The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 09/26/1995 111 11,10 11 A4 ~ Cti5F4 n A~'' ITV OF TIGARD n• ~ F yid ~L; °"'st;C' ::..~3i::~,F : :;do-, }(k p p{y'}f' ion ivt 'v~ vyy v4`; Lt~hq~'^C•:,}r'%^~ PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up 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. AWL Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agrenda items can be heard in aw order after 7:30 p.m, Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: e Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE A713"ACHED AGENDA SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - 6:30 PM AGF. NDA 6:30 p.m. • STUDY MEETING > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Seislon under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from., this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this sessev Discussion Item: Proposed' Local Improvement District for Ashbrook Subdivision o City Engineer > Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council et Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Lia:_son Repo `s 1.:5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items 7:40 p.m, 2. VISITOWS AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:50 p.m. 3. FOCUS TOTAL. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PRESEN'T'ATION • Greg Chew, FOCUS Staff 8:05 p.m. 4. 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. Any items requested to be removed f,,-3m the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the ;L;ouncii has voted on those items which do not need discussion. Motion to: 4.1 Receive and File: a. Notification 1993/94 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report was Awarded the Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting b. Tentative Agendas 4.2 Approve Amendment to Resolution No. 91-01 to Establish Fee for Expedited Minor Land Partitions - Resolution No. 95- COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 2 4.3 Approve Encroachment Agreement with Property Owner of Lot 26 in the Pebble Creek No. 2 Subdivision - Resolution No. 95- 4.4 Approve Encroachment Agreement with Lot 38 Property Owner - Waverly Estates Subdivision 16641 SW 90th Place) - Resolution No. 95 4.5 Approve License Agreement with Property Owner of the Greenfield Village Apartments at 135th Avenue and Walnut Street - Resolution No. 95- 4.6 Approve Updated Building Use Policies - Resolution No. 95- 4.7 Approve Updated Tigard Senior Center Room Use Policies - Res. No. 95-_ 8:10 P.M. _ 5. 0 K . _ iR_V ti LV ".~~Ji; V1G, .7.....rI' A!!0H - LIP-PLATE OF LOADING ZONE DESIGNATIONS ~B~~~arn-~-.. ® City Engineer • Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 95-- 8:15 P.M. 6. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL. OF A REQUEST FORA SUBDIVISION (SUB) 95-00021LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 95-0012 AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 95-0006 APPROVAL - FORAN PLACEIPICULELL GROUP A request for approval of the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.9 acre parcel into 12 lots ranging between 6,091 square feet to 8,737 square feet. 2. Lot Lime adjust. :`::t request to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres. 3. Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. LOCATION: West of Woodford Estates, and approximately 650 feet north of S.W. Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1, 9AB, Tax Lots 1200 and 5700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.52, 18.84, 18.83, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies: 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8. 1.1 and 8.1.3. ,ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). The R-7 zone allows single family residential units, duplex residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment home, farming, manufactured home, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. a. Hearing Continued from September 12, 1995 to review two issues: 1. Estimate of number of trees to be removed (over 6 inches in diameter) in proposed design options. 2. Information from the Fire Marshal whether or not Fire District supports a street layout with or without a turnaround area. b. Deciaraticns or Challenges C. Report from Applicant and Staff on issues listed in Items "a" Above COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 3. d. Rebuttal Testimony (Limited to the Two Issues Listed Above) Applicant Proponents Opponents e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 95-- S p.m. 8:4 PUR IC HEARING (QU451-jUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDMSION (SUB) 95- 0004/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95-0005/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 95-0007 - IIILLSHIRE WOODS PHASE 11/SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT An appeal of a request for Subdivision approval to divide one parcel consisting of approximately 2.63 acres, into six parcels ranging in size from 10,375 square feet to 33,535 square feet. A Planned Development has been requested to implement the properties planned development overlay. A sensitive lands review is requested to delineate wetlands and steep slope areas. A neighboring property owner has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve this request. The neighbor appealed this application due to the alignment of the proposed private street, the loss of trees and impacts to area fauna. Location: 13870 S.W. Fern Street (WCTM 2S1 4DD, Tax Lot 1700). Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Zone: Single-family residential, seven dwelling units per acre (R-7, PD). Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6-12 units per acre). a. Open Public clearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Applicant Proponents Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. C ~*uncil Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 95- COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 4 19:45 p.m. 8. UPDATE: STATUS OF OBT'AINIMG A WATER SUPPLIER 9 City Administrator and Director of Maintenance Services 10:00 P.M. 9. REVIEW: OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - DURHAM ROAD ® ' City Administrator 10:15 P.M. 4n IDGAAY_ndMEWIMM VIM" 10:30 p.m. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are aiiowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:45 p.m. 12. ADJOURNMENT =0926.95 COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 2G, 1995 - PAGE 5 Council Agenda Item 3 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 • Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Nicoll. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Michael Anderson, Development Review Engineer; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator; Mike Miller, Operations Manager; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Steve Crew and Robert Danz; Legal Counsel (present for Executive Session only); Nadine Robinson, Administrative Services Manager; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6.40 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. Executive Session adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Council Study Session reconvened at 7:27 p.m. STUDY SESSION Council, briefly reviewed several items on the agenda. Finance Director Lowry and Administrative Services Manager Robinson were present to answer questions on Consent Agenda Items 4.6 and 4.7 with regard to the update of building use policies and update of the Tigard Senior Center room use policies. The updated policy is based on the assumption that room use should be free of charge to non-profit organizations and Tigard citizens, and that those wishing to use facilities for a profit venture or from outside Tigard should be charged a fee. The updated policy encourages the continued use of City facilities by Tigard taxpayers and non-profit organizations, a~'ad generally discourages use by others. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 1 City Administrator Monahan commented on Agenda Item No. 9, which was to review an Oregon Department of Transportation memorandum of understanding - Durham Road. After visiting with ODOT staff. it appears that a memorandum of understanding may not be the best way to proceed. The State has advised they would cooperate in expediting a full transfer of their section of Durham Road. Council was updated by City Administrator Monahan on `he proposed signal for 79th and Durham Road. Washington County has agreed that Durham Road is a TIF eligible road; however, the signal does not meet warrants, and therefore it is questionable if TIF funds »anibe STOMA r^r fha C;Cmall aaauJ Council Business Meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. r. BUSINESS MEETING There were no Council communications, and there were no non-agenda items. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: ® Alfred Wilkins, 12515 SW 128th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, urged Council to provide for more ballfields (regarding a p;: oposal for additional property purchase adjacent to Cook Park). ® Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, gave a report on Music in the Park. She thanked staff and elected officials, and noted the event was a big success. She noted groups have been asking about next year and the use of the stage. The stage is now dismantled. Ms. Bishop asked for reassurances about the future availability of the stage. 3. FOCUS TOTAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION: John Anderson from McKeever Morris summarized an executive summary on results of examination "if and how to improve the integration of the planning and service delivery processes for the various fields of water management: wastewater, surface water and domestic water." lank CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 2 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Items 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 were removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the following Consent Agenda items: 4.1 Receive and File: a. Notification 1993/94 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report was Awarded the Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting b. Tentative Agendas 4.6 Approve Updated Building Use Policies - Resolution No. 95-41 4.9 Approve Updated Tigard Senior Center Room Use Policies - Res. No. 95-42 Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4.2 Approve Amendment to Resolution No. 91-01 to Establish Fee for Expedited Minor Land Partitions - Resolution No. 95-43. Ask, In response to questions by Councilor Rohlf, it was noted by Legal Counsel that cities are limited on choice of options to implement the requirements of House Bill 3065. Senior Planner Bewersdorf€ also clarified that staff will be conducting another study to determine actual costs. 4.3 Approve Encroachment Agreement: with Property Owner of Lot 26 in the Pebble Creek No. 2 Subdivision - Resolution No. 95-44. 4.4 Approve Encroachment Agreement with Lot 38 Property Owner - Waverly Estates Subdivision (#16641 SW 90th Place) - Resolution No. 95-45. Council reviewed items 4.3 and 4.4. There was discussion and clarification from City Engineer Wooley on why an encroachment agreement was being used in these situations. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Consent Agenda items 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINU'T'ES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 3 4.5 Approve License Agreement with Property Owner of the Greenfield Village Apartments at 135th Avenue and Walnut Street - Resolution No. 95- Item 4.5 was requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda by Mr. Scott Rice, Tigard resident, who advised he lived several blocks away from the Greenfield Village Apartments. Mr. Rice advised that the fence was being constructed using barbed wire. He specified safety and aesthetic concerns with this type of a fence. There was discussion on Code requirements. Community Development Director Hendryx advised that the Code does not address fencing material (i.e., barbed wire is not prohibited). There was a question whet': er ±he City could regulate the type _ of fencing material used ofi the portion of the fence which will be on City property. Mayor Nicoli advised he would like to hear from the apartment owners who may have concerns about security. After discussion, Council pulled Item 4.5 off the agenda and set the item over to October 10, 1995. Staff will ask the apartment owners to stop construction of the fence. Council would also like the property owners to be present at the October 10 meeting. 5. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - UPDATE OF LOADING ZONE DESIGNATIONS City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report, which is on file with the Council packet material. Recent construction in the downtown area has eliminated the need for two loading zones designated in the Municipal Code. These zones are located on SW Burnham Street near Main Street, and on Main Street near the South intersection of Main Street and Pacific Highway. ORDINANCE NO. 95-20 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.137 AND ELIMINATING CERTAIN LOADING ZONES ON MAIN STREET AND BURNHAM STREET Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-20. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION (SUB) 95-0002/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 95-0012 AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 95-0006 APPROVAL - FORAN PLACE/PICULELL GROUP A request for approval of the following development applications: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 4 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.9 acre parcel into 12 lots ranging between 6,091 square feetto 8,737 square feet. 2. Lot Line adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres. 3. Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. LOCATION: West of Woodford Estates, and approximately 650 feet north of S.W. 'lull Mountain Road. '(WCTM 2S1, 9AR, Tax Lots 1200 and 5700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies: 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1 and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). The R-7 zone allows single family residential units, duplex residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment home, farming, manufactured home, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. a. Hearing continued from September 12, 1995 to review two issues: (1) Estimate of number of trees to be removed (over 6 inches in diameter) in proposed design options. (2) Information from the Fire Marshal whether or not Fire District ® supports a street layout with or without a turnaround area. b. Declarations or challenges. Mayor Nicoli asked whether any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? Councilor Hunt advised he attempted to visit the site; however,, he was not certain whether he had identified the correct parcel when viewing the area. Councilor Scheckla advised he had walked through the area. All Councilors indicated they had familiarized themselves with the application. Thcre were no challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter, nor was there a challenge on the participation of any member of Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 5 NEW C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized the issues before Council. Mr. Bewersdorff referred to a map of the area and reviewed the staffs recommendation and the Hearings Officer's decision. Mr. Bewersdorff discussed the topography of the area. A letter was received from the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue; they advised that an apparatus turn around would be necessary. (A copy of this letter is on file with the Council packet material.) Applicant Arthur C. Piculell, 3236 SW Kelly, Suite 105, Portland, Oregon, 97201, advised it had been his understanding that the applicant was to give an estimate of the number of trees affected, if staffs proposed design option was adopted. Mr. Piculell distributed two photographs showing trees on the site. (see Council packet material for photographs). Mr. Piculell also distributed photocopies of street designs. One copy was entitled "Alternative Street Design to Save Large Fir Trees." Another page was entitled "Assume No Fire Turn Around - Save Trees in Green." Mr. Piculell then described how trees could be saved, although some trees would be removed. He said he expected he would be able to save seven or eight of the trees shown in his drawings. Mr. Piculell advised he supported the plan now proposed by staff. Mr. Piculell advised they were opposed to the bikepath proposal, noting that this would be a "taking." He advised the Hearings Officer's proposal "walked on people's property rights." Mr. Piculell advised he supported the resolution now shown in the Council packet. Mr. Charles Chimento, 3236 SW Kelly, Portland, Oregon, 97201, advised he had no comment. Mr. Ed Metzler, 13267 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, asked clarifying questions regarding the fire apparatus turn- around. Mayor Nicoli advised the City had received a letter from the Fire District, indicating the turn-around was needed. Mr. Metzler asked questions about the location of the turn-around. He noted he preferred the Hearings Officer's proposal, because it appeared to save more trees. Councilor Hunt noted that if the Hearings Officer's plan was accepted, there was nothing prohibiting the applicant from building a house on the lot where the trees are located. It was noted that the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 6 Council can try to save the trees by not requiring public facilities on the lot; however, this -would not prevent a house from being placed on the lot which would mean trees would be removed. Sandy Metzler, 13267 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, asked to examL-e the pictures of trees offered by Mr. Piculell. After examination, Ms. Metzler advised that it looked as if the person who took the pictures would have to have been on her property. She objected to this. d. Rebuttal: Mr. Piculell advised that the plan presented by the Bearings Officer was conceptual. Mr. Piculell said the development w' 111 work best with the staff plan. e. Staff Recommendations Engineering Staff member Michael Anderson commented on the design and existing fill in the area. The reduction of the turn-around to twenty feet is consistent with the Code. It was noted that care was taken to preserve most of the large trees. The approval would be onuitioned so that the final design would be subject to the Engineering Department's review. The final design would also be reviewed by the lire Department. f. Mayor Nicoli noted it appeared that the parties involved are willing to work to save trees. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, staff advised the Bearings Officer's design was to promote City standards for street connectivity and for block length requirements. The bikepath as it had been proposed previously would have had no affect on trees. g. Public Dearing was closed. h. Council Consideration Mayor Nicoli agreed with the staff recommendation. He noted the staffs proposal saves trees. He advised that he had no objection to the location of the fire apparatus turn around. CITY COUNCIL MEETING M MUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 7 Councilor Rohlf noted his appreciation for the flexibility of those who wanted to protect the trees. He did not support a bikepath, as it did not appear to have a purpose. Councilor Rohlf advised he supported the staff recommendation. Councilor Hunt advised he would not support the resolution without a bikepath. He would like to see a bikepath out to Bull Mountain Road, along what would eventually be a street. Councilor Scheckla advised he supported the staff recommendation. He advised he would not support a bikepath, as it appeared to force a hardship on the neighbors. RESOLUTION NO. 95-46 - A RESOLUTION AMENDING CONDI'T'IONS OF APPROVAL OF A HEARINGS OFFICER FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF MIS 95-0012/sub 95-0002/SLR 95- 0006 (FORAN SUBDIVISION) Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 95-46. Motion .gas approved by a maiority vote of Council present; 3-1. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") (It was clarified that the resolution did not require a bikepath.) Council meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m. (Mayor Nicoli announced that Agenda Items No. 8 and 9 would not be discussed at tonight's meeting). Council meeting reconvened at 9:19 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICL4J,): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION (SUB) 95- 0004/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95-0005/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 95-0007 - HILLSHIRE WOODS PHASE II/SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT An appeal of a request for Subdivision approval to divide one parcel consisting of approximately 2.63 acres, into six parcels ranging in size from 10,375 square feet to 33,535 square feet. A Planned Development has been requested to implement the properties planned development overlay. A sensitive lands review is requested to delineate wetlands and steep slope areas. A neighboring property owner has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve this request. The neighbor CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 -PAGE 8 appealed this application due to the alignment of the proposed private street, the loss of trees and impacts to area fauna. Location. 13870 3'.W. Fern Street (WCTM 2S1 4DD, Tax Lot 1700). Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160 and 15.164. Zone: Single-family residential, seven dwelling units per acre (R-7, PD). Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6-12 units per acre). a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges. Councilor Hunt advised he had traveled to the site to review it. He noted difficulty in locating the site; he advised he asked Mrs. Williams, a resident in this -,icinity, for directions to the site. All Council members indicated they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear the matter, nor was there a challenge on the participation of any member of Council. C. Staff Report Senior Planner Bewersdorff presented the staff report. He showed the applicant's original plans. He discussed the fact that trees had been removed from a site for a drainage system which was required for a previously approved subdivision. Mr. Bewersdorff referred to the resolution as presented in the Council packet material. d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli advised: "For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council and parties rm opportunity to respond to the issue will CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1195 - PAGE 9 preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision". Applicant: • Mark Ferris, 9600 SW Oak, Tigard, Oregon, testified on behalf of the applicant. He advised that Hillshire Woods II was a small portion of a large project. He advised that all of the site had been intended to be a retention facility; significant off-site drainage is being provided. The retention pond area is part of a previous approval. • Engineer staff member Michael Anderson also testified about the requirements for the off-site retention facility. Opponents • Gordon Barret, 13800 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, advised of his concern for trees, wildlife, livability, and damage to the creek. Mr. Barret asked Council to deny the subdivision and consider leaving this area as open space. He also referred to the impact because of the r-.--d and run-off. • Melissa Barret, 13800 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, distributed handouts and exhibits (see information contained in the Council packet material). Ms. Barret's testimony referred to the following concerns: < Questioned whether the appropriate amount of buffering had been provided. < Concern there was no room for street trees as mentioned, and advised that street trees do not provide enough buffer. < Removing trees next to the Barret home and replacing with pavement denies pi ctection and privacy. < Noted where the road plan would take out trees. < The drainage system would be broken which carries a continuous flow of water during the rains (winter to summer). < Concern for tall, skinny trees that would be exposed to wind if surrounding trees were removed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 10 F~~7~ < The plan appears to be misleading as to the number of trees that would be removed. < Distributed pictures of large trees for which shehad concerns. < Concern that trees on neighboring properties would be destroyed as well. < Distributed pictures showing a tree had been damaged during tree removal. < Distributed a picture showing root damage which was incurred during grading. < Noted that Sierra Pacific appears to have violated Code when it began work on the retention facility. < Concern that no erosion control measures had been used. < Concern that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have no permit on file for altering the water course. < Advised that a new water course is cowing uuwii tue e4-;L Slope. < Referred to a number of variances, including those for steep slopes, access, and solar. < Photos showing the trees with the sunlight filtering through and the tree canopy. < highlight of the sensitive lands that were unsuitable because of their location of natural drainageways. < Referred to a section of the Code; 15.164.760 Lots Al(a) - "No lot shall be dimensioned to contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way." < Referred to pedestrian access as follows: "The proposed development will be extremely accessible to pedestrians with sidewalks initially on one side of the proposed public street..." Ms. Barret advised that because of Code violations and harm to the area, the proposal should be subject to a more critical review; she advised the area would be better suited to greenspace development. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 11 • Shelley Chase,. 13992 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, distributed maps and pictures, which are on file with the Council packet material. Ms. Chase described the area topography and also referred to the wildlife habitat. Ms. Chase supported the proposal that the area be developed as a greenspace. She referred to a petition which contained 80 signatures in support of the purchase of Tax Lot 1700 (near Fern Street) by the City of Tigard as designated greenspace. (Copy of petition is on file with the Council packet material.) • EUzalbeth Lewis, 13990 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified that the area was inappropriate for the development of five homes. She referred to the wetlands and trees that should be saved. • Richard Landry, 14000 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised he was opposed to the five houses going in and favored greenspace area. • Michael Hohnbaum, 14160 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, agreed with the appellant's position. He referred to Fern Street's unique character and the amount of wooded area which was left. He urged that this area be preserved. He said he has four acres and is of the opinion that his land will end up being a park since there are no other places for children to play. He urged the City of Tigard to get out and do something to address the need for parks and protection of some of the remaining wooded area on Bull Mountain. • Stephanie Williams, 13865 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised she owns property to the north of this land. She noted she agrees with the need for greenspaces. She referred to nearby development with small lots, and noted the children from that area play in their woods. Ms. Williams advised that the property was not suited for houses and would destroy the character of the area. She was concerned with any more tree removal and the impact this would have on stream runoff. She was concerned with ongoing maintenance of the pond; a responsibility which will become the City's. • Rod Kvistad, 13535 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, complimented Ms. Barret for her presentation. He noted his efforts in the past with the County to preserve forest land. He encouraged that the Planning Commission report be reviewed. He raised concerns with the watershed and drainage area. Mr. TU'viastad advised thee atmosphere of the area had changed. There is no place for.children to play. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 12 • Julie Tanner, 139$4 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified with concerns that when the street is put in that trees would probably be lost. She also noted her concerns with the loss of property value. Rebuttal - Applicant: Mr. Ferris said he did not argue that greenspaces were valuable; he advised that they had donated thirty acres of greenspace. He clarified that the subject of the hearing was Hillshire Woods II, Tract G the retention pond as referred to in testimony is not part of this development. Mr. Ferris also noted the amount of time and energy spent by the developer to diminish the impact of the road. He referred to his discussions with the Barrets to assess alternatives. A revised road location would Cast between $20-30,000. He referred to water quality demands. Also, the City has not recommended realignment of the road because of topography constraints. Mr. Ferris advised they went ahead with tree removal and putting in the pond because of drainage runoff concerns with the approaching rainy- weather season. He referred to buffer requirements, street trees, sun, and noise as brought up in testimony, which he said were valid issues, but not covered by the Code. With regard to putting in the retention pond, he advised the developer did not "jump the gun." The developer had the proper permits in place. Mr. Ferris also noted where variances were received. The developer was in compliance. Mr. Ferris asked for continuance of the matter to review concerns raised by the applicant. He also noted they were willing to look at options to minimize the impact. After discussion by Council and clarification by Legal Counsel Beery as to the issues to be discussed, Council consensus was to continue the public hearing. There was discussion on the 120 days and the request that the applicant waive the 120 day waiting period, which would expire on approximately October 30. There was also a request for a continuance to receive more information on the wetlands. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to continue the hearing until November 14, 1995. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINU'T'ES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 13 Mar- 8. Update: Status of Obtaining a Water Supplier There will be a meeting Rio discuss the status of obtaining a water supplier on October 11 at the Water Department Building. 9. Review: Oregon Department of Transportation Memorandum of Understanding - Durham Road City Administrator Monahan advised that after talking with Oregon Department of Transportation staff, it appears that a road transfer would be preferable to a memorandum of understanding. ODOT staff will assist in expediting the transfer. 10. Non-Agenda Items - None 11. Executive Session - Canceled. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:31 p.m. Attest- Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder a or, City o Tigar Date: o%t ~f fArecorderkank=0926.95 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - PAGE 14 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8307 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ° Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable-Terry ° AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) ' - COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti qa rA -Tt, a 1 a t i n 'dimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the Appeal STIR 95-0004-Hi 1 1 Rhi ra Wnnrlc a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE. successive and P 1 F. L E I V E consecutive in the following issues: SEP 18 1995 September 14,1995 pF TIGAP.L1 Subscribed and swor to before me this 14th day of Sete X95 OFFICIAL SEAL JACQUELINE ARELLANO NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Notary Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 023140 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9, 1997 My Commission xpires: AFFIDAVIT The following will be conci*p,by the . Y;.C;i:Council on ; t y Septem_ r r l6. 1995, at 7;30 k'.M., at the Tt'v , C;av~c.Ccnter,- Town Hall Room, 3125.S-W.; : Hall Boul1evard; Tigard, Oregon=97223: Both publie oral. and written testimony is invioed: The public 6ea I g on this matter-will' be con I. ducted in accordance with the rules .of Chapter 18.32 of, the;Tigard Municipal Code and any rules and opted by the Tigard City .'Council, or rules of procedure set foith in hapter 18:30. Fail to- raise . -alt imiie ih pdrsbn or;by letter accompanied -by-statements or evidence sgf 11crbntjd allow the* paring's authority and slLpartres to respond, precludes an'appia, rid failnieto sped the criterion from'the Cam- munity Development Code.nr Comprehensive, Plan at wtuc- .a comment is• directed precludes. an appeal based on. that criterion: Further information is ` ' available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Develoo~p-- ment Director or City Recorder at the same location; or by calling-(SQ3) . 639-,4171.. { . PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION{SUB) 95-00041PLANNEI D DEVELOP:;:; MENT REVIEW (PDR 95=0005/SENSITI~E LANDS'REVIEW (SLR):; 95 0007 HILLSHIRE WOODS PHASE II/SIERRA'PACIFIC'DEVELOPEEk: ; An appeal of a, request for Subdivision;approval to:divide one parcel con sisting of approximately 2.63 acres, inio sa parcels4ainging'mi size from 10,375 square feet tQ 33,535 sgaare feet: A Planned Development has been requested to implement. the properties,planned.developnient overlay., A sensitive lands review is requested to delineate wetlands and steep slope areas: A meighbdring=property owner has-ahppealed the Planning Commis sion's decision to-approve this requestj-e neighbor appealed this ap- plication due to the alignment of the proposed private street, the los ..of trees and impacts to area fauna. LOCATION: 13870 S.W. Fern Streei.. (WCTM 2S14DD, tax lot 1700): APPLICABLEMVIEW CRITERIA: 'l Community Development.Code Chapteis .1!3:52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90,18.92,18:100,18.102,18.108; 18.150,18.1!60 and 18.164. ZONE: Single-family residential, seven dwelling units per acre (R-7 PD). COM- PREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium.Density,Residential. (6-12 :ruts per acre). f tr, nubus,.` hPr 14 1Q95. ila3v/ uvuau.,er _ a The following will be considered by the Tigard City Courscilon.,m- ber26,1995 at 7:303? M., at the Ti Civic Center Town Ha11, Roo~n, 13125. S.W. Hali ouleva* Tigard~Oregon 4`1223 13ot, 0.0hc; 6rai and ! *-+ritten testimony is mvited The,publio hearing on this matoer`wilt lre con=" dilcted.in accordance:'with the'.rules.of Chapter 1332'of the Tigard Il snicipal Code and any rules and procedures ;adopted by :the Tigard..City Council; or rules of `procedure set forth;jn`Chaptec 18 30: Faum to raise , an r~"sue in persoi, a; by letter atsrompanieil by statements _or evidence suf> ficidht to allow,the heanng's,anthority and`all parties to respond, lliecdes an appeal,; and failure` to specify the criterion from the Com. munity Developmept Code or Comprehensive Plan at-which a comment is' directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion Futttier infrnmation is available at City Hall and maybe obtained front the Community Develop- ment Director or City Recorder at the same location, or oy calling (503) '639-4171:,'.. PUBLIC HEARING:'. APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION fSUR) 95-0004/PLANWED'DEVELOP- MENT REVIEW (PDR) 95=0005/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR),*' HJI LSE WOODS PHASE IUSIERRA I'~ IC DEVEI~ An appeal of a request for. Subdivision approval to divide one parcel con sisting o 'approximately 2.63 acres, into six parcels'ninging'in size from 10,375 square feet to 33 .335'square feet: A Planned Developmein has been.requested to implement the properties planned development-overlay. . A sensitive lands review is requested to de.ineate wetlands and steep slope areas.'A neignboring'property owner has appealed the Planning Commis- sion's decision to approve this request:' The.neighbar appealed this ap- plication due to the alignment of'the pr' sedf private street, the. lok of:: trees and impacts to area fauna. LOCATION: 13870 S.W:~ Fern Street. (wC'PM 2S14DD, tax lot 1700): APPLICABLE REVIEW. CRITERIA; Community, Development`Code Chapters 18.52,.18.80, 18.84, 18:88, 18.90, 18A2,18.100, 18.102,,18.108,18.150, 18.160 and 18.164.. ZONE; Single-family residential, seven dwelling units per acre (R-7 PD). E6iW • PREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (6-12. units per acre). ' TT8307 -Publish September 14, 1995. CITY OF TI!GARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed ou "614f t 95 ~O STA-n= OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. amity of Tigard ) I, begin first duly swom, on oath, depose an say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number ,0 q_% -.k which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 9/,s/f 5 copy(s) of aid ordinance(s) being her o ed and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of .1915 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of a6b - , 19 5 OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public for Oregon CONNIE MARTIN i NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON COMMISSION No. 015877 My Commission Expires' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 4, 1996 toginvo\affpost CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 95-QC) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.137 AND ELIMINATING CERTAIN LOADING ZONES ON MAIN STREET AND BURNHAM STREET. WHEREAS, TMC 10.28.137 designates certain portions of public streets as loading zones; and, WHEREAS, Subsections (1) and (3) of TMC 10.28.137 establish loading zones on Main Street and Burnham Street; and, WHEREAS, recent construction has eliminated the need for designated loading zones on Main Street and Burnham Street. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Subsections (1) and (3) of TMC 10.28.137 are hereby repealed. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By LAY1C(,t/L+n'1'lcito vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this &Cetb day of tF.vv,Ly, 1995. Catherine Wheatley, City Rec der APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 1995. Jame icoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney ls~ 2G-r /ri e1 S Date 1 ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 1 1 k AUENDA ffg- O..._ z -veal [4~~C ~ AGENDA DATE: jgptenfher 2b. 1995 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) tease 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 at PRONE TOPIC CONTACTED 50 4 his' scJ i 01 SPOII-~I Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount f time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further linut time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEI6 MO.. 6 DATE: Sentember 26; 1995 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION (SUB) 95-0002/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 95-0012 AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 95-0006 APPROVAL - FORAN PLACE/PICULELL GROUP A request for approval of the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately &9 acre parcel into 12 lots ranging between 6,091 square feet to 8,737 square feet. 2. Lot Line adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres. 3. Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. LOCATION: West of Woodford Estates, and approximately 650 feet north of S.W. Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1, 9AB, Tax Lots 1200 and 5700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies: 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8. 1.1 and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). The R-7 zone allows single family residential units, duplex residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment home, farming, manufactured home, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS Amok AGERTDA '1TEM NO. 6 PLEASE PRIMP Proponent,- (S 'ng In Favor) O onent - (Speaking Against) ame, o o. rasa an one o. ~ • G~ ~ icy a,,v-,~ ~ 02 ~'1., ~-Z.~ Nanie, 5o~~c~z~1~Z,1Z~ Address an ong , Address an one No. ~ /ta C~~~ w•eK-tom elfT -3231' S`v 14-tt~so P,,I IIdtz- X17Z~" Name, Address an one o. Nwne, Address and Phone No. ame, Address an one No. Name, Address an one o. Name, Address an Phone No. Name, Address an Phone No. Name, Address an one No. me, Address an one No. Name, Address an one No. Name, Address an one No. Name, Address a i one No. Name, Address a--- P-Hon-e-Mo. Name, Address an one No. Name, Address an one No. 1 Agenda Item No.--Z-- LV1~~ J► 0' McKeever/Morris, Inc. Meeting of Ci a & )Qs 722 S.W. Second Avenue Suite 400 Portland, Oregon 97204 fax 503 228-7365 503 228-7352 f r f y- -Memorandum AU B 2 1 1995 LiL:il~-u~Li 1.1 To: FOCUS Member From: Greg Chew. FOCUS Staff RE: FOCUS Total Water Resources Management Presentation. Thank you for scheduling me to make a presentation regarding FOCUS Total Water Resources Management to your governing body. As I indicated I am seeking the general opinion of governing bodies of FOCUS jurisdictions on the recommendations of three workshops on total water resources management. No formal action is needed. Enclosed are the background materials for the presentation. Please copy and distribute them to your governing board members for their review. As we schcluled, I will make the presentation on the following date and time: Governing Body: Aga. T-s 2~ Date: Time:rn If you have any questions, please give me a call at 228-7352. Planning ' 7Design Public Involvement Project Management • FOCUS Total Water Resources Management Executive Summary Forum on Cooperative Urban Services (FOCUS) and The Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies TOTAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction During the 1994-95 year, the Forum on Cooperative Urban Services (FOCUS) and the Institute of Metropolitan Studies (IMS) examined if and how to improve the integration of the planning and service delivery processes for the various fields of water management: wastewater, surface water and domestic water. The purpose of integrating these water fields is to optimize environmental protection and use of water resources. Cost savings and better policy making are also possible benefits. Figure 1 on the following page shows examples of areas which overlap in the three water fields; these overlapping areas would benefit from an integrated approach. The application of the FOCUS Governance Handbook methodology was the basis for the analysis. The Governance Workbook is a step-by-step rational process for making decisions about which services should be provided where and by what entity. The recommendations resulted from a serifs of three full-day worLL hops. A group of over forty representatives from various jurisdictions and interests worked together in the workshops conducted from January to May, 1995. The participants included elected officials and staff from jurisdictions throughout the metropolitan region that provide water management services. (A list of all participants appears in the back of this document). Using the Governance Handbook, the participants worked to develop consensus on key questions about total water resources management. This Executive Summary provides a brief description of the process and outcomes of these workshops. The outcomes were adopted by FOCUS at the June 20, 1995 General Membership meeting. Participating Organizations Clackamas County Washington County City of Beaverton City of Fairview City of Gresham City of Hillsboro City of Lake Oswego City of Portland City of Sandy City of Sherwood City of Wood Village City of West Linn Clackamas County Service District #1 Clackamas Water District Clairmont Water District Damascus Water District' Mt. Scott Water District Oak Lodge Sanitary District Oak Lodge Water District Page I Fi a I: TOTAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Sampftiqf Issues M & I and IRRIGATION - SANITARY S Y STEM ISSUES • Stored Water Releases for Summer Flow Management WATERSHED ISSUES: • Conservation/Reuse • Effluent Flow Transfers/Management • River Plow Management • Treatment Plant Sites • TMDL Compliance • Wetlands (e.g. Jackson Bottom and Fernhill) • Growth Planning ® • Future Regulations - Triennial Std. - Temp., Bact., DO.. Municipal and Industrial Water and Irrigation Sanitary System Surface Water SANITARY - SWM ISSUES Management • Industrial Discharge Management M & I and IRRIGATION - SWM ISSUES: • Cross Connections • Septic Tank Regulations Detention/Retention • Location and Routing of Sanitary Systems • Groundwater Recharge Sites • Tributaries Flow Management • Wetlands Protection and Enhancement • Buffer/Riparian Protection and Enhancement • Impervious Surface Mitigation • Landscape Design Standards for Water Quality Recommended )FOCUS Defmition of Tctal Water Resources Management: • Hobby Farms - Ag. operations in Urban area "Total water management is the comprehensive and coordinated management of all Boundary Interface - Urban and Rural water resources within a watershed for the greatest good of people and the environment." III NEW- k) US To[al vv tier NI °ge . ent Executive Summary Powell Valley Water District Rockwood Water PUD Tualatin Valley Water District Unified Sewerage Agency Metro Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Water Resources Process of the Workshops Each workshop consisted of a series of small group exercises. The participants were divided into small groups to achieve a broad mix of geographic and water-related backgrounds. Staff and elected officials were also mixed. The exercises asked key questions, and the small groups developed responses and presented them to the full group for discussion. From there, the full group crafted the recommended aciion. Recommended definition of "total water resources management" The following is the FOCUS definition of total water resources management: "Total water management is the comprehensive and coordinated management of all water resources within a watershed for the greatest good of people and the environment. " Recommended FOCUS Policy on Total Water Resources Management The following is the FOCUS policy on total water resources management: "Citizens, business and government must plan, regulate and use water resources to optimally balance the many values of adze resource, and to enhance and protect long- term watershed health and viability, integrity and livability, and to promote a high quality of life." Evaluation Criteria A goal and evaluation criteria were developed to compare the strengths and weaknesses of different governance structures for implementing total water resources management. T"he goal is stated below: "Total Water Resources Management: service providers are able to effectively coordinate planning and service delivery of the managed water resources for the greatest good of the people and the environment achieving an optimum balance of multiple uses of the resources, resource conservation and long-term environmental protection. " These criteria address the following issues • economic value • accountability • community values • policy making • service-delivery • legal/regulatory Page 3 FOCUS Total Water Resources Management Executive Summary • economies of scale • financial capability • fairness • flexibility • transition success • changetbenefit ratio Level of Service Descriptors Level of service descriptors for wastewater, surface water, water and irrigation were developed. The descriptors identify the standards that need to be met to delivery services in a manner that implements the total water resources management concepts. Examples of the issues addressed by the descriptors include: Surface Water Management • minimizing flooding and property damage • develop in accordance with comprehensive plans • protect all State designated beneficial uses Wastewater Collection and Treatment provide uninterrupted water collection and treatment for all users in urban areas • eliminate individual disposal systems which are incompatible with environmental and land goals • provide emergency systems throughout the region Potable Water Treatment, Storage and Distribution • protects public health • avoid over withdrawal water • achieve the efficient use of resources through conservation, transmission and interconnections Irrigation • operate in environmentally responsive manner • discharge into rivers in a manner which protects State designated beneficial uses. Primary and Secondary Service Providers A list of functional areas within each of the three water related fields (domestic water, wastewater and surface water management) was developed. For instance, within domestic water the major functions are planning, supply/source treatment, wholesale transmission, retail distribution and research and information. Then, for each functional area, the geographic area on which to base service provision if total water resources management as the overriding goal was identified. The choices were broken into two categories: resource-based boundaries and political jurisdiction- based boundaries. The categories of the resource-based boundary were: • the entire Willamette Basin; • watersheds in the Willamette Basin, (Tualatin, Clackamas, Columbia and Sandy); • subbasins of each watershed (e.g., Johnson Creek, Fanno Creek); and • multiple basins on a regional scale. The jurisdiction-based options included a regional entity, counties and cities/special districts. Figure 2 on the page 7 shows the Lower Willamette Basin and its four watersheds. Page 4 FOCUS Total Water Resources Management Executive Summary Afflik The categories of the political jurisdiction-based boundaries were: • the Portland region (one entity or a cooperative agreement between local governments); • the county (-ies); • cities or special districts; and • Other (whatever is the most effective and efficient for current and local conditions). The boundary that should be used to organize service delivery for each functional area was identified. The large majority of functions should be organized on the basis of resource boundaries (watershed, etc.). The only jurisdiction-based functional areas were wholesale transmission and retail distribution of domestic water, and source control of wastewater and surface water. (These also could be delivered on the basis 6f resource boundaries but this is not essential.) The results are summarized in Table I on page 8. Interrelationships Between Three Water Fields The logical connections among the different functional areas of the three water fields illustrate where there is the most need for total water resources management. Each of the combinations of functional areas between the three water fields was examined for the degree of significance of the interrelationship. The functional areas for each of the three water fields are listed below: Wastewater Surface Water Management Domestic Water Planning Planning Planning Source Control Source Control Supply/Source/Treatment Collection Conveyance Wholesale Transmission Transport Treatment Retail Distribution Treatment Research Support Research Support Effluent/Reuse Research Support Table II on page 9 summarizes the degree of significance for each pair of functional interrelationships (e.g., wastewater planning and surface water management treatment). Interrelationships With Other Water-Related Fields In addition to domestic water, wastewater and surface water management, there are other related fields such as irrigation, rural lands, urban lands, open space/recreation, fish and wildlife, water- related recreation and energy. Table III on the page 10 illustrates the significance of the interrelationships between each functional area and these other fields. Next Steps The recommendations in this document will be presented to the governing bodies of all FOCUS members during the 1995-96 year. Jurisdictions within each watershed should prepare some specific options for implementing the recommendations. This work should concentrate on making sure the governance structure successfully addresses the significant interrelationships identified through the process. Business leaders, environmental interests, civic organizations and neighborhood groups should be presented with the information and any possible changes to governance structure which emerge. This work also should be shared with the following: • WRPAC (Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee), examines comprehensive regional water issues and provides input for Region 2040 and is comprised of representatives from water providers, regulatory agencies and other parties; and Page 5 FOCUS Total Water Resources Management Executive Summary • any compliance groups for Senate Bill 122, which requires urban service agreements among local governments for the provision of wastewater, surface water management and domestic water services in urbanized areas. Workshop Participants Workshop #1 #2 #3 Bill Atherton, City Councilor, City of Lake Oswego X David Bunnell, Commissioner, Clackamas Water District x x x Scott Burgess,, City Manager, City of West Linn x x x Kathy Christy, County Commissioner, Washington County X Greg DiLoreto, Director of Environmental Services, City of Gresham X Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton x x Tim Erwert, City Manager, City of Hillsboro x x x Bud Farm, Commissioner, Powell Valley Water District X Alan Fletcher, Superintendent, Clairmont Water District.. X x x Rosemary Furfey, Staff, Metro x x Bill Gam, General Manager, Unified Sewerage Agency x x x Allen Herr, Chair of the Board, Oak Lodge Water District x x x Walt Hitchcock, Mayor, City of Sherwood X Tom Hoffman, General Manager, Oak Lodge Water District x x x Margaret Holman, City Councilor, City of Sandy X tab. Jesse Lowman, Board of Directors, Tualatin Valley Water District X Dale Jutila, General Manager, Clackamas Water District x x x Lynne Kennedy, Staff, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality X Denny Klingbile, Superintendent, Damascus Water District x x Helene Lichtman, Director, Clackamas County Utilities Department x x Neal Mulane, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality X Lou Ogden, Mayor, City of Tualatin x x Tom Paul, Staff, Oregon Department of Water Resources x x x Donna Peterson, Staff, Clackamas County X John Reeves, Board of Directors, Damascus Water District x x Greg Robart, Staff, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife x x Don Robertson, Mayor, City of Wood Village X Duane Robinson, General Manager, Rockwood Water PUD X Mike Rosenberger, Director, City of Portland Water Bureau x x Mark Schoening, Environmental Engineer, City of Lake Oswego x x Gene Seibel, General Manager, Tualatin Valley Water District X Ethan Seltzer, PSU Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies x x x Forrest Soth, City Councilor, City of Beaverton x x x Kent Squires, General Manager, Oak Lodge Sanitary District x x Loma Stickel, Staff, City of Portland Water Bureau x x John Thomas, Administrator, Mt. Scott Water District X Jill Thorn, Mayor, City of West Linn X Mike Walker, Tualatin Valley Water District X Mike Weatherby, City Councilor, City of Fairview X David Winship, Staff, City of Beaverton x gcM.governance 1666--axecsumm.fn1 Page 6 . ~ FIG 2 Lower Willamette in and Subbasins FOCUS Total, Water ResNO6 Mitnapunent i COLUMBIA a. Otani Y» ' W n. o.MIJ °n € A S H I N G 1 0 N Suvya« ± X 0 t t t t 1" 8 o CLARK SKAMANIA SHING ON a VANCOUVER I .a. M~!o w• ..7-d I 5 A 30 ~ ,4 s Came g * Cwl f Il } t« 1J ) so 1Y.A..f.1 A t r l1 .AX x ILLAMOOK "off q ° IL O r F• HOOD 1 REST 6 E VERT ORS oND yo S a• 11 P R t RIVER t 8nry • j r x.Tn TUALAT N x t , .u lla ..14.1 'A 1 CA.m C. ilf 200 2 U - T - - TUB aa 1G R ~9 0 stadli 210 Qelr t in NAT u++ T U h1 ' On90.'.eod L, If d "•~t • EI ~ 211 x1. xoa 1ad11on -1h x REGON Y..rw 240 T t k : C ..a.. 0 ~ ~ H • 1M. ~ c ~ ~ a+ Gm Il Nar.barg A d.« jt3 1 YAMHILL 211 .IY z + SUBBASINS 1 211 CI( 9 R^~• E TUAEATIN r °C 9 C[ACKAMAS awl. 5' tt/ S1w"IA/ x 10 COLUMBIA 11 SANDY . \ ; y WASCO 1978 a t Io u x + + + T►' ~ + c WATER RESOURCES 5• M < DEPARTMENT • rI LOWER z - - < WILLAMETTE MARION u BASS MAP NO. 2C. 4 Page 7 TABLE P= Primary lead entity FOCUS Primary an S = Seoondary lead entity Total Water Resource Manage RESOURCE-BASED Willamette Watershed Based SuL*-Basin of the Multiple Basins Basin (Tualatin, Clackamas, Tualatin, Clackamas, on a regional scale Single Columbia and Sandy) Columbia and Sandy driven by the resource WATER P Planning Supply/Source/Treatment P S Wholesale/transmission Retail/distribution Research Support P (maps, information) WASTEWATER P S Planning Source control Collection P Transport P Treatment P Effluent/Reuse P S Research Support P (maps, information) SURFACE WATER P S Planning Source control Conveyance P Treatment P Research Support P (maps, information) Anything jurisdiction-based could be delivered using resource-based geography; however, the reverse rond wr.HD/ACI'proj (1661rprimehu.FNL) Page 8 Secondary en>t Service Providers JURISDIMON-BASED Other (Whatever is the most City/Special effective and efficient for Portland County District current and local conditions) P P Lion does not work (unless the resource base is exactly the same as the political jurisdiction). TABLE vuu■u■a■ J v■ anece re:exee_■vuaue~s ia■ r uue:e i SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT significanti - some 0 - nart9 Research Support Planning Source Control Conveyance Treatment (maps, Information WATER Alft C) PWnninp fat Supply/Source/Treatment ® 0 Wholesaleltransmission S9 ® ® Retail Distribution O0~ ® ® 40 AdIbL 8 Research Support (maps. Information) ® ~e% t WASTEWATER AM ddlilk planning 0 Source control i Collection dab Transport Treatment • Effluent X00 Research Support (maps, information) ® o Ofi~ Page 9 II: Tonal Areas of 'hree Water Wields WASTEWATER Research Support tannin Source Control Collection Transport Treatment Effluent/Reuse (maps. Information AM, :tic Lek s i Milill LEGEND: TABLE III: Summary of Relationships of Three Water Fields 40 * sigNt~cent and Other Related Fields =some 0 a none 2. Land Use- d. open space/ 5. Fish and 7. Water Iidated 1. Irrigation 2. Forest Urban Recreation Wildlife 6. Recreation !Co WATER A. Planning qP Aft AML AOL AdIlk, 8. Suppy/Souree/Ireatment AML AM C. Whoiesalehranamlaslon D. Retail Distribution O O O O E. Research Support (maps, information) 0 A611 WASTE WATER F. Planning G. Source control Amhk H. Collection O 1. Transport ® ;4; O J. Treatment O AMk K Effluent O L Research Support (maps, information) SURFACE WATER M. Planning N. Source control I~ ® ® ® ® O 0. Conveyance O O VP. Treat:nant ~ ® ~ ~ O• o. Research Support (maps, information) ® ® O Page 10 Agenda item NQ.~ Meeting of,_, Memorandum DATE: September 6, 1995 TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director RE: Certificate of Achievement for 1993/94 CAFR The City has received notice that the 1993/94 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was awarded the Certificate of achievement in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association. This represents the eleventh consecutive year Tigard's report has received the award. Rather than have a formal presentation, I suggest this item be a receive and file on a council agenda or be placed in Council mail. I have attached the official notice letter. Wa will be receiving the actual certifirite and plaque in late September. If you have any questions or would like to talk about this issue, please give me a call. Allk GOVERNMENT FINANCE JUL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60601 . J Ll ~:l 312/977-9700 • Fax: 312/977-4806 July 21, 1995 Mr. William A. Monahan City Administrator City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 Dear Mr. Monahan: We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1994 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and AAL financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. Congratu- lations for having satisfied the high standards of the program. We hope that your example will encourage others in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excellence in financial reporting. Each entity submitting a report to the Certificate of Achievement review process is provided with a "Summary of Grading Results" form and a confidential list of comments and suggestions for pos- sible improvements in its financial reporting techniques. Your list has been enclosed. You are strongly encouraged to implement the recommended improvements into the next report and submit it to the program. Accompanying future submissions should be your detailed response to each comment appearing on the list. These responses will be provided to those Special Review Committee mem- bers participating in the review. WASHINGTON OFFICE 1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 650, Washington, DC 20006 202/429-2750 • Fax: 202/429-2755 i Mr. William A. Monahan July 21, 1995 Page 2 ' Your Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped under separate cover in about eight weeks. A holder of a current Certi- ficate of Achievement may include a reproduction of the award in its immediately subsequent CAFR. A camera ready copy of your certificate will be forwarded to you for this purpose under separate cover in about eight weeks. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year. To continue to participate in the Certificate of Achievement Pro- gram it will be necessary for you to submit your next CAFR to our review process. In order to expedite your submission we have enclosed a Certificate of Achievement Program application form to facilitate a timely submission of your next report. This form should be completed and mailed (postmarked) with four copies of your report, four copies of your application, four copies of your written responses to the program's comments and suggestions for improvement from the prior year, and any other pertinent material with the appropriate fee by December 31, 1995. Your continued interest in and support of the Certificate of Achievement program is most appreciated. If we may be of any further assistance, please contact Dorothy Ray or Kathleen Schultz. Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Stephen J. Gauthier Director/Technical Services Center SJG/kas Enclosures ,l <1_ • Agenda Rom No. Meeting of R a(,7la5 TENTATIVE COUNCIL AGENDAS (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: October 10, 1995 t Type: Business (TV) / Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: >Approve Council minutes >Receive and File: e Council Calendar ® Tentative Agenda Business Meeting: > Building Code Appeal Board - Discussion (Jim H., David) > Dartmouth LID Financing Hearing (Randy, Wayne) > Review of I-5/217 Subarea Plan Recommendation (Mayor, Bill) > MACC Resolution > Discussion - City/School District 908 Study/Agreement (Note: School Dist. is requesting a meeting on this topic on either October 26 or November 16.) > Adoption of Findings - Dolan > Department Service Standards (Set over from 9/12/95) > Council Compensation (Set over from 9/12/95) > Council Groundrules (Set over from 9/12/95) r (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: October 17, 1995 Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > Joint Meeting with CITs (Liz) > CIT Communications (Liz) > Board and Committee Rules (Liz) > Growth Impact Discussion (Bill, Randy) > Council Policy - Half Street Improvements (Randy) > 2040 Update (Jim H.)' > Neighborhood Mediation Discussion (Bill) > Status of Classification/Compensation Study > Space Issues - 1999 (Liz) ® Executive Session: Contract City Administrator's Ask Review (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: October 24, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 5:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes > Phones System Upgrade (Wayne) Business Meeting: > _Update: Youth Programs - Police Department (Ron) > Parks SDC Public Hearing (Jim H.) AM, > Annexation Hearing - Snook - (Ray V.) > Triangle Design Workshop Update (Ray V.) > Annexation Public Hearing - Snook - ZCA 95-00004 (Ray V.) (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: November 14, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review > Utility Billing - delinquent collections and rules and regulations - (Wayne) Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes > Receive and File: ® Council Calendar ® Tentative Agenda Business Meeting: > Utility Billing Frequency (Wayne) > Purchasing Rules Update (Wayne) > 130th/Winterlake Progress/Recommendation > Public Hearing - Greenspaces (Selection of Projects) (Jim H. ) > Public Hearing - Annexation ZCA 95-0005; Williams (Ray V.) Date: November 21, 1995 Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Communications > Annexation Comprehensive Plan Changes (Jim) > Transportation Comprehensive Plan Changes (Jim) > Solid Waste Policy Discussion (Continued from August 15, 1995) (Wayne, Loreen) (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: November 28, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes Business Meeting: Aft Cancel Meeting? NLC Conference (11/29-12/3) (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: December 12, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes Business Meeting: > Water Rate Study Report (Wayne) > Classification and Compensation Study Recommendations (Sandy) > Audit Report Presentation (Joint Meeting with Budget Committee) - (Wayne) (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) 'r Date: December 19, 1995 Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Communications 4 (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: December 26, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes Business Meeting: > OPEU Contract Negotiations - approval of new contract (Sandy) ITEMS PENDING - DATES TO BE SCHEDULED ® Community Development Code Amendments - Buffering ® Planning Fees f:\1ogin'<cathy\tentagen.95 a AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of ~tS CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Amendment to Resolution No. 91-91 to Establish a Fee for Expedited Review of Minor Land Partitions and Subdivisions PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt a fee for Expedited Minor Land Partitions and Subdivisions? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution amending the City's fee schedule. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 1995 Legislature passed House Bill 3065 (effective date - September 9, 1995). Among other things is bill established a process for expedited review of minor land partitions. The Bill has been described as very poorly written and in the last week, attorneys have interpreted that expedited review also includes subdivisions. Expedited review is available to developers on request and the City must follow procedures established in HB 3065. Expedited review is neither a land use decision nor a limited land use decision. Expedited reviews are to be processed in a maximum of 63 days after receipt of a complete application and are appealable only to a land use referee appointed by the City. Appeals from a referee's decision are directly to the Court of Appeals. The referee has unprecedented authority to decide appeals and cannot remand it back to the City. There is some danger for local units of government in the expedited process in that the referee could make a decision that violates a jurisdiction's requirements and there would be little or no recourse since the Bill severely limits the Court of Appeals options. The Bill also requires jurisdictions to establish a fee to recover the estimated full cost of processing an application. The attached resolution establishes a fee of $472 for minor partitions and a fee of $1525 plus $5 per lot for subdivisions. These fees are the estimated cost of processing these applications according to a 1991 study by the City plus updating by increases in the Consumer Price Index. While the expedited process is somewhat different from our existing processes, the estimates are the only reasonably reliable figures we can come up with at this time. The current fee for the City's regular minor partitions is $235. The current fee for a preliminary subdivision plat is $415 plus $5 per lot. The City will be doing a study to determine all land use fees later in the year and the expedited review fee as well as others can be reviewed to more accurately reflect actual experience. cuss Bill 3065 requires that the expedited fees be reviewed within a year. Since the city's existing minor rtition process normally occurs faster than the state expedited review process (four to six weeks versus sixty-three days) and is cheaper, we would hope that there may not be many occasions where the expedited review pocess is chosen. Use of the expedited process for subdivisions may create workload conflicts since normal processing usually takes at least eight weeks without appeal. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Charge a fee equal to that for existing partitions and subdivisions. 2. Do nothing and charge no fee. FISCAL NOTES There is no way to predict the number of applications that we would receive under the expedited review process. Establishing no fee would encourage the use of a process that may not benefit the City and would mean full subsidization by the taxpayers. Use of the existing fees neither reflects costs nor the State requirement to estAblish a fee reflecting estimated full costs. The attached resolution includes a State mandated fee of a $300 deposit for appeals to the referee. The maximum fee for an appeal is $500 which is also mandated by HB 3065 whether or not costs exceed $500. AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of September 26, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Encroachment Agreement with property owner of Lot 26 in the'Pebble Creek No. 2 subdivision PREPARED BY: M.J.A. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City grant an encroachment to the private property owner of Lot 26 in the Pebble Creek No. 2 subdivision to allow the construction of a bay window to protrude into the public storm drain easement that crosses the lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council authorize the City Administrator, on behalf of the City, to enter into the proposed encroachment agreement with Costa Pacific Homes to allow for a bay window of a proposed single family residence to cantilever into the public storm drain easement within the subject lot. INFORMATION SUMMARY In order to comply with the minimum setback for the proposed single family residence on Lot 26 from the southerly lot line, and the existing building under-construction on Lot 27, the developer has requested permission to site the foundation for the proposed building on Lot 26 contiguous to the public torm drain easement, with the bay window cantilevering into the easement. he foundation would be constructed to a depth sufficient to prevent any additional soil pressure on the pipe and enable full access to the public storm drain. The bay window would extend 11 inches into the 15 foot wide easement. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny request and require the building to be re-designed to eliminate bay window. 2. Vacate the southerly one foot of the existing easement on Lot 26 and reduce the total easement width to 14 feet. FISCAL NOTES 'AIL AGENDA ITEM # 44' For Agenda of September 26, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Encroachment Agreement with property owner of Lot 38 of Waverly Estates Subdivision (#16641 SW 90th Place) PREPARED BY: M.J.A. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City grant an encroachment to the private property owner of Lot No. 38 in the Waverly Estates Subdivision to allow the construction of an overhead deck within a portion.of the dedicated but unimproved public sewer easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Administrator, on behalf of the City, to enter into the proposed encroachment agreement with Royal Oaks Development Co. to allow the deck from the proposed residence to overhang into the public sewer easement at the rear of the property. INFORMATION SUMMARY With the development of the Waverly Estates Subdivision, public sewer easements were established along two alignments at the rear southerly oundary line of the subdivision. One easement is contiguous to Cook Park nd provides for the public sewer main that serves the entire tract. The subject easement was established for the private sewer laterals that were to be constructed across the rear of the lots to access the public main. There are not public facilities located within this easement. In addition, the deck is to be constructed approximately 20 feet above the natural grade of the easement area and would not restrict access to the easement area. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Vacate the portion of the public sewer easement not required by the existing public sewer construction. 2. Deny the request and require a new building design for the site. FISCAL NOTES AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of 09/26/95 CITY OF TIGARD; OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update Building Use Policies PREPARED BY: N. Robinson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK - - - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council adopt an updated building use policy outlining room reservation procedures, room use guidelines, and setting forth fees and deposits? STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Adopt the updated City of Tigard Meeting Room Reservation and Use Policies and Procedures. - INFORMATION SUMMARY The Town Hall Room and most conference rooms are currently available to the public, by reservation, under an interim Building Use Policy established in 1987. The present policy does not require deposits and does not charge fees or room use. In addition, there is no limitation on how the rooms are used. Over the years we have experienced some damage to facilities from public use. We also are currently allowing a variety of uses of City facilities some of which benefit non-Tigard residents and some of which benefit for-profit businesses. The updated policy is based on the assumption that room use should be free of charge to non-profit organizations and Tigard citizens and that those wishing to use facilities for a profit venture or those from outside Tigard should be charged a fee. In addition, refundable deposits should be collected to cover the costs of clean up or repairs for functions such as parties, receptions, and potlucks which typically involve food and beverages. The updated policy encourages the continued use of the City facilities by Tigard taxpayers and non-profit organizations and generally discourages use by others. The collection of deposits will ensure that any damage to facilities will be repaired at user's cost, so that facilities can continue to be made available for public use. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - 1. Continue interim use policy currently in effect. 2. Adopt updated policy as proposed. 3. Amend proposal, then adopt. FISCAL NOTES Fees from room use are anticipated to amount to less than, $1000.00 annually. AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of 09/26/95 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update Tigard Senior Center Room Use Policies PREPARED BY: N. Robinson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council adopt an updated room use policy for the Tigard Senior Center outlining room reservation procedures, room use guidelines, and setting forth fees and deposits? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the updated Tigard Senior Center Room Use Policies and Rental Procedures. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Senior Center is currently available for rental, by reservation, nder an interim policy established in 1990. Reservations for functions utside the Senior Center regular hours primarily fall under the "non-profit organizations and Tigard residents" classification. The present policy allows for a room rental fee dependant on the classification a user falls under. The updated policy clarifies user's responsibilities and updates room rental fees. The fee schedule continues to allow free use by Loaves and Fishes, City business, and governmental agencies. Tigard resident no profit functions and non-profit organizations pay the lowest rental fee and non-residents pay the highest fee. The Senior Center has experienced some damage from public use. Requiring a refundable deposit will ensure that any damage to the facility will be repaired at the user's expense. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Continue interim use policy currently in effect. 2. Adopt updated policy as proposed. 3. Amend proposal, then adopt. FISCAL NOTES Fees from room use are anticipated to amount to less than $10,000.00 nnually. AGENDA ITEM # J For Agenda of Sept. 26, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update of loading zone designations. PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Update of Municipal Code to eliminate loading zones no longer needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY Recent construction in the downtown area has eliminated the need for two loading zones designated in the Municipal Code. A loading zone on Burnham Street near Main Street primarily was used for Ifteliveries to the adjoining tavern. The tavern has been removed as part of he recent intersection improvements. Under the plan reviewed with the downtown merchants, parking will be allowed along this portion of Burnham when the project is completed. A loading zone previously existed on Main Street near the south intersection of Main and Pacific Highway. The loading zone was near the former plant store. The store and the loading zone were eliminated as part of the construction of the new apartments. Because the apartments have substantial off-street parking, there is no longer any need for a loading zone in this location. The attached ordinance will repeal the portions of the Code authorizing the two loading zones. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES No fiscal impact. Ow/load-zon.sum AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of 9 fao I Ss CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Appeal of SUB 95-0002/MIS 95-0012/SLR 95-0006 (FORAN SUBDIVISION) PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council support the applicant's appeal? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Unless information to be presented for Council review at the September 26, 1995 meeting indicates otherwise, it is recommended that the Council support the applicant's request subject to the applicant providing a street design which would accommodate both a westerly and southerly street connection. This is recommended because the comprehensive plan and community development code require connectivity regardless of tree location. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the findings as contained in the staff report as submitted to the Hearings Officer. It is recommended Viat the City Council approve amended conditions of approval by adopting the attached Resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY At its September 12, 1995 hearing the City Council voted to continue the hearing on the 12 lot subdivision on the Foran property north of SW Bull Mountain Road and west of Woodford Estates. Council asked staff to contact the fire district to determine if a turn around facility would be required. The applicant was asked to provided information relating to the number and size of trees that would be removed due to the location of the proposed street. This information is to be made available for Council review at the , September 26, 1995 meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CQ'% IDQERED 1. Deny the appeal. 2. Deny the subdivision and prepare the appropriate findings and final order. 3. Support the appeal as requested by the applicant and prepare the appropriate findings and final order. FISCAL NOTES Not Applicable /21/85 11:55 0503 526 2536 TV FM KARSBAL 00020002 Agunm Rom r4o.o. Meegng Of -ace /AS TUALAMN VAIX" . & RES= A1®1D ®N FME I EPARME lT 4755 S.W. ndfwh D►fMe • P.O. Boat 4735 • Benue. OR 97076 • CS(B) n?&240 • FAX S26-2538 TO: VMJ.. ANDERSON CITY OF TIGARD FROM: REX ]EFFIIM. ASSIS'IAW FM MARSHAIL TUALAMN VALLEY FIRB AND RESME SLAT: FORAM SUIBDI MON DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 i We h"e review wed the above listed subdivisir % in patdcular ft fire d neat apparatus wnara und. Your plans indite that a sued will can d faomn the end of the subdivmm w Bull Mountain, however. the configuration would not serve as an + appropriate Ummaround for Errs apparams. lberefor e, the apparatus tunnarotnd. as shown on these same plans, would be the appropriate one for the fire district. i ][fare may be of any tinther assistance. please do not hesitate to call. 1 i RJ:kw ~-ec e.• ~ Ala t lit s r I ~-?~1'~~~ rr,, zr7774'7~7,`~i~'~,rf` lW dl.NMU. i!' J y +!Y , ,}fir • wn a t t .£~t!. V , ...:ice i,~ ~a~yJ~ fl 1 I t i-'+~ rI' .r, +'t.. T Y"' Ri+<~}i.~L~ w 'Lt S rtF i..v ` *~✓~~"'ik t~.~y,t~~K•.yr~y~"'~~~t:- J •r....'6 ~ ~rt5~'^~+Yr."_t r+ a~~i:J. 't t + W.~ F • ~~~~~y~yF1~ ~?}f},Ji-~x F'. i~,J~'t Y~_ t`".~.. ;~t ~~r~`~Ij~Ei.}~rb M..,+ ~e~• --`"t'f M~+;rP.. r :;t Y 4a u. 9„ A~~YI?.!~..x':,tli!'G`t~~L-4wi1•.'_vy:Y~ ~ r.~:'M~.h`. r TL 200 9 89°44'41' E 415.12' Q ►L 1200 453 ACRES EEAVNENT 1 Fin CD~. I Fn. CENTERLINE"' OF SW ALE 1 v , 9 88° DRAINAGE FASEMENr PHASE II IO'h5' ZI 69107 5F / t 159 ACRES 69 - - - JOHN f3 r. I V 1 I 14318 SVd 1 TIGARq (.)RI 7654 4F I 7700 9F I 8694 5F 55 69285F II I (3J2. I (4)3 I v I g I I--- 15' STOR PHAS 9E(IJ£R EA EMENT F - .yes M FI/f I 34. /0 6 79' sr FUR 63091 CURF3 5• ,°i1nFlVAl K In 7-01;A6r, (I I!' - 7`rl^(YYl`YYY'r Y-,Y-y r"l' 01 ® P e+>QWOHIHAIF RX.E f~F lweF.1% •V r ' Fin J[7 76- CIA ! ORA~~~R 1 I tE~Pt N~ of Fee, , I 8137 s 0 775r R MICHAF I F b~. 6777 5F `n @ 1 1 I ! 1 14401 SW 13t TI, /O 1 - - 1 E. - l5' 9A 7ARY d 570R19 T IGARD OR[IGC'. 70166 9F 1 SEWER ASEMEN t - I - t 62' I I 52' 70' 69' p~ S 89044'41' E 31A.13' / - cb I 3 I TL 5700 PAUL T a Ui A At; PARCEL TO BE CONVF. rEC 2.1F ACRE 5 14445 SW 1:107 TIGARD DR[ Gc 50' I FROM TL 5700 TO TL 1.200 0 *4 ACRES I I MEL VIN G -j" 1 I 14467 SW 130- I I I I TIGARD UFtrG PARCEL tq BE CONVEYEDI F. - - FROM TL 000 TO TL 57001 I N 0.69 ACRE V I I . I I i t JOHN M d '.;A EXl3TING 50' 1//lDE 14481 SW i.io TIGARD CN+LG I ACCE9,5 EASEMENT I rt r~~S A/tcl-.+~ fI Vd. S f'r•e Ct' Sa%/e ~w4•~ I r JAMES R 8 r 14503 SW I.-- I IGAPD (III THE FALLOWING DOCUMENT IS OF POOR ORIGINAL QUALITY i Jy AU ":'..K. ;~"a,~"~r•:,. ~W X11• ~ f tD`J n.{_ vkz r p-1 ; a - ! L / 4n X4~7"F 1 1, 4 1 v p'ttia^ T. yKa 4' , ~~'t CI 13 r2~~-,r,+i-.'.lea. s r:: 7.Q ~ O TL 54 S L iF r a n 1 AQ %i 7 t rty+l; FL ' r We rf ,K. r~ • ~ f. Y S x, ~ L ~ r,'Y r.~l~?~1i,Yya4. w t 4 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of _ 1 S CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of PDR 95-0005. SUB 9540004. SLR 95-0007 (Hillshire Woods il) PREPARED BY: Dick B DEFT HEAD.OKJ/jj CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council support the applicants appeal? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council approve the proposed subdivision subject to revised conditions in the attached resolution. These conditions call for a revised preliminary plat with the street located on the west subject to an updated wetlands survey and development proposal to minimize impact on the wetlands. IMF& INFORMATION SUMMARY Gordon and Melissa Barret appealed the Planning Commission approval of a seven lot subdivision (Hillshire Woods II - PDR 95-0005, SUB 95-0004, SLR 95-0007). The proposed subdivision is located on the south side of Fern Street and is shown on the vicinity map provided at the end of the Planning Commission final order (Exhibit A). The Barret property is located immediately to the east of the proposed location of Hillshire II. The applicants original plans show a half street that could be expanded on the Barret property with the potential for an additional connection to the east through the Barret parcel. The Commission approved the subdivision with a 24 foot private street within a 30 foot easement and no connection to the east rather than a 20 foot half street and a connection to the east. This was to reduce the impact on the Barret property. The appellants are appealing because they feel even the location of the private street adversely affects their home and property. The proposed subdivision street is located just west of their house and property line. The appellant also opposes removal of large trees and the proposed drainage solution. The applicant's appeal is attached as Exhibit B. After the appeal Mark Ferris, who represents Sierra Pacific Development, presented staff with a revised plan moving the location of the proposed street to the west (Exhibit C). The revised location appears to be satisfactory to the Ban-ets. They indicated by letter (Exhibit D) that the revised plan minimally impacted their property. The City Engineering staff has reviewed the revised location and also finds it reasonable. ® City received a petition concerned about the wetlands, wildlife habitat and trees on the property fSkAibit E). Staff agrees that any subdivision approval should be based on an updated wetlands survey especially given the newly proposed design. As evidenced by an applicant's site and plan map (Exhibit F), some trees will be saved by moving the street to the west. Others will have to be removed. The property is developable property. Unless it is purchased as open space, approval of a subdivision is warranted by City code requirements. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREID 1. Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission decision. 2. Approve the plan as revised by the applicant subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. 3. Deny the subdivision with appropriate findings. 4. Negotiate purchase of the property as part of the City open space system. FISCAL NOTES Not applicable at this point. Aaft 1%1TV vC TivrDr% v0EVV1k1 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION AMENDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF PDR 954005/SUS 950004/SLR 95-0007 (HILLSHIRE WOODS II) WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 17, 1995 and issued a final order on August 9, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council conducted a public hearing on September 26, '1995 on the appeal of the approval and finds that amended conditions are in accordance with City standards; and WHEREAS, the Council adopts the findings as contained in the Planning Commission Final Order. NaW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The Tigard City Council hereby approves the subdivision subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Commission Final Order No. 95-07 PC as amended herein; Section 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the Planning Commission Final Order 95-07 PC Condition No. 1 be amended to read as follows: 1. Half-width street improvements including: traffic control devices, mailbox clustars, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed Ask along SW Fern Street as shown on the preliminary plat and at the end of SW Lauren Street, as approved by the City Engineer. Improvements within the subdivision shall be provided by a private street that includes a design with a 24 foot pavement and a five foot sidewalk on one side, within a 30 foot easement, and eight foot wide public utility easement contiguous to the 30 foot wide private access easement, and shall be constructed to local street standards. The plans for the private street construction shall be included within the public improvement plans and permit Said private street shall be aligned to the west side of the property similar to the applicant's revised plans subject to design approval of the City Engineer. All of the afore mentioned improvements shall be subject to an update wetlands study and development plan designed to minimize impact to the wetlands and subject to approval of the City Engineer. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department PASSED: This day of ,1995. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 95- Hillshire Woods II Subdivision Page 1 CITY OF TIrnRD EXHIBIT A Warhinntnn rmintynrunnn A NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 95-07 PC p BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Concerning Cass Number(s): SUB 95.00041P0R 95.000SISLR 95.0007 Nance of Owner. Sierra Pacific Development A'ame of Applicant. Same Address of Applicant.- P.D. Box 1754 City.• Lake Oswego State. Oregon Zip.• 97035 Address of Property. 13870 SW Fern Street City: Tigard State. Ore on Zip: 97223 Tax Map and Lot No(s).: WCTM 2S1 4DD tax lot 1700 Re guest: A request for Subdivision approval to divide one parcel consisting of approximately 2.63 acres, into six parcels ranging in size from 10,375 square feet to 33,535 square feet. APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164. Zone: Single-family residential, seven dwelling units per acre (R-7 PO). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (6-12 units per acre). Amok Action: ❑ Approval as requested ® Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ® Owners of record within the required distance ® Affected governmental agencies * The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator ® The applicant and owner(s) THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON AUGUST 9, 1995 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED Decision: The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Apoeal. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290 (B) and Section 18.32.370, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within ten (10) days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee(s) of $315.00 plus transcript costs, not in excess of $500.00. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON AUGUST 9, 1995 estions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department at (503) 639.4171. SUB 95.00041P0R 95.00O5iSLR 95.0007 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT ► COVER SHEET . r CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 95-07 PC SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT - OWNER ALPHA ENGINEERING -APPLICANT A FINAL ORDER APPROVING SIJBDIVISICN 95-0004, PLAINNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-0005 AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW 95-0007. 1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: Subdivision 95-0004/Planned Development Review 95-0005/Sensitive Lands Review 95-0007 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Subdivision approval to divide one parcel consisting of approximately 2.63 acres into six parcels ranging in size from 10,375 square feet to 33,535 square feet. APPLICANT /OWNER: Sierra Pacific Development P.O. Box 1754 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 OWNER: Same COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (6-12 units peracre) ZONING DESIGNATION: Single family residential seven dwelling units per acre (R-7 PD) LOCATION: The south side of SW Fern Street, north of the Hillshire Estates Subdivision (WCTM 2S1 4DD; tax lot 1700). APPLICABLE LAIN: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape: The subject parcel is a rectangular parcel of approximately 2.63 acres. The entire site slopes towards SW Fern Street from an elevation of approximately 400 feet to an elevation of 328 feet at SW Fern Street. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04/PDR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 1 B. Site location: The site is located at 13870 SW Fern Street and comprises areas south of SW Fern Street to the north of the Hillshire Estates Subdivision. C. Existing uses and stru 1 r s: The subject parcel is vacant with the exception of one structure which is proposed to be removed. The structure is within an area to be left for storm water quality treatment area. Much of the site has existing trees. D. Surrounding zoning and land uses: The subject properties were recently annexed to the City through a direct application with the Boundary Commission. The annexation became final on November 11, 1994. On January 30, 1995 the Planning Commission approved a zone change for the Hillshire Woods Subdivision redesignating the property to R-7(PD) from Washington County R-6 zoning. This approval was conditional upon subsequent approval of City Council approval of a City Comprehensive Plan Designation for the property.. On February 28, 1995 the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Medium Density residential for the subject property which al;ows from 6-12 dwelling units per acre for the property. The surrounding properties to the east, Affh south and north presently within the City of Tigard are zoned for single family residential development at a density of up to seven units per acre. To the south of the property is the Hillshire Estates subdivision. This site was a part of the Hillshire Woods development. The subject property was shown as a storm water quality and quantity treatment tract. The applicant has proposed to subdivide a portion of this tract while retaining the remainder to provide for storm water quality and quantity treatment as planned for through the previously approved for through the first Hillshire Woods Subdivision. On July 17th the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing concerning this request. Based on testimony concerning the appropriateness of the proposed streets the Planning Commission approved revised conditions of approval which required that a private street be used exclusively within this subdivision. The Planning Commission also expressed concern with impacts to the adjoining residence to the east due to the location and design of the partial cul-de-sac bulb which was proposed. In response to these issues the Planning Commission recommended that the partial cul-de-sac bulb be eliminated and that future access to the east be provided to the proposed private street at a location to be determined by the City Engineer. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-041PDR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 2 III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS A. Community Development Code: Development Standards: Section 18.52.050 contains standards for the R-7 zone. Single-family detached residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size 5,000 square feet/unit Average lot width 50 feet Front setback 15 feet Garage setback 20 feet interior sideyard setback 5 feet Corner sideyard setback 10 feet Rear setback 15 feet Maximum building height 35 feet The proposed subdivision will comply with the use standards of the R-7 zoning district through the building permit plan check review process. The proposed lots range in size between 10,375 to 33,535 square feet which exceeds the 5,000 square foot minimum of the site's zoning designation. Densi : Section 18.92.020 contains standards for density. The number of dwelling units permitted is based on the net development area, excluding sensitive land areas and land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. This land area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. The gross site acreage is approximately 2.53 acres. After deduction of 20% of the gross site area for public right-of-way 2.10 acre remain. After deduction of approximately 10,880 square feet of the gross site for private streets an area of 1.85 acres is left. The site appears to contain an area of approximately 13,147 square feet in excess of the 25% slope which is deducted from the gross leaving an area of 1.54 acres. An additional 1,941 square feet of area is also deducted which contains a wetland leaving a net area of 1.50 acres. By dividing the 5,000 square foot minimum per lot in the R-7 zoni-ng district, this site yields an opportunity for up to 13 net dwelling units. Due to the sloping topography of the site the applicant has proposed six lots. This is less than the maximum permitted on this site. The proposed development reduces the need for massive hillside grading which would be expected to require more extensive erosion control measures and tree removal. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04/PDR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS It PAGE 3 Subdivision Desien: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with Ad0k the following criteria: 1. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Medium. Density Residential opportunity for the site as well as with the applicable policies, the regulations of the R-7 zone, and other applicable ordinances and regulations as reviewed elsewhere within this report. 2. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; The proposed.name of the subdivision, "Hillshire Woods II", is not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County. 3. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; The streets appear to be aligned so as to conform with the plats of adjoining areas. The applicant shall demonstrate that the street alignment of the partial cul-de-sac bulb to be developed adjoining the.property to the east of the site will not negatively impart the existing home in the future should this street be extended. Given the topographic and other development constraints adjoining this property the subdivision as proposed provides for sufficient future connections to existing or proposed streets in the area. Section 18.164.040 addresses block design and discourages block lengths in excess of 1,800 feet. This development will facilitate future connectivity of streets in area due to the provision of a logical connection to the adjoining property to the east. Due to topographic constraints the applicant is limited from developing a street connection to Hillshire Estates to the south. The alignment of such a street would require extensive hillside grading. Section 18.164.040 also requires that where block lengths are in excess of 600 feet that pedestrian paths and or bikeways be provided where steep site topugraphy limits street connections in the area. The applicant has provided a pedestrian connection from the ravine area of the northerly portion of the adjoining Hillshire Estates Subdivision. The pedestrian connection as proposed then crosses proposed Lot 7#5 and joins with "8" Street. The applicant shall fully construct this pathway. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-44/13DR 95-O51SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 4 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements; The applicant has provided an P,;planation for all common improvements including the provision for public services such as sewer, water, drainage and street improvements. Storm, water run-off will be collected in a public storm drainage system and directed to an on-site storm water quality and detention ponds shown as Tract G. Access. Egress. Circulation: Section 18.108.070 contains standards for residential vehicular access. A minimum of a 28 foot paved street with 44 feet of total right-of- way width is required for the minimum publicly dedicated local street to serve a residential subdivision in excess six dwellings. A private street to serve fewer than six dwelling units is required to provide a 20 foot minimum paved dimension with 25 feet of overall width. A driveway serving two or fewer lots or dwelling units is required to have a minimum of 10 feet of paved width with 15 feet of overall width. The subdivision as proposed utilizes all three of these types of streets with increasingly narrow width as the adjoining proposed street serves the steeper sloping areas to the south towards the Hillshire Estates Subdivision. The streets as proposed comply with the required width standards. Section 18.108 and Section 18.164.060(B) (Lot Frontage) All lots are provided with at least 25 feet of public street frontage as required by Section 18.164. Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84.040(6) requires review of development within steep slope areas in excess of 25 percent. Development of property within these areas AML must comply with the following criteria: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; The applicant has not proposed to develop within the steep slope areas of the site. Because the applicant has not created potential building sites within the steep slope areas the need for grading and disruption of hillsides has been minimized. 2. The proposed development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse site on-site or off-site effects or hazards to life or property; Based on the location of the proposed development sites and the design of public facilities, the subdivision is not expected to create adverse on site or off-site impacts because the applicant is required to use approved erosion control measures where appropriate. 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of the foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink well capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth to bedrock; The subdivision plan avoids the -creation of building sites with excessively. steep slopes.' A soils compaction test will be required prior to issuance of Building Permits. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04IPDR 95-05iSLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 5 -t. h.~'° &YEYVYY bas vcciY i c~TevvC i U to ii1~7d form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; Because the subdivision plan avoids the creation of building sites within excessively steep slope areas, extensive erosion control measures are not expected to be necessary. Condition of Approval #7 requires that the applicant provide plans which plan for and provide all required erosion control measures. Section 18.84.040(0) states that the Director, shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The proposed landform alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland. A portion of the site is within a wetland area but it is not designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map, nor is it within 25 feet of a designated wetland. The applicant is required to obtain all necessary erosion control permits from the Unified Sewerage Agency. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. Because the applicant has proposed to develop the narrowest street widths permissible, the soils disturbance is the minimum necessary to accommodate necessary construction. 3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated. It is required that the applicant obtain all necessary erosion control permits from the Unified Sewerage Agency. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. As previously discussed, the minimal amount of vegetation loss expected with construction will be replaced within the buffer area. All required erosion control measures will be implemented during construction. 5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met. Other sensitive lands requirements have been met as addressed elsewhere within this report. 6. The `provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, shall be met. A tree removal will be required prior to the removal of trees larger than six inches in diameter. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04/PDR 95.05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 6 7. Physical Limitations ' and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. Development of the street will not impacts the wetlands area because the applicant is required to provide an and- abide by an approved erosion control plan. The applicant is also required to obtain any necessary permits from the Division of State Lands related to perform any landform alteration modifications to the wetlands. The applicant has not indicated a need to do any such modifications. This wetlands does not include any 100-year' floodplain areas. The wetlands is not designated as a portion of the Recreation and Open Space System as identified within the Park and Trail Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 3.5 of the Comprehensive Plan states that small open space areas such as this should be preserved for their open space and aesthetic values. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and encroach into the buffer to the least extent possible in order to construct required street improvements to serve the larger area as planned through the development of the local street network. The wetlands is also not a significant wetlands area as identified within the Natural Features Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planned Development: Section 18.80 provides for the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development which preserves natural land features while implementing the density range provided through the Comprehensive Plan. This type of subdivision normally permits higher density than would be possible given the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district. Due to the topographic features of this site the applicant has proposed to concentrate the residential development density within the flatter areas of the site to minimize the amount of tree removal, hillside grading and erosion control measures necessary to develop the property. FINAL ORDER SUB 9S-44/PDR 95-05/SLR 95.07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS If PAGE 7 Section 18.80.130(A)(1) (Planned Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Sections. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these sections has been reviewed within this report. The Planned Development Code Section 18.80'lists Section 18.160 (Subdivisions) as an applicable review criteria for Planned Developments which has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Section 18.80.120(A)(3) provides further review standards for Planned Development which have been addressed below as follows: Relationship to the naturai and physical environment: (i) The streets, buildings, and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; (ii) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; (iii) There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; (iv) The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and (v) Trees with a six inch caliper measured at four feet in height from ground level, shall be saved where possible; The standards related to provision of adequate light and air are addressed elsewhere within this report under the minimum setback requirements. The Fire District has been provided with a copy of this plan and will conduct a Fire and Life Safety Review prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the site. Solar accessibility and tree removal issues are addressed elsewhere within this report. Buffering, screening, and compatibility between adjoining uses: FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04/PDR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 8 F~ I (i) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial); (ii) in addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.100: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; (b) The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; (c) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; (d) The required density of the buffering; and (e) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; (iii) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in AN& determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a) What needs to be screened; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c) Whether the screening needs to be year-round; Screening and buffering are not required where single family residential uses adjoin other single family residential uses. Privacy and noise: (i) Non-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; This criteria is not applicable because the applicant has proposed to create future residential building sites. Private outdoor area: residential use: (i) In addition to the. requirements of subparagraph (iii), each ground level FINAL ORDER SUB 95.041FOR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 9 residential dwelling unit shall have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, AMIML porch) of not less than 48 square feet; (ii) Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and (iii) Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the space; Provision of common outdoor open space areas is not required because the applicant has proposed to create building sites for single family residences. Shared outdoor recreation areas: residential use: (i) In addition to subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of this section each multiple- dwelling development shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as follows: (a) Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and (b) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit; (ii) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention and safety; (iii) The required recreation space may be provided as follows: (a) It may be all outdoor space; or (b) It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court and indoor recreation room; or (c) It may be all public or common space; or (d) It may be part common space and part private; for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room, and balconies on each unit; or (e) Where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet; The provision of common outdoor open space areas is not required because the applicant has proposed to create building sites for single family residences. Access and circulation: FINAL ORDER SUB 95-041POR 95-05%SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 10 (i) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.108; (ii) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and (iii) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan; The design of the streets has been reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Police Department and the Fire District. The Engineering Department reviewed these proposed street design in detail elsewhere within this report. The Planning Commission recommended that private streets be used throughout this development to avoid impacting the existing home to the east should the street be extended in the future, the streets as proposed largely comply with the standards of the Community Development Code as has been reviewed elsewhere within this report. Landscaping and open space: (i) Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (iv) and (v) of section A of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped; (ii) Commercial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; and (iii) Industrial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; Section (i) is applicable and will be addressed prior to the issuance of building permits for development of the homes on each new lot. Section (ii) and (iii) are not applicable because no commercial or industrial development is proposed. 0 FINAL ORDER SUB 95-041POR 95-051SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 11 Public transit: (i) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: (a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and (b) The size and type of the proposed development; SW Fern Street is not transit served so the applicant is not required to construct a bus turn-out, waiting shelter or hard surface paths to the shelter. TRI-MET has no long term plans to extend transit service to SW Fern Street given its Local Street designation. The applicant will be required to provide street improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk along this street frontage which provides direct access to transit facilities such as SW Scholls Ferry Road. (ii) The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: (a) A waiting shelter, (b) A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and (c) Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area; Aft SW Fern Street is not transit served. For this reason :he applicant is not required to construct a bus turn-out, waiting shelter or hard surface paths to the shelter. TRI-MET has no long term plans to extend transit service to SW Fern Street given its Local Street designation. The applicant will be required to provide street improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk along this street frontage which provides direct access to transit served SW Scholls Ferry Road. Signs: (i) In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.114, Signs: (a) Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and (b) The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; All future signage at the site will be reviewed through the sign permit process for conformance with the provisions of Chapter 18.114. FINAL ORDER SUB 9'S-04/PDR 95-06/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS It PAGE 12 Parking: (i) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.106; Each of future single family residences to ae ;eveloped on these parcels is required to provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. Drainage: (i) All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.84 and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; A hydrology investigation will be required which demonstrates that sufficient capacity exists within storm drainage facilities upstream and downstream of the development to handle the increase in runoff caused by additional impervious surfaces to be developed on this site. Floodplain dedication: (i) Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain.. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrianibicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This requirement is not applicable because the site does not contain or adjoin areas which have been defined as a portion of the 100-year flood plain. Tree Removal: Section 18.130.020(E) requires a permit for removal of trees having a trunk six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground level. A permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria as specified in Section 18.130.030(A): 1. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere with utility service or traffic safety; 2. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner; 3. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage problems; 4. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or as a desirable balance between shade and open space; FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04/PDR 95-05/SLA 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 13 5. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and 6. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the aesthetic value of trees to be cut. Section 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in diameter that will be removed during construction be minimized. The proposed construction of streets, utilities, and residences as well as related grading will require the removal of trees on the site. A detailed tree survey plan was submitted as part of this application. Based on a reconnaissance of the site the probable building pad locations are not expected to require extensive tree removal. Due to site constraints such as the narrow lot width, the need to develop water quality treatment facilities for the larger area as previously approved in the Hillshire Woods Subdivision. It is recommended that tree removal permits be issued for areas within the proposed street right-of-way as development sites where necessary. It is recommended that these permits be issued in phases. The applicant shall specify the trees to be removed in each phase. The first phase would include all of those trees needed to be removed for public improvements. The developer of each lot will then be required to apply for tree removal permits based on the design of the proposed homes to be developed on each site. Street and Utilitv Imorovements: The design of this subdivision is consistent with these requirements due to the following: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision: 1. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification or the street. The applicant will has offered to dedicate additional right-of-way to the public along the SW Fem Street as well as provide an internal system of streets designed to serve the subdivision as well as expected development on adjoining properties, as stated within the Engineering Department findings on streets. 2. Section 18.164.030(E) requires a local street to have a minimum 50-36 feet of right-of-way and 32 to 24 feet of paved right-of-way beiween the curbs and sidewalks. The applicant has proposed local streets in conformance with the design requirements of the Development Code. The Planning Commission determined that the use of private streets is more appropriate because of the number of dwelling units to be served by this development, the site's topography and the impacts to an existing residence to the east of this site. 3. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the lot width and requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. The proposed lots are each less than the 2.5 to 1 maximum lot depth-to-width ratio. Each lot to be developed at this time will abut upon a street for at least 80 feet. FINAL 0 RDER SUB 95-041POR 95-051SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 14 Aar& 4. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The applicant has agreed to bond for.and construct all necessary sidewalks serving this subdivision. Bonding is also required for the placement of street trees. 5. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. The applicant has agreed to provide sanitary sewer to this development by constructing a new main that will connect to the existing public sanitary sewer line located in SW Fern Street. 6. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. The applicant has agreed to collect the storm water in a new underground system and connect to the existing storm sewer system located in SW Fern Street. Solar Access: Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east:-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard. Alternatively, an applicant can meet the City's Solar Access Standards by complying with the protected Solar Building Line Option or the Performance Option. Energy efficiency is ensured through the location of the residence with sufficient solar access or through the design of the homes which incorporates window glazing with solar orientation. An applicant can request an exception to the solar access standards based on the following development constraints: Site topography in excess of a 10 percent slope, shade from existing on-site or off-site vegetation or structures, significant natural features, existing street public easement patterns, impacts to density, cost or amenities of the project which adds five percent or more to the cost of each lot. As proposed five of the six lots comply with the basic solar access requirements as specified in Code Section 18.88.040(C)(1) which requires that 80% of the lots created through the partition provide a minimum north-south dimension of at least 90 feet. For this reason the subdivision complies with the solar accessibility standards as designed. Only Lot #2 does not comply with the solar accessibility standards. Development of this lot will be required to comply with the Solar Access standards through the use of the Solar Access Performance Option which optimizes the position of the residence on any given building site and orients the majority of the home's widow glazing towards the southern facing elevation. Landscaoins?: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The R-7 zoning district requires a minimum 20% landscape coverage for this site. The applicant must also comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. FINAL ORDER SUR 95-04IPOR 95-OSISLR 95-07 - HILLSHIFIE WOODS 11 PAGE 15 MEW The applicant shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035. The Code requires that street trees be spaced between 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity. Each parcel will have direct frontage on a local street, therefore, street trees are required. A street tree plan was not submitted by the applicant for review. It is recommended that a street tree plan be provided for the subdivision and that street trees be planted prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each lot. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. The Building Division will review each building and other related permits for compliance with setback standards set forth for structures within the clear vision area. A visual clearance area for all street intersections shall be that triangular area 30 feet from the intersection of the right-of-way. Placement of any future possible obstructions including street trees and subdivision identification signs shall comply with this standard. Proposed placement of street trees shall be reviewed by the Planning Division for compliance with the requirements of Sections 13.102 (Vision Clearance). IV. OTHER STAFF AND AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: FINAL ORDER SUq 95-041POR SS-GS/SLR 95.07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PACE 16 Findin s: 1. Streets: The applicant proposes to construct a new public street shown as "A" Street connecting to SW Fern Street with a cross-section consisting of a 24 foot wide pavement off-set within a proposed 28 foot right-of-way. The street would extend southerly 210 feet, more or less, and end with a knuckle intersection design to allow a easterly extension of the street. The 24 feet of pavement is satisfactory, but the street should be widened to provide for a standard half-street width of 14 feet on centerline and the additional 10 feet on the opposite side within a 32 foot right-of-way. In addition, the applicant proposes a private driveway off the end of the knuckle to provide access to the six (6) lots. The driveway will also provide access to a portion of the storm drain system under construction in Hillshire Woods, phase one. The provisions for street connectivity as required by Section 18.164.030 (F) of the CDC have been satisfied by the applicant by placing the new street contiguous to the adjoining property line to the east and the pedestrian path along the private driveway to the south where the topographic constraints do not allow for a street extension. With respect to the existing overhead facilities along SW Fern Street, the applicant should place these facilities underground or pay the fee in-lieu of under-rounding. The Planning Commission recommended the use of a private street throughout the development and the deletion of the "knuckle" partial cul-de-sac based on the impacts to the existing residence to the east and the topography of the site. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Engineer determine the most appropriate locations for future connectivity to the new private street to the east. 2. Sanitary Sewer: The applicant proposes to construct a new main in "A" Street connecting to the existing eight inch public sanitary sewer line that is located in SW Fern Street. The existing main has sufficient capacity for the proposed development. The sewer construction should also provide for.an extension of the public system within SW Fern Street to the westerly boundary of the plat. 3. Storm Drainage: AMk FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04/PDR 95-05/SLR SS-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 17 The applicant proposes to collect the storm water in a new underground system and connect to the water quality facility approved with Hillshire Woods phase one AOL construction plans. The proposed inlet facility between Lots 1 & 2 should provide a 10 foot wide asphalt path for maintenance access. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in-lieu of their construction. The proposed water'quality facilities has been designed to comply with the minimum USA Standards. In addition, the facility will be maintained by the applicant for a period of three years prior to acceptance by the City as a condition of the phase one construction. 1. The facilitator for the West Citizen Involvement Team was notified of the proposed subdivision. The Citizen Involvement Team members have not provided any comments or objections to this development. In addition, the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting. 2. The Water Department has reviewed this application and provided the following comments: The existing 12 inch water main in SW Fern Street will not service this development. The 12 inch water main is connected to the 410 foot service level and line pressure is not adequate. Service to be provided from the existing six inch main in SW Fern Street (Hyd. Grade Line 550+ feet). Water service for Lot 6 to be provided from SW Lauren Lane. Ask Water main size to be a minimum of eight inches from SW Fern Street to the Private Street. 3. The Unified Sewerage Agency reviewed this application and provided the following comments: Roof and foundation drain provisions will be needed for Lots 2-6. Water Quality treatment has been addressed by this application. 4. The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed this development application and submits the following comments and required conditions for access to SW Fern Street, a County Local Street: COMMENTS: Resolution and Order 86-95 contains minimum sight distance requirements for access to County roads. County Staff was unable to perform a preliminary sight distance review for this project because of the current work load. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide certification from a registered professional engineer that adequate sight distance exists or can be obtained pursuant to specific improvements, in both directions, prior to the County permitting access to the County road. THE FOLLOWING ARE REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE CITY OF TIGARD: FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04/PDR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 1S A. Submit to Land Development Services (Public Assurance Staff, Tracy Stone/Carolyn Cook, 648-8761): 1. Completed "Design Option" form 2. $750.00 Administration Deposit 3. Provide • preliminary certification of adequate sight distance in accordance with County Code, prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer at the access point to SW Fern Street. Provide a detailed list of what improvements are necessary to provide adequate intersection sight distance. PLEASE NOTE: Any portion of the Administration Deposit not used by Washington County for plan approval, field inspections, and contract administration will be returned to the applicant. If at any time during the project, the County's costs are higher than the amount deposited, Washington County will bill the applicant the amount needed to cover its costs. 4. Two (2) sets of complete engineering plans for the construction of the following public improvements: a. Half-street improvement to an L-1 County standard along all SW Fern Street frontages. b. Improvements within the right-of-way as necessary to provide adequate intersection sight distance at SW Fern Street access point. B. Obtain a Washington County Facility Permit upon completion of the following: 1. Obtain Engineering Division approval and provide a financial assurance for the construction of the public improvements listed in condition I.A..4. PLEASE NOTE: The Public Assurance Staff (Tracy Stone/Carolyn Cook, 648-8761) of Land Development Services will send the required forms to the applicant's representative after submittal and approval of the public improvement engineering plans. 2. Provide evidence that the documents required by condition I.C. have been recorded. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04/PDR 95-05/SLR 96-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 19 17 C. The following documents shall be executed and recorded with It'Vashington County: 1. Dedicate additional right-of-way to provide 25 feet from centerline of SW Fern Street frontage. PLEASE NOTE: Washington County Survey Division ()amiI Kamawal, 693-4543) will sent the required forms to the applicant's representative. II. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY A. The road improvements required in by condition I.A.4. above shall be completed and accepted by Washington County. B. Provide certification of adequate sight distance in accordance with County Code, prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer, upon completion of necessary improvements. 5. The Building Department reviewed this application and provided the following comments: All lots should be provided with private storm sewer easements and piping to convey the concentrated storm water to the quality pond (Note: Otherwise they will dump their drains onto the slope, causing potential erosion problems in the future). 6. The Maintenance Services Division reviewed this application and stated that Tract G's Public Water Quality Facility must have year around vehicle access for use by a mower, backhoe, dump truck and sewer cleaners year around. The 15 foot access easement should be on the north side of Lot 1 and then go south to the ditch inlet. This would provide vehicle access to both the water quality facility and the storm drainage pipe. Vehicle access will be needed along the west side of the detention pond and between the detention pond and the water quality pond. Vehicle access should be at least 10 feet wide. The developer must submit to Maintenance Services a detailed description of how this facility works and how this facility is maintained including a maintenance schedule. We need a date when this facility becomes our responsibility and the opportunity to assure that it has been maintained through the developers maintenance period which should be three years from when 75% of the development is built. 7. The Division of State Lands reviewed this request and provided the following comments: This project involves lands or interests managed or regulated by the Division of State Lands. Under the Oregon Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.800-196.990), removal, filing or alteration of 50 cubic yards or more of material within the bed or banks of the waters of this state requires a permit from the Division of State Lands. Waters of the state include wetlands. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-041POR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 20 8. The Development Services Technicians, the Police Department and Portland General Electric reviewed this application and had no comments or concerns. 9. No other comments were received by the Planning Division. VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Subdivision 95-0004/Planned Development Review 95-0005 and Sensitive Lands Review 95-0007 for I-lillshire Woods lI subject to the following conditions: Recommendations: ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY: 1. Half-width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along SW Fern Street as shown on the preliminary plat and at the end of SW Lauren Street, as approved by the City Engineer. Improvements within, the subdivision shall be As& provided by a private street that includes a design with a 24 foot pavement and a five foot sidewalk on one side, within a 30 foot easement, an eight foot wide public utility easement contiguous to the 30 foot wide private access easement, and constructed to local street standards. The plans for the private street construction shall be included within the public improvement plans and permit. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 2. Three (3) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. 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. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 3. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. The proposed facility shall be dedicated to the City of Tigard. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. FWAL ORDER SUB 95-041POR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS It PAGE 21 4. The applicant shall demonstrate that the adequacy of drainage facilities downstream of the proposed development is sufficient to insure compliance with USA. R & O 91- 47, Section 6.02. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. 5. The applicant shall provide a hydrology and hydraulic study to describe the adequacy of the proposed system relating to the requirements for both water quality and quantity. The storm drainage system shall provide for both summer and winter storm conditions. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. 6. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours for any proposed pad or lot grading. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. STF,.FF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 7. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989. 8. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and storm drain stubs to the adjacent properties for future connection including a sewer main in SW Fern Street. All public sewer and storm drain construction not located in a public street shall include 10 feet wide paved access roads as approved by the Maintenance Services Department. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. Aft 9. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the public improvement plans but before starting work on the site. The applicant, the applicant's engineer, and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans and permits. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 10. Construction of the proposed public improvements and issuance of Building Permits shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvements plans, a street opening permit or construction compliance agreements has been executed, execution of a developer-engineer agreement and payment of all permit fees. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 11. The applicant shall underground the existing utilities in Fern Street or pay the fee in lieu of undergrounding. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 12. The applicant shall b2 required to pay the fees as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. NOTE: This is a two part fee which may be paid at, different times. The first portion is paid with the public improvements which is for that portion of the development which increase the impervious area within the public right-of-way. The second portion is paid at Building Permit issuance and is for that portion of the development which increase the impervious area on-site. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-041PDR 95-051SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 22 13. Prior to the plat being recorded with Washington County the applicant shall provide a 100 percent performance bond. As an alternative the applicant may have the plat recorded after the public improvements have been accepted by the City of Tigard and,has posted the appropriate Maintenance Bond. 14. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be prepared as a part of the covenants, conditions and restrictions established for the lots utilizing the private street access. The agreement shall be referenced on the final subdivision plat and shall become a part of all applicable deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording.STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 15. Prior to recordation of the final plat the applicant shall comply with the following recommendations: STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. a. A tree removal permit shall be submitted which specifies those trees which are to be removed in connection with the construction of public improvements. Tree removal permits shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior to removal of such trees on-site. b. A street tree plan shall be submitted for review and approval which indicates the size, species and location of the required street trees. The proposed method of irrigation shall also be provided for review. C. The applicant shall demonstrate that the street alignment of the partial cul-de- sac bulb to be developed adjoining the property to the east of the site will not negatively impact the existing home in the future should this street be extended. d. Applicant shall fully construct the pedestrian pathway which crosses Lot 5. e. The applicant is required to obtain all necessary erosion control permits from the Unified Sewerage Agency related to street, utility and site improvement work. f. The applicant shall provide to the Director for review and approval a detailed street tree planting plan. STAFF CONTACT: i'v1ark Roberts, Planning Division. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 16. a. A tree removal permit shall be submitted which specifies those trees which are to be removed in connection with the preparation of individual lots. This tree removal shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior to removal of such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-04/POR 95.05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 23 b. The applicant shall provide to the Director for review and approval a detailed landscape plan which provides a minimum of 20% landscaping within each development site. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 17. a. Street trees shall be planted pursuant to the approved street tree plan. STAFF CONTACT: !dark Roberts, Planning Division. b. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the approved landscape plan. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST. 1. SECTION 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement A. Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. B. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract: 2. SECTION 18.160.180 Bond A. As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. FINAL ORDER SUB 9"4/PDR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 24 B. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. C. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 3. SECTION 18.160.190 Filing and Recording A Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. B. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 4. SECTION 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements A. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington Ag&L County, and by the City of Tigard. C. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: a) Centerline Monumentation 1) in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. 2) The following centerline monuments shall be set: A) All centerline-centerline intersection points. B) All cul-de-sac center points. C) Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). b) Monument Boxes Required 1.> tvlonument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-041POR 95-05ISLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 25 2.) The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Dept(639-4171)- 5. SECTION 18.164 A. 18.164.120 Utilities 1. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. B. .18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required 1. All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. AM, 2. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. 3. The Cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. C. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee 1. No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. D. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required 1. Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. 2. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. FINAL ORDER SUB 95-04IPDR 95-05/SLR 95-07 - HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 26 G. 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required 1. The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS RECORDED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION SECTION V. DECISION The Planning Commission concludes that the conditions of approval within the Staff Report shall be revised as provided within the Final Order. It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This Z T`'day of July, 1995 by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. Milton F. Fyre Planning Commission President FINAL ORDER SUB 95-041PDR 95-05/SLR 95.07 • HILLSHIRE WOODS 11 PAGE 27 i - sce~+►~ •~s~ w~r.• • rr .r LiTU i r L EsEi` D L.Wme zw~-Aw "mot _^a A040 MAPOCLZ \ [ , - „ ' -c:. - ersr*o •rw+oa vs x +.a..t ' ~ ,115! all fO Ga ..a 'O Bi i rCOTO4►tfD .n0 oH~Yt { ; I L u. r~;~\~ uRTLJiO* 6/.!~ l j I Q{wn.wd ICL ; I ~s• ~rev+ - - - - { i I~ f Q ~ i•~ I e 1 .ar~n..arui 1 f ' i LL. 11 ~ CL I ~ 1 r - ~ / onaas ~r ~ :N L-:-L= 5TRES7 Ir -PROVO-7 ENT z it ~,1 r.•p STREET I 1 : j~ it ; I I I -cot f -p RIVA • ~ (c. (I r r (mil l 49 A / - CLL) 1 ~ I r~ 1 i \ I 'Tror?-:tim 4706 y ~y Y ( PLOT PLAN ~ CASE NO. PDR 95-0005 SUB 95-0004 EXHIBIT MAP ~ S LR 95-0007 I t :~'TLr`CT~~ ~y=nrCr c ~ AO y e w s ch Lu qc. x C3 R'N a ~ tn Cr ca M G ERR a L IA CY. 11 J y J NNq C- 9[)R 9'5'0045 CA►~ SUB 95_0004 Wl AP SLR 95 0047 ,40 T14 TT V ~EEY ,..caw } 800 400 mom- inriiIMll .tf LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM IBM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore sets out specific requirements for CI ®F TI TY AR filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in OREGON filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. JI 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: NiII541"a w?~XJS - 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: 00rdeft, I,J_ r`r ~eS ~ ~i c=P azL r 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: Prclecselg rcQ~ ~S 'moo ~(,~lQG ~c /l c; SC (e); ` an QE's i P~.(' DA,dmac.( h®~. iS G- h~~fc.-( Grr~ :nc clew R'~~ 'prP c n c cr 2 ^ ~v 4 h ar G £}P 1 l el ~Cc.~ `~-fl GJCc.,f~ ~'e.'CLCr~~i O/1 ~c n~ f e~hoy~ n~ 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: 6. SIGNATURE(S): ~~4 - S(Tc, I / ~i S)4 -3~~a rfr 1 1 x 1E9F)Q Hy#~f~~}F FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: W81,,e Date: 6 4 -5Time: Approved As To Form By: 1-14 ° Date:-W4 Time: Denied As To Form By: Date: Time: Receipt No. Amount: 13125 SW Hail Blvd,, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 6 ; 2772 r- 7 ~)+\1 l 111 I ,k lku L RETAINING 1 I WALL 1'lt 1. w: vim' 1 I gu°; 15' 5TC__._ 1 I t DRAIN ESMT ` w F 11 ~ ; -S 4~1 ~ 1 13: 1 3~c, ur ~ ~ 0 1~U? /J i ! }r} D u~ win 1 I 1 r i ~r . 25. 1 r•, n700 rc Pt- i ' rz ? r , ~ ~ ~ rr ~ FIRE-TRUCK TURN-ARCLIM' p i % 4rTAINIKIG TZ- ? IC,3i5 S.rz f WALLZ NU I ~ 1 ► r1 , Q ` / a t I! ~ I~ Rpm ` • ( 08 't• al L MTV _ EXHIBIT D August 29,1995 Mark Roberts Associate Planner AICP City Of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Hiilshire Woods H Appeal/SUB 95-0004/ PDR 95-0005/SLR 95-0007 Dear Mark, In your letter of August 24, 1995, you asked for a written waiver to extend the hearing of our appeal beyond the 40-day time limit as required by Section 18.32.320(8)(4) of the Community Development Lode. We here by grant a waiver to the 40-day time limit and request that our appeal be the first item on the September 26,1995 meeting agenda. We would also ask that you again review the revised plan that Mark Farris submitted for your consideration on the private street. Kis plan achieved placing the road where it minimally impacted our property. We thank you for the other recommendations you have Adsh. made. We appreciate your assistance and know that in your job it must be difficult to make everyone happy. We do ask that as citizens of Tigard for many years, that our concerns might carry additional weight with you and the city council. While Sierra Pacific may be adding to the community tax roies today, they are not from Tigard nor do they live here. After they have gone, we continue to live in the area that they impact. We ask that you review their proposal with the knowledge that we have to live with the decisions made while they move on to their next project. While this is just part of doing business for them. M is our kome. Sincerely Gordon & Melissa Barrett Hamilton, Ryan, Brianna EXHIBIT E August 28. 1995 Dear Mr Scheckla. We have some concerns about the development of Tax Lot 1700 off of Fern Street. Currently. the developer has an approved plan to put in two water retaiinment ponds and a private road for 5 houses. We understand that the water xetainment ponds axe necessary because of the houses that are already built or in progress of being built an Bull Mountain at is lYstates. Due to an increase in run-off hibo'neighboring properties causing Sooding. these ponds are necessary: However. the site the developer has chose= is a forested area, with wetlauds and a stream running thr ugtL it. Under the cvnent plan. in order for the grading to be done for the ponds. several trees an neighboring properties will lave their root systems destroyed. A tree survey, to ensure that these trees will not be harmed was not included is the approved plan. TIm plan did include a very small area to be preserved as a wetl2nd_ This small area will be surrounded by roads and the retainffient ponds- &Zh will not be suitabie for any wildlife- Tne area surrounding it is a large area of mature forest that will be bull-dozed for the water retainment ponds. It will no longer be a home for the many species of bads. the raccoons. or the deer that now live in the area . This does not MOW the spirit of the law to presmve wetlands as a wildlife babitat_ A second concern we have is the ccnstrUCtion of the i$ve houses on the property neat to the water retainment ponds. The area where these houses are to be built has a sheam and wetland area running through the rra.4ddle of it. This stream area was not surveyed as a designated wetland area- The survey for wetlands done on the property was done at the very end of the summer in 1994. It is obvious to us and assistant city planner Mark Roberts. wbo walked the area in August of this year. that this area needs to be resurveyed- The standing water. plants. trees. reeds. and set soil evident at that time indicate that this area should be indeed designated a wetland area. A third concern is about the effect of water -rim-off (torn the new houses. 7be terrain is a sloped, forested area- Any water run-off from the houses will obviously affect the stream and worsen the flooding downstream- Because of the heavy foliage and mature trees that will need to be removed in order to grade for the houses, run-off into the stream and wetland area will be worsened. It Is likely the developer will need to try to redirect the stream by bull-dozing the entire area, destroying ;all vegetation. This loss of this wildlife habitat is unconscionable. There are few areas Ieit in Tigard where wildlife can live. We would ask; that you reconsider the plans to develop this valuable wildlife habitat. The water retainment ponds that need to be built should be done so with as little impact on the area as possible. even if it cosh a little more money. More of the area should be designated as the wetland that it is so that wildlife will actually be able to live there. The blouses should NOT be built as they will cause many more problems for the area and destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands. You, are invited to come and walk the property any time to see the arm for yourself This area wvald mane a fantastic greenspace area with walking trails, which would benefit all of Tigard. It is adjacent to some other *eenspace at the top of Bull Mountain. Perhaps some encouragement firm the city to the developer to donate this land to the city is needed. Please reconsider approval of development of this area. SLO ( ( Sincerely. A A-1, 1-5,q CIS CAU 421k t, S'l 333 A iw-44-14111- Ij j r ~ 45A) &R,&) tea` t 3~ ~Yt'• /~oeti a0- G ``!do ~frte / S osy c f, `t=~~ S u1 1 i3i 3sa Sv-3 Rosy Ck-, 4P~iZ -C dM,-,)~A b sa, 04 3r1 `Lp --?OK 63v .Srt1 !,/~tLNu r avvc TIDE FaLLOv VIl~TG DOCUMENT IS OF POOR ORIGINAL QUALITY i . ~ ,ffi ~ EXHIBIT F 1 "41 \ r 7 - Rom I ~ Q I f ~f,. .I I IqBTAMO PRO.1cGT 1 i SITE L ; ' !T°/ ViCINIT7 MAC A / r = s~ eTORr+ ~ . - - NOT TO SGAL- ( / APPLICANT / OLUNER I r oars a. , C7 = : W V-0. now rIM c3akwo. cm I lop L"m 09 r >=NGIN°RISURY_ 'CR moofu K 5.-. I ' f am I i fl +eE+' / t ( o UTILITIES t SERVI'CES / 4"Ma Tlb, l W&MR OGTRCT *Topr~- WOOD ladou" Am-a, \ 1 p(- / / NOTES ! r; + 1M YGLA. 281 to TG# MME 211 \ t i • 1 rlfiTawyn 1 TAX I=. roo KrOM 40 L07116 6 5 ! 1 / =ND Eel I ( / ~ ~ ~ I pet►T!6 aasns~ To eE ~r+or.•s i 1 MASTER P-1 AN Demo ov ill! ;,~ulr< woC iS No. ? or4Kv o ~+•'-~.*r or wo= .a~~rv.- wsvtu aiatrrec><naa INC. TAY nAe :S I A CC seu[ ~1.orco ~s~e.anasvr ar®.w~wrne 4 E; TAY LOT TTOO . Wcm2ua cur. mT.rmc ma wranelOOS =SwmC,TCN CCU,,-. OREGON I • We support the Purchase of Tax lot #1700 off of Fern street by the of Tigard as designated greenspace. City sw 2 t sr.~ F~~~ S ~ . © /3g 1Z /L14 rQ s- le) -ko la" ~ c C4- t7z-~ CA- Lkj DSO:-l(-7 LIZ l St..) ~ . ~;tG(l r/ We support the purchase of Tar, lot #1700 off of Fern Street by the City of Tigard as designated greenspace. ) I-t T`,, 041 a 6-6 B48 ~P- 1 1 T 14, H I ,«.l,►. ~~e, VK-Vi t o Or- J ro,t V ~ . ►.3 -7qo .5W Rey C,-)-. nnT~Ard , 01= Ci q2- k LL ~zt 06 Street by the 2 ,r C/X lot #1100 off °f ell, ,r .L ase of Suppoxt the dpuxoh ted gx eenSpaGe -~~1"14 l qe na c. eSig ~r S.. as CytY of X <i t v~ z23 or ShM CL4S J ~ r 3~ ~ S L-L 57 -7 d cl-l 4C ry, 41 6> r ,h J IIINNN!!!'~~~~~~ , v 5 f low We support the purchase of Tax lot #1700 off of Fern Street by the City of Tigard as designated greenspace. fit s'ay 6?013 Cam- hrnS ~ ► y 13D ~c,~.~ . ~-..e.~ v~ 5 f- 5~r v - ~ry~' 57 L5~~ 51'- 1~_~-1 ►~~Sv sw l35 f~ Sty- yq~/ 9 N GcJ~;~ 3s~s S~ U~ s~, sD-q,9770 Street by the 000 Off of Ferry 1 1 <u. "~-~s lot #1700 Tam c1lase ` b 3 suPpo e ity eas deb Jig" 1A fit)-~r`_~n~ 41 7,-L d,4 r~o r~► f 3 'In mom OMNI ` - - - - __@- 'K+. V `V 4 ~ i. s i a''~~f ~r F` ~ 1 ~,1P ~ . ! , ~ t i t j Y , 'k ~S. ~ ti ~ n { ~ ~ t1 • _ 1 Y 7 . t~ f ~ ~ ~ I1I , ~ •f j I t ♦ + i~ I ~ f~ I li~r,~ Yr~ f~~ e . '1l F-~.~±~..' - `tiff . M! ~ r < ~1/ / ,h ,.,,c r~ 'T f ! s ~ ~ P y~7 • 1• .~j4 r~.~ ~.w rte, ~ ~ ~ ~ t •.a' 'jam;-~a+r 1 s,. z- i c~".~ swoons" ,t ago moo air. + r, . t / a { / i5i"• ~ ~t~,~ ',i,0. t~.3 yr •i lf` 1 A t` t r, t ~ l" Y rye 4-y fJ k ~'Z M~ - _ lo~ y. it ~ I i. son IF li: 1 i TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE to ( 18 100.0 0 ]lufferin¢ and in¢ - Geronal r ~.R / A. It 6 the intent that these requirements shall -7-Ac as rre q Doro ! ode forte and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts ofd or noise 15 /loo- 6e, ~"ovi decd pollution at a development site, without unduly Interfering with the view from neighboring pn*tftn or padestrians and vthicles. safely 89-06, ors r~ --(-I\ 4P_ Q 10Pr0,/'gC;f 10 fan W-52). Q tAmt Buff smmi% ' ed to on adiacent uses which aii-of ccor nce with the matrix in owner of each proposed ponsible for the ins tallation and effective rnaintenance of buffering and gaeening. When different sues would be abutting one another except for separation by a right of way, buffering, but not Keening, ill be required as specified in the matrix. .~uegf `~'ec~ ~~e, h, erg al-e~( 6L,+ (p Lui fl ~ t I win 18.100.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for landscaping, buffering, and screening of land use within Tigard in order to enhance the aesthetic environmental Quality of lJe~001~ ~l the City: fl ~ G ~ reppt~~n~ _ .Ct Fl c hn ~,e~ 4. _ $y using trees and other landscaping materials to mitigate the efforts of the sun,.wind, W noise, and lack, of privacy by the provision of buffering and screening. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 63.52) 5. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and p , 0 3 0 - - I ~ t, u~`i .r .f Z ~ y \ S _ to -e, o Ct -tl tn- •-ti tir t ` R .•e 1~' yin ~ 1 • t ~ y~. II x t. y,. ti t ` os _ Y f t - - LEGEND 11 A$T*O WWTA1r- MAW ' 09 APC MA"" yea ~fl ~ u•u srv. fl ~n ax»•..o iw•aw LM I ~flfl 1 I ; fX~Ii~NG CA+rOW 6VY 9-11 I ~o'' a,nO•eO D6coua» T~s fl ~.7' r MC OT►,G O'n CR7ft To W Mnav4.-. l_ . J fl JD@ I I fl ~ {r ~'3 I if l i I i l _-18.150.030 -Criteria for Issuance of Permits ^ A. The following criteria shall be used by the Director or designee for the issuance or nonissuance of a tree cutting permit. To issue a permit, the following criteria must be satisfied: 1. The trees are diseased and there is a danger the trees may fall on existing or proposed structures or interfere with utility services or o h" td.~ traffic safety; 2. There is a necessity to remove certain ' \ trees in order to construct proposed 'Ile improvements or to otherwise utilize the s.r: a WIN= applicant's property in a seasonable manner; 3. There is not a need to retain the tree(s) due to the topography of the land because there \ will be no effect from the tree removal on >e K erosion, roil retention, stability of earth, flow of ___surface-wa , 4. There is not a need to retain the tree(s) to protect nearby trees as windbreaks, and as a desirable balance between_shade4 ~ ~ ~ ~ i~'F ` ' ~ ~ ~ • marls gl~ ~ ~Q.•e_ r~o~~ are , r' a , 4704. ~ ~ a ~1 h4Qpen -H.c~ l e,,,~ • `Y/ ~ ~ - Jr f 1< "lip fl I T • I I ~ o G{e.~ s;~ o f -fr~s vac-tt,.~U~ Ott ~G~, 71 f - ' t 1 .f 1 a u I~ •R i nesrJhbor•~~ G to 5~ ` ~ t~jy~~I✓ A tit ' ~ +~.~,1• d ' j .yr 1. Emma r t 1 4 ~.'~N~ tYC y t t M ~j• K• ti•:7rr + 4. v ;ifs -T L t,E t+ .v.3 'rv r S5~'.t "•M1Y 1 t+i~ 'c•2~@1'. ~3` 4 {1{fit' ~e laa~ { 'I t XW, 'r Y - • n, r ~ ,fi„ ; `v~G°""',u, ~S7 «o-~ • i_ ~ t ~ iF:i.F ~~Y-~r~~-' P~ •~C/.. ~U.ri~~ •~~`"~•y~~~"wit' - ~ ^C~.~. r ~ • s:: ' - ~ rte. s 4 t • ~ ~ • ~ 7r~ .',~..,:i ~ ,psi G''~ ~ -~••y-~'~.cy~.,<-,j Pl at CLSL rc. not l w, I - ~I;,jICIP ~L COVE A DV=F- is to provide of this chap tabon of p The purpose he iter~,glemen such as dards for thand utilities construSul star► rivate facilities tprd. 89.06% Ord• public and pli and drainage streets, ai to City R 181 red 780 Notice has been City . he 11 not beSln until th A Work sha advance. - w notified in i o E 19 rIL C l<- ~ ~ ~ ~ . ' 4A..:« • t'•' i t, '-fit r,., rifr,. 1 • s y t: t i nl a n ~n~~s Let? ul of (ar.ct S p e..c~:c~L ~ ~03- erh.t On `2. p ~ (itlt-~ lYl~(. s 54 v~csre'F~ q ~e S h U er~.~io /1 hone. co kid d e ` ova o~ 4+- p et`• 1 p~'2c~ lt~o {-er~~U•e- eta 5, ~ h et✓•es s~ tt ~ ~~.ereo~rs-e - co ~ r q c.~ o wry G G S~ ~°~P-vJ, ~M~Pp-e~ a., sa S{T'CCc,v,,,, Corr.CtS , ti(~ <t 04- dr2l;NS c S i .aT ~1.n.c~ `"~~t~L ~ ('0.J . • t ;'i P all, • L/ V a M. Grades and Curves: K. Grades shall not exceed ten percent arteriais, 12 percent on collector streets, or 12 ,,Voef_- percent on any other street (eaoept that local or residential s;eeess streets may have segtnents _ with grades up Lfeet), perrent for distances of no greater than 25and: 18.108.120 Variances to Access Standards A. In all zoning districts where_ access and E,i t 6-,+- egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular ILC parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be ~rz comidened. If acem in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the e p f 0~ A T ege- Dir nmy grant a variance to the access requirements of this chapter based on 0* standards set forth in Section 18.108.150. (Ord. 94-07; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18. -10 8.130 Administratim and Approval Proms A. mw applicant for an access variance shall be the recorded owner of the affected property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. V B. A preappliration conference with City staff isle voiced; 4 C. Design Standard. At least 80 percent of the l lp~~ lots in a development subject to this section shall _ comply with one or tnom of the options in this 2 taeceon; provided, a development may. but is not jO required to, we tw ."ns to subwbons 1838.040 C2 or 'C3 to oQmply with this section. r- La 1. Basic Requirammt (tree Figure 9). A lot ecenpties with this sc-action if it. r%M A7 a. Has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or =nose; and ✓ I I I ~ I I I I e ~ o _ I I V 447 J2-(-k VL a , f' v t'`~ - • q:.. • ~ . ° ~ I NIL ` S. Undevelopable area: An area that cannot be used practicably for a habitable stru&,;re, because of natural conditions, such as slopes exceeding 20% in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, severe topographic relief, water bodies, or conditions that isolate one portion of a property form ' another portion so that access is not practicable to the unbuildable portion; or manmade y i ~ I near' SUS /1~s -tom ~"Q 5{fin ~~~s h r T f ~i 'mss - f AMk 7 r C• I i J 4011' 1 . "+r l Y . qt~ 'ice ~ ~ .,iii • Y. C. . •d lip 00000 + 6L(_ IC '57 &-h- ~ ~ I a + "r `fS 18~ 0 Eat water A f asenents for ~yyersarc gties Shall r►tia11Y ,F,aa5emen or other Vub for in the deed 18 0 la° because of their ~ ~,ns, electric or Pro, 3s axe dedicated eit by 'non-and nt is traversed A Setable for developT ' ' be unsul the evelopn'e ere sball be location ooaplain: a. W or ina en or dvjth he 1. 'oo-Y~ fl wa d u a StDrM water u a bWln~uy Nab ~$ewaY i htof-way wad°"e tbr, tines o .]8164.060 Lots A. Site and Shape: 1. Lot site, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the development and for the hype of use contemplated, and: a. No lot shall be dines-wioned m $ contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way; • I ,t+ I l ~o nom. 11ong an Access: The proposed development will be ely accessible to pedestrians with sidewalks initially one side of the proposed public stmt. This sidewalk ntinue up the private street "B" and tic into the open r j /f ~W the southwest acrosstits access easement h to 5 iand between lots S and 6. . , till _ . - r, w _ ' ~'v.;. y i a ; • x31 rn'8 •i 00, '.yam ~ . w..k `i,: r y TICARD MUNICIPAL CODE Mr lip e:5~ , ]-.7W070 Buffeting and Screenin¢ -_C'ywal si n A. It is the intent that these requirenents shall -7-A e a a rre ff ri-vevrf~ provide for y and protection and reduce or eliminate the-averse impam of l or noise I n~~ ov~ decd pollution at a development site, without unduly o i+t23-rV-1i g with the view firom neighboring W;-K •f-eoc ~In.~, or Jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehiclas. (Ord. 19-06; Ord. reduce the i cts on ad' cent uws which are of a u► actor ncF with the matrix in chapter. lee owner of each propo4d development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. when different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right of way, buffering, but not mine, shall 1 be required as specified in the matrix. (~ere_. ~ la.r, ~ a~~ sff'~•c.f -~t'~ ~ b n Coro a Vie, I I Wi WL•,L~ 1 • . 1 ~ 1 ~ 11 1 11 ®N VIP ap 18.100.010 Pu=se A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for landscaping, buffering, and screening of land use within Tigard in order to ~~5 h e-Ff enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of R2FYI, 001Aq G~ f-e~rcc~ny the City: \ ~J h 01 v C= By using. h ees and other landscaping W ~ O-E l O~ ls to mitigate the efforts of the sun, wind, and lack of privacy by the provision of ~f.o~E;'~ -r Pf'~ ng and screening. (or d. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) • 7(- IS ee~. o~a,F 5. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and X50.0 30 w~ ii • _ ~ G~,~~ ~ S ste,,,, wall (o-e, 6cc~ke~ 'rhJS 5~(Sf`,r.. <r.'es ~n4-;~ -F ~ a~ jY..s 6 e51n -f+o ~l I YL~ CJ ULIA -I ' . ~ ~ (tel. ~l J:. r 6 I~; 1~ 1•I c ~ ~of t. fa if 1 +i[,Y ~f~.•y S• I LEGEND who" 1 I,KK as M&O- -2 I 1 I _ 6.06 Yli "•t: MA&I -ca so* 80 Wale* 00 APO v,06.1 1 {/Mla6 CMom •M 1621 I _ a.»-so Kr-CUD "WS err: je `_.18.150.030 -Criteria for Issuance of Permits n . &A&,e c .c +m. ► ONE 4. The following criteria shall be used by the Director or designee for the issuance or nonissuance of a tree cutting permit. To issue a ' t'e-n:e, oi,- follourino criteria must be satisfied: 1. The gees are diseased and there is a - - danger the trees may fall on existing or proposed - structures or interfere with utility services or traffic safety; / 2. There is a necessity to remove certain trees in order to construct proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the + ' ~Av applicant's property in a semnable manner; ~ 3. There is not a need to retain the tree(s) i due to the topography of the land because there \ will be no effect from the tree removal on 9C or erosion, boil retention, stability of earth, flow of _su uCe , 4. 1'7here is not a rued to retain the tree(s) to protect nearby arses as windbreaks, and as a desirabk balance between shmde d o9 a`e; f~ 'I YI ~ t •k Y , r F y Ti n UlC'kLr4.~•t.~ I V&S. Its' 1~ffl IF t llp ;el i r'~ wr~: r S r!~ r~ OvE~ ~S •~y t`~' P y jar ~J ~~~e~.r Jr`~~' `s t+/1. .1 .Y /~1 --NIX rrt~3S / ~l' r `t rt C 3r t ~ j 1~ r / J . / r rl ~ ~~~-t' 3CiC'C~r`"'~~'2`~` L' 't .~•n I i .fp 61. ~ YrQ'• ~ 4- _ MR • Q o ICJ ~ ~ S law 'Q l6j 0 ~{1 IF ~ T e I 1 .MFI Q~. ~ ~ ,r. Jq . At. z i r 1 3xer` .t~: x"r _ 'N .>tjv'~~ ,t shli;~f„ • ..I~~~ , . ~a . !I~ , /~J fk ~ ea. ~~5..'1 y~»-`~tn"~t ♦r It ..`y ~.r• 11 ~ •y ; .'•!i try+[(, i ~ WA ty ~`ta - •~M ` ~ r ~\y . ~ ~ tT t 7 t r 0 r3 O ~ ICIP AL coot TIGA~~ of t r 1 78.7 is to pr?vide ti- The is chapter o p. Pu of for the iMP ties such as consWud'on ~ivate fac►Ut►e5 andOrd 89.06; Ord` public sewers, and dry sweets, a3-52) Re u~ once City m men 7a.7~•7ao N n until the City A Work shall not beg' notified in advance V o7 ? fl G~ CaN 2; r6L code. 5- oh AWkk 'tip; ''i .1 O F-I a AMML ~~~~<<~ Q l~Gc~~Co ~crSei rr-"~ u'~c~C..~- ~ p /1 VV C \ YL• J Y \ ~i~~ S CCU r'e [ ~ q oC S CIO LJ <D~. n~.o G~<d! 4-t'C5 , C~L~ i •~a~erz~..ncrx.sum,w.«.;,,erxwu' ~~.ereo~rs~ Ciu^^ Z rq a~o wn ~0. Sfi. -E70 ri-Pi 2~ ('G e cQ . _ t vim rft~ t i M. Grades and Curves: 1. Grades shall not exceed ten percent arterials, 12 percent on collector streets, or 12 f E o percent on any other street (except that local or residential access streets msy have s:ents _ with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no 1 greater than 250 feet), and: 18.108-120 Variances to AM s Standards ' E,, t A. In all atoning districts where- access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particulAr i LC parcel, actress with an adjoining property shall be cros;der+ed. If aceess in conjunction with another parcel cannot masonably be achieved, the p e ~j a Director shay grant a variance to the access requirements of this chapter based on the standards set forth in Section 18.108.150. (Ord. 94-07; Ord- 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ig 103.130 Administration and Aippr_oval otess A. Mw applicant for an access variance shall be X~K thie recorded owner of the affected property Or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. B. A preapplication conference with City Staff is required. C- Design Standard. At least 80 ptseent of the l 1p~~ lots in a development subject to this action shall _ comply with one or more of the aptions in this r A 1 ~ uctim provided, a development tray. but is not ~e `~C- required to, we the -options in subsections 1838A60 C.2 or C.3 to comply with this section. 1. basic iRcquirement (See Figure 9). A lot v) t'Arr1p'lies with this section if it. E i(V~ t hit Akoa. Has a ,rarth~south ditni ns;on of 90 feet or amore; and u I I I ~ I / ~ I I ' -Pto~ f t 1 Ste ~'l~,p~s e~c5-F m~ ~ ~I ~ A~~l J~• -f~, e~s~ ~d cif r, E - : ~r~e ~ ,,,111'}~ ~ ~ ;e •1/ i I S. Undevelopable area: An area that cannot be -i used practicably for a habitable structure, + because of natural conditions, such as slopes ' . exceeding 20% in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, severe topographic relief, water bodies, or conditions A. o ~ that isolate one portion of a property form another portion so that access is not practicable to the unbuildable portion; or manmade _ t ¢ A " -w .t( l y 1-- -~D~ (p:3o A.M. illi~l t ~ if ! I~ 1 h wtT ! r y ~ ~ •;s 4 I~ f ~ II ~I I p ~ I~I it 1.4 C -Y Aft q t III b• .I •ch^~ I v Jam. _ t - 4 .ti I ,l r~ r y V~ ~ 1~ • ~ •tat t s ~ r • r 4, . r 'tl~ l ~f . gtecti... ~ s L Cy w JS~ ~ . owl t 3 ~ s a' S4a44F• E-.n a +Ss's t }~J~i: Adak C; l+ 18.E Men A Easenents~ drainage' Water for s p# utiline d Basements tier eed 010 DORF- are lands toof their ens, electric" of p o ded for >r the 18~ .,a .i r~~itive de elopmelt btu I be either ded3 d. traversed by unstable for iestrictio-- el pr~ntes 11 lo~n4n fl~,dplain% . ^ a T bra ~gevYr~►y seue th o al'`? ~ na he , imt • "f ,p0-Y~ wa % ; r a Watercourse, DrM ruing u~ n~lly confo Y'$ ~etural drae~f ngtet-of-~ wa~ourse. t lines of -MORIN pow- 18.164.060 Lots A. Size and Shape: 1. Lot size, width, shape and orientation 1 shall be appropriate for the location of the development and for the type of use contemplated, and: a. No lot shall be dimensioned to contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way; Ij I I , I^ 1 C sTOm+ ~ oar 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ~1 J ~edestrian Access: The proposed development will be xtrenxely accessible to pedestrians with sidewalks initially long one side of the proposed public street. This sidewalk ill continue up the private street "B" and tie into the open ~W ace area to the southwest across an. &=css ou h 5,/and between lots 5 and 5. ~f4 11 ~f ' 1 7 411 ,4 ANN, ~F m ~7 , ~Fi~t~'LY _ y ~ may" ~ ; j j ' ' ! ~ - _ r fix, . ,.n';.~: / t •yw,€~; ° ga.. ell" 1 ~ ~ f - M>~°' ba, ^a f h -~,~a ~.~i - - t 1 ..Sd •4 4 "'^'~'n'r3'4e~,a.,'w`" a~ . ~ t P ; •llr! 1. ~ f • ~ ~ is f _ tr W f' ~ I C- .-.........,f t i 1 77 'sue " gagz w:~ lf, Kill u a 'aa 7,,~~~„, A a-m : t I I 1 t r y, TABLE OF CONTENTS F 1. General Information Page 1 ` II. Procedures Page 3 111. Zoning District Classifications . Page 4 IV. Supplemental Provisions Page 6 k E V. Development & Administration .Page 8 E 3 VI. Land Division & Standards . Page 8 L E Master Plan ('Tentative Plat) On-Site Analysis i J-\ Utility Plan A F E Grading Plan r Off Site Analysis Water Quality -Analysis { Wetland Delineation/Report p. e L. _ h E FACTS Applicant/Owner Sierra Pacific Dev. , P. O. Box 1754 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503) 684-3175 Contact: Ed Freeman Tax Lot: 1700 Map Number: 2S 1 4DD Size: 2.63 Acres Development Consultant: Alpha Engineering Inc. 9600 SW Jak Street, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 Project Manager: Doug Stewart Planner: Mark B. Ferris (503) 452-8003 Fax (503) 452-8043 Location: South of Fern Street approximately 1100 feet from SW Hillshire Woods Drive. Applicable Code Criteria: Community Code Chapters iv.32, 18.52, 10 .uT, 10 10.00, 18.92, 18.100, i& i02, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164 . GENERAL INFORMATION: The Applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for 6 lot single-family residential development on 2.63 acres located within the City of Tigard. The site was recently nnexed and is zoned R-7 (PD), medium density residential on the comp plan, with a density of 7 units per acre and 000 square foot lot minimums. Also requested is a Sensitive Lands Review to allow residential development on slopes exceeding 25 percent and also to allow minor alteration to an existing drainageway. In addition, a variance to the required road standards is being requested for grades over 12% on the proposed private drive. VICINITY INFORMATION: The immediate area is currently undergoing a tremendous transition from a rural community to an upscale residential area. The properties to the east in unincorporated Washington County remain generally undeveloped with large rural parcels. To the southwest is the large-lot subdivision of Hillshire Estates. Lots averaging 2-5 acres order the property on the east and west. All subdivision evelopment near the site has occurred during the last three ears. MEMO SITE lu FORMATION: Site Location: The site is bordered by Fern Street on the north and Hillshire Woods Drive, approximately 1100 feet to the west. T,Kxistin Use: The site is currently vacant except for a mall structure which will be removed. o a a h : The site slopes significantly from a beight of approximately 392 feet at the southeast property line to low elevation of approximately 316 feet at the wetlands adjacent to Fern Street. The slope analysis (See on-site onditions map) shows that approximately 0.16 acres on the ite contain slopes which average 25% or greater. As entioned earlier, since some of these slopes will be 0 Page 1 impacted by residential development, a Sensitive Lands eview is included in this application. Surrounding Land Uses: The Hillshire Estates development is still undergoing construction to the southwest. Properties to the west, east and north of the site consist of single-family residences on lots which are onsiderably larger than the minimum lot size for the zone. The parcel to the south consists of a large forested open- pace with the Hillshire Woods Development. onin : The adjoining properties on the north, east and west are designated low density residential on the Washington County Comprehensive Plan Map. Property to the south is designated medium density residential and zoned R-7PD. As discussed earlier., the site is zoned R-7 D with 5000 square feet lot minimums. 0 oned Use: The applicant is proposing 6 single-family residential detached lots ranging in size from 10,375 to 8,030 square feet in size. Streets & Access: The Site has approximately 175 feet of frontage along S.W. Fern Street. This street is currently unimproved with an average pavement width of pproximately 16 feet. There are no curbs or sidewalks. rainage is provided in open ditches which parallel the oac_t. Future plans for Fern Street call for a 50' R.O. W with a 32' paving width. Sufficient R.O.W. has been dedicated to meet this requirement. Standard 1/2 street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and additional pavement, will be constructed to City standards. Access to the development will be through public street "A" having a 44' R.O.W. and 28' paving width. Pursuant to our discussions with City staff, the applicant will be responsible for building the equivalent of 2 travel lanes or 4' of pavement width plus a 4' wide sidewalk on one side. The proposed public street heads south into the project approximately 220 feet and then terminates in an eyebrow before turning 90° east to stub out to the adjacent property or future development. AMNIL Page 2 proposed 20' wide private street "B" continues south to rovide access to lots 2-5. The applicant is requesting a ariance to the street design standards to increase the grade from a maximum of 12 percent to approximately 13.5 % for distance of 195 feet. This is necessary to minimize grading impacts in addition to decreasing the height of retaining walls. An, access drive and pedestrian easement as been shown across lot 5, between lots 5 and 6 to provide a pedestrian connection to the open space area above. Access to lot #6 is provided off of S. W. Lauren Avenue. APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: 18 complete sets of the application will be submitted and include a complete narrative citing compliance with the relevant portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the Community Development Code, Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, and all other applicable regulations; a complete set of plans including, On-site Analysis, a Master Plan (Tentative Plat), a Grading and Utilities Plan, an Off- Site analysis, required fees and a list of all names and addresses of persons who own property within 250-feet of he site. No Sign Plans or architectural drawings are being submitted at this time as none have yet been confirmed. PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING 18.32: UASI-JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING The applicant is submitting a proposal in complete ompliance with the relevant Code and Comprehensive Plan requirements. Included in the application is all the information requested on the application form, along with narrative addressing the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; the required fees; a list of all ersons who are surrounding the property as well as other affected parties. The residential development is consistent with the underlying zoning requirements and all relevant City ordinances and standards. Page 3 ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS & - REQUIREMENTS 18.52: R-7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL The purpose of the R-7 Land Use designation is to establish sites for single family detached residential developments. The proposed use is permitted outright under section 18.52.030 18.50.050:DIIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks Other Requirements Front Yard 15 feet Min. Lot Size 5000 sf Side Yard 5 feet Min. Lot Width 50 feet Street Side 10 feet Max. Building Height 35 feet ear Yard 15 feet Min. Lot Depth 90 feet Garage 20 feet Max. lot coverage 80% Min. landscape req. 20% 18.84: SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT As stated earlier the applicant is requesting a Sensitive ILands Review for both steep slopes and drainageways. A ortion of lots 4 and 5 include slopes greater than 25%, owever no houses will be constructed on these slopes. Approximately 170' of roadway and assodated retta„in~no Pall is proposed to be constructed adjacent to slopes exceeding 25%. An existing drainageway (intermittent stream) traverses the site across lots 1-3. The applicant is requesting approval for a Sensitive Lands Permit under section 18.84.040(C) or modification of approximately 230 feet of stream to ccommodate a regional detention facility serving a portion of the Hillshire Estates #2 and #3, and Hillshire Woods Development and proposed Hillshire Woods II. The proposed facility will be located in "Tract G". Approximately 120 L.F. of stream (across lot #1) will need to be piped in order to intercept the stream at an elevation sufficient to provide an adequate hydraulic gradient to the etention pond. Page 4 he extent of the facility will not be greater than that required for the purposes of controlling and regulating storm water runoff. Construction of the detention facility and alterations to the rainageway will not result in erosion, sedimentation or pose any adverse impacts to life or property. In fact, the facility and associated improvements will help minimize the issues stated, meet U.S.A. requirements and rectify a currently substandard drainage condition. Pursuant to subsection 4, disturbed trees will be replanted in ' accordance with chapter 18.100, landscaping and screening. While the development will increase the amount of impervious surface, the overall drainage system will be more closely controlled and engineered to ensure that quality of water leaving the site meets the criteria of the Unified Sewerage Agency. This will be accomplished by the use of a water quality facility which is located at the northeast corner of the site. flak Alpha Engineering, will ensure that the proposed water quality facility along with the associated utilities will meet appropriate agency and municipal requirements. x ".880: SOL I LA While all subdivisions and minor partitions are subject to solar access standards requiring 80% of the proposed lots should meet solar accessibility requirements, there are exemptions from the basic 80% standard, or adjustments to at amount that may be permitted under site specific and unusual circumstances. Lot #6 qualifies for the standard 80% exemption. The applicant requests that an adjustment be made to the basic 80% requirement under section 18.88.040 El, sub- paragraphs a(ii) and a(iii) for the remaining 5 lots. Both, the logical extension of roads through the site in addition to slope and orientation severely restrict ability to comply with the intent of the ordinance. Page 5 hould the applicant attempt to comply with the 80% requirement through the use of, for example, the protected solar building line option, the resulting loss in density and erefore cost per lots would increase by more than 5%. heefore the applicant believes that having met the criteria established under section 18.88.040 E1 a(i) and a(iii) that e adjustment be granted. S€TPPLEMEli1'TAL PROVISION The newly passed Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (ORS 660-12) has charged that all municipalities revise heir code to meet the TPR, and that in the event that said evision not be made that any new development be required o comply with said Statute. The City of Tigard has enacted uch changes in its code. Many of the relevant portions of the code that have had a direct affect on this application have only recently come into effect. Substantial changes to the code are to be found in Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, hapter 18.106 (Parking & Loading), Chapter 18.108 (Access, Egress & Circulation), Chapter 18.164 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards). 18.90: ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE TANDARDS. he applicant understands that compliance with state, federal, ' and local environmental regulations is the continuing obligation of the property owner, and will abide by the applicable standards. 18.92: DENSITY COMPUTATIONS Total Site Area: 2.63 Acres Less Road R.O. W . 0.63 Acres Less Slopes 25% & Greater: 0.25 Acres Net Site Area: 1.78 Acres 1.78 Acres x 43,560 s.f. = 77,536 s.f. 7,536 s.f. / 5,000 ft./lot= 15 Lots allowable Proposed Development: 6 Lots Page 6 18.100: LANDSCAPING & SCREENING treet trees will be planted along the site's frontage on W. Fern Street and along the length of the internal streets-, as required under section 18.100.030, and detailed in section 18.100.035. No buffering or screening is required between the proposed residential development and the surrounding land uses, however, additional evergreen landscape materials will be planted along the site's west property line adjacent the detention facility to help buffer the neighboring property. 18.102: VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS Any future landscaping will be consistent with this section, ensuring the preservation of vision clearance triangles at project entrances, and at the internal street junctions. 18.108: ACCESS/EGRESS & CIRCULATION Vehicular Access: Proposed public road "A" will provide adequate and safe access to and from the site. Proposed street "A" will be stubbed out to the property to the east to rovide for future development. Pedestrian Access: The proposed development will be extremely accessible to pedestrians with sidewalks initially long one side of the proposed public street. This sidewalk ® will continue up the private street "it" and tie iiito the open space area to the southwest across an access easement through lot 5, and between lots 5 and 6. 18.114: SIGNS The applicant shall ensure that any sighs related to the name of the proposed development shall comply with the relevant standards of this chapter as they are applicable. Page 7 Ago, 91 r DEVELOPMENT & ADIVIII~TISTRATION 18.144: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The location of mailboxes, and a lighting plan will be .1submitted with the Final Construction plans and upon further discussions with the City. 18.150: TREE REMOVAL n compliance with this section, the number of trees over in caliper will be minimized during the course of construction. The construction of street right-of-ways, utilities and individual residences will require the removal of a significant number of trees. The impact on existing trees can be minimized, however, by limiting tree removal to public right-of-way and utility corridors initially. Further tree removal can then be evaluated on a lot-by-lot basis to identify the most suitable building sites and driveway locations. The applicant is keenly aware of the direct benefits afforded by minimizing the amount of trees removed from the site. VI: LAND DIVISION & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 18.160: SUBDIVISION The applicant will be subdividing the site into 6 lots. The roposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map density designation, the ordinance requirements of the R-7-PD zone in addition to all other applicable regulations. 18.164:STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS W. Ferri Street currently averages 16 feet in width. The roposed Hillshire Village II development will access onto ern Street via a proposed public street "A". (see Site Plan) Page 8 The applicant has dedicated sufficient property to accommodate the ultimate right-of-way of 50 feet. In addition, the applicant will be responsible for standard half- street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and the additional A/C pavement required to improve Fern Street to City standards. Access to lots 2-4 will be off of private road "B" which will be a 20' paving width with a 4' sidewalk. A variance to the City Road Standards is being sought to increase the grade to approximately 13.5 % on a section 195 feet long. A hammerhead turn-around for emergency vehicles has been provided between lots 3 and 4. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is currently available frori an existing 8" line located in Fern Street. An 8' line will be located in the proposed streets as shown on the Utilities Plan. Drainage and Storm Sewer: Storm water runoff will be collected in a public drainage system and directed to a public water-quality facility located in the northwest corner of the site (Tract "G"). mum AM The facility in Tract "G" has been sized to accommodate storm drainage requirements for the Hillshire Estates #2 and #3 development and the Hillshire Woods development off-site in addition to that generated on-site. A storm water flow-diverter manhole will intercept the "first-flush low- flow" and direci it to the water quality aciiity prior to discharging into the wetlands. The high flow will be collected in the detention pond and discharged into the existing wetlands at a controlled rate not to exceed pre- developed conditions. A 15' access easement has been provided to the inlet structure located between lots 1 and 2. Domestic water & fire flow: Adequate domestic water fffim Qum and fire flow is provided via an existing 12" water main located along S.W. Fern Street. A 10" line will provide service to lots 1-6. Page 9 mom A fire hydrant has been located adjacent Tract "G" to provide adequate fire protection to the proposed development. SUNIlViARY• The proposed subdivision complies with all applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan and Tigard development Code. It is compatible with the current character of development in the area. Adequate public facilities and services exist to serve this proposed development and all improvements will be constructed to City standards. Page 10 ins ~ I \ ' - I'`EWAL" O5"G PROJECT arri ~~O VICINITY M=P NOT TO 6r-.ALE I 1 `1 Z, DR.e~r i Af=FL!CANT / OLUNER 13331 i~ U W I / SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPf21JT i / PO. BO/ 1154 ~p LAKE OSWEGO. OR 9103! I Q il I~Llj,r- yam- ego/ ENGINEER/5URVEYOR S?l. R1C. Ste' M 5600 S111 L. CA< OAK SUITE 1 1I . ' - / CR. :30 FvRTL AND. OR 91::3 E J l Z I- 503 . 457-5003 1 '1 10935'$F..% - / FAY! 503 /4b.-8043 1 J1 \,,I UTILITIES a SERVICE5 If / WATER TIGARD WATER DISTRICT j STORM 1NMIED SEWER,IGE AGENCI I 5F: SEWER, UN6IED SEILERAGE AGENCT ~y` I C; ~f4O9 POLLEE PCRTLA. GENERAL ELECTRIC `l . PGhE C.ENERF.: ~I fl ~ .5 1 I TFLEPWCNE f.Ae. NORTHWEST NATURAL C .AS NOTE5 I v4 t.JW:- / % SITE AREA :63 Ac. /IJ ZON TAING' R1. MAP:5 TAY LOT: 1100 1 j ~03'IS F. / SLY 5 W-WER OF LOTS. b 111 1 11 11, I T ,1 f'Y 3 ~ , LEGEND • f \ II I .I 1 % ~~T) I {~?00 SF 1..1" ~ y~ / / EY15TlNf. TREES TO BE RE"IO'.'E: fw 1 } 1JIf rQ e„I~TR~ DECiCtiOUS Tf`sES ppt~\. ~ ,,(1 IIETL A\.^.5 ' I I I / I 11` Im 1 / / / 1 75 BI.-ER I I / I I EYISTRY 5TRLCTU'2E TO BE RE^.-tOYED j I / 333 9F. N ~ ~ I ' y/~ 50 O _ SO IOC SHEET DESIGNED BY ~/1'TD D.1TC b-95 j I` ° o I 465TR FL -'N DRAWN 6T PP oA,t E_9~ I~ E-IILLSHIRE WOODS Na..' ""EWEO 9TMF113C-0ATE-%5 PROJECT NO 7]` -0-011 REF. ALPHA ENGTNEERINO 1111! T:+/ M-4- :5 I -S BC SCALE -At NcTED alcc+aRn+c. ocvmrlarr. 3cnTC1a-svRVrT:Rc T4,, LOT 1100 -=15-5 Omct W-u -19O03-EA1 aa3-4z-Rau . CwG F1.s. 2R • SUM M "M SK OAK. i`OT.tAAT, OR F'!:_:1 W.:5+-11NGTOtV CCUN'1 O.REGCti I i - F - LEC-EN::;, \ ' 1'~. 'rl\\~ --_r • ~T1 1:~--C~:•,- E.i57I!G 5A.,"AwR 9EI:FR -INS AND -tN--~E \ 1 I k,"I I _ - -Cr :~--0 EXISTING 6TCR'1 DRAIN I \ ~y II,tX'... t Sip f / uNE ,u.o CATG. E IA&N --Car E/16LING u;:.TJER LINE AND Ei,ISTING F4ZC-ERIT LINES f- - - --i-~ \ i E.(15TING CONTOUR LINE ELEV ~ \ I ~ ~ C' Q-1 E.~16TIrY GECIDUOU9 TREES `rr E~ r -i I \f fl I i i EYI6TING STRUCTURE TO BE REMCVED I I t7. . I I ~ ~J ^j ~ ! r i .I 11 11 r ~ir II I , 11 C3' / i ' : I • , " A-.YYI,TA ASE: of SLOPES 1 ' / • RI ErCE65 Ox :5% 5U6JECT TO 11 14 I I / i / , ///l 5ENGITIVE,: ND5 REVIEW I 11 1 \ \1` 11 I [1 is"• I i° /~~9/ / ~ 1'.e7~.~.7 i / /Y % jai it ~ 1 ~ rCl J I I~ ` ~ J I 1 , llI~~~\ j ~ ' ~ \ 1 SUN a WINO I I •-6 / i ~ ~ I l 50 o SO f00 I 1 SHEET / i~11 , o A I ~1 I ~ CNSITE OESIGHED RT T'Fi"D DATE 6-ES atv i_Y"515 DRAWN DT DD DATE i-» I I i ~ {-TILL 5I-+IQE WOC'DS NO. I REVIEWED BYMF,DGDAT 6-95 or I PRoJECT H0 223-01 RCr. ALPHA ENGINEERING INC T:./ Mqc .5 I d9D I I SCALE ASNCTEp rrcDlmavc. DUMAPUM "ID"' .<•5,R Dwc TL/ Lv 1700 Dmcr EDD-.SZ-eooD.rAS 50D-aez-ao.D .w" DuG P71~L rGSC.s.T.i :]o. 9eon sr OAK MRCI-J DOR ur.:a I WA51-I NI TCN COUNTY ORE'GCN J ll~lgtjg~galllll III! In I ~jil IT', I I I\ t 1 I . - s7T y, _r-___. ) C STING 5'CR". vR~~N atiE .:.~L c_Tw eA51N / l,~ j} lam' _ -E- - E11571W, uuTER LINE :-ND ~'f' 1\ - .1' 1 ^r- PR„^PCSEC 54JTAR~ 5E-ER _NE 1 , I 1 1(~ `t ~ , M,p ~ IJ.D HANNOLE I 1~1 srcrz CRAP. E MAN610LE 1 I MANwCLE AND CATOI. Ir.LE- - - \ I t3 w T PROP05ED U"TER LINE B:CI.;- Y~j JI~. I j~E OFF. AND FIRE I YOMANT ~ 1 ~ I ~ IPROPODED _ I , IRETAINIIY.> i I \ 1 w AC ,1 utgLL LLETLF1m6 I(/ II ST I !I I j \ I I ,tp/ is t I l5' 5TORM - I ~DRA. i 1 1 't I j Wi II I I ,rl r i _PRC~aSEc Kim ~ 1 ~ • I i~ 'Xi 111 ~I~►~!!~~~`. I I i 50 35 O 50 100 IT c o SHEET IUTIL ITY FL4,N I I DEsic"ro BY HD DATErb-95 j 3 DRAWN BY P~ DATE b-°5 z i IILLSr.IR` WOCZ~S N--. REVIEWED BY 3D DATE 6-?- I Dr i PROJECT N0 223.On kEF._ ALPHA ENGINEERING WC E T4.1 MAP 25 1 4!5D I SCALE AS NOTp; [NO,TTSl4' C. D[SLp NT'MC'L•.smvr.Y;rvc ~ TA/ LOT 1Tp, I omcZ sm-u2-AOO3 • PAZ tns-uz-eau Ntt(.'BS DWi Pt.+. R4T • SUT([ 2M • H.00 r< OAK • Pall',tA.Yp.ON CR2~ I 1•,, t'`_ WA5L11,yGT0'J GOL1YTl-, OREGON I • 1`~`y -z~ E':E--}.K TC BE 'N574LLED U IL I71 7; ~ '1--~_ _ 1Ei,5rti5 s:.v'.c~ 5E: c _.•.E ',,I11 ,1 • ~ J',`_ ~ " AND n_~.-.^.E C/.STING STOC' CE2._ S L'•` . I'T CLT..w B:s'•. I i, , I~ ~ \ •r' . .Y` -E. r Cx15TING "MR .INC "ND V.:_ /C I 1 1( LET;.:I1C 0 1 I LA1.0 a1~A LACER I \1\ ~~~y 1 5C, CJ. 1"D5 TOM `I1` MG1rR OR.fTED MTO U!TLAND5 Pn'FFER i I IPROPD9ED ~ 7• r Ei•15TMG CUdtq[R5 I \ IFETAMING i A ^ WALL FROPO6ED GONig1S9 ' \ 1 I I\ Pil 44 R•1J 16, i \ .r CoNCl~rt 9°/ 8'P.UE. 4' FUTUP,E AV+RON 1 1 i5' STp.7 DRAIN - - - 1136 i i /^1 ' ± 1//~~WV1 / ~ ` RL TAINt~ yIALL I , / r• 08JK 6T Q~, ; - - OTAfR0 3I/."A G. PIT CLA80 'C'•? LRTS I I ~J / i 1 I ,7n \ ?Y3/4'-10'.CRUS-ED FUCK C-441E:~ ROCK I B C ] INTERIOR H4LF a-TREET Ii" IF'ROVEi`1ENT "4" STREET I.y By. 7 I 'I 1 1.- '~,j'• / 1~1 I RETAMING ` 3'<•-C'CRLSw'ED FCfX. I 'I I1 I ~'o~ f i~ T•~:•.c••cR~s'+EDRCrx _ PRIV^TE STREET f~~•., E5 C' P/. 1 ~ I 1 I ~ 1~- t ~ i lII r 11 / 1 I / I I l I I ' l li / l •~/Y r / 1 \`?'tl3~r _O'L'IS10'.ED RpC~ • LIRE . 1 ' j 1 ~ \ \ I \ lY?••O•r CW10'•~D ROCK dl I r/ 6I FERN STREET ' HALF ST. IMPROVEMENTS I ~ ' I w ?e o so 00 I 5 ~ i T' zo o r $NCCT p I r DESIGNED BY I"Fr"~ DAT cw I 1 DRAWN BY C~ CAJE 6.95 I]1 I i 4~1_L51-?IR= WOOOS No. REVIEWED BT=2CDATE 6-n OE GROJECt NO??.?•O11 REF. I- ALPHA ENGINEERING INC TA,, MAF 15 1 4gD SCALE 45 NOTEC VG[Rm GI D.Y 1ImIT srmur~. SIINYE.T[RG I m mom - TAN LOT MOO i wnss DuG PuL ~C9T s,ii z3uo: eoo si Cs TCN OAA POtR-D.GR 4iv.3 UJ :,5LIIN GGUNT T' C F2EG 'C ` N , I j I I RCSE ME•IDCLU5 i '~i tip, ~ - i I ~ I ~ ~ j \ I ~ ~f RtOIU ~ / t~, 1 '~l, p,'~q, lnlll l~ \ 1 ~ r NILLSHIRE e I HiLL5!-TIRE LEGEND nnn==~1 PEDESTRIAN A-C CYCLIST ACCESS j o0 50 0 '00 :00 7 i f~ z e SHEET OES~GNED RY FF_MC DATE b~ 1 OFF5ITE :=N4L1'S15 FLANI DRAWN BY DIS DAS b6-S5 I _ I-ILLS1-IIF2E WCOCS Nc.: i REVIEWED B1'/CCDAIE y , I~ I try DE _ j PROJECT NO. =-011 REE._ ALPHA ENGINEERING INC M- -JHD I I SCALE A$ NCTEC MINIMIZING• DENTM].OPN SEMIM•.,.tRi'EYING ' / L07 1100 .~i T' -=ss GLLCv PLAU TG T • SITE 2;a-w. WASHINGTON COIJNTI OREGCN t OTTICS :A]--EDO]. FA1 !AJ-~~ -MH] I ON: • PDRMND DR DrL'~ ' _ I { \ IMF- ALPHA ENGINEERING INC. SUITE 230, 9600 S.W. OAK 30-May-95 ISM PORTLAND, OR. 97223 omw JOB NAME: HIL.-LSHIRE WOODS #2 JOB NO.: 223-011 DIR: lA223-011 \QPRO\WQPOND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS: REFERENCES: 1. Controlling Urban Runoff, Thomas R. Schueler, July 1987. 2. Surface Water Quality Facilities Technical Guidance Handbook by Brown and Caldwell. 3. Unified Sewer Agency R&O 91-47 and R&O 91-75 4. Discussions with Unified Sewer Agency. REQUIRED WATER QUALITY TREATMENT: 65% phosphorus removal NINE PROPOSED TREATMENT METHODS: 1. Sumped Catch Basins 15% 2. Dry Detention Pond 50% total 65% DESIGN STORM: Precipitation: 0.36 inches Storm Duration: 4 hours Storm Return Period: 96 hours Storm Window: 2 weeks DETENTION CRITERIA: (Outlined by U.S.A.) Detention Duration: 48 hours IMP`b%'IOUS AREA CALCULATION: No. of lots: 6 lots impervious Area per Lot: 2640 sq. ft. Impervious Lot Area: 0.36 acres Lineal Feet Public Street: 170 If. Width of Street: 2e If. Cul-De-Sac: 2827 sq. ft. Imperv. Public: 0.17 acres Linear Feet Private Street: 540 If. Width of Street: 20 ft Impervious Area of Street: 0.25 acres Total Impervious Area: 0.79 acres LOW FLOW PEAK DISCHARGE CALCULATION: Equation: Impervious Area * precipiation / 4 hour duration 0.79 acres * 0.36" / 4 hours = 0.071 cfs. LOW FLOW ORIFICE CALCULATION: Equation: Q = Co*A*((2gh)/k) ^ 0.5 A = Cross sectional area of orifice mom Co = orifice coefficient g = gravity (ft/sec ^ 2) k=1 Hyd. Head 6 inch. Solution: A = 0.02027 ft. sq. A=pie*R^2 R = 0.08032 ft. radius d = 1.92773 in. diameter VOLUME CALCULATION: Equation: Impervious Area * precipiation 0.79 acres * 0.36" = 1026.81 cf. POND PARAMETERS: Storage Volume (Sd)= 1026.81 cf. Storage Depth (Hd)= 3 ft Side Slopes: 3:1 SOLVE FOR BOTTOM AREA: Bottom Area (Ab) = 51.3 STAGE VS STORAGE CALCULATIONS: Stage, H* FT. Storage, S(H) C.F. Water Surface Area S.F. 0.0 0.0 51 1.0 112.3 173 2.0 418.6 367 3.0 1026.8 633 4.0 2045.0 971 DISCHARGE FROM FACILITY: Equation: Volume / 48 hours 1026.81 cf. / 48 hours 0.0059 cfs WATER QUALITY OUTLET ORIFICE SIZE CALCULATION: Equation: Q = Co*A*((2gh)/k) ^ 0.5 A = Cross sectional area of orifice Co = orifice coefficient (0.62) g = gravity ( 32.2 ft/sec'- 2) k=i h = average hydraulic head (storage depth / 2) Solution: A = 0.00098 ft. sq. cam A= pie* R,,2 R = 0.01762 ft. radius d = 0.42284 in. diameter WETLAND DELINEATION HILLSHIRE WOODS Prepared for: Sierra Pacific Development PO Box 1754 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Prepared by: A.G. Crook Company 1800 NW 169th Place Suite B-100 Beaverton, OR 97006 (503)690-9653 October 10, 1994 RON TABLE OF CONTENTS . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1 METHODS AND MATERIALS 1 RESULTS 4 CONCLUSION 6 SUMMARY 6 FIGURES Figure 1. Site Lca ation - USGS Beaverton, OR Quadrangle Figure 2. Washington County Soils Survey Map Figure 3. Soils Guide for Washington County Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory Map - Beaverton, OR Quadrangle Figure 5. Aerial Photograph of Delineation Site APPENDIX Site Physiography Field Data Sheets Sierra Pacific DevOopment•Wedland Delineation•Hilishire Woods Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUNIIW"Y The A.G. Crook Company (Company) was contracted by Sierra Pacific Development to delineate wetlands on a property known as Hillshire Woods, located off SW Fern Street near y, Oregon. A residential development SW Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard, Washington Count is proposed for the site. Preliminary investigation showed that wetlands might be present, and that a wetland delineation was necessary to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Field studies were completed on September 28, 1994. The results of the study, based on an investigation of vegetation, hydrology, and soils, show that wetlands exist on the property adjacent to Fern Street and associated with the stream channel. Ida SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is roughly rectangular in shape and contains 61.6 acres. It is situated north and south of SW Fern Street near SW Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon on Tax Lots 800, 900, 1400 and 1700. The legal description locates it at T 2S, R 1W, Section 4 (Figure 1). The site is adjacent to an old homesite. Several exotic species, such as bamboo (Arundinaria spp.) and horticultural varieties of rhododendron and azalea (Rhododendron spp.), were found growing adjacent to the stream. The area addressed by this report is a steep hillside drained by a tributary of Fanno Creek. Its northernmost boundary is Fern Street, and to the east and west are homesites on 10-acre plots. The hillside is vegetated by a mixture of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). The Fanno Creek A. G. CROOK COMPANY • 1800 NW 169TH PLACE, SUITE B-100 • BEAVERTON, OR 97006 i Sierra Pacific Development•WeUand Delineation•Hillshire Woods Page 2 tributary, an intermittent stream, runs through a well-defined channel but was dry at the time of the site visit. A 30-foot wide strip of land along Fern Street contains about a foot of recent alluvial deposits and supports a dense growth of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and giant horsetail (Equiseturn telmateia). METHODS AND AIATERL R Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. This type of vegetation., known as hydrophytic vegetation, is one of the diagnostic environmental characteristics indicative of a wetland. A second diagnostic characteristic is the presence of hydric soils. Generally, hydric soils are those soils that have developed under anaerobic conditions due to saturation or inundation by surface or ground water. A third diagnostic characteristic is wetland hydrology, defined as the permanent or periodic inundation or saturation of the soil to the surface. Hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are the three criteria that must be satisfied when making a wetland determination. Prior to engaging in field work, Company staff consulted U.S. Geologic Survey topographic maps, National Wetland Inventory (NWT) maps, and Soil Survey maps to identify features that would indicate wetland areas on the site. The NWI map indicates no wetlands on the site (Figure 4). The A.G. Crook Company conducts field investigations in compliance with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, January 1987, which outlines criteria and procedures adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These criteria and procedures can be used to identify ju_is-ictional wetlands subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as well as to identify vegetated wetlands for other purposes. Vegetation is classified according to The A. G. CROOK COMPANY 9 1800 NW 169TH PLACE, SUITE B-100 • BEAVERTON, OR 97006 Sierra Pacifx Development•Wetland Delineation•Hillshire Woods Page 3 National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88, May 1988 and supplement dated December 1993. Field work was completed on September 28, 1994 by Rita Mroczek, Wetland Specialist and Jack Parcell, Soil Scientist. The Onsite Determination Method was used for this delineation. Soils were inspected for evidence of hydric soil indicators. Soil moisture content, matrix color, and presence of mottles and/or gleying were recorded. Soil hue, value, and chroma were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart. The soil survey of Washington County, Oregon, 1982 (Figure 2) maps Cascade and Cornelius soils on the site, neither of which is hydric. A soils guide is contained in Figure 3. Soils were examined and described at five data points to verify the published mapping. Dominant plant strata within a 15 foot radius of each data point (soil pit) were identified and percent cover of species within strata was visually estimated. Each species was classified according to moisture tolerance and placed in one of the indicator categories defined below. INDICATOR CATEGORIES Category Definition Obligate Wetland: Plants that almost always occur in wetlands (OBL) under natural conditions (estimated probability a 99%). Facultative Wetland: Plants that usually occur in wetlands but are (FACW) occasionally found in nonwetland areas (estimated probability 67 - 99%). Facultative: Plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands (FAC) or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34-67%). A. G. CROOK COMPANY • 1800 NW 169TH PLACE, SUITE B-100 • BEAVERTON, OR 97006 Sierra Pacific Development-Wedland Delineation-EWIshire Woods Page 4 Facultative Upland: Plants that usually occur in nonwetlands (FACU) (estimated probability 67-99%). Upland: Plant species that almost always occur in (UPL) nonwetlands under normal conditions (estimated probability > 99%). [From: National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Oregon (Reed 1988)] Wetland hydrology is the force which creates wetlands and is investigated on a site-wide basis as well as at each data point. Hydrologic field indicators including inundation, soggy or saturated soils, and wetland drainage patterns were noted. Wetland boundaries were marked with pink flagging imprinted with the words WETLAND DELINEATION. RESULTS The results of the investigation are documented below. Field sheets for each data point were completed and are attached to this report. Vegetation is identified by both common and scientific names on the data sheets. The parameter determinations at each data point are summarized in Table 1, below. The location of the wetland area is provided on the attached wetland delineation map (Figure 5). A. G. CROOK COMPANY - 1800 NW 169TH PLACE, SUITE B-100 - BEAVERTON, OR 97006 Sierra Pacific Development•Wetland Delineation•Hilkhire Woods Page 5 DATA POINT INFORMATION TABLE } 1 hydric '75% wetland wetland 2 hydric 90% wetland wetland 3 non-hydric 0% upland upland 4 non-hydric 70% upland upland 5 hydric 50% wetland wetland Aft Data Point 1 was situated just south of Fern Street in the drainageway. The vegetation consists of giant horsetail and Himalayan blackberry in the understury and red alder (Alnus rubra) in the tree canopy. The soil was saturated to the surface and has a chroma of 1. This data point is a wetland. Data Point 2 was taken under a grove of western red cedars. The soil was moist at 20 inches and is hydric, indicating that this point is within the wetland. Data Points 3 and 4 are outside the wetland. Data Point 3 contains an abundance of exotic plant species. The soil here has a chroma of 2 without mottles. The soil at Data Point 4 has a chroma of 3 and was powder dry on the day of the field investigations. The vegetation at this point consists of riparian species such as vine maple (Acer circinatum), red alder and thimbleberry (Rubes parvioris). Data Point 5 is located in a patch of giant horsetail. It has mottled soils and the water table is close to the surface. This data point is within the wetland area. AMIL A. G. CROOK COMPANY • 1800 NW 169TH PLACE, SUITE B-100* BEAVERTON, OR 97006 Sierra Pacific Development•Wethwd Delineation•Hillshire Woods Page 6 The wetland was flagged at the time of field investigations. Data points and the wetland e boundary are identified on the aerial photograph (Figure 5). CONCLUSION After careful review of available reference material and an onsite evaluation of existing conditions on the property, the Company has concluded that wetlands exist on the property adjacent to Fern Street and associated with the stream channel. The delineated area had evidence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. The presence of a large amount of alluvial material, the gentle slope adjacent to Fern Street, and the large watershed upstream are three factors that have created the wetlands on this property. SLNEUARY The A. G. Crook Company performed a wetland delineation on property known as Hillshire Woods, located on SW Fern St. near SW Scholls Ferry Road in Washington County, Oregon. It was determined that wetlands are present and are associated with the stream channel. The Oregon Division of State Lands and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers are the final authority regarding wetland delineations. This delineation is subject to their confirmation. Report prepared by: Reviewed and approved by: Rita Mroczek George H. Berscheid Wetland Program Manager Vice President A. G. CROOK COMPANY • 1800 NW 169TH PLACE, SUITE B-100 • BEAVERTON, OR 97006 •C CRO()K COWANY ,Ap R • o II` `ern u '~~Jl~ , III ` n ~ •Y y1 1;~a~ ROAD ~ -s~~ • - Q~I•. ~ it NOS _ - n ',It' ' n u3i°J5 293 l 5 ~Y.'f. r ~r ' X111` ~•~t p; ~ ~•a.wsi1 L V tt - Qn ~VI .4 CAG „lI 'n ✓u 1. . a' v S nt ;;1 No NTAINh a UN1PfN• pO~LO o,• -_t . fit $W SULL~ M 1 R+~• It W -'727A- it t it OR quad 'showing the ` USES Quad map -Beaverton, section of the FT site, location. site, location. now= AS-i. CROOK COMPANY - , Y ^ . •450 A`•~ s i i 1 45B ~ ` ~rSC -_•4 ; } a^ •:,;456.! 15 a +g rqt - s TIC `c 45s 45G L +,1 45B 2, 'fir. lr ~s•"Tt' '`-+i5fj-b. ~ 33 5s ^ 11Ba t o:;-.~.. " 'lir~p^ ~5B :.!4$8' ~•,.ib • tii'r ':A • 9e ' ° T34:•n;:,k~f:c'~e •.k 'Y 11B f ' 4= 43 #B 7B ` jry i ` SME `J•~ 1 L ,~~i `5: 160 ' fig 1• MIG r -T Y SKI ntain FIGURE 2 - A section of the soil survey map for Washington County, OR. t A. ROOK ("ONIPANY MBOL NAME SYMBOL NAME 1 Aloha sift loam 27 Labish mucky clay 2 Amity silt loam 288 Laurelwood silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 3E Astoria silt loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes 28C Laurelwood silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 3F Astoria sift loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 280 Laurelwood silt loam. 12 to 20 percent slopes 28E Laurelwood silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes 4B Briedwell sift loam, 0 to 7 percent slopes 29E Laurelwood silt loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes' 5B Briedwell stony sift loam, 0 to 7 percent slopes 29F Laurelwood silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 5C Briedwell stony silt loam. 7 to 12 percent slopes 5D Briedwell stony silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 30 McBee silty clay loam 31B Melbourne silty clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 6B Carlton silt loam, 0 to 7 percent slopes 31C Melbourne silty clay loam, 7 to 12',sercent dlopes 6C Carlton silt loam. 7 to 12 percent slopes 31D Melbourne silty clay loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 7B Cascade silt loam. 3 to 7 percent slopes 31E Melbourne silty clay loam. 20 to 30 percent slopes 7C Cascade silt loam. 7 to 12 percent slopes 31F Melbourne silty clay loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 7D Cascade sift loam, 12 to 20 Percent slopes 32C Melby silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes 7E Cascade silt loam. 20 to 30 percent slopes 32D Melby silt loam, 12 to 20 Percent slopes 7F Cascade silt loam. 30 to 60 Percent slopes 32E Melby silt loam, 20 to 30 Percent slopes 8C Chehalem silty clty loam. 3 to 12 Percent slopes 33E Melby sill loam. 2 to 30 percent slopes' 9 Chehalis silty clay loam, occasional overflow 33F Melby sift loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 10 Chehalis silt loam, occasional overflow 33G Melby silt loam, 60 to 90 percent slopes 11B Cornelius and Kenton silt foams. 2 to 7 Percent slopes 11C Cornelius and Kinton silt hams, 7 to 12 Percent slopes 34C Olysc silt loam, 5 to 12 percent slopes 11D Cornelius and Kinton silt foams. 12 to 20 percent slopes 34D Oly c silt loam, 12 !o 20 percent slopes 11E Cornelius and Kinton silt foams, 20 to 30 Percent slopes 34E Olyic silt foam. 20 to 30 Percent slopes 11F Cornelius and Kenton silt foams. 30 to 60 percent slopes 35E Oly,c silt loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes" 12A Cornelius Variant silt loam. 0 to 3 Percent slopes 35F Olyic silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 12B Cornelius Variant silt loam, 3 to 7 Percent slopes 35G Olyic silt loam, 60 to 90 Percent slopes 12C Cornelius Variant silt loam. 7 to 12 percent slopes 13 Cove silty clay loam 36C Pervma silty clay loam, 7 to 12 Percent slopes 14 Cove clay 36D Pervna silty clay loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 36E Pervina silty clay loam. 20 to 30 Percent slopes 15 Dayton silt loam 36F Pervina silty clay loam, 30 to 60 Percent slopes 16C Delena silt loam. 3 to 12 percent slopes 37A Quatama loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 17B Goble silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, 37B Quatama loam, 3 to 7 Percent slopes 17C Goble silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 37C Quatama loam. 7 to 12 percent slopes 17D Goble silt loam, 12 to 20 Percent slopes 37D Quatama loam, 12 to 20 Percent slopes 17E Goble silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes 18E Goble silt loam, 2 to 30 Percent slopes' 388 Saum silt loam. 2 to 7 percent slopes 18F Goble silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes 38C Saum silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 38D Saum sift loam. 12 to 20 Percent slopes 19B Helvetia silt loam, 2 to 7 Percent slopes 38E Saum silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes 19C Helvetia silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes 38F Saum silt loam. 30 to 60 Percent slopes 19D Helvetia silt loam. 12 to 20 percent slopes 19E Helvetia silt loam, 20 to 30 Percent slopes 39E Tolke silt loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes 20E Hembre silt loam. 3 to 30 percent slopes 39F Tolke silt loam. 30 to 60 Percent slopes 20F Hembre silt loam. 30 to 60 Percent slopes 2DG Hembre silt loam, 60 to 90 percent slopes 40 Udifluvents, nearly level 21A Hillsboro loam. 0 to 3 percent slopes 41 Urban Land 218 Hillsboro loam. 3 to 7 Percent slopes 21C Hillsboro loam. 7 to 12 percent slopes 42 Verb7Jn silty clay loam 21D H:lsboro loam. 12 to 20 Percent slopes 22 Huberly silt loam 43 Wapato silty clay foam 44A Willamette silt loam. 0 to 3 percent slopes 23B Jory silty clay loam, 2 to 7 Percent slopes 44B Willamette silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 23C Jory silty clay loam. 7 to 12 percent slopes 44C Willamette silt loam, 7 to 12 Percent slopes 23D Jory silty clay loam. 12 to 20 Percent slopes 44D Willamette silt loam, 12 to 20 Percent slopes 23E Jory silty clay loam, 20 !0 30 Percent slopes 45A Woodburn silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 23F Jory silty clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 458 Woodburn silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 45C Woodburn silt loam, 7 to 12 Percent slopes 24G Kitch,s•Klickitat complex, 60 to 90 percent slopes 45D Woodburn silt foam, 12 to 20 Percent slopes 25E Klickitat stony foam, 3 to 30 percent slopes 25F Klickital stony loam. 30 to 60 Percent slopes 46F Xerochrepts and Haploxerolls, very steep 25G Klickitat stony loam. 60 to 90 percent slopes 47D Xerochrepts•Rock outcrop complex 26 Knappa silt loam 'Broadly defined unit FIGURE 3 - A soils legend for Washington County, OR. k.c. 1 n N Q 4 .4..r ~ 1. OS i _ a ~~=-:+2,:~"" ~ Qi... }s+ t ` 4- `~,~V i..`~ ~ - \``1 ' i •r p ' ~,J\\ \l t `;1st acr_. r t _ ~ t g 1 ~ ! ! t t •1~ v ` ~ ~ ~ o , : _ ti , , ~-l / . ~ ` . c. f, _ tl ; ate. ?Sl .j `~q YI \ fa. .3.~1- ~•j'' 10~11w?.; i I{{ ~ F...~', 1 :~~1'.\: .14~. !AV Sfi`;`~ il~ .,t~., d rl••=r.:~ ,1'~~~_ -i~:~.i~/ ::r~'•.~si r° ~~t~ 'G'CS S,'1'`• ;4fir ~ ' ~ ~ rah 1(`_ , ~ oss_ ,r/ ;i: ~ ~ t~ f=•- ri i 1. J i' 1 ,n - i~ ~''"0 '•.f 4'. lrl~ "..?:`•;a;::,. 04 ow) ,~~°r'r 111 hr 1~a.y ~ , Z\ ; ,g,' ~ c'a.-\ (S , 1 . ~'J g~ ley ,l \ . ,I~pt~, .;.:...,.t„~'-•' x- J ~ : 't • 1 sir, fir/.\~~ J/' `il `~r`i•'I~V~I. `.~.1 1 1 '1 a. ~ .t-4``, :`~:-~:':iy-:- .~\....-a. Rio f f a ~ ~ I d-1. ~J Q> , t QI ~ ~ ~ .~JJ ~h1 i, Ii,^ 1`t~ 1 now ..d 51 + ti;, dollop sea E FOLLOWING u IVIENT -mrS OF POOR t AA A LIT~' Q'"mU r, 1 ' dw •.m ; 1 e t crv~ • -.d I t• ~ rig ' r r r r FIGURE 5 HILLSHIRE WOODS WETLAND DELINEATION I .loll +wbt 1351 oi• :~rta - k~.r :'=::C' cc. ;..a".~: .W law MIS ® WETLANDS DELINEATION SITE PHYSIOGRAPHY AND CHECKLIST Date Oct. 11, 1994 I Applicant: Name: Sierra Pacic Development Mailing Address: PO Box 1754, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: 503/684-3175 Fax: Project Name: HiUshire Woods Address: Fern St. near Scholls Ferry Rd. Owner: Same as above Address: Same as above Tax Lot(s): 800,900,1400,1700 Legal Descr:T 2S, R IW, Section 4 Location: State OR County WA City Tigard Acreage: 61.6 Nearest Major Road/ Intersection: SW Fern St & SW 135th St. Proposed Use: Residential development Zoning/Land use: Residential Topography: Steep hillside Asm0rainage: Unnamed tributary of Fanno Creek Within 100 yr. flood elevation: X Yes No WIPPresent use: Undeveloped Date use began: unknown Vegetation: Primarily forested Past use: Post 1985: Pre-1985: unknown Adjacent areas laud use: North- Reside ntial East: Residential South: Undeveloped West: Residential USGS & NWI quad name: Beaverton, OR Type of wetland indicated: None SCS soil survey series: Cascade and Cornelius Hydric? _Yes X No Are v ietlands probable within the site? _X _Yes No Is a formal delineation required? __X _Yes No Rationale: Presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. t A. G. CROOK COMPANY WETLANDS:FORM.2 i Form Wetlands - t A.Q. Cr"k Co. FIELD DATA SHEET WETLANDS DELINEATION ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Field Investigator(s): C -2: le- J a-CL lafCel Date: Project/Site•_I State: County: .y pt- 5 N ~yG►7-D Applicant/Owner: 5 rla Par;~'c. e v . Plant Community #/Name: 1. Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes )4-No _ (if no, explain on bark) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes Na (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species i n ifi N m Common N Indicator % Cover t~ V K Y YG_ r am ;V - r• Z. 3. - Gr fACI! 4. a iJ laf36=Lt~ 7, a. 9. 10. ercent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC the hydrophytic vegetation criterion metl Yes No ationale• SOILS Series/pha" ,e: Y Subgroup': Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes _ N _ Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes _ No ,Z Histic epidedon present? Yes _ No X Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _ No Gleyed7 Yes _ No 2L Matrix Color: Mottle Colors- Other hydric soil indicators: - fd Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No _ Rationale: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inun a ed? Yes a~ No _ Surface Water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No _ Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes K No ! u Rationale: 0 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes -INo "I . Rationale for jurisdictional decision: /J 1draRb~tlon aovedYy b -90/ Tmtn,ny-. Form Wetlands 1 A.O. Gook CO. FIELD DATA SHEET Aft WETLANDS DELINEATION • ' ~ 4RbUTINE ONSITE DIWFJMINATION METHOD Field Investigator(s): ✓ C -:2- e. 1 e- J 1 av Z~ Date: Project/Site: 1 State: rD R County: (aJ A- S ~4 ti C, TO Applicant/Owner: 5 i e- rlcw Paa~ e . Plant Community #/Name: d Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes 2~ No _ (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No4 (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Scientific Name Common Name In i Qr 96 Cover 3. Q w:4 4.Awnd.^ ar, 6. 7. 9. 10. Qs "Zp ercent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, d/or FAC U the hydruphytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No _ Rationale: SOILS Series/ph Subgroup': Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes _ Nom Undetermined Is the soil a HistosoR Yes _ No,>~ Histic epidedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _ No = Gleyed7 Yes _ No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _ No ti- Rationale: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Y S _ No, Surf ace Water depth: Is the soil saturated7 Yes _ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. cL2 0'S f a-Zy Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No _ Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No _ Rationale for jurisdictional dee'cis(o _ ~r Din f.L o G ! LClrrlie.yo„ .ooaBb~p a •sd T~werm,y. ig~l ALM Ica w Form Wetlands - FIELD DATA SHEET WETLANDS DELINEATION ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION !METHOD. Field Investigator(s): i ✓ C J a ~Q✓C~) Date: 1'2q.14 Project/Site: ' I State: County: WA-5 A,) C- TO Applicant/Owner: 5; ar a Paa: c Plant Community #/Name: ----Z, Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X- No-_ (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes _ No,4 (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species , Scientific Name Common Name ` i Indicato r % Cover /q .o f 3 a ear Gsi - _ 4. eo-c~ ~I a_ 1LO~F i 6. 9. 10. moo rcent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes _ Nom Rationale: ILO r-4 Cot/ o-8- / SOILS Seri es/p e: Subgroup': Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes _ No X Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes _ No-2 HiStic epidedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _ NoX Gleyed7 Yes _ Nom Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _ No Rationale: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes _ No XSurface Water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes _ No Depth to free-standing water in it/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ No x nn h ~O toce ~ / Rationale: fLy JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland! Yes _ No x f ) , r Rationale for jurisdictional decision: yLiZ o a tdr,Ae~t}on ~oardMp m''3oi TaoromY'. Form Wetlands - 1 A.O. Onok Co. FIELD DATA SHEET WETLANDS DELINEATION ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Field Investigator(s): ✓ C l~ J _P0.✓ 21 Date: 1-2q14 Project/Site: State: (-D 1R County: 5 14 r ti GTO Applicant/Owner: 5 i e.rlc, F c : -e Plant Community #/Name: Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes 2~ No _ (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes - No,,2K, (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species i n ifi Name CQmmon Name InCQr, % Cover 1. S ruz;ra. i" )a-_ 4d, Sb I 2. ~'O'' ~rr?~io°1+-r/r ~R~ SAG - tea- Q T 7-cm T 4. 5 u.5 car % or ~ S h_C.. r-„~•-• ~f•- ~ 6 u*iGEu~+ IY1L(►1 i urn _ ,i v.-.~.1.. ~?Gu A J~..; L~ r A. n err ~1-;~ ✓ s. 0. ftrsercent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 7o ;:~'T lG ~fv vim'✓-~ the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ~L No Rationale: 70 --'o st.c2 r C SOILS r Series/phase: /~1 Subgroup': Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes _ No L<' Undetermined _ Is the soil a Histosol? Yes _ No ~C Histic epidedon present? Yes _ No X sue! Is the soil: Mottled? Yes _ No Gleyed7 Yes _ No.X Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _ No Rationale: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Ye _ No Surface Water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes _ No Depth to free-standing water in pi soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ No Rationale l//LO 1WW JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes _ No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: / v 10madk.ason ~morAtr -to *Saf Teenomy- Boom Form Wetlands 1 A.O. Croak Co. FIELD DATA SHEET WETLANDS DELINEATION ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD G G Field Investigator(s): ✓ c ~ e l~ J act k0.✓ Uh Date: 2 _I • 1 4 Project/Site: ' 1 State:Q E County: o-) A-S 14 tiC;TD Applicant/Owner: 5 i r.re-a FCLC,! •e. . Plant Community #/Name: __c-- Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes 2C No _ (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes _ No,2:~ (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species SCientific NN Common Name indicator % Cover 1. qCei- A'>OGN ooh 4llu vn U S~ 2. S d. / r ~fl'~./ S. 4. 6. 7. 9. 10. W t rcent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC he hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes4 No _ f l Rationale: % % ✓'J SOILS Ones/phase: Subgroup': Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes _ N _ Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes _ Nox Histic epidedon present? Yes-No-L- Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No _ Gleyed? Yes _ No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No _ Rationale- s HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated) Y S _ No/~ Surface Water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes _ No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe .,,,le: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. ~f Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No _ / v Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No _ /r I P / r Rationale for jurisdictional decision: ~/,v ~wl'•lln • (l~~'O D U +nT.C 9^,r ~~wllbwbn ~oadkv kn'9of Tcwnomy. A.G. Crook Company Soils Form - ? Soil Type eOQNE IUS ORA'MA66WAY ✓AieIANT Date q~aq~gy Stop No. Classification A ULPr5 ~ AQU1G Location SE+'jRE N. Veg. (or crop) )4AOi4•t ^ Parent materialiVA;ER AND i►~/NC 006SITr Drainage SOt9L_t )j,4T oaQR.LV To Adpq`y Depth to Water Table 30 Slope % Moisture M i. o TO S.rR r- y1 GC Permeability MOI)OATFLy SLOB 1s Soil Hydric? YEs Why? IDRAiNAGE,VAY "W/r14 VWEQ MBLR IN WIN-IM f SPR~~ Additional Notes TN/S SDIL LAG,CS -/J S,Lry CzAv zaAA1 B NDelz-ON O;- --VOiCAL CORNED-144s SOAL Color Con- Special Horizon Depth D(ry) M(oist) Texture Mottles sistence Roots Features ,pJ 10Yk 3/, SV47' Fz►v VELLDU.I #s0 Fei,1&LE 0 -8 M VERY Wk &eAv y¢ u N. M ✓Le y, ()Ag i< &eA LOA M 0 1'. T x 1DY+C 4-11 511.T SL144j-,JY iP LA D M D M D M D M Notes: By: (JCI ~7r~C1LCJCJ A.G. Crook Cwpany Solis Form - i Aft Soil Type CDRhEL,IJS f)9AwAGEWr YAr0tAM7" Date Stop No. ClassificationAeUEAT?A(OUIC, rI~1Pz0~1QA~,~; Location LjjL4.Sg!p N. Veg. (or crop) Parent material TF~2 w1I Iwo EAL.f , I zs Drainage M0p8RATE4y y1i.EL4, DRAiwED Depth to Water fable " Slope o Moisture #Vjrr Ar j0" Permeability MODsRArAzV SjzW Is Soil Hydric? "Y? tJ1604 WA7-a-, A,44.e !N W'JAeMC -e SOR-17V(Z Additional Notes IMP Color Con- Special Horizon Depth D(ry) M(oist) Texture Mottles sistence Roots Features .0 7,$YK 3/Z FEYV 10VR !r/S SL/6;fj9'LY _g M DA QK BQOU1 N I-DAArl 0 ir.'D 3-~d 4 IcyQ Il,/g SIJ-T FEW M 14ANY sLi~:orcr M jeow rl aAR! KoVQ 616 all -44 iD 10YQ V2 Si[.T 14AI Y IOYQ FRIABLE MDAU r:2, Y6k XV40 J ;-OAAi M D M D M D M D M Notes: By: ~t,Lk) ealmil 7 A.G. Crook Company Soils Firm - ? Soil Type CORNF~iiu Li b Date g4glq'~- Stop No. 13 Classification N.9AGOXE~ALi=S location ~iLLSNiRE N. Veg. (or crop) Parent material iN iNC 1V.87~P DEPOS ++S Drainage NOpcR,4 7'84.,' Depth to Water Table *Z Slope 3 c, Moisture 140,9; A7 3z " Permeability MODEQ A7,S y si4Uj Is Soil Hydric? Why? Additional Notes 7*4.4 ice. L. 6 eS -aIL= 5;`.7-✓ GLAD/ .:.oAAI NO /ZON F T)IA QQNBL.. as SDI' Color Con- Special Horizon Depth D(ry) M(oist) Texture Mottles sistence Roots Features JOv,Q 312 SALT Sci~Nrt,y M Val ,04ek GW ESN 6.044 4D ~N 16 /OYR 'N2 SILT $tIGNTLY M DARZ C4AYi5H NOWN A-MAi t<~-~+ p "OYQ V/1 511.- FMK/ love G/q Fo O&Z M jDAR 6PA r S AJ ileg-v AZA41 D M D M D M D M Notes: By: / , A.G. Crook Company Soils Form - ? Soil Type CDr2N&,11J5 a ~r Date ~d~1 Q Stop No. L.L Classification NApL0;eERA.L S Location N&I-SIViRE N. Veg. (or crop) Parent material W,.Vo i WAS DEPOS,TS Drainage Depth to Water Tabie ,,,f Slope Moisture M0151' per Permeability Md,0E-eATF_-Lv '7j.0-.' Is Soil Hydric? riD Why? Additional Notes 7WIS SC//- L r 7t 4g r_G.A 4Zy4M B WRiZZAI OF TYPle~AL t N=C.ld6 Color Con- Special Horizon Depth D(ry) M(oist) Texture Mottles sistence Roots Features .0 10Y R 313 S&144 04V 0-8 M DARA BA04IJ N Si,-r ~c+q~ ►haQ1? D Z, io yw 4% S%tT LOAA1 ,",UGti Tk✓ 3-dC3 M pe4~~ gflCj~UN~ d0-3 0A0i< BROWN `OAm X-EW DVe ebA? F,?08L~ lO YC *13 y D M D M D M D M Notes: ay: 1tC-kJ l~Q/K4~2J A.G. Crook Company Soils Form - t Alft Soil Type ;;0~2NLc~it/;y D"JAP.4"WAy ✓~eR/A~d7' Date 4/dq IgL4 Stop r10. 4 Classification A Arl S location ~tLSlil~'~ N. Veg. (or crop) Parent material yV/N0 ? IvA-,U WO,5- 'S Drainage M0bMA7aL -,yZl-L DRAIN'" Depth to water Table 3('~ Slope z c Moisture WjrT AT 14 i Permeability MDDt_RA>cLY SjDvj Is Soil Hydr ic? yES why? i416H hl/x1-,,r:~Q T06LE IN kIN75Q Sa'RiNG fin Additionai Notes Color Con- Special Horizon Depth D(ry) M(oist) Texture Mottles sistence Roots Features iove 3/z SLI6 O -~0 MVc1;Y DU < ~ Y1SH S1 a -d ~UAH i '4 511_7- MANY 1QYQ G,I Sz.16NTLY M DO< 6401Lv4 L. Al U iHAlQ~ 1Or4 S/3 SIL.T MAn Y 1QYQ 6A FRIABLE M DAR-< 8ROW14 ;..OAry 0 M D M D M • -T-D M Notes: BY: J 9a KQw J Agenda Rom No.® Me ®randu>ln Meeting ot~ DATE: September 26, 1995 TO: City Council FROM: Mark Roberts, Associate Planner RE: Tree Removal at Hillshire Woods on SW Fern Street This memorandum is in response to the letter submitted to the Council by Mr. Gordon Barrett concerning development of property on SW Fern Street. The property was partially cleared. It was a part of a subdivision application called Hillshire Woods which was approved by the Planning Commission. Their decision became final January 30th of this year. Subsequently, a second subdivision application for this site Hillshire Woods II was recently approved by the Planning Commission. Originally the developer had designed only a water quality treatment facility for this site due to the topography of the area. The applicants later determined that the site could be developed for a small subdivision. The Barrett's appealed the Planning Commission's approval of Hillshire Woods II. This appeal is to be heard on September 26th. The Barrett's and other concerned neighbors the Tanner's and the Chase's have indicated that they are newer property owners who were not involved with the original review of Hillshire Woods earlier this year. During the Barrett appeal process I have repeatedly discussed the fact that the detention pond was previously approved under the Hillshire Woods Subdivision. Five months ago I had also reviewed and issued a tree removal permit for development of the Hillshire Woods Subdivision which also allowed development of a detention pond on this site to treat storm water from the Hillshire Woods Subdivision. The tree removal for the rest of the Hillshire Woods Subdivision took place several months ago. I had forgotten that a tree removal permit for the detention pond had been issued in conjunction with the rest of the Hillshire Woods development. The developer wanted to move ahead with the tree removal near the detention pond before the weather changed. This was to facilitate the sale of lots within the original Hillshire Woods Subdivision. When calls were received from the neighbors concerning the tree removal, a stop work order was requested both by contacting the property owner and by asking City Code Enforcement Officer Jim Wolf to go to the site and issue a stop work order. Upon further review it was found that the original tree removal permit included this site and the stop work order request was withdrawn. A site inspection determined that the tree removal was within the extent of that issued within the tree removal permit. At that time the contractors had thought that they were finished but later they did need to remove additional trees due to size of the approved detention pond facility. Staff discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Barrett that the subdivision to be heard by the City Council would likely not go back to the Planning Commission for review because the Council would normally make the final decision concerning this type of appeal. The Council also must make a decision on September 26th because the 120-day time limit expires on September 30th. In regards to the wetlands issue, staff has suggested that the wetland study be updated as a condition of approval Hillshire Woods II through the appeal process. This has been requested for several reasons, the original report for this site is now over a year old. The original report stated that wetlands were located within one corner of the property towards SW Fern Street. Upon further review other portions of the site north of the detention pond these areas contained silt erosion, bamboo plants and standing water. The standing water and silt appeared to have been the result of increased storm drainage flows from developing areas to the south within the Hillshire Estates Subdivision. The wetlands study update can be prepared to review these issues and to determine whether additional wetlands areas exist on site which will need to be addressed mrith further revisions to the proposed subdivision plan. 2 1 a a 46 Also a portion of Rillshire Woods Now Nillshire Woods if Hillghire Woods LL I O 'S! VICINITY CASE NO. StM #94-0003 EXHIBIT MAP SLR #94-0007 SLR #94-0007 Vo 19 f ~ v"" r w A,4 14~ ~7 W, e t. Om' 4ted d,4 Mal GSA ILA- a,.V, G kv7 ' Ll r tC 41,, Alt per &14A 1/4 / 49- O-A- 61 C-4 c) f S " ` f9 , v~ f.L ~ y 'L ::7V /Apt J' 1. fit. ~ d Gel, _ ik . ci erv P~~ a-p` l~%I U//",f Z t,;CA eIA- z~ ul~ ~ GJ° jJ G~. vml Ar, I? ja~ ~a. ~P CJ~C'uTi"'I ~-Gt✓~• WLC ~l~I2EJ.Gt/~a~.iGG'" L~ G ~ l C i c~ Gtrv ~f he 6~7, /ZIT l' ox~ B~,a . s GHQ 46 04-v-~ JA &xp t6 AO~ / l~~fiL~C C Oyt Ce~Y~f C~G~ •S r Xu~ e-4 p ~9 lf~ Gh ~ O-L ~ ~Gli~/t~1 f v ~(cp lel ~►f~ u/`~ 11 Qc " i~~ et -t(l. 1~ Gtt t t vt ~'L a„~ 0 c~E (J //C Ott C Gq CIO w GORDON & MELISSA BARRETT 13800 SW Ferri Street Tigard, OR 97223 September 13, 1995 Bob Rohlf 12430 SW North Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Bob: On September 26, 1995, you will be hearing our appeal against the planned Hillshire Woods II development. The appeal numbers are SUB-0004/PDR95-0005/97-0007. We are asking you to send this project back to the Planning Commission for further study. This is a pristine creek and wetland's area that is home to native wildlife jnd vegetation. While we can appreciate the developer's right and desire to develop this area we feel that not all the appropriate studies have been completed. Your Associate Planner, Mark Roberts visited the site at our request. After walking the area and observing stretches that could meet the definition of wetlands, Mark is recommending that an up-date to the Wetlands Study be performed. Mark is also recommending that the lot sizes be reduced to create additional open space. Mark however MIMI did not recommend moving the proposed private street. This street will run on the property line within twelve feet of my home. The engineers for Sierra Pacific proposed moving the road to a more appropriate position that the developer rejected because of cost. This plan would leave more of the native vegetation and minimize the natural impact. The developer has dedicated the upper end of the ravine as a natural space that is being donated to the city. The space that is being proposed for development however is the creek bed and drainage area which drains from three steep slopes. While the developer is proposing to build retention ponds at the bottom of the ravine a more appropriate location would be higher up in the ravine where the slope is less and the creek could better manage the run off. This would disturb less of the natural space along the creek bed. This retention pond is necessary because of all the development and destruction of natural landscape this developer has made above in Hillshire Estates. The ideal plan would be for the developer to dedicate this entire area to the proposed open space from Hillshire Estates We ask for your consideration in sending this either back to the Planning Committee or denying the development of this Tigard natural resource. Sierra Pacific will move on to other projects while we the citizens of Tigard will have to live with what they have left. Help us save this piece of nature for the people of Tigard. Sincerely. Gordon & Melissa Barrett Hamilton. Brianna, & Ryan Enclosure: MIN TIDE FDOCUMENTS ARE OF POOR ORIGINAL. QUALITY J t 7 1 r. 1 .f MIMI t ;fit • i `G ~ , ~ TIGARD WETLAND TREASURE NOTICE THE REEDS GRO `VEN THROUGHOUT THE AREA THESE PICTURES ARE OVER 300 FEET UP INTO THE PROPERTY A 'Y' 1 • t A i TIIE O,pv 1.. ' SL 1 'E'ES EO1ZE ON r ♦i ~.•r T ~ r s yy..y' p-N TAE ' ' ~ -FREES Cp,CER NE~ :~BflLT I''RO~'OSF'D Y N-ERA CL -~jS NN LL OO-f LINE 0 , - E P SSE ~~ZE OT . -E '-Y NNI I)E,VEL p"-XBLE ~ _ , L` TRS -gy p ' IAI S- FFER 1RREP p -R fJ EES Po.tiDs 1G To SkCRIFICE ~';B RE-~E-oT10, Ni~ILLi- E~~" a~ S . - N~ F oR .D -fills 15 011E FKOVT OF T11E ONLY A AREA .`5y - RN TIRE FRONT 15 EStGNATED µ~VE r L?.1N1V' RN TYRE EVELOPERS g ARRET ~ I gO;~tE G PROF OSVD D PRO ~~PIIN Y r VIE ~,2t.Ff~1.,7•'~q•'~'f •y i ~:r; ..w.; ryyl~< , ~7.,;1 - ;ati _ : • t: PROgpSE r , max cr N"Ll- -TIAIN _ T ~ t'_ FEE 01F 0,c F, f CO-"IYR P R YS SE~~`O REL .L Dv-- YLOpE OZ R pROVER C~-N-N-ENIE-'° CE O~ F OR T lv Tl'~E s~~~~~ - W CAN HO V LF • , , Y. 'B A ALL OF . 1',~ _ , ~--tt ~~xl * • ISIS BE `DF FOR FIVE NIT -SI q _ l: 1 Aff _ i - S pROPF THI ES A FIRST j. A • UESER~ OR F 01 pL~> rtLL CIT VE C( IMF TBE PLAN DOES NOT MAKE SENSE V C: Cross section of the area. Steep slopes on both sees and do the back of the ravine The natural drainage of this area has created a wetland space that pins the lenaht of the propervy. Water will altivavs run down these slopes - (even more if the veQitation is removed) In the winter and spring this area is a swam The proposed houses sit right in the drain field. Come see "for yourself.