503)725-1679 • • r 41• d aOr. 4010..elreS 13•17...40 .0.4.0•11C move 00.0070 X ER• :..` TO eatO --..:-.. - ... .....:...,.......�_..11.1.1 _...x_ 1_.>.... ..-__........._s..�.. 1111 �_.. f lST Tenv .,.a., , ,.,e.�. % KEY MAP - NTS I ' IGL4s9s d • r Co. v.a1 raow e•1merin taw eaurse.Moaned.1.1.1- . `� l pv„ -FIRED-1014N E°AALrFR ON CABLE m . a� v em As e...m 1“..ALCATA a•.Tr..•T• 00001 COL. % KEYSTONE MASONRY b'WOOD FENCE q 7 TSAFI.IS ATTACHED MASONRY ' WtLb6 ,(V 0...0s. a WAyLlu 9.TU s'soup OREGON ti� PE.,ee. ...ow n1.r.•c.rt..... •0.41•..01 NesneR 1 -- �- 41 909-34.4-1105 . . ••_ •• �• •M - 1 T,T T S .1.r a A, -f - �n,r d.° _�g W �00100140 1100 T 00.+0 ► , © a• ' �§1 �■ W i W • °.eHRtrB OT- " x14..0 ...mr»0' - � i Cor 26 Z 0.4 b rater •tPavw..rn.1..• , m rnoone 00 0000.0x0 ..:_ WOMEN •NCI • ® W W W W +• ® ,4.4 ,AS..w. 41.1.00.nos.. ooGal000 % I:; .I:. an i-�-� W v. W W W PEnallillileMINVIIMIII11111101111111111111 i C - �ii� i ■ olio '' • 144_ AO OV.. 0DI C.O.•T•OR P01 A.' X,M.A.W.1be%qI,T "• -�-�I .® I W .• W 4, W I, W W 4, W W W /O/� • �\ e 1 O.L Y eNOY. MOM J•PONC•1rTJ8 wW 1 .rTnyr YAM 00010 % ' g figli W W W W W W .Y W W W Y W 4- �J N • -.f..L V Olmx PT11AC.5r1.44 KOO.. r00004 mama al �_.I I e� W W W W W .Y W Y 1 W W • `� �_ Z t aL b Oa.N /•0,0 00.0061. la9AO.LOM ONY1f % �k •�n Y • W + W W W W Q Q o .A4 .,01004 10e•rev's• WA"e�,e I W W W ..• W W A..nr fPxb•WtlLU1 �.. .�.�. W m • Q 1 0.4 b 0,O1. A-BA } ,04 •„0K r V 1S.et0raa.u oe�acr % i for ar I Lor 20 I LOT 19 I Lor ra I cor 17 I LOT 16 j L rW W • f W W W W - . W W W W W ,- W r W 4. W ,. . W W W a- 0 0 to - W W W V W W W W I W W W I � Z GROUNDGOVE2 On• .a •cry eo 1a wve 40.0+.0.we 1.1131.411K•e I �ezo• I., M CC 41.05/41,0140 w. cn .0C y I W v W W Q + O z fr 1r L cc D • GRASSES err era x..0+14 010001040.Il.a ru.san sere .00'04. ,._( I f 1 ...d Q: e: I.f. 'G.L•1.O.O.T1D.o1a.a1• 5A& AOET,LTOI rg•T,ex I® N W I- I.1- Li 1.4.c,�« ��• -4 •°�«•a�1*++ col ro I tor rr I for 12 I LOT 13 LOT 14 I coo rs I I I a. • o...-...a wu c.a.ww..s.s r Anna!Ana .,1 a... 040 IL.21501, w { I I I I I # I { • i .d Yd Yr 9r b r' r.•1 10.40... tae .-+ 70 • .••. .d. - Al I ■L I -.:1 ;�. f.. p 1-:+: -- -'�.-- 1111 - - �I�. - � p o • HERBACEOUS PLANTS for TREATMENT AREA ■�,1I-•®aM��III 11I161�5��, __ 4s•.u 1.a ■I■� r�s� M EON_111 �� I I • .arm ��.� . _ _ _ • a�"� 000.0 •� - -I HERBACEOUS PLANTS r •SWALE BOTTOM +!, I: ' • n�.0•OTT MAK1.IL e.acac. 0400..0.T0 mT.n.NNE , ands OE ''• - r an..• ,prA.,, coo.or.p' Sing,Solo. /RR{ �7'-_ • "�` 0001 e- A.H.�.s Soso.,fl. !' I ,I: ! I REV. DATE ED ` ,a6Ar�,e elamue n•na aPAO.O 01.10,., I I I I I _ ! • r ,P.A.x .--.-.-',1,:-...;..:•),,-.,,rFic^ is I I I 1 ••,... �,0401C ARCH C�Im1 000•10.71.100 04 0.1,e....1001,-,1.. ...i.e.:" A. rw.awo. wr....a..� I LOr 4 I LOT. I LOT 2 I LOT 1 I LOI 27 .:i',...'..t- 1 3 I ' • ,IF*, a ,..e. ...1.m.•........0•r a 10..00.0..• _ aeiyk 0014,4•1.Rs.* reaso No n ra 0.1 s a 01. I 1 - • Cams...pas Oases}ago IS 0•000'p.•.s uonos.g eN440. .o L""r JL • O,se.xr b „00th/'' \\I t'//// ,\ /� r,'� A� • ...e 1N.s �'_Ci., -` ,-__.:443` .m •►_1 � �0•tN �_ '•'., ! 11 ow 0.4•04 sem*.a0 1�•°r 9//Ilw,\s W,,,, \- //TII m\�� I' ///HSl\s, OJO �' / -� - / .. • nOT.07 NOD 00C •...e.GC rot.a Sw..*01.psl.+TW LV a...41e.P.r.....41 r Oro•.0.00.0 r p-r0m 1... PROJECT • 001'404 4 wrE -ra+..1 01.10! - •a 7••••• -e'WOOD FENCE -_.-.t 1 --M........._--.._- - �� � a .u 1 L I NUMBER DAL007 j�+ .•s.p.0.0 P..OU.r 7O E 11615 MS, 7. • }.-Fs Ares...... 0+�9/•••n...1. b 39D14l67 *X •a..5 tat. 0wre1 e0.ar 10 _ cJ :1e sow.p•■••• x.a a... m J --- SCALE sale: 1 SW 74TH AVE ,a p Dawn ET • PAC .ma 1a N1 a4 r A�. I r1` ( n .r-r.1 r • 4 0a cmla•omo 5 70 1101'ma own.0 Awn'...a.ura mane to macre IC MAWS01 v AL.0%W 01,'47 0 0E nl IIa slu0 rAauc m ar*MI 1 IN=20 FT S4024C.4r Cr s,05055 am.wtm 0ursals.e.c-00 RE err. Cheated By: ri 2 WE fd70Kim a W Ow%net$Ke'r 00.10 Ran.00[0 ra n0 MOS WSW 5c 1 • DALE Or OA-45r04001 M 1,wcr or a[..1 Iona HORS _. -404-alpha 0.001*FM AMCPCSOCr Or aYYF00/O<0C.r10t0 75 rOiC0 DC 057010©e Own 149 RIM,nor 54.01(SIMI W VAN/r OWN AO PC O..O..Ox.c 5 rO OC • - Odes rarer/.ovrawcr..a.roe.0107054 Carr N eC Orat COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �� III Fn Far S03-452 8003 9700 SW 00007,A.a Fa 503<6I.oaT BeawInM1 000.0 97008 wwa 0'mn H%.prat\247-0I I\awav0edscox\ar.\7QOI I-uNO_a ro -Diet Fw1 pi Dos.ro.s7•139 wA av • • • • • • gSFOR'r • • • • . . • Wealt'Hoon coup 2012010-096164 imam 02:03:49 PM D-OW Cdw/ 6M+20 RECORD S 1 41 "IC00116.00$11.0316.00$743.00-Total■ 9799.00 1 IIIIUM 0 9111111111111111111111111111 Fidelity National Tiitle Company of Oregon 01047 921201000991 310 W I.RIcMrd HObernldd.Otreetor of Annulment and _,:.y;•r.- Tw Oone nd Ex-Ondn County Mark tor WeehItlpmn At,:-.,,,.., CwMy.°win.de hereby cern that Ma wlthtn /; , i GRANTOR'S NAME: Instrument°Smiling wen rea l edIntk.a�.....,, White Oak Village,LLC book Of moms of gild CO1 9 Rlekerd Hebvnkht.DttectO Anesftiet a a• '•�r,?;:r:J. Teutlon.Ex.OMCIO Cemrgr t:terk GRANTEE'S NAME: Hawthorne Block,LLC J SEND TAX STATEMENTS TO: Hawthorne Block,LLC 1 621 SW Alder St. Suite 605 Portland,OR 97205 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: J Hawthorne Block,LLC 621 SW Alder St.Suite 605 8 Portland,OR 97205 Q Escrow No: 20100016520-FTPOR01 C6SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Q STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED v White Oak Village,LLC,an Oregon Limited Liability Company,Grantor,conveys and warrants to ur Hawthorne Block,LLC,an Oregon Limited Liability Company,Grantee,the following described real i- property,free and clear of encumbrances except as specifically set forth below,situated in the County of Q Washington,State of Oregon: 0 SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO i:— ctr Z Subject to and excepting: W Rights of the public and govenmental agencies in and to any portion of said land lying within the CI boundaries oof streets,roads and highways;Easement recorded April 30,1965 in Book 550 Page 610; it BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND - 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17,CHAPTER 855,OREGON LAWS 2009. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL,AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930,AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11,CHAPTER 424,OREGON LAWS 2007,AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17,CHAPTER 855,OREGON LAWS 2009. THE TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCE IS$742,500.00. (See ORS 93.030) DATED: November 30,2010 White Oa Village,LLC 1 BY teven D.Dalton,Memb r BY: ?e �-�-,`t;:i Len Dalton,Member . . • • • • BY: ei Martin Weil,Member State of OREGON County of MULTNOMAH This instrument was acknowledged before me on November 30,2010 by Steven D.Dalton,Len Dalton and Martin Well as Members of White Oak Village,LL, -fi r //Notary Public-State of Oregon My.. mission expires: 1/23/13 oani`sFa► 5:14.':' ; COMMISSION PURL NO.435527 ) ;�(commissiINIPI� 3 2013() a� JAN�ptwY 2- • ° • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL I: The Northerly 288 feet of the following described tract: Beginning at a stone at the Northeast corner of the Geo.Richardson Donation Land Claim No.55 in Section 36,Township 1 South,Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian,in the City of Tigard,County of Washington and State of Oregon;thence North 89°00'West 816.7 feet along the North line of said Donation Land Claim to a strap iron;thence South 0°29'West 450.5 feet,more or less,to a 1 inch pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described;thence continuing South 0°29'West 713.4 feet to a 3/4 inch pipe in the Northerly right of way line of the West Side Pacific Highway;thence North 54°02' East along said right of way line 199.92 feet to a 3/4 inch Iron pipe;thence North 0°29'East 593.54 feet to a 1/2 inch iron pipe;thence North 89°00'West 160 feet to the true point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH the right to use a roadway,being a strip of land 14 feet in width,extending from the Southeasterly corner of the property described above,along and adjacent to the Easterly boundary line of the tract lying immediately South of the property described above;said strip to extend to the Northerly boundary of the West side of the Pacific Highway. PARCEL II: A tract of land in Section 36,Township 1 South,Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian,in the City of Tigard,County of Washington and State of Oregon,described as: Beginning at an iron pipe at the Southeast corner of that certain 1.0 acre tract of land in Section 36, Township 1 South,Range 1 West,Willamette Meridian,in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, conveyed to William F.and Jessie E.Weller by deed recorded on Page 261 of Deed Book 184 and which beginning point is said to be South 89°00'East 1887.60 feet and South 0°11'West 290 feet and South 89°00'East 601.80 feet and South 0°11'West 431.30 feet from the Northwest corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No.55;thence from said beginning point South 0°11'West 82.00 feet to an iron rod set for the Northwest corner of that certain tract of land conveyed to John C.and Daisy E. Morris by Deed recorded on Page 469 of Book 281,said Deed Records;thence parallel to the South line of the above mentioned Weller tract,North 89°00'West 85.0 feet to an iron rod on the East line of a certain 16.00 foot wide roadway conveyed to William F.Weller by deed recorded on Page 261 of Book 184,said Deed Records;thence along the East line of said road North 0°11'East 82.00 feet to the South line of the Weller 1.0 acre tract noted above;thence South 89°00'East 85.0 feet to the true point of beginning. PARCEL III: A tract of land in Section 36,Township 1 South,Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian,in the City of Tigard,County of Washington and State of Oregon,described as: Beginning at an iron in place at the Northeast corner of the E.L.Kegs Tract described in Deed,recorded February 15,1923,in Book 125,Page 110,Deed Records,being also the Southeast corner of that certain 4 acre tract of land conveyed by Deed to Oscar and Grace Sidler as described on Page 45 of Book 90, Washington County,Oregon Deed Records,from which point of beginning the Northwest corner of the said George Richardson Claim is said to bear North 89° West 601.80 feet,North 0°11'East 290 feet and North 89 West 1887.60 feet;thence from said point of beginning North 89°00'West along the South line of the said Sidler tract 101.0 feet to an iron in place at the Northeast corner of that certain 71.5 acre tract of land conveyed by Deed to Edward and Lottie Warnock as recorded at Page 557 of Book 124,Deed Records for said County and State;thence South 0°11'West along the East line of said Warnock tract 431.30 feet to an iron pipe;thence South 89°00'East parallel with the South line of the said Sidler tract 101.00 feet to an iron pipe on the East line of the said Keas tract;thence North 0°11'East along the East line of the said Keas tract 431.30 feet to the place of beginning. Also a strip of land running along the land owned by Wamock on the West of the Keas property and extending 16 feet on the Keas Property in an Easterly direction,it being a 16 foot roadway from the above described property to the S.W.Pacific Highway. - Excepting.that.pertion conveyed to the State of Oregon,by and through its State Highway Commission,by Deed recorded September 18,1939,Book 183,Page 543,Washington County Deed Records. • 5310/ NQLW? fl4IVJ • ! • • CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) T'iGARI? PRE-APP.MTG.DATE: January 18,2011 STAFF AT PRE-APP.: GBP NON-RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: Foster Finch AGENT: Phone: (503) 799-8252 Phone: ( ) - PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: SW 74th between Spruce and Pacific Hwy TAX MAP(S)/LOT#(S): 1 S1 36CA NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: Detailed Plan Review (PDR) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Modification of existing detailed development approval associated with Order NO. 2007-02 PC (PDR2006-00001), specifically changes from attached (duet) dwellings to single-family detached dwellings and landscape screening details. • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential;General Commercial . ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R-12, C-G (PD) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.510) Minimum Lot Size: 3,050 sq. ft. Average Min.lot width: none ft. Max. Building Height: 35 ft. Setbacks: Front: 15 ft. Side: 5 ft. Rear: 15 ft. Corner: 10 ft. from street. Maximum Lot Coverage: 80%. Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 20%. • ❑ NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INI ERESI ED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. ® NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • • • ❑ IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system,the parks system,the water system,the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ❑ ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.765) Minimum number of accesses: . Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: All driveways and parking areas,except for some fleet storage parking areas,must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: ❑ WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.705.030) WALKWAYS SHALL EXPEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. ❑ SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730) ➢ STREETS: feet from the centerline of ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet,along the site's boundary. ➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. ❑ SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Section 18.730.010.B.) BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS -Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: •▪ A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; ■ All actual building setbacks will be at least half(1/2) of the building's height; and ► The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. ® BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745) In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; • these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by • vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION,SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • . • ❑ LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 18.705) STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls,and raised planters. ❑ RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.755) Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SI'Z'E 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. Pride Disposal can be reached at (503) 625-6177. ❑ PARKING (Refer to Code Section 18.765.040) REQUIRED parking for this type of use: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNA'1'ED 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. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. HANDICAPPED PARKING: • All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIA 1'ELY 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,is 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 ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. ❑ LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.765.080) Every COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. ❑ BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.765) BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • • • ❑ SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.775) The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS,WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT,OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive land areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.775.080.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report - shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. ❑ CLEAN WATER SERVICES (CWS) BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to CWS R&O 07-20/USA Regulations-Chapter 3) LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETA 1'ED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS • SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION&ORDER 07-20•SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITIQN. .:.. . SLOPE ADJACENT;: '° WIDTH OF VEGETATED ti• TO SENSITIVE AREA4;.:: CURRIDOR:PER SIDES:: • Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% I 10 to <50 acres 15 feet I >50 to <100 acres 25 feet ♦ Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands>0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers,streams,and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining>100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% I 10 to <50 acres 30 feet I >50 to <100 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure in 25- ♦ Rivers,streams,and springs with year-round flow foot increments from the starting point to ♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining>100 acres the top of ravine(break in <25%slope), • Natural lakes and ponds add 35 feet past the top of ravine° ;Starting point for measurement=edge of the defined channel(bankful flow)for streams/rivers,delineated wetland boundary,delineated spring boundary,and/or average high water for lakes or ponds,whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs,located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor,shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 5Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 'The 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section •. N • Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor,except as provided for in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract,and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the CWS R&O 07-20 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas,CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. ❑ SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.780) 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 18.790.030.0 and the "Tree Plan Requirements Handout" included in your pre-application conference packet) 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 (Address all items in the City's Tree Plan Requirements Handout). THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: ► Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the City; ► Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: I 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.; I 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section •. III • ❑ MITIGATION (Refer to Code Section 18.790.060.E.) 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 damaged 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: I The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city,either public property or, with the consent of the owner,private property. • The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN-LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director,elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. ❑ CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18.795) 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. ❑ ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.060) 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 21/2 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 11/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS ❑ 18.330(Conditional Use) ❑ 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) ❑ 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) ❑ 18.340(Director's Interpretation) ❑ 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) ❑ 18.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) ® 18.350(Planned Development) ❑ 18.640(Durham Quarry Design Standards) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) ❑ 18.360(Site Development Review) ❑ 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) ❑ 18.780(Signs) ❑ 18.370(Variances/Adjustments) ❑ 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 18.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendments) ❑ 18.715(Density Computations) ❑ 18.790(Tree Removal) ❑ 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) ❑ 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) ❑ 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) ® 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) ❑ 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) ❑ 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) ❑ 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) ❑ 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) ❑ 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) ❑ 18.420(Land Partitions) ❑ 18.740(Historic Overlay) ❑ 18.430(Subdivisions) ❑ 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) ® 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) ® 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) ❑ 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ❑ 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.755(Moved Solid Waste/Recyding Storage) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • • • ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: To ensure proposed changes to the building grouping and landscaping are consistent with the standards of the development code and the Commission's approval, proposed changes must be reviewed and approved by the Commission through a Type III-PC process (18.390.050). Your written narrative should respond to the Planning Commission's comments on the proposed detailed plan at its April 2,2007 hearing (attached) and the applicable review criteria listed above. PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. ZPublic 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 Planning counter closes at 5:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 81/2" x 11". One, 81/2" x 11" map of a proposed project shall be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Applications 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. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard City Council. A basic flow chart 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 NO'T'ES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INtENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section . , , w • • PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the 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: Gary Pagenstecher.Associate Planner CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-624-3681 DIRECT: 503-718-2434 EMAIL: garyp @tigard-or.gov TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: www.tigard-or.gov H:\patty\masters\Pre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 16-May-08 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • U1 • • MEMORANDUM T I GARDE fr� TO: Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner g'd� ,/ FROM: Gus Duenas 1 "'`"" Development Engineer RE: Engineering Comments —PRE2010-00031 White Oak Village (Foster Finch) DATE: January 12, 2011 The applicant's request is to allow a mix of attached and detached units within the White Oak Village Project. As long as the applicant does not change any of the public improvements already in place, Development Engineering has no comments on the proposed action. • yre,,D 7 TO ,1 / 107 City of Tigard `k Pre-Application Conference Request GENERAL INFORMATION 4 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Applicant: �� `7 Case No.: p1`n Z�1L UQ an Q3 Address: 7 2 3 Set/ �Cw7�Phone: 503 7994P2 SZ Receipt No.: I /v 0-3 City: A/II-A4_ O^ Zip: 97225-- Application Accepted By: K -P Date: /(s //j Contact Person: S! '!e Phone: S e'I'"4:— DATE OF PRE-APP.: 1// ?//) Property Owner/Deed Holder(s): S g-- TIME OF PRE-APP.: t7:414 j1.4.1,1 PRE-APP.FIELD WITH: 4 Rev.7/1/10 is\curpin\masters\land use applications\Prc-App Request App.doc Address: • Phone: City: Zip: Property 4.ddress/Location(s): /.l 4 i 0/9-R �/'4,e File Zoe) 7- o00 ql6 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) Tax Map&Tax Lot#(s): l� - /j `td ❑ Pre-Application Conf. Request Form 6 COPIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: Zoning: [( ' Brief Description of the Proposal and any Site Size: site-specific questions/issues that you would like to have staff research prior to the meeting. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE INFORMATION g Site Plan. The site plan must show the proposed lots and/or building layouts drawn All of the information identified on this form are required to be submitted by to scale. Also show the location of the the applicant and received by the Planning Division a minimum of one(1)week subject property in relation to the nearest prior to officially scheduling a pre-application conference date/time to allow streets; and the locations of driveways on the staff ample time to prepare for the meeting. subject property and across the street. A pre-application conference can usually be scheduled within 1-2 weeks of the ❑ Vicinity Map. Planning Division's receipt of the request for either Tuesday or Thursday ❑ The Proposed Uses. mornings. Pre-application conferences are one (1) hour long and are typically held between the hours of 9:00-11:00 AM. ❑ Topographic Information. Include Contour Lines if Possible. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCES MUST BE SCHEDULED IN ❑ Filing Fee$599.00 PERSON AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER FROM 8:00-4:00/MONDAY-FRIDAY. IF MORE THAN 4 PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND THE PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IN YOUR GROUP, PLEASE INFORM THE CITY IN ADVANCE SO THAT ALTERNATE ROOM ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE GROUP. • City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-718-2421 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 • • Modification of the PDR (2006-00001) 1. First Proposal: The current PDR/ SUB approval was for attached and detached units. There was an exhibit included in the applicants request for the PDR that was a plot of units on the lots that indicates attached units except for one detached unit. Our request for Modification is to allow detached or attached units or a combination of both on lots of choice. This request in consistent with the underlying R-12 Zone. 2. Second Proposal: The landscape plan that was considered as a part of the applicants request had firethorn espalier on cable trellis attached to the sound wall on the west property line adjacent to Raz Transportation. The wall as constructed is very visually attractive and the firethorn espalier is not needed and will not provide desired buffering screening of the Raz Transportation property. This request for Modification is the replacement of the espalier firethorn with trees which will provide a visual screen above the sound wall. • • ruary 2„.t . l8, SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa SuMo TuWe Th Fr Sa TUesda 2 3 4 5 6 `7= 8 6; 7 8. 9 10 11 12 Y ` 9 10 11 12 13 14.15 13 14.15 16 17 18 19 16 17 18 19 20--21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 '23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 .Y 3031 18 Tuesday ,Notes 7 am 8 00 9 00 Michael Mitchell 503-620-3203 14325 SW 97th Ave 3-lot MLP CR-1 -Pre-Apps_CD_Meetings 106° Foster Finch 503-799-8252 White Oak Village CR-1 -Pre-Apps_CD_Meetings 11 00 John Ellisen 425-251-6222 Costco Fuel Pumps CR-1 -12 pm 1 00 2 00 300 4 00 5 00 6 00 -Pre-Apps_CD_Meetings 1 1/6/2011 4:35 PM 0 • . - • - - • • . •. _ ...•- .S8rOrtir WM, -.s„ - . . . .I , _ / -I 14 w][41-TE OAK , 133, • / 14 , \TILLAGE . Is TRACT C • • 120J1 SO FT • . zar se, saismr _ =of•-•!' st t I it • „........._._ . — pql ft;1 ... Ne 44! i . .. 1 •1 . . ' • I ' I vent par . avi ,60..01091 -1 ea a i a 44174 nue Mg Vr_1101IPIPE VOW AMMO . OP-' ! r d t.%-..'. ''''' rthr.. la-XX 44.1X.X OA Mx:jai 0014Wart •■•.$ar, 0:C." swam . maw 1 li, , ,V1101TO V ECitaia721( . ICJ NEW (Lr _ /e . . 14 soy 14._ e worm- ' lf N • . Mt.' ..0 -----•••■r.—-— $11i Nth itit k ...- - - k sesiz2W ixtii•—-—-—-—-..i. 50 1\ ,. q 1 ii/rti t \ ti hr . 14 32032'251E Mb.. MOT MOP lb •1 ..e, , 111,11-0P-It&DEOG1E0 (C) V . ii), I sr wow'.Dowager - • • o•• r 74,01 7101 -• .....01 %.t. . ef / 4 • t VI 4,.4 ItisStirmT — -"? 1--' --birpor__,Tte..% ''':4• , - .t.-.4 * \ t 1 1 4 212e • .1 . 1 el. 1 IsFcP44 -- LOT 18 • • urr go 17-of hl. , Jar .0 -...... -v.:, 4...... II * z4o4 so Fr 1,2340 SO Fr g. 1 . ,,,,.1 749 30.FT_ DOA,.,ortstor • ROOS a 44co' stratta 7101' 4 ssroson XiOr '' ' ,._ t _ 9113' It „q. op los LOCRI:7471: a 11 11 LOT is) 13 R•••4 ton so Fr g 1.014728 Fr I ki I id 1.8ivorz fr• . 4. tos- MO 80.1192. N 44-41Or E r sertati& Mr i Serfs• T ,• as,i.. mit —...491 b 14)3, LOr 20 • 1,971 SQ FT 14 s'art41 tc :i1 /11 ton 2 . IiI t--"."-- Is on so.rr 1 ts 1 14 tem.so sr 4 12. • I • &novo 7.X01 sets"29tlit 73.90' I , RUE U•1 • .0 a 1,. 11.5:1 PAZ k LOT 13 it 1 tisnibeir time .11 't LO 2 1 P; I 1,9.71 T 1 SO FT 111R, 1,071 se.FT 1 4: p t.. It, 1.44,orsirr a.. 1 serntuT =or . /mates Accei teC22211 SW I cor n 1 4 147 12 I • 1 LOT s 4,/,1 1 1.1171 SOFT l t 4 Lon so rr 4 1 % A ,,a7.so Fr 1,4 1 Ea••• • 95519bit. i.101* s • • ... • ,,r, .10TE 3,3442.612S , ••'• ME 4t44Z6191 ow voicas -g J ..*•-..\ , li,s' e: ,, ,,,;, k 1 A% 2 il 1 la Ds'Advi i 1 z '...:"L" "" I qii t1 Li as :fek•■• '4. Er.107 A itania240,7,02$ 4 1 ' *Jor , a, zavazast i.ona . .-. . 7. • •-::--; ' : i Pig •1 *i5 Ii4 6k ii bs usi i t t ' 1: 1 U OS 11el c /1. W- 01107 1 , 41 9 201 (=. .• !r— Jou 4,0,17.44s . ,b1.4ou ic A- - --: ...I 41V, Magee, 14 • 4 .14 OS oat a T. 13 ti-Li OS ant 3 @ - Z' .Li os coal 07 ' ,..06.-.• '"7 ' -14/ $ fr • A 'i,. - • h T-5— —911,---‘‘ ft 8..d -• - l 00-TS • irP • • .. . •„W. • .... .16 if? •••• t.......e,,,0. 4,0. , . • 00 • a AA..,, - Id OS 9E1T z , i Z 107 • •-, -..i _, .. • Wises CP •C.,` .. 11 \ •• • • A Amp: • ,..- •■■plimoull.-i.r. - JITS It • CZ!) t.i•474%.,. 0 .1„ L 1,4 arm *.t_ti 1.1 d t h 4 a., 1 sok 1. 61 ib 4. ti St .4 t t`" ' t il b13 4.12k4, •t . h• k osz 1.,,6:)..,t bn . St B i ,i 4:. iu : ... WI ' I , ... • ... ,.. _ ... .. - . • - . • • .........■mmmrIIIMM ra����_ CITY of _ PINE _ __ ST GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP SUB2006-00010 — PDR2006-00003 i : • , . ZON2007-00001 1 I ,r SPRUCE ST WHITE OAK VILLAGE . i , II a g o a SUBDIVISION E.• . c..-T LEGEND: Q o g o - _ SUBJECT ME - � — SITE N. 70„„Z ' /If illtilnlil ______, . ...,2-:-:.:::.—____-:-. 4, 1W 14 Litilb10 . ■1111111111—A.. .41 glig BEND R- ilt ----___ ___ \ ,,,y WII • .. . = 1— co , . . . , Tigard Area Map. 1 A N al- . r IZ . 0 80 160 240 320 400 Feet ST _ �\G T.LGAltl7. QV'�` Information on this map is for general looatIon only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW He Blvd _� Tigard,OR 97223 /-\ I (503)8391171 hltp•Ifwww.dAgardorms Plot date:Mar 7,2007;C:\rnagic'MAGIC03.APR•l:nmmrrni4�r rlevulnnmonf • CITY OF TIGARD RECEIPT .! 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard OR 97223 503.639.4171 TIGARD Receipt Number: 181003 - 01/06/2011 CASE NO. FEE DESCRIPTION REVENUE ACCOUNT NUMBER PAID PRE2011-00003 Pre-Application Conference 1003100-43116 $522.00 PRE2011-00003 Pre-Application Conference-LRP 1003100-43117 $77.00 Total: $599.00 PAYMENT METHOD CHECK# CC AUTH.CODE ACCT ID CASHIER ID RECEIPT DATE RECEIPT AMT Check 1005 KPEERMAN 01/06/2011 $599.00 Payor: FD Properties LLC Total Payments: $599.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Page 1 of 1 • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 2, 2007 The Planning Commission met at 6:00 p.m. in Red Rock Creek Conference Room to greet new Planning Commissioners and to discuss meeting protocol. 1. CALL TO ORDER • President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson,Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh Commissioners Absent Commissioner Hasman Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager;Kim McMillan,Development Review Engineer; Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Ron Bunch invited the Commissioners and the public to open houses on the Comprehensive Plan on April 18th and April 21st. The open houses will provide the public an opportunity to become familiar with the Comp Plan Update process,provide input on the Tigard 2007 Resource Report, confirm community values, review draft goals,and sign up to participate further. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the March 19, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioners Fishel,Muldoon,and Vermilyea abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-April 2,2007-Page 1 • • REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 27-lot subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed with attached (duet) single-family homes. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 1,926 square feet. Two pocket parks and a pedestrian tract/open space are proposed totaling approximately 54,681 square feet. LOCATION: The project is located north of Pacific Hwy. at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving three (3) parcels at 11625 and 11645 SW Pacific Hwy. and 11030 SW 74th Avenue;WCTM 1S136DB,Tax Lots 01000 and 02300 and 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium- Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. Commissioner Vermilyea and President Inman declared conflicts of interest and recused themselves. Vice-President Walsh took over as Chair for the public hearing. Commissioners Muldoon and Walsh reported site visits. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher provided a general overview of the structure of a staff report, followed by specifics for this application. He noted that a new Planned Development Code was adopted last November. This application would be processed under the old code. He advised that this applicant has asked for a private street to serve more than 6 units and lots that average significantly less than the minimum allowed in the R-12 zone. To get both of those things, they have proposed to save a significant tree and provide several open space tracts. They also propose a pedestrian pathway from the development out to Hwy. 99W. Issues that arose during the review included density computation, landscaping and screening, and street improvements. The density computation question for the Commission is if the applicant should be allowed 27 units as proposed or 23 as staff found to be allowed in the standards. For landscaping and screening, the Commission has the discretion to require greater screening than would otherwise be allowed under the standards. For street improvements, the public street was proposed as a "skinny street" and our standards require a full section—a difference from 44' to 52'wide. The density calculations revolve around the definition of flag pole and whether or not the flag pole that extends from Hwy. 99W to the development can be included or should be excluded from the net developable area. Also, our standards require that the pedestrian access in the flag pole be public right-of-way. We also require a utility easement to the water quality swale. These requirements have caused disagreement between staff and the applicant with regard to the density allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007-Page 2 • • Pagenstecher referred to a memo from Dorothy Cofield dated March 30th and a memo from Clean Water Services dated March 22nd (Exhibits A and B). The Cofield memo includes a revised density calculation which has increased from what was in the staff report. Pagenstecher has not had a chance to review the new calculations; however, he agrees with the basis of the calculations. Staff is in agreement with the second scenario (without the flagpole in net area); so 25 lots would be appropriate with the revised numbers. Pagenstecher noted that parking on the 20'wide private street would not be allowed. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Dorothy Cofield, 12725 SW Millikan Way, S-300, Beaverton, OR 97005 and Kirsten Van Loo,Alpha Planning, 9200 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, OR 97008 spoke for the applicant. Cofield advised that the applicant is in agreement with the staff report except for the density issue. She presented a new density analysis (Exhibit C). She referred to the 1994 Dolan case about whether or not the company could be made to constitutionally give a bike path to allow the public to go on their property and not use that property for development. The U.S. Supreme Court said there must be rough proportionality. In this case, the developer is being asked to dedicate open space, easements, and right-of-way. About 50% of the land that the developer owns is being given to the public. The developer agrees to do all of this, but in exchange, he would like to develop it with 27 lots. The development will be innovative and should be allowed to develop at maximum density (27 lots). Kirsten Van Loo provided details of the proposed development (Exhibit D). She noted that the long pathway to Hwy. 99W was the original access point to the property. She advised that the applicant has been granted an easement from an adjacent property owner for an access point to SW 74th Ave. The proposed public street would also connect to the property to the west. It could provide access to that property if it ever redevelops. The units will be duet homes —there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each home is on a separate,individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all "end units". The plan shows extra head-in parking spaces along the public street; however code standards do not allow them so they will have to be removed. Van Loo said that once they build the public right-of-way, the project is no longer a flag lot. Approximately 25% of the property will be in open space tracts. The circulation system adds up to another 25% of the site. A planned development allows flexibility in exchange for benefits for the City. The applicant believes the duet units provide an affordable ownership opportunity. Protecting the existing oak tree is a mandate and the park space in tract C is a good size piece of land for this zoning district. It's designed so that when the adjoining property develops, the park can continue. Van Loo reviewed the newest density analysis (Exhibit C) and advised that staff believes the flag pole cannot be counted for density. Their attorney does not agree, saying that all the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007-Page 3 • • land within the legal description is included in the parcel. Taking the flag pole out of the computation gives them 24 units for a base density. With all the amenities included in the project, the applicant believes they should qualify for density bonuses. Possible density bonuses include 3% for undeveloped open space, 3% for developed open space, 3% for focal points or creating vistas, and 3% for architectural style, housing types, unique character of the development. The maximum allowed for density bonuses is 10%. With the maximum density bonus, this development should be allowed 26.88 units. Van Loo said that most jurisdictions round up with the units. Tigard rounds down. She encouraged the Planning Commission to round up and give the development 27 units. The Planning Commission discussed the density bonus issue. Commissioner Doherty does not believe that duet homes qualify as being unique. She sees this type of development in other parts of Tigard. Van Loo said that the uniqueness lies in the fact that the duet homes are close to an arterial, shopping, employment, etc. Homeowners can walk to shopping or church, plus they have access to public transportation. Commissioner Muldoon referred to the memo from the applicant's attorney saying that people could access 99W through a �- neighboring commercial parking lot. He does not believe this is a viable option. He asked if the applicant believes the pathway to 99W makes the development unique and,without that designation as a right-of-way (ROW), it would not be unique. Van Loo agreed. Gary Pagenstecher noted that the matrix provided by the applicant is helpful. There is still disagreement about the new public ROW calculation. A marginal difference in the calculation might make a difference with the unit number. The applicant is asking for a 9% density bonus, but staff is only in agreement with the open space and focal point density bonuses (6%). It's up to the Commissioners to decide if an architectural style has been met / to award another 3% bonus. Nothing has been submitted to make that determination; however the Commission could consider the option of"innovative building orientation or building grouping" for the additional 3%. Pagenstecher advised that the public pedestrian access is required by the code under Section 18.810.040.B.2. In addition, water quality access is also required by code. Dick Bewersdorff said that the Commission could dispense with the argument of the parcel being a flag lot or not. It's not relevant in this case. What's relevant is the issue of public easement that's required by the code. Dorothy Cofield agrees that there is a code requirement for the public pedestrian path for connectivity; however, that does not mean it's constitutional. The property owner does not have to dedicate to the public's use land that isn't related to the impact of what he is creating. The impact of what this applicant is creating is about 270 vehicle trips. The whole impact area is about 12,000 trips. The amount of land he is being asked to dedicate compared to what he has is over the allowable ratio. The applicant may have to dedicate the public pedestrian path,but he doesn't have to do it for free—he has to be compensated. Staff responded that the issue is if they meet the standards; this applicant has not met the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-April 2,2007-Page 4 • • standards. If they argue proportionality on that basis, the only option the Commission has is to deny the application because they have not met the standards. Cofield disagreed, saying that the developer can say he believes it's unconstitutional, but go ahead and make a dedication and then make a claim for just compensation. This applicant agrees with the dedication and is asking for 27 lots as compensation. Van Loo referred to a memo from their traffic engineer (Exhibit E) that substantiates a 46' ROW. The ROW dedication is based on the vehicle trips that will be carried on a portion of a public street. They believe that this project plus the potential development of the adjacent property will generate less than 500 vehicle trips per day. Having less ROW will give the applicant a little more land for their density calculations. Kim McMillan disagreed with the 46'.ROW. The City also takes the existing neighborhood into account. The adjacent parcels have 32 dwelling units and this development is proposing 27. Added together, it is already over 500 trips. Having 54' for the public street will absorb the head-in parking, but will allow for some parallel parking. Commissioner Muldoon asked about the net gain and loss for parking and if there was a gain in green space. Van Loo said there is a potential total loss of 9 spaces and a potential gain of maybe 5. She advised that the Development Code requires 1 parking space per unit. The applicant is proposing 2 spaces per unit. Over the long term, the public street will build out to full development which will allow for more parking. Commissioner Walsh said that the parking spaces are not realistic for this development. It was also noted that there will be no parking allowed on the private street. Van Loo said that reciprocal parking arrangements with neighboring properties have not been considered. Also, eliminating some of the units to put in more parking is not feasible. The Commissioners expressed major concern about the lack of parking. Van Loo suggested that people could park in neighboring businesses. Going back to the number of units recommended by staff, it was advised that staff is agreeable to 25 units. With regard to the access on 74th Street, Van Loo said that it will be repaved to 24'wide to a section that meets City standards —approximately 500 lineal feet to Spruce Street. Len Dalton,White Oak Village,LLC, 7955 SW Hall Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97008, owner of the property, reported that he is following the recommendations in the arborist's report to care for the Oak tee. Screening and buffering were discussed. It was advised that there will be a 6'wall between the development and the bus storage lot. Commissioner Muldoon doesn't think this will be enough screening. He asked if the developer would consider planting higher vegetation. Van Loo said that a final landscaping plan would be submitted as part of the final development plan. If the Commission wants, the developer will put in higher vegetation. It was advised that the tree is probably over 200 years old and in very healthy condition. The homeowner's association will maintain the park and protect the tree. Also, the developer will comply with the Police Department's request for lighting along the pathway. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007-Page 5 • • Marty Weil, Remax, 9790 SW Nimbus Ave., Beaverton, OR spoke about the affordability of the proposed homes. He noted that end units are very desirable and add a lot of value to the V property. Regarding style of the units, Len Dalton advised that every unit will have some sort of stone veneer on the front elevation as a unifying theme. Vice-President Walsh asked about the 3%bonus for architectural quality and style concept. He asked if there were any examples of how that has been applied in the past. Staff answered that, typically, drawings showing unique architectural details would be submitted. The Planning Commission would approve the drawings agreeing that they were unique. With this application, no drawings were submitted. Walsh noted that with the new PD code (which does not apply with this application), that aspect of the bonus could include such features as environmentally friendly materials, impervious pavements,etc.,which would be over and above the standard. PUBLIC TESTIMONY—IN FAVOR Susan Frohnmeyer, 10900 SW 76th Place #24,Tigard 97223 testified that she lives on the other side of fence adjacent to the proposed development. She is supportive of the project but expressed some concerns about density, traffic, and protection of the tree. The developer has assured her that they will keep the tree. She hopes that all the other issues can be resolved so that a quality project can be constructed. There will be more noise; however, there is already noise night and day from the Raz buses. Mitch Gensman, PO Box 1626, Sherwood, OR 97140, testified that he owns property to the south of the proposed development. He is pleased about the development and asked the Commission to consider allowing development to fullest extent possible. He had questions about the setback for the one way street next to his property. Van Loo advised that the setback is 4' from the curb to the property line; the Uniform Building Code requires that they stay at least 2' back from the property line during grading and construction. Also, there will be a masonry wall and buffer to separate a portion of the site from the adjacent property. Staff provided details on the drainage and detention system that will be on the site. The water quality facility will be maintained by the City. Mr. Gensman asked that after the subdivision is recorded, if it would be possible to release a current access easement that runs along his property to the proposed development site. The applicant agreed. The Planning Commission advised that this is a matter that needs to be resolved between the two parties outside of the public hearing; the City does not have authority over this. Mr. Gensman is concerned about public access through the area next to the Union Gospel Mission. He noted that there are homeless people living in the back of the building. He asked if two fences could be tied together to prevent pedestrian egress in that area. Van Loo PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007-Page 6 • • believes that because.the adjacent parcels are not part of this application, the City cannot mandate offsite conditions. The Planning Commission advised that this is beyond the scope of this application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY—IN OPPOSITION Ken Zsoka, 10945 SW 74th Ave.,Tigard 97223 spoke about the impact on 74th Ave. with overflow parking from the development. He asked if there are any provisions for the construction equipment and contractor vehicles. He does not want to see their dead end street flooded. He also asked who will be responsible for the sidewalks, curb, and gutters. Staff answered that the applicant has to provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for the project. They will come down 74th and will be expected to park on their site to do all their work for the bulk of development. There will only be street paving on 74th; no curbs and sidewalks will be put in. The homeowners won't be tagged for any improvements. Anyone can park along a public street, but they can't block driveways. Neighbors can call the Engineering inspector if there are problems with construction vehicles. Sandi Moxley, 11005 SW 74th,Tigard 97223, is concerned about lighting in the park area. She thinks that it will become a high crime rate because it will be boxed in with a fence. People could congregate there after dark and cause problems. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Kirsten Van Loo advised the following: • Regarding the 200 year old tree,the client is not opposed to putting the tree on the historic register in order to provide maximum protection. • There currently is poor connectivity on 74th; the continuation of 74th will provide the next link to eventually connect to 78th. • Parking and construction management concerns were answered by staff. • The 24' wide paving on 74th will be an improvement to the street. It will provide more encburagement for people to park on the street rather than on people's yards. • Issues about fencing were discussed; the client will do the best he can to restrict unauthorized passage on private property while maintaining balance with the community. The new pedestrian pathway may be longer, but will be a more pleasant experience. • Regarding lighting in park—if places are lighted at night, they become attractive nuisances and people tend to congregate there. The client will defer to the Police Department and follow their recommendations to the best of his ability. • The two lots next to the park will be fenced. Dorothy Cofield said that they would like to conclude tonight if possible, or to have some inclination as to what the decision will be. She feels they have met the burden of proof for 27 lots. PLANNING COMMIISSION MEETING MINUTES-April 2,2007-Page 7 • 111/ • PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Doherty does not think that public access to Hwy. 99W warrants going against the staff recommendation for density. She is very concerned about the lack of parking and the small yards. She is leaning toward the staff recommendation of 25 lots. Commissioner Muldoon disagrees with diverting access to the north. He believes that the pedestrian access and the ROW are indisputable. He thinks that cutting through the adjoining Mexican restaurant's parking lot is not adequate. The screening by Raz still needs to be addressed;higher vegetation could help with screening. There's a huge amount of work involved to rip up the entire walkway and change the pathway to something that's wheelchair accessible. He doesn't see anything in the code that allows for granting an extra 3%in recognition of all this work. Commissioner Caffall believes that to get the extra 3%, the applicant needs to come back with additional drawings showing the type of architectural design that will be used. Commissioner Anderson agreed. He thinks it could be a great project,but the Commission just can't tell yet. He's leaning toward staff's recommendation of 25 lots, or possibly even 26. Commissioner Caffall suggested continuing the hearing to give the applicant a chance to re- present the material. Dick Bewersdorff said the hearing could be continued to a time certain (April 16th). The applicant can come back with architectural drawings and revised density calculations. Staff cannot recommend using the pathway for density calculations—the code requires that public right-of-way be excluded. They will also have to deal with the street width that the Engineering Division recommends. Commissioner Fishel agreed with Commissioner Doherty on the parking issue. Vice-President Walsh said that there are a lot of positive aspects to the development with the parks and open space. The tree is great,but it won't live forever;the Planning Commission has to look beyond that. He thinks there could have been more work done with staff before the hearing to get some of the details worked out. As far as the number of lots, staff has given guidance as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. To him,it's clear that the public ROW cannot be included. He noted that it's the Planning Commission's discretion whether to grant density bonuses or not. Given the information presented at this time,he does not see how they can go beyond 25 lots. He is also very concerned about the parking. It was noted that the Commission wants more parking,but the applicant already meets the code. Commissioner Doherty moved to recommend approval of the application as submitted,with the staff recommendation of 25 lots; everything else would stay the same. The Commission was reminded that the applicant had asked to speak again before the decision was made. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-April 2,2007-Page 8 • • Dorothy Cofield asked to either 1) continue the meeting for 2 weeks so the applicant can return with design drawings, or 2) get approval for 25 lots with the ability to get 1 additional lot with a plan showing that it is feasible to meet the design bonus. For#2, the Commission would make a finding there is enough evidence in the record,in terms of the stonework and type of design that could be done,that the density bonus could be met. Commissioner Doherty still had concerns about lack of parking and lighting in the park. Cofield noted that the parking standards have been met and that transit is also available. Len Dalton said that,with either 24 units or 27 units,the parking issue won't change. Vice-President Walsh noted that the applicant is requesting to put a lot of units on the site, using the Planned Development process. The PD process allows the Planning Commission to use their discretion about granting density bonuses. The Commission wants to have a livable neighborhood. Commissioner Muldoon asked staff if diagonal parking could be allowed on the far southeast corner lot or if the lot was too small. Staff responded that all the cars would have to back out, which doesn't work on that lot. Kim McMillan said that if the 2 homes by the oak tree were taken out,the applicant might be able to gain a couple of spaces. Dick Bewersdorff noted that it's also possible to take out the 2 units by the horseshoe and put in angled parking. The cars would still have to back out onto the private street. Cofield asked the keep the record open for 2 weeks so the applicant can come back. The Commission said that they would like to see something unique. The applicant noted that one of the standards the Commission could consider is building grouping. He feels that having duet units could qualify as a unique grouping of homes. Staff agreed that innovative building grouping is one of the standards listed in the code. If the Commission determines that duet homes satisfy that language,they could award the additional 3%. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Doherty moved again to recommend approval of the application as submitted, with the staff recommendation of 25 lots. Commissioner Fishel seconded the motion. Staff advised that the applicant has submitted sufficient information to show that the original 23 units recommended should be changed. Two additional units would be consistent with the findings; however, that number would be subject to additional information which would verify that the calculation was accurate. Dick Bewersdorff recommended giving the applicant the opportunity to re-compute the numbers and provide the evidence to the Commission along with evidence to warrant more density bonuses. The Commission could then make their decision. Commissioner Doherty withdrew her motion. Commissioner Caffall moved to continue the hearing to April 16th. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vice-President Walsh asked staff to check the records to see how density bonuses have been applied in the past. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 9 • • 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary A1'1'EST: Vice-President David Walsh • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 2,2007—Page 10 • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 16, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • • 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall,Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Muldoon, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Vermilyea • Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager;Darren Wyss,Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer;Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Ron Bunch talked about the Tree Board (Exhibit A) and reorganization of the work program duties in Long Range Planning. Darren Wyss discussed the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update open houses (Exhibit B). 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the April 2, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Commissioners Inman and Hasman abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION—Continuation of April 2,2007 hearing REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 27-lot subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed with attached • (duet) single-family homes. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 1,926 square feet. Two pocket parks and a pedestrian tract/open space are proposed totaling approximately 54,681 square feet. LOCATION: The project is located north of Parifr Hwy at the southern terminus of C'XI 74th Avenue involving th ee (3) parcels Hwy. :: terminus -- - � tc .. � I 1 L�.LJ at 11625 and 11645 SW Pacific Hwy. and 11030 SW 74th Avenue;WCTM 1S136DB, Tax Lots 01000 and 02300 and 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 16,2007—Page 1 • • PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: • • Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. President Inman recused herself for conflict of interest. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION • Steven Dalton and Len Dalton, 7955 SW Hall Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97008, presented a • revised site plan of the development (Exhibit C). They discussed the memo submitted to the Planning Commission (Exhibit D) regarding density, the public street and parking, architectural density bonus, and street side yard setbacks. Gary Pagenstecher advised that, with the exception of a few minor issues, staff recommends the density as proposed by the applicant. He briefly responded to points brought up in the • • applicant's memo and advised that staff now supports a higher number of units. Staff explained how density calculations are computed. • Pagenstecher advised that, since 2000, there have only been 2 cases where applicants have asked for a density bonus. In one instance, the bonus was denied; the other was granted a 7% bonus (1%was for building clustering/siting). In this application, staff agrees with a 6% density bonus (3% for focal point and 3% for open space). Concerns were expressed about safety and vagrancy in the park because of the seclusion of Tract C. It is not seen as an easily-accessible open space behind units #26 and #27. The Commissioners discussed leaving unit #26 where it is as a solo unit and moving unit #27 over to Tract B. The applicant advised that this would eliminate some of the extra parking, 1 but they already exceed the required number of parking spaces for the development. • • • • It was suggested that the applicant provide a pathway of some type leading into the park. Sideyard setbacks were discussed. Staff noted that with the Annand Hill Planned Development, the Commission decided to include street side yard setbacks within the simple side yard setback standard. For this application, staff said the Planning Commission has the discretion to grant a variance to reduce the street side yard setbacks from 10' to 8' for lots #15, #16, #23, and #8. • For fire safety, staff noted that TVF&R needs to be able to get their equipment within 150' of a building and there are building code standards for fire-rating of walls. The applicant ar-lvised that if a building is closer than 3' to a nror,Prty line there must he 1-hn„r wall construction. They are proposing to be 8' away from the property line. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 16,2007—Page 2 • • The Commission reviewed Section 18.350.070 of the Development Code and concluded that it was within their authority to grant a variance for reduction of the street side yard setbacks. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Commission discussed the street side yard setback issue. Vice-President Walsh said he • • was not sold on allowing the reduction and was concerned about setting a precedent. The Commission also discussed the issue of the park (Tract C). It was decided to move unit #27 to Tract D,which would make the park larger and more accessible. Commissioner Muldoon moved for approval of Subdivision (SUB) 2006-00010/Planned Development Review (PDR) 2006-00003/Zone Change (ZON) 2007-00001 White Oak Village Subdivision, 1. granting 27 units with the provision that unit #27 be moved to the east-side duplexes • by Tract D, thus increasing access to Tract C; 2. allowing for 8' street side yard setbacks; 3. agreeing that it is within the Commission's authority to decide street side yard setbacks on a case-by-case basis where safety is not an issue. • Commissioner Caffall seconded the motion. Vice-President Walsh said he could support every aspect of the motion except for the 8' side yard setback. The motion passed with a vote of 5-1. Commissioners Anderson, Caffall,Doherty,Fishel, and Muldoon voted for the motion. Commissioner Walsh voted against the motion and Commissioner Hasman abstained. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT • The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Jerree wis,Planning Commission Secretary A ': ice-President David Walsh • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-April 16,2007-Page 3 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING TIGARD 1, Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am a Planning Assistant for the City of Tigard,Washington County,Oregon and that I served the following: taw,Nppnppn.n&i,*)HJuw� © NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER FOR: PDR2011-00001/WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS (file No/Name Reference) ❑ AMENDED NOTICE HEARING BODY: HEARING DATE: p City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer O Tigard Planning Commission (3/7/2011) ❑ Tigard City Council A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", and by reference made a part hereof,on March 15.2011,and deposited in the United States Mail on March 15,2011,postage prepaid. (f/t, alb 1.I erson t at PrpareR1oti- STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of Sit LLf ,2011. #•'�•,, OFFICIAL SEAL '� SHIRLEY_ L TREAT ,. ' r JA et COMMISSION NO 459648 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 06,2015 ( NOTARY PUB IC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: "7 ((ill 120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 DATE OF FILING: 3/14/2011 EXH I B IT,A DATE MAILED: 3/15/2011 CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Numbers: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2011-00001 Case Name: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS Applicant's Name/Address: Hawthorne Block LLC c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 Owner's Name/Address: Same as Applicant Address of Property: North of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74'Avenue Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington Co.Tax Assessor's Map No. 1S136DB,Tax Lot 01000 and 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 7, 2011 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE FINAL ORDER. Request: > The applicant requested modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site(Final Order No.2007-02 PC). The proposed modification will allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached (duet) single-family homes. In addition,revised landscaping details will provide tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethom espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. Zone: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District with PD: Planned Development Overlay. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350,18.390,18.510 and 18.745. Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: ® Owners of Record within the Required Distance ® Affected Government Agencies ® Interested Parties ® The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 15, 2011 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 30, 2011 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MARCH 29, 2011. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at(503) 639-4171. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD A FINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF DETAILED PLANS FOR THE WHITE OAK VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/PDR2006- 00003 (COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER NO. 2007-02 PC). THE MODIFICATIONS ALLOW DETACHED OR ATTACHED UNITS ON LOTS OF CHOICE INSTEAD OF THE APPROVED ATTACHED "DUET" SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND PROVIDE A TALL EVERGREEN TREE SCREENING ALONG THE PROPERTY'S WEST BOUNDARY. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE MODIFICATION, THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN (PROPOSED AT 4/16/07 PC HEARING) AND THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (SHEET C6.1) ARE VOID. THE COMMISSION HEARD AND APPROVED THE REQUEST AT ITS MARCH 7, 2011 HEARING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ITS DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE AND PLAN SET (APPLICATION TO MODIFY PDR2006-00003,WHITE OAK VILLAGE),AND THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 6/7/2011 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION CASE NO.: Planned Development Review(PDR) PDR2011-00001 (Modification of Planned Development Review (PDR) 2006-00003) APPLICANT/ Hawthorne Block LLC OWNER: c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97225 REQUEST: The applicant requests modification of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes. In addition, revised landscaping details would provide a tall evergreen tree screening along the property's west boundary instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall. LOCATION: The project is located north of SW Pacific Highway at the southern terminus of SW 74`h Avenue involving two (2) parcels;Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 1S136DB, Tax Lot 01000 and WCTM 1S136Cr,,Tax Lot 01700. ZONE/ COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: R-12,Medium Density Residential. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. [Applies to majority of the site] Planned Development Overlay (PD): The property has a planned development overlay designation. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, WI Inv OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR21111-o(M)01) I'AGI?1 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC • • use of open space,innovative transportation facilities)which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site,within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City ; and 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.745. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Planned Development Modification meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare of the City. Therefore,the Planning Commission APPROVES the proposed Planned Development Modification subject to the following Conditions of Approval: CONDITION OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-718-2434. 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to provide-higher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The White Oak Village subdivision was approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC. The planned development process was requested by the applicant to accommodate a private street that serves more than six dwellings and the sub-standard lot sizes averaging 1,926 square feet, when the R-12 zone requires 3,050 square feet. In exchange for flexibility of the applicable standards under the PD process, the applicant offered public benefits which include two open space pocket parks, a landscaped pedestrian pathway connection to Pacific Hwy,and retention of a significant oak tree. Most subdivision improvements have been made with the exception of some fencing, landscaping, signage, and the second lift of pavement on the private street.The applicant states that recording of the final plat is imminent. Vicinity Information: The site is located within a massive block bounded by Pacific Hwy,SW 78th Avenue, SW Spruce Street, and SW 71St Avenue and, specifically, at the terminus of SW 74`h Avenue south of Spruce Street. The subject site is bordered by developed land zoned R-25 and R-4.5 to the north and C-G to the south. The site is approached from SW Spruce Street on SW 74th Avenue through a single-family detached neighborhood built from the mid-1940s through the 1950s. More recent multi-family housing borders the site to the north but is fenced off and buffered by Tract C containing the preserved White Oak tree. The RAZ Transportation bus depot extends the full length of the subject property on the west. Continuation of SW 74`h Avenue through the subject site will eventually access the adjacent portion of the RAZ property zoned R-12. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 2 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC • SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION ISSUES Proposal: The applicant requests two modifications of the approved 27-lot White Oak Village subdivision and planned development (Final Order No. 2007-02 PC). The proposed modification would allow detached or attached units on lots of choice instead of the approved attached "duet" single-family homes as shown on the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) and Architectural Plans Sheet C6.1). In addition, revised landscaping details would provide higher screening along the property's west boun instead of the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry screening wall as shown in the ater Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08,Sheet L3). The applicant notes that no changes to conditions of approval of the PDR or Subdivision are requested. In addition, no changes to the streets or lots are requested as shown in the Site Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet C2.1) and Subdivision Final Plat(4/1/8 Survey,Sheets 1 and 2 of 3). Detached or Attached Units on Lots of Choice: During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the applicant described the proposed housing type: "The units will be duet homes — there's a shared property line that runs through each pair of homes. Each home is on a separate, individually owned lot. It's similar to a townhouse, but they are all`end units'." [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes,Page 3]. There was some discussion whether duets could qualify as an innovative "building grouping" within the context of earning a density bonus. [April 2, 2007 PC Minutes, Page 9]. However, the project did not pursue the bonus based on that criterion. During the April 16, 2007 Commission hearing, the Commission conditionally approved a site plan titled Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing), which is the approved site plan in the Final Order. The plan shows one single-family detached unit on the stand alone lot 26 with all other units paired as duets. The applicant's request to build either detached or attached housing unit types housing type on the approved lots is a modification of the conditionally approved site plan. However, detached and attached housing unit types are allowed in the R-12 zone and there are no specific development code standards or conditions of approval relating to housing type or this proposed modification. The applicant further requests that as a consequence of the modification, the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) and the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) will be voided. The Commission may consider whether the proposed modification to allow either housing type and without any architectural plans, meets the applicable Purposes and Concept Approval Criteria of the Planned Development Chapter,as reviewed below on Pages 4/5 of this Staff Report. Revised Landscaping and Screening: The applicant has proposed substituting some combination of Bamboo, Leyland Cypress, Magnolia, Ash, and Maple for the approved firethorn espalier on a cable trellis attached to the masonry wall on the west property line adjacent to the RAZ Transportation site. The proposed modification to the approved Water Quality and Landscape Planting Plan (Approved Construction Plan Set, 1/7/08, Sheet L3) would provide a higher screen than the six-foot wall and potentially improve screening of the adjacent commercial use. During the April 2, 2007 Commission hearing, the issue of higher screening was discussed but did not resolve in a motion to amend the proposed landscape plan. The proposed modification in this application is supported by the Commission's previous deliberation. [April 2,2007 PC Minutes,Pages 5/8] SECTION V. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE USE CATEGORIES: SECTION 18.130 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is seeking modifications to the approved attached "duet" housing type to additionally provide single- family detached units. The lots are proposed to be developed with either attached or detached single-family homes without specifying which units will be developed on which lots. The site is located within the R-12 zone, Medium Density Residential District. Household living,which includes both detached and attached single-family housing types, is a permitted use in the R-12 zone. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 3 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC SUMMARY OF LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The original Subdivision/Planned Development was a Type III-PC Application. No procedure is identified for modifications of a planned development. As such, modifications to the decision are also processed as a Type III-PC application to ensure any changes are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision and to provide notice to potentially affected parties. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. SECTION VI. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. Notice was mailed to property owners within 500 on February 14, 2011; the site was posted with a hearing notice on February 15, 2011; and notice was published in the Times on February 17, 2011. Staff received no comments regarding this application. SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicable review criteria are addressed in this report in the following order: 18.350 (Planned Developments) 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.745* Landscaping and Screening) 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures, Impact Study) *According to Section 18.350.100 of the Planned Development Chapter, these chapters are utilked as guidelines, and strict compliance is not necessary where a development provides alternative designs and methods that promote the purpose of the PD Chapter. 18.350— (PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS) The following Purpose Statement and Concept Plan Approval Criterion are similar and provide some guidance in considering the proposed modification: 18.350.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone include: To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria The concept plan may be approved by the Commission only if all of the following criteria are met: The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers. The applicant's narrative does not address this purpose of the Planned Development Chapter or this Concept Plan Approval Criterion. However, the applicant specifically requests the Commission to void the previously approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing),which shows building envelopes. milli,:OAK VIII.AGE?SUBDIVISION MODIFIC:VI1ON(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 4 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC • In support of this request, the applicant seeks expanded opportunity to additionally provide single-family detached units to avoid complicating issues associated with shared-wall duets such as: reciprocal insurance;exterior maintenance covenants restrictions, and conditions, limited mortgage offerings and terms; conflicts with utilities at common lot lines;and disaster recovery (fire,etc.). Analysis: The applicant requests the Commission void the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) to provide more flexibility of housing type and architectural style. On the one hand, the uniform duet housing type creates a distinctive neighborhood. However, detached units would be more compatible with the existing dwelling types along SW 74th Avenue. Giving the developer flexibility to build either type may help the development of White Oak Village in a timely manner given the current challenges in the housing market. Other values in the purpose and concept approval criterion continue to be met with the compatible street layout and transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with open space buffers associated with the pocket parks in Tracts C and D. Is the Commission satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision,will build a housing product that will achieve a unique neighborhood and integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision? 18.350.060 Compliance with Specific Development Standards: This section requires compliance with base zone development standards,with the following modifications allowed with discretion by the Commission: The applicant's proposed modification is consistent with the approved subdivision and planned development base zone development standards, specifically the setback standards as summarized in Table 18.510.2, below. However, without building envelopes and architectural plans specified, lot coverage, landscaping, and building heights would need to be verified at the time of building permit review. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; In the R-12 zoning district the minimum lot size is 3,050 square feet, with no average lot width. The zone has no minimum lot depth. The approved lot sizes are between 1,836 and 2,748 square feet, averaging 1,926 square-feet per lot. The Commission approved a density bonus and 27 total lots. The applicant does not propose any changes to approved lots. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-12 zone is 80%, including all impervious surfaces. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application. As a clear and objective standard,consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and The base development standard height limit in the R-12 zone is 35 feet,but does not apply to planned development applications, giving the Commission discretion in determining building height. The applicant has proposed voiding the approved Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) with this application, which showed units 30 feet to the peak. Without Commission review of the height standard, consistency with this standard would be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and be subject to the base standard maximum of 35 feet. Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 5 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC The original decision approved building envelopes on each lot within the development consistent with this standard. For this application, the applicant's narrative includes a Setback Table, which shows the required perimeter setbacks at 15 feet, but proposes to delete the reference to the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1). As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls; The applicant's narrative indicates 3-foot side yard setbacks will be used on all internal side yards, subject to compliance to firewall standards. Provided dwellings associated with these reduced side yard setbacks meet the UBC requirements for fire walls, the proposed setbacks are consistent with this standard. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided The applicant's narrative Setback Table describes interior front and rear yard setbacks of 10 and 13 feet respectively, and a 20-foot minimum garage setback for all lots, consistent with these standards. As a clear and objective standard, consistency with this standard will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. The applicant's narrative Setback Table describes street side yard setbacks of 8 feet, consistent with the Commission's approval of a two-foot reduction of the 10-foot street side yard standard. FINDING: The applicant is requesting the Commission void the Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1) and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing) to allow greater flexibility of housing type and architectural style, without providing any alternative plans. If the Commission is satisfied that the applicant, or future owners of the subdivision,will build a housing roduct that will integrate into the existing neighborhood through compatible architectural style and/or housing type without specifying these parameters in the land use decision, then the Commission may approve the applicant's proposal. However, the Commission may wish to place parameters on the modification, which both allows flexibility for the applicant and provides some specificity as to the mix of attached and detached units and/or minimum architectural style. The base zone standards, as varied by the Commission, continue to be met with the proposed modification. However, without Commission stipulation of the height of buildings, height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.510— (RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Single-family attached and detached residential units are permitted in the R-12 zone. The Commission approved an average lot size of 1,926 square feet. The applicant does not propose any changes to the lot size. Development Standards: Section 18.510.050.B states that Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below: The lots created with the subdivision are designated R-12,Medium-Density Residential. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 6 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-12 PD STANDARD Proposed Approved SF DU* Minimum Lot Size NA/ -Detached unit 1,926 sq.ft. 1,926 sq. ft. 3,050 sq.ft. Consistent -Attached unit Avg./unit Avg./unit per unit with density -Duplexes in 18.715 -Boarding,lodging,rooming house Average Lot Width Approx.28 ft. Approx.28 ft. None NA/18.715 Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 10/15(P) 10/14/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone(P) -Side facing street on corner&through lots 8 ft. 8 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. -Side yard 3 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft. [1] NA/UBC -Rear yard 13/15(P) 13/15 ft(P) 15 ft. NA/Base Zone(P) -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district NA NA 30 ft. 30 ft. -Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20/8 ft.[3] Maximum Height None shown 30 ft.(to peak) 35 ft. NA Maximum Lot Coverage [2] None shown 80% 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement None shown 20% 20% 20% [1]Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2]Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]Minimum setback for garages/minimum setback for garages for attached sfd facing a private street with required off-street parking met. * Single-family dwelling unit(attached or detached) (P)Perimeter FINDING: The applicant proposes to void the White Oak Architectural Plans (Sheet C6.1), which shows building height and the Conditionally Approved Site Plan (Proposed at 4/16/07 PC Hearing, which shows building envelopes. The a plicant s narrative Setback Table shows continued compliance with setbacks approved under Final Order No. 2007-02 PC or required in the base zone. However,if the Commission grants the request, then the height, lot coverage, and minimum landscaping will not be specified for the subdivision. Consistency with these standards will be subject to review at the time of building permit submittal and height of future proposed buildings would be limited to the base zone standard of 35 feet. 18.745 —— (LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING): *PD Guideline Chapter Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Buffering and Screening- Section 18.745.050 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter(Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). FINDING: Adjacent uses to the subject site include multi-family dwelling units to the north, single family to the north and south, and commercial uses to the south,west and east. The Commission approved buffering and screening as indicated on the Landscape Plan (Sheets L2/3). The applicant's proposal to modify the approved landscape plan replacing firethorn espalier with a selection of trees along the west boundary would potentially increase screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot and benefit the White Oak Village residents. CONDITION: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the replacement of the approved firethorn with trees along the western boundary to provide higher screening of the adjacent RAZ Transportation bus depot, as proposed in the applicant's submittal. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 7 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 3)11-01 PC 18.390—(DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY): SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. 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 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 of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. FINDING: Impacts to City systems were adequately addressed in the original land use decision. No further impact study is required for the proposed housing type and landscaping modifications. SECTION VIII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS No other staff comments were received on the subject application. SECTION IX. AGENCY COMMENTS No agencies were notified of the proposed modification as none have jurisdiction over the proposed changes. SECTION X. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED, Planned Development Review (PDR2011- 00001) —WHITE OAK VILLAGE MODIFICATIONS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. PASSED: THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. David Walsh,P . • • •• • • sion President Dated this 'day of March,2011. I:\CURPLN\Gary\Subdivision and PD\PDR20 1 1-00001(White Oak Village Modification)\PDR2011-00001 PC Final Order.docx WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION(PDR2011-00001) PAGE 8 OF 8 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 2011-01 PC ' _ - VICINITY MAP 1 i t PDR2011-00001 .► _ _ , � SPRUrE 5 r •'-i- 1 I I WHITE OAK VILLAGE J "= SUBDIVISION MINOR i @ g e I. _J — ---7- MODIFICATION _.; _______H o o ^ _ 1 JJY I O O I - _� Subect Site - j 1 . ...„ , __, - _ -- 1 . .• _______I H H 1 =t� _ _ ._ • i — _ r"=lit .. = fs ` H f JII VI __. .,... ± _.„1 1-.I.J F'F QF I f > Inrormauon on rms map Is for general location „' G only and should be verified with the _ , Development Services Division. 777 r I N HPProx.scale T•a uuu-T In=ase n�I I N map pnnreD aT uT:zD rm on tits-reo-T T DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY OF TIGARD 11 — MA TES NO WARRANTY,RE RESENTATRN OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE 1 HE LAN IA Mn,u J.7 GI IV P I IOA ENtNLL ASSU llllr LL WIAYORA[U RRORS IMI' S IM1 INACURALIESIN TE0 HE / LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE F--] `•I �i - Inr.inlw.I Vn rnwiuc l:tty OTuI lgafO T•w l...uxu DD 13125 SW Hall Blvd 0 Feet �O - —� TIGAR MgPS Tigard,OR 97223 .� h' 503 639-4171 1 1 www.tigard-or.gov TIOARD +<rANiA'S1_ I 1 11 I — LEGEND i . &A.,— ,..*- • 1 •,maw. /%70931• j-1---' J r -1...-.. _,, Jliti o -■ •PRI.. DESIGN GROUP INC. MIN. 4,0 1,--- =Criff ' S0■••Tr'...,4,."•+4."' 4.=' ' . ,4411,1 ,,.._.,4-3;.L._..,-,_-- ---- -••-- ..1•44 u44 q 4 \ 14025SW FARNINGTON RO = . ' 4.'aem;tmfwnsaaasvahstatmgwata-aaawv-ssssawaataha,:atsaitia:araaxaeaataatgiastaaxitmttfaaaaa:A,v,-.*q' ----.. --,-- _._._. „,,,_ „ . Suke 270 BEAVERTON.OR 97005 1 (503)644-4628 ===ss-,..r.TWO DR..• DRAINAGE CRAWL ,n, --L SITE PLAN ,....20. , , 1 * i 4./ VINIELCMAR RN* 1611.1.PER DEUX • N .'...;'1-1,tIrli 0 .4.,. 7- .. -----7 1 11°-1'-1-- -47*- ifjc57.47-■%1147711r-41.iffilli-1- 1.e,. . . iiiiiiihS '-'''' 1 1 '-• , 17L1TY CA- 4'44t/loll * 1•11. 1'1. i ; I 4--11 49 U 41kL'',#.plAn.AhlialliVfliMilltalitCial' • • ' 'i pe 1RACT A . . ill I it . Ig : 4t)„.,....v.-............,....-7: ... .,.. ion 1 el i -.-- - L-...ai• - ,.-_:_-- __ _7_-,,l_a_,_-.1-wimp-. , ,de \ o ..v. ..-- :A . aR \ ' 'Mai•I , . , . , ucumic cr.A4 0-,' L gec IMIMMILI 05s 1 1 R. `AP 1 L i • i i K., i : • LOT 24 , 1 /1...-I-, ' r I ..., .71- ''''',- H ,,..,: . te: 1"""..'-'3 1 ...1 I 1 I I OD 1 5 N Oe- I —----Mr-- ,1 I... 1...t , 4- D • 1 1111 I 2 1 2 -.1 ..6] a I ° °% 1 2 I ill 1 — 1 1 1 IRACT c TIRNING DIAGRAM DIMENTIONS crry OF TI GARDi___ __ li.u6; Oi, zal ... ..,, LOT 25 Ini VI I, I 0:1 i , • _ „ „ , .1..... I -L--- II 1 --. I hPUE ! . 35 . IY 1 ip• i ....s...,.01 , 1 JO 1 I ) P 17) PER REMO t, ; 4.ly : c. I . .1 : ., ; '' A 1 1 i . 1 FCror onldetklyntheallY4raosvedescribed V 1 , Zr - 1 1 ..., 1 -3 1-7..,0 hi , ± C...2., —F- .4 . ,,, 1 1 •< a I D r i 1 PERMIT NO. , POR 2_01i - c cob/ 0 1 ilr ',' ,I , -I——19 , 0 I KW' . I See Lefter to: Folv ± I I w I, 1 wousirse. \....( ''..,...,. 1,._ e _114SION 1RIALELE ../i' -AC, -1 k ., Attach i (..)',..... `-.4 •---•=7-7-- --Ir•-7•-• -:7-771- =-7 ....i...._ .:- L7_:f1„. 7 ill ri .. I- . \ ..:. . L.ga'eamatmata.4emeowom-Foiamilwammemekkaeiram, I I Job Allelties: - th _ AWN —±,1. .1.1•MMEMILIMUMMIL10 ' 1 I By: ri Afz' ' , I Date: 3-/5-// , . ° '''''' N -.WIINtiii '-')" '-:-1----..'-• I---- ' v. NuMft, Is. ,• . _... 1 i. 1 : , , . , __ _ .... ,, _ __, ,..,. , . ; pes os , 1 . 1 I Lit_ 4\I 1 I I I I I 1 It.05 3 n.MI5 I li 1040 A IORIS A 8.44. , . —-1 - Cj 14 " M ,-. ril - — '1 – :4 I N; I ) 1 v. I I 1 Ss, u 1 I I I EXPS11 GI ,-... 1 ..._ ... ._. - ... .6- .; . W . , - AI"nytmi..0, 1 1 1 1 1 '31sur oss 1A.Gr Slf;S/ ' ik I 1 1 . I. , . I I I 3 3 J1 E" -1,i MIA 4 , 1 , , I 1 4 1 • • _ I , , a i i : i 1 A s'stss FENCE 2 - . I---- --- --1 I•- I/ , .7..,..-' A ' ■ - raw/ IL 1.2.5 ..,----4----j. , I __ .,,_,,:„..„,..,_sm—s.—17As—INP7---4.-7-, w..--ar....:-..,-.,..="r.--.40: se. Ps. 2o• n7 0 20 . I * , , •-3 5 Imilmemm°1 ‘ . 144; .1 . SW:74TH AVE ; 1 . .......m< ..... • . p L___ 45*', 4 S.MOO 1 X t011p ■ IL 10440 X IMO I LL_ .......P 1.° I I ,i,1 E" .--- 5 6 6, SITE PLAN rc, C2 1 -. - • 0 (\I ■ Hawthorne Block LLC PDR2011-00001 621 SW Alder #605 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION MINOR Portland, OR 97205 MODIFICATION EXHIBIT Hawthorne Block LLC c/o Foster Finch 7235 SW Newton Place Portland, OR 97205 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Pl. Tigard, OR 97223