The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 10/27/1998 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1998 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I:WmW"ica%ccpW.dw 13125 SW Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 . r Revised 10/2311998 3rd , CITY OF TIGARD } w kF yfii j~s Ii f 'S rlcial}KUiSij .L d~ u, i ~ tikti ~f,sy ":y~5rr .r F 7'f.:+~•Pn.~, `iX2~+' ~ F'4:1:,.w 3 le rs.; (.:.ltiTrti.:c~avKn`.win.h'.S.t lt;V .r fit. • y`.f.a.. 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. visitors 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 Manager. 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 agenda items can be heard in any 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 6394171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 6842772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 6394171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 27,1998- PAGE 1 AGENDA 6:30 PM . e STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. This Executive Session is being held under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h). 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 session. 7:30 PM 1. ~ESS MEETING Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Roll Call .3~ Pledge of Allegiance Council Communications Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Proclamation for 80th Anniversary of the founding of the Independent Czechoslovak State 7:35 PM 2 VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 PM CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes - September 8,1998. 3.2 Direct Engineering Staff to Prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report for the Proposed 69th Avenue Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 98- 3.3 Establish Fund and Interfund Loan for 69th Avenue Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 98--15 3 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid for the Purchase of a New 10/12 Yard Dump Truck to Portland Freightliner, Inc. b. Award Bid for Window and Flashing Repair Work to be Performed at the Library and City Hall Facilities to Select Contracting, Inc. 3.5 Approve Budget Ad'u tment No. 6 for the City Center Window/Flashing Project - Resolution No. 98-44 AGENDA - OCTOBER 27,1998- PAGE 2 3.6 Authorize City Manager to Pay Costs Associated with Rail Road Crossing Improvements and Signal Installation at Bonita Road. • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:SOpM Ja/ RECEIVE INFORMATION CONCERNING WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL TASK FORCE- RECOMMENDATION ON REPRESENTATION C~ I" 6U`C~ • Community Development Department 8:00 PM "5! REPORT ON DETENTION POND MAINTENANCE • Public Works Department 8:10 PM 6. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A BOND TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM FINANCING FOR THE DARTMOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTE TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING FOR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSED TO THE MARTIN PROPERTY • Staff Report: Finance Department • Council Consideration: a. Resolution No. 98.5$- Authorize Issuance of a Limited Tax Improvement Bond for a Portion of the Costs of the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District b. Resolution No. 98-5(v - Authorize Interim Financing for the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District in a Maximum Amount of $1,950,000 8:40 PM 7. FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO.11- SW HILL VIEW STREET • Staff Report: Engineering Department • Council Questions e Staff Recommendation • Council Deliberation: Consider a motion to modify Reimbursement District No. 11 reflecting the final cost of constructing the project and to limit individual property owner's maximum reimbursement fee to $8000 for connections completed within one year (by October 28, 1999). COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 27,1998- PAGE 3 8:50 PM 8. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - HILLSHIRE ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION (SUB 98.0003/PDR 98. 0004/MIS 98.0005 The applicant requested preliminary plat approval to subdivide an approximately 14.103 acre site for the creation of a 64 lot single-family attached Planned Development Subdivision. The Planned Development is proposed in order to maximize the preservation of significant natural resources on the site which include a natural wetlands area, numerous trees, and terrain with slopes exceeding 25%. This application also involves a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard cul-de-sac design standards for length and the number of lots taking access from a cul-de-sac, and to allow a street grade of 15%. Sensitive Lands Review is requested for mitigation of any impacts to the wetland areas and Lot Line Adjustment approval is requested to transfer approximately 1.31 acres from Tax Lots 00400 and 00500 to Tax Lot 03009 (Tract 411-" At the August 17, 1998 Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Planning Commission approved this request subject to conditions of approval. An appeal was filed within the required time period based on the following: e The Wetlands depicted on the City's Wetlands Map are inaccurate; ♦ Some streams are not shown in the correct location or are not shown at all; e Concerns of steep slopes resulting in slides; and o The appellant stated that the previous owner altered the flow of water on the i3roperty. Although not applicable review criteria, the ap ellants raised concerns about school size and additional volume on the roads. LCpCATION: The subject parcels are located on the east side of SW Menlor Lane- WCTM 2S 105DA Tax Lots 00300 00400 and 00500. ZONE: Single-Famify Medium Density Residential - 5,006 Square Feet Attached Per Unit, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for single-family detached and attached units for medium density residential developments. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32 and 18.84. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions 9. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 98-f-7 9:20 PM 9. PROGRESS REPORT: TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION • Introduction: Community Development Staff o Report: Representatives of the Tigard Central Business District Association COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 27,1998- PAGE 4 • 9:40 PM 10. CONSIDER REPLACING AN EXISTING FEE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE NEWLY REVISED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED ON JULY 28,1998 • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 98.5 8 10:00 PM 11. CONSIDER ORDINANCE CORRECTION ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 98- Z 2- 10:10 PM 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS B. Consider Easement City of Tigard to the Chamber of Commerce • Engineering Department 10:30 PM 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property .transactions, current and pending litigation issues. This Executive Session is being held under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h). 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 session. 10:50 PM 14. ADJOURNMENT \\TI G333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\CCA\981027.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 27,1998- PAGE 5 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9251 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising OCity of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 S47 Hall Blvd. eTigar_d,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' 1. Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi Bard-T ua 1 a i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti cTa rc3 in the aforesaid county and state; that the _City CoLnn i 1 Board t1 at i na a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for_QUE successive and consecutive in the following issues: October 22,1998 t .j Subscribed and sworn to ore me this22nc3 clay cif October, 1998 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN .4& Notary P lic for Oregon ~ *COMMISSION NOTARY PUBLLIIC-OREGON i My Commission Expires: NO. 062071 h1Y COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW ROA,RD MEETING October 27,1998 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD eM HALL- TOWN I#ALL' 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Council will consider the following topics: * Resolution Regarding Fees Associated with Provisions of the Com- munity Development Code * Report from the Tigard Central Business District Association * Report on Detention Pond Maintenance * Review Resolutions Regarding Dartmouth Local Improvement Dis- trict Financing * Conduct Appeal Public Hearing for the Hillshire Estates #4 Sub- division * Consider Ordinance Correcting Items Associated with the Community Development Code * Receive Information Concerning the Washington Square Regional Task Force Recommendation on Representation * Executive Session M251- Publish October 22, 1998. w~ 1 Agenda Item No.- Meeting of i h~b)w ~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 • STUDY SESSION > Mayor Jim Nicoli called meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: Asst, to the City Manager Liz Newton; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; Utility Manager Mike Miller; Waste Water/Storm Supervisor Eric Hand; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Associate Planner Julia Hajduk; Engineering Tech Greg Berry and Deputy City Recorder Jessica Gomez. > Agenda Review Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, stated that he was not prepared to make a recommendation on how to handle the request for a moratorium on a permit, given the short notice. He said that staff could pursue the matter if Council wished. Both Councilor Scheckla and Mayor Nicoli indicated that they had no interest in pursuing the matter. Liz Newton, Asst. to the City Manager, reported that Chief Goodpaster informed her that the process for getting an OLCC permit and filing with the Lottery Commission would take three to five months. She reviewed the extensive research done by the Commission before granting a permit for a video poker unit. Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, explained that the revisions to the Code delineated under Item 10 re-categorized land use fees into the correct categories within the revised Community Development Code. He said that staff would ask Council to amend the resolution to~Rclude the accessory residential units that were left out of the fee. Councilor Hunt asked about implementing County SDC charges. Mayor Nicoli suggested writing a formal letter to the County Commissioners asking them to put the matter on their agenda for discussion. He commented that the Board would probably want to hold public hearings on the issue. Ms. Newton noted that the correction items associated with the Code, Item I 1 were those items that were left out. Mayor Nicoli thanked Ed Wegner for inviting the Councilors to the Octoberfest. Ms. Newton said that Item 12b was a consideration of a request by the Chamber for an easement for electrical service across a City parking lot. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE I > Summer Lake Park Tree Planting Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, reported that staff ran into problems with the homeowners on the north side of the lake during their tree-planting project the previous Saturday. He said it was his understanding that a compromise had been worked out that fit in with Trees 2000 and the USA plan. This understanding was based on a Friday meeting between City staff, the Homeowners Association President and two homeowners. Mr. Wegner advised that the number of trees changed from 60 to 48 and the tree types were changed from Douglas Firs to Ornamentals and Dogwoods. Councilor Hunt advised the Council of what he told the citizens who called him on this matter. He said that he told them that as far as they were concerned, they were doing exactly what the neighborhood committee had recommended. He suggested the citizens contact the City Manager to set a date for the committee to address the Council. Mr. Wegner confirmed that staff planted the number of trees agreed upon by Mr. Monahan and Ed Halberg, Association president and Howard Banta. Councilor Moore reported that Howard Banta called him Sunday to complain about this. He said that the question now was what was agreed to and how many people were complaining about it. Mayor Nicoli stated it was his understanding that the people initially concerned were by those whose properties abutted the park and who were concerned about their personal view of the lake. Councilor Moore said he explained to the two people who called him that the lake was not there solely for their personal view. Mayor Nicoli commented that they needed to be careful in reconvening the Task Force and making sure that the Task Force looked at the situation from two points of view: that of the adjacent homeowners and that of the needs of the entire City. He mentioned that he started getting calls as soon as staff posted notice on individual doors that they were going to plant trees in the park. Mr. Wegner noted that staff also placed stakes in the location where each tree would be planted, labeled with the type of tree. Mayor Nicoli advised that City staff did an excellent job in letting the people in the neighborhood know what was happening. He stated that he told staff to go ahead with the plantings, rather then letting the trees already purchased die and then bring the committee back in to meet with Council. He said that Mr. Monahan made it clear that the City was only delaying their tree-planting program unless the Council gave staff a different direction. Mr. Wegner mentioned that it was his understanding that the Homeowners Association at their Thursday night meeting, went house to house standing on decks and porches to survey the situation. He said that staff re-located five stakes at their request, as opposed to eliminating five trees. Councilor Moore said that he explained to the people who called him that anyone caught trimming or poisoning the trees or shrubbery around the lake would be in trouble with the law. Mr. Wegner said that they had one witness to someone doing that; staff was having the tree tested. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 2 Councilor Rohlf mentioned an argument raised to him by Mr. Brown that the shade from trees on the north side of the lake would not fall on the lake. He advised that if the purpose was to lower the temperature of the lake, they would not accomplish this by planting trees on that side. Mayor Nicoli said that he told the citizens that that was a valid point but there were other considerations. He reiterated his proposal to bring the committee back together and rework the matter to find a solution. He said that the City would not plant any more trees until the situation was resolved. Councilor Scheckla reported some remarks that he heard from people. He said that several people told him that they would not support the City bond measure if they planted trees at Summer Lake. > Councilor Legal Defense Mayor Nicoli referenced the letter received from Councilor Rohlf regarding legal fees. He suggested placing the matter on the November 10, 1998, agenda for discussion. He asked the Council to bring any questions they had on the matter to the City Attorney before the meeting so staff could answer them. He commented that in his discussions with individual Councilors he found disagreement on what the perceived consensus had been on this matter. Councilor Scheckla asked how the City Attorney's office became involved in representing Councilor Rohlf. He asked for the bill to be itemized for documentation purposes, stating that the matter possibly could have been handled for less money. He asked why the Council did not receive regular updates on the status and cost of the matter. Mayor Nicoli asked the City Attorney to check whether or not the personal policy that the City carried against the Councilors covered Councilor Rohlf's defense. He mentioned that Tom Brian's legal bills were in the $100,000 to $150,000 range while this bill was for $8,000. He pointed out that in Councilor Rohlf's case, the Ethics Commission threw out the charge as groundless. He said that he did not want any Councilor to pay even $100 in legal fees for his defense in a situation where the Councilor was brought before the Ethics Commission for doing what the Council agreed he should do. Mayor Nicoli spoke to negotiating with the insurance company for appropriate coverage for this situation, if such coverage did not already exist. Councilor Hunt commented that Loreen Mills told him that he was covered by insurance for the WWSA. He indicated that their insurance representative and Ms. Mills would come to a future Council meeting to discuss coverage. Councilor Scheckla asked staff to research any previous situations similar to this one that have occurred in Tigard. Mayor Nicoli referred to concerns over the controversial water issue. He reiterated that when they were clearly doing something as a Council, they should be covered. Councilor Hunt said, that the way Loreen explained it to him, they were covered, even for this. Jim Coleman, City Attorney, commented that they were for the specific question that Councilor Hunt asked. Councilor Hunt asked if the Council could pass a law to state that the City would pick up the cost of the defense against this kind of charge, even if the Council was not covered by insurance. Mr. Coleman said that while he was not involved in the matter, his understanding was that the Council did agree to pick up the legal fees for this ethics complaint defense and that doing so was okay. Councilor Hunt commented that there was a difference of opinion on what had transpired. Councilor Scheckla asked for documentation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 3 Mr. Coleman said that the Council could pass such a law, but he advised them to be careful to define parameters and a process to allow them to make a detennination based upon finding whether or not it was appropriate to use public money to provide the defense. Councilor Scheckla asked if they could get the insurance company to pay the bill, if the Council was covered. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the bill would come under Northland. He commented that he thought that the chance of collecting the money from them was low to nil, but he did think that they should try. Councilor Moore commented that he thought it would be a mistake on Northland's part to refuse to pay if the matter fell during their coverage period. > Water Source update Ms. Newton reported that staff has been working with Rocky Bowler on the public relations in regard to the water issue. She referenced an area map showing different facilities around the city usable for neighborhood meetings. She said that at their meeting with Rocky Bowler tomorrow they would discuss how to structure those meetings. She mentioned the Neighborhood Watch contacts they identified to help with disseminating information. She said that they hoped to hold these neighborhood meetings prior to the holiday season. Mayor Nicoli commented that they could start the neighborhood meetings now, or wait until after they have the reports and hold the meetings during the first four months of next year. Councilor Hunt spoke in support of waiting until after they received the reports. He noted Councilor Rohlf's prior comments about the City pushing harder now, but he contended that as long as they had nothing definite to tell people, they should wait until after December. Mr. Wegner spoke to comparing the water quality of the Bull Run/well field system to the Willamette River at the meetings held during the next six weeks, rather than comparing the two options. He commented that what they needed to sell was that the water quality could be equal or better than Bull Run. Councilor Moore pointed out the need for caution in selling water quality without making it appear that the City was trying to push the Willamette River. Councilor Hunt agreed. Councilor Moore said that the way to package the City's message was to clarify the misinformation about water from the Willamette River. He spoke about educating people to understand what the truth of the situation was. Mr. Wegner commented that staff was accused of promoting the Willamette River when they tried to get Willamette River water quality on an equal level with Bull Run. He said that they have received phone calls from citizens concerned that the intake valve would be at the potential Superfund site announced last week on the Willamette. He mentioned one of Councilor Rohlrs points that the opposition group was gaining momentum and the City has not responded. Mayor Nicoli mentioned taking the water quality message through one round of meetings and then the two options through another round. He suggested having staff and Councilors at these meetings. Councilor Rohlf commented that he thought they would make several rounds during the months of work done before any decision was made. He stated that the Council had to have the population with them when they made their decision. Mayor Nicoli asked staff to provide Council with a copy of the Superfund article in the Oregonian. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 4 Councilor Hunt reiterated that he did not support going out now because he believed that the opposition would say that the City was not giving them any facts and was trying to justify a decision already made to go with the Willamette River. Councilor Moore said that also was a concern of his, but he believed that they could explain it to avoid that perception. Councilor Rohlf expressed his concern that the opposition was gaining momentum with the newspaper playing favorably into it. > Letter to the Editor Councilor Scheckla mentioned a letter to the editor in the Tigard Times last week from H.L. Lister who contended that the bond measure facts were not correct. Mr. Lowry stated that Mr. Lister requested a copy of the budget a couple of weeks ago and asked some questions about the library, but never asked why the operating budget has gone up so much in comparison to a smaller increase in the population. Mr. Lowry said that Mr. Lister did not ask about the new tax base, the funding of more police officers, or the financial impact of taking over the urban services area. He noted that Mr. Lister was trying to make a generalization that the City must be hiding money because the budget has gone up more than the population. He stated that Mr. Lister simply looked at one page in the budget document and drew his conclusion. Councilor Hunt commented that before he got on Council, Mr. Lister was requested not to attend Council meetings any more because he was so disruptive in his dogged pursuit of one Councilor in particular. Mr. Lowry stated that in the late 1980s he used to write a rebuttal article to Mr. Lister's articles in the Tigard Times correcting his facts which Tom Brian would sign and put in the paper. City Manager Bill Monahan's direction has been not to respond to Mr. Lister at this time. > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:25 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli were present. Boy Scout Troop members led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Nicoli thanked the Scouts and presented them with City pins. 1.4 Council Communications Councilor Hunt noted the work down by the Cub Scouts on Main Street during "Make a Difference Day." Councilor Scheckla noted the work done by the volunteers at the library. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 1.6 Proclamation for 801h Anniversary of the founding of the Independent Czechoslovak State CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 5 Mayor Nicoli stated that he would sign this proclamation after the meeting. Ms. Newton announced that they would postpone the discussion of the water criteria, non- agenda item 12A, to the November 10 meeting, as the information was not quite ready.' 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Elizabeth Braam, 9315 SW Leman Street, asked what the Council's decision was on the Washington Square Task Force representation. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Ms. Braam wait to speak under that agenda item. e Anna Donavan, 12476 SW Edgewater Court, addressed the Summer Lake improvements. She noted the enjoyment that citizens had at this beautiful lake. She argued for maintaining open spaces around the lake in order to facilitate fishing and wildlife viewing opportunities for children and their parents. She commented that the willow trees planted in one open space made it difficult to fish there. She contended that trees planted around the lake blocked the view for the citizens walking around the lake. Mayor Nicoli said that Council was not prepared to decide one way or the other on the tree planting issue. He stated that Council was surprised last week by the number of phone calls about the tree plantings, since this was a project the City has been working on for two years. He noted that the agreement struck last week provided for moving some of the trees from their original locations. He explained that Council has agreed not to plant any more trees until staff could revisit the issue. Mayor Nicoli commented that in weighing this issue Council had to consider this park as a regional park for use by the entire City, and not as a neighborhood park. He stated that he thought that they could resolve this issue after discussing the desires of the property owners on the north side. Jean Camp, 12481 SW Edgewater Court, said she was concerned about the trees that have been planted. She spoke about Summer Lake Park being a City park, not a neighborhood park that was used by school children and citizens from all over the City. e Van Camp, 12481 SW Edgewater Court, mentioned that the Advisory Committee (which he served on) presented a recommendation to Council last April that included planting trees on thym south side of the lake to provide shade. He noted how much the harvesting had helped the lake. He spoke of completing the Advisory Committee's recommendation list and spreading the alum treatment on the lake in order to reduce the phosphorous levels. Mr. Wegner explained that DEQ unexpectedly objected to the alum treatment, and required that the City get a permit from the state, a very expensive permit with little likelihood of the request being granted. He noted that Council then directed staff to find a resolution to the problem, which they have been working on. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that they have had a lot of options under the consultant's plan, and they might revisit those options and select something else. He said that they were still aggressively pursuing a resolution of the lake problems. Staff confirmed that they were not going to get permission to do an alum treatment. Mr. Camp pointed out that if they could reduce the phosphorous levels, then they would only have to do weed harvesting once a year. He reiterated that this was a wonderful City park. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 6 Larry Polson, 12790 SW Glacier Lily Circle, asked that the property owners on the north side of Summer Lake be notified when the meeting to discuss the tree planting issue would take place. He recounted how beautiful the lake was when he and his wife moved to their home 11 years ago. He said that they would like to see the lake returned to the way it was as it was an asset to the City. e Sue Herndogger, 12910 SW Glacier Lily Circle, reviewed how the trees planted in the area in front of her house would completely obscure the view when they grew up to full size. She mentioned the problem with leaves falling. She referenced the Summer Lake/Tigard 2000 Trees project plan prepared by Percival & Associates that recommended planting evergreens for wildlife habitat along the north bank and to mitigate the vision impact. She asked why alders, dogwoods, and willows were planted instead. Mr. Wegner explained that staff felt that the Douglas firs and cedar trees recommended in the original plan were too large, so they reduced the trees to the smaller ornamentals. He said that they discussed this with Mr. Percival and another arborist. Ms. Henodogger contended that even a 15 foot tall dogwood obscured the view. 0 Alan Herndogger, 12910 SW Glacier Lily Circle, presented pictures of the lake when they ° first moved in, with no trees or brush. o John Naegli, 13874 SW Leah Terrace, informed the Council that his neighborhood has signed a petition requesting a stop sign on the corner of Leah Terrace and Benchview. He explained that the intersection was ill designed and without sufficient sight distances. He said that they submitted the petition to the City Engineer on October 1, 1998, but had contacted the Engineering Department earlier and the City had been out to look at the intersection. Mayor Nicoli explained that Council did not expect to see a staff response on a request like this for at least 30 days because of staff's heavy work load and the process used for determining where stop signs were appropriate. Ms. Newton said that staff would follow up on the request. 0 Mr. Elle, 13792 SW Leah Terrace, said that he had the same concerns as Mr. Naegli. He mentioned that the paving project on Benchview (for which they have waited two years) started yesterday. 0 0 Mark Mahon, 1310 SW 91", addressed the issue of Tigard's future source of drinkable water. He stated that many citizens were tired of the tactics of the group calling itself Citizens for Safe Water. He said that at the CIT candidate forum, many told him and others that they were afraid to speak up because of the tactics that this group had been using. He said that 95% of the people he has talked to want the Council to make an informed decision based upon the scientific, engineering and economic facts with regard to Tigard's future source of water and not make a decision based upon emotions. r Mr. Mahon contended that the group Citizens for Safe Water has worked to intimidate other Tigard citizens with their presentations of "partial facts, outright lies, and physically pushy tactics at public events." Mr. Mahon said that he saw the Citizens for Safe Water group doing the same thing. He held that they did not want the Council to have a process because they were afraid that the process would not come out the way that they have predetermined that it should come out. He stated that he trusted the Council to make a good and correct decision. He asked the Council to stay the course and not make a pre judgment to move in the direction that these people wanted. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 7 e Howard Banta, 12580 SW Glacier Lily Circle, expressed his appreciation for each Council member's attention to what he had to say over the past five days. He commented that he was surprised that the Council did not anticipate the reaction to the tree plantings at Summer Lake. He said that he had told Council that there probably would be opposition to planting trees at Summerlake when the Trees 2000 project was announced. Mr. Banta commented that, based on his conversations with people in his neighborhood on the issue, he has found that the general public was not aware of the City's plans for Summer Lake or that tree plantings have already occurred that would obscure the view of the lake. He referenced photos he had distributed showing before and after pictures of plantings already made at the lake. Mr. Banta noted the handout which he would use to inform people of what was going to be happening at the lake and that he delivered to the Oregonian and Tigard Thnes this afternoon for their information. He reported that he started two petitions, one to reverse the City's plans, and one to support the City's plans. He said that on a sunny Monday afternoon he got 22 signatures from people walking in the park on the petition to remove the plantings, but got no signatures in support of the City's plans. He contended that this issue has not been adequately publicized or had adequate public involvement. Mr. Banta argued that the President of the Summer Lake Homeowners Association did not represent all 200 families unless he called a meeting of all 200 families to see if they agreed with what he had to say. He contended that he could probably get four or five times as many signatures on the petition during a sunny weekend in the park. He reiterated that the people he talked to were surprised and unaware of the City's plans. He held that the plantings were positioned in such a way that before long, they would be unable to see the lake. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of. September 8, 1998 3.2 Direct Engineering Staff to Prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report for the Proposed 691' Avenue Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 98-52 3.3 Establish Fund and Interfund Loan for 69`n Avenue Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 98-53 3.4 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Bid for the Purchase of a new 10/12-Yard Dump Truck to Portland Freightliner, Inc. b. Award Bid for Window and Flashing Repair Work to be Performed at the Library and City Hall Facilities to Select Contracting, Inc. 3.5 Approve Budget Adjustment No. 6 for the City Center Window/Flashing Project - Resolution No. 98-54 3.6 Authorize City Manager to Pay Costs Associated with Railroad Crossing Improvements and Signal Installation at Bonita Road CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 8 4. RECEIVE INFORMATION CONCERNING WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL TASK FORCE - RECOMMENDATION ON REPRESENTATION Councilor Rohlf presented the Task Force recommendation on the request brought by Metzger citizens for adding a representative on the Task Force. He said that the Task Force struggled with the issue due to concerns about educating a new person on the issues to the same level that the other Task Force members have reached in the last six months. He said that the vote was 8 to 6 to allow one additional member to represent the Metzger group. Councilor Rohlf mentioned that the discussion centered around the Metzger residents' feelings about not being represented. He said that this surprised the Task Force because they already had two Metzger residents on the Task Force. He stated that they understood that the Task Force member who was also on the NPO was in communication with interested Metzger citizens. However, the Task Force member did not feel that she could funnel information appropriately because their NPO lacked the funds for mailings. Councilor Rohlf said that the Task Force felt that it has bent over backwards to recognize the concerns of the Metzger residents, especially the concern to keep the school and park intact and to not make any decisions that could destroy the neighborhood. He mentioned that others on the Task Force felt that neighborhoods were qualitatively different from the commercial and professional type of needs. Councilor Rohlf noted that Jack Reardon from Washington Square, a leading opponent of the request, had made the point that he represented dozens of retailers and that on a per capita basis, if the Metzger residents had more representatives, then he should too. He commented that the Task Force was afraid of the issue escalating and therefore decided to allow only one additional member. They agreed that the impact on the neighborhoods was qualitatively different than the impact on businesses. Councilor Rohlf said that the Task Force recommended increasing the representation by one, and directing the Metzger residents to pick their own representative. He noted that they also told the Metzger people that this was a public process and they were welcome to attend the meetings. Councilor Moore spoke about a comment made at the meeting regarding the responsibility of people on the Task Force to inform those whom they represented, especially the neighborhood representatives, of what was going on and getting consensus on a position. He agreed that placing this responsibility on one person was a heavy burden. Councilor Rohlf said that he still had concerns, and that he had voted against expanding the Task Force because he felt that very capable individuals represented Metzger. He expressed his concern at weighting the Task Force to give one interest group control, rather than keeping the interests balanced. He said that he voted against increasing the Task Force beyond this one member. Councilor Scheckla said that he also attended the meeting. He stated that he felt that the neighborhood had no chance of controlling the process because the number of people on the Task Force who did not live in the area was 18 to 4. He commented that he would like to have seen two representatives with one possibly being a back up to the first. He pointed out that Mr. Reardon heard the concerns of the retailers on a daily basis but a neighborhood representative did not have the same type of set up. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 9 Elizabeth Braan, 9315 SW Leman Street, commented that Councilor Rohlf gave a fair description of what happened at the meeting. She pointed out that three people represented the 260 properties in the Hall/Greenburg/217 area. She contended that of those three, two had developmental interests, leaving only one to represent the 240 residential properties. She said that another Task Force member mentioned by Councilor Rohlf did not live in the area and could not communicate with the residents through mailings. She conceded that the citizens could communicate with the Task Force member but held that they could do so only if they already knew what was going on. Councilor Moore pointed out that these meetings have not been held in secret. He said that he was willing to accept the Task Force recommendation. Councilor Rohlf stated that the Task Force process was not about development pushing people out of their homes or making neighborhoods unlivable. He argued that the only way to protect the livability of neighborhoods was to incorporate them into the planning area. He said he knew that some people wanted to be excluded from the planning area, but since the forces were such that development would happen whether or not planning was done, it made sense to do the planning that would reduce the impact of any changes that occurred. Ms. Braan said that many did not disagree that it was good for them to be in the planning area. She explained that many had ideas for discussion by the Task Force. She stated that they were not saying "not in my backyard" but rather they wanted more representatives on the Task Force to represent the 240 opinions in the Metzger area. She commented that the neighborhood was now discussing this issue and they intended to send out mailings at their own expense to inform and to encourage participation. Councilor Moore noted the opportunity for public comment provided for on the Task Force agenda. Mayor Nicoli said he would support the Task Force recommendation. He suggested asking the Task Force Chair to provide more than one opportunity for public comment during the meeting, rather than having it only at the last. He commented that he would not be opposed to increasing the Task Force budget slightly to fund newsletters every two months and send a bulk mailing out to the 260 households. Councilor Rohlf noted the Task Force plans to inform the neighborhood. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to amend the Task Force and add an additional person to represent the Metzger area. Councilor Hunt asked how the representative would be selected. Councilor Rohlf said that they have asked the 260 property owners to get together to select a person for the Task Force. Ms. Braan said that they would do so via a CPO meeting at which those interested in serving would attend and the discussion would be held. Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Braan to get the name to the Council before the next meeting so that the Council could officially appoint that person. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Roh1f, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 10 Mayor Nicoli asked staff to return with the cost of a small bulk mailing to the Metzger area. Mr. Hendryx said that they would report back on November 10, 1998 and provide an update on the outreach programs already planned. Mayor Nicoli commented that there were other neighborhoods in the vicinity of Washington Square in Washington County and Beaverton. He ' suggested including those neighborhoods in the bulk mailing, as they had similar concerns. He pointed out that they were essentially master planning for an area spanning three jurisdictions. 5. DETENTION POND MAINTENANCE Mr. Wegner confirmed that staff had found detention ponds in the City that belonged to the Homeowners Associations, but either the Association had not known for years that they owned them, or an active association was never established. He noted that since those facilities were installed, many other areas have been added to it through public streets and storm lines. He mentioned the Shadow Hills and Steve Street detention ponds that met the criteria developed by staff to evaluate whether or not the City should take over maintenance of the ponds. Mr. Wegner explained that during the 1996/1997 stone, there was a flooding incident downstream of the Shadow Hills pond. It was at that time that staff discovered that the pond was not maintained or owned by the City, although it did receive a lot of water from areas outside the Homeowners Association. He noted that the homeowners did not know that they were responsible for the maintenance either. He said that staff has been working with the association for a year. Eric Hand, Waste Water/Storm Supervisor, expressed his appreciation for Utility Manager Mike Miller's help with the PowerPoint presentation. He explained that staff's charge had been how to evaluate private residential water quality facilities to see if the City would be interested in taking over the maintenance of the facility. He explained that the purpose of a detention pond was to treat storm water to remove sediments and pollutants (such as phosphorous) before the water was discharged into creeks. He said that they were important because they helped improve water quality and the stream environment. s. Mr. Hand stated that the City currently owned 22 facilities and expected to receive nine more in the next three years. He showed pictures of the three different types of water quality facilities: wet ponds, swales, and dry ponds. Mr. Hand noted the two facilities under consideration to add to the City water quality facility inventory: Shadow Hills and Steve Street. He noted that Steve Street was located off Pfaffle near 8151. He showed pictures of the privately owned facilities. He said that the Shadow Hills facility has grown over with brush and trees over the years due to lack of maintenance. He said that under normal conditions, the facility worked well but they had overflow problems in 1996, due to the heavy amount of rain and to kids plugging up the outlet to play. Mr. Hand reviewed the criteria staff developed to evaluate water quality facilities. The facility had to be residential in nature and not commercially related, as most businesses already maintained their private water quality facilities. The facility had to receive some public water, either from street runoff, public property, etc. The facility must have either a permanent public easement or be on a separate tract of land. The facility had to be brought up to City standards before the City would take over its maintenance. He noted that this last criterion was consistent with the City policy regarding detention ponds built by developers and eventually taken over by the City. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 11 Mr. Hand said that Council could elect not to take over the Shadow Hills facility. He said that it has functioned for 18 years and they could leave it for the homeowners' to be responsible for maintenance. He recommended that the City take over the facility, provided the homeowners brought the facility up to current City standards. He stated that staff provided the association with a letter outlining what needed to be done to bring the facility up to City standards. Mr. Wegner explained that the amount of money involved in meeting the fourth criteria was the problem. The neighborhood has received an estimate from a contractor for $5,200 to do the work. He explained that staff did not have the equipment needed to bring water quality facilities up to standard at this time. He said that staff received a letter from people in the association who tried to collect money but who could only get commitments from 26 out of 41 households. He reviewed several questions on how to handle the situation. Mr. Wegner stated that they could accept two more facilities within their current budget. It cost approximately $2,000 per year to maintain a facility at City standards. Councilor Hunt asked if they could use a LID in this situation. Mr. Wegner said that, given the amount of only $5,000 to $7,000, he was not sure it was worth the effort of going through the LID. a Councilor Scheckla asked how staff intended to maintain these facilities if they did not currently have the equipment now to do so. Mr. Wegner explained that they were looking at new equipment to maintain the water quality facilities to City standards, but they did not have the equipment to bring a poorly maintained facility up to City standards. He reiterated that the Engineering Department had been responsible for making sure that any water quality facility accepted by the City from a development was up to the City standards. He commented that in 10 years, they might be in the business of renovating ponds, but at this time they were not. Councilor Scheckla suggested getting volunteer help from a Boy Scout Troop to help clean up the areas in order to keep costs down. Mr. Wegner said that while that might work for clearing out brush, it would not work for removing trees or regrading the pond. He mentioned that the Shadow Hills people had a workday where they cleaned out the brush. Mayor Nicoli opened the hearing to public testimony. Bert Marino, 14430 SW Cloud Blvd., spoke regarding the factors that contributed to the pond flooding. He said that the drain at the bottom of Cloud Court was not adequate to handle all the run off from the steep hill. He noted that the grate placed over the lower drain hole by the City was easily plugged up with leaves and other debris that contributed to the overflow. He advised that an adjacent development was allowed to route its water to their detention pond without the Homeowner's Association approval. Mr. Marino questioned why their association should subsidize other people using their detention pond. He said that he wrote a letter to the City requesting that the grate be removed and the non-members' water be routed elsewhere. He stated that he would like to be relieved of his liability if the neighborhood down below got flooded because of those two items. Mr. Marino held that clearing out the brush was sufficient to make the pond workable. It was not necessary to take out the trees. He reiterated that with the grate, the drainage hole was plugged up with small debris whereas without the grate, larger debris could pass through. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 12 Mayor Nicoli commented that after looking at the maps, he concluded that a government agency (either the County or the City) allowed the adjacent subdivision to route their storm drainage water to this detention pond. He suggested that it was cheaper and easier, for the maintenance work crews to clean a drainage way at the grate rather than opening a manhole and cleaning the pipes of debris. He noted that the City crews worked year round to maintain both the storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems. Mr. Marino said that he was willing to pay his share to clean up the pond, but he did not think it was necessary to remove trees or dredge the tree out. He reiterated his concern over his personal liability if someone was flooded because the drain blocked up at the grate. He advised the City to look at the drain toward the bottom of Cloud Court because it was inadequate to handle the runoff. Councilor Moore asked if they would have had the same flooding problem if the detention pond had been properly maintained for 20 years. Mr. Marino stated that they probably would not have. Mr. Wegner agreed that it should have been adequate to handle the water for both the present Homeowners Association and the area added to it. He reported that staff visited the site last February and agreed to send out a survey crew to verify the bottom elevation to determine if silt removal was necessary, once it was cleared of brush and trees. He said that staff did not say the neighborhood had to dredge, rather the City would survey the pond at its cost. However; if dredging were necessary, then the neighborhood would have to bear that cost. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Wegner for his opinion on the trees. Mr. Wegner said they preferred all their water quality facilities to be clean with grassy vegetation for ease of maintenance, rather than having trees or shrubs in them. He said that he did not know of any City facilities that had trees in the pond basin. Councilor Hunt expressed concern about discussing an individual case as opposed to a citywide policy for a citywide problem. Mr. Wegner reiterated that the four evaluation criteria were a general policy that would apply to any residential detention pond coming to the City, including these two individual cases that staff happened to know about. Mr. Marino contended that the City was the only entity in a position to do something about the non- members dumping water into their pond. He reiterated that he would like to see something done to spread the liability somehow. He held that this was not a fair situation. Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Coleman for his opinion. Mr. Coleman explained that when the homeowners in the association purchased their property, they received legal notice of their obligations and thus voluntarily assumed the liability. He commented that with regard to the water from an upstream property impacting the facility, the question of liability would be determined based upon what happened upstream and how the water got into its current position. He responded to the question of whether or not that was fair to the homeowners and stated that they had to look at the facts around how the homeowners were now in this situation. Councilor Moore stated that regardless of where the water was coming from, if it had been properly maintained it would have satisfied the need. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that this neighborhood never had an active Homeowners Association, and with the change over in property owners every six or seven years, no one knew what the property was. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 13 Councilor Moore asked if this situation was similar to not accepting a private street unless it met City standards. Mayor Nicoli commented that as he understood it, the Homeowners Association was willing to come up with the money to bring the facility up to City standards and turn it over to the City. He said that he did not know if Mr. Marino was speaking on behalf of the whole neighborhood when he said that they did not want to do that any more. He said that that needed to be clarified. Mr. Marino said that he was willing to pay $150 to $200 if the City would to take the pond over. He reiterated the issue of the grate, which altered the mouth of the pond and caused the current problem. He emphasized that they had the liability. Mayor Nicoli stated that Council was not prepared tonight to get into the liability issue of the upstream subdivision. He agreed that something happened that probably should not have happened but he did not know if it was deliberate or an honest mistake. He stated that if they could get this situation resolved, they would address all Mr. Marino's concerns. Mr. Marino commented that he was not sure that the pond was designed for more people than the Homeowners Association. He asked for immediate action to be taken to reduce their liability. Mr. Wegner stated that the City installed the grate after speaking with Mr. Penscore and Mr. Olson of the Homeowners Association and that they wanted a grate because it was easier to clear, than a pipe. He said that the two gentlemen stated they represented the Homeowners and that he would have pulled the grate if either one had called him. He concluded that they agree to keep the grate clean until the City and the Association made a decision. He emphasized that if the City took over the maintenance, there would be a grate on that pipe. Mr. Marino reported that Mr. Olson told him that he had not given permission to put the grate on. Ellen Dickie, 14565 SW McFarland, thanked the staff who met with herself and her neighbors. She explained that when she moved into the Shadow Hills One development in 1985, it was a half circle with a cul-de-sac where the pond was. Eventually, the loop was completed with all the runoff water going down to this pond. She said that the homeowners had not realized that the ravine belonged to them. She confirmed that the people on the top half of the loop had no liability or responsibility yet their water fed into the detention pond. Ms. Dickie commented that this situation was unique in that only half of the houses using the pond had to pay the $5,000 to clean up the pond. She said that she has been trying to collect the money from the 41 homeowners for a year now, and has gotten the vast majority to agree to pay from $50 to $100 to do the initial clean up with more "trickling in." She mentioned that someone would call those who have not agreed to pay. She noted that some homeowners were reluctant to pay the extra money without the guarantee that the City would take the pond over. She said that they would all be very happy if the City took over the pond. Mr. Wegner confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that staff told the Association that if they brought the pond up to City standards, the City would take over the pond, once the Council adopted the four criteria. However; until the Council did so, there was no guarantee. Councilor Hunt observed that this was not the only situation in the City where an upstream development's drainage went into the downstream detention pond, he cited 1090' and Naeve in particular. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 14 Bob Keller, 11650 SW Cloud Court, reiterated that the Homeowners Association was never formed and was not well prepared to handle this problem. He asked for the City's help. He said that they would try to get the pond up to the standard. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, that Council accept the four points of the criteria as outlined, and agree to take over the pond if they met all four criteria. The Council agreed that the neighborhoods had to bring the ponds up to the standard rather than giving money to the City to do so. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") Mayor Nicoli complimented Ms. Dickie on her presentation and willingness to work to resolve this issue. 6. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A BOND TO PROVIDE LONG- TERM FINANCING FOR THE DARTMOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTE TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING FOR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF THE LOCAL IMPROVMEENT DISTRICT ASSESSED TO THE MARTIN PROPERTY STAFF REPORT Mr. Lowry reported that the City had outstanding debt from the Dartmouth LID (interim financing used to construct the project) that was due on December 1, 1998. He said that staff has assessed the costs of the projects to the property owners and received contracts from a certain number of property owners to finance their assessment over 10 years. He explained that the first resolution granted him the authority to issue bonds for the amounts of those contracts while the second resolution authorized issuing a new interim short-term note for those assessments tied up in litigation. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution 98-55. The Deputy City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION 98-55, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A LIMITED TAX IMPROVMENT BOND FOR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF THE DARTMOUTH STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution 98-56. The Deputy City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 15 RESOLUTION 98-56, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE DARTMOUTH STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $1,950,000. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") 0 Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting. 7. FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT ON FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 11 - SW HILL VIEW STREET Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to modify Reimbursement District No. 11 reflecting the final cost of constructing the project and to limit individual property owner's maximum reimbursement fee to $8,000 for connections completed within one year (by October 28, 1999). Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") 8. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - HILLSHIRE ESTATES #4 SUDIVISION (SUB 98- 0003/PDR 98-0004/MIS 98-0005 The applicant requested preliminary plat approval to subdivide an approximately 14.103 acre site for the creation of a 64 lot single-family attached Planned Development Subdivision. The Planned Development is proposed in order to maximize the preservation of significant natural resources on the site which include a natural wetlands area, numerous trees, and terrain with slopes exceeding 25%. This application also involves a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard Cul-de-sac design standards for length and the number of lots taking access from a cul-de-sac, and to allow a street grade of 15%. Sensitive Lands Review is requested for mitigation of any impacts to the wetlands areas and Lot Line Adjustment approval is requested to transfer approximately 1.31 acres from Tax Lots 00400 and 00500 to Tax Lot 03009 (Tract "L"). At the August 17, 1998, Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Planning Commission approved this request subject to conditions of approval. An appeal was filed within the required time period based on the following: The Wetlands depicted on the City's Wetlands Map are inaccurate; Some streams are not shown in the correct location or not shown at all; Concerns of steep slopes resulting in slides; and, s The appellant stated that the previous owner altered the flow of water on the property. Although not applicable review criteria, the appellants raised concerns about school size and additional volume on the roads. LOCATION: The subject parcels are located on the east side of SW Menlor Lane; WCTM 2S105DA, Tax Lots 00300, 00400 and 00500. ZONE: Single- Family Medium Density Residential - 5,000 Square Feet Attached Per Unit, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for single-family detached and attached units for medium density residential development. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.32 and 18.84. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 16 a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that a DSL and Corps of Engineers permit was required as a condition of approval. She mentioned that the permit approval process included a comment period during which citizens and government agencies could give testimony. She stated that if it were found that there were more wetlands than shown on the map, the applicant would be required to modify the mitigation proposal and obtain permit approval for that mitigation. She said that the ability to develop the subdivision as proposed would not be altered, provided the applicant received approval for the proposed wetland mitigation. Ms. Hajduk pointed out that none of the development lots were proposed on areas exceeding 25% slope, although they were adjacent to such slopes (Tract E, the open space area). She referenced the geotechnical report (Exhibit D) which indicated that the site was suitable for the proposed development, provided their recommendations were followed. She mentioned that the geotechnical report had not been available at the Planning Commission hearing but was provided in compliance with condition 37. Ms. Hajduk stated that the Planning Commission review of the drainage was based on what was on the site now, not on how the flow of water might have been altered by a previous owner. d. Public Testimony PROPONENTS Patrick McEachem, 14220 SW Red Haven, Beaverton, mentioned the comment made at the Planning Commission hearing which stated that if it was not for the Urban Growth Boundary, the property would not be considered for development because of the wetlands, the steep terrain and the natural resource area. He submitted the Bull Mountain Community Plan map from Washington County as Exhibit 1. He noted that this map showed this property as wildlife habitat. Mr. McEachem contended that it was dangerous to remove the trees from the steep slopes, (as has been occurring continually with each development on the mountain), because of the water runoff problems it created. He spoke regarding maintaining this property in trees and vegetation in order to preserve the area for use by the neighborhoods built around it. Mr. McEachem held that the Planning Commission only minimally discussed their concerns and approved the development on the premise that any problems would be dealt with in the future. He disagreed that he has not dealt with the problems facing them right now. Mr. McEachem said that he was under the impression that this was a Goal 5 area. He mentioned that the map indicated that this area was supposed to develop at low density, rather than the high-density development actually occurring. He commented that the property above this proposed development has also had some clearing of trees that he believed would contribute a greater amount of run-off than planned for by the developer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 17 Mr. McEachem contended that the map inaccurately depicted the wetlands and the streams on the property. He said that if the wetlands did not connect with the stream, there had to be a spring serving as the source of its water. He said that, based on his recollections of walking the property during the 15 years he lived on it, this entire area was wetlands. He mentioned the trench dug by the Willis' to dry out a certain area and dump the water elsewhere, but noted that it was not drawn in on the map as part of the drainage. He held that there was a second stream not included on the map that existed 10 months of the year that was similar to the stream included on the map. Mr. McEachem said that he wanted answers to the discrepancies that he has found and the lackadaisical decisions made. He contended that the Commission felt pressured to hurry up and make a decision because the developer was losing money, rather than taking the time to get their questions answered. Ms. Newton mentioned that the County adopted the Bull Mountain Community Map in April 1984. OPPONENTS Mark Faris, Alpha Engineering, 9600 SW Oak #230, Portland, represented the applicant, Sierra Pacific and introduced the other members of the team present to answer questions. He reviewed the four issues in the appeal that the Council was required to address. He stated that the map prepared by the applicant (Exhibit 2) accurately outlined the wetlands on the property as delineated by Dr. Shott and surveyed by Alpha Engineering. He noted that the map to which Mr. McEachem referred was the County map, not the applicant's map. He submitted two letters into the record, a May 21, 1998 letter from DSL (Exhibit 3), and an October 26, 1998 letter from the Corps of Engineers (Exhibit 4), both attesting to the accuracy of the wetlands delineation. Mr. Faris argued that whether or not the wetlands were accurately depicted on the County map was not relevant. What was relevant was their accurate depiction on the applicant's maps for use in the construction documents. Mr. Faris noted that Mr. McEachem's contention that the streams were not shown in their correct locations or not at all was in reference to the County's map of the drainage way. He reiterated that the applicant's field survey did accurately depict the minor streams and the trench. He referenced the applicant's field topographical survey as accurately depicting the drainage conditions on the site for use in the construction documents. Mr. Faris noted the appeal issue of the steep slopes. He referenced a map of the 12 phases of the Hillshire development (Exhibit 5). He pointed out that Hillshire Hollow was built under very similar slope constraints and drainage ways to the proposed site. He referenced the geotechincal report (Exhibit 6) which found that "the proposed development was geotechnically compatible with the subsurface conditions encountered during the investigation, provided that the recommendations in the report were incorporated into the design and construction of the development." Mr. Faris mentioned that they have had no slide or slope problems in any of the previous 11 phases, including Hillshire Hollow. He said that the developer would adhere to the testing schedule outlined in the geotechnical report for all excavation and fill activities. He commented that he saw no problem in keeping tight control of the situation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 18 Mr. Faris noted the appellant's statement that the previous owner altered the flow of water on the property. He reiterated that they surveyed all the drainage and incorporated the resulting map into their construction plans. He said that he saw no problems that they have not allowed for, including handling the seeps on the site with appropriate engineering measures. Mr. Faris stated that they have adequately addressed the issues raised by Mr. McEachem, and presented evidence to answer the questions. He mentioned that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the application. Councilor Scheckla asked if they were putting a detention pond in the development. Mr. Faris stated that the only requirement imposed on them was to provide a biofiltration swale for water quality treatment. Councilor Moore asked if the permit for filling the wetlands has been applied for. Ms. Hajduk said that it has been applied for but not approved. She confirmed that if the permit were not approved, the project would not proceed unless the applicant modified his request. Councilor Scheckla asked about the private streets. Ms. Hajduk explained that this was an attached unit development for which private streets were allowed in the City. She confirmed that they would be wide enough for fire access, although not built to City standards. Mr. Coleman advised the Council that private streets could not be used as a basis on which to make a decision because private streets were not an issue raised in the appeal. REBUTTAL Mr. McEachem reiterated that he did not believe that the map correctly depicted the locations of the wetlands or the streams. He stated that, having lived on the property for 15 years, he was aware that there was a lot more runoff than allowed for by the developer. Mayor Nicoli commented that according to the legal definition of a wetland, the area must meet three criteria, of which the presence of water was only one criterion. Mr. McEachem said that he was addressing the drainage and water runoff that created wet land on the property. He reiterated that there was more than one stream and argued that the second stream should have the 25-foot buffer. He contended that it was easy to call the second stream minimal, not requiring a buffer, because they wanted to build there. He reiterated that the second stream ran the same amount of time as the first stream. e. Staff Recommendation Ms. Hajduk recommended that the Council deny the appeal by adopting the attached resolution, finding that the issues raised were not substantiated and that the applicant has provided wetland and stream identification information as well as a geotechnical report. The report identified the site as suitable for the proposed development, provided that the conditions of approval were met. Ms. Hajduk noted an amendment to the resolution. She recommended that it be changed to read "The City of Tigard hereby determines that the Planning Commission's decision for approval is appropriate based on findings in the Planning Commission final order, the October 13, 1998, memorandum from staff and testimony provided at the October 27, 1998, City Council meeting, and hereby denies the appeal of Hillshire Creek Estates No. 4 Subdivision." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 19 E Council Questions g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 98-57 Councilor Moore commented that he was satisfied based upon the information provided by the applicant. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution 98-57 as amended. The Deputy City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 98-57, A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, THE HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES NO.4 SUBDIVISION, SUB 98- 0003/PDR 98-0004/MIS 98-0006NAR 98-0004/SLR 98-0005. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") Councilor Rohlf proposed that the City waive the appeal fee for the appellant. Mr. Hendryx commented that it was beyond the authority of a department head to waive a fee. He stated that fee waivers normally *came to Council. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, pointed out that this was a Washington County Urban Services Areas project, and the appeal fee covered the amount of staff time spent on it. Mr. Hendryx explained that they have tried to have the applications for areas outside the City limits pay for themselves. He said that waiving the fee effectively required a general fund subsidy of staff time and effort. Councilor Rohlf commented that he had a problem with the heavy burden that the process placed on an individual citizen wanting to appeal something. He said that while the developer had the people and experts in place to make his case, an individual citizen who appealed a decision did not have equal resources available to him. He said that it seem ominous to impose this kind of fee in that situation. Mayor Nicoli asked staff if they spent time explaining to the appellant what information he needed to provide or indicated that the appellant had not met the burden of proof to get a favorable opinion from the Council. Ms. Hajduk said that she spoke with the appellant prior to the filing of the appeal to discuss the issues and that they needed substantial evidence to support the appeal. She stated that, other than acknowledging receipt of the appeal, she did not speak again with the appellant or indicate that staff felt that substantial evidence was missing. Mayor Nicoli commented that this appeal concerned him. He pointed out that it was based on a 10-year-old map developed from aerial photograph that was not very accurate. He said that he saw no chance of the appeal meeting the legal guidelines that the Council was required to follow. He noted that the developer had been delayed and run up an additional bill. He mentioned the state law that the appellant paid the developer's costs if the appeal failed at the state level. He said that he assumed that if the appellant had had more money, they would have done a better job and looked into the facts more aggressively. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 20 Councilor Rohlf mentioned that they recently revised the Community Development Code in an effort to make the process easier to understand and get through. He reiterated that this high a fee seemed punitive. Mr. McEachem clarified that he filed this appeal because he felt that the property was his. He explained that he had had a verbal agreement with the property owner for 15 years that he had the first option to buy the land. However, the property owners sold the option out from under him to the developer because the developer had money, despite Mr. McEachem's letters to the property owners informing them that he had people ready to buy the land. He said that he had put 15 years into the property developing it as a place where people could come to eat real food. He stated that he filed the appeal partly because he was tired of people walking over him because he was one individual and did not have the same amount of resources that others did. 9. PROGRESS REPORT: TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION Mr. Hendryx noted that the efforts to get downtown property and business owners together to develop a plan for the future of downtown Tigard led to the formation of the Tigard Central Business District Association. He mentioned that the Board of Directors has met twice. He introduced Marv Leach, a Board member. Marv Leach, Tigard Central Business District Association Board member, reviewed the factors determined during the early meetings regarding the downtown. These included that the downtown was segmented into two areas (Main Street and off Main Street), that both groups had different ideas on what should or should not happen and that whatever group was formed, needed to have strong representation from both area segments. He also stated that strong representation was needed from both property owners and tenant or business owners. Mr. Leach reviewed the process they used to form the nucleus of the downtown group. He commented that it was similar to processes used by other downtown associations, such as McMinnville (of which he was also a member). He said that the four member Nominating Committee called around 40 people and found I 1 who were willing to commit to being on the Board of Directors. Mr. Leach said that the Oregon Downtown Development Association facilitated their Board meeting this Monday and identified areas that would become part of the Association's long term goals. These included a strong emphasis on promotion of the downtown, beautification, security, parking related issues and what types of businesses located in the downtown. He cited an example in McMinnville where. a developer proposed installing a Shell service station one block from an already existing Shell service station. He said that the downtown merchants worked with the developer to find a use better suited for the long-term health of the downtown area. Mr. Leach presented a letter outlining the Board's request that the Council implement a 180-day moratorium on issuing a permit to change a Cyber cafe into a video poker place. He said that the Board also formed a subcommittee to work with the property owner. Mr. Leach said that the Board has committed to meeting twice a month for the next four months in order to complete the incorporation of the Association, to develop a solid membership packet, and to formulate a business plan on the promotion and improvement of the downtown area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 21 Councilor Hunt mentioned that he heard criticism that some people who would have liked to have been on the Board were not given the opportunity to participate. Mr. Leach said that as he understood it from the Nominating Committee, only 11 people committed to serving on the Board. He confirmed that all Board members were either property or business owners in the downtown. Mr. Hendryx reported that he has attended the meetings on the City's behalf. He suggested discussing whether or not the Council thought it appropriate for a staff person to serve on the Board. Mr. Leach mentioned that their bylaws allowed for ex officio members and associate members. Councilor Scheckla asked why none of the officers of the Downtown Merchants Association were included on the Association Board. Mr. Leach said that Mike Marr (who was on the Nominating Committee) indicated that while he would participate in the Association, he would step aside from serving on the Board. He said he understood that the others were all contacted. He reviewed the process that the Nominating Committee used to create their list. He pointed out that the Committee tried very hard to get a balanced representation on the Board of property owners and tenants, both on Main Street and off Main Street. 0 Mr. Leach said that in the next three months, the Board would take their membership packets out to the 400 people in the area to solicit membership. He mentioned that McMinnville used this strategy and went from six board members to 125 active merchants and property owners. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Council decided to stay out of the formation of the downtown group and would continue to do so. He said that they were willing to consider working with more than one group, if this was what developed. Mr. Leach advised that he was not here to ask Council for anything, this was simply an information briefing on what was happening. He mentioned their interest in looking five to ten years down the road as opposed to focusing solely on short-term goals. Mayor Nicoli encouraged Mr. Leach to continue to form their group. He commented that the Council would like to work with a representative group from the downtown area. Councilor Moore asked to invite the Association back in a couple of months to update the Council on their work. Mr. Hendryx commented that an advantage to having an ex officio staff member on the Board was that the staff member could represent the City and provide regular updates. He said that he would be willing to represent the Council. Councilor Moore supported having a staff member at the meetings in order to inform the Board of what was available for their support. Mayor Nicoli suggested that the Council go through a formal recognition procedure to recognize the group. He spoke about being careful during this interim period and that Mr. Hendryx' attendance at the meetings did not indicate official recognition but rather a willingness to provide whatever support was needed. He suggested that Mr. Hendryx act as a liaison at this point in time. He mentioned that a Council long-term goal was to do something in the downtown area but they have held off on doing anything until there was a downtown group with which they could work. Councilor Scheckla asked how the Association would address improving a certain business area that needed beautification. Mr. Leach said that this was one of the issues that the Association would look at in terms of working with property owners and tenant businesses on how their business was conducted. He said that he knew that a manager of a group in that area has been coming to the meetings but other businesses had equal problems. He said that they would CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 22 address it as a long-term goal. 10. CONSIDER REPLACING AN EXISTING FEE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE NEWLY REVISED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED ON JULY 28,1998. Mr. Lowry noted the staff recommendation to alter Exhibit D to reflect a $100 fee for accessory dwelling units. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution 98-57 as amended. The Deputy City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 98-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADJUSTING FEES AND CHARGES TO REFLECT CHANGES IN LAND USE APPLICATION PROCESSING COSTS, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 96-30, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 97-20 AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 26, 1998. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") 11. CONSIDER ORDINANCE CORRECTION ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 98-22. The Deputy City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 98-22, AN ORDINANCE CORRECTING OMISSIONS PERTAINING TO THE NEWLY ADOPTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, CORRECTING ORDINANCE NO. 98-19. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS B. Consider Easement of City of Tigard to the Chamber of Commerce Greg Berry explained that the Chamber has requested a utility easement across the City-owned parking lot on Main Street in order to install their utility lines during the construction of the parking lot as a way to avoid tearing up the parking lot later on to install the lines. He said that the easement agreement and legal restrictions proposed by the Chamber have been revised as requested by staff. Councilor Moore noted the City ordinance requiring the undergrounding of utilities in the downtown. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Mayor Nicoli, to approve the request for authorization for the City Manager to sign an agreement. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 23 Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:55 p.m. v Attest: J sica Gomez, Deputy C' Recorder r, City of Tigard Date: i 12_&jqq CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 27, 1998 - PAGE 24 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (S03) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 2 4 8 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard ° 13 Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. E3 Duplicate Affidavit eTigard,Oregon 97223 i Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTiaard-Ti,a hat i n Times 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 Hi 1 1 shi r Creek .S a s #4Siih a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: October 15,1998 Subscribed and sworn to fore me thi h d a)-of October, 19 9 8 OFFICIAL SEAL Nott(h Public for Oregon RODIN A. BURQE$$ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: *COMMISSION NO. 062071 AFFIDAVIT MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16 2001 _ vrai ano written testimony is mviteu me public nearing on tnis matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal'Code, and any'rules,and rocedures adopted by the Tigard City Council; or rules of procedure sit forth in Chapter 18.30. Failure to,raise an issue In person,oT by letter at some point prior to the 4 close of the bearing on the request accompanied by statements' or evidenbe I sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to,the,Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion'from the Community { Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which •a commentis ! directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Develop- ment Director or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling (503) 1 639-4171. ° t PUBLIC HEARING "URBAN SERVICE AREA" SUBDIVISION [SUB] 98.-0003/ t PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW {PDR]-98-0004/ SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLR] 98.0005/ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT [MIS] 98.0006/ VARIANCE [VAR] 9841004 > HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION < ti The applicant requested preliminary plat approval to subdivide an ap-; proximately 14.03 acre site for the creation of 64 lot single-family at-' tacked Planned Development Subdivision. The Planned Development is', proposed in order to maximize the preservation of significant natural} resources on the site which include, a natural wetlands area, numerous trees, and terrain with slopes exceeding 25%. This application also invol- ves a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard cul-de-sac l design standards for length and the number of lots taking access from a! cul-de-sac, and to allow a street gradg of 15%. Sensitive Lands Review is requested for mitigation of any impacts to the wetland areas and Lot Line Adjustment approval is requested to transfer approximately 1.31 acres from Tax Lots 00400 and 00500 to Tax Lot 00300 (Tract 'VI). I AT THE AUGUST 17, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC I HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE RE- I QUEST, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. AN APPEAL • WAS FILED WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIOD BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: I * THE WETLANDS DEPICTED ON THE CITY'S WETLANDS MAP j ARE INACCURATE; * SOME STREAMS ARE NOT SHOWN IN THE CORRECT LOCA- TION OR ARE NOT SHOWN AT ALL; I * CONCERNS OF STEEP SLOPES RESULTING IN SLIDES; AND i * THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER AL- TERED THE FLOW OF WATER ON THE PROPERTY. ALTHOUGH NOT APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA, THEY HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT SCHOOL SIZE AND ADDITIONAL VOLUME ON THE ROADS. LOCATION: The subject parcels are to-,' Gated on the east side of SW Menlor:Lane; WCTM 2S105DA, Tax Lots! 00300, 00400 and 00500. ZONE: Single-Family Medium Density's Residential - 5,000 Square Feet Attached Per Unit, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for single-fami- ly detached and attached units for medium density residential develop- ments. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Develop- ment Code Chapters 18.32 and 18.84. ! : VICIWiT MAP , a ~f,L~T';'~\~y_1 ~G9F7 X610 HILLSHItE CREEK ~i ` Z;~ 1'i ESTATES #4 i -?r, SUBDIMICIN VOL IS; Kc L i~:rrt TT9248 -Publish MOW IS., 11hi ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and y: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) 9 8-.) which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated /,#1-17/98' copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of % b n F_VV1 , 194 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 Q~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 9f EP OFFICWL sFAI M i() rNi4 HAYES NOW;'-: ,r, ;;ta000N Notary 'c for Oregon COMM; MYCOfdMISSION.. XPiNr;kWV 5, 1999 My Commission Expires: ✓he.-. s. l T9s i:ladm\jo\affpost. doc ` AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE :10127/98 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF CONTACTED NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC 3 ft- CeJ-~,,~, '7 tL L link 2~v ALL All 00 ' AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA - PAGE 2 DATE:10127198 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF CONTACTED NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC 0 s r dad myesslca\wsd sh I. doc AGENDA IM O. 8 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) -Opponent - (S kin A ainst) OW- L ame, lcddrgss and Phone No. e, Address and Phone No. ! c,/z d S vE t O cG~ 73, i~{U• O~6 Q 7OC9 O e Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ow y~.1~'dv3 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ti4 V_j Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. c Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ti Proponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (S eakin Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i 9a dm5ssi ca%ieslify.dOC 3 oZ AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF October 27, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution Directing the Engineering Staff to Prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report for the Proposed 69th Avenue Local Im rovement District PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt a resolution directing the staff to proceed with the preparation of the preliminary engineering report for the proposed 69`h Avenue LID? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the preparation of the preliminary engineering report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to SW 69`h Avenue and a portion of SW Dartmouth Street. The submittal, including all amendments, includes improvements to the following: • SW 690' Avenue between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south right-of- way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S 101 AA). • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 701h Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 691h Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 69`h Avenue and SW 701h Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69`h Avenue and SW 70`h Avenue (South side only) The proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, including sewer, water, storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overhead utilities. The proposed LID appears feasible. There are advantages and disadvantages in forming the LID, but the overall benefits to the City, to the petitioner and to the Tigard Triangle are clear. The preliminary evaluation report evaluated the proposed LID and recommended that City Council proceed to the next step, which requires preparation of a preliminary engineering report. The preliminary evaluation report was presented to City Council during the Council meeting on October 13, 1998. Council discussed findings of the report and heard from the LID petitioner and other property owners in the proposed LID. After staff presentation, public input, and Council discussion of the proposed LID, City Council directed staff to immediately proceed with the preparation of the preliminary engineering report and with the preparation of a resolution for adoption at the next Council business meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The improvements proposed by this LID meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Safety, strategy Encourage through traffic on major collectors and arterials. It upgrades an existing gravel street to provide safer, more efficient traffic movements. FISCAL NOTES City Council has decided that the City of Tigard shall incur the expenses necessary to prepare the preliminary engineering report. A budget resolution has been prepared to provide the funding necessary to proceed with the preparation of that report. 0dtywidc%sumN69Hdms.doc avenue Local Improvement District proposed 69 yxwuxsr Corl1.SS proposed LID Properties Boundary specht Properties ~ proposed Street ornprovements won MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager DATE: October 16, 1998 • SUBJECT: Specht Development Attached is a FAX which we received today from Gregory L. Specht of Specht Development. As Mr. Specht's letter points out, he has submitted the information to clarify a comment which he made during testimony last Tuesday. The issue relates to the property owner Mr. Pollock's position on the creation of an LID. WAM\jh attachment 0 \\TI G333\USR\D EPTS W DM\BILL\101698-1.DOC.RTF OCT-16-1998 08:27 SPECHT PROPERTIES SW 626 8903 P.01/11 SPECHT 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY BEAVERTON, OREGON 97006- (503)646-2202 ♦ FAX:(503)626-8903 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO. FROM Mayor Jim Nicoli Gregory L Specht COMPANY: DATE: City of T"lgard 10/16/98 FAX NUMSM TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 6847297 10 RE: Proposed 69`1' Av., Llocal Improvement Dist. cc: Bill Monahan, city of Tigardd w/ Encl. 684-7297 Gus Duenas, City of Tigard w/ Encl. 684-7297 Don Pollock, Don Pollock Inv. w/ Encl. 292-4862 Steve Pfeiffer, Stoel rives, w/ Encl. 220-2480 Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy & Assoc. w/ Encl. 968-1674 Todd Sheaffer, specht Development, Inc. 626.8903 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY ♦ BEAVERTON. OREGON 9700r. OCT-16-1998 0827 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 P.02/11 SPECHT SPL'C:I1'f PROPS RTIES SPECRT DEVELOPMENT 15400 S.W Millikan Way • Beaverton. Olt 97006 503/046-2202. Fax 503/6'26-8903 October 15, 1998 Mayor Tim Nieoli Via: Facsimile 684-7297 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed 69tb Avenne Local Improvement District Dear Mayor: Thank you once again for the Council's consideration and support of the LID. We look forward to working with the City to improve the infrastructure of the Tigard Triangle. During my testimony before the Council on October 13th, I stated that Mr. Pollock had signed the Petition requesting the creation of the LID ("Petition'. This Petition was attached to the Preliminary Evaluation Report prepared by Mr. Gus Duenas. Upon discussion with Mr. Todd Sheaffer of my office, I find I was incorrect and the purpose of this letter is to inform you of the facts surrounding this matter. In fact, Mr. Sheaffer signed the Petition on behalf of Soecht Development, Inc., which is the Contract Purchaser of these parcels. I was unaware of this until Mr. Shcaffer informed me subsequent to my statement to the Council. However, Mr. Pollock, his wife, and his partner all support the formation of the LID. This is evidenced by their signatures on a letter dated May 14, 1998 (see enclosure) that grants his "approval of Specht Development, Inc.'s submittal to the City of Tigard of the attached `Petition for and Consent to Create a Local Improvement District"'. This approval by Mr. Pollock, his wife, and his partner was the basis of Mr. Sheaffer's signature on the Petition. I sincerely apologize for the inaccuracy of my statement before: the council, and trust this letter will clarify the matter to your satisfaction. In the event that you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate contacting either Mr. Sheaffer or myself at 646-2202. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Gregory L. Spccht President c: Bill Monahan, City of Tigard, w/ encl. (fax: 684-7297) Gus Duenas, City of Tigard, w/ encl. (fax: 684-7297) Don Pollock, Don Pollock Investments, w/ encl. (fax: 2924862) Steve Pfeiffer, Stoel Rives, w/ encl. (fax: 220-2480) Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy & Associates, w/ encl. (fax: 968-1674) Todd Sheaffer e;*0 qni--MXIM prgcm - addWped IAoegto%oen I.dw OCT-16-1998 08:27 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 P.03i11 .:r:s ~i . K :h,: .Yl~`,~it .M.Yie' l:r~':.•ri '1lZ,y`:t'•1.`;,,"•k;~. i }!5~ s • Y:Jt;•:.' 1; .''I:rY;.y~~{.~"y"~}1~~t~o. •S .j:f~: 1,r.1''i ~~l' <,rJ'~. •f:'~r ~7'y~C•~.y,"' Fi ~iYi~Y, 'l' a.• ' ~:litr'~.,ti °i":~~t• •~i t.~.~~ryry. ~r,•~.,, ! t•`.. .X. * ti'w).r~!tf?'R.~'4 L ,'r-'s!'RLS:+ J_ :ri' ,,'r i's, t• is ~ s • .•f~i:.Yr~~T,:,~ i• f, ' ~1".~1:1..r • i Fa•; . DON POLZ= nMSTl+ BITS 1834 S.H. 58TH AVMME, SUITE 202 PORTLAND, OREGON 97221 (503) 292-4373 (503) 292-4862 PAX IrAY COVER 7t.RTTER DATE t TO: A'1"PSNTYON: COMPAW; PAX NO.: PR02ls~ SSPDER: ~ PAX NO.s -292-4862 COMMNTS : NOTE: we are transmitting pages iAcluding this letter. You have any prob sender. s receiving, please contact the so OCT-16-1998 0828 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 P.04/11 ~y~ y~~ S• 'I•V'rii, y:h,.y.t!w*•t... .`>;•r~y'T~`'y:_•-~•,~ , C 1 •T.\^ ' C i• '4~ sa i R -C4tnS~'r_S •a r• •rp i•f+•F.il qS:r 1 •i:yy~~..~r. 1,! ~r+ryl Y• ; .a•;,i~i;yr• ~.'.1':~r 1'A. y1 ~7ate N I h'. A: v Yi' X i'f:a t..~'i 1•'i'y°~ a• r. i y1 +t, ' L~C>,4. fi:`...M „R •3~w~r r';t~: ~i '7.:. r h ..1 1 •a , „ r~ ~ ice. %r1f~ • • r,: t• ' w 1• 'y r ..1• • 5, *•4 .ifL:ir•?.! i" • r'r~C~ ~ "~i ~FEC 1 17' ItROPE.101t: t,~.. 'L'HT 1111'I:1.tiPMl .~i7 . _ y'+- 519y~ I ~3►,n M;Ihkm Way • icca~rrnon. t~R V7tktt+ r `A ~ ~ '~c~YMfi-2202 l~I~ St1 t/h2n.ttult t . May 14, 1998 Mr• Donald l:. Pollock and Julia Gail Pollock V' L Far ailc 24Z~sit62 1834 SW 59th Avemse, SUita 202 Pt rdwid. OR 97221 Mr. Rirhtad L.. Carpenter Via: $'aaitalfe 62752 13570 NW Button Read Portl" OR 97229 RE: Tigard 71riartgle Property - )(.road Improvement District Dear Don. Jt: K and Dick SPecht Development Itrc, desires to pursue the forumdon of a Local Improvement District to defer costs of offside improvements that will be mT*td by the City of Tigard as part of Site Development Review AppmvA Paragraph 25 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated February 24, 1996 stares that "Seller. as awatr of other land adjacent to the subject property, will apree to pardoilme in a new LID formed to improve SW 69° and SW 70` Strccta, and adjacent cross streets, and utility extensions and similar costs requited to improve the subject ptopcM:, Enclosed please find a draft of the Petition that will begat the LID crtadon process. Please note declaration number (4) of the Petition, which states''... we are only acknowledging art interest in having a prerunwatp engareerms report completed, avid ate not committed to supporting any local impmvt meat district that may be proposed as a result of the City's analysts and report. We therefore request that you sign below to signify your approval of Specht Development, inc.'s submittJ to the City of Tigard of the attached "Petition for and Cmtsent to Create a Local bmprovement District" Your prompt attention to this matter is very much appreciated. as City of Tigard Staff' would like to present the petition to the City Council Tuesday, May 19a. Please fa: this document back to me once you have signed Thank you for your assistance- Please contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. l f~ Donald E- P61}oc 6E III& Gail Pollock Todd R. Sheafler Vice President Richard L. Carpenter Encl. e: Dick CwMin, Perkins Coie (far- 727-2222) Greg Specht roc • MAY-19-199A t,:,P? OCT-16-1998 0829 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 P.05i11 n-a>m: s:o;r.*. at~ecaST 5 t «••r _ % rttoa•ttNr►e. ta~:.~..~.••~ dtt:!`~asa d~u..~- ua..:: ':::J+•• ' JM M*8;~ , .rt ,fit}. !•lY;'t\r..•:.`+-.,X.:••¢.. ~El ut•A1Ftdr ''i 4. • t t , '~.;s..r,~ •:s1'e C'I>rip 1'J:t ~.:r. ab.:Cc'trtr • Reavzi~aa,'t)A it7ta0b ~ • i0:A-,6:UU2 pax %V626-ak13 . May 141991 Mr. Do"M S Pollock sn43W4 Clair Pollock Vfat lraeslpri! 29..x362 153+ 3~' Satsh Areaue. Stiles 202 pare" OR VM1 Mr. lRicbard L. Csrpcim yla: FMdW to 603.279 13570 NW Swum ltoaA 1'ardand.OA "=g RE: Tlgetd TrlanSle Ps vpstsy • Lent Impret'es>sor 1'Jn' met Dear Don, Julia. and Dick: speak Dsaetopuatik Tne- desires to puma the formagon vt it Local lmproveountJ?irsWCT to deter eosts of affil o in"vemen$ that %PM be trqukul by the City of Tiptf d aS Pars of site DCWJO atit ReVXei ApproraL Pa *grllPa 25 of the ?WChttss ood Sala AV=WaW dated Pebwry 24.194$ ata►es tbet "Salle r. a owner of adw lend adjacent In, the subjea property, will aProo to participate In a new LID formed to impraw SW 690 % Ad SW 700 Saeem and adaead cross siteatt, and utility a cWtons and simau tom tequt ted to improve tho subject property.` Enclosed plewa Ilad a haft of the Petition tau will begin 'he LID aextioa process.. Ple:aso wtz decluntiwn warh1m (a) ofthe Pttatiorr, which stuv*'... •.e are only a&mowl d&Z a inleten in Raring a prslimiaaN cugkwering report eompleaed, and are not'coatmi4ed to supporting xny 1=1 improvctitsat diso•icr that essay be proposed as a' remh of the 0Ws analysis and report". We tlwn1cse request that 7ott dp.bdow to signify your oppi oval o: Spcche "Iopravtt. Ins.`s r 'alamXml w U. Cky of•'l96ard of the nuid ed "Feddon for aad• Consort to Cmm s !a. al Ia>>:rowtmenr Dlaa ect" Your prMpt aftudon to dies mattes is very mach appreciatad. as Cho of Tigard S;.-C woWd like a ptv ew ifte petition to dhe city C M61 Tuesdav, May 19". 1'.►saia fax this doctuttaw Dark to me once you have signed. lbank you for your a"Ismace. Pkssc conrffi tae if you 1<m any questions. 40 Bost)iegatds, SPECIH'T DEVanpMBM', INC. Donald F. Pollock Pe. x;.~ 'lo Jelin Gail ?odd R Shaeffer Vice rtesdeat • Richard L. C~rparter Etyo:. C; Dick Catrttin, Pc*iw C,oie (fax: 727-2222) Crog Speda cvCt~...~.tt.erao.ooc mRy-18-1998 in: Q6 e~~ewc »eo _ OCT-16-1998 0829 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 P.06/11 SPECHT SPECHT PROPERTIES SPECHT DEVELOPMENT 134t1k1 S.1V: %lillil:an Way - Beaverton. OR 97006 503/646.2202 Fax -503/626-8903 May 14, 1998 Mr. Donald E. Pollock and Julia Gail Pollock Via: Facsimile 204862 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 202 Portland, OR 97221 Mr. Richard L. Carpenter Pa: Facsimile 645.2752 13570 NW Burton Road Portland, OR 97229 RE: Tigard Triangle Property - Local Improvement District Dear Don, Julia, and Dick: Specht Development, Inc. desires to pursue the formation of a Local Improvement District to defer costs of offsite improvements that will be required by the City of Tigard as part of Site Development Review Approval. Paragraph 25 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated February 24, 1998 states that "Seller, as owner of other land adjacent to the subject property, will agree to participate in a new LID formed to improve SW 691° and SW 70d' Streets, and adjacent cross streets, and utility extensions and similar costs required to improve the subject property." Enclosed please find a draft of the Petition that will begin the LID creation process. Please note declaration number (4) of the Petition, which states _ we are only acknowledging an interest in having a preliminary engineering report completed, and are not committed to supporting any local improvement district that may be proposed as a result of the City's analysis and rtport", We therefore request that you sign below to signify your approval of Specht Development, Inc.'s submittal to the City of Tigard of the attached "Petition for and Consent to Create a Local Improvement District" Your prompt attention to this matter is very much appreciated, as City of Tigard Staff would like to present the petition to the City Council Tuesday, May 196. Please fax this document back to me once you have signed. Thank you for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Donald E. Pollock Julia Gail Pollock Todd R. Sheaffer Vice President Richard L. Carpenter Encl. e: Dick Cantlin, Perkins Coic (fax: 727-2222) Greg Specht rwCTADXW%aU*910cU.D0C OCT-16-1998 0830 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 P.07/11 t•:. • ~~q~~ ` .T 7 ~ , •Y, ,K• w },tF.. :•y. a' rr}~ • ''',.4'•"fi_1'' ~.y ` .;~.•,,,a.~,r,{~r VR. t,. .R;n, ~~M/.~~ •~,i 1i~n: ^x •~•j~.'.•. .!~~.,.i .•J ~:L•yt'~`A'^:+ ~~LT'~1.` ,r.. ]~iY ,'}Y i!~, prv:. 0'• :t•. '~i,••~~; '!'^r•~,•. .:rj~i A~^~..,y• 'r.4. PETITION FOR AND CONSENT TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THE HONOR ABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL City of Tigard County of Washington State of Oregon In the matterof the improvementof lands described as: Street and utairy improvements to SW 69th Avenue, SW Elmhurst Street, SW Franklin Street and SW Beveland Street, all within the "TigardTriangle"between SW Dartmouth St. and SW Beveland St., and between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. We, the undersigned petitioners, hereby request that the City of Tigard conduct a preliminary engineering study for the area described below to determine feasibility and estimated costs of snaking improvements to these streets through the creation of an assessment district The local improvement district would be for the express purpose of: improving the following streets to ul] city street standards including sewer water and storm street ees, and uadererouadna_s of any overhead IM, t ge fac 'ties curbs goers- sidewa rlP gal eaWC os teleFhos~ewiring- • SW 69th Street between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south goht, of way line of the y oposed extension of SW Beveland St (i.e• the south proper line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S I01AA): • GQV FtMt„1rst Stre etbetweea SW 68th Avenge and SW 69th Avemne • SW Fran_Sdirr Street between SW 68th,&venue and SW 69th Avenue • SSW Bevel and Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue The area proposed hereby to be improved by creation of an assessment district comprises approximately twelve (t acres counting the right-of-ways, and is legally described in the attachedsheet marked fiahibit'A', described in narrative form on Exhibit'B', and illustrated on the reap marked Exhibit 'C', all of which by reference herein are made a part hereof. We hereby declare that we the undersigned petitioners: (1) are in fact the owner(s) or the contract purchaser(s) of the indicatedproperty(s): (2) represent at least fifty percent of the property benefited by the proposed local improvement d 'strict: (3) understand that the cost of these improvements would be borne by the benefited properties if a local improvement district were formed: (4) state that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging an interest in having a preliminary engineering report completed, and are not committedto supporting any local improvement district that be proposed as a result of the City's analysis and report; i 503 626 8903 P.08/11 30 SPECHT PROPERT I ES 1. , ,..:0. • r:' . ;t :°,,:1! ' OCT-16-1398 ,•..ti~ -.;.~K..~.a~~1,ty.':•. ,..~..:s,.;• '',~~T. t:j':i:.r`•~:" •.,n t.u•;, ' i1:Y1`• •`t,~ SLY : t •:~,:,-.~/'-,i. y~~ •Y:+•; l'.' 3 q~~ *Cr~y .1.Y ~T7 ti, ~~V i r, ~..i,t ~.iT'' ~ ti• S; ttr 4•.t!•.~ ~ T,_ •f~..; r.•. T,:: r., • WHEREFORE, petitioners request chat said psdiminaV► eagiActnna study be accomplished. and a report be delivered to the Qty Council regard' Tf the f~go u4pcthe study 14S h as distnet, and that the City Council of the City gwd• possible. SIGNATURE ADDRESS WCTM 2S101AA Tax Los , '2800 2900 3800 3901 4000 4200 9100 2 OCT-16-1998 08:31 SPECHT PROPERTIES 583 626 8903 P.09/ii • .:.i•'.~'\ 4 " ..~,~\°'4.'f • I p ~`Z=.. ~:r ,7.^ 1 '•i iYr 'j 1~L ~C7• 48;~: V k\.t7:•+4r•l.i. +,P• j ' 'i •.•.••N', pp~i ` T' i . q \.tf' ; v A 'pyfq~„ }y, Y~~ •`C•. .t ♦tA .'\i + ~ '.1 . .sd• 1 •~~it'.T•• r S ~ 4•x('1'7 . ;~.tr•' ~ ,•7NI:;'Srf 1rY ► '.;t:,,~,~.1l wr .S 7 ~h ~ .l t R. '.Y. fir... :1•. \'7. ~ ,r. .•..J'\ti..♦ .~•:r" +t ;•r= t •'L'..l. r .L:.CT;~?.-, EDIT `A, PROPERTIES INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT All on Map 2S101AA, the following Tax Lots: 2900 Specht 2700 Corliss* 2800 Specht 2600 Codiss* 3800 Specht 2400 Corliss 3901 Specht 2301 SnyderlMillcr 4000 Specht 2300 Jones 4200 Specht 5100 Corliss* 9100 Specht 4900 Roth 5200' (lots 25 -18) Codisss 4300 lots 19 - 22) Corliss* 8300 Roth* 8700 Roth 8800 Roth * filed non-remonstrance agreement on this property 3 OCT-16-1998 08:31 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 P.10i11 :n;'••1~•fif"i~!.:,r •i-':.a' ` Y.';'• k~ Nr.;• ~hr ,t`• '•t ~:•:Z• :.z{•::f .:r ~`r.-r~,: i:.e.y ~.'.'w ,.pv~.e~i• r+ ,~L' .r. r;y• • NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The project would improve the public streets and public utilities to full city srandar& Specifically, the project would improve: • SW 69th Avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Beveland Street, or essentially to the north property line of tax lot 9800 and tax lot 9108, 2S101AA. Improvements include full street section, curb and gutter, stout drainage, side%W s, landscaping, signing, striping, street lighting, water lines, sower lines and other utility lines. • SW Beveland Street from its current eastern terminus at SW 70th street to SW 69th Avenue. Improvements include full street section, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, landscaping, signing, striping, street lighting, water lines, sewer lines and other utility lines. Right-of-way for SW Beveland Street will be dedicated to the public by the owner. • SW Franklin Street from SW 69th Avenue to SCI 68th Avenue. Improvements to this section of street will include only the sidewalk, curb and pavement along the south right-of-way line, from SW 69th Avenue east a distance of approximately 100 feet, adjacentto tart lot 8300. • SW Elmhurst Street from SW 69th Avenue to SW 6M Avenue, Improvements to this section of street will include only the sidewalk, curb and pavement along the north right-of-way line, from SW 69th Avenue east a distance of approximately 100 feet, adjacentto tax lot 2300. OCT-16-1998 08:32 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 626 8903 _P.11/11' `'~r •~y .,v „hMy~3'•,~ R~S ..y~.. r { -°cDAR."~MbUT,: REET sF {mss ' ~tyi • `.:Ct~a~, i? cr T r ~`~-q~''" w MR, {i ^!r ti Ta1J >t°'Ti~"1 tt .4 u °o o u os ■s 1800 700 00 2960 76 t.09Ae ..s AC. ~ i 5.6•'!,`8 ~ 1 .2 •3 • 112 3. 5 6 7• a 1 2 3 Z Z w W > 36 9 } 36 _ Q 9 Q 140, G 10 35 s00 400 + 2600 34 11 11 4 33 .1l Ae 33 12 33 12 _ _ 13 32 + ~ 2400 32 1a ~ a 31 - 2-}O J;PAc. 2000 { 30 IS .S?At 1301 30 .ldAG. 29 16 } 29 23x1 - P- .to Ac 28 17 28 t 11:6.8.2181 1B z7 Ig 27 T T T r T Y Y 't T T T 1 T T T T Y 1200 1 1 2300 19.50 4c 22 23 24 25 2 B 19 120 2t 22123 24 2S 26 to Ac. 2 23 26 ~~~1 1 ^ 1 1 y y y A. i L h C•SCrp S.W. ELMHURST REET ~•~°•_a_ gaol = T T T T T T 'f 5100 5200 UP 3800 i.03Ae. 1A8 ' •7JAC 1 1223 0 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E A l 2 3 14 5 6 7 B 36 9 .5500 5T00 A 10 .$7 A6. 427AC .68 .c. 35 3 II 34 L 4900 34 ` 11 54 33 33 C" JdAO 33 co 12 P 5 12 13 32 13 32 ® 13 2 E PW. 14 - 31 14 2 '!l 14 30 15 30 9 15 _ 30 - 5 I6 29 ..29 _ 16 29 N 17 28 IT 28 17 28 27 18 27 18 21 IB T r r N• T T T 8200 4300 I as%G 1 ss Ac. t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 t9 2012 24 25 ~ 19 20121 22 23 24 25 45.W. FRANKLIN : is is sa sa 7900 A' 8300 8200 !YJ3 A- - . 9100 1 f 6 Ac. 29 AG L. .30AQ- `sJ Ac .4 is 2 3 4 b T 8 1 1 2 3 a 6 6 17 t II 2 3 4115 6 7 8 I I 1 11 5 1 t I x y 1 1} 1 y l S. 1 s l y 9 36 36 7700 T800 •.SAG / 10 It 35 35 `I 1 a 11 - 34 11 8500 .1 II 34 t 12 .~s~ 3" 12 33 > 12 33 we IN 13 } 32 6700 8000 _ 13 2 g 32 t 310 nay 9.CJA- 7600 31 / 1a 31 1 15 * 30 J4 AG 30 30 iEVE1-E i 1 0800 AG 1 29 16 29 TOTAL P.11 AGENDA ITEM # 3.3 For Agenda of October 27, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Establish Fund and interfund loan for 69th Avenue Local Improvement District PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK "ac CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council authorize a fund and an interfund loan for the 69th avenue Local Improvement District? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution establishing the fund and the interfund loan. INFORMATION SUMMARY Oregon Revised statutes provides an exception to local budget law for improvements in local improvement districts that will be paid from assessments. Because this project was not envisioned when the 1998/99 budget was developed, it was not included. Although no budget adjustment is necessary, it is necessary to establish a fund for this project and an interfund loan to fund preliminary engineering costs until interim financing is secured in the spring. It is estimated that the project will cost $950,000. The attached resolution establishes fund 32 as the 69th Avenue Local Improvement Fund. The resolution also authorizes a loan from the general fund to the 69th avenue fund not to exceed $200,000 which is to be repaid to the general fund by the end of the fiscal year with proceeds from interim financing to be issued in the spring. The interest rate to be charged on the interfund loan will be the Local Government Pool rate for each month the loan is outstanding. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A FISCAL NOTES This resolution allows the expenditure of funds for the project and establishes an interfund loan arrangement with interest between the general fund and the 69th avenue fund. AGENDA ITEM # .3. FOR AGENDA OF October 27, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award Bid for one 10/12 Yard Dump Truck` PREPARED BY: Sam Morrison DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK l,y b ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board award the bid for the purchase of a new 10/12 Yard Dump Truck. STAFF RECOM VIEENDATION That the Local Contract Review Board award the bid to Portland Freightliner, Inc. for the amount of $72,083. INFORMATION SUMMARY During the FY 1998/99 Budget process, Public Works identified the need to replace a 1981 GMC 5/6 yard dump truck with a new 10/12 yard dump truck. $80,000 was approved through the Budget process to purchase the new dump truck. The City of Tigard issued an "Invitation to Bid" for a 10/12 yard Dump Truck for the Water Section of Public Works. A total of twelve bids were sent out and three responses were received. After reviewing the bids based on price and specifications, we recommend that the low bidder, Portland Freightliner, Inc., be awarded the bid. The bid meets the specifications for the chassis and body of the dump truck as outlined in the bid packet. The purchase of the 10/12 yard dump truck includes a trade-in allowance for the existing 1981 GMC 5/6 yard dump truck. The results of the three bids are: Chassis Body Trade-in Total Cost Peterbilt $65,759 $14,902 ($7,500) $73,161 Northside Ford $62,114 $16,500 ($5,500) $73,114 Portland Freightliner, Inc. $61,905 $14,180 ($4,000) $72,083 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Award bid to another vendor or reject all bids and re-bid. M1 I VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMWME STRATEGY NIA FISCAL NOTES The funding source for this 10112 yard dump truck has been budgeted for in FY 1998-99. Budgeted amount approved is $80,000. The low bid is $72,083. iACirywide\aaadot oil AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 27 Oct 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Libr and Ci Hall Windows and Fl in R air Project PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consideration by Council for the approval of bid by Select Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $85,896.00 for all window and flashing repair work to be performed at the Library and City Hall facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that council approve the bid award to Select Contracting, Inc., for the low bid Mnount of $85,896.00 for performing all repair work identified in bid specifications. INFORMATION SUMMARY The windows to the offices at City Hall, and the peak windows at City Hall and the Library have been leaking water for several years. It is expected that there will be some dryrot damage in the wall around the windows. Staff had bid this project previously but received only one (1) bid in the amount of $84,576.00. The bid was rejected because of only one (1) bid submitted and with concerns about the bid specifications. The City has gone out to bid a second time for the repairs with bid closing on Octoberl5. The bid was broken down to three levels as follows: • Base bid - peak windows at City Hall and Library • Alternate #1 - Remove and repair all exterior office windows at the Library and City Hall and replacement of three fogged windows in City Hall lobby • Alternate #2 - Installation of new louvered grill for the Library Director's office There were six (6) bids submitted as follows: BIDDER BASE ALT #1 ALT#2 TOTAL Todd Hess General Contractors $69,772.00 $26,903.00 $2,635.00 $99,310.00 Select Contracting Inc. $55,789.00 $27,189.00 $2,918.00 $85,896.00 Rose City Contracting $56,200.00 $35,200.00 $1,800.00 $91,418.00 Stride Corporation $55,168.00 $42,133.00 $2,525.00 $99,826.00 ProTec Construction $85,560.00 $70,340.00 $3,470.00 $159,370.00 First Cascade $80,000.00 $69,000.00 $8,400.00 $157,400.00 r OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Reject all bids. • Request that staff re-write the specifications and re -bid the project. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES There is $70,000.00 budgeted in this fiscal year for this project. Approval of this bid award would require a fund transfer of $15,896.00 to make up the difference between the budgeted amount and the bid amount. john\docs\10-27sum AGENDA ITEM # 3 For Agenda of October 27. 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget Adjustment #6 for the City Center window/flashing project PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve a budget adjustment to provide sufficient funds to complete the window/flashing repair project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the budget adjustment be approved. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 1998/99 adopted budget included $70,000 for a project to repair and replace the windows and flashings on City Hall buildings which have been leaking. The low bid for the project came in at nearly $86,000. If the low bid is to be accepted, a budget adjustment of $16,000 will be necessary. The attached resolution appropriates an additional $16,000 from general fund contingency for this project. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED If the bid is not awarded, this adjustment is not necessary at this time. FISCAL NOTES This budget adjustment reduces general fund contingency by $16,000 and increases the appropriation in general capital projects by $16,000. AGENDA ITEM # l.0 FOR AGENDA OF October 27, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorize Payment for Improvements to the Railroad Crossings at Bonita Road PREPARED BY: Diane Jelderks DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council authorize payment to reimburse Portland & Western Railroad for improvements to the railroad crossings at Bonita Road? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to direct the issuance of a Purchase Order for $500,000 to cover the cost for Bonita Road Phase 2 improvements performed by Portland & Western Railroad. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Oregon Department of Transportation Order Number 96-009 and amended Order Number 98-0013 directed improvements to the railroad-highway at-grade crossings at Bonita Road. All improvements are to be paid for by the City of Tigard. The project to upgrade the crossings and reconstruct Bonita Road at that location was included in the 1997-98 CIP (Capital Improvement Program) and carried over to the 1998-99 CIP. The project was split into three phases: Phase 1 is the utility relocation, Phase 2 is the reconstruction of the railroad crossings and installation of the railroad flashing signals, and Phase 3 is the roadway reconstruction and widening. Phases 1 & 3 are to be constructed by the City of Tigard while Phase 2 is to be performed by Portland & Western Railroad. Phase 1 has already been completed by the City via construction contract. Phase 2 was initiated by Portland & Western Railroad using their own railroad contractor. The work to reconstruct the crossings and signals has recently been completed. The City of Tigard agreed to reimburse Portland & Western Railroad for the Phase 2 improvements as per P&W Agreement No. P96G09 signed on June 16, 1998. The purpose of this agenda item is to authorize the City Manager to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $500,000 to reimburse Portland & Western Railroad for the recently completed Phase 2 improvements. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The improvements on Bonita Road meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Safety, strategy Encourage through traffic on major collectors and arterials. It upgrades an existing, deteriorated railroad crossing to provide safer, more efficient traffic movements. FISCAL NOTES This project was authorized in the FY 1998-99 CIP and funded from Traffic Impact Fees in the amount of $674,000. 1AengW8c1ptbon it2&3laum.doo P&W Agreement No. P96G09 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This Agreement, made this 16th Day of June, 1998 , by and between the PORTLAND & WESTERN RAILROAD, a New York corporation, a lessee of SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, hereinafter called the "Railway"; and CITY OF TIGAR_D, a municipality of Oregon, whose address is: 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, hereinafter called the "Agency"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in the interest of aiding motor vehicle traffic, the Agency is proposing a project for an alteration of railroad-highway grade crossings at Bonita Road where the centerline of each crosses the Railway's right-of-way and tracks located at Mileposts FD-749.70 and 3E-033.50 as shown on Exhibit "A" sketch attached hereto and made a part hereof, WHEREAS, the Agency desires that the project also includes the placement of automatic crossing warning systems, with gates and train activation devices, hereinafter called ."signals"; and WHEREAS, the Railway will be required to perform certain work on Railway's facilities; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that the work to be performed by the Agencyim--- connection with said construction be performed in accordatZoe with plans and specifications to a be prepared by the Agency; and a WHEREAS, the parties hereto agree that the Railway will receive no ascertainable benefit from the construction of said project, and WHEREAS, the Agency is willing to undertake the construction of said project with Agency funds and such other funds as may be available for this purpose pursuant to the Federal Highway Acts applicable thereto, and the Railway are willing to consent to the execution of the said project upon the terms and conditions herein stated and not otherwise; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to contract with reference to the work to be done by each of them in connection therewith the protection of Railway facilities and the payment of costs and expenses therein involved; V The Agency, without expense to the Railway, shall secure from the owner or owners of that certain property lying adjacent to and outside of the Railway's right-of-way all necessary easements, permits or other interest therein necessary for the occupancy and use of said property during the construction, maintenance and operation of the roadway and its appurtenances. VI It is understood that Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, is a current estimate of the cost of the work to be performed by the Railway at Agency expense and is for informational purposes only. _ The Agency shall reimburse the Railway for all cost and expense incurred by the Railway in connection with the acquisition of materials and performance of construction work as indicated in this agreement. The Railway may submit progress bills to the Agency during the progress of the work included in this agreement for the actual cost of services and expenses and the Agency ,shall pay such bills promptly. It is further agreed that a final and complete billing of all actual incurred costs and expenses, ascertained in accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) part 646, and 23 CFR part 140,-subpact I-, w-uch by this reference is incorpora e agreement, shall be made at the earliest practical date. The Agency shall, upon presentation of final billing promptly reimburse the Railway for the cost of services and expenses of work included in this agreement. - VII All contracts between the Agency and its contractor, for the construction provided for, or maintenance work on the highway within the Railway's right-of-way, including any easement area described herein or show on exhibits attached hereto, will require the contractor to protect and hold harmless the Railway and any other Railroad company, including but not limited to the Railway, occupying or using the Railway's right-of-way or line of Railway against all loss, liability and damage arising from activities of the contractor, its forces or any of its subcontractors or agents, and will further provide that the contractor shall carry insurance of the kinds and amounts hereinafter specified: Commercial General Liability Insurance, to include contractual liability and products completed operations, against claims arising out of bodily injury, illness and death and from damage to or destruction of property of others, including loss of use thereof, and including liability of the Railway, with minimum limits for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 for each occurrence with an aggregate of $2,000,000. Agenda Item No. Meeting of ijQWA CITY AF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division DATE: October 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Metzger Representation on the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force On October 21, the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force met to consider the issue of Metzger representation on the task force. Metzger resident, Elisabeth Braam, presented her concerns regarding task force membership. She said that there needs to be more people on the task force who are Metzger residents within the study area and who do not have a development interest. She said that only one person on the task force, Steve Perry, fits that description. The task force voted on two issues. The first was if Metzger should receive more representatives on the task force. The second issue was the number of Metzger residents on the task force, if they decided to add more Metzger residents. The task force voted in favor of more Metzger representation on the task force, to ensure Metzger support in the development of the Washington Square Regional Center plan. With regard to the issue of how many, the task force voted to include one more Metzger resident within the study area on the task force. Although Ms. Braam requested four additional Metzger residents, the task force voted for only one new member because they are concerned that the task force is already too large and that too many additional members may interfere with the task force's productivity. Ms. Braam said that she will provide staff with a list of potential new members. City Council will appoint the new task force member. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF October 27. 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Detention Pond Maintenance CITY MGR OK PREPARED BY: Eric Hand DEPT HEAD OK Ci ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City of Tigard assume responsibility for detention pond that are currently the responsibility of private property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A policy should be developed for acceptance of retention ponds for transition to a City maintained facility. INFORMATION SUMMARY City staff and citizens have found detention ponds that are owned by homeowner associations yet they are not being maintained by the homeowner association and/or the detention facility is being used for Storm water collection outside the original design area. Staff has developed the criteria for acceptance - See attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Force the homeowners associations to maintain facilities. • The City will accept detention facilities and assume all costs for bringing facilities up to acceptable standards. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A i FISCAL NOTES The costs involved with this project would be site specific depending on size and existing conditions of the various detention facilities. WQF (Water Quality Facility) Criteria for Private to Public Transition • The WQF must be residential in nature and not serve commercial properties where it would make more sense for the WQF to be maintained by a business or a property management company. Examples: Shadow Hills Vs Home Depot. • The WQF must have an inlet and receive surface water runoff from public property. • The WQF must be a separate tract of land or have a permanent public easement that will access and maintenance of facility. See attahced example. • The WQF must be brought up to city design and maintenance standards before City would take over maintenance responsibility. / o SCALE /"=50' , BOSis of Bearing: G'S -*"/ZZO7 * NOTE: SEE DOCUMENT NO. 79/50607 FOR 9,a 6/ o Sd9'I6'S8"E VACATION AND RESERVATION OF EASE- MENTS IN AND AROUND VACATED RIGHT- 4OF- WAY. _ SEE ALSO 79033259, R.& O. 79-180 j Tn 0 T/&, Iron Rod foaund *vlkv,4Z ooo. 114 Denofes 6/8"x30" /ron Pod set (Exterior !o! Llrnem) B4°' Rl O Not ,Set Inferior Lot lbrners ~ 14 8g A 3.01Y wide eosernernt Xr he,,eby 9/-a/Veo' a/onq all 19 ti O fron/, side o170"rear /ot //%7es for 4111/ify and d1n11709e , purposes. Ar 2. 411 benefi1s ano'ownership, 117e/41dln b/rfnot /ire fed to maii?14~,,oowca ofinedion,oorre/s Band C "sho// vest In and #vi/h the ow?erahio of /ofs 9 hi /6 os p/ofteo! /n Me epawf or foi/alzs to f4(/1`i// anyy or o// 03W r/vR d41lies of owrlersh D by said /ot awnars CV- fhelr . x. 88 delegofeo, agenffnr- such, iYashii?gfon manly or Is de%gofes /s q/:,nfcd o// means provio'ed by /ow /b. enforce fi./fi//meat of Faio'dcr/ies a/owneluh~,o s llh respect fo sold r» ediorn P orce/s N 3. TraCI X" /s reserved fors br/n wafer defenf/on ornd es . ,4// /oz`s ivi /lpye on andi vrded o /pork ,our,005 ~ ~r~fere~f in Ti'ocf A:' Moir~1"~on~ of Trac!f/" she// rest /,7 owd wlr lh eaZYi ,a/oY(led /of /n M e n; UJ evMO?f or f71ju1e /0 fu/fi%/ on y or o// ek/t/es of 0w17ersh1,0 by 00/e' /of own n or t'heii- de%ga/cor . fYosh~ngl i/ Coar~fy fdea9er71fbr such ori/ey~aleJ /s granted a//`meons/or:avided by law /b elMorce )4111%//rl9erlf of .yalo' d2,11P5 of ownersh/p w/fh respect lo so/d Trocl;f'- LOT CURVE D4T,4 107 D& TA RAD/Ul MNOTN CHORD C#ORO 9,64R/N6 3 90°00'00" 16.00 25. 13 22.63 N44°56'09 "E 4 90°00'00" 16.00 25. 13 22.63 ,545°0.?'.5/ "E 9 42°58' 19" 4000 3000' 29.30 ,132°2/'13'!y /0 36°0.547" 4000 25.20 24.79 X 71 °53'/.5 "W orld ewel 11 90°00'00" 25.00 3,927 3535 S44°56'09 "W l2 90"00'00" 25.00 39.27 35.35 N45°03'5/"N 13 30°0449" 40.00 2100 20.76 N75°0/'05"N MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: February 10, 1998 TO: Gus Duenas, City Engineer Ed Wegner, Public Works Director FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer Eric Hand, Public Works 2f RE: PRE-ACCEPTANCE INSPECTIONS OF PUBLIC SANITARY AND STORM SEWER FACILITIES This memo is to summarize a meeting held on January 6, 1998, with Hung Nguyen, Mike White, Matt Harrell and Brian Rager, where the various issues centered around the inspections needed prior to the City fully accepting a sanitary or storm drainage facility as a public facility were discussed. Current Policy At present, once a private development project has passed through a one-year maintenance period, the developer is responsible for having the public sanitary and storm sewer lines cleaned. Once they are cleaned, the developer notifies the City Engineering Department, who then notifies Public Works. Public Works then schedules time to have their TV crew perform a video inspection of the lines. Public Works then submits a report to the Engineering Department indicating any problems found in their inspection. If there are problems with the lines, the developer is required to repair the facilities prior to final acceptance by the City and paving of the second lift of asphalt on the local streets. Problems With Current Policy There are many occasions when the sanitary and storm sewer lines are not thoroughly cleaned. For instance, Public Works staff have often found string lines, gravel and other debris in pipes. The gravel is usually due to plumbers connecting house sewer service lines to the laterals provided by the developer and not carefully protecting the opening of the lateral pipes. If the sewer lines are not thoroughly cleaned, they can not be TV inspected. Another problem is with respect to cleaning of the lines. Some cleaning contractors simply flush all debris down the main sewer lines without protecting the existing pipe system downstream of the new development. This results in potential plugging further PAGE 1 downstream or additional debris that must be cleaned at the sewer treatment plant (if the pipe is a sanitary sewer pipe). The proper and accepted method for cleaning pipes is to plug the main line at the development's downstream manhole so the debris can be removed at that point. When Public Works staff encounter main lines that have not been cleaned, they have done one of the following: 1) clean the line themselves if the debris is minor in nature and the equipment with them at the time can do the job, or 2) return to the office and notify Engineering that the developer needs to clean the line again. Either option requires extra work and time from Public Works. The time and effort that is spent by Public Works staff during the TV inspections and any additional cleaning efforts is not supported by development fees. In addition, the USA design and construction standards do not require the City to perform or pay for the pre- acceptance TV inspections. In fact, that responsibility typically falls on the developer for the given project. Tigard has historically performed the pre-acceptance TV inspections in order to maintain a certain level of control over the inspection and to give Public Works staff a first-hand view of the facility that they will be maintaining. Options for Policy Change The group discussed several options to address the concerns listed above, including: 1. City staff presence at pre-acceptance cleaning. Public Works and/or Engineering staff could be present while the cleaning contractor is performing the work to ensure proper methods are used and to ensure the existing systems downstream are protected. Drawbacks: Would require an additional commitment of City staff time, over and above what is already spent, that is not supported by development fees. Both departments are limited in staff at present and would likely not be able to easily fill this task without sacrificing other tasks or adding personnel. City staff would still need to spend the time doing the video inspections, which takes the one video unit away from performing routine video inspections on the existing sewer lines in the City. 2. Collect fees from developers for City to clean and Tv the lines. In this option, the City would control both the cleaning and TV inspection operations, while offsetting those costs with development fee revenue. Drawbacks: Due to limited staff resources at present, Public Works would have to hire additional personnel to accommodate this additional work. However, since the development activity fluctuates and is unpredictable, the work load justifying the additional personnel will not always be present. Public Works would like to avoid layoffs due to any downturns in development activity. PAGE 2 3. Require developers to clean and Tv the lines with City staff present. In this option, the developer would assume responsibility for both tasks, as provided by the USA regulations, but the City would also be present to ensure proper cleaning methods are used and to see first-hand any problems with the sewer lines and manholes as they are TV inspected. City staff should establish a cleaning procedure to be used by all developers to prevent problems with debris flushing downstream into the existing system. A copy of this cleaning procedure would be given to the developer and/or cleaning contractor. This option would actually reduce the time spent by Public Works staff from what is currently spent during TV inspections. For instance, Public Works must send a two- to three-man crew into the field for TV inspections. Under this new option, Public Works would only need to send one person to witness the cleaning and TV inspection. In addition, City interests would be protected add personnel and equipment expense would significantly decrease from present levels. Drawbacks: City would still bear some personnel expense. Recommendation Based on the discussion of January 6, 1998 and further discussions between Eric Hand and Brian Rager, it is recommended that Option #3, which would require a developer to provide the pre-acceptance cleaning and TV inspections for sanitary and storm sewer lines, be implemented. Since this requirement is already allowed under USA regulations, the policy can be implemented immediately upon approval from the City Engineer and Public Works Director. It would apply to all new projects not currently under construction. Explanation of this expectation will be given as a part of preconstruction meetings so developers and contractors become aware up front of the change in policy. cc: Hung Nguyen, Public Works Mike Miller, Public Works Paul Izatt, Engineering Mike White, Engineering Matt Harrell, Engineering \brianr\pw0129.mem PAGE 3 A handouA- oot h9 `f-o park ~tsi-f-ors 1~'t5 awc rs and SUMMER LAKE'S BEAUTY IS THREATENED ! ! 1040 r - s Par4 The City of Tigard's Trees 2000 program is endangering YOUR enjoyment of Summer Lake Park. It will be a great loss to the citizens of Tigard and nearby Beaverton-even if it is an unintended consequence. The trees just planted (Saturday, October 25, 1998) along the shoreline of Summer Lake will block most of the remaining beautiful lake views! The loss will occur slowly-as the trees gain height, but it will be real, nevertheless. It is sad that the City administration is undervaluing the beauty of Summer Lake and the sense of openness that expanses of water provide-even as the City and Metro struggle to acquire precious open spaces for the public inside the urban growth boundary (see The Oregonian article of Monday, October 26). At Summer Lake, Tigard's Trees 2000 program consisted of planting willows and large trees at shoreline levels almost completely around the lake. Tree plantings on the south side are good because, as they mature, they will shade and help to cool the lake in summer. This will benefit fish habitat and provide wildlife cover as well as impede unsightly weed growth in the lake during hot summers. But, it is a different story on the north side of the lake. That is where the big losses will occur. Not just in property tax income to the City, as adjoining view properties lose value, but more importantly, from the loss of beautiful vistas that park visitors now enjoy. Planting tall-growing willows and trees on the NORTH side (where the homes are) will, when added to those already too tall, will block most of the remaining lake views. To make matters worse, trees just planted on the north side will be useless in cooling the lake because shade falls in the wrong direction-onto lawns, not the lake. You don't notice any of these plantings NOW--they are small and inconspicuous in the existing lakeside growth. But in less than 10 years, you will be presented with a wall of vegetation separating you from all but a few vistas from the north side. Do you want to lose sight of Summer Lake? YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE BY ASKING THAT THE JUST PLANTED TREES AND WILLOWS BE REMOVED FROM THE NORTH SIDE. CALL OR WRITE THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS to let them know what you think. Better yet, be at the City Council's meetings at 7:30 PM on October 27, November 10 or later to make your voice heard. These opportunities normally occur at the opening of public Council meetings (held on every other Tuesdays). Be sure to register to speak, at the left of the entrance to the Council chambers, when you arrive. - LA► SUMMER LAKE CITY PARK IS CHANGING Notice willow growth in one year between 1995 and 1996. Notice lack of weeds in the lake, even in stHHnn,eH•q befoH'e any weed treatments occurred. ~ AST 14 ~ir~-' { µ g' - _,;,'.,~,,'S._ PkA 4-jam '1 e'errl` 'F ~`yF ~t ;a 4a~a r _~,j~ a >C~- •-J E J.Z X~ q y ~;Y P' - ~ ~ ~ - ~ y E 'fir daub r~- < - 1 h . l I ! c; r -r~ >•'97 . .mod ~r c { 'f { F _ ~ ~ ~iyi r ~ f L,- r La Lie atS;- "1010,-~ j G AGENDA ITEM # W For Agenda of 10/27/98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorization to issue a bond and a note to finance the Dartmouth LID. PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Tigard City Council authorize the issuance of a bond to provide long term financing for the Dartmouth LID and the issuance of a note to provide interim financing for a portion of the costs of the LID assessed to the Martins? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the resolutions authorizing the issuance of the bond and the note. - INFORMATION SUMMARY The Dartmouth LID was assessed in May 1998. Property owners were given the opportunity to pay their assessments in cash or to execute an installment payment agreement by July 2, 1998. Most property owners signed installment agreements, one property owner paid their assessment in cash and one property owner is currently challenging their assessment both in circuit court and in tax court. The notes used to finance the LID mature on December 1, 1998 and must be paid prior to that date. The City has negotiated a transaction with US Bank National Association to provide long term financing for those paying in installments and a short term note for the portion of the assessment still subject to litigation. The attached resolutions provide the Director of Finance with the authority to issue both long term and short term debt. The proceeds from the newly approved debt will provide sufficient funds to pay off the interim debt maturing on December 1, 1998. - OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None as funds must be secured for the December 1 maturity. FISCAL NOTES Both the bond and the note are secured by the assessment liens on property in the LID and are also secured by the City's general fund and the City's limited ability to tax property. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF October 27, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Finalize Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District #11 PREPARED BY: G.N. Berry 198 DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Finalize the formation of Reimbursement District #I I STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve, by motion, the formation of Reimbursement District #11 as modified by the final City Engineer's Report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council approved the formation of the district by Resolution 98-36 on June 23rd, 1998. Since then, construction of the improvements has been completed. A separately submitted pay request from the contractor shows the final cost of constructing the project. In addition, on October 13, 1998, Council approved Resolution 98-51 limiting the maximum reimbursement fee to $8,000 for connections completed within one year of this requested final approval of the district. The attached City Engineer's Report has been revised accordingly. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES Total Cost of Improvements: $22,774. 'Property owner contribution: $8,000 each if connection is made by October 28, 1999. Otherwise, each owner's share is would be $11,387. Exhibit A City Engineer's Report Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 11 Background This project will be constructed and funded under the City of Tigard Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program (NSEP). Under the program the City of Tigard would install public sewers to each lot within a project area. At the time the property owner connects to the sewer, the owner would pay a connection fee of $2,335.00 and reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic systems according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. To be considered for the program, a neighborhood needs to submit evidence of resident support of a project. Both residents that will be provided with service have shown continuous interest for a project. Project Area - Zone of Benefit An existing sanitary sewer line is located on SW 100th Avenue as shown on Exhibit Map B. The line would be extended west along SW Hill View St. to serve two properties on the south side of the street east of SW 102nd Avenue. The property at the southwest corner of SW 100th Avenue and SW Hill View St. is currently served by the sewer in SW 100th Avenue and is not included in the proposed district. Similarly, the properties on the north side of the street are served by a public line that that extends west from SW 100th Avenue behind the houses. There is no need for future extensions of the proposed line. Cost The final cost for the sanitary sewer construction is $20,065. Engineering and inspection fees amount to $2,709 (13.5%) as defined in TMC 13.09.040 (1). The total project cost including these fees is $22,774. In addition to sharing the cost of the public sewer line, each property owner will be required to pay an additional $2,335 connection and inspection fee when connection to the public line is made, and will be responsible for all plumbing costs required for work done on private property. Reimbursement Rate All properties in this area are zoned R-3.5 and have similar lot sizes as can be seen in Exhibit Map B. Therefore, it is recommended that the cost of the project be divided equally among the two properties included in the reimbursement district. Resolution 98-51 limits this fee to $8,000 per owner for connections completed within one year of final approval of the City Engineer's Report. Other reimbursement methods include basing the proportional share upon the square footage of each property or by the length of frontage of each property. Because all properties are similar in size, the square footage method is not recommended for this reimbursement district. The length of frontage method is not recommended because there is no need to extend the line along the westernmost property, but the line will be extended along the frontage of the property on SW 100th Avenue that will not be served by the proposed line. Each property owner's fair share of the public sewer line is $11,387. This fee will be reduced to $8,000 for connections completed by October 28, 1999, in accordance with Resolution 98-51. Annual Fee Adjustment TMC 13.09.115 states that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to each property owner's fair share of the sewer line costs on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The Finance Director has set the annual interest rate at 6.05% as stated in City of Tigard resolution No. 98-22. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with an annual fee increase as indicated above and that the reimbursement district continue for fifteen years as provided in the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.09.110 (5). Fifteen years after the formation of the reimbursement district, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee. Submitted October 15, 1998 a' U,-U P. USTIN P. DUENAS P.E. Ci Engineer iAchywideXsumtreimI If doc I H+ I f yl SW 1/4 SW 1/4/ SECTION 2 T2S R1 W W.M. CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON I I I , , ~ I I I I I I I - a I I i 10195 SW HILLVIEW ST 10165 SW HILLVIEW ST 10135 SW HILLVIEW ST W I ,.s I I I CONNECTED I CONNECTED I CONNECTED Icc do I I I I I I Q ( ® 4P -----~I-- IC) 3 HILL V[ M Q dd - PROPOSEO SEWA I =':d ! - SW HFEEL VIEW ST 71 { Q - F i O I I VICINITY MAP I I~ 13400„SW;102ND' AVE., ::10160 SW HILLVIEWd .ST::. 10130 SW HILLVIEW ST I (T L 2500) (T.L. 2400)• CONNECTED f,;. I I I L• PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN _ REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT G I - -EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINES I L I I . ' PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINES EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRI TION: FRELON HEIGHTS t f.' - - - LOT 9 (T.L. 2400) , I NOTE: ALL PROPERTIES IN THE REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT ARE ZONED R-3.5 LOT 10 (T.L. 2500) f r m,,. S HILLVIEW ST motm SANITARY SEWER NANA= REMURGEMENT DISTRICT 011 ~p 4 T11 9 CITY OF TIGM DMus DARTM91T ittt Nm, tRti am NAW- .r cArm" ;y N m MasVepUw~v~Nmr vu a~ R I __--__'r'____ . ..mow - - - -.m. _ P. Miller and Sons Contractors, Inc. Invoice 23880 SW Middleton Road Sherwood, OR 97140 ()L I 1 9 1998 DATE INVOICE NO. CITY OF TIGARD 10/16/98 1132 BILL TO City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 DUE DATE 10/16/98 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MEAS. RATE AMOUNT Mobilization 1 LS 750.00 750.00 Traffic Control 1 LS 1,100.00 1,100.00 Erosion Control 1 LS 1,500.00 1,500.00 Remove Existing Sod I LS 700.00 700.00 Trench Excavation & Backfill 200 CY 48.50 9,700.00 8" PVC Pipe 260 LF 9.00 2,340.00 4" PVC Pipe 90 LF 22.00 1,980.00 Standard Manhole 1 EA 1,995.00 1,995.00 .A PUR S ORDE ACCOU T ?SFr^• PLC' ;~Pri;4AL1ST I 'OVAL'~ Total $20,065.00 AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF: October 27.1998 - 730 PM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Subdivision (SUB 98-0003/PDR 98-00041 MIS 98-0006NAR 98-0004 /SLR 98- PREPARED BY: Julia Powell Haiduk_ `Y` DEPT HEAD OK )AA11 CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE T IL Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Subdivision, subject to conditions of approval? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision. INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicant requested preliminary plat approval to subdivide an approximately 14.03 acre site for the creation of a 64 lot single-family attached Planned Development Subdivision. The Planned Development was proposed in order to maximize the preservation of significant natural resources on the site which include a natural wetlands area, numerous trees, and terrain with slopes exceeding 25%. The application also involved a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard cul-de-sac design standards for length and the number of lots taking access from a cul-de-sac, and to allow a street grade of 15%. Sensitive Lands Review was requested for mitigation of any impacts to the wetland areas and Lot Line Adjustment approval was requested to transfer approximately 1.31 acres from Tax Lots 00400 and 00500 to Tax Lot 00300 (Tract "L"). At the August 17, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the request, subject to conditions of approval after discussion of the slopes, wetlands and other issues raised at the public hearing. On August 31, 1998, the appellants filed an appeal within the required time period with the following claims: s The wetlands depicted on the city's wetlands map are inaccurate; Some streams are not shown in the correct location or are not shown at all; Concerns of steep slopes resulting in slides; and o The appellant stated that the previous owner altered the flow of water on the property. Although not applicable review criteria, they have raised concerns about school size and additional volume on the roads. The following memo to the Council addresses the appellants' claims in detail. Based in the analysis in the memo, staff feels the appellants' claims are unsubstantiated and sufficient evidence has been provided by professionals that the locations of wetlands and streams is accurate and the site is suitable for the proposed development in relation to geotechnical concerns. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Accept the appeal and deny the Subdivision. 2. Approve the Subdivision with additional, amended or deleted conditions of approval. FISCAL NOTES The area is within the Urban Services Area, therefore, the City will receive fees related to permit processing. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FOR 10127/98 iAcitywide\sum\hillshir.sum Page 1 of 1 Julia PH 13-Oct-98 3;01 PM City of Tigard Community (Devekpment Sfiaping,A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner DATE: October 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to approve Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Subdivision (SUB 98-0003/PDR 98-0004/MIS 98-0006/ VAR 98-0004/SLR 98-0005). BACKGROUND On August 17, 1998 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved the above referenced subdivision, subject to conditions of approval. The Final Order Zust 98-08 PCwas filed on Au us1, 1998 and the deadline for filing an appeal set for 31, 19U. The appellan s filed an appeal on August 31, 1998 with concerns that the applicant provided inaccurate information and with concerns of approving development on steep slopes. BASIS FOR APPEAL Appellant Issue: The appellants feel the Planning Commission's decision was based on inaccurate information. The following is stated on the appeal form: "The wetlands depicted on the city's map are not accurate. There is more area of wetlands on this property than shown. Some of the streams are not drawn in the right places, some are no represented at all." Staff Response: This is not on the city's inventory, therefore, there is no "city map". Staff is assuming that the appellant is referring to the wetland delineation shown on the applicant's plans. The applicants had a Significant Natural Resources Assessment done for the project site by Martin Schott. Mr. Schott submitted his findings to the Division of State Lands (DSL) who, in turn, concurred with his findings as mapped. The mapped location of the wetlands accepted by DSL is consistent with that shown on the plans for subdivision approval. The Division of State Lands and US Army Corps of Engineers must approve any fill of the wetlands and/or alterations to jurisdictional drainage's. Permit approval from DSL and the Army Corps of Engineers is a condition of Final Plat approval. The permit approval also allows for a comment period in which citizens are given the opportunity to provide testimony. While there has been no indication other than hearsay that there are additional wetlands on the site, if it were found that there WERE more wetlands than has been shown, the applicant would be required to modify the mitigation proposal and obtain permit approvals for that mitigation from DSL. The ability to develop this subdivision as proposed would not be altered provided the applicants receive approval for the proposed wetland mitigation. Staff has asked that the applicant be prepared to discuss the findings in Mr. Schott's report at the public hearing on the appeal. STAFF REPORT RE: APPEAL OF SUB 98-0003/HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 2 10/27/98 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Appellant Issue: The appeal statement goes on to state: "This is very steep property. As we haven't seen a geo-technical report yet, we are concerned about houses sliding down the mountain, especially with the amount of water flow in this area. This is a particular concern because this area has already been so greatly altered from natures plan. Four years ago the Wlletts (owners at the time) dug trenches to alter the flow of water on this property. Have you taken this into consideration in your plans?" Staff Response: Condition of approval #37 required a geotechnical report to be submitted and the recommendation Incorporated into the final-grading plan. Typicallyy, a eotechnical report has not been required prior to development on slopes less than 25% Sensitive Lands). The proposal did not involve development on slopes exceeding 25%. Questions were raised by the Planning Commission, however, because the proposed development area is adjacent to sensitive lands with slopes exceeding 25%. The Planning Commission felt that with the conditions of approval, the issue or slope stability would be addressed. The applicant had a geotechnical report prepared prior to the Planning Commission meeting, but it had not been made available as part of the application packet. The applicant indicated that, had the eotechnical deport shown the area to be unstable, they would not be moving forward. Staff asked that a copy of the geotechnical report be made available to staff to review prior to the appeal hearing. This as. been provided and reviewed by staff. A copy of this geo-technical report has been included in your packets. Appellant Issue: The appellants also state that while it may not apply to the appeal process, they have concerns that the schools and roads can not handle the additional volume that this project will bring. They stated they would like an opportunity to bring in their own wetlands experts or be present when the assessments are being made. Staff's Response: The appellant is correct that the issue of overcrowding in schools is not a review criteria for approval of a subdivision. The additional volume of traffic on the regional transportation system is mitigated by the payment of Traffic Impact Fees. The developer will be installing improvements to streets adjacent to the proposed development. Staff faxed a copy of the appeal to the applicants and informed them of the appellants request to bring their own experts on the site. Staff was told that this would be considered if the appellants made such a request in writing and staff called and informed the appellant that their request must be made in writing. Staff is unaware of whether the appellants followed up and obtained permission to bring their own experts on the property. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal, by adopting the attached Resolution, finding that the issues raised have not been substantiated and the applicant ,.has provided wetland and stream identification information as well as a geotechnical report that indicates the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the conditions of approval are met. EXHIBITS "A" - Recommended Resolution "B" - Appeal Filing Form "C" - Final Order from Planning Commission Decision for Subdivision (SUB) 98-0003 "D" - Geotechnical Report "E" - Significant natural Resources Report 1:Xcurplnyulia\sub\h11Ishir. app STAFF REPORT RE: APPEAL OF SUB 98-0003/HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 2 10/27/98 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 120 DAYS =11/5/98 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Deveropment Shapingtl Better Community CITY OF TIURD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER 8Y THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL "URBAN SERVICE ARFN' Case Numbers: SUBDIVISION [SUB] 98-00031PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WOO 98-0004/ SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLM 98.0005/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ONISL 98-0006/ VARIANCE [VAR] 98-0004 Case Name: APPEAL - NILLSNIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Name of Appellants: Denise Martin & Patrick McFachem Name of Owner: Sierra Pacific Development Applicant's Rep.: Alpha Engineering Contact: Mark Ferris Address of Applicant: 9600 SW Oak Street Suite 230 may: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97281 Address of Property: On the east side of SW Menlot Lane City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97223 Tax Map & Lot No(s).: WCTM 2S105DA, Tax Lots 00300, 00400 and 00500. Summary: ➢ August 27, 1998 the Tigard City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony on the appeal and determined that the Planning Commission's decision for approval is appropriate based on findings in the Planning Commission Final Order No. 98-08, the October 13, 1998 memorandum from staff and testimony provided at the October 27, 1998 City Council meeting and hereby denies (Resolution No. 98-57) the appeal of Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Subdivision - SUB 98-0003/PDR 98-0004/ MIS 98-00061VAR 98-0004/SLR 98-0005. August 17, 1998 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved the following request, subject to conditions of approval: Preliminary Subdivision plat approval to subdivide an approximately 14.03 acre site for the creation of a 64 lot single-family attached planned development subdivision. The Planned Development is proposed in order to maximize the preservation of significant natural resources on the site which include a natural wetlands area, numerous trees, and terrain with slopes exceeding 25%. This application also involves a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard cul-de-sac design standards for length and the number of lots taking access from a cul-de-sac, and to allow a street grade of 15%. Sensitive Lands Review is requested for mitigation of any impacts to the wetland areas and Lot Line Adjustment approval is requested to transfer approximately 1.31 acres from Tax Lots 00400 and 00500 to Tax Lot 00300 (Tract "L"). An appeal was filed within the required time period based on the following: e The wetlands depicted on the city's wetlands map are inaccurate; ♦ Some streams are not shown in the correct location or are not shown at all; o Concerns of steep slopes resulting in slides; and ♦ The Appellant states that the previous owner altered the flow of water on the property. Although not applicable review criteria, they have raised concerns about school size and additional volume on the roads. ZONE: Single-Family Medium Density Residential - 5,000 Square Feet Attached Per Unit, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for single-family detached and attached units for medium density residential developments. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32 and 18.84. Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Conditions ❑x Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ® Owners of Record within the Required Distance 19 Affected Governmental Agencies ® The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 19 The Applicant and Owner(s) Final Decision:% DATE OF FILING: 98. FTHE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON , 1998 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON '19 The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. SUB 98-3/PDR 984/SLR 98-00051MIS 98-6NAR 98-4 APPEAL OF HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF FINAL ODER BY THE CITY COUNCIL (Resolution No. 98-57) URBAN SERVICE AREA' EXHIBIT •B• APPEAL FILING FORM AA FOR LAND USE DECISIONS CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.• (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the cltkimrz''s 0ght to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, . therefore, sets out specific requlrementh, Zcr filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phonelfax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the AppliGaUpon Being Case No.(s): S93 9j?-PD1q98-y~.f?1r9g- Appealed: 1-4'1 9 h RE QFZ= t r l~/ is►0 Case Name(s)./,/~sAJ~-- ...I~a•.9 -Y _ rrerk F_s< Y 1 A'X U~ ~S OO SOO 00 9=bp . no S bt) Receipt No.: How Do You Qualify As A Party?: t.JIE L] J~ arJ -i}hS : PLA- -J -TbO PA--- Rrro C, 2s-1 Application Accepted By:O o~ R ~S c~,~ 5 P2o{' ....Date: Approved As To Form By: Appellant's Address:. I Aao L~ Date. City/State: Zip: 7 DO $ 13enied ' As To Form By: Date:. ; Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(': '03) `1 iJ a - a°i -7 Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: -A-t)t^.,, 3 ~ 199$ Rev. I0MM tiauplntrnaSt=%appeaLdoc Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: AJ C . a) 19 9 g Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: 1 V4" - W ASTA Pry M REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS DEf i oTJ i~ Gam! I~ Cn H-P 09C ✓ Application Elements Submitted: rl f~- f~ CCU2(~- E . E 1 S mop ~ Appeal Filing Form (completed) E~} O F l.J jzy L 2CC28S ptJ J~ jS PP ECV Filing Fee (based on criteria below) H 1 ~1 , 1 - ~ ~ m rG D ^ i ewm ectoi Oetision to Plaminq Commission 250.00 , }~'~J Ji'TlJ ~ t- : eamgRefv" $ S 500.00 - PUwwwlg 5'1W1 S~ f~ fl ~LJ cJ 1 YJ Canwragoonfi4eamg's Offlow to City Council $1.745.00 Twnsaytl Signature(s) fAppellant(s): pr--, we e C~e- Y13 APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS !OVER FOR ADOmONAL WRmNG SPACEI PAGE I OF I F o v3 w ~ Uu G -tom P-r~--2 -n~ ac On i C a r1 S ~ D t"(L_~~ ~ ~rJ \ r) c7 J~ 'P~...t9.~J ; ~ rJO-i PrfPLC s ~Pt-- PR-~ CUSS PAS w ~'T W) u- - b o mp ► r1 D - I tk Ycm . EMIBIT 'C' 120 DAYS = 11/5/98 CITY OF TIGARD Community /Development Shapingl7 Better Community CITY OF TIMB Washington County, Oregon PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC Case Number(s): SUBIVISION (SUB) 98-0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 98-0004/ SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 98-00051LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 98-0006/ VARIANCE (VAR) 98-0004 Case Name(s): HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Name of Owner: Sierra Pacific Development Attention: Ed Freeman Name of Applicant's Rep: Alpha Engineering Attention: Mark Ferris Address of Rep.: 9600 SW Oak Street. Suite 230 City: Portland State: Oregon Zip: 97223 Address of Property: On the east side of SW Menlor Lane. approximately 1.000 feet south of SW Barrows Road (formally SW Scholls Ferry Road City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97223 Tax Map(s)/Lot No(s).: WCTM 2S105DA, Tax Lots 00300, 00400 and 00500. Request: ➢ Subdivision preliminary plat approval to subdivide an approximately 14.03 acre site for the creation of a 64 lot single-family attached Planned Development Subdivision. The Planned Development is proposed in order to maximize the preservation of significant natural resources on the site which include a natural wetlands area, numerous trees, and terrain with slopes exceeding 25%. This application also involves a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard cul-de-sac design standards for length and the number of lots taking access from a cul-de-sac, and to allow a street grade of 15%. Sensitive Lands Review is requested for mitigation of any impacts to the wetland areas and Lot Line Adjustment approval to transfer approximately 1.31 acres from Tax Lots 00400 and 00500 to Tax Lot 00300 (Tract "L"). The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 17, 1998 at 7:30PM. After receiving testimony from staff, the applicant and citizens, the Planning Commission voted to approve the Subdivision based on findings and Conditions of Approval contained within this staff report with a few minor changes. The changes involved the addition of Condition #7 and clarification revisions to Conditions #15 and #16. Zone: Single-Family Medium Density Residential - 5,000 Square Feet Attached Per Unit, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for single-family detached and attached units for medium density residential developments. Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as requested ❑x Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ❑x Owners of record within the required distance IE Affected governmental agencies ❑x The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator IE The applicant and owner(s) Final Decision:% DATE OF FILING: AUGUST 21 1998 THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON MONDAY - AUGUST 31,1998 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 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. Appeal: 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 fees of $1,745.00 plus transcript costs, not in excess of $500. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON AUGUST 31, 1998. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. SUB 98-31PDR 98-4/SLR 98-0005/MIS 98-8/VAR 98.4 HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD FINAL ORDER NO: 90-00 PC CommunityrDmkpment a AOeturCommunt 120 DAYS = 11/5/98 1 1, APPLICATION SUMMARY ,'URBAN SERVICES AREA" CASES: FILE NAME: HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 98-0003 Planned Development PDR 98-0004 Lot Line Adjustment MIS 98-0006 Variance VAR 98-0004 Sensitive Lands Review SLR 98-0005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide an approximately 14.03 acre site for the creation of a 64 lot single-family attached Planned Development Subdivision. The applicant has indicated that the Planned Development is proposed in order to maximize the preservation of significant natural resources on the site which include a natural wetlands area, numerous trees and terrain with slopes exceeding 25%. This application also involves a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard cul-de-sac design standards for length and the number of lots taking access from a cul-de-sac, and to allow a street grade of 15%. Sensitive Lands Review is requested for mitigation of any impacts to the wetlands area and Lot Line Adjustment approval is requested to transfer approximately 1.31 acres from Tax Lots 00400 and 00500 to Tax Lot 00300. APPLICANT/ Sierra Pacific Development APPLICANT'S Alpha Engineering OWNER: Ed Freeman REP.: Mark Ferris 5285 SW Meadows, Suite 300 9600 SW Oak St., Ste 230 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Portland, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential; 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 7 Units Per Acre; R-7. LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the east side of SW Menlor Lane, approximately 1,000 feet south of SW Barrows Road (formally SW Scholls Ferry Road); WCTM 2S105DA, Tax Lots 00300, 00400 and 00500. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.40, 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. SECTION II STAFF RECOMMENDATION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED the proposal subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/98 Public Hearkg) PAGE 'I OF 38 SUB 98aPDR 984/MIS 986VAR 984/SLR 985 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. (Unless otherwise specified, the staff contact for all conditions is Brian Rager with the Engineering Department at 503-639-4171.) 1. Tree removal requirements: A. Provide plans showing the exact number of trees over 12 inches to be removed rd the caliper inches to be removed for review and approval by the Planning Division. Staff Contact: Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407); B. Provide a detailed planting plan showing the location and size of trees to be planted to satisfy the mitigation standard for review and approval by the Planning Division. Staff Contact: Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407); and C. Record and provide the Planning Division with a copy of a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407). 2. Submit a revised plan that shows the vision clearance triangles at all intersections will meet the standards of Chapter 18.106. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407). 3. Revise the plan to show only 63 lots. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407). 4. Provide a narrative that states how an additional 34% of the lots either can meet another Solar Access Standard (Protected Solar Building Line Option or Performance option) or state how the lots are exempt from the Solar Access standards. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407). 5. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must provide building footprints for all lots adjacent to the slopes exceeding 25%. If the slopes are within the building envelope, the applicant must apply for and obtain Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) approval for the alteration of slopes exceeding 25%. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407). 6. Submit and receive approval for an erosion control plan for alteration in the drainageway. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407). 7. Prior to final plat approval, obtain Department of Sensitive Lands (DSL) approval for wetland mitigation. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407). 8. Obtain necessary permit approvals prior to any construction of the road within the drainageway. 9. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit ten (10) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate 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. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117/98 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 2 OF 36 SUB 98-3/PDR 984/MIS 98a/VAR 984/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION 10. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be respcnsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 11. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 12. The applicant's plan shall be revised to show the name of the minor collector street as "SW Menlor Lane", nQt "SW Old Menlor Lane." 13. The applicant's plan shall be revised to rename the north/south cul-de-sac. It shall not be named "SW Menlor Lane". The word "Mentor" shall not be used in this street name. 14. The applicant shall construct a 3/4-street improvements along the frontage of SW Menlor Lane to meet the City's minor collector street standards. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. From the north property line to the proposed intersection with SW Fern Street: City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 18 feet plus and additional 8 feet of pavement section on the west side of the street centerline; B. From the proposed intersection with SW Fern Street to the western boundary of this site: City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet plus and additional 8 feet of pavement section on the west side of street centerline; C. 3-foot gravel shoulder adjacent to the western, non-curbed pavement edge; D. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; E. concrete curb; F. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; G. 5-foot concrete sidewalk; H. street striping; 1. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; J. underground utilities; K. street signs; L. driveway aprons (if applicable); and M. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Menlor Lane in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 15. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way for SW Menlor Lane within the project boundary in accordance with a centerline alignment approved by the City Engineer. The dedication shall accommodate and overall right-of-way width for this roadway of 60 feet (30 feet each side of approved centerline). PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 3 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 984/MIS 98-61VAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION 111 16. At the location of the horizontal curve in SW Menlor Lane, where the roadway improvements must deviate from the existing right-of-way, the applicant shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way to provide for the 3/4-street improvements that are required as a condition of approval. 17. If the developer for the Scholls Meadows Phase 2 project submits a land use application for Phase 2 prior to construction of this project, the applicant should coordinate with that developer to explore an alternate horizontal curve of SW Menlor Lane that may benefit both projects. If an alternate alignment is proposed, it shall be accepted by the City prior to construction of this project. In addition, the applicant will need to work with the Planning Department for approval of any minor modifications to the lot layout. 18. The applicant shall construct a 3/4-street improvement in SW Menlor Lane, from the north boundary of this site to the nearest paved improvement of Menlor Lane adjacent to the Scholls Meadows project. The improvement shall be designed and constructed to meet the City's minor, collector street standard. The improvements in this section shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 18 feet plus and additional 8 feet of pavement section on the west side of the street centerline 6. 3-foot gravel shoulder adjacent to the western, non-curbed pavement edge C. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage D. concrete curb E. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff F. 5-foot concrete sidewalk G. street striping H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer 1. underground utilities J. street signs K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Menlor Lane in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 19. The applicant shall obtain the offsite right-of-way for the cul-de-sac bulb at the end of "A" Street prior to approval of the final plat. If the applicant can not obtain the necessary offsite right-of-way, they shall dedicate said right-of-way within the subject site. 20. A cul-de-sac bulb meeting City standards shall be constructed at the end of proposed "A" Street unless the applicant or any other party has submitted a land use application for development of the adjacent property to the east that shows that "A" Street should and can be extended further east to serve additional lots. Any land use application submitted with that indication would need to be in review by the City prior to construction of this project, or else the applicant will be required to construct the bulb. If the bulb can not be constructed on the adjacent parcel due to the inability to acquire the offsite right-of-way, the applicant shall construct the bulb within the subject site. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-W PC (From 8/17/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 4 OF 38 SUB 98-31PDR 98-41MIS 98-81/AR 984/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION 21. The north/south local residential street, shown as a cul-de-sac named "SW Menlor Lane" on the preliminary plan, shall be stubbed to the south boundary of this site for future extension, and not terminated in a bulb. 22. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 23. A profile of SW Menlor Lane and the proposed north/south local street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grades and proposed future grades. 24. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 25. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. „ . 26. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed open space tracts will be jointly owned and maintained by all property owners in the subdivision. 27. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed open space tracts. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street and open space tracts. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 28. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 29. The public improvement plans shall indicate a revised layout for the proposed shared driveways on SW Menlor Lane. Any driveway proposed shall meet both of the following criteria: A. Each driveway shall serve at least two residential units; and B. Vehicles exiting the lots must be able to turn around and easily pull forward onto SW Menlor Lane. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/88 Public Hearing) PAGE 5 OF 36 SUB 98-WPDR 98-41MIS 98-&VAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION 30. The public improvement plans shall indicate that the main water line in SW Menlor Lane will be intertied with the main line that presently terminates at the south end of the Menlor Lane improvements constructed as a part of Scholls Meadows Phase 1. 31. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 32. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage design and construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by Unified Sewerage Agency. Prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit, the applicant shall submit evidence that they have obtained USA approval for construction of these systems. 33. The applicant shall submit to USA a hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow as provided in R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Design and Construction Standards, July 1996 edition. 34. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to USA as a part of their site permit review. Maintenance access roads shall be provided to each facility that will meet USA standards. 35. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 36. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots, and show that they will be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approyeq by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 37. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 38. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 39. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 6 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 984/MIS 98-MAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION 40. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Menlor Lane underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $13,475. and it shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 41. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review three paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. The right-of-way dedications for all proposed streets shall be made on the final plat. D. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1. That the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor; and 2. That the applicant has either completed any public improvements associated with the project, or has at least obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work. E. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager with the Engineering Department at 503-639-4171.) 42. Re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of work in the drainageway prior to obtaining building permits. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407). 43. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct the recommended tree protection measures prior to commencement of construction. Staff contact. Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x 407). 44. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision plat. 45. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: A. All utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities; B. All local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt; C. Any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished; and D. All street lights are installed and ready to be energized. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98M PC (From 8/17198 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 7 OF 38 SUB 98-31PDR 98ANMIS 98-&NAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be JULIA POWELL HAJDUK with the Planning Division at 503-639-4171.) 46. All site improvements installed as per the approved plans. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.160.180 Bond: As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.160.190 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117/98 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 8 OF 38 SUB 9&3/PDR 9"/MIS 98 61VAR 98A/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.164 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.164.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting r and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/98 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 9 OF 36 SUB 98-0IPDR 984/MIS 98-0NAR 984/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES 04 SUBDIVISION The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: These lots are outside the Tigard City limits but within the City's Urban Services Area. In July 1997, the City of Tigard began processing applications for development within the Urban Services Area. No development applications were found to be on file with the City for these properties. Vicinity Information: All surrounding properties are outside the City limits, within the Urban Services Area and zoned R-7. The property to the north has been developed as part of Hillshire Creek Estates #3. Property to the west has received approval from Washington County for a single-family subdivision. Properties to the south and east are large parcels that are a combination of undeveloped land and single-family residences. Site Information and Proposal Description: The subject site includes one (1) primary lot with two additional lots involved in the lot line adjustment. The total acreage involved in the subdivision, after the lot line adjustment is 14.03 acres. The site has significant slopes, wetlands and a drainage way. The proposal is to construct a Planned Development to reduce the impact on the natural areas and mitigate some of the existing wetland. The proposal also involves several variances. The subject site is currently undeveloped. The proposal is to create a total of 64 lots in a Planned Development. The proposal also involves variance requests to allow an approximately 431-foot long cul-de-sac and a 409-foot street with a temporary turn-around (with potential for extension terminating in a cul-de-sac in the future), whereas, the Tigard PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/98 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 10 OF 36 SUB 98-31POR 9841MIS 98bIVAR 9"/SLR 98.5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Community Development Code states that the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 400 feet; and a second variance request to allow 26 lots to take access from a cul-de-sac (SW "A" Street), whereas, the Code states that the maximum number of lots permitted to take access from a cul-de-sac shall be 20. The proposal also involves SLR to allow alteration of a drainageway to allow the construction of a road. The applicant has proposed street names which staff has concerns about. The issue of street names will be discussed in detail under the PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS section of this report. For the purposes of this report, staff will refer to the street names proposed on the plans within this report. die (Planning Commission herd a Tu6lic Ifearing on August 17, 1998 at 7.30P5W. After receiving testimony from staff, the applicant and citizens, the Tranning Commission voted to approve the Su6division based on findings and Conditions of Approval contained within this staff report with a few minor changes. The changes involved the addition of Condition #7 and clarification revisions to Conditions #15 and #16. SECTION IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall -propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to mininflze the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Bas1§d on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $189. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. "SW Old Menlor Lane" is dedicated but will be re-aligned slightly. The applicant is being required to improve the re-aligned right of way to extend SW "SW Old Menlor Lane," which is classified as a minor collector. Additional right-of-way is being dedicated, however, that is for the sole purpose of serving the proposed development and is therefore not reviewed in this proportionality analysis. The approximate square feet of SW Old Menlor Lane being improved is 27,000 square feet. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of full street improvements to be approximately $300 per lineal foot. Assuming a cost of $300 per linear foot, it is estimated that the total co'. of the full street improvement for Menlor Lane is $135,000 (450 feet x $300). Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $119,637 ($1,899 x 63** dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 11 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 98-4/MIS 98-WAR 98A/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is $373,865 ($119,637 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $119,637, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $254,228. Given these estimates ($135,000 improvement cost for Menlor Lane), the conditions of approval are more than roughly proportional to the impacts. In addition, the applicant has concurred with the construction on SW Old Menlor Lane as well as the streets intended to serve the development. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL STANDARDS Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. As will be discussed further in this report under APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS, the proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Medium Density Residential opportunity for the site, as well as, with the applicable policies and regulations of the R-7 zone and other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Tigard Development Code. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant has not provided evidence of the subdivision name reservation from Washington County. However, because the proposed name of the subdivision, "Hillshire Creek Estates #4", is a fourth phase on an existing platted subdivision, staff expects that this name is adequate and not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. Street and connectivity standards are discussed in more detail further in this report. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements including the provision for public services such as sewer, water, drainage and street improvements. Therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. The improvements are discussed in detail and conditions applied, if necessary, further in this report. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the subdivision plat approval standards have either been met outright, do not apply or are discussed and conditioned in further sections of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/98 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 12 OF 36 SUB 98-3/PDR 98-41MIS 98.6/VAR 984/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Dimensional Requirements and Development Standards (Section 18.52): Section 18.52 states that the minimum lot area for each single-family lot in the R-7 zoning district is 5,000 square feet and the minimum lot width requirement is 50 feet for detached units and 40 feet for attached units. The following dimensional requirements must be met: Minimum lot size 5,000 Square Feet Average lot width 50 Feet140 feet Front setback 15 Feet Garage setback 20 Feet Interior side yard setback 5 Feett 0 feet for attached Corner side yard setback 10 Feet Rear setback 15 Feet Maximum building height 35 Feet Maximum site coverage 80% Minimum landscaping .20% While the dimensional standards apply to the R-7 zone, the applicant has applied for Planned development approval which allows for smaller lot sizes provided the overall development does not exceed the density. In accordance with the Planned Development standards, the front and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as required in the base zone. For interior lots, the side yard setback does not apply, and the front and rear yard setbacks shall not apply except a minimum 20-foot setback is required for any garage structure facing a street or a minimum front yard of 8 feet for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street provided required off-street parking is met. The applicant has not provided typical building footprints, however, each lot will be reviewed during the building permit phase to insure compliance with the applicable setbacks. FINDING: Because the proposal involved a planned development which allows for flexibility of standards and the individual buildings will be reviewed for compliance with applicable setbacks at time of building permit review, this standard has been met. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Citizen Input: Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because a neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on December 23, 1997. Notice of the public hearing was provided to owners of property within 250 feet and was published in a newspaper of general circulation. r Housing Needs: Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because it continues to allow for medium density residential development. By providing for a planned development, the development is better utilizing a difficult (due to slopes and wetlands) property and by providing for attached units the development is better meeting the City's density needs, and thus contributing to the diversity of housing. FINDING: The proposal has satisfied the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117198 Public Hearing) PAGE 13 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 9"/MIS 98-MAR 984/SLR 98.5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84 defines sensitive lands and provides standards for review of properties with sensitive lands The site has a drainageway, wetlands, and slopes in excess of 25%. The wetlands are not on the City's inventory of significant wetlands (because it is outside City limits) however this area is identified as having significant natural resources in Washington County's Bull Mountain Community Plan. It is staffs understanding that Goal 5 significant resources are identified in the Area of Special Concerns on the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The area is included in the Area of Special Concern #2 in the Bull Mountain Community Plan. There is no mention of significant wetlands in the Area of Special concern #2, therefore it is staff's understanding that there are no goal 5 protected resources in this area. The City's Sensitive Lanes Review (SLR) is only required for non jurisdictional wetlands and/or wetlands identified as significant on the Comprehensive Floodplain and Wetland Map. Based on this, sensitive lands review for the wetland mitigation is not required, only jurisdictional approval is necessary. The drainageway runs through the property and must be altered slightly to accommodate construction of Fern Street. The SLR standards are discussed further in this section. The applicant does not propose any alterations in a 100 year floodplain or floodway. The applicant has not addressed the SLR criteria for steeps slopes. Staff is uncertain whether development will impact slopes over 25%. Portions of several lots has slopes over 25%, however no building footprints were provided therefore, staff can not determine whether SLR for steep slopes is required and/or met. Prior to final plat, the applicant must provide building footprints for all lots adjacent to the slopes exceeding 25%. If the slopes are within the building envelope, the applicant must apply for and obtain approval for SLR for the alteration of slopes exceeding 25%. Alteration of Drainageways 18.84.040.C states that the appropriate review authority shall approve or approve with conditions a SLR request for alteration of a drainageway based on the following criteria: 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 proposed to impact the drainageway in order to construct SW Fern Street. The alteration will not create disturbances greater than required to construct the street. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; The applicant has not provided an erosion control plan. They have stated, however, that one will be submitted prior to the beginning of any work within the drainageway. This will address erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability or other adverse effects or hazards. This study will be a condition of approval. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; The applicant has provided calculations that indicated the proposed channel impacts will not decrease the flow capacity of the drainageway. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/98 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 14 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 98-41MIS 98-0/VAR 984/SLR 9&5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Where natural vegetation has been removed 'due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; The applicant has indicated that this will be met. A condition will be the replanting prior to obtaining building permits. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Mater Drainage Plan; The impacted drainage has been designed to accommodate the maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State lands approvals shall be obtained; and The applicant has indicated that the necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals will be obtained prior to construction. This will be required as a condition of approval and construction. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The applicant is not proposing any alterations to a designated floodplain area, therefore this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff can not find that the SLR criteria for drainageways and steep slopes has been met. If the applicant meets the conditions listed below, staff can determine that the criteria have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to final plat, the applicant must provide building footprints for all lots adjacent to the slopes exceeding 25%. If the slopes are within the building envelope, the applicant must apply for and obtain SLR approval for the alteration of slopes exceeding 25%. 2. Submit and receive approval for an erosion control plan for alteration in the drainageway. 3. Re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of work in the drainageway prior to obtaining building permits. 4. Obtain necessary permit approvals prior to any construction of the road within the drainageway. Solar Access - Section 18.88.040 states that the solar access design standard shall apply to applications for a development to create lots in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and to create lots for single-family detached and duplex dwellings in all other residential zones. Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Public Hearing) PAGE 15 OF 36 SUB 96-3/PDR 98.4/MIS 98-0/VAR 98 3/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement If 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard. The applicant has not provided information on how the development complies with the Solar Access standards. As depicted on the plan, 46% of the lots satisfy the basic criteria. FINDING: Because only 46% of the lots meet the basic design standard and the applicant has not indicated how the Solar Access standard are met or exempt, this standard has not been met. If the applicant provides a narrative that states how an additional 34% of the lots either can meet another Solar Access Standard (Protected Solar Building Line Option or Performance option) or states how the lots are exempt from the Solar Access standards, this standard will be met. CONDITION: Provide a narrative that states how an additional 34% of the lots either can meet another Solar Access Standard (Protected Solar Building Line Option or Performance option) or states how the lots are exempt from the Solar Access standards Density: Section 18.92.020 contains standards for determining the permitted project density. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands, land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. The net area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. The gross area of the site is 14.03 acres (611,146.8 square feet). The net developable area of the site, after deduction of 2.1 acres (91,672 square feet) for public right-of-way, .32 acres (14,110 square feet) for private streets and 5.5 acres (241,503 square feet) for Sensitive Lands, is 6.05 acres (263,862 square feet). With a minimum of 5,000 square feet per lot, this site yields an opportunity for up to 52.77 lots under the R-7 zoning designation. The applicant has requested the density transfer option be applied to allow for some of the density lost due to sensitive lands to be transferred to the buildable portion of the site. The TDC permits transfer of 25% of land defined as sensitive due to floodplain, steep slopes and Drainageways. The applicant has included wetlands in their calculations. They indicated that wetlands were included in the calculations because the land is within Washington County which permits wetlands to be included in the transfer. Staff does not concur with this argument as this area is in the City's Urban Services area and is now regulated by the TDC. As previously stated, the TDC does not permit wetlands to be included in the density transfer calculations. The transfer amount of sensitive lands not including wetlands is 208,600 square feet. Based on this number, the transfer amount is 10.43 lots (208,600 divided by 5,000 x .25 = 10.43). The maximum number of lots, therefore, is 63 (52.77 + 10.43). The applicant must revise the plan to show only 63 lots. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the plan exceeds the density of the site by one lot. In order to meet the density, the plan must be revised to include only 63 tots instead of 64. CONDITION: Revise the plan to show only 63 lots. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 6/17/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 16 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 98-41MIS 9&-GUAR 984/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Landscaping and screening (Section 18100) Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The applicant must comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. Section 18.100.035(B) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: 1. Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; 2. Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart. Street trees are shown to be planted along the newly constructed public streets. The trees shown on sheet 12, the streetscape plans, shows Red Maple trees will be planted every 30 feet. According to the Western Garden Book, Red Maples meet the definition of medium trees, therefore the proposed tree spacing meets the required tree spacing standards. Buffer Matrix: Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The Matrix indicates that where detached single-family abuts detached single-family structures, there is no required buffer and screening. This criteria is satisfied as buffering and screening is not required where single-family residential development abuts single-family residential development. FINDING: Staff finds that, as proposed, the plan meets the landscaping ar;~ screening standards. Landscaping for a Planned Development and/or individual loin ";3 be discussed further in this report. Visual Clearance Areas (Section 18.106): Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of- ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30-foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. This standard will be reviewed at time of development for individual lots. The street trees at the intersections of all streets appear to be in the vision clearance triangle. A revised plan must be submitted that shows the vision clearance triangles will be in compliance with the standards of the Tigard Development Code. FINDING: As proposed, staff can not determine if the vision clearance standards have been met. If the applicant submits a revised plan that shows the vision clearance triangles at the intersection will meet the standards of 18.106, this criterion will be satisfied. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117198 Public Hearing) PAGE 17 OF 36 SUB 98-3IPDR 98-01MIS 98.61VAR 98-0/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the vision clearance triangles at all intersections will meet the standards of 18.106 Off Street Parking (Section 18.106): Section 18.106.030.(A) states that each lot is required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces. Review for compliance with parking standards will be reviewed during building permit review for the individual lots. Access. Egress and Circulation (Section 18.108.070.A): This Section states that the minimum driveway required for each lot shall be 15 feet with 10 feet of pavement width. Section 18.108.070.A states that the minimum access width shall be 25 feet and the minimum pavement width shall be 20 feet for private streets serving between 3-6 lots. Compliance with individual lot driveway widths shall be reviewed at the time of building permit Plan Check. The plan shows the private drive will provide the required 25-foot access width. The private drive will be discussed in more detail further in this report. Emergency vehicle turnaround: Section 18.108.070.C. states that access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by a hammerhead configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. The proposed design of the private street exceeds 150 feet in length. The proposed turn-around meets the recommended emergency vehicle standards. The public streets which dead-end (SW Fern and SW Menlor Lane) are longer than 150 feet but provide required turn-arounds and thus meet the standard. The streets and tum-grounds are discussed in more detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS and Variance Criteria. FINDING: Staff finds that, as proposed, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met. Additional review may be required at time of building permits to insure that individual driveways are in compliance. Tree Removal (Chapter 18.150): Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a subdivision application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. An existing conditions plan has been submitted with this application which identifies the trees on the property. The plan does not indicate the size of each tree. A table was prepared which shows the impacted and unimpacted trees 6" in caliper and over. Mitigation is only required based on the percent of trees over 12" in caliper being removed. Staff subtracted the trees under 12" from the table for a total of 263 trees 12" and over. Of these 263 trees, 90 will be removed, or 34% of the trees over 12-inch caliper will be removed (66% being retained). Retainage of 50-75% of trees requires 50% mitigation. The total caliper inches being removed is 1464, therefore, mitigation of 732 caliper inches is required. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117198 Public Hearing) PAGE 18 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 9814/MIS 98-6/VAR 984/SLR 98.5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION The applicant has indicated they will mitigate these trees by planting new trees in the creek corridor and buffer area to increase vegetative structure and diversity. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant must provide the exact number of caliper inches removed and complete the mitigation by planting or bonding for the required trees. If the final number of trees retained is less than 75%, the applicant must comply with the corresponding mitigation requirements. The applicant must provide a detailed planting plan showing the size and location of mitigation trees being planted. Section 18.150.045.6 states that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may, thereafter, be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan according to Section 18.150.025 or 18.130.8., and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit impacted by this section to the effect that such tree(s) may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The applicant has not proposed a deed restriction for trees to be retained. In order to comply with these standards, prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant shall record a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved. FINDING: Because staff does not have a final tree removal plan, detailed mitigation planting plan or assurances that trees preserved will be retained after this approval, staff can not determine that the tree removal standards have been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the tree removal standards will be satisfied. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to Final Plat approval, provide the exact number of trees over 12 inches an the caliper inches removed; 2. Provide a detailed planting plan showing the location and size of trees planted to satisfy the mitigation standard; and 3. Record a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision. Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access on a public street and requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. The dedication and improvement standards are discussed and conditioned further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Public Hearing) PAGE 19 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 98AIMIS 98-61VAR 98-0/SLR 98.5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION The applicant has submitted a future street plan which shows how streets can be extended further in the future. The street extension issues are discussed further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The criterion is satisfied because SW Fern and SW Old Menlor Lane align with existing roads and will be extended through this site. Southwest Old Menlor Lane will be realigned to better accommodate the existing topography. The realignment will be discussed in detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Existing Rights-of-way: Whenever existing right-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. Right-of-way dedication for the re-alignment of SW Old Menlor Lane is discussed in more detail further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. No other existing right-of-way runs through or is adjacent to this site. Cul-de-sacs: Section 18.164.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units. The applicant has requested a variance to,this standard to allow SW "A" Street to have a temporary turn-around at a length of 409 feet and for Menlor Lane to have a maximum length of 431 feet and to allow more than 20 lots to access SW "A" Street which will eventually end in a cul-de-sac either at the location of the temporary turn-around or further off-site on tax lot 00400. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request for SW "A" Street but finds SW Menlor Lane can be extended further, thus avoiding a need for a cul-de-sac. The issue of the cul-de-sac variance and street extension is discussed further in this report. Private Streets: Section 18.164.030(S) states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer and that private streets serving more than 6 dwelling units are only permitted within planned developments. This section also requires a bonded maintenance agreement or the creation of a homeowners association to provide for the continued maintenance of the street in perpetuity. The applicant is proposing more than six (6) dwelling units to take access from the private drive identified as "private drive". This is permissible as part of the Planned Development, however, outright approval of private drives is not granted. The issue of allowing the private drive will be discussed in more detail further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-0 PC (From 8/17198 Public Hearing) PAGE 20 OF 36 SUB 98-3/PDR 9841MIS 98-6/VAR 984/SLR 98.5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION Block Design: Section 18.164.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.164.040(6)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured elong the right-of-way line except: 1. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; 2. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads; or 3. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The applicant has provided on the "off-site analysis plan", information on the surrounding area. They state that they meet exception 1, above, by stating "This is an infill project coupled with highly variable topography which does not lend itself to normal or desired block design. Topographical and utility characteristics (high pressure gas lines) unique to this and the neighboring site require flexibility..." Staff concurs that the existing topography on the southern portion, of the site and existing development to the north, prohibits block lengths meeting the standards. Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(6)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. As previously stated, the existing development pattern of surrounding properties and existing topography limits the potential for street extensions. A pedestrian access could be available upon the extension of "A" Street off-site. Southwest Menlor Lane will be required to be extended to the edge of the property and will include sidewalks as discussed in more detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. It is not feasible to provide pedestrian connection between streets within the development due to wetlands, slopes, and the water quality facility. The subdivision to the north has been developed without pedestrian connections for the development to tie into, therefore, this standard can not be applied. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The Planned Development process allows flexibility in the lot size, depth and width standards. Because this is being processed as a Planned Development, this standard does not apply. Lot Frontage: Section 18.164.060(6) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley, unless the lot is for an attached single- family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. The subdivision is intended for attached single-family dwelling units. All lots exceed the minimum 15-foot frontage requirement for attached single-family units. Sidewalks: Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 21 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 9841MIS 9MNAR 98 4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES Ik SUBDIVISION The applicant must construct full street improvements for the new street. Standard street improvements include sidewalks. City standards do not require sidewalks on private streets. Refer to the PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS section for additional information on sidewalks. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the Street and Utility Improvement Standards have either been met, will be addressed further in this report, or do not apply. Subdivision Variance Maximum length and number of lots served bya Cul-de-sac: Community Development Code Section 18.160.120 provides standards for granting a variance as indicated in "bold" print below: (NOTE: The PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS Section of this report will address the streets in detail. Part of the discussion involves SW Menlor Lane. Staff has determined that it is feasible to extend SW Menlor Lane further and tie into SW Old Menlor Lane. Conditions for revision to the plan will be made accordingly. Based on this revision, staff has determined that a cul-de-sac length variance for SW Menlor Lane is not needed as a cul-de-sac will no longer be required. Staff will therefore, not address the cul-de-sac length variance criteria for SW Menlor Lane). There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. The special circumstances that exist are the topography of the site and a high pressure gas pipeline that limits the possible extension of the public street. As discussed in the future street plan section of this report and PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS, SW "A" Street can be extended to the adjacent lot, however, the street would still need to terminate in a cul-de-sac due to a high pressure gas pipeline located very close to the surface on that site. The property to the north was approved for development under Washington County standards without the provision of a street connection which would have allowed better access to the adjacent lot. Because of the special circumstances, the applicant has no choice but to provide a cul-de-sac. Therefore, staff is finding that there are unusual conditions affecting this property. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. As discussed in this report, limitations of providing street extensions limit the proposal to a cul- de-sac. The density permitted for this combination of lots is 63 lots. If the cul-de-sac were permitted to be no greater than 400 feet, it would limit the number of lots able to be developed and would not provide adjacent lots the ability to develop (see PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS). The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. Granting of the variance to allow a 409-foot street with temporary turn-around (with possible longer cul-de-sac in the future) and allowing seven (7) additional lots to have access from SW "A" Street, will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to the rights of other properties. The houses will be reviewed for fire code issues at the time of building permit review and will likely be required to be sprinklered. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Public Hearing) PAGE 22 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 98-4/MIS 98-MAR 98-41SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES 94 SUBDIVISION Allowing a length slightly greater than the standard does not interfere with the rights of adjoining property owners in any way. Surrounding property owners will have a better ability to continue to use their property as they currently exist or to potentially develop the properties, if the City grants the variance. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. A substantial property right is generally considered to be a right to use the property or have economic use of the land. If the regulations were strictly enforced, the property would have to develop fewer lots which would not allow for the most economic and efficient use of the land. In addition, the adherence of these regulations would prohibit development of adjacent lots which would otherwise not be developable or would have limited development potential due to inadequate access. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to preserve the full development potential of the site, allow the development of the property to a density close to the maximum permitted in the code, and provide an opportunity for adjacent lots to develop. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the subdivision variance criteria have been met. Planned Development: Section 18.80 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that 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. The Planned Development Review is a three step process as follows: 1. Approval of a planned development overlay zone; 2. The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development Overlay as a Zone Change with this application to comply with the first step. The applicant has also requested Conceptual Planned Development approval with this application to comply with the second step. Because this application is for a subdivision, Section 18.80.015(E) allows the Conceptual and Detailed portions of the Planned Development Review to be consolidated as is proposed through this action to comply with the third step. Section 18.80.120 (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 18.32, 18.50, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these sections has been reviewed within this report. The Planned Development Code Section 18.80.060 lists approval criteria for Planned Development applications. A Planned Development shall be allowed on all lands shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map a developing. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 23 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 9841MIS 98-6/VAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION This site is outside of the city limits but within the Urban Services Area. Because of its location, it is not included on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. This site, however, more closely meets the definition of a Developing Area than an Established Area according to Section 18.138.020. Section 18.80.120(A)(3) provides specific review standards for Planned Development which have been addressed below. The following standards have been addressed previously in this report: 18.80.120.A.3.f (Access and Circulation). Many of the Planned Development standards do not apply because the development is for a single- family subdivision as opposed to a multi-family or commercial development. Because certain standards do not apply to this development, they will not be discussed in this report. The inapplicable standards are : 18.80.120.A.3.c (Privacy and noise), 18.80.120.A.3.d (Private outdoor area: Residential Use), 18.80.120.A.3.e (Shared outdoor recreation areas: Residential use). Relationship to the natural and physical environment: 1. 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; 2. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; 3. 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; 4. The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and 5. Trees with a six inch caliper measured at four feet in height from ground level, shall be saved where possible; The site has been designed to have minimal impacts on slopes, wetlands and drainageways. 64% of the existing trees over 12 inches in caliper will be retained. Structures have been planned on areas of the sight having the least slopes and geotechnical reports will likely be required by the Building Division to ensure ground stability. The provisions related to adequate light and air are addressed elsewhere within this report by the requirements for the maintenance of minimum setbacks. The dwelling units will be reviewed for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code standards as part of the building permit plan check process. Solar accessibility is addressed elsewhere within this report. The applicant has proposed to remove trees as part of this development. The tree removal and mitigation plan has been discussed in detail previously in this report. Buffering, screening, and compatibility between adjoining uses: 1. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial); 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: PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117/98 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 24 OF 36 SUB 9831PDR 98-4/MIS 98-MAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILL SHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION 1. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; 2. The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; 3. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; 4. The required density of the buffering; and 5. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; 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 determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: 1. What needs to be screened; 2. The direction from which it is needed; and 3. Whether the screening needs to be year-round; Screening and buffering are not required where single-family detached residential uses adjoin other detached single-family residential uses. Landscaping and Open Space: Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (iv) and (v) of section A of this subsection, a minimum of 20% of the site shall be landscaped; The Planned Development Review requires that a minimum of 20% of each site be landscaped. This standard is applicable to all lots and will be reviewed at the time of building permit plan check. Public transit: Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: 1. The location of other transit facilities in the area; and 2. The size and type of the proposed development; The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: 1. A waiting shelter; 2. A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and 3. Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area; There is no transit service located within 1/2 mile of the subject site, therefore, provision of transit facilities within this development is not required as part of this development. Signs: In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.114, Signs: 1. Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and 2. The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (Fmm 8117/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 25 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR 984/MIS 98-WAR 984/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES tW SUBDIVISION All future signage at the site will be reviewed through the sign permit process for conformance with the provisions of Chapter 18.114. Parking: All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.106; Each of the residences to be developed on these parcels will be reviewed during the building permit plan check process to verify the provision of required off-street parking spaces. Drainage: 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; The Engineering Department reviewed this application and their comments are addressed in PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS/Storm Drainage Section within this staff report. Floodplain Dedication: 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 pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This site does not adjoin areas within the 100-year flood plain. The City recently updated park system development fees such that the fee that is currently assessed to fund planned park improvements. Park system impact fees will be assessed for each dwelling unit prior to the issuance of building permits. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that, the Planned Development review standards either do not apply, have been met, will be addressed further in this report or will be addressed as part of the buildtng permit plan check process. The Planned Development review standards, therefore, have been met. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - APPROVAL STANDARDS: Section 18.162.060 contains the following standards for approval of a Lot Line Adjustment request: An additional parcel is not created by the Lot Line Adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; An additional lot will not be created through this Lot Line Adjustment. The existing lots are currently very large (12.41, 8.83 and 2.9) and will not be reduced below the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet required for the R-7 zone. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structure(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/96 Public Hearing) PAGE 26 OF 36 SUB 983/PDR 9841MIS 98.6/VAR 984/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION The area of the lot line adjustment is within the access drives serving tax lots 00400 and 00500; there are no structures within the area to be exchanged or within the setbacks from these property lines. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment is within the R-7 zoning district which requires a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size with a minimum frontage of 25 feet. The proposed parcels will be well over the lot size standards with 518,063 square feet for tax lot 00300, 357,420 square feet for tax lots 00400, and 97,050 square feet for tax lot 00500. All lots will have frontage on SW ,Mentor Lane in excess of the required 25 feet after all conditions of this approval have been met. FINDING: Because the resulting parcels will be in conformance with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, staff finds that these criteria have been met. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR LOTS CREATED THROUGH PARTITION PROCESS: Section 18.162.060 states that in addition to meeting the above standards, a Lot Line Adjustment must also meet the following criteria applicable to lots created through the Minor Land Partition process: Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. The required lot width for lots zoned R-7 is 50 feet. The lot widths after the Lot Line Adjustment will exceed the minimum lot width requirement. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. Lot area was addressed previously in this report under Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right- of-way by at least 15 feet, or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement. Lot frontage was addressed previously in this report under Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. The setback standards were addressed previously under Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 27 OF 36 SUB 983/PDR 9841MIS 98-6/VAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES 04 SUBDIVISION While tax lot 00400 and 00500 look like a flag lots on the County Assessor's map (narrower drive which leads to a large lot area), the actual dimensions of the access drives meet the frontage requirements, therefore, this does not apply. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. As stated above, this standard does not apply. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. The accessways are existing and meet the current standards for access widths serving single-family residential lots. Fire protection will be looked at in more detail at time of future development of these lots. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one (1) lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. No reciprocal easements are required or proposed for this Lot Line Adjustment. AccesswalL Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108; Access, Egress, and Circulation. The issue of access to tax lots 00400 and 00500 is discussed, and conditioned if necessary, under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Neither lot is in the floodplain, therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: The Lot Line Adjustment proposal meets or exceeds the Special Provisions for Lots Created through the Partition Process. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: This site lies within the Urban Services Area that is covered by the Intergovernmental agreement between the City and Washington County. This application is for preliminary plat approval for a 64-lot single-family attached planned development. The site is located south of SW Barrows Road and east of and adjacent to SW Menlor Lane (WCTM 2S1 05DA, Tax Lots 300, 400 and 500). PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Public Hearing) PAGE 28 OF 36 SUB 98,WDR 9841MIS 98-6/VAR 984/SLR 985 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDMSION Streets: SW Mentor Lane This site lies adjacent to SW Menlor Lane, which is a minor collector street on both the City and Washington County Transportation Plan maps. Menlor Lane has been improved in this area within the last several years as a part of neighboring subdivision developments. Staff and the applicant have discussed the further extension of Menlor Lane at length and the City expressed their concern about needing to review a proposed future extension plan for Menlor Lane further south of this site prior to approving this project. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan and profile of Menlor Lane adjacent to this site (Sheet 8 of 12) and a proposed plan and profile of the roadway that would extend south to SW 150th Avenue near Bull Mountain Road (Sheet 1 of 1, addendum). The purpose of these plan sheets is to show how Menlor Lane will be built as a part of this development and ensure that a reasonable southern extension could be constructed south beyond this site. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plan and profiles of Menlor Lane and finds that they are reasonable with a few exceptions. First, the name shown on the applicant's plan indicates "SW Old Menlor Lane". The applicant is proposing to name the new north/south cul-de- sac in the project "SW Menlor Lane". To avoid confusion for mail service and emergency services, the name of the minor collector should remain SW Menlor Lane, and the new north/south cul-de-sac in the project should be given a completely different name. The second concern with the Menlor Lane plans is the horizontal curve that is necessary at the western edge of the project site. The old right-of-way (ROW) for Menlor Lane bends sharply to the west and forms the southeast corner of an adjacent property that has been developed as the Scholls Meadows Phase 2 Subdivision. The applicant's street plan shows a horizontal curve of Menlor Lane at this corner that would necessitate a small ROW dedication from that adjacent Scholls Meadows Phase 2 parcel. Staff has reviewed the Washington County land use approval for the Scholls Meadows Phase 2 project and found that there is an open space tract at the southeast corner of that project. It is unclear at this point whether or not it is realistic that a future ROW dedication could be made from that adjacent property. Sufficient ROW must therefore be dedicated within this project to provide a 3/4-street improvement. Staff contacted the consultant working with the Scholls Meadows project, who indicated that the developer of the Scholls Meadows project will be revising the plan for Phase 2, which will require them to process a new land use application through the City of Tigard. The consultant indicated that they would be willing to look at an alternate alignment of Menlor Lane that may improve the horizontal curve radius from what can be accomplished under the subject subdivision application. Staff recommends that if the developer for the Scholls Meadows Phase 2 indeed submits a land use application to the City prior to the subject project being constructed, the applicant and the Scholls Meadows developer should work together to explore an alternate alignment, with the idea in mind that an alternate alignment may benefit both projects and the City. Because Menlor Lane will be a newly-paved roadway, it must accommodate two-way traffic and the paved width shall be sufficient to handle such traffic. In situations like this, the City requires a minimum 3/4-street improvement, which is half of the street width plus 8 feet of pavement on the opposite side of centerline. The remaining west side of Menlor Street is already conditioned to be improved as a part of the Scholls Meadows Phase 2 project. The portion of Menlor Lane that was constructed as a part of Scholls Meadows Phase 1 was built according to Washington County's minor collector standard (Designation PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117198 Public Hearing) PAGE 29 OF 36 SUB 98-3/PDR 98 4/MIS 98-61VAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION C-12), which provides a 36-foot pavement width inside a 60-foot ROW. The City's standard for a minor collector requires a 40-foot pavement width within a 60-foot ROW. Staff recommends that the paved width of Menlor Lane transition into the wider City section within the boundary of this project. It appears that a good transition point would be at the proposed intersection with Fern Street. Therefore, the applicant can construct Menlor Lane from its present terminus to the proposed intersection at Fern Street with a 36-foot paved width, then construct the City's 40-foot pavement section from the Fern Street intersection to the boundary of the project. In order for the applicant to meet the City's expectation of a 3/4-street improvement, the paved width of Menlor Lane from the north property line to the intersection of Fern Street will need to be 26 feet (18 feet + 8 feet). From Fern Street to the west boundary of the site, the paved with will need to be 28 feet (20 feet + 8 feet). The applicant shall also provide a 3-foot minimum width gravel shoulder adjacent to the west edge of pavement for safety of pedestrians and vehicles. The applicant's plan will need to be revised, particularly at the horizontal curve location, because the plan only shows that approximately 18 to 20 feet of pavement can be achieved there without obtaining more ROW. Therefore, the applicant will need to either realign the configuration of Menlor Lane to provide the required 28 feet of pavement plus gravel shoulder within this project, or obtain the necessary ROW from the adjacent parcel. Gap in Menlor Lane Improvements At this time, only one of two phases of the Scholls Meadows project has been completed. Menlor Lane has been constructed up to the southern edge of Phase 1. Washington County reviewed and approved the Hillshire Creek Estates Phase 3 project, which has already been constructed and is immediately north of this site, and required Sierra Pacific to sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to improve Menlor Lane. When this new Phase 4 project is constructed, there will be a gap in the improvements of Menlor Lane of about 130 feet. This gap is adjacent to the Phase 3 project and would be a gravel surface, which is not desirable from a safety and dust nuisance standpoint. In addition, emergency services desire two options for entrances into a subdivision, and if Menlor Lane were not improved, the only other improved option would be via SW Fern Street. Therefore, since this project will add a significant number of vehicles to the street system, and since Menlor Lane will provide a necessary access into the project, and since the applicant is already obligated to participate in street improvements adjacent to Phase 3, Staff recommends the applicant be required to construct a 3/4-street improvement between the north property line of this site and the nearest paved improvements of Menlor Lane. This improvement shall be paved to a width of at least 26 feet (18 feet from curb to centerline + 8 feet on west side), and shall have the structural section of the City minor collector standard. Proposed "A" Street The local residential street labeled as "A" Street is required to be extended to the eastern boundary of this site to provide access for potential future development to the east. Staff and the applicant have discussed this street and there is some uncertainty as to whether or not the street could ever be tied into another public street to the east because of steep topography. The applicant has therefore asked for a variance to the City's cul-de-sac length standard, as the road will at least temporarily terminate at the proposed hammerhead turnaround. Engineering Staff is comfortable with the variance request and does not oppose it. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 30 OF 36 SUB 98-3/PDR 984/MIS 98.6/VAR 98 1/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES 04 SUBDIVISION Because of the steep topography of this site and the parcel to the east, the applicant will have a very difficult time meeting the City's maximum street gradient criteria. TDC 18.164.030(M)(1) states that a local residential street shall have a gradient of no more than 12%, but may have sections of up to 15% for no more than 250-foot lengths. The applicant's plan comes close to meeting this standard, but they have a section of 15% grade that stretches for approximately 277 feet. They have asked for a variance to the TDC standard. Staff believes the applicant has made a good-faith effort to meet the standard, and since the City must require the public street to extend to the eastern boundary, Staff recommends the City grant the variance request. The applicant has proposed a temporary hammerhead turnaround at the end of A Street. They have shown the temporary turnaround to be constructed on the adjacent parcel to the east. Staff has discussed this with the applicant and explained that the applicant will need to obtain the necessary ROW from the adjacent property owner prior to construction. The hammerhead configuration is proposed because the applicant has talked about developing the adjacent property and there is a chance the street will need to be extended further to the east to provide access to more lots. If and when that occurs, the street will either extend through to connect to another public street, or it may terminate in a cul-de- sac bulb if connection is not feasible. Staff is concerned about the possibility that the adjacent parcel to the east will not develop, or at least will not develop to where A Street would be needed for access. The City should be assured that a cul-de-sac bulb will be constructed because a hammerhead configuration is not permitted by the TDC. The applicant and Staff discussed having the applicant obtain the full ROW necessary to build a bulb at the location where the temporary hammerhead is shown. In addition, the applicant would agree to construct the bulb by a date certain in the event that they find the street can not be extended further east. The City would hold onto the performance bond for this project for a given time to assure the bulb could be completed. A bond for public improvements is generally held until all of the public improvements are constructed and approved by the City. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to complete the bulb as a part of the public improvements on this project, unless the applicant or any other party has submitted a land use application for the adjacent parcel to the east prior to construction of this project, and the application indicates that it would be necessary for A Street to be extended. If the applicant or any other party has submitted a land use application that shows A Street to be extended, then the applicant will be permitted to construct the temporary hammerhead turnaround. In the event the applicant can not obtain ROW from the adjacent parcel to build the bulb, they shall construct said bulb within the subject property. Proposed Cul-de-sac to South Property Line The applicant's plan shows a proposed cul-de-sac, shown as "SW Menlor Lane" on the plan, that would be extended to the south boundary of the site. The lot line adjustment proposal would allow the cul-de-sac to reach the southern boundary of Tax Lot 400. As was stated previously, the name of this street shall be changed to avoid confusion with the minor collector, Menlor Lane. Staff was contacted by the property owner of Tax Lot 201 (2S1 05DD), who is interested in developing his property in the future. This property owner raised a question as to whether or not the north/south cul-de-sac should be revised to be a stub street to the south to allow for further extension to Tax Lot 201 and possibly connection to SW Menlor Lane. It appears that topography will not be a significant issue that would prevent the street from PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117198 Public Hearing) PAGE 31 OF 36 SUB 98.YPDR 984/MIS 98.6/VAR 98 4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION being further extended, and it makes sense that the local street could provide needed access to future lots to the south. Therefore, Staff recommends that the applicant's plan be revised to show the north/south local residential street as a stub street to be extended to southern boundary of this site. For fire truck access, a turnaround is needed where a dead end street is over 150 feet in length. Staff believes that an acceptable turnaround is provided where the north/south local street intersects with the proposed private street serving Lots 174 - 185. The distance from that intersection to the likely terminus of the stub street is approximately 150 feet. Therefore, the intersection of the local street and the private street will provide a sufficient fire truck turnaround and no other temporary turnaround will be necessary. Proposed Private Street The plan proposes that Lots 174 through 185 be served from a private street. TMC 18.164.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). However, that same section provides an exception in cases where there is a planned development. The City Council recently met with Staff to discuss private streets and decided that the "over six" exception will apply only to planned developments with attached housing units. This proposed project will contain attached units, so therefore the applicant will be permitted to serve these lots with a private street. 18.164.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Private Driveways on Mentor Lane There are a number of private driveways being proposed on SW Mentor Lane. In previous meetings with the applicant, Staff stressed a concern with direct access from lots onto a minor collector and the fact that TDC 108.060(6) states that "direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. TDC 18.164.030(P) also states that residential access should be separated from through traffic on collector streets. One main concern with residential access on collector streets is the problem of backing a vehicle out of the private driveway into the collector and potentially conflicting with through traffic. This type of conflict can be a significant safety hazard. The applicant requested that they be permitted to provide shared driveways to serve more than one dwelling and orient the driveways in such a way that vehicles exiting the lots could pull forward onto Menlor Lane. Without some type of access onto Menlor Lane, it would be very difficult to access the lots in question. Staff is in favor of the shared driveway concept provided the following two criteria are met: 1. Each driveway serves at least two residential units, and 2. Vehicles exiting the lots must be able to turn around and easily pull forward onto Menlor Lane. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Public Hearing) PAGE 32 OF 38 SUB 98-31PDR 98-4/MIS 98-&NAR 98-4/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION The application materials do not provide a layout of the residential units and the shared driveways, so prior to approval of the final plat, a plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department showing how these shared driveways will meet the two criteria listed above. Staff has reviewed the proposed locations of the driveways on Menlor Lane and finds that two of them already do not meet the above two criteria. There is a driveway proposed at the west end of Menlor that would appear to only serve Lot 186. There is another driveway near the north boundary that would only serve Lot 195. Both of these driveways will need to be revised so they meet the criteria above. Water: This site will be served from the City's water system. Final design plans for the water system will need to be reviewed by the Engineering and Public Works Departments prior to construction. The Public Works Department submitted comments indicating that they will expect the proposed main water line in SW Menlor Lane (shown as Old Menlor Lane on plan) to be extended northerly to intertie with the existing main line that was constructed in Menlor Lane adjacent to the Scholls Meadows project. This water line work can be accomplished along with the required street improvements between this site and the nearest paved portion of Menlor Lane. Sanitary Sewer: There are existing public sanitary sewer lines in both SW Menlor Lane (presently terminates at south edge of Scholls Meadows Phase 1) and in SW Fern Street. The applicant is proposing to extend both main lines into this project to serve the new lots. All sanitary sewer work in this area will be reviewed and permitted by Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). The applicant will be required to extend main sewer lines to the boundaries of this site to allow for future extension and service to adjacent, unsewered parcels. Storm Drainage: The topography of this site falls primarily to the north. The site is split by a stream that flows from south to north. The applicant proposes to fill a portion of this stream and the associated wetland and mitigate for it elsewhere on the site. All storm drainage work within this project will be reviewed and permitted by USA. The applicant will be required to extend public storm main lines to the boundaries of this site to allow for future extension and service to adjacent parcels. USA will require a downstream analysis to be submitted as a part of their site permit review. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations to USA for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by USA prior to construction. The applicant is proposing three biofiltration swales within this project to treat the additional storm water runoff. The preliminary sizing calculations indicate that there should be plenty of space on the site to construct the swales. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8117/98 Public Hearing) PAGE 33 OF 36 SUB 98.31PDR 98-41MIS 98-WAR 9841SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION The applicant will need to provide maintenance access roads to each facility and any drainage structures within the facilities to accommodate USA maintenance vehicles. The access roads shall meet USA standards and have an all-weather surface. In addition, each facility shall be placed within a tract and conveyed to USA on the final plat. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots, and show that they will be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. Existing Overhead Utility Lines: There are existing overhead utility lines along the ROW of Menlor Lane. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 490 lineal feet; therefore, the fee would be $13,475. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS have not been met. The standards can be met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval summarized at the beginning of this report. If the conditions are met, staff can determine that the standards have been met and approval can be granted. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Every foundation for single-family attached dwellings is required to be surveyed before placement of concrete. No parking signs and curb markers will be required on one side of SW Menlor Lane, SW Fern Street, SW "A" Street and the private drive. The turning radius onto the private drive must be 25 feet inside the radius. The retaining wall needs a permit through the Engineering Department. Every lot shall have underfoot and roof drainage to an approved system. Catch basins in private streets shall be lynch type. The slope of the private storm drain must be a minimum of 1 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17/98 Pudic Hearing) PAGE 34 OF 38 SUB 98-3/PDR 984/MIS 98-&VAR 984/SLR 9&5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has the following comments: The Police Department has concerns over the proposed street names. They suggest maintaining "SW Menlor Lane" off Barrows to the end of the road. Re-name the other SW Menlor Lane to something different all-together or if "SW Menlor is to be retained, call it "SW Menlor Court" as it appears to dead-end. Try to eliminate the word "Old" to identify a street that also co-exists in the area. Clarification and distinction to streets helps reduce any delays when emergency service providers are responding. The issue of proposed street names has been addressed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. The City of Tigard Water Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Engineering plans must be submitted with proposed water main sizes. The water main in "SW Old Menlor Lane" shall be extended to the north and inter- tied into the existing water main (Scholls Meadows). The City of Tigard Operations Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: We have concerns regarding the Open Tracts as there is no designation as to who they will belong to. Not sure if parks wants the open tracts. If the City were to accept the open space area, it should be on the condition that Himilayan Blackberries, Reed Canary Grass, English Ivy, hazardous trees not identified as habitat trees, and other invasive type vegetative species should be removed by the developer prior to the City's acceptance of the open space. Operations department wishes to be notified as to the developers intentions. There are also concerns about the grade of the street. They state that 15% is too steep. In the snow and ice, it makes sanding the street very dangerous, especially if cars are parked along the street. These concerns have been addressed as part of the PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS portion of this report. A condition will be applied requiring the development of a Homeowner's Association to insure the maintenance of the open space tracts. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has the offered the following comments: PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON SITE: An Agency site permit must be acquired. Application for the Agency site permit must include: 1. Detailed grading and erosion control plan. A 1200-C joint erosion control permit will be required. 2. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow as provided in R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Design and Construction Standards, July 1996 edition). 3. Detailed plans showing each lot within the development having access to public storm and sanitary sewer. 4. Provisions for water quality in accordance with the requirements of the above named Design Standards. An all-weather access shall be provided to the water quality facility. 5. Site contains a "Sensitive Area." Developer must preserve a 25-foot corridor as described in the above R&O separating the sensitive area from the impact of development. The sensitive area and corridor must be set aside in a separate tract and not part of any buildable lot. 6. Detailed plans showing the sensitive area and corridor delineated, along with restoration and enhancement of the corridor per section 3.22.4 of the above R&O. 7. DSL and Corps of Engineers permit submittal. Include permit number on cover sheet of plans. PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Public Hearing) PAGE 35 OF 38 SUB 98-31PDR 984tMIS 98.81VAR 9841SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO SEWER CONNECTION PERMIT ISSUANCE: 1. The above noted improvements must be completed to the Agency's satisfaction. 2. The as-constructed drawings (as-builts), or a bond guaranteeing the as-builts, shall be submitted and accepted by the Agency. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Washington County, Columbia Cable, Metro Area Communications, US West, Portland General Electric (PGE), TCI Cable, General Telephone and NW Natural Gas have also had the opportunity to review this application and have offered no comments or objections. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD.WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS FINAL ORDER. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. PASSED: This 17th day of August, 1998 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. (Signature box below Nick Wilson, Planning Commission President iAcurplnyulia\sublsub98-03.fio PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 98-08 PC (From 8/17198 Public Hearing) PAGE 36 OF 36 SUB 98-31PDR %4/MIS 98-0/1/AR 984/SLR 98-5 - HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES #4 SUBDIVISION a T ~ • T ' ~ w, ,rrr air t w wr a>w - u. 4 I r ~ t logo t { It t t t vP- L' p r Ott' • . 4b, I r ' or If vbwr Pr 1 ' t ,oil • I ry I t r • a to lo+y+r t~r aar I t 1 s r t 3~ ~zmw t w ur ^ T~ AVO slo *-or 42n tU. s 42w+ t t ,..C mm ra `f „spy orb r _ - _ _ ®"`N"`r ® +p'°"° Lb--" R To WWI t m ,i»• ArC Rpm°'•~ SI16 9B.0 03 wII~NIRE CREEK ~pR g0-0004 ESQ ALES #4 '~To SI.R 9$-0005 SuRp1VIS10H _ ,'r moot MIS 9a-0005 = S , Ap VAR 9$-0406 t t E~ v y t CITY of TIGARD I GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYNTIM VICINITY MAP 3SUBE PAR IS ~ :b w (SUM 98-0003 (11,098-0004 [SLBD 98-0005 w (UMA S19 006 WAM 98.0004 i I --E HIIISHIRE CREEK FFIT ESTATES ##4 SUBDIVISION ~E C7' Ap~ C N 0 400 800 F..t ~ ~ 1tielea.t City of Tigard Qp htorm.aon on 6i. n%W is For gwmd kcOan ori7.nd SW HI SHIR DR g should be w WWd vM ft Deakpnrd Srvla. M Asim 13125 SW HY BW T%arcl.OR 07713 q (503)6304171 Y hlipJ/*-ASp.rd-- rat dam jd it Hfk dlnpd.l>tiaw ^ Construction Inspection & Related Tests rarls®n Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting P.O. Box 23814 June 26, 1998 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Phone (503) 684-3460 FAX (503) 684-0954 CTI # 98-G 1626 Sierra Pacific Development P.O. Box 1754 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Attention: Mr. Ed. Freeman GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES 4 TIGARD, OREGON This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Hillshire Creek Estates 4 development located on the south side of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road in Washington County, Oregon (see Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation is to provide geotechnical evaluations and recommendations for the residential development. Our work was performed in accordance with our confirming proposal P0706, dated 4 May 1998. BACKGROUND Proiect Information Location - South of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and east of S.W. Menlor Lane in Washington County, Oregon (see Figure 1). Developer - Sierra Pacific Development (see address above) Civil Engineer - Alpha Engineering, Inc., 9600 S.W. Oak, Suite 230, Portland, Oregon 97223. Jurisdictional Agency - Washington County Site Description The site is bounded on the north by the Hillshire Creek Estates 2 development, and on the west by S.W. Mentor Lane and the Scholls Meadows development. Elevations across the property range between about 296 and 380 feet. Topography is gentle in the central and western portions of the site with grades generally less than 5 to 6 percent. The northeastern part of the site steepens moderately on the flank of Bull Mountain where maximum grades in the area to be developed average about 22 percent. The steeper portions of the site are densely wooded with Douglas fir, maple, and alder. The lower site areas were formerly pasture, but have become overgrown with scotch broom, blackberry bushes and small trees. An abandoned building with a nearby concrete slab is located in the southwest part of the site. 1 CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 2 Proposed Development The current plan indicates that 64 residential lots are proposed for development of attached townhomes. Future residential structures are presumed to be less than 3 stories tall and primarily wood-framed with raised wood floors. A total of approximately 1,700 linear feet of streets and an additional 660 feet of private drives will be constructed. Standard underground utilities (sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, cable) are presumably included in the project. The current grading plan indicates maximum cuts and fills on the order of 6 to 8 feet. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS General The site is located on the north flank of Bull Mountain, one of several anticlinal structures in the Columbia River Basalt within the much larger Tualatin Basin. The Tualatin Basin is a broad northwest-trending syncline along the southeastern flank of the Portland Hills (Tualatin Mountains). Intrabasin faulting occurs along the north and east edges of the Bull and Cooper Mountain anticlines. StratigraphY Based on geologic mapping of the area (Madin, 1990), the site is located at the lower limit of significant loess deposits (O), and at the upper limit of significant thicknesses of Catastrophic Flood Deposits (Off) at about 300 feet elevation. Bedrock in the area is mapped as Miocene age Columbia River Basalt (Tcr). Test pit observations indicate that the higher elevations of the site are blanketed by a thin deposit of windblown silt (loess). The loess thickness appears to range in thickness between 10" and 2.8', with the greatest thickness in the elevated northeast corner of the site. The loess is underlain by a 3 to 7 feet of colluvial soil formed by complete weathering of transported Columbia River Basalt fragments. The colluvium rests on brown clayey silt residual soil formed by in-situ weathering of the underlying Columbia River Basalt. These various soil types are discussed in more detail in the Site Subsurface Conditions section of this report. Structure c Based on review of the Beaverton quadrangle geologic map from Earthquake Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area (USGS Open-File Report 0-90-2), inferred faulting trends in an east-west direction near the north end of the site. Another fault trends northward from the east-west structure (see Figure 1). These faults are buried beneath the Off deposits, 1 and are inferred on the basis of subsurface data. There is no evidence to indicate that they are active. 1 CTI #98-G1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 3 1 EARTHQUAKE SOURCES AND SEISMIC RISK Local The Portland Hills fault zone (Madin, 1990), is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the site. It includes a series-of northwest-trending subsurface faults that extend for a distance of about 40 kilometers along the eastern margin of the Portland Hills. This fault zone is considered to be the boundary fault on the western margin of the Portland Basin. None of the major faults have been shown to cut Holocene deposits (10,000 years). The fault zone is not defined by historical seismicity or associated with any medium- to large-magnitude earthquakes. Although there is no definite evidence for activity for the Portland Hills fault 1 zone, the zone is judged to be potentially active with a relative high probability (0.7) on the basis of possible deformation of late Pleistocene sediment (inferred from subsurface sediment thickness data), Geomatrix, 1995. The Gales Creek Fault is located approximately 13 miles southwest of the site. No seismicity has been recorded along the trend of the trend of the Gales Creek Fault; however, a small probability of activity is assigned to the structure because it is aligned along a northward projection of an active fault zone (the Mount Angel Fault) further to the southeast (Geomatrix, 1995). Regional In western Washington and Oregon, the most likely sources of earthquakes appear to be 1) shallow, moderate intensity earthquakes within the North American Plate; 2) somewhat deeper, moderately large earthquakes in the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate, and 3) potentially great earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (the contact between the two plates). Empirical relationships between earthquake magnitude and fault rupture length provide a means for estimating the maximum earthquake that a particular fault could generate (Bonilla et al., 1984). Based on the size of historical earthquakes in the region, and thickness of the seismogenic crust, the maximum earthquake magnitude expected from a crustal source in the northern and central Willamette Valley is M6.0 to M6.8 (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Deeper intraplate earthquakes (deeper than 30 km) have mostly occurred where the Juan de Fuca Plate is bending; either where the dip steepens, or where the plate is buckled (Rogers, 1983). Gravity data (Dehlinger et. al, 1970) indicate the bend occurs beneath the east flank of the Coast Range. Thus the most likely location for a deep intraplate earthquake is along the western edge of the Willamette Valley. The recommended design earthquake for this event would have a magnitude of 7'/:. No subduction earthquakes have occurred during historic times; however, geologic evidence available is interpreted as indicative that the great earthquakes (magnitude 9 %z) have occurred in recent prehistoric times. Such events appear to have occurred infrequently, about every 600 years on the average. The best estimates indicate that the last great earthquake occurred 1 300 years ago (Yamaguchi et. al., 1989). 1 CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 4 Surface Water A small, unnamed tributary drainage to Fanno Creek flows northward through the central portion of the site. On the date of our geotechnical investigation (29 May 1998), the drainage was flowing an estimated 20 gpm. A spring located in the southwest corner of the site contributes to a narrow wetland corridor that extends northward through the western portion of the site (see blue area on Figure 2). Seasonally, the wetland strip has a few inches of standing water; however, the underlying organic clayey soil that is typical of wetlands appears to be absent. Slope Stability The steeper northwest portion of the site has a maximum grade of approximately 22 percent. In general, the ground surface has no irregularities or changes in grade that suggest local • slumping or landsliding. The Douglas fir trees on the site are typically straight, and have no bowed trunks that indicate rapid soil creep or slumping. In our experience on numerous other Bull Mountain slopes, loessal soils are relatively thin and the underlying colluvial and residual soils are stiff to very stiff. These soil units are not prone to slumping and sliding, even on relatively steep slopes. The moderate site slopes of 20 to 22 percent are not anticipated to be unstable unless severely impacted by grading. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND TESTING General A general description of the field exploration procedures and the test pit logs is presented in Appendix A. The test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan, attached as Figure 2. The results of laboratory testing is discussed in Appendix B and shown on the logs of test pits. SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Site subsurface observations are limited to six test pits at locations shown on Figure 2, and discussed below. Topsoil. Topsoil generally varies in thickness between 8 and 16 inches. The thicker topsoils were found in the wooded areas of the site. In these areas, tree roots are likely to be present to depths of 2 to 3 feet. Topsoils in the cleared, pasture areas of the site are generally 8 to 9 inches thick, and contain some organic debris with fine grass roots. Loess. Windblown silt (loess) is present as a thin surficial blanket over the elevated portions of the site above 300 feet. A thickness of about 2 feet was found in test pits TP-2 and TP-3. The loess consists of light brown to brown silt with some clay. It is generally very moist and moderately stiff. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 5 Colluvium. Colluvial soils at the site were formed from complete weathering of basalt 1 fragments that migrated down gradient from exposures of Columbia River Basalt on Bull Mountain immediately east of the site. As the rock fragments migrated down hill, they apparently became incorporated with loess that also appears likely to have transported down- slope by colluvial action. These soils are characterized by dark brown inclusions of clayey silt with black residual mineral staining (former rock fragments) within a matrix of somewhat lighter brown loess. Colluvial soils with residual rock fragments were observed in the site test pits to grade out below depths of between about 3.0 and 7.5 feet below the ground surface. Residual Soils. Below the colluvium described above, the site is underlain by residual soils formed by in-situ weathering of Columbia River. These soils are typically a dark brown clayey silt that is very stiff near the surface, and grades less stiff with depth due to increased moisture. It grades downward to weathered rock; however, no rock was found in any of the test pits to a depth of 10 feet. Groundwater The near-surface soils in the low-lying portions of the site are wet. As previously mentioned, 1 standing water is locally present due to a spring in the southwest portion of the site. The spring was not located due to the abundance of vegetation in the area. Based on our site exploration, this surface water from the spring is perched, and the deeply saturated, soft or ® organic soils typical of wetland areas are not present. No groundwater seepage was noted in any of the six test pits at the site. All of the test pits encountered very moist soils below depths of 8 to 9 feet. Fills No significant quantities of fill appear to be present on the site. A large concrete slab is located adjacent to an abandoned structure in the southwest portion of the site, and 10 inches of driveway fill was encountered in test pit TP-5. Some thin fill from drainage ditch excavations is present in the southwest and central portions of the site. Test pit TP-4 encountered 10 inches of such fill. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion that the proposed development is geotechnically compatible with the subsurface conditions encountered in this investigation, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the development. The most prominent near-surface soils at the site is the mottled brown and grey silt with some clay. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 6 Any proposed grading is considered to be engineered grading as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). To provide the level of documentation specified in the UBC for placement of engineered fill, daily observation and testing during stripping and rough grading operations is usually required. A site-specific checklist of recommended soil testing and inspections has been created to aid the owner's representative and earthwork contractor to know when and who to call for soil inspection services (see Figure 3). Surface Water Surface water and wet soil conditions.are present in the low, western portion of the site as previously mentioned. The surficial soils in this wet area are stiff to very stiff below depths of 2.0 to 2.5. These wet conditions can be mitigated by the installation of adequate subdrains and the placement of fill as discussed in subsequent sections of this report. Site Preparation All areas to be graded should first be cleared (trees, stumps, and vegetation). All debris from clearing should be removed from the site. Organic topsoil and soft or saturated soils should be stripped. Based on our explorations, the average depth of topsoil removal is approximately 12 inches on the moderately sloping, wooded portions of the site and 6 inches in the cleared, lower areas. In the wooded area, additional removals up to about 2 feet may be required to eliminate large root systems. However, additional depths of removal should be determined on the basis of site inspection after initial stripping. Once an area is approved for filling it 1 should be ripped, moisture conditioned, root-picked, and compacted prior to commencement of fill operations. Stripped topsoil should be stockpiled only in designated areas and strippinq operations should be observed and documented by the Soil Engineer or his representative. ` Rough Gradinq All rough grading should be performed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, with the exceptions and additions noted herein. The native soils in the proposed cut areas are likely to be at a moisture content that is above optimum for compaction, and may require drying prior to compaction. Any imported material should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to arrival on site. Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction equipment. A minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained from the standard Proctor, ASTM D698, or equivalent standard (AASHTO T-99) is recommended for engineered fill placed within lots and proposed streets during rough grading operations. Field density testing should conform to ASTM D 2922 and D 3017, or D 1556. All engineered fill should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer's representative. Typically, a density test is performed for at least every 2 vertical feet of fill placed on each lot or every 500 yd3 of earthwork performed whichever requires more testing The earthwork contractor should be contractually held responsible for test scheduling and frequency. If a stripped soil laver is laced on the surface of finished lots then the depth of the laver should not exceed one foot. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 7 Earthwork is generally performed in the summer months, generally from mid-June to mid- October, when warm dry weather is available for proper moisture conditioning of soils. Earthwork performed during the wet winter-sprig seasons will probably require expensive measures such as lime treatment or imported granular fill to place and sufficiently compact engineered fill. Drainage Surface water drainage should be directed away from future structures and slopes. Roofdrain water should be carried to the street if possible. Subdrains and perimeter footing drains should be installed in areas of poor surface drainage, or where natural groundwater seepage is anticipated or observed, such as in the southwest portion of the site. Subdrains should Pe consist of minimum 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40 perforated or slotted plastic drain pipe ® enveloped in a minimum of 4 ft3/ft of 2"-%s open graded gravel (drain rock) wrapped with Amoco 4545 geofabric filter or equivalent. A minimum of one-half percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and nonperforated pipe outlet. Perimeter footing drains for residential structures may use 3-inch pipe and only 1 ft3/ft of gravel. Cut and Fill Slopes The site grading plan indicates maximum cuts and fills on the order of about 6 feet. CTI recommends that cut and fill slopes not exceed 2H:1 V. Fill slopes higher than 10 feet and started on original ground with a grade of over 20 percent should be started by horizontally keying into competent, native soil at the toe and benched as the fill rises (see Figure 4, Slope Detail). The fill should be compacted as close to the slope face as possible. To further enhance slope face compaction and surficial stability, we recommend that the fill slopes be overbuilt and trimmed back at least 3 feet horizontal or extensively compacted as verified by the Geotechnical Engineer. A maximum 6-foot high property line retaining wall is proposed ® in the southeast portion of the site. This structure is discussed in the Retaining Wall section ® of this report. Utilities The sewers and storm drains appear to be located primarily in the streets. We anticipate that no hard rock will be encountered within normal sewer depths, and groundwater is not likely to be a problem over most of the site. The source of the spring in the southwest corner is assumed to be an interf low bed within the Columbia River Basalt that underlies Bull Mountain; however, its location is not precisely known. At other sites, similar springs have been observed to originate from very localized natural pipe-like channels that are only a few inches in diameter. It is possible that deep utility trenching in this area of the site could intercept one or more of these groundwater concentrations. All deep excavations and shoring should conform to OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part 1926). It is our opinion that the majority of the on-site near-surface soils are OSHA "Type 8" soils. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 8 The walls of temporary construction trenches are expected to stand nearly vertical, with only - minor sloughing, to a maximum depth of 4 feet from construction grade. In the valley areas, 1 we anticipate that perched groundwater may cause more caving during the winter months. PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with ASTM D 2321 procedures. Initial backfill lift thickness for a %"-0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening flexible pipe. Utility trenches deeper than one-half the easement width between lot boundaries should be structurally backfilled as in the streets. We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained from ASTM D698. Typically, density tests are taken at about every 4 vertical feet for every 200 lineal feet of trench backfill. Lift-thicknesses should not exceed 12 inches, except if manufactured granular material is used for trench backfill, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-type compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be taken as great as 2 feet, provided proper compaction is being achieved and tested at each lift, as feasible. Use of large reverberating compaction equipment near existing structures should be carefully monitored for possibly harmful vibrations. Erosion Control The near-surface native soils are generally silt soils having low cohesion. These soils can erode or surficially slump on slopes if unprotected and exposed to periods of wet weather or over-irrigation. The Civil Engineer's erosion control plan should be precisely followed if earthwork or building construction is performed during the wet-weather seasons. Slope faces should be well compacted and protected from rilling until landscaping is well established. We recommend the slopes be seeded as early as possible so plant growth becomes established I prior to the wet weather season. Pavement Based on our experience with similar soils in the vicinity, the estimated CBR value is assumed as 6. The recommended dry weather pavement section is presented in the table below: TABLE 1: Dry-Weather Pavement Section 1 Recommended Min. Recommended Material Thickness (in.) Compaction Streets Standard o Asphaltic 91 % of Rice density Concrete 3 AASHTO T-209 Crushed Aggregate Base 2 over 8 95% of Modified Proctor (%"-0 over 1 %"-0) AASHTO T-180 CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 9 Typically, the base course and asphalt compaction testing is performed at every 100 to 200 feet of road. CTI recommends proofrolling directly on the subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of the base course in wet weather. Soft areas which rut, pump, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. If street construction is to be performed in the winter, than a wet weather construction plan should be developed from discussions with the owner, contractor, and civil and soil engineers. It is likely that an additional 6 inches of aggregate base and a woven geotextile will be necessary during wet weather. Anticipated Foundations The proposed homes, of the type anticipated, will likely be founded on shallow spread footings bearing on native soil and engineered fill. Spread footing construction and slope setback rVuirements should conform to Chapter 4 of the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code (CABO) and Chapter 18 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). For protection against frost heave, spread footings should have a minimum embedment depth of 12 inches for exterior grades on level ground. The recommended minimum widths for continuous wall footings are tabulated below: No. of Stories Minimum Width for (floors supported) Continuous Footing (in) 1-story 12 2-story 15 3-story 18 We anticipate that the allowable bearing capacity can be taken as 1,500 Ib/ft2 for footings bearing on stiff native soils or engineered fill. Footing loads in excess of 15 Kips or for supporting masonry chimneys, should be reviewed by a soil engineer. The coefficient of friction between on-site soil and poured-in-place concrete may be taken as 0.40. The maximum anticipated total and differential footing movements (generally from soil expansion and/or settlement) are 1 inch and % inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively. Expansive Soils The near-surface on-site soils are typical of Portland Metropolitan-area silt soils which have a low expansion potential; therefore, no expansion index testing was performed as a part of this study. The Soil Conservation Service mapping for Washington County concurs that the soils have a low shrink-swell rating. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 10 Retaining Walls The lateral soil forces for design of cast-in-place retaining structures with adequate drainage behind the wall can be calculated using the equivalent fluid densities provided in the following Table 2. This data is not applicable to rockery walls. Adequate drainage will be such that no hydrostatic pressures are realized behind the walls. A one-foot wide clean sand layer should be placed immediately behind the back of the wall. A subdrain should be placed at the top of the footing. The following equivalent fluid densities are given for backfill that consist of on- site soils. TABLE 2: RECOMMENDED EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES FOR LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES (lb/ft3) Unrestrained Wall Restrained Wall TYPE Level Profile 2H:1 V Level Profile 2H:1 V Upslope Upslope Active Pressure 42 59 - - At-rest Pressure 55 70 Passive Pressure* 280 280 120 120 * The upper 0.5 foot should be ignored for passive resistance The effect of live loads on lateral pressures has not been included. A drain should be placed behind the base of all walls. Wall subdrain construction should conform to the recommendations in the Drainage section of this report. Retaining wall backf ill supporting walkways, concrete slabs, and other structures should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density obtainable by the modified Proctor, AASHTO T-99 or equivalent. The above values assume that no traffic loads, hydrostatic pressures, or other surcharges exist. The average allowable bearing pressure may be taken as 2,000 Ib/ft2 with a maximum allowable toe pressure of 2,500 lb/ft'. The coefficient of friction between soil and poured-in- place concrete may be taken as 0.40. The minimum recommended depth of embedment for retaining walls less than 8 feet in height is 18 inches and for walls to 12 feet high, the recommended minimum embedment is 24 inches. For precast block reinforced earth (segmented) walls a maximum of 10 feet in height, using granular infill and on-site soil backfill, we recommend using a unit weight of 130 Ib/ft3 and an equivalent angle of internal friction of 33 degrees. We do not recommend using the on-site CTI #98-G1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 11 soils for infill. The native soils behind the wall should be assumed to have a 25 degree angle of internal friction. GENERAL NOTES We suggest that the developer incorporate the recommendations in this report into his agreement with the earthwork contractor. The earthwork should be performed to both the Washington County standards and in general conformance with the site-specific geotechnical 1 recommendations in this report. A final report summarizing earthwork activities should be obtained from the geotechnical engineer as soon as possible after conclusion of rough grading activities and before site development is considered complete. This report was prepared solely for the Owner and Engineer for the design of the project. We encourage its review by bidders and/or the Contractor as it relates to factual data only (test pits and laboratory data). The opinions and recommendations contained within the report are not intended to be nor should they be construed to represent a warranty of subsurface conditions but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. Our reports pertain to the material tested/inspected only. Information contained herein is not to be reproduced, except in full, without prior authorization from this office. We would be pleased to provide additional input, as necessary, during the design process and to provide on-site observation and testing during construction. Please feel free to contact us for this work as well as for any questions you might have regarding this report. Sincerely, CARLSON TESTING, INC. R~oF~~ ~~RED PRo ENGINEER sioy 4 E- 14743 9 Dios, OREGON ~~EbLOG%~ v ~q 23. 19 I ES. 0. 1Me C ~P •~~~0- ~ f By By James E. Pyne James D. Imbrie, P.E. Geologist Geotechnical Engineer CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 12 REFERENCES Maps U.S. Geological Survey, Beaverton Quadrangle, Oregon 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1961, photo revised 1984. Madin, I.P., Earthquake-Hazard Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon, Oregon e Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 1990. Site Reconnaissance J.E. Pyne, 29 May 1998 . Reports and Books Adams, J., 1990, Paleoseismicity of the Cascadia subduction zone: Evidence from turbidites off the Oregon-Washington margin, Tectonics, vol. 8. Allen, John Eliot, 1979, The Magnificent Gateway, Portland State University. e Atwater, B.F., 1987, Evidence for great Holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington State; Science, vol. 236, pp. 942-944. Bonilla, M.G., Mark, R.K., Nd Lienkaemper, J.J., 1984, Statistical relations among earthquake magnitude, surface rupture length, and surface fault displacement: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 74, p. 2379-2411. Couch, R.W. and Deacon, R.J., 1972 Seismic Regionalization Studies - Bonneville Power Administration Service Area, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Western Montana, Shannon and Wilson, Inc. report to Agbabian Asssociates, El Segundo, California, October 1972, 43 p. Dehlinger, P., Couch, R.W., McManus, D.A, and Gemperle, M., 1970; Oceanic structures: Northern California to British Columbia, in the Sea, vol. 4, part 2 (A.E. Maxwell ed.), Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 133-190. Peterson, C.D. and Darioenzo, M.E., 1990; Episodic tectonic subsidence of late Holocene salt marshes, northern Oregon coast, central Cascadia margin, U.S.A., Tectonics, vol. 8. Trimble, Donald F., Geology of Portland, Oregon and Adjacent Areas; Geological Survey Bulletin 1119, 1963. Yamaguchi, D.K., Woodhouse, C.A., and Reid, M.S., 1989; Tree-ring evidence for synchronous rapid submergence of the southwest Washington coast 300 years B.P., EDS, vol. 70, p. 1332. Wlk I. Q-4 211 q w. ~ j 'jam` ~~7 \~~re ~ / ."`L. ~ J - iii -E'%;~= •'l ) ~,ji• ' ' ` a : E~~./ .p C •1 )7jr; jai Ao o ~ G • y0 X00' / ~ "73 ~ ~ 1 ! 0 II11 ` ~~It •350 ~ e 4 ~ b I - l . - r at O ~L •5 •TA -700 j - i~ 600 , .rA 11011 LEGEND Inferred Fault Q _ SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES 4 SITE LOCATION MAP SCALE 1 " = 2000' CI =10' Portion of USGS Beaverton, Oregon Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, (Topographic!, 1961, rcvised 1984. CTI JUNE 1998 FIGURE 1 ' F ~ ~ ~ I..:T.'..J 6.: _-.I •A ~ ' ` ....._.3 ~ ~l f.._,.~..+J-..fJ ~ .si ~ I r.... qp 1_. I:\223-0191PtAf811NGiREYiSE45HT5A.tlhy inU Jim 71 14.'07. 11 1998 YOM NAME HERE I, i j . - - i - i _ 5 'J~..T..il h C•1 4•' ~-1 1'•`4 uj - - - - \ . I IL 506 .1"111i,11111" ,11 ~ ~ i I i ' ' I i ~ ! 1 t 11 t i I' ~ i j ~ Ill ; i . • ` . - - \ _ ra• ` -3so - - i _ _i4.11 • li~ili'll j itl 1 'il~ 1~i1 wr~G[ ps 1 ! I 1-I_ I. In I- 'I~TI 7.'.l.f..4~ ..J I _ r• - Y/PEr! . ..Y II II11{11'11 'fl r r f"r - - 1-' ;400 '~~1~ t(I/!/~r+i17'irr`\•~,,•,` _ - ?R~. 7+ J I I i IllyJlj) !IijlIt (,%~'~•\;,11' rl \ rn , ..,yao TL I+ h/ / J f / T - 1 + ` I Jr! l;r !r rr!!J fir! ! 11 ~ti; D'Z ! b it, ~ `?Irr! r,(?~„+r!i;!1~ l;, r ~ 1 . f ~ I ~ f I - 3 i r r r r ~irr , l•• r r~r l !r~l l1 7 r • •'+I+r;ijirt l'!!;J'r!~,lr?,~tlr1 +rJ'1rl i'r1 l r!I! ~ ~ ~ - ~ I f ~ •j jr~ "n t ~f l ~j l r • 71 ~„I'~ r% \ n - _ TP--6 :.1 f If / ItI/J/j+lY;~lrl! ~j a { r / ;r "rf//'i%!~ fi!r jilr(/j~ j ! f' i r!/1 If I j - Vr , r// r, rrr / /7 , ! /ir!ilrr%!r'i/If~~i/iji/~/!''// i/I~ .ice ge If //ZI~fv 3 f ,r r,~ ,r/ i%rr•, r rrr /r ~r 'rj~ r I / J 1. i •j- r , I, j / r r r r/,r r r r r I f ~ mom. j A fir' w~•; ~r ,~!tC,u~~~,~~~~,;7t,},~~~r,/~r~~/r ,1'~ kk,. _y a, .:v~ rr'/s%,/'r , /l r r.r%~ :•9~r~~rr~„r'/i ri/ / ; '-1 /~.-h r• rr;r rii'i rrrr/ ~rr~ / . ' r ' ! f'r ~:r.• s.rr .r j ..i i%~~%i:r'".•,,r~.~~4.~.r~ir 1, K{ / ) ~ f TP-5 / r / r /rri~! is ri~•` r 'rr11 / i~~r~ J n f 7 ' '°rr,r• r"'i'"(+r r,' r,/,,G..r/ r-.rrr r i r r / r.,! TP iURRAq-(Y-CiY UAGI!mY .:~1/r rrr/ r r - r~. / .~J ' ~ r ! it t/ / / r r ~ f..'•~"~IN.--~ ~ `'pia _ rrrr , , rr'r ~ r/ L / ' I / _ , ~ ~ k a TP-1 lauff-7Y VAYMNYACAV LC., - T ~ 1 ! 1 1 f 1 j a /'4 r~,;~.~/ / / r y'~.; ^:?s;,,~~ ~~~I oosnn>rcnwos l - 1 r / ~ I!! 1 f 1 ~ I I j Z 1/ 1! 1 j 1 1 ~ ~ } ~o11U1 auwn s~uc I 6 ' ~ ~ .rrr ft / + ! ! ' 1 1 1 1 % r ' ' 0 la. .J''' - - - _ 1 / ~ u! lU• ~ Arm' --3GD oosnlo eaaroues . ,30 eft i , 1 1.111 I f 1 , ~I! ! I' aJN HtLL51i18E' K ST~TE=~~H 3" , ~ i.. i I Iii 1 i 1 ~I. t ~r t: wkrTr~ ;7S r I I 1 1 f r ~ / r r,Ae•T .'A"ry`•n^ ~ t. 1 2- _ _ _ - '~~6'~.. J~%. ;-,:•Y I I I 11 no r 1 / r i \ ` /l f j 60 30 0 60 120 3 I.. ~ ',;i-'I• . i''!r jl f~" 'fi + /'',r 1c` 1 .,I o`, ' ' ~ P/l ' P PA 50' 40 PA PA 60' PA ( 8'P.U.E. 9' 32' 9' 8'P.U.E. 8'P.U.E. 12' 36' 12 8'P.U.E. 11 1 16' 1 W I f 1 18' 5.5' 28' f:ul -ter I } r 5' 0.5' C~ 0.5 I t y 5' Sow BY 5' SDWK BY 5' SOW BY S' SDW( BY i j_.f..~- r,' • S' SOW BY OTHERS OTHERS - T OTHERS j, CLASS • IFTS OTHERS OTHERS IFTS - / T Ac •-Z rFTS T 2' 3 b'-0)CRUSHED ROCK _ 2' 3 4"-0'USHED ROCK 3' 3 4'-0' USHED ROCK 1 L~ 8" 2'-0" CRUSHED ROCK 7" 2"-0" CRUSHED ROCK 12' 2'-0') CRUSHED ROCK r - S. W. FERN AND"A" STREET 1 I PRIVATE STREET S. W. OLD MENLOR Rl<tNA! MENLOR LANE SHE o ET STORM DRAINAGE AND DESIGNED BY "F DAT s ® I 5 DRAWN BY adAA DATE e/~e TEST PIT LOCATION GRADING PLAN f, FROM OF, ' RENEWED BY _M_ DATE_ r HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES PH .4 PROkcTNO.a23-ol9REF. SCALE 1100' 1 K 12 Alpha Engineering, Inc. TAX MAP 2S 1 5DA, SCALE r. 7 r TAX LOTS 300, 40Q, 500 FN: PSHEETSAE11SED/5NT5A.0YAT CTI JUNE 1998 FIGURE 2 WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON REF.: SURVEY/ 22319PK.2231pLOTA 1 _.,T + APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION A total of 6 test pits ranging in depth between 9.0 and 10.0 feet were excavated on 29 May 1998 at site locations shown on Figure 2. The test pits were excavated with a Takeuchi trackhoe form CTI. All excavations were backfilled and compacted with the trackhoe bucket immediately after completion of logging and sampling. The test pits were logged as to changes in soil type, moisture, relative strength, and ground water occurrence. Representative soil samples were taken from selected depths in the test pits and retained in airtight plastic bags for moisture testing. A bulk soil sample was collected for laboratory compaction testing. Logs of the test pits showing changes in soil type and groundwater occurrences are presented on Figures A-1 through A-6. Soil conditions were evaluated, described, and classified in accordance with the classification format described in the Oregon Department of Transportation Soil and Rock Classification Manual (ODOT Highway Division, 1987), based on the Unified Soil Classification System. 1 Test Pit No. TP-1 1 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 303 ft. 1 in c a) co 1 v Q ~ 0 ^ Material Description c E c n Dr. gry-brn organic silt, some clay, wet, soft (8" Topsoil) 1 1.5 ~~n-si?f, same pia r, fi`nety-fragmented-(C70- ltuviu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Mottled brown to grey silt with some clay with numerous 2 >4.5 inclusions of former rock fragments that are weathered 3 >4.5 to dark brown clayey silt, moist, stiff to v. stiff (Colluvium)_ 1 >4. _ _ >4.5 1 4 Dark brown clayey silt, very stiff, moderately moist (Residual soil) 5- 6- Grades less stiff below 6 feet due to incrased moisture 1 7- 8- Wet below 8 feet but no distinct seepage 9- 10- Test pit completed at 10 feet, No groundwater encountered, 12 No rock found. 1 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- Job No. 97-GH Log of Test Pit Figure: A-1 1 Paso ~'y Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 -Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 -Fax 684-0954 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Test Pit No. TP- 2 Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 330 ft. E v fn a ° CL o _ Material Description CL _2 0 ~ a° a. cn 0 v o .v Dark brownish-grey organic silt with some clay , wet 1 (16" Topsoil) r~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 1.25 Light brown clayey silt, very moist, soft (Loess) 1 1.50 3 1.25 - 3.0 4 3.25 Mottled brown and grey silt with some clay with numerous inclusions of former rock fragments that are weathered to 5 dark brown clayey silt, stiff, moist (Colluvium) 6 7 - Dark brown clayey silt, moist, very stiff (Residual soil) 8 - Grades less stiff at 9 feet due to increased moisture 9 10 Test pit completed at 9 ft., No groundwater encountered, 11 No rock found. 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 171 Job No. 97-G1626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 2 C tLsoy Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 1 Test Pit No. TP- 3 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 358 ft. a) E L , ° Q CL 02 _ Material Description 0 a° a to U Dark brownish-grey organic silt with some clay, wet, soft 1 - (13" Topsoil) 1.25 2 2 5 Brown silt with some clay, wet, soft (Loess) 1.5 3 1.5 3.5 Mottled grey and brown silt with some clay, numerous 4 3.0 former rock fragments that are weathed to dark brown cl-yff silt (Colluvium)- Brown clayey silt, very stiff, moist (Residual soil) 6 7 g Grades less stiff below 8 feet due to increased moisture 9- 10- Test pit completed at 10 ft, No groundwater encountered, 12 No rock found. 13- 14- 15- 16- 7-1 Job No. 97-GI 2 T Log of Test Pit -T-Figure: A- 3 ~ Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 -Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 -Fax 684-0954 GPay Logged by: Ed. Pyne Test Pit No. TP- 4 Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 304 ft. ai a) 2 a) C a) " Material Description a) Cn m w- Q a) p 4= c~. Y E o oc a cn 2 U o v Dk. grey-brn. silt, some clay, organic, fragmented (Fill) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 Mottled rust and brown clayey silt soft, wet fragmented (Fill) 1 12- 2.5 2.0 Mottled light brown, grey, and rust clayey silt 3 1.5 2.25 4 3.25 - - 5 Brown clayey slt with numerouns residual rock fragments weathered to dark brown clayey silt, stiff 6 (Colluvium) 7- 8- Dark brown clayey silt, very stiff, moist (Residual soil) 9- 10-- 11 Test pit completed at 10 ft. No groundwater encountered, 12 No rock found. - 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- Job No. 97-G1626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A-4 p,RLS9 1 C ' `^y Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 1 Test Pit No. TP- 5 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 310 ft. m ~ E ~ o ° Q = o Material Description v c c 1E A _ o ° a a. v~ ~ v o v Mixed organic soil, gravel, ric i 1--170 1.5 Brown clayey silt, wet, soft 2 1.0 _ _ 3 >4_ Residual rock fragments in brown clayey silt (Colluvium) >4.5 4 >4.5 Dark brown clayey silt, very stiff, (Residual soil) , 5 6 7 g Grades less stiff below 8 feet due to increased moisture 9- 10- - Test pit completed at 10 ft, 11 No groundwater encountered, No rock found. 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17-- Job No. 97-G1626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 5 Paso Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 Test Pit No. TP- 6 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 326 ft. a~ E ~ c a) 2 Material Description Y n. a) p CL v c E c a (1) 0 (1) CU 0 0 2: 0 6- Greyish-brown organic silt, some clay, we opsoi 1 1.5 Grey-brown clayey silt, wet, soft 1.75 2 - Mottled grey and brown clayey silt with numerous residual 2.75 rock fragments that are weathered to dark brown clayey 3 3.0 3.0 silt, stiff, moist (Colluvium) 4 4.0 5 Dark brown clayey silt, very stiff (Residual soil) 6 7 ' 8 Grades less stiff below 8 feet, wet, no seepage of 9 groundwater 10 11 Test pit completed at 10 ft. No groundwater encountered, 12 No rock found. 13 S 14 15 16 17 Job No. 97-G1626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 6 V,RLS0 G~y Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Classification, Water Contents and Unit Weights Soil conditions were evaluated, described, and classified in accordance with the classification format described in the Oregon Department of Transportation Soil and Rock Classification Manual (ODOT Highway Division, 1987), based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Natural moisture contents were taken in jars; all samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The moisture contents are expressed as a percentage of free water lost by evaporation compared to the dry weight of soil. These are presented numerically on the test 1 pit logs. Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content A compaction test was performed on a selected bulk sample during this study to determine the moisture-density relationship of the on-site soils. The test was performed in accordance with AASHTO T-99. The results obtained may be compared to field dry densities for evaluating relative compaction of compacted fill and native materials. The test results are summarized below. TABLE B-1: Compaction Test Results Material Description/ Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Location Density (lb/ft3) Content Brown clayey silt (ML), 105.4 18.4 TP-2 @ 2.0 ft. 1 1 - B-1 - CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED SOIL INSPECTION & TESTING Item Done Procedure F T Timing By Whom No. 1 Pregrade meeting Prior to work on site Contractor, Developer, Civil & Soil Engineers Stripping, aeration, and root During stripping Soil Technician 2 picking operations 3 Approve imported fill Prior to its arrival on site Soil Engineer material 4 Inspect slope key Prior to start of fill slope Soil Engineer's Representative 5 Compaction testing of During filling, tested every 2 Soil Technician engineered fill (90%M) vertical ft forevery lot Compaction testing of During backfilling, tested Soil 8 trench backfills' every 4 vertical feet for Technician every 200 lineal feet 7 Street Subgrade Prior to base course every Soil compaction (95%S) 200 lineal feet Technician S Base Course compaction Prior to paving every 200 Soil Technician (95%M) lineal feet 9 AC Compaction (91 %R) During paving every 200 Soil Technician lineal feet 10 Final Soil Engineer's Completion of Project; allow Soil Engineer Certification2 one to two weeks for final report Notes: ' Sever, storm drain, water, etc. (90%M) 2 Includes review of strippings on lot surfaces and finished slope conditions. ' FIGURE 3 3-foot horizontal overbuild, or extensive slope face compaction _ Final fill slope face \ H \ \ Benching \ \ \ Original \ \ Ground o /10 or a~ Subdrain, subject to Fill Key Soil Engineer's review. H/2 or 10' minimum CTI Job No. 98- G1626 Fill Slope Detail Figure 4 Carlson Testing, Inc.- P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 EXHIBIT °E' SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES REPORT -FOR: HILL RHIRR CREEK ESTATES #4 SUB. - (aB 98-3/'EM %-44gS 9G /VAR %-VSCR 96-5) TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Site Description 2 Wetland Definition and Authority 2 REGULATORY CONTEXT 2 METHODS 4 Literature Review 4 Site-Specific Field Investigation 4 Vegetation 5 Soils 6 Hydrology Wetland Determination 7 RESULTS 8 Vegetation 8 Soils 9 Hydrology 9 Wetland Determination 9 REFERENCES 12 APPENDIX A: Data Forms APPENDIX B: Plants Found on Site APPENDIX C: National Wetlands Inventory Map LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2. Soil Map 10 Figure 3. Wetland Delineation and Sample Plot Locations 11 Table 1. Definitions of Indicator Status 6 Table 2. Summary of Vegetation, Soils, and Hydrology 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property is located on Menlor Road, just off Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard, Oregon. The property is 12.46 acres, but this delineation was only concerned with a pasture at the northwest comer of the property. The legal description is T2S RI W 5DA, Tax Lot 300. The property consisted of an open pasture with a few shrubs and trees along the north and east sides. The dominant for the open field is Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), curly dock (Rumex crispus), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) were present as well. Creeping buttercup, velvet grass, Kentucky bluegrass, curly dock, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and hawthorn (Crataegus douglasir) are the dominant in another community. Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesir). saplings are also present. Creeping buttercup and Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasir) are dominants in the next community. Tufted hairgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, velvet grass, curly dock, and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) saplings were other components in this community. The SCS mapped one soil series for this site. Cascade silt loam is mapped for the entire pasture. This series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils on gentle slopes of rolling hills, and convex ridgetops. It is classified as a mesic Typic Fragiumbrept. Runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight. The Ap horizon is 0 to 11 inches deep and is very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2). From 11 to 18 inches deep, the B21 horizon is dark brown 7.5YR 3/3. The Cascade series is not listed as a hydric soil. One approximately 0.90 acre emergent wetland was found on the property. Plots for wetland areas, were taken in a creeping buttercup/ Douglas spiraea community. These areas had 5 inches of standing water and/or saturation within two inches of the surface.. The soil matrix colors were I OYR 3/1 with few, faint l OYR 3/3 mottles, l OYR 4/2 with 10YR 4/6 mottles, and l OYR 3/2 -*Nith IOYR 3/4 mottles. Upland areas were dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, velvet grass, curly dock, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut, hawthorn, and creeping buttercup. There was no hydrology and the soil matrix colors were I OYR 4/3 with few, faint I OYR 4/6 mottles and I OYR 4/3 with no mottles. Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Spccialisu 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Afolaila. OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 1 INTRODUCTION The property is located on Menlor Road, just off Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard, Oregon (Figure 1). The property is 12.46 acres, but this delineation was only concerned with a pasture at the northwest corner of the property. The legal description is T2S RI W SDA, Tax Lot 300. The property is located on a sloping hillside. It consists of mostly open pasture that has been heavily grazed by horses. Dominant vegetation consists of Kentucky bluegrass, creeping buttercup, Douglas spiraea, sweet vernal grass, curly dock, and a few hazelnut and Douglas hawthorn around the perimeter. Other shrubs and trees are found around the perimeter and around the house. Large patches of creeping buttercup are found across the pasture. A small tributary of Summer Creek flows down slope on the eastern edge of the pasture. This creates hydrology for the pasture. Several seeps are found throughout the pasture and are responsible for additional hydrology. Wetland Definition and Authority The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters and adjacent wetlands of the United States under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Register, 1986). For purposes of the Section 404 permitting program, the COE and other federal agencies define wetlands as follows (Federal Register, 1980, 1982): Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater 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. In Oregon, the Division of State Lands (DSL) regulates removal/fill permitting in wetlands under ORS 196.800 to 196.990, and rules OAR 141-85-005 to OAR 141-85-090, and uses the same definition. REGULATORY CONTEXT In 1987 the COE published a manual (Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual or 1987 manual) which describes methods for determining the extent of jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Two years later The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, published as a collaborative effort by the COE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), revised the 1987 manual (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, or 1989 manual). Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla, OR 97038 (503)829.6318 2 t• ..!°_J;.• aif fr b 1••c..... nc: flt .r 1r. 't, i.•t •~ep ~5.:r s "'si G`: ~ :1.8:~ c~. rF.~~''1 ' . rgy: l t'f!~,tiy'tn 'rio 53I VD HS trt;.K 't d ~i ad a fi:ua° i~ ~ ~ • a ~ „~~'f' d} ~i~rk- d H16£T MS 6 _ M ~anFjaq WEST A Mj~ )2 ty 1Si6i MS o $ ~S4 i, +t1~,.~i~~V:• t"" 'V o pS Ix (OMIT h ,•!~=:i3 ~i L ~ ~i - +:;36,-1 ; ° AY z 11166T AY212if1W ~ MS>r~~ ~ F~~ ¢ ~ . sR m ~d HILb j r U t Ar s 4~v ~~y i I .r sw C g N 9 1d S T : d bpi 09 r I JE a '6, 006YT SUNRISG AV g _f CS ti tine J I I Pr Q west 8 N~zST HS uooD ►L _j t!1 I 1 at H3 m = d 11 g 31 I _ - .I p oWC R~ a31 HLYSI M y< 3 V31 NS J d 0 l U ' r 51t 156W TE I- Q9 , w X31 ! d M r a • $ 5>t - I cn iA ys 1134 A C 3!)q~ HS SY \55 nl~ 5 Av I er Ili 113L UOS1 n y HS = 1n d C I s I I W • N Ll ~ •Y J c r 13 0l ` ~ s wn ns ~I iif y ~ ' ~c `T MS ti ~ lu O ~ I ~ a 1~ ILLO l~ S A NS ~ _ ~ ~ >f 0 A T 85 1 'r ~W i _ r G s srh 08 1 1 Q. `1 g• R5 ' I .~CUd~U WWC co _ _i 1 ,off.. W~ MSS ~t6s ~y Rim I y M " 31 N IdWVHJ I 8 o " 1 as aN3 T-; CD I ~~ti I 3338 li r-tW' S a I I ~A CY) C I 8 W Dear Both the COE and DSL used the 1989 manual until 1992 when the 1992 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act went into effect. The Act limited the COE (federal permitting agency) to using the 1987 manual for determining the extent of wetlands under federal jurisdiction. Oregon continued to use the 1989 manual until March 23, 1993, when the Director of DSL signed a policy statement requiring the agency to use the 1987 manual. The policy statement was the result of the EPA agreement to use the 1987 manual. METHODS The analysis of wetlands conducted on this site was based on published methods for implementing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The 1987 manual was used to satisfy the requirements of the COE and DSL. Each manual requires three parameters to be examined: vegetation, soils, and hydrology. According to the 1987 manual independent evidence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology must be present for an area to be declared a wetland. The analysis of wetlands on the project site was conducted by reviewing and analyzing existing site-specific literature and by field investigation. These two approaches are described below. Literature Review The following sources of information were examined for indications that jurisdictional wetlands may exist on the project site (see REFERENCES for complete citations): Hydric Soils of the United States, 1991 edition Soil Survey of Washington County, 1982 National Wetland Inventory, Beaverton Quadrangle. 1981. USGS Topography Map These sources were reviewed for information about the vegetation, soils and hydrology of the site prior to field investigation. Site-Specific Field Investigation The Routine Onsite Determination Method (1987 manual, pp. 52-69) was used to determine the wetland boundary. Areas of homogeneous vegetation were identified for sampling vegetation type, percent cover, hydrology and soil characteristics on either side of the wetland boundary. Sample plots were established to represent the different plant communities found at the site. For each sample plot data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils was collected, recorded in the field and later transferred to data forms (Appendix). Areas where the wetlands were estimated to be greater than five acres transects were established, with the transect running either parallel to the Schott & Associates Ecologists and Welland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 4 major watercourse, or perpendicular to the hydrologic gradient. The decision on the orientation of the transect is based on field conditions, and is made in the field. Vegetation Plants growing in wetlands must be specifically adapted for life under saturated or anaerobic conditions and are commonly referred to as hydrophytic vegetation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the National and Regional Interagency Review Panels publishes regional lists estimating the probability of plant species' occurrence in wetlands (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988). Each species is given an indicator status which represents the likelihood that it will be found in a wetland. Categories, defined in Table 1, are obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), or upland (UPL). Plants with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered adapted for life in saturated or anaerobic soil conditions. The percent coverage of each plant species within the herb, shrub, and tree layers was estimated at each sample plot. Shrubs within a five-foot radius and trees within a 30-foot radius of the center of each plot were identified and recorded. Within the plot, all species were recorded in descending order of coverage, and dominant species were determined. Dominant species were calculated as those that, when cumulatively totaled in descending order of coverage, immediately exceed 50%.of the aerial cover for each vegetative stratum plus any additional species individually representing 20% or more of the total area cover for each vegetative stratum. The presence of wetland vegetation was determined according to the indicator status of the dominant species within each vegetative stratum. According to the manual, a sample plot is considered to have wetland vegetation if more than 50% of the number of dominant species present have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC. By 1987 standards, dominant species are chosen by selecting the three most dominant species from each of the four strata (herbs, saplings/shrubs, woody vines, trees). If only one or two strata are represented, then the five most dominant species from each strata are selected. Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 5 Table 1: Definitions of Indicator Status Indicator Symbol Definition OBL Obligate. Species that occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions. FACW Facultative wetland. Species that usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%), but occasionally are found in nonwetlands. FAC Facultative. species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34 to 66%). FACU Facultative upland. Species that usually occur in'nonwetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%), but occasionally are found in wetlands. UPI, Upland. Species that occur almost always in nonwetlands under normal circumstances (estimated probability >99%). NI No indicator. Species for which insufficient information was available to determine an indicator status. Sources: Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Reed, 1988. Soils Hydric soils, defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile, are one characteristic of wetlands (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1987). A list of hydric soils of the United States was compiled by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). All soils are mapped in county soil surveys. However, the mapped boundaries of SCS soil types are not at a fine enough resolution for delineating boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands. Errors of omission can occur on SCS maps. Inclusions of upland (nonwetland) soil may exist in hydric soils and uplands may have inclusions of hydric soil. Therefore, field examination of soils is important for accurately delineating the extent of hydric soils. Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Walla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 6 Hydric soils exhibit certain characteristics that can be observed in the field. Field indicators include: high organic content, accumulation of sulfidic material (rotten egg odor), greenish or bluish gray color (gley formation), iron and manganese concretions, spots or blotches of color (mottling), and/or dark soil colors (low soil chroma). A soil auger, excavating down to a depth of at least 18 inches, was used to sample soil along the wetland boundary. Soil samples were checked for presence of sulfide gases; organic content was estimated visually and texturally; and soil colors were determined by using a Munsell soil color chart (Kollmorgen 1975). The Munsell soil color chart provides the standard for three attributes of color: hue, value, and chroma. According to the 1987 manual, hydric soils are required to be inundated or saturated for seven or more consecutive days during the growing season. Soil color is examined in the horizon immediately below the A-horizon or within 10 inches of the surface, whichever is shallower. Hydrology Wetlands, by their very name, must have water. Jurisdictional wetlands are characterized as having permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation for a significant portion of the growing season, defined as five percent or more of the growing season. Saturation occurs when the capillary fringe is within the major portion of the root zone (usually within 12 inches of the surface). Areas meeting one of these criteria are. considered to have wetland hydrology. Ponding or soil saturation for five percent or more of the growing season during the growing season is direct evidence of wetland hydrology. Bare soil and dried algae are evidence that a site was previously inundated. Oxidized rhizospheres along live root channels also indicates soil saturation for five percent or more of the growing season. At each sample plot, wetland hydrology was assumed if positive indicators were present. Wetland Determination Presence or absence of wetlands was based on soil, vegetation, and hydrology data collected at sample plot's. Following procedures outlined in the 1987 manual, sample plots with homogeneous vegetation were determined to be wetlands if wetland characteristics were present or judged to be normally present (barring human or unusual natural events) for all three parameters. Difficulties in wetland determination can arise as a result of disturbance or in problem areas. Both human (e.g., clearing vegetation, agriculture, filling, and excavation) and natural (e.g., Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla. OR 97038 (503) 829.6318 7 mudslides, fire, and beaver dams) event have potential for obliterating field indicators within one or more of the three wetland parameters. In disturbed sites, both field and offsite data may be used to determine the presence of a wetland. Offsite information such as historical records, aerial photographs, previous soil, and vegetati5n surveys may indicate the presence of a jurisdictional wetland. Some sites are problem areas because field indicators may not be present throughout the year. Problem areas can exist as a result of changing environmental conditions that occur seasonally and not necessarily the result of human or natural disturbance. According to the 1987 manual, all three parameters (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) must be present for an area to be determined as wetland. Drumlins, seasonal wetlands, prairie potholes, and vegetated flats exemplify problem areas. RESULTS The SCS did not map hydric soils for this site and the NWI map did not show any areas of concern on the property. Six sample plots were used for the May 14, 1997 delineation. Vegetation The property consisted of an open pasture with a few shrubs and trees along the north and east sides. The dominant for the open field is Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), curly dock (Rumex crispus), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) were present as well. Creeping buttercup, velvet grass, Kentucky bluegrass, curly dock, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and-hawthorn (Crataegus douglasil) are the dominant in another community. Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesi>) saplings are also present. Creeping buttercup and Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasir) are dominants in the next community. Tufted hairgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, velvet grass, curly dock, and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) saplings were other components in this community. Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and soft rush (Juncus effusus) were dominants in the west end of the wetland. Creeping buttercup and velvet grass were other components. Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 8 Soils The SCS mapped one soil series for this site (Figure 2). Cascade silt loam is mapped for the entire pasture. This series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils on gentle slopes of rolling hills, and convex ridgetops. It is classified as a mesic Typic Fragiumbrept. Runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight. The Ap horizon is 0 to 11 inches deep and is very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2). From 11 to 18 inches deep, the B21 horizon is dark brown 7.5YR 3/3. The Cascade series is not listed as a hydric soil. Hydrology A tributary of Summer Creek runs down the slope on the eastern edge of the pasture. The creek is very narrow and is between 2 and 6 inches deep. The creek has been damaged by the horses in some areas. Several seeps are found through out the pasture as well. The seeps off additional hydrology. Pogs are found throughout the pasture. Wetland Determination One 0.90 acre emergent wetland was found on the property (Figure 3). Plot 2,3, 5 and 6 were taken within the wetland. Plot 2 was in a creeping buttercup community that had 5 inches of standing water. The soil matrix color was IOYR 3/1 with few, faint l OYR 3/3 mottles. Plot 3 was in a creeping buttercup/Douglas spiraea community. This area had saturation within inches of the surface and IOYR 3/2 with l OYR 3/4 mottles. Plot 5 was dominated by by tall fescue and soft soft rush. The soil was 10YR 4/2 with 10YR 4/6 mottles. The ground was saturated in some areas and had 1-2 inches of standing water in other areas. Plot 6 was 100% reed canary grass and had 1-2 inches of standing water as well. The soil matrix color was 10YR 4/2 with 1 OYR 4/6 mottles. A Kentucky bluegrass community dominated plot 1. There was no hydrology and the soil matrix color was l OYR 4/3 with few, faint l OYR 4/6 mottles. Plot 4 had velvet grass, creeping buttercup, Kentucky bluegrass, curly dock, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut, and hawthorn for dominants. There was no hydrology for this site and the soil matrix color was 10YR 4/3 with no mottles. Table 2: Summary of Vegetation, Soils, and Hydrology Wetland Plot # Vegetation Hydrology Soils Determination 1 Hydrophytic Upland Hydric Upland 2 Hydrophytic Wetland Hydric Wetland 3 Hydrophytic Wetland Hydric Wetland 4 Hydrophytic Upland Non-hydric Upland 5 Hydrophytic Wetland Hydric Wetland 6 Hydrophytic Wetland Hydric Wetland Schott & assoaates Ecologists and Wettand Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molallk OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 9 { • .t•: q..._• it ,1.•.p r 5 F-jam.-'• _~:t:1~1~fo~yr~~..:~pV 'Vs s T I ;1 .Y:Ia '?•F3i'~"`~j T R•-~".1 •~r4 il~,~',`i~';1.j~.'%ji~: '".•-Fr~c-: e,.t~4~~ N. X198' ` "'ir 95 y, { - Y 458 Y c., . • m y~~ ' ,~LC_.;t•f' any B' + - ~v~ZB fey. Ci n, F 1 h~• Project Area -fig _ v t'f~ts,. Ya+ •'.t'.~+'u~'1`.1'.C_' ' - li. a' .r%` Figure 2: Soil Map SOIL LEGEND FOR SYMBOLS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA 7B Cascade silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes Source: Soil Survey of Washington County, Oregon 1982. Sheet 44. 10 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 138 pp. Federal Register, 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1), Guidelines for Specificdtion of Disposal Sites of Dredged or Fill Material, Vol. 45, No. 249, pp. 85352-85353, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register, 1982. Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter H,, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p. 31810, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register, 1986. 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule, Vol. 51, No. 219 pp. 41206-41259, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Kollmorgen Corporation, 1975. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, MD. Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88 (26.9) 89 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States in Cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Misc. Pub. No. 1491. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1987. Soil Survey of Clackamas County Area, Oregon. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., 293 pp. Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla, OR.97038 (503) 829-6318 12 APPENDIX A: Data Forms (6 pages) Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalls, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 13 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Proiect/Site: Men lc-r- P-o,,- 7 Date: J Applicant/Owner: County: liVcx S z r n rr/Z'?~ Investigator: 72?4L t )02 A-g-! !L~~. r/ ~,l • S~r~f ~ i i State. ,~'°yrc tSV+ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? LYes-SN Community- 1D: s the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 7ransect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: (if needed, explain on•reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator e 1. Oaz Dn-t~eo.sl $ ~z F~LC -9 -5 9. 2p61r7L1.l'ad-I.tt S rw "m fx/CJ 10. r-hc 3R(,Cmex 4 1: ~~GL) rl~/~~ L F'G FaC I' 12. st-111u.-r f ne-ffulyli ur _ k___ G l e 13 . 7.t"1,1'1.4-n -741 lP i'7 Cet)1, r, -rt 1'I ~?G S IS . ar7TCr r.+rr~Gtltle'F']Se lrt FG~L4t 1fi. - Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI. FACW or FAC o fp (excluding FAC-). Remarks: SL{~` 1/(~(/,j!"GI~t°G~. 1r/QC~et~?t /S YYrGt/~JIF~~c1, J • HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Rarnatksl: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or ride Geuga Ptirrtatylndr atop: Aerial Photographc ated Other aturated in upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Avalable Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Feld Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Werlandi see ary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water. Gn.) _ Oxidised Root Channels in upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) Loca( Sol Survey Data FAC•Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: Gn.l _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Remarks: S~ L .e h.i%cZ,v L y . /'CL. ari , p0 q s E'•t' / S-~ 13-1 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: nenLcr- P-&x Date: c. /N J Applicant/Owner. County: AS 1 I 'l 41V_- Investigator: _ 'VAcG VeA-r 14 _ ru ~ r/r ~S'L/~ 7 t State: 6a- Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community-(D: !s the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes i NCR Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (F -G-) 10: (1f needed, explain on•reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Oominant Plant Soeciei 'Stratum (ndicator-.. 4emnan ((/L u S mwefis Q [l~~ Sit; C2 Ltasey Gt RIM 10. 3.F,ItmeK QYi.SPUS k /:RGf S. 13. T 6. 1 a. 7. 15. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC /G L D (excluding FAC-1. Remarks: 1' j1{~~ v((~~ ~-c z- Pd . HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarksl- Watland Hydrology Indicators: Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: _ Aerial Photographs X Inundated _ Other -Saturated in Upper 12 inches _ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks Orift Lines -Sediment Deposits Field Observations: -Drainage Panema in Wetland: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Depth of Surface Water. r Gn) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches -Water-Stained Leaves Depth TO Free Water in Pit: Can.) Local sal Survey Data FAC.Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: r Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: j man/' d9'S e~l S~ 1~-2 I,tl P~t•'tU DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE. Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: ( l l [',11.- 1"' go,:Ld Date: t . J Applicant/Owner. County: r n q1 ~'r Investigator: `722,4Gl;~PL .at-irN A.t Ar2 rl S'Cffv T7` State: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community-ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No' Transect 10: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: (If needed, explain on-reverse.) V EGETAT(O N Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator jI~eS.C ,C( cGJ r'1Q W lo. 3. dct, rLi.-/E,7t_Si5 FA(- 15 11. S. 1 13. Jf` 6tr( C I /i_ GzirCU t 1 s. 15. H. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW at FAC r DCi 2V (excluding FAC-1. Remarks: S L/-~ ~12Gt V(CLf ~rG'LZLPG~. HYDROLOGY `Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: Aerial Photographs _ Inundated _ Other Saturated in Upper t2 inches No Recorded Data Available water Marks Drift lints -Sediment Deposits Feld Observetians: -Drainage Patterns in Witlandi secondary Indicators (2 or more roquiridl: Depth of Surface Water. GnJ _Oxidizad Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches -Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Fria Water in Pit: (in.l Local Soil Survey Data 3~ FAC-Neutral 'test Depth to saturated Soil: _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Ramarks:S(. rt{GWIL7-c-d- rnan4- pods ex/S,f 2.3-3 oil DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: rfie-tiLc t- RertJ Date: ~I J Applicant/Owner: County: Investigator: 7RA-etc pIA-ri-I 11A,&eP-f1t .SCfy`-o T't State: f"y,-~ rSN Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 6~ N Community-ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation]? Yes Nt' Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: (If needed, explain on•reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator w 1. t.l'ltt.t,Ill 611S P1 9-IN s. 4-1 st1i 1 a. 7GcrP7 " -fit 7- fi CKa I 1 s. LV 8. Z,CP CS 19i i T R[ If 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC (excluding F{A~C-). 11 O Remarks: i S 1-eal/(L J rVL-L;z-ed . HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _ Stream, Lake, or Tida Gauge Primary Indicators: Aarial Photographs fou ate Other `5 Waited in Upper 12 tnchcs -No Recorded Data Available _ ate( Marks rift Lines sediment Deposits Field Observations Orainage Pattams in Wvdandi Seto ary Indicators t2 or more requiridl: Depth of Surface Water. Gna Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches _ Water-Stainad Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: Gna _Local Sol Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Gn.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depth to Saturated Soil- 4- Remarks: S(:~e r'~t✓/~I Ly~ /rQ.- ~~h PG9 .S P~l S 1 BL4 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Yh.6vt l not 12d Date: 5 lt1~9~ Applicant/Owner: County: A ! re Investioator: yr LD t'l~ State: (~)rsz- Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? N Community ID: Ss the site siflnificantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect 10: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye Nta Plot IO:_ (If needed, explain on'reverse.) V EGETATI O N d' Dominant Plant Soccics ' Streturn Indicator Dominant Plant Soccics Stratum Indicatot x- I. R Q 1(lai-P C -q 9. 31` 2_ UI U. n CLAA 0,4 W- FM W Z t o. 14 4, F-rt 12. - S. 17. 6. 1<. 7 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that ata 081. FACW of FAC t~T (excluding FAC-1. ! Remarks: HYDROLOGY Racordcd Date (Describe in Remarks): Wadand Hydrology Indicators: -Stream. Cake, or Ttde Gauge Primary Indicattim: Aerial Photographs A Inundated Other X-saturated in Upper 12 Inchcs No R.cotded Data Available -Walat Marks Drift U04: _ S.dimant Oepoaits Feld Obs4rv4tiont• _Or.in.ga P.aerns in Witlandi Secondary lndicatots (2 or mar. riquired): Depth of Surfac. Waters 00dii4d Root Channels in Upper 12 Inchcs W4141(-StAnad Leaves Depth to Fria Water in Pit: fin.) _ Local Soil Survey Data FAC•Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: Gn.) r Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: 13-5 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: ae'yx =r r 91 . Date: 5 ~y 9~ Applicant/Owner: County: (k Investigator. to ~l~~ fir State: _ f0rp- i Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? s Community-ID: s the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation). le es No Transect 1D: Is the area a potential Problem Area? e No Plot ID: (If needed, explain on'reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator ~ 1. ~~la a,vl ~ 01.+~U-~'~G~71'1.~~✓ ~~lo0 9. 2. 10. 3. 11. 12. S. 13. 6. 14. 7. 1 S. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Specie: that are 08L FACW or FAC Nxcludino FAC-I. Ramarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Date (Describe in Remarksl: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: -Stream, Lako, or Tide Gauge Primary indicators: _ Aerial Photographs Inundated _ Other Sa(uratod in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available -water Marks Drift tines Sediment Deposits Feld Obs.rvationa• - _Dr.inaoo Patterns in Wetland's Secondary Indicators Q or more t.Quir.'dl: Depth of Surface Water- (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data _ FAC-Neutral Test Depth to Saturated Soil: Gn.l _ Other (Explain in Remarksl Ramarks: D46 APPENDIX P: Plants Found on Site SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME INDICATOR STATUS Chrysanthemum oxeye daisy FAC leucanthemum Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FACU+ Corylus cornuta hazelnut FACU Crataegus douglayff Douglas hawthorn FAC Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hairgrass FACW Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW Holcus lanatus velvet grass FAC Plantago lanceolata English plantain FAC Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FAC Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup FACW Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry FACU Rumex crispus curly dock FAC+ Spiraea douglasii Douglas spiraea FACW Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 14 APPENDIX C: National Wetland Inventory Map (1 page) Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Walk, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 is 1' 'r' l,i+.'::y~a. ...r_ fr. ! 1-:` •l:!J 1 r', _ v s ti i M '~rJ~.. •,t. r' ^''.:1.:'. " I~a._' :a l - / : P~fdllYk pl . • ~+,•r' .4i • i•;; '•t • '1„,~~~ . r. .,..±•t~ ' / f1RD wD - ~ AI: ,..:..r. - , L:..t_►, PEMIY / ,off Iw' ~P OIW \ T '1 : ti' t ' a .t' + -f i~} ` t h MIYx I l` 1:` J ! i S t- I' INKY ft 1s 7_t.. + (•1''+ °':r• . , P~QIN( t _ •I • mot. r;' ~ ~ t~ - s3 h{ _ _ .T `a 1 i • ice''. t+ PFOIW / PF_ M I P 'IY POWK;T / ' - • N. _ I: • ( 1 POW Z J j i / , J I : L_, , P F IY h Ppo1w PFOIW U.. Y. y / 1 l .t•~ SSIY I / PFOl1 EM: P551 y y 1 I t y :pb K Y PFOIY} ,':PEMI t O ~ i PFOlY Project Area 0C. mly POWKZr~,. c = -l.JPOTKZx pFoY.'`. t (~il) Ll':i~Mr~u~i ,tr~~-`~ )t lam' • w isMI / ` + j~ I. I P WK2h 16 h ~ I . ~,~J~t'~ 1 a.~ i mil T f. ` ` • ~M ✓1rP vx ii PFOIIr : t :N//, f ate,' - r r-O ....E'M - 111111.. ~ _ i'... ~ ~ r' r POWI(Zx \ _ ` \ n. L!.. , i Mir PFOIW ,/~~kpOlvV` .ti ' . EXHIBIT °E° SIGNIFICANT NAMRAL RESCUE CFS REPORT - FOR: HIU SHIRE QtEM BSTAMS #4 SUB. - (3B 98-3/ECR %-OW %-6,AM 98- V8M 98-5) TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Site Description 2 Wetland Definition and Authority 2 REGULATORY CONTEXT 2 METHODS 4 Literature Review 4 Site-Specific Field Investigation 4 Vegetation 5 Soils 6 Hydrology 7. . Wetland Determination 7 RESULTS 8 Vegetation 8 Soils 9 Hydrology 9 Wetland Determination 9 REFERENCES 12 APPENDIX A: Data Forms APPENDIX B: Plants Found on Site APPENDIX C: National Wetlands Inventory Map LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2. Soil Map 10 Figure 3. Wetland Delineation and Sample Plot Locations 11 Table 1. Definitions of Indicator Status 6 Table 2. Summary of Vegetation, Soils, and Hydrology 9 n, EXECUT1 W SUMMARY The property is located on Menlor Road, just off Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard, Oregon. The property is 12.46 acres, but this delineation was only concerned with a pasture at the northwest comer of the property. The legal description is T2S RI W 5DA, Tax Lot 300. The property consisted of an open pasture with a few shrubs and trees along the north and east sides. The dominant for the open field is Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), curly dock (Rumen crispus), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) were present as well. Creeping buttercup, velvet grass, Kentucky bluegrass, curly dock, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and hawthorn (Crataegus douglasir, are the dominant in another community. Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesir~ saplings are also present. Creeping buttercup and Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasir) are dominants in the next community. Tufted hairgrass, Kentucky bluegrass; velvet grass, curly dock, and Oregon ash (Froxinus latiifolia) saplings were other components in this community. The SCS mapped one soil series for this site. Cascade silt loam is mapped for the entire pasture. This series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils on gentle slopes of rolling hills, and convex ridgetops. It is classified as a mesic Typic Fra.giumbrept. Runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight. The Ap horizon is 0 to I I inches deep and is very dark grayish brown (lOYR 3/2). From 11 to 18 inches deep, the B21 horizon is dark brown 7.5YR 3/3. The Cascade series is not listed as a hydric soil. One approximately 0.90 acre emergent wetland was found on the property. Plots for wetland areas.were taken in a creeping buttercup/ Douglas spiraea community. These areas tad 5 inches of standing water and/or saturation within two inches of the surface.. The soil matrix colors were l OYR 3/1 with few, faint 1 OYR 3/3 mottles, l OYR 4/2 with l OYR 4/6 mottles, and IOYR 3/2 with 10YR 314 mottles. Upland areas were dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, velvet grass, curly dock, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut, hawthorn, and creeping buttercup. There was no hydrology and the soil matrix colors were l OYR 4/3 with few, faint l OYR 4/6 mottles and l OYR 4/3 with no mottles. Schott & Associates Ecologists and Weiland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Nfolalla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 1 INTRODUCTION The property is located on Menlor Road, just off Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard, Oregon (Figure 1). The property is 12.46 acres, but this delineation was only concerned with a pasture at the northwest corner of the property. The legal description is T2S RI W 5DA, Tax Lot 300. The property is located on a sloping hillside. It consists of mostly open pasture that has been heavily grazed by horses. Dominant vegetation consists of Kentucky bluegrass, creeping buttercup, Douglas spiraea, sweet vernal grass, curly dock, and a few hazelnut and Douglas hawthorn around the perimeter. Other shrubs and trees are found around the perimeter and around the house. Large patches of creeping buttercup are found across the pasture. A small tributary of Summer Creek flows down slope on the eastern edge of the pasture. This creates hydrology for the pasture. Several seeps are found throughout the pasture and are responsible for additional hydrology. Wetland Definition and Authority The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters and adjacent wetlands of the United States under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Register, 1986). For purposes of the Section 404 permitting program, the COE and other federal agencies define wetlands as follows (Federal Register, 1980, 1982): Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater 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. In Oregon, the Division of State Lands (DSL) regulates removal/fill permitting in wetlands under ORS 196.800 to 196.990, and rules OAR 141-85-005 to OAR 141-85-090, and uses the same definition. REGULATORY CONTEXT In 1987 the COE published a manual (Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual or 1987 manual) which describes methods for determining the extent of jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Two years later The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, published as a collaborative effort by the COE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), revised the 1987 manual (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, or 1989 manual). Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 2 ioloo a 16 W ' . S 1-+ I I c sw p z W c~~o BEEF i END RD - I CWJiPI E`s' E r 1 Y .Z.. Vl I r ~ I r I U 3ealr co su M' 'O 1 S 59 61 y a r A 4 y svw UP NOS on T 12 12 s OR c ? o o fo G Q 12 ie " sr wn < su , ygt bi z g ~ K Jy TER g $W AY Y f~ 121LL Ne ~'ft~4 s 4 KOYEM 1a 4 ~s n 1 ~j R . • S1, Sp ~ w I R ~ - Sli 155TH Sc ~ i' " Jut, a TO v c p(,J~~I~y31 y1195t N' l - - -j _ TER 8 3~ a s lA1 W ISM SEA Ae y N ~ 00 y wtt ~ N 1 1 ~ r ~ le ~n 1 SH 152ND 153R S 1 r o g co AV n 11' sl ~i a `-1` AV ,r- : 3SIHNns r+ 1 I q' f~ 149 _ 1 so MENLpR n c I Fa J, I 147TH IJ rs ~a • r R g`2 ~ HURRAY mu a12 AY ~ y Q b Cy ! SW ° • ~ ~ IK r ~ ~ ~ r,1-•~v da~~, 1100 te _j 144T}I AY n'..f -i • f91~ ` t' Sib Te 14500 ~ ~ o .~~.i'.' ~ ; . t•}~•~.$h a A':9/- (rJ SH 141ST •~x i~ ~ plti, .,i, .I c^~ r~ ~ 4~ 'fit ' r~ sr W; DA IES 15300 139TH A t." ~!~u ; , °r : 3 x : i lT,~ N Both the COE and DSL used the 1989 manual until 1992 when the 1992 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act went into effect. The Act limited the COE (federal permitting agency) to using the 1987 manual for determining the extent of wetlands under federal jurisdiction. Oregon continued to use the 1989 manual until March 23, 1993, when the Director of DSL signed a policy statement requiring the agency to use the 1987 manual. The policy statement was the result of the EPA agreement to use the 1987 manual. METHODS The analysis of wetlands conducted on this site was based on published methods for implementing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The 1987 manual was used to satisfy the requirements of the COE and DSL. Each manual requires three parameters to be examined: vegetation, soils, and hydrology. According to the 1987 manual independent evidence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology must be present for an area to be declared a wetland. The analysis of wetlands on the project site was conducted by reviewing and analyzing existing site-specific literature and by field investigation. These two approaches are described below. Literature Review The following sources of information were examined for indications that jurisdictional wetlands may exist on the project site (see REFERENCES for complete citations): Hydric Soils of the United States, 1991 edition Soil Survey of Washington County, 1982 National Wetland Inventory, Beaverton Quadrangle. 1981. USGS Topography Map These sources were reviewed for information about the vegetation, soils and hydrology of the site prior to field investigation. Site-Specific Field Investigation The Routine Onsite Determination Method (1987 manual, pp. 52-69) was used to determine the wetland boundary. Areas of homogeneous vegetation were identified for sampling vegetation type, percent cover, hydrology and soil characteristics on either side of the wetland boundary. Sample plots were established to represent the different plant communities found at the site. For each sample plot data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils was collected, recorded in the field and later transferred to data forms (Appendix). Areas where the wetlands were estimated to be greater than five acres transects were established, with the transect running either parallel to the Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Walla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 4 major watercourse, or perpendicular to the hydrologic gradient. The decision on the orientation of the transect is based on field conditions, and is made in the field. Vegetation Plants growing in wetlands must be specifically adapted for life under saturated or anaerobic conditions and are commonly referred to as hydrophytic vegetation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the National and Regional Interagency Review Panels publishes regional lists estimating the probability of plant species' occurrence in wetlands (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988). Each species is given an indicator status which represents the likelihood that it will be found in a wetland. Categories, defined in Table 1, are obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), or upland (UPL). Plants with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered adapted for life in saturated or anaerobic soil conditions. The percent coverage of each plant species within the herb, shrub, and tree layers was estimated at each sample plot. Shrubs within a five-foot radius and trees within a 30-foot radius of the center of each plot were identified and recorded. Within the plot, all species were recorded in descending order of coverage, and dominant species were determined. Dominant species were calculated as those that, when cumulatively totaled in descending order of coverage, immediately exceed 50% of the aerial cover for each vegetative stratum plus any additional species individually representing 20% or more of the total area cover for each vegetative stratum. The presence of wetland vegetation was determined according to the indicator status of the dominant species within each vegetative stratum. According to the manual, a sample plot is considered to have wetland vegetation if more than 50% of the number of dominant species present have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC. By 1987 standards, dominant species are chosen by selecting the three most dominant species from each of the four strata (herbs, saplings/shrubs, woody vines, trees). If only one or twU strata are represented, then the five most dominant species from each strata are selected. Senotc & Assoeiatu Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla. OR 97038 (503) 829.6318 5 Table 1: Definitions of Indicator Status Indicator Symbol Definition OBL Obligate. Species that occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions. FACW Facultative wetland. Species that usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 9994a), but occasionally are found in nonwetlands. FAC Facultative. species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34 to 66%). FACU Facultative upland. Species that usually occur in nonwetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%), but occasionally are found in wetlands. UPI, Upland. Species that occur almost always in nonwetlands under normal circumstances (estimated probability >99%). NI No indicator. Species for which insufficient information was available to determine an indicator status. Sources: Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Reed, 1988. Soils Hydric soils, defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile, are one characteristic of wetlands (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1987). A list of hydric soils of the United States was compiled by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). All soils are mapped in county soil surveys. However, the mapped boundaries of SCS soil types are not at a fine enough resolution for delineating boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands. Errors of omission can occur on SCS maps. Inclusions of upland (nonwetland) soil may exist in hydric soils and uplands may have inclusions of hydric soil. Therefore, field examination of soils is important for accurately delineating the extent of hydric soils. Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalla, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 6 Hydric soils exhibit certain characteristics that can be observed in the field. Field indicators include: high organic content, accumulation of sulfidic material (rotten egg odor), greenish or bluish gray color (gley formation), iron and manganese concretions, spots or blotches of color (mottling), and/or dark soil colors (low soil chroma). A soil auger, excavating down to a depth of at least 18 inches, was used to sample soil along the wetland boundary. Soil samples were checked for presence of sulfide gases; organic content was estimated visually and texturally; and soil colors were determined by using a Munsell soil color- chart(Kollmorgen 1975). The Munsell soil color chart provides the standard for three attributes of color: hue, value, and chroma. According to the 1987 manual, hydric soils are required to be inundated or saturated for seven or more consecutive days during the growing season. Soil color is examined in the horizon immediately below the A-horizon or within 10 inches of the surface, whichever is shallower. Hydrology Wetlands, by their very name, must have water. Jurisdictional wetlands are characterized as having permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation for a significant portion of the growing season, defined as five percent or more of the growing season. Saturation occurs when the capillary fringe is within the major portion of the root zone (usually within 12 inches of the surface). Areas meeting one of these criteria are. considered to have wetland hydrology. Ponding or soil saturation for five percent or more of the growing season during the growing season is direct evidence of wetland hydrology. Bare soil and dried algae are evidence that a site was previously inundated. Oxidized rhizospheres along live root channels also indicates soil saturation for five percent or more of the growing season. At each sample plot, wetland hydrology was assumed if positive indicators were present. Wetland Determination Presence or absence of wetlands was based on soil, vegetation, and hydrology data collected at sample plot. Following procedures outlined in the 1987 manual, sample plots with homogeneous vegetation were determined to be wetlands if wetland characteristics were present or judged to be normally present (barring human or unusual natural events) for all three parameters. Difficulties in wetland determination can arise as a result of disturbance or in problem areas. Both human (e.g., clearing vegetation, agriculture, filling, and excavation) and natural (e.g., Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Tolliver Rd. Molalla. OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 7 mudslides, fire, and beaver dams) event have potential for obliterating field indicators within one or more of the three wetland parameters. In disturbed sites, both field and offsite data may be used to determine the presence of a wetland. Offsite information such as historical records, aerial photographs, previous soil, and vegetation surveys may indicate the presence of a jurisdictional wetland. Some sites are problem areas because field indicators may not be present throughout the year. Problem areas can exist as a result of changing environmental conditions that occur seasonally and not necessarily the result of human or natural disturbance. According to the 1987 manual, all three parameters (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) must be present for an area to be determined as wetland. Drumlins, seasonal wetlands, prairie potholes, and vegetated flats exemplify problem areas. RESULTS The SCS did not map hydric soils for this site and the NWI map did not show any areas of concern on the property. Six sample plots were used for the May 14, 1997 delineation. Vegetation The property consisted of an open pasture with a few shrubs and trees along the north and east sides. The dominant for the open field is Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), curly dock (Rumex crispus), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) were present as well. Creeping buttercup, velvet grass, Kentucky bluegrass, curly dock, Himalayan blackberry (Rubes discolor), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and hawthorn (Crataegus douglasil) are the dominant in another community. Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa) and Douglas fir (Pseudoisuga menziesh) saplings are also present. Creeping buttercup and Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasil) are dominants in the next community. Tufted hairgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, velvet grass, curly dock, and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) saplings were other components in this community. Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and soft rush (Juncus effusus) were dominants in the west end of the wetland. Cr( eping buttercup and velvet grass were other components. Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 1) 977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalia, OR 97038 (503) 8296318 8 Soils The SCS mapped one soil series for this site (Figure 2). Cascade silt loam is mapped for the entire pasture. This series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils on gentle slopes of rolling hills, and convex ridgetops. It is classified as a mesic Typic Fragiumbrept. Runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight. The Ap horizon is 0 to 11 inches deep and is very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 312). From 11 to 18 inches deep, the B21 horizon is dark brown 7.5YR 3/3. The Cascade series is not listed as a hydric soil. Hydrology A tributary of Summer Creek runs down the slope on the eastern edge of the pasture. The creek is very narrow and is between 2 and 6 inches deep. The creek has been damaged by the horses in some areas. Several seeps are found through out the pasture as well. The seeps off additional hydrology. Pogs are found throughout the pasture. Wetland Determination One 0.90 acre emergent wetland was found on the property (Figure 3). Plot 2,3, 5 and 6 were taken within the wetland. Plot 2 was in a creeping buttercup community that had 5 inches of standing water. The soil matrix color was 10YR 3/1 with few, faint 10YR 3/3 mottles. Plot 3 was in a creeping buttercup/Douglas spiraea community. This area had saturation within inches of the surface and l OYR 3/2 with 10YR 3/4 mottles. Plot 5 was dominated by by tall fescue and soft soft rush. The soil was l OYR 4/2 with l OYR 4/6 mottles. The ground was saturated in some areas and had 1-2 inches of standing water in other areas. Plot 6 was 100% reed canary grass and had 1-2 inches of standing water as well. The soil matrix color was l OYR 4/2 with 10YR 4/6 mottles. A Kentucky bluegrass community dominated plot 1. There was no hydrology and the soil matrix color was l OYR 4/3 with few, faint l OYR 4/6 mottles. Plot 4 had velvet grass, creeping buttercup, Kentucky bluegrass, curly dock, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut, and hawthorn for dominants. There was no hydrology for this site and the soil matrix color was 10YR 4/3 with no mottles. Table 2: Summary of Vegetation, Soils, and Hydrology Wetland Plot # Vegetation Hydrology Soils Determination 1 Hydrophytic Upland Hydric Upland 2 Hydrophytic Wetland Hydric Wetland 3 Hydrophytic Wetland Hydric Wetland 4 Hydrophytic Upland Non-hydric Upland 5 Hydrophytic Wetland Hydric Wetland 6 Hydrophytic Wetland Hydric Wetland Schott & Associates Ecologists and Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Molalls, OR 97038 (503) 829-6318 9 y k .r.-. `j _ r~'•q J:. vim. ~•5 Q4r3L'" • .c 1198• 58 .t om ; ' ate, t 456 i t ~ .J •M. .1~: 4 t }r-t Project Area PROJECT AR•E y ND FOR SYM13OLS W Figure 2: Soil M~ln SOIL L'GGE 7 lperceat slopes 7Q Cascade silt loam, 3 to Oregon X982 Sheet '1 Survey of W.isliin ;ton County`, Source; Soy 10 4~C -A•'lt -i• %~~,~T, 'r. } .v.. ,~W ~1k,• { t. •r ~..f `a L~'r~ ....,~'~r ;•j i~.. !f '.kF.~jF 'I..hy * , •~iY' ~'L ~t: •rt r r y,')~~r1^ ~ [~.r _,.w`) 'h 1 l ."'tt 1(~ t R'+ '~r r~,~r. ''tLi~ $.it{5 .r••.~l +y •.K.•aj l'o f t lit g. r, ! ; w ,••AI: • _1 t t~. ~,t y~,'fs~3•,..? ~ ~`1F' 1 / r y~ [c • ISO •c • `i 4 . iy~~~~y ~ I • M f 3` ~ i y f • a~ iX a 'r r ti t I r y' rf3 wi t„ i^•y ~'i s r r tilfi ~~r` v f ' ~')'t.ir?~Q' r,'*~'d } i~ti rt ttJJ !YrJ•+.* n r. i 4, '7i` I ~ + Joy ~^J r sib ~ ,A~i - 4 t L° f i ~ _ ~ t M+' 7c v ° tit st t 1t~P 1 ~ i , jf 7 t ,~-.f ~A C t r+ , -,V ' .ry, •i Z . t~~ ~T,t:arl ry ~tfr r rG~b 1 F ~ 1, r O 1 s t , ~t9 ~ i t4,~ ~ ~ ~t(,~ i~r„f a t t _ } ; Z i ~ i iYlf s 5 7 nc ! S~''•'' t ti~ r ^ 1 -Y +~ti ~#-rf t .'r~ y -b t ,r tl i~ !.'k`a q 7 7 i 44 - l -,?~f~.'~ ! ..:a r r~. r. c':Ut~.,+r G.i ~ ifZ 7 'l s• I t~ t { .rh, +4>F r'f~-, , t wl n a ~I t 1 ,',4 rr, t , ~i r'.1 CC"" Y'af. 1 3 t .'~3~ .~r i~ •:l' l y!,\ ~!'n } rs ~ ~E-i- ~ + lf:~ ~k 1ylf } I ~ ) k !L y"1'`.f - 3 z~ v J.:. ~'C ~4 c h '~Vc ~"S'lh lr"F"L ♦ ~n F- Ir> ! ,tom la ~ V„ + ~ r' J LTti .,~YS h' ,<'~4 L-;f'y, t t ~ 1'~'i lz i7. i~ ~n _Y~~+a+~~1 r, i~{1 I~ .IL _f, 1. it ,'l q i ~ F'y E AF~~~„`~ 1 ~,x` ~'1 ~1 ,}^ti tir 1 ~ r f -1~' rte ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~thi~^ PY j•: >r +r -~.~,~i l;.r tr y t` ~ 1~~ 1,--rt,r , 4i St i } r 2~ 4 ~ ~C.t.,r i,4 w``, r'F 1 F j ~ 7 r r r 1~ S .~11.• h~ d ,r; { k 21 .Yr„t # - f.r• r't ^~=y d .t n.,.vni { ~"X`tt '.i ^ ~ A ! ~ f 5 .i•5 i ,~~~'•1~ Lu ` ~rT," ~Y t 1(71•{~~ ~~5+`~'~ ~.1 . 1 k{ z p ,f 1 ,t 11r y~l y~Y?~~ ~ E ql~ ~VF' { r k3 r l d , P rl t t Y~ kr l -fit v,> r c~ v ' - 1 v t ~t n~'A-ry i„ 'ry ~ ~ ! ~i~ •17 l 4..• 1. r ~ t 1--' t,4 ri ! i, r ~ ltf ~l`7 ~t r~ .r ~ ~ t el „ ~ ~:il~ ~ i•,I ~ ~w:: ~i >r 9 ~Y ~ ' ~ x~ r r ai~ l ref r i i ' r' t ~ ~ ~ ~ ?-li^r~5~r ~d fJ ~ r•:~ F' r'~ a- + ~ 'f~i!' t ♦ - ~ ~ i. 't , V• ~ u~ t kS i ,c . t r~~ 1~ .ma t _~`7L f`~ f4`t, a~,~} r~.`+ 1~ Yrt, ~ v 1~ rZ ~ .ti ~ .f - r. } T r r Zl rr•~ ~J 1~ D. Y..'4~'-t i - r E4 L A...} At' 7: J t. 1 t.'r t r i:; ^~fr l 1 S!- 1 % ' !5 , 1r• ~ t ti ~c-.6tJ Ci ' a r,: ~ f y~'~ t ~-J i~ l ' ,.r ..rl h. NY{ti,^ ,t E 3• I fi hdh~l,~ tr i'~ J ? r!., r r. ~r r~ 1 k'r'r t' vl 'z. 1~ tti r JJ ,;y:' ~f+k +.,L ~.(y ~I •r } ..f' }T-r. C 4.~h 4 r r 'r.b 1 r } II 7 ~r y~^ r ~ti ~ i`t r ~ i 7p 1fJ ,iJ~"~ , ar.}~r I i l t ~s3 '~tTn t E 1 ~ ti f P r r I ~ °f ~ 1, ^ c't', ~ A 1 ! ~7 t, r • ,4Ray d}~I^,}l I%' ~°!~t r `;k#.- ~x~ y{[-~~ ~ ~ ~+e~ t F Y ~ 'dot 7~ 1 ~ l k. 1 . f`'.~ ti~ •j ; 4-f L .T ~ I r ~l I'SM dt a I' T 1 1 1 .i b>~ y417 CC~~ 'l t ! L 4 t v i ~r . ~ t t eti G ~ L t yl rl~ Y r •7~ ~ (w,~ •~:7 ~ { t.~ ~ 1 h~ A J~ , C ~Zll , ;~+;;vr•.. r~ f ! ~(I K., r '2 +ti rf! 1~ ! ~ t'r 3 r r v kY ~ I hf y,~'U K ~ dtr)k 1 ~r r b' f.~,r~ ~ + 4 -f ,+}?ylJ~~ :trFi i ~ ~ y ti ~ i , ,7J r,. f r r~._: t r} f ?~r k } r-',.l. ~ ~ yy, I~ ~I r t _r.•i ~ 4`?r.`^ 1'r•SP.tirA ~ 4f' A ~ ~ + 'l J !S t>3 r I ` `ti-'" W / .t r ry 14 r ~ t r "1{ .~.c,Xt ~ o! t> 1'`f y + f'!t~i '12::Myy~ ` f'~t + ~~~"ti k •'d }y} wy I .At~,~a ~ y}.~,~'q~, Vµ :''1~j{•"~.,;'~°;:T~~jl •v iLy ~h~ t11:A tlf:~ y~l t~ ["'Kr G f' t i y{j( t 1 i~! Akt L't nYf''yi `M 1 ,1~4 'CC; { t3? 9 ~yy~yw}}yy~~ ( :`J , (,l',4•ti~ y +~n,-. ir" `L~+~.'mii. J~•ry 1. r 1 f`~ V~1 ( ~!9. 'l J ~ ~,5" •'!1y., ~A t "Yy' 1~'~~'~ /..~VOy ,I r~, ~ -,f iT r r J. ;.,{n.~, y ,vt~ ~ t•r.`;~..,y !lgl7{?;'I'u:.t~u M1~. J'►. 'ay7 Y 4 i r ~ r ~q,. y- •yl~Jr. !!+(ly~ ^..,1i 1A)' ~e~.~Ry ~ytt ~`l'rR' +1~~fiiy?~,t`~wl"• ! t ~ i 0 T•y''M J -C' ~3 ~fP1* ll.y,'g6!rY(~~'~~ .®i'~(IQF.yh~ ..!'~214~ ,i'. Wi1]' i. r /I .~ti a{S s.~t~,.h, ~Yt;'+e,~ + f/ ~ t.. '~.,~yl~, t ,J rw ryl'.'+`'~{;..r t' 8't~'~t' .l• ~'e, ~ f F~~}~„~?}ti"F~ ` L r~i try;.r ~ 'yj ~~'i 1•.. u'1 " t .S >F 4_t ~F ~t~ t•.t::i tir~r ~ ~r 1. ~~~yy~r ~`i ir, :r~. al•;-~ _t t ..l ~ n,ft-: 1~ } ~r j } r a K+ t T. k ~ YgJ~' f'1 At• •~~'.,:y'.k~'r^pr 7.:4 .7•n ^t 1.~4 +~7` ~ A rr v . f r Y yyR- - ~C~r¢~ it;-~~ ~~+,r},~7 4~' i p'- T ~l F , .t ~'.y~r ~y. ' t 7t~p'b a a~ "i' ~'f 'Y. +,~~s, r f i~y S rv ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ `t 1)`a.{-J "'_~l~ ! 4 yr ~"l .fir. _ ,l, y. f'Q~ #Y r' s ~4fa `1 K~ ~ ~ i -y t ~ . ~ A s'tKJ ~F t ~n a 3, tp,~ x ..rr ?I'• r ~ t t ~ Il4 f:: SF tl4f [lt 1`lY Yr. ~ ~ S fir; ~^1 , q~? f l~ FI 5'Tn~1^~ al l 5~ p y~ '°~r t ..r r i{ f • , ~ ~~s± r~~•ty~ r _ •r- ~ ~1j1H,4~~f;~n ~t y r.`'4~ . ~ ,.t4 + rC`+~~:{'~}t, ~ r ~.y,., 7r 4~f~ .rya ~t t yL~ 1 t h~. ~ a ti ,(S P t { Af yJ. r r' ' ^ ; = t {A`r... n It ~ t rl~ ~ . +ita tir t,~.y~? ~ 1 t' , J~~' rq p . ,r;, i ~ ,.~.r.'~, , ~ ~ - ~ ~l Y3' r # 1 ! ~ ..e' r ~ rr4~. tf lA'• ~ {l r g .+t: i'ti } ---i~~~ ! ~~?I- . ,.i~ t c' > vc ,y ~ + ~'Z' j! - t ~ t.{" +,.).{+j ~ ~f' ! 'r.. ~ nA . A. ~ , g; ~ ~rf ..5, < t c.%' wz` y~ .,.~~~-s~ ~ ~ f r+> ~ rt 1,,.ti~ r~'~ ~r t_ t~qq f - ! At ~ ~-y Sr F~ y~~ t~ r'• ~k4.,. ~ x . e,. rJ t 't+l~ ld_a ± .•.'4" ^1,. 1 s;- ~.t:1 4•y: H ~ (I G~"`A I-~"' swr. x~•','4' t ~.2~y `ti F.:+y'1~.,8+ - .i tIF- -7-7777-7 ~ f y> REFERENCES " Environmental Laboratory, 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. ~ Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil ' Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 138 pp. 1 Federal Register, 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1), Guidelines for Specificdtion of Disposal Sites of Dredged or Fill Material, Vol. 45, No. 249, pp. 85352-85353, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register, 1982. Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Vol. 47, No. 138, p. 31810, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register, 1986. 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers, Final Rule, Vol. 51, No. 219 pp. 41206-41259, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 3 r°` Kollmorgen Corporation, 1975. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, MD. i Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Northwest (Region 9), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88 (26.9) 89 pp. r U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States in Cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Misc. Pull. No. 1491. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1987. Soil Survey of Clackamas County Area, Oregon. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., 293 pp. f ,j Schott & AfSOe12te3 E Ecologists and Wetland Specialists . i 11977 S. Tolivu Rd. Motalia, OR 97038 i (503) 829.6318 12 E \i _.~IS Enh'ibll I I¢m eB ' - IOIT119B BULL MOUNTAIN ~ Bnc'KCizouNn ~ COMMUNITY PLAN DI57 RIEUTton of SUMI~~RY WASHINGTON COUNTY ~ ,III . ~ I n >'ns.c.s PLANNED LAND USES .~„:a.a o.:w.e„~ ' . ~ egvew ~ - - ~ ~ I +M.. w.v.. r i III . I \ ~ I r OIST9 a x< b r~erw a.r.ri. ,u MUww I um.•im~~w•~ 'I - ~ wl~.ru~u.:. I~u~ulr '.l i. r..lini.~a~l. ~v w~i.~l~ ~__.I. i I . I ~ ~ ~ ~ wl~nhin ~I.. v.. r..rr I I ~ I ! wnu.wwwn.+~wan. ~r uw 'r w.~` \ GARO J _ „ .M h 9ull\ - i...nr u• w I I I 1 1 I ~..~uw rm~.n..~on ...ru. nw .en au E ~ r• ~I. ~ i Y...... I A.. ~.e..e R_~f m'M,y u...i.. r ~ l.li ~I.. e f ~ 11 C ' w .....w 1~~ °s6 AS.G4 r ~ ~ w.nu~'r.~•... - ~ . ~w/n~~ ~c .urm. L=: 'I ~ l I n~ e _ _ ~Z~~~..- ~ ,()X111 ez nr, , , n i.wi~n wmm -A t. , . ¢ Std' a u, I4: n ~ _.I n . , . r- T I ~ ...~.i ~ i f 1 1 A L ND U DISTRI SE CTS 1 I I 11I~' ~ r. ` I i I ~GENERFLOESCRIPTIOf;~ i; ~ - I ~ T I 'I `d ,L,,~.~saEe.~AE L I 1 _ _ arsR1o511 _ - ~ - f ~'.f I.. o , „ EAkal ^L\ ~ a , _ , YLA..nG ~prj PLIL\PiA1 ~1 I~~.: e I ❑n InuT R ~ Y ~ ~ . A s!~rin~suxir _ LRAM. CAf1ltTII AI\'..DaA1 F~ ~ LI \..t\VIN. ~I,Cf I`Li. YJI1C~Itl. r 1 ~ a~s~ TRANSPORTATION CLASEIFICATION ~ ~ ~ 4 ocx oan.caE , ~ f ® s. I ro+...m,... - coux~wn ausirvess ols~Ain ~ I „ reins ~ _ ~ ace:. . , ' - - I - - ~ ~ s `~I L - ! 6 - . J~_I ~ 1 _ - i - ~.._r . - ..-i 1 'I ri . -II ~ ~ s.-.~::h' l'ICINITY n1AP . . I.,n.ar..w .v.,,.~. THE RELATIONSHIP OF ~ COMPREHENSNE PLAN ELEMENTS a:~ ~ .w N.u. . ~ ~ PI k. n,h ~ . <.e. ..n<.r ~ . . .u. M.,r. v,m, I... rw lmv . . ~ \ a - i~. ....,a.,l r~.... ~ i m . a N ~ n<n v ~ . _ w .,li I I ~ r. a... M,.r ~ ,......n...n.N.., y~„a.~... rm~ .w h I n K.I. ~.,,~,.m,„..,~ IF I N I A T NATU S G C N RA , L R R .•m,. E U CES . SO ry m, Iv, ~.MI~\w.,,l ,.:..I,.IL,,.~a,r : I ,.,~..,.I,I „~.I.,II..,,,~.1...,,.r I - = Ti,. ....I,. m,,,, m m~,. Li l l ~m 1,1.,.~.,•..•,.~,L,,.. T W fM .w _ ~ _ M:•. x..~. , ......~~,~w~,m~,~~ ~ I M \ m ..I,. , w.. w\~I .Ill,.. L.,,, ti~W,~~. .~e.,k e e L... _ . e . ~ ~ , r~ w. R~ rv,.1.1~~ ~ R I v,,... ~ ~e1 n~ ,..r, .Pn~ H•.. I n.i~~...r rvi..w.,1. ,n~•.,,I m M ~ ~rv ~~..i..n mml a ~..I.n i.lk ~~.•.m >r riH,.w im'em. Innn"~.m, ik PY"~ ~ ^e~Mi••1,. lai.:..i•..~~~~nN ~,..xIM•I.rnlrc~•.nrr~.We..l,••m~.,~~~i tug' mnW+~ m•Ini• I ...i~wl•i~.wn•~i~. .~,~u~..wlz: i„ - Nr. n •..ml•N K e~n,~.,~~., ~a r m, .nm r.e. I.~lih.~nn „i t.+. ue lmv .n,mY : m rnm~.. ~.I M'+~•~~M+I.~vM~l~n~mw .wuu~~ " mww,d~~m~rt.,.me _ ~ - l[41911I1Y StA1P Ctrs ~ e ~ o e io I: I_ I~ I• ie i~ to Ip .o .I ,s _e a~ .u .o ~o ~ibl n i i~bil~l I i 1 I~~ 1 it i irtTL~~~TW m 1 UIIhIIIOWIIIIWiltl~Wil~4 1 o I. ~UU~~~p~ 1,~,~,~,~1~~~~~ "::J ,N,,,,"y GENERALI'LED SU11M1[ARY OF PERDIITTFD CSFS y BULL MOUNTAIN ~ ~ ~ RY LAnD USE DISTRICT COMMUNITY PLAN " , , ~~m , . u,, ~ ~ • _ . . ~ ~ ~ , ry _ . , _ ~ i ~ ~ _ . , ~ .M~~.,,,~,~.,.,~~.... P _ , ~ 'wl"-. ~ fix. r ~ ~'~r-.. - _ ,..-,r2.z7 rq o! . ~ _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ _ , .~~"~.~,,..~w~ ~ . ~ .,..gym,".b, , li " w...,, _ ~ .m w ..o,. ~ ~ , , ~ .,m~...~~.~,~".,~, _ ~ ' _ ,"ti . ,w,.rY~ ....,,M, .~,.....~.Nr~ m ,k,.". _ k,. , w, e. , .,~~,,,,„...~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,N ' tee." rv ~ ~~monrtv sraiv cm o ,e „ .o ,o za z~ .o 00 ~ m ~ ,,I i.b~,IL..~L..L!tIL.~.C~.~~_...d~,,,~P~q~i,i~.I,hIL.IilWldihOfihLiily.Il~tlf V,l,hlil. hii 6n _la,l~l!d i,W.fi !~ahhh~L~ l!_h~ ,n,i~.....~~^t Exhibit 3 Item #8 Or e®~ 10/27/98 Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor Salem, OR 97310-1337 (503) 378-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 TTY (503) 378-4615 May 21, 1998 State Land Board John A. Kitzhaber Govemor Martin Schott Phil Keisling Schott and Associates Secretary of State 11977 S. Toliver Rd. Jim Hill MOlalla, OR 97038 State Treasurer RE: Wetland Delineation Report for Hilishire Creek Estates d Washington County; T2S, R1W, Section 5; Det. #98-0015 Dear Mr. Schott: I have reviewed your January 16, 1997 report for the project referenced above. Based on the information presented in your report, I concur with your findings as m6pped in Figure 3 (enclosed). These wetlands and waterways are subject to the permit requirements of the State Removal-Fill Law. Federal and local regulations may apply as well. If it is necessary to fill, remove, or alter more than 50 cubic yards of material in a wetland or waterway, a state permit will be required. In evaluating a permit application, our agency will first consider whether there is an analysis of alternatives that avoid or minimize wetland or waterway impacts. Your contact person for a Removal-Fill permit is Bill Parks. Thank you for your report. Sincerely, Joel Shalch Wetlands Technician Enclosure cc: City of Tigard Planning Department Jim Goudzwaard, Corps of Engineers Jan Stuart, Corps of Engineers Bill Parks, DSL Alpha Engineering, Inc. \\Sateml\pp\WetlandsVcei\Lelters\98-0015.doc Exhibit 4 Item #8 -DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 10/27/98 PORTLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 2948 PORTLAND, OREGON 97208-2948 Reply to October 26, 1998 Attention of: /yt r Operations Division / f f SUBJECT: File No: 98-92. Hillshire IV, in Wetlands adjacent to a tributary of Summer Creek, Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. Martin Schott and Associates Attn: Martin Schott 11977 S Toliver Road Molalla, Oregon 97038 Dear Mr. Schott: We have received your request for our review of your wetland delineation report for a potential project located in Section 5DA, Township 2S, Range 1W as described in your report dated January 16, 1998. I have given your report a review and find there is sufficient information to state that a Section 404 permit would be required if you anticipate placement of fill in the wetlands and adjacent tributaries to Summer Creek. Additional review will take place at the time of your permit application. My field work was conducted because I had difficulty in confining the location and geographic features of the wetland as the map was difficult to interpret. However, after seeing the site, I can accept the documentation for the presence of wetlands. The data and findings in that report indicate the extent of jurisdictional wetlands that are present and daxa provided satisfies the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. This wetland' jurisdictional delineation is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the delineation before the expiration date. Based upon my observation of some ongoing building activities in other nearby portions of the Hillshire housing development, I discussed some concerns for phase IV with Jan Stuart. Water quality and erosion challenges need to be addressed at the time of any permit application and can be partly addressed with the use of deeded stream corridors, wetland buffers, and avoiding excavation in the late fall, winter, and early spring. For example, I observed new homes and associated fill being placed very close to a waterway. There also appear to be more building sites in nearby steep areas that would be very difficult to develop without use of extraordinary measures to prevent erosion. Those sites are still being observed. Ms. Stuart will want to identify any areas of your development that pose similar problems. :fir` _I In the event you or others involved with this property apply for a permit, please insure the subject file number is referenced. Jan Stuart, permit project manager, may be contacted at (503) 808-4381 if you have questions regarding a permit application. Contact me directly by telephoning (503) 808-4 Sincerely, Brian Wm. Lightcap Wetland Specialist Policy Analysis Section Copies Furnished: CENWP-OP-GP (Stuart) ODSL(Parks) vErPA/Portland Construction Inspection & Related Tests Carlson Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting P.O. Box 23814 June 26, 1998 Exhibit 6 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Phone (503) 684-3460 Item #8 FAX (503) 684-0954 CTI # 98-G 1626 10/27/98 Sierra Pacific Development P.O. Box 1754 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Attention: Mr. Ed. Freeman GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES 4 TIGARD, OREGON This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Hillshire Creek Estates 4 development located on the south side of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road in Washington County, Oregon (see Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation is to provide geotechnical evaluations and recommendations for the residential development. Our work was performed in accordance with our confirming proposal P0706, dated 4 May 1998. BACKGROUND Project Information Location - South of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and east of S.W. Menlor Lane in Washington County, Oregon (see Figure 1). Developer - Sierra Pacific Development (see address above) Civil Engineer - Alpha Engineering, Inc., 9600 S.W. Oak, Suite 230, Portland, Oregon 97223. Jurisdictional Agency - Washington County Site Description The site is bounded on the north by the Hillshire Creek Estates 2 development, and on the west by S.W. Menlor Lane and the Scholls Meadows development. Elevations across the property range between about 296 and 380 feet. Topography is gentle in the central and western portions of the site with grades generally less than 5 to 6 percent. The northeastern part of the site steepens moderately on the flank of Bull Mountain where 1 maximum grades in the area to be developed average about 22 percent. The steeper portions of the site are densely wooded with Douglas fir, maple, and alder. The lower site areas were formerly pasture, but have become overgrown with scotch broom, blackberry bushes and small trees. An abandoned building with a nearby concrete slab is located in the southwest part of the site. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 2 Proposed Development The current plan indicates that 64 residential lots are proposed for development of attached townhomes. Future residential structures are presumed to be less than 3 stories tall and primarily wood-framed with raised wood floors. A total of approximately 1,700 linear feet of streets and an additional 660 feet of private drives will be constructed. Standard underground utilities (sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, cable) are presumably included in the project. The current grading plan indicates maximum cuts and fills on the order of 6 to 8 feet. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1 General The site is located on the north flank of Bull Mountain, one of several anticlinal structures in the Columbia River Basalt within the much larger Tualatin Basin. The Tualatin Basin is a broad northwest-trending syncline along the southeastern flank of the Portland Hills (Tualatin Mountains). Intrabasin faulting occurs along the north and east edges of the Bull and Cooper Mountain anticlines. Stratigraphy Based on geologic mapping of the area (Madin, 1990), the site is located at the lower limit of significant loess deposits (Ql), and at the upper limit of significant thicknesses of Catastrophic Flood Deposits (Off) at about 300 feet elevation. Bedrock in the area is mapped as Miocene age Columbia River Basalt (Tcr). Test pit observations indicate that the higher elevations of the site are blanketed by a thin deposit of windblown silt (loess). The loess thickness appears to range in thickness between 10" and 2.8', with the greatest thickness in the elevated northeast corner of the site. The loess is underlain by a 3 to 7 feet of colluvial soil formed by complete weathering of transported Columbia River Basalt fragments. The colluvium rests on brown clayey silt residual soil formed by in-situ weathering of the underlying Columbia River Basalt. These 1 various soil types are discussed in more detail in the Site Subsurface Conditions section of this report. Structure Based on review of the Beaverton quadrangle geologic map from Earthquake Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area (USGS Open-File Report 0-90-2), inferred faulting trends in an east-west direction near the north end of the site. Another fault trends northward from the east-west structure (see Figure 1). These faults are buried beneath the Off deposits, and are inferred on the basis of subsurface data. There is no evidence to indicate that they are active. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 3 EARTHQUAKE SOURCES AND SEISMIC RISK 1 Local The Portland Hills fault zone (Madin, 1990), is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the site. It includes a series.of northwest-trending subsurface faults that extend for a distance of about 40 kilometers along the eastern margin of the Portland Hills. This fault zone is considered to be the boundary fault on the western margin of the Portland Basin. None of the major faults have been shown to cut Holocene deposits (10,000 years). The fault zone is not defined by historical seismicity or associated with any medium- to large-magnitude earthquakes. Although there is no definite evidence for activity for the Portland Hills fault zone, the zone is judged to be potentially active with a relative high probability (0.7) on the basis of possible deformation of late Pleistocene sediment (inferred from subsurface sediment thickness data), Geomatrix, 1995. The Gales Creek Fault is located approximately 13 miles southwest of the site. No seismicity has been recorded along the trend of the trend of the Gales Creek Fault; however, a small probability of activity is assigned to the structure because it is aligned along a northward projection of an active fault zone (the Mount Angel Fault) further to the southeast (Geomatrix, 1995). Regional In western Washington and Oregon, the most likely sources of earthquakes appear to be 1) shallow, moderate intensity earthquakes within the North American Plate; 2) somewhat deeper, moderately large earthquakes in the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate, and 3) potentially great earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (the contact between the two plates). Empirical relationships between earthquake magnitude and fault rupture length provide a means for estimating the maximum earthquake that a particular fault could generate (Bonilla et al., 1984). Based on the size of historical earthquakes in the region, and thickness of the seismogenic crust, the maximum earthquake magnitude expected from a crustal source in the northern and central Willamette Valley is M6.0 to M6.8 (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995. Deeper intraplate earthquakes (deeper than 30 km) have mostly occurred where the Juan de Fuca Plate is bending; either where the dip steepens, or where the plate is buckled (Rogers, 1983). Gravity data (Dehlinger et. al, 1970) indicate the bend occurs beneath the east flank of the Coast Range. Thus the most likely location for a deep intraplate earthquake is along the western edge of the Willamette Valley. The recommended design earthquake for this event would have a magnitude of 7'/2. No subduction earthquakes have occurred during historic times; however, geologic evidence available is interpreted as indicative that the great earthquakes (magnitude 9 %z) have occurred in recent prehistoric times. Such events appear to have occurred infrequently, about every 600 years on the average. The best estimates indicate that the last great earthquake occurred 300 years ago (Yamaguchi et. al., 1989). CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 4 Surface Water A small, unnamed tributary drainage to Fanno Creek flows northward through the central portion of the site. On the date of our geotechnical investigation (29 May 1998), the drainage was flowing an estimated 20 gpm. A spring located in the southwest corner of the site contributes to a narrow wetland corridor that extends northward through the western portion of the site (see blue area on Figure 2). Seasonally, the wetland strip has a few inches of standing water; however, the underlying organic clayey soil that is typical of wetlands appears to be absent. e Slope Stability The steeper northwest portion of the site has a maximum grade of approximately 22 percent. In general, the ground surface has no irregularities or changes in grade that suggest local slumping or landsliding. The Douglas fir trees on the site are typically straight, and have no bowed trunks that indicate rapid soil creep or slumping. In our experience on numerous other Bull Mountain slopes, loessal soils are relatively thin and the underlying colluvial and residual soils are stiff to very stiff. These soil units are not prone to slumping and sliding, even on relatively steep slopes. The moderate site slopes of 20 to 22 percent are not anticipated to be unstable unless severely impacted by grading. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND TESTING General A general description of the field exploration procedures and the test pit logs is presented in Appendix A. The test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan, attached as Figure 2. The results of laboratory testing is discussed in Appendix B and shown on the logs of test pits. e SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Site subsurface observations are limited to six test pits at locations shown on Figure 2, and discussed below. Topsoil. Topsoil generally varies in thickness between 8 and 16 inches. The thicker topsoils were found in the wooded areas of the site. In these areas, tree roots are likely to be present to depths of 2 to 3 feet. Topsoils in the cleared, pasture areas of the site are generally 8 to 9 inches thick, and contain some organic debris with fine grass roots. Loess. Windblown silt (loess) is present as a thin surficial blanket over the elevated portions of the site above 300 feet. A thickness of about 2 feet was found in test pits TP-2 and TP-3. The loess consists of light brown to brown silt with some clay. It is generally very moist and moderately stiff. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 5 Colluvium. Colluvial soils at the site were formed from complete weathering of basalt fragments that migrated down gradient from exposures of Columbia River Basalt on Bull Mountain immediately east of the site. As the rock fragments migrated down hill, they apparently became incorporated with loess that also appears likely to have transported down- slope by colluvial action. These soils are characterized by dark brown inclusions of clayey silt with black residual mineral staining (former rock fragments) within a matrix of somewhat lighter brown loess. Colluvial soils with residual rock fragments were observed in the site test pits to grade out below depths of between about 3.0 and 7.5 feet below the ground surface. Residual Soils. Below the colluvium described above, the site is underlain by residual soils formed by in-situ weathering of Columbia River. These soils are typically a dark brown clayey silt that is very stiff near the surface, and grades less stiff with depth due to increased moisture. It grades downward to weathered rock; however, no rock was found in any of the test pits to a depth of 10 feet. Groundwater The near-surface soils in the low-lying portions of the site are wet. As previously mentioned, standing water is locally present due to a spring in the southwest portion of the site. The spring was not located due to the abundance of vegetation in the area. Based on our site exploration, this surface water from the spring is perched, and the deeply saturated, soft or organic soils typical of wetland areas are not present. No groundwater seepage was noted in any of the six test pits at the site. All of the test pits encountered very moist soils below depths of 8 to 9 feet. Fills No significant quantities of fill appear to be present on the site. A large concrete slab is located adjacent to an abandoned structure in the southwest portion of the site, and 10 inches of driveway fill was encountered in test pit TP-5. Some thin fill from drainage ditch excavations is present in the southwest and central portions of the site. Test pit TP-4 encountered 10 inches of such fill. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion that the proposed development is geotechnically compatible with the subsurface conditions encountered in this investigation, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the development. The most prominent near-surface soils at the site is the mottled brown and grey silt with some clay. 1 CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 6 Any proposed grading is considered to be engineered grading as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). To provide the level of documentation specified in the UBC for placement of engineered fill, daily observation and testing during stripping and rough grading operations is usually required. A site-specific checklist of recommended soil testing and inspections has been created to aid the owner's representative and earthwork contractor to know when and who to call for soil inspection services (see Figure 3). Surface Water Surface water and wet soil conditions.are present in the low, western portion of the site as previously mentioned. The surficial soils in this wet area are stiff to very stiff below depths of 2.0 to 2.5. These wet conditions can be mitigated by the installation of adequate subdrains and the placement of fill as discussed in subsequent sections of this report. Site Preparation All areas to be graded should first be cleared (trees, stumps, and vegetation). All debris from clearing should be removed from the site. Organic topsoil and soft or saturated soils should be stripped. Based on our explorations, the average depth of topsoil removal is approximately 12 inches on the moderately sloping, wooded portions of the site and 6 inches in the cleared, lower areas. In the wooded area, additional removals up to about 2 feet may be required to eliminate large root systems. However, additional depths of removal should be determined on the basis of site inspection after initial stripping. Once an area is approved for filling it should be ripped, moisture conditioned, root-picked, and compacted prior to commencement of fill operations. Stripped topsoil should be stockpiled only in designated areas and stripping operations should be observed and documented by the Soil Engineer or his representative. Rough Grading All rough grading should be performed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, with the exceptions and additions noted herein. The native soils in the proposed cut areas are likely to be at a moisture content that is above optimum for compaction, and may require drying prior to compaction. Any imported material should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to arrival on site. Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction equipment. A minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained from the standard Proctor, ASTM D698, or equivalent standard (AASHTO T-99) is recommended 1 for engineered fill placed within lots and proposed streets during rough grading operations. Field density testing should conform to ASTM D 2922 and D 3017, or D 1556. All engineered fill should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer's representative. Typically, a density test is performed for at least every 2 vertical feet of fill placed on each lot, or every 500 yd3 of earthwork performed whichever requires more testing The earthwork contractor should be contractually held responsible for test scheduling and frequency. If a stripped soil laver is placed on the surface of finished lots then the depth of the laver should not exceed one foot. 1 CTI X198-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 7 Earthwork is generally performed in the summer months, generally from mid-June to mid- October, when warm dry weather is available for proper moisture conditioning of soils. Earthwork performed during the wet winter-spring seasons will probably require expensive measures such as lime treatment or imported granular fill to place and sufficiently compact engineered fill. Drainage Surface water drainage should be directed away from future structures and slopes. Roof drain water should be carried to the street if possible. Subdrains and perimeter footing drains should be installed in areas of poor surface drainage, or where natural groundwater seepage is anticipated or observed, such as in the southwest portion of the site. Subdrains should consist of minimum 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40 perforated or slotted plastic drain pipe enveloped in a minimum of 4 ft3/ft of 2"-%z open graded gravel (drain rock) wrapped with Amoco 4545 geofabric filter or equivalent. A minimum of one-half percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and nonperforated pipe outlet. Perimeter footing drains for residential structures may use 3-inch pipe and only 1 ft3/ft of gravel. Cut and Fill Slopes The site grading plan indicates maximum cuts and fills on the order of about 6 feet. CTI recommends that cut and fill slopes not exceed 2H:1 V. Fill slopes higher than 10 feet and started on original ground with a grade of over 20 percent should be started by horizontally keying into competent, native soil at the toe and benched as the fill rises (see Figure 4, Slope 1 Detail). The fill should be compacted as close to the slope face as possible. To further enhance slope face compaction and surficial stability, we recommend that the fill slopes be overbuilt and trimmed back at least 3 feet horizontal or extensively compacted as verified by the Geotechnical Engineer. A maximum 6-foot high property line retaining wall is proposed in the southeast portion of the site. This structure is discussed in the Retaining Wall section of this report. Utilities The sewers and storm drains appear to be located primarily in the streets. We anticipate that no hard rock will be encountered within normal sewer depths, and groundwater is not likely to be a problem over most of the site. The source of the spring in the southwest corner is assumed to be an interf low bed within the Columbia River Basalt that underlies Bull Mountain; however, its location is not precisely known. At other sites, similar springs have been observed to originate from very localized natural pipe-like channels that are only a few inches in diameter. It is possible that deep utility trenching in this area of the site could intercept one or more of these groundwater concentrations. All deep excavations and shoring should conform to OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part 1926). It is our opinion that the majority of the on-site near-surface soils are OSHA "Type B" soils. CTI #98-G1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 8 The walls of temporary construction trenches are expected to stand nearly vertical, with only minor sloughing, to a maximum depth of 4 feet from construction grade. In the valley areas, we anticipate that perched groundwater may cause more caving during the winter months. PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with ASTM D 2321 procedures. Initial backfill lift thickness for a %"-0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening flexible pipe. Utility trenches deeper than one-half the easement width between lot boundaries should be structurally backfilled as in the streets. We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density obtained from ASTM D698. Typically, density tests are taken at about every 4 vertical feet for every 200 lineal feet of trench backfill. Lift thicknesses should not exceed 12 inches, except if manufactured granular material is used for trench backfill, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-type compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be taken as great as 2 feet, provided proper compaction is being achieved and tested at each lift, as feasible. Use of large reverberating compaction equipment near existing structures should be carefully monitored for possibly harmful vibrations. Erosion Control The near-surface native soils are generally silt soils having low cohesion. These soils can erode or surf icially slump on slopes if unprotected and exposed to periods of wet weather or over-irrigation. The Civil Engineer's erosion control plan should be precisely followed if earthwork or building construction is performed during the wet-weather seasons. Slope faces should be well compacted and protected from rilling until landscaping is well established. We recommend the slopes be seeded as early as possible so plant growth becomes established prior to the wet weather season. Pavement Based on our experience with similar soils in the vicinity, the estimated CBR value is assumed as 6. The recommended dry weather pavement section is presented in the table below: TABLE 1: Dry-Weather Pavement Section Recommended Min. Recommended Material Thickness (in.) Compaction Streets Standard i Asphaltic 91 % of Rice density Concrete 3 AASHTO T-209 1 Crushed Aggregate Base 2 over 8 95% of Modified Proctor (%"-0 over 1 %z"-0) AASHTO T-180 CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 9 Typically, the base course and asphalt compaction testing is performed at every 100 to 200 feet of road. CTI recommends proofrolling directly on the subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of the base course in wet weather. Soft areas which rut, pump, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. If street construction is to be performed in the winter, than a wet weather construction plan should be developed from discussions with the owner, contractor, and civil and soil engineers. It is likely that an additional 6 inches of aggregate base and a woven geotextile will be necessary during wet weather. Anticipated Foundations The proposed homes, of the type anticipated, will likely be founded on shallow spread footings bearing on native soil and engineered fill. Spread footing construction and slope setback requirements should conform to Chapter 4 of the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code (CABO) and Chapter 18 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). For protection against frost heave, spread footings should have a minimum embedment depth of 12 inches for exterior grades on level ground. The recommended minimum widths for continuous wall footings are tabulated below: No. of Stories Minimum Width for (floors supported) Continuous Footing (in) 1-story 12 2-story 15 3-story 18 We anticipate that the allowable bearing capacity can be taken as 1,500 Ib/ft2 for footings bearing on stiff native soils or engineered fill. Footing loads in excess of 15 Kips or for supporting masonry chimneys, should be reviewed by a soil engineer. The coefficient of friction between on-site soil and poured-in-place concrete may be taken as 0.40. The maximum anticipated total and differential footing movements (generally from soil expansion and/or settlement) are 1 inch and % inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively. Expansive Soils The near-surface on-site soils are typical of Portland Metropolitan-area silt soils which have 1 a low expansion potential; therefore, no expansion index testing was performed as a part of this study. The Soil Conservation Service mapping for Washington County concurs that the soils have a low shrink-swell rating. CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 10 Retaining Walls The lateral soil forces for design of cast-in-place retaining structures with adequate drainage behind the wall can be calculated using the equivalent fluid densities provided in the following 1 Table 2. This data is not applicable to rockery walls. Adequate drainage will be such that no hydrostatic pressures are realized behind the walls. A one-foot wide clean sand layer should be placed immediately behind the back of the wall. A subdrain should be placed at the top of the footing. The following equivalent fluid densities are given for backf ill that consist of on- site soils. TABLE 2: RECOMMENDED EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES FOR LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES (Ib/ft) Unrestrained Wall Restrained Wall TYPE Level Profile 2H:1 V Level Profile 2H:1 V Upslope Upslope Active Pressure 42 59 - - At-rest Pressure 55 70 Passive Pressure* 280 280 120 120 * The upper 0.5 foot should be ignored for passive resistance The effect of live loads on lateral pressures has not been included. A drain should be placed behind the base of all walls. Wall subdrain construction should conform to the recommendations in the Drainage section of this report. Retaining wall backfill supporting walkways, concrete slabs, and other structures should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density obtainable by the modified Proctor, AASHTO T-99 or equivalent. The above values assume that no traffic loads, hydrostatic pressures, or other surcharges exist. The average allowable bearing pressure may be taken as 2,000 lb/ft' with a maximum allowable toe pressure of 2,500 Ib/ft2. The coefficient of friction between soil and poured-in- place concrete may be taken as 0.40. The minimum recommended depth of embedment for retaining walls less than 8 feet in height is 18 inches and for walls to 12 feet high, the recommended minimum embedment is 24 inches. ' For precast block reinforced earth (segmented) walls a maximum of 10 feet in height, using granular infill and on-site soil backfill, we recommend using a unit weight of 130 Ib/ft3 and an equivalent angle of internal friction of 33 degrees. We do not recommend using the on-site CTI #98-G1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 11 soils for infill. The native soils behind the wall should be assumed to have a 25 degree angle of internal friction. GENERAL NOTES We suggest that the developer incorporate the recommendations in this report into his agreement with the earthwork contractor. The earthwork should be performed to both the Washington County standards and in general conformance with the site-specific geotechnical recommendations in this report. A final report summarizing earthwork activities should be obtained from the geotechnical engineer as soon as possible after conclusion of rough grading activities and before site development is considered complete. e This report was prepared solely for the Owner and Engineer for the design of the project. We encourage its review by bidders and/or the Contractor as it relates to factual data only (test pits and laboratory data). The opinions and recommendations contained within the report are not intended to be nor should they be construed to represent a warranty of subsurface conditions but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. Our reports pertain to the material tested/inspected only. Information contained herein is not to be reproduced, except in full, without prior authorization from this office. We would be pleased to provide additional input, as necessary, during the design process and to provide on-site observation and testing during construction. Please feel free to contact us for this work as well as for any questions you might have regarding this report. Sincerely, CARLSON TESTING, INC. D PROF fs OMMGWON y 9 Q 'tee- 4 1474,3 OREGON PA ,%,CSJ C~ By By James E. Pyne James D. Imbrie, P.E. Geologist Geotechnical Engineer CTI #98-G 1626 Hillshire Creek Estates #4 Page 12 REFERENCES Maps U.S. Geological Survey, Beaverton Quadrangle, Oregon 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1961, photo revised 1984. Madin, I.P., Earthquake-Hazard Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 1990. Site Reconnaissance J.E. Pyne, 29 May 1998 Reports and Books Adams, J., 1990, Paleoseismicity of the Cascadia subduction zone: Evidence from turbidites off the Oregon-Washington margin, Tectonics, vol. 8. Allen, John Eliot, 1979, The Magnificent Gateway, Portland State University. Atwater, B.F., 1987, Evidence for great Holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington State; Science, vol. 236, pp. 942-944. Bonilla, M.G., Mark, R. K., Nd Lienkaemper, J.J., 1984, Statistical relations among earthquake magnitude, surface rupture length, and surface fault displacement: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 74, p. 2379-241 1. Couch, R.W. and Deacon, R.J., 1972 Seismic Regionalization Studies - Bonneville Power Administration Service Area, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Western Montana, Shannon and 1 Wilson, Inc. report to Agbabian Asssociates, El Segundo, California, October 1972, 43 p. Dehlinger, P., Couch, R.W., McManus, D.A, and Gemperle, M., 1970; Oceanic structures: Northern California to British Columbia, in the Sea, vol. 4, part 2 (A.E. Maxwell ed.), Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 133-190. Peterson, C.D. and Darioenzo, M.E., 1990; Episodic tectonic subsidence of late Holocene salt marshes, northern Oregon coast, central Cascadia margin, U.S.A., Tectonics, vol. 8. 1 Trimble, Donald F., Geology of Portland, Oregon and Adjacent Areas; Geological Survey Bulletin 1119, 1963. Yamaguchi, D.K., Woodhouse, C.A., and Reid, M.S., 1989; Tree-ring evidence for synchronous rapid submergence of the southwest Washington coast 300 years B.P., EDS, vol. 70,p.1332. .60 0 0~r Ell Wit.>0 so j' t I _ t. Ad AP W/11//1 I /A 00 ~35 n5p ua 3 / ~ o C ~ ~ O - 4 p Ir r O aOp O 30o i •n \ o a~l n n n \ O' - n 'I' IIII\\\ Boo LEGEND Inferred Fault SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES 4 SITE LOCATION MAP SCALE 1 " = 2000' Portion of USGS Beaverton, Oregon Cl = 10' Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, (Topographic!, 1961, mvised 1984. CTI JUNE 1998 FIGURE 1 I' l t. k• , ' I: \223-019\PLANNING\1EYISE\SH75A.Ow9 Thu Jun 11 14:07: 11 1998 YOM NAME HERE I ' I ~ I F;' •n'T i,r-,'Ti l+,•i , ! I.r yi - 1 1~i:1 i i - 1 •S, 11' 1 ,1'`',111' i! l 1'~.y 'y', yl`\\\\, - - _IOC -39D..... - ? - ! 1`1 i'•}4Ii! i 1 ill' l I1 zz - _ 1 1 ! I`1 ♦ p j 1 1 ! !t ! ! I-t~ ,-{TI }I { I L~ l I (I \ D.~ER ~i'~~ . IIl l+ll ;{!,'I(T~t~tl11 VACTJ/p1' f 40-0 - 1 i i 'I,IIIIII l! If l!!1 t ' - " !t,,~„t,:l l r ; ! ' ! ~ r r ! i r f 1 + J, + J ~ 'air A►~lir P - E' 0 • #i h',il ! / r n¢a~an~ s 1 - - _ 1 TL 3~ ~ i o~ ~ , 4 , ,I t!tl;+!,t~ t1t!tl~ tt r _ l' _ - - ~ •'';b iI . tlij' rt!' rr!i') :t ,t!trI11 i. II~' r _ ` .,I i!r/t,ri!1 !'ti+~ ir+ X11 17`x" tr - px 1 ,rtt rl!rlj~ llttt, 11,tj!I, I;` 1 r rr!r `f +i!.{I ,r!'II, it III i! ; ) i'\. IFF r ~ 11 it+.!! ,I; i,ti~rrlrrfli'11 ! t //+1 / ~~J `~ri- - ,e 1 m ,>sl ^'',n I':' Q. i; f/!) ~tir!~~i~i ~~)~,!fli/~'(/i,•...\ ,ATP-,6 - 7,1J~~~ r' ! ////i tl l//r { _ - I.''' / i• fJ jJJJJ?/ l t I!1!,~l/ 1 Irt +/lI K+ r c: . 51 / lJii!; !i//J~1!1t I1/rf/!;rl~J t~'♦ ~ i / !j J / J J I ' ! r~ I t 1,~J" t~ l 1 r~1 . 't~,~ ~ r f / ~ ,:~~~f/J/iJ/~i'iii%~ii/~ij~J~~2°//fJ~/"'JJJ//i~ - / , ~ -'.a,.._ _ 1 1 li 1 / ///J JJJ/in/r 1J•/ i'• ~~f,BPAy_~J;JJi ./J~%i i~ J~/iiJj`i~ ~i/~J' ,ILrr• / J/ //IRAC~.B • / j'%j J J/JJ,/JJ/JJJrJ J J /.J?J 1 i r _ - >~r , L+^ ~''/Jii/ Irf~~% J!% i / i'I \ Ica- t _ 1 '1 1 - - i/i •i%'J//~` ~iA ~:i.~%//i'ce'%%/•,%i' ~ J , • 1 ! ir. 1CNL;Y"c';u'"Pi/eltAASt}kNT,i~'-17'/ PpG,S1PiY,,,~~~[ li ~ "r . i./ rvrW ASS!r-aF-eerWuwn =ff-ff -W 3 m`' mavxaEo P- , LEGEND r / / j l~) r I ! ! I t I~`< i ~ ,~/i 1 : m+mlmuurrswt . ~ f /J . ! r r1 I ! i ~ 1 I ll 1! ~ ~ 1 t '?i t~ I ' r - ~ .3 „ J/ ,ef~ 'f•f' i aat ',II i" I 1' / II'Y/J yi' - •.•.\b•. ) "HILLSiRE•'Ct EK STI TE~SjPH ~i / 11 1 f•• oc W _ J J . I ( I , I _ I rA A r,-,, y ~b ~~t w~ -j- ^!r•~ i j I i„ ~ i i ' I{~~r t 1 I M AU - 3ia - (_r..- `.fir, y ! I r 1 ' . r 1 ri t % / ♦ , ' i 60 So o so 120 L-~'-"-..-~-'___, •i ~__11(j( j (7^ ti Ir ~I~11'J/,' 1 ` `.`1i^~_,;••~.,~~.`t ,\__..,tr!1 I mil; II g ( ~1 ~ 11u11 • t.,;' . PA 50' PA P~ 60' PA / Pn 2840' ' PL / 5.5' 28' 8'P.U.E~ 9' 32' 9' J 8'P.U.E. 8'P.U.E. 12' 36' 12' 8'P.U.E. 0.5' 5 ! 1 1 f 5 SOW BY S' SOWK BY A S' SDWK BY 5' SDWK BY j I •'I , ~4 5' SOM BY OTHERS OTHERS 07HER5 OTHERS O ' ~ L~ ~ ~ OTHERRS ERS P CLASS "C'-2 UF'TS C.PVMT. CLASS "C"-2 UFTS _ 'A.O.PVMT. CLASS 'C"-2 LIFTS 2" 3 4'-D" CRUSHED ROCK 3" 3 4"-0' SHED ROCK - 2" 3 "-O' )CRUSHED ROCK _ 7'(2'-0-) CRUSHED ROCK 12" 2"-0' CRUSHED ROCK 8'(2'-0') CRUSHED ROCK ' 1 f-.- S.W. FERN AND "Ap STREET, S.W. OLD MENLOR jIJyARDUNDGRADiNG`'"'• PRIVATE STREET MENLOR LANE P o SHEET STORM DRAINAGE AND `DESIGNED BY NF DA 6 ° TEST PIT LOCATION rn , m DRAWN BY uAA DALE 8/98 1 u 5 GRADING PLAN FROM RENEWED BY D?D DATE_ of HILLSHIRE CREEK ESTATES PH.4 PROJECT 1,10.223_-_019 REF. SCALE 1100' R q Alpha Engineering, Inc. + 2 TAX MAP 2S 1 5DA, SCALE i TAX LOTS 300, 400, 500 FN: PSHEETS/RENSEO/SHT5ADWD CTI JUNE 1998 FIGURE 2 WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON REF.:SURVY/22319PRE,22319LOTA 1 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION A total of 6 test pits ranging in depth between 9.0 and 10.0 feet were excavated on 29 May 1998 at site locations shown on Figure 2. The test pits were excavated with a Takeuchi 1 trackhoe form CTI. All excavations were backfilled and compacted with the trackhoe bucket immediately after completion of logging and sampling. The test pits were logged as to changes in soil type, moisture, relative strength, and ground water occurrence. Representative soil samples were taken from selected depths in the test pits and retained in airtight plastic bags for moisture testing. A bulk soil sample was collected for laboratory compaction testing. Logs of the test pits showing changes in soil type and groundwater occurrences are presented on Figures A-1 through A-6. Soil conditions were evaluated, described, and classified in accordance with the classification format described in the Oregon Department of Transportation Soil and Rock Classification Manual (ODOT Highway Division, 1987), based on the Unified Soil Classification System. 1 e Logged by: Ed. Pyne Test Pit No. TP- 1 Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 303 ft. E Q L Material Description L V W E c n 0 0 ~ cn ~ U ~ Dr. gry-brn organic silt, some clay, wet, soft (8" Topsoil) 1 1.5 U.-bm-s17, some crtay, ftnet'y-rragmentedPod lum - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mottled brown to grey silt with some clay with numerous 2 >4.5 inclusions of former rock fragments that are weathered >4. 3 >4.5 to dark brown clayey silt, moist stiff to v. stiff (Colluvium)----------- 4- 4.5 Dark brown clayey silt, very stiff, moderately moist (Residual soil) 5- 6- Grades less stiff below 6 feet due to incrased moisture 7- 8- Wet below 8 feet but no distinct seepage 9- 10- Test pit completed at 10 feet, No groundwater encountered, 12 No rock found. 13- 14- 15- 16- 171 Job No. 97-G1626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A-1 GALs%y Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 UUW~ Logged by: Ed. Pyne Test Pit No. TP- 2 Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 330 ft. m ~ E a, 2 D o Material Description 0 c E M c n 0 0- 0- C/5 C-5 Dark brownish-grey organic silt with some clay, wet 1 - - - -(16" Topsoil) - - 2 1.25 Light brown clayey silt, very moist, soft (Loess) 1.50-- 3-1.25 3.0 4-3.25 Mottled brown and grey silt with some clay with numerous inclusions of former rock fragments that are weathered to 5 dark brown clayey silt, stiff, moist (Colluvium) 6 7 - Dark brown clayey silt, moist, very stiff (Residual soil) 8 - Grades less stiff at 9 feet due to increased moisture 9 10 Test pit completed at 9 ft., No groundwater encountered, 11 No rock found. 12- 13- 14- 15- 16 17 Job No. 97-61626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 2 uALS94. Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Test Pit No. TP- 3 Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 358 ft. W E ~ o Y ° S? C Material Description W 0 CD ca v c E o c a Dark brownish-grey organic silt with some clay, wet, soft 1 - (13" Topsoil) 1.25 2 2 5 Brown silt with some clay, wet, soft (Loess) 1.5 3 1.5 3_.5 Mottled---- grey-- and--brown--silt --with--some--clay-, -num--erous---- 4 3.0 former rock fragments that are weathed to dark brown - - 91.2Y.2Y silt (Colluvium) - 5 - - Brown clayey silt, very stiff, moist (Residual soil) 6 7 g Grades less stiff below 8 feet due to increased moisture 9 10 11 Test pit completed at 10 ft, No groundwater encountered, 12 No rock found. 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- Job No. 97-61626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 3 601!1 L I Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Test Pit No. TP- 4 Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 304 ft. a~ (D ° 42 Material Description Q v c E o~ c d ~ ~ U p Dk. grey-brn. silt, some clay, organic, fragmented (Fill) 1 1.0 Mottled rust and brown clayey silt_soft_wet_fragmented (Fill) 2 2.5 2.0 Mottled light brown, grey, and rust clayey silt 3 1.5 2.25 4 3.25 5 Brown clayey sit with numerouns residual rock fragments weathered to dark brown clayey silt, stiff 6 (Colluvium) 7 8 Dark brown clayey silt, very stiff, moist (Residual soil) 9- 10- Test pit completed at 10 ft. 11 No groundwater encountered, 12 No rock found. 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- Job No. 97-GI626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A-4 GALSo Carlson Testing, Inc. -P.O. Box 23814 -Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Test Pit No. TP- 5 Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 310 ft. a~ m E T o 2 q 4) 4) n " Material Description Q- CD E `n c ID a u5 U v Mixed organic soil, gravel, brick (Fill) 1 ~ Brown clayey silt, wet, soft 1.5 2 1.0 3 >4 Residual rock fragments in brown clayey silt (Colluvium) - '4.5 Dark brown clayey silt, very stiff, (Residual soil) 4 >4.5 5 6 7 8 Grades less stiff below 8 feet due to increased moisture 9- 10- - Test pit completed at 10 ft, 11 No groundwater encountered, No rock found. 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- Job No. 97-G1626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 5 ~,aLso C ~ Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 Logged by: Ed. Pyne Test Pit No. TP- 6 Date Excavated: 05-29-98 Location: See Site Plan Suface Elevation: 326 ft. a) ° Q Z. a o V Material Description CL 0 c _2 I E A c ? O d d ~ 2 U 0 reyis - rown organic si , some clay, wet (9- 1 opsoi 1 1.5 Grey-brown clayey silt, wet, soft 1.75 2 Mottled grey and brown clayey silt with numerous residual 2'75 rock fragments that are weathered to dark brown clayey 3 3.0 3.0 silt, stiff, moist (Colluvium) 4 4.0 8- Dark brown clayey silt, very stiff (Residual soil) 5- 6- 7- Grades less stiff below 8 feet, wet, no seepage of 9 groundwater 10 11 Test pit completed at 10 ft. No groundwater encountered, 12 No rock found. 13- 14- 15- [ 16- 17- Job No. 97-G1626 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 6 ALSO G y Carlson Testing, Inc. - P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 - Fax 684-0954 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Classification, Water Contents and Unit Weights Soil conditions were evaluated, described, and classified in accordance with the classification format described in the Oregon Department of Transportation Soil and Rock Classification Manual (ODOT Highway Division, 1987), based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Natural moisture contents were taken in jars; all samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The moisture contents are expressed as a percentage of free water lost by evaporation compared to the dry weight of soil. These are presented numerically on the test pit logs. Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content A compaction test was performed on a selected bulk sample during this study to determine the moisture-density relationship of the on-site soils. The test was performed in accordance with AASHTO T-99. The results obtained may be compared to field dry densities for evaluating relative compaction of compacted fill and native materials. The test results are summarized below. TABLE B-1: Compaction Test Results Material Description/ Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Location Density (lb/ft3) Content Brown clayey silt (ML), 105.4 18.4 TP-2 @ 2.0 ft. - B-1 - CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED SOIL INSPECTION & TESTING Item Done Procedure Timing By Whom No. 1 Pregrade meeting Prior to work on site Contractor, Developer, Civil & Soil Engineers Stripping, aeration, and root During stripping Soil Technician 2 picking operations 3 Approve imported fill Prior to its arrival on site Soil Engineer material 4 Inspect slope key Prior to start of fill slope Soil Engineer's Representative 5 Compaction testing of During filling, tested every 2 Soil Technician engineered fill (90%M) vertical It for every lot Compaction testing of During backfilling, tested Soil 6 trench backfills' every 4 vertical feet for Technician every 200 lineal feet 7 Street Subgrade Prior to base course every Soil compaction (95%S) 200 lineal feet Technician 8 Base Course compaction Prior to paving every 200 Soil Technician (95%M) lineal feet 9 AC Compaction (91 %R) During paving every 200 Soil Technician lineal feet 10 Final Soil Engineer's Completion of Project, allow Soil Engineer Certification' one to two weeks for final report Notes: ' Sewer, storm drain, water, etc. (90%M) 2 Includes review of strippings on lot surfaces and finished slope conditions. FIGURE 3 1 1 3-foot horizontal overbuild, or extensive slope face compaction Final fill slope face Original Benching ~ Ground o /10 orW- Subdrain, subject to Fill Key Soil Engineer's review. H/2 or 10' minimum CTI Job No. 98- G1626 Fill Slope Detail Figure 4 Carlson Testing, Inc.- P.O. Box 23814 - Tigard, Oregon 97281 - 684-3460 r ova 714e (V I, "I-)/ BOARD OF DIRECTORS I TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION -t-Denise R. Jones, Main Street Village Apartments, 639-62461968-1086 fax V Paul Savory, Southwest Office Supply, 639-3179/639-9586 fax Penny Connor, Razz Ma Tazz, 639A 165 Kate Dormer, Tigard Sub Shop, 684-7827/624-6539 fax Thelma Magno-Humphries, Magno-Humphries, Inc. 684-5464/639-3161 fax Dave Hammond, Pacific Paint, 620-7522/639.8697 fax Jeff Thomas, Rose City Contracting, 624-6527/624-6554 fax Linda L. Cross, Hearts & Flowers Antiques, 598-8768/624-6539 fax V Tyler Ellenson, Tyler Automotive, 639-5588/6246539 fax c~11 # . Marv Leach, Tigard Chamber of Commerce, 620-7527/5504241 ~c t~ 2►~-4 r'L1. Brad Smith, Optometrist, 639-5155/624-0542~fax 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City RecorderC DATE: October 23, 1998 SUBJECT: October 27, 1998 Council Agenda - Information Received Attached is a letter received today from Mr. Alexander Craghead. This relates to Agenda Item No. 9, Progress Report: Tigard Central Business District Association. I: AMCATHMOUNCIMCBD.DOC OCT-23-98 10:22 AM Johann Mouncaln Shoe 3036201699 P.01 Alerandee CmShead t U ~ e G 12205 Soudwsr Hall Blvd Tlgar,t fh'egwa 97223-6210 ~tJ W Y' Ocotber 23rd. im To: Tigard City Council _ t~tl~ do Cathy Wheatly. City Recorder / From: Alexander Craghead d l RE: Downtown Tigard Fax Page I of 3 New make sure this gets into the Council Mail packet today. Ilunksl Alexander OCT-23-98 10:22 AM Johann Mountain Shop 3036201699 P.02 Alexander Craghead 12205 Southw-esr Nall Blwi Tigard, Oregoi; 97223-6210 October 22nd, 1998 To: Tigard City Council & Mayor Nicoli RE: Downtown Tigard revitalization effort. Currently, we are in the midst of a process designed to revitalize and plan the future of Tigard's downtown. Over the course of the past years, there have been at least three other efforts, each of which have either failed or been abandoned / defunded. In response to this, and to ideas raised by the Vision Task Force in 1997, the Council launched the current effort with the idea of being 'grass roots based'. Now comes the time to re-evaluate our progress. The idea of keeping away from the "Council downwards' appearance was understandable considering the past experiences of this city. FIowcver, I wish to point out that although it was a policy based on experience and good intentions, that it is not a policy which has worked well. In every other planning effort in every other city in the Metro area, Task Forces arc appointed to handle the issues in a professional, timely manner- They work, they're proven. Yet when it came to Tigard, we did it differently. And now we are experiencing the results of that decision. In organizing the Tigard C.B.D. Association, numerous and grave errors were made. The list of proposed Board members was not circulated prior to the meeting at which they were elected. Those present at the meeting to elect the Board, (October 1 st,) eight were to be Board members, in essence voting for themselves. This means a board of Eleven was voted in by the votes of only seven non-serving stakeholders from the downtown. As the Council has decided to give a'hands ofr approach to this effort, there has been no ethics or protocol oversight. Participation and representation are also inadequate. 1 could go through the sign in sheets from just the month and a half during which I facilitated these meetings and make a long list of people who came and have not shown since. We went from running out of chairs to only the board showing up. In addition, of those voted into the board, only four were previously involved in this effort. In addition, one of these four has stacd in the past that they did not want property owners to come to the meetings because'they are only interested in protecting their property'. The method with which the board was selected excluded many fine individuals who have served the community well. In addition, the current effort has not had the dedication to attempt to correct any of tliese failings. When faced with declining participation, it did not attempt to call/write those who had dropped out and find out why they were no longer involved. During the time in which the meetings had had good attendance, it was necessary to make numerous hours of personal time contacts with the various stakeholders, including walking fliers door to door, reminding them of an u9cominb meeting; calling or leaving messages for various stakeholders, encouraging their OCT-23-98 10:23 AM Johann Mouncain Shop 5036201699 P.03 attendance; and being prepared to field phone calls or letters and answering questions. No one in the current effort fulfilled these needs, and as a result, participation and representation declined. I am not criticizing the entire Tigard CBD Association Board. CBD stakeholders were denied the ability to get to know any of them before their election. so there is no way we can judge the newcomer's ability. I do not doubt that they wish to do only what they feel is right for downtown. As an association, they could very well prove invaluable in implementing any plan drawn for the downtown. But considering the issues which have come up over the past few months it would be imprudent to give them the Council's full support at this time. What I am proposing is this; put off you decision for two or three months. I.ct the board have the time to settle into the issues and decide where they're going. Give them a date to report back to the Council with some sign of progress- (not the finished plan, only a report on how and what they are doing, but most importantly how;) say January 26th. Then, on the 26th, re-examine the issue, and then make the decision. If they can show that they have made good progress, then let them go ahead, but if they have not, then I suggest you appoint a Task Force. This Task Force would. I suggest, include representatives of the new association, the Chamber of Commerce, and of the City of Tigard, as well as a group of citizens and civic minded individuals who would be representative of our downtown and the community as a whole. A decision at this time Would be a decision about a Board which the Council knows little about. It would be a decision to endorse a leadership which has not had and still does not have adcgaute ethical oversight; which had shown a lack of dedication and responsibility in carrying out it's function, and which does not have the support of the people of the C.B.D. Considering the weight and caliber of the decisions to be made by this body, the wisest course of action at this juncture would be to postpone any official sanctioning of the group's actions until more information is available to judge the fitness of this group to fulfill it's intended role. Thank you for your time and your patience. Sincerely, exander Craghea Copies: City Manager Bill Monahan T.C.B.D.A. c/o Denise Jones Candidates G. Martin, M. Benner and J. Patton Oregonian S.W. Metro Section Tigard Times/Steve Clark AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF: October 27.1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution Adjusting Tigard's Land US e A--';--t~;on Fee Schedule. PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK A CITY MGR OK~~- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to replace the existing fee schedule in order to establish fees that reflect the newly revised Community Development Code that was adopted on July 28, 1998? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution and fee schedules. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council adopted a revised Development Code on July 28, 1998. The new code was to help streamline development processes, as well as reflect changes in state and regional requirements. While most processes remain the same, there are new permit processes included in the new code, as well as procedures that have been eliminated. For example, accessory structures no longer require a permit, while there is a new process to allow accessory dwelling units. There is no longer a major partition requirement. There are several new adjustment procedures which add flexibility. Fees were also necessary for the Water Resource Section added in June of 1997. The new fee schedule also establishes guidelines for the refund of fees for applications that are withdrawn. The effective date of the new code is to be November 26, 1998 to coincide with adoption by Washington County. The new fee schedule is necessary to also coincide with the effective date. The fee schedule includes a separate schedule for land use applications in the urban service area. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not Applicable. FISCAL NOTES The new fee schedule will allow for cost recovery of processing land use applications. Resolution Adjusting the City's Land Use Application Fee Schedule Page 1 of 1 is\curpln\dick\fees98.sum 13-Oct-98/3:36 PM AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 10-27-98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE AAGENDA TITLE CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE CORRECTING OMISSIONS TO THE NEWLY ADOPTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ORDINAN E NO.98-19 g~ PREPARED BY: D. Bewersdorff t DEPT HEAD OK 169L CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt the attached ordinance correcting omissions to Ordinance No. 98-19? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY The omissions indicated above were the result of copying and editing errors. The provisions that were omitted were covered through the review of the ordinance as well referenced as in the legislative notes (see attached). The legislative notes were contained in the information that was before the City Council thereby showing the intent that the provisions should have been included in the draft ordinance that was adopted by the Tigard City Council on August 25, 1998. The omissions were: 1. One illustration on flag lots (Exhibt A of the proposed ordinance). 2. The Table of Contents (Exhibit B of the proposed ordinance). 3. The Miscellaneous Permits Chapter (18.385) (Exhibit C of the proposed ordinance). These pages were included in the Washington County hearing process and will be effective on November 26, 1998. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\CITYWIDE\CDCSUM.DOC 18300: LAND USE DECISIONS LEGISLATIVE NOTES The Land Use Decisions section contains ten chapters which deal with the substantive and procedural aspects of all of the various land use permits and related actions required throughout the development code. This section features the most marked changes both in content and format of any section of revised code. With regard to the substantive requirements: • Several chapters have only minor changes and re-formatting. These include Annexations (18.320); Conditional Uses (18.330); Site Development Reviews (18.120); and Zoning Map and Text Changes (previously Amendments to the Title and Map) (18.380). • Planned Developments (18.350) reflects recommendations previously made by the Planning Commission but never codified into the existing code. • A new chapter, Director's Interpretations, replaces Interpretation (18.12). The new section explains in greater detail the procedures by which the Director renders such decisions. It also includes a provision for the appeal of such a decision, goes directly to the City Council, rather than the Planning Commission or Hearings Officer, as would normally be the case. This is based on a recent Oregon court case in which it was found that appeals of Director's Interpretations to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) are more likely to be upheld in the City's favor if the appeal was handled by the City's legislative body, i.e., City Council. • In Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments, the traditional variance procedure remains intact. However, a requirement that the applicant demonstrate that a proposed variance "not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan", was removed from the approval criteria, since the scope of this requirement far exceeds the importance of the action. The second half of this section is devoted to a new concept, adjustments. There are two kinds of adjustments: - "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limit. For example, up to a 5% increase in maximum lot coverage or 25°% reduction in front yard setback requirements can be granted in a simple procedure. - "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard criteria for a generic variance. Examples include adjustments to access and egress standards and reduction in the minimum parking ratios. Many of these adjustments are already called for in the various chapters in 18.700, Specific Development Standards, but often these do not contain a formal process for granting approval. By creating this section of 18.370, all of these adjustments are now grouped in one place, and each has an attached review procedure and approval criteria to insure that in granting them the City is meeting all state legal requirements. • Miscellaneous Permits (Chapter 18.385) groups all of the remaining permits which in the old code appeared in their substantive chapters. These include historic overlay-related, home occupation, non- conforming use confirmation, sensitive land, temporary use and tree removal permits. Like the adjustments described above, the requirements for these could have been retained in their original chapters. However, from an organization perspective, it was decided to consolidate information about all permits in one section. egis at otes: an Use Decisions (MOO) (Planning omm on Draft: A consolidation of the old Chapters 18.30 (Legislative Decisions) and 18.32 (Quasi-Judicial Decisions), Chapter 18.390 (Decision-Making Procedures) contains all of the procedural requirements for each permit type. As currently organized, these chapters are unnecessarily complex, repetitive, confusing and often in conflict. The new chapter has combined all legislative and quasi-judicial decision-making procedures in a single place. These have been simplified into four procedure types: • Type I (Ministerial Decisions) which are for minor permits or actions made by the Director or his designees based on "clear and objective" standards. Often made "over the counter", these decisions are decided without public notice or a public hearing. The specific requirements for the Type I procedure are contained in Section 18.390.030. • Type II (Quasi-Judicial Decisions) which apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions which contain some discretionary criteria. Type II decisions are decided by the Director with public notice and an opportunity for a hearing (appeal). If any party of standing appeals a Type II decision, such an appeal is heard by the Hearings Officer. The specific requirements for the Type II procedure are contained in Section 18390.040. • Type III (Quasi-Judicial Decisions) apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that predominantly contain discretionary approval criteria,. Type III actions are decided by either the Hearings Officer (IIIA) or the Planning Commission (IIIB), with appeals to or review by the City Council. The specific requirements for the Type III procedure are contained in Section 18.390.050. G Type IV (Legislative Decisions) which apply to legislative matters. Legislative matters involve the creation, revision or large-scale implementation of public policy, as opposed to quasi-judicial decisions which affect only a specific applicant or group of applicants. Type IV actions are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council. The specific requirements for the Type IV procedure are contained in Section 18390.060. A summary of permits by type of decision-making procedure is provided in 18.390.020C. In addition, two new land use procedures are contained in Section 18.390.070. These include Expedited Land Divisions (ELD), as provided in ORS 197.360, and Limited Land Use Decisions (LLD), as provided for in ORS 197.015 (12). These are relatively obscure permitting procedures and only apply in a very limited number of circumstances. Few applicants understand or want the flexibility to use these procedures in lieu of the standard procedures described above. To insure these applicants have the option to choose such a procedure for processing a permit request and to be in compliance with state law, these procedures are described in this chapter of the code. The City's Hearings Officer has experience' adjudicating permits under these procedures in the rare circumstance where an applicant opts to use them. The last section of the chapter contains general procedures (18390.080), which apply across all or most of the Type I - IV procedure types. These include things like pre-application conference requirements, content and acceptance of applications, directoes duties and requirements governing the re-submittal of requests following denial. In summary, Land Use Permits contains all of the information about permits in one place. Each permit or related action has its own approval criteria, which are contained in Chapters 18.320 - 18385, and is assigned a generic procedure type, the requirements for which are contained in Chapter 18390. A summary of all of this information is contained in Chapter 18.310. Cross-references to this permitting information is also contained in other chapters in the code. For example, in Section 18.765.070 F2, it states: Legislative Now. air se ecissons ) (Planning o -ion ra 8/1307) 2 "The Director may reduce the total required off-street vehicle parking spaces per Section 18.765.070H by up to a total of 20% by means of a parking adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020 C5a." Legislative Notes: Land I se Decisions 0 (Planning ontmu Zr: Draft. • e AGENDA ITEM # ~a FOR AGENDA OF Oc..~v r e p 2 ?1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Chamber of Commerce Easement ✓ PREPARED BY: G. Berry O's DEPT HEAD OK 10,,v."MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Request for an utility easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council approve the request. . 2. That Council authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The purpose of the easement to provide access to electrical service for the Tigard Chamber of Commerce. The proposed easement is across the adjacent City-owned parcel currently being improved for parking. To avoid the need for excavating the parking lot after it is constructed, the Chamber of Commerce is proposing to install the service along with the current construction of the parking lot. Prompt approval of the easement is required to accomplish this. Staff has reviewed the easement agreement and has requested revisions that have been accepted by the Chamber of Commerce. The resulting proposed agreement is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES The agreement will not require expenditures by the City. Oet,23 9,8 01:01p John L Cook CPR [5031 590-0492 p.3 EASEMENT The City of Tigard ("Grantor") is the owner of the following described real property: a tract of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West Willamette Meridian, Washington County, City of Tigard, Oregon described as follows: Parcel 2 of Partition Plat No. 1996-026 as recorded in Washington County Partition Plat Records. The Tigard Chamber of Commerce ("Grantee") is the owner of the following described real property: a tract of land situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range I West Willamette Meridian, Washington County, City of Tigard, Oregon described as follows: Parcel 1 of Partition Plat No. 1996-026 as recorded in Washington County Partition Plat Records. The above properties are adjacent to each other. The Grantor wishes to grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual nonexclusive easement under, over, and across particular strips of land 5 feet in width and more particularly described as follows: A strip of land 5 Feet in width lying from north to south from the existing Portland General Electric (PGE) pole, as of below date, to the border between Parcel 2 and Parcel 1. The terms of this Easement are as follows: 1. The Grantee, its agents, independent contractors and invitees, shall use the easement strip only for Grantee's utility access purposes. 2. The Grantee shall provide the Grantor with twenty-four hours of notice before commencing any work within the easement and shall make every effort to avoid disruption of the Grantor's use of the easement. Repairs due to the work shall be in accordance with the original work performed and shall restore the repaired location to existing or better condition. The Grantor shall be entitled to an inspection of the repair before final payment of Grantee's contractor. 3. The Grantee and Grantor shall cooperate during periods of joint use so that each party's use shall cause a minimum of interference to the other, however, in the case of conflict, the Grantor's right of use shall be dominant. 4. The Grantor shall remain the owner of the easement strip. The Grantee agrees to indemnify and defend Grantor from any loss, claim or liability to the Grantor arising in any manner out of Grantee's rights under this easement or use of the easement. Grantee assumes all risk arising out of its use of the easement and Grantor shall have no liability to Grantees or others for any condition existing thereon. I - EASEMENT Oct,23 98 01:01p John L Cook CPR (5031 590-0492 p.4 5. This easement is subject to all prior easements and rights of parties of record. 6. This easement shall be perpetual; however, in the event it is not used by Grantees for a period of three (3) years, or if otherwise abandoned by Grantees, the easement shall automatically expire, whereupon Grantees shall, upon request, execute a recordable document evidencing such expiration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have dated and signed on 1998. CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD CHAMBER OF CON0 ERCE BY: BY : STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Washington ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on 1998, by , that he/she signed this instrument on behalf of the City of Tigard; and that he/she has the authority to sign this instrument on behalf of City of Tigard. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Washington ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on 1998, by , that he/she signed this instrument on behalf of the Tigard Chamber of Commerce, and that he/she has the authority to sign this instrument on behalf of Tigard Chamber of Commerce. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expires: 2-EASEMENT OG- Q ~ - o C8 - 9 102~„E ~34,26~~„E PL d _ scoI L ' Of COIAMERCE ova"` CMIASO joSDAVAT a ~j c M v m as N N u 0 1 -- 110, LIN•I lirnq 1 f X ,f' , ..-''''----- --1,-..„7-„,;-4,-.-..i--------.----1.----L..L____L____.: i e/h:-=i--• -T`- L-A.� Lr � s •.��.I� ..� 0/mow•• .•�� __ • / 4110: A------ i , billi • $ : reAggignire • • 1 1 [ a t I ell I 131111111MIIP% . • f .. ._ . w . .•! ° '. / e• � t L f r • � mo �1T r � "} r r-.� - • ______:X ----L.,_r_._. 4 mariarli, me 11 5 ! , 7' I 4 - .is: 4.--".• ----"1„../k ' ._ ,---_______--ta.,... ..... .„.., i r --------- 5 _______::>.::........ 7. ..mra-ciai, 5 if",1__....._.).7.1„/ „ ir, 1.,/, • ((........„,( Wit j bib aiii . s .,., i , •-;,., . , . • fs` _ - • / „--- -...............-....- I L__-_--___. • -- •` , Of • ,_.....-.,- 4i, •�'•w • 'rf : ur '• tom• - a _e : •� ....j. ; I ..• • . 4, __ ___ .......‘,/ --...1 ::- # \ .1- • p • • ;<//440 412 y 1 - /-- •'''''''''''.;.. :,,-,-'... '.- ; 4,7 \i 5411, 7 . '11 .. ........- .....,........„. . - r.' . -: --- --J �►,” ` /. --.-�---ter • 3 0i .. ----_, •,.. '0,14/42 .", (0\v,___ _.\\_______________________________, , ir .,..,,, 1., .....,....u.iit :,... ii. 3 a r on t , �' ? ) •4,11101111110 IMO=11.• ,IMMINWOO . • --... 4pr- - ..:zotip ! . it _ . •, . .., : : ,, , ; ..... . _ i , i • 41.41:11, • ._ _- z 1 ..y______r__ ___‘''''. ___': _ ''____'''l.-1 .: = __. ____1_________________ -2.c.,......- �, w r •.� # -- ' '•. IIE 0 L 3 // j f 1 ii i i r 1 --��' • W 01 _ ►— rr I , .t ___._.____. ..i fr I-- z .Y.-,,,344.:, a : LZT,t1- - tin j_______1 1. # _,.-4 AIL!02 CI< 0:, 21111 ``may{ __ r r-