City Council Packet - 03/10/1992
CITY OF TIGARD
° Wit, ' Y' Y OREGON
r
AGENDA
''fx,~$ • ` PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
a : , i . . h
r >t $ . ; N>:>; agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
y'' Z sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be
recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that
agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be
two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for
a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or
the City Administrator.
• STUDY SESSION
(5:30 p.m.) Workshop meeting with Park Board
(6:30 p.m.) Report from Metro on Greenspaces Master Plan
- (7:00 p.m.) Agenda Review
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.)
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion
for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 11, 18 and 25, 1992
3.2 Authorize Sale of Real Properly at 8640 S.W. McDonald Street
3.3 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
b. Proposal for Interim Policy on Undergrounding of Utilities
COUNCIL AGENDA. - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 1.
4. COMPREHENSIVE FLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002. NPO #6 - APPLICANT. In response
to a remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) of an earlier decision on this
matter, the City Council will consider testimony concerning what actions it should consider taking
in response to the LUBA decision and possible modification of the decision for CPA 91-02.
Note: written and oral testimony on the above matter will be limited to the issues that are subject
to the remand.
• Public hearing continued from February 25, 1992
• Declarations or Challenges
• Staff Report - Community Development Department
• Public Testimony
NPO 6
Proponents (Speaking in Favor of the CPA)
Opponents (Speaking Against the CPA)
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
• Council Questions or Comments
• Close Public Hearing
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 92-p-,-~
5. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned
Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12
(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre
Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW
109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 10AD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1
10136, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development
Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114,
18.120,18.150,18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2,
7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3.
On December 10, 1991, the City Council continued the hearing on an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision on this matter. The hearing was continued to the Council's February 25,
1992 meeting. Due to the remand of the decision for CPA 91-0002 described above and its
effect on the Triad PDR/SDR application, the Community Development Department will
recommended and Council concurred, that the Public Hearing be continue to March 10, 1992.
• Public hearing continued from February 25, 1992
• Declarations or Challenges
• Staff Report - Community Development Department
• Public Testimony
NPO 6
Proponents (Speaking in Favor of the CPA) 4
Opponents (Speaking Against the CPA) l
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
• Council Questions or Comments
• Close Public Hearing
• Consideration by Council'. rdirti'9tn e N . 9 n <<. t ~:-~cL roc L__
COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 2 MW
mam
•
6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-0001 ROBINSON (NPO 3)
A request to annex two parcels consisting of 2.44 and 14.39 acres to the City of Tigard and to
rr change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5
l' (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). Location: 12000 S.W. Bull Mountain road. ZONE: R-4.5 - Allows
single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming,
manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tanks,
and accessory structures among other uses.
• Public hearing opened.
• Declarations or challenges.
• Staff Report/Recommendation - Community Development Staff
• Public Testimony:
NPO 3
Proponents (in favor of annexation)
Opponents (opposed to annexation)
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
• Rebuttal to Testimony
• Council Questions
• Public hearing closed.
• Council comments ~
• Council consideration: Resolution No. 924f_; Ordinance No. 924-45
7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
8. ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE/ISSUES
City Administrator
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
10. ADJOURNMENT
=310.92
l
COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 3
Council Agenda Item 41
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992
• Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie
Johnson, Jack Schwab, and John Schwartz. Staff Present:
Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Acting Senior
Planner (present during Study Session only); Ed Murphy,
Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community
Relations Coordinator; Floyd Peoples, Park Supervisor (present
during Study Session only); Michael Robinson, Legal Counsel
(arrived for Business meeting); Cliff Scott, Operations
Manager (present during Study Session only); Catherine
Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
STUDY SESSION
Park Board Present - Dr. Daniel Graham, Chairperson; Board
Members Mariann Bither, Carolyn DeFrang, Bud Hillman, and
Sheldon Scolar.
CouncillPark Board Joint Meeting -
• Parks Levy Review - The majority of the projects are
completed. Essentially, the levy proceeds were estimated
to fund the first phase of the Park Master Plan. Some
levy projects will need additional funding for
completion. Community Director Murphy reviewed a park
improvement funding matrix which identified these
projects and potential funding sources.
Discussion followed. Council members asked questions
corcernhig the scope of the remaining projects. Council
also asked questions seeking clarification to understand
the funding sources identified to complete the various
projects listed in the matrix.
• Park & Recreation Needs - There was a brief discussion on
the Fanno Creek Conference topic, "Should Tigard address
its Park and Recreational needs by joining the Tualatin
Hills Park and Recreation District?" Conference
delegates voted 45 to 9 against joining the District.
However, many were interested in pursuing a Task Force to
investigate park and recreation options for Tigard
citizens.
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 1
• Field User's Group Update - Tigard Intern, Elizabeth
Hadley, reported on the successful field user group
meeting. She also advised of the amount of field usage
and availability of fields.
• Strategic Planning - Park Chair, Dr. Daniel Graham,
reviewed strategic planning issues. After discussion,
consensus was to schedule a joint study meeting with the
Park Board on April 21, 1992, to discuss future areas of
focus.
Strategic issues were listed by Dr. Graham as follows:
1. Expand/modify Parks Master Plan
Triangle
S.W. Anchor Park
4
2. What kind of parks facilities, equipment....
3. Who should develop parks/greenways....
• Greenspaces - Mel Huie of Metro updated the Council and
Park Board on the Metropolitan Green Spaces Master Plan.
He described the entire program as a regional approach to
protecting natural resources. The urban portions of
Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties in Oregon
and Clark County in Washington make up the study area.
The four-phased project is now in Phase 3. This planning
phase includes a public outreach program over the next
two to three months. A draft master plan will be
completed the first week of April. The Metro Council
will decide on the amount of funding, if any, to be
referred to the voters. (Two figures, $100,000,000 and
$200,000,000, were referenced during discussion.) In
order for the measure to be ready for the November
election, Metro's decision must be made by September 3.
BUSINESS MEETING
2. Visitor's Agenda - No visitors.
3. Consent Ac,renda: Motion by Councilor Schwab, seconded by
Councilor Schwartz, to approve the following Consent Agenda
items:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 11, 18 and 25, 1992
3.2 Authorize Sale of Real Property at 8640 S.W. McDonald
Street i
3.3 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
\ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 2
i
~I
b. Proposal for Interim Policy on Undergrounding of
Utilities
4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0002 NPO #6
APPLICANT. In response to a remand from the Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA) of an earlier decision on this matter,
the City Council will consider testimony concerning what
actions it should consider taking in response to the LUBA
decision and possible modification of the decision for CPA 91-
02.
a. Public hearing continued from February 25, 1992.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff
report. He referred to a map of the area and clarified
the changes made in response to the LUBA remand.
Changes to the transportation map which was in effect as
of last August was explained by Mr. Murphy. The changes
approved by Council at that time included:
1) The elimination of Naeve Street as a Collector
Street.
2) 109th was extended to connect at Pacific Highway
and Royalty Parkway.
3) Sattler Street extension was added.
Note 10 changes as of last August were as follows:
+ "An extension of Sattler Street from 100th Avenue
to 109th Avenue intersecting 100th Avenue at a
point approximately 200 feet north of the existing
Sattler Street intersection. An extension and
realignment of 109th Avenue south of the Sattler
Street extension to intersect Pacific Highway at
Royalty Parkway. The realigned 109th Avenue shall
intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately 250
feet to 450 feet east of Pacific Highway. The
design of Sattler Street extension may vary from
the adopted City standards for minor collectors."
Staff recommended changes to Note 10 along with
additional findings documenting the Councils decision of
last August. The recommendation would be a change in the
way the Sattler Street extension would be treated. LUBA
requested that the City advise why Sattler Street would
not have to meet minor collector standards. Two ways to
handle this would be to explain why Sattler would not
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 3
need to meet minor collector standards and the other
method would be to note that in the general area there
would be a street connecting Sattler and 109th, but it
would be a local street. Wording was proposed which
would provide:
"A local street connection from 100th Avenue to
109th Avenue intersecting 100th Avenue either at
Sattler Street or at a point at least 100 feet from
the existing Sattler Street connection."
This was essentially, advised Mr. Murphy, what the
Council was saying when they approved the language saying
that "Sattler Street may vary from the adopted city
standards for minor collectors." In looking at the
traffic volumes, there is an overlap between a collector
street and a residential street. This could easily
qualify as a residential street (i.e. , 0 trips per day up
to 1,500 trips per day). The estimated traffic on this
street was about 700 trips per day. Traditionally, local
streets are not placed on 'the Transportation Map.
Mr. Murphy then reviewed the staff report and
accompanying proposed ordinance which addressed the
points remanded by LUBA.
C d. Public Testimony:
NPO 6:
• Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6 advised that they
supported staff's additional findings, including
the various street designation changes. ' NPO 6
urged the Council to approve the amended ordinance.
Proponents:
• Steve Pfeiffer testified on behalf of Triad
Development. Triad owns property which would be
bisected by the proposal before Council. In
addition, a development proposal is pending and
will be before Council later in the evening.
Mr. Pfeiffer noted he agreed with the NPO 6
testimony. He advised LUBA affirmed the City's
decisions and asked for clarification only.
• Mart: Vandehey, associate with Kittelson Associates,
Inc., 610 S.W. Alder, Suite 700, Portland, OR
97205. Mr. Vandehey addressed the following: e
r
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 4
i
R
11111 11111gli
11 ~ 11.1,1111,11,
Safe and efficient roadway system: The
written evidence on the record, as well as the
oral testimony submitted, documents safe and
efficient access will be maintained upon
completion of the proposed development. All
applicable State, County, and City standards
dealing with both traffic operations and
safety are met.
Coordination with State, County, and Regional
jurisdictions: Throughout the process there
has been coordination with all of these
jurisdictions. In addressing the goals, the
proposal calls for improved local access,
while at the same time, reducing the need for
additional access to Pacific Highway which is
the regional through facility. The plan is
consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan as
well as the access management policy for
Access Oregon Highways. From ODOT's
standpoint, this plan is clearly superior to
all that has been presented before and will
result in a net benef it to the surrounding
street systems.
Ensuring adequate access for major arterials
to the designated commercial and industrial
areas: The plan is consistent with this
policy. Not only is safe and efficient access
ensured, but there will be an improved access
condition over what would otherwise be
available for the remaining undeveloped
parcels. The result will be a limit of access
to Pacific Highway which, again, is what the
State is attempting to do by maintaining the
Highway as a regional through facility and
consolidate access wherever possible. The new
collector facility will have adequate capacity
to serve all of the undeveloped parcels plus
the Triad Development.
Councilor Schwab asked if it would still be
possible to access Pacific Highway from Naeve
Street? Mr. Vandehey said, "it will be." The plan
does not call for closing the Naeve access. The
plan provides a "safety valve." This would be an
additional outlet and provides ODOT the opportunity
in the future, should a safety problem develop, to
close the median and eliminate left turns. The new
connection would provide left turn ingress/egress.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 5
I
• Richard Whitman, 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1100, j
Portland, OR 97204 advised he represented Marge
Davenport who was one of the parties involved in
the LUBA appeal in this matter. Mr. Whitman
reviewed the issues identified by LUBA in their
remand. Mr. Whitman also identified the following
procedural issues:
- There was a statement in the staff report that
the Planning Commission has reviewed and
recommended approval of this proposal. The
proposal before Council is different from the
proposal that was before City Council
previously and before LUBA. The Planning
commission has not reviewed the revised staff
proposal.
- Adequate notice Mr. Whitman noted that the
hearing was continued from a previous hearing
on February 25, 1992. Under the City Code,
the City is required to send out notice of the
hearing ten days in advance of hearing when an
alternative is recommended by staff which
changes the nature of the proposal. There
have been two changes in the nature of the
proposal:
1. Sattler Extension has been changed from a
collector street to a local street, and
2. There has been a change from a specific
designation for the Sattler extension to
a corridor approach.
The most important piece of information on
this proposal was the map which shows the
outline of the Little Bull Mountain Natural
Forest area. That map was not included in the
notice which was sent out. Mr. Whitman
advised that the f irst time he saw a map of
this area was at this hearing. For the
record, he objected to the holding of the
hearing and requested that it be continued.
Mayor Edwards asked for legal counsel's opinion on
whether or not the objections warranted consideration of
continuation of the hearing.
In response to City counsel, Mr. Whitman advised he was
requested continuation on the basis of Code Section
18.30.060 and 18.30.080 which are the sections which
pertain to when notice must be given for legislative
matters.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 6
i
Community Development Director advised that the hearing
was continued from a previous meeting that was noticed.
Staff also sent out the staff report to those who
attended the last meeting (including the appellants).
Mr. Whitman advised that the hearing was noticed but the
map showing the fir grove was not included in the packet
which was received by his office last week. Under the
City Code, Mr. Whitman further advised, when a change is
proposed in the nature of the proposal before the
Council, the City is required to give 10-day prior
notice. Mr. Whitman said that he thought there was a
change between the proposal before Council at the last
hearing and the proposal before Council at this hearing. }
The notice for the hearing on the 25th of February was
proper, agreed Mr. Whitman. He contended that the
proposal was changed since the 25th and what was
currently before Council.
City Legal Counsel, Michael Robinson, advised that the
meeting was noticed and continued from the February 25th
hearing. Under 18.30.090 c., failure to give precisely
the kind of notice required does not invalidate the
action provided a good faith attempt was made to notify
all persons entitled to notice. Individuals present at
the meeting on the 25th were apprised. He noted that
Mr. Whitman was now present and Mr. Whitman's client was
present.
Mr. Whitman advised that he felt their case had been
prejudiced by the fact that the materials were not
received until late last week, he did not review them
until "today," and the first time he has seen the map
showing the significant natural areas was "tonight."
(City Recorder Notation: During testimony by Marge
Davenport, who is Mr. Whitman's client and the appellant
to LUBA, she advised she was.sent a copy of the map.)
Mr. Robinson advised that, in his opinion, it was not
necessary for Counci:'_ to continue the hearing if it was
found that a good faith attempt was made to notify all
persons entitled to notice.
Mayor Edwards acknowledged the objections by Mr. Whitman,
but advised the hearing would proceed.
Mr. Whitman disclosed the following points of issue:
1. Goal 5 issues were not thoroughly addressed. The
natural resources identified in the ordinances are
of more significance than just "scenic value." He
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 7
i
~i
't
j
noted there was no clear map of the area and did
not think Council could go ahead with a decision.
2. Goal 9 issues included Mr. Whitman's inability to
see evidence that a signalized access on Pacific
Highway was guaranteed. (City ]Recorder Note:
During follow-up testimony, City Engineer noted the
intersection is already signalized.) Mr. Whitman
contended that there was no evidence of City
coordination with other jurisdictions.
3. Mr. Whitman referred to Mr. Vandehey's testimony
outlining that the configuration confirms Access
Oregon guidelines, but at the same time, Mr.
Whitman noted this would add another access point.
4. With regard to Policy 8.1.1 concerning safe and
efficient streets, Mr. Whitman said Sattler was
proposed to become a local street, but he contended
that trips would increase by 2,000 trips per day.
Sattler, he argued, should be classified as a
collector street.
5. Mr. Whitman was concerned that there is no
requirement that the 109th Street extension be
completed at the same time as development occurs.
Naeve Street, he warned, may be functioning as a
collector street without a traffic signal.
Mr. Whitman said the staff report appears to resolve the
issues raised by the LUBA appeal. However, he said that
he did not think the issues were resolved and staff
glossed over a number of issues.
Mr. Whitman said with regard Goal 5, addressing the
protection of significant natural resources, the City has
done a thorough job in inventorying these resources.
There are 22 significant natural resource sites listed in
the inventory and two of those sites listed are the
Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest area and the
Kallstrom Fir Grove area. In addition, the Little Bull
Mountain Summit, which staff has stated is not in the
inventory, is in fact listed in the inventory of the City
on Page 1-42 of the Inventory as a Special Area.
Special Areas are characterized as areas that were
singled out for priority attention because of their
particular vegetation and wildlife values and/or the
relative uniqueness. Little Bull Mountain Summit is
described as an area which is heavily wooded with
undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals
including deer, racoon and pheasant. This particular
section of the inventory goes on to state that, although
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 8
■r 'ii 00I~1~~~1~NN®I~~IlelYel~safEC s,.._~...__.~_
these special areas of concern are not listed in the
inventory as significant natural areas, they are listed
as areas of special concern.
Mr. Whitman advised that Goal 5 says that local
governments, if in the course of their inventory identify
areas that warrant Goal 5 protection, but do not have
sufficient information upon which to list them in their
inventory, they can defer action on those until a later
time. When a particular proposal comes forward that
might affect that area or when the City has more
information, then the local government is required to
address that particular natural resource. The term,
"area of special concern," is a term that is used in Goal
5 as well.
Mr. Whitman clarified that the Summit area is, he
thought, a significant natural resource area under Goal
5. It is a slightly different type of classification
from some of the other areas that the City has
inventoried. He said he thought it was germane to this
proposal because it would be affected by the extension of
109th Street. The City should address it before making
a decision in this matter.
Mr. Whitman distributed the following:
A map from the City's inventory of significant
natural resources. It shows areas of existing
vegetation within the City and the three areas he
was talking about: the Summit of Little Bull
Mountain, the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest,
and the Kallstrom Fir Grove.
• Marge Davenport, 15100 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon,
testified as to her concerns with the historic
significance of Little Bull Mountain and the preservation
of forest and wildlife. She referred to try natural
areas and their contribution in controlling air pollution
and the "greenhouse effect."
Ms. Davenport outlined issues of traffic safety, poor
soil conditions which rendered the area unstable and
unsuitable for heavy loads when wet. Threat of and,
preparation for, earthquake was also of concern to her.
She said the City had abdicated its responsibility for
planning in the area to the Triad Developers. The only
traffic study for the area was done by Triad. She also
noted Triad also responded to the LUBA appeal.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 9
Ms. Davenport advised that the natural resource issues
had not been addressed, the proposed uses were
conflicting with the area. She reported that no
geologist had been consulted.
Mrs. Davenport requested that Council deny the proposal
or continue the hearing until there is evidence that the
necessary steps have been taken to satisfy the concerns
outlined in her testimony.
• Al Erickson, 15200 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon, noted
concerns with increased traffic and accompanying
problems.
e. Staff Response to testimony:
Community Development Director Murphy reminded Council
that the issue of the hearing was a legislative matter
about a proposed change to the Transportation Map not
the Triad Development proposal.
Goal 5 findings were made more clear in the staff report
and proposed ordinance amendment as requested in the LUBA
remand. The Summit area was identified by staff through
description contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
The area identified for Goal 5 purposes was deemed
significant for scenic value. Then, this value was
evaluated along with transportation importance.
u
Goal 9 issues are typically not addressed at this stage
but are reviewed before development is allowed to
proceed.
Wildlife issues will be addressed by Triad in the next
public hearing (Agenda Item No. 5) material.
City Engineer reviewed the coordination activities
between Tigard and the Oregon Department of i
Transportation. He advised that King City sent a letter
to Tigard in support of the proposal. He reminded
Council that the S.W. 109th extension plan has not been
changed; right of way existed before the current
proposal.
He noted that, currently, there is a signal at Royalty
Parkway and Pacific Highway. To address Access Oregon
concerns, ODOT has advised that the median at Naeve is to
be closed when 109th intersects at Royalty Parkway.
Mr. Wooley advised that the Sattler extension would
handle a portion of the 2,000 trips per day generated by
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 10
traffic in the area after development occurs. Sattler's
portion has been calculated at 700 trips per day.
NPO 6 and the developer have reached agreement concerning
transportation issues. The timing issue of building the
road should be part of a spec if ic: development plan and s
not part of this legislative action. {
Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the errata
sheet outlining several changes to the proposed
ordinance. He recommended that Council close the hearing
and direct staff to prepare a final order.
1
Councilor Johnson reminded the Council and staff that she
would not be attending Council on March 24.
f. Public hearing was closed.
g. Council comments:
• Councilor Schwartz noted he agreed with the
proposal and advised he was in favor of the
Planning commission and staff recommendation for
approval.
• Councilor Schwab outlined his concerns and desire
to protect wildlife habitat. He noted that this
area was within the urban planning area. Councilor
Schwab commented on the state land use laws and
efforts of hundreds of people who put these laws
together to protect areas for wildlife and provide
certain areas for development. He advised that he
would vote to adopt the findings as 'presented,
including those contained in the errata sheet.
• Councilor Johnson empathized with those who did not
want this beautiful area of the City changed.
However, she noted its limited value as a natural
area because of isolation from other natural
settings. In addition, she referred the state land
use laws, the urban growth boundary, and the need
to provide for safe traffic circulation.
She commended the NPO for their work with the
neighborhood and developing the best possible
transportation plan for the area.
• Mayor Edwards advised he would continue to oppose j
the transportation plan citing his earlier
objections.
i
h. Motion by Councilor Schwab, seconded by Councilor Johnson
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992 PAGE 11
to direct staff to prepare a refined final order and
incorporate the errata information submitted to the
Council; the final order is to be brought forward for
Council consideration on March 24, 1992.
The motion passed by a 3-1 vote (Mayor Edwards voted
"no") .
Councilor Johnson reiterated that she would not be at the
March 24 meeting. Staff advised the record would be
available for Councilor Kasten's review.
Council meeting recessed at 9:06 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m.
5. ApRgal Public Hearing - Site Development Review SDR 91-0013
Planned Development PDR 91-0006 Triad Development (NPO #6)
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a
request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned
Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2
acre property.
a. Public hearing was continued from February 25; 1992.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Community Development Director Murphy advised this was a
quasi-judicial development proposal which had been
approved by the Planning Commission. Both NPO 6 and
Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development,
have appealed the approval on different grounds.
Mr. Murphy reviewed the staff report. The Planning
Commission Final order was submitted to Co~.:rcil.
NPO 6 has appealed the Planning Commission's decision
because the members feel that the proposed development
should not proceed without concurrent construction of the
road connection between S.W. Naeve Street and S.W.
Pacific Highway at the Royalty Parkway intersection.
The staff report contains information addressing this
issue. In addition, Triad submitted an agreement which
provided the NPO with assurances that the road
improvements would be built. Triad would contribute a
share of the costs.
Mrs. Davenport's appeal requests denial of the
application based on concerns related primarily to
traffic impacts, effects on the existing neighborhood,
and lack of an environmental impact statement related to
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 12
i
f the proposed development.
The staff report outlines a response to Mrs. Davenport's
issues.
d. Public testimony:
• NPO 6 - Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6 advised the NPO
would drop their appeal contingent on the signing
of an agreement with Triad. This agreement was for
a contribution from Triad of $300,000 towards the
cost of improvements to S.W. 109th.
The City Engineer advised that a draft agreement
had been submitted to Council at an earlier meeting 3
(Council meeting of 12/10/91).
Proponents:
• Steve Pfeiffer, attorney for the Triad Developers,
reviewed the work with the NPO and advised that a
good solution had been negotiated. He advised of
some of the elements of the agreement and that
Triad would be phasing in their contribution
towards road improvements as building permits were
acquired.
• Fred Grimm, advised he was one of the three
partners in the Triad Development. He reviewed the
history of their efforts to satisfy the concerns in
this neighborhood. He described the type of
apartment community that they develop and said they
would be a good neighbor. He referred to the
extensive efforts which had been made to
accommodate the concerns. The present zoning was
consistent with their development proposal and they
are prepared to perform as the Code specifies.
Opponents
• Beverly Swink, 15875 S.W. Greensway, Tigard, Oregon
opposed the development. She cited concerns with
increased traffic and the lack of streets to
accommodate the demand. She said that Summerfield
Drive would be negatively impacted and noted this
street is a recreational street with golf carts and
high pedestrian usage.
Ms. Swink said that with increased density, crime
also increases. She alleged that the quality of
life in this area was being destroyed and that some
areas should be left undeveloped. Ms. Swink
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 13
referred to the relatively large number of
apartment complexes concentrated in the surrounding
area.
• William Lindsay, 15505 S.W. 109th Avenue, Tigard,
Oregon noted his concerns about increased density
and the diminished quality of life. He advised
that no one in the area wanted the development to
occur and asked that Council reconsider the density
in the area.
• Richard Whitman, 101 S.W. Main Street, Portland,
Oregon advised he was legal counsel for Mrs. Marge
Davenport (appellant). He cited three issues:
1. Soils - a detailed soils analysis should be
completed prior to development. If the soils
analysis was deferred until later during the
city Engineer's review, then there would be no
opportunity for public review and comment.
2. Completion of S.W. 109th Avenue - Not all
funding for this project has been identified.
No engineering has been completed and Mr.
Whitman questioned the accuracy of the
estimate for the construction costs of the
Q_ road.
3. Important Goal 5 issues need to be addressed.
He noted conflicting areas of the
Comprehensive Plan with regard to density
recommendations.
• Al Erickson, 15200 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon,
testified he did not support the extension of
either S.W. 109th or Sattler Street.
r
• Marge Davenport, 15100 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon,
reviewed the elements of her appeal. She did not
feel that the concerns in her appeal had been
adequately addressed by staff. She noted details
concerning the widening of S.W. 109th because of
its collector status had not been worked through.
Other issues which ne6ded to be analyzed included a
study of the soils and advised there was severe
soil erosion potential. There has been no
geologist evaluation and the area is susceptible to
earthquake.
She questioned the staff report with regard to the
natural and scenic resources in the area. She
noted concerns for saving trees and advised that 12
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 14
large trees would be lost if the road was widened.
No protection from noise has been planned. She
cited concerns for drainage to the Tualatin River.
Rebuttal - Proponents
• Steve Pfeiffer advised that the Comprehensive Plan
requirements were not being changed because of the
Triad development request. Traffic impacts have
been studied. Naeve Road would be adequate to
handle the traffic with the Triad development.
Mr. Pfeiffer noted the geotechnical information was
not required at this stage in the proceedings. In
addition, issues raised by Mr. Whitman concerning
conflicts in the Comprehensive Plan should have
been raised a number of years ago. This was not
the appropriate time to raise these issues.
• Dawn Pavett, commented on the technical issues
raised by Mr. Whitman and Mrs. Davenport. Ms.
Pavett submitted, for the record, the following:
1. Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey
2. Geotechnical Report
• Mr. Ross Woods of Triad commented on the street
widening and disagreed with Mrs. Davenport's
comment that trees would have to be removed. He
described other apartment. complexes built by Triad
noting they had recently been awarded the honor of
building the "Best Apartment Community in Seattle."
Rebuttal - Opponents
4 Mr. Richard Whitman disputed Mr. Pfeiffer's
contention that Naeve Street would be adequate to
handle the increased traffic. He noted the
concerns raised by King City and NPO 6 if 109th was
not completed at the time of this development.
He referred to the new material submitted and
requested that the hearing be continued so that he
and his client would have time to review the
materials.
• Ms. Davenport questioned how the improvements for
all of the 109th extension would be phased in. She
noted the expense of property condemnation if that
was the method which would be used to acquire right
of way. She said the street extension should be in
place before the Triad development is built.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - 14ARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 15
~mmjjj,jj%g11
She recommended that an independent evaluation of
Triad studies be completed.
` e. The hearing was set over to April 14 so that all parties
would have an opportunity to review the new material.
6. Public Hearing-- Zone Change Annexation ZCA 92-0001 Robinson
(NPO 3)
A request to annex two parcels consisting of 2.44 and 14.39
acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from
Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of
Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). Location: 12000
S.W. Bull Mountain road. ZONE: R-4.5 - Allows single-family
residential units, public support facilities, residential
treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care,
home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tanks, and
accessory structures among other uses.
a. The public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff
report. He advised staff was recommending approval of
the resolution supporting the annexation which would be
forwarded to the Boundary Commission. Staff also
recommended approval of the ordinance outlining the
zoning designation for the subject area.
d. Public testimony:
Proponents
• Larry Rosencrantz, The Aspen Group, 121 S.W.
Morrison, Suite 850, Portland, Oregon was in favor
of the annexation. He noted the City of Tigard
zoning was downzoned from the Washington County
designation.
• Michael W. Robinson, 12000 Bull Mountain Road,
Tigard, Oregon 97223, testified on behalf of his
mother who owned the subject property. He advised
she was in favor of annexation.
Opponents
• Isador Morgan, 15145 S.W. 119th Avenue, Tigard,
Oregon advised he would be against annexation of
his property. He referred to the continual
annexation of property all around him and advised
he would not want to be annexed to Tigard. He said
he believes the quality of life outside City limits
is better.
d.. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - M_?RCH 10, 1992 PAGE 16
• Dick Stelow, 15120 S.W. 119th Avenue, Tigard,
Oregon advised that the City's policy for
annexation creates pockets of land not inside the I
City limits, yet they become isolated from the
County and its services. He expressed concern with
the zoning and also referred to water drainage
problems.
i
• Ken Dickey, 14565 S.W. McFarland, advised he was
opposed to annexation. He noted continued
development without addressing traffic problems and
requiring sidewalk construction.
• Robert Ames, 12500 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard,
Oregon, noted concerns with quality development in
the area. He noted his opposition to the zoning as
designated in both the County and City. ;
• Steven Smith, 12036 S.W. Wildwood, Tigard, Oregon
said he does not oppose development but said he was
concerned about traffic safety on Bull Mountain
Road as the area continues to be built up.
• Paul Whitney, 12035 S.W. Bull Mountain Road,
Tigard, Oregon read a large portion of his
testimony from a prepared statement. (This
statement has been filed with the meeting
material.)
Council and several of the persons who testified
discussed the issues further. The need for planning for
traffic, parks, and safety was discussed.
The annexation policy, in general, was questioned.
Councilor Johnson reviewed the varying viewpoints (many
of which were articulated during the testimony) on
annexation policy and the concerns and challenges this
represented to Council.
e. Public hearing was closed.
f. RESOLUTION NO. 92-10, A RESOLUTION INITIATING
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY
AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
"B" ATTACHED (ZCA 92-01) (ROBINSON)
g. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor
Johnson, adopting Resolution No. 92-10.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of
Council present.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 17
MEN - -i-n=
h. ORDINANCE NO. 92-06, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 92-
01) (ROBINSON) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
i. Notion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor
Schwab, to adopt ordinance No. 92-06.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of
council present.
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive
Session at 11:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)
(d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
8. ADJOURNMENT: 11:58 p.m.
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Re order
City of Tigard
nc<C Acs; devL4 /
Date • Ala ~((9a
h:\recorder\ccm\ccm03lO.92
V
any, C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 18
~1 I IJ+''I ilk
{
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. eg
TT 7193
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 tice
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
° ° ❑ Tearsheet
City of Tigard The following meeting Highlights ere publisheal f+~z:)"oiu 3riferinauon.Full
• PO Box 23397 0 ❑ Duplicate agendas may He°obtained frorhr the City Re6s4r, 13125 W -Hall
Tigard, Oregon 97223 Boulevard, Tigard, Oregcgi 97223>.or by calling; 639-4171 }
° e C1Ty COUi?TC1I BUSINESS MEE'Y'lN
;MARCH IO; Y99't
} TIGA.AD CITY HALL=
13125 S.W p. A F . BOULEVARI3> T[SiARD, OREGOAI
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION : Study Session (Yawn Haul CoiiferenEe Room) {5 30 p rri) f
]qmt Meeting with the Park Board
STATE OF OREGON, )ss -
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, } Study Session (gown Hall Confereitce Roviti) (6 30 p m )
t, Judith Koehler Executive Session: TI;e T'igartl P-fsy CouRCit will go:int<' Executive
being first duly sworn, depose and say at I aat he Advertisin Session: under th'e provisions of ORS 192:660 (1}°(f) to discuss
Director, or his principal Ic ark, of the gar Cl lrrles g exemfit`public r ardS
a newspaper of general circ€ 8tion 4s defined in ORS 193.010 Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:34 p.m.)
and 1Q3A20; published at i in the
afor rd c un a 1d tote that 4
i y (our A sihess Meeting al Contract R~view B644
a printed copy of which is hereto ann xed, was published in the 1ibl.c Hearings'
We Plan AmeaidmenR' 'Trititsportation 109th and;Ndeve;
entire issue of said newspaper for successive and i
{Heanng conimu6d1rom Pebrtary 5> l9°2}'
consecutive in the following issues: e, -Triad Development (Healing cuntiiiued from P'ebig.ary 25,
March 5, 1992 '1992} j
o Ailtiexat,on 120 5 W Bull 1A6untaut Road
Ficecuiive Session T[e'Tigazl City. Councilwill ga into Executive
. essi.in .under `tlie provisi6ns`gf 4RS 192 560:'{1} (d),;{e)s ais~ {fi) to y
discuss' labor relations; real property tranSacttoms, current site finding
litigation issues:
Subscribed and sworn 4o afore me thi day ? TT7i93 Polish March 5> 1992 _ a...__k.r . r
T-7 V s5th da of I~iaicch 1992
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
mom
a
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal Tr 7185
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
s L1C-IiFA.RING a
~ ❑ Tearsheet Notice
City of Tigard The -f4oltowtng will bs constdered b}t ?lie Tigard City C4utistl cur
@PO Box 23397 0 13 Duplicate Affidavit ,.10 ` 9Q_2, at'7 30 P IvI., at Tigrd Civic Center; Town hall Rcx9m,131 t5 `
Tigard, Oregon 97223 3 1ia11, tvd ;Tigard, !Clregon. uxth°r 'i fariaatior may lie`obtais ;d
0 o the Ceinmunrty..Revelogtnent)7irector csi City l~dcorder at the Bare
Lion or;tiy calling 639= 17I;,You are invitedza submit wtitt ri
• mony:in'advance*of the 0fic..hearing, :viratten and oral testmao;iy
1 be considered at'the hearing The;nublic,heantig will be coc~duc ut
c®rdaricz with the`appli~able Chapter 18.32 of the; Tigard I un,c,
ode and any rules of procect rrb adopted by the Cowncd and ayatlable at '
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
City.xall 3
STATE OF OREGON, )ss ijyE ~1iA13Gl;
7f AT N +7CA
413
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )
Judith Koehler A request_tct annex two parcels constsung dI and,14 9 reams tort le
I City of Tigard and 16-P Angethe:ione fromzaShfiagton C01
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising (Residential, 6 unitW&6)`to Ctty;cf Tigntd R 5 e,idenlial, .5
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard TimPS units acre A1~Pi ICABI E RB IEIrl C;t1Tt~I TA Cvit~rsiuniEy
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 D&elopment Code Secuon~;l$ 32412(},18 32: 0,18.?2130, .836 0? 0,
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the 18.136,18138,1ff 138 020 (A) (k3) and Conipreheri iycl'lan l~oltcies
10? .1 10 x,10:13 10 2 i 10 2,2 10 2 3 ` IO 310 3 23 )ACATXO' V
for paid county an Z to a t~hhe 'r '
, 200 a i~!
ub~ic Hearing ZC$A 001 Robinson 12000 S W .:;Bolt Mauntairi:ltoad (V► C'1 M xs1OBD, taix lot-
2S1`IOB;ta;i lob 1500 ~4?I`~ R-4:S (ResidesrttaD ~ 5 tznitSJBCIe} T ]e
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the R-45 zone allows:single faznity trsrdential tariizx, public sitppitfacttrtu,
entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and residenuat,tceatment homes; faiiiiiizg, iisanufactuf idmps darn y'd3y
consecutive in the following issues: care, home;occnpattotls, teitipornry uses,;restdential fticl tanks, aitd r=
accessory st"ctiim among 9ther usf.
February 272 1992
TT'7I85 i'iblishFebruary~27,1~~?2.~. ~ Subscribed and sworn t before me this 27ih day of February 1992
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission V s:
AFFIDAVIT -
t
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
Dr&,rjarjce Iuu. qa-v(_p
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss
City of Tigard )
begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose a say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) _ Qt ~ - f) ko
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated a)(0) q a
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof,
on the day of~
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Washington Federal Savings Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham
Road, Tigard, Oregon
Q\,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this `Itk day of 19`d
OFFICIAL SEAL
M.JOANN HAYES
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Notary Publi or Oregon
COMMISSION NO. 006613
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 8, 19+5
My Commission Expires: 1945
loginyolcwpost
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: March 10, 1992
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on
other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff.
Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
STAFF
NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED
k\15gWj6\visit6rs.Sht
Imam
all
imam
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
I_ of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: March 10, 1992
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002. NPO ##B - APPLICANT. In response to a
remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) of an earlier decision on this matter, the
City Council will consider testimony concerning what actions it should consider taking in response to
the LUBA decision and possible modification of the decision for CPA 91-02.
Note: written and oral testimony on the above matter will be limited to the issues that are subject
to the remand.
PLEASE PRINT
roppn~r~# = `_a_ ing I :Favor ~f the .GPA) Opponent-(SpeakingrAgethis '.tlie CPA)
Name r Name
Address Address /
1 Ib
Name Name
Address Address I -Q` 2cctzl C,
~i
ame -Fame
Address Address
fi
+ Name Name
141. L 44T.S o
Address / Address
f D ~C'
f 'ffli Ste-,
ame ame
Address Address U
'1'57 o6' SuJ
Name Name
Address Address
ame Name
Address Address
}
f
1
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
t of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: March 10, 1992
i4PPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned
Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD)
(Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned
Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue
(WCTM 2S1 10AD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 10DB, tax lots 100,
200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32,
18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, 18.164;
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1,
8.1.1, and 8.1.3.
PLEASE PRINT
-Proponent (Speaking In favor of -SDR 91'-'0013) Opponent'- fteaking Against SDR 91-0013).,
w. Name f I , N-F OR A 1-01 -
Address ss ^
Name
d ress ss
%
Address Address
\ \ S W `Mega
c
ame Name
d s1 IY- ick, Se~7 G2
-Address
l.S 46 r~ rS
Nam _ Name ~ d IGCG
d e C ij j A e
Nam Name
Address \Ydress
L I ~'l U U cep f o 7
NMI
Man
r
PLEASE PRINT
. Prc~pvrtant'(Spea. eng rrf- avot
of. SDR.91=0013)_^ Opponent (Speaking Against SDR 91-0013) .
Name Name
Address Address
ame Name
ress Address
Name Name
[Name ddress Address
ame Name
ress Address
i
Name
Address Address
Name Ma-
me-Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
-ffa Name
ress Address
Name Name
Address Address
ame Name
dress Address
i
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: March 10, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-00018 °;OBINS^O^: (NPO 3)
A request to annex two parcels consisting of 2.44 and 14.39 acres to the City of Tigard and to
change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5
(Residential, 4.5 units/acre). Location: 12000 S.W. Bull Mountain road. ZONE: R-4.5 - Allows
single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming,
manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tanks,
and accessory structures among other uses.
PLEASE PRINT
-Propol 't`(Speaking°in'favor:of'Annexation) Opponent (Speaking Against Annexation)
Name N e nn
karr I~o z M
f~
-Address Address
/.2 , w i1~•orris m,. S~~ fe b50 Z ~ 3 5 S W 11, 1x IM l ,
Name me
Adir@ssU U J Address
C c Z 2 ~~~1 Si7 .5 GJ 14 ~l~
Name
ress Address
Name ame
Address Address
Name Name
A ress Ad ress
Name Na
Address dress
S If
Name Name
Address Address
C
aim
STUDY SESSION
COUNCIL. MEETING - 3/10/92
MEMORANDUM
C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder bro~
DATE: March 3, 1992
Rom
SUBJECT: Study Session for March 10, 1992
The Solid Waste Rate Executive Session, originally scheduled for
the March 10 Study Session, has been rescheduled. Staff is working
on the several components to the rate structure outlined by Council
at their February 11 meeting. This item will be rescheduled in
the near future.
The Study Session agenda was revised to include a presentation of
the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan to take advantage of the joint
meeting with the Council and Park Board.
cw
i
C
i
t
i
STMY SESS3ON
COUNCIL ~j.X- G - 3/10192
AGEffiDA
CITY COUNCIL AND PARK BOARD JOINT MEETING
1. PARKS LEVY REVIEW
2. PARE 114PROVFAENT FUNDING UPDATE
3. FIELD USERBS GROUP AND APPEALS STATUS REPORT
4. STRATEGIC PLANNING UPDATE
S. GREENSPACES
5. FUTURE DIRECTION OF PARK BOARD
Cw\park-agn
s
TOTAL
PTS. ,
GRAN
gATRIX Sol"
FIINDINO
INiPR0VEM7 T pARXS ,Snc GE% D SEW $19.2,000
~ ~
PAS LE11`~ .
EST~:CO5T $792,000
PROJECTS,,.. 71,750
$
$ 601400
E ground $117 000 $ 61,15Q
ScSNB'I ke P 1'WIA 0OU
oz
t . d Res 1010p0
.11S
Picnic ghelte $
Tables and Grl04Q $ 10,600 $295 000
FA° Cg?EKarid Path $ 211750 $ 54,80')
EaseenZ Movements
. Ent -$101000*
$ 541800 $558,750
De Me do Pla:11ting $185r400
S 000 3
A7 & PAS pATK 501,000 1502 $ 54x804
GR 1 iria rjGenesis $ 70,000 41 $192,p0° $ 61, Elizabe Da 199
Path t,hf. er l3th $ 35,040 $ 54,80 1 be reinstated. February,
p96,00° •
0o°k ark/ $558,750 $1. this TeX e few monk's
Tally if awarded,
tdue
TOTAL has been a made.ri two are
* A grant a aPPllcatlQn has b us of one gran ubmit Plan to i e ee funds
n AP 1
D DLIt3F: Me RCTCC policy Co
men be j oar rrard ent park levy
br/Pkscosc.t5l in annual groin delin~ d paid availableu to TT e applna
icati t ho(seels nltaYY std ) C1 on to be pald back
ted total amo Tet chnioal G rp TCC q ire a 1 s capitaluld be reduced'
1 E5tima fun ark t w
ch meeting t WC MSTIP II ds ce $61,150 ed pthis am°un adVa for final auth°ri Y•enera d if a V ant Is aw IZ evenue'
Ven funds for MSTIP r
taxes in Year' sgand~tching
s Would serve as
Park Board
February, 1992 _
ASSUMPTIONS
Population will continue to increase in Tigard.
The average Tigard resident will be older.
Land prices will increase.
The Bull Mountain area will eventually be annexed to Tigard.
Gasoline prices will increase.
Metro may manage regional open spaces in the future.
Housing densities will increase. Apartment dwellers will rely on
parks.
The amount of vacant land within Tigard will decrease.
Traffic congestion will worsen.
Average disposable income will decrease. Older population on f ixed
income.
Development will slow.
Funds available for parks will be limited.
Environment/quality of life will be a major issue.
Government revenue will remain constant while service costs raise.
There will be more cultural diversity.
Historic resistance to regionalization of parks and recreation.
There will be more future cooperation between governments.
School funding will become tight, less money spent on tennis courts
or pools.
Alternate sources of recreation will be more pressed.
ja/Assumpti.Prk
a
l
PARK BOARD
December 12, 1991 i
,ETA"-HOL E R S
Service Businesses
Group Users
Future Citizens
Current Citizens i
Outdoor Sportspersons
Children
* Soccer
BPA
* Baseball League
city council
State
* .ers
Taxpay
s
e
-
u ss
e
- sin
B
s
e
Sporting Suppl
yy~~
Audubon, etc.
rs
e
0
n
a
Handicapped
* Washington County
Tualatin ValleV Recreation
and
Other Standing Adjacent Cities
Committees
School District
* Voters With Developers
Children
* Key Stakeholders
SWOT ANALYSIS
PARK BOARD
January, 1992
T3T3SC3'!'H~ ' P7EAKLSES':SSS
• Use of development fees. High property taxon.
• SDC Fund $100,000. Lots of fixed income taxpayers (and
• High assessed value... there's money voters). j
here. Ballot Measure 5.
• SDC funding system already set up. Tax-payers revolt.
• We will have completed projects to Lack of funds. `
show our credibility to voters. • inability to collect SDC funds from
• Voting body in Tigard did pass recent lands which will be annexed to the ;
park levy. City in the future. ii
• Recent developments in parks due to No funds from/for unincorporated t
bond issue. areas.
• Active community involvement. • Recession - no building - no SDC
• Growing community. funding.
• Affluent community. Commercial development pays no
• Culture supportive of SDC's.
athletics/fitness. Need for more leadership from City
• Concern for preservation of river Council.
area, etc. • Low priority for City Council.
• Mature, energetic motivated Park Lack of playing fields.
Board and staff representatives - Citizens use other facilities in
Good Chemistry. the Metro area, and don't feel the
• Natural drainageways that are not need to support development in
developable. Tigard.
• Developers will donate unusable land. • Lack of coordination with Metro and
Washington County.
OP.PQRTUNITIES THREATS
• Land is still available for parks. Inability to get another park levy
• Buy land before it goes 'up' in passed.
value. Large number of retired people - -
• To conserve 'open spaces'. (on fixed incomes) who may tend to
• Getting County to collect a Parks SDC vote against any tax increases.
fund for fixture use upon annexation. Voters won't pass any levy's or
• Metropolitan 'Greenspaces' Program. bonds.
• To influence Metro. Rapid development precludes
1
• For multi-jurisdictional programs. purchase of available land for
• Involvement of service groups. parks.
• To mobilize interest groups. Vacant land disappearing.
• New growth will tend to be young High cost of acquiring land.
families of middle income who may Someone else will come in and do it
support parks. for you (politics loathes a vacuum)
• To make a difference in the present • Metro could tax our stakeholder and
and future citizens/users. drain potential local levy funds.
• Reaching out for grants when
available.
r rng s
i
i
milli
OWN
0- Y'no-r;?
Yearly Project Breakdown
PROJECT SITE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
o Playground $ 80,000 o Riverfront Development $170,000 o Picnic Tables & Benches$ 22,500
o River bank earthwork, $135,000 o Restroom Renovation $ 40,000 o Asphalt Trail $ 92,400
COOK PARK stabilisation, irrigation o Irrigation of Ballflelds $ SS,OSO
and landscaping and Play Area ; Sub-Total: $114,900
o Restroom Evaluation $ 2,000
Sub-Total: $16S,OSO
Sub-Total: $217,000 SS~,950
o land Acquisition $ 72,000 o Easement acquisition & $49,050 o East Entry Improvement$ 21,7SO
PANNO CREEK o Bicycle Path (2/3 mile) o Meadow Planting s 10,000
PARK Sub-Total- $ 72,000 o Foot Bridge Relocation $ 7,000
Subtotal $56,050 Sub-Total: $ 31,7SO St59~8~
o Bridge at Dom $ 30,000 o Wlnterlake Playground $ 60,000 o West End Grading $ 2S,000
o Land Acquisition - $ 95,000 o Restroom at West End $ 80,000 and Rough Seeding
1.9 acres o Grading, Landscaping, $ 28,000 o Tennis Courts $ 50,000
o Asphalt Trail • 1/3 mile $ 24,000 Irrigation and o Basketball Courts $ 10,000
SUMMERLAKE from playground to Pathway at Playground o Picnic Shelter $ 17,000
Winterlake Ave. o Picnic Tables $ 10,000
PARK o Lawn Seeding at $ 16,800 Sub-Total: $168,000 o Irrigation & Landscap- $ 20,000
Lakeside d ing at Picnic Area
o Footbridges - 2 $ 2,000
o Soft Trail - along $ 4,900 Sub-Total: $132,000
southwestern edge of lake
o East Lake Playground $ 30,000
o Irrigation (3 acres) • $42,000
along north & southeast
sides of lake
Sub-Total: $244,700 '$544,700
o Englewood $ 79,000
OREE~~~~l (ld miles) o Pathfinder/Genesis $145,000 o Cook Park.
o Durham Road-Cook (1.9 miles) 113th Connection $ 70,000
PARK PATHS Park Connection $ 70,000
Sub-Total: $145,000 Sub-Total: $ 70,000 $364,000
Total: $149,000
Sub-Total: TOTAL $672,700 $634,100 $343,650 $1,665,450
r
TIGARD PARKS - TABLE 1
' r
3110192 oil
sM,ey session
FuR PHAMLETS
SEE PHOTO BOOK
L.m mol
METROPOLITAN
Greens a.Ces
Metropolitan Greenspaces is a truly regional approach to protecting natural resources -
a bi-state, four-county program that will piece together a mosaic of natural areas into con-
necting greenspaces preserved for our future urban environment. The urban portions of
Clackamas,-Multnomah and Washington counties in Oregon, and Clark County in
Washington make up the study area.
The system will protect expanses of natural areas and wildlife habitat and create greenway
corridors for people, plants and animals. The Metropolitan Greenspaces Program has become
nationally recognized as an innovative project. It is coordinated by the Metropolitan Service
District (Metro), in partnership with conservation, recreation and business interests,
government agencies, cities, counties and the region's citizens.
Phase 1: Infrared photography of natural areas (completed spring 19$9)
More than 600 aerial infrared photographs were commissioned for the urban portions of
the four-county region (Clark, Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington). Through this
inventory, natural areas across the four counties were pinpointed.
Phase 2: Mapping, field research and photo mosaic of the region (completed fall 1990)
From the photographs, maps of natural areas were produced and field research was con-
ducted at more than 160 sites. This data is being digitized into a geographical information
system computer mapping system. Photos and maps of the remaining natural areas in the
region are available.
Phase 3: Greenspaces analysis and master plan, and public outreach (January 1991
through February 1992)
The region's remaining open spaces, wildlife corridors and greenways will be studied and
a priority list will be developed of natural areas that could be acquired. A long-range protec-
tion, acquisition, finance and management plan will be created in cooperation with govern=
meet agencies and the public. Public forums will be held throughout the-region.
Restoration and enhancement demonstration projects of stream corridors and wildlife
habitat areas will be carried out. A pilot environmental education project will be started in
cooperation with the public schools.
Phase 4: Greenspaces acquisition, preservation and protection (1992 and beyond)
A master plan that will outline specific steps to acquire, preserve and protect lands will be
implemented pending Metro'Council and public approvals. Public forums will be held
throughout the region. A public vote on funding, if needed, will also be conducted.
C For more information, call Mel Fluic, Pat Lee • - at (503) 221-1646, Metro,
2000 SW First Ave., Portland, OR 97201.
A Cooperative Regional Synem of Natural Areas,
Open Sparq Tr4dr and Creenuayr,
for Wildlife and Prople
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: _March 10, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sale of Real PREVIOUS ACTION:
Property at 8640 SW McDonald ac u' Purchase of property 8-28-89
for street bon o'ect PREPARED BY: Operations Director
DEPT HEAD OK, CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFO E THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council offer for sal, developed surplus property located at
8640 S.W. McDonald Street and if so, what should be the minimum acceptable
bid.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On August 28, 1989, the City Council authorized the purchase of the property
located at 8640 S.W. McDonald St. The purpose of the acquisition was to
facilitate S.W. McDonald Street Bond Improvement Project. The Bond
Improvement Project required the City to utilize a fifteen foot frontage
strip of this piece of property for a total usage of approximately 2130
square feet. The City acquired the property for the sum of $63,000.00 plus
closing costs. In order to rent the property, there were some extensive
repairs necessary. The repairs totaled $13,905.00 which included replacement
of the roof as well as dry rot repairs. The house was rented after the
repairs were made for $700.00 a month until February of 1992. The Bond
project has been completed and the City no longer has a need for this
property. The current appraised value of this house is $75,500.00 and the
current assessed value is $82,840.00. Section 3.44.015 of the Tigard
Municipal Code states that once the Council makes the decision to sell
surplus real property, they must also set a minimum acceptable price for the
sealed bid sale.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Retain the property and continue to rent it on a monthly basis.
2. Authorize the sale of the property and set the minimum bid at $75,500.00.
3. Authorize the sale of the property and set minimum bid at the Councils
discretion.
FISCAL IMPACT
Proceeds will be returned to the Transportation Bond Issue Fund.
- -
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that Council authorize the sale of the real property located
at 8640 SW McDonald Street, in accord with the Tigard Municipal Code 3.44.010
through 3.44.015. Staff also recommends the minimum bid be set at
$75,500.00.
}
y
i
t
i
l
Q ,
a
C)esrr`bed Area
S"r • 5a
Sw• M4'~a~a~~
sW McC~
~Y
~ if
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 0.,
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: March 3, 1992
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, February - May 192
Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally
OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council
Calendars.
March 192
10 Tue Council Meeting
Workshop Meeting with Park Board (5:30)
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
17 Tue Council Executive Session (5:30)
Council Study Meeting (6:30)
Update from TVRFPD
24 Tue Board and Committee Interviews (5:30)
Council Study Session (6:30)
C Council Business Meeting (7:30)
April 192
14 Tue Council Meeting
Workshop with Library Board (5:30)
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
- Oath of Office - New Council Member
21 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30)
28 Tue Board and Committee Interviews (5:30)
Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
May 192
12 Tue Council Neeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
19 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30)
25 Mon Memorial Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
26 Tue Board and Committee Interviews
Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
i
h:\login\cathy\cccal a
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Pat Reilly March 5, 1992
FROM: Randy Woole 4)1-11~
SUBJECT: Undergrounding Policy
Attached is my proposal for an interim policy on undergrounding of
utilities. The policy would continue the Code interpretation that
the undergrounding requirements apply to all developments, not just
to subdivisions. In addition, the policy would provide for payment
of a fee in lieu of undergrounding for developments with short
frontages with existing overhead lines.
The proposed fee is based on our recent experience with
undergrounding of utilities on the Road Bond projects. It is based
on the costs from large projects where a substantial length of
utilities is undergrounded. In calculating the cost, we have
included the administrative and inspection costs that the City
would experience on such a project. We have also included the
costs of sidewalk and pavement replacement which would occur when
undergrounding utilities after development is complete. In
converting the cost to a "per front foot" fee, we have assumed that
each side of a street would pay an equal share of undergrounding
costs.
Adoption of the interim policy will address the problems we are
currently having in interpreting and applying the Code requirements
to developments with short frontages. However, clearly some more
work needs to be done to provide a more comprehensive
undergroundinc policy. Over the next several months, I would
expect to develop Code revision proposals to provide better
assurance that utility undergrounding will occur in a logical and
coordinated way throughout the City and that undergrounding costs
will be distributed equitably.
ti
rw/ug-pot
3
}
i
'.i
's
I
POLICY ON UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES
March 5. 1992 i
i
0
1. Section 18.164.120 of the Community Development Code applies to
all developments and is considered to be a part of the street
improvements required under 18.164.030. All new utilities must be
placed underground except as provided in 18.164.120. Along the
frontage of each development, all existing overhead utilities must
be placed underground except as provided in 18.164.120.
2. All service lines to new structures shall be placed
underground. Service lines are those lines which run across 4
private property to connect individual properties to the utility }
system.
3. The City Engineer may accept a fee in lieu of conversion of
existing overhead utilities to underground installation if:
a) the frontage of the development includes an existing
overhead electrical primary main line and the total frontage
of the development is less than 1500 feet; or
(b) the frontage of the development includes an existing
overhead electrical primary tap line and the total frontage of
the development is less than 500 feet.
Primary main line means a large capacity substation protected
conductor as defined by the electrical utility. Primary tap line
means a low to medium capacity line protected conductor as defined
by the electrical utility.
i
Where a fee is collected in lieu of conversion, the fee shall be.
calculated at the rate of $27.50 per foot of frontage of the
development, measured along the right-of-way line abutting the
development. The fee shall be used by the City to fund the
conversion of overhead utilities to underground utilities.
Each qualifying applicant shall be given the choice of converting
the existing overhead utilities to underground or paying the fee in
lieu of conversion.
i
rw/ug-fee
t
.n
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
1GENDA OF: March 10, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: February 13, 1992
SSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 91-0002 109th PREVIOUS ACTION: Comp Plan Amend.
And Naeve - Additional Findin s 91-22 08/13/92; held over 2-25-92
PREPARED BY: Acker Bewersdorff Offer
DEPT HEAD O~ CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City amend ordinance 91-22 to provide additional findings relative to the approval
of Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Amendment 91-0002/ 109th and Naeve in response to
a remand by the Land use Board of Appeals (LUBA). (This item was set over from the Council
meeting of February 25th at the request of staff, in order to allow staff to improve the
findings. Additional findings were prepared and incorporated into the ordinance.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to Ordinance 91-22
to provide additional findings regarding the Comprehensive Plan changes, and also make the
Sattler Street extension a local street connection.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
At the December 17, 1990 meeting, the City Council authorized NPO #6 to explore amendment
options for improving the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map in the area of Little Bull
Mountain. After many meetings at which numerous citizens and property owners participated,
NPO 6 proposed an amendment to the Comp Plan Transportation Map which extended 109th Avenue
as a minor collector from its current terminus south of Murdock to Pacific Highway at the 3
intersection of Royalty Parkway. It also added a new minor collector street (the Sattler
Extension) between 100th and 109th Avenues at a location north of Hoodview. At its July 22,
1991 meeting, the Tigard Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment.
f
The City Council approved the amendment at its August 13, 1991 meeting. The amendment was
subsequently appealed to LUBA by petitioners Marge Davenport, the Estate of Bernard i
McPhillips and Robert C. Luton. LUBA remanded the decision back to the City on January 28,
1.992. The remand requires the following items be addressed:
The City must either explain how the Comprehensive Plan amendment 91-0002 complies with
the provisions of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC) Goal 5 - Natural Resources, or why
Goal 5 does not apply relative to the City's plan inventoried sites in the Little Bull
Mountain area.
2. The City must show how the Transportation Map amendments provide for a safe and efficient
street and roadway system according to Plan Policy 8.1.1.
3. The City must show how the Transportation Map amendments were coordinated with Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Metropolitan Service District (METRO) and Washington
County.
4. The City must explain why the Sattler Street extension was excused from compliance with
street construction standards applicable to minor collectors.,
5. The City must address how the Transportation Map amendments relate to Economic Strategy
19 of the City's Plan. This strategy calls for ensuring adequate access from major arterial
routes to designated commercial and industrial areas.
The attached ordinance amends ordinance 91-22 to provide additional findings addressing the
LUBA remand. It also designates the Sattler Street Extension a local street (rather than a
collector), since projected traffic fails well within Plan standards for local streets.
Attached to the staff report is an Exhibit "A" which illustrates the location of the Little
Bull Mountain Natural Forest and the Kallstrom Fir Grove; a letter from James Bean, attorney
for Mr. Luton (who was notified of the February 25th hearing, incidentally); and a memo from
Dawn Pavitt, a technical consultant of Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones and Grey, (Triad's
attorneys), documenting her telephone conversations with other agencies, and a letter from
Vernon and Colleen Jones opposing the plan.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the amended ordinance as attached.
2. Revise the findings as desired.
FISCAL NOTES
of applicable
DB/CPA91-2.SUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-22 AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF NAEVE STREET FROM
MINOR COLLECTOR TO LOCAL AND BY ADDING A MINOR COLLECTOR CONNECTION[S] FROM 109TH
AVENUE AT MURDOCK STREET TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY OPPOSITE ROYALTY PARKWAY AND A LOCAL STREET
CONNECTION BETWEEN 100TH AND 109TH AVENUES NORTH OF HOODVIEW DRIVE AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY (CPA 91-0002) REQUESTED BY NPO #6.
WHEREAS, the request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as follows:
1) Change the designation of Naeve Street from minor collector to local.
2) Add an extension of 109th Avenue between Murdock Street and Pacific Highway and
designate 109th Avenue between Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway as a minor
collector.
3) Add a local street [minor collector] connection between 100th and 109th Avenues
at a location north of Hoodview Drive.
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1990 the City Council authorized NPO #6 to initiate
consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment focused on transportation issues in the
area of 109th Avenue and Naeve Street.
WHEREAS, NPO #6 has developed a proposal to address traffic concerns in the Little Bull
Mountain area.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard the CPA 91-0002 proposal at its regular meeting
on July 22, 1991 and recommend[s]ed approval and also recommend[s]ed deleting the last
sentence of note 10.
WHEREAS the City Council adopted ordinance 91-22 on August 13, 1991, approving CPA 91-
0002.
WHEREAS the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map amendment was appealed to the Oregon
ROM
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) LUBA Nos. 91-133 and 91-137.
WHEREAS LUBA remanded the decision to the City for reconsideration on January 28,
1992.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below:
The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 9 Economic
Implementation Strategy 19, 12, and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1,
[and] 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and applicable Community Development Code sections related to
legislative plan amendments.
The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following
findings:
1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has an adopted citizen
involvement program which includes review of land use applicatiofis by neighborhood
planning organizations. In addition, this proposal has been reviewed in public
hearings by the Planning Commission and by the City Council for which the public
has been properly notified.
2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant
Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community
Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. In addition, as
explained with reference to Comprehensive Plan policy 8.1.2, the City has
coordinated its plan with the plans of potentially affected governmental units by
soliciting from those governmental units comments on the proposed amendment and
considering any comments received.
ORDINANCE No. 92-
3.' Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources is met
because: j
i
a. Pursuant to the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5, the City of
Tigard has inventoried Goal 5 resources and designated in its Comprehensive
Plan those Goal 5 resources that it has determined to be significant.
(Comprehensive Plan Vol. I, pp. 94-109,) The City's Comprehensive Plan,
including its Goal 5 provisions, were acknowledged by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission on October 11, 1984.
b. There are two designated Goal 5 resources that are within the vicinity of
the streets that are the subject of the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment: the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest and the Kallstrom Fir
Grove (aerial photograph, Exhibit A) No other designated Goal 5 resources
are potentially affected bV the proposal. The "summit of Little Bull
Mountain" is mentioned as a "special area" and an area of scenic value in
the city's natural Features and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Report. (See
Comprehensive Plan Vol. I, pp. 42-42). The summit area of Little Bull
Mountain, however, was not inventoried as a significant Goal 5 resource,
with the exception of those resources included within the designation of the
Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest. Therefore, Goal 5 is not applicable to
the general discussion of the summit area in the natural Features and Open
Space Comprehensive Plan Report. Moreover, the summit of Little Bull
Mountain is not affected by the proposal.
C. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest as
an area of mature coniferous trees on the west side of Little Bull Mountain.
(Comprehensive Plan, Vol. I, P. 96,) The forest was designated as a Goal 5
resource because it was determined to be "an outstanding scenic site." (Id.)
The Comprehensive Plan explains that the scenic value of the site stems from
the visual landmark provided by the large stand of mature coniferous trees
at an elevated location within the City.
d. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments do not adversely affect the
Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest. The forest is located on the west side
of Little Bull Mountain. As shown by the relevant planning maps and the
documents describing the proposed street alignments, the proposed local
street connection between 109th Avenue and 100th Avenue lies entirely on the
east side of Little Bull Mountain. Thus, the proposed connection would not
travel through the forest gr require cutting any of the trees within the
forest. Moreover, because the forest is elevated, because ref the topography
of the area and because of the low relief of the connection the connection
would not interfere with any scenic views of the forest.
e. Similarly, as shown by the relevant planning maps and the documents
describing the proposed street alignments, the proposed extension and
realignment of 109th Avenue lies entirely to the east and south of the
forest. Thus, the extension and realignment would not travel through the
forest or impact the character of the forest. And, again, because of
topography and the low relief of the street facilities constructed as a
result of the extension and realignment, the extended and realigned street
would not interfere with any scenic views of the forest. For the same
reasons, any change in traffic patterns or volume caused by the proposal,
including street reclassification, would not interfere with the views of the
forest.
f. Moreover, the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest is designated solely for
the scenic values provided by the mature coniferous trees within the forest
and no other aspects of the forest could conceivably be adversely affected
by the proposal, even were it necessary to address these aspects of the
forest in connection with Goal S.
g_ The Kallstrom Fir Grove is a row of mature Douglas fir trees located
adiacent to 100th Avenue in an existing residential neighborhood. The grove
is designated as "a significant Visual and Natural resource."
(Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 1, p. 106.) These resources stem from the visual
landmark provided by the Douglas fir trees, which are described as "the only
( maior stand of Douglas Firs on the south side of Little Bull Mountain." The
only potential conflict that the Plan identifies with surrounding land uses
ORDINANCE No. 92-
RUN
is the possibility that the trees might be cut down to make way for future
development. (Id.)
h. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment could only have an adverse effect
C on the scenic and natural values of the Kallstrom Fir Grove if the proposed
east-west connection between 109th Avenue and 100th Avenue required the
trees to be cut down or otherwise damaged the trees. Although the proposed
plan amendment does not identify the precise location of the future
connection the connection can be located so as not to require cutting or
damaging the Grove As shown on aerial photographs and by testimony at the
NAM MWA hearing the Grove is an east-west row of trees that would parallel the
proposed connection. There is ample room to place the proposed connection
up to several hundred feet from the grove and at a sufficient distance to
prevent damage to the trees or interference with their scenic value. No
other natural or artificial features would constrain the location of the
proposed connection within the area designated.
i. Finally, even if, contrary to these findings, the proposed amendments to the
transportation plan were in conflict with the Little Bull Mountain Natural
Forest or the Kallstrom Fir Grove, the conflict would have been anticipated
and resolved by existing provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. All of the
areas included in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest and the Kallstrom
Fir Grove are designated by the Comprehensive Plan for future residential
development. The Plan's Goal 5 analysis notes that future development may
create conflicts with these designated Goal 5 resources, (see Comprehensive
Plan Vol 1, pp 96-97 106-107) and resolves the conflict as follows:
"The significant wooded areas are identified and mapped. The
policy of the City's comprehensive plan is that these areas will
be preserved in a natural state as much as possible or integrated
into the design of any development, i.e., parking lot island,
building setbacks, street rights-of-way and landscaping areas
whenever possible If it is necessary to remove a portion or all
of the trees, the replacement landscape features shall be subject
to approval by the applicable approval authority." (Comprehensive
Plan, Vol. 1, p. 95.)
The Plan expressly requires that "development proposals in designated
timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process
to minimize the number of trees removed." (Plan Policy 3.4.2.b.)
J. Moreover, even with respect to development proposals that are not in
designated timber or tree areaa the Tigard Community Development Code
(TCDC) requires all new developments and major modifications of existing
developments to undergo site development review. See TCDC
s 18.120.180.A.1.1. These provisions require, among other things, that the
tree removal be necessary and that the tree removal will not adversely
affect the aesthetic character of the area. See TCDC # 18.150.030.A.
k. The City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan thus expressly anticipates that
development, and in particular residential development and associated
roadways may create conflicts with the designated Goal 5 resources in the
Little Bull Mountain natural Area and the Kallstrom Fir Grove. Following
the required Goal 5 analysis, however, the Plan chose not to absolutely
protect these resources but to conditionally protect them by requiring
scrutiny of development proposals to ensure that the number of`trees lost
through development was minimized. For these reasons, even if, contrary to
the findings above, the proposed amendment adversely affected designated
Goal 5 resources, the existing Comprehensive Plan has anticipated and
resolved any such conflicts through the Plan and TCDC provisions regulating
tree removal.
4. Goal 9 Eccnomic Development, Implementation Strategy 19 is satisfied because:
a. The plan provides alternative access for commercial properties along the
C east side of 99W south of Naeve Street. Currently, these propert>es have
access only to 99W. Under the plan, the propertieB can be developed with
access to 99W via the new street with a signalized intersection at 99W.
ORDINANCE No. 92-
Boom
b. The Oregon Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Service District
have been notified and have had the opportunity to provide input.
C 5[3] Goal 12, Transportation, is met because the City has adopted policies related to
improving the transportation network and continuing coordination of transportation
improvements with other involved agencies. Furthermore, the Goal is met for
reasons discussed in coniunction_with Er-onomic Implementation Strategy 16 and
Policy 8.1.1.
The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the
following findings:
1. Policy 1.1.1 a. is satisfied because the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan will not affect compliance of the City's acknowledged Plan with the Statewide
Goals.
2. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization #6 and #3
have been notified of the hearing and have commented on the proposal and a public
notice has been published including the date, time and place of the hearing.
3. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan Transportation Map plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system
that meets current and future needs. A safe and efficient transportation is
provided because:
A. The proposed amendment provides for current needs and is also planned to
accommodate traffic growth anticipated as a result of future development in
the area In developing the plan amendment the NPO relied on traffic
protections based on full development of the area in accordance with
existing zoning.
b. The plan provides for access to the arterial street system for both existing
and future development It also provides for circulation within the
neighborhood without using the arterial street system.
c. The plan was coordinated with the Fire District and the Police Department to
assure that the plan provides adequately for emergency vehicle access
routes.
d. The plan eliminates the need for left turns at the existing intersection of
Naeve Street and Highway 99W, thereby reducing_ the safety concerns
associated with the existing unsignalized intersection.
e. Other locations were explored in coordination with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) for access from the study area to 9941. The Royalty
Parkway connection shown in the plan appears to have the fewest traffic
safety and traffic operations concerns of all available locations.
f. The plan eliminates the future need for a traffic signal on 99W at Naeve
Street. Reduction in the need for signalized intersections on 99W is
consistent with ODOT's standards for jMrrovinq and protecting the efficient
movement of traffic on 99W as an Access Oregon Highway.
S._ The plan provides alternative access for commercial properties along the
east side of 99W south of Naeve Street which presently have access only to
99W. Reduction in the need for direct driveway access to 99W is consistent
with ODOT's standards for improving and protecting the efficient movement of
traffic on 99W as an Access Oregon Highway.
I. The plan reduces the potential for through traffic in existing residential
neighborhoods.
Findings for a local street connection between 109th and 100th:
j_ As future development occurs within the study area, an additional street
t connection is needed between 100th Avenue and 109th Avenue to minimize the
traffic impacts on existing east-west residential streets.
ORDINANCE No. 92-
k. The projected traffic volume of the proposed street connection is in the
middle of the range for local streets, as suggested by the background
documents of the Comprehensive Plan (700 vehicle trips per day projected;
range is 0 to 1500 trips per day).
1. The general location shown on the plan is the only location available using
undeveloped properties.
m. To minimize traffic safety and operations concerns along S.W. 100th Avenue,
the intersection of the new street with 100th Avenue be aligned with
existing Sattler Street or, alternatively, that the intersection be located
at least 100 feet from the existing intersection with Sattler Street.
4. Policy 8.1.2 is satisfied because:
A. The Oregon Department Of Transportation and Washington County were notified
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Amendment in June
1991. The City received no formal response from either agency. In original
deliberations for a development in the vicinity, ODOT suggested moving an
intersection from near Beef Bend Road to Royalty Parkway. The Metropolitan
Service District was also notified of the proposed amendment but has not
responded. Metro is primarily concerned about regional traffic issues. The
proposed plan amendment does not have regional impact.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby amends the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
by 1) designating Naeve Street a local street, 2) establishing a new extension for
109th Avenue from its current terminus south of Murdock Street to Pacific Highway; the
extension would curve across the south slope of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve
Street west of The Fountains condominiums and meeting Pacific Highway opposite the
existing intersection of Royalty Parkway, 3) designating 109th Avenue as a minor
collector between Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway, and 4) establishing a local (new
minor collector) street, to connect between 100th and 109th Avenues at a location north
of Hoodview Drive as shown in Exhibit "[B] C".
C - PASSED: By vote of all Council members
y present after being read
by number and title only, this day of , 1992.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1992.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
JA/& •41-02.ORD
ORDINANCE No. 92-
mill
4 ! }
..t. . 9~ l~I~ ~R,abrJ:,• r'tyi-•~'gr r r r. ~ ,`Y v
` •P.,t'fiFLy~~~}-`Lr` r e 7 t ~d ~L'~",.
,.4t's,r T t1~~~°nL>?~~' •~~~j ~ y k ~ ,'`j~r^(, r`! - ;t , 'r.'„ 4- ' •,iM
J_ } A .~1rJ~'~~'O 4! + M, • -7 .
'~,.~~~~yi 3X -''l~ v~,•+}~ ''nt` a..- S~ t"",. :V y dy„k.~ ~ %'tl,w ~y 7."i'~'*" ~`"~4 +
k
Npi
10,97 A4
-I w
TA ~ i t~ '1 Yt7c.LRt+~+.r•1 ® ~ d r u i .
j- ~..~.~n ti f ~ ' ~ ~ ,~C$' _r~i a, , Tt ~ ~"p~"_..,:~ - ~c,~r ~ YK• l
Wo~
()gv
~ t r' y , . Doti,; _ pro,
•
-_t,; ~ r , r~ '~i. ~ .1(t, SAC • tY~tU
`1 1 r ` j ri Litt -e
C GrOve
ti -
i
y~r \ ; ~ ~ tit
a ~ ~,E ~Ti ~ ~'Y.r~a' •'s~.-'~~r~,~. tr A~ It
3 ~ -i ~t ~ 1 ~ , s.t~~ r, ~ aza Fr t ,~,~~F r . tt " F z •l1t ~ ,.mss N 1~.1
~{A? i } 1 ~,i zt ~ ~d~•a j i'~ ~ s~rr~,'A.~; .t'~4~ f~ ~ G
..A v i2~t .'X[_.--• ~;~~1tS~''~•~'t` 1 "1 ~ : • tkt•~ ~~,-•.rw'"•- p ~
, ..,.2yr. gig s a3R , ~:~tt 3` „;"~rl;~ ~~-~,~t -~c~.,, .d
'w t:~it•'t4 -'t ~Jh 4 k~~ r r t kY ? ~J ~ Ct~
~ ~ ~ < E •s f . : ion ~.1?~ dt~:`~!" p m ~
t~ ar•~y' ;u i ►'`i iJap.trt^` ~ t(y ~1 ~1
' ~ s r t~~i ,8r r }C, Q `j J
Vp {,r Ze. a S ...~_~'~~•e~ty, t`uT't _ r` ~ a 1 1
per,.-"~ •lW+~U t' ~ ~ 4 5 •J•ra
„fir r 'fi' •At~'
~ yt,~t• •giritr ..,a"."s ~y~'r'.~'~l ~ Jar
• t 1 i l' •'y- J
y Fl.
c'~'; . ,y~•d' tJ 'r i f ft°v' r t: ~ ~ , . `t ; ~ y,
. iY i aws .Yet .~i
ro~i ~ - ~ •/4i~}M{~~ p'd.~_ y Y'~"~n-y~: 'kT~ ' t ~r~, t ` l\~ ~
'f'. f. ~3 a:PY~P ~ `9 ,y ~ `A+t.Y;t,~:'+t --.a•....nscr~ts.'..,ia••--•n+""r .s-r
ggii Jm!1m11111=;1 11 111 iiiii~ IS
73
X141731
ONAL.D , The City Of
I ~_T - ~ G , c4
T IGARD
I :E
`1 Comprehensive
n
CAf'JTERE~URY P l a Transportationll,
> M a p 1
<
> MURDOCK y
ST I
arterial
s ~
I Z ~
Ld o r
C o l l e c t o r
nor
SATTLER I collector
~J +
> SEE NOTE 1 0 DR,
l I~~ ~ 0igl tal sofa t map reprsses-
tstIon asupi led by the City !
g j
agard utiltli oris s 5 s I t -n
Ti i a
~✓111 / ~ ~4 IS Infornn 1
CIS1 sSf lrarx. Is f rr-
notien per It ay+! Sere
l
ll m nay hr istendtd to hs
W used rrib addi lisnal
CT) tesSs~cel osdJar II
j ~ N U R T H
1 iaterpretalirs dots
DURHAf\,1 as 4041n1 ne6 ty
the Ci t} of yigara
;f1pl0Y 151)
0 S00 {02113111
C~~1~31T C
i - - McC>ONALG T h ? City o f
r:G~ T I GAR D
Proposed
CAS`\1TERBUR1' Revision t o
~y L_N Comprehensive
~ ~ 4< P l a n
v
_ IUPDOCI< + rn T r a n s p o r t a t i o n]
ST i Al a p l
F- 1,S E E N 0 T F Arterial i
W {
Major
a Collector
SATTLER
Minor
Col Iectar
S E E N 0 T E DR
Digital lava t map repnf<r-
JJfw71~, ~~L/ i lalfaa <eopf!<d SP ,1< C~IY
~ i T I of Tigard u:tlilira 6eogrd-
T 111} 11ie Info rn a,ia. S{e:em I
jl mat ien por baled lerr
mul 6e irlended la D!
used rilA afdi:iona.
N 0 R T H (eal.jet I ard;ar
inl<rprelalir< da'.<
IPA, Ar,/l ar ee rerni n<e e7
V \I f I -'-I Ih< C: 17 of ligsrd
i 8C0 {61tIS191)
769, LI.DSAY HART PDT - CITY OF TICARD 10002
LzNDSAY, HART, NEm & WEIGLER
LAwA-ERs
Sums 1600
992 S.W. COLU""
PORTLAN-D. OREGON 97201-6616
TELEPHONE (503) 226-767'4
FAX (503) 2264697
TA"x 494-7082
FEDERAX ID 93-1034742.
February 25, 1992
SENT VIA FAX 684-7297
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 91-0002
109th Avenue and Naeve Street
(Transportation Map Amendment)
Dear Council Members:
We represent Mr. Robert Luton. Mc. Luton appeared
before the Council at earlier considerations of this same plan
amendment and ;,ra.s the petitioner in LDBA. #91-137 (combined for
final opinion and order with LUBA 091-133).
Mr. Luton owns approximately 21 acres of commercially
zoned property at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Naeve
Road. The proposed road realignment, which we understand is
substantially the outgrowth of the Triad Development Company's
proposed residential development, will si g-a..ificantly adversely
Impact Mr. Luton's property.
Dividing Mr. Luton's property with a road required to
serve the residential development and the simultaneous down-
grading of Naeve Road will substantially adversely impact Mr.
Luton's right to develop his property under the standards now in
effect. The taking of Mr. Luton's property for the extension of
109th Avenue, as contemplated by the proposed amendment, will
also Give rise to significant severance damages and, in all
likeli.hoodl will render the property unusable for any commercial
development.
Although we are the attorneys of record for Mr. Luton
and have previously communicated directly with the City on -this
matter, we did not receive any notice of the hearing set for
later this --rening. We attempted to reach Mr. Luton but find he
is apparently out of the state. we assume notice of the meeting
may have been sent to his residence.
J=\1zc53G.1tz
1 11 l,lY 1 1+ittu I111o
L1 1.1 1 nrti(), I'UA
i
i
LL\'DS~X, A"~Rr, ~TEZ7G & ~iEIGT~R
Tigard City Council
February 25, IJ92
Page 2
Prior commitments and the lack of notice prevent our
appearinc., before the Council this evening to express Mr. Luton's _
concern` in person. Sowever, by means of this letter we are
renewinc, all of the objections raised in our petition to LUBA and
those vAtters previously raised by Mr. Luton or his agents in his
ear?ie: appearances and correspondence with the City in regard to
this rroposal.
We request this letter be included in your record and
we urge the Council not to approve any plan amendment which down A
grades the CAsignati.on of Naeve Street, contemplates bisecting
or taking of Mr. Luton's commercial property to promote a
residential development, or otherwise adversely impacts upon his
aP ility to ase and develop the property under the current (pre-
t'Le proposod amendment) regulations of the zoning code and
comprehensive plan for the City of Tigard.
Respectfully submitted, j
es H. Bean
:a: ! Im Buis
,obert Luton
JTm\1ie536. lt=
i
STOEL PUVES BOLEY JONES & GREY
M E M O R A N D U M
February 25, 1992
TO: File
FROM: Dawn Pavitt
RE: Triad Tigard Development, Inc.
On February 24, 1992 I discussed the proposed City of
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Amendment and resulting roadway
change with Mr. Dan Reardon of Metro's Transportation Planning
staff. Mr. Reardon informed me that Metro would not comment on
a roadway that would access 99W, since 99W is a state highway.
He said that ODOT has jurisdiction in those cases.
On February 25, 1992 I discussed the proposed amendment
and roadway with Mr. Blair Crumpacker, a Washington County
transportation planner. Mr. Crumpacker told me that since the
project is south-east of 99W and within the Tigard city limits,
that Washington County would not comment. He said that
Washington County would only comment on projects within Tigard
that were north-west of 99W and within the urban planning
agreement between Tigard and Washington County.
I also spoke with Mr. Harold Lasley of ODOT on February
25, 1992 about the proposed amendment and roadway project. Mr.
Lasley said that Tigard would need to follow the Access
Management Policy and the Traffic Operation Analysis (in terms
of warrants for lane configuration and traffic control). He
also said that Tigard would need to design the intersection to
ODOT standards, obtain a permit from ODOT for the work at 99W,
and develop an agreement with ODOT for the maintenance and
operational costs of any signal which might be necessary.
Submitted on February 25, 1992 by Dawn Pavitt on
behalf of Triad.
c_
d1p0002 17516/1
DI
C uU_AACk
~C l 14320 S.W. 100th Avenue
L3~1 2-) '°igard, OR 97224-4948 'i
February 25, 1992 z
{
f
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0002 '
we definitely oppose the plan to join Pacific Hi ghwau ?
to Sattler Street. We would oppose any connections
between Pacific Hiqhway and Hall Boulevard involving
Sattler Street. We feel this would definitely affect
the quality of the now quiet neighborhood, introducing j
more traffic and noise. We also feel that Sattler
has already become fairly busy and that any additional
traffic would necessitate the introduction of signals
at Sattler and Hall as well as at the Pacific Hiqhway
end, a definitely unnecessary expense and a further
barrier in an-alreadu congested area.
cn
Vern n G. a 7olleen D. Jones s
l
Now-
March 4, 1992
To Whom It May Concern: CI OF TIG
ARD
RE: SW 109th and Naeve Transportation Map Amendment OREGON
And Triad Development Proposal
As you are most likely aware, there are two items scheduled on the March 1992, City C cil
meeting relating to transportation and development issues in the Little Bull in area.
Information on one of those items, the Transportation Map Amendment, is included with this
letter.
The first item on the agenda is the public hearing to consider matters associated with an
amendment to the City's Transportation Map. The Council amended the -map on August 13,
1991. That decision was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), and was
subsequently remanded back to the City Council for clarification.. The City staff has drafted
additional findings related to the LUBA remand.
You should note that the staff recommendation regarding the Sattler Street extension has
changed. It is. now being recommended. that, Sattler Street be planned as a local (versus
collector) street, yet still connecting from 100th to 109th.
'Testimony on the LUBA remand will be limited to those issues associated with the remand. The
staff report addresses and'summarizes the issues identified by LUBA; if you wish to see a.copy
of the entire LUBA decision, please contact John Acker or myself.
The other items on the agenda are the two appeals of the Triad development proposal - one by
NPO #6 and one by Marge Davenport. This hearing will be based upon the actual development
proposal by Triad; testimony will be limited to those issues associated with the appeal of the
development proposal. Copies of the full staff report and the developer's proposal are available
at City Hall or the Tigard Library.
Any written testimony on the LUBA remand hearing or the Triad appeals that are received prior
to 5:00 pm, March 10, 1992, will be reproduced by staff for the Council hearing that evening if
at all possible. To present oral testimony, please sign in at the door at the Council meeting, to.
let the Mayor know at which hearing you wish to speak.
If you have any questions regarding the LUBA remand, please contact John Acker. For
questions regarding the Triad appeal, please contact Jerry Oiler, or feel free to contact myself
as well.
f ly,
J. urph nity evelopment Director br/TriadIV
13125 SW Hall Blvd., RO. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
March 110, 1992
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: Judy Fessler
11180 SW Fonner
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: LTJBA Remand Issues on Transportation Map
Background:
I was not in attendance at the Planning Commission hearing when the proposed
Transportation Map change amendment was approved. But was present to approve
Triad with only 1 leg of Transportation plan in place. I am only addressing the
remand on the Transportation Map and Not Triad.
3rd Assignment of Error Luba PG #10 Footnote 10
Goal # 5. The inventory natural, historic was not included in the study area as
part of the Transportation Comp Plan . It did not denote how conflicts would
and could be met. See EXHIBIT B- LCDC Goal 5
Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest. EXHIBIT # C- ESEE(Tigard) PG# I-96
Kallstrom Fir Grove- EXHIBIT # D- ESEE- Pgs I-106-107
In essence what it saes that the City state that a special N.-P06 policy be written
to call special attention to preserving this row of trees regardless of future
development that may occur.
The above natural areas were within the study area of the Transportation Plan
amendment. 99W to 100th and Murdock to Summerfield.
,~k,
Other Goal # 5 Historic Resource Inventory was deleted.
1. t;pshaw House 7 gables-Tigard Historic Overlay District- EXHIBIT #E- Map
2. Sattler House, Barn and outbuildings- SEE EXHIBIT #E- Map
You will notice on the map the Lpshaw house, out of the current "Study Area",
could be impacted if the road was extended as it is across the street from Kall-
strom Fir Grove. Sattler House inventoried as historic borders Sattler as well as
other possible nominees for historic designation as shown on EXHIBIT # E Map.
Conflicts were not resolved as to impact to the above potential historic resources
as indicated by the New Sattler Extension. Sattler Road is classified as a Minor
Collector but not improved in entirety to those standards 60'R/W 40feet of
Pavement 2-3 Lanes SEE EXHIBIT # F- TDC PG # 414.
HEM I question without traffic analysis studies that Sattler will qualify for downgrad-
ing to a local street by connecting an entirely new EAST- WEST road comparable
to Durham Rd in Use. Maybe even having to upgrade to a 60-80' R/W Major col-
lector. My interpretation of Classification of a road is present and or future use.
Many roads including Bull Mountain Rd and 121st Ave. are classified Major Collec-
tors and have had this designation for many years before growth as we know it
occurred. A Major Collector Grid Collects traffic to feed arterials, etc. This is
their use. By downsizing on PAPER may allow the City of Tigard to get around
the rules but it doesn't provide sound engineering for traffic movement.
1
Is 11
LUBA REMAND PG 10 Footnote # 9 SEE EXHIBIT A
The TDC 18.164 in regard to the T intersection or Jog from intersection 100th to
Sattler area.
Case in point:
The council and staff has consistently enforced this code.This code has also been
interpreted for even neighborhood streets with culdesac intersecting a Minor
Collector. The case of R. Lautt subdivision with a culdesac entering SW 97th a
less than 300 foot Jog to another Culdesac SW Elrose Crt. Elrose area fully
developed highly improbable that a E/4`: street connection would or could ever be
built. The City Council overturned the Planning Commission's recommendation to
approve alignment of Lautt SD road to 97th because of the less than 300 ft Jog.
This further surprises me that the Transportation Plan shows a definite " East-
West Thru Way" to create this same type of Jog to Sattler..
I would recommend that the Council accept the Remands of LUBA and Public
testimony and that ALL GOALS be met By:
1. Setting Up New Boundary for this East- West Transportation Plan Amendment.
This is not merely a neighborhood street. Its impact will be felt beyond 100th
and Sattler.
Proposed New Study Boundaries: McDonald to N Boundary of Summerfield and
99W to Hall Blvd. SEE EXHIBIT "E"
2. Define Little Bull :Mountain Forest " area of concern" with boundaries. THEN
hire a Consultant versed in conservation (a certified arborist) to assess the
ti impact to slopes, grades, natural areas, etc.
Adhere to your ESEE policies already in place.
Results may be a conservation district with mitigated boundaries.
3. Obtain documentation from a preservationist to place potential historic sites
within the newly created study area. Kessler's, Sattler's, Schecklas's and others
all lived along this road and many of the homes remain today.
Thank you
JPdy ess I
C
2
L6ZL V 9 9 £09 N033 03h13~3~1
azuu 2G0 :eau oiUGL Xl%bb Ll~i U!• lllf~Jtll ~Ull
l
1 remaining TCP provisions and the TCDC- street. and utility
2 standards quested above apply at the time development of the
3 disputed streets is proposed. Those standards are not intended
4 as approval criteria for plan amendments, such as those adopted
5 by the disputed decision.9
6 The second and fourth assignments of error in LUSA No.
7 91--133 and the first assignment of error in LUBA No. 91-137 are
8 denied.
9 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR (LUBA NO. 91-133)
10 Pursuant to Goal 5 (open Spaces, 'Scenic and Historic Areas,
11 and Natural, Resources) the city has inventoried a number of
12 sites to be protected under Goal 5. Petitioners identify three
13 sites that either will be or may be affected by the challenged
14 decisione'and argue the city erred by failing to explain how the
15 challenged decision complies with Goal 5.4
P,
` 116 When adopting amendments to its acknowledged comprehensive
. a
9Al.ho4gh we agree with intervernors that the TCV and TCDC provisions
discussed under these assignments of error are not approval criteria
applicable to the disputed plan amendments, we agree with petitioners_that
the d sputed plan dmandments approve an al_gn~ent Ror Sattler Street u.Uah
has SLScLc~ered ntesectiona tai tfi- iO0Efi Sve un a Closer than 300 feet
apart. Therefore cons rE Son of this sattler Street a i" ent
necessarily would violtice TCDC`cion 18.164.030.6.1, quote ve is the
text. The ci y apparent y attempted to address this problem by exempting
the design of the Sattlar Street extension from the city's standards for
minor collectors. we address this aspect of the city's decision 3.n=xa.
'O "The city's decision adopts no findings addressing Goal 5, and the
inventory maps provided by t e pz es o nocisely ?ocac.e the city's t
inventoried Goal 5 rosource sites. The Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest i
and ti e Kallst=ctn F'jr Grove are both invent_gsia$_~$.tes attd, appear to be
isvacted by the challenged ec s on. etitioners also point otit the 's t
of the UEtie-H`uli Hountain: area is designate as .a Specie:. Area and
j _conz nd at -t contains reaaurc•es prctectP-d S"C,t,al S.
Page 10
`L6ZL X89 E06 NlUdd ~.1dri_t d.~dd
H'L 1s:1;! -azos 12U k460 bIULL K1%k-ZP 1111 Ur LL(,.!AV --U!a
1 plan, the city is required to assure that the amended plan
2 remains in compliance with the statewide planning goals. 1000
3 Fri_endn of -Oregon v. Ja .1 {can C amttYf 79 Or App 93, 97, 718 P2d
4 753, y den 301 Or 445 (1986) As. intervenors correctly note,
5 the, city's acknowledged plan includes a variety of measures
6 adopted to protect identified Goal.5 resource sites. However,
7 here, the city is amending its plan to designate new alignments
8. for minor collector extensions and to redesignate existing
9 streets. 'these changes in the acknowledged comprehensive plan
10 require that the city identify possible conflicts the proposed ,
I
11. action may cause with inventoried Goal 5 resource -sites, and
(12 explain how those conflicts are resolved, as required by OAR 660
Division 15.:1
14 Intervenors argue:
15. Absent a (sic] indication that the plan
16 amendment would adversely affect the inventoried t
17 resources in a manner not anticipated by the City's
18 acknowledged [Comprehensive plan and land use
19 regulation] provisions, it is appropriate for the City
20 to rely upon existing implementing measures to
21 maintain Goal. 5 compliance. S A t1rqu1?art v. Lana
22 Council of Go=rnments, 80 Or App 176, 721 P2d 870
23 (1986) Intervenors--Respondent's Brief 15.
24 if,.ry the above quoted statement, intervenors mean. that
25 where a Froposed amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan
26 will nor affect inventoried Goal 5 resources or will affect them
27 only :12-t a manner already anticipated by the plan and. addressed
170AR 660 Division 15 ®stablishes a process. whereby Goal 5 resource
sitl.9 must be inventoried,- conflicting uses identified, and a program i
adepted to resolve those conflicts adopted.
?age 1
NOW
APPENDIX IV
C GOAL #5
: THE GOAL ITSELF
STATEWIDE
PLANNING
GOALS and
Guidelines
c
Oregon ~
Conservation
And
Development
Commission
c
3
III
5 - GPEI; SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, A.ND NATURAL RESOURCES
GOAL:
To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic re-
sources.
Programs shall be provided that will: (1) insure open
space, (2) protect scenic and historic areas and natural-re-
sources for future generations, and (3) promote healthy and
visually attractive environments in harmony with the natural
landscape character. `:'he location, quality and quantity of
the following resources shall be inventoried:
i
a. Land needed or desirable for open space;
b. Mineral and aggregate resources;
c. Energy sources;
d. Fish and wildlife areas and habitats;
e. Ecologically and scientifically significant
natural areas, including desert areas;
Outstanding scenic views and sites;
g. Water ari-s, wetlands, watersheds cnd ground::atcr
resources;
i
h. Wilderness areas; f
i. Historic areas, sites, structures and objects;
j. Cultural areas;
k. Potential and approved Oregon recreation trails;
1. Potential and approved federal wild and scenic
waterways and state scenic waterways.
Where no conflicting uses for such resources have been 1
identified, such resources shall be managed so as to preserve
their original character. U-nere conflicting uses have been
identified the economic, social, environmental and energy
consequences of the conflicting uses shall be determined and
[programs developed to achieve the goal.
CULTURAL ARE..--refers to an area characterized by evidence of
an ethnic, religious or social group with distinctive f
traits, beliefs and social forms.
HISTORIC AREAS--are lands with sites, structures and objects
that have local, regional, statewide or national historical.
significance.
NATURAL AREA--includes land and water that has substantially
retained its natural character and land and water that,
although altered in character, is important as habitats
for plant, animal or marine life, for the study of its
natural historical, scientific or paleontological features,
or for the appreciation of its natural features.
S
OP-t:l SPACE--consists of lands used for agricultural or forest
uses, and any land area that would, if preserved and
continued in its present use:
(a) Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources;
(b) Protect air or streams or water supply;
(c)' Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or
+i AA I tnarehce •
(d) Conserve landscaped areas, such as public or private
golf courses, that reduce air pollution and enhance
the value of abutting or neighboring property;
(e) Enhance the value to the public of abutting or
neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves,
nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open
space;
(f) Enhance recreation-opportunities;
(g) Preserve historic sites;
(h) Promote orderly urban development.
SCZ:;IC ARL'AS--are lands that are valued for their aesthetic
appearance.
WILDERNESS AREAS--are areas where the earth and its community
of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is m
vasitor who does not remain. It is an area of undeveloped
land retaining its primeval character and influence, with-
out permanent improvement or human habitation, which is
protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condi-
tions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of
man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding
opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation; (3) may also contain ecological,
geological, or other features of scientific, educational,
scenic, or historic value.
GUIDELINES:
A. PLANNING:
i
1. The need for open space in the planning area should be
determined, and standards developed for the amount, dis-
tribution, and type of open space.
2. Criteria should be developed and utilized to determine
what uses are consistent with open space values and to
evaluate the effect of converting open space lands to
inconsistent uses. The maintenance and development of
open space in urban areas should be encouraged.
3. Natural resources and required sites for the generation
of energy (i.e. natural gas, oil, coal, hydro, geothermal,
uranium, solar and others) should be conserved and pro-
tected; reservoir sites should be identified and protected
against irreversible loss.
S .
2. Historic structures and cultural sites are placed within the
Historic Overlay District (ND) which prescribes standards and
procedures for development within each (HO) area. ]'he purpose of
the standards and procedures are to preserve the structure on
site, whenever possible, and ensure that any development within
the district is compatible with the character of the district;
both architecturally and through the overall.site plan.
3. Areas designated for residential and within the Fanno Creek
100-year floodplain are protected from development encroachment
and will be preserved for greenway, open space and recreational
uses.
These safeguards are specifically addressed within policy
language of the comprehensive plan and within the Sensitive Lands
Overlay chapter of the Tigard Community Development Code. Some
of the area designated for commercial or industrial use within
the Fanno Creek 100-year floodplain will accommodate development {
provided that they meet the applicable planning policies and the
requirements set forth in the Sensitive Lands chapter of the
Tigard Community Development Code.
4. The provisions of these policies and ordinances will be
implemented administratively by the City staff and through the
Hearings Officer, Planning Commission and City Council.
II. Identified Resources
A. Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest
The Little Bull Mountain natural forest area located on the west side
of Little Bull Mountain was determined to be a significant Goal 05
resource as an outstanding scenic site. The size of the treed area
includes approximately 24.9 acres. The wildlife within the site is
limited to small birds and animals. The major significance of this
area is its visual impact viewed from many vantage points within
Tigard. This area is the largest stand of nature coniferous trees
within the Tigard activo urban planning area, and, therefore, serves
as a City visual landmark.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area north of Naeve Road, a
Lose Density Residential (1-5 units to the acre) with a Planned
Development overlay zone required of any type of residential
development.
if the resource is preserved, it will be necessary to situate any
structures in a manner that minimizes the•losa of the trees.
The land also has economic value. Given its proximity to Pacific
Highway and adjacent residential areas and its topography, the land
does lend itself to a low density residential use. The staff
recommendation for this site is to limit conflicting uses. The
limited conflicting uses allowed will be single family detached
residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development process,
I -96
iG'
t~
assessment. It is the intent of the City to preserve the character of the
structure through. the standards set forth in the Tigard Community
Development Code.
i~
Q. Tigard Grange
The Tigard Grange building located on Pacific Highway has been
determined to be a significant historic resource. Although the City
does not know the specific date, it has been stated by the Washington
County Historical Society that the grange building is one of the
oldest such granges in the west. It is currently being used as a
church. The remaining information on the structure is somewhat
sketchy. It is a one-story wood-frame structure with a stucco front
and wood horizontal siding on the remaining sides. The building is
currently in good repair.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this resource site is
Commercial-General with an underlying zoning designation of C-G
(General Commercial). There does not seem to be a conflict
concerning land use. Church uses are not permitted in a C-G zoning
district, therefore, it is considered nonconforming. Its use or
other subsequent commercial use, however, may be appropriate,
provided that the architectural character of the structure remains.
The staff recommendation for this resource is to include the structure on
the City's resource inventory and delay the Goal #5 process until further
NEW
data can be obtained regarding the structure. During the next fiscal
C year, the City will be proceeding with the development of a master City
parks plan, which will also discuss citywide points of interest as well as
park needs and assessments. It is also the intent of the City to preserve
the architectvi^al character of the structure through the review of the
standards set forth in the Tigard Community Development Code.
R. Kallstrom Fir Grove
It has been determined by the City that the Kallstrom Fir Grove is a
significant Visual and Natural resource. Located on the east
property line of the Kallstrom property, the trees represent the only
major stand of Douglas Firs on the south side of the Little Bull
Mountain area. Planted by the original owners of the property, the
unique row of trees represent a visual landmark for the residents in
the area. There is a small plaque along SW 100th denoting the fir
grove.
The Comprehensive Plan indicates a Low Density Residential (1-5 units
V per acre) designation for the area with an underlying zoning district
designation of R-10 (Single Family Residential). There are no land
use conflicts between the use and the tree grove other than the fact
that the grove could possibly be destroyed due to subsequent
development.
The staff recommendation for this resource is to preserve the visual and
C natural resource. The City recommends that a special NPO 06 policy be
written to call special attention to preservation of these trees
regardless of the type' of subsequent development that may occur on the
site. The policy may read:
1 -106
Mill:
r
THE CITY SHALL PRESERVE THE KALLSTROM FIR GROVE ON N.W. 100TH
AVENUE.
a. ANY DEVELOPMENT ON OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE ON WHICH THE TREES ARE
LOCATED SHALL INCORPORATE THE FIR GROVE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT
PLANS.
b. A DENSITY TRANSFER SHALL BE PERMITTED IN LIEU OF DESTROYING THE
TREES.
S. Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill
The farmhouse and windmill on the northside of S.W. Tigard Street
just west of Fanno Creek has been determined to be a significant
historic resource. Once again, the City has very little information
on these structures. Based on the architecture, it appears as though
the farmhouse and windmill could pre-date 1920. Both of the
structures are in good repair. In addition, it is the City's
understanding that there is a tree which is rare to this area, that
was brought from the eastern United States by the original property
owner.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the resource is Medium Density
Residential (6-12 units per acre) with an underlying zoning of R-12
(Multiple Family). The land use designation could be a potential
problem related to land values and the feasibility of keeping the
single family farmhouse and windmill structures amongst higher
density development. In 1982, the owner of the site partitioned off
the farmhouse and windmill from the remaining 10 acres; thus somewhat
deterring extensive development on the resource. In addition, it is
possible to integrate the farmhouse and windmill architecture into
any development proposal. This would be accomplished via the
Planning Development (PD) process.
The staff recommendation for this resource is to include the structures on
the City's resource inventory and delay the Goal #5 process until further
data can be obtained regarding the background and significance of the
structures. During the next fiscal year, the City will be proceeding with
the development of a master City parks plan which will also discuss
citywide points of interest as well as park needs and assessments. It is
also the intention of the City to preserve the architectural character of
the farmhouse and uniqueness of the windmill through the review of the
standards set forth in the Tigard Community Development Code under the
Historic overlay chapter.
T. Tigard Feed and Seed
This structure has been determined to be a significant cultural and
"historic" resource and should be included on the City's resource
inventory. Like so many of the older structures in the community,
the City has very little information about this structure. From what
information the City does have, it appears that the structure was
built in the 1940's or earlier and has never beerl,moved. Apparently
C a portion of the structure was removed when the viaduct for Pacific
1 -107
. r. - z
.11 rls~ p
I
1,7
.ems.
.,o
v^ l"\1 V
•i~a+s o. ~ ' rain S r, ~
'r't
N - .
s'n♦ rf 1-r r fY!_-7ilr _ _ IV-
1f •L
lip
LLLU '4-' t t:aa 1 ~ Y".y ~ err
\ a ~ ; rt• a ii
b J C4C 1
p u„ yJj o r J F J
` ~1 S ~ a v"ara•
ttr / ar .s v ~~~~;1 'y ~ .low
a v l
1. y
s•v .n
"la 'ri, G L a~M ooh '{1;; ' ~t, '
i _ . ro` r a
M. iw1""~MMNd• lll~~~~~-- b~
pv ' -Ar Sioi t 1 - «
- r
4n.
r - r
r rt..
Minimum Minimum
Right-of-way Roadway Moving
Type of Street Width (feet) i Width (feet) Lanes
Arterial 60-90 121/lane 2-4
-IM 4 2-4
Q- inor actor 60 40' 2-
Local Street 50
Local Streets (planned 50 '2&'OU/ 2
developments only with
equal off-street parking)
Cul-de-sac dead-end 50 34' 2
streets, (not more
than 400' long)
Tur.^.-asos±nAS for 50' rnd4-139 42' radius
dead-end streets
Alley: Residential, 20 201
Business or Industrial 20 201
b. In established areas improvements to streets shall be
made.--according.--to --adopted City standards, unless the
approval authority determines that the public benefit in
a particular case does not warrant imposing an expected
severe, adverse impact on the existing development. Any
required variances to the standards shall be in tha
following priority order:
(i) Narrow or eliminate landscape strips;
(ii) Narrow or eliminate on-street parking;
(iii) Marrow or eliminate sidewalks and/or bike trails;
(iv) Eliminate left turn lanes; and
(v) Narrow travel lanes.
F. Future Extensions of Streets and Reserve Strips:
1. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future
division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the
boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and:
a. A reserve strip across the -end'..`of-a-"dedicated street
shall be deeded .to-°the,'Ctt;, ,ard
b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street
by the property owners which shall not be removed until
authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall
be included in the street construction cost.
Revised 02/27/89 Fag® 414
t i~
Rom
G. Street Alignment:
1. As far as practical, streets shall be dedicated and
constructed in alignment with existing streets by continuing
the centerlines thereof. In no case shall the staggering of
streets making "T" intersections at collectors and arterials
be designed such that jogs of less than 300 feet on such
streets are created, as measured from the centerline of such j
street.
H. Intersection Angles:
1. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as
near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography ti
requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be
less than 600 unless there is special intersection design, and:
a. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent
to the right-of-way intersection unless topography
requires a lesser distance;
b. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a
minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way
lines of the acute angle; and
c. Hight-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets
shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet.
1. xisting Rights-of-Way:
1. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract
are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way
shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development.
J. Partial Street Improvements:
1. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of
less than 24 feet; while generally not acceptable, may be
approved cohere essential to reasonable development when in
conformity with the other requirements of these regulations,
and when it will be practical to require the improvement of
the other half when the adjoining property developed.
K. Culs-de-sac:
i.
1. A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall in no
event be more than 400 feet long:
a. All cull-de-sac shall terminate with a circular
turnaround; and
Revised 02/27/$4 Page 415
Ell
wom
magm
:f
444
f
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Developme
DATE: March 10, 1992
s
SUBJECT: Errata Sheet for 109th/Naeve Findings
After consultation with Tim Ramis I am recommending these changes
to the ordinance in Agenda item #4, the 109th/Naeve Comprehensive
Plan Transportation Map amendment LUBA remand .
Amend section 1, no. 3,Policy 8.1.1 m. as follows:
To minimize traffic safety and operations concerns along S.W. 100th
Avenue, the City Engineer has recommended that the intersection of
L the new street...
Amend section 2 by adding a number 5) on the last line as follows:
of Hoodview Drivel 5) add Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
Notes #9 and #10, as shown in exhibit "[B] C".
Add the following paragraph as Section 3:
SECTION 3: An emergency is hereby declared to exist inasmuch as
it is necessarv for the health, safety and welfare of the City that
this ordinance be enacted as soon as possible- therefore this
ordinance shall become effective upon its signing by appropriate
authority.
Label the maps as exhibit B and exhibit C as shown on the attached
maps.
ja/memo.ert
Il III
A I D
oinprclieiisivc
+I Tran ori,atjon
W ti D ~I a p
1 + c
MUPE)OC11",
>
<
- Arterial
+
Z ti
or
C~►ilector
- bi l 11 0 r
Co l lr.c for
SEE NO~~E 10 DR.
Dldltnl ra!a t Ml l
S{ ` loon eenpl led Ar IAe ally
~U~~Mt'- F) F V~~~ 1 nl ti ligrrd urllitlrq Geegra-
L.-.. T 1+ Illc Inlornotier Sr,lem
+ CIS) ea(1•are. lata.
motion par lrarel lore
A41k, may be i.tedad to be
",4 a
•i!h additional
0) N 0 R T H tdchalcal aedlor
i nle rprelal ill da!d
I~ 4 as d,tdrnlnad by
iA- 1 the City of rlgard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-----Mw - - U ---ADD 1 D 71 13111) -
q
99Pk n
(697 .¢1 CO 4¢`, nlar nr
t¢ drat ~ y -
atpP ra:PaO lc,~r a¢4a!;n ~ ! ~.J
1p0 a!II aapoalr r aG j !cw ( ~ O
a6 ad¢rdred us, t5!4 1 t
a 1 r 11V7 ~ \Wj
.rc a45 j0'!aur~era6~: ° t _l~ ,~y
a pox9 dal4!o!~~ld,a7, ;~~!r,4t!9 ° {1U\s
4 ~
_s
su~tt.~ tdula7 s ''`1
t
} t
a. a
uC~ 14320 S.W. 100th Avenue
04Ct2-) Tigard, OR 97224-4948
t
February 25, 1992 ;
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0002
a
We definitely oppose the plan to join Pacific Highway
to Sattler Street. We would oppose any connections
between Pacific Hiqhway and Hall Boulevard involving
Sattler Street. We feel this would definitely affect
the quality of the now quiet neighborhood, introducing
more traffic and noise. We also feel that Sattler
has already become fairly busy and that any additional
traffic would necessitate the introduction of signals
at Sattler and Hall as well as at the Pacific Hiqhway
C end, a definitely unnecessary expense and a further
barrier in an-already congested area.
Vern n G. a olleen D. Jones
i
t
C
r ~
{yr,n~c.LLL gains sheet 44)
47
DUMB 4rr~"'`'"~ ;~i+
•.yy, j. ki "~i. '`t' ' S. +;wr #"may ~ ~
lop
let
b 7 •y tier f+,~} ~t fc
w t ++~~JiM h 'A'r'm ` w ~ A•,,.`~•N°^ • ,C rh~sr - .~'d,;; ~ ~f~4
f « rir s In ,r.` ♦'1 k-~ ~,`y. 1 ~ l _ ♦ '.l F•'S'..
A'4 i ,7A i'.iYrh,a •W `t7, .3~ ~r~ .e
T + - "~7 7 i' 'g 1 • t:p'♦ rl•~ ~kC' Y`> r~. ;!5 ;z:«'i '
f,. - ~ tip. i ~ 9 i t
r
i .t V • r!?}4' : ~ ' ^ 1 = . i. I •'•~f ` ~ ` ~ - i - `v` a ~K -„a t~iy "T -y.., . Y,
iJ' 1 t .n~ j ~ I ~ - ..•1'••~ Y Y
. y
ly.
•21C
. A ~r
Eiir
l a ~
•_J
ff : f. •.t~• •~ti
i
Poll
Mg.
-
q RDE I STR ET YCD q I IA E ,
I I _ J 1•• _ ~
YT Rogo i 1 ;i
BUL
1 ~
EXISTING VEGETATION
rm-
OURH R
CONIFEROUS
D DECIDUOUS
0 MIXED-CONIFEROUS/DECIDUOUS
® BRUSH
MEADOW
0 MARSH ~ ,'•s
CITY OF HOARD PLAPlNNVtI AREA
MKiU9T. W?
+ ( I '
8C A L L ~ 100' -
z _ 39
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM S
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: March 10, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: March 3. 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Appeal of Planning_ PREVIOUS ACTION: Planningcommission
commission Approval of SDR 91-0013 Hearing on 10/7/91; Council review
Tigard Ltd.) and PDR 91-069 (Triad Tigard of
12/10191 Continued to 3110192
PREPARED BY: Jerry Offer
K44- CITY ADMIN OK/' REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
DEPT HEAD O
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council uphold the Planning commission's approval of a 348
unit multi-family development plan for the southern slope of Little Bull
Mountain? Both NPO 6 and Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed
development, have appealed the approval on different grounds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the Planning commission's approval of the site development
review/planned development subject to the conditions of approval contained in
Final Order No. 91-11 PC. Adopt the March 2, 1992 staff memorandum as an
appendix to the final order.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On October 7, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the development plan by
Triad Tigard Ltd. Partnership for a 348 unit multi-family development project
by a 7-1 vote. Those Commission members supporting approval indicated that,
although they favored construction of the section of SW 109th between SW
Naeve and Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway as soon as possible, they did
not find that there was a significant enough relationship between the
anticipated traffic from the proposed development and the need for the
roadway extension to warrant requiring the developers to construct this road.
The Commission, through a separate motion, recommended to the Council that
development of this road connection be expedited by whatever means possible.
NPO #6 has appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The NPO's appeal
form states that the NPO members feel that the proposed development should
not proceed without concurrent construction of the road connection between SW
Naeve Street and SW Pacific Highway at the Royalty Parkway intersection.
Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development site, has filed a
separate appeal of the Commission's decision. Ms. Davenport's appeal
requests denial of the application based on concerns related primarily to
traffic impacts, effects on the existing neighborhood, and lack of an
environmental impact statement related to the proposed development.
Attached are both NPO #61s and Ms. Davenport's appeal filing forms, minutes
of the October 16, 1991 NPO #6 meeting, Planning Commission Final Order No.
91-09PC, minutes of the Planning Commission's October 7, 1991, meeting, and
the applicants' development plans. In addition, Ms. Davenport's December 10,
1991 written testimony detailing her concerns and a memorandum from the
Planning Division responding to those concerns are included. The applicant's
traffic study was included in the packet for the Council's December 10, 1991
meeting and therefore has not been reproduced for the current packet. Please
contact the Planning Division if you need a copy of that study.
The City Council postponed action on this item at its December 10 meeting,
and set it over to March 10 in order to await the results of the related
amendment to the Transportation Plan Map, which was appealed to the Land Use
Board of Appeals.
Under a separate agenda item for this meeting, the council has been presented
with an ordinance proposing additional findings in support of a
Transportation Plan Map amendment affecting street alignments in the area of
the subject site. The action that the Council selects relative to the
Transportation Plan Map amendment will have a bearing on the traffic issues
related to the Triad site plan approval appeal.
In response to Ms. Daven_i±ori- s latest concerns, the attached memorandum
provides additional proposed findings in support of the Planning Commission's
decision. Staff finds that the issues raised by Ms. Davenport either have
been sufficiently addressed in the Planning commission's review process for
this application or else are not applicable to this review action because of
prior city actions in the Comprehensive Plan adoption process determining
that special resource protections for the proposed Triad site were not
warranted.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the site development
review/planned development subject to the conditions of approval
contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC. Adopt the March 2, 1992 staff
memorandum as an appendix to the final order.
2. Uphold the Planning commission's approval of the site development
review/planned development application with a modification to the
conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC to require
C the developers to construct a southwestern extension of SW 109th Avenue
from SW Naeve Street to SW Pacific highway at its intersection with
Royalty Parkway.
3. Deny the request on appeal, thereby overturning the commission's
decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
J0: sueml- tr i
Nam
IM,
11W m=A
EXHIBIT LIST
C
1. VICINITY MAP
2. TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP
3. APPEAL FORMS
01 1~r'0 #6 APPEAL
(B) MANGE DAVENPORT'S APPEAL
4. ANALYSIS
(A) ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE (12-10/91)
(B) PLANNING DIVISION RESPONSE (12-10-91)
6. MANGE DAVENPORT'S TESTIMONY SUBMITTED (12-10-91)
6. STAFF RESPONSE (3/2/92)
7. PLANNING COMMISSIONS MINUTES (10-7-91)
6. LETTERS SUBMITTED AT PLANNING COMMISSION BEARING
(1®-7-91)
9. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16 NPO #6 MEETING AND LETTERS
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 7, 1991 PLANNING
COMMISSION HEARING
10. APPLICANT'S LETTER DATED AUGUST 27,, 1991 AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
C,
R
St ~
n
O IT nop te4mea
City
\ r pi 4lt6t j6tstltd QY It•+ tn_
k ~ ~ \ \ ynlinn n°8 py}ttci+4 stns
\ ,y 119'y {0tnnli" SY ynr
C.7 Itio Isoltadtt. int'ts
151 nd
Lndl}'p Vst tsnd'd L° t 1
1 L4- j~ ~ ~ nnY lA nddttiop'
ptei►s~sei
dent dnin
666II s 04
t t t
~ 4.~MW S j [ [S f ' ~ ~ R T g t aslbe tntninnet}9n16.
r ,k161\ ~ ~ . CifY n{
S~~ (y01f261ti1
~ry,n_ 400 ~
1
r
- , dC "
T of
he City
See NOTES on :
\J
}y a
t
back of page, ~ +
P
I ~ 've
.,.Cam rehensi
P
8 SEE N 0 T E - ~ -
Plan _
~ ~
~ 1, ~ n
A~, ;Trans ortation
~ P
ERIN
K
.a , Map
T ~ A -
_a \ Fi ure 3
~R ~ E . , g
, _
l: SEE NOTE ~ 5a ~ Li ht Rail -
DR CR , Q• ( \ g
4, ~ ~ - Corridor
~ ,
9 ` 'Stud Are a
~ ~ Y
~
n Studv Area
3 4
E ) ,
~ ,
I, SEE N `E
~ 7 ~
NOTE ~ ~ ~ ~ Arterial
~ a ~ SEE N
~ 3, ~ ~ ~ ~ Ma or
a _ Q ~ Co lector 'I
+ D _
+ ~ - _ ~ Minor
j ~ a Collector ~
+
+ ~ ~ ~ Freewa
( s w
) Interc ange
+ A SEE NOTE
+ '
~l/ O ~ Digital dol° d map repreeen- '
+ ~..,i tenon conpiled by the Cily
` ~g of Tigard utilizing Ceegr
~ a ~ Dhic Inlormelion Syrtem
( GIS) rellrerc. Inlor- ,
a ,
melion pnr V Dyed here
mo7 he Intended l0 9e
Ordinance No, DRS si-is °dd`"°"°'
) "r N O R T H lechnicol andlor
qD° ~ E E , Inlerpre l°l ire dote
Ma ado red ~uNS ii, issi NOTE d`'"~'"`d °y
p P 'l0e Ci ty .d} Tigard.
ee back for revision schedule Q ~ (YPTR95)~'
p 3640 (O3J 1.9'191)
r $ j~ 8 c
i'i
E;` 3/111/92 AGENDA #5
1 OF 1~
,
. _ . . ~~.m s
7 -
x , T IS . T I ,
is i
i „ h I
~
.z
'r
~ ~ . GIHt,E T 8 NOTATiON, 1 ~ , ~ • g
_..__-.1L . _ 26 ° 993°
IS DUE EQUALITY, OF
THB ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.''
_
9 _ ~ I _
rt B .
-iu ~
„ _ l
nr
. ~
-
r,, ~
rv -
3 ` 3''.~.r, aye.?
r
'
' t~MPREHt~1SIHE PLAPI TRANSPORTATION MAP NOTES '
~ rlaa 1. Sctatis Feny Road ~ be r~l'igned to connect with Davies Road. ,
ear
2 Study area to deterrrdne a irdpe connection between the WakxNt32nd
aEVISIOar scm+mt$ intersection and ttre Gaardelt2lst hdersedion. A major wl4ector euderrsion of
Gaarde Street Iras;beeir reocrnmeMed by the Nordreast But Mountain
oxDixAtrcE ; Trensport~on Sddy Repot. An indrect connection of minor ooNectas has
. ~ `been recommended by NPO tt3.
91-22 August 13, 1991 ~ ;
i. ,
3. Approximate ati~unents are strown for the extensions of 132nd Avenue south _
' ~ Berrdrvtew Terraoe,135tlr Avenrie saratr of Walnut Sirect, orb Berrctwiew
' Terrace west of 132rb~Avenue. These streets are to be designed as minor
coiectors wdh a design speed of 25 m.p.h..
4. , Study area to detemeYre the contiguration of a new corrnedion between
~ ' ~ ''southbound PadAc Y and Main Street.
5. area to detemine the aipmnent of a miror cdlector street connecting
~Y
salt P ~ near Red Rock Creek with the Darhrrouth Street extensan; orb
~dY
with Hampton Sbeetat T?~rd Avenue with the Darbnoulh Street extenson '
the westedy portion of the Tig~ct Triangle.
~ ~ ~ ~ between 217
. 6. Study area m detem~rw the at3pnment of connections Highway ,
• ' ~ - fCfrrse Way, I-5' Tigard Triangle. _ -
!f 7.: Connection's between Hunz&er Street, Haan Boulevard at O'Mara Street
ratty) and Bonita Road:.., . ,
t ' -
8. Study area to consider extension ~ HaG Boulevard sauthwanl to connect with
Scones Forty Road in Tualatin for either pedestrian'or vetrrcrrlar access:
i
9. (Deleted)
I
- 10. An extension of Balder Street from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue intersecting
- - , ' 100th Avenue at a point approximately 200 feet north of the existing Battler
i ` Sheet intersection. An extension and realignment of 109th Avenue south of the
' i' + Battler Street extension; to intersect Padfic Highway at Royalty Parkway. The'
~ realigned 109th Avenue shall intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately
250 feet ro 450 feet east of Padfic Highway. The design of the Battler Street {
' , , , _ II extension may vary from the adopted City standards for minor collectors.
E,, a_ i
l ~ i , ~ ~ ~
u.. ~
i
! ,
p
~ , .
63/10/92 AGENDA #5 - '
2 OF 10 ,
-
I~ THIS IS L 55 i . , ~ ~
' ,L~GIB~E T IS NOTATION, tjr ~'NL !H~ ~ 9 3
s~
11. _ 9
' IS DUE E QUALITY~OR . , _ -
t -
-
-i a a
a;
x
y G
.x. x- e... J.V.! ..ri.
• _
Y
~
m.. <,.3t
~
at'
~ i
.
~ ~ ~...~-,r
?+y
r
vs
r
~ ~
_
The Cit of
r ~
j See NO?I?S on ~ _ ,
. \
u
~ ! ~ ~
;back of page. ~ al <
i \ '
i ~
Com rehensive _
SEE NOTE °ti ~ P
~ Plan
,5 ~ r . y <
\ , ~ _PDE ,
i ~Ir.
; . Trans ortatlon
- ~~ti~ ~ P
:~e- ~
,r ~ ~~D . ~ M a
E ~
SEE NOTE .rv~~ . 5 a
, ~ ( Light Rai 1
. 4 . . ~ , ~~~A~~ C o
~ ~ , r r ~ d o r
~ ~ ' S t u d Are a
\
s ~ / Stud Area
Y
. E ~
~ ~ ~
SEE
7 3 E
NOTE ( ~ I Arterial
< ~ SEE N
< Ma'or
I ~ r~
_ ~ I
Co lector
t,,l>~t ~
sl Y> Minor
< Collector
n ~ FreeNa
)
SEE NOTE I Interc ange
~ ~
+ ~ O I
{ I Digital Iola d map reprefen-
_ lotion tompi led by IAt Cily
~ ~ ~~iYt el Tigard utilizing Seo9re-
k a I pAia to lormolioe Syflem
t1 < I GIS) ;oll.are. Inlor-
ql melion portroYed here .
~q moy he intended to De
Q - used rich eddilioeel
Ord`>nance N .oeD si-ia ~ r
SEE ~ I" N D R T H IetAeittl endler
) inttrpretolire data
Map adopted JUNE iDDI NOT es dele rmi ned by
~ E the City of iigerd.
See back tar revision sch¢dule /~~t 8 ~ / (YPIRNS)
l p 36dd (DJ/19191)
03/10/92 AGENDA #5
3 OF ?0
; ,
,
i I TI TISLSS
,.a
- fix. - .
'ta
1 ~ .
` , GIB1;rE ~ T - S NOTATION, '
c
. . IS DUE QUALITY/OR _ _ _ L _ _ L i Gp 19.9'3
_ .
.THB ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.' ~ , . x w>w:.,~, r - I _ _
I ,
c -
_
' ~ ` t
~ _
r , a,
. _ _ _
,
.
~„~u , ~ a
s.
- - - -
y.
r~ f
- _ . _ a..
CONE t't.Afl iRMI6PORTATtON raAP [YdiES
_ _
. -
~ _
1. 8ekols Fet9► Road b bs reaipsed b aarreet wr7lr iJisries Road.
' tail!
2 tbrdit aloe b deterreins a iiw mrroetlierr bellseerr tre MbinAt132nd
~ isMrNOtiorr anti the (3rwidntl2lat teterse~fon. A smlor calscbr adension of
_ _ _ t?aMde 13taet fret been reopesnrded by be NorpeW b/ Mourr~rn
_ Trasipplettosi Stdi► RipeA. M Ndwat mmedon d mi+o► ooisaors has
been necaromerrded by 1~P0 ~t
nn i~t
3. Appwedmep arprrmeats eln ehiws tortir asderdiorri of turd Asorrrre soup
of 1BirrCtwiew Twraa;l~1 Arren~e satyr d tWYrrt SMeeR and Benclwie.r
Tea+see wit o113Znd ~Irenrre. ThNe streets are b be Qrsipnid as minor
oolidont wpb # deelpp spied at 25 mµh..
4. area b deteneire the aripualorr d a rrew tarrecYon bitrwan
saitlrboatd Peaitc kirirwy and Win Sleet.
5. erw b dslomirre the eipneraM of • minor oapecbr ebaet aorooedkp
89rt Parkwei► near Red Rock t~leelt wph Mrt Oerbroultr Street a+Awaion: eM
wtp ttemplon Sheet et 7Znd Atarrue wph the Oerbnardr 8beet errwaion wphie
. the wslerly portion al the Tiperd Trferrgle.
8. tibdy erne b dsMirnrirre the elprmwR of oomrecrorrs bstrreen ~'ay 217,
Knrse Way, k6 and 1M Tigard TdtrrgM.
7. Connecporrs between tiuraArer Stroel, tibN 6otrlevand at O'Mara Sheet
(ganerapy}and Bonka Road
8. Study area b ooroetder exterwtorr a1 Her Boule+rand souttowend b oorrnect wph
Boones Fafry Road b TueMtin for epher pedeahimt a velioular aooess.
9. (Oeieled)
10. M exlension of SatUer Street from 100th Avemre b 109th Avenue intersecting
. t00p Avenue at a point approodrtratey 200 teat nordr of the existkrg Battler
Street interser~(on. An extensbn and reargnment of 109th Avenue south of the
Saltier Street extension, b (nterserd Padfic Highway at Royalty Parkway. The
reargued 109th Avenue shalt intersect Naeve Street at a print approodmately
250 feet to 450 feet east of Padre Highway The design of the Battler Street
extension may vary from the adopted City standanis for minor corertors.
J2i10/92 AG~NDA $5
4 OF 10
^d
~ I T IB T IS L 66
' GIaLB T S NOTATION,
.
IS DUB EQUALITY OP . - ; . _ - - - 1~ ' ' 2 V ~ 993
_ = of
THE ORIGINAL DOCUlrENT.'°~ ~ ~ A ~ rr~ s
I
~
_
, i
i .e
- - ~
- t .mw.~
_
, - .
,i ~ ~
. i a:
i
_ ~ N 5"
_
"
. ~~Fr
~ -
.
~ .
of
. i ~ u
1-
o,
N
N ,
D
~°m 8936A001
°n 5.8.91 r. b r.. ^ y~1 r n It~l y~ ~ .
o ~ ~
• 3 IA, I ~ ~ ;4 ~ ~ fir,. ,
pmp gg tl ~,n ~Qj
r N>3 A ~I >ua 1 fg ~i~~ t, 1 ~.T~ 1 01,1
N R ~ tS ~ iA O. } pp 4'~
-y°f A > f~ ~Qr1 N (~l (D ~ lt7 m TJ
1, ~ ;
b
~ 'P
~ m ~
nl
_
rr
iI ~ TOOT►~
r r
_ ~ ~ s~~s'~ ~ ~ ~
- r~ ~ ~ r r~~
~ ~p~w~m ~ ~
M
Y:~ rraaws
SS m
Z6ZczOm f9tr~IdrS
NHy .
Ow •S
~oarjo~
el.
z •>ae.r.~
.re
I'
} ~ ~
:A ~ ~ N (Ti~0~~0P
x I~
4 ~..s~ ~
. ~ ~
f:
r
~ . ~ r
~y .
_
4 w ~e 1 T
_ - CTt "1 r_6Z i` i' fi~ i" v i°'~t fi^ 'C+ ~ 'I T+ T f'~' J~ a $ la 'I'! '
y m ~t L, 'C.d t rJ (~rJ t.-~ l I f\J t ~~1 f C. 1
at•..:. a u~~ya~~ m~r'~~8m~~Z°i °f~~7yeoOd~ ° ~ X :Ll ~ N r,"1 t') t 1 t.) t: y1 L7 i.,} t ! ill i
,r' st~~ ~ "'!¢>r~sroM ~°o s~'~QOK~. •w ~~w fTl ~ ~ P;`a ~ ~ b L ~F* ~.I t\ + i.~ a
~r tt77 i+~Cv" NMl1 V. ~'j .r ~ ~ ~ I.~ GM t~,~ n.. C.i) ,
m y yt n x~a^r~~• ~
V (71 N N Om..M 07 m0 ~ M gg
Y VV~~11
+ J n~ ~ r m~c ..w ~ oe~ ~ o$ R ~
s .~y.~ .szi ~mD'~` .wpo35c'.~~'s,usua°~~~yor ~ zo ~ ~~j ~ ~ y ~ n~ I 9 r ay "1'1 °t`t tl ,2~ .1'1 tl j'l I
N OY~~~ i•N O.CO u mH •t vw ~ t 1 `I I I f ~I ( 1 ( t i,
r{': n~NFrz • wa w o '~4 .m. r ~ t t f i T~
I pmp Y i'u■ m M~q •~O n~ My nii~~~MZ ~OM ~ Kr. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I h~ ~ ri ( t ~x ~ ~l
~7 yy S. lt~~yy~ yy{~+~y /y~ ~ trt'I i +~.ry fq~ i { 1 t 4 1'r 1-~,. 1 ~ ~0 ~ ~
) `p~~M ~ Nt`~N~JrQmQr~,,~Z~Y n.10=IM~.1~ •~OT. i'7•MO M ~ ~ ~ _ '~A "r ~ ,.A~ ~ Y' Y' ,~3' ~ R.
M=,_ Y~ ~ ~qy^MSOO•~eu Or NO~Fi f~f H}~ p1i ~ ~ ~ ~ f,,. '~"M N ="1 ~ '"9 ~ ~ !p ~ M + I
~ ~$~~r.w r~.~~"o ~~~pg~8 oq ~ T Y x`1 L11 rS't i,;) tt" l2) t/1 t i-0 I
~ ~ r Qp8 0 ~ ~ ~ a n s goa o ~ ~ ~ ~ tnS "?1 ~ Lam. i t "1 C I i ''i C tm C t ' ~
~v,~o~~ o{..~.~t.u`~~m g° yw a ~ ~ ~ f•' a$ 'a.r l.'.1 t) t t_) I rt;.
m yr~jr'Sm~e+mio go ~:~g~9 ~O o N ~ ~ ~ ~ 'L r2, t'(i 1,,7 ttl t2) ;A r"` r" ` t!1 I
~ t,.8~nn , yyg ~ „~y -nne~p~•~ x 'Jyy ~ ~3 h t~' ~~f ~ t , t '
Ci e~ Q _
N p..~0 wM 9~0 iM:0 r~N~ ~ w ~ - ~ ,1 (
- 's n uN ~ ecz ~r ~rOK OG ~ ~ A ''v .:^~"a..tg'^ J.y ~ I ' ty') 7 I'~'1 t'I I"'~ f3'1~?t' t'1 I
~Nw •~u•~~ ~N o ~zo~rN.~~ .wx'~ ~Ca ~ 'd9 -fir ,,L L `(q,. ~wrM
V' w~C \ M~^NY ~tM+N O~~<~+~10 ~ ~ ~yMg ~FY ~ * ~W l I Ci~ C.~~ tl,l ~ ~ MRI
a O p yy • o~Pl o y~ m K P ~ {L~' ~ °'t- l ~ t~ 1 ~ {1
rOJ ~ ~ sly NP N~r ~ Y 'r.~ int~1 1.,,,1 'l l (.J.)
-cN- i NNN OO=~o G.~~~•b n - e" "7~' ~~Mf~~~
(0 w of mu •i ~ ~i~ ,+qL'~ L"J
W V°z °OO ~~~~r~ ~m B zd ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ +T`J :~i La.r t,,:' ~j'/Y
F.-
I~
I~~ ~ 9
t =
t,; ~ ~ ~
U~' y,
t_3
yr` tY - I' ~ _
- •-t~ ~
v A q ~ i ~
ra ~
, ~ !
o _
m ♦ ~ ~ uS
z'
~ P .rrwl ~ iLIriWM~~~~
COVER SHEET ARBOR HE~~GHTS ,,~A~~~:~ t1~ti~soF~Mlnt ~~,t~ ~Itr ~ ~
h.t~ ~reur~Mi~lA~,~ ~i ►nn~ ~#+L Vine 8~rem~lp
uzy i ~lui{.i)N9C. P1,dMll'Sil.iT; a MI~'i ~ .iti ~P~~~ ~
~Op 6: ~jf ~.y. 'L fis rr ~~fi~9 y, 1
- • ~ ~ ~ k'.E) ~'I :af1yMIJ~At ~7 ~AII19. ~'I I~ Nf~~l i ~ pp{~` i,,i `
i,'. Q ~ ~f~4Y~~°~~~~~«t~ ~k^c'~~~~~tTMa~~r~1 (~a glAlltl NA
.
5 -
r 4:- I~ ~ . ~ ~
l ~ .
"m ,,a~ i.. ,R _
pal _s.. r. ,W.,..
{ i
a
Q.
~ -
f~,~'
(s ~
~ ~
h{4inh .
JI?'1 iii~~~
L• jS~`~
_ nilR
~ a # a ~ ~
t~
_ :K 3:5.. i
.
' ~ ~ '
:3' At 4: r :sue ~ ` ~ C o!+rv
_ -
M 2~G ! ti l.a~lai,►Nt
Q'2#1 i ~ i F~ B i
D~ _
• ~ ~ ~ F
/I Y ~
a ~ . ~ ~ O
1 /
a
, . "
~ " t4 r d
~ ,k !sue k ~ f '~9,~
~t - ,
fir ~ ; E~ r % ~
' ~ f
~I _ s' 3
t'f/
Rte: _ i ! 1 / i_. ,p
"`z- _ _ .
-
- ~ it r
z~-~ K. 2@ S ~ P
, ~ r~z~l. wgGa 1.
~ J 2+D O3 ~ ~ ~ ~ a a
s ii ,
f ~ r' g.. ~
t, r / ( t f ~F_t
`-'7i t .."t GrI > F £EEAFiYkrE a
t ( ~
r,b,., ~ t . 'a r ~ p,
~ ~ c~ . 9
- ~ r
- r,.. ~
' ,
p ww e:+.t.~ f. ~a/j! d ~ --,r._ ; ~F!~f fi r z u ~ , / tt _ x.~`
> e
k.
1.i ~ ~ __y.~ r x_'^--.r.~._4-f-r-.~e-. 'i,~ly+ f M°~'l,.y'
, t rA
t ~r ~ _
-
-
~ z
v. F j
' '•4 l ~ ~ 1 s~ r~ 1 ~ . lid ~ C V ~k
~ r
ae ~ r `~"P~ 1 ; ~ KEY: BWLOING NUMBERS W O ~
E •
e~ • ~ ~ ~ s' o~ A 24 8 eEOC rvvE = v v
by ~ ♦ ~ ( F t ~
I ` ~ ' ~ 0 , / ~ ~ . g , tie r~ rm. arms H e~DC ~ O rn
r'
~ E' ~ . Q,' I~ y ~ ~~i /x ~ f' ~NaNaµE eEDD ro[nMER 0 ~ ~
-`7. ~ ~ Q I- I-
~ ! e
~ ry 0 20 e~ ~ ~ ~ ; ` ~ ~ A o s
~L
~ ~ / r,,,. KEY: SYMBOLS
- _
~ rF*' N OOd 1'39" W 7 ,13'
~ y,.~" E%iSnND BIpD. 10 BE ,
1r ~ ® REMOVED
~ t~
UN EVEUOp~
X10 ~ ~ ~ SETB~Cx~~ i ~ DUMPSTER ENCEDBURE:
iD _,I r
_ _ ~ J.--...,-- ~,.,...K- R-25
N ~ ~ , wvEeox Kiosx:
%P y RIDICAIES BUCDINCS ,
~P
i0 RE REMOVED. TYP,
~ ' trA A / GARAGE OR CMPORi:
J / ' M 3
~ ~ PING SOLE
a SENSInVE LAND Notes: DWG. A100
R s~,~ ~ % ~ (]5~ SLOPE) LV
vro ~ ,i .
~ ~ 1, for CODE DATA CALC 0 ~ {
/ ULATI NS, see DWG, A001 ~ ® REV0. ORNE DNIY
Z 2, For SIDEWALKS, PATHWAYS, LANDSCAPING
\ A ` ~~,,,Y___ ,and SIGNAGE;
~/F/C see LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
f +244.0' FINISHED F100R ELEVAnON
Al/~ +p0 3. Fcr PAVING, PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS Ar Eo
s \ t'- , (,RADING, DRAINAGE, WEST LEVEL Z
Q i,
q r and TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, see CIVIL DRAWINGS. ~ '1"
o° / ~ J
M1
~ m
ma0 PLAN. MD/KK/AMe I„
. ~ N 4 xn - , SITE PRiiVTeD GH .
- KD. ,
s,,, ~ SCALE: 1 "=60' , 8936 ~ '
~r~~. FEB ~ 199c
lJ~MPE ASSDC, INC
OS/10/42 RGENDR AS I A I O O '
6 OF IP
' ' ..'3T65Y1
~asa'xAV;s
I, Iea e~ A~,',
a:,
, ~
IBLB IB NOTATION. 1 I ~Ar!EiN_ 1.26 ~~993 t J' hs< '~"~ti a.
~n- '
w
~ ` , i , IB DUB 8 OUALITY,OR
,in '~t
x.5:4 ~..N • _ . 4 '~'kY9'tQ '.,Y,.- ~.nwM; u... .,C
m
~ TIIB ORIDINAL DDCIRIBNT.'~ -
-
A,
n '
V;
~ ° _
, , .
it ~ - Y . 1 r _ ,
r P~~
r;. _
, , . _ ~ irk
,y~,
` -
4
,.r- r-4 - ,
, _
U _
_ i
~L: ~yf+~
~
~.'~:aFV~-
_ - -
_
- ~ -
_ ~ ~ > ~
~ ~ # 9 ! #
~ a
f f ) t I r r ! r / ~r J ~ t rf ~l f f~l~r f if:t~ li_t
r / t ~ r l ! ~f' f f ff/fi/EE`e`F! ~t/t,{!5t j rf;~j fro <Ja<y t i } a ~
/
- xti~ .:>t,' ~ f 1// ~Cr.~ f / ~l~~f/f.! f;i~; r.ftf~li fit' 6#!-.(.:~i p 1, _ ~ ° ~i
~ a
E ~ ~ s
~ f: ! F
- ~3 / / f : f
J e
!
. / ,
i ~ f f / / t / r F t t.
F f.. f
t, t r e/ ~.,'f F 1~ E~ t ti
~I P r f P/J// , p ~
r " ! ~ /I ~ rh r f ~ ! 3f r f / r f ~r
! ~ f ~ j f/ / l / ~ t~ f
f t r... ~ E .y E f itr +s ~ 1 /i H
! f / I/ If _ ~ -
t r F / / ~ "l j' / ~ ¢ ~
~ r - i / f' ff f / f f t{
~ F , / < f ~
~ , ! f',~ ,ff
~ ~ ► , ~ ~ F X f ~ ~
r ~ f:
~ ` f / J
t 'f F . ! f ~ f f / f / / sr f / ° !
I f,,.'i'F _ ~ / f ff ~ ~ f f f r
E, f ~ / / f F f f i I ~ i
T ~ !r ~ ~ f / f ! ~ f ! e ! rf f
f # ~f i - F~ J ~ F! f! / E ! ~ r F; _ e. rflf f 'L' s
/ _ A i
I
- -
r / t ~ t F f,
~f 6/ E o / / I.f t
_ / ! p/ W
r f f s A I , f
~ P f ° r`~ ~ r e r " i
J [ °f I
~ ~ % ~ t ~ ~ / r ~ A Q at
r f J ~ ~f ! / /
~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ e ! 1 ~ f f r a
! / ~
a` t ~ ~ v, $
_ , ~ ~ _ ~
• ~ f J J ~ ® / f ~ O
P / 11 f r / ! ,'f'. ! W `d
/ / 11 fi ! ~ ! ~
. / / f ! rl / ! / / i t $ ~
! e o~ ~
/ ~ ~ r o
~ll,~ moo
~ , ~ ! ~ ! l l ~ rn `
/ / ! ! l Q ~ ~
/.i
-'"„`ri- =-i ~%/i~ ='.:~-~r~i~ii~i~i~i/~i~//~~ ~ 1 J J J J r 1 J J l a
, , ,r ~l ~
~ / - - # / I
So ~
~ / ~
- _ . O
/ ~ } I Pq /F~~ hl :
a~U
! ~ / ~ ~ QyWAY, ~ ' KAMPE ASSOCIATES
/ , ~ 1-~.., / / gN~gdGN~S vaiuro
/ i / ~ t~suRVEVats ,F
~Yp~/10/92 RGENOROkS ~ yp
~ aF saet Sw, rJva"tArl oNroE EB 2 i 1992
,
IAIOe 061MEG0.OREGON 97065
I:
. ~i+iad / (509)635891 ~ AMPE ASSOG INC - .
a ~ ? -Y, Ie L B ~ ~v
_ .a ,I Is
.
. OIBe3 8 NOTATIONr ~ . , m. _ , ;3` c _
4 ~ _ ~ ~~PRIL i 26 ' 993 r.
_ b .Yf DUB 8 OUALITY.OP
k {
r
- THB ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.' f1"' w
z ~
I
~
-1
- 7.
Y.~~'..
~
e ~
1',~. h~~
.h~
' ~
w
.
" `
.ao~:
r;.
' ~f, ~
~ `~~m ~
~ i~►
't
I
~
~ a3..
' - ~ S^~
d
N
0
D
OZ
OC
D
6
- N N ~ _
1 g ~
eSd~
Y e. 1~,:
gC~ o s' ~ r
-_s c c o 0 0 0 I I y . ~ N
~3 0 0 o IINN W
JJ ~ o i M'~
,~I fag o 0 0 0° o ~
P v o ~ ~ 0 1
~m o ~
s ~ o ° ~ I
~ 3~
~ o f $ f. ` .~I.I..~
S C7 ° ~ ~ 0 ; W1AiK 1 AA!
V o 0 o n
i ~ I
o o u G ~,.p gig.,.
o n a ~ , u 1r V..
o o *
- ~ ''~atWil o I ~ ~i
~O W m 1~
MOWN
~~ia s ~ ~ ~ "u
c~' mow' t ~ r1 ~
;~~r~W g9 ~E ~ 83 ~ ~ ~F ~ t J y ;I,I.,
~ . ~ ~ ',n o ~ ~
n ~ . ~
ga. s 5 s5~ r fl ~ , J
~m a m °p ¢16 'tt ro 5 R
o v= s
~ ~ a i a 1 u o.
}i ~ ~
I ~
' r~
r
t p r ' ~ 1
~ o ~ r +
f v' I
b ` ~ I' $~9~_ ~ ~ O Y ~ ~ r r' f
1 ~ C M
c f • 5 Q ' `
~ 3 Y ~ +P
G B ' n.,
~ ~ ~ / d
~ . ~ i"
~ o ~ w . d p~~ p~ J
i 11
ff /
as
' i +
~ ~i a ~ ,v"a
S ~ ,R I
s ► II
I ~ ,'s° '1
< _
r
~ • ~ ~ ~ J i ~
a
- a I
~ '
m ~ n ~ ~
n m 1p i
N ~ ° ~ k "I I
o
a~. Z. ~ I I
I
~ ~ ~ ,
- _ '9~
I r`
9
3~B 9 ~ y I
rr ~ m ~ ~ s I ~ ~,,N~'l .
a y, a,
` ~ PLAN: PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE. PLAN ARBOR HEIGHTS APART#AENTS a~w~~w crew ~A,T1' L DRISC4LL
~ i~l>>~ ~ ~Awnue
f _ Tigard. Oregon ~ 8ttitA ~
k ~ Triod/'Rgord Dev~elopnne~t
p ~ ~iM •+4~1 +4'9'
3.~ , ' 9
~ ~ ` O. ~ TO 4
- ~ RI
p rd O
_N
n
>e.,~
~
5
k
~K
F ~
4
=
- - - - - vim;.
-
-4
v:
a B r ~
' e
-
svo ❑cs ~ _ _
n ~ ra +f q
' . c.
-
,
/ ~ - ~s
. ( E i f / / / ~
/ Efl / s / ! W
- /
l f / ! ! ~ ~ / r
~ / ~ / ~
a ! f ! ! / / f l
f f~ ! ~ :l f f ~ t
t e ~ / / f
s t ~ ~ $ ' f f /f / If/~ E~ f dF / ~ f
x /F / f t ~ t
d ! ~ f
~ g ! l f f~ f /l
~ f ! ~ , ~ 1
/ ~
s~ ~ r / f /.l ~ ~ f
f ~ / / ~ r
e~// f/
• rx r~ if / / / / f / ~t f
t~~ f~/ / / r / f
°~G
/r ~ / / / / ! / / / /
t ~ / / t'`' / /
/ /
l / F l f~ / / / / f ~ ~ f / / ~ ,f
~ / / / / /
~ f f ~ tf~ f //f ,a / /
r ! r _ _
~ / ~ /
/ ~fr~ ,
f ~ / / f p
/ ~ ~ / f /
~ ~ /
~ / / f s I / l / !
of E r / / / ~ ~ / t~ / ~
J $ f / / / /f / ~ / ~ 4
rl f E" / f / ~ / s.~
/ / / / / / / / / / e/ / /
~ /f / / / / d'/ / ~
! ! / / /r /
/ ~
~ ~ ~ /
l / ! / ! / /
c ~
~ f0 / <
~ /
/ I ~ / /
~ / / / /
r. $ r ~ 11 11 / t / / / I ~ l I l f ~ ~ o
I l ~ / / / ~ l 1 ~ ~•n
l I / / / ( / d
o , ,0 f l l/ / / / / ~ l l / I
,i / / / ~W
_ -e.. _ ~ e / ~ a
- / / / / / / / / //J
~i / / / z
/ / . / ~ , / / / m 2
a►r _ J / / / ~ / / I / / / / / / / / J woo ~ ; I
/ / / / , rY
EMI. - ~iW~ J' -~,i~ ~i~~/ / ~~Z ~
~ ~ / p
. i /iii / ~ Q
_~..X - ~ =_-~i.~.-; /iii// co=o o
~ ~ i / / WOO F •~4
i / / ~ I
/
/ ~ ~ ~1 •
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ PNNrE~
i ~ } / -
/ ~ ~i~ ~ FEO 2 i i?92 °F
a ^ ~ ~
1 ~ - - i,ncwl nssoc., utc 1
N U r
~ ,
s
~ L /
05/10/92 gGENGA 85
9 GF 10
-
~
~ ~ _
u.
a
u
_
' ~ ~ IBL6 8 NOTATION ~ _
1 „ ; APRIL 6
i2 rF993 `
fiT. I8 DUB OUALITY,OP .1,, ,r.-.: 33w C ..>'e.,;p _
' '
- ~ Y / 'x'd4 .
: ~ THB ORIGINAL DOCUN6NT. ' k ..V..,; is • ~ - ,
, ,
t;
~ _ ,
-
i,. '
,I~ ~ ~
~.y r
_
i:.
'
: '
4
_ .
. -
~I
,,av~
C
~ _ ~
g _ _ .
# ~ fief? tZ ~ -s Q ~ - ~ r=.~~
o ~ ,E
1 ~ ~ _
Q ~ ~ ~ ~
r~~ _ mss'
- - - - - ''t- x
i - - ~ ~ -
_
- _ ~
:s i i °a ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Z
t i ~
- 0 3 s ~ t~ i
~ ~ t
i. .:R
~ 3 t
t ii : ° ' t E IE
t-'iE t i f! t t i i~ t ~ A ~y
t~ ~ ~ i ~ .i ii
~ : ~ i
t ~ ~ f
i ~ i t t i iif '
~ i ~ - ,~tf ~ ~ ft i ,
• i ~ ~ t: ' ~ ci ~ i
f~
~ ~9i tt i i i } t
: • , . ; ~ ;il { t
S '
~ !
t .
~4A i ~ f
T ~ ww:+~
hci f f ~ .
~ N~ ~ e} R ' ' , t • ~ ~ 'fry 6 _
t ~
li I ; ~ ~i ~ e ~ s~ ~ -
I B 1 i
c~~Iw°► 1 `~'4
N.: i' .t ~ e
~ $ I I • ~ t
~t t ~ ► ~ ~ ~
• . • t t /
4 F t ~ t.~ ~ ,
Gd E I It , ~ ~i ~ ~ H 4 r
~ t ~ g
fa ttt t t
N~f t j i ti i
~ e . rF , ~ t ' . ,t t g ,o o
ii ~ 1s • t ~
t ~
~ mNI ! '~t'• i! i~
~ i .t ! t fee,
i i i i) t • M~
{ ~ A ~3w~
88 •
L'~ •t• / ~
~ ~~fi~ ~ ao• t t t < < ~
11 i t I ,tR Ott t t t C• +~•i' ti L
$ p~. I t ~ - • ' ZS'L8L M.8f,18.00 N
I m ~ ( • '1kr ~ C _
I ak t F ~ ~ 1i-+'~ ~i
I ~ .J ~ ~ ~
I N f" ~ N ~ •N ~b
~ w,t . HSE ~ if `
i t ~t t z ~ ei o ~ , ~ ~ : ~F
I ` •s i yo cif p0 Z ~ Z
~ t ~ to rn ~ ~
~ ~ ~ .
\ ~ ► as
~ ~ . ~ sSer 1• , c Jrg;
!1, ,-~k
:
r c r
•
U ~ 9 „r 2
T /
.
` r _ ~ .
i
.
h ~ ~ ~ ~ _ P2ii4TbD
r. ':C~ 05/10/92' RGEN➢R NS ~ J ~ ~ FE ' 1 ti
io of io ` , MafiC n,. ~ ` ,J. . ` I3 ;7 i9°2 i 1:
` - \ ~ ~ ~ - I:r~l1?E ASSOC„INCH, r ~ ~ ~titi
/ ! i
yNFiFitl+~~NfrttCrs±ra<.•.n~. ..4 3.~oas. ~tik.:w:'.Kd, : R ~ i~', ~ 1~~ i I,., f L "~~Y11___~~'';
" ~
~.~„LL
, I T IB, T IB L SB _ .t- '.mentt'.~astk4sL~Sti:Pa:cr~::~y.:i.
~ ~
5 6IBL8 ..IB NOTATIONS 1 ~ 4 ~ I . . ,J'~'.: '3+q .y., 'x
APRIL 26 1993 '
r
~ , iS I8 OU8 QUALITY.OP
_
THe ORIGINAL DOCUHBNT -
~I
, , .N
. .r -
.gat ,
Y°.:
~
,~a
a, ,
_ ,
~i
.
„ ~ ~ ,y
,P
C
t
APPEAL FILING FORMS
r
mmw
LAND USE DECISION APPEAL rILING FORM
The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to
j participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use
1 Code therefore sets out specific requirements for
filing appeals on certain land use decisions.
The following form has been developed to assist you in
filing an appeal of a land 'use decision in proper OREGON
form. To determine what filing fees will be required
or to answer any questions you have regarding the
appeal process, please contact the Planning Division
or the City Recorder at 639-4171. rA~, e O C
1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: C Ps W ~w.>F Q S t4. 1 I ^ bI> ! ~I ~~P. 1 (_l~~ 6
2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: I- F~CTS JJ ~1~ FS i 7'I c~ f~ 1
3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL` OR.REVIEW: i
~PU C B~Ls `A a 1 ~r2 I C't`5~~~ ~~t3c1 U?~t~N i
C,0 1,5 ,5 7RU C' [~v~ c7 F Ln ~t • `G7C 1'll~ N S v1ti
I
t`~ ~ A~f.j fl li i
4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: ^(0 C71- 3'3c) fm
5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: O C-)
J t icjI
6. SIGNATURE(S):
-x~c-x x~HE?
34 349HHf cic x~c # icx 3H(#L~DHHf jF3E x#xiEn~ci n
Itrime: (U:O7arv\
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By_. d,'i_+&? j Date: _to
Approved As To Form By: Date: 1013f4l Time: 10:o-7 G,n,.
Denied As To Form By: Date: Time:
i Receipt No. Amount:
~HE#x~Ex-)(#~(#3HE-x-x3E-x-1(-x-X-x~(-x~i-#E-~-x #x-3c-x-lH(3E-x-x#X-x~i-x-x-3f-x-x~rf#3HC~H(~E#x-x~HE}Ei~;3E-)t-'.f-x#3EYcx3HHC-?E-x-x-x#
/'00 WN r~C' . Lou ►l.eCk.f-(
13 i 255v\lr•iaii oJvCi., P.O. Box 23397, . gaid, Gr::gun 97223 (5013))639-4171 6mmml
mmm 11115" 11111:111
MeMaTM11111 No ;
I NPO #6
/ Minutes from the October 16, 1991
..:L ct illg nG:v vullc u to VLde? .•..t 7:3 U Mil.
Members in attendance were: Carver, Clinton, Crow, Davenport, Kassor_,
Watson and Sellers.
Excused: Dillin, Mitchell, Pasteris.
- Not excused: Wilson (4th unexcused absence)
The minutes from the September 18, 1991 meeting were approved as
written.
CUP 91-0007/VAR 91-0017 - TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST. 23J
NPO members reviewed the School District's request for (1)
Conditional Use and (2) Variance approval on the upcoming construction
project and- had two recommendations concerning the perpendicular
parking spaces:
1. Members felt that adequate road markings should be installed
to help define the separation of the actual roadway and the
parking buffer and in addition -
2. Members suggest that the school investigate the possibility
of restriping some of the interior parking lot to include
compact parking spaces.
OTHER BUSINESS:
NPO members made a preliminary review of a subdivision proposal
on SW 97th directly adjacent to View Terrace to the east. This small
subdivision has seven lots that will use View Terrace for access and
egress and two lots that will use SW 97th. Our suggestion to the
property owner was that if it was -possible we would like to see one
access only on SW 97th (this would-mean the two property owners would
share a common driveway access).
REVIEW OF FINAL DECISION:
NPO members reviewed the decision made by the Planning Commission
on the TRIAD development and decided to appeal their approval. The
following motion was made and Dassed.
"NPO 6 ?EELS THAT THE TRIAD DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT PROCEED
WITHOUT CONCURRENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE 109TH STREET EXTENSION TO
ROYALTY PARKWAY AT 99W. NPO 6 MOVES TO APPEAL TH? PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION ON CASE NUMBER SDR 91-0013/PDR 91-0006."
Votes - 5 aye, 1 nay and 1 abstention..
Meeting Adjo_rned at 9:25 pm.
LAND USE DECISION APPEAL -SLING FORM
f
The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to
participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use 70"l
re sets out specific requirements for
Code therefo
filing appeals on certain land use decisions.
~rl1 1 wir 11WH
The following form has been developed to assist you in
filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper OREGON
-form. To determine what filing fees will be required
or to answer any questions you have regarding the
appeal. process, please contact the Planning Division
or the City Recorder at 639-4171-
1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: Q.~/~~~ C~2Qru
q~
2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY:0-k kUA~~ O~
oli
3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW:
V
~~~t ems) ; c
U,-& Ace kz~nA
15/ 1/
.in.t~~~•~.G'k~ U'~' n~eLl~ ~u~Q arl.~ic s~~s~sr~ out - ~ .uJ
27 `i
v a
_e~41a9 )11 PO bn~~
/gad t ~P~x~ ~7'T~ ~C ~aovt- air eoLb7i'`aa~~~
4 . SCHEDULED DATE DECISION-IS TO BE FINAL: q 5?
5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN:
6. SIGNATURE(S): GZ~G~
r-icii-n#x nT niHHE3E-n-+~ n -x-,.#ic-x#n k;.-'r,. n-3Ex#x-3f-x-3E iE-?(#Y(-)HE-lHH(-x-3HE
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : yv Received By t O Date: rL_Time : :L{O
Approved As To Form By: C lL7h.2A ►fli•~ late :LpLz3 g Time: J: LJO ~,wL
Denied As To Form By: Date: Time:
Receipt No. Amount:
! ~C x ~H( i(#x#xdHC x'HHf x#iri#i~ }HE x x SHE x~i ?F'1(#?HE :Ex (SF3f#3(#x x ?EH ?HEx ?f ?(x x x 3(x x~E 3Cif x)( )H( irYc r . n H x x#x ?EH xif YE
Q- Q CC 1~tkbj Q e~- -6o tit ca i p~ 06 c./> •e. ct( ,Z n iAe Gc,,,~,E 1315-
o(--I q K 1 01- 3 = 39 P-rm . MS. D&,0411-P v r~ wtu 1'e &M s~ rl-e-r
CAA- •A-? tnt'Q-Fttkf &V•- cZL ►v~d~.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard. Dragon 97223 (503) 639-4171
Alu
~"Si'' G~'.l1iLi-K--~ / ( •G~r LZ..C~i'~ !~-'i~,.v`~: ~G• i•~ljl:~• !~/iL~/
;'1~E+~-Q~s~c.t~~ ~c.i.cC.O ..c-~-' c~4~~:~1r-cs.~Q„~ ...1.~t-~'1.c.C►..~c-Z f.L~-d. ~ ~C.,7~..-L,(~
d
l,l
now
ANALYSIS
Call
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
December 10, 1991
/I RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY NPO #6:
Typically, developments are required to provide public facilities
within the development and on the roadways abutting the
development. These improvements are usually required to be
constructed to full City standards. Thus, each development
provides its piece of the ultimate roadway and utility reeds for
the area. Frequently portions of the improvements provide greater
capacity than is required for the immediate development, in order
to provide the development's share of the ultimate future needs of
the area.
Having provided their piece of the ultimate plan, developments are
typically not required to provide off-site improvements beyond the
abutting streets. Exceptions are:
1. Where the development, by itself, creates the need for the off-
site improvement. For example, a development that will generate
large volumes of traffic may be required to provide improvements or
signals at impacted intersections away from the site. Sometimes
interim improvements are required, such as interim paving of a
gravel approach road.
2. Where the off.-site improvement is essential to the development.
For example, it is sometimes necessary to extend a sewer line to
the site.
In addition, development pays SDC and TIF to fund the off-site work
that cannot be assigned to any specific development.
HOW THIS RELATES TO TRIAD:
Triaa has been required to provide improvements to the streets t at
run through their property and the streets that abut their
property. In addition, they have been required to provide interim
paving on Naeve Street between their site and Highway 991,., unless
concurrent construction of the 109th extension is assured between
Naeve Street and 99W.
Triad was not required to construct the 109th extension south of
s Naeve Street. There is general agreement that the 109th extension
is the best long-term access for the area. *urther, there is
general agreement that it is desirable to have the 109th extension
in place before occupancy of the Triad development. However,
completion of the of the 109th extension did not appear to be
essential to the development, based on traffic impact analysis
provided by the applicant and by ODOT. Further, revieT,: of past
development approvals does not reveal any locations where such
extensive off-site improvements have been required as a condition
of development.
It should be noted that the 109t11 extension south of Naeve Street
will require the acquisition of right of way from four property
\ owners. The developer, unlike the City, has no kav to acquire this
r
right of way unless all four property owners choose to cooperate.
It would be difficult to condition a development to accomplish an
improvement on land where they have no legal con-rol.
rw/off-site
i
t
PLANNING DIVISION
December 10, 1991
STAFF RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY MARGE DAVENPORT'S APPEAL
r~-
Marge Davenport's appeal filing form raises a number of issues
relative to the Planning Commission's approval of the Triad
development plan for the Arbor Heights apartment complex. The
appeal filing form does not refer to specific sections of the
Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code applicable to this
review which Ms. Davenport alleges the Commission's decision is
inconsistent with. However, this memo will attempt to address Ms.
Davenport's issues on appeal relative to the Plan and Code
requirements staff finds are most closely related to the issues
raised.
First, Ms. Davenport states that the application should be denied
because the proposal would "dump high-density traffic from
development into a single-family residential area (against stated
City codes)." Staff believes that the "City code" referred to is
Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.1.1 (locational criteria for medium
density residential development) which states that areas to be
designated for medium density residential use shall have direct
access to collector or arterial streets. SW 109th Avenue which
would traverse the development site is designated a minor collector
street by the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Map as amended by
the City Council on August 13, 1991. Therefore, the proposed
development site is consistent with this standard.
Second, the proposed connection of this segment of SW 109th Avenue
through the development site with the existing northern segment of
SW 109th at the top of the hill is consistent with the City's
adopted Transportation Plan Map as it currently exists. If the
appellant disagrees with the provisions of the Transportation Plan
Map, that is where her efforts need to be directed rather than with
regard to a development plan that is consistent with the
Transportation Plan Map. Ms. Davenport has appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals the Council's recent amendment to the
Transportation Plan Map related to this area. If Ms. Davenport's
appeal is successful on that issue, we would expect an action
requiring reconsideration of the Triad development proposal if
approved. However for now, the Triad proposal must be reviewed
with respect to the Plan as it exists.
Third, Triad's traffic analysis report predicts that the majority
of the traffic related to the proposed development would use SW
109th and SW Naeve to access Pacific Highway with a lesser amount
of traffic related to the development using other streets through
primarily single-family residential neighborhoods. Anticipated
additional traffic would not come anywhere close to exceeding
capacities of these streets. There are no Code or Plan
prohibitions against traffic related to a multi-family development
passing through a single-family neighborhood, unless perhaps, such
additional traffic would lead to a failure of "a safe and efficient
street and roadway system..." (Plan Policy 8.1.1). The Planning
Commission found positively with respect to the proposed
development's consistency with this policy (Final Order, p. 16) in
finding that the proposed realignments of SW 109th and SW Naeve
C would be expected to discourage traffic through Summerfield.
Fourth, Ms. Davenport states that the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan relative to the Plan's designation of this area
as a scenic area would be violated by the proposed development
since no environmental impact statement was filed. The City of
Tigard does not require that an environmental impact statement be
prepared for a proposed development such as this. Potential
impacts are assessed through the site development review and
planned development review processes. The proposed development has
been subjected to these processes. In addition, the scenic area
designation does not prohibit development of a site, but instead
requires that development plans be reviewed by the City with regard
to impacts on scenic values. The objectives of the scenic area
designation are implemented through the planned development
standards of the Code and the tree removal permit requirements.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal's development,
grading, landscaping, and preliminary tree removal plans with
respect to the proposal's impact on scenic values. The
Commission's Final order recognizes that a significant number of
trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed development.
The Final Order also notes that the proposed improvements would be
situated so as to preserve groupings of existing trees and to
minimize grading. The Final Order requires the prospective
developer to employ the services of an arborist to supervise tree
removal and tree protection efforts. Staff finds that the review
of the proposal has been consistent with the Code requirements
relative to its designation as a scenic area.
Finally, Ms. Davenport's appeal raises concerns with regard to the
proposed development's potential impacts on the "integrity of the
neighborhood..." as well iZS the timing of development. Although
staff can certainly understand a long-time resident's dismay at the
prospect of a large development replacing a largely vacant tree-
covered parcel, it must be recognized that the property's owner has
a right to develop the property at any time if the proposal can be
shown to be consistent with the applicable development approval
criteria - even if the proposed development would make a change in
the character of the neighborhood.
i
4
i
i
k
i
t
I
t
10 , 991 COMME FS y
FROM MARGE
a !I!
WRITTEN TESTIMONY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 ~iL K
COUNCIL MEETING OF 12/10/91
7~' ._PETIION FOR REVIEW
City Planning approval of Triad Development proposal
Petitioner seeks order reviewing and reversing Planning Commission
decision of proposed Triad development on basis that decision to
approve violates applicable provisions of Tigard Development Code,
Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning goals. These are cited in
the following pages.
C)
MARGE DAVENPORT
For Council Meeting of 12/10/91
J There is failure to consider the specific approval standards in Comp-
`'c- c u=Li~ ►►azdr 16, in the face
son rehensive Plan Policv 3.1.1 regarding
CC; 7~ •5 _ V
of clear evidence in its own Plan that this development is within
hazard areas==buildings, streets (including realignment of 109th) (Plan
at 1-19 to 1-34) Failure to develop any record regarding these
criteria and failure to adopt any findings regarding development hazards
requires that the Council remand the planning decision. (See detailed
code findings attached.) No independent studies made on which to base
decision. Therefor, Planning decision should be reversed.
2. Failure to address Statewide Planning Goal 5 with respect to impact on Goal 5
resources including the Little Bull Mountain Special Area.The City's
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the city's Statewide Planning Goal 5
obligations to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic re-
sources. An inventoried Goal 5 resource site--the Little Bull Mountain
Natural Forest (Plan at 1-96, 1-97). The summit of the Little Bull
Mountain area (part of Triad development) is also designated as a
{
Special Area (Plan at 1-42.)This Special Area, identified as one of
six such areas by the City's Comprehensive Plan, contain three separate
Goal 5 resources considered to be of significance to city residents--
wildlife habitat, natural forest cover, and outstanding scenic presence
and visual impact The plan further states that conficting uses to the
natural state of Little Bull Mountain be limited, requiring special
attention to development activities impacting this locale. If goal 5
is ignored, the city will fail to follow the requirements of CDC 18.30.130.
The planning council decision for approval failed to adequately address
Goal 5 priorities, therefore, the decision should be reversed.
C~
,k
3. Failure to address Comprehensive Plan Policy-3.4 (c) and Implemen-
tation Strategy 3 requiring minimization of development impacts to areas
of significant environmental concern--those areas valued for specific
natural features or as habitats for plant or animal life.
Policy 3.4.1 (c) states the city shall designate the following as areas
of significant environmental concern:
"Areas valued for fragile character as habitats for plants, r
animal..life,...or specific natural features, valued for
the need to protect natural areas."
Implementation Strategy 3 under 3,4 (Natural Areas), Comprehensive
Plan states
"The city shall review all development proposals adjacent
to wildlife habitat areas to insure that adverse impacts on
any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be,
request that other federal, state and local agencies review
development proposals."
r No effort has aken to review the development against these standards
from the city's Comprehensive Plan Policies and Strategies. In the
staff reportfit is stated that no environmental impact study is required.
It goes on to explain that impacts are assessed through site development
review processes, but none of the findings set forth in the Plan are
specifically addressed , no consultations were carried out with other
federal, local or state agenies to review developmental proposals.
No inventories of wildlife, animals or plants has been nade. No
reference is made to impact of adjacent natural and forested areas.
In ignoring the policy requirment that this 'is a designated area of
significant environmental concern, and treating it as such, the planning
Him conuiiission and the staff has failed to meet the requirements of
C 'Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4 (c) and Implementation Strategy 3, therefor,
the development should be denied until this is done.
NOM
4. Failure to make any finding or address any matters relating to Comp-
rehensive Plan Policy 8.1.2, which requires management of transportat=
a, 0997
ation planning process (of additional trips per day from
Triad development) through cooperation with affected jurisdictions.
(or~~,T[c~Ca`;)
J
Policy 8.1.2. The city shall provide for efficient manage-
ment of the transportation planning process within the city
and the Metropolitan area through cooperation with other
federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions."
There is not factual basis in the record to establish that Policy 8/1/2
C „ has been met. It is relevent because roadway receiving traffic from
Little Bull Mountain area is state Highway 99W. Coordination requirements
with the Metropolitan Service District due to the importance of Highway
99W ; with Washington County, or to detailed planning with ODOT was
not done, according to the record.(no evidence of communication).
This lack of evidence in the record of any communications or attempts
at coordination with these agenciig-, along with total lack of findings
or conclusions about Policy 8.1.2 clearly violates CDC 18.30.120 dealing
with approval standards. Therefor, development should be denied.
Detailed Policy citations follow for each of the above.
.1 ;
f{
r.
4!
There is failure to consider the specific approval standards in
Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.1 regarding development hazards, in the
face of clear evidence in Tigards own Plan that the Triad development
and proposed street alignments are within hazard areas.
3.1.1. states that: "The city shall not allow development in
areas having the following development limitations except where it
can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques
related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for
the proposed.development:"
b. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential
c. areas subject so slumping, earth slides or movement.
d. areas having slopes in excess of 25 percent
C, ) e. areas having severe weak foundation soils."
Helvetia Formation
"This formation, of about the same age as the Troutdale Formation,
consists of unconsolidated reddish-brown and light-brown clayey silt
and sandy silt deposited on the surface of Columbia River Basalt to
a depth of 15-145 feet. It occurs along the mid slopes of Bull Mountain--
Little Bull Mountain where heavily weathered it is converted into a
n
lateritic soil.
The origin of Upland Silt is in dispute, but its basic characteristics
are not. It is a massive, structureless sandy silt and clayey silt.
and occupies much of Little Bull Mountain.
Although stable when dry, Upland Silt is unconsolidated and is unstable
when moist. It also has low permeability. Some settling is to be expec-
ted ev for light loads supported by spread footings, and heavy loadings
cannot be 'suppoxted. A high moisture content seriously weakens earth
slopes and heavily stressed foundations. Mud flows and slumps.... Instabi-
iR
T--}lity is also to be expected where the Upland Silt rests on basalt which sloven
With th` ;u~faC;c CUU11col1r." (Plan at 1-19 to 1-34)
There is nothing to indicate that consideration has been given to
Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1,.1. Local knowlege of the Triad site
states that there are a number of springs which have developed into
gem what locals call "quicksand" ; although they are obviously the wet
Upland Silt areas mentioned in the Plan. No independent evaluation of
the site has been made or geologist consulted , therefore approval
would be in violation of 3.1.1.
Furthermore, Oregon is located within one of the most tectonically
unstable regions of the earth, where volcanic activity and earthquakes
are. manifestations of geophysical processes occuring many miles below the
surface over areas the size of subcontinents. Tigard was the epicenter
of a 1941 earthquake and the area has a continuing history of major
seismic events. Recent findings have predicted a IX intensity quake
possible.
In view of these facts, It is additionally important that the steep,
unstable silt soils of Little Bull Mountain be appropriately evaluated
as called for in the Comprehensive Plan before a large development is
approved. This has not yet been done.
tam
C l
Tigards Comprehensive Plan recognizes the city's Statewide Plan-
ning Goal 5 obligation to conserve open space and protect natural and
scenic resources. The Triad site involves the Little Bull Mountain
Natural Forest (Plan at 1-96, 1-97) and it also indirectly affects
the Kallstrom Fir Grove (Plan at 1-106, 1-107). The summit of the
Little Bull Mountain area is also designated as a Special Area (Plan
at 1-42) meriting priority attention as a Goal 5 resource. This area,
identified as~lne of six such areas by the City's Comprehensive Plan,
contains three separate Goal 5 resources considered to be of significance
to the City's residents (wildlife habitat--Plan at 1-40, natural
forest cover--Plan at 1-96, and outstanding scenic presence and visual
impact--ID).
The Plan further states that conflicting uses to the natural
state of Little Bull Mountain be limited, requiring special attention
to development activities impacting this locale.
Ignoring Goal 5, indicates failure to follow requirements of
CDC 18.30.130.
Furthermore, failure to address Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.1 (c)
and implementation Strategy 3 requiring minimization of development
impacts to areas of significant environmental concern of those areas
valued for specific natural features or as habitats for plant or animal
life.
3.4.1 (c) states the city shall designate the following as areas of
significant environmental concern:
"Areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants,
...or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect
natural areas."
Implementation Strategy 3 under 3.4 (Natural Areas), Comprehensive
city
sL~dreview all development proposals adjac-
ent to wildlife habitat areas to insure that adverse impacts on
any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be, request that
other federal, state and local agencies review development proposals."
The findings which precede the above-cited Policy and Implemen-
tation Strategy indicate that significant plant communities and animal
habitat areas are found in the stands of timber and brush, and that
development in and adjacent to existing wildlife areas can adversely
effect those areas and eliminate their value as wildlife habitat.
Furthermore, the findings state that vegetation cont.*butes to the aesthetic
quality of the community, performs certain environmental functions and
softens the impact of urban environment Plan at II-16
Identified Resources (I-96 (a)
Little Bull Mountain Natural'Forest
'.'.....DETERMINED TO-BE A SIGNIFICANT GOAL 5 resource as an out-
standing scenic site. This area is the largest stand of natural
coniferous trees within the Tigard active urban planning area, and there-
fore, serves as a City visual landmark. ....Staff recommendation for
this site is to limit conflicting uses. The limited conflicting uses allowed
will be single family detached residential units, reviewed through the
Planned Development process..I-96
SPECIAL AREAS
"In addition to the general policies to help protect natural
vegetation and wildlife, specific areas have been suggested by specialists
( for preservation, through fee purchase if necessary. These areas were
singled out for priority attention because of: their particular vege-
tation and wilflife values, 2/~elative uniqueness. Areas identified
MINNS=
;r
1 include:
t
3.11 Summit of Little Bull Mountain. This area has a heavily-wooded
with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals including
deer, raccoon and pheasant." I-42
Scenery
1.1'Summit of Little Bull Mountain.' c
An inventory Qonducted by the City of Tigard revealed thst there
arS various scenic views and sites, as defined in Goal 5 that exist i-
the Tigard Planning Area" including above. 1-43
S
i
The natural areas present and identified canno` be ignored, or
dismissed without detailed inventory and compliance with goals set
forth in Comprehensive Plan It would be erroneous for the city to >
i
do so. This obviously has not been done and there is no reference
made by staff, othep than vague reference to preserving trees, which
a look at the proposed development makes it obvious that none of the
required criteria are met. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.1 and Imple-
a
mentation Strategy 3 have not been met.
Y
1 '
11
men
City has failed to make any finding or address any matters relating
to Comprehensive Plan Policy 8. 1. 1. which requires management of the
transportation planning process through cooperation with affected juri-
dictions.
"Policy 8.1.1. The city shall provide for efficient management of
the transportation planning process within the city and the metropoli-
tan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and
local jurisdictions."
There is no evidence in the record that Policy 8.1.2 has been
met. Although ODOT figures indicate that 2,088 trips per day are gen-
erated by a 348 unit development and the only traffic analysis in the
record shows that 250 peak hour trips will be put onto Highway 99W from
C__ 1 the Triad development alone (R115)
The coordination requirement prescribed by Policy 8.1.2 requires the
city to address the impacts on Highway 99W with findings indicating
r how coordination has been achieved with the obj.6ctives of the Access Oregon
program, as well as the functioning of the highway as a major regional
transportation facility. This later function, is also within the
purview of the Metro Service District (Metro) due to the importance of
Highway 99W to moving vehicular traffic to and from the southwest portion
of the Portland metropolitan area into regional freeway systems.
The record does not disclose any type of coordination in the trnas-
portation planning process with ODOT, (other than a vague h@arsaY)
Metro or Washington County. Lack of compliance on these issues violates
CDC 18.30.120 dealing with approval standards. (even though these things
were brought to the staff's attention by Council at a prior hearing
In addition to compliance with code regpi:~ementthere is another
important consideratioO of addressed by the code, but one that must
be addressed by the city. The city code has identified the soil on
Little Bull Mountain as unconsolidated silt, which when wt becomes
very gooey, runny and prone to wash downhill. Digging up the whole
south side of Little Bull Mountain is going to create tons of brown,
muddy clay-like runoff everytime it rains.....this will drain directly
to the Tualatin River a short distance away. The state, the Departmnt
of Environmental Quality and county and city agencies have launched an
all-out plan to clean up the Tualitan River, and prevent just such
things from happening. The only solution would be large settling
tanks to hold the run-off, There is no indication that the staff has
taken this into consideration, made any such requirement, or considred
the consequences.
C
MARCH 2, 1992
STAFF AFF RESPONSE TO
MARGE DAVENPORT'S
( - WRITTEN TESTIMONY
MEMORANDUM
c CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: City Councilors 1
FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director
DATE: March 2, 1992
SUBJECT: Marge Davenport's December 10, 1991 Written Testimony
On December 10, 1991, Marge Davenport submitted written testimony
relative to the appeal of the Planning Commission's Final Order for
Site Development Review SDR 91-0013 and Planned Development Review
PDR 91-0006 (Triad-Tigard Ltd.). This written testimony is
attached.
Four major issues are raised by Ms. Davenport with regard to the
consistency of the approved site development plan with regard to
Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 3.1.1, 3.4.1, 8.1.2, and
Statewide Planning Goal 5. The issues are summarized briefly
below, followed by City staff analysis.
ISSUE ONE
Ms. Davenport alleges that the Planning Commission decision fails
to consider Plan Policy 3.1.1 regarding development h-- arils, in the
face of evidence that the proposed development site is within
hazard areas identified in Comprehensive Plan Volume I - Resource
Document.
Ms. Davenport's December 10, 1991 comments quote from the
Comprehensive Plan resource document regarding the possible
presence of Helvetia and Upland Silt soil on the site above
basaltic bedrock and the potential development constraints related
to these soils and soil/bedrock interfaces. In addition, the
comments generally raise the issue of tectonic instability (i.e.,
potential for earthquakes and volcanic activity) in Oregon. Ms.
Davenport alleges that the Planning Commission was in error in
approving the development plan for this site without an evaluation
of the soils and geology of the site.
ANALYSIS
Policy 3.1.1 was identified as an approval criterion for the
proposed Site Development Review/Planned Development Review
application by staff and the Planning Commission. Policy 3.1.1 is
implemented through the Community Development Code's Sensitive
Lands Review process, where applicable, and through the building
permit review process where the City's Building Official finds
additional soils analysis is warranted.
111111 NINE
Ing
The applicant was notified in the pre-application conference that
C a Sensitive Lands Review application would be necessary if there
tone 4n 1%,M arty r7eacl~t±menf ~±n el~npe ±n evnoec n-F '111; nt= Mh
applicant's submittal includes a topographic survey map of the site
dated November 21, 1989 by Consulting Engineering Services. The
development plan avoids placing any development in this area.
Because the proposal would not disturb slopes in excess of 25
percent, no Sensitive Lands Review was necessary as part of the
site plan review.
The Planning Commission final order's findings for Policy 3.1.1
refer to the proposed development's avoidance of the Sensitive
Lands Review process through avoiding development on slopes in
excess of 25 percent. The following findings relative to Policy
3.1.1 were provided in the Commission's final order:
2. Policy 3.1.1 is met because the northwestern portion of
the property which has slopes over 25 percent and
therefore is significantly constrained for development
purposes is proposed to remain in its natural state.
In addition, the Planning Commission's final order requires the
following soils/geologic analysis as a pre-condition to approval of
a site-work permit or grading permit for the Triad development:
3. The finished grade of cuts or fills shall have a maximum
slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer shall
certify the stability of any steeper slopes. Prior to
the issuance of building permits, a report from a
registered engineer shall be submitted. The report shall
indicate the location of any fill placed on building
sites, suitability of the soil for building construction,
and soil bearing capacity.
Policy 3.1.1 is not listed as a specific approval criterion by the
approval standards for either Site Development Review or Planned
*Development Review applications in Community Development Code
sections 18.120.180 or 18.80.120 respectively. As such, no
additional analysis of potential development limitations is
required as part of a development application other than the
requirements of the applicable implementing development
regulations. Therefore, the Planning Commission's findings with
regard to this policy should be upheld.
ISSUE TWO
Ms. Davenport alleges that the Planning Commission decision fails
to consider implementation strategy 3 following Plan policy 3.4.2
which states that the City shall review all development proposals
adjacent to wildlife habitat areas to ensure that adverse impacts
on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be,
request that other federal, state, and local agencies review the
proposal.
ANALYSIS
C' Thc, (`mm"rrahona i xr= P1 an Rcasmnnrnca ilnn.+mant , r .+„+ve r-~< + -_-^---4- T w n
speaks in fairly general terms with regard to wildlife habitat
resources, including general references to the Little Bull Mountain
area. The Little Bull Mountain area, and thus the proposed Triad
development site, however is not illustrated as an area with
important values for wildlife on Diagram V on page I-41 (attached).
Since this area is not illustrated on this map, it is clear that
the City has previously decided that the Little Bull Mountain
resource site was not an important resource to be protected for
wildlife values (i.e., an Oregon Administrative Rules Division 16
Statewide Planning Goal 5 rule 1-a decision). As such, the City is
not obligated to assess impacts on wildlife habitat that may occur
because of proposed developments in this area.
Therefore, the Planning Commission and staff did not err in not
requiring a report on the potential for impacts upon the proposed
development site's wildlife habitat values, as specified by
Comprehensive Plan implementation strategy 3 following Plan Policy
3.4.2 as alleged by Ms. Davenport.
ISSUE THREE
The written testimony statement alleges that the decision by the
Planning Commission fails to address whether other agencies or
jurisdictions with rPannnc;},;i; ;c„ for the area's transportation
system were contacted with regard to the proposed development's
anticipated traffic impacts, as required by Plan Policy 8.1.2.
ANALYSIS
The regional transportation coordination directives of Plan Policy
8.1.2 were implemented in this case through the City requesting
(and receiving) comments on the proposed development plan and the
traffic study submitted in support of the proposal from the City of
King City, Washington County's Department of Land Use and
Transportation, and the Oregon Department of Transportation Highway
Division. The comments are reported in the Agency and NPO Comments
section of the Final order (pages 6 through 10) and the original
comments are available for review in the application file for this
action. The Metropolitan Service District (Metro) was not
contacted with regard to this development proposal since the
proposed development's anticipated traffic impacts are within the
range that would be expected with full development of the site
under the provisions of the City's acknowledged plan; therefore,
the development would not be expected to result in traffic issues
of regional concern. The City of Tigard does not routinely notify
Metro of proposed development actions unless the proposed
development could be reasonably considered to have regional
impacts.
C
f
ISSUE FOUR
C, The written testimony statement alleges that the decision by the
Planning Commission fails to address the Dronosed develonment's
impacts upon identified Statewide Planning Goal Five resources
listed in Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan. The comments cite
the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, the Kallstrom Fir Grove,
and the special area (Plan at 1-42) "designation" for the summit of
Little Bull Mountain which is identified as being significant as
wildlife habitat, natural forest cover, and as a scenic and visual
resource.
ANALYSIS
Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan at I-96 designates the Little
Bull Mountain Natural Forest as an outstanding scenic area due to
the visual significance of the stand of coniferous trees. The Plan
states that the 11 ..staff recommendation is to limit conflicting
uses. The limited conflicting uses allowed will be single family
residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development
process..." and also that "if the resource is preserved, it will be
necessary to situate any structures in a manner that minimizes the
loss of trees." The City did not follow the staff's
recommendation in this section fully during the adoption of the
acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The City chose to designate the
south side and summit of Little Bull Mountain with the Medium
Density Residential Plan designation and the R-12 zoning district,
which both allow multi-family development as well as single family
development as permitted uses. The City, however, did designate
the site with the Planned Development overlay zone in an attempt to
limit the conflicts with the resource values of the forested area
(A Goal 5 Rule 3-c decision to allow a conflicting use, with limits
in order to provide some protection for the resource values of the
site).
In addition, the Plan Resource Document at page I-95, in summary of
the ESEE analysis of inventoried Goal 5 resources, states:
- The wooded areas on several resource sites will have an
impact on the character and intensity of the use allowed.
The trees, however, can be incorporated into required
setback and landscaping areas without much loss of net
building area.
- The significant wooded areas are identified and mapped.
The policy of the City's comprehensive plan is that these
areas will be preserved in a natural. state as much as
possible or integrated into the design of any
development, i.e. parking lot island, building setbacks,
street rights-of-way and landscaping areas whenever
possible. If it is necessary to remove a portion or all
of the trees, the replacement landscape features shall be
subject to approval by the applicable approval authority.
C.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Triad development plan through
the Planned Development Review process as required by the overlay
lone. The materials reviewed by the Commission included an
existing tree survey as well as a detailed landscaping plaii. 4;.LL=
Planning Commission was apprised of the issue of tree protection
through the staff report and at the public hearing. The approved ~
development plan includes a relatively large ui,disturbed forested
area in the northwestern corner of the site, incorporates several
groves of existing mature trees within the landscaped areas of
portions of the site to be developed, and provides a substantial
amount of replacement landscaping. The Commission's final order
notes the following with regard to the proposed development's
anticipated effects upon the resource values of the Tittle Bull
Mountain coniferous forest:
- Policy 3.4.2 is satisfied because wooded sites such as
this are to be reviewed through the Planned Development
in order to allow Commission review of the tree removal
plans. This site has previously been designated with the
Planned Development overlay zone.
- Chapter 18.120 (Site Development Review) is satisfied
because the site plan generally provides for the proposed
buildings and other site improvements to be located so as
to preserve existing trees and to minimize alterations to
the site's topography and drainage systems...
C - Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because
the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal
permit prior to removing trees in preparation for
development. Permits will be granted only if it is found
necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures,
driveways, utilities, or other proposed site
improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the
development that will be retained. A detailed tree survey
and an arborist's report outlining methods of protection
of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to
the issuance of a site grading permit or a tree removal
permit.
As such, the Planning Commission's review placed restrictions on
the removal of trees in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest to
minimize their removal while allowing the placement of permitted
structures on the site as required by the Plan's language cited
above as well as the approval criteria of the implementing Site
Development Review, Planned Development Review, and Tree Removal
sections of the Community Development Code.
Ms. Davenport's comments allege the proposed development will
"indirectly affect" the Kallstrom Fir Grove. Staff fails to
understand the "indirect" effect upon this resource site which is
to the east of t;.e subject site and SW 109th Avenue, some 300 plus
feet further to the east. Without any further information
regarding the alleged indirect effects on this resource site, staff
I. Nil 111
d
recommends that the Council conclude that the proposed Triad
development will have no measurable directs p Ffart nr~nn ti,o
Aa.LlstrOm Fir Groves resource values.
The Plan at page I-42 does state that the summit of Little Bull
Mountain and other areas within the City " have been suggested by
specialists for preservation, through fee purchase as necessary" '
and details the attributes of these sites. The Plan continues,
"other factors such as the cost of preservation will, of course,
also have to be considered." This language in the Plan regarding
special areas was background information on possible resource sites L'
for the City to have chosen to preserve or to limit conflicts with
through the development of implementing regulations in the Plan
acknowledgement process or through purchase of these properties.
The Plan and implementing regulations have not previously placed
restrictions on development of this site or the other areas based
on these suggestions for preservation on page I-42. The City also
did not choose to purchase this or the other site's, possibly due
to "other factors such as the cost of preservation." The City's
Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances were acknowledged as
meeting the requirements of Goal 5 as of October 11, 1984 with no
special requirements related to this listing of these sites as
"special areas" (a Goal 5 rule 1-a decision). Therefore, no Goal
5 analysis regarding the potential impacts of an allowed use upon
a resource the City has previously chosen not to protect is
necessary during the development review process.
RECOMMENDATION
1
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Site Development
Review SDR 91-0013 and Planned Development Review PDR 91-0006
(Triad-Tigard Ltd.). The findings included in this memorandum
should be adopted as an appendix to the final order in response to
the December 10, 1991 comments from Marge Davenport.
S
7
i
S
i
y
i
IBM!
~5 a ~pl~
MAMMIMM''! M1
F
TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA ,~E...!
1
Areas with important values for wildlife.
~ .r•. ~ Mtn ra+ .~a3_~~.• '
Source: Department of Fidh and L
~V~ Wildlife, 1976. ~;t a:,a~..~• Al . t c'-E.~s t17:'.b=,...ej
It>
! L6C~ C,~p0~7 y rev `7 f ' 4
•4 i31 • is v. ~i•: ~s tom' ~d b t
170:° • G' " r i ty
rill, C
\ ~ la o ~dl . /i ~ 1, .f ~~r,
~d M L . tr V,
_ 11 "[7Q,
y 3.
i ~I j r• ~♦•l~i:• • tl~ ,I anl~ 111 ~ { w7 c.:r~~Y'.:. ~ •J 1 J,S':
' ~ ~J Vic' mil[.. nL._'6•....lu~,: • ~ l7F~Ll~,.5~~ ~ a e
R
.r 1
1 s 'y= is
if
100,
, ~ ~ a ,F, 1, ~ J II o~~l~ fir,
I
i
I
i
t
I
I
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 7, 1991 HEARING
1
Senior Planner Richard Bewersdorff displayed a map showing the location
of the subject property. He described the bordering properties nd gave
' a brief history explaining that the subject property was annexe into
Tigard in 1985. He advised that the Industrial designation was kept
en the property was annexed. He said staff was recommending approval
of he Zone Change.
i
r
APPLICANT'S RESENTATION '
o Stark Ack an, an attorney with Black Helterline 200 Bank of
California wer, 707 SW Washington, Portland, 9A05, stated he was
representing plicants T. Michael and Associ tl&s, Ltd. He talked about
the criteria co erned and described the par l as an island surrounded
by Commercial pro rties.
o Mary Dorman, a planni consultant, 61 NE Alameda, Portland, reviewed
the designation and int ded uses_ a said the amendment would be
consistent with the surro ding pr erty Commercial uses. She discussed
the change in circumstances nd a character of the building, noting
that there would not be a non nforming use.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o There was no one signed p to speak this item.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Fes er said she agreed that t property was overlooked
when considera} on was given to the other prrties. She expressed
concern abou traffic circulation inside the pa ing lot and at the
entrance.
o Commissi ner Saporta agreed there was a change in circ stances that
would ecessitate a zone change.
o C issioners Boone, Moore, and Saxton stated they were in f or of the
C ~p Plan Amendment and the Zone Change.
* Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to forty d
to the City Council recommendation to approve the CPA 91-0004 and ZON
91-0007. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006
TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO 716) A request for Site Development Review and
Planned Development Review approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a
27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre
Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned
Development) LOCATION: SW 11165 - 11185 Naeve Street, between SW
I Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300 2S1
IOAC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 IODB, tax lots 100, 200, &
300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections
18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18,100, 18.102, 18.106,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 2
110 1 DIVISION=
1$.108, 18.714.,18.120, 18.150, 18.164; Compreh .ive Plan Policies
2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.2.1, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2,
C 1 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and 8.1.3.
1 Associate Planner Jerry Offer described the site location and adjacent
area. He reviewed the first application made a year ago and the reasons
the application was approved but denied upon an appeal to City Council.
He described the street system in the community and the changes which
the development would bring about. He said NPO #6 was concerned about
several traffic issues in connection with future development and
requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Transportation plan map,
resulting in City Council's approval of changes. He elaborated on the
collector street changes and the new proposed roads. He explained how
the new complex would connect to existing collectors.
Associate Planner handed out to Commissioners several replacement pages
with changes to the staff report concerning Condition s3 (pages 11 and
18) (see Exhibit A). He explained the NPO had suggested a pedestrian
pathway from the northern portion of the development to the existing
Tri-Met bus stop on SW Pacific Highway.
Associate Planner advised he would like to revise the staff report to
reflect the following recommendation: "In addition, the Planning
Division recommends approval of the Access Variance to allow the
proposed development to be served by four access points rather than the
required eight access points." He explained that the code requires
access points based on the number of parking spaces, and he advised this
may be an error in the code. He said staff recamends fewer access
points better serve the existing surrounding communities as well as the
proposed subject development.
o City Engineer Randy Wooley clarified for Commissioner Fyre plans for
future transportation improvements regarding Summerfield and King City.
o Commissioner Fessler requested clarification from Associate Planner
regarding the NPO's_questions about density transfer. He advised. that
Commissioners should consider the issue based on the current density
approved. He added that the City is not developing at a density higher
than was planned.
o Commissioner Boone referred to the map for clarification about the
private and public streets shown. Associate Planner pointed out the
access points. He answered questions regarding turn restrictions.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Ross Woods, 320 Andover Park East, Seattle, Washington, 98138, of Triad
Development. He reviewed the March 1990 initial application and the
following actions up to the November 1990 denial due to safe street
access issues. He stated that Triad worked with neighborhood
organizations in an effort to develop a more acceptable traffic plan
with improved access and street circulation. He described these in
detail. He displayed diagrams showing streets and showed an
l architectural rendition of the development and ar-enities. He showed the
video tape "On the
PLANNING Cffl4IS'SION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 3
Green at :!arbour Pointe", located north of Seattle. His comgnentation
described the coaplex, the units, the open space, and the recreation
1 facilities. He said Triad won the 1990 Seattle Master Builders Name
J Award for best apartment cam unity.
Mr. Woods handed out copies of the proposed 109th/Naeve realignment, He
talked about traffic impact fees of approximately $160,000. He said NPO
6 recommended a pedestrian path, which he said would create an unsafe
situation, as there mould not be any lighting or access by police.
o Greg Weston, a Civil Engineer with Kampe Associates, Inc., 3681 SW
Carman Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035, provided a background on the road
- design. He talked about many possible plans to access Beef Bend Road at
Highway 99, and the rejection by State Highway Department of the design
presented because of curves and grade problems. He provided copies of
the letter from the Highway Department which states they favor the Naeve
Road and 109th realignment, He discussed the storm drainage system,
water system, and public roads.
o Wayne Kittleson, of Kittleson and Associates, 610 SW Alder, Suite 700,
Portland, 97204, explained the traffic analyses he has performed for the
applicant concerning the proposed development. He presented graphic
diagrams: (1) *Trip Generation (AM Peak)"; and (2) "Arterial
Scenario". He explained study methods and results; and he discussed the
data and conclusions. He described several traffic route scenarios and
their ramifications. He concluded that at full build out, the traffic
volumes will be well within the limit of residential streets. He used
another diagram, "Extension of 109th to Naeve," explaining this scenario
had the benefit of redirecting cut-through traffic away from
Sumerfield. He explained in detail the impact of the Albertson's r
Shopping Center and provided trip data. He agreed with staff's position
in favor of removing the barricade on 109th, creating a continuous
route. He recommended against turn restrictions. He answered questions
from Commissioners concerning volume, travel times, and stacking
problems on the northern portion of the site.
o City Engineer Randy Wooley answered questions from Commissioner Fessler
concerning SW 109th and Naeve street width, stating there was no need
for turn lanes or parking and therefore it could be narrower than full
street width.
Meeting Recessed - 9:00 PM
Meeting Reconvened - 9:15 PM
o Phil Pasteris, representing NPO -716, favored construction of a pedestrian
pathway. He talked about the new 109th through street, stating there
was a need for signage restricting parking as well as on the.existing SW
109th.
He referred to the Development Code and read from page I. 42, item 3
regarding the Suarnit of Little Bull 'Mountain pertaining to areas for
preservation because of vegetation and wildlife values- He said there
C J was concern about protecting the area.
'z
PLU; JI;;G COWISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 4
's
~l
He spoke about the high priority of the extension of Royalty Parkway,
which he would like to see as a contingency requirement or the
development.
He asked the Commission and City Council to consider reassessing the
devel opuent taking place in the area as far as density and overall
impact.
o Commissioner Hawley asked NPO to comment on the issue of safety
regarding the pedestrian pathway. Mr. Pasteris said a safe pathway was
feasible. Staff clarified the code regarding planning for access to
mass transit.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Associate Planner Jerry Offer handed out two letters received too late
for meeting packets (See Exhibit B, letters from Maybell DeMay and
Lenore A. Schuster).
o Kermit Scott, 15605 SW 114th Court, Tigard, stated he is a member of the
Fountains Condominium Association in Summerfield and is representing the
Fountains Board of Directors. He advised the Board does not object to
the planned extension of SW 109th Street across Naeve Road to Highway
99. He expressed concern about the traffic noise impact on the
Fountains, and they requested that a sound barrier be constructed from
the brick wall bordering Naeve Road along the Fountains borderline to a
point south of the two buildings affected by the road. There was
discussion concerning the distance of the road from the Fountains. He
handed out a copy of his statements (Exhibit C).
o Maybelle DeMay, 15300 SW 116th Avenue, King City, 97224, stated she
represented King City. She referred to her letter of August 9, 1990 to
City Engineer Randy Wooley (see Exhibit B), advising of their continued
opposition to additional traffic at Naeve and Highway 99 because of
safety considerations. She said King City approves of the improvement
and si gnal i zati on of Royalty Parkway and recommends th-~t' al l traffic
improvement be financed by the developer.
o Beverly Froude, representing NPO 1#3, said the NPO fully supported the
Transportation Amendment approved August 9th and is now requesting the
following language: "Indicate that 109th be realigned to curve across
the south slope of the Fountains Development and continue south of Naeve
Street to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway." She advised
that the NPO is opposed to connecting increased traffic onto Naeve at
Highway 99 without changes to the intersection. She discussed the
funding and Traffic Impact Fees, suggesting they be earmarked for this
project and she requested a continuation of the hearing until this is
completed. She also requested that negotiations with affected property
owners be completed before approving the development. She advised that _
the NPO is in concurrence with opening up SW 109th at the top.
PLANNING COWSSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 5
o Richard Watsoi. 10290 SW Highland Drive in Sui-im. rield, spoke in support
of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Amendment. He agreed with
NPO 13 and King City's position pertaining to the timing of the
C extension of Royalty Parkway. He discussed the traffic problems at
Naeve and Highway 99, stating they would like to see this intersection
left open as a right turn only in conjunction with the improvement at
Royalty Parkway.
o Commissioner Fessler discussed the input received from ODOT in assessing
the Naeve/99W intersection. City Engineer answered questions on this
issue.
OPPONENTS
o Al Erickson, 15200 SW 109th in Tigard, talked about the problems with
parking at the Timberline Apartments and the Canterbury Woods, and the
unsafe intersection at Naeve and 99W.
o Jack Orchard, 1100 One Main Place, 101 SW Main, Portland, 97204, spoke
representing Marge Davenport and the Estate of Bernard McPhillips,
property ownership at 15100 SW 109th. -He said his client is "opposed to
any efforts to utilize the revised transportation system improvements."
He said Mrs. Davenport's concerns are about the Plan designation of the
unique area on Little Bull Mountain; traffic impacts on Highway 99,
especially the intersection at Naeve; and the overall densities in the
area.
o Don Feller, 9875 SW View Court, Tigard, 97224, commented favorably on
the plan development; although he did not feel that the increased
C ) traffic impact was desirable. He strongly favored the Royalty Parkway
connection, and wanted to see it placed as a condition of approval. He
was concerned about forcing traffic back into the neighborhoods, and
explained why SW 100th posed a safety problem for pedestrians.
APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL
o Steve Pfeiffer spoke on behalf of"Tigard/Triad Limited Partnership. He
said the key concerns are traffic issues. He said the parking issue was
not a problem. He talked about the designation of unique and protected
lands, but said he doubted it was implemented; and he was certain there
was nothing in the code that would preclude approval of the site plan.
He discussed the funding alternatives for the transportation
improvements.
o Wayne Kittleson spoke again regarding the safety of the intersection of
Naeve/99W. lie explained the methods and research into accident
history. He said the conclusion is that the intersection is not a
safety problem and has excess capacity. He discussed the impact of
additional east/west traffic if Royalty Parkway is not completed. He
said the Triad Development would not have an adverse safety effect. He
answered questions from Commissioners concerning turning left from 99W
to Naeve, that intersection's accident rate, and volumes using the
Albertson shopping center.
C~
PLANNING COhVISSION MI!lUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 6
F
{
i
PUbLiC iricA::It:G
o Commiissioner Fessler compared the proposed plan design with the previous '
l one presented. She commented on the efforts of the community and the
developer to create the best possible plan. She favored approving the
development with the condition that SW 109th has a reserve right-of-way
to provide for a future minor collector.
o Commissioner Saporta stated he favored the plan. He said the reduced
width of the street makes sense in light of preserving the special
area. He favored "no parking" limitations on SW 109th, and he
recommended opening SW 109th at the top to promote circulation. He
advocated the use of public transportation, agreeing that the pedestrian
pathway could be safe and useful. He suggested that the cost of
improvement to the intersection with Royalty Parkway should be shared.
o Commissioner Boone favored the current proposal over the previous one
presented. He disagreed with the traffic analyses based on personal
experience. He was in favor of the pedestrian pathway. Regarding the
questions about emergency vehicle access, he suggested making the
pathways wide enough to facilitate these vehicles. He preferred to have
the full width of 109th dedicated for-the future. He was opposed to the
developer paying all the cost of the transportation improvements, but he
was in favor of extending 109th to Royalty Parkway and eliminating the ?
intersection of Naeve/99W, making it a cul-de-sac. 3
o Commissioner Moore complimented Triad on the design of the project. He
talked about the access problems, favoring completion of the Royalty
Parkway improvement as soon as possible.
o Commissioner Saxton did not agree that the pedestrian pathway should be
made a condition for approval. He was in favor of approving the
development.
o Commissioner Castile agreed with Commissioner Boone about closing
Naeve/99W i ntersecti`on. He favored having the completion of Royalty
Parkway prior to occupation permits being issued. He suggested having
the pedestrian pathway approved by the Police Department first.
o Commissioner Barber mentioned the letters from Douglas Coleman and
Lenore Schuster (see meeting packet) referring to the zoning and density
issues. She pointed out some pDsitive features of the project. She was
not in favor of the parking restrictions on the northern portion of SW
109th. She was also opposed to the pedestrian pathway for safety
reasons. She agreed with other Commissioners to promote the improvement
of Royalty Parkway as soon as possible, but did not agree with
Commissioners who favored closing the Naeve/99W intersection.
t
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 7 ~
a
4
't'ai
o Commissioner -)ley did not want to connect the _ransportation issues
concerning Naeve/99W and Royalty Parkway to the development. She
expressed concern about sufficient parking- She suggested the width of
C" , nn±ti s►,,,,,10 he wide enough to accommodate Tri -Met and wide enough to
FA
' allow for safe automobile traffic if cars do park along the sLvtt: L. Shc
agreed with ODOT's assessment concerning fewer accesses onto 99W. She
was is favor of the design and facilities and said she appreciated the
time taken by the developers to work with the community.
o Commissioner Fyre favored opening SW 109th at the top for circulation.
He did not agree that the developer should bear the cost of improving
Royalty Parkway. He preferred to have SW 109th full width. He
expressed concern about the traffic flow through Summerfield. He agreed
with staff recommendations against constructing a pathway. He generally
favored approving the development.
o Commissioner Fessler inquired about the possibility of preserving any
buildings of historic value as opposed to demolishing them.
o There was discussion concerning improvement of Royalty Parkway and
109th. Consensus was that this was a high priority issue and a motion
was proposed to communicate concerns on this issue to City Council.
City Engineer answered questions pertaining to time frame and funding
process.
* Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to recommend
approval of PDR 91-0006 and SDR 91-0013 subject to the conditions as
written by staff except the following: Condition #3 as it was
originally written without the additional wording about pedestrian
j pathway; Condition #16 requiring that SW 109th shall be built to full
minor collector standards with reduced width to be determined by the
Engineering Department; and an Access Variance granted to allow 4 access
points instead of 8 as called for in the Code.
Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present, with
Commissioner Castile voting "Nay."
* President Fyre moved and Commissioner Moore seconded to send two
recommendations to City Council: (a) It is absolutely essential that
the extension of 109th south to Naeve be expedited by whatever means
possible; and (b) if the traffic impact on SL=erfield is greater than
put forth in the transportation'plan, then the City should give high
consideration to restricting traffic through Summerfield.
Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioners
Fyre, Hawley, Moore, and Saxton voted "Yes." Commissioners Boone,
Saporta, and Fessler voted "No." Commissioner Castile abstained.
Commissioners were all in favor of item (a) of the motion, and 3
Commissioners were opposed and one abstained on item (b) of the motion.
C->
PLANNING C011111ISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 8
man=
6. OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.'
C%
rn1r%11DkIM;- T _ 11 -n5 PM
Ellen P. Fox, Secretary
ATTEST:
Milt Fyre, President
PLANNING COn4ISSION MIINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 9
illi m 11 pil~ili 11 il~~
- ~ 1
~Fl
LUTERS SUMMED AT
10-7-91 PLANNING COMISSION
HEARING
C_
NORM=
Effective Approaches I
l Much, if not most, of the remaining natural area in Tigard could completely
F••>>
disappear as the community -4--olnnmpnt. However, it is
possible to preserve significant portions of the natural life found here
despite this general trend. To do so the community will need to:
1. Protect existing natural vegetation (trees, shrubs, and grasses)
wherever possible (e.g. in parks) especially along watercourses.
2. Use native plants in landscaping.
3. Leave wetlands and riparian areas in their natural state (e.g.
discourage filling, channelization, drainage, etc.).
4. Control runoff and erosion to protect aquatic habitat and wetlands.
k
5. Provide corridors for wildlife movement (e.g. as through the Greenway
System).
6. Leave non-hazardous snags along streams and in wetlands.
Many of these measures to provide future natural areas and values also
accomplish another useful functions as outlined elsewhere (e.g. see sections
on Runoff and Erosion, Scenery, Ground Instability, etc.).
Special Areas
In -ad _ he _general policies to help protect natural vegetation and
wildlife, specific areas have been suggested by specialists for preservation,
through fee purchase if necessary. These areas were singled out for priority
attention because of: 1) their particular vegetation and wildlife values,
and/or 2) their relative uniqueness. Other factors such as the cost of
preservation will, of course, also have to be considered. The six areas which
were identified are the:
1. Summer Creek marsh (east of 130th and south of Scholls Ferry Road).
This unique 12 acre marsh-pond complex was suggested for preservation
by both the district field biologist for the state Department of Fish
and Wildlife and a field biologist with the Nature Conservancy.
2. Forested Northeast slopes of Bull Mountain. The heavily-wooded steep
slopes contain some large Douglas Fir which are up to 100 feet tall
and three ..feet in diameter. The site connects with other similar
sites outside the plan area. It was recotmneded for preservation by
the Nature Conservation Biologist.
3. Summit of Little Bull Mountain. This area has a heavily-wooded with.
undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals including deer,
raccoon, 6 pheasant.
1 -42 V-;
rA.
I am Kermit Scott, a member of the Board of Directors of
kVj iiL(,J_n7 iXiii(lowinlum Association in Summerfield. I reside
at S.W. 114th Court 415, Tigard. I am representing the Fountains
Board of Directors.
The Fountains Board does not object to the planned extension
of 109th Street across Naeve Road on to Highyway 99W. The Board
realizes the inevitable and accepts it. As you are aware, it has
been estimated that 800 to 1,000 cars will use the 109th outlet
to 99W every day. Couple this with a 4% grade between 99W and
Naeve Road and there will be considerable traffic noise. Consider
also that the Fountains have two condominium buildings very close
to this proposed road.
Therefore, even though the Board accepts the plan to date,
it does ask that a sound barrier be constructed from the brick
wall bordering Naeve Road, south along the Fountains border line
to a point south of the two condominium buildings affected by
the road.
t The Board feels that this can be accomplished from either
the builder's funds or the City of Tigard road development
funds.
Thank you . . .
Citv Council Meeting -
October 7, 1991
J
I
S~+bwi~ 4c CA -to ~Ann%*v-%G doplm,
-1- Qcf 7 1/
g
PAM
CITY.
KING
15300 &W. 116th Avenue, Fling City. Oregon 97224 Phone: 639-4082
.October 7; 1991
Mr. Randall R. Wooley,-City Engineer
of Tig and - - -
City g
.a.. 11: Bo•ul
- -
S.W. vara
Ha
3i25' •e - -
_
1
3.
2
2
7
on - -
e
-
Or
gar g -
Ti
y• _
=-Subj: Cash DR-''90=0004/PDR -90 00p 2
:Z-Triad 'Development Tnc. i
Dear Mr. Wooley.... .
This letter . refersI. to .the Tigard Planning. Commission meeting
scheduled for 7:.30.p.m this evening to consider modified.plans for
the proposed 348 :unit;` :Arbor. Heights'.:.- : apartment-. complex: which
-Ancludes.Lot,.9300; on:;Tax Map=.2S-1.10AD;-.Lots 600;; 700, ,800,-:900.
Tax Map 25.1 10AC;- and'.-Lots .100 and :.200 on Tag: Map 2S we would:.
Although the City:'did note receive notice of this meeting,
comment and-strongly reiterate.that the City.'s position is the same'
as stated ,.in our ' 1 etter to you on August 1990 that we are
opposed to'additional traffic at Naeve Street'and-99W; that we do
support the Royalty Parkway .extension and signalization
improvement; that: all traffic improvement should be financed by the
developer..
Because the cost 'of street construction and signalization would
exceed the $300,000.00 TIF fees, Triad financing of the streets and
signal improvements should be a condition of approval. We believe
the Planning Commission hearing decssion, should be postponed until
the new street alignment.is finalizad and financing in place.
A portion of the surface water which falls on this property will
drain directly or indirectly into Highway 99W and possibly
Therefore,
conveyance-systems that pass through King City,
City requests the opportunity to have our engineer review the
drainage and erosion control plans required of the developer prior
to issuance of any construction permits. +
Sincerely., -
May elle DeMay
President of the Council
~k
r
SOME=
K (G CIT_~;
If NK
;%.=aryl i'Y
r~ "^'••T'~^' taiUO St:: 1 :Gt:r :\rcnu~, Ding City-. Or.•~~n 97__'•1 f'):unc: l':~:ir,S`3
Auglist 9, 1990
_'r. Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer
City of Ti card
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Sybi: Triad Develorvrrent
Dear Mr. Wooley:
Thank you for a cony of your letter to Kair.v e r--_srciatr_s, Inc. dat":l
7/19/90, in. regard to conclusion of your `ut:'User ` tt; lies Of the
proposed Triad Level Ortlicnt. i'iZ of the King City Council r eco~jmize that
extensive arditlonal b:OYii !'taus been done by your ci~=pattf:`:.)1t and Cir.Gr on
LhC 1SSUe Of ui 25 , to titis (I•-_v: rAs>vnY. to f roan 'eiic-h1,ay 51:r-7. si nc t_
.1c_ 'and this is :shat we asr.ed for at the recent hearln•] lefol.e t'he eigard City
Council, %,e are gr tific:l_
C43I. POSITION: i:1 further hearings 01.) this 516jzct ..ill ahciLa ]i-: ti•:c.:
following:
1. I'ie rearetflllly accept the position of Oxic C,_=I,)art)T>=e?t ai?-_3 C?Irlr
pi acir_g the access to Triad at Idaeve Road.
2. We support to the fullest the reference in itan 2 of yotlr reF=-31t
U.-tat the Naeve/9%1 intersection he "sig-naliaed". Ile can not
believe that the increased traffic enteri)1u MN f`•ran a
significant proportion desiring -to go southt•:ard--would he safe
without a light. With traffic signals t,,e can avoid creating
another Gaarde road entrance fiasco, and maintain higher safety
expectations. We believe the traffic analysis figures, of frovi
1,700 to 2000 daily trips in and out of Triad, OaTand this
signalization.
We rceintain that new traffic i)npact twist be dealt with by those
V:110 cant ne . devet_or -ent. '11IMEFORE, Triad Develor,-rert should be
reauirecl to nay for the improvement of the 91.1/11aeve intersection,
including signalization, as a condition of project at>D!:OVaI.
Costs for this i-nust not be clunped On those in already developet-I
areas, or left for future irrnosition On the neie,hhorhocxi. We
understand that at one point Triad developers stated a t.d1lingness
in this regard.
1 r
,p
J
i
`'tee above sti_n'ulation should also require completion of the
99W/Naeve imnrovciTents prior to issuance of occupancy permts in
their new c?evelo Trnt, (As Washington County required of the
Xuller Group in regard to the 9%,I/Fischer Road Intersection.)
sincerely,
SfLelhen McShane, mayor
Per City Council Action, August 3, 1990
c. Ross Woods, Triad Ron Failmezger, ODOT
Lee Gunderson, ODOT Bob Hurd, ODOT
Robert Larson, Covenant Church Sue Carver, NPO #6
Cal Woolery, CPO li4 Sunnerfield Civic Association
Bev Froude, NEPO 93 Planning File
i
l
City
Triac? Develcpment
t:4rn 7
LETTERS SUBMITTED PRIOR
TO 10-7-91 PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING
j
NPO #6
Minutes prom September 18, 1991
The meeting was called to order at 7:43 pm.
Members in attendance were: Carver, Clinton, Davenport, Dillin, Kassor_ and
Pasteris.
Excused: Crow, Watson, and Sellers.
Not excused: Wilson (3rd unexcused absence in a row - Liz to mail letter.)
The minutes from the August 14th meeting were approved as written.
MINOR LAND PARTITION - MCP 91-0009 - GOTTER:
The NPO reviewed the request for approval to divide a parcel of
approximately 46,981 square feet into two parcels of approximately 22,300 and
24,681 square feet each and had no objections to it.
TRIAD:
The NPO wishes the following comments be submitted to the Planning
Commission:
C- 1) Consider a pedestrian walkway to 99W through the NW corner of the
property to provide access to a Tri-Met bus stop.
2) Restrict all parking on 109th from the top down to Naeve.
3) Special care must be exercised with any development in this area. As the
Planning Commission knows Little Bull Mountain is designated as a scenic area
in the Development Code.
Further, the NPO continues to question the R-25 and R-12 density designations
as too high for the current population trends in Tigard affecting our traffic
and our public schools. NPO 6 requests a report from the Chairman of the
Planning Commission summarizing (by NPO area) the actual density developed on
land designated as "undeveloped" since the City's Development Code was
accepted by LCDC. The LCDC goal was 10 units per acre, however the actual
developed density may be sig=nificantly higher due to density transfers, the
provision under PD zoning to ingrease densities by 20%, and development in
county areas certain to be annexed into Tigard (i.e. area of high density on
Pacific Highway south of Albertson's).
WETLANDS: (update in brief)
At this time there will not be a wetland property swap. Mr. Herb of the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department basically upgraded this wetland and will
not let it be removed. The developer now has two options - either the sub-
divisions road curves south around the wetland area or the sub-division cul-
de-sacs to the west of the wetland. Either way the NPO should be reviewing
an amended sub-division proposal in the future.
Meeting adjourned at approx. 9:45.
Dear Sir: September 29
~
I oppose the plan of Triad Tigard Limited
Partsership for planned residential develop-
gent adjacent to SW Naeve Street and SW 109th
Avenue. Vaile it means bib bucks to developers
to whittle away at all of Oregon's reenery and
no doubt enhanced revenue for the ty o= Tigard
it maces no sense to add. to the desertificat_on
of Tigard which so far has core across as an at-
tractive n'_=lace to live. I trust the Planning
Council and 'he City Council will use the bet-
ter judgment and vote to veto this project.
Very truly yours,
Doug • 'Coleman
i 15100 SST Crown Drive, -I5
King City, OR 97224
i
i44
•C
{
ti
y
S
7
7'r
Raw
d
_ i
September 25, 1991 RECEIVED PLANNING
;Tigard Planning Commission ;EP 3 0 1991
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Subject: Triad Zoning Application
Dear Commission Members:
Over my objections the Planning Commission and the City Council recently
determined to adopt a Transportation Plan that would accommodate the
proposed development referenced above. At that time I requested that if
the new Transportation Plan was adopted the City provide funding for the
new plan so that when development occurred the traffic problems could be
solved by improved roadways that would actually be built, rather than
just a conceptual solution to the problem. I write this letter now to t
request the Planning Commission require the developer, or the City of
Tigard, to acquire the right of way for the recently approved Transportation
Plan. That way, as the proposed development occurs, the problem will be
solved rather than delayed.
Under the new plan property I own will be substantially utilized for
roadway. It will then be impractical for me to develop my property for
any reasonable use. If I allow the roadway or the plan to co unopposed,
my property will be severely impaired. Extended controversy on the plan
means there will be no near term roadway as now approved.
they property owners will benefit from the road construction. They are
(J-Other
anxious to see the improvements completed. In any event, the }
Council decided that for the area to develop properly and to move traffic
through the neighborhoods. the new plan was required. It is therefore
imperative you condition approval for the proposed development on prior
acquisition of the right of way to solve the impending traffic problems
now rather than delaying decisions until we are forced to face up to
them after they get more involved and•expe•nsive.
I request that this letter be made part of the Planning Commission
meeting. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert C. uton
P.O. Box 8041
Black Butte Ranch, Oregon
97759
cc: Randall Wooley, City Engineer
Sue Carver - NPO #6
Johi: Acker, Tigard Planning
Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler
CIVIC ASSOCIATION
10650 S.W. Summerfield Drive
Tigard. Oregon 97223
620.0131
September5, 1991 RECEIVED PLANNING
Mr. Jerry Offer, Associate Planner
City of Tigard s `P I 1 1991
Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Offer.
We are presenting our comments pertaining to the new TRIAD proposal for development of the.
multi-family residential complex on Little Bull Mountain. According to Mr. Ross, TRIAD
representative, there was agreement between you and him for the solicitation of these comments at
this time.
Most of our comments pertain to the complex-generated traffic that will pass over S.W. 109th
Street and S.W. Naeve Road. It is vital to the Summerfield community that additional routes be
developed to accommodate that traffic.
The Summerfield Civic Association supported the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
Amendment dealing with automobile traffic that will someday be generated by developments on
Little Bull Mountain. We continue to support that Plan and, furthermore, we support the idea that
parts of the Plan be implemented as developments occur.
Foremost is our concern about the timing for development of the S.W. 109th Street extension to
S.W. Pacific Highway. This extension should be completed•concuerently with development of the
TRIAD residential complex. With that extension, a reasonable part of the complex-generated
traffic will bypass established communities such as Summerfield. Without the extension, or even
with a significant delay, the same problems would exist that caused denial of the application last
year. Then most of the south and east bound traffic from the residential complex would pass
through Summerfield, causing major concerns for safety of the residents.
S.W. Naeve Road must be left open at the intersection of Pacific High-way. This will help dispe.-~c
traffic from the area. From the standpoint of safety, that intersection should be modified to allow
right turns only with special lanes provided for acceleration and deceleration.
Sincerely,
Howard Graham, President
Summerfield Civic Association
HG: FB
( cc: Ross Woods
Rich Watson
t
Z
{
I
i
i
i
i
3
3
S
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1
i
11511
ilk
Em lill
TRIAD
August 27, 1991
Mr. Jerry Offer
City of Tigard
Community Development
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: ARBOR HEIGHTS SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL
Dear Jerry:
As you recall, the Development Code for the City of Tigard contains
` the following language regarding resubmittal of an application
which has been denied:
"Section 18.32.280 Denial of the Application: Resubmittal
a. An application which has been denied or an
application which was denied and which on appeal or
review has not been reversed by a higher authority,
including the Land Use Board of Appeals, the Land
Conservation and Development Commission or the courts,
may not be resubmitted for the same or a substantially
similar action for a period of at least 12 months from
the date the final City action is made denying the
application unless there is a substantial change in the
facts or a change in City policy which would change the
outcome."
The revised site plan application meets both criteria for
resubmittal.
This project was the subject of a request that the same location
for Site Development, Plan Development and Variance Review in late
1990, which was denied on appeal to the City Council on November
26, 1990. Pursuant to Section 18.32.280 (a) of the Community
Development Code, Triad Tigard Limited Partnership recognizes that
review of this revised application requires a finding that there is
a substantial change in the facts surrounding the application on
the project or a change in city policy which would change the
outcome of the earlier decision.
Development i• 1
Renovation S I;•..
land Acquisition "
n
[C_~ 7Mr.Jerry r
tv ~F m; na,-,-a
August 27, 1991
Page 2
Both criteria for review within 12 months are met, since the site
plan has been revised to reflect an alternate alignment of 109th
Avenue to eliminate the need for a variance and the City Council
has amended the adopted transportation plan to reflect this revised
alignment. Based upon.our understanding that this application will
be subject to the comprehensive plan standards as modified by the
City Council, this change in city policy, coupled with its
implementation through construction of the substantial portion of
the roadway in conjunction with this project, will provide a basis
for reversal of the earlier decision by the City Council.
Also, with this new site plan is a realignment of Naeve St at the
intersection of the new 109th Ave. We propose to have a Naeve St
aligned on our site as well as a portion of the Covenant Church
property located to the West of the Triad site. I have discussed
this situation with Steve Dawson, Director of Covenant Development
Corporation in Chicago, IL. Mr. Dawson said he will work with
Triad on this street alignment. I am requesting a letter from the
Covenant Development Corp. to the City of Tigard stating their
( ) position on this matter. I will be carbon copying you on my
correspondence with the Covenant Corp.
Sincerely, l/AA
Ross W. Woods
Project Manager
cc: Steven L. Pfeiffer
fn: jeroff.rw-tig
C
KING CITY - -3 002
on= 15300 S.W. 116th Avenue, King City, Oregon 97224 Phone: 639-4082
February 24, 1992
Jerry Offer, Associate Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Nall Blvd.
PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Triad Development - SDR-91-0013/PDR-91-0006
Dear Mr. Offer:
The City of King City recently discussed the latest information
received on the Triad Development. We are aware that the staff has
recommended to the City of Tigard Council rescheduling of the
f appeal hearing from February 25, 1992 to the date suggested of
March 10, 1992.
The City Council of King City again restated its position on this
development as such:
A) that the plan have a condition on occupancy
B) that the 109th extension to Royalty Parkway be completed
C) that the closing off of Naeve Road access, from the
apartment complex, be completed before any occupancy be
allowed.
King City is very concerned about the traffic impact of this
development on 99W and the intersection at Royalty Parkway.
Once again, thank you for your consideration and allowing us to
comment on this matter.
'Fe rely,
*2on A. Buol
City Manager RECEIVED PLANNING
JAB:mg FEB 2 6 1992
r cc-Acting Mayor
City Council
WE=
IBM=
mom CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COI'H ISSION
FINAL ORDER NO. 91-11 PC
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION
FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL, AND ACCESS VARIANCE APPROVAL REQUESTED BY TRIAD
TIGARD, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP-
The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at a public
hearing on October 7, 1991_ The Commission has based its decision on the facts,
findings, and conclusions noted below-
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Planned Development Review PDR 91-0006
Site Development Review SDR 91-0013
REQUEST: Planned Development Review/Site Development Review of a
plan for development of a 348 unit, 17 building multi-
family residential complex on a 26.2 acre property.
APPLICANT-/O'rINER: Triad Tigard, Ltd. Partnership
r 320 Andover Park East
Seattle, WA 98138
ENGINEER: Kampe Associates, Inc.
3681 SW Carmen Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
ARCHITECT: Driscoll Architects
2121 First Avenue, Suite 102
Seattle, WA 98121
LOCATION: 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street- North side of Naeve Street,
west of SW 109th Avenue, south of the Little Bull
Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 1ODB, Tax Lots 100 and 200
[also Tax Lot 300 for public road realignment purposes
only]; WCTM 2S1 LOAD, Tax Lot 9300; WCTM 2S1 lOAC, Tax
Lots 600, 700, 800, 900;)_
PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (23 acres)
Medium-High Density Residential (4.2 acres)
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (PD) (12 units/acre-Planned Development
overlay) (23 acres)
R-25 (PD) (25 units/acre-Planned Development)
(4.2 acres)
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54,
18.56, 18_80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114,
18.120, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164 and Comprehensive Plan Policies
2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6_6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7_4.4,
7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8_1.3.
DECISION: Approval as proposed, subject to conditions-
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 1
2. Backaround Information
The subject parcels have been involved in a number of City of Tigard
land use and development applications since annexation in 1981.
Prior to annexation, the parcels were designated by Washington
County with a zoning designation of RU-4 (Residential, 4
units/acre). City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 1-81
approved redesignation of the parcels from Low Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential and a zone change to R-12
(Residential, 12 units/acre). The Planned Development (PD) overlay
zone was added to the requested R-12 designation so that all
development proposals for the properties would be required to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
In December, 1986, the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval
to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment for changing the
Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast
corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This approval
redesignated these properties from High Density Residential to
General Commercial-. A result of this decision was the removal of
the opportunity for approximately 400 potential multi-family housing
units from Tigard's inventory of vacant, buildable land. The
Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660,
Division 7) requires that Tigard provide a housing opportunity for
at least 50 percent multi-family units and a net minimum housing
density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant buildable land
within- the City's.Urban Planning Area. The Albertson's CPA was
granted on the condition of redesignation of sufficient residential
land to higher densities to make up for the housing opportunity
shortfall created by the decision. Several sites throughout the
City, including Tax Lot 200, were considered for increased
residential densities to make up for the housing opportunity
shortfall created by the Albertson's decision. The western half of
Tax Lot 200 and the parcel to the west were proposed for Plan/Zone
redesignation from Medium Density Residential/R-12 (PD) to Medium-
High Density Residential/R-25 (PD) (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA
87-07(G)/Zone Change ZC 87-02 (G)). No change in designation was
proposed for the eastern half of Tax Lot 200 or the other parcels
that are the subject of the current application. Redesignation of
the western half of Tax Lot 200 and the adjacent parcel was approved
by the City Council in April 1987.'
In April, 1989, the owners of Tax Lot 200 requested a Plan Map
Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density
Residential, and a Zone -Change from R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12
units/acre, Planned Development) to R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25
units/acre, Planned Development) for the eastern 4.27 acres of that
parcel (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 89-02/Zone Change ZC 89-
02). After review by the staff and Planning Commission, the. City
Council denied the proposed Planned Amendment/Zone Change on April
24, 1989.
Tax Lot 100, which is located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue, was the subject
of a Subdivision/Planned Development review by the Planning
commission on June 6, 1989 (Subdivision S 89-07/Planned Development
PD 89-01). That application requested Planned Development
conceptual plan approval and subdivision preliminary plat approval
to divide the approximately 10.3 acre parcel into 60 lots intended
for single-family residential development. The proposed subdivision
would have included a north-south street running through the
approximate center of the parcel with connections to SW 109th Avenue
r
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 2
IMMUMNIMMM,
as well as to the property to the west- SW 109th Avenue was
proposed to terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb at the northern end of
the subdivision- SW 109th was to be improved to local street
standards and have a number of single-family lots fronting on it.
The proposed subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission but
the approval has since expired-
Also on June 6, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal
for Planned Development/Site Development Review approval of a
request to construct a 72 unit apartment complex on Tax Lots 900 and
9300 north of the previously described proposed subdivision (Planned
-Development PD 89-02, Site Development Review SDR 89-06, Variance V
89-20)- -These tax lots are also part of the current application.
The Commission approved the proposed development plan which included
a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of the northern segment of SW 109th
Avenue, approximately 250 feet north of the cul-de-sac bulb approved
for the single-family subdivision. The proposed dual cul-de-saccing
of SW 109th Avenue was intended to provide a separation between the
predominately multi-family residential character on the top half of
Little Bull Mountain from the proposed primarily single-family
residential character of the neighborhood along the south slope of
Little Bull Mountain and the properties to the south. The Planning
Commission's final orders for both the subdivision and apartment
proposals, however, noted that if either of the proposed
developments did not occur as proposed, it would be necessary to re-
evaluate the road patterns in this area.
In September, 1989, the Planning Commission was presented with a-
request to reconsider the application for the proposed 72 unit
dpartment complex because a significant number of neighboring
property owners-that were entitled to notice of the public hearing
on the matter did not receive notice and did not have the
opportunity to testify before the Commission. The City Attorney's
office reviewed-this request and advised staff that the request be
placed on the Commission's November 7, 1990 meeting agenda. The
applicant, Terry cook, requested that the hearing for
reconsideration be indefinitely postponed until the applicant
determined whether-to pursue the application further. No further
action was taken by that applicant.
The current applicant, Triad Tigard Limited Partnership, filed a
Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application for
development of a 364 unit apartment complex for the entire subject
site in early 1990 (SDR 90-0004/PDR 90-0002). The proposal was
fairly similar to the current proposal except that there was no
public roadway proposed to cut through the site as is currently
proposed. The development site was to be bounded by SW Naeve Street
and SW 109th Avenue. -
The Commission approved this prior application subject to conditions
on May 11, 1990, including a condition that the two segments of SW
109th Avenue abutting the site be permanently separated as well as
closing SW 109th south of Naeve Street (Commission Final order 90- }
11). The Planning Commission's decision was reviewed by the City
Council on June 25, 1990. The City Council remanded the application
back to the Commission for further review regarding the proposed
development's potential traffic impacts on nearby streets- Included
in the Council's discussions was a possible extension of SW Beef
Bend Road from the west through the-site to connect with SW 109th.
On September 4, 1990, the Commission on remand approved an amended
application including a variance to the maximum local street grade
FINAL, ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 3
i
`i
standard for SW 109th Avenue (Co.-mission -inal Order 90-22). The
approval also required development of an e,-nergency vehicle access
connection between Sa Naeve Street and SlA 109th Avenue in
Summerfield, but no public street connection. This decision was
appealed to the Council by NPO 6. On appeal, the Council reversed
the Planning Commission's approval thereby denying the application
(Resolution No. 90-71). The Council's findings in support of this
decision indicate that 'the Council did not feel that the public
street connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue in
Sun-merfield was acceptable because it would not provide for an
efficient neighborhood circulation system and needed connections
between residential neighborhoods with Pacific Highway. The Council
_ also was opposed to the development plan's proposal to direct a
significant amount of traffic on to an over-steep local street (SW
209th). In addition, the Council was not convinced that a public
road or private driveway connection to SW Pacific Highway at the
Beef Bend Road intersection was not possible to serve the proposed _
development.
In December of 1990 the City Council authorized NPO #6 to initiate
consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment focused on
transportation issues in the area of S_W_ 109th Avenue and Naeve
Street- After review of various alternatives, the NPO recommended
specific amendments to the Transportation Map. The Amendments
change the designation of Naeve Street from a minor collector to a
local street; designate 109th Avenue as a minor collector; indicate
that 109th Avenue is to be realianed to curve across the south slope
of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve Street at a point west of
the Fountains development and continuing south of Naeve Street to ,
intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway; and indicate a minor
collector street connection between 109th and 100th Avenue to
intersect 100th in the vicinity of Sattler Street. The City Council
approved this map change on August 13, 1991, (Ordinance 91-22). The.
Council's decision was final on September 12, 1991. A notice of
intent to appeal the Council's decision has been filed with the
Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Staff has been advised by
the City Attorney's office that the pending appeal need not delay
the review of a development application within the affected area.
No other land use or development appli..-ations have been reviewed by
P the City for Tax Lots 600, 700, and 8C0.
3. Vicinitv Information
The development pattern-in the area of the subject site consists of
existing duplexes and the 130-unit Timberline Apartments development
to the north; the Canterbury Woods condominium development to the
northeast; single family residences and a nursery on large.lots to
the east; an undeveloped parcel covered with tall fir trees to the
west (t.l. 300) ; Pacific Highway and King City further west; and the
Suranerfield planned community to the south. The Fountains at
Summerfield condominium complex is immediately south of the site.
As previously noted, the City's Transportation Plan Map now calls
for a minor collector extension of S.W. 109th to be constructed
through the subject property-
The subject property has approximately 890 feet of frontage on SW
Naeve street which is now functionally classified as a local street.
SW Naeve Street is generally substandard in width and state of
improvements, with the exception of the frontage of the Fountains at
Summerfield development to the south. Half-street improvements,
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 4
including approximately 30 feet of pavement, curbs, a sidewalk, and
streetlights have been installed along the Fountain's frontage.
The subject parcels have approximately 1500 feet of total frontage
along the alignment of SW 109th Avenue. SW 109th Avenue, north of
the intersection with SW Naeve Street, is a steep gravel road
extending approximately 1200 feet to a dead end. Approximately 200
feet further north beyond this dead end, the northern segment of SW
109th Avenue continues. This northern section of Sir? 109th Avenue
extends northward to Canterbury Lane. The subject properties have
approximately 100 feet of frontage along this northern section of SW
109th Avenue. SW 109th Avenue is functionally classified as a minor
collector street-
Tax lots 600, 700 and 800 have approximately 360 feet of frontage on
SW Pacific Highway. Pacific Highway is a 4-lane divided arterial
under the jurisdiction of the Oregon State Highway Division. The
southwestern corner of the subject site along SW Naeve is located
approximately 500 feet east of the Naeve/Pacific Highway
intersection. A left-turn lane is provided on Pacific Highway for
southbound traffic onto SW Naeve Street- The intersection of SW
Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is not signalized.
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The subject 26.2 acre property previously contained houses on Tax
Lots 200, 700, 800, and 9300. All have been removed except for the
house on tax lot 9300_ The remainder of the property is vacant,
covered with a combination of tall fir trees, lower height deciduous
trees, and brush. The property slopes predominantly to the south
and southwest at varying grades. Approximately 0.8 acres on tax
lots 600, 700, and 800 has a slope of greater than 25 percent.
The applicants propose to develop a 348 unit apartment complex on
this site- The development would include 101 one-bedroom, 151 two-
bedroom, and 96 three bedroom units for a total of 348 units. The
development site would be. split by a curved collector street
connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue intended to
conform with the recently adopted Transportation Map:am=ndm2nt for
this area- The alignment of SA Naeve Street to the west is proposed
to be shifted somewhat northward in order to provide for a 90 degree
intersection with this proposed new street. A minor reconstruction
of Naeve Street is also proposed at 109th to from a 90 degree
intersection.
Also proposed would be a recreation building located near the center
of the site. A gymnasium, indoor pool, outdoor pool, and lounge
within the recreation building are proposed. In addition, a jogging
path is also proposed to provide recreational facilities for the
proposed development. The areas of tax lots 600, 700 and 800 would
not include any new improvements.
Parking would be provided by 661 total parking spaces consisting of
360 covered parking spaces (combination of garages and under
i apartment buildings), 14 designated handicapped parking spaces, and
287 other uncovered spaces.
The southern section of the proposed development which contains 60
units would be served by one 24-foot wide access driveway from the
proposed connecting street. No other access would be provided to
this section of the development from either SW Naeve Street, SW
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 5
A
y
3
109th Avenue, or from the proposed connecting street. The existing
section of SW 109th Avenue, north of Naeve Street, is proposed to
terminate in a hammerhead style turnaround short of connecting with
the proposed connector street.
The northern portion of the proposed development is proposed to be
served by a 24 foot wide main access driveway from the proposed
connector street extending northward through the site to a
connection with SW 109th Avenue in the northeastern section of the
site. The northern section would also be served an additional 24-
foot wide access driveway onto SW 109th Avenue that would extend
westward to connect with the main internal roadway as well as one
dead end access driveway which would stop short of SW 109th. A
network of five foot wide sidewalks would be provided along the
primary roadway and between parking areas and residential buildings.
The north-south soft surfaced jogging path provided through
landscaped and tree covered area on the eastern portion of the site
would provide pedestrian access between the northern-most units and
the recreation building. y
The preliminary landscaping plan shows existing trees that are
proposed to be retained. The area along SW Pacific Highway on tax
lots 600, 700 and 800 is to be left with existing vegetation. The
landscaping plan calls for removing underbrush and planting lawn and
a variety of bushes and trees throughout the portion of the site to
be developed"in order to create a park-like appearance on the site.
The landscaping plan shows cross sections of proposed perimeter
buffer material arrangements and lists plant materials-
S. Aaencv and NPO Comments
The Engineering Division has "reviewed the proposal and has offered J
the following comments:
F
a. *The site has frontage onto SW 109th Avenue, SW Naeve Street,
and STR Pacific Highway.
SW 109th Avenue is a gravel surfaced street with the northern
portion unimproved. Currently S.W. 109th Avenue runs in a
north/south fashion-rt oi.-. the east edge of the development.
Based on the preliminary plans, S_W. 109th will be
reconfigured. The current S.W. 109th (also termed the Old
109th in this report) will terminate approximately 400 feet
north of the S.W. Naeve/109th intersection in a hammerhead.
It is proposed that the existing Old 109th near Naeve Street
remain a gravel road. The proposed new development will have
no driveway access to Old 109th- Old 109th will serve only
the driveways to two existing homes- Since the recent
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, old
109th is not envisioned as part of the long-range plan for the
neighborhood. When the property to the east is redeveloped in
the future, it is expected that Old 109th will be eliminated
or substantially reconfigured. Therefore, we support the
proposal to leave this section of Old 109th as a gravel
street.
The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map provides that the
New 109th Ave., which will be built to minor collector
standards, will eventually intersect Pacific Highway across
from Royalty Parkway then proceed in a northeastern direction
and connect with the existing S_W_ 109th Avenue adjacent to
the northeast corner of the development.
`i
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 6
s
The aoplicant proposes to fully develop the road from the new
intersection of 109th/Naeve, located in the southeast corner
of the project, to where the road again intersects the old
109th in the northeast corner of the project. The preliminary
profile indicates the grade to be 12 percent, the maximum
allowed by City standards. Although not proposed by the
developers, we feel that it may be appropriate to construct
New 109th to a reduced street width north of the main entrance
to the new development. On-street parking should not be
needed in this area. Based on traffic projections, there
should not be a need for turn lanes. Therefore, the full
minor collector street width may not be necessary. Reducing
the street width would help to fit the street into existing
steep grades and to match the existing 109th Avenue to the
north. A reduced street width would reduce City maintenance.
For these reasons, we are requesting that the Planning
Commission authorize the City Engineer to approve reduced
width- Details would be worked out with the developer's
engineer during final design of the street improvements
SW Naeve Street is a partially paved, mostly gravel surfaced
local street. The applicant proposes to provide full street
improvements in the vicinity of the new intersection of 109th
and Naeve; from the intersection eastward, the applicant is
proposing to provide two-thirds street improvements. In
addition, the applicant is proposing a minor change to the old
109th/Naeve intersection by bringing it more into a 90-degree
intersection. Therefore the applicant should be required to
do the following:
(1) full street improvements in the vicinity of the
new Naeve/109th street intersection,
(2) two-third street "improvements from the end of the
full street improvements to the old Naeve/109th
street intersection,
(3) interim improvements from Pacific Highway to the
full street improvements, which should include 24
feet of pavement and 2 foot, shoulders on both
sides of the road.
Pacific Highway is under the jurisdiction of the State of
Oregon. Existing improvements consist of the paved roadway
with a gravel shoulder and a ditch. The State has requested
that curb, sidewalk and drainage improvements be provided
along the site's frontage.
C. Most of the site slopes toward Naeve Street which then drains
to 109th Avenue and Pacific Highway. Presently a portion of
this area drains toward Pacific Highway along Naeve Street.
This development should reduce the drainage toward Pacific
Highway from the site.
The proposed storm drainage system is a collection of on-site
conveyance structures which dissipate energy and spread out
the flow path; where the final runoff will be conveyed to an
existing 30• storm drain at the intersection of S.W. Naeve and
S.W_ 109th Avenue. After review of the plans submitted by the
applicants engineer it became apparent there were potential
problems. In the areas where the system crosses a public road
the system was going from a private to public and back to
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 7
:t
private without a break and could cause potential maintenance
problems. After discussions with the applicant's engineer, it
was determined that the best solution was to keep each system
separate with the final design being approved by the City's
Engineering Department.
Therefore the applicant should be required to do the
following:
(1) The existing pipe to be connected to in 109th
Avenue should be evaluated to determine if it has
adequate capacity to handle ultimate development
_ of the entire drainage basin,
(2) That the on-site water quality facility shall
meet current Unified Sewerage Agency design
standards and that it shall be the responsibility
of the owners of the site to maintain such
facilities,
(3) Design the system(s) so that there is a clear
delineation between the private and public
systems.
d. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended through the site
from the system at the corner of Naeve street and 109th
Avenue. This system appears to have adequate capacity to
serve the site. The applicant or the applicant's engineer
should be required to verify that the existing sanitary sewer
system shall be able to handle this development and any future
development that would connect to this system.
The Oregon State Highway Division has reviewed the proposal and has
commented that type C curb and sidewalk as well as storm drainage
imnrovements will be required along the site's Pacific Highway
frontage. The existing driveways to tax lots 700 and 800 should be
removed. An access reserve strip should be recorded along this
frontage. Street opening and access permits must be obtained from
ODOT.
The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and
provides the following comments:
a. A demolition permit should be obtained prior to destruction or
moving any of the existing buildings on the site. If the
buildings are on septic tanks, the tanks should be pumped out
and either removed or filled with" sand or gravel. If the
buildings are connected to sanitary sewers, the lines should
be capped off in an approved manner. An inspection should be
obtained after the tank is filled or the sewer capped. A copy
of the receipt for septic tank pumping should be provided to
the Building Division-
b. The finished grade of cuts or fills should have a maximum
slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer should certify
the stability, of any steeper slopes- Prior to the issuance of
building permits, a report from a registered engineer should
be submitted. The report should indicate the location of any
fill placed on building sites, suitability of the soil for
building construction, and soil bearing capacity.
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 8
E
Neighborhood Planning Organization 6 har, reviewed the proposal and
has provided the following comments:
1. Consider a pedestrian walk-way to 99W through the northwest
corner of the property to provide access to a Tri-Diet bus
stop.
2. Restrict all parking on S'rl 109th from the top down to Naeve.
3. Special care must be exercised with any development in this
m3me area. As the Planning Commission )mows, Little Bull Mountain
is designated as a scenic area in the Development Code_
4. Further, the NPO continues to question the R-25 and R-12
density designations as too high for the current population
trends in Tigard affecting our traffic and our public schools.
NPO' 6 requests a report from the Chairman of the Planning
Commission summarizing (by NPO area) the actual density
developed on land designated as 'undeveloped, since the City's
Development code was accepted by LCDC. The LCDC goal was 10
units per acre, however, the actual developed density may be
significantly higher due to density transfers, the provisions
under PD Zoning to increase densities by 20%, and development
in county areas certain to be annexed into Tigard, (i.e., area
of high density on Pacific Highway south of Albertson's).
The Summerfield Civic Association has reviewed the proposal and
offers the following comments:
The Summerfield Civic Association supported the Comprehensive
Plan Transportation Map Amendment dealing with automobile
traffic that will someday be generated by developments on
Little Bull Mountain- We continue to support that Plan and,
furthermore, we support the idea that parts of the Plan be
implemented as developments occur-
Foremost is our concern about the timing for development of
the SW 109th Street extension to Sri Pacific Highway. This
extension should be completed concurrently with development of
the Triad residential complex. With that extension, a
reasonable part of the complex-generated traffic will bypass
established communities such as Summerfield. Without the
extension, or even with a significant delay, the same problems
would exist that caused denial of the application last year.
Then most of the south and eastbound traffic from the
residential complex would pass through Summerfield, causing
major concerns for safety of the residents.
SW Naeve Road must be left open at the intersection of Pacific
Highway. This will help disperse traffic from the area. From
the standpoint of safety, that intersection should be modified
to allow right turns only with special lanes provided for
acceleration and deceleration.
The Tigard Water District has reviewed the proposal and has not
provided any new comments. With the prior application, the Water
District reported no objections to the proposed development but
noted that the site requires service from two water pressure zones.
Zone 1 is supplied by the pressurized system on the top of Little
Bull Mountain. Zone 2 is a gravity system from the existing water
line at the corner of SW Naeve Street and SW 109th. In addition,
the Water District has noted that because of the size of the
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 9
e
1
r
Y
buildings, each building is to have its own 2-inch water meter. The
irrigation system will need to be metered separately with Turbo
meters. Water meter locations are to be provided with a minimum
planter area of 3 feet by 5 feet. This also holds true for fire
hydrants. Water meters and fire hydrants are not allowed to be
located in asphalt or concrete, or behind carports, garages, or
retaining walls. All water lines must be ductile iron class 52. a
The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and has noted
that the proposed complex is located within the Templeton
Elementary/Twality Junior High attendance boundaries. This proposed
development would be projected to generate 2S new students for
Templeton Elementary, 10 students at Twality Junior High, and 7
students at Tigard High School. The School District notes that
school capacities are projected to be exceeded as a result of this
proposed- development and other recently reviewed and approved
developments within those attendance areas. The District notes that
core facilities of the schools are insufficient to be able to
consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be
provided by other options under consideration by the School
District, including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled
school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-
utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of
new facilities and other school housing options.
The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the
proposal and has provided the following comments:
a. Hydrant locations will need to be coordinated between the Fire
District and the Tigard Water District-- Hydrants will need to
be placed within 2S0 feet of all exterior portions of all
buildings; however, this distance may be increased if
buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler.
Hydrants should be placed at all intersections.
b. The Fire District would prefer to see an emergency vehicle
access between th•& parking area for the southern portion of
the development and the southernmost section of SW 109th
Avenue. Staff discussed this comment with Gene Birchill of
the Fire District on September 22, 1991. Mr_ Birchill
commented that an emergency vehicle access is a 'preference'
and not necessarily a need. If an emergency access is
developed, it could be a grass-crete pad through the
development's landscaped area.
C. Fire fighting-access roads should be extended to within 150
feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; however, this
distance may be increased if automatic fire sprinklers are
utilized.
d. The applicant and the City Building Division have been
provided with further details regarding necessary fire
protection for the proposed development.
Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation and
PGE have reviewed the proposal and have issued no comments or
objections- King City, GTE, Northwest Natural Gas, and the
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission were provided with plans
and an opportunity to comment on the proposal.. No comments were
received from those agencies.
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 10
6. Other Comments and Hearina Testir-~nv
Letters of comment were received from Douglas Coleman, Lenore
Schuster, Kermit Scott, and Maybelle DeMay for the City of King
City. These letters were presented to the Commission either with
the Commission meeting packet or at the public hearing on October 7,
1991. Oral testimony was received at the October 7, 1991 public
hearing from Phil Pasteris and John Dillin of NPO #6, Maybelle DeMay
of King City's City Council, Kermit Scott of the Fountains
Condominium Owners Association, Beverly Froude of NPO #6, Richard
Watson, Al Erickson, attorney Jack Orchard representing Marge
Davenport, and Don Feller. In addition, the applicants were
represented at the hearing by Ross Woods of triad Development, Greg
Weston of Kampe and Associates Engineering, Wayne Kittelson of
Kittelson and Associates transportation engineering consultants, and
attorney Steve Pfeiffer. A tape recording of the oral testimony was
made at the hearing. Minutes of the public hearing are being
prepared at this time-
B. ANALYSIS
Resubmittal Within One Year of Denial
Less than 12 months have past since the Council's November 26, 1990
denial of the applicant's prior development application affecting
this site. Code Section 18.32.280 contains the following language
regarding resubmittal of an application that has been denied:
'a. An application which has been denied or an application
which was denied and which on appeal or review has not been
reversed by a higher authority, may not be resubmitted
for the same or a substantially similar action for a period of
at least 12 months from the date the final City action is made
denying the application unless there is a substantial change
in the facts or a change in City policy which would change the
outcome.'
The applicant has submitted a letter dated =_ugust 27, 1991, which
addresses the criteria for resubmittal. The Commission agrees with
the applicant that the current site plan with a public road through
the development eliminating the need for variances to public road
improvement standards is a substantial change from the previously
denied site plan thereby constituting a substantial change in facts
from the previously denied application. In addition, the recently
approved amendment to the Transportation Plan constitutes a change
in City policy that may affect the outcome of the application.
Therefore, review of the current application is consistent with
Section 18.32-280-
R-25 and R-12 Zoninu Districts
Multi-family residential use of the site is a permitted use in both
the R-25 and R-12 Zoning Districts. Eighty-eight dwelling units are
proposed on area that provides an opportunity for approximately 88
units in the area of the site designated with the R-25 zone. Two
hundred and sixty dwelling units are proposed on area that provides
a maximum opportunity for 271 dwelling units on the portion of this
site that is designated with the R-12 zone. The applicant's density
calculations are noted on sheet A001 of the proposed site plan.
Proposed site improvements comply with both the R-12 and R-25
district requirements for building height (45 foot maximum allowed
FINAL. ORDER. - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 11
i
INC
in R-25, 35 feet in R-12; 35 foot maximum height proposed), lot
coverage (maximum allowed site coverage of 80 percent in both zones;
proposed site coverage of-less than 50 percent), and landscaped area
(minimum landscape coverage of 20 percent in both zones; proposed
landscape coverage of greater than 50 percent). All proposed
building locations satisfy minimum building setback requirements.
Site Development Review
The proposal complies with Community Development Code Chapter
18.120.180.A Site Development Review approval standards for
provision of private outdoor areas (balconies), shared recreation
facilities, (swimming pool, recreation center, pathways), screening
of service facilities, multi-family residential building separation,
and design offsets along building faces. Dwelling units and the
recreation center have been situated toward the interior of the site
so as to reduce possible noise impacts on neighboring properties and
to increase visual privacy-between adjacent uses. Reasonable care
has been taken to preserve a number of mature trees on the site as
shown on the landscaping plan (sheet L-100) although with the amount
of development proposed and the grading necessary, a number of trees
will be removed.
NPO #6 and the staff recommended- that the applicants be required to
provide a pedestrian pathway between the northern portion of ,the
development and the existing bus stop on SW Pacific Highway at the.
Beef Bend Road intersection: The applicants' representative argued
that although such a pathway would be beneficial in promoting use of
mass transit by the development's residents, a pathway in this area
could be unsafe due to its necessary steepness, inability to be seen
from the development or public streets, and isolation. The
Commission concurs with the applicants that the questionable safety
of such a path outweighs the benefits that would be gained. The
Commission chooses not to require such a pathway.
Other Site Development Review standards (Section 18.120.180.A.1)
related to other Community Development Code standards are reviewed
below.
Access and Circulation
The proposal satisfies Community Development Code Chapter 18.108
standards for internal roadway widths (minimum width-of 24 feet) and
provision of adequate pedestrian circulation through the use of a
soft surfaced pathway through the northern. section- of the
development as well as hard surfaced sidewalks adjacent to both the
public streets adjacent to the site and adjacent _to the internal
roadways. The proposed- roadway system should provide good
circulation for emergency vehicles through the site despite the
site's steep grade. The two dead end private roadways within the
site would be provided with hammerhead turnarounds.
The Commission will not require an emergency vehicle access to the
southern portion of the site from SW 109th Avenue in order to avoid
creating a situation that.could encourage foot or bicycle traffic
from the development towards Summerfield. The southern section of
the development would be surrounded by public roads and both the
internal road and the southern section of SW 109th would be provided
with appropriate turnaround areas for emergency vehicles. The
Commission finds that the public and private roadway system that is
proposed should provide adequate access to the southern section of
the development for emergency service purposes.
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 12
gle
REM
Code Section 18.108.070.D provides a sliding scale standard for
number of required driveways for a multi-family development complex
based on both the number of units and the number of parking spaces.
At the public hearing, staff described a portion of this section's
access requirements for a development of this size as being a
probable typographical error where the access standard switches from
being based on number of dwelling units (if a development of 100 or
less units is being proposed) to a standard based on number of total
parking spaces (if more than 100 parking spaces is proposed).
Reading the requirement literally, the proposed 348 unit development
would be required to provide two access points for the first 100
units and their 150 required spaces, and one more access point for
each of the 100 additional spaces provided (six more spaces for 511
additional spaces beyond the 150 required spaces). Therefore, a
development with 348 units and 661 parking spaces would be required
to provide eight access points. Staff believes the standard was
probably intended to refer to number of units throughout the sliding
scale calculation. Staff will propose a change in this standard in
the future to clarify this section. However, until such a change is
made the standard must be read literally.
The proposed development would have four access points; three to the
northern portion of the development and one for the southern
portion. The applicants intended to limit access points to the
northern section of SW 109th Avenue and the new street to be
constructed through the site in order to discourage traffic from the
development from travelling through Summerfield. The Code
recognizes that variances from .the access standards may be. necessary
and provides standards for an access variance that are different
than for variances in general. The access variance approval
standards are:
1. It is not possible to share access;
2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in
question or from another street;
3. The access separation requirements cannot be met;
4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide
adequate access;
5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will
result in a safe access; and
6. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be
met.
Because of the pattern of surrounding development on abutting lots
to the north, it is not practical for the proposed development to
share access with the Timberline Apartments. The steepness of
slopes and the uncertainty regarding future development type make
sharing access with the church property to the west impractical as
well.
The only other possible access points for the proposed development
would either be dangerous due to being located on the downhill curve
of the new street or else would direct traffic towards SW 109th
through the Summerfield development. It is clear from the previous
hearings regarding this site that the City Council and residents of
the area would prefer to discourage traffic from this site from
being directed through Summerfield_
FINAI, ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 13
i
r
I'll! E 1113 11101 iii F1111,
r
MEN
Anv additional access driveways to the new collector street should
be discouraged because of limited sight distance along the road's
curve and inadequate separation of access points along a collector
street.
Any other access points would either create a potential unsafe
situation on the collector street or else would encourage traffic
through Summerfield; therefore, the degree of variance considered is
the minimum variance required to provide safe and adequate access.
Because the proposed access points are located at points where
adequate sight distance will be provided and because signs and
landscaping will make the access driveways very noticeable from the
street, the proposed access points should provide for adequate and
safe access for the use proposed.
Parking
The site plan provides for an appropriate number of parking spaces
for a 348 unit apartment development (661 parking spaces required j
per Code Section 18.106.030.A.4; 661 parking" spaces provided),
covered parking spaces (348 covered parking spaces required; 360
covered spaces provided), and allowable 1 to 4 compact to total
required parking space distribution. The site plan designates 14.
handicapped -%ccessible parking- spaces that are distributed
throughout the site (a minimum of 14 designated handicapped
accessible spaces are•required). It is recommended that several of
these designated handicapped parking spaces be relocated under cover
to better serve.the needs of handicapped residents of the proposed j
development and handicapped visitors.
Landscaoina
5
The proposed landscaping plan provides appropriate locations, types,
and spacing for required street trees. However, the landscaping
plan proposes minimum planting sizes for the street tress of 1 and ~
3/4 inch to 2 inch caliper whereas Code Section 18.100.035.A
specifics a minimum caliper size of 2 inches at planting. The
landscaping plan will need to be revised accordingly.
The plan also provides appropriate understory plantings along the
site's frontages to reduce the impacts of on-site lights on adjacent
uses and upon traffic on the abutting streets. The plan provides for
a row of evergreen trees and retention of a number of existing trees
along the site's northern boundary to provide a 20 foot wide buffer
area whereas the required buffer area between this site and the
adjacent existing apartment complex is 10 foot wide (Section
18.100.090). Proposed internal site landscaping will provide
appropriate numbers of parking area trees, provide buffering and
screening between the proposed buildings, and should supplement the
trees and other existing vegetation that is to be retained to make
an attractive development-
The western section of the site above Pacific Highway will retain
its existing vegetation- However in the remainder of the site, the {
proposed development and its attendant significant amount of grading i
will necessarily require removal of a number of large trees-
Reasonable care appears to have been taken to plan the development
with respect to retaining a significant amount of the existing
mature trees. If possible, the applicants should endeavor to retain
more mature trees in areas that will not undergo grading. A tree
removal permit will be required before trees with a diameter of six
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 14
s
inches or greater can ba removed. An arborist's report will be
required prescribing measures to be followed for protection of
existing trees to be retained-
Signs
The site plan shows signs to be located at three entrances to the
proposed development. Community Development 'Code Section 18.114.130
permits housing complex identification signs to be located at all
entrances to multi-family developments. Sign size and height
details have not been provided at this time. Sign permits must be
obtained prior to erecting any sign. Sign sizes and heights must be
shown to conform with Code standards in order for sign permits to be
issued-
C. CONCLUSIONS
The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan
policies 2_1.1, 3_1_1, 3_4.2, 6.1.1, 6.6_1, 7.1_2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1,
7-5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2,. and 8.1-3 and Tigard Community Development
Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54, 18_56, 18.80, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102,
18.106,. 18.108, 18_114, 18.120, 18.150, and 18_164. (Source: Planned
Development Approval Standards - Code Section 18_80.120 and Site
Development Review Approval Standards - Code Section 18.120.180).
1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because NPO #6, the Summerfield Civic'
Association, King City, and affected service providing agencies have
" been notified of this proposal directly by the applicant-in advance
of the actual application. These groups have been given an
opportunity to comment to the applicant and the City of Tigard with,
regard to their concerns with' the development plan.
Direct notice of the hearing on this proposal has been sent to
property owners within 250 feet of the site- In addition, notice of
the hearing was advertised in the Tigard Times and was noted in the
South Metro section of the Oregonian on October 7, 1991-
2:-- 'Pollicy 3.1.1 is met because the northwestern portion of the property
which has slopes over 25 percent, and therefore is significantly
constrained for development purposes, is proposed to remain in its
natural state.
3. Policy 3.4.2 is satisfied because wooded sites such as this are to
be reviewed through the Planned Development in order to allow
Commission review of the' tree removal plans. This site has _
previously been designated with the Planned Development overlay
zone.
4_ In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to
require the prospective developer to prepare an erosion control plan
ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin
River basin as part of the grading permit application.
S. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the City is obligated to provide
for a variety of housing types and rent levels. This proposed
multi-family project would add to that diversity in a community that
is predominantly developed with single family residences at lower
densities. The site has been designated for multi-family
development by the Comprehensive Plan for some time.
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 15
6. The landscaping plan satisfies Policy 6.6.1 by providing suitable
building setbacks and landscaping between this project and the
properties designated for single family development on the east side
of SW 109th Avenue. All other properties in the immediate vicinity
are designated for multi-family use.
7. Policy 7.1.2 is met because adequate public water, sanitary sewer,
and storm sewer facilities are available to serve the proposed
development. Extension of these facilities to or through the site
will be required to be constructed to City and Tigard Water District
standards.
8. In order to satisfy Policy 7.2_1, the applicant will, as a condition
of approval, provide an appropriately engineered plan for disposing
of storm water runoff from the site in a maxmer that will not
adversely affect any downstream property owners or jurisdictions.
9. Policy 7.4_4 is met because the entire apartment complex would be
connected to the public sanitary sewer system-
10. Policies 7.5.2 and.7.6.1 have been satisfied because the Tigard
Police Department and the-Tualatin Valley Fire District have been
involved in the review of this application and have offered comments
that have been incorporated into this report.
11. Policy 8.1_1 calls for the provision of a safe and.efficient street
system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and
development. This policy-is satisfied because:
a. The main driveway entrance to the development is proposed to
be on the new 109th Ave., a minor collector street, which is
intended to accommodate-this volume of traffic. Secondary
access is provided onto SW 109th Avenue, which will in turn
direct traffic from the development south onto the new street
or north to Tv; Canterbury Lane, also a minor collector. As
indicated in the applicant's traffic report, some traffic will
travel south of SW Naeve Street on SW 109th Avenue if the
street is left open. The proposed segmenting of both S'r1Naeve
Street and S'W 109th Avenue is expected to largely discourage
southbound traffic on SW 109th Avenui*,through Summerfield.
b. The applicant will be responsible for the construction of
street improvements along the frontages of the development to
City standards.
12. Policy 8.1.2 is satisfied because the state Highway Division and the
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation have
been involved in the review of the transportation issues pertaining
to this application.
13. The conditions of approval for this project will ensure-that Policy
8.1.3 is satisfied because:
a. The development abuts three public streets. The proposed
driveways should provide adequate and safe access to the
proposed development.
b. Sufficient street right-of-way shall be dedicated as a
condition of approval along the existing SW Naeve Street as
well as full right-of.-way dedication being required for the
new collector street through the project-
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 16
i
3
s
4
Nam
C. The applicant will be responsible for the improvement of the
new street, SW 109th Avenue, SW Naeve Street, and SW Pacific
Highway abutting the site in a manner that is consistent with
City and State standards.
d. The project developers will be required to provide interim
improvements to SW Naeve Street between the site and Pacific
Highway.
e. To fully implement the traffic circulation plan for the area
as envisioned in the recent Transportation Map amendment, it
will be necessary to construct the new connection between
Naeve Street and Royalty Parkway. The Commission recommends
to the Transportation Advisory Committee and the city council
that funding for this new street connection be given a high
priority- If possible, the connection should be constructed
concurrent with the construction of the Triad development-
f. Due to the location of the project on a street not served by
public transit, a bus turnout is not necessary.
g. Parking spaces for disabled persons will be provided as
required by City and State standards.
h. The property is not affected by the adopted bicycle/pedestrian
plan for the City.
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal, with minor
modifications that should be required to be made prior to building permit
issuance, is consistent with applicable portions of the Community
Development Code based upon the following findings:
1. Chapter 18.32 (Procedures for Decision Making: Quasi-Judicial) is
satisfied because the criteria for resubmittal of a previously
denied application are satisfied as described above and because
notice and decision making standards applicable to this type of
review that are included in this chapter have been followed.
2. Chapter 18.54 (R-12 Zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms
with use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-
12 zone.
3. Chapter 18.56 (R-25 Zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms
with use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-
25 zone applied to the western portion of Tax Lot 200.
4. Chapter 18.80 (Planned Development) is satisfied because the
proposal has been reviewed by the Planning Commission as required by
the provisions of the Planned Development overlay zone.
5. Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations) is satisfied because the site
plan provides an appropriate calculation of the permitted number of
housing units for the site and the proposed development would
provide fewer than the allowed number of dwelling units.
6. Chapter 18.96 (Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions)
is satisfied because the site plan provides for appropriate
distances as required by this chapter between the proposed multi-
family residential buildings so as to assure privacy to residents
and to also provide adequate light to all units.
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 17
i
7. Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) is satisfied because
plans for tree retention and added landscaping satisfy Code
requirements for minimum site area landscaping, street trees,
perimeter buffering, and vision clearance at intersections.
8. Chapter 18.102 (Vision Clearance Areas) is satisfied because
proposed improvements at driveway/road intersections are located or
sized with respect to maintaining clear vision for motorists and
pedestrians.
9. Chapter 18.106 (Off-Street Parking) is satisfied because the site
plan satisfies Code requirements for number of total parking spaces
provided, covered parking spaces, compact/total parking space ratio,
designated handicapped parking spaces, and parking area lighting.
10. Chapter 18.108 (Access, Egress, and Circulation) is. satisfied
because the site plan provides for safe and efficient- access and
egress for the proposed use and for general circulation on the site.
The plan also provides for adequate and safe pedestrian sidewalks
through the site. The proposed access and internal roadway plan ;
provides-for adequate emergency vehicle access and maneuverability
through the site.
The proposed development will be be provided with an adequate number
of driveway accesses to serve the proposed development, despite-not
meeting the required number of access driveway standard of
18.108.070.D. ' The road situation affecting this site dictates a
reduction in possible access points on the streets abutting the site
in order to direct traffic onto higher order roads and in order to
avoid driveways onto the proposed curve of SW 109th Avenue. The
approval criteria for an access variance are addressed above.
11.. Chapter •18.114 (Signs) is satisfied with regard to permitted sign
locations. Sign permits must be obtained prior to the erection of
any sign on the site.
12. Chapter 18'.120 (Site Development Review) is satisfied because the
site plan generally provides for the proposed buildings and other
site improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees and
to minimize alterations to the site's' topography and drainage
systems. The site plan also situates the buildings so as to provide
for privacy and light for the proposed dwelling units and to assure
compatibility between the proposed development and adjacent uses.
The proposed recreation center, pool, and walking trail will provide
appropriate recreational facilities for the development's residents.
13. Chapter 18.150 -(Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the
applicant will be required-to obtain a tree removal permit prior to
removing trees in preparation for development. Permits will be
granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to
accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site
improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the
development that will be retained. A detailed tree survey and an
arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be
retained must be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading
permit or a tree removal permit.
14. Chapter 18.164 (-Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied upon
approval of public improvement plans for and construction of the i
recommended improvements to the proposed new Naeve/109th connecting
street, SW Naeve Street, SW 109th Avenue, and SW Pacific Highway.
i
FINAL ORDER - PDR•91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 18 1
i
Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the
issuance of building permits for the proposed development.
Although the proposed development will contribute a substantial
amount of traffic to nearby streets, the additional traffic should
not result in the design capacity of these roads being exceeded or
require additional traffic control measures. The creation of the
109th-Naeve connecting street should discourage traffic from
travelling through the Summerfield area, especially when this street
is extended through to the SW Royalty Parkway/Pacific Highway
intersection.
The proposed storm drainage system will collect stormwater from the
portion of the site to be developed and direct this water to the
storm sewer at the intersection of SW 109th and Naeve. The public
improvement plans should include an analysi of the anticipated
stormwater flow from this area. Drainage pipes shall be sized
accordingly. Some stormwater drainage resulting from the interim
improvements to SW Naeve Street will be directed towards King City
through a culvert under Pacific Highway. Total stormwater flow from
this site to the west should be reduced because the on-site storm
drainage system should capture some overland flow that would drain
westward if the site remained undeveloped.
D. DECISION
The Planning Commission APPROVES Planned Development PDR 91-0006/Site
Development Review SDR 91-0013 and the associated access variance subject
to the following conditions:
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED BEFORE ANY TREE REMOVAL,
GRADING OR SITE-WORK ON THE SITE.
1. During all construction of the on-site and off-site improvements,
all construction traffic shall travel to and from the site via the
intersection of Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. Construction
vehicles, including employee vehicles, shall not be allowed to park
on Naeve Street, 109th Avenue or within the public right-of-way-
2. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning
Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be
removed or retained, an arborist's recommendation for methods 'of
protecting retained trees during construction of the proposed
apartments as well as for the long-term health of these trees. This
tree protection plan shall include at a minimum all trees designated
for retention on the prdliminary landscaping plan and should
endeavor to add additional mature trees as practicable. The trees
to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or
similar means approved by the Planning Division. No site grading,
clearing or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this
condition. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division, .(639-
4171).
3. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide for a minimum
caliper of 2 inches at planting for all street trees along public
streets abutting the site. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning
Division (639-4171).
4. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to destruction or moving
any of the existing buildings on the site. If the buildings are on
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 19
septic tanks, the tanks shall be pumped out and either removed or
filled with sand or gravel. If the buildings are connected to
sanitary sewers, the lines shall be capped off in an approved
marzer. An inspection shall be obtained after the tank is filled or
the sewer capped. A copy of the receipt for septic tank pumping
shall be provided to the Building Division. STAFF CONTACT: Brad
Roast, Building Division (639-4171).
5. The finished grade of cuts or fills shall have a maximum slope of
2:1, or else a professional engineer shall certify the stability of
any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a
report from a registered engineer shall be-submitted. The report
shall indicate the location of any fill placed on building sites,
suitability of the soil for building. construction, and soil bearing
capacity. In addition, a grading plan shall be submitted (To the
Engineering Department) showing the existing and proposed contours.
STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171).
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND PUBLIC
IMPROVF.MEN! S SHALL BE COMPLETED, OR ELSE COMPLETION SHALL BE FINANCIALLY ASSURED,
'PRIOR TO RECEIVING BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL IS CHRIS DAVIES OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UNLESS OTH=vTISE NOTED.
6. Two (2) sets of detailed public-improvement plans shall be submitted
for preliminary review to the Engineering Division. Seven (7) sets
of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost
estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be
submitted for final review and approval .(NOTE: these plans are in
addition to any drawings required by. the Building Division and
should only include sheets relevant to public improvements.
7. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk,.
curb, storm drainage, and.streetlights shall be installed along the
Pacific Highway-'frontage. • Improvements. shall be designed and
• constructed to State Highway Division standards and shall conform to
the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment
approved by the Oregon State Highway Division. copy of the
approved plans shall be provided to the city Engineering Division
prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit.
8. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway
Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of Pacific
Highway. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City
---Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Public improvement
Permit.
9. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part
of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map
of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be
provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans.
Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable
area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future
lines shall be addressed.
9. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be
discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly
impacting properties downstream.
10. The proposed privately-operated and maintained parking lot and/or
roadway plan-profile and cross section details shall be provided as
part of the public improvement plans.
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006iSDR 91-0013 TRIAD 20
0
WS1,111111111
ONANNIM
OEM
11. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the improvement
drawings. The plan shall conform to 'Erosion Control Plans -
Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989.•
12. At all parking lot entrances, a minimum of 20 feet between the
public sidewalk and the first parking stall shall be maintained.
13. There shall be no vehicle connection between old 109th and New
109th. A turnaround, i_e. hammerhead meeting the city's and fire
departments approval shall be provided at the end of Old 109th. No
other improvements shall be required north of the intersection of
Old 109th and Naeve Street.
14. Naeve Street shall be realigned at Old 109th to intersect old 109th
at approximately a 90-degree angle, and shall conform to the
alignment shown on the submitted preliminary plans. The existing
south curb shall be reconstructed to match the new alignment.
NOTE: 'Old 109th shall be considered from the existing intersection
of SW Naeve/109th; New 109th Shall be considered from the new
intersection of S.W. Naeve to where it intersects with the existing
109th in the northeast corner of the development
15_ S.W. Naeve Street shall be improved in the following manner (NOTE:
All stationing is taken from the preliminary submitted plans):
A_ Interim street improvements consisting of a 24 foot wide
paved street with 2 foot gravel shoulders and drainage
ditches shall be installed from Pacific Highway to STA_
2+37_ The pavement section shall consist of a minimum
of 3 inches of asphaltic concrete on a minimum of 10
inches of aggregate baserock.
B. Full street improvements, meeting local street
standards, shall be provided from STA_ 2+37 to STA.
7+00. Full width street improvements shall include
traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway
aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete paveement, sanitary
sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground
utilities.
C_ Two-thirds street improvements, meeting local street
standards, shall be provided from STA. 7+00 to STA_
14+59_ Two-thirds street improvements shall include
concrete sidewalk, driveway aprons, curb, asphaltic
concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage,
streetlights, underground utilities, and interim
improvements to maintain traffic flow in the eastbound
lane-
D. The interim improvements, as noted in 14A_ above, may be
waived, if it is determined that the construction is
assured for the extension of New 109th to Pacific
Highway; the City Engineer shall make the final
determination as to what improvements shall be required
for this section of road.
16_ S_W. 109th Avenue shall be improved in the following manner (NOTE:
All stationing is taken from the preliminary submitted plans) :
A_ Full street improvements, meeting minor collector street
standards, shall be provided from STA_ 10+00 to STA_
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 21
ENE M_
19+20. Full width street improvements shall include
traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway
aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary
sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground
utilities.
B. Two-thirds street improvements, meeting minor collector
street standards, shall be provided from STA. 19+20 to
STA. 27+80. Two-thirds street improvements shall
include concrete sidewalk, driveway aprons, curb,
asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm
drainage, streetlights, underground utilities, and
interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the
northbound lane.
C_ The City Engineer may approve reduced lane widths within.
that portion of New 109th; between STA. 10+00 to STA.
28+00.
17. The applicant shall be required to do the following with respect to
the storm sewer system:
A.- The existing pipe to be connected to in 109th Avenue
should be evaluated to determine if it has adequate
capacity to handle ultimate development of the entire
drainage basin;
B. That the on-site water quality facility shall meet
current Unified Sewerage Agency design standards and
that it shall be the responsibility of the owners of the
site to maintain such facilities; and
.C_ Design the system(s) so that there is a clear
delineation between- the private and public systems.
18. The applicant shall be required to dedicate the following right-of-
way (NOTE: Stationing is based on preliminary plans as submitted to
the Planning Department)
A_ S.W. Naeve Street:
(1) From STA. 2+00 to STA. 7+00 - 50 feet of R.O.W.,
i.e.,25 feet either side of the new center line
alignment;
(2) From STA. 7+00 to 14+58 - 25 feet of R.O.W., 25
feet from centerline;
B. Old S.W. 109th Avenue:
(1) Provide R_O.W. for the hammerhead turnaround.
C_ New S.W. 109th Avenue:
(1) From STA. 10+00 to STA. 19+20 - 60 feet of
R.O.W.; 30 feet either side of the new
centerline;
(2) From STA. 19+20 to STA. 27+28 - 30 feet of _
R.O_W_; 30 feet either side of the new center
line alignment.
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 22
s'
i
OEM
PRIOR TO THE: ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THIS
SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL. BE SATISFIED OR A SATISFACTORY
PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MAY B= "POSTED GUARANTEEING C02ITLETION OF THE
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF
A T~dPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT.
19. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall
be installed as per the revised landscaping and site plans. STAFF
CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639-4171)
20. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Division prior to
the erection of an identification sign. Sign location and size must
be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the
Community Development Code.
APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS OF THE
FINAL APPROVAL DATE.
It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order.
PASSED: This Z~L day of October, 1991, by the Planning Commis of the City
of Tigard. '
on F. e, sid t
71
T' and Plann n~ oamission
JO:triad.pdr
t
FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 23
~v .
~
_r
y
s
19
aQ 3.
a•
_ ,
c; r
I~
A
gip..
» ~ ~
~ ,
N~I
i
r
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: March 10, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: 3/02/92
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Robinson Annex. PREVIOUS ACTION: None
ZCA 92-0001 Zone Change Annexation,
PREPARED BY: Victor Adonri
41
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
4 g?k
ISSUE BEI7 RE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council forward a request for annexation of two parcels
consisting of approximately 2.44 and 14.39 acre located at 12000 SW Bull
Mountain Road to the Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission?
STAFF-RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the
Boundary Commission and to assign a zoning designation of R-4.5 to the
property.
-
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This annexation request consists of two parcels totaling 16.83 acres that is
contiguous to the City of Tigard on Bull Mountain Road. The owner of the
property requested annexation in order to obtain sanitary sewer service, and
develop a single family subdivision. The applicant requests annexation of her
property via the "expedited method". The "expedited method" requires no public
hearing, and will allow annexation approval within 28 days, instead of the
customary 45 days. There has been no response from neighboring property owners.
'_-2he annexation would create "Island" of unincorporated, undeveloped land both
to the north and to the east, raising a concern about the efficiency of police
services. It should be noted that about half of the properties within the
island to the east have already applied for annexation.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to
the Boundary Commission and assign a zoning designation of R-4.5 to the
property.
2. Delay the annexation until the property is developed, allow the use of
City sewer service through a contractual agreement.
FISCAL NOTES
The City of Tigard will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $715 for annexation.
The current tax assessment is $352,520 The City could increase its tax base
by approximately $659. (Assessed value multiplied by City tax base portion of
tax rate of $1.87/1000 as of 1/1/90 = $659.21).
NOTE: If annexation was postponed until the parcel is subdivided and developed
with single family homes with an average building value of $250,000 per home,
the total assessed value would be approximately $12,907,560. The City's tax
ase could then be increased by approximately $24,137.
To: City of Tigard February 4, 1992
Metropolitan Boundary Commission
Re: Annexation
In connection with my annexation request dated January 10, 1992, 1 request that the
approval process be expedited pursuant to ORS 199.466. Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Sincerely,
Constance A. Robinson
C.~°:/Gr1•~'4%1LGri C~ . ~~~G~uZt'~✓ '
r RECEIVED PLANNING
t= EB 2 0 '992
1
IS ONES!
112 51111H~
T'RIA®
DEVELOMAEN i INC
March 2, 1992
Mr. Jerry Offer
City of Tigard
1312 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
Dear Mr. Offer:
Triad Tigard Limited Partnership recognized and waives the 120
day time clock on the above site plan review application.
Enclosed is a copy of the geotechnical report for the Arbor
Heights site for your use and review.
Sincerely,
Triad Tigard Limited Partnership
Ross W. Woods
Project Manager
Encl:
>jcc:Steve Pfeiffer
RWW:amh
fn:offerjer.rw-tig
Development 320 Andarr Park --air, Ste. !35 (20b) i'i-9410
Renovation & P.O. Box 88070 FAX i'5-9881)
Land Acquisition Seattle, WA 98138-30:0
i
17-1
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
f and
Environmental Earth Sciences
January 31, 1990
Project No. T-1252
Ms. Suzette Fontana
Triad Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 88070
Seattle, Washington 98138
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Casa Verde Vista Apartments
Naeve Street and Highway 99
Tigard, Oregon
Dear Ms. Fontana:
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Casa
Verde Vista Apartments in Tigard, Oregon. The location of the project is shown on
Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to explore subsurface and groundwater conditions
at the site in order to provide geotechnical information on the feasibility of this site for
the proposed development and recommendations for site preparation, foundations for the
proposed structures and site drainage. The scope of our study included site
reconnaissance, excavation of several test pits across the site, laboratory testing of
representative soil samples, engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. This
report presents the results of our observations and studies along with supporting field and
laboratory test data.
SUMMARY
Our study indicates that the site is underlain at a shallow depth primarily by stiff to very
stiff clayey, sandy silts, which overlie weathered, basalt bedrock. Conventional spread
footings may be used as foundation support for the proposed apartments. These footings
- may bear on the undisturbed competent native soils existing at the site or on compacted
fills placed above the competent native soils. Minor thicknesses of old fill soils are
expected in the vicinity of existing structures. These fills should be removed from building
areas.
15301 N.E. 90th Street • Re&-nond, Washington 98052 • Phone (206) 881-5570 ° FAX No. 869-9173
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3338 a Redmond, Washington 98073
Ms. Suzette Fontana
January 31, 1990
Light groundwater seepage was noted in many of our test pits throughout the sice. Onsite
soils are quite moisture sensitive and were noted to be moist near the ground surface.
The soil moisture contents generally decreased with depth until bedrock was approached.
To minimize difficulties in working with the native soils, we suggest that grading be
performed during the dry season and when soil moistures are reduced. This will improve
the chances for using the native materials as fill material. If grading is to be performed in
wet weather, you should plan on importing considerable amounts of clean granular soils
for use as structural fill.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that the site is planned to be developed as a multi-family apartment
complex. Details of the planned buildings were not available at the time of our field
study. The structures will probably be two and three story, wood-frame buildings with
slab-on-grade floors.
At the time of our study, only a topographic survey of the site was available to us.
Subsequent to our field investigation, a preliminary architectural plan became available,
showing tentative building and roadway locations. No grading plans or building details
are available to us at this time. However, we expect significant cuts and fills will be
required to provide building pads and prepare pavement areas on the moderately sloping
site. Considering the existing topography on the site, the cuts and fills may have
magnitudes on the order of ten feet or so. Basement walls are likely to be needed for
many buildings.
When project plans are finalized, Terra Associates should be notified so that we can
prepare supplementary recommendations, if necessary.
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
The subsurface exploration for this study was conducted on January 10 and 11, 1990.
Subsurface conditions on the site were explored by excavating 28 test pits using a backhoe
provided by Loren Ricks of Gresham, Oregon. A dozer was used to provide access for
the backhoe. The test pits were excavated at the approximate locations shown on the
Test Pit Location Map, Figure 2. The locations of these test pits were approximately
determined by pacing from property corners and surveyed lines. Elevations at test pit
locations were determined by interpolation between contours shown on the topographic
survey provided to us.
The field exploration was monitored continuously by our geologist who classified the soils
encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples and
observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are
C attached to this report as Figures 4 through 17.
Project No. T-1252
Page No. 2
I IN
Ms. Suzette Fontana
January 31, 1990
The soil classifications shown on these logs represent our interpretation of the field logs
and reflect the results of visual examinations as well as laboratory tests performed on
samples obtained from the test pits.
Representative soil samples collected from the test pits were returned to our laboratory
for further examination and testing. The results of our laboratory testing are shown on
the test pit logs.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The project area occupies approximately 26 acres of moderately sloping terrain in the
10900 to 11100 block north of SW Naeve Street in Tigard, Oregon. The topographic
relief across the southwestward sloping site is approximately 180 feet, rising from Elev.
230 feet in the southeast corner to Elev. 410 feet in the northeast corner. Slope
inclinations average about 20 percent across the site, but steeper slopes up to about 30
percent are present in the northwest comer. The site slopes flatten to less than 15
percent in the northeast corner. Some cuts and fills are present around the four
residences and several outbuildings that occupy the perimeter of the site.
Much of Tax Lot (TL) #200 is covered with dense brush and thick berry vine patches. TL
#100 is densely vegetated with underbrush and alder, maple, and cottonwood trees. TL
Nos. 600, 700, 800, 900, and 9300 are vegetated with middle-age fir, cedar and sparse
underbrush. The yard areas surrounding the existing residences are landscaped with
ornamental shrubbery and trees. At least two wells and possibly more exist on the site.
The site is bounded on the south by SW Naeve Street. The southern 800 feet of west
property boundary adjoins an undeveloped, forested lot. The remainder of the west
boundary borders Highway 99. The north boundary adjoins undeveloped, forested land in
the west and a newly developed plat in the east. The east boundary is formed by SW
109th Avenue.
A small concrete pond fed by a drainage ditch contains the only surface water noted on
the site.
Su urf g
Soil conditions across the site are quite consistent. In each test pit, an average of about
eight inches of duff and topsoil were found to overlie about three feet of stiff to very stiff
reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy silt. Below this surficial unit is reddish tan, sandy
silt with clay and silty, fine sand with clay. Reddish brown, clayey silt with highly
weathered, angular, volcanic cobbles grades into fractured, weathered, basaltic bedrock,
which was encountered in many test pits at depths between four to twelve feet. The depth
to bedrock appears to become shallower towards the southeast and deepens towards the
southwest. However, this depth is not consistent in any area of the site.
Project No. T-1252
Page No. 3
:E
Ms. Suzette Fontana
January 31, 1990
Minor fills were encountered in the vicinity of the house at 11165 SW Naeve Street. Fills
are also expected to be present surrounding the other houses on the site.
Groundwater was encountered in about half of the test pits excavated on the site. Light,
spotty seepage usually occurred from the upper three feet in the test pits where roots
provided passageways for groundwater. In general, the moisture content of the soils
decreased below three feet until the clayey deposit overlying the weathered basalt was
encountered, where moistures again increased. A possible groundwater channelway
along the bedrock surface produced moderate seepage at a depth of 8.5 feet in Test Pit
TP-26. `r
DISCUSSION AND RF.COMWWNDATIONS
Based on our subsurface exploration and field observations, it is our opinion that the site
rf
is suitable for the proposed apartment complex. Buildings may be founded on
conventional spread footings bearing on firm native soils or on compacted structural fill.
Roadways may be built on recompacted native soils after removal of fills and organic rich
soils or on structural fill.
1
Due to the moisture sensitivity and relatively low permeability of the site soils, we suggest
you plan to conduct the earthwork during the dry season and when surficial soils are not
excessively moist. In wet weather, it will be virtually impossible to compact the onsite
soils. In dry weather, the likelihood of using the onsite soils for fill will improve
substantially. If grading work must be performed in wet weather, you should allow for
import of substantial qualities of clean granular soil for use as fill.
We anticipate that significant cuts and fills will be required for roads and building pads.
Permanent cut slopes should be graded to 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Temporary cuts up
to ten feet high may be made at 1:1. Fills should be constructed in accordance with
recommendations in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report and should
be made at inclinations of 2:1.
If cuts encounter seepage during the initiation of earthwork, interceptor drains should be
constructed on the uphill side of roadways and building pads to prevent the working area
from becoming wet.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. It is the property of Terra Associates and is intended for specific
application to this project and for the exclusive use of Triad Development, Incorporated.
No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We do not guarantee project
performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional
care.
The following sections of this report describe our recommendations in greater detail.
Project No. T-1252
Page No. 4
BIKINI
Nil
Ms. Suzette Fontana
January 31, 1990
Foundations
Apartment buildings to be constructed on the project site may be supported on
continuous and/or isolated spread footings bearing on the competent, native soils present
below the topsoil and organic-rich layers or on compacted, structural fill placed above
competent, native soils. The near surface soils below the topsoil are loose. Hence,
depending on the depth of the excavation required to reach design footing grade, the
native soils may need to be recompacted in place.
Footings should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest, adjacent,
outside finish-grade. Continuous and individual spread footings may be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. A minimum width of 12
inches should be used for continuous footings and individual spread footings should have
a minimum size of 18 inches. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures may be
used when considering wind or seismic loads. All footings should be provided with steel ,f
reinforcement in accordance with structural requirements.
Old fills may be present in the vicinity of the existing buildings. For any structures to be
constructed in these areas, foundations and slabs should bear on native soils beneath the
existing fills. .Alternatively, the fills may be removed and replaced by structural fill. Any ~
holes left by the removal of foundations of existing structures and septic tanks should be
backfilled with structural fill in accordance with the recommendations presented in the
Site Preparation and Grading Section of this report.
z
Settlements a
1
We anticipate that the total settlements for the apartment buildings supported on the
competent, native soils or on compacted, structural fill will be less than one-half inch.
Long-term differential settlement of buildings should be less than one-quarter inch. The
majority of the settlements should occur during construction.
Slabs-On-Grade
Concrete floor slabs, if used, may be constructed as slabs on grade supported either on
the competent, native soils or on structural fill. We recommend that four inches of a free-
draining gravel, such as 1/4 to 3/8 inch pea gravel, be placed below the slab to act as a
capillary break. In addition, a plastic membrane with a thickness of ten to twelve mils
should be placed above the gravel to act as a vapor barrier for additional moisture
protection.
Basement and Retaining Walls
If lower level basements are planned, or if retaining walls are needed at grade changes on
the site, the walls should be designed to resist the lateral pressure imposed by an
equivalent fluid weighing 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
Project No. T-1252
Page No. 5
INN
alxlnienillSr-
I Bill
Ms. Suzette Fontana
January 31, 1990
If walls are restrained from free movement at the top, they should be designed for an
additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot. These pressures
assume a maximum height of ten feet and that no surcharge loads will occur. Please
contact us for supplementary recommendations if conditions are expected to be different.
4
The basement walls and retaining walls should be provided with a continuous blanket of
free-draining material at least twelve inches wide. A perforated pipe should be placed at
the footing level to collect water and discharge it to the street. A generalized,
representative drawing of retaining wall backfill and drainage is shown on Figure 19.
Horizontal Loads
Horizontal structural loads carried to the foundations may be resisted by both friction
forces on the base of foundations and passive resistance on the sides of foundations.
A coefficient of 0.3 may be used between concrete and soil. Resistance to lateral loads
may also be computed as passive earth pressures exerted by the soils adjacent to the
foundations. We recommend using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic
Ism foot where the foundations are poured neat against undisturbed soil, or where the backfill
is compacted in accordance with the requirements for structural fill.
Site Drainage
Surface gradients across the site should be created to direct runoff away from the
apartment buildings and towards suitable discharge facilities. If cuts encounter seepage
during the initiation of earthwork, provisions should be made to install interceptor drains
or ditches along the uphill side of road alignments and building cuts. These drains will
prevent shallow subsurface drainage from reaching the work area and creating
unfavorable soil conditions. Once detailed grading plans have been prepared, we would
be pleased to review them and provide our input for additional drainage requirements, if
needed.
Perimeter foundation drains should be installed and tightlined away from the apartment
buildings. Roof gutter drains should be separately tightlined away from the buildings. All
drains should be discharged into the storm drain system.
Site Preparation and Grading
The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of vegetation and
topsoil. The stripped topsoils may be used as berms or in nonstructural areas. Old fill
should also be removed from building and roadway areas.
Following stripping, any loose areas noted should be over excavated and replaced with
structural fill or crushed rock to a depth that will provide a stable base. If the over-
excavated area remains soft and wet, a stable subgrade may be constructed ny placing a
geotextile in the bottom of the excavation and placing clean, crushed rock over it.
Project No. T-1252
Page No. 6
!is
Fmm
Ms. Suzette Fontana
January 31, 1990
Cuts deeper than four feet may encounter bedrock in some areas of the site. The bedrock
is weathered and fractured near the surface, but most likely grades into more competent
bedrock with depth, which may be difficult to rip with heavy machinery. In addition,
seepage may be expected near the bedrock. Surface and subsurface, drainage should be
controlled to protect the existing soil conditions in the work area.
Permanent cut slopes should be made at stable inclinations of 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical).
Fill slopes should also be made at inclinations of 2:1. Temporary cuts upto ten feet high
may be made at inclinations of 1:1.
Slope areas should be properly prepared prior to placing fills. A keyed toe and horizontal
benches should be cut into native soils and the fill placed in horizontal lifts, as shown on
the Slope Fill Diagram, Figure 18.
Structural fill should be placed in shallow lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified
Proctor). All on-site soils are high in fines content making them difficult to compact in
moist conditions, during rainy weather or when placed over existing wet conditions.
Import fills, if needed for use in wet weather construction, should be predominantly
granular with a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing
the No. 200 sieve. To avoid excessive earthwork costs, we recommend conducting grading
operations after the site soils achieve workable moisture levels during the dry season.
Any existing wells on the site should be abandoned in conformance with State or local
regulations, if they are not to be used.
Pavement Areas
Roadways may be constructed on the recompacted, native soils after stripping the surface
of vegetation, topsoil, and fill or on compacted structural fill depending on the depth of
cuts or fills required to reach design grades. Where structural fill is placed, the upper
twelve inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density
(ASTM D-1557). Below the top foot, a compactive effort of 90% is adequate.
All subgrade areas should be in a stable, non-yielding condition prior to paving.
tiliti
Where utility lines are to be excavated and installed in paved areas, we recommend that
all bedding and backfill be placed in accordance with APWA specifications. Fill
placement and compaction should be in accordance with the recommendations given
earlier in this report under Site Preparation and Grading.
Significant seepage may be encountered in any of the excavations, particularly if the
excavation encounters bedrock. The onsite silty soils will be difficult to adequately
compact if they become very moist. In addition, deep utility trenches will be difficult to
excavate once bedrock is encountered. The contractor should be prepared to deal with
this likelihood.
Project No. T-1252
Page No. 7
Ms. Suzette Fontana
January 31, 1990
Additional Services
It is recommended that we be provided the opportunity for a review of the site layout,
final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations
may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and construction.
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data
obtained from the test pits excavated on the site. The nature and extent of variations in
the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident,
we should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report prior
to proceeding with the construction.
It is also recommended that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during
construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and
recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
We recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. provide the following services during
construction:
1. Examine all stripped subgrade areas and the proofrolling operations prior
to the start of fill placement or earthN pork.
2. Examine all foundation and slab areas prior to forming and concrete
placement to evaluate that adequate foundation support is available.
3. Observe conditions exposed in excavations, particularly to assess the need
and provide recommendations for drainage.
4. Perform field density testing of structural fill as needed during placement
and observe the grading and earthwork operation.
We request that a minimum of two working days notice be given to schedule our services
during construction.
The following figures are included and complete this report:
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Test Pit Location Map
Figure 3 Soil Classification Chart
Figure 4 through 17 Test Pit Logs
Figure 18 Slope Fill Diagram
Figure 19 Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill Diagram
Project No. T-1252
Page No. 8
Ms. Suzette Fontana
January 31, 1990
We trust the information presented herein is adequate for your requirements. If you need
additional information or clarification, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
11394
Anil Butail, P.E. t c
President ~FOc R S
MISER 3.
JJ/AB:tc c s
i
Project No. T-1252
Page No. 9
Q SW MERT[ ~`/OQ Q rJS ~ q
r ~}EI+
!1 ;
HILL OR S,ti Fq~`CpN I • 4 H I F ~ x SW M Appal ST
E /
S CHI oft i ~W VA rHE RINE ST ~b 'i /S y£ ; P
Rlp PL ci In J S SV.• 'r4 x,~ W
;z sv/
ZAI
EY: I -.:"N [v- s ~W ANN ST H$
sA w
N > JACK .w.lr o ST S 3~ a
H F > N~
ATS > SW PK > - M1 < 1 12000 ¢ N' SW EE4ROL ST
/ x1 MARIE G c ~r t.~'? x t ~q00 e'~~~~, <
U 1? ~ Sv vt r-
ST SW J" 1~ WAINI T > y - I SW = s~ ~J F\~~b`~y
> 1300 `L SW FONNER £•N~ Q~ J
Q SW ALBERTA ST ST s 'rc r 5 ,SH9E2oPL" P
4 SW FONNER u. :tP -Y QP1a i
r N
vl JAMES ST a > AGO N SW OEERYOF. L
Z SW RD v Q 4 ct+o . S.H~a i CT
L
Sj MARION ST ~QQ Q,7, o t4a%i 0P1sE~6~ ...SSW=PARK ^ST
- - - - - m '1%' H ` Q MIRE- ^ SW
SW FAIR HAVEN ST W r:
w S'R - >a Z ' SW E
FAIR-l" U o HAV
CW 1
,05E vlsra a/t v~ c = YIE'vIMOUNT' WY
3: CF Sr z sr aNwn,.v ~5. ~ v EW WUNT GARDEN W
..t,! GAARDE' Cf. . Ln ST PARA;PL, 3>
6
SW ~I^ 2
[ OUCHILLY._ SW Sy: Q 1 S, G
CT 3 Z ¢ MCFARLAND C v'UO [
TN I Sww o sw RLV`p Y 1 f` N H Sw I
f CGRI'LUtl 1 WWOO, T I EVA6 -CEM'7_
>
a R C r'~ Vp .1
Z • I \~J v~'i$ WIRDOCN ~ST SW t
N J 2
9 N WQTry iL) CEl \.=N[E DR>
81; C.
f.
7
N P
~7 '..\ra\ r t _ SITE
6 q j SW KABLE ST K
' ~~~XING l + OR s.
4 r. r'v LLL
9~ 9't'••5 _ t' ~~f f!'S~~•~• :~I SUMMERF/EL03 aG u'NO
~Q601Fb COUNTR QO•r£EµLFAF
Y; h CLUB 'GR ? T G.LF
PO (ij ~a~y`N qJ~ c, r41,, ,1,:'`ORY OAR OR -S,
> ° CSV CUP•HA".1 8 RD 11000
3
SW of SON N c 2- COURSE Sw aliRy' -
a SW T
LN F- `i-"• . Q.. AMP.°S ROYAL 1. G ~
_N N ! z> ~PAV L VILLA V7
L-.DRS
W, MOROCcO•,5`• JWW ~1 r•"^_T
sw .INO •o.~wn SW FISCHEROy-lj FUALON•R!vE
T
Rat.: Thomas Bros. MSP8 - Portland 1880
TERRA Vicinity swap
ASSOCIATES CASA VERDE VISTA
Tigard, OR.
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 12 5 2- Date 1/90 Figure 1
f0l
Call
%YAVI
to ° ~
~ j: • j A.~ : _ " _==x:44
v o pro
06
c 6 ~ ~'•~"izs~. it ~ ! . d
-1--•-:.=:•--
m w P rrrrr(t!, !r
I / rr r,,,~! r j d tt rrr j ~jj r r` f /
I t
o sHOa ~trgtrrt tl ;rtr
~ Iyj ,bbl , i j~' ~ ~o/~! r!r, l/;t` II r''~ r !f If3 t! ~ ( rrr/
l f/l~'f/r r1j,', ~(/1fj,r~,' rjr~/ ~ ~f ~f,-' ~r
m •/I j r f / ' ~ TJ •'r!; ('r` t j ! ~'I ~ /rrr / l,' ! r r • j, ~r r r rl,r ~ • / ~ f ~ ,
N j 1 I1 t j r , ,rlrrr`// /,'rr/~i /~l i, l / l r r ! / f ~ A~-~
~ / f / ,vto •I/ /rrrrr1 r / f ~ / r ! ~ j' t r I l r I ~ l
rt r1~1 f
ti ~ / r i ! r (rrrr r,r/rlrr ~ ,Jrr r,i rr / ~ J/ ~ I S ~ ~
o~
~jr !Jr' / / I~/~r ~rl~tr'r tr f. f/'!!li!•,~,•/ ~ 1tr~l ! r ~ t:1 1 'i~
r j rrr r t/f ~irf1' ,~~'•/1 t ~l{ y~r
,t~n~Ar Jt. rrl jj,j/ I'//)r, •/~',/•/JI1~''f /~//!7~>'~ (j.~//1~,~ ,'•~~y~ r I N6~ ;t •1 i
V'~'
J l
930~
i
a.
1
- a
®jr pp A-rest Pit Number aind
pproximate Location
\ ~ t
Scale <
1 3 O
`M- 150
FEET
r-z
99
Test Pit Location Map
CASA VERDE V1STR
i TERRA Tigard$ OR-
Figure 2
ES 2 6 2 Date 1/90
; - pro- No.1
.
r Geotechnical Consultants
SOIL Ck ASSIMGATION SYSTEM
LETTER GRAPH
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION 4
GRAVELS Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures,
Gravels r`•o 'O : little or no fines.
Oa`) More than 50% of (less than Gp Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures,
O1 5% fines). little or no fines. I
U) `m coarse fraction
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures,
N is larger than Gravels GPv1 non-plastic fines. '
with fines.
No. 4 sieve. Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
GC plastic fines.
O 00 SANDS Clean SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands,
to O Sands little or no fines.
W N (less than Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands,
Lr w z More than 50% of 5% fines). SP little or no fines.
Q d c coarse fraction Silty sands, ,sand-silt mixtures,
O ° s is smaller than Sands SM non-plastic fines.
U with fines.
No. 4 sieve. SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures,
plastic fines. i
SILTS AND CLAYS norganic sits and very fine sands, rock flour,
J ML slit or claye fine sands or clayey silts with
O Inor nic clays of law to, medj~m pdasticit
Cl) o° Liquid limit is less than 50%. CL rave ly clays, sandy clays, si ty -lays, lean
lays
N .
W ae o QL Organic silts and organic clays of low
z o z plasticity.
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous
CC co E N fine sandy or silty soils, elastic.
0 Inorganic clays of higli plasticity, fat clays.
W ° m (D - Liquid limit is greater than 50%. CH
o E '3
Z M ((0 Organic clays of medium to high plasticry,
C LL.. OH organic silts.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat anal other highly organic soiis.
:-;:,'•:,,M i
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
2" OUTER DIAMETER
I SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING,-tsf
2.4" INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER
OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER qU PENETROMETER READING, tsf
P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED pCf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot
Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent
WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX
N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 9252 Date 1/90 Figure 3
Logged By JJ TEST PIT NO. TP®1
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 238
Depth W
(ft.) LISCS Soil Description
0 0.1"F L: B o or anic-rich SILT
witg whine, asfy dyer .
Reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT,
ML very moist, stiff. 24
qu =1.25
5 TSF
Grades to brown, sandy SILT with clay,
very moist, non-plastic, medium dense.
34
10
Test pit completed at 12 feet;
ML Light seepage at 18", spotty to 6 feet;
Minor caving.
15
Logged By JJ TEST PIT NO. TPL-2
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 254
0 - TOPSOIL anal. SOD
ML Brown, mottled, sandy, clayey SILT, very 26
moist, stiff.
5 Grades to reddish tan with small rounded
gravel, very- moist, stiff.
28 qu= 1.75
10 TSF
ML .
Test pit completed at 12';
No seepage or caving.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
TEEM
CASA VERDE VISTA
- ASSOCIATES
TIGARD,. OREGON
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1262 Date 1/90 Figure $
TEST PIT NO. TP--3
Logged By JJ
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 244
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description N
0 T-7 DUFF - an
ML Reddish brown, sandy SILT, trace gravel, 24 qu.= 0.5
wet, loose.
Grades to very moist, medium dense.. TSF
Sam 5 MI, Tan, sandy SITT., angular gravel, dense. 15
Weathered, fractured BASALT. 20
Test pit completed at 6.5 feet;
Light seepage 0-3 feet;
10 No caving.
15
TEST PIT NO. TP-4
'.k Logged By JJ
1-10-90 Elev. 239
Date
0 0-8 DUFF and TOPSOIL
Brown, mottled, sandy SILT, wet to moist,
loose to medium dense. 28
Roots to 1 foot.
5 Tan-brown, sandy SILT and silty, fine
"
SW SAND, moist, medium dense.
Grades to dense at 6 feet.
10-
26 qu= 4.5
Test pit completed at 11. feet; TSF
Light, spotty seepage 0-3 feet;
No caving.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
-y TERRA
CASA VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
Geotechnical_Consultants Proj. No. 1252 Date 1190 Figure 6
TEST PIT NO. TP-5
Logged By JJ
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 280
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description
0 0-4 DUFF and TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brown, sandy SILT with clay,wet to
very moist, loose to medium dense. 22
Tan, sandy SILT and silty, fine SAND,
5 Sft very moist to moist, medium dense.
10 Becomes dense.
22
Test pit completed at 12 feet;
Light seepage at 2 feet.
15
Logged By JJ TEST PIT NO. TP'-6.:
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 302
0 0-6" DUFF and TOPSOIL
ML Mottled, reddish brown, clayey, sandy SILT, some wea
volcard.c gravel, wet to very moist, stiff. 26 qu= 1.0
"TSF
Tan, sandy SILT, moist, dense.
5 ML
Becomes very moist, medium dense.
10 Occasional angular volcanic cobbles.
Fractured weathered BASALT
Test pit completed at 12 feet;:
Light seepage at 0-3 feet;
15 No caving.
TEST PIT LOGS ,
TERRA
CASA VERDE VISTA
• ASSOCIATES
TIGAR®,, OREGON
A
w
Geotechnical Consultants FProi. No. 1252 Date 9/90 Fg~re 6
SEEM
TEST PIT NO. TP-7
Logged By JJ
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 322
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description N
U-6- DUFk and TOPSUiL
ML Mottled, reddish brown, sandy SILT with clay, wet to very 24 4u x.75
moist, loose to medium dense. Roots to 1.5 feet. .S.
5 ML/SM Tan, sandy SILT and fine, silty SAND, 13
moist to damp, dense.
ML/CL Reddish-brown, sandy, clayey SILT with
angular volcanic cobbles.
10Weathered fractured BASALT,
Test pit completed at.10 feet;
Light, spotty seepage 0-3 feet;
No caving.
15
TEST PIT NO. TP-8
Logged By JJ
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 322
0 0-10 DUFF and TOPSOIL
ML Mottled, clayey, sandy SILT with volcanic
gravel, wet to very moist, stiff.' 26
Roots to 2 feet.
5 ML/ Tans sandy, to 'clayey SILT and fine, si.tly
SAND, moist to damp, stiff to very stiff.
10 Weathered, fractured BASALT
Test pit completed at 10 feet;
No seepage or caving.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
TERRA CASA .VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1262 Date 1/90 Figure 7
f
TEST PIT NO. TP-9
' Logged By
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 280
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description
0 " ROD and TOESOIL
ML/0 Browcrgray, organic-rich, sandy SILT, some clay, wet, .
ML%C Mottled, reddish tan, clayey, sandy SILT and
dine, sitly SAND, very moist, stiff.
5-
Grades to very stiff.
10 Weathered, fractured BASALT
Test pit completed at 10 feet;
Minor seepage at 0-3 feet;
No caving.
15
Logged By JJ TEST PIT NO. TP-1-01
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 306
0 - and TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brown, clayey, sandy SILT, very
moist, stiff.'
Abundant angular volcanic cobbles.
5
Weathered, fractured BASALT
Test pit completed at 6 feet;
No seepage or caving.
10-
15
TEST PIT LOGS
TERRA
:Y•t•.4:
- CASH VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES
TIGARD, OREGON
Geotechnical Consultants rproj. No. 1252 Date •1/90 Figure 8
TEST PIT NO. TP-11
Logged By JJ
Date 1-10-90 Elev. 282
Depth W
.(k.) USCS Soil Description ft
0 - FF and TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brown, sandy, 'clayey SILT, wet to 21
very moist, medium stiff to stiff. 4 = 0.5
uTSF
5 ML Tan, sandy SILT, moist to damp, dense.
Minor interbed of volcanic ash.
ML/CL Reddish brown,clayey SILT with sand and angu-
lar v 22
10 Weathered, fractured BASALT.
Test pit completed at 10 feet;
No seepage or caving.
7
i
15
M
TEST PIT NO. TP_. 12
Logged By JJ
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 269
0 0-8- DUFF and TUVbUIL
ML Reddish brown, mottled, clayey SILT with SAND, weather&
volcanic gravel, wet to very moist, staff.
ML Tan, sand SILT, moist, dense.
5- Weathered.- fractured WALT.
Test pit completed at 4.5 feet;
No seepage or caving.
10-
15- TEST PIT LOGS
TERRA
CASA VERDE VISTA
- ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
A -e
a
Geotechnical Consultants rProj, No. i2b2 Date 1/90 Figure 9
11111,111IS11% 58:
TEST PIT NO. TP-13
Logged By JJ
Date 1-t t -9n Elev. 254
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description M
0 - DUFF and TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brown, mottled,. clayey, sandy SILT,
wet to very moist, medium stiff.
.Becomes tan, moist, stiff to very stiff.
5 eat ere fractured BASALT.
Test pit completed at 6 feet;
Light seepage at 0-3 feet;
No caving.
10-
15
TEST PIT NO. TP14
Logged By JJ
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 364
n-4n DUFF and TOPROTT.
ML Reddish brown,. mottled sandy,. clayey SILT,
wet to very moist, stit£. 24
Roots-to 1 foot.
ML Reddish tan, sandy SILT, very moist
5 to moist, medium dense.
ML/Cj, Reddish brown,. clayey wi to very h angular.-volrarnc 3D
. ery,moist, .
10
Test pit completed at 9.5 feet;
Light spotty seepage 0-2 feet;
No caving.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
'd TERRA
CASH VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
A
Geotechnical Consultants [Proj. No. 1262 Date 1/90 Figure 10
T STm PIT O. TI -15
Logged By JJ
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 347
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description
- DUFF and TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy
SILT, angular volcanic gravel, wet to 24 4u= 1.25
very moist, stiff.- TSF
5 SM/ Tan, fine, silty SAND and sandy SILT,
moist, medium dense to dense.
ML/C . Reddish brawn clayey SILT with rock.
7No ed, fract ured BASALT.
10
pit completed at 9 feet;
epage or caving.
15
TEST PIT NO. TP-16'
i nnnad Ru JJ
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 334
0 0-10" DUFF and TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT, mith volcanic 29
gravel, wet to very moist, 'stiff. Roots to.1.5 feet.
to 1.5 feet. 12
5 ML/SP Reddish tan, sandy SILT and fine, silty SAND, moist,
medium dense to dense.
10 ,ome angular volcanic cobbles.
Test pit completed at 10.5 feet;
No seepage or caving.
15
TEST FAIT LOGS
TERRA CASA VERDE VIST'P►
TMepD, .^,e^s^cf3ON
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnicai Consultants J Proj. No. 1252 Date 1/90 Figure 11
TEST PIT O. ?'®r_1 ?
Logged By JJ '
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 315
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description ft
0--?W' DUFF and TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brawn, miottled,'clayey, sandy SILT, volcanic
gravel, very mist; stiff. Roots to 1 foot. qu.= 1.5
ML/SM Reddish tan to tan, sandy SILT and fine, TSF
5 silty SAND, moist, medium dense to dense.
10 Weathered, fractured BASALT
Test pit completed at 9.5 feet;
Light, spotty seepage 0-3 feet;
No caving.
15 ~ I I I
J, TEST PIT NO. `tom-18
Logged By
Date 1-11-90 Elov 341
0 - and TOPSOIL
•M, Reddish brown, slightly"mottled, clayey SILT 25 q= 0.75
very moist, medium stiff. TSF
ML Tan, sandy S , very moist to moist, medium dense to
dense.
5- M4" Reddish brown clayey SILT with rock.
Weathered, fractured BASALT.
Test pit completed at 5.5 feet;
No seepage or caving.
10
15
TEST PIT LOGS
-7: TERRA
CASA VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
Geotechnicai Consultants Proj. No. 92052 Date 1/90 Figure 12
TF-QT PIT NO- TP-19
Logged By JJ
Date 1-17-90 Elev.
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description (0/0)
0 and TOPSOIL-
ML Reddish brown, clayey, sandy SILT, very moist
stiff. Roots to.. 1.5 feet. Ash bed at 3 feet 24 qu =1 0
TSF
Tan, sandy SILT and fine,silty SAND, moist
5 to damp, medium dense to dense.
Clayey, fractured BASALT
10 Test pit completed at 8.5 feet;
No seepage or caving.
15
JJ TEST PIT NO. Ti20
Logged By
1-11-90 Elev. 294
Date
0 - an TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brown, mottled,lclayey, sandy SILT
very moist. to moist,. stiff . 23
Roots to 1.5 feet.
5 /SM Reddish tan, sandy SILT and fine
silty SAND, moist, medium dense to dense.
10
Becomes reddish brown, very moist. 23
Test pit completed at 12.5 feet;
No seepage or caving.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA T
• - ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
s •
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 Date 11190 Figure 13-
Logged By JJ
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 314
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description (°Yo)
0 0-6 DUFF and TOPSOIL
I'IL I:cddish brown, clayey SILT, wet to very moist
medium stiff. Roots to 1.5 feet.
ML Tan, sandy SILT, damp, medium dense to dense. 11
5 Some anular volcanic cobbles and boulders,
becoming abundant.
Test pit completed at 7 feet;
No seepage or caving.
10
15
TEST PIT NO. T22
Logged By JJ
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 404
0 0-12" DUFF and TOPSOIL
HILL Brown, sandy, clayey SILT, very moist, stiff.
ML Reddish tan, sandy SILT with clay, moist,
5 medium dense to dense.
10 III' Reddish brown, c=layey SILT; very moist, very
stiff.
Test pit completed at 10.5.feet;
No seepage or caving.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
TERRA
CASH VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 Date 1/90 Figure 14
- TEST PIT NO. TP_"23
KRA
OEM
am ( Logged By J_
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 376
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description N
0 DUFF- an TOPSOIL
ML Brown, clayey, sandy SILT, wet to very moist,,
medium stiff'. Roots to 2 feet. 28 au,=0.75
TSF
ML Tan, sandy SILT, damp to moist, medium
5 dense to dense.
e is brown, clayey SILT with rock.
Weathered fractured
10 Test pit completed at 8.5 feet;
No seepage or caving.
r
15
'EST PIT NO. TP-24
Logged By LtiL_
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 396
0
0-10" DUFF and TOPSOIL
ML Brown to reddish.brown, clayey, sandy SILT,
wet to very moist, very stiff. 27 4 =2.0
SF
IL Tan, sandy SILT, moist, medium dense to dense
5
Reddish brown clayey SILT with rock.
Test pit completed at 6 feet;
No seepage or caving.
10-
15-
TEST PIT LOGS
TERM
..;,.~..sat;`.... CASA VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
Geotechnical Consultants EProjNo.2$2 Data 4090 Figure 15
agir
TEST PIT NO. TP-26
Logged By J.L.,
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 358
Depth W
(ft.) USCS Soil Description
0 "
ML Brown to: reddish tan, mottled, clayey, SILT to sandy
SILT, wet -very. moist, stiff.
ML Tan, sandy SILT, moist, medium dense to dense.
5 Ash bed at 3 feet.
MTM Reddish brown, clayey SILT with rock.
Test pit completed at 8.5 feet;
10 No seepage or caving.
15
TEST PIT N. TP-26
Logged By JJ
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 961
0 0-8" DUFF an TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT,
wet to very moist, stiff.
ML Tan, sandy SILT with clay, moist, medium
5 dense to dense.
Becomes very moist at 6 feet.
/CL Reddish brown, clayey SILT with rock, wet.
10 Weathered, fractured BASALT.
Test pit completed at 10 feet;
Moderate seepage at 8.5 feet;
No caving.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
o
Ceotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1262 Date 1/90 Figure 16
jggr 11
§111 1
TEST PIT NO. TP-27
Logged By JJ
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 344
Depth W
(ft.) USDS Soil Description
0 0-6" MJFF and TOPSOIL
ML Reddish brogan,. mottled clayey. SILT.with SAND, very-moist,
stiff:. Roots to 1.5- feet.
ML Tan, sandy SILT with clay, moist, medium
5 dense. Ash bed at 3 feet.
Abundant angular volcanic cobbles.
Test pit completed at 7 feet;
No seepage or caving.
10
f
15
r
JJ TEST PIT ID-I ~ t P-28
Logged By
Date 1-11-90 Elev. 240
0 0-10" TOPSOIL and DUFF
ML Brown'to reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT,
very moist, stiff. Roots to. 1,5 feet.. 15 gel.25
1L Brownish tan, sandy SILT with clay, T
moist to very moist, medium {dense.
Test pit completed at 8 feet;
10 No seepage or caving.
15
TEST PIT LOGS
T E R R A
• CASA.1iERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
a
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 Date 1/80 Figure 17
jiqjgiiijl~:~111111 III
MEN
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
NEW STRUCTURAL FILL EXISTING
GRADE
MAXIMUM SLOPE GRADIENT 2 : 1 (H:V)
2
1
NEW STRUCTURAL
FILL
EXISTING
GRADE
TYPICAL BENCH
GRADE AFTER THE REMOVAL
OF TOPSOIL AND OTHER LOOSE SOILS
KEY
a.
FREE DRAINING BLANKET IF GROUNDWATER
IS ENCOUNTERED
NOTES
1. SLOPE SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF TOPSOIL AND UNSUITABLE SOILS
AND ORGANICS PRIOR TO PLACING ANY FILL.
2. "BENCHES° SHOULD BE MINIMUM 6 FEET OR ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH WIDE.
3. "KEY" SHOULD BE MINIMUM 2 FEET DEEP AND 6 FEET WIDE, EXTENDING
THE FULL LENGTH OF THE SLOPE FACE.
4. FINAL SLOPE FACE SHOULD BE DENSIFIED BY COMPACTION
WITH DOZER OR ROLLER.
5. PLANTING OR HYDROSEEDING FACE WILL REDUCE EROSION POTENTIAL
OF SLOPE AREA.
6. ALL STRUCTURAL FILL PLACED SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 95%
OF MODIFIED MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM, D°1557).
TEIZI~!-°► SLOPE FILL DIAGRAM
NASA VERDE VISTA
TlGARD, OREGON
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1262
Date 1/90 Figure 18
CI,
IMPERVIOUS SOIL 6'
o': C i'• .
.j:
°~o °o: = EXCAVATED SLOPE
12' MINIMUM FREE 0'p:°•0
DRAINING GRAVEL ° • o o ° o:;
OR MANUFACTURED p ° o o MAXIMUM SLOPE
DRAINAGE BOARD °o' o°° iVr DEPENDS ON SOIL
'OQ .°o'o0 . o°o':•° : CONDITIONS. IN NO
00. H CASE SHOULD IT BE
STEEPER THAN 0.5:1(H to V)
v o°p co o'po.• UNCLASSIFIED BACKFILL
° ° o
o ° o 0 0 °o•' 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION
~.o.. a o o°°• ASTM D-1557
•QO,: ° 0 0 0 ° O ° °•t••
=I = o' o ° 0 0 0 PERFORATED PIPE
0'0 0
18' MI 1' WASHED ROCK OR PEA
Q d c Q: p o
d C~'oo~' O~d'd'OQc '°•''•?o:•a'' GRAVEL. WRAP ROCK
WITH FILTER-FABRIC
SUITABLE BEARING SOIL
Retaining.Wall Drainage and Backfill
NOT-TO-SCALE
OTES
1. -Free Draining Gravel should consist of granular soil having. no more than 2 percent passing
the No. 200 sieve based on the 3/4-Inch minus.fraction and no particles greater than
3-inches In maximum dimension. The percentage of particles passing the No.4 sieve should be
between 25 and 75 percent.
2. Unclassified backflll should be free of organics, clayey soil, debris, and other deleterious
materials. It should be placed within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content.
3. For free-standing walls, weep holes may be used. Weep holes should be surrounded with at
least 18 Inches of free-draining gravel.
RETAINING WALLEACKFILIJDRAINAGE
TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA
ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OREGON
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. I {~$2. Date 1/90 Figure 19
1 C) ~z
~..~.d,
ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PROJECT
WILDLIFE HABITAT RESOURCES SURVEY
Submitted to:
Triad/Tigard Ltd. Partnership
P.O. Box 88070
Seattle, Washington 98138
Prepared by:
Fishmaii Environmental Services
March 1992
FES Project 441
i
l f
Fishman Environmental Services o 434 NW Sixth Avenues Suite 304* Portland, OR 97209-3600 ® 503-224-0333
0
H AN~
mom=
f
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
11. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE 1
i III. SUMMARY OF SITE WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUES 2
L IV. CONCLUSIONS 3
Table 1. Existing Vegetation and Wildlife Observed on the Arbor
Heights Apartments Site 4
Figure 1. Single Family Residential Site Plan following page 4
Figure 2. Preliminary Apartment Development Site Plan following page 4
Figure 3. Final Apartment Development Site Plan following page 4
z
#r
I
1. INTRODUCTION
The proposed Arbor Heights Apartments development pro ' ject is located in the Little Bull
- Mountain Natural Forest area identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Tigard (1983,
pg. I-96). The Comprehensive Plan Resource Document (pgs. 1-36 "through 1-42) ruakes gen ,ral
references to the wildlife habitat resources of the Little Bull Mountain area. The City of Tigard
t does not consider the Little Bull Mountain resource site an important resource to be protected
for wildlife values. Under Comprehensive Plan implementation strategy 3, following Plan Policy
3.4.2, the City is required to review proposed development adjacent to wildlife habitat areas "to
ensure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized."
This report discusses the existing wildlife habitat on the proposed development site and the
minimization of impacts to wildlife habitat.
II. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE
The project site was surveyed on March 5, 1992, by Fishman Environmental Services to briefly
evaluate the vegetation and wildlife habitat values. Three different habitat units, corresponding
with different historical land use practices, were observed on the site. Table 1 is a list of the
vegetation and bird species observed during the field survey for each area. Photographs showing
typical vegetation for each habitat area are also included at the end of this report.
AREA A: CONIFEROUS FOREST
The area identified as the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest area is a second growth coniferous
forest ,at the top of the slope on the north end of the property. This forested unit is not pristine,
and appears to have been managed as a woodlot, leaving trees at fairly regularly spaced intervals.
These trees are 50+ years old and average 18"-26" dbh (diameter at breast height). The closed
canopy shades out the understory giving the appearance of an open, almost park-like effect under
the trees. Diverse native species make up the scattered shrubs and groundcover layer. This area
was determined to be the most visually aesthetic portion of the site, from off-site view points,
by the Comprehensive Plan.
The coniferous tree area is relatively small and not closely linked to a wildlife travel corridor or
other large, undisturbed forest. The tree canopy is used by several bird species (Table 1) and
said to be used by squirrels. The understory is too open to offer much cover for wildlife. Fruit
and seed-bearing plants used by wildlife are not abundant.
Wildlife Habitat Value: The wildlife habitat value is moderate to low. Our survey concurs
with the Goal 5 determination that the coniferous forest is used mostly by small bird species.
AREA B: ORCHARD AND DECIDUOUS FOREST
Southward, along the west side of the property, an old, senescent orchard is located. Apple,
ARBOR HEIGHTS WILDUFE HABITAT PACE t
i.
pear, and/or other fruit tree varieties were grown that now appear to be non-fruit bearing and
declining in health. Other native deciduous trees have also colonized the orchard. The
understory consists of dense suckers and sapling fruit trees that have reverted to an earlier stock
vaileiy and dense himalayan blackberries vines. Downslope of the orchard site, the land appears
_ to have been kept more open and trees are widely scattered and consist mostly of larger, non-
native, ornamental coniferous trees. The understory is very dense himalayan blackberries and
some open areas of grass.
4 Wildlife Habitat Value: The wildlife habitat value is moderate to low. The tree canopy is
probably used by migrating insectivorous warblers and some year-round bird species. Deer sign,
common in abandoned orchards that still produce fruit, was not found. This observation and the
_ lack of rotting fruit on the ground led to the assumption that the trees are no longer producing
fruit.
w AREA C: DECIDUOUS FOREST AND SCATTERED CONIFERS
Downslope of the coniferous area along the east side of the property, deciduous trees are also
tg. dominant, but this area appears to have been managed as a woodlot also. Fewer coniferous trees
were left and they are slightly smaller (younger) than those at the top of the slope. The
understory is composed of mostly native species, but is brushier, and more himalayan
blackberries have become established because of the open canopy.
Wildlife Habitat Value: The wildlife habitat value is moderate to low due to the relatively low
- abundance of fruit and seed-bearing species in the understory.
111. SUMMARY OF SITE WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUES
The components of wildlife habitat that were evaluated and rated by professional judgment were:
Water Quantity & Seasonality Low
Quality Low
Proximity to Cover Low
1.
Food Variety Moderate
Quantity & Seasonality Moderate
Proximity to Cover Moderate
Cover Structural Diversity Moderate
Variety Moderate
Seasonality Low
Escape density Moderate
The site is not located near a stream or large open-water body nor connected to extensive
undisturbed sites which would provide greater habitat value for wildlife. Recent development i
3
- ARBOR MGM WILDLIRG HABITAT PAUP 2
Y
r
F
has already reiiioved much forest cover on the north side of the Little Bull Mountain. The
historical disturbance of the site to various degrees has altered the natural conditions of the
forest. The wildlife species which use or probably use the site most are small birds and rodents.
The overall assessment of wildlife habitat value on the site is moderate to low.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Our review of the site and Tigard Comprehensive Plan documents lead us to the conclusion that
"Habitat Unit A, the coniferous forest unit, has more value as a Goal 5 resource due to its native
species composition and its scenic values. This unit is not in pristine condition, but retains some
characteristics of second growth Pacific Northwest Douglas fir forest. The other habitat units on
the site are much more disturbed by human activity, and are dominated by non-native and
orchard species of trees.
Under Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.2, Implementation Strategy 3, the City must review
development proposals to ensure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are
minimized. An early site design by the developer was for single family residential use, as shown
in Figure 1. It is likely that the single family development design, utilizing 7,000 square foot
lots, would have resulted in more trees removed, and fewer tree/habitat groupings remaining
after clearing and grading for home site development.
The site design approved by the City for apartment development is shown in Figure 2.
Discussions held between Fishman Environmental Services staff, Triad Tigard Ltd. and the
project engineer resulted in additional changes to the site plan for the purpose of minimizing
impacts to Habitat Unit A, the coniferous forest. As shown in Figure 3, the northern-most
groupings of buildings and facilities have been moved south, leaving a larger unit of coniferous
forest intact than in Figure 2. This change will result in fewer trees removed, and, according to
the engineer, less grading on the northern portion of the property.
Impacts to wildlife habitat have been minimized by (1) changing the development plan from
single family residential to apartments, and (2)1 working with the site plan to minimize impacts
to the coniferous forest habitat unit. Open spaces of existing vegetation will be left between
groups of buildings, and additional plantings of trees and shrubs are planned.
The proposed development will leave a block of Douglas fir trees in the NW corner of the
property, which, combined with trees left along the northern site boundary, will preserve some
of the scenic values of the site when viewed from Highway 99 and other points to the north and
west.
1 ARBOR 11E1GHTS WILWAM HAWAT PAGE 3
i
TABLE 1. EXISTING VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE OBSERVED ON THE ARBOR
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS SITE, LIT'T'LE BULL MOUNTAIN, TIIGARD
MARCH 5, 1992
AREA A: Coniferous Forest
TREES WILDLIFE OBSERVED
• Douglas fir kinglets
western red cedar house finch
big-leaf maple robin
1. scrub jay
SHRUBS crow
red huckleberry squirrel
vine maple
snowberry
elderberry
Oregon grape
salal
Indian plum
hazel
* laurel
GROUNDCOVER
inside-out flower
sword fern
bracken fern
trailing blackberry
* Himalayan blackberry
toothwort
* geranium
* English ivy
AREA B: ORCHARD AND DECIDUOUS FOREST
TREES WILDLIFE OBSERVED
apple winter wren
pear robin
other fruit species chickadee
alder junco
cottonwood scrub jay
• big-leaf maple
Douglas fir
SHRUBS
Himalayan blackberry
fruit tree suckers
hazel
salal
GROUNDCOVER
grass mullein sword fern
bracken fern trailing blackberry * Queen Ann's lace
ARBOR HEIGHTS WTLDUIB HADTTAT PAGE 4
- TABLE 1 (continued)
AREA C: DECIDUOUS FOREST AND SCATTERED CONIFERS
TREES WILDLIFE OBSERVED
• alder robin
• big-leaf maple chickadee
Douglas fir junco
cottonwood mourning dove
scrub jay
SHRUBS
* Himalayan blackberry
* fruit tree suckers
hazel
GROUNDCOVER
• sword fern
bracken fern
trailing blackberry
• salal
* grass
= ' - -
dominant species
* = non-native species
IL
• S
S
,fi AREOR HEIGHTS WILDUM HABITAT PAGE 5
i,
t.
14-
al.
ti g~ B b g 2 \ 14
3(
~ _ :35• ' tip: ~ - ,!.1
• 'fig ` ~ :i '
37 . [ s 4 l
5-7
IMW
. ' a4 rs S3 ; I i
4-7
WAN 5
Lot
Pr~limi~l~ry 98 Lo•YS --ts00 SF Mt!liMUM ^ ~~~`1.~1~•,`~ i
`T1r~T
A-P
T iadrfi d Ltd
1F amily denial
Rva
1 _ single
Figura Site plan 'k
-y
ISM
`t
s
x
f
all. srr~. , r r i
POLO
1
a
- 4
ptel~ ~ ~t gitc ~•'~n
~i8urc 2: ,~yclc~
~ 4~0 ~ • ,ice ~ ' ~ • ~ w~ ~ c.
/ / ; b4 o
4
MEW
F
Irv
~ it ~ • +
,I~~ +r' ~ + i n fig` al" .a,.•, ~.(ry) I \ l i 1
R T'
^
w
~e ,yam ~ i y' C + • ~ + ~:9~~. ~ ~
sari d.~~ ~~x ~ 1`~~ j' I r` ~MjfM •''4 ,
~11 f~Al •Z, r ~ J.;wn,w.~ _ ....1~r' \ 1 `{+'.''1 .r -_„\1 ,~a _ ~ j
• z ny_... ^.!F C't]:v ~S , • R. is ' ~d,'.T{,a1 ~-.e- --3
40
t` l rJ..~rr,M''"~' ! r..i+f x. a fJ~ ` ~ , .{.i ` ~ ! 11 ~ 'tl ~ r .y~•/'tr r, _ l
1
s r ail'`{~
• k
1
r• ~ ` l
` i.
i~
;r 1 AREA C: deciduous forest with scattered conifers
F
j{7 A A'
yT' .
1
M~
H4T `
1
t AREA SOUTH OF ORCHARD: clcarcd and ornamental conifers Elanled
TESTIMONY MARCH 10, 1992 FOR FILE NO. ZCA 92-0001
1 am Paul Whitney. I am a professional ecologist. My wife and 8-year old
daughter live at 12035 SW Bull Mountain Road. We have lived there since 1980. Our
lot is north of the Robinson parcel on the other side of Bull Mountain Road.
My comments this evening are based on conversations with planners at METRO,
the Boundary Commission, and the City of Tigard and reading the Community
Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Sections and Policies. My statements will
address the Applicable Review Criteria 18.36, 10.1.1, and 10.3.2. My concerns are
piecemeal annexation to Tigard, and my wish Iist for Bull Mountain which include parks,
open spaces, sidewalks, bike paths, and pedestrian transportation.
o Piecemeal Annexation: As an ecologist I think about distribution and
abundance of animals. This includes animal movement patterns on a daily
and seasonal basis. I'm sure my profession influences how I evaluate
development on Bull Mountain and I'd like to share these values with you. I
feel the City Planners are creating a checkerboard of isolated island
developments. As these islands are created, currently developed parcels
between the islands become islands as well. There appears to be no thought
given to how people might want to move between the island developments.
It seems to me that passageways should include walking, biking, and jogging
1 RECEIVED
MAR 0 61992
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HIM!
I fill
paths that would link these islands. Other cities have these links why can't
Tigard?
With piecemeal annexation, who has the incentive to provide pedestrian routes
between the newly created islands? The County surely doesn't want to be
bothered, they have rural goals and they are giving up the lands. The City has
their inner-city greenways to deal with and how can one have a plan for
almost random requests for annexation? The responsibility for the walking,
biking, jogging trail issue then must fall on a more regional body. Will METRO
plan for the movement of people on the edge of Tigard? I doubt it. They
have three Counties to worry about. I implore the Boundary Commission to
request that the County and the City recognize an increased demand for
pedestrian movement on the edge of the City. A conceptual plan should be
developed which includes regional issues and which addresses the problems
associated with the island development that we are currently experiencing. I
know such a plan might have problems with implementation, but if you can
build sewers, water lines, and roads between the islands, surely a system of
paths could be created as well. I think the options for tying paths to utility
corridors is an exciting and doable concept.
o Bike Paths, Walkways, and Jogging Trails: People walk, bike, and jog along
Bull Mountain Road and it is not pleasant to do so on a 40 mile per hour road.
2
i
But, the use and demand is there and can easily be documented. I am
planning to pave my driveway this spring and I would build a sidewalk across
the front of my property but there is no plan to tie into. Is Bull Mountain Road
going to be moved north or south, would my ci.ao~~; ~ll~ wa for up iii a
J
years? I don't know and I hesitate to build a walk without a plan.
o Parks: I believe it is pretty obvious that the people of Tigard like parks and
voted money for parks. Is there a Parks System planned for Bull Mountain?
I don't think so. I don't know of a single park on the books for the land
between the City Limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. Who has the
incentive to plan for such a park or parks? The City should have the incentive,
for in twenty years the Robinson parcel won't be on the edge, it will be well
within the City Limits and people will wonder why the planners and City
Fathers didn't plan ahead and develop the park system before all the land was
developed.
Greenways and open space need not be limited to the river and creek valleys.
Look at the Pacific Crest Trail or the Terwilliger Jogging Trail and the use they
get. Wouldn't a Bull Mountain Trail with a park or two along the way be a neat
idea?
3
IN illy
I believe the Boundary Commission has a role to play to get the County and the City to
work together to develop a plan to transport people on foot and bikes and to develop
a park plan for all the land that will be annexed in the next 20 years. Now is the best
now and maybe the only time we can develop and implement such a plan.
ask that the Boundary Commission encourage the City to follow through with
Urbanization Policy 10.3.2 and discourage continued piecemeal annexation that will
result in inefficient provision of public facilities and services such as parks, bike paths,
sidewalks, and jogging trails.
4
ti
t
r NPO #6 i
Minutes from the January 15, 1992
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 pm.
Members in attendance were: Carver, Clinton, Kasson, N:itchell, Pasteris,
Wilson and Sellers.
Excused: Dillin, Watson.
Not excused: Davenport
The minutes from the November 20, 1991 meeting were approved as written.
FOR THE RECORD: Sue announced to the Board that Walter Crow had decided to
vacate his position. Everyone was sorry to hear that Walter had decided to
leave. Phil requested that we send a Thank You letter to Falter for his many
years on the Board.
KEITH AND JEAN TAYLOR SUBDIVISION:
Stephanie gave the board an update of the Heari. g Cfficers c.ecision.
Discussion foi lowed wherein members expressed that they sti l l hoped rise open
land on SW 97th would develop as one parcel someday. 1
j
RANDY WILDER PARTITION: i
NPO members reviewed the proposal submitted by Randy Wilder to divide
one parcel of approx. 2 acres into three parcels of approx. 20,000, 20,000
and 39,760 square feet and a 9,120 square foot private access drive. No
objections were found.
TRIAD:
Ross Woods gave the board an update - the City Council at their 12-10-91
meeting postponed the NPO appeal hearing until 2-25-92, in hopes that the
LUBA decision will be in. 2-3-92 is the last day to give written testimony.
City Council approved the Engineering Contract for the 109th Street
extension at the 12-17-91 meeting.
Ross submitted a copy to the board of the Triad Road Improvement
Agreement that has been turned over to Mike Robinson, city attorney. NPO
members reviewed the agreement and made the following motion:
"NPO drops its appeal regarding the TRIAD development contingent on a
legal agreement between the City of Tigard committing TRIAD to deposit the
ntire sum of $300,000 in escrow prior to the issuance of certificate of
zcupancy for any building.in the development."
This motion passed 5 to 2 and will be presented to the Council at the
February 25th meeting.
L
vaui cil agenda item
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - December 10, 1991
• Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten
and Jack Schwab (present for Study Session only). Staff Present: Patrick Reilly,
City Administrator; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton,
Community Relations Coordinator; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley,
City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
STUDY SESSION
Agenda Review: City Administrator advised that Item 3.3, NPO appointments, should be
deleted from the Council's Consent Agenda. Planning Commission review is scheduled
for December 16, 1991. This item will be on the Council's December 17, 1991 Consent
Agenda.
Staff and Council reviewed Item 4 - Triad Appeal Hearing. Staff recommended that the
Public Hearing be continued to February 25, 1992. Legal Counsel Elliott explained the
continuation recommendation was predicated on the pending LUBA appeal of a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the Transportation Map for this area. LUBA's
decision will affect one of the approval options for the Triad Development. If LUBA
requires the CPA be remanded to the City, then Triad would have to start completely over
with the required public hearings.
There was discussion on process. Staff recommended a requirement that all documents
to be considered by Council be submitted to the City by 5 p.m. on February 3, 1992.
Council noted concern for a timely review of this issue. NPO 6's appeal issue may be
resolved in the near future. Mrs. Marge Davenport, the other appellant, has requested
that the Public Hearing be delayed until after the LUBA decision has been received. City
Engineer Wooley advised that the NPO's appeal is based on concern that the new road
in the area south of the Triad Development should be built before the development is-
built. He advised that an agreement in which Triad would match funds expended by the
City on such a road is being drawn up. He advised he would like to introduce the draft
agreement to the Council during the business part of the meeting so that it is entered as
a written part of the record.
. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 10, 1991 - PAGE 1