The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/12/2003 - COMMUNWRENN Rol Tx xo 2a~ Pa. Baxaro trrit~Ne foW>oe4~oae0'., @BAVERTON, oOFtROON f170T0 Legal Notice Advettliring City of Tigard is 13 Taeahoot Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 0 Q Duplicate Affidavit ,-,-'*Tigard, Oregon 97223 Accounts Payable ,ter AFFIDAVIT OF OR@f~ON STATE OF OREGON, ) W COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,) Cin OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING MM " Kathy Snyder Tpe'{bIW-wfpE will be.0midered byy the 'Tigard City Coead! 00 being first duly sworn, depose and as 'trend71,1 u 12 2 M740 itM stfho Tigard Ciyi,4C`mW 7 01 1 Director, or his principal clerk, of th~ 125 SWr 191vd ,Tigard. Oregon, a newspaper of general circulation as Both 111c 01oralarldisnitiottt0dM6oyJaittvita Meublic.hearla and 193.020; published at tti Aa ~ aforesaid count and state- that the P on lb s matter w111 be..colesl tad o aoxordattoaw Qo MilopFat Coda and,the rulaa'of prooedura ado l" ihd ~WaTh(1)Is d'C#fy'Nalt & file'rutea°cPproceduro nef.'fiwltti't0+ a printed copy of which is hereto annex Chapter 18,390, TostimonY may be siubmittod la•wcit to Or ublic entire issue of said newspaper for at the m hiso isrue hoarier or v ly letter ih at Yoa pp ine pooin u titi opt t' also m in person o r by tottt of to the close of consecutive in the following issues: the hadits- wompanied y ,statements Of evidence' 0 ;lent to afford the deoltlon maker an oppoiSom ' to respond, to' that Jul 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 ludes O to the Land UUso of Appeai based slue, Fs lure to specify the c tedon fro m the, Community I Develop'mentCode ouC,omptahenelve Plat at which a comeant is directed precludes an appeal bawd on that criterion, Acopy of the a 6eetlon and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant, and the a ticablo criteria are available for iaapection et no coat, A copy of the. eta1T will he Subscribed and sworn t before me thl reads available for igspecdon atno Cost at lout saves (7 dayys pdgr 4~ C9~1gs far all ilCms cyan piss pq provided It a, . anther, Infortnadon auy bo obwinad 6om . P;utniny; Dlv1a1 (rr ~ Merl r}rc}) at 13125.SW Nall Ufv , Tl , bee on ;91223, b Calling 303.639-4171 or by e-mal t0 my Commission Expires: errg~ AFFIDAVIT P,UBLIL H i'G 1TfS[Nt DI rqX DZVZL1DFkit7tNT'R$V16W (!DR) 20034KW.. TANK CRANQE (zOM 26M0001AD7U8TMENT (VAR): 2003 OOJ3tiJA1)JUN MENT AR) 200•,1.00037 e > ITEM ON AI'p)tALI On du► 76, 2003; the ;Tigard Planning , i Commission held, d 'public hearing to ooasidar an lication to. Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot S 091e•111milY detk hmtstitg Plaruwd Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for, areas=with staep`(g259) dopes, a draitugeway and wetlaada~ and; AOjuArAgntt to Ibt sul,daeao lomgdt,.siistdatd, ttteximum; numbo of~tnha pennittsi! aria cul-&-w; an& the street girds on SW 74 Avenue, The Planning Commission moved to deny: the applications which fhiled In a 44 tie vote, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed-in a 44 tic vote. ; Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of ; order; without a mNodty affirmative vote, the application is . denied. Since no motion was approved, no findinggss in support or against the application were adopted, The City Council is: therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meet the relevant critoda : of the Deveiopment Code. LOCATIONt 97'0 SW 746Avanue;' WCTM 13125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400, 7.ONEt R4.5; Low.' Dewily Residential District, APPLICABLE REVIEW: CRMR1At Community Development Code Chapters 18.350.. 18.370,18.380,18.390,18,430,18.310,18.705.18.715. M725, d 18,743,18,755,18,765,18.790, 18,795 and 18,810, ' III 'Z . s _ W tii ~ ~ ~R IiTATII J \ ter' T]' 102s4 - Publish Jul 24,2003. the ypplicat'ons which fair in M ~ , 46'"te, diem a~ov 'toy approve the applications, which also failed', in a 4-4 tip vol. 8 sod op the CommiWon's by-laws and Robert's Roles 'of: Older, without a. rnajorlty AfBnnativa vcate, tbq. application is domed. Since no motion was.appro4ed, 46, dladings in support ur against the application were adopted, The City Council, is therefore, essentially mhearit g this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it moots the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74° Avenue; WCTM ISI25DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R4,5: Low- Density Residential. District. APPLICABLE REVIEW : CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters, 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390 18.430,18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18,745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.745 and 18.810. amap~~sa: • _ • 7'1,~~~ r MAAIN3.0603I ' - asasssas• .I ~ Aflt UEEt E;TA1E1 A 4- 17, 1 L p s TT 10284 - Publish July 24,2003. C~tY of Tigard 4unuituo0 f4uno0 sullsQ aql preoq aqt uagrn'auul isr-I -ju3p 13125 SW Hall Blvd. n' o io asue a se anq uaa p 3 li g p q peq -1saad a8alloa tnau u.ioJ gaaeas 03 igard , Oregon 97223 aq lugl Srw dliua uc saagmam pug seg preoq agl lugl sine(onl ACCounts Payable pzuoq pun sjr.!o 3o aiialloa plot uc amid puoaas agl aq Al^+ al aH ' 100Z XInf aauls OOd 3o iuap •aoc qs►Q aBaUoD /4ccmuc1x00 -!said uaaq seq `t,5 `uoaiaeD .Munoz) `sexay `SeIIeQ suomminsul a omapl__ _-ayik ;o paaq aumoaq of ialuums AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) ss' 1, Kath Snyder being first duty sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theT?gard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020: Published at - Ti cra rd aforesaid countt0 yy and state, that the Public Hearinq~the 5200"1-010 A 0 ates a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, w as published in the entire issue of said newspaper for_9 dF? consecutive in the following issues: successive and Jul 24,2003 Subscribed and 7=72;Lz ,2003 l f•I+iL al ° W4 A BURGESS IYCommission Expires: O=FHyPUeuc-oaE:,oN 4 ?Y C ' CU If,r~{ cCiON NO. 344589 Dn nc~. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 12, 2003 COUNCIL MEETING WILL RE TELEVISED a h0(saonna's1Ccp n, i 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Mayor's Agenda Revised 8/12/03 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD, CITY' HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD.OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City 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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 s. L ® Qualified bilingual interpreters. n Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow 3 as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the a Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 12, 2003 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real property transaction negotiations and pending and current litigation under ORS 192.6600 e) and (1 h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8t Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) gird Alga Ch~;nb~r1nf Con;~rcetErivo 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: o. 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for June 24 and July 8, 2003 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda C. Council Goal Update - Quarter 2 - 2003 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for the Construction of the FY 2003-04 Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) to S-2 Contractors, Inc. COUNCIL AGENDA -,AUGUST 12, 2003 page 2 b. Award Contract for the Reconstruction of Bonita Road Between Hall Boulevard and Fanno Creek Bridge to S-2 Contractors, Inc. C. Award Contract for the Construction of Bonita Park at the Bonita Road/Milton Court Intersection to Andersen Pacific Contractors • 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. 7:45 PM 4. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE BRETTON WOODS SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00001/PDR200300001/ VAR2003- 00006/VAR2003-00007) ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a request for a l 0-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 2.34 acres. The lots are to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are between 5,500 and 6,879 square feet. The applicant also requested approval for an Adjustment to the 200-foot cul-de-sac length standard, and an Adjustment to the street improvement requirements of the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.810. The Adjustment would allow the applicant to construct a curb-tight sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk separated by a planter strip along SW 108' Avenue. On June 11, 2003 an appeal was flied pertaining to issues raised related to tree safety and water run-off through adjacent property caused by the development. LOCATION: 16455 SW 1081 Avenue; WCTM 2S115AA, Tax Lots 1301 and 1400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.790 and 18.810.100. a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03 3( CL Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Resolution. Councilor: 1 second the motion. 3 n Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. w .r U J City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 12, 2003 page 3 Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. please say "aye. " Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No.--, please say "nay. " Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. _(is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. 7:55 PM 5. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION BY THE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING STRATEGIES TASK FORCE (TFSTF) ON AN APPROACH TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED STREET MAINTENANCE FEE a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Review of Recommendation: TFSTF Members C. Council Direction: Should the staff prepare an ordinance to establish the Street Maintenance Fee using the approach recommended by the TFSTF? 8:15 PM 6. CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO DISCONTINUE BICYCLE LICENSING a. Staff Report: Police Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 03° C7 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. IL City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) 2 H Mayor Is there any discussion? J m Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. w J City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 12, 2003 page 4 Mayor: Ordinance No. ` (is approved or fciils) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. 8:25 PM 7. REVIEW SEWER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS AND SELECT PROJECTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN FY 2003-04 FOR THE CITYWIDE SEWER REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Review and Discussion C. Council Direction - Should staff proceed with necessary steps so Council can consider the following actions on August 26, 2003, to: • establish Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29 • award contracts for construction of sewer for Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29 • reject all bids for Reimbursement District No. 27 8:35 PM 8. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-0004/ZON2003- 00003/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-0003 7) ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 7`h, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot single- family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep (>25%) slopes, a drainage way and wetlands and; adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 74t'Avenue. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed in a 4-4 tie vote, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is L therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to r whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74`h Avenue; WCTM 1 S 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW i CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.7451 18.7551 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. a. Open Public Hearing COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 12, 2003 page 5 b. Declarations or Challenges Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining; to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? C. Staff Report: Community Development Staff d. Public Testimony For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described by staff or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. b3 31 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Resolution. Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. d City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor Is there any discussion? j Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. please say "aye " L J Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No.___., please say "nay. " COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 12, 2003 page 6 Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. _(is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. 9:30 PM 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:35 PM 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 9:40 PM 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 9:50 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT I: W DM\CATHY\CCA\2003\030812). DOC L J _ COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 12, 2003 page 7 Agenda Item No. Council Meeting of 10 1 L~ . 0 3 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 12, 2003 Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. to discuss real property transaction negotiations and pending and current litigation under ORS 192.660(1 e) and (1 h). Executive Session concluded at 6:49 p.m. • STUDY SESSION ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: o City Engineer Duenas briefed the Council on staff and task force recommendations regarding how to fund overhead costs associated with the street maintenance fee. o City Manager Monahan stated that, according to the City of Tualatin, a $909,000 federal grant will likely be available to construct the pedestrian bridge over the Tualatin River. A local match of $400,000 will be needed and will be shared among several cities. Tigard's share of the matching funds is still to be determined. Tualatin proposed that each city's share be determined by population. o City Manager Monahan discussed the advantages of retaining six operational windows in the lobby of the new library. Council agreed it was reasonable to b keep these windows in the plan. o City Manager Monahan discussed the details of a meeting with County Commissioners regarding police consolidation. Nine of twelve communities a involved have indicated they are not interested in consolidation. Two letters regarding police consolidation were distributed. t9 o Potential dates for a joint meeting with the Tualatin City Council and Tigard- W .J Tualatin School District were discussed - October 13, 20 and 21. Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson and Dirksen indicated that a Monday meeting would work for their schedules. The meeting will be held in Tigard. o Public Works Director Wegner stated that Bruce Ellis was meeting with the chamber of commerce board regarding the Balloon Festival. Diane Harrison has Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 1 also become involved in the event. City Manager Monahan noted that if the chamber takes over the event, a new agreement will be needed. o City Manager Monahan reported that asbestos has been removed from the white house on the new library property. The house is In poor condition. He proposed the Council tour the house at 6 p.m. on August 26. Council agreed to meet at City Hall and walk to the site. o Additional correspondence regarding Bretton Woods and Ash Creek subdivisions was distributed. o The Council discussed how they would deal with testimony on the Ash Creek public hearing. City Attorney Firestone noted that any testimony related to Bretton Woods would not become part of the Bretton Woods record, as the public hearing had been closed. o Councilor Sherwood expressed concern about a county police official discouraging Bull Mountain residents from annexing into the city at the National Night Out event. Study Session concluded at 7:18 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Mayor Griffith called the City Council and Local Contract Board meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call - Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 81 Liaison Reports - None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items - None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: Chamber President Dan Murphy updated the Council on Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce activities. . Jessica Cousineau, 10755 SW Derry De(( Ct., Tigard, Oregon, expressed 3 concern that tonight's discussion on Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District ii No. 29 was not open for public comment. She provided a petition with 31 signatures opposing the district. Bethanne Kronick, 10998 SW Chateau Ln., Tigard, Oregon, encouraged the Council to reconsider their decision to approve the Bretton Woods Subdivision and require Alpha Engineering to prepare a new plan. She asserted that standards for tree protection are clearly defined and should not be modified. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 2 She said city arborist recommendations have been ignored. If the development is approved, Ms. Kronick asked the Council to consider requiring a bond to address future tree removal related to safety and liability issues. Alice Ellis Gaut, 10947 SW Chateau Ln., Tigard, Oregon, also encouraged the Council to reconsider their decision to approve the Bretton Woods Subdivision, and recounted the highlights of an August 12, 2003 email she had submitted to the Council. The email is on file in the City Recorder's office. Ms. Gaut questioned whether the Council conducted a careful review of the record and why they had not conducted a site visit. She expressed concern that the developer's arborists would be biased, and this bias should be taken into account when weighing the evidence. Ms. Gaut added that the development should not go forward without a specific tree protection plan. She added that criteria are discretionary and that discretion should not be left to the developer, but is the responsibility of the Council. She concluded by asking the Council to revisit the facts and issues before finalizing their decision. Y Gwyneth Rochlin, 12645 SW Peachvale St., Tigard, Oregon, acknowledged the huge amount of information Council is faced with. She then read her July 291 2003 letter asking the Council to reconsider their decision regarding Bretton Woods. The letter is on file in the City Recorder's office. Cohen Speck, 10976 SW Chateau Ln., Tigard, Oregon, read her August 11, 2003 letter asking the Council to reconsider their decision regarding Bretton Woods. The letter is on file in the City Recorder's office. b Luanne Thielke, 15691 SW Summerfield Ln., Tigard, Oregon, expressed support for the street maintenance fee. She stated that although she would prefer businesses pay a greater portion of the fee, she appreciates the progress that has been made and encouraged the Council to support the fee. 6 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor r Dirksen, to adopt the Consent Agenda as follows: n 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for June 24 and July 8, 2003 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda C. Council Goal Update - Quarter 2 - 2003 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for the Construction of the FY 2003-04 Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) to S-2 Contractors, Inc. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 3 b. Award Contract for the Reconstruction of Bonita Road between Hall Boulevard and Fanno Creek Bridge to S-2 Contractors, Inc. C. Award Contract for the Construction of Bonita Park at the Bonita Road/Milton Court Intersection to Andersen Pacific Contractors The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 4. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE BRETTON WOODS SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00001 /PDR20030000I / VAR2003- 00006/VAR2003-00007) ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a request for a 10-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 2.34 acres. The lots are to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are between 5,500 and 6,879 square feet. The applicant also requested approval for an Adjustment to the 200-foot cul-de-sac length standard, and an Adjustment to the street improvement requirements of the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.810. The Adjustment would allow the applicant to construct a curb-tight sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk separated by a planter strip along SW 108` Avenue. On June 11, 2003 an appeal was filed pertaining to issues raised related to tree safety and water run-off through adjacent property caused by the development. LOCATION: 16455 SW 108' Avenue; WCTM 2S 115AA, Tax Lots 1301 and 1400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.790 and 18.810.100. CL_ a. Staff Report Associate Planner Brad Kilby introduced this item and summarized the findings described in Exhibit "A" of the resolution. r M b. Council Discussion A A discussion regarding tree failure and liability issues ensued. It was noted that the applicant's tree protection plan had undergone several revisions and was in compliance with city code. Ensuring the tree protection plan is followed and the ramifications of plan violations were discussed. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 4 Councilor Dirksen expressed concern about the following issues related to the development: 1. There are trees that could be affected by the development which are not entirely on the property to be developed. 2. Runoff will not be directed to the storm sewer system, but will be reintroduced onto the surface and permitted to flow onto properties downstream. Councilor Dirksen proposed a motion for Council to reopen its discussion to talk about additional conditions for approval of development or to reconsider its decision of the appeal. He continued by suggesting the developer post a bond for tree protection and downstream runoff as an added incentive to adhere to their plan. There was no second and the motion died. City Attorney Firestone proposed the wording in section one of the resolution be changed from "expresses its approval of" to "adopts." C. Council Consideration Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 03-30, with the change proposed by City Attorney Firestone. RESOLUTION NO. 03-30 - A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE BRETTON WOODS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS (SUB2003-00001 /PDR2003-00001 /ZON2003- 00001 /VAR2003-00006/VAR2003-00007) IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 03-29 (EXHIBIT B). The motion was approved by a 4 to 1 vote: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - No L Councilor Moore - Yes 2 Councilor Sherwood - Yes n Councilor Wilson - Yes 3 ii 5. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION BY THE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING STRATEGIES TASK FORCE (TFSTF) ON AN APPROACH TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED STREET MAINTENANCE FEE a. Staff Report Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 5 City Engineer Duenas introduced Paul Owen, vice chairperson of the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force (TFSTF). As vice chairperson, Mr. Owen stated the task force was supportive of the recommendation that staff proceed to enact the fee. Mr. Duenas provided background Information on the fee and gave a presentation. The presentation is on file In the City Recorder's office. b. Review of Recommendation In working with the Oregon Grocery Association, a new method for fee calculation and cost allocation has been developed. As currently proposed, 58% of the cost would be born by non-residential properties and 42% by residential properties. Only the street maintenance element was recommended for implementation. Mr. Duenas indicated the staff recommendations differed from the task force recommendations in that the staff recommendations expressly permit the cost of city overhead be paid by funds generated from the fee. The cost of overhead is estimated to be about 25%, and would cover the cost of setting up and administering the fee, engineering services and contract administration. Mr. Duenas stated that he would return to Council in October with a draft ordinance for review. The ordinance could be considered in late 2003 and implemented in January 2004. A discussion ensued regarding the fee calculation for non-residential uses. As proposed, the monthly fee would be calculated at about $.82 per parking space, with a five space minimum charge, and a 200 space, or approximately $166, maximum charge. Councilor Wilson suggested that the Fee for some non-residential uses, such as churches, may need to be calculated differently. CL Councilor Dirksen proposed that an appeal process should be in place. it After discussion, the Council decided that funds generated by the fee could be used to cover overhead costs. J D C. Council Direction J Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Dirksen, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance, based upon the staff recommendation, to r establish the street maintenance fee. IMAM- Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 6 The motion was approved by unanimous vote: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Sherwood thanked the Oregon Grocers Association for their work on the fee. 6. CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO DISCONTINUE BICYCLE LICENSING a. Staff Report Police Chief Dickinson reviewed the reasons for the proposed amendment, which would delete sections of the code requiring bicycle licensing. Other sections of the code relating to bicycle safety will remain unchanged. Chief Dickinson explained that the department's current practice did not follow the code. b. Council Discussion Council agreed that this was an outdated section of the code. Chief Dickinson noted that to report a stolen bicycle, the police department needs to know the make, model and serial number. C. Council Consideration Motion by Councilor Dirksen, seconded by Councilor Wilson, to adopt Ordinance No. 03-07. L AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING SECTIONS 10.36.020, 10.36.030, 10.36.040, 10.36.050, 10.36.060 AND 10.36.070. >o 9 u J Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 7 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 7. REVIEW SEWER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS AND SELECT PROJECTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN FY 2003-04 FOR THE CITYWIDE SEWER REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM a. Staff Report City Engineer Duenas introduced this item and gave a presentation. The presentation is on file in the City Recorder's office. b. Council Review and Discussion Several members of the audience spoke out regarding Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29: • Steven Cousineau, 10755 SW Derry Dell Ct., Tigard, Oregon, expressed concern over the lack of information regarding the district. He stated that he had only received information on the design and cost of the project, but wasn't provided with information on alternatives or options. Mr. Cousineau questioned the city's statistics regarding the number of people who supported formation of the district and the tally of residents experiencing septic tank problems. Mr. Duenas explained the process for establishing the district and how the matter had progressed. He related that the city's statistics were L obtained from a mail survey, where 15 property owners responded they wanted the district formed now and four property owners stated they were currently experiencing septic system problems. It was noted this 3 information was public record and could be made available to anyone o who requested it. Mr. Monahan advised that the issue before the Council tonight was which of the three projects, or combinations of projects, would the Council like to consider on August 26. He added that at the August 26 meeting the Council would hear public testimony and take action on the F districts. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 8 • Tammy Gustin, 10670 SW Derry Dell, Tigard, Oregon, stated that most of the septic systems in the area were in good condition. Ms. Gustin pointed out that the cost to repair a septic system is substantially less than the cost of the proposed sewer system. Mayor Griffith directed audience members with questions or issues to contact City Engineer Duenas or Greg Berry. • Elizabeth McCord, 9965 SW McDonald, Tigard, Oregon, stated that a county ordinance stipulates that if a homeowner is within 300 feet of the sewer, and their septic system requires a repair, the homeowner will be required to connect to the sewer. This information was not disclosed to homeowners. It was also noted that the city's web site indicated that the bid for the project had already been awarded. Staff and Council advised that bids had been accepted, but the reimbursement districts had not been formed and bids had not been awarded. Testimony was ended until the public hearing scheduled for August 26. C. Council Direction Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to move forward with Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29, with the discussion and public hearing to be conducted on August 26, 2003. The motion was approved by unanimous vote: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes L Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes e i Meeting recessed at 9:14 p.m. and reconvened at 9:31 p.m. i 8. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 9 DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-0004/ZON2003- 00003/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-0003 7) ITEM ON APPEAL: On ]uly T', 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot single- family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep ( > 25%) slopes, a drainage way and wetlands and; adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 74`'Avenue. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed in a 4-4 tie vote, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74' Avenue; WCTM 1 S 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. a. Open the Public Hearing Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing b. Declarations or Challenges The Mayor read the following: Do any members of Council wish to report any ex-parte contact or information gained outside the hearing including any site visits? Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of i any member of the Council? i Councilor Dirksen announced that although he had not made a site visit, he i was familiar with the area. There were no challenges. C. Staff Report Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 10 Associate Planner Morgan Tracy provided the Council with an overview of the appeal. Issues raised by the Planning Commission were addressed. Topics covered included: • Emergency access • Trees • Drainage • Traffic • Density • Lot sizes • Compatibility and buffering • Project lacks a "fair trade" to the public Councilor Moore noted his concern about the time and how late the meeting would go. Councilor Dirksen suggested the Council hear testimony until 11 p.m. and then continue the hearing. d. Public Testimony Proponents Gregory Kurahashi, 15550 SW Jay, Beaverton, Oregon, from the planning and engineering firm, stated that the project complies with city codes. He addressed the topics listed above by Mr. Tracy and explained some of the project features and adjustments. Mr. Kurahashi provided three handouts related to trees in the area and on the property. The handouts are on file in the City Recorder's office. He concluded by saying that many of the changes made to the project were done to create cohesiveness and meet planning requirements. He asserted the subdivision represents a good design and good environmental control. Walt Senn, P.O. Box 883, Marysville, Washington, Karen Schuster (stated address as 2720 NE 85`h, Vancouver, Washington, and listed address as follows), Connie Coleman and Ray Senn, 9750 SW 74' Ave., Tigard, Oregon, all children of the property owner, offered a history of the L property, describing previous logging and development in the area. They stated that a timber deferral exists which would allow clear cutting of the property. They stressed that the property owner should not be penalized because neighbors want to continue to enjoy the benefits of the forested 3 Q property or because this is the last undeveloped parcel in the area. 7 Opponents John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Ln., Tigard, Oregon, offered testimony regarding the uniqueness of the trees, setbacks and surface water drainage. He related highlights from a letter which detailed more than 30 reasons to deny the application for the subdivision. A copy of Mr. Frewing's letter is on Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 1 l file In the City Recorder's office. Mr. Frewing also stated that current setback calculations were improper and presented a map detailing alternate measurements. Mr. Frewing's map is on file in the City Recorder's office. The hearing was continued to September 9, 2003. It was noted that this continuation will not exceed the 120 day rule. 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS - None 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS - None 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Not Held 12. AD)OURNMENT - 11:15 P.M. Greer A. Gaston, Deputy City Recorder Attest: Craig E. Dirksen, Council President Date: 10,14.05 I: %DMICATHY\CCM120031030812. DOC L "r i 1 r Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 12 City of Tigard, Oregon ,r Affidavit of Notification CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of Revised Agenda STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, _ n_REE2A_L'~sra . / being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I notified the following people/ organizations by fax of the agenda revision of the City Council meeting on A UCyGt57" 203 with a copy of the Notice of City Council Revised Agenda hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of 20 44-_ ErBarbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724) R/Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) VEmily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) fwrl~ Ll L Signature of Person who Performed Notification r Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of 3 -5e w ke-Wm b e_ c 20 o- D OFFICIAL SEAL KRISTIE J PEERMAN Signature of Notary Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION N0.370982 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 28, 2007 I:%ADMIGREER\FORMSVAFFIDAVITSWFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION - REVISED AGENDA.DOC 08/12/2003 15:58 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard 0001 MULTI TX/RX REPORT TX/RX NO 1930 PCs. 6 TX/RX INCOMPLETE TRANSACTION OK f 0615035460724 TT Newsroom [ 0915039686061 Oregonian I 1115039687397 Regal Courier ERROR INFORMATION CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING REVISED AGENDA Please forward to: /Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times, (Fax No. 503-620-3433) I/Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Q~ Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) August 12, 2003 - 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall Red Rock Creek Conference Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon Notice Is hereby given that the Tigard City Council has revised Its agenda for this evening's meeting, Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 6:30 p.m., at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon., An Executive Session discussion item on real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(1 e) has been added to the agenda. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any Information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. A revised agenda, with the addition highlighted, is attached. For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Greer Gaston by calling M CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING REVISED AGENDA Please forward to: //Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times, (Fax No. 503-620-3433) IrJ Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Q1 Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) August 12, 2003 - 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall Red Rock Creek Conference Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council has revised its agenda for this evening's meeting, Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 6:30 p.m., at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. An Executive Session discussion item on real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(1 e) has been added to the agenda. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. a_ A revised agenda, with the addition highlighted, is attached. rr to For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Greer Gaston by calling 503-639-4171, x2419 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. m 6e-put~y City Recorder Post: City Hall Lobby Date of Notice: August 12, 2003 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Revised Agenda STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) //r' A 1, Zl e012 A CaASTO , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, a copy of the Notice of Revised Agenda for the City Council meeting of AUGUST 12- 2003 with a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of SE,~EM13E2 20. Sig ature of Person who Performed Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this -1 (1 day of S4 r,~~,. ber , 20 03 ~'p Signature of Notary Public for Oregon Li M 3 J OFFICIAL SEAL KRISTIE J HERMAN NOTARY PU13UC-OREGON COMMISSION N0.370962 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 28, 2007 CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING REVISED AGENDA Please forward to: ZBarbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times, (Fax No. 503-620-3433) L1 Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397) Pd Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061) August 12, 2003 - 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall Red Rock Creek Conference Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon Notice is hereby given that the Tigard City Council has revised its agenda for this evening's meeting, Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 6:30 p.m., at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon.. An Executive Session discussion item on real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(1 e) has been added to the agenda. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 6 t A revised agenda, with the addition highlighted, is attached. a For further information, please contact Deputy City Recorder Greer Gaston by calling 503-639-4171, x2419 or at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. i 4Deputy City Recorder Post: City Hail Lobby Date of Notice: August 12, 2003 * * Revised 8/12/03 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- MEETING- 'AUGUST 12 2003 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL. I 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City 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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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. i • Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow i as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the ' Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 1 +I 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). 1 SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 12, 2003 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 12, 2003 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss ,I rop&RE'Ura r and pending and current litigation under ORS 192.660` it and (1h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8z Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Envoy 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for June 24 and July 8, 2003 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda C. Council Goal Update - Quarter 2 - 2003 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for the Construction of the FY 2003-04 Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) to S-2 Contractors, Inc. COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 12, 2003 page 2 b. Award Contract for the Reconstruction of Bonita Road Between Hall Boulevard and Fanno Creek Bridge to S-2 Contractors, Inc. C. Award Contract for the Construction of Bonita Park at the Bonita Road/Milton Court Intersection to Andersen Pacific Contractors • Consent Agenda -Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion wi//be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE BRETTON WOODS SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00001 /PDR200300001 / VAR2003- 00006/VAR2003-00007) ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a request for a 10-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 2.34 acres. The lots are to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are between 5,500 and 6,879 square feet. The applicant also requested approval for an Adjustment to the 200-Foot cul-de-sac length standard, and an Adjustment to the street improvement requirements of the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.810. The Adjustment would allow the applicant to construct a curb-tight sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk separated by a planter strip along SW 108`' Avenue. On June 11, 2003 an appeal was filed pertaining to issues raised related to tree safety and water run-off through adjacent property caused by the development. LOCATION: 16455 SW 108`' Avenue; WCTM 2S115AA, Tax Lots 1301 and 1400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.790 and 18.810.100. a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03 - 5. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION BY THE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING STRATEGIES TASK FORCE (TFSTF) ON AN APPROACH TO IMPLEMENT THE i PROPOSED STREET MAINTENANCE FEE a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Review of Recommendation: TFSTF Members C. Council Direction: Should the staff prepare an ordinance to establish the Street Maintenance Fee using the approach recommended by the TFSTF? COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 12, 2003 page 3 6. CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 10.36 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO DISCONTINUE BICYCLE LICENSING a. Staff Report: Police Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 03 - 7. REVIEW SEWER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS AND SELECT PROJECTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN FY 2003-04 FOR THE CITYWIDE SEWER REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Review and Discussion C. Council Direction - Should staff proceed with necessary steps so Council can consider the following actions on August 26, 2003, to: • establish Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29 • award contracts for construction of sewer for Reimbursement District Nos. 28 and 29 • reject all bids for Reimbursement District No. 27 8. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-0004/ZON2003- 00003/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-0003 7) ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 7`^, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot single- family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep 25%) slopes, a drainage way and wetlands and; adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 74`' Avenue. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed in a 4-4 tie vote, L then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority n affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is d therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74' Avenue; WCTM 1 S 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 12, 2003 page 4 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18,795 and 18.810. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Staff d. Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Discussion g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03 - 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 12. ADJOURNMENT I:ADM\CATHY\CCA120031030812P. D OC L J a 5 u COUNCIL AGENDA -AUGUST 12, 2003 page 5 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting A4 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, D nh h - . _ l , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) 03 "0 ] , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of k" - I) - with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of t 20_0_,~_. 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Building, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon -c,, . ~ , Signature of Person who Performed Posting L Su scribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this 14 day of 61AZAA(Af , 20. _J VD m U J OFFICIAL SEAL Signature of N Waxy Public for Oregon i J BENGTSON NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION N0.368086 MY COMMISSION VPIRES APR. 27, 2007 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITSVAFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCE.DOC f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.03-19-1- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AMENDING CHAPTER 104-36 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING SECTIONS 10.36.020, 10.36.030, 10.36.040,10.36.050, 10.36.060 AND 10.36.070. WHEREAS, local governments, including the City of Tigard, have historically required licensing of bicycles; and WHEREAS, with the proliferation of bicycles and the budget limitations of local governments, most jurisdictions stopped requiring licensing of bicycles; and WHEREAS, with most jurisdictions not requiring bicycle licensing, the general public is not aware that some cities, including Tigard, still have code provisions requiring bicycle licensing; and WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code Sections 10.36.020 through 10.36.070 still impose a bicycle licensing requirement, but no one has sought a bicycle license from the City in years and the City is not prepared to issue licenses; and WHEREAS, it is not in the public interest to continue to require bicycle licensing because the benefits of bicycle licensing are minimal, the cost of a licensing program would be high and the cost and effort of any enforcement effort would also be very high; and WHEREAS, having code provisions that are not enforced can contribute to an attitude by some citizens that the Code does not need to be complied with, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 10.36 is hereby amended by deleting Sections 10.36.020, 10.36.030, 10.36.040,10.36.050, 10.36.060 and 10.36.070. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by L the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. r PASSED: By GUTA./1 MOU.5 vote of all Council members present after being read by number J and title only, this /)-s- day of Aut , 2003. a f ~ C ~fi's1~i -CL Greer A. Gaston, Deputy City Recorder ORDINANCE No. 03-1N-- Page 1 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 10.36 BICYCLES. vehicular traffic. Sections: (4) "Park or parking" means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when a 10.36.010 Definitions. vehicle is temporarily standing for the purpose of 10.36.020 License-Required. and while actually engaged in loading or 10.36.030 License-Issuance. unloading. 10.36.040 License plate and registration card inspection. (5) "Parkway" means that portion of a street 10.36.050 Sales-Report required. not used as a roadway or as a sidewalk. 10.36.060 Sales-Transfer of registration. 10.36.070 License-Tag-When required. (6) "Person" means every natural person, 10.36.100 Riding-On certain sidewalks firm, partnership, association or corporation. prohibited. 10.36.120 Racing on public ways-Permit (7) "Roadway" means that portion of a required. street or highway improved, designed or 10.36.130 Applicability of traffic laws. ordinarily used for vehicular travel. 10.36.140 Lighting requirements. 10.36.150 Brake requirements. (8) "Safety zone" means the area or space 10.36.160 Speed. officially set apart within a roadway for the 10.36.170 Rider-At least one hand on exclusive use of pedestrians and which is handlebars. protected or is so marked or indicated by adequate 10.36.180 Parking restrictions. signs as to be plainly visible at all times while set 10.36.190 Violation-Permitting or apart as a safety zone. authorizing prohibited. 10.36.200 Violation-Penalty. (9) "Sidewalk" means that portion of a street between the curblines, or the lateral lines of 10.36.010 Definitions. a roadway, and the adjacent property lines, intended for the use of pedestrians. (Ord. 67-72 The following words or phrases, except §1, 1967). where the context clearly indicates a different meaning, are defined as follows: 40:36.020..- _Lisenso--4qu1"- (1) "Alley" means a narrow street through shall the middle of a block. rir1P nr »rnnPl a le on iinon an a p (2) "Bicycle" means every device propelled ba1 Le-eity-peliee-department-(8rd-67 q2 §2,- N by human power upon which any person may 1967). ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is over 12 inches in diameter. --493b:(F3a h.a..se-IssuA==«- J_ ® (3) "Highway, road and street" mean the the-eity pelise depaFtment is authorized and entire width between the boundary lines of every J way publicly maintained when any part thereof is ' ._mw; ° .J] b ^er- anen* and shall open to the use of the public for purposes of lid during the t sen who applies f9F 10-36-1 Reformatted 1994 e' APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of kiau,&+~, 2003. AMA( J es E. Gri ME, yor Approved to fo city Atto Date C, H m ORDINANCE No. 03-AO- Page 2 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 10.36 BICYCLES. vehicular traffic. Sections: (4) "Park or parking" means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when a 10.36.010 Definitions. vehicle is temporarily standing for the purpose of 10.36.020 License-Required. and while actually engaged in loading or 10.36.030 License-Issuance. unloading. 10.36.040 License plate and registration card inspection. (5) "Parkway" means that portion of a street 10.36.050 Sales-Report required. not used as a roadway or as a sidewalk. 10.36.060 Sales-Transfer of registration. 10.36.070 License-Tag-When required. (6) "Person" means every natural person, 10.36.100 Riding-On certain sidewalks firm, partnership, association or corporation. prohibited. 10.36.120 Racing on public ways-Permit (7) "Roadway" means that portion of a required. street or highway improved, designed or 10.36.130 Applicability of traffic laws. ordinarily used for vehicular travel. 10.36.140 Lighting requirements. 10.36.150 Brake requirements. (8) "Safety zone" means the area or space 10.36.160 Speed. officially set apart within a roadway for the 10.36.170 Rider-At least one hand on exclusive use of pedestrians and which is handlebars. protected or is so marked or indicated by adequate 10.36.180 Parking restrictions. signs as to be plainly visible at all times while set 10.36.190 Violation-Permitting or apart as a safety zone, authorizing prohibited. 10.36.200 Violation-Penalty. (9) "Sidewalk" means that portion of a street between the curblines, or the lateral lines of 10.36.010 Definitions. a roadway, and the adjacent property lines, intended for the use of pedestrians. (Ord. 67-72 The following words or phrases, except §1,1967). where the context clearly indicates a different meaning, are defined as follows: 18:36.020`. --biceps . (1) "Alley" means a narrow street through No pefseft who resides within shail the middle of a block. -stceei or ]'Pon any. per- x-disensed (2) "Bicycle" means every device propelled by--the ei ..,.,iee d R, eni. n , by human power upon which any person may 1967). • ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is over 12 inches in diameter. --40.46-.030 bieense--4ssu-a-ne--. I (3) "Highway, road and street" mean the entire width between the boundary lines of every . way publicly maintained when any part thereof is lieeeses -sh°11 h a w » open to the use of the public for purposes of valid during the time the person • " l' F rr 10-36-1 Reformatted 1994 4 Milli TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE an refire €eFthis seetleu•-an bi dealers, an requesa, blink fo= -196 16:36.40 S earl inspection it shall be the duty of eveFy p@Fsan-*h&4ia4- s 11 f f h• F n. hir ,ele t rennrt pr s department tt7P rPOiCtratinn rar/1 iconPll to such appl' ownership -.of the hirvrle and demonstrate sold, tegethef with the name and e r The Person to h the h le war gold f f .7 such report shall h de within five- before - gistfatien And lice..s:ng and shall refuse days after- th t' f h ale transfer It shall or. le b the duty F the h f f of s sh ~ r All t:ee°°e plates shall be suitable _ s fthe- t F F r-ogistFation the f ,'thin five days. aaaehment the fiame of " t.:,.yoh -~.,lace, aft th time, of surb PAa or tranrfeF. (Ora 67_'72 !-for. ,'designaie and one suGh plate 6.078 Neeise Tag W rhea required, A4, 19671°.. Any person, fj= or corporation who all 1036.650" Sales-Report required. rent, WmG tag or. tags to be ured an suc"cl~~Ind All pmens, f4Rns--er-•sesporation -engaging shall in t " -busilte^ss--oVb*yin"e@ndhand-biGyclPS, chapter. Seeh lieense tag er -gs shall he auaehed w.ithin4ho ait re4equired, to-report-to-the-police to--suGh biGyGlos and may bo transferred from one- department umhaso,-gi-ving-the--name bi and address of ' rsen from sash of tags shall be in-a-form-whicb bieyele-is ptlfehasecl-al~d-a deseiiptiea-e€-each such bicycle, ' e-frafne-nuntber-atld-the plates provided fm in Seetion 10.36:040-and-ah&H license -auaber-, ill mid-ibmen-All-persens, be issued p fiis-tile business of shall. Selling flow 9--seeondhand w4hin-4h€. be sold or - sf rf d shall e to he hW for city, after- ^e ..l eF 1 ~,-196 1-are--required-to. th e r uGh_ sales; license fag proyided for by this seption shall h gtvtag4he-name a and. imejuding the lie ped the .idea Section a sold, deseription of the bie)vle ralne rimber and !he lieense fmrflb@F, if any. A! 10,36.030. (9rd. 67 72 §q,-4967). such mportc shall he turned in to the nnlire W de -r the ..efts c~rit a;:a d oa;to;,~.. t.. .,f the .c,,.,..... 'h the presefibe tvro "--z.` 10-36-2 Reformaned 1994 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 10.36.100 Riding-On certain sidewalks such bicycle. A red light visible from a distance prohibited. of five hundred feet to the rear may be used in addition to the rear reflector. (Ord. 67-72 §14, No person shall ride or operate any wheeled 1967). vehicle, excepting wheelchairs, on any sidewalk adjacent and parallel to S.W. Main Street; and 10.36.150 Brake requirements. provided further, that any person riding any wheeled vehicle, excepting wheelchairs, on any Every bicycle operated upon the city streets sidewalk in the city shall at all times yield the shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control right-of-way to pedestrians using such sidewalk. the movement of and to stop and to hold such (Ord. 78-3 §8(e), 1978; Ord. 74-50B §1, 1974: vehicle. (Ord. 67-72 §15, 1967). Ord. 67-72 §10, 1967). 10.36.160 Speed. 10.36.120 Racing on public ways-Permit required. No person shall operate a bicycle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the No person shall engage in, or cause others to conditions then existing. (Ord. 67-72 §16, 1967). be engaged in, any bicycle racing upon the streets or other public places in the city, except under a 10.36.170 Rider-At least one hand on permit from and under the supervision of the city handlebars. police department. (Ord. 67-72 §12,1967). No person operating a bicycle shall carry any 10.36.130 Applicability of traffic laws. package, bundle or article which prevents the rider from keeping at least one hand upon the Every person riding or operating a bicycle on handlebars and in full control of such bicycle. a street or public path in the city shall be subject (Ord. 67-72 §17, 1967). to all the provisions of the laws of the state of Oregon applicable to such operation and shall also 10.36.180 Parking restrictions. be subject to all the provisions of this title and any other city ordinances applicable to such operation. From and after December 18, 1967, it is (Ord. 67-72 §13, 1967). unlawful for any person to park or leave a bicycle upon the sidewalk within the city; except in areas 10.36.140 Lighting requirements. designated by ordinance, which areas shall be properly marked by signs or painting and Every bicycle operated within the city at any provided with racks for parking bicycles. (Ord. CL time from a half hour after sunset to a half hour 67-72 §18, 1967). OC before sunrise, or at any other time that visibility is poor due to insufficient light or unfavorable 10.36.190 Violation-Permitting or atmospheric conditions, shall be equipped with a authorizing prohibited. ~ lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the No parents of any minor child and no front of such bicycle, and a red reflector on the guardian of any minor ward shall authorize or J rear of such size or characteristics and so mounted knowingly permit any such minor child or ward to as to be visible at night from all distances within violate any of the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. three hundred feet to fifty feet from the rear of 67-72 §19, 1967). 10-36-3 Reformatted 1994 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 10.36.200 Violation-Penalty. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the city jail for not to exceed five days or by a fine not to exceed ten dollars, or both, or bicycles may be impounded for a period not to exceed fourteen days. (Ord. 67-72 §20, 1967).8 ■ IL as 30 0 W J 10.36-4 Reformatted 1994 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING - STUDY SESSION August 12, 2003; 6:30 p.m. The Study Sesslon Is held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall. The Council encourages Interested citizens to attend all or part of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds the capacity of the Conference Room, the Council may move the Study Session to the Town Hall. • STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss and pending and current litigation under ORS 192.660 and (1 h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. • ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS ➢ Street maintenance fee overhead ➢ Pedestrian bridge funding allocations ➢ Operable windows in new library lobby ➢ County discussion regarding police consolidation ➢ Schedule options for joint meeting with the City of Tualatin and Tigard-Tualatin School District - October 13, 20, or 21 in Tigard ➢ Balloon Festival status report ➢ Update on the "white house" on the library property ➢ Distribution of communication received on Ash Creek Estates and Bretton Woods land use appeals V) _J m W J A Executvve Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660(l) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660(1) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (1) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660(t) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660(l) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.6600) (0- Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660(l) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660(l) (h) - Legal counsel - Executive session are appropriate for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660(l) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (1) (j) - Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 1 a, a IAADWCATHYICOUNCILIPINK SHEET- STUDY SESSION AGENDAS120031030812A.DOC H _J m W J CITY OF TIGARD MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARC TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Margaret Barnes DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: New Library-Operable Windows in Lobby Regarding our conversation last Wednesday about the operable windows for the new library lobby, I have attached some supporting information from Skip Stanaway of SRG and also from Arnie Manzano, Facilities Services Coordinator for the City of Tigard. Both of them support installation of operable windows in the lobby. The benefits include natural ventilation, demonstrated sustainability and energy savings. The energy analysis for the PGE Earth Advantage program estimated an annual savings of $1,550 by using operable windows in the lobby. Because the lobby is on the south side of the building, operable windows would enhance our ability to control the changing temperatures likely to occur with a southern exposure. The current plan already includes six operable windows for the Lobby. If these windows are retained in the plan, it would not involve any additional design fees. The security issues concerning these windows appear to be resolved. Each bank of windows will be equipped with an alarm device. If the six operable windows are removed, the project will incur the following: • Additional cost for redesign 'v • Additional cost for replacement of the existing windows • Additional cost for the mechanical system • Increased long-term energy costs. i The windows will visibly demonstrate to our community that the City was responsive to our citizens' concerns about energy efficiency and sustainability. Therefore, I recommend that the operable windows for the lobby be retained. r 51 ~4L11`~ C~ ~ a 1 ~l-Y~. FILE COPY .6-r2-°'Z) r`- t ::fie CITY OF TIGARD August 11, 2003 OREGON Honorable Washington County Commissioners Tom Brian, Chair Andy Duyck John Leeper Roy R. Rogers Dick Schouten Public Services Building 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro OR 97124 Re: Possible Study of Police Consolidation Dear Chair and Commissioners: I have had an opportunity to preview Tualatin Mayor Lou Ogden's letter to you opposed to wasting public dollars and resources on a study to consider a consolidated police agency to serve the cities and unincorporated areas of Washington County. I fully agree. I call on you to reject this ill-founded idea and allow the cities and county to continue to strengthen their cooperative relationship to deliver excellent service to our citizens. Lou mentioned some examples of our cooperation. Please, discard this flawed idea that has not been supported by anything but lofty statements that one agency can provide more efficient service. The statements have not been supported by any facts or professional analysis. Do not, I urge you, expend County dollars to review the idea. Z On behalf of the City of Tigard, please continue to recognize local control of the fundamental public service provided by our police department. Sincerely, n u Jim Griffi Mayor IAADMNAYOR GRIFFITHV20031POSSIBLE POLICE STUDY.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 s August 6, 2003 Honorable Washington County Commissioners Tom Brian, Chair Andy Duyck John Leeper Roy R. Rogers Dick Schouten Public Services Building 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 RE: Proposed Study of Police Consolidation Dear Chair and Commissioners: On behalf of the Tualatin City Council I am urging the Commission to reject the concept of Police consolidation. I have served as Mayor of Tualatin since January 1995. In January of 1993 began my elective service in Tualatin as a City Council member. As is common in most cities, In Tualatin police services represent the single largest programmatic general fund budget expenditures. We value our local Police Department and for reasons described below believe scarce public money and resources should not be wasted on a study to create a "super-sized" Washington County police agency. r Among the key points you should consider before undertaking any such review: Tualatin, in 1987, started its own police department precisely because it 3 wished to move away from a "parent" agency (County Sheriff) dictating the o scope and style of service to be provided. The Tualatin Police Department u is predicated on the concept that local officers working for a local agency have the best knowledge of community issues and values. Another reason the Tualatin started its own police department was to control costs, rather than be at the mercy of a large super agency. ■ We are convinced that cost savings suggested by consolidation proponents will not materialize. In fact, we believe it is likely costs may very well increase with this proposal. We are particularly concerned that if RE: Proposed Study of Police Consolidation August 6, 2003 Page 2 of 3 an overall County-wide staffing level approaching current municipal levels is proposed then many additional officers will be required above existing levels. The crucial aspect of local control for cost containment, balanced with public safety needs, will be lost. One estimate is the cost of additional sworn personnel in a consolidated agency could be as much as $20 million more than the total cost of current staffing in all Washington County law enforcement agencies. Another important expense issue associated with moving to a consolidated "super" agency is the proposed salary schedule. An economic fact of life is that large agencies tend to have more highly paid officers than smaller ones. Would pay rates in big west coast police departments like Portland and Seattle now govern salary expenses? If so, aggregate costs will rise. ■ We believe that legally it is a very dubious proposition that a single large consolidation among so many agencies is possible - unless all are willing to cede authority to another agency. That is unlikely, and will certainly engender numerous legal expenditures. Actually, a fair-minded look at the current arrangements and cooperation between Washington County police agencies will find that there already exists a great deal of worthwhile consolidation and cooperation in areas that make economic and work practice sense. The best example is our consolidated communications dispatch system. There are joint police agency "teams" with members from various agencies that work in specialized fields such as vehicle crash analysis reconstruction (CART) and the major crimes investigations. Several years ago a consultant study looked at a variety of interagency law enforcement program areas (the Cogan study). Many of the recommendations for agency cooperation identified in that report have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. For very small agencies and cities that feel they lack the critical mass to engage an ongoing police agency Washington County has developed policies and guidelines for direct contracting with the Sheriffs Department. L We respectfully call on the County Commission to reject a Portland-style "one size fits o~C all" mega-police agency in Washington County. Let local communities establish their service level and styles through local law enforcement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. n U Sincerely, J Lou Ogden Mayor s: adm?Erlstratiordpolicestudy.ltr AGENDA ITEM NO. ~i • VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : AUGUST 12, 2003 (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. NAME, ADDR & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED ~eSSt~A C4 BSc h ect 11 V , toss sw C' - ~ rj 0(2, 57223 ~~d~ '~WAko"'j T PA 8°-4'124 ~ oQ. 9~ y 1097,6 scJ cam,-~',~~ ~ rl, .xx.h, rr►2 g7ZZ y t3~~7 icW W&025 4an ne"-t iel Ke- t5GgI sw Stammer- idd a~mda ~ -1'1' as OP. gnzi AVd m "a I Z' 45 6a i t7 ~-j VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1 ~efr~iax. frrnx ,t~►, ~ ~,~d~ -Jess oL L' u si~~ eccu _ 12-c, Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 bythe City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[i]f the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature 2 &ao /rtii nc ! 7 5 s~ -'I-rr 3 ►°~VV1C .10-785- S LO Dec r be (k t a } l 4 0 a) c~. 1. • (s Tf" C) p SCJ 6 " O 0 56) cQif ` t LL C?f O ?,Z~7 7 D~ 'J~r C`f 3 8 Icy D A 9 22~ 10 11 ..5 a ER I C) Q V .0 E 4 12 1 13 "g-Ad OJ IAX-V k3Z30SJ'1 C4 D 14 15 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 l of 4 Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[i]f the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Sig , ure 17 l/ a" y hA(Altl' 18 IeVE;A I~J~S l O 7.7 5 Ste4 be- ka A- TW n 00 19 4 Gf-~UGIS~~y fay 70 SW P,gR~ (rG~~ 20 ~OI?C PEX-L CL 21 le&&o 5W 10,4&k -'Y- -r,~44d 22 23 11 li Z-0 SU Cry 24 25 W C~ ~l D (P ~O5 5 Vd . Coo Lh ia~ up~ 26 rr,~~ IU 3 27 r 3 a S~V U-C~ 1 L►~~,I ~~?Z n 28 L/ u 29 J 30 17aa~ 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 2of 4 Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "[i]f the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature A 17 31 P b 0 sL 32 wS Av a 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 3of 4 Pursuant to ORS §451.495(1)(c), we the undersigned object to the current proposed formation and implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 29 by the City of Tigard. According to ORS §451.595(1)(c) "jijf the cost, or any portion of the cost, of service facilities for a district is to be assessed under ORS §451.490 against the property directly benefitted, the governing body of the district shall, before attempting to implement the service facilities, adopt a general ordinance providing for the method of assessment. The ordinance shall:... Provide that if the district receives written objections prior to the conclusion of the hearing signed by more than 50 percent of the affected property owners representing more than 50 percent of the affected property the proposed service facilities will not be implemented." Name Address Signature 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 2003 Sewer Reimbursement District #29 4of 4 AGENDA ITEM # 3.2 a.. FOR AGENDA OF: August 12, 2003 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greer Gaston DATE: July 30, 2003 SUBJECT: Three-Month Council Calendar Regularly scheduled Council Meetings are marked with an asterisk August 5 * Tues Special Council Meeting - 2 p.m. 12 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session 19 * Tues MEETING CANCELLED 26 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session September 1 * Mon Labor Day Holiday - City Offices Closed 9 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session 16 * Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 23 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session October 6 * Mon Special Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. IL 14 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session 21 * Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 28 * Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Business Meeting with Study Session U~ k%TIG333%USR\DEPTSWDM\GREER\CITY COUNCU3 MONTH CALENDAR.DOC W J 8/19/03 -Workshop 8/26103 - Business TV -Greeter 9/9103 - Business TV -Greeter Due: 8/5/03 5 p.m. Due: 8112103 5 p.m. Due: 8126103 5 p.m. Workshop Topics Study Session Study Session * City Attorney Attends Meeting* Quarterly Meeting with Budget Committee - Craig - MEETING CANCELLED 20 min ~f . c0 0 z Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Deadline for bid openings: 8111103 Deadline for bid openings: 8/25103 c~ b a m °J a Business Meeting Proc - Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month - Greer - 5 min Proc - Constitution Week - Greer Business Meeting Sen Burdick, Rep Williams - 1 hour - VA - Student Envoy/Chamber Cathy Proc- Disabilities Employment Awareness Month - Downtown Revitalization Strategy - CD - BLUE Greer SHEET (Leave-until after CC strategic plan. disc.) New Library Update - PPT- Margaret - 10 min Summer Reading Recap - Margaret - 10 min. Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services Formation of Reimbursement District - INFO. Plan - CD - BLUE SHEET PH - Greg - BLUE SHEET (SCHEDULE AFTER RESULTS KNOWN OF DISC. ON 8/12) Formation of Reimbursement District - INFO. PH - Greg - BLUE SHEET (SCHEDULE AFTER RESULTS KNOWN OF DISC. ON 8/12) 2 LCRB - award contracts for reimb. Districts Greg - BLUE SHEET TMC - Housekeeping Ordinance - City Manager and Official Titles - make consistent throughout code - Cathy - 5 min SI = standing item I:/adm/greer/tentatv ag/tentative.xls 01 nt Meeting with C' 1 Board 1016!03 -Joi n Schoo Greeter Tualatin Councit 9123103 - Business N 6:30 P•m- pue: 919103 @ 5 P-m' Water Auditorium ~/orkshoP Study Session 9116103 - Due. : 912103 5 P.m- yyQrkshoP TOP'--s care - CD -BLUE SHEET - Loreen - 20 min Washington Sq date Procurement Up insurance Consent Agenda s 918103 Deadline for bid opening Business Meeting 1 hour - Sen Burdick, ReP Williams - CathY dJV.Ls A 1 ~1t94~J~1 1 AGENDA ITEM # 3.2 G . FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Receive and File: Council Goal Update PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK ,-CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Update on the progress of the Council goals for the second quarter of 2003. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the update. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are brief summaries of the progress made in the second quarter of 2003 on the goals adopted by the Council on January 28, 2003. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Visioning goals are identified throughout the goals and tasks developed by the City Council. FISCAL NOTES N/A z 1AADMIPACKET'03\20030812WAL UPDATE AIS.DOC J D 9 u 2003 Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update GOAL 1- FINANCIAL STRATEGY GOAL 2-TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT GOAL 3-TRANSPORTATION GOAL 4-PARKS AND RECREATION GOAL 5-WATER GOAL 6-GROWTH MANAGEMENT GOAL 7-COMMUNICATION i i i i 2003 Ai~k Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update 2 GOAL 1: FINANCIAL STRATEGY A. Develop a sustainable long-term financial plan or strategy for issues such as: 1. General Fund needs 2. Library 3. Transportation 4. Parks and open space 5. Washington Square Regional Center 6. Central Business District 7. Water System B. Explore the creation of an economic development program. First Quarter Update Prepared by: Craig Prosser, Finance Director Staff presented Council a list of potential upcoming financial issues and opportunities in 'a workshop session. This list encompassed all of the items identified in the Council goal. Council organized this list into "Major" and i "Other" categories and then identified three top priorities for each category. 2 Council's work has been included in a Strategic Finance Plan report, which will be presented to Council on April 8 for adoption. 3 J J 2003 AL~ Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update 3 GOAL 2: TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT A. Create a common vision for the Central Business District and build the energy to implement that vision through the Downtown Task Force. B. Support the activities of the Downtown Task Force as they provide input to the design of the Tigard commuter rail station and the zoning and development plan standards for the Central Business District. 4d~ IltOW*1'E First Quarter Update Prepared by: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Members of the Downtown Task Force met with Council on March 25th and submitted their recommendation for design elements for the Downtown Tigard Commuter Rail Station. Council approved the recommendation. Z h D 9 u 2 003 'Tigard City Council Goals • Second Quarter Update h GOAL 3: TRANSPORTATION A. Aggressively pursue solutions to congestion of state, county and city facilities that cross through Tigard. 1. Reforming the Transportation Financing Task Force. 2. Identify project priorities and funding needs for state and city facilities. B. Continue working with Tri-Met to identify and fund additional intra- city bus routes. C. Right-of-way management. 6cconclQuartet, pdate'r Prepared,by-J-., us Duenas, City Engineer £ Jiiii Hencir) x, Coniniunity Development Director (~oa1 3A'-'A~~resslvelpursuE Golutions'to can-estian of state,'coiulty and city . facilities thaf cr6ss•thr6ugh=Tigard,. Tlie Gaarde St"reet Ttriprnvements 'l ase 7 constrtictron project is continuing and is still on trac'cfor _completion in the fall of 2004 The road closure for this 1year was extended an'additi6nal month to a116w the contfactor to coniplete the Jretaining wall and culvert woi k~`Midway through the'original 3-month closure; (for the;co;lveis~iice of;the p"'bll~i;,the roadwas opened,to through traffic 'after, work hottrs~a" d,on W eekends 71 fie engineering desrgns for ;Jl alnut Street (Tiedeman Avenue to 121-Avenue)l and 1'15P;Avenue_(Gaarde St ee+ to Walnut: Street.) are substantially completed. Partial rights-4--way, acquisition foreach project has started and will be .011going,during'this fiscal year .Completion of the Gaarde Street construction. should'pravide ~an improved',easC west connector`froni li€hi ,a y 991" to EBarrows'Road::Completion pf. the project: de signs on the two street projects IL ensuresthat these two projects are ready for construction should funding r ortimities arise, r i. ~0 PP- t- The Hall Boulevard Inipro~errtents~alongthe neti+rLibrary Ind-Fanno Pointe ifiontage`s will be constructed. tlii Dui uneib`- Lag IP lsn& the low bidder on M ithe project , ie-impr rveme t9 ' Wa iTStrget are not included and iti ill be part of an appro~ A cess tha > eguuessubrr it 'ls to the Division of State Lands J aticl the Corps afJlJngirieezss , j h r i •ytiJ~ N~ }~Y Li ~ ,f ~{~Jy i .NF H . n ~ K~_..,1.,ti-.. 1L1~.:si.odN xak i. ,.._...J...., ..JI... Y'... .c, 2003 Tigard city council Goals Second Quarter Update P ' o ti Oit=olio filmrocessTlig pedestrian ai ~x r _ $re a tin the'Washing,ton-SdulreA gianal Center was. y arda a ectktl at made the final atppoye °as.~ r ':.i .r' }'k~:+ v;4.~~.' r£..r;n lk''~` r yo-v 1 {.rf Y•..- } 5s( Yi~f ( Qal 3' Reforming'thexTiansportatron Financin nTask Force irc%ted the Transportationirtanci strategies a oci~►eCt s7liAeAss re reseritattees anpd attem~ , ah=a c©tt n 1~o~,~~iTa:stre~et ~Fmai a eecould.,be implemenfed T€k a r m onrune9Z003`' 7{[ xsi e u. 6enfaEves-and`interes tip s , a Gro'Cery,: ~u ((Ast3o h s tatives:presented-mm, .ears ,y~p'Q bl orkalile .Cityr staff-ris no i O, osal€axtwill, pros t rndi igs at the iii Tasl; Force m e QU3 lre o of the Task Forceitiill;be'dzlave i e orr .r~am~lete's' reports b'ack.to'Council in August ki s - ' P .a ' ~ 14y~'.s~" fe'~.`✓ { `5~ • tz l , ' 4Go~a13B Coi►tinu rvoirl ui with Tri-Niet to tden hand fund,addifionaly'.. : : r`; ~agntra el # bus owes Are ~ m i. t#~:yr n rl a? a-: ~nt inerihariuigtransit>:vp ortunities $ Becauseo h hativn~ 1 11-11 1, 11- !iaa: eYCity, " e as uci ~1 ao use ant nt~i TiansYt a:.,:; i iY. Eirien < r > e ' F e, cipa ingxr ,s - d gs " t ,sAueloenpe tinet;to deve 111 lop, @Q~ €€a~', exano aund'- o at x et, l~`~a tai nnfif~,e ej rovezrierifs { . orated in e in., h arp s e' ~ da ro, c =tli and . , that Fr~M xrclu , C s Ca xi~al provement r grim:' ~t City staf it►i Tri-filet staff t cf" rt,o ails opoinrorkfor.a gR a,::: irieritt ,d u"nderstanding i e " o' a a`Of=#ri.vl®Ursft►' e i'mple,' e` octis area of Tril\Ie i nves enf an and coo"rdinate eapit:i1<° pea`ing improvementsa1 3 Nd;I ht=of ik ~manaemenf ta•~y~~f , ering Department reviewed the'dtatl fight-o£-ti an ement;, r gutg he UU , vas undertakzn to deternune t t an ;damage..done.:to the. w !exis rt tS Of w6yi~O£ special concern is d .j AM* d structural section b ,,utxli cUfs, Tlie sou eentl , liegn:finalized e eXt:step isforthe Cit~~ta deterrtilnehowXbestto~ e~meatt fie fir` drnmendations of the stud it~N'~ 2003 Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update _ 6 First Quarter Update Prepared by: Gus Duenas, City Engineer Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Goal 3A - Aggressively pursue solutions to congestion of state, coup and city facilities that cross through Tigard The Gaarde Street Improvements Phase 2 construction project is now underway and should be completed by fall of 2004. The engineering designs for Walnut Street (Tiedeman Avenue to 121St Avenue) and 121s' Avenue (Gaarde Street to Walnut Street) are nearing completion. Partial rights-of-way acquisition for each project has started and will be ongoing during the next fiscal year. Completion of the Gaarde Street construction should provide an improved east-west connector from Highway 99W to Barrows Road. Completion of the project designs on the two street projects ensures that at least two projects are ready for construction should funding opportunities arise. The initial report on the Proposed Wall Street Local Improvement District (LID) was presented to City Council on March 11, 2003. Council gave direction to complete the Preliminary Engineer's Report and submit it to Council for review upon completion. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and Wall Street and approaches will be constructed as a City project with contributions from the New Library. Project and the Fanno Pointe Subdivision to supplement TIF (Traffic Impact Fee) funds on the project. The Metro Priorities 2004-07 funding process has been soliciting projects from various jurisdictions. This is federal funding that is allocated to cities and counties through the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). The City submitted three projects for funding consideration. One of t~ the submittals is for construction funding to widen Greenburg Road from Washington Square Drive to Tiedeman Avenue. That project has already been approved for preliminary engineering and rights-of-way acquisition. The other projects are a pedestrian trail through the greenbelt in the Washington Square Regional Center and pedestrian improvements in the Tigard Town Center in L9 conjunction with the commuter rail project. All three projects are still under ~ consideration for funding on the 150% list revealed by Metro in late March 2003. 2003 Ai~ Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update 7 Goal 3A1- Reforming the Transportation Financing Task Force The Task Force will be reconstituted to drop some members and add new members to continue to explore alternative sources of funding for major street improvements. A suggestion has been made that members of the business community should be represented. The changes in the Task Force will be pursued in May and June of 2003. Goal 3B -Continue working with Tri-Met to identi_y and fund additional intra- city bus routes The Engineering Department worked with the Community Development Department in providing information for preparation of the Transit Action Plan to establish intra-city transit service and to enhance service on existing routes. Council adopted local service transit plan in December 2002. In January 2003, plan was forwarded to Tri-Met board along with a letter from the Mayor. A meeting was held with Tri-Met on January 16, 2003, regarding their transit investment plan. Goal 3C - Right-of-way management The Engineering Department provided input into the right-of-way management study that is currently underway. The study is undertaken to determine the true costs of managing the existing rights-of-way. Of special concern is the long-term damage done to the roadway structural section by utility cuts. The results of the study should provide the basis for establishing appropriate fees for work performed within the rights-of-way. L s_- J U J 003 8 Tigard City Council Goals - second Quarter Update GOAL 4: PARKS AND RECREATION A. Continue the efforts of the Youth Forum. B. Complete or update parks master plans for city facilities. C. Explore the creation of a Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Secoiliy irtef c~a' iii ~a RF? ; 4: I'rea~edlk±ya xn'P1 za~+'~trrks Manager.,s YA~s< z~ ~ , r ~ ~I,i Ne« totr, ASsYStant.to the Ctty'nianager .°~2~4 b 3 Qntrrue efforts ot"the YauthPoLUm WAdv rso Apl%lieant ~f~ the try "Counca ek ie edonNty" aoy WRV WWI Eignte~en~: ut ragrades 5-10 > e' re ent a.~ t o a me of G© vino u-tv F3Ihe selooli ~~v . , , $ thea5.e 't Ie~1?ev~+ ent sets with ai;z up~"s~sehedilecl a atil es Ce uril - $Cti q'.6 afro' TWA-A t, ee r. a Fv h sta "~s {he;struh Qrthero ounc><lrcy; art erirY~C~aY~r n c~rmttixuca#{ ith pPers: =.k., DU n apex anQ the eni~ly ahtg ta~include OT tit. EL1111 t I 4 ats ° at#. d? t r r T e Nga ools he,. usiness ` . sch represent v s ofxy,, o ea g t >~:'F uni: nd seri'rc'o~t*ani (cams.,. r,rr.,;: ~53V ~ T° N3, xt t O?,` C.'it s " # ate:;p rks as dri6` p }fr° ? ~ : P Ggal; V-Xortf leie or upd ~aCrlitze o clwe o ri ent~ Tole t e u e th ins allafion, of~tw9"g. , e~,plap,,r®unds PY .u s si a ~ a~ ter l' - eantJ Tl' illb to h v~ pie rest "led Iar' wthe piOir slielte nstall~edf tom- h, f£ Nash dog area ar ~un~merlake Parkha be perte ridgy reeiving M " ~x 65 0 0 `eder ~l grarii ~~as ie~eivt d to compl~Ie33oni ar If:wi be r C m 1, ed thrs fall Specia, fe tures or +his ne.gliborl~o p 1 W~ r 1 H c4 a -a p er~space pia area;lathrot~iruc shelter, Uask.etbaltco., s~ and a..;aa a atls;~lan scagin e e a "e'$ cclingrtat a o Cree 2003 Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update 9 X 1 L f 1 it ig3rd First Quarter Update Prepared by: Dan Plaza, Parks Manager Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager Goal 4A - Continue the efforts of the Youth Forum The Mayor's Youth Forum continues to meet monthly. The group is currently focused on forming a Youth Advisory Council. This Youth Council would work with the Youth Forum and other community members to build developmental assets for each child in Tigard through programs and activities designed for and by youth. Applications for the Youth Advisory Council are being accepted until April 16 from youth in grades 5-12. Home school groups, private schools, public schools, and church youth groups have all been contacted for representatives. The Youth Forum is also supporting the efforts of the Skate Park Committee. Goal 4B - Complete or update parks master plans for city facilities Cook Park Phase II, a major development project partially funded by SDC Funds, a grant, and a low cost State loan has been completed. Cook Park Phase L II consisted of the addition of a new picnic shelter, playground, two restroom facilities, concession facility, parks maintenance building, additional parking, 9 landscaping and infrastructure. Woodard Park development projects include the installation of two i i playgrounds and a picnic shelter (partially funded by a grant). The playgrounds have been installed and the picnic shelter will be installed later this spring. Potso Dog Park was completed and opened to the public on June 20, 2002. 2003 Ai~ Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update to Master Plans for Summerlake Park, Bonita Park and a Skate Park Design were approved by the City Council. An off-leash dog area at Summerlake Park is scheduled to be opened to the public this spring. A $165,000 federal grant was received to complete Bonita Park. It will be completed in late summer or early fall. Special features for this neighborhood park consist of an open space play area, bathrooms, picnic shelter, basketball courts, hard and soft paths, landscaping, and a playground. A $50,000 grant was received to acquire and develop additional Fanno Creek Park Trail property from Grant Street to Main Street. Fanno Creek Park Extension Master Plan will be completed by June 30, 2003. Goal 4C - Explore the creation of a Park and Recreation Advisory Board The Council will consider amending the Tigard Municipal Code section 2.12 to update the structure of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Appointment of Board members should occur this year. G i i i i 2003 Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update t GOAL 5: WATER A. Continue to evaluate options for a long-term water supply. Zf Y . ~ f2r~ S~ ~to,be : ~npn~altthat~ w. 1 rc~vide 4 ~-a proposal>_'~ y }ar } S~lltt 11105E t ~ e curreritly ' aver' r I I lTnte ml is~issu..an d . First Quarter Update Prepared by: Dennis Koellermeier, Assistant Public Works Director Ed Wegner, Public Works Director s Progress on this goal has been substantial this quarter, and we have both positive and negative news to report. i In the case of Tigard's potential of obtaining an ownership position in the Bull Run system, the news is ownership options in the immediate future have been withdrawn by the City of Portland. Tigard, along with the other suburban wholesalers will now refocus efforts to negotiate mutually agreeable wholesale contracts with Portland. Tigard may have the opportunity to become a co-owner in future capital projects in the Bull Run system, but buy-in to the existing system has been removed from the discussion by Portland. 2003 Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update 12 The news is more promising in our discussions with the joint Water Commission. The Commission has directed their staff to negotiate with Tigard to become a member of the joint Water Commission. Our initial ownership position would be for approximately 4 million gallons per day. The timeline of the negotiations should allow the City of Tigard to know the cost and conditions of the offer during the 2nd quarter. We also now know that our potential decision to join the joint Water Commission may now become contingent on our willingness to accept fluoridated water. If the City of Beaverton moves ahead with fluoridation, the water we receive from the joint Water Commission will pass through the Beaverton system and be fluoridated. J 0 J 2003 ji~ Tigard City Council Goals - Second Quarter Update 13 GOAL 6: GROWTH MANAGEMENT A. Continue to evaluate Tigard's role in the provision of urban services outside the city limits. s. l.r 1 z eport<~ Tz; First Quarter Update Prepared by: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director On March 18, staff met with Council to present several alternatives to address Urban Growth Expansion issues, including preparation of a concept plan and relationship to the overall Bull Mountain planning effort. In April, staff is scheduled to discuss UGB issues with Washington County. L A r 0 u j 3003 Tigard City Council Goals -Second Quarter Update 14 GOAL 7: COMMUNICATION A. Increase Tigard's communication with other elected bodies through active participation of City Council members and staff. B. Improve and expand communication with citizens, particularly communicating successes and future concerns. Second dare ,Pr"e"INv aIS' t ~sslstan a~ G AL 7A Inei'ease higard's.comnnuucation wi . C ecfedi 3o es a=} ~ jj u~ - rr -tr' 7 .•5 ran _ i ~ ~ .,y tlirougr active participation ot•Citp xxci a ers, }tcl kaff.t . Gx, ouius a continues to sched &~o t eef n5smi#h State~~ 1 ve , esen#a tax Williams and StAt ~S, atq t ~ urdxc :ey alsoz j d N~bF § el' xnee ifli thejigard H'' ' o e, e n o _ Bard A ea rQ . ~i rO Gh onln,erce PreGid nt, In eigo~r td 4 ate arLdiz>cr ,l• o" t~autcipal Court Judge, -1yietro CouIlCTOR e `ail`c iidorieslan Dell #ion jV7 ~;OA Improve and eapndi commuxuie o # .ciizens,, a~cul'arly4;: W ..x: rrg contriiunicatin successes and fu e~ Qnce S Y±; Ep' y TheMM1rFF e 0,ai on Tai "rd ontinues #o~b~e,y xo~~dq~.ua,yyc~~ed1andyaired .~•'gaYN` lty s - 4 so~3e W?'.+'~".vj%'M°v{F."',r%,g OR- R- ayes Eocu o o u "e xsin un, s~ Ord am was: J'walle::;;, °tlougfh -Igq s ' :`h o~c ul5 asp#liielan p1 •ngaprocess ; cAl #e Community Assessment Pr gram(' : hash `eezadileii.#o the yve °I izens can access' a report to citize s orteacl e W UUZUAr-g.. eamhasp lilcl? the end of March ti k s Y r i a • 'fi .I i web' site have zncteased sligh, nt«e~ alb o11t Q,4061g 30,$25; ,i F. ri#b 4 riewweb site titi rll be release u~ yem1a` dwyx aait3=,itjiroved de i n. nd feati.ires that'w~ll'allow itepartnien# Ito up #heir o n cfinten# m oUiqgonimunity coiIIlectors haveibee , added sincerApril Mth't addl#i&W a + gfor that?o PPortiinit h°" ' ° ' ' zens cousiderxng{ iuolunteerln J r Ls r a l cfiu :fterev_ eed orru%unicatzt~it plan~vill be distributed.by."the. Yt ly The,:";.,j tiv versxott Ala i ~sseciign`rolmurncation plans, the Ilhn' , E'i 2003 Tigard City Council Goals • Second Quarter Update Is First Quarter Update Prepared by: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager Goal 7A - Increase Tigard's communication with other elected bodies through active participation of City Council members and staff The City Council has held regular meeting with the Tigard-Tualatin School District, TVF&R, and its State Representative and State Senator. In addition the Tigard High School Envoy attends the first council meeting of each month to present information about activities and programs at the high school. In July, the Council will also schedule meetings with Washington County, Clean Water Services, and PCC. Goal 7B - Improve and expand communication with citizens particularly communicating successes and future concerns A new cable program began airing in Tigard in February. "Focus on Tigard" is designed as informational programming in current issues and is produced and airs monthly. The February Focus was on long-term water. In March, the Focus was on the commuter rail and downtown planning. April's Focus was on code enforcement and the new citation process. The taped-to-air format allows staff more flexibility in format and media. The City continues to add new features to the web page. In addition, over the last three months, all city departments have done extensive reviews of the information they post on the web to determine if more or different information should be included and to ensure information posted is current. Visits to the web site have increased since October from 27,210 to 30,703 per a month. oc The department communicators are reviewing the City's communication plan to update the guidelines for use of communication tools and emphasize the importance of communication plan for all proposed projects and programs. Communication plans allow staff to be proactive in getting out information by 'ji considering how, when and to whom. I:WDM\CITY COUNCIL\GOALM2003\2003 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL GOALS 0.2 UPDATE.DOC AGENDA ITEM # 0- . FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for the Construction of the FY 2003-04 Pavement Major Maintenance Program PMMP PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen 6EPT HEAD OK: Agustin P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill an ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of the FY 2003-04 Pavement Major Maintenance Program? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to S-2 Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $107,656.50. INFORMATION SUMMARY The PMMP is a yearly program of corrective and preventative maintenance on all paved streets in Tigard. The program is designed to provide additional service life to the streets and keep them safe and serviceable. Streets included in this year's program are: - Errol Street between 112'h Avenue and Fonner Street - Walnut Street between Grant Street and Pacific Highway - Greenburg Road between Center Street and Pacific Highway - Summerfield Drive between Durham Road and 114`h Court Due to limited funding, the bid documents included two options to allow the City flexibility in award of the project. Option No. I included pavement overlay for Errol Street, Walnut Street and Greenburg Road and option No. 2 included Option No. 1 plus Summerfield Drive. Since the lowest bid submitted for option No. 2 is less than the budget amount of $120,000, staff recommends approval of the option. The project was advertised for bids on July 7, 2003. The bid opening was conducted on July 21, 2003 and the bid result; are: s- S-2 Contractors Aurora, OR $107,656.50 Morse Brothers Sherwood, OR $114,581.00 Oregon Asphaltic Paving Troutdale, OR $134,811.65 1 Brix Paving Tualatin, OR $134,858.70 Pro-Teck Construction Clackamas, OR $135.,830.00 KF Jacobsen Portland, OR $149,961.30 Eagle-Elsner Tigard, OR $165,056.55 Engineer's Estimate $152,000 Based on the bids submitted, the lowest responsive bid of $107,656.50 submitted by S-2 Contractors appears to be reasonable. Staff recommends approval of the contract award to this qualified lowest bidder. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This project meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic Goal of "Improve 'T'raffic Safety". ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES This project is funded from the State Gas Tax fund in the amount of $120,000 in the FY 2003-04 CIP. This funding is sufficient to award a contract of $107,656.50 to S-2 Contractors. Benl;VD03-04 FY CIP\PMMP FY 03-04 \Council Packet\8-12-03 PMMP Contract Award AIS d H CO) _J m a W J szRrp p,N's PROGRAM ly~~ ~,E~rBrr rrY AJaR MAINTEN ISLID ~R Ens vERLA~ 003-04 P A VV 2 P AyEMoNT NuT FY ERG ~~Ap, AL p 9~ N N ST~E~~,iks 2~~luuq~lnJNN„ /off / p0A P OREENSURQ sr N o~ ~ys N t QPG~~ J Illplfl( o s~ ~R I11(Nlilll r'' 2~~~ jy ~ C RR q~ Qv v NUT ST SET G~ WALNUT ST F+JJ( WALNUT ST gUMMEAFiE~-~ OR0VE ERR®t gTREET ~ J N ~ N ilk DURHAM RD 3 iJl~ N N ~ ~ ,~fffHilllL'lUiilittttliilif 2 gyp" o~ Qp AGENDA ITEM # 3. ,3 FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for the Reconstruction of Bonita Road between Hall Boulevard and Faring Creek Bridge PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguyen "-DEPT HEAD OK: Agustin P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the reconstruction of Bonita Road between Hall Boulevard and Fanno Creek Bridge? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to S-2 Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $210,567.95. INFORMATION SUMMARY Bonita Road between Hall Boulevard and Fanno Creek Bridge underwent major reconstruction in 1991. However, due to loss of sub-grade support, the pavement surface has failed prematurely. In the last few years, this segment of Bonita Road has deteriorated to a level beyond the repair capabilities of the Public Works Department. Since correction of the failure requires more than normal maintenance effort, reconstruction of the street, including removal and replacement of the existing aggregate base and asphalt concrete pavement, is required. The existing curbs and sidewalks will remain during construction. New traffic stripes, pavement markings and pavement markers will be installed after placement of the new pavement. Completion of the proposed scope of work should provide a renewed road structural section and pavement surface that should last for 15 to 20 years with routine maintenance. The project was advertised for bids on June 30, 2003. The bid opening was conducted on July 14, 2003 and the bid results are: S-2 Contractors Aurora, OR $210,567.95 C Morse Brothers Sherwood, OR $217,185.10 Brix Paving Tualatin, OR $220,368.90 i Eagle-Elsner Tigard, OR $224,843.50 ! Pro-Teck Construction Clackamas, OR . $236,238.00 Y PCR Beavercreek, OR $277,678.00 s Benge Construction Tualatin, OR $279,044.50 Engineer's Estimate $258,000 Based on the bids submitted, the lowest responsive bid of $210,567.95 submitted by S-2 Contractors appears to be reasonable. Staff recommends the contract award be made to this qualified lowest bidder. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This project meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic Goal of "Improve Traffic Safety". ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES This project is funded from the Gas Tax fund in the amount of $260,000 in the FY 2003-04 CIP. This amount is sufficient to award the contract of $210,567.95 to S-2 Contractors, Inc. I:1eng\2003-2004 FY CIP\Bonita Rd between 79r°-existing bridge\8-12-03 Bonita Rd Reconstruction Contract Award AIS STRIP Le G goNITA RoAD RBCOt4gT TO BR QGB 14 ALL BLVD LANOMARK LN COLONY CRE CT N FANNO CF? FANNO v ~ ~o c~FF~ rO o ~y ti z CR z FANNO w 1¢i 'p G ~ BONI-TA RD p FF"NNO U.3 BKIRGE S c, Z N LLJ Q p = M U MARA CT 00 N r r 00 LIJ W Q _ CAROLE CT M OD Go co I I LA N I~ AGENDA ITEM 4 3-,J u FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for the Construction of Bonita Park at the Bonita Road/Milton Court Intersection PREPARED BY: Vannie Nguuyen6/DEPT HEAD OK: Agustin P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill ~ka7n ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of Bonita Park at the Bonita Road/Milton Court intersection? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Andersen Pacific Contractors in the amount of $174,636.00. INFORMATION SUMMARY This project proposes to construct a neighborhood park on a 5.5 acres of city-owned property located along the entire length of Milton Court north of Bonita Road. Properties located to the immediate west of the park site are apartment complexes that are mostly occupied by families with children. The nearest public park or school playground facilities is approximately one mile away. The proposed park will provide residents of the adjacent apartment complexes and other neighborhood residents a place for healthy outdoor recreation in a natural setting. Proposed improvements for Bonita Park include construction of a picnic shelter, a playground area with two playground structures, a basketball court, and concrete pathway with park benches and drinking fountains. Also included in the project are landscaping improvements that include lawn seeding and tree planting to provide shade for park users. In order to provide access to the park, a flashing lighted crosswalk is now being installed on Bonita Road at the intersection with Milton Court. The crossing improvement will enhance safe crossing of Bonita Road for those people who wish to access the park. The crosswalk project should be substantially completed by late August. i The project was advertised for bids on June 30, 2003. The bid opening was conducted on July 21, 2003 and the bid results are: i ! Andersen Pacific Contractors Ridgefield, WA $174,636.00 PCR, Inc. Beavercreek, OR $187,832.00 JP Contractors Tualatin, OR $265,463.92 BCI Contracting Portland, OR $269,921.90 Engineer's Estimate $184,500 Based on the bids submitted, the lowest responsive bid of $174,636.00 submitted by Andersen Pacific Contractors appears to be reasonable. Staff recommends approval of the contract award to this qualified lowest bidder. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None ATTACHMENT LIST Project location map FISCAL NOTES This project is funded from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in the amount of $105,400. A budget amendment will be processed to transfer funds from the Parks Capital Fund contingency to cover the balance required of $69,236. 1:\eng\2003-2004 FY C1P\Bonita Park at Milton Ct\Council Packet\8-12-03 Bonita Park Contract Award AIS d F~ N m W~ J LEGIBILITY STRIP BONITA PARK AT MILTON COURT COLONY CREEK CT \ \ N FANNO CR Are FANNO c U I Q I ~ LZ FANNO CR r 0 m' Z r n ~ Q BONITA RD - A J r FANNO i J G I) ~ Q Q M U CREEK o 00 I- MARA CT _ BRIDGE o z 0) 00, I I I < \p \n LLI cF- W > D'q- L ID 0CAROLE JCT =(l I I o 0011 ~ MURDOCE ST VIOLA 1 ; LJI AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Bretton Woods Planned Development and Subdivision Findings PREPARED BY:_ Brad Kilby DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK *Z_ ISSUE BEFORE THE C UNCIL Adopt findings for the decision rendered by the Tigard City Council on July 22, 2003 under Resolution 03-29. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the proposed findings. INFORMATION SUMMARY Lyle Miller and Bethanne Kronick filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Bretton Woods Planned Development Subdivision. Bretton Woods is a 10 lot subdivision on 2.34 acres located at 16455 SW 1081h Avenue. The proposal was to provide single-family detached housing on lots ranging between 5,500 and 6,879 square feet. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed subdivision on May 5, 2003 and continued the hearing to May 19, 2003. The Commission unanimously approved the subdivision based on the applicant's submittal, testimony, and the staff report. The City Council held a public hearing on the appeal on July 8, 20133 and continued the hearing to July 22, 2003. The City Council denied the appeal and voted 4-1 to approve the development under Resolution 03-29. The City Council will review and adopt findings to support the decision at the August 12, 2003 meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Amend the findings. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment I - Resolution to adopt findings of fact for Bretton Woods Subdivision Exhibit "A"- Proposed Findings Exhibit "B"- Resolution 03-29 and Planning Commission Final Order FISCAL NOTES N/A Attachment 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE BRETTON WOODS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS (SUB2003-00001/PDR2003-00001/ZON2003-OOOOINAR2003-00006NAR2003-00007) IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 03-29 (EXHIBIT B). WHEREAS, Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the matter on July 8, 2003, and July 22, 2003; and WHEREAS, The Tigard City Council voted 4-1 to approve the subdivision as proposed; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on May 5, 2003, and May 19,2003; and WHEREAS, The Tigard Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the subdivision; and WHEREAS, The findings of facts support the decision rendered by the Tigard City Council and the Tigard Planning Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: ado. SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby a areval-ef the Findings of Fact (Exhibit A) for the approval of the Bretton Woods Planned Development, Subdivision, and associated applications. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2003. M yo - ity o gard ATTEST: *AmeAbd IaT L' >Q- City Recorder RESOLUTION NO. 03 - Page 1 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Conununity MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Bretton Woods Correspondence Several letters have been received since the close of the public hearing for the Bretton Woods Subdivision appeal. Most of the letters were mailed to the Council last week. The attached letters were received after that mailing. Although these letters were received after the close of the public hearing, I am forwarding them to Council for your review. ATTACHMENT LIST: August 11, 2003 e-mail from Colleen Speck August 12, 2003 e-mail from Alice Ellis Gaut % n a i Cathy Wheatley - Bretton Woods decision Page 1 From: "Speck, Colleen" <colleen.speck@intei.com> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <Brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <Sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci. tigard.or.us> Date: 8/11/03 8:46AM Subject: Bretton Woods decision Copies to: Mayor/Council otiler, August 11, 2003 City Manager Council File _Z Mr. Mayor and Tigard City Councilors: Tomorrow night you will finalize the decision you recently made to approve the Bretton Woods subdivision. I ask that you take this final chance to reconsider your decision based on the following points: 1) Your city arborist warned of potential danger to neighboring properties. You are obligated to carefully weigh his opinions against those of the arborists hired by the developer before making a decision. I do not believe you have done that. 2) The tree protection plan you approved for city property in January would not allow this development to continue unless the road on the northern boundary was moved further from the large fir trees on the property line. I realized from your comments at the end of the hearing that your only concern was whether that plan legally bound you to protect the citizens of Tigard in the same manner. Of course it does not, but the fact that you can legally approve this development as it stands does not make it the RIGHT thing to do. You signed the city tree protection plan for a reason. Aren't the citizens of Tigard worthy of the same protection afforded city property, especially when the issue is not only the protection of the trees but also the protection of property and even lives? Politically you're making a very dangerous statement by approving a plan that would not be permitted on city property. This issue will not go unnoticed at the next election. 3) If there is a windstorm in the next few years that brings one of these large trees down on our house we will hire an arborist to assess the damage to the now exposed root system and an attorney to file suit against the city of Tigard. Your arborist's warning is public record and your decision contradicts your opinion on what should be considered a safe tree protection plan (city tree protection plan). You will be held accountable for this decision and liable for the damage to our property. We never asked you to stop this development. We only asked that you make Alpha Engineering come up with a plan that does not put us in danger. Please reconsider your approval of this plan and make Alpha Engineering go back to the drawing board. The decision to approve is bad for you j politically and leaves the city of Tigard at risk of substantial p liability should the construction of the road damage the roots of these N trees and leave them vulnerable to wind throw. Colleen Speck 10976 SW Chateau Lane Tigard, OR 97224 email: cspeck@hevanet.com coffeen.speck@intel.com r Cathy Wheatley - Bretton Woods decision Page 2 CC: <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Lyle E. Miller" <lyle@lifedesignconsulting,com>, "Bethanne Kronick-SIMPLIFYI" <bethanne@simplifynw.com> L a • Page 1 of 2 Cathy Wheatley - Bretton Woo4s From: "Alice Ellis Gaut" <1lice.elli5.94ut0c59pro.c0m> To: <mayor0dti9ar4.or.us>, <crai940ci.ti9ard•or.us>, <brianmCDci,tigara.or.us>, <sy({ncyC)ci.tigtrcl.or.uti>, <rnickw0d.ti9ard.or.u5> Date: 8/12/03 2:15 PM Subject: Bretton Woods Mr. Mayor, President Dirksen, and Council Members, As one of the many bitterly disappointed and dismayed proponents of the Copies to: Bretton Woods appeal, I am writing to urge each and every one o(you to Mayor/Council Other: insist that the Council revisit, reconsider, and refuse to enact the verbal City Manager !L 4-1 denial oF22 )uly 2003, because that decision is based on, among other Council File things, an inadequate examination of the facts and the physical evidence, a completely illogical interpretation oFthe Council's authority to consider, evaluate, and adopt the findings of its own expert, City Forester Matt Stine, and a seemingly complete rejection of the law and procedures mandated in quasi-judicial proceedings. It was apparent that no one bad undertaken a careful review of the record below--perhaps understandable, given its volume, but nonetheless unfortunate since such a review would have provided the necessary background for evaluating the claims made before you. What I find most incredible, however, is the (allure and /or YCFusa) of this collective body to take advantage of a site visit despite repeated requests that it do so. That such a visit should not be a prerequisite to any decision impacting a concerned community is, in my opinion, a serious omission in the Code; however the conduct of such visits is addressed jr) the Code, 18.390.050(D)(9)(c). I would hope that by now those who believed that the opinions ofthe City Forester are unworthy of attention because the position was created after the enactment of the Code have reconsidered that interpretation, which alone is reason enough to re-evaluate the evidence. Moreover, the suggestion made at the 22 July hearing that potential bias on the part of the developer's hired arborists is not germane to the process o(weighing the evidence flies in the face of hundreds oFyears of jurisprudence. Whether in a courtroom or an administrative setting, bias is always relevant, and this body has a duty a to evaluate that along with other relevant evidence. F~- N The approval of the developer's proposal without a speciFc tree protection plan AT THE OUTSET is illegal because it vests in the developer that dicretionary function properly belonging to elected o(ficiak, with no meaningful oversight, no review, and no remedy For those adversely affected. D After several months observation I am confident that the input of the City W Forester during the construction phase, as is mandated in the existing plan, J would be accorded even less deference than has been the case prior to and during the application and approval process. Were the delegation of discretion to the developer, viz. the tree protection plan, permissible, which it is not, the mere inclusion of a requirement that the City Forester be present to observe the debacle offers no com(ort. I will not here repeat the eloquent comments of my neighbors and others, and of attorney Dan Kearns, but I endorse those views and interpretations ofthe file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00014.HTM 8/12/03 Page 2 of 2 applicable law. What you do today will have impact beyond the doors of City Hall, and will be a message to the larger community about responsive and responsible government. Please seize the opportunity to rectify this potentially disastrous situation. Alice Ellis Gaut file://C:\V;MOWS\TEMP\GW)00014.HTM 8/12/03 Cathy Wheatley- Re: Bretton Woods Page-, ~ From: Cathy Wheatley To: Alice Ellis Gaut Date: 8/12103 2:40PM Subject: Re: Bretton Woods Your comments regarding Bretton Woods will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us "Alice Ellis Gaut" <alice.ellis.gaut@csgpro.com> 08/12/03 02:14PM Mr. Mayor, President Dirksen, and Council Members, As one of the many bitterly disappointed and dismayed proponents of the Bretton Woods appeal, I am writing to urge each and every one of you to insist that the Council revisit, reconsider, and refuse to enact the verbal 4-1 denial of 22 July 2003, because that decision is based on, among other things, an inadequate examination of the facts and the physical evidence, a completely illogical interpretation of the Council's authority to consider, evaluate, and adopt the findings of its own expert, City Forester Matt Stine, and a seemingly complete rejection of the law and procedures mandated in quasi-judicial proceedings. It was apparent that no one had undertaken a careful review of the record below--perhaps understandable, given its volume, but nonetheless unfortunate since such a review would have provided the necessary background for evaluating the claims made before you. What I find most incredible, however, is the failure and /or refusal of this collective body to take advantage of a site visit despite repeated requests that it do so. That such a visit should not be a prerequisite to any decision impacting a concerned community is, in my opinion, a serious omission in the Cade; however the conduct of such visits is addressed in the Code, 18.390.050(D)(9)(c). I would hope that by now those who believed that the opinions of the City Forester are unworthy of attention because the position was created after the enactment of the Code have reconsidered that interpretation, which alone is reason enough to re-evaluate the evidence. Moreover, the suggestion made at the 22 July hearing that potential bias on the part of the developer's hired arborists is not germane to the process of weighing the evidence flies in the face of hundreds of years of jurisprudence. Whether in a courtroom or an administrative setting, bias is always relevant, and this body has a duty d to evaluate that along with other relevant evidence. OC to The approval of the developer's proposal without a specific tree protection plan AT THE OUTSET is illegal because it vests in the developer that J dicretionary function properly belonging to elected officials, with no m meaningful oversight, no review, and no remedy for those adversely affected. After several months observation 1 am confident that the input of the City U Forester during the construction phase, as is mandated in the existing plan, would be accorded even less deference than has been the case prior to and during the application and approval process. Were the delegation of discretion to the developer, viz. the tree protection plan, permissible, which it is not, the mere inclusion of a requirement that the City Forester be present to observe the debacle offers no comfort. ti Cathy VlfheaUe Re; Bretton Woods Page 2~ I will not here repeat the eloquent comments of my neighbors and others, and of attorney Dan Kearns, but I endorse those views and interpretations of the applicable law. What you do today will have impact beyond the doors of City Hall, and will be a message to the larger community about responsive and responsible government. Please seize the opportunity to rectify this potentially disastrous situation. Alice Ellis Gaut a oe: rn _J >0 U J AGENDA ITEM # J FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Street Maintenance Fee - Task Force Recommendation PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CI I'Y MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force will recommend an approach to implementation of the proposed Street Maintenance Fee based on the alternative proposal by the Oregon Grocery Association with modifications made by City staff. Council direction will be requested to implement the fee in accordance with the Task Force recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council provide direction to implement the fee using the approach recommended by the Task Force. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Transportation Strategies Task Force met on June 19, 2003 to discuss the proposed Street Maintenance Fee with business representatives and interested residents. The meeting was attended by representatives from the Oregon Grocery Association, Jack Reardon (General Manager of Washington Square), Dan Murphy (President of the Chamber of Commerce), the Task Force members (including Councilor Dirksen), Councilor Sydney Sherwood, and a few representatives from the business community. The proposed fee, as originally proposed by the Task Force, is based on trip generation rates for various land use categories. The Oregon Grocery Association (OGA) proposed an alternative approach that linked the rates to the long-term work program that is planned by the City for maintaining the City streets. It assigns responsibility for the arterials and collectors that serve the businesses to the businesses, splits the costs for those that do not directly serve the businesses, and assigns responsibility for the local streets to the residents. This is DC strictly for maintenance of the streets. The street light and traffic signal maintenance and energy costs were excluded. However, they proposed that it could be added back as an overall benefit to the City residents with a flat rate charged to all within the City. J n City staff reviewed the proposal and suggested some modifications at the Task Force meeting on July 21, 2003. The Task Force approved the modified proposal for presentation to City Council at the August 12, 2003 Council meeting. Only the Street Maintenance element was recommended for implementation by the Task Force. The three other elements (Street Light and Traffic Signal System Energy Costs and Maintenance, Rights-of-Way Maintenance, and Sidewalk Maintenance) are not proposed for implementation at this time. If Council provides direction to proceed with the fee, an ordinance and resolution will be submitted for Council consideration in October or November 2003. Actual implementation of the new fee is not expected until early 2004. 11 Mill! 111111 The key concepts in the Task Force recommendation are as follows: • Ties the street maintenance element of the fee to a 5-year maintenance and reconstruction plan prepared by the City of Tigard • Uses actual road repair projects • Tailors the fee to the local data • Sets a target revenue goal of $800,000 annually • Allocates the costs of the arterial projects to the non-residential uses • Splits the costs for the collectors on a 50-50 basis with residential and non-residential uses sharing the costs equally • Allocates the costs for neighborhood routes and local streets to residential uses • Uses the minimum parking space requirements based on the Tigard Development Code for non- residential uses with a 5-space minimum and 200-space maximum. Allocates the costs for residential uses on a per unit basis for both single family and multifamily units. This approach takes into account businesses that draw from a larger area than just Tigard. • Sets the rate for the first three years based on a 5-year average of the projects to be implemented. Includes a review of the program after three years and re-establishes the rate at that time based on a 5- year plan that adds three more years to the program. • Dedicates the amounts collected strictly to projects with no City overhead, administrative, or engineering costs factored in. Those essential activities and corresponding costs can be covered by gas tax revenues so that the fee amounts can be devoted strictly to the preventative and corrective maintenance work. Based on the current 5-year maintenance plan, the estimated cost to the residents is approximately $2.21 per single family or multifamily dwelling unit. The non-residential uses will be computed based on the parking spaces for the types of land use as defined in the Development Code. The ratio based on the current 5-year plan has the residential uses paying for approximately 58% of the costs and the non-residential uses paying for 42% of the costs. However, the current 5-year maintenance plan is based on information that is several years old. The City will need to update that information to remove those projects that are already completed and bring in additional projects based on updated data and observation. The original 5-year plan attached to the original Street Maintenance Fee Study Report was not altered during the past two years so that the list could be kept constant. The proposed rates will change after the 5-year maintenance plan is updated. CL Some of the other considerations that were recommended by OGA and approved by the Task Force include the following: • Any overruns and underruns would be recorded during the first three years and then factored in as part of the adjustment in the evaluation of the fee at the end of the three-year period. J • Any funding dedicated for maintenance received as a result of HB 2041, which was passed by both the House and Senate and has been signed into law by the Governor, would be credited to the program. However, it remains to be seen what amount of funding would be made available to cities and just how the funding is described in the legislation. The League of Oregon Cities has been tracking that legislation and has been providing frequent updates. The current estimate provided by the League is approximately $7 or $8 per capita in additional funding for maintenance and preservation projects. am I -nom J OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Timely maintenance of the street infrastructure meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Safety. The implementation of the Street Maintenance Fee meets the goal of Identify and Develop Funding Resources. ATTACHMENT LIST Proposal by the Oregon Grocery Association Report to the Task Force on the OGA Proposal FISCAL NOTES None at this point. The implementation of the Street Maintenance Fee as originally proposed would provide funding for street maintenance, limited ROW maintenance, limited sidewalk maintenance, and street light and traffic signal system energy costs and maintenance. The total new revenue needed projected for all four elements is $1.6 million. The modified alternative proposal would raise approximately $800,000 for the Street Maintenance element only. I:\EnglGus\Couuci1 Agenda Summaries\Street Maintenance Fee - Task Force Recommendation for 8-12-03.doc L C i I I I Stre Tas City of Tigard What is the Street Maintenance Fee? • Monthly user fee based on use of the street system • Typically collected through existing y utility bills from residences and businesses within the city m ® Designated for use in the maintenance J of the transportation system z 1 What Does It Do? • Protects the city's investment in the street infrastructure • Provides revenue to adequately maintain the city streets • Allows the cost of the preventative and corrective maintenance to be shared by the users of the street system 3 i Need for Timely Maintenance • Timely maintenance provides safer roads L • Timely maintenance extends pavement life significantly • Deferred maintenance costs 4 to 5 times more (i.e. pavement overlay vs reconstruction) 4 2 nia Previous Proposal • Uses trip generation rates to establish residential and non-residential categories • Four maintenance elements ❖Street Maintenance .:.Rights-of-way Maintenance .-Sidewalk Maintenance i ry;E ..-.Street Light and Traffic Signal Maintenance, s e Previous Proposal • Street Maintenance $800,000 • ROW Maintenance $270,000 • Sidewalk Maintenance $ 90,000 • Street Light and Traffic 'r i Signal Maintenance $445,000 i Total Revenue Needed: $1,605,000 Ratio: 72% non-residential, 28% Residential 6 3 Council Direction • Council directed the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force to ➢ Meet with businesses ➢Attempt to reach a consensus on the structure for the Street Maintenance Fee ➢ Focus on the street maintenance and street light and traffic signal elements only ➢ Report results back to Council in 60 days' Task Force Meetings • Task Force met on June 19, 2003 ➢ Oregon Grocery Association presented an alternative proposal Proposal links the rates to the City's long- term maintenance program :.Assigns responsibility for arterials to businesses v :.Splits costs for collectors (50-50 basis) y ..Assigns responsibility for neighborhood ► routes and local streets to residents 8 4 Task Force Meetings • Task Force met again on July 21, 2003 • Discussed City staff and other recommendations for adjustments to the CIGA proposal • Approved the proposal with modifications for submittal to City Council • Recommends only the street maintenance element at this time ' Street Maintenance Element • Preventative and corrective maintenance on the City streets > slurry seals a ➢ pavement overlays ➢ reconstruction J • Amount needed annually: $800,000 > Over time, addresses $4 million backlog in U J preventative and corrective maintenance 10 5 Key Concepts • Bases the fee on the City's 5-year street maintenance plan • Applies only to the street maintenance element • Sets a target revenue goal of $800,000 annually Key Concepts • Allocates the costs as follows: ➢Arterials (100% non-residential uses) ➢ Collectors (50% residential, 50% non- residential) (Neighborhood routes and local streets (100% residential) • Allocates costs for non-residential uses 9 based on parking space requirements (5 spaces minimum, 200 spaces maximum) 12 6 Key Concepts • Sets the rates for the first three years based on a 5-year average cost • Review after three years > Fee would be adjusted based on an updated 5-year plan > Cost underruns or overruns would be factored into fee adjustment >Credit maintenance funding received from HB 2041 in the fee adjustment 13 Key Concepts ® Dedicate the amounts collected strictly to maintenance projects >City overhead, administrative and engineering costs would be charged elsewhere May be good public relations policy :r Not considered good fiscal policy by our City • Finance staff :.Indirect costs incurred by the program should be charged to the program r .-.Sets a bad precedent for the other fees that are charged Citywide 14 7 Other Considerations • 5-year maintenance plan needs to be updated • Final costs would be based on an updated plan 15 s Projected Rates • Projected rates based on existing 5-year plan ➢$2.21 per single family or multifamily unit L >Approximately $0.82 per parking space per 'r 2 month for non-residential uses > Monthly amount varies for non-residential o uses based on parking space requirements ➢ Ratio: 58% residential, 42% non-residential ,E 16 8 Implementation Schedule Develop ordinance for establishment of the fee • Prepare resolution to adopt the rates ➢Update the 5-year maintenance plan ➢ Establish rates ➢ Develop resolution for adoption x i` 17 Implementation Schedule • Preview ordinance and resolution with Council in October 2003 • Submit ordinance and resolution for o Council action in November 2003 • Implement fee January 2004 _J u 1 18 9 Recommendations • Task Force Recommendation • Staff Recommendation 19 d , ri Task Force Recommendation • Approve the alternative proposal as modified • Direct staff to prepare a );;.An ordinance for establishment of the fee a ➢A resolution to establish the rates • Implement the fee in accordance with the projected schedule 'L J 20 10 Staff Recommendation • Approve the alternative proposal as modified but include City overhead, engineering and construction management services incurred to implement the program • Direct staff to prepare ➢ An ordinance for establishment of the fee ➢ A resolution to establish the rates • Implement the fee in accordance with the projected schedule 21 CL s- _J U J 11 30300 SW Parkway Ave. • Wilsonville, OR 97070-7739 503-685-6293 • 800.824-1602 - Fax 503.685-6295 . , E-mail info@ogio.org or Visit Web site www.ogio.org City of Tigard Street Fee Task Force Meeting with Business Members of the Community June 19t", 2003 Oregon Grocery Association Proposal L r 1 a s ISSUES TO ADDRESS Through the hearings process four significant issues have been identified and must be addressed for a street fee to work in the City of Tigard: #1 Commercial delivery trucks cause more damage than cars to Tigard city streets and should be charged more than cars to cover their wear and tear on the roads. #2 Businesses need to pay their fair share of the cost to repair the roads. #3 The current proposal is a Tax (general benefit) not a fee (specific benefit) #4 If the business community opposes the current plan, then they must offer an alternative. OGA's Response and Recommendation #1 OGA has analyzed the routes of all grocery deliveries and most other business deliveries use to supply Tigard businesses. The routes are almost exclusively state highways and city arterials. Large trucks do not have an impact on Tigard residential and local streets. #2 Business and Residences should pay for streets they directly impact and should not pay for streets they do not directly impact. #3 The money must be used for street repair only. The City Council has taken a step to narrow the use of the fee to mitigate the use of funds for general purpose (ROW, sidewalks, streetscape). However, the lighting issue remains and should be addressed separately. Finally, a 10% cumulative reserve is not needed and should not be collected and used for other city expenses. #4 On the following pages, OGA offers an alternative plan that: ✓ Is affordable for businesses and residents. ✓ Allocates the cost of specific repairs to the actual beneficiaries of the projects in a fair and understandable manner that is based on local data. ✓ Narrows the fee to be used only for actual road repair projects ✓ Takes into account businesses that draw from a larger area than just Tigard. ✓ Expands and contracts with the need on a yearly basis ✓ Addresses the lighting issue in a separate, but fair and understandable formula. 9 u Tigard Street Fees- OGA Proposal Road Projects 2003 thru 2007 Type of Project Cost of Projects Percentage of Total Arterial $1,044,270.25 31% Collector $775,245.99 23% Residential/Local $1,569,017.12 46% Total $3,388,533.36 100% Business/Residents Share of Costs Type of Project Cost Business Arterial 100% $1,044,270.25 Collector 50% $387,623 Business Total $1,431,893.25 Residents Collector 50% $387,623 Residential/Local 100% $1,569,017.12 Residents Total $1,956,640.12 L Combined Total $3,388,533.36 3 0 9 u Tigard Street Fees- OGA Proposal Based on 16,822 residential units with 16,822 parking spaces, and 727 businesses with 32,437 parking spaces. Businesses are assesed a fee on no fewer than 5 parking spaces and no greater than 200 parking spaces. 2003 Dollar Amount Percentage Share Business Cost Residential Cost Cost of Arterial Projects $94,479.00 100% Business $94,479.00 $0.00 Cost of Collector Projects $129,023.13 50% Bus./50% Res. $64,511.57 $64,511.57 Cost of Residential/Local Projects $412,153.00 100% Residential $0.00 $412,153.00 Sub Total of Projects $635,655.13 $158,990.57 $476,664.57 2003 Dollar Amount Percentage Share Total Business Share $158,990.57 25% Per year per parking space 32,437 $4.90 Per month per parking space $0.41 Range of fee assesment $2.05-$82.00 2003 Dollar Amount Percentage Share Total Residential Share $476,667.43 75% Per ear per parking space 16,822 $28.34 Per month per parking space $2.36 ~r 200 L IIar AindUht Perd6rla a Share.` B-Osiiie56:Cost' Residential CQat Q-Ar erlahP i ecte - '$306,7891 -'.'`'100% Business' $306,789:77;. 01 0 0 $68;894.89, "$68;$94.8P Gpliecinr' lhni acts, $137;308:43 '"50% BusJ50/d.Ress` 6NI660WW460 1VI-66M f ro'ects." $255155,36 100%Residential $0.00-":- . $255,155.86.,, ::Total,afFroJecfs $699,252.06 $375,684°$6 $324,050'-75;'' :P _-,12C04": Dollar AmdUnt - -.Percents e Share I'll --S, are $375,442:99 54% eai" r' a tii s ace 32;437)` "$11'.57:; . ".60 Li6robrkiri'soace f fee a5susmenf. " $4.80- 1,92.00 L _ DollarAmount Perce[f[a~B°SharA" r ~ :Resid f~ti~h~r~:, $323;809.08. '8$ro' INoe26e 16,822) k1Qg ~t?z .51. fl 3 6 9 J 2005 Dollar Amount Percentage Share Business Cost Residential Cost Cost of Arterial Projects $141,019.09 100% Business $141,019.09 $0.00 Cost of Collector Projects $149,957.07 50% Bus./50% Res. $74,978.54 $74,978.54 Cost of Residential/Local Projects $423,491.93 100% Residential $0.00 $423,491.93 Sub Total of Projects $714,468.09 $215,997.63 $498,470.47 2005 Dollar Amount Percentage Total Business Share $215,997.63 30% Per year per parking space 32,437 $6.66 Per month per parking space $0.55 Range of fee assesment $1.12-$44.00 2005 Dollar Amount Percentage Total Residential Share $498,470.37 70% Per year per parking space 16,822 $29.63 Per month per parking space $2.47 - 2406DollaAmount Prana"eSharo' Business'Cost Re~identia4`CosE Cgst of RrteriahPro'ects. $293,394.09 100%6 usiness $293,394.09` `o.00 Cost=of,CcIIecftSG;P[o ects $219,375.87 50% Bus O%. Res:- °'$'109,687.94. $109,6$7.94 C691',©'Reside5t6local Protects' $129,635,67 ` 100°,5Re`sidentiei$0.00 $129;635.67 $41J6tal 6f Pirjecls $642,405.63 x}03,082.03 $239,323.61.. 2006- Dollar-Amount", Percentage :fft Business Share $403;381:59"' 'gar 'er p parking space 32,437 $12.44: t2r,,ino"r'ith 'r"arkln "s ace . $1.04 sta. "eof fee'assesmen. $520-$208:00 2006 DollaeAmounZ Percentage ot~ak Resideriliali Staare $303,553.41 4Y' 0 e~ ea r arkin s ace (16,822 $18.05 P4,F ►on tYj~erpgikin4`spark _ $1'•54 2007 Dollar Amount Percentage Share Business Cost Residential Cost Cost of Arterial Projects $208,588.30 100% Business $208,588.30 $0.00 Cost of Collector Projects $139,583.49 50% Bus./50% Res. $69,791.75 $69,791.75 L Cost of Residential/Local Projects $348,580.66 100% Residential $0.00 $348,580.66 2 Sub Total of Projects $696,752.45 $278,380.05 $418,372.41 2007 Dollar Amount Percentage j Total Business Share $278,380.05 40% Per year per parking s ace 32,437 $8.58 Per month per parking s ace $0.72 i Range of fee assesment $3.60-$144.00 2007 Dollar Amount Percentage Total Residential Share $418,371.95 60% Per year per parking space 16,822 $24.87 Per month per parking space $2.07 Tigard Street Lighting- OGA Proposal Based on a need $400,000 per year and 17,549 billing addresses. The fee equals $1.90 per month per billing address. 2003 Monthly Street Fee Monthly Lighting Fee Total Monthly Fee Bsiness $2.05 to $82.00 $1.90 $3.95 to $83.90 $2.36 $1.90 $4.26 'fti9 fithl .Str.eet Fee, . Monthl-Wh itlin`'' Fee. Total M6fithi Fee irless_;fr; $4.80'to$192.00r'f $1 90. $670 to $193.00 e' 0~~ - $1.60 $1.90 $3,~0 . 2005 Monthly Street Fee Monthly Lighting Fee Total Monthly Fee Business $1.12 to $44.00 $1.90 $3.02 to $45.90 Residents $2.47 $1.90 __J77:::$4 y. Monthl ,Street,Fee-, Month)y_Lighting Fee Total N16ntliCy Fes * S m} {'`try' y, € usiriess 20 to.$2081 $ 90 = $7.10 to $209.90 _qM a n 3~~, X3.40 CC 2007 Month) Street Fee Monthly Lighting Fee Total Monthly Fee m W Business $3.60 to $144.00 $1.90 $5.50 to $145.90 J Residents $2.07 $1.90 $3.97 Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force Report on Oregon Grocery Association Proposal The Oregon Grocery Association Proposal At the Task force meeting on June 19, 2003, the Oregon Grocery Association submitted an alternative proposal for a Street Maintenance Fee. The main concepts in the proposal are as follows: • Ties the street maintenance element of the fee to a 5-year maintenance and reconstruction plan prepared by the City of Tigard ■ Uses actual road repair projects ■ Tailors the fee to the local data ■ Arterial projects would be allocated to the non-residential uses ■ Collectors would be split on a 50-50 basis with residential and non- residential uses sharing the costs ■ Neighborhood routes and local streets would be allocated to residential uses ■ Allocates the non-residential costs based on parking spaces using 5 spaces as a minimum and 200 spaces as a maximum • Expands and contracts with the need on a yearly basis • Takes into account businesses that draw from a larger area than just Tigard • Addresses the lighting issue in a separate formula that results in a flat rate for each billing unit in the City City Review and Adjustments City staff and the City Attorney's office have reviewed the proposal and find it reasonable and workable, but suggest the following adjustments: • Set a target revenue goal of $800,000. The original breakdown for the long-term plan set aside a reserve of approximately $100,000 to cover reconstruction costs as certain streets need that level of maintenance. If reconstruction is to be done as Y part of the 5-year plan, the amount of $800,000 should provide sufficient revenue to address those streets as they become due in the plan. • Set the rate for the first three years based on a 5-year average of the projects to be implemented. Review after three years and set the rate at that time based on a 5- year plan that adds three more years to the program. • Dedicate the amounts collected strictly to projects with no City overhead, administrative, or engineering costs factored in. Those essential activities and corresponding costs can be covered by gas tax revenues so that the fee amounts can be devoted strictly to the preventative and corrective maintenance work. Report to Task Force on OGA Proposal Page 1 of 3 • Use the parking space recommendation by OGA, use the minimum spaces based on the Tigard Development Code for non-residential uses, and keep the 5-space minimum and 200-space maximum. Allocate the costs for residential uses on a per unit basis for both single family and multifamily units. • City staff concurs with the other recommendations by OGA Other Considerations The 5-year maintenance plan is based on information that is several years old. The City will need to update that information to remove those projects that are already completed and bring in additional projects based on updated data and observation. The original 5- year plan was not altered during the past two years so that the list could be kept constant. OGA suggested the following in a subsequent meeting with City staff: • That any underruns in the projects be carried forth as credit for the next fiscal year. Staff's adjustment to that is that the underruns could be carried for the first three years and then credited as part of the adjustment in the evaluation of the fee at the end of the three-year period. The fee for the next three-year period would include an adjustment for any carryover funds resulting from surplus funds once the projects are completed. • That maintenance funding received as a result of HB 2041 (the huge transportation funding package which has passed the Senate, but has been referred back to the House because of amendments made) be credited to the program. To the extent that the funding is allocated strictly for maintenance, City staff does not have any problems with it. However, it remains to be seen just how the funding is described in the legislation that is actually passed into law, and whether or not that aspect of the legislation actually makes it through the legislative process. City staff has met with OGA since the meeting on June 19, 2003 and believes OGA does not have any objections to the adjustments proposed. This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of the proposal and proposed adjustments, and to answer any ' questions that the Task Force members or other interested parties may have regarding the proposal. i Staff Recommendation 'e Staff recommends that the Task Force approve the proposal with adjustments for presentation to City Council at the August 12, 2003 meeting. The drafting of the ordinance, the updating of the 5-year plan, and the calculations will all have to follow action by City Council. We anticipate that work will take several months. The ordinance and resolution to set the fees could be brought back to Council within two to three months after positive direction is given. However, actual implementation would probably not take place until January 2004 at the earliest. The incorporation into the budget and Report to Task Force on OGA Proposal Page 2 of 3 implementation of the projects would most likely not commence until July 1, 2004, the beginning of FY 2004-05. Attachment • Calculations of payments to be made by residential and non-residential uses based on the OGA proposal with adjustments recommended by City staff. The non- residential uses do not include most of the schools and some other land uses which need to be obtained later. The addition of those uses missing at this time should reduce the costs to non-residential uses slightly. The current ratio (residential to non-residential) using the projects that are on the 5-year plan but adjusted to produce $800,000 worth of projects each year is approximately 58% residential, 42% non-residential. I:\Eng\Gus\Street Maintenance Fee\OGA Proposal\,<eport to the Task Force on the OGA Proposal L N J D u9p J x Report to Task Force on OQA Proposal Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM # (o FOR AGENDA OF 08/12/03 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amendment to Ordinance 10.36 - Bicycle Licensing PREPARED BY: William M. Dickinson DEPT HEAD OK im-0 CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should TMC 10.36 be changed to delete Sections 10.36.020 through 10.36.070, eliminating the requirement for licensing of bicycles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends eliminating bicycle licensing. INFORMATION SUMMARY Because of budget limitations, most jurisdictions stopped requiring licensing of bicycles. Consequently, the general public is not aware that some cities, including Tigard, still have code provisions requiring bicycle licensing. Nobody has sought a bicycle license from the City in years, and the City is not prepared to issue licenses. The benefits of bicycle licensing are minimal, and the cost of a licensing program would be high, as would the cost of enforcement efforts. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (1) Maintain the bicycle licensing requirement, and continue to not enforce it. (2) Maintain the bicycle licensing requirement, and inform the public that this Code will be enforced. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A r ATTACHMENT LIST a , J "p A. Ordinance. B. Tigard Municipal Code Sections 10.36.20 through 10.36.70. FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Citywide Sewer Extension Program - Project Review and Selection for Implementation in FY 2003-04 PREPARED BY: A.P. Due as DEPT HEAD OK at C` L0wv% CITY MGR OK ~Af ql-_ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Selection of projects to be constructed during the current fiscal year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That staff be directed to submit a request for establishment of Reimbursement Districts Nos. 28 and 29 and for award of the contracts to construct the projects. INFORMATION SUMMARY On June 10, 2003, City Council conducted informational hearings and considered establishing Reimbursement District No. 28 (SW O'Mara, McDonald Streets) and No. 29 (SW Park Street, Derry Dell Court). Council continued the hearings and directed that a neighborhood meeting be conducted. City Council further directed that a neighborhood meeting be conducted for proposed Reimbursement District No. 27 (SW 100`h Avenue, Murdock Street). On June 24, 2003, City Council closed the hearings for Districts Nos. 28 and 29 and declined to form the districts pending the results of a neighborhood meeting. A neighborhood meeting was conducted on July 9, 2003 for District Nos. 28 and 29, and on July 10, 2003 for District 27. Both meetings were well-attended. The purpose of the meetings was to explain the Citywide Sewer Extension Program and provide each of the affected property owners an opportunity to review the estimated costs and ask questions regarding their proposed districts. Attendees were also requested to indicate their preferred schedule for the project on comment cards. The comment cards for District No. 28 showed 7 in favor of proceeding with the project this year, 3 wanted it postponed till spring of 2004, and 3 wanted it delayed until 2006 (the final year of the program). The comment cards for District No. 29 were not definitive with 5 in favor of proceeding immediately and 6 wanting to delay it. In addition, at the neighborhood meeting, some of the residents in that district indicated problems with their septic systems. Hence, City staff conducted a mail survey of all the residents in proposed District No. 29 to determine if the residents really do want or need sewer in their o neighborhood. The responses received from that survey show 15 in favor (some strongly in favor because of septic system problems) and 11 wishing to delay the project until 2006. It appears from the responses that residents in u both districts do want the sewers now. The budgeted amount for the Citywide Sewer Extension Program in FY 2003-04 is $750,000 with $282,000 in a contingency amount, some of which could be made available to supplement the budgeted amount. The funding = I E available (including contingency) can construct possibly two of the three districts proposed for this fiscal year (depending upon which combination is selected). Districts No. 28 (36 lots) and 29 (47 lots) together can be constructed with a budget adjustment to tap the contingency amount. District No 27 includes 70 lots, is the largest district to date, and is the most expensive to construct. Funding would not be sufficient to construct District No. 27 in combination with District No. 29. At the neighborhood meeting for proposed District No. 27 on July 10, 2003, City staff answered a wide variety of questions from the residents in that proposed district. An informational hearing was conducted for that district by City Council on July 22, 2003. However, action on forming the district was held in abeyance pending the results of the bid opening on July 28, 2003. Council wanted to review the bid results and resident responses on all three districts before making a decision on which projects should be constructed in FY 2003-04. The estimated construction costs are as shown below. The estimated costs include the amount bid for construction plus a 5% contingency. Bids have been received for all three projects. The final project cost that will be used to determine each owner's fair share of the cost will be the actual cost of construction plus a 13.5% engineering and administrative fee. Although the 45-day period following bid openings for District Nos. 28 and 29 has elapsed, the lowest responsive bidders for the projects have indicated their willingness to extend their bid through August 2003. Proposed District Bid Opening Contractor Bid Amount Estimated Cost (w/5% Contingency)- No. 28 (SW O'Mara, McDonald Streets) June 3 Kerr $366,664.40 $385,000 Contractors No. 29 (SW Park Street, Derry Dell June 3 Dunn $485,894.50 $510,200 Court) Construction No. 27 (SW 100 Avenue, Murdock July 28 Dunn $613,685.50 $644,400 Street) Construction 1 TOTAL :7 $1,539,600 The bid amount for District No. 27 came in at 22% over the Engineer's Estimate of $502,000. District No. 27 together with District No. 29 cannot be accommodated this fiscal year because the estimated costs exceed the budgeted amount plus the funding contingency available. Because of the relatively high bids received, rebidding this project at a more favorable time in the spring of 2004 may result in lower bid amounts. District No. 29 in combination with District No. 28 can be awarded for construction this fiscal year. In fact, some residents in District No. 29 are experiencing problems with their septic systems and need relief soon. Of the three districts, District No. Y n 29 should be the priority project. Based on the responses received, the bid results, and on the need for sewer, City staff recommends that District p" Nos. 28 (O'Mara and McDonald area) and 29 (Park Street and Derry Dell area) be formed and the projects constructed this fiscal year. District No. 27 (100`h and Murdock area) can be delayed until next fiscal year. The project would be rebid in the spring of 2004 to hopefully obtain better bid results. An adequate amount will be included in the budget for FY 2004-05 to fund that project together with another relatively large district proposed for 120 Avenue between Gaarde and Walnut Streets. If Council concurs with this recommendation, the formation of District Nos. 28 and 29 will be submitted for Council action on August 26, 2003, followed by r 4 contract awards at the same meeting. The recommendation for rejection of all bids received for District No. 27 would be submitted for Council consideration at that same meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Select only one district for implementation this fiscal year. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable ATTACHMENT LIST Map showing the lots in District No. 28 Map showing the lots in District No: 29 Map showing the lots in District No. 27 FISCAL NOTES Approved projects would be funded by sanitary sewer funds. The amount budgeted for the Citywide Sewer Extension Program is $750,000 for FY 2003-04. An additional $282,000 is set aside as a contingency amount in that fund. Some of that contingency can be made available to fund two of the proposed districts. There is insufficient funding available to award construction contracts for all three districts this fiscal year. I:Tng\GuslCouncil Agenda Summaries\Agenda Summary for Reimbursement District Project Selection.doc L C 4 J s f LEGIBILITY STRIP O'MARA, MCDONALD y SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT #28 A PORTION OF THE SW 1 /4 OF SECTION 2 T2S R1 W W.M. \ ) ASH AVE O'MARA ST VICINITY MAP NTS ~F-Tg P pERR`l COURENT p1STR1CT #29 W ARK STREE NTS REiMBVR N 3 T25 R1W . EWER SAN1T, IMPRp~E"~ ~q. OF s~'OT10 14 09 5 pORT10N OF THE TKlN PL `7. c cr,' ' ' spy r ~ 707TH GT RY LL \ 1 ' sr lfAIRHAVEN V1C1~1TT SAP N LEGIBILITY STRIP 100TH AVENUE & MURDOCK STREET FY 2003-04 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 N ' - - - Mc DONALD ST II r' z u L I _J I_ a iI o s:4LfA LY TEMPLETON I oM o . J T%, ELEMENTARY E PERT E ''DARM L = SCHOOL C- J I I^ - i' I m SATTLER LADY MARION OR i 'Now oil Reimbursement District [Era MEN Project Selection ® ® on No City of Tigard on August 12, 2003 on no Citywide Sewer Extension Program • Program to systematically extend sewers to developed but unserved areas within the City • Established a 5-year program • Uses City-initiated reimbursement districts an Uses the Sanitary Sewer Fund as the funding source Includes annexed Walnut Island area and No other unserved areas Citywide J No Nil ■o 2 1 sd 1~`.t Citywide Sewer Extension Program ao • Reasons for the program amp ■ Higher densities in urban areas need Elm NO sanitary sewer 1100 ■ Septic systems Citywide are 30 to 50 years Mm old or older Elm - Septic system failures are anticipated ON IBM • Sewer extensions previously have been at random based on resident interest on ° Very inefficient method of extending sewer ®m to residents that need it ■o No 3 ih ` Program Status r 11 • Entering the third year q • Criteria for establishing priorities -SEasements required n -3Street construction programmed a -Lot owner interest ai .-Health hazards identified • Completion of all Citywide sewer m ~ no expected in calendar year 2006 W J No 4 2 1111 Proposed Districts for FY 2003-04 • Proposed District No. 27: 70 lots at the on 100th and Murdock area • District No. 28: 36 lots at the O'Mara, McDonald area no 00 • District No. 29: 47 lots at the Park No Street, Derry Dell area i® No 5 District No. 27 11:j g~ L-y1 IOOTH AVENUE & MURDOCK STREET E91 FY 2003-04 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 rn `Y I all J ■s ~I ~ it , , ~ , J ..r I. _ ■ ■ 6 ISO 3 q. Alien o ag District No. 28 Imm gENO SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTSMREIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT 128 Oil Ion ® ~I - y VICINITY MAP NTS i District No. 29 STREET & COURT +y==1 SANITARY SEWERPARK IMPROVEMENTS RE NRHUgSEMENT DISTRICT /29 win 7 ~ , Im YICINITY MAP N75 ■e 8 A, 4 Ica Current Status ® • Bids have been received for all three districts • Neighborhood meeting conducted for District Nos. 28 and 29 on July 9, 2003 • Neighborhood meeting conducted for District No. 27 on July 10, 2003 ME 9 Funding Availability • Funding for FY 2003-04 ■ $750,000 for the Citywide Sewer URI Extension Program no ■ -$232,000 available in general contingency M® ■ Grand total: $982,000 i • Only two projects can be constructed 0o in FY 2003-04 with funding available ii ,o 5 Sin IN "l171 W NW Estimated Costs MGM SIMM RM Proposed Bid Contractor Bid Bid+5% ®M District Opening Amount Contin. No. 28 June 3 Kerr $366,664.50 $385,000 no (O'Mara) Contractors No. 29 (Park, June 3 Dunn $485,894.50 $510,200 on Derry Dell) Const. on No. 27 (100'h June 3 Dunn $613,685.50 $644,400 go & Murdock) Const. on Total $1,539,600 an on 11 Possible Combinations • Nos. 28 & 29 ■ $385,000 + 510,200 = $895,000 U13 ■ $895,200 is less than $982,000 No c on ■ Can be awarded no • Nos. 28 & 27 ■ $385,000 + $644,000 = $1,029,400 ■ $1,029,400 is greater than $982,000 a ■ Cannot be awarded 12 6 1Lli: i MOD. 10WEV Possible Combinations u mm BE Nos. 29 and 27 [MR ■ $510,200 + $644,000 = $1,154,600 ME ■ $1,154,000 is greater than $982,000 on - Cannot be awarded IBM ®n IBM on on 13 y Results of Survey :ion District No. 28 ■ 7 for implementation now 0® ■ 3 to delay till next spring mix • 3 to delay till 2006 as District No. 29 an - 15 for implementation now BE - 11 for delaying till 2006 ■ Some residents having problems with M® septic systems 14 7 Recommendations Nis ON • Construct District Nos. 28 & 29 H® No • Submit to Council on August 26 ■ Formation of District Nos. 28 and 29 No ■ Award of construction contracts for the two districts ON • Delay District No. 27 until next fiscal so year ii - Decline to form the district No ■ Reject all bids on the project 15 _J n u J 8 II AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-] U DICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION SU B2003-00010/PDR2003-00004 ZON2003-00003/SLR2003-00005 VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-00037 L Due to Time Constraints n City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony s u I:%DM\GREER=SIGNUP\PH TESTIMONY QJ.DOC AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking A ainst Neutral Na e, Address & Phone No. Name AcldrAess & newNo. , Name, Address & Phone No. j~m - ?-0- 3:,n S 11b sv-/ L6 iii t * 361~ V-~ 4--33x7 S3 f & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Addresss& Phone No. Name, Address 60"t-41CE '?F50 :SW 7q- r-- too Sri hex v~-fit-. -r+doex>,GF- -w"as rt a ot~ X7223 ;'Z'44- OEM Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. r" /Z,cJwr4 V4 arreA Av)ey w 9403 Sw -714* J,, ~~kv~t- ~ iyaval 9.223 )Z 5D3-2~ 6`6613 bme, ress & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. `bb LIB 71L2 5W Q)~ Sb! Name, Address & Phone N Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. aj m Gr►Ro fKe~ds 005 ~8pW'veJ~t«• ass s.v.,.~ j 0 q m-3 'air J me, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. V se,„ r~f/~clltctru Yran W SW ~40-1 Av - U00 ScW J Ti ar'd op g7t23 L5 -53~ 5o-Z4 6- zzt5 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent- (Speaking In Favor Opponent - S eakin Against) Neutral N e, A dre s & Phone o. Name, Address & ne No. Name, Address & Phone No. w~7 V ~'t ~lAf I f ~ O 3 alb 'l/aL 3 J Name, Address & Phone No. N me, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~~o o sw vet'bim D~ 2,Y5--535Z Name, Address & Phone No. Na e, dress & Ph ne No. Name, Address & Phone No. cn10 Scwl"2nttirc,C~ -Tl~ CL Vr,( 0)2_ twt~r'(''"~ ~'`t 5o3-2- L/,(- OVl Name, Address & Phone No. Name, A dress Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Su c`,r` ~1 n~a ~bf~l~lsOA gz7 i ~ l3tr~b54-33~ 7 Sc j-~ Name, Address & Phone No. Name,, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. C q yy- a s 31 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address \ &'Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. -AQ G. q~}}3 l6So7 Sw ~c~c R~z k S - oc 0Y /y AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - L SpeakinIn Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 1 k1Q1,1 Lev17 aM 9072 SeV X 14 L 95z~OGSZ Na Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~CalS~ '~~~r 70 M'-j4&4 VI-r64F z SW ;~$urre OCIVO 7 5b3 ~3~q ~sz' a 652 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Bob Ska f Cf- t C'p ? S S yJ'J¢ v t 75501 SLO t~lj ©3v ']213 -~~5q,1 nY X1 ?2~ 3 X03 Z3& Z2pZ -503 - I/ y --SqY Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 73rD ~~n;~st" ~~VA 6y- 6 -6,/cl0 cl ?a2-Name, Address & Phone No. me, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 0 rG pl 66 r r J Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address Ph tq SNo. Name, Address & Phone No. ~ ~or►~.1 C .~Gb j 7zos S0 'rat q7 ~Z 3 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - S eakin In Favor Opponent - S eakin A ainst Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~ba 6,,,1'D-DIaC ~E2,ertl ~i~cf'YJ~ O~ ~7zg-3 & Phone No. e, A dyes & Ph ne No. Name, Address & Phone No. rLName,Address .3 & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. -r~a5 S w UeA« Name, Address & Phone No. Nap, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Ed~bb 5 D s' SGu 1/ T ~otZ g7~ 3- ~ Ov2- Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ~)o n ►Ma JAI ~ P l( t' j /G~/ts Sw 93f~1 1 AGENDA ITEM No. 0 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address $ Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. C5r,.O• 'DwO 16- I ~q}zz3 (039 3519 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. V(nNaro - 54Vc. ve- fiaril ~zo 1 5. W. a . ~l Oiz l't 503- zLi&-I zS Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Pa-ddcck d I N~ t~1~5P~~ Lv►-~,~,-y~ , d K 71 >-g C~ ~bN' 3 I I 5- Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. D. OG Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. J ao 0 J ~ i ~.~".~g~. 'm'<w4' !`~`i' ~'h..!t~ar+~• "'r'• S,~ C ~aw t•~t~ y v iC` r'~~ 7~~. r ~af ii._ wQ'.~ . ` C' - ^w » +a:. Nwf► l'F !$i ► +11r.•ir,; , ~ may' Y,.~j~~~~.~ s'1l`► ~.Jr.~Jit~:, J ~~11~ 1~•,~~,h~~'1~ r 1ir~J^CL'~ .~`tNlr :~'~'RS;.,~ 2~,^•' ~':ii, r~~..vr. r s?t r.t. 5;~, ~b ~~S'~' ~A h M ~ ~,~+"_~V ~'~'v %J r 'tiw _1L'w`~ • Sj~y S. r`i•~•:t:'yrY'Kt,~'•, J 4: •M~~ V R~ , .i ~ ~ 'fit: j ~ y {1t ; S ;i i ♦dtt', ~`L:~', ~ O N G# i •~4 M frP ' ♦ Vl~ A t fiT J. J.A v 4 i x fi ~ASr.S. ~JS~ t :n 3. 1Y mod, ° -?S Y..~".~' SitJ : .ae~v`?Y ~v^3~ .•s'~A'~.f'~ t tM r ~ r • 'Y y~•}µ~y~ 4 ; ..'ks v 4 ul +•w`v S -"fi`t' kf A~a \r r1-4 bit} ,t' ~ s'~ ~~bM 4~,., ?~5tt' a7. s. 2_tY t> ,a r",~ ,CR r~ t~.y~a.+r.'!" t ,.y.~~i1 ni .ea ~ y - i~ r<+' .v ~t`.. - FP". _ x. hr,F• L... k r 'CS_3L IN .1 xt' LS.- ^r~lp5~y. Vier Z7~¢}"~} } M 'a•~~ t ; :k" I'~~\4~_ V~i~ Rye S@ .br,1g fir, t 'f' • t ` i~t ~l Lt{ y 1 yf t q7 A. r~b i ? `+1' d~,"Jr-~yiJQti.. c I . !4' .f+a ,w s. { ,f+'L q` st~v ie ~ r ,-i k+ ` ~ ~i M r ~.•.5,~r{-. t ~q." +f ~'t"'Y',.`,y ~1 qS1 +''J J. •[~y:~ . , jy~ t' .i ~a,> .::.i~: h;;~. ~r ~i'J` • r :lt- ~ J • r 4 .'4~t,~F' 4 aY .y a.. ~ Y~' S 1'y ~ ~ 'R, 1~'S~e. il';y ` '.n~ :i aP• „1, t: v - . t }J''T. Z~ i s V a,~ { r I~ 4 tr _ L _aY. Y t"t. "t •i! 1` r.i L. 4 * •i N •!u .,.N'a'y ~A.. ~ ~ M~ ~l i ~ ' S mil, ;t, ,y P : a T 4 ,~.,,ttom~ } ` F r.a t x` vt~fl f r ze c r•. t ~ A y t~ 4 g f ifoP Lis t . . lash C.re~~ from Ap~hc~r~f Tree Species Composition Species_ Number % Class % Class Cedar 525 60% C Dou Iias-fir 147 17% C Pine 1 0% 77% C Alder 94 11% D Ash 1 0% D Bi leaf Maple 97 11% D Cher 6 1% D Oregon White Oak 5 100 23% D Total 876 100% MAIN POINTS: 1. This is a mired species stand, not a pure cedar grove. 2. Many of the cedars are in the upland part of the site. 3. Western redcedar is not a rare species. 4. This site has been logged, and not too long ago. Alders in the upland areas show that there have been recent disturbances. 5. Cedars are not particularly vulnerable to windthrow except in bogs and swampy areas. e M i i i i i ' • ~ havlcl~d auf Before Tigard City Council 8/12/03 In the Matter of Ash Creek Estates Testimony of John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 503-245.5760 1 would like to start from the premise that the Tigard City Council is dedicated to doing what is best for all of Tigard. All of Tigard's citizens depend on you to protect our current interests here and provide for development of a livable city. We all depend on you to hear and consider, but not be seduced by any one strong interest - not a well spoken fish zealot, nor a money hungry developer, nor a staff reviewer looking for the easy way out, not just existing landowners, but also prospective businesses and residents. Otherwise we are ultimately a slum. The present application for a planned development known as Ash Creek Estates does not further the desirable ends of our comprehensive plan. There well may be another application which will balance current interests with future needs, but it is not this one. As you well know, planned developments have long been a tool of flexibility for cities. The builder gets a good deal in bypassing some base zoning rules and the city is supposed to get a good deal in saving some great features or adding amenities, which would not otherwise be required. In the application for Ash Creek Estates, the good deal flows totally to the builder. Nothing for the future homebuyers in the way of common landscaping, nothing for the neighbors except traffic impact and nothing for Tigard such as a better street system. I urge you to exercise your judgment wherever the regulations call for it (many places for a planned development) and declare that this is not the kind of future Tigard endorses. I will focus on three issues, but follow with a variety of substantive and procedural issues which individually and combined invalidate any current approval of this application: THIS IS THE LARGEST GROVE OF MATURE WESTERN RED CEDARS IN THE STATE OF OREGON. Only when I looked into the thick grove of trees marked for cutting did I ask myself,'where else do such trees growl' I searched my own memory of countless hikes in the Gorge, at the coast and throughout the Willamette Valley and could think of no other site where we have 9 acres of nearly pure mature Western Red Cedar I consulted with the USFS (several different branches), Metro, ODF, State Parks, OSU Forestry and staff at the World Forestry Center. I asked Audubon, ONRC, Trails Club and other environmental interest groups. I called people like Maynard Drawson, retired from ODF and author of `Oregon's Record Trees'. Sites like Opal Creek, Saddle Mountain and Oxbow Park were mentioned in discussion, but NO ONE could suggest a site comparable to that on the South Fork of Ash Creek in Tigard. They could locate larger individual trees, but no dense grove such as we have here. My pitch to you is that we have a truly unique natural feature of Oregon here in Tigard and it deserves maximum protection afforded by the existing development rules. I am not asking that you extend or add new protective rules for this feature - simply implement the current wording: Section 18.350.100 B3 states that planned developments are to be "designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest extent possible". It doesn't say `like the developer asks for' or `when convenient' - it says `to the greatest extent possible'. If a developer came in and proposed saving most of the trees and using piers/columns to minimize disturbance of the steep slopes, I think one could find that it was `10 the greatest extent possible'. Such features ARE possible as seen by their application elsewhere in the Portland area, eg the West Hills. The developer here makes no such offer. SO - you should use your judgment to make a finding that the current application does not meet the above cited paragraph and therefore is denied SENSITIVE LAND AND VEGETATATIVE SETBACKS ARE NOT OBSERVED. TDC Section 18.775 states that sensitive lands must be protected in accordance with City and other agency requirements. Such sensitive lands include wetlands and slopes greater than 25%. The CWS standards for construction also consider these lands and include in Chapter 3 of their Design and Construction Standards instructions for setback from streams. For Ash Creek, a 35-foot vegetative setback from the edge of > wetlands is required, where existing trees and bushes are not to be disturbed and no construction can take place. But the CWS standards also explain that for sites where the wedand is bounded by a steep slope, the 35-foot setback measurement is to be j started from the top of the steep slope, in particular; where the slope levels to something less than a 25% slope. A maximum 200 foot vegetative setback is specified by CWS for continuing steep slopes, however the TDC restriction on steep lands does not include this 200 foot limit. Without access to this private land, I looked at compliance using the developer's drawing, "KAI #2129, Sheet 2 of 12, Preliminary Plat Map", dated 3/3/03, which is the topographic map of the proposed development. I constructed my own model of what a 25% slope looks like, which I show to you now - it consists of a one foot rise in four feet horizontal, or a 10 foot rise in forty feet. The topographic map has a scale of one map inch equaling 40 feet on the ground - I checked it from the knowledge of the lot size overall. The map shows elevation increments of one foot. I then used a nder to find the top of the slope on the map - where there was an indicated 10 foot rise or more in one map inch. Proceeding from east to west, I located ten such points on the north side of Ash Creek and connected these ten points with a smooth curve. The result is shown as the red line on this drawing. I emphasize that these are not my made up facts, but the developer's facts shown in his application. I then marked with a green line the CWS vegetative setback line 35 feet or 7/8 map inch further north from the red line. Finally, I applied a further setback of some 53 feet which is the combined dimension of the street, sidewalk and code-required front setback for construction on any lot. The result is shown with a blue line. Similar map markings were made for the south side of Ash Creek. The conclusions from this measurement are important - instead of a proposed 29 lot development, I found 18 of the proposed lots eliminated in ful(, 4 additional lots reduced significantly, leaving only seven developable lots. Compliance with the CWS setback standards and steep slope restrictions in the TDC are also addressed at TDC 18.810.100 C and my comment p) below. I found out four interesting things in reviewing this matter: 1) The topographic drawing and development plan were "designed" and "checked" by the same person, as shown on the drawing (not a professional standard), 2) the map given to CWS for their review did not provide them with the topographic detail which I have shown you, 3) even though the map legend calls out a dashed line for the 25% slope boundary, it is nowhere drawn on the map and 4) the applicant has reduced the 35 foot vegetative buffer to 15 feet, which is only allowed provided that a stamped geotechnical report certifies that the resulting 'slope stability can be maintained' - such statement is not found in the geotechnicai report accompanying this application. All these features argue against the adequacy of the analysis and staff ability to review against the TDC and CWS regulations. SO -you should use your judgment to make a finding that the proposed lots impinge on the required CWS vegetative setback and TDC steep slope requirements (TDC 18.775) and deny this application SURFACE WATER STORM DRAINAGE PLANS ARE INADEQUATE. TDC Section 18.810.100 D requires that the developer provide for retention of stormwater flows such that there is no net increase downstream in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. This requirement is also found at TDC 18.810.100 C and at Additional City/Agency Concerns (page 35/37) where it is noted that "where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot". In the same regulation, the runoff retention facility is required to control drainage "fron its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development". Lots uphill from the proposed Ash Creek Estates will contribute to the managed stormwater runoff and are not included in sizing calculations. No stormwater drains are shown which service the lower end of downhill lots. The applicant has disagreed with this requirement in stating that footing drains will be nm directly to Ash Creek. SO -you should find that the applicant's plans do not demonstrate compliance with the above cited code paragraphs and therefore deny this application. NOW, for the rest of my comments and objections to approval of this planned development with its associated subdivision, zone change, sensitive lands review and adjustments: a) The application is deficient in that the TDC requires submittal of various reports and calculations AT THIS STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT and they are not included in the record. See for example the requirement of 18.790(page 27/37) regarding an arborist report. Similarly, see the requirements for control of storm water quality (page 34/37), where it is stated that the storm water facilities shall be designed to remove 65% of the phosphorus contained in 100% of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces - no calculations are provided by the applicant or reviewed by staff. Or seethe Sensitive Lands requirement (18.775) that the water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. The applicant has proposed a box culvert at SE 7e with no calculations. Or see the zone change requirement of 18.380 where a DEMONSTRATION of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies is demanded. All that is provided is a conclusionary statement - not one policy of the comprehensive plan is noted. These omissions are important because to enforce change at a later date will be expensive to Tigard and the developer and neighborhood. Without submittal of all the requirements in the code, my review is necessarily restricted and this is my last chance for review of these materials. Simply adding a condition that such information will be provided later does not allow my review. SO - you should use your judgment to conclude that the applicant has not provided required submittals and therefore the application is denied. b) I incorporate by reference my comments a. through n. regarding transportation issues submitted to the Planning Commission on July 7, 2003. They show that the traffic impacts of this development are not reasonably mitigated. SO - t you should use your judgment to conclude that there is not a balancing ofprivate and community interests regarding traffic and therefore the application is denied. c) TDC 18.350 provides required setbacks for the perimeter and front yards. 'T'hese requirements are not met in this application. The applicant proposes setbacks much closer than found in the surrounding neighborhoods. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the setback provisions of TDC 18.350 are not met and the application is denied. d) TDC 18.370 requires a planter strip be provided between the street and sidewalk. This is not done in all cases of this application. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the planter strip provisions of TDC 18.370 are not met and the application is denied- e) TDC 18.370 limits a cul-de-sac length to 200 feet. The applicant proposed a 620 foot cul-de-sac. This is longer than any previously approved cul-de-sac in Tigard and far exceeds any reasonable definition of a cul-de-sac. SO - you should use your judgment and find ~'gat the cu; ale-sac length limits of TDC 18.370 are not met and the application is denied. f) TDC 18.370 limits the maximum number of homes on a cul-de-sac to 20. The applicant proposes 23. The only reason for exceeding the code limit is stated as "the length of the cul-de-sac". SO - you should use your judgmw to find that the code limit is exceeded and therefore the application is denied. . 1 g) TDC 18.370 provides the riles for special adjustments. ALL of the conditions for approving an adjustment must be met. There are no special circumstances regarding planter strips, cul-de-sac length or maximum number of homes on a cul-de- sac in this case. None are cited in the staff report. This site is simply largely undevelopable. For the three adjustments mentioned in this section of the staff' report, there is no showing of extraordinary hardship on the owner, which would result from strict compliance with the regulations. The adjustments of homes on cut-de-sac, setbacks and planter strip would indeed be injurious to the rights of other owners in the neighborhood. For example, there is more danger on a sidewalk without a planter strip than one with a planter strip. For example, a 620 foot cul-de-sac will result in traffic congestion, there being only one exit from the street. For example, having 23 homes on a cul-de-sac limits traffic circulation as desired in Tigard's transportation plan. In fact, considering the other 6 homes proposed in this development and three existing homes on SW 74m Ave, there will be a total of 32 homes on this dead end street system. SO - you should use yourjudgment to conclude that the adjustments are not warranted and the application is denied. h) TDC 18.390 requires an impact study on `the public at large, public facilities systems and affected private property users. The submitted study is grossly incomplete. For example, it does not examine the funding impact on the Tigard Tualatin School District, if these homes are sold to families with school age children. This is an obvious omission and, if properly included, would affect the proportionality analysis in the staff report. Similarly, providing only a partial street width for SW 74" impacts the use of this street by neighbors. This decrement is not analyzed. SO -you should find that the impact study and proportionality analysis provided is insufficient and the application is denied i) TDC 18.430 sets forth criteria for subdivision plat approval. The staff report simply notes in a conclusionary statement that "as illustrated in this report" the proposed plat complies with applicable ordinances and regulations. Such conclusion does not support the necessary finding for TDC 18.430 SO -you should use yourjudgment to find that the staff analysis for subdivision plat approval is deficient in not documenting the reasons for their conclusion and therefore the application is denied. j) TDC 18.430 requires that streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to city standards. The Staff report at this point ignores the fact that SW 74a' is a full street north of this development, is shown on the city transportation plan as a two- way neighborhood street, yet the developer proposes to only provide for a partial street width across Ash Creek. This is a negative impact on the neighborhood, since SW 74a' will eventually be a principal route to Tigard, via Landau and Locust. Modification of the approved street/road pattern is not warranted based on the public interest. Why should this neighborhood get only half a street when other neighborhoods get a full street? It is important that this issue be considered at this stage because a fill over Ash Creek is proposed and widening it in the future is not cost-effective. The public interest is defined by the approved transportation plan The provision of a full street barrier across SW 74`s at the south line of the proposed development is totally unreasonable in limiting access and circulation related to the proposed development. Many prospective residents will want to travel toward Tigard without taking a route north to at least Cedarcrest or east to Ventura Court and then south - both causing some 10 blocks of out of direction extra travel. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the current application does not comply with TDC 18.430 in providing conforming street plans and therefore the application is denied. k) TDC 18.510 sets lot development standards in residential zones. One requirement is that lots be an average 50 feet in width I find that lots 9, 12 and 28 do not meet this standard. At issue is the means of averaging front and back lot width - I believe the proper method is to measure width parallel to the boundary facing the street. If this is done, these lots do not meet the standard. SO- you should use yourjudgment to find that the lot width standard of 50 feet minimum is not met (TDC 18.510) and therefore the application is denied. 1) TDC 18.705 sets requirements for access, including adequate sight distance. The application drawings show that at SW 74a' and `Street A', this is only met by building a wall on a neighboring lot (Lot 201) not owned by the developer. Thus this standard is not met. Similarly the neighborhood street classification of SW 74 h is not maintained by reducing its width and this same code requirement is not met. SO -you should use your judgment to find that building on a neighbor's lot is not consistent with meeting TDC 18.705, reducing the width of 74a' is not consistent with Tigard's Transportation System Plan and the application is therefore denied. m) TDC 18.715 provides for calculating maximum and minimum density. If proper setbacks are made per CWS requirements, I calculate that the maximum number of lots is 20 and the minimum number of lots is 16. The area of the tract which is not developable should be dedicated to the homeowners association or City of Tigard; the resulting layout will yield only 7 lots as developable. SO - you should use yourjudgment to find that because of improper setback calculations, the density requirements of 18.715 are not met and the application is therefore denied. n) TDC 18.745 requires the provision of certain street trees. The staff has found that a greater diversity of street trees should be provided. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the provisions of 18.745 are not met and therefore the application is denied. o) TDC 18.755 calls for review of the development to ensure that solid waste and recyclable materials can be collected. The applicant has submitted a imier of approval from Pride Disposal, but a different company, Miller Sanitary, collects solid wasty and recyclable materials from this neighborhood. SO -you should vS your judgment to find that the local solid waste collector has not reviewed the plans and therefore the application is denied. p) TDC 18.775 sets conditions for building on steep lands. Building on steep slopes is only allowed if ALL of several conditions are met In this case, the land form alteration is greater than that required for use (ie use pilings), the land form alteration will result in erosion (see construction on similar soils and slope on Ventura Court to the SE), the gen tech report specifically notes that some structures would be sited on unstable and high water level soils, and the requirement for replanting cannot be met, where the minimum side clearance on lots is only three feet, not to be filled in any way per fire codes. The staff report mentions land form alteration for streets, sidewalks and utilities, but ignores land form alteration necessary for home construction - applicant has proposed some fills on his maps. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the applicant has not met the requirements of 18.775 for building on steep lands and the application is therefore denied q) TDC 18.775 sets conditions for building within drainageways. Building in drainageways is only allowed if ALL of several conditions are met. The applicant proposes a narrow SW 74th St crossing of Ash Creek, which will require reconstruction to achieve the objectives of the City's Transportation System Plan which designates SW 74th as a neighborhood route. Such reconstruction is not minimizing drainageway disturbance. CWS approval really has not been obtained, since it notes "revisions to floodplains may affect development". This must be resolved at this stage of development. SO - you should use your judgment to find that minimum disturbance of the drainageway has not been included in the design and therefore the application is denied. r) TDC 18.790 regards tree removal. The applicant has proposed to clearcut most of the tract, with a notification to Oregon Department of Forestry saying so. Tigard staff defers to DOF for this action, but when I have called Brent O'Nion of DOF in Forest Grove, he has told me that there is a written agreement between Tigard and DOF that Tigard will regulate tree cutting in the city, providing regulations at least as restrictive as DOF. Thus, Tigard should require a harvest plan, similar to the DOF requirement if any trees within 100 feet of the stream are taken - some are shown so on applicants plans. A further complication is the fact that the DOF notification had a start date of 6/1/03 and an end date of 8/1/03 on it, so it is no longer valid. A new notification to DOF and appropriate reviews should precede any Tigard approval of tree cutting. SO -you should use your judgment to find that the applicant has not submitted a harvest plan and the applicantlowner do not posess a valid tree cutting permit from the Oregon DOF, so the application is therefore denied. s) TDC 18.810 governs street and utility improvements. It is proposed that SW 74th be allowed to violate Tigard's standard for sag vertical curve. This stems from a discussion between Tigard, Tualatin and TVWD, where staff says "ALL PARTIES agreed that the applicant should be permitted to construct 74th Ave with a steeper grade than the standard.. I object to this rational for finding, since this was a discussion between various staffs and there was no public input on this detail of the development. I believe that SW 70 should meet Tigard street construction requirements in all regards. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the staff assessment that `ALL PARTIES agreed' is a substantial error in the material presented to you, and that therefore, this application is denied t) TDC 18.810 requires a planter strip for sidewalks. The staff report endorses the developers proposal to eliminate such planter strips for the Ash Creek crossing. The staff report notes that the Director must make certain findings. There are no such findings by the Director - all that is in the record is that "staff recommends approval of this adjustment". Until the Director makes the required findings in the record, this action is in violation of the TDC. This problem exists with other adjustments proposed in TDC 18.810. SO -you should use your judgment to find that the Director has not provided the necessary findings re elimination of the sidewalk planter strips et al. and therefore this application is denied u) TDC 18.810 states requirements for block design. The applicant has proposed a sheet stub to the north to meet this requirement, but it is clear that the block design maximum of a 1300 foot perimeter does NOT apply where street location is precluded by natural topography. The street stub to the north is not necessary or appropriate, since other lots fronting on Barbara extend to the north boundary of the Ash Creek Estates tract, the slope is steep at the intersection with Barbara, and visibility at the intersection of the proposed street and Barbara would be severely limited The staff report at the top of 32/37 states that there are no opportunities for pedestrian connection to the south due to pre existing development patterns. Providing a proper sidewalk with planter strip along 74th is exactly what is needed for access to the south. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the street stub to the north is precluded by natural topography and is inappropriate for good circulation. A full street and sidewalk would provide access to the south. Changing these L substantive elements would require a different development plan for the proposed Ash Creek Estates; therefore the 1C application is denied. p v) TDC 18.810 prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width unless certain special situations occur (not found here). Lot 15 fails this test. It is 58 feet by 154 feet and sized at 8884 square feet. SO - you should use your judgment to find that this portion of 18.810 is not met by the application and it is therefore denied. w) TDC 18.810 requires a minimum tot frontage. Staff recognizes that lost 9, 11, 12, and 29 do not have the required frontage and it cannot be `adjusted'. Staff proposes that this be resolved at the final plat stage, but since this affects layout of other lots and not only construction details on a single lot, it should be resolved at this stage. SO - you should a use your judgment to find that TDC 18.810 is not met in this regard and therefore the application is denied. x) TDC 18.810 requires sidewalks to be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of local residential streets. Staff proposes no FINDINGS on this feature of design and in fact their statement that sidewalks are proposc-d is tine for only part of the planned development This factual error and lack of a finding make the staff report insufficient. SO -you should use your judgment to find that staff erwr and a lack of finding makes the staff report defective and therefore this application is denied. y) TDC 18.810 requires that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area. The applicant's study and staff report neither consider development of the property south of Ash Creek and west of SW 74's, which is likely in the near future (Tigard pre ap file 2003-00040). Some common sanitary sewer facilities should be . ti considered, and perhaps eliminate the need to pump sanitary sewage across Ash Creek. SO - you should use your judgment to find that not considering development of property immediately across SW 74'' from this proposal constitutes a significant deficiency of the application, fails to meet this portion of 18.1; 10 and therefore the application is denied. z) In Section VII, Other Staff Comments, the report notes that the private cul-de-sac will be named separately from the public street, although the only access is via the public street. This tortuous layout is likely to confuse a variety of public, including public safety personnel, unless proper signage is placed at SW 7e declaring that access to the cul-de-sac is through the dead end public street. Such should be added as a condition for whatever planned development may be eventually approved here. aa) The Tigard staff report and notice of final order and notice of appeal do not list all of the Tigard Development Code Chapters which contain criteria for review. Specifically, Section 18.775 is not fisted. This is important, because it concerns Sensitive Lands, a major issue in this planned development. Sections 18.410, 18.420 and 18.780 are also not listed. SO -you should use your judgment to find that the staff report, appeal notice and notice of hearing are all defective and therefore the application is denied. bb) The staff report for this proposed planned development does not contain FINDINGS for TDC Chapters 410, 420, the Adjustment of 18.370 regarding excessive homes on a cul-de-sac, Chapters 755, 765, 795, and 810 (except for street frontage requirements). Similarly, there are no FINDINGS for the additional city and/or agency concerns with street and utility improvement standards, other staff comments nor agency comments. SO -you should use your judgment to make a finding that the staff report is deficient in not making findings for all relevant review criteria and the application is therefore denied. cc) In agency comments (page 36/37), Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has noted that where a roadway is not more than 28 feet in width, there shall be NO PARKING on either side of the street. This impacts the private street proposed, since it is only 28 feet wide. For street widths above 28 feet and less than 32 feet there shall be NO PARKING on one side of the street and so signed. As currently designed, it appears that there shall be NO PARKING on either side of the cul-de-sac, but NO PARKING signs must be installed only on one side of the street. This NO PARKING limitation has the potential to cause traffic problems, difficulty with neighbors and is not a condition of adjoining streets of the neighborhood. SO - you should use your judgment to find that such a design is not in the best interests of Tigard public welfare and therefore deny the application. dd) TDC 18.810.120 makes a general requirement of undergrounding of utilities except for some special cases, when a fee in- lieu of undergrounding is required (the case in the staff report). However [his exception applies only "where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development" For the proposed Ash Creek Estates, it is true that telephone and cable utilities run above ground on the west side of the SW 74`s right-of-way. But there is no electric service running on these poles, and to serve the lots south of Ash Creek, new service must be provided, which per the nile, must be underground A compounding situation is that the pole supporting telephone and cable across Ash Creek appears to need relocation as a result of the fill and development of SW 74d' across the creek. Therefore it is logical to require that the developer should be required to provide underground utility service along the frill length of his SW 74'b frontage. While putting the electric service underground, the telephone and cable service should also be put underground, both to avoid later construction work on the Ash Creek fill and to be consistent with underground service in the neighborhood. SO - you should use your judgment to make a finding that the present situation requires underground utilities and the staff finding re TDC 18.810.120 is not adequate for the best interests of the City and is wrong, therefore the application is denied ee) The staff analysis of the Traffic Study (page 36/37) is inadequate at best and more likely characterized as misleading. Even in citing the consultant's traffic study, staff notes that there will be some impact on 7e from the proposed development (little impact are the exact words). But the staff report does no analysis of its own, just citing the findings of the consultant's study "Based on the findings of the traffic impact report, staff finds that this project will not have a negative impact...". There is an important difference between little impact, which I have disagreed within earlier referenced comments, and no impact which the staff finds. This casual change in words, with no supporting analysis, is not warranted and makes for a defective finding. SO - you should use your judgment to find that contrary to the staff opinion re traffic impact, there will be some impact and therefore the application should be denied. i fI) Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue have noted that for their equipment to access a development, roadway intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 51/e grade). The applicant's grading plan, sheet 8/12, shows that the finished grade across the turnaround toward the east of the proposed development will be 71/6. The private street plan, sheet 7/12, shows a grade of 6.6%. Both of these slopes exceed the safety requirements for fire protection. SO - you should use your judgment to find that the proposed grading of this steep site does not meet fire protection requirements of the serving public agency and is therefore denied. 01 Uy/U014VU3 10: Z)L :JUJL 4.'7/LUU.'lUJL40/LUU VUIWVIC Wl-CMHIV h'Hl7C tll e ' State of Oregon Department of Forestry / Department of Revenue Notification number: 2003-531-20419 [531153771 Attached is the processed information from the Leocifieatios oe Operation and/or Application for Permits. Please review this information and retain for future reference. Ixl - Notice is given to the dcare Forastar that an operation will be conducted on the lands described harain (ORS 927.6701. [X1 - A permit to operate power driven machinery is issued for the lards described herein (ORS 477.62S) [X1 - A notice is given to the State forester and the Department of Revenue of the intent to harvest tiva'ar (ORS 321450). OOD-Forest Practices are regulated by the City of Tigard. Contact katc Stein 0 (5031 639-4171 ■ I. WEMW TDOSR MMVSSTINa I8 PART OF no PROPOSED OpsmTION: District: Forest Grove Office: Forest Grove A. NOTICE TO TIMIn OWNER: Party owning the harvested timber at the point it is'firsc measured is dmim in the section marked TIMBER county: Washington OMEN and is responsible for payment of Oregon timber taxea. woo= D. NOTICE TO LAIPD OWN : Party shown in the section marked LAND OWNER Received by ODP on April 23, 2003 by fax is responsible for reforestation of the site if so required. *15 DAY PLAITING PERIOD REQUIRED* II. PRIOR APPROVAL SY THE STATE POR)"M AND WRITTEN PLANS: [ - A PRIOR APPROVAL may be required before certain activities can commence on the Operation. N O T I C E A WRITi,'P27 PLAN may be required for the eitustiona indicated by an The Scats Forester has determined that the following (X1 below. Approval of a WRITTEN PLAN or a WRITTEN PIAIVER muse be item requiring your attention are located within or obtained from the Forest Practices Forester before any portion of adjacent to your operation area: the operation may commence. [X] - Concerns [ 1 - Resources [X1 - Water [X1 - Within 100 feet of a large laka or Type F or Type D Stream. (OAR 629-605-170 (1) (a) I See Unit Information on subsequent pages for details. [ 1 - Within 300 fear. of a wildlife resource site listed in the Operator: 1994 ODT/ODPW Cooperative Agreement. (OAR 629-605-170(1)(b)I Dale Richards ' Windwood Construction, Inc. [ I - Within 300•leet of any resource identified in the 700,100 12655 Ste North Dakota or 2300 series admiaietracive rules. (OAR 629-605-1700) (c)) Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: ( 503 ) 625-6526 [ 1 - Within 300 feet of a state or federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife resource site. (OAR 629-605-170(l.) (d)) Land owner: Elda Senn Please contact the Forest Practices Forester named on the Unit Information *boat for further information on requirements that 9750 SW 74Th Ave • may be necessary to mast before any activity/operation begins. Tigard, OR 97223 Dhonee (903 ) e29-el2L Signed by Dale Richards - representing the Operator. ` Timber owner: i Dale Richards Windwood construction, Inc. Elda Senn 12655 SW North Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 9750 SW 74Th Ave Phone: ( 503 1 62S-6526 Tigard, OR 97223 Roy Woo (Land owner) Acting State forester Dirtrict Forester CI:J/ UO/ LUV J 10. UL :JUJGY:1 f GUU:JUJLY:/ f GUV VINa\LG I+ULCA"N•MV 1'MUC UL' ~ • Department of Fcr•stry Notificationt 03-20419 [53115377] unit; 1 status: AatiVe Forest Fraetices Forester, Brent ONNion Phone number: (503) 359-7442 Start date, 6/01/2003 Bnd date, 9/01/2003 site cood4tiona, Lake or Stream within 100 ft FP M N Slope of Olt to 35% No mass soil movement FPA ° N aerea: 5 Feet: 11atimated harvests 20 msp activity, Clear cut methods: Cable/Ground N E N W S W S 8 nao snn means @nnss 8atReg Sc ZwFp Rge Government lot a w w e a w w e a w w•• vn w• t21:1 use 25 O1S Olin X n Special Concerns co" Daaeription Comment MR within Urban Growth Boundary Water Concern Information Description Classification Rule Tr4b To Ash Creek P acr-em 170a Important Reforestation Information Eased on information which .aa filed to obtain the Notifieacion of operation covering the lends described above, Jr appears that wildlife tree retention may be required and that refornstation of the cutover forest lands may be necessary. Because harvesting is indicated on the tlotiftcation. tree stocking on these lands may ba r■d'/ced to the point that plentlog will be required within two years following urvest•ao"+Yetion. If the residual stocking level is reduced below levels described in the rules the land owner will be required to adequately restock this land. For more inforracion contact the Forest Practice Porester at the number shown. Important Utility information 0. it you are conducting timber harvesting or road construction within 100 feet of overhead or underground utility lines call the Oregon Utility Notification Center at ( 900 1 332-1344 and request that the owner of the line be notified. For your protection record the call number they issue you here end save for your records. call number Date _J B L J - . c CITY OF TIOARD Community (Deveropment S(uping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council Members ~~ff FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner~4,.y DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Additional Correspondence Regarding Ash Creek Estates Appeal Following the mailing of your packets on Friday, August 8, 2003, several additional letters and emails have been received by the City and are hereto attached for your reference. These items are considered written testimony for the purposes of tonight's appeal hearing, and are to be included in the official record of that hearing. ATTACHMENTS Letter dated August 8, 2003 from Susanna Knight, State Dept. of Geologist Examiners Letter dated August 8, 2003 from Dan and Margaret Burd, et al. Letter dated August 10, 2003 from Richard and Joan Morley Letter dated August 11, 2003 from "Residents of Washington Square Estates" c E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Merilyn Ferrara E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Richard Williams E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from David Smith E-mail dated August 11, 2003 from Bob Fuquay E-mail dated August 12, 2003 from The Gates Family Letter dated August 12, 2003 from Warren W. Aney, Certified Wildlife Biologist E-mail dated August 12, 2003 from P. Sydney Herbert Letter dated August 12, 2003 from Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeepers Uregon State Board of Geologist Examiners 1193 Royvonne Avenue SE #24 r s se `Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Salem OR 97302 Phone: 503.566.2837 Fax: 503.485.2947 Email: osbge@osbge.org August 8, 2003 RECEIVED PLANNING James D. Imbrie, RG, CEG, PE AUG 11 2003 GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. 7312 SW Durham Road CITY OF TIGARD Portland, OR 97224 RE: Report for Windwood Homes, Inc., Dated May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Engineering, Project No. 03-8191 Geotechnical Investigation, 74`h Avenue Subdivision, Washington County Dear Mr. Imbrie: A Registered Geologist (RG) forwarded a copy of the above report to this office. That RG recognized that the geology work completed in this project was outside the scope of an RG. ORS 672.505 (3) defines an engineering geologist as "a person who applies data, principles, and interpretation to naturally occurring materials so that geologic factors affecting planning, design, construction and maintenance of civil engineering works are properly recognized and utilized." Since this project is a civil engineering work, a Certified Engineering Geoloist (CEG) is required to supervise and stamp the work. Another geology statute clarifies the requirement for the CEG stamp. ORS 672.525 (7) states that "no person, including a person registered as a geologist under this section, shall practice or offer to perform any activities of an engineering geologist as defined in ORS 672.505 unless the person is certified as an engineering geologist under ORS 672.565." C Further review of this concern revealed that you are registered as a CEG. This means that your CEG stamp should have been placed on this report, as the CEG in responsible charge. Had that happened, this report would not have been submitted to l i this office. It would have been clear that a CEG was supervising the engineering { geology work completed by James E. Pyne, RG for this project. Both James Pyne, RG, and James Imbrie, PE, should also stamp the report if they indeed did work on this project from their positions as a Registered Geologist and a Professional Engineer. Correctly stamping the work product allows anyone that is aware of statutory requirements reviewing a report to know the individuals are property registered to practice within the scope of the work contracted. If you have any questions regarding the above outlined information, please contact the Board office. Sincerely, Susanna Knight Administrator AC 0308315 Cc: Dick Bewersdorff, Tigard Planning Manager David Michael, RG, CEG, Board Chair James Pyne, RG Morgan Tracy, Tigard City Planner Eileen L. Webb, RG, Board Member i i Copies to: Mayor/Council Other: City Manager J~1 1 Council File vl~ Cs/V,0 C. 0 r August 8, 2003 AUG 111403 Tigard City Council Aclr Tigard City Hall tDI L 13125 SW Hall Boulevard mil Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision Dear Mayor Griffith and Councilors Dirsen, Moore, Sherwood and Wilson: Recently the Tigard Planning Commission declined approval of the development application for the Senn Property into a 29 single home neighborhood. Their decision was based on non-compliance of the Tigard Development Code, issues that were not addressed in the application and the fact that the proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods. As the Planning Commission is the City of Tigard's professional expert on land development, we urge you to uphold their decision. The proposed development is zoned for R4.5 or 7500 sq. foot lots. Our lot size is 12,500 sq. feet and typical of the 108 homes in the surrounding Washington Square Estates neighborhood. A "planned development" of 4500' sq. feet (the developer has asked for a variance) to 7500 sq. feet is not consistent with the surrounding lot sizes. Also, as the Planning Commission pointed out, lots 9, 11, 12, and 29 do not have 25' of frontage as required by Code 18.810.060(B). There are seven 50' or taller fir trees in our backyard. There are over 25 fir and cedar trees of similar height in our four neighbors' backyards (to the south of our lot) along Ventura Court that back up to the Senn property. This is very typical of the whole Washington Square Estates development and other surrounding properties. The developer plans on removing 400 trees in the proposed development, which will leave only a fringe of small deciduous trees on the perimeter of the property. Again, this is not in character with the surrounding neighborhoods. What will happen when we have our next strong winter storm? (as the area is on a hillside, the winds are gustier here than in L Tigard as a whole) Large evergreen trees that are not protected by large stands of other evergreens are very vulnerable to winds and can easily uproot. We have had two trees removed from our property within the last seven years due to wind damage. Trees also provide protection from noise and air pollution, something that will be critical with the density that the developer has proposed. To my knowledge the developer has not 0 proposed "a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees" (Chapter 18.790 Tree Removal) by a certified arborist. The Planning Commission also questioned the excessive length and narrow road span with limited access of the proposed cul-de-sac. According to Code 18.810.030K "a cul- de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long...". As the site is over 967 feet deep, the proposed cul-de-sac exceeds this rule. Having lived in our home for over 13 years, been a member of the Tigard Traffic Committee, participated in traffic flow studies within Washington Square Estates that resulted in traffic signs, traffic flow bumps and speed bumps, I (Margaret Burd) am keenly aware of how increased population can affect traffic flow and safety. Our neighborhood streets provide an unfortunate (for those living here) thorough way for those traveling back and forth from the Tigard Triangle (Highway 99) and West Portland (Taylors Ferry Road). The past 13 years have brought a tremendous increase in traffic, especially during rush hour, to our neighborhood. The proposed development would add approximately 278 vehicle trips per day to our streets, or 22 -29 trips each, per morning and evening rush hours. Our narrow neighborhood roads were not built to safely handle the current traffic, let alone the increased number of cars that will be using them if 29 homes are built on the Senn property. 74'h Street was originally intended by the City of Tigard to be developed into a major artery for traffic in the area. It has never changed from its early days as a dead end neighborhood road. We have been told that it most likely will never be developed to its intended purpose, which would greatly shift traffic away from our neighborhood streets. Please take this into consideration when you decide whether to add an additional burden to our roads and neighborhoods without any alternate plan. As we will not be in town to attend this important meeting, we thank you in advance for your serious consideration of these points and any others that Planning Commissioners Mores, Haack Sutton and Bienerth brought forth during their meeting. We ask you, our representatives and co-residents of Tigard, to consider our voice and vote for the future and livability of our City. Sincerely, vii Dan and Margaret Burd n 5-5 5LJ Utx - ck J ~r G9' AUG u 1~ Cc ALI, MIR I also support the ideas and concerns expressed in this letter and request that you take them into consideration as I. will be unable to attend Tuesday's meeting. 1'u ~C-Pri-CC oea q~j D ~ q72 2 3 d a J c~ W J Copies to: Mayor/Council V, Other: ✓ City Manager II ' /{4 N Council File V August 90, 2003 Tigard City Council RECEIVED C.O.T Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. AUG 1 1 2003 Tigard, OR 97223 ~~Il'1It115i r~:P t. RE: Agenda item #8.8/12/03 Dear Council; We are strongly opposed to the plans for the Ash Creek Estates development as planned for the area just west of our neighborhood on Ventura Drive in northeast Tigard. We have lived here since before annexation to the City of Tigard, and we have worked hard to maintain a true OREGON environment amid the growth and modernization of our area. We love the creek in our back yard, and the tall cedar, oak, maple and other trees that shade and protect us. We enjoy actually having native animals and birds to entertain us. We like that the houses of our Washington Square Estates complement each other, yet each retains a unique character. We moved here many years ago to escape the ugly suburbs with "cookie cutter" houses built on tiny lots with buildings so close together you could almost hear your neighbors' conversations. There is no fit for such "Californication" in this area. The planned development would result in the loss of too many beautiful trees, and the possibility of bad effects on the creek and the magnification of traffic congestion on the area's small streets. It may not be possible to prevent development, but the plans should be to fit in well with the surrounding residential community. We urge you to reject the Ask Creek Estates development as now planned. Thank you. Respectful! Ric rd and loan Morley 6630 SW Ventura Dr. Tigard, OR 97223-1133 Copies to: / Mayor/Council Other: City Manager t RECEIVED C.O.T. Council File AUG 11 2003 August 11, 2003 Adman&bvA n Tigard City Council Tigard! City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision Dear Mayor Griffith and Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Sherwood, and Wilson: Washington Square Estates (WSE) homeowner's would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request and urge you to consider the following concerns associated with the proposed Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision. WSE is a 104-member homeowner's association located directly east and south and adjacent to the proposed Ash Creek Estates development proposal. During the past several years, a very large majority of our members gathered petition signatures and have worked tirelessly with many local agencies including Metro and the Three Rivers Land Conservancy to assist us and in raising funds to purchase this property for park preservation. In fact, the WSE and local neighbors raised more than $13,000, and pledged $30,000, but fell short of the required 25 percent local match required for purchase. We have three direct concerns that we would like to highlight concerning Ash Creek Estates. These were also raised by the Tigard Planning Commission in their denial of the application on July 7: • Too many homes on very small lots. This area is zoned for R4.5, 7500 sq. ft. The lot sizes proposed range in size from 4,700 to 11,600 sq. ft. and overall average 6,425 sq.ft. We believe a variance required for these lot sizes and the addition of 29 homes on this property is a no-benefit for the city and out of character with our community. L • Removal of too many trees. The proposal to remove 400 trees, 74 of which would be within sensitive areas is detrimental to watershed health, would adversely impact the aesthetics of our neighborhood, and requires appropriate and effective mitigation. i + Traffic patterns and flow. We believe that traffic continues to increase and this has not been adequately addressed in the proposal. 1 Other concerns that have been expressed by our members and others include: downstream flooding and water quality concerns; fish and wildlife impacts and degradation of habitats; wind throw potential; property values; and public access. Tigard City Council Ash Creek Estates August 11, 2003 Page 2 We want to emphasize that we are not opposed to appropriate development, nor are we in total opposition to development on this site. But, WSE members generally believe that: 1) the site constraints, including, among others: steep slopes, geotechnical stability, and fill concerns, have not been adequately addressed; 2) the packing of houses so close together, possibly defensible on flat land, is highly questionable given the terrain pattern here; 3) the clearcutting of 5 of the 6 buildable acres for this project (as filed with the Oregon Department of Forestry on April 23, 2003) is a radical departure from the developer's earlier presentations which proposed to save "as many trees as possible,"; and 4) the character of the proposed development is both qualitatively and quantitatively at variance with this long-established area. In summary, we urge that further reconsideration of this development, in terms of the extensive and irreplaceable natural resources, and the impact on the disruption of the livability of this area's community, outweigh the proposed development. Especially considering the Developer's requests for multiple variances, concessions, and modifications to the established codes for which he offers little or no modifications on issues raised on previous occasions in his presentations. Unless the City has no inclination to reconsider this area as a possible open space, park, or recreation area, a development with fewer homes (such as 20-23), on larger lots 7,500 sq. ft.), and preservation of more trees would be much wiser and more prudent. We urge you to consider the issues raised by your Planning Commission and the upcoming public testimony. Together, we can accommodate development, protect our environment, and preserve our community and quality of life. Thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns. We appreciate your time and willingness to consider our thoughts. Respectfully submitted, Residents of Washington Square Estates Cathy V1lheatle~r Appeal re: Senn Property development Page From: "Merilyn Ferrara" <mf@bizlawl.com> To: Tigard Council<nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'Craig Dirksen<craigd@cl.tigard.or.us>, Brian Moore<brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'Sydney Sherwood<sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'Mayor Griffith <mayor@ci. tigard.or. us> Date: 8/11/03 2:06PM Subject: Appeal re: Senn Property development Mayor and Councilors: Like many others in the neighborhoods bordering the branch of Ash Creek, I am very concerned about the proposed development. John Frewing's July 31 letter to the Tigard Times, provides the reasons, both practical and compelling, why so many of us in the area do not want to see this small stretch of natural treasure destroyed. His fetter provides the Tigard Council sound reasons upon which to base a policy decision denying the appeal on the agenda at the 8/12103 meeting. This parcel of riparian habitat with its rare grove of mature cedar should take precedence over more development. Thank you for your consideration. Merilyn Ferrara Tigard, OR 97223 Copies to: Mayor/Council Other: City Manager Council File I Cathy Wheatley Senn Property Appeal Comments Page 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: mf@bizlaw1.com Date: 8112/03 8:23AM Subject: Senn Property Appeal Comments Your comments regarding the Senn Property Appeal have been forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tiga rd.or. us L n D a u _ Pa e1 Lathy Wheatley Senn Property on Ash Creek From: "Dick Williams" <dilliams@paragoncreative.com> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.uS>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/11103 3:13PM Subject: Senn Property on Ash Creek I am writing to urge you to sustain the planning commission's decision rejecting the proposed development of the now-wooded Senn property on Ash Creek. According to the Tigard Visioning Survey, voters - by an overwhelming margin of 81 % to 19% - specifically prefer policies that will protect the remaining open spaces over policies that would allow new development on presently undeveloped land. In addition, METRO has offered to pay 75% of the fair market value to purchase the Senn property, and I understand local residents in the immediate vicinity of the property have committed $35,000 to that effort. I urge you to join their efforts and preserve the Senn property for the benefit of all people. Thank you. Richard Williams Copies to: Mayor/Council Other- City Manager 7- ~ ~ ~ V Council File 6 C t 1 I I Cathy Wheatley -Senn Property Appeal Page 1I From: Cathy Wheatley To: dwilliams@paragoncreative.com Date: 8112103 8:34AM Subject: Senn Property Appeal Your comments regarding the Senn Property Appeal will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us 1 I I 'athy Wheatley Comments on the appeal of the Senn property Decision _ v Page 1 From: "Smith, David" <david.smith@intel.com> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <Brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/11/03 4:29PM Subject: Comments on the appeal of the Senn property Decision Copies to: My name is David Smith. I own one of the homes on the north border of Mayor/Council : Other: gwiff V// the proposed development. I have not been happy with the way Tigard City Manager treats this area of the city and frankly feel like I don't get the value council File ✓ of the taxes I pay. I see little in the way of street improvements or - community development. What city parks or community facilities exist in this area? None. We have one county park that is paid for by a separate tax levy. When I want to go to a park, I go to a Portland park or a THPRD park and don't drive all the way down to Cook park, where the city seems to spend all it's parks money. I've been disappointed in the way the city has responded to the two efforts to purchase the Senn property for a park and in the way this proposed development has been allowed to go forward. Tigard seems to be a city that exists for the benefit of developers first and then residents. These things have led my wife and to sell our house and move out of the city. Of course we had other reasons to move but our dissatisfaction with the city is a big factor and we've chosen not to buy our next house in Tigard. Having said that, I'd like to focus on the relevant facts behind this development proposal. When I saw this development request, I wondered if the developer had run out of code variances to ask for but I'll limit myself to just four issues. Windfall, the intent of the planned development code (section 18.350), variances and zoning (18.430 & 18.510) and the issue of the long narrow dead-end street.(18.705 and 18.810). 1. There is a serious windfall issue. This property is one of the last remaining stands of western red cedar in Oregon. A healthy red cedar stand requires sufficient moisture and ground water to survive. While this development protects half the trees on the south part of the development, it completely eliminates the natural rainfall on the north part of the development. The land slopes gradually down to a steep slope near the creek. Currently water falls on the northern part of the property, soaks into the ground, and feeds the trees on the slope and near the creek. All this water that is keeping those trees alive and healthy will now be sent to a stormwater retention pond at the edge of Q. the development. Not only will all the trees in the developable area be removed, I fear for the health of the remaining trees since the tom/) ecosystem will drastically be changed. There are two risks. Trees on neighboring lots will now lose the m natural protection of the existing forest and increase the risk of strong winds forcing them to fall onto existing houses. The new houses W on the south side of the new street will also be at risk because the .,t health of the remaining trees will be affected. I predict that in a few years, every strong windstorm from the south will cause trees to fall into the new houses. 2. According to the city code (18.350) as well as planned development codes Cathy Wheatley - Comments on the appeal of the Senn property Decision Page 2' from other cities - a planned development should meet these goals: - Create a superior living arrangement for the residents by working with open space, existing landscape, buildings and access. - Allow smaller lots and increased density in exchange for increasing open space on a parcel. Open space is used to maintain visual and sound spaciousness as well as offer recreational opportunities. The goal should be to allow the residents to enjoy the increased open space as a way of mitigating the increased density. The developer trades off open space in exchange for higher localized density. - Meet other community goals such as promoting mass transit - for example planned developments are encouraged near light rail. How does this development meet these goals? Not very well. The plan calls for all the trees to be removed in the development zone. This in an area where almost every lot has one or more natural trees. The new residences on the south side gain some benefit however. Some of these lots have only a 3 foot backyard. Yes, I'm sure the developer will put up a fence but if I'm a homeowner, the first thing I would do is take down that fence and encroach on what is supposed to be protected open space. Who, other than apartment dwellers, are going to put up with a 3 foot backyard? The open space created will become the lower part of these homes' backyards and not be open space to be enjoyed by the community. What do the residences on the north side get? Tiny, narrow lots on a narrow dead end street. Houses crammed together, looking more like NW Portland town homes. Open space for the people on the north?- yes, if you count the neighbor's lot behind as open space. Do they get any benefits of this wonderful open space that the developer is so graciously creating? No. Do they get the benefit of the existing landscaping? No, in the end no trees will be left on any of the lots on the northern section. Do they get better access? No, a steep dead-end street without enough parking. Is the developer meeting the open space goals of the planned development code? No. What I see is the developer and landowner sitting on a parcel with a significant amount of unbuildable land. So they decide - L "Hey, let's call ourselves sensitive caretakers of the land and say that C we are making open space out of all this unbuildable land. Let's make more money by doing creating a narrow, private street and using every density transfer loophole there exists to cram more houses into the space left over." None of this so-called open space will be used for i recreation or the benefit of all the new residents. It becomes the extended backyards of the adjacent houses. 1 i So half the residents will receive open space benefits from this planned development and the other half receive no benefits at all. They will pay the price of increased density with no corresponding benefits. [Citing 18.350.010 A. Purpose - all items. Proposed development doesn't meet intent or letter of planned development code] [Citing 18.350.100.63.Approval Criteria - Proposed Cathy Wheatley -Comments on the appeal of the Senn property Decision Page 3 development doesn't maintain a relationship to the natural and physical environment for the northern section. Nor is there adequate distance between on-site and off-site buildings. Trees are not sufficiently preserved or replaced in the northern section. Circulation patterns are not sufficient for emergency vehicle access. The northern section of the development does not meet the 20% landscaping requirement. 3. With respect to variances and zoning (18.370, 18.430 and 18.510), I'd like to comment on the impacts to neighboring property owners. All of the adjacent property is zoned and developed at R4.5 low density with the average lot size in the 10,000 sq foot range. When I look at this proposed development, I see, especially along the northern edge, a density more typical of R7 medium density or higher. I bought my house in the middle of a low density area and not next to a higher density area. In the low density area that exists now, I can throw a baseball and reasonably expect to hit houses on either side and one, maybe two houses in back. I look at these plans and figure I'll be able to hit at least four new houses from my back yard plus my two existing neighbors. And the people in the upper stories of these houses will be able to see my baseball coming because I expect these houses to tower over my backyard. I'll be looking at a solid row of houses with small backyards. I will not see a single tree from the back of my house - instead I will see a solid row of tall houses with miniscule backyards. These houses will completely block the sun in the winter and interrupt the natural flow of air. The development is out of character with surrounding development. One of the purposes of zoning is to preserve the property values and livability of neighboring properties. With the way this development is laid out, I feel like a high density area is being created next to my property. Because of this, I've had to sell my house for less money than I would have otherwise been able to. My property value would have been higher if either the Senn property was a park or developed to be compatible with the surrounding area. Because my property will be perceived as being in a high density area, my property is being devalued. [Citing 18.370.020 C.1.c - Effectively creating a higher density zone in the northern section of the development is injurious to the rights of other owners of property] IL [Citing 18.430.010 A.S. Purpose: To provide adequate light and air, prevent overcrowding of land, and facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water supply, sewage and drainage; - This is overcrowding (by effectively creating a R7 area in a R4.5 area) and J potentially blocking the winter sun from my yard and house] m [Citing 18.430.040 A.3. Approval Criteria -The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and J maps of major partitions 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 does not conform to area streets in width and dead-end nature. It's in the interest of the developer to modify the street pattern, not the public interest] Cathy Wheatley - Comments on the appeal of the Senn property Decision Page4 [Citing 18.510.010 A Preserve Liveability - Preserve neighborhood livability. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods, by encouraging primarily residential development with compatible non-residential development schools, churches, parks and recreation facilities, day care centers, neighborhood commercial uses and other services at appropriate locations and at an appropriate scale. - Creating a higher density area that is out of character with surrounding properties - especially the northern part of the proposed development] [Citing 18.510.020 D & E Definition of zones - proposed development doesn't meet these standards if the planned development code is not applied] 4. Finally there's the issue of the narrow private dead-end street. The developer can call it a culdesac. I call it a long dead end street. I see that the developer has changed the plans to make it look like a shorter dead-end street by assuming that someday the city will build 73rd ave to Barbara Lane and connecting his street to the intersection of 73rd. When will 73rd be built and isn't this forced alignment taking property value from the property owner who will have to give up land for 73rd? It seems like there are more efficient property arrangements for that owner than a street punched through his property. The proposed street alignment and calling it a private street looks like sleight of hand to get around the city street design requirements that should apply to everyone. believe there are significant safety issues with this long of a dead-end street, especially a narrow dead-end street. There is no egress, vehicular or pedestrian from the end of the street in an emergency. The houses and topography prevent any feasible escapes from the end of the culdesac. The developer can limit on-street parking so as to allow a better flow of traffic. With this development, I see a lot of large upscale houses with small driveways. That says to me a lot of extra cars and visitors L will need parking. Ventura is a wider street with fewer homes and still r has issues with traffic congestion and all the parked cars. 0 Where all these residents and visitors going to park? Is everyone really going to fit into their nice clean garages and tiny driveways? Where are they going to park if the on-street parking is restricted? How will a disabled person get out in that instance? What happens to a disabled or elderly visitor who can't find a parking space? Will they J park around the corner at the bottom of the street and walk? The developer can put up a lot of nice no parking signs but are the police going to patrol and give out tickets every day? No, the police have no traffic authority here. It's a private street so that assumes a resident is staring out their window 24 hours a day, ready to call the towing company if there's a street blockage. Temporary blockages by Cathy Wheatley - Comments on the apQeal of the Senn property Decision Paga 5 delivery vehicles will be a daily occurance. What happens when two people ignore the signs and park their cars on opposite sides of the street and a fire truck can't get by? What happens if there's an emergency at one end of the.street and you've got 20 families who can't get out. It's in an urban forest. What happens if there's a forest fire at one end and there's no escape other than to climb over fences or cross a stream? [Citing 18.810.E - Minimum street widths are not being met] [Citing 18.8101 - Proposed development doesn't meet culdesac length requirements nor is there a pathway to an adjacent street] With these comments and objections in mind, this is what I'm asking for: 1. The planned development be rejected and the development re-planned to be compliant with the existing R4.5 zone and compatible with neighboring developments. This means lot sizes similar to those already existing and that the unbuildable area not be considered in the density computations. Street design regulations should also be followed. City code requires streets in a new development to be similar to surrounding streets. 2. If the planned development is approved, then buffering be provided so that adjacent properties retain the density impact of the R4.5 low density zone. This might include trees and vegetation planted and greater setbacks on lots along the perimeter of the development. The narrow dead end street issue should also be dealt with even if the planned development still applies. 3. Impervious areas be kept to a minimum through the use of larger lots and a more creative drainage situation. This will help to keep the remaining trees healthier and lessen the risk of dying trees falling onto houses. Yes, the city has to allow people to develop their properties and can't prevent this property from being developed. The city has a responsibility to existing residents to preserve their livability and L property values. The city has a responsibility to the future residents of this property to preserver their livability and safety. That's why we have laws and zoning regulations. Not to benefit developers and property owners but to benefit existing and new residents. David Smith 7130 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard OR 97223 9 u Cathy Wheatley,- Ash Creek (Senn) Appeal page j From: Cathy Wheatley To: david.smith@intel.com Date: 8/12/03 8:40AM Subject: Ash Creek (Senn) Appeal Your comments regarding this appeal will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us d OC Cp _J m W J lathy Wheatley Ash Creek development _ Page 1 From: "Glenna Fuquay" <gfuquay@gte.net> To: <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/11/03 9:13PM Subject: Ash Creek development In Tigard's Visioning Survey, 81% of residents responding said they prefer policies that protect open space over accommodating new development. Let's turn this vision into policy. Please deny the Ash creek development request. This parcel has much more value to the city and the neighberhood as a wildlife habitat than it ever could as developed property. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Bob 1=ugUay Copies to: Board Member Tualatin Riverkeepers Mayor/Council Other: City Manager ✓ Council File y- C i i i~ r r Cathy Wheatley -Ash Creek Appeal _ Page 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: gfuquay@gte.net Date: 8/12/03 8:46AM Subject: Ash Creek Appeal Your comments regarding this appeal will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us 1 I I I I I Cathy, Wheatley - Senn Property request as of 08/12/03 Page 1 From: cp gates <pcgx2@mac.com> To: <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <n ickw@ci. tigard.or.us> Date: 8/12/03 8:45AM Subject: Senn Property request as of 08/12103 Copies to: The Senn Property's Future: Mayor/Council 1/ Other: ✓ City Manager _~z As this property is unique in nature and in regard to remaining Council File _1L original environment of the Metzger/Tigard area; i Please accept this invitation to observe this area today, from any property in the area surrounding these wonderful 9 acres in, order to be the best informed member of your group at tonight's meeting. You may be new enough to this community position to be unaware that it has not been long since the area councils wisely gave serious consideration to preserving this land by creating a park/reserve with only two parking spaces for maintenance people. Creating smaller homes for the over 55ers will leave more open space, less environmental dangers brought by youthful doings and a desire to support the natural environment instead of destroying it. 20 homes in the 1800'-3000' range will be a target attainable. The whole motive and focus can be to encourage builder and home owners working together to save and enhance the preservation of the indigenous flora and fauna must be the goal in order to serve the good of keeping the Metzger/Tigard area desirable to the region. The creek, the trees, the adjoining and dependent trees in the area, the birds, and the air they support are all the reasons why no development on this or the adjoining piece or property must be preserved. PLEASE GO LOOK AT BOTH OF THESE AREAS TODAY, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR ALL WITH VISION TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE OUR LIVING SPACES. Thank you for your wise consideration of this letter and of those who may speak well at our meeting tonight. You are welcome to set foot (many feet) on our land today. 9775 SW Ventura Ct. r The Gates family, who has lived in the Metzger area for 41 years. Nature Conservancy and Metro might still be there for you... 9 d d Cathy Wheatley -Ash Creek (Senn A eal Pale 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: pcgx2@mac.com Date: 8/12/03 8:52AM Subject: Ash Creek (Senn) Appeal Your con iments regarding this appeal will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder greer@ci.tigard.or.us L OC H d 5 W J WARREN \V. ANFY CG111HED WILDLIFE ISIOL(X;(S'f, THIi wit,n"'Inz sootily (;I?fi' vivo SvNIOR HCOLOGIST TIIU E COLOGICAL SOCllil), of AhfENICA 12 August 2003 RECEIVED Jim Griffith, Mayor Copies to: / City of Tigard Mayor/Council Other: AUG 12 2003 13125 SW Hall Boulevard City Manager Council File MYOfr TWAW Tigard, OR 97223 p(A1NG Re: Ash Creek Development As a professional wildlife ecologist, I ask you and the members of the Tigard City Council to consider a, number of effects the proposed high-density Ash Creek Development will have on both on-site and off-site natural values. In its present condition, the site provides a number of important environmental services of benefit to neighbors, downstream properties, and the community in general. The degree to which these various benefits will be affected is directly or indirectly related to the density of development on the site. Ecological description. This site is a steep sided draw formed by the South Fork of Ash Creek. The creek appears to have several meanders and side channels and there appear to be several seeps and other wet areas within the draw. The developer has completed a wetlands delineation and reports that a majority of the wetlands on this site are of good quality. These wetlands provide a natural system of water retention, filtration, and percolation essential to streamflow stability and watershed health. These wetlands also provide habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species. The overstory consists of an almost pure stand of closed canopy sub-mature and mature western redcedar. Interior to the stand there is a sparse shrub understory apparently composed mostly of elderberry, Oregon ash, and vine maple. Ground cover appears to be mostly bracken and sword fern, trailing blackberry, wild geranium, and moss. The edges have a denser understory of shrubby species such as beaked hazelnut, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and English holly. This stand is relatively simple in terms of vegetative structural and species diversity but will become more diverse over time if left undisturbed. I have observed at least 26 species of native birds in this neighborhood. Native rnarninal species observed'inelude bats, coyote, raccoon, and Douglas' squirrel. Several of these wildlife species are wholly or partially dependent on mature forest conditions such.as those provided by this site (e.g., Cooper's hawk, chestnut-backed chickadee, red-breasted nuthatch, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, Townsend's warbler, and Douglas' squirrel). <L Aquatic species present in this tributary of Ash Creek include cutthroat trout and crawfish. Both are ~ dependent on cool, clean water such as this site provides in its present condition. Although not a habitat of concern, this site is classified by Metro as being in the second highest j riparian function score category. Its Metro wildlife value score is an excellent 6 out of a possible 9. D In its present condition it is part of an extended patch of wildlife and riparian habitat and provides 'U important connectivity to water and to other wildlife habitat patches, This site provides valuable environmental services of value to the neighborhood and the greater community. These include: • Water quality improvement and streamflow moderation through retention and filtering of precipitation and runoff 9403 SW 74TH AVENUE • TIGARD, OREGON • 97223 PHONE: 503-246-8613 - FAX: 503-246-2605 • E-MAIL: aney@usa.nct -2- 12 August 2003 • Pest insect control by insectivorous birds and bats fostered in the on-site habitats • Moderation of wind and temperature extremes by the stand of large trees • Quality of fife benefits provided by an attractive green space with large trees and a natural stream Direct effects. In terms of biodiversity, ecological stability, and ecosystems resilience the proposed development will have a number of direct adverse effects. These adverse effects are proportional to the relative density of the proposed development and the number of large trees removed: • Reduction in the stand's structural diversity and stability • Reduction in the site's plant species diversity and productivity • Depletion of mature forest wildlife species numbers and diversity due to loss of cover, forage, and reproductive sites and habitat • Possible lowering of the sites riparian. function score due to reduction in stand size and the removal of mature tree cover • Fragmentation of wildlife habitat and losses of connectivity to other patches of wildlife habitat Indirect and cumulative effects. The proposed development will result in a number of indirect and cumulative adverse effects on ecosystem and watershed functions. These adverse effects will be proportional to the relative density of the proposed development- • Stream water quality degradation due to runoff of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other development-related pollutants e Depletion of native wildlife species diversity in general due to increased intrusion by competitive and predatory non-native species such as fox squirrels and feral cats • Boundary creep by adjacent property owners into the protected riparian zone, resulting in riparian vegetation removal that contributes to streambank, stream habitat, and water quality degradation (this has already occurred upstream and downstream of this site) Possible reduction of wetland area and health resulting from property owner mosquito control pressure or action • Increased proliferation of competitive invasives such as English laurel, English holly, and English ivy • Changes in stream flow patterns due to reductions in watershed vegetative cover (this will be partially but not completely mitigated by the proposed installation of bioswales) • Increased disturbance of native wildlife due to intrusion by adjacent residents and their pets .0 Increased loss of on site and adjacent trees due to windthrow and root zone disturbance In summary, this proposed development will have a number of adverse effects on the area's natural values and on the environmental services provided by this ecosystem The degree and extent of these adverse effects are directly proportional to the relative density of the development. These adverse effects cannot be totally eliminated under a lesser degree of development than currently i proposed, but they can be more effectively minimized and mitigated if development density is kept reasonably low. Of course the best ecological and environmental alternative would be to permanently protect the site as green space, in which case it would continue to provide ever increasing natural values and environmental services, rds, 3 Warren W. A y Senior Wildlife Ecologist cc. City Council members Page I of 1 Cathy Wheatley - Senn Property From: <Psydneyh@aol.com> To: <cathy@ci.tigard.or.us>, <mayor@ci.tigard.or.us>, <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us>, <bnanm@ci.tigard.or.us>, <sydney@ci.tigard.or.us>, <nickw@i.tigard.or.us> Date: 8/12/03 1:40 PM Subject: Senn Property Dear Mayor, Councilors and Recorder: am urging you to support your planning commission's advice and deny building permission to a development on Ash Creek. Rather,) urge you to add to the available Metro funds to purchase the property to retain vital habitat and green space. do not live in Tigard, so you may question whether it is appropriate for me to make such suggestions. I do serve on a committee which advises Metro staff on Goal 5's "ESEE analysis" . Our charge has to do with describing the social and spiritual value of habitat for the balancing that Goal 5 requires. Therefore, I have been studying the available habitat in the metropoilitan area; and, it is clear that the habitat diminishes rapidly as the planning plods along. You have a wonderful opportunity to protect valuable habitat and enhance the livability of your city while making a minimum financial sacrifice. We all know that development is heavily underwritten by the taxpayers while it reduced the quality of life for the existing residents. For the fish, it reduces life itself. You will also, by protecting this valuable resource, maintain the livability of the entire region. Thank you for reading this testimony P.Sydney Herbert 5125 SW Dosch Rd Poirtland,OR 97239 Copies to: Mayor/Council -L/ Other: City Manager V Council File 1/ d OC H _J m W J file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\CW}00015.HTM 8/12/03 t✓a1t Whoatto Ro Senn Prerty Pago 1 From: Cathy Wheatley To: Psydneyh@aol.com Dato: 8/12/03 2:46PM Subjoct: Re: Senn Property Your comments regarding the Ash Creek Appeal (Senn) will be forwarded to the Mayor and Councilors. Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder groor@cl.tlgard,or.us <Psydneyh@aol.com> 08/12103 01:40PM Dear Mayor, Councilors and Recorder: I am urging you to support your planning commission's advice and deny building permission to a development on Ash Creek. Rather,l urge you to add to the available Metro funds to purchase the property to retain vital habitat and green space. do not live In Tigard, so you may question whether it is appropriate for me to make such suggestions. I do serve on a committee which advises Metro staff on Goal 5's "ESEE analysis" . Our charge has to do with describing the social and spiritual value of habitat for the balancing that Goal 5 requires. Therefore, I have boon studying the available habitat in the metropoilitan area; and, it Is clear that the habitat diminishes rapidly as the planning plods along. You have a wonderful opportunity to protect valuable habitat and enhance the livability of your city while making a minimum financial sacrifice. We all know that development is heavily underwritten by the taxpayers while it reduced the quality of life for the existing residents. For the fish, it reduces life itself. You will also, by protecting this valuable resource, maintain the livability of the entire region. Thank you for reading this testimony P.Sydney Herbert 5125 SW Dosch Rd Poirtland,OR 97239 L 0 12 03 03:35p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p•4 TUALATIN Riverkeepers r~ 16507 SW Roy Rogers Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140 (503) 590-5813 • fax: (503) 590-6702 • www.tualatinriverkeepers.org - email: info@tualatinriverkeepers.org August 12, 2003 Copies to: Mayor/Council V Other: Tigard City Council City Manager OJT- 16125 SW Nall Blvd Council File J/ Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Senn Property Development on Ash Creek The Tualatin Riverkeepers are a community-based organization working to protect and restore the Tualatin River System. We build watershed stewardship through public education, access to nature, citizen involvement and advocacy. Our membership has grown to over 600 dues paying members who support our mission of watershed stewardship. As a key part of our mission, we are concerned about impacts to tributaries habitats and wetlands in the Tualatin Basin. A Unique Natural Resource The Senn property on Ash Creek represents a rare remnant of once common habitat in the Tualatin Basin. In our research for our book, Exploring the Tualatin River Basin, we searched for high and low for unique natural areas, but were unable to find such a large cedar grove as is on this site. Because of the uniqueness of this site, we ask that it receive the highest protection afforded to it by City code. Tree Plan is Not Adequate While Tigard Development Code 18.790.050 exempts tax deferred forest lands from the requirement of a tree cutting permit, it does not exempt this development from submitting a tree plan. Tigard Development Code 18.790.030 B.1. states that a tree plan should include "Identification of the location, size, and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city". The tree plan submitted by the applicant identifies the location of trees, and whether they are deciduous or evergreen, but it does not identify the species or size of each tree. Unnecessary Removal of Trees is Not Avoided Tigard Development Code 18.790.030 A. states that "Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible." By any stretch of the imagination, it is possible to protect some of the more than 400 trees proposed to be clear-cut by the applicant. For this reason alone, this application should be denied. Tigard planning staff agrees and says so 5 on page 2 their report. The report says "Staff feels the applicant does not provide for the maximum preservation of trees on site as prescribed by Planned Development Standards (18.350100(b)(3x5)[pg 350-8]. We don't question the applicant's right to develop their property, We ask that development be done in a way that preserves public trust resources, The Tualatin Riverkeepers is a community-based organization working to protect and restore Oregon's Tualatin River system. the Tualatin Riverkeepers builds' ~'avashed stewardship through public education, access to nature, citizen involvemcrit and advocacv. 503 590 6702 P•5 'Ruh , 12 03 03t35p Tualatin River Rive i.e. fish, wildlife, and clean water. They clearly can develop this site in a way that has far less impact on public trust natural resources. Disturbance is Not Minimized on Steep Slopes Tigard Development Code 18.775.070 C.1. states as a condition for approval that the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than required for use". The extent of the clear-cutting on the south end of the lots on the north side of the creek is greater than is required for the use of housing. Clear-cutting the entire platted area cannot help but create disturbance. Lots 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23 are of concern for slumping and sliding because of very steep slopes and the presence of groundwater. Development should not be allowed on these lots to protect public safety and water quality. Streamside Buffers Do Not Meet Sensitive Lands Code Close examination of the contour map provided by the applicant reveals that the streamside buffers do not meet Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards and Tigard Sensitive Lands Code 18.775. Buffers are supposed to extend 35 feet beyond the top of the 25% slope. On several lots the delineated buffer only meets the top of slope, and does not include the 3 5 feet beyond the top of slope that is required. Lots 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 28 and 29 contain large areas with slopes greater than 25%. Storm Water Quality Facility Does Not Control Pollution to the Maximum Extent Practicable We question the adequacy of the storm water quality facility. The Clean Water Act requires municipalities to prevent pollution from stormwater to the "maximum extent practicable". The attached article by Lewis G. Scholl P.E. from the professional journal, Stormwater Treatment Northwest, "in the Tualatin Basin - water quality facilities are designed significantly smaller and with less flow capacity for flow and treatment than in all other areas of the Northwest..... The discrepancy does not generally reflect any local meteorological phenomena." If it is practicable to treat 5 times the flow in storm water quality facilities in Clackamas County, it is practicable in Tigard. Tigard needs to step up to this higher standard to comply with the Clean Water Act, Ash Creek is habitat for cutthroat trout, and according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, federally listed steelhead trout. The enclosed article from the Seattle Post- n. Intelligencer describes the fatal impacts of insufficiently treated stormwater on salmonids as documented by NOAA Fisheries. Since a federal USACE CWA404 permit is needed for the road crossing at 74°i, and the creek harbors a federally listed species, a nexus J exists, requiring a formal consultation by NOAA fisheries to avoid a take under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). No development permit should be issued before this 0 consultation in order to protect the City from penalties under the ESA. W J Downstream Impacts We share Planning Commissioner Buehner's concerns about flooding downstream. Neighbors report increased flooding due to previous development in the area. Adding additional impervious surfaces, with the addition of drainage systems can only serve to -Rue '12 03 03:35p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 P•6 make Ash Creek flashier. The cumulative effects downstream on Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River of such projects is an ongoing concern. This Incomplete Application Does Not Allow Adequate Review The application is incomplete. The applicant has not submitted an adequate tree plan. There is no arborist report. There is no evidence of approvals from Division of State Lands and the Army Corp of Engineers. Homes are not platted on the maps, only lot lines. There is no erosion control plan. In fact, there are 50 conditions that Tigard's planning and engineering staff have placed on this application. In order to provide adequate public review of how these conditions are to be met in the land use process, these plans should be submitted before approval of this development in accordance with Oregon State Land Use Planning Goal 1. This Application Should be Denied Clearly the applicant has not done their homework. The application submitted is incomplete. Impacts to public resources are not minimized. We agree with Planning Commission President Mark Padgett that the City is not getting enough in return for the concessions given with this development, and ask that you deny this application in its current form. Sincerely, Brian Wegener Watershed Watch Coordinator Tualatin Riverkeepers c: Dr. Nancy Munn, NO AA Fisheries Jim Grimes, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Heidi Berg, Clean Water Services Collin MacLaren, Clean Water Services a of to t~ flue '12 03 03:36P Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 P.7 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Pagel of 4 5 J SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.coniAocaU 107460_cohoo6,shtw Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Thursday, February 6, 2003 By LISA STIFFLER AND ROBERT MCCLURE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS City officials have forked out millions of dollars and volunteers have donated countless hours to lovingly restore Seattle-area creeks. But a groundbreaking study suggests that water in many urban streams runs dirty enough to quickly kill coho salmon most before they can spawn. The culprit appears to be the stormwater gurgling off streets, P-1 Extras parking lots and roofs, carrying with it oil, grease, pesticides and - Coho salmon at a glance other pollutants, say federal scientists who conducted the study. - See video of ailing salmon - Special report: Our Troubled When hit by a flush of it, coho are immediately disoriented. They Sun roll to their sides. Some do what scientists dubbed "the Jesus walls," skittering across the top of the water in a final, desperate burst of energy. All this happens within hours when the salmon enter local creeks killing 88 percent of the fish in the study last fall. "We've done everything we can think of and it's not right," said Judy Pickens, who has worked on restoration of Faunderoy Creek in West Seattle for more than a decade. "What more do we need to do to bring this creek into a healthy habitat for the fish?" Scientists had previously shown that stormwater makes life tough on fish and can kill bugs and other small creatures. But this study is one of the first to suggest that stormwater can kill fish outright- No one knows when the coho began to perish prematurely, or the extent of the phenomenon. But scientists believe numerous urban waterways could be afflicted. Until spawning surveys were launched in the last few years to see whether creek restoration efforts were working, few were looking very hard at the fate of salmon in local creeks. The new study promises to raise thorny questions about the degree to which wide swaths of land a around Puget Sound can be developed, and in what way. i~ h N It also suggests that restoring creeks in cities is going to be harder than originally envisioned, requiring much more than cosmetic changes to the streams themselves. Pollution flowing off large areas of the m city and its suburbs will have to be controlled. J "Putting logs and stumps in an otherwise sterile stream is not by itself going to bring the fish back," said Toni Murdoch, director of the Everett-based Adopt-A-Stream Foundation. Restoration work threatened Reports of healthy looking salmon dying in creeks from Everett to south of Seattle - apparently http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/priater2/index.asp?plot=b&refer=http://se.../107460 coho06.shtm 5/22/03 Aug '12 03 03:36p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.8 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 2 of 4 before spawning - can be traced back to at least 1999. Three years ago, biologist Bill McMillan went walking down Kelsey Creek in Bellevue, near the Glendale Country Club. Wearing chest-high waders and carrying a 7-foot-long bamboo pole to flush salmon from hiding places, the fish counter remembered something in the field notes from the previous year's survey about coho dying prematurely. Everything seemed to be pretty normal, and then all of a sudden on a gravel bar I saw a very sea- fresh4ooking coho. It was very bright, a female with its sides bulging with eggs, but it was dead," McMillan said. "I just kept that in mind." It was another two weeks before he saw any more coho in Kelsey Creek. When he did, he started cutting them open. He found that an unusually large number of females were still full of eggs; males were full of sperm. "When you find a carcass like that, obviously they haven't spawned, and that's a real concern," he said. McMillan and his colleagues at Washington Trout turned to Seattle Public Utilities, which had hired the group to do the salmon surveys. SPU and Washington Trout agreed to track so-called prespawn mortalities. They found significant numbers - about half the coho in Fauntleroy Creek in 2001, nearly three-quarters in Kelsey Creek in 2000 and 2001. By last Fall, scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service's Seattle laboratories were concerned enough to launch a study of the phenomenon, comparing an urban creek with a rural one. They chose Longfellow Creek in West Seattle, a model for stream rehabilitation efforts, featuring man-made gravel beds, pools and eddies, replanted banks and meditative walking paths. The water is cool and oxygen-rich, the way fish like it. "Longfellow Creek looks beautiful," said fisheries service scientist Nat Scholz. "You'd think everything was healthy." They compared it to Fortson Creek near Darrington. While Longfellow is fueled in part by water that runs from streets and rooftops, rural Fortson is fed by a stream and clean water flowing underground C in the forest. oG Over a six-week period, scientists slogged down the creeks - even on Thanksgiving and weekends, often in the rain - collecting fins, guts, blood, organs and muscle from the dead salmon. J At the rural stream, just one of the 115 female coho died before spawning. J But at Longfellow, 56 female coho perished in a matter of hours, some even before turning from their saltwater silver hues to their spawning shade of red. Only eight fish survived to spawn. The Longfellow fish were tested for disease, but nothing was found that would trigger the speedy deaths. The situation, Scholz said, is reminiscent of what would happen if there were a toxic chemical spill. http://seattlepi.nwsource_conetprinter2rindex.asp?ploc=b&refer=http:Hse_../ 107460 coho06.shtm 5/22/03 'Rug '12 03 03:36p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.9 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 3 of 4 In a way, there was. Coho first to head upstream Every day, in the region's residents contribute unwittingly to stormwater pollution: dousing yards with chemicals to kill bugs; driving vehicles that leak antifreeze and oil; coating roofs with herbicide to beat back creeping tendrils of moss. When it rains, these pollutants wash off streets and yards into storm drains, many of which flow directly into creeks. Coho appear to be particularly vulnerable. They are usually the first salmon species to head upstream after the first fall rains. Congregating at the mouths of creeks, coho wait for the first surge of water. That signals to them that rains have started and they will have access to the small, shallow streams in which they spawn. Last fall was unusually dry, allowing pollutants to build up on the ground. When it finally rained, scientists suspect that the arriving coho were hit by a lethal dose. "We don't know water quality is the cause, but it's our leading hypothesis," Scholz said. Said Pickens, the stream-restoration volunteer: "How many times do you have to hear it before it hits home? These fish have made a very loud statement. They can't write on the walls, but they've come as close as a fish can to say it's not OK." When Scholz fires up a video of a salmon on his computer, it doesn't take an expert to see that something is seriously wrong with this fish. It is lethargic, swimming in erratic circles, bumping into the creek bank like a drunk on a bender. Another fish is even worse. It is lying on its side, barely swimming, fins splayed out like a child trying to keep his balance on a beam. Its mouth gapes. "This fish is on its last fins," Scholz said. 2 Increasingly, salmon are venturing into restored creeks to try to spawn. At these creeks, volimteers o and workers have yanked out invasive blackberries and replanted native brush. Carefully notched logs have been strategically placed to create calm pools. 5 Since 1999, more than $26 million has been spent on restoring major Seattle creeks. About $5 million more will be spent in the next few years. Bellevue is spending more than $2.5 million. At Longfellow Creek; researchers got to see only a few coho before they died. But their strange behavior is indicative of neurological problems, Scholz said. A wide range of chemicals could cause such symptoms. The mystery is muddled by the possibility that multiple contaminants in stormwater all present in doses smaller than previously believed lethal - could be causing the deaths. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/mdex.asp?plot=b&refer-htip://se.../107460 coho06.shtm 5/22/03 ,Rug 12 03 03:37p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.10 Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks Page 4 of 4 rr J, "There is a good chance it's a combination effect," said Tracy Collier, manager of the National Marine Fisheries Service's ccotoxicology program in Seattle. Bile from the fish will be analyzed for evidence of exposure to compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These are created when organic material is burned and eventually settle onto the ground and water. One of the most prolific sources is automobile exhaust. Scientists are also analyzing the activity of an enzyme in the brain that is inhibited by certain classes of insecticides and other chemicals. They are planning a workshop in the next few weeks to share their findings with other scientists and government officials. More research is planned. "We really don't know what's going on with these fish," said Kit Paulsen, environmental scientist with Bellevue Utilities. "What's the exposure? Where's the exposure happening? We really haven't nailed that down." The environmental repercussions of the coho die-offs are not in themselves cataclysmic. The fish are either hatchery-bred salmon venturing up newly found waterways instead of their birth stream, or they were planted in the creeks. In either case, the fish can easily be replaced. But the point of stream restorations, those who do the work say, is to make creeks habitable aquatic environments. "If we get them back and they don't spawn then the natural cycle doesn't continue," Pickens said. "Then all we have is onc: long controlled aquarium." And the continual creep of development into rural areas spreads this threat to creeks and rivers populated by wild coho runs. The same fate could befall those fish if development doesn't proceed carefully. The coho die-offs don't mean creek restoration is a wholly losing proposition. Other fish survive in greater numbers to spawn. "Other salmon do have the opportunity to benefit from restoration efforts," said Katherine Lynch, senior environmental analyst with Seattle Public Utilities. o. Rich Horner, a University of Washington environmental engineer who studies stormwater, says the new information about coho deaths, while important, is not a sign that people should stop trying to N improve the health of local creeks. m "We haven't worked very hard on these things," Horner said. "There's a lot of territory to cover before giving up." W J P -I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisasffer a@seattlepi. com 01998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2fndex.asp?ploc=b&refer=hitp://se.../107460, coho06.shtm 5/22/03 'Flu6'12 03 03:37p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 P.11 A Comparison of Water Quality Design Storms in Oregon and Washington By Lewis C. Scholl, PE, Stormwater Management, Inc This information compares the stormwater treatment tequacments in several cities and counties around Oregon and Washington. In general Washington jurisdictions are obligated to comply with the minimum standards act by the State Department of Eoology (DOE), and published in the Puget Sound Manual". Oregon Junsdkhons, however, have all developed their own water quality design storm using various philosophies and methods for analysis. In Oregon, the State Department of Envimninautal Quality (DEQ) has not art any statewide design storm standards that would compare to what has been done by its counterpart (DOE) in Washington. therefore, Oregon cities and counties have developed water quality design storms that vary widely from one neighboring jurisdiction to another. This is illustrated on the Table 1 below. Table 1: Comparison of WaterQuality Deal Storms Jurisdiction 2-yr %of2-year Typical Rainfall Typical WQ Rainfall Rainfall used (inches) as input for Flow for aches as Design Storm hydrology program 1 Paved acre Puget Sound watershed 2 64% 1.28 0.29 cfs Claris Co. - WA 2.3 70% 1.61 0.38 cfs City of Portland - OR 2.5 33% 0.83 0.17 cfs Clackamas Co. -OR 2.7 67% 1.80 0.43 cfs Urban Area CCSD Y i Clackamas Co. -OR 2.3 N/A Manual ca1c. 0.09 cfs Tualatin Basin USA - OR 2.3 N/A Manual sale. 0.09 cfs Tualatin Basin 1. The public doawn program "RYD" by King County - Version 4.21H was used to male: these calculations. The hyd.0.0 is "peaked" meeting the it is based on and undasdanding of typical rahM disbnbutims in the Notthwest. 2. Calculated by the Unified Sewemge Agency (USA) method .036 inches of rainfall in 4 hours - avenged and converted to a discharge rate. 3. Unified Sewerage Agenoy (USA) his jurisdiction over stermwatcr quality in the Tualatin Ruin in Wsahington Carty. Note that the last column shows the water quality design discharge rate that would be typically used for a one-acre paved site. This flow rate is what determines how much of the water actually gets treated. In. the Tualatin Basin - the flow rate treated is about %z of that typical to the City of Portland and about 1/4 of that typical to cities and counties in Washington State. The result is that - in the Tualatin Basin - water quality facilities are designed significantly smaller and with less capacity for flow and treatment than in all other areas in the Northivest. This difference is primarily due to the design storm and the associated method of calculation that the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has chosen to use. The discrepancy does not generally refled any local meteorological phenomena. SHORT COURSES d F The following are offered by University of Washington, Professional Development Program The web site N9 www.engr,washiHgtouedti/t pp/PepUp4plcal html provides further information, or contact Debts Bryant at } 206-543-5539. J Stormwater Treatment -Biological, Chemical and Eoginaring Principles - Seattle, WA, February 8-9, m 2000 J Contact Gary Minton at (206) 282-1681 or email: mintoggg@c_s.com if you would like to know mom about the content of these courses. Vol. 6, No. S Co-editors Gary R. Minton, RPA, 20(r-282-1681 6 December 2000 Roger Sutherland, Pacific Water Resources, 503-671-9709 •Rug,12 03 03:34p Tualatin River Rive 503 590 6702 p.3 `ti TIIALATIN Riverkeepers - 16570 SW Roy Rogers Road Sherwood, OR 97140 (503) 590-5813 . fax (503) 590.6702 FAX COV, ERS H EET info@tualatinriverkeepers.org To: ~i~TF-f`l V`J ! r~-Ee From: fJ'2 jp~" "AEGE i j&g- Phone: Date: e6 , , Z BQ Re: CC: Comments: Ash.-: C a AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE . Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision (SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-00004/ZON2003-00003/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003- 00036NAR2003-00037) PREPARED BY:_ Morgan Tracy DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK LA/*'-` - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve or deny the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Uphold Staff's recommendation for approval of the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision. INFORMATION SUMMARY On July 7`1', 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application for a 29 lot subdivision and planned development on 9.36 acres. The property is located at 9750 SW 70 Avenue. The proposal is to provide single-family detached housing on lots ranging between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. The applicant, Dale Richards of Windwood Homes, filed an appeal of the application denial on July 15, 2003. His stated grounds for the appeal are "That applicant contends that the Planning Commission should have adopted specific grounds for denial. The denial should have been based on the proposed plan not meeting the Development Code. All specific requirements of the code were met. The applicant, therefore, proposes that the project should be approved through the appeal process." The Planning Commission moved to deny the application, which failed in a 44 tic vote. The Commission then moved to approve the application, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. i Based on the material submitted to date, the applicant's submittal, and the findings in the staff report, it is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution approving the application. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny or add additional conditions to the subdivision/planned development based on factual information provided. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Management Goal #1: Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. "Draft" City Council Resolution Exhibit A: Planning Commission Final Order No. 2003-02 PC 2. Memorandum from Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner dated July 17, 2003 summarizing the appeal 3. Copy of the appeal submitted by Dale Richards 4. Minutes of the July 7, 2003 Planning Commission hearing Exhibit A: Staff Report to the Planning Commission 5. The applicant's application materials. FISCAL NOTES Application fees and appeal fees have been paid by the applicant. i n 0 u f• ATTACHMENTI CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION (SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00037). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this case at a public hearing at its meeting of July 7, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made a motion to deny the application, which failed in a 44 tie vote; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve the application, which failed in a 4-4 tie vote; and WHEREAS, the by-laws of the Planning Commission and Robert's Rules of Order specify that if an affirmative vote in favor of an application is not attained, the application is denied. Since the denial occurred de facto, no findings were adopted, and the denial is without prejudice; and WHEREAS; the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the denial on August 12, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the testimony, submittals, and staff report and found that the proposed development as conditioned, would be in compliance with all applicable decision criteria; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby upholds Staff's original recommendation for SUB2003- 00010/PDR2003-00004/ZON2003-00003/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003- 00036/VAR2003-00037 - Ash Creek Estates Subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval in the Planning Commission Final Order No. 2003-02 PC (Exhibit A) based on the information provided in the public record. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. 4 r PASSED: This day of 2003. Mayor - City of Tigard 9 ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 03 - Page 1 ATTACHMENT I EXHIBIT A Al~k 120 DAYS = 10/2/2003 CITY OF TIGARD DATE OF FILING: 7/1012003 Community (Development ShapiugA Better Community CITY OF TIGARD WWas(ington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION File Numbers: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-00010 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2003-00004 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2003-00005 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00036 - ADJUSTMENT WAR) 2003-00037 File Name: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION Name of Owner: Ernest E. and Elda H. Senn Name of Applicant: Winwood Construction Attn: Dale Richards Address of Applicant: 12655 SW North Dakota Street Tigard Oregon 97223 Address of Property: 9750 SW 74 Avenue Ti and Ore on 97223 Tax Ma /Lot Nos.: Washington County Tax Assessor's Ma No. 1 S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. A FINAL ORDER DENYING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION, ZONE CHANGE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW, AND TWO ADJUSTMENTS. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON JULY 7. 2003. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A MOTION DENYING THE APPLICATION WHICH FAILED IN A 4-4 VOTE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, WHICH ALSO FAILED IN A 4-4 VOTE. BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S BY-LAWS AND ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, THE APPLICATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREDJUDICE DUE TO A LACK OF A MAJORITY VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION. Request: ➢ A request for approval of a 29-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 9.3 acres. The lots are proposed to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are proposed to be between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. Sensitive Lands Review is required as the project includes areas of steep (>25%) slopes, a drainageway and wetlands. The applicant is also seeking an Adjustment to the cul-de-sac length standard, an Adjustment to the maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, as well as an Adjustment to the street grade on SW 74"'Avenue. Zoning Designation: R4.5: Low-Density Residential District. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.810. Action: ❑ Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Conditions 0 Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to the owners of record within the required distance, affected government agencies, and the applicant(s) and owner(s). The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development a Department at the City of Tigard City Hall. E- N Final Decision: 1E THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JULY 11, 2003 AND BECOMES m EFFECTIVE ON JULY 26, 2003 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. t~ W J Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JULY 25, 2003. 3 Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Cnranuni y~°""~,11fent " ShapingA Better Community FOR THE CITY OF.TIGARD, OREGON A FINAL ORDER DENYING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION, ZONE CHANGE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW, AND TWO ADJUSTMENTS. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON JULY 7, 2003. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A MOTION DENYING THE APPLICATION WHICH FAILED IN A 4-4 VOTE. THE COMMISSION THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, WHICH ALSO FAILED IN A 4-4 VOTE. BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S BY-LAWS AND ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, THE APPLICATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREDJUDICE DUE TO A LACK OF A MAJORITY VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION. 120 DAYS = 10/2/2003 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: Subdivision (SUB) SUB2003-00010 Zone Change (ZON) ZON2003-00003 Planned Development Review (PDR) PDR2003-00004 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) SLR2003-00005 Adjustment AR VAR2003-00036 Adjustment VAR VAR2003-00037 APPLICANT: Dale Richards OWNER: Ernest E. and Elda H. Senn Winwood Construction 9750 SW 74 Avenue 12655 SW North Dakota Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 PROJECT Kurahashi and Associates CONTACT: Attn: Greg Kurahashi 15580 SW Jay, Suite 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 REQUEST: Approval of a 29-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 9.3 acres. The lots are proposed to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are proposed to be between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. Sensitive Lands Review is required as the project includes areas of steep (>25%) slopes, a drainageway and wetlands. The applicant is also seeking an Adjustment to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a L cul-ds-sac, as well as an Adjustment to the street grade on SW 74 Avenue. r ZONING o DESIGNATION: R4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and y attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 1 OF 37 SECTION 11. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION Based on the lack of a majority vote, the Planning Commission did not adopt a formal decision to deny the applications, but rather due to procedural requirements, the applications are DENIED, without findings or specific grounds. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING' ANY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: Submit to the Planning Department organ racy, ext. or review an approval: 1. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit an arborist report with tree protection recommendations, and shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 2. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a complete set of construction documents with the tree locations for the City Arborlsts review. 3. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction when the tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly. 4. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide evidence of all necessary approvals for work within the wetlands from US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. 5. Prior to site work, the drainage tract must be clearly identified in the field with permanent (preferably with minimum 4-foot-tall black chainlink) fencing so as to insure no grading or material is placed in this area. Any fencing that is damaged during construction must be replaced prior to final building inspection. If the damage is such that it will no longer effectively identify the tract, it shall be replaced/reinstalled immediately. 6. Prior to site work, a signed approval shall be included with the City's construction drawing packet. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 6394171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 7. Prior to approval of construction plans, the applicant shall pothole the City of Tualatin's main water transmission line to determine the exact location and condition of the pipe. The L applicant shall notify the City of Tigard and the City of Tualatin 48 hours prior to the pothole 2 inspections and when any construction activity will impact the pipe (such as placement of fill and excavation in the immediate vicinity) so that a representative from the City can be present. 8. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover all infrastructure and any other work in the public right-of-way. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the i Bul ding Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tJyqard.or.us). 9. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will Be` designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. ASH WEEK ES?sTES SUBDIVISION FIN& ORDER No. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 2 OF 37 10. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 11. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 74 Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section fora neighborhood route, without bike lanes, from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet, with a minimum pavement width of 24 feet; 8. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5-foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip unless adjusted); F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per T DC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layyout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (If applicable); L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 74th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department; and M. right-of-way dedication to provide 27 feet from centerline. 12. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 13. A profile of 74th Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 14. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street sandard for a local residential street. 15. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water L connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility Improvement permit. 16. Final design plans and calculations for the p osed public water quality/detention facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Departmentro Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility " Improvement plans. Included with the plans s all be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on o the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an 5 Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for ap roval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 3 OF 37 17. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." 18. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 19. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted geotechnical report by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc., dated May 9, 2003, into the final grading plan. The applicant shall have the geottech engineer review and approve the construction plans for the City's review and approval. The geotechnical engineer shall be employed by the applicant throughout the entire construction period to ensure that all grading, including cuts and fills, are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 20. 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. 21. The final construction plans shall be signed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that they have reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading plan at the end of the project. 22. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPR2OVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: Submit tote Planning Department organ racy, , ext. or review an approval: 23. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall revise the plat to accommodate a minimum of 25 feet of frontage for all lots within the development. 24. Submit a revised street tree/landscape plan that shows an alternative tree species used for either the public or private street to vary the streetscape. 25. The applicant shall provide joint access within an easement or tract to Lots 28 and 29 and e cse a statement to be placed on the plat limiting additional direct vehicular access to SW 74" Avenue. 26. Provide a plat name reservation approval from Washington County. 27. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall convey title for the proposed open space to a homeowner's association in accordance with the requirements of Section i 18.350.110.A.2.b of the Tigard Development Code. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 6394171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 28. Prior to approval of the final plat the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the construction of the private storm line in the private street. 29. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $900.00. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (Sfl'M3-00010) PAGE 4 OF 37 30. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street(s) will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it (them). 31. 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(s). The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 32. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. 33. Prior to apppr%val of the final plat, the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 74 Avenue 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 $11,578.00 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 34. Prior to approval of the final Plat, the applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and have a structural section capable of accommodating a 50,000-pound vehicle. The paved width shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide, and there shall be two-foot rock shoulders provided on each side. If the maintenance roadway is over 150 feet in length, a turnaround shall be provided. 35. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established-by: GPS tie networked to the City's GPS surrey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 36. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/En ineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 426). C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by L the Oregon Revised Statutes (0192.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for 74 Avenue shall be made on the final plat. E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. a F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final o plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). THE FOLLOWING. CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ex t. or review an approval: 37. Prior to issuance of any building permits, re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading in conformance with the Clean Water Services Standards as set forth in the site assessment file #2819, prior to obtaining building permits. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SU132003-00010) - PAGE 5 OF 37 38. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit plans that show one (1) off-street parking space, which meets minimum dimensional requirements and setback requirements as specified in Title 18, provided on-site for each new home. 39. At the time of application for building permits for individual homes, the applicant shall demonstrate that each site will be accessed by a minimum 10-foot-wide paved access. 40. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 41. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised plan that indicates the modified setbacks as set forth in this decision (page 11) and record a copy of the approved setback plan with the deeds for each lot. 42. Prior to issuance of building permits for structures on the individual lots within this development, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the height requirement of the underlying zone. The requirement calls for a 30-foot maximum height for primary units and 15 feet maximum for all accessory structures. 44. Prior to the issuance of building permits on any lot, the applicant must provide city staff with a letter from Clean Water Services that indicates compliance with the approved service provider letter (#2819). Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 45. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant's engineer shall provide apost-construction sight distance certification for the new intersection at 74 Avenue. 46. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits. 47. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lightts are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). 48. Prior to issuance of building ermits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2 a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with L points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water r system features)) In the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 49. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat. 50. The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPiIAENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Im rovement Agreement: 8-e -Fore City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 6 OF 37 I. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As require y Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed b a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filin and Recordin : Within 60 days o the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies o the subdivision plat prepared by a an surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision r)lat 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; 0 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PTs). 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. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) - PAGE 7 OF 37 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities A uti Ity lines Including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, fighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Re uired II Improvements installed y e subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prere osite No an division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans, therefore, have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to Cit Required Workshall not begin until the City as been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification Tfi-e an dividers engineer s a 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 THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CIS 0 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Histo e property is currently developed with one single-family residence and a couple of small outbuildings. An effort by surrounding neighbors to acquire this property for open space purposes a was unsuccessful. A search of city records found no previous land use cases associated with this X parcel. Vicinity Information: e site is located In the northwest corner of the City limits, south of SW Taylor's Ferry Road, on the d east side of SW 74 Avenue. The property is surrounded on all sides by single-family residences on n lots that vary in size. There is a stream (Ash Creek) on the property that runs in an east west direction along the southern property boundary. This drainageway contains wetlands and areas of J steep slopes. Proposal Information: e app Icant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into 29 lots for single-family residences. Because of the trees, wetlands, and slopes on the site, the applicant has requested a planned development to allow them to vary the underlying zoning standards to develop around these features. The applicant is also requesting an adjustment to allow a curb tight sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk separated from the travel surface by a planter strip, and an adjustment to the cul-de-sac standards limiting the number of units on a cul-de-sac and the 200-foot maximum length permitted for a cul-de-sac. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER N0.2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 8 OF 37 SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES PERMITS AND USE USE CLASSIFICATION: SECTION 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is seeking approval of a 29-lot subdivision on 9.3 acres. The lots are to be developed with detached single-family homes. The existing single-family home is to be demolished. Lot sizes within the development are between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to set aside an approximate 4.15 acre open space tract for the drainageway and wetland area. A private street cul-de-sac is also proposed to extend from the public street stub into the property. The site is located within the R-4.5, Low Density Residential District. Planned Developments are permitted in all districts. The applicant has applied for conceptual and detailed planned development approval in conjunction with the subdivision. SUMMARY LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. This is a Planned Development/Subdivision, which is defined as a Type III-PC Application. Adjustments are typically Type II Administrative decisions and Type III sensitive lands decisions are heard by the Tigard Hearings Officer; however, when applications are heard concurrently, the highest decision making body will make the decision on all matters, as described below. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the CityCouncil. Type III-HO actions are decided by the Hearings Officer with appeals to City Council. In cases where both the Hearings Officer and Planning Commission are involved, the Planning Commission has preferential jurisdiction, per Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 18.390.080(D)(2)(a). SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. In addition, the applicant is required to post the site with notice o the public hearing. Staff has verified that the, site is posted. Staff has not received any written comments from any neighbors about this application. A number of nearby neighbors have expressed interest and concern about the subject proposal; however, no comments have been received since the application was received. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS a GENERAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.350 The applicant has requested a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject property. The PD overlay requires developers to follow the Planned Development process for any .J proposal on affected sites. The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development m design and allows deviation from certain standards of the base zone. The following addresses compliance with the process and applicable base zone standards. W The Planned Development Process: Section 38 50.030 states t at t ere are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: The approval of the planned development overlay zone; The approval of the planned development concept plan; and The approval of the detailed development plan. This application is for all three elements of the planned development process, overlay zone, concept plan, and detailed plan. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 9 OF 37 Applicability Of The Base Zone Development Standards: Section 18. 50.070 requires compliance to specs is development standards: The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; The lot sizes range between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet, and there are two tracts proposed to accommodate the private street and the proposed open space. The required lot size for the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet unless an applicant specifically requests different lot sizes through the Planned Development (PD) process, as is the case for this proposal. The proposed lot widths have been varied, but all are 50 feet or wider on the building pportion of the lots. Average lot depths range from approximately 68-153 feet deep. One of the lots (#29) does not have adequate frontage, and will be conditioned to be modified as described later in this report. The applicant has identified and detailed the requested lot dimensional standards for this development, and the minimum and maximum density requirements have been satisfied as discussed later in this report. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; There is no site coverage requirement in the R-4.5 zone; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and The height restriction does not apply within a Planned Development as long as the developer proposes an alternative that is approved. In this case, the developer has not requested an alternative height requirement, but has indicated that the lots will be developed with single-family residences. Because it is not proposed to the contrary, development within this development will be subject to the height requirements of the underlying zone. Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The applicant has provided a site plan that illustrates building envelopes within the development. The applicant has proposed to maintain a 15-foot rear yard for all structures on lots 1-13, on the perimeter o the project. Lots 24-27 will require a 20-foot front yard, and proposed lot 29 will require a 10-foot south side yard, as it is considered a flag lot. The applicant has proposed specific reduced front yards on the interior of the project to reduce tfie need for deeper lots and to reduce the grading necessary to accommodate the homes. The applicant has requested that the required front yards within the development be adjusted to 8 feet for primary structures and porches. They have indicated that the setback to the face of garage is proposed to remain at 20 and 22.5 feet. This criterion is satisfied. L The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall n meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls; The applicant has proposed reducing the side yard setbacks from 5 to 3 feet. Three feet is the ii minimum separation required for UBC compliance. It should be noted that no projections, such as chimneys or bay windows, shall be permitted to encroach into this side yard area. This criterion has u been met. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not appl to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback o~ 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street• (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided ASH GREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 10 OF 37 As described above, the lots provide a minimum 20-foot setback to the garage. The front and rear yards have been modified as shown in the applicant's plans, however, there are several setbacks that =with to comply with the code standards as they are perimeter setbacks. Lot 27 is shown with a storm drainage easement. This will need to be set aside in a separate tract, and as such, Lot 27 will no longer front on SW 74th, making the front yard on the new public street. A 20-foot front yard setback will be required on this side, as it is a perimeter setback. Lot 29 is a flag lot and is subject to 10-foot side yard setbacks on the perimeter of the project. Additionally, staff recommends that standard rear yard setbacks be applied to the lots that have depths of 100 feet or more (#13-19) as a suitable building envelope has been provided through reduced front yard setbacks, and to further protect the sensitive land resource. A summary of these changes is shown in the following table: Table 1. Modified Setbacks for Ash Creek PD Lot ara a Front ear Side o ara a ron ear Side 2ff 8' -7= 79- 20' 8' 3! 19 3'/3' 15' 3'/3' 15' 373' 3-' 15' 373' 4 22.5' 8' 15' 373' 19 20' 8' S-' 15' 373' 15' 3'/3' 3' 373' 15' 373' 3' 373' 15' 373' 3' 373' 8 225 15' 373' 23 20' 8 3-' 15' 373' 9 22.5' 15' 3'/3' 3' 373' 15' 373' 3' 373' 15' 373' 3' 373' 12 20' 8' -27- 4-5! 20' 4312Ur-- 15' 3'/3' 3' 373' f3-- -7217' ! 15' 3'/3' 3' 373' 37/3' 3' 376•' 10' 3'/3' With the changes outlined in the above table, this criterion has been met. FINDING: Several perimeter setbacks do not meet standard code criteria. Staff recommends against the proposed reduced rear yard setbacks on several lots where lot depths exceed 100 feet. CONDITIONS: • Prior to the issuance of building permits on the individual structures within this development, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the setbacks outlined in the above table. Moreover, the applicant shall submit a revised plan that indicates the modified setbacks and record a copy of the setback plan with the deeds for each lot. • Prior to issuance of building permits for structures on the individual lots within this s- development, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the height requirement of the underlying zone. The requirement calls for a 30-foot maximum height for primary units and 15 feet maximum for all accessory structures. J Other provisions of the base zone: Alf other provisions o the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Any additional provisions of the base zone are discussed within the body of this report or will be reviewed during the building permit phase. FINDING: The base zone standards that are related to the previously discussed criteria have been satisfied. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SU8200&00010) PAGE 11 OF 37 PD Approval Criteria: 18.350.100 S ecific Warned development approval criteria. The Commission shall make findings that the fol owing criteria are satisfied when approving or ap roving with conditions, the concept plan. The Commission shall make findings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430, shall be met; The applicant has applied to subdivide the property concurrently with the planned development approval; therefore, all subdivision criteria must be satisfied. Compliance with the subdivision approval criteria is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 18.430. The application has met or can be conditioned such that the subdivision provisions are satisfied. This criterion is satisfied. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to 1ustify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed in Subsection 3 below. The developer may choose to provide or the commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below, density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district. The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10% as an incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/or site variation incorporated into the development. These factors must make a substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which the Commission may approve according to the following: A maximum of 3% is allowed for the provision of undeveloped common space; A maximum of 3% is allowed for landscaping; streetscape development; developed open spaces, plazas and pedestrian pathways and related amenities; recreation area development; and/or retention of existing vegetation; A maximum of 3% is allowed for creation of visual focal points; use of existing physical amenities such as topograpphy, view, and sun/wind orientation- • A maximum of 3% quality of architectural quality and style; harmonious use of materials; innovative building orientation or building grouping; and/or varied use of housing types. The applicant has not requested any density bonuses. Density will be discussed later in this report under Chapter 18.715. Chapter 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; None apply. This criterion is not applicable. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; The applicants plans show the areas for visual clearance at street intersections. These areas, as well as the areas at the intersection of the driveways and the street will need to be maintained free from obstructions taller than three feet in height. Any violations of this chapter will be remedied through 1 code enforcement. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; This is a detached single-family proposal adjacent to detached single-family homes. As such, there are no requirements for screening or buffering from neighboring properties. However, as discussed later in this report, the applicant is required to landscape at least 20% the site within a Planned Development. The applicant has provided a street tree plan for SW 74 Avenue and proposes to leave the open space tract in its natural state. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003 00010) PAGE 12 OF 37 Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements; The applicant has proposed that all homes will be provided with 2-car garages and at least 20 feet in front of the garages, which should provide more than enough parking for the development. The applicant has also designed the street with adequate width to allow parking on one side of the street. The minimum requirement for household living is one space for every unit. This criterion is satisfied. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; and The applicant has indicated in the narrative that each lot will be served by a driveway to a public or private street. The minimum required width for a driveway is 10-feet, which will be assured at time of building permit review. The proposed private street improvements are evaluated under discussion of compliance with street and utility standards in Chapter 18.810 later in this report. Chapter 18.780, Signs. No signs are proposed in conjunction with this development. Any future signage will be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. There has been a proliferation of sign violations from new subdivisions. In accordance with a new policy adopted by the Director's Designee, all new subdivisions must enter into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the guidelines listed in the Planned Development Section 18.350.100.6.2. To expedite enforcement of sign violations, a sign compliance agreement will be required. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: Relationship to the natural and physical environment: Th-e- streets, ur ings an o er site elements snail be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; The site is constrained naturally by steep slopes, wetlands, and the drainsgeway that bisects the property aloe the southern property boundary. The property is in forest timber deferral through Washington G~ounty and is, therefore, not subject to the tree removal ordinance with the exception of the trees in the sensitive lands areas. The applicant has proposed to remove all the trees within the developable area, and retain the vast majority of trees in the open space tract, except where public facility Improvements necessitate tree removal. While this is permissible under existing rules and no mitigation is required by the code, it is unclear to staff how the above standard is being met when opportunities exist to preserve several trees outside the building envelopes and grading areas. The Planningg Commission will need to determine whether the preservation of the trees within the open space trad-t satisfies this standard. k With regard to preservation of topograph and natural drainage it's clear that effort was taken to r preserve as much as possible of these features in their natural state. The road width has been reduced in conjunction with public easements and reduced setbacks to minimize the degree of gr~din reqquired to accommodate the roadway, for both the private street and the extension of SW 74 1gie drainageway area will be slightly impacted by the proposed (and City required) crossing of SW 74 . This impact will be minimized by utilizing oversized culverts and retaining walls to limit1he 6 amount of fill encroachment into the corridor. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; The site is characterized with several areas of slopes greater than 25%, and in limited cases up to 50% slope. From the a plicant's geotech report, there is one area where previous land slumping has occurred, southwest of the existing residence in the open space tract. The applicant's geotech report notes the locations of construction limits where no further geotechnical study is required, which enerally coincide with the rear lot lines of lots 13-27. There are two notable exceptions, on lots 13, 14, and 15 and between lots 22 and 23 where the slopes are steeper, and groundwater was encountered for one of the test pits. The geotech report contains recommendations to address stability of structures and fill on the project site, and requires further study in those two areas. The recommendations of that report will be required as a recommended condition of approval. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 13 OF 37 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; The current proposal does not call for any reduced setbacks along the rear yards of lots 1-12. The open space tract provides ample separation for air circulation and light penetration. The street and front yard setbacks will establish a 46-foot separation between the fronts of the homes. The side yard setbacks have been proposed to be reduced to 3 feet which complies with the UBC without the need for additional rated firrewalls. Due to the reduced side yards, no projections into the amended side yards will be allowed. This criterion is satisfied. The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and The proposed structures will be oriented with considerations for sun and wind to the extent practical. The majority of the lots are oriented in a north-south direction providing for opportunities to maximize southern glazing exposure. Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. Trees are preserved in the open space tract to the maximum extent possible for this proposal. Trees outside the sensitive lands area are exempt from the tree removal standards as the property is subject to a forest deferral. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: Buffering shall be provide between different types of and uses, e.g., between single-family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses; Because the proposed development is for single-family homes in an area characterized by single-family development, the Tigard Development Code (TDC) does not require any additional buffering. This criterion is inapplicable. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; The required density of the buffering; and Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Y As stated previously, there is no requirement for buffering between existing single-family homes and new single-family homes. This criterion is inapplicable. p On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, 3 storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the o following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of 9 the screening (a) What needs to be screened; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c) Whether the screening needs to be year, round. There are no specific service areas, storage areas, parking lots or mechanical devices proposed with this development. No additional screening is required. This criterion is satisfied. Privac and noise: on-rest entia structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; Private outdoor area multi-family use: Shared outdoor recreation areas multi-family use: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 14 OF 37 These criteria relate to non-residential or multi-family structures and are not applicable to the proposed single-family development. Access and circulation: The number o a owed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; Each lot will have direct frontage to a public or private street. Staff recommends that to reduce the number of driveways on SW 74 a Neighborhood Route, lots 28 and 29 should share access. This will be discussed later in this report. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and Comments from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF & R) indicate that the proposed circulation system for the development is acceptable if their conditions are addressed. See Section VII1 of this report for more details. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The project fronts on SW 74th Avenue, which is a neighborhood route but has not been designated for bike lanes. This criterion does not apply. Landscapingaandopen space: Residential Development: D elopment: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (4) and (5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped; The open space and drainage tracts of this proposal constitute approximately 44% of the site area. The applicant has indicated that landscaping on the lots will be accomplished by each homeowner separately. The project will exceed the minimum 20% landscape criteria. There is no landscape plan for the open space tract, however, areas of steep slopes that are disturbed are required to be replanted per the recommendations of the applicants geotech report. Areas within the drainageway and wetlands will require mitigation replanting per the requirements of Clean Water Services and the Division of State Lands. This criterion has been met. Public transit: Provisions of public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: The location of other transit facilities in the area; and . The size and type of the proposed development The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: L A waiting shelter; g A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and ' Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area This site does not abut a public transit route and, therefore, this criterion is not applicable. r3 _nss, 9 siggnage is proposed with this application. Any future signage will require a permit in compliance with the sign code. Parkin q: All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter Chapter 18.765; Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. Parking can comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 18.765. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 15 OF 37 Drainage: A ramage provisions shaft be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.775, and the criteria in he adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Storm drainage complies, or will be conditioned to compsyy with applicable City of Tigard and Clean Water Services (CWS) requirements. For a more detailed discussion of storm drainage, see the discussion of compliance with the requirement of Chapter 18.810 later in this report. Flood lain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of 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. No areas within the 100-year floodplain exist on the site. The applicant's narrative erroneously refers to areas of "100-year floodplain" but this is in fact areas of 25-year floodplain used to identify the extent of the drainageway. Since there are no 100-year floodplains on the property, this criterion is not applicable. FINDING: The proposed development complies, or can be conditioned to comply with all planned development approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.100 of the Tigard Development Code. Shared Open Space: Re uirements for shared open sace: ere a open space its designated on the plan as common open space the following applies: The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded with the Director; The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods: By dedication to the City as publicly-owned and maintained as open space. Open space proposes! for dedication to the City must be acceptable to it with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and maintenance limitations; ,By leasing or conveying title (includin beneficial ownership) to a corporation, home association or other legal entity, with the Ct retaining the development rights to the property. The terms of such lease or other instrument of conveyance must include provisions suitable to the City Attorney for guaranteeing the following: The continued use of such land for the intended purposes; e Continuity of property maintenance, When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such maintenance; Adequate insurance protection; and , i . Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise. is By any method which achieves the objectives set forth in Subsection 2 above of this section. The applicant has indicated that the open space areas on the site will be conveyed to the 3 developments; Homeowner's Association. To ensure compliance with City of Tigard standards, the o following condition shall apply: 9 CONDITION: Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall convey title for the proposed open space to a Homeowners Association in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.350.110.A.2.b of the Tigard Development Code. Special adjustments 18.370: Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). The Director shall consider the appl ation for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An ad ~stment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director findjs: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 16 OF 37 The applicant is requesting an adjustcment to the street improvement standards on SW 740' Avenue, and an adjustment to the cul-de-sa standards. Under the new Transportation System Plan, the development is required to provide a planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the standard to allow the sidewalk to be curb tight in order to reduce the amount of fill required in the drainsgeway area. Also, the applicant has requested an adjustment to allow the proposed private street cul-de-sac to exceed the 200-foot length standard by OO feet, and to permit 23 homes on the cul-de-sac as opposed to the code maximum of 20 homes. These adjustments are discussed simultaneously in the following discussion. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; In the case of the curb tight sidewalk, the site plan indicates the areas of sensitive resources, including Ash Creek, and the associated wetlands. If a 5-foot planter strip was required, then an approximate 1,100 additional square feet of impact to the drainageway and wetland areas would occur. The unusual circumstance for this property is the presence of the stream and the fact that the development is required to cross the stream for street connectivity. In areas outside of the resource corridor, the sidewalk will meet the public street standards for sidewalks. This criterion is satisfied. In reference to the adjustment to allow the cul-de-sac length to exceed 200 feet as opposed to the proposed 620 feet, the presence of the sensitive lands and stream corridor limit the developable width of the property, such that a looped street system is not feasible. The presence of existin g development to the south (Washington Square Estates), east (Washington Square Estates II), and north (the Razberry Patch) precludes future street extensions. The applicant's plans propose a ublic street that will terminate at approximately 1/3 the total depth of the development site. While a connection further east could be accommodated, the applicant's proposal provides for future developmept potential of the northern lot, as well as, creates a better alignment for ultimate extension of SW 73` Avenue. There are specific topography constraints, as well as existing development patterns that limit the ability of the applicant to extend a road all the way. through the development to eliminate the cul-de-sac. The resulting length of this cul-de-sac is the primary reason for the need to exceed the 20 home maximum on the cul-de-sac to a total of 23 homes. This criterion is satisfied. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; The adjustment for the curb tight sidewalk standard is necessary for the design of this subdivision to reduce impacts on the natural resources on the site. This criterion is satisfied. The adjustment requested for the cul-de-sac length is necessary to provide access to lots 3-19 of this subdivision. A standard dimensioned cul-de-sac bulb has been proposed to serve emergency equipment and garbage trucks. This criterion is satisfied. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious lo the rights of other owners of property; and Granting of the adjustments would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare, nor, is there L any evidence to suggest that the adjustments would be injurious to the rights of other owners of property surrounding the site. The Fire District has reviewed and commented and offered no objection to these adjustments. The private street will be required to meet fire district standards for width and construction. J The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property o right because of an extraordinary hardship, which would result from strict compliance wit s1 the regulations of this title. J J In order to develop the property in the proposed manner, the applicant would need to request the adjustments to the standards for street improvements and the cul-de-sac length. These adjustments are necessary in order to develop the property as proposed. FINDING: The criteria for granting the adjustments to the street design and the cul-de-sac length standards have been satisfied. The adjustments are requested to accommodate this development specifically because of the natural resources and shape of the resultin buildable area of the rot, as well as the consideration of pre-existing development patterns rns in the area that would not permit compliance with the applicable chapters of the ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 17 OF 37 Zone Change: Standards for Makin Quasi-Judicial Decisions: Chapter 18.380 A recommendation or a ecrsion to approve approve with condition; or to deny an application for a quasi judicial zoning map amendpment shall be based on all of the following standards: Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; The Development Code implements the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and planned developments are permitted in all districts when they meet the code criteria of the Development Code. This criterion is satisfied. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and According to the analysis of sections below, the proposed zone change is, or has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the requirements for planned development (PD) in Section 18.350.020 and all other applicable requirements. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. There is no change in circumstances or inconsistencies to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map that warrants a zone change from the underlying zone. However, a zone change is necessary to place the PD overlay designation on the property. This criterion is inapplicable. FINDING: The proposal satisfies the criteria for a zone change to place the Planned Development Overlay zoning onto the property. . Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval Criteria: 18.430.040 A roval criteria: T e pprovafAuthority may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; As illustrated in this report, the proposed plat complies with the zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; The applicant has not provided documentation of a plat name reservation; therefore, the applicant will r need to provide an approved plat name reservation prior to final plat approval. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of ~ major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in J all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and 9 U J There are no street stubs to this property from adjacent properties. Existing development arid topography limits the ability for this applicant to provide stubs for future road service to adjacent properties to the east and south; however, a street §tub has been provided for the property to the north; and extension of the improvements to SW 74 Avenue to the south is also proposed. This criterion has been met. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003"10) PAGE 18 OF 37 FINDING: The proposed development complies with all preliminary subdivision criteria, however, the applicant will need to provide evidence that the plat name is not duplicative of others in Washington County. CONDITION: Provide a plat name reservation approval from Washington County. ZONING DISTRICT Residential Zonin District: Section 18.510.020 The zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single famil units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditYonally. Planned Developments are permitted in all districts provided the application satisfies all applicable criteria. Develo ment Standards: Section 18.510.050 States that Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18 .2 below: The subject site and the surrounding properties are all designated R4.5, Low-Density Residential. EXCERPT FROM TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES >STANDARD'. RAZ. 'PROPOSED PD Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 7,500 sq.ft. 4,702-11,616 sq. ft. - Duplexes 10,000 sq.ft. N/A -Attached unit 1 NIA Average Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit lots 50 ft. Varies 58 ft.+ - Duplex lots 90 ft. N/A - Attached unit lots N/A Maximum Lot Coverage - Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 20 ft. 8 ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots 15 ft. 15 ft. - Side yard 5 ft. 3 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. 15 ft. and 3 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - NIA - Distance between property line and front of garage 20 ft. 20 ft. and 22.5 ft. Maximum Height 30 ft. 30 ft. Minimum Landscape Require ont 20% For PD Overlay [11 Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more than five attached units in one grouping. i 121 Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. FINDING: Since the proposed development is a Planned Development, these standards can be j altered to fit a specific design. It should be noted that the applicant's narrative includes a table listing the various Iot widths for each lot. The methodology utilized to establish these lot widths was incorrect. The width is measured at the front and rear yard setback and averaged to obtain the code specified lot width. In any case the lot widths exceed the minimum requirement, and are authorized through the planned Development process. ACCESS AND EGRESS: CHAPTER 18.705 Mini um access requirements or residential use: Section I 8.705.030H. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.1-11 376-cllon111:705. saes a an access report shalt be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stackingg needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set 6y ODOT, Washington Counfy, the City and AASHTO. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-M10) PAGE 19 OF 37 g The applicant's engineer indicates that sight distance will be met. Staff recommends that the applicant's engineer provide a post-construction sight distance certification. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as deters-n(ned from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. 74`h Avenue is classified as a "Neighborhood Route". Taylor's Ferry Road is classified as a Collector" street. The proposed new intersection of 74'I' Avenue and Street 'A' is not within the influence area of the 74th Avenue and Taylor's Ferry Road intersection. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The proposed intersection is over 280 feet away from the intersection of 74th Avenue and Barbara Lane. Therefore, this standard is met. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; TABLE 18.705.1 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS: RESIDENTIAL USE 6 OR FEWER UNITS DweN~rig,lln►ts Mlmmu n Nutpber of. Mm~mUmAccess Width Mlromuin'PavementWift brivewa s,~e'iiired I-or;2 15 feet feet The applicant has indicated in the narrative that each lot within the subdivision will have access to a public or private street and that each access will meet the 15-foot, access requirement. It should be noted that staff will recommend a condition requiring joint access for lots 28 and 29, as discussed later in this report. FINDING: All proposed lots will meet the required 15 feet of access frontage required for singgle-family dwellings. To ensure that the minimum width pavement requirement is met at the time of development of each parcel, the following condition shall apply: CONDITION:At the time of application for building permits for individual homes, the applicant shall demonstrate that each site will be accessed by a minimum 10-foot-wide paved access. Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units. This is a proposal for a single-family development. This standard does not apply. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. The individual homeowners will maintain the access drives once the propert is developed and sold. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the proposal and the comments have been incorporated where necessary. This criterion is satisfied. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 20 OF 37 Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40-feet and a minimum width of 20 feet;. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. There are no access drives proposed that would exceed 150 feet in length. This criterion has been met. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length. There are no proposed driveways in this development that exceed 200 feet in length. The deepest lot in the proposed development is 165 feet, therefore, this criterion does not apply. Where permitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. The site is not adjacent to a collector or arterial. This standard does not apply. To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets upon the f nding that the proposed access would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Since SW 74th is designated a nei hborhood route, and will eventually be extended to connect to SW Locust Street, it is anticipated that raf8c volumes will increase on this presently dead-ended road. To minimize traffic conflicts in this area where driveways may be difficult to see due to the vertical curves near the stream crossing, staff recommends that the two southern lots, #28 and 29 share access through one driveway approach. This driveway is required to be a minimum of 10 feet of paved width within a 15-foot easement or tract. FINDING: The proposed development can comply with all applicable access, egress, and circulation requirements of Chapter 18.705. Joint access for lots 28 and 29 will improve traffic safety by reducing the number of access points onto this neighborhood route street. CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall provide joint access within an easement or tract to Lots 28 ` and 29 and cause a statement to be placed on the plat restricting additional 3 direct vehicular access to SW 74th Avenue. 0 • At the time of application for buildinpermits for individual homes, the applicant shall demonstrate that each site will be accessed by a minimum 10-foot-wide paved access. DENSITY COMPUTATIONS: CHAPTER 18.715 Density Calculation: 18.715.020 Definition of net development area. Not development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property to be developed: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2M-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 21 OF 37 • All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; c. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; • All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; Multi-family development: allocate 15% of gross acreage. e All land proposed for private streets; and A lot of at feast the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum num er o rest ential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. The net development area is determined by subtracting from the gross area, the land needed for public and private streets as well as areas for sensitive lands. The calculations are as follows: Gross lot area 407,721 square feet Public Street dedication 17,828 square feet Private Street dedication 22,670 square feet Drainageway 70,862 square feet Steep Slopes 107,556 square feet Wetlands (wholly contained in drainage~way NET DEVELOPABLE ~AREA: 188,805 square eet (Before Density Transfer) NUMBER OF LOTS: 25 lots Residential Density Transfer Rules governing residential density transfer. The units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.020 A. la - c from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. Based on the rules for density transfer, the applicant is able to utilize 25% of the constrained lands as part of the net developable area. In this case, the drainageway and steep slopes constitute a total of 178,418 square feet. Twenty-five percent of this area is 44,604 square feet, for a total net developable area of 233,409 square feet. tL To calculate the maximum allowed density, net developable area is divided by the minimum allowed 2 square footage within the zone, as follows: n R-4.5 zone t 23T+-7,500 = 31 dwelling units. 3 o The total number of units based on 125% of the gross site acreage would be 25 lots x 125%, or 31 u lots. J FINDING: The proposed 29 dwelling units do not exceed maximum density of the net developable area. This standard is met. Calculating minimum number of residential units. As- require by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in Subsection B above by 80% (0.8). ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUM03-00010) PAGE 22 OF 37 The minimum required density is determined by the following calculation: 25X0.80=20 FINDING: The standard for minimum density is met. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.725 These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 oo Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a pproperty line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is per tted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily ea tectable at a porn beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors 3 ) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. This is a detached single-family project, which is permitted within planned developments in the R-4.5 zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be met. However, ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigards' Code Enforcement Officer. a FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. IX N LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING: CHAPTER 18.745 Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. J m The R-4.5 zoning district does not require any landscaping, however, planned developments require that a minimum of 20% of the site be landscaped. As discussed previously, the common areas that are to be W -J landscaped constitute 27% of the site, and additional landscaping will be planted with the development of each lot. Section 18.745.040. states that all development projects fronting on a public street, private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040C. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER N0.2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 23 OF 37 The applicant has provided a street tree plan for the development to include the planting of 62 Red Sunset Maples alongg the front of the lots facing the public and private street and along the site frontage along SW 74 Avenue. The proposed street trees are acceptable species; however, staff recommends a greater variety of trees be used by utilizing an alternate species along either the public or private street. This will further distinguish the private from the public street as well. With the change outlined above, this criterion is satisfied. FINDING: The proposed street tree plan should offer a greater diversity of tree species. CONDITION: Submit a revised street tree/landscape plan that shows an alternative tree species used for either the public or private street to vary the streetscape. Buffering and Screening - Section 18.745.050 Buffering and screening is require to re uce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The subject site is surrounded by single-family developments; therefore, there is no requirement for buffering and screening for this projecf. FINDING: As conditioned, the proposed development will comply with all applicable Landscaping and Screening requirements of Chapter 18.745. MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE: CHAPTER 18.755 Although listed as a review criterion or this app icatthis chapter is only applicable to multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non-residential construction. Therefore, this chapter is inapplicable. The applicant has stated that they intend to serve the site as any other single-family development would be served, and Pride Disposal has signed off on the site plan for serviceability. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: CHAPTER 18.765 This Chapter is applicable for development projects when there is new construction, expansion of existing use, or change of use in accordance with Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The proposed project will create 29 lots for single-family dwellings. Submittals of detailed plans for the construction of homes within the development are not necessary at this time. Table 18.765.2 requires that one (1) off-street parking space be provided per detached dwelling unit. There is no maximum limit on parking allowed for detached single-family dwellings. There is also no bicycle parking requirement for single-family dwellings. Staff notes that there is a 20-foot required setback from the face of garages to property lines in all residential zones. To ensure that homes constructed in this development comply with these standards, the following condition shall apply: CONDITION: At the time of submittal for building permits for individual homes within the development, the developer shall submit materials demonstrating that one (1) off-street parking space, a which meets minimum dimensional requirements and setback requirements as specified in o: Title 18, will be provided on-site for each new home. i- rn SENSITIVE LANDS: CHAPTER 18.775 The development site me u es area of drainageways, associated wetlands, and steep slopes. Development of sites that include these areas requires review through the sensitive lands criteria as M described below. 0 ~ Jurisdictional wetlands. Landform alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet t e,urisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard Wetland and Streams Corridors Map.,. do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must he satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within the 100-year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction:. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 24 OF 37 The wetlands within this site do not appear as significant wetlands on the City's map, but are regulated by CWS and state agencies. A condition of approval will be imposed requiring the necessary permits from Army Corps, Division of State Lands, and CWS be obtained. Steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or den an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; 2. 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; 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainae of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic: and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and 4. 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 Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The proposed land form alteration is limited to the extent necessary to provide for a street, sidewalk, and utilities. The applicant has attempted to limit the land alteration by narrowing the street, eliminating the sidewalk on one side of the private street, and reducing front yard setbacks. The predominance of the landform alteration will occur outside the stream corridor and drain ageway. Also, a geotechnical report has been performed. An erosion control and grading plan will be required as part of the engineering approval process to insure that grading within the steep slope areas will not result in sedimentation or erosion, as well as avoid on or off-site adverse effects. Furthermore, the City will require the applicant's engineer to submit the proposed construction plans to the geotechnical engineer for review and Aapproval prior to City approval of the construction plans. A geotechnical report has been conducted to evauate the suitability of the lots for building placement. The geotech report provides a designated area where no further geotechnical evaluation is necessary, and areas where a more detailed analysis will be required. This designation affects a portion of the private street and lots 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23. A condition is required further in this report to have the geotechnical engineer review the proposed grading and building placements prior to final plat approval for these areas. To address erosion concerns and removal of vegetation, the applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan prior to any grading. The applicant has not indicated that areas affected by landform alterations will e re-planted if not covered by structures or impervious surfaces, however, this will be insured by the erosion control plan and a condition requiring areas to be re-planted prior to final building permits will be required as part of this approval, and is furthermore required through the CWS service provider letter. Within draina eg ways• The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: a. 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; In this case, the landform alteration will include a stream crossing to extend SW 74th Avenue. This is 3 a requirement of the City to improve the site frontage, provide access to the two proposed lots, ang further implement the objectives of the City's Transportation System Plan which designates SW 74 as a neighborhood route. The applicant has proposed a small retaining wall to minimize the amount a of fill in he stream corridor. The extent of the disturbance is no greater than that required for the roadway. No disturbance within the drainageway is proposed to accommodate the lots or internal streets. 2. 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; ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB200300010) - - PAGE 25 OF 37 As described previously, an erosion control and grading plan will be required as part of the engineering approval process to insure that grading within the steep slope areas will not result in sedimentation or erosion, as well as avoid on or off-site adverse effects. Furthermore, the City will require the applicant's engineer to submit the proposed construction plans to the geotechnical engineer for review and approval prior to City approval of the construction plans. 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; The applicant has submitted a stormwater report that shows that the capacity of the drainageway is not affected. The applicant has proposed using an oversized box culvert to ensure that upstream properties are not affected. 4. 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 Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; To address erosion concerns and removal of vegetation, the applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan prior to any grading. The applicant has not indicated that areas affected by landform alterations will be re-planted if not covered b structures or impervious surfaces, however, this will be insured by the erosion control plan and a condition requiring areas to be re-planted prior to final building permits will be required as part of this approval, and is furthermore required through the CWS service provider letter. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; The 1981 Master Drainage Plan does not identify any public facilities for this portion of Ash Creek. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; The applicant has shown appprovals from Clean Water Services, but has not yet obtained U.S. Army Corps of. Engineers, and Division of State Lands approvals. These will be required prior to commencing any site work. 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of 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. There is no 100-year floodplain within or adjacent to the proposed development. This standard is inapplicable. FINDING: Provided the applicant complies with the followinq conditions, the proposal can meet the criteria necessary to issue a sensitive lands permit on this particular site. CONDITIONS: J Prior to the issuance of final occupancy on any building, the applicant must • provide City staff with a letter from Clean Water Services that indicates compliance with the approved service provider letter (#2819). • Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide evidence of all necessary approvals from US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. • Prior to any site work, the drainage tract must be clearly identified in the field with permanent (preferably with minimum 4-foot-tall black chainlink) fencing so as to insure no grading or material is placed in this area. Any fencing that is damaged during construction must be replaced prior to final building inspection. ASH CREEK ESTATES SLODIYISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SU132003-00010) PAGE 26 OF 37 • Prior to final plat approval submit and receive approval for an erosion control and grading plan for alteration on slopes exceeding 25%. • Re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading in contormance with the Clean Water Services Standards as set forth in the site assessment file #2819, prior to obtaining building permits. • Prior to commencing on site improvements, the applicant shall have the geotech engineer review and approve the construction plans for the City's review and approval. TREE REMOVAL: CHAPTER 18.790 At p an or a planting, removal and protection of trees prepared b a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review 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. The applicant indicates in his narrative that the property is subject to a timber deferral status and the owner has elected to remove all of the trees on the property that are outside the sensitive lands areas as provided for in the Development Code, Section 18.790.050 (D)(4). There are several trees that are indicated for removal within the sensitive lands areas, and these trees will require separate tree removal permits. Staff estimates that there are 74 such trees. The applicant should note that a separate fee is required for each tree removal in a sensitive land area and based on the estimate and current permit fees, this equates to $4,200. The applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the removal criteria in Section 18.790.050(A). The applicant has not submitted an arborist report regarding the protection of the trees that will remain on site. FINDING The applicant has provided a tree removal plan indicating the trees proposed for removal. There are approximately 74 trees in sensitive land areas that will require tree removal permits. No arborist report to address the protection of the remaining trees on site has been submitted. To ensure that the trees are preserved according to the tree removal plan, the following conditions shall apply: CONDITIONS: The applicant shall submit an arborist report with tree protection recommendations, and shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a complete set of construction documents with the tree locations for the City Arborists review. IL . The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. rn Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.795 Clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersection of m two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary 1 or permanent obstruction exceeding three 0) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center grade, except the trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. For arterial streets the visual clearance shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. No specific plans for the construction of structures are required through the subdivision process. Compliance with vision clearance requirements shall be confirmed through the building permit process for all homes to be constructed within the development. The applicant has illustrated the clear vision areas on the plans and included details at a larger scale f% the intersection of the private street at the new public street, and at the new public street and SW 74 Avenue, and has indicated in the narrative that there will be no obstructions placed within these areas. This standard is met. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 27 OF 37 G. IMPACT STUDY: SECTION 18.390.040.B.e .quires that the applicant shall include an imppact study. The study shall address, at a minimum the transportation system, including bikewa us, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code regires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington Count Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan If/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Effective July 1- 2003, the TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $2,530. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to ay TiF's totaling approximately $73,370 ($2,530 x 29 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $229,281 ($73,370 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered as unmitigated impact. The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the need for these streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for the internal streets is created by the development, the impact of the development is directly proportional to the cost of dedication and construction of the internal streets and not considered as mitigation for the development impact. With regard to off site mitigation measures, the applicant is proposing to make -street improvements and provide a rossing over Ash Creek. The applicant s estimated cost of these street improvements along SW 74" Avenue is $250,000. Using the City's standard methodology, the amount of mitigation provided through the applicant's street improvements exceeds the estimated value of the full impact from this development by approximately $94,000. This is not roughly proportionate to the impact of the development; however, it is required for the proper function of the applicants subdivision, to provide access to the lots within the subdivision, and the applicant has proposed this improvement. With regard to the dedication of real prop. interests, the applicant will be required to dedicate an additional 2 feet of right of way totaling 84~square feet for a total value of approximately $2,526. This amount of real property dedication is roughly proportionate to the full $229,281 impact. Although the cost of the physical improvements exceed the full impact, the applicant has proposed these improvements and is required to provide them in order to satisfy the standards of the street improvement chapter. Full Impact 73,370=0.32 $229,281 Less TIF Assessment lots x $2,530) -$73,370 Less mitigated costs_ 74" Street Improvement .....................-$250.000 Unmitigated Impacts -$155,911 Estimate of - FINDING: The applicant's proposed street improvements are required to address the standards of Chapter 18.810 and to allow the subdivision to function properly. While the cost of these improvements is not proportionate to the level of impact, the improvements have been proposed by the applicant. The required dedication of right of way is clearly proportionate to the impact of the creation of these 29 lots. Therefore, the conditions are either roughly proportionate to the impacts sustained or required to meet the code standards and are thereby justified. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 28 OF 37 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.810 Chapter 8.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a neighborhood route street to have a 54-foot right-of-way width and a 32-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. SW 74th Avenue This site lies adjacent to SW 74th Avenue, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant is proposing to dedicate additional ROW to provide 27 feet from centerline. SW 74th Avenue is currently unimproved. There is an existing drainage way that crosses 74`h Avenue just south of the proposed intersection. There is also a 36-inch water transmission line, owned and operated by the City of Tualatin. The applicant's engineer found that if he designed the roadway to meet Tigard's standard for a sag vertical curve it would require significant fill to be placed over the water line. The City of Tualatin was not in favor of this amount of fill. Another issue is the fact that the more fill that is placed in the sag curve the more impact the fill has on the drainage way wetland area. The applicant and his engineer met with representatives from Tigard, Tualatin and Tualatin Valley Water District to discuss this issue. All parties agreed that the applicant should be permitted to construct 74th Avenue with a steeper grade than the standard in order to minimize the impact on the water line and the wetlands. The applicant would be required to apply for an adjustment to the grade standard. This discussion will be covered later in this report. The result of the applicant's design proposal is that they will be constructing a 3/4-street improvement along the frontage of their site. Adjustment for Curb-ti ht Sidewalk: Because o the stream corridor an associated wetlands that traverse the proposed street crossing of SW 74 Avenue, the applicant would like to move the sidewalk to curb-tight to reduce the width of the street and the resulting amount of fill required to build the street. By placing the sidewalk curb tight, 5 fewer feet of width into the stream corridor is avoided. Adjustments to street standards are covered under TDC 18.370.020.C.11, where the Director must find that the following criterion is satisfied: L "Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing r development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards." 3 The drainageway and wetlands in Tract A adjacent to the roadway cannot be avoided while still providing for the street connection. The applicant has reduced the street section to the minimum width of 24 feet and has proposed a retaining wall to limit the amount of fill and protect the roadbed from undermining and erosion. By moving the sidewalk to the curb line, the required planting strip is eliminated; however, additional preservation of wetlands, the stream corridor, and existing mature trees will result. Staff finds that the adjustment would not adversely affect the public benefits, as citizens often comment that they do not like to see mature trees being removed with development. The applicant has proposed planting street trees on the outside of the sidewalk to maintain the street tree plating scheme. Staff recommends approval of this adjustment. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SU62003-00010) PAGE 29 OF 37 Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(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-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property, owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de- sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant's plan shows that they will stub a public street to the parcel to the north. The location of this street stub will accommodate effective development of this parcel. Staff concurs with the proposed plan. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030(6) states that staggering of streets making "T" intersections at collectors and arterials shat not be designed so that logs of less than 300 feet on such streets are created, as measured from the centerline of such street. Spacing between local street intersections shall have a minimum separation of 125 feet. 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. As was stated above, the steep slopes and creek to the south preclude extension of a public or private roadway further to the west. No public street connection is proposed to the east due to the fact that all parcels around that part of the site are fully developed with no street extensions available to this site. Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.K states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. e If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a li hted direct pathway to an adjacent street a may be required to be provided and dedicated~to the City. o: The applicant is proposing a private street cul-de-sac that will be approximately 600 feet long. The applicant has asked for an adjustment to the standard. Adjustments to provisions under 18.810 are covered under 18.370.020.C.11, which states: 3 n `The director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street 'U improvement requirements, based on findings that the adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards': The applicant states that no practical alternatives are available to provide reasonable and efficient access to the entire property. The a plicant proposes a private street that would have a length of approximately 500 feet. Again, the adjustment criteria found in TDC 18.370.020.C.11 applies: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 30 OF 37 "Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development: on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards." The site is over 967 feet deep, which poses a challenge immediately when it comes to serving developable lots with street frontage. In addition, as was mentioned before, the steep slopes and creek to the south preclude any connection to the south. Existing development to the north and east also preclude street connections. Therefore, in order to serve the developable portion of this site, a street of over 200 feet is necessary. The impacts to the steep slopes and creek channel would exceed any perceived public benefit of a through street, especially when this street will only serve a total of 29 homes. Staff supports this adjustment. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.M states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet), and: The applicant has applied for an adjustment to this standard, but review of their submittal shows that the proposed street grade does not exceed 15% for over 250 feet. Therefore, an adjustment is not required. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.S states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments. The applicant is proposing to serve lots 2-23 with a private street. Because this development is proposed as a planned development a private street is acceptable. The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it/them. In addition, the applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) alon with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street s)). These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. he 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. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. L Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of .i water or, pre-existing development or; ii For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. J . For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Because of pre-existing adjacent development and the stream corridor, there are no further opportunities for connections. The applicant's proposed street stub to the north will eventually provide a block measuring approximately 1,250 feet. This standard is met. Section 18.810.040.8.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB200MM10) PAGE 31 OF 37 The applicant has proposed to serve the site with a sidewalk on one side of the private street, and to stub a pedestrian connection with the street stub to the north. There are no opportunities for a pedestrian connection to the east or south due to pre existing development patterns. This standard is satisfied. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. Only one lot exceeds 1.5 times the minimum lot size, however this lot (#13) is 69 feet in average width which is less that 2.5 times the lot depth of 170 feet. This standard is satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. There are several lots around the cul-de-sac that have less than 25 feet of frontage. This will need to be revised on the final plat so that all lots meet the minimum 25-foot standard. All other lots with the exception of lot 29 have 25 feet of frontage onto a public or private street. This is not a standard that can be deviated from through the planned development process. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: Lots 9, 11, 12, and 29 do not have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. CONDITION: Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall revise the plat to accommodate a minimum of 25 feet of frontage for all lots within the development. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. The applicant is proposing to construct sidewalks with their street improvements. This meets the standard. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. n There is an exting sewer manhole in 74th Avenue. The applicant is proposing to extend the 8 inch line north in 74u' Avenue and then east in the new public and private streets to serve all lots. They are stubbing a line to the north for extension with future street improvements. n Storm Drainage. General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). TATES SUBMISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 32 OF 37 ASH CREEK ES There is a creek on the south portion of the property. The applicant is protecting that creek by setting the development away from the sensitive area boundary in accordance with CWS standards. The drainage way will have no impact on the proposed new lots. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to.the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The site slopes to the south towards Ash Creek. The applicant has shown a new public storm system located within the proposed public and private streets. They have also shown that a stub for future connection will be provided to the north, serving the future north-south street. The storm system will outlet to a pond that will provide both water quantity and quality measures, in accordance with CWS standards, prior to discharging to Ash Creek. The applicant will need to provide access to the pond for maintenance. The applicant is also proposing to construct 'a 5-foot by 10-foot box culvert under 74 h Avenue to accommodate the crossing of Ash Creek. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. 74th Avenue is not classified as a bike facility. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.8 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. This standard is not applicable. L Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. This standard is not applicable. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric 9 communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed J underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services- The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • .AII underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • ubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 33 OF 37 Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-groundin ~n conjunction with the development. The determination sfiall be on a case-by-case basis. ghe most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground an which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in4ieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW 74th Avenue. 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 421 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 11,578. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT Traffic Stud Findin s: ra Ic impact epor was submitted by CTS Engineers, Inc. pted April 30, 2003. CTS analyzed the intersections at 74 Avenue and Cedarcrest Street and N Avenue and Taylors Fe Road. CTS found that under existing conditions these intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) B or better. When this project is developed it will generate approximately 278 vehicle trips during an average week day with 29 trips occurring during the PM peak hours and 22 trips occurring during the AM peak hours. 6TS found that with the build-out of this site and 2005 traffic conditions that these intersections will continue to operate at LOS B or better. CTS found that the vehicle trips will slightly ir~rease traffic volumes on surrounding streets, but will have little impact on traffic operations along 74 Avenue, including the study intersections. Based on the findings of the traffic impact report, staff finds that this project will not have a negative impact on the transportation system. Public Water System: TFere is an existing WD water main in 74th Avenue. The applicant will extend a public water main within the proposed streets. The applicant will need to obtain a permit from TVWD prior to construction. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 900 percent of the stone water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall 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 for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is ~roposing to provide a pond that will provide both water quantity and quality for this o project. The applicant has indicated that the pond has been designed per CWS standards. J Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be laced in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB200MW10) PAGE 34 OF 37 Gradin and Erosion Control: CM Design and Construction Standards also regulate 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 CWS 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 one or more acre 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 all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. A geotechnical report was submitted by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc:, dated May 9, 2003. The geotechnical engineer indicates that the proposed development is likely geotechnically feasible provided the geotechnical recommendations in his report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also 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. Since the site is over 1 acre in size an NPDES permit will be required. Address Assi nments: The City o Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. For this project, the addressing fee will be $900.00 (30 lots and/or tracts X $30/address = $900.00). The developer will also be required to provide si nage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. Surve r Re uirements The app leant s anal at shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91)] on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: e GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDNISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003.00010) - - PAGE 35 OF 37 SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal but did not provide any additional comments. The City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed the proposal, and notes that tree protection fencing will be required for the trees to remain. The City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed this proposal but did not provide any additional comments. The City of Tigard Crime Prevention Officer has reviewed the proposal and recommended that a monument be placed at the start of the private street identifying house addresses to reduce delays in delivery of emergency services. RESPONSE: The private street will be named separately from the public street. Houses will be addressed off that private street and, therefore, separate addressing identification (as is typical for flag lots) is not required. The developer may choose to install such signage, however, staff believes that with the separate street name, this signage is unnecessary. SECTION Vlll. AGENCY COMMENTS The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: i) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an uno structe wI t o not less than 0 feet 15 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance o not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.9 ) Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 28 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) The private street shall conform to Fire District standards. 2) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate pare ve Ices an 0 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) Signs shall conform to the City of Tigard engineering standards. 3) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45 Feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) 4) GRADE: Private fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed an average grade of 10 percent with a maximum grade of 15 percent for lengthe of no more than 200 feet. Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. Public streets shall have a maximum grade of 15%. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.6) i i 5) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES - FIRE HYDRANTS: Fire hydrants for single i family dwellings, duplexes an sub-divisions, shat be placed at each Intersection. Intermediate fire hydrants are required if any portion of a structure exceeds 500 feet from a hydrant at an intersection as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along approved fire apparatus access roadways. Placement of additional fire hydrants shall be as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.2) 6) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet rom an approve ire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4) 7) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified b the installation o reflective markers. a markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 36 OF 37 8) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for singa family dwellings and d up ex es slia-11 be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) is(are) 3,500 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix Table A-Ili-A-1. (UFC Appendix III-A, Sec. 5) 9) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways an tire Ig tmg water sup_p les s a e installed an operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704) Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and had no objections to it. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: • Roof drains from all new homes shall be collected in a public storm system and conveyed to a water quality facility for treatement in accordance with R.O.03-11. • Proposed modifcations to flood plain elevations may have impact on development. • Design must include requirements of Service Provider Letter #2819, issued May 13, 2003. The City of Tualatin has reviewed the proposald offered the following comments: of Tualatin owns a water main in SW 74 Avenue. The proposed grade of the street means that our line will have between 15 and 18 feet of cover. The City would like to request that before construction plans are approved, the developer be required to pot-hole the line to determine the exact The City location and condition of the pipe. Additionally, the City should be informed 48 hours prior to construction so that a representative from the City can be present when they are impacting our pipe. RESPONSE: This will be required as a condition of approval. Washington County, Portland General Electric, Tigard Tualatin School District, NW Natural Gas, Verizon, Comcast Cable, and AT&T Cable were additionally notified of the proposal but did not respond with formal comments. SECTION IX. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard Planning Commission has DENIED, Subdivision (SUB2003-00010), Zone Change (ZON2003-00003), Planned Development (PDR2003-00004), Sensitive Lands Review (SLR2003- 00005), and two Adjustments (VAR2003-00035 and VAR2003-00037) - ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. PASSED: THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2003 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. i i I Mark Padge , Planning Commission President 1:lcurpIn noWnlworkspacelsub and polpdr2003-00004 final order.doc ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FINAL ORDER NO. 2003-02 PC (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 37 OF 37 1G tMVO•M•T~~Y•TRM G4DG•I.~M 4 ~s ~pRZ00~°00Q tOH2O03°0`00©~ 1 ~ ~ SLR2003-0000, 2000~ w VAR0036 V p,R2003 00 m SH CRIER ~.STA~E 4 SvBp~V~S~pN SHAD AL.F 1 T ! T L.l~ •S LOLA ~ y J gOKrt~ D ~ hard u•• 14sP ST ARp` l.N N 400 F„5 300 0 500 5.. 323 <at Of a' C'ty °4Tigatd •na r` loudwD eldY ur Infom+►tlDwftMdvMh lns Ds MaagNd Ss+`~s0~ sn°uldbs 53~~ R 4TTt3 ~ ~5031~~5~Dt.us 2003: („Vti1 9 Piot date ,fun d~ LS "V'il`a" v1 -v11v§W I 1 a 1 RIP } LEGEND a-sn.~ > nlr. mrnocu i •K1.1r'u'e ! 1 r 1 1' 1 $w•t a r~u. 0 «+st ..lY-r.1-.ti-+.uln-nr 1 1 II+ ~ ~ ~~wrcsn..w. w r•ar .T r Ir, . M(MY6 SAw1Y. Y-t• .K III; 1.; 111 j ; fit ULRI'A'M HMGHT,... THE RAMF.RRY PATCH lil 7: s7 ~ ! 1 • TAIacT:261 11, I ; 3a 57 ~ , ,me , REET A I J'- l w. p. (aua~ c a+ ` 98za• r14•ut Y r--'-- ^;r-_--- . i W : jai sll 2 ~J~ 3 II 4 i1i5.791 S.F. 3' I _ _ 1 I•I s.Je9 S.F. II i~16.290 $.r. 'll $,744 S.F. li 3 5gy.fm' _ r nut. w+N! n[kn III m~[-.111 1. i,l 6,509 S.I. Iii 6,7291.r. J.99] I - --7'r---- ;n ` u_Srao_n ~p1.-!.'rt1c._u~ram 1 if A¢1:'6,93e S.r. - ~t r 11 Q f4YK+1 ' ~,Y - 25 111 25 711111 r ------1 JiL_____ ' J'1' 1' • It 'I°~~~---_ `~J,A . 27 pp i 12 e.6v.w S.r I14.702 SA 1'1 R~ rl . ~ - •L---_ III4as.o9 s.rll s.437s.r. 111 _ _ •i ~ I a:,['• ili lr__, - - 5.106 S.r =1°na1 .mc.r."` r°'rvrrr b►ec un.u \~.I 7..s S.F. i° _-„r._____.~•1-_ -r Q zt 11 IL m II; -T s rxnrt r.r- \ = 1 5.20s 5 S.F. • ; , 1~1 I~1 1j15, 172 S.F. ~ • ` I 1 IILG 1 ~ o NI LA1rxi Nr 111 ~A\` III ISCYAL II ~ III ~ \ ` - - ~ ~ ~ i ' ~ \ I• .1 Yl•Y• (1rncAt7 I I •1 ~ 6.034 5.l.I I J L 1 i~~ Ilia.ee. s.r. iii LS `,li ~-__r rte' w S.F. 6.943 e.r. ' 111 . 't ' , °i'1 r 111 6.684 Ss. c,t G GI 11 ; MAO • TAR07 300 I• I r~~i~ •1,~ r• (ORAINAU UStNENT) 14 Tf 94]10 S.F. 11.616 Si. (•J KnAN9s Aun Yn•"- I.i 1 1 31I X 1` 13 Yn~AU \S.'~, lin~7 .Y9 52 ji- 29 1 S.F. -'M..w. 29 JI 5 423. , ~'"'="1 _ _ _ I j Yt I I A I 6 _ L'•~IU•a•.-I`~iRaCi arm t, SUB2003.000101PDR2003.000041ZON2003.00003{ Q~®p CITY F TIGA IRh srrE BT.Ai1T N SLR2003-00005NAR2003-00036NAR2003-00037 Ma is not to scale ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION Attachment 2 City of Tigard Community (Development MEMORANDUM Shaping.f7 Better Community CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: City Council FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: July 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Tigard Planning Commission's final order for the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision (SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-00004/ZON2003-00003/ SLR2003-00005NAR2003-00036NAR2003-00037) On July 7th, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application for a 29-lot subdivision and planned development on 9.36 acres. The property is located at 9750 SW 74th Avenue. The proposal is to provide single-family detached housing on lots ranging between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. The applicant, Dale Richards of Windwood Homes, filed an appeal of the application denial on July 15, 2003. His stated grounds for the appeal are "That applicant contends that the Planning Commission should have adopted specific grounds for denial. The denial should have been based on the proposed plan not meeting the Development Code. All specific requirements of the code were met. The applicant, therefore, proposes that the project CL should be approved through the appeal process." rn The Planning Commission moved to deny the application, which failed in a 4-4 tie vote. The Commission then moved to approve the application, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority n affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in U support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. Based on the material submitted to date, the applicant's submittal, and the findings in the staff report, it is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution approving the application. l.\curpln\morgan\workspace\sub and pd\pdr2003-0W04 (ash creek estates)\ash creek appeaRcoundl memo on the appeal - attach 2.doc U*t/14tZUU3 11):18 VAX bUJU84 MI city or Tigard Attachment 3 APPEAL. FILING F® FOR LAND USE DECISIONS CITY OF TlGARO 13125 SW Halt Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503,' ft6 &297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in tiling an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phonelfax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Case No.(s): o9,003 -OCb /a Application Being Appealed: Ask Grwk 641-014 Gase Name(s): a, ~ Su)Oct+y>'s ror Reoelpt No.: ao03 ' y~0 (ate Now Do You Qualify As A Party?:_ p t c eki& f Qc, k +,c.A a rd S Application Accepted By: C l u~ Date: ? - 15 7-03 Approy As To Form By: M, Appellant's Address: S. 1A), /J or h4 Dakota Date 7- ~6-D3 City/State: Ti'aed ,Qmm bh Zap: 5 Z2zq S+re~ Denied As To Form By. Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached.( ) Date: Scheduled Date Dedslon Is To Be Final: Jw(., U) ZoW Rev.lsAuw Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: Jti ! N / / , 2-Op3 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: feu 0~ q: ( ( c ."kt REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ~a~~~~ f~.f p~whn%-.,, Gow`+nn.i,,,T•ss tom S6~o~,l~ ~ayt:. aai4~ r StSe c t {r c 4 !'CIA ~b r oG-rti (ad. ~Application Elements Submitted: I t L,.f1/ Appeal Filing Form (mnpl W) S bwltitor h&VC bQ A 6Adt~ C ~ Filing Fee (based on attena blow) ~'i.c, Pt'op, V~.of V"'W 't' V1A ? °rft°rda ,brrV:gr«M:umm 250.00 > e t s wom d21/w~aP cw~ lror,~w. 3GP.Gr t G vcomws~om xr~o:offim iocityCoNd si.reo.oo _ (r LartdipQ E r&V-.e w r4y4 • Signature(s) of Appellant(s): ~rro c.C.~.t Af'PEN. FXMio F MA FOR LAND USE DEats M (OVER FOR ADDmoNAL Y pqW G SPACE? n7i1ei9nn+ un&r nn-no rn-nr 1)n •7o971 larnna G~~~~ \ g~ `Z~ _ • _ a - . , , r . ~ ~ a ,r i , a ~ . w .-y. ~ _ ~ _ ..r-..._ .,..--.»w... c.~~ ~ ....-~I. .-~_..-..,,i .w,>_ - ~L.a:..-. ~~iwt~,.,L~ +u_~k - - - a ~ ~'I k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x~ r i ~ r~ , 5, t, \N ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ! 5~ F. ~t~➢H j € I ~ - I ,i• ~ r i I i ' ~ , J ~ SW 74TI~): AV~:IVUL V S 0Z O O lD b0 ,Nf I 1 ~ - t C,~ 1 •rl D~.'0 y ~ UI ~ Z _ m -1'U ~J Vl'~ ,0 i0 U1 WA1 Om D A 1S~ 4 mm A 1~ ~A9 ~ .`410/1 (Jji9 Sm ZZC ~ ~O ~ I { l r~ ~n v+ .a'7 114 N , "LY'~L' i'-r i^ I °ro N v~ p f_ x ~ i.' -L~ ~ ~Y O A 5 I H 1 , O) n0 -a~ a f:/]j '1~7 y p./~' ~ ~ , L S ~ ~~31 y z fn F z 5 - D t ~ `l~ 5p1'~ ~ O oo• -r~ ~ ~ • m ti~ NZO~ o~m c _ I _ ~ Nc)rr. / ~ \/t J ~ Z v 1 I y /1/ ~ ~ i r a .1`, r~ , ~r n ~s r/ ' / / J.. _ ~ 0 ,t 9- ! - - _ .1~~.'(! .'iy,.'Y: /J.. - l~,✓~^ ir.Uf ~ - n.n~~ I ~~~,u~~//. L. -.,.~,•L1~ ~ r (X: a ' ~ / ~ l t Y ~ ~ zoo ~ ..8 11 FnN.1 ~9 r ~ ;i' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ l a ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~I L ;1 ~ nom. - / ~ _ 1r- ~ ~ - _ _ r 1 i Oa N ~ NJ 9 y ~ 0~ ~2 7 i i P ~ W/ III Nk ~ ~ J .O ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I r' + ' _ M £ ~ ~ ~ I I III ~ ~ ` ~ ~ l / - ~ I ~ t{i n _ ~ ~ /~I III ~ r~-- ~ f~ _ ~ Ail }y~{ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ST~ ~ d IIII VI ~ ~ ~ 1, ~ ~ ti~ ~ iM a n ~ / 14~I1 ~ ~ N J f ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ I ~ ~ of ~ ~ `f I Poy yry 5^ ~ ~ b FUTURE EMENSION _ ~ x I A - P V ~ ~ ) -C+ a-l / l/i.' O SW 73RD. AVE. ~ r ~ N tt )I 4 ~ I. i r 9'14 ~ ~ zoA 1 II II a y ~It' i. ~ I °i S l r(~ ~ (G ~a ~ m N ~ V WOm~i j ll ~l I r _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2~ I f ~ /~1~os,5y ~ 9 w ~ ; ~~.c ~ Iii 1 d I ~ ~ ~1 ; ~ . q . t T ~ j I~ ~ ~ N / ~ 1~~ ' iV ~ ~~'io 4' / ~I b , ~ I ~II I if ~~o - ~ I m~ ! I 4~ ; p I I ~ Aq~ ~ 5' ~,v' ~ ~ ~m I I I ~ I I y 1 m j ~ ~ z I l ~i~i " I • ~~i'~ y.90~~ ~ phi ~ m 8 _ ,r~_ ~ I / / ..L ~ G j ~ IA O N m ~ W TIC -1 O 1 j ~ ~ M I (/1 ~ / / Jail', ~ / v/~ ~ ~ ~ O z z ~ ~ m ~ N p v p S Ifl O 1 I y 1/~ p m D / I ♦~y~ / O m 1 O O O J I ~ / 1 I ' ` ~~W V Cl ~ N c Al ~ RI ~ m j ~ ~ ~ 2 'p; / / m /p ~ m ~ z 3w~~ I ati~ I / 'lid )m ~ ~ r I ~ ~ Z m ~ N~ o ~ ~ _ I III ~ ~ ~ , ° . ' ~,,f~~-! _ ~ ~ z ' I l ~ ~ J ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ _ _ m ~ ~ ((IC~JJ ' J-~ ~ 1 ~ n _ ~"3P~#~Y. ~ X11 I ~ ~ / ( ~ $ ~ ~ ~ I1 1. : A~~~ ~ i ~ ~ s. ~ ~wv•awve~C~ ri/~.,.:n.,,,,Ym«~.,,~.,>w.,~.w,y.....,-..°..._..~„~,~. r~\.~.r....e.~,,,.m......_, ( ~ x ~ -oo 00 Il r» s ~ ( l~ ~ ~ ~J(Nn~ ~ gv/ rn° om f I ~ f , f , ~ ~ J , ~ /o,I ~-,y ~ / W g o z -~zi a z ' ~ ~ ~ ~ r f / / %f y OAV rN I 6 U1 A ~ -1 A a~ l 1 Ill ~ / / /47' ( l I1 0.5' !i 0.33' / x ~ i r.. 8 !p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j , ~ ~ ~ o EF~r] dI S l ~g~ £g$~s,~~~8j~~~q~~~ 3~?~sQ m6~t/ N li,~o ~A~ ON i< n e y • s a ~J' CITY OF T,;GARD, VIl~►SHINGTON COUNTY OREGON O ~ ~ ~gE " ~ a UI DALE RICHARDS - WINDWOOD HOMES ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ rises sw rroRnl oAKOrA sr. no~wo, oli erex+ S I9 , I v I9 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ _ ___.-..~..ti .P. (soa) Leo-aa~s _ ^I I~..1 , y I;?'' i r iy& 4 F i t r }lS ~ RP ~ Z ~E fr~ ~ ~ ~ ag r I~~l~~ l ~ ~ t ~ ~ aka i ~r ~ " .u', -r-,~ ~ - ATTACHMENT 4 ,OF CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes July 7, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Anderson (arrived late), Bienerth, Buehner, Haack, Mores, Sutton, and Webb Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Munro Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner; Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer; Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The Commissioners were reminded of the volunteer event on July 17th 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Buehner moved and Commissioner Sutton seconded the motion to approve the May 19, 2003, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Anderson arrived after the vote was taken and Commissioner Webb abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2003-000101 /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) C 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2003-00003/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003- 00036/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00037 ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION rn REQUEST: Approval of a 29-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 9.3 acres. The lots are proposed to be developed with detached single-family m homes. Lot sizes within the development are proposed to be between 4,702 W and 11,616 square feet. Sensitive Lands Review is required as the project J includes areas of steep (>25%) slopes, a drainageway and wetlands. The applicant is also seeking an adjustment to the cul-de-sac length standard, an adjustment to the maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, as well as an adjustment to the street grade on SW 74th Avenue. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 7, 2003 - Page I Low-Density Residential District. The R4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, 18.810. STAFF REPORT The Planning Commission was given copies of written testimony from Bob and Beverly Storer, 7225 SW Ventura Dr., Tigard, OR 97223 (Exhibit A). Associate Planner Morgan Tracy presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He provided the following information: The development site is encumbered with a large proportion of sensitive lands areas (approximately 4 acres or 44% of the site), including a drainageway (ash creek) and steep slopes, as well as wetlands that are regulated by Division of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers. The site also contains a large number of sizable trees. The applicant has proposed a plan for development that clusters the residential development on the northern side of the property, away from the sensitive land areas, which are largely located to the south. Two additional lots are proposed on the southwest corner of the site. Based on an analysis of the developable area within the subject site, as well as the residential density transfer allowed from the sensitive lands areas, the base density of the site is 31 dwellings. The applicant has not requested any additional density bonuses as provided for in the planned development standards. The density transfer of four units from sensitive land area is a non- discretionary standard detailed in the density computations chapter, 18.715. There are several issues involved with development of this property: Trees - Staff feels that the applicant's tree preservation plan does not provide for the maximum preservation of trees on site as prescribed by the Planned L Development Standards (18.350.100(b)(3)(5))[pg 350-8]. The Commission r will need to deter, whether they believe this standard is being met. Wetlands/Drainageway - The applicant has provided a service provider letter from Clean Water Services that details the buffer modifications and accepts i the delineation of the wetland and stream resources. Additional review of the wetlands resource through the City's sensitive lands criteria is not required as i these are not designated as significant wetlands on the City's "Wetland and Stream Corridors Map". This review is administered by Clean Water Services, Division of State Lands, and the US Army Corps. a Steep Slopes - The applicant's geotechnical evaluation specifies the areas where further geotechnical analysis is not required, which generally follows the rear lot lines of lots 13-27. Lots 13, 14, 15, 22 and 23 as well as a portion PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - hily 7, 2003 - Page 2 of the private street have areas that will require a more detailed analysis. Staff has addressed this issue with recommended conditions 19, 20, and 21. • Street Connections - SW 74`h is classified as a neighborhood route in the City's TSP and is shown as being extended to SW Landau and ultimately through to SW Locust. The City's code requires that development occurring along public streets, improve those streets to current City standards, including improvements to accomplish the objectives of the TSP. The street will not be physically connected to SW Landau as part of this development, but will as other parcels fronting the existing and proposed alignment of 74th are developed. Adjustments: Street Improvement Standards Staff has recommended approval of the adjustment to provide curb tight sidewalks along SW 74"' to reduce the width of the street improvement and resulting impacts to the adjacent wetland and drainageway from the required fill. The applicant had also requested an adjustment to the street grade standards, however, engineering staff has reviewed the applicant's proposed street improvement plans, and determined that the standard was satisfied and no adjustment was necessary. Cul-de-sac Standards Staff has additionally recommended approval to allow more than 20 units on a cul-de-sac, as well as allow a cul-de-sac longer than 200 feet. The reasons for this are that the configuration of the site, the presence of the stream corridor, and the preexisting development pattern do not permit a looped street system. To serve the lots on the eastern portion of the 967 foot long site, a cul-de-sac longer than 200 feet is required. The Fire District has reviewed the conceptual site plan and found no conflicts with their standards. Conditions of approval Staff recommended several conditions on the development approval based on the review criteria: • Joint access for lots 28 and 29, to reduce vehicle conflicts (i.e. driveway points entering) along 74"', the two lots that take direct access from it will be required to share access. • Revised setbacks. Setbacks were modified in accordance with the requirement that perimeter setbacks in a PD cannot be reduced. That } means Lot 27 will have a 20 foot setback to the new public street, Lot J 28 will have a 20 foot setback to SW 74`h and Lot 29 will be required to m provide a 10 foot setback on the south side where it abuts the W adjoining parcel. In addition, staff recommended that the Commission J find that reduced setbacks on the deep lots not be granted as there was suitable building area provided without reducing the setbacks. In these areas (Lots 13 through 18), a standard 15 foot rear yard setback should apply. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 7, 2003 - Page 3 Tracy advised that the property is in timber deferral status by Washington County, which means it is exempt from our tree removal standards except for the sensitive lands areas. The applicant has the option of removing all the trees from the property that are outside the sensitive lands areas. The Planning Commission needs to determine if the applicant's tree removal plan meets the standard, given that some of the trees are exempt. Tracy confirmed that the City Arborist has reviewed the plans to ensure protection of remaining trees. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Gregory Kurahashi, Kurahashi and Associates, Inc., 15580 SW Jay St., Beaverton, OR, 97006 testified that he agreed with the conditions of approval in the staff report. He reviewed the revised tree preservation plan (Exhibit B) and the site plans (Exhibits C and D) with the Commission. He advised that they would try to save as many trees as possible in the development. For newly planted trees along the street, he said they would be following the recommended tree list. Kurahashi reported that the new street could provide future access for tax lots 200 and 201. Also, the homes will be staggered - not all homes will have 8' front yard setbacks. Utilities will be placed in conduit. Kurahashi stated the trees on this site are well shaped and don't seem to be badly impacted by thinning, but it will be looked at carefully by the arborist. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR None PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, expressed concerns about the development. His detailed comments are included in Exhibit E. He remarked that the materials presented at the meeting tonight are different than what was on file at the City. He also commented that the neighborhood meeting was held 7 months ago and that the proposal had changed since that time. Frewing expressed his concerns about transportation issues, storm water L drainage, density, and tree retention. He also provided a photo of SW 74`" r (Exhibit F). n Staff responded that the application was received in May 2003 and the neighborhood meeting was held in December 2002, 5 months earlier. The requirement is 6 months between holding the meeting and submitting the j application. Staff advised that the Department of Forestry Timber Removal Permit, which is outside of our review, is a document that was received and put in the file. We did not use it in our decision. Staff also noted that the only change of materials staff is aware of is what has been presented tonight - the revised tree removal plan. The drainageway on the plans is based on the 25 year flood event. Within the drainageway is a scallop outside the actual water PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 7, 2003 - Page 4 channel that came as a result of a higher water period and created a drainage ditch. It shows on the map but has no relation to the drainageway. Brian Rager testified that other property owners would not be denied access to their property during construction of the development. Existing driveways will be maintained. Staff explained the difference between conceptual plan approval and detailed development plan. Information in the file is preliminary and exact placement of the individual houses wouldn't be known until building plans are submitted. David Smith, 7130 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on the intent of planned developments, variances, and the long, narrow dead-end street. He urged the Commission to reject the application based on impacts to the surrounding R-4.5 neighborhoods. He is also concerned about egress for people living at the end of the long cul-de-sac and people parking in prohibited areas. He called for the street to be built to typical street design regulations. If the development is approved, he suggested buffering between the new development and surrounding areas. John Goodding, 7925 SW Hemlock St., Portland, OR 97223, expressed his concern about flooding in the area. He has lived in the area since 1955 and has seen major problems with run-off and silt deposit. He is also very concerned about wildlife habitat in the area and would like to see a commonwealth pond installed. Robert Ward, 7162 SW Barbara Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, provided the Commission with copies of a map showing the sizes of adjoining lots (Exhibit G). He spoke about densification in Tigard and advised that neighboring property owners had previously tried to purchase this property for a park without success. He would like to see the lot sizes be limited to R-4.5 lot size requirements, which would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. He would also like the Commission to increase the street width to accommodate more parking. He is concerned about egress, parking, transportation, densification, and cutting of the forest. oc Alien Chamberlin, 9777 SW 74`h Ave., Tigard, OR 97223, asked if the developer could build within 15 feet of the creek and if he would be denied access to his home during development of the project. He was told that he would not be m denied access to his home and that the shortest setback to the creek was 40 feet. J J. Scott Cole, 9520 SW 74`h, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that his concerns had already been discussed and did not speak. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 7, 2003 - Page 5 Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard, OR 97223, testified on lot sizes, steep slopes, impact on trees, and wildlife. Her detailed comments are included in Exhibit H. She remarked that the City is not required by Metro to reduce lot sizes. In response to her question about landscaping plans for areas where tree removal will occur, staff advised that there's a requirement for erosion control based on the geotechnical report and the steep slopes criteria, so in the tree removal area, there will be required plantings. Beilke said it is very disturbing that there is no arborist report. She urged the Commission to deny the application. Staff responded that there is no arborist report because of the timber status of the property; there will be a report prepared for the trees remaining after the cut. Beilke expressed concern for remaining trees being subject to wind throw. Warren W. Aney, 9403 SW 74th, Tigard, OR 97223, asked if a tree plan was required and if mitigation would be required for trees that are removed. Staff responded that a tree plan would be required but mitigation is not required because the trees are exempt from our tree removal standards. Aney asked about a storm water management provision for lots 28 and 29. The applicant will respond to this during rebuttal. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Gregory Kurahashi responded to the concerns of those who testified. He advised that drainage would go the front of the lots. The only drainage that will go to the back of the lots will be from the footing drains. The developer has designed the roadway so that continual access can be provided to Mr. Chamberlin's house. Kurahashi advised that building the cul-de-sac was the only option afforded them because of previous adjacent development. For storm drainage for lots 28 and 29, he reported that the storm drainage plan has a detention pipe with a filter system located on the south side of the creek. He described a detention pond on the other side of the creek. A detention facility behind 74th Avenue was not possible because it would have flooded upstream properties. IL Kurahashi said he prefers narrow streets because they offer less impervious area N which means less storm drainage, less runoff, and less water quality problems. Dale Richards, Winwood Construction, 12655 SW North Dakota St., Tigard, OR J 97223, testified that the revised site plan has increased buffer areas which will t7 save more trees. The trees will be looked at on a tree-by-tree basis to see which ones can be saved. Commissioner Webb asked if the geotechnical report was reviewed by a CEG (Certified Engineering Geologist). She remarked that the report was stamped by an Engineer, but not a CEG. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 7, 2003 - Page 6 The Commission took a 10 minute break. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED In response to a question from Commissioner Bienerth, staff advised that the City has accepted maintenance of the storm water management facility. After listening to the testimony and reviewing the staff report, Commissioner Mores said he is in favor of going ahead with the development. Commissioner Haack said he is a little concerned about access in event of an emergency and would like to see the ravine accessible to everyone. He believes the development is in keeping with other developments in Tigard and is in favor of it going forward. Commissioner Sutton believes the development meets the requirements of the code and likes the plan to save trees. Commissioner Bienerth also believes the development meets the intent of the planned development code. She is concerned about the impact that removal of some of the trees might have on neighboring trees, however she thinks the development should move forward. Commissioner Anderson believes the property owner has the right to do what he can do, subject to the law, however she is opposed to this particular planned development. She believes it would adversely affect the welfare of surrounding property owners. She is in favor of fewer building sites. Commissioner Buehner stated she has serious problems with this development. There is an ongoing problem in this region where development has occurred upstream that has caused flooding downstream. She does not think we should look at maximum density for the development. In order to maximize the open space, she does not support development at any more than 20 lots. She has issues with the lot sizes, would like to see more buffering, and has concerns about wind throw., She suggested the developer come back with a much smaller, less dense development that would lessen the impacts to surrounding areas. r Commissioner Webb is opposed to the development. She believes that selective cutting of the trees is dangerous. She remarked that much of the Metzger area was developed during the 1980s during a dry spell and now we are in a rainier cycle - properties are beginning to fail and have problems. She believes this is a high impact development for this area. President Padgett is not satisfied that the City is getting enough in return for the concessions given with this development. He is opposed to the plan as it stands. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 7, 2003 - Page 7 fe Commissioner Buehner moved that the Commission deny SUB 2003-00010/ ZON 2003-00003/PDR 2003-00004/SLR 2003-00005NAR 2003-00036NAR 2003- 00037, based on staff findings; testimony at the hearing and letters received from the public; that there are issues of density and downstream impact; that it would adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City; and that the number of trees that will be retained is insufficient to meet the standard required. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. The vote was tied at 4-4: Commissioners Padgett, Anderson, Buehner, and Webb voted yes; Commissioners Mores, Haack, Sutton, and Bienerth voted no. The motion failed. Commissioner Sutton moved to approve the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision, SUB 2003-00010/ZON 2003-000031PDR 2003-00004/SLR 2003-00005NAR 2003- 00036NAR 2003-00037, based on findings in the staff report and discussions. Commissioner Haack seconded the motion. The vote was tied at 44: Commissioners Mores, Haack, Sutton, and Bienerth voted yes;' Commissioners Padgett, Anderson, Buehner, and Webb voted no. The motion failed. By lack of majority vote, the application was denied. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Dick Bewersdorff answered questions from the Planning Commission about planned developments. The Commission requested a training session with the City Attorney on making findings. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary a R ATTEST: President Mark Padgett _J U J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 7, 2003 - Page 8 7225 SW Ventura Drive Tigard, OR 97223 July 3, 2003 City of Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard "PING Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Ash Creek Estates Subdivision 2003-00010 Dear Commissioners: With this letter, we would like to express our concerns regarding the above referenced subdivision. We are not able to attend the July 7 public hearing and would like these comments entered into the record. We have organized our comments into both general and specific concerns as summarized below. General Comments We live in the Washington Square Estates Subdivision that is adjacent to the proposed Ash Creek Subdivision. Our homeowner's organization along with the Three Rivers Land Conservancy, Metro, and other neighborhood groups and concerned citizens attempted to purchase the subject property for open space and a future park site. The staff report on the subject site notes that, "no comments have been received since the application was filed". We only received notice of the public hearing a couple of weeks ago and just received the staff report dated June 30, 2003. This hasn't allowed us much time to examine the file and application materials. The staff report states, "Special circumstances or conditions associated with the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated"... and "The unusual circumstance for this property is the presence of the stream and the fact the development is required to cross the stream for street connectivity" seem to us to be not special or unusual. An argument can be made for the opposite in that the u unusual circumstance for this aquatic and riparian wetland and stream habitat is the J potential presence of a development. The traffic study and associated pm, am peak, and average weekly counts appear to be understated. Having lived in our house for five years and having walked daily to the bus Ash Creek Subdivision July 3, 2003 on Highway 99, we have direct knowledge and experience of the increase in traffic on 72nd Avenue SW. To say, the proposed development will not impact the neighborhood, and our quality of life is simply not true. The following specific concerns detail our thoughts and we respectfully request you consider revising conditions concerning three main issues prior to approving this subdivision. These three specific concerns are highlighted below and include: 1) preservation of trees; 2) providing more stringent stormwater management controls; and 3) eliminating or combining lots 28 and 29 into one lot. Specific Concerns Preservation of Trees Based on the 8.5 x 11 Tree Preservation Plan faxed to us, it appears that the applicant is proposing to remove almost 400 trees, 74 of which would be taken out of the sensitive areas on the property. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, charging $4,200 in fees for the removal of these 74 trees (or about $56/tree) is hardly an incentive for the developer to consider preserving some. City ordinances state, developments should be "designed and located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainages. to the greatest degree possible". The staff report states, "Preservation of trees within open space tract and outside building envelopes and grading areas does not satisfy the standard in Chapter 18.790. The staff report also states, "The applicant is proposing to set aside an approximately 4.15 acre open space tract for the drainage way and wetland area and proposes to leave open space tract in a natural state". This area is not developable anyway due to the fact that it is classified as sensitive areas including stream, wetlands, and steep slopes. The applicant should not receive credit for this in the overall density calculations nor with the 20 percent landscaping conditions. An Arborist report, which has not been submitted by the applicant, should be provided that also evaluates any unique Cedar tree species on the property. A mitigation plan should also be required for the removal of a significant amount of large evergreen and L deciduous trees on the subject property. A condition for replanting with native species should also be a requirement. n The Street Tree Plan to provide 62 trees, in addition to the request for a larger mix of tree species, should be further conditioned to require the planting of large-sized trees. The result will be larger trees to provide noise and air pollution reduction in a shorter period of time. 1 The buffering and screening criteria in Section 18.745050 requires an applicant to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses that are of a different type. Since the subject site is surrounded by single-family developments, no requirements for buffering and screening for this subdivision is required. The purpose of a buffer is to decrease noise, absorb air 2 Ash Creek Subdivision July 3, 2003 pollutants, filter dust, and provide for a visual buffer. This section seems to us to be inadequate for development in general, and especially for this subdivision proposal. If there was ever a case to be made for the need of buffering and screening after the removal of almost 400 trees on less than 10-acres, this project should be a good case. Lots 28 and 29 Lot 29 is considered a flag lot and does not have adequate frontage and should be denied, or as an alternative, be combined as one lot with lot 28. The staff report states, " To maximize traffic conflicts in the area where the driveways may be difficult to see due to the vertical curves near the stream crossing, staff recommends Lots 28 and 29 share access through one driveway approach"... and "Joint access will improve traffic safety by reducing the number of access points into this neighborhood route street". Due to their minimal size, access concerns, distance away from the other lots in the subdivision, and other concerns listed below, we believe a better use of these lots would be to preserve them as adjacent open space. City ordinances require that structures shall not be located in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding. The staff report notes the geotech study reports "land slumping occurs on site" and that in certain areas further study is required". Land slumping is occurring including a "sinkhole" to the south of lot 29 at our neighbor's home at 7205 SW Ventura Drive. The I. I-acre property immediately south of Lot 28 and 29 could still serve as a wildlife corridor if Lot 28 and/or 29 were not developed. Wildlife habitat conditions continue to deteriorate throughout our region due to the loss of upland habitats and their connectivity to aquatic habitats and other adjoining open spaces. The applicant is requesting adjustments to accommodate the development specifically because of the natural resources and the shape of the resulting buildable area of the lot, as well as the consideration of pre-existing development patterns in the area that would not permit compliance with applicable chapters of the Tigard Development Code. Due to the significance of the sensitive areas on this site, we believe mitigation should be required. for allowance to exceed the 20 home maximum on the cul-de-sac to a total of 23 homes, by reducing the lots and preserving the trees on lots 28 and/or 29. a Stormwater Management Ash Creek is a tributary to Fanno Creek, which is a tributary to the Tualatin River. Both $ the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) (in terms of a Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDQ regulations are in affect throughout the Tualatin River Drainage Basin. Due to the fact that high levels of urbanization (and associated impervious surfaces) exist in the Fanno Creek drainage, along with clayey soils, and a near absence of large wetlands, ponds, or lakes; flows in Fanno Creek (and its tributaries) are considered flashy and respond rapidly and significantly to individual precipitation 3 E Ash Creek Subdivision July 3, 2003 events. Although highly degraded, portions of Fanno Creek support resident Cutthroat trout and Steelhead. Drainage requirements in Chapter 18.775 referencing criteria in the 1981 Master Drainage Plan should be updated to include: 1) new flow modeling techniques; 2) estimates using updated land use and impervious cover; 3) new projected build-out conditions; as well as 4) new federal regulations including the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements. The applicant's proposed stormwater facility and design are more than likely inadequate to address the myriad of downstream and cumulative impacts if based in part on outdated information contained in the 1981 Master Plan. The staff report states, "the water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased". The applicant should be required, however, to perform a downstream analysis to assess increased stormwater peak flows and volumes, and associated impacts to the stream channel, downstream culverts, and other adjacent floodplain structures. The onsite stormwater pond should be oversized to accommodate both functions for water quantity and quality control. A bioswale should be incorporated into the design to filter out sediments and attached pollutants. The City of Tigard has agreed to enforce the Surface Water Management (SWM) agreement with Clean Water Services (CWS) that requires the water quality facility to be designed to remove 65 percent of the Total Phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the stormwater runoff generated. As stated in the staff report, "The applicant should submit a plan to meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards". This language is inadequate and the design should be required to meet or exceed the standards and to also include a proactive plan for maintenance of storm drains by a responsible party on the private street that will result from the subdivision. Lack of routine inspection and at a minimum, annual maintenance of storm drains that discharge into the water quality facility will be required in order to meet this water quality standard. Conditions stating, "Prior to final plat approval, applicant must submit and receive approval for an erosion control and grading plan for alteration on slopes exceeding 25% should be changed to "for the entire site, with special considerations for those areas exceeding 250/o". The applicant should be required to chip a portion of the trees, branches, and brush removed on site to be used as an erosion prevention method and best management °A Practice. Emergency stockpiles of erosion prevention and sediment control materials should be stored onsite, especially given the potential for increased erosion with the substantial removal of native 'p vegetation, current slumping that is occurring, and the steep slopes present on the site. U J A Biological Evaluation may be required as a result of the federal nexus with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit requirements associated with the removal of the existing culvert in Ash Creek on 74a' Avenue and the installation of the box culvert. 4 Ash Cheek Subdivision July 3, 2003 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed subdivision. We respectfully request that the further studies recommended and the additional requirements and conditions noted above be conducted and placed upon this subdivision application, prior to your approval. Let us close by saying we are not against development. We believe development should be planned appropriately for and be designed to accommodate the special circumstances, as well as protecting the natural resource functions and values of the site. We acknowledge the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that will result from all developments. We appreciate the applicant's intent to design a project with minimal impacts to the environment and surrounding neighborhoods. We firmly believe that on this proposal, there are significant environmental conditions and concerns associated with this site. As a result, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest additional conditions and recommend mitigative measures to offset the impacts that will occur. Our quality of life and the health and sustainability of the sensitive areas onsite and adjacent and downstream natural resources is in the balance. Once the native vegetation is removed, and the landscape covered with hard services, the local habitat reaches and the larger watershed it is connected to will forever be changed. It will be up to you to determine whether these changes are positive or negative for the local residents and greater human community and natural environments. We look forward to your review of our comments. We appreciate your time and consideration of our concerns. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide written testimony into the record. Sincerely, P161 ~~-~-t Bob and Beverly Storer If you have questions or would like additional information on the points raised in this letter, please don't hesitate to call me at 503-244-5941 or email at bstorer@msn.com. a F- _J m W J 5 Exhibit B Large Map - Tree Preservation Plan on file with City of Tigard Records Division J m W J Exhibit C Large Map - Preliminary Plat Map On file with City of Tigard Records Division m W J m i; I~ i I i { I I1( 11 it I" I r L 1 kdbyMdvDabRoturmCaTW3Meti~l»a,wwwmeYe-radm -akirc 0 c'Q4f1 h I"= 177.9" J IY Scale: I" 177.9' ( Date: UI=103 1 KURAHASHI 74TH AVENUE SUBDIVISION KAI 2129 ~ e wssoClwTESANC. Drawn by: MW Civil Engineering' Wua Resources Ltndsrape Mchdeam • Punning Envlronmmud'&-ymg TAX LOT MAP tt I $580 SW Jay Suta, Suite 200 t gaverlen, Qregoa W006 (Source: MetroMaps) (503)644."42 fax: (503)644-9731 / I i TESTIMONY OF JOHN FREWING RE ASH CREEK ESTATES 7/7/03 Before the Tigard Planning Commission. I am John Frcwing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, 97223. My telephone is 503-245- 5760, email is jfrewing(alteleport.com. My purpose in testifying this evening is to object to how the proposed Ash Creek Estates might be approved by you and ask that you deny or delay action on this item until certain further information can be developed and presented to the City. By way of background, I live near this development and walking is one of my principal enjoyments in retirement. I am not familiar in detail with all of Tigard's land use regulations, but have some background for my comments. I served on the Metropolitan Boundary Commission prior to the establishment of METRO, served on the Tri-Met Board of Directors for seven years in the 1980s, served on die METRO Council in 1985, served as Chair of DEQ's Solid and Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee for three years and served as a member of the Oregon Water Resources Commission for six years in the 1990's. My principal employment was as an engineer, then manager of PGE's Nuclear Engineering and Licensing staff following submarine service in the US Navy. My concerns regarding Ash Creek Estates fall into several categories - transportation, storm drainage, density and tree retention. First of all, I will comment that this is a very complex proposal. The applicant proposes not only PD overlay approval, but also development concept approval and approval of a detailed development plan. Yet much of the material in the city files appears to be preliminary, with various comments outstanding from city staff; I believe that even conceptual approval is not yet timely, let alone final development approval. For example, one comment notes that a delaHed development plan `must include exact placement of housing.' There is not even rough location of housing on each lot in the application materials. The city department review check lists include a number of items with boxes around them indicating that no information is filed on such subject. In some cases, this has been resolved by adding a condition to the proposed approval requiring later submittal of information (for approval?). Citizen review deserves to see the final proposal before comment. In one case, the note is made that a new neighborhood meeting is required if this application is considered more than 6 months after the initial neighborhood meeting - it has been over 7 months since the neighborhood meeting and the proposal has changed dramatically - eg the clear cut proposed to the creek. In the Tigard Development Code, the word `accept' is defined as `to receive as complete and in compliance" Staff actions given this definition do not meet the Development Code, section 120. A specific and final proposal should be required before planning commission action. Second, the photos and maps presented in the application don't do justice to the quite extreme physical challenges of this proposal - a visit by your commission to the area, including the stream and surrounding streets is warranted before your approval. TRANSPORTATION a. The traffic analysis presented in the record does not recognize the difficulty of the intersection at 74's and Taylors Ferry Road, where there is minimal visibility for cars entering from the south and planning to go either east or west on Taylors Ferry Road. This is compounded by the fact that Taylors Ferry Road is rather steep at this intersection and in a curve. It is estimated that about a third of new traffic will use this intersection. From safety needs, this intersection will need CL upgrades to accommodate new traffic (actually it needs these upgrades now). The proper solution would be to build 2 sidewalks and walls at property tines to make visual clearance possible. This and following transportation comments rn indicate that this proposal does not meet the standard of "safe, convenient and economic transport" which is stated at Section 110 of the Tigard Development Code. J b. The traffic estimates are not exact numbers; this is expected. If the division of new traffic from the planned development m is slightly different, say 10 percent more going to 74's and Taylors Ferry, then this intersection falls into a category calling for structural improvements. Because of the difficulty at other access points (noted below), this reasonable probability J should be anticipated now. Structural improvements at 74 h and Taylors Ferry should be part of the impact of this development which requires mitigation. c. At Barbara and Ventura, a steep topography again makes this intersection difficult even today. It is estimated that this intersection will accommodate about a third of the new traffic. The yield sign approaching this intersection from the west (coming uphill on Barbara) is not visible because of plantings. Driveways enter this intersection from its SW and SE corners. Lane markings (bumps) and parked vehicles make the travel from Ventura northbound to Barbara westbound rmsafe. While transit service is available at 74d'and Taylors Ferry Road, there is no safe place for a person to wait for the f' bus. The bus route marker is two feet from a ditch, two feet from pavement and turning traffic and two feet from a steep slope full of poison oak. Transit service for existing and new users calls for a concrete curb and waiting location. d. Visibilty problems exist at the corner of Cedarcrest and 80'', where about a third of the new traffic will access this development. Bush and tree removal, along with covering of open ditches should be provided here. e. It is not clear how school bus service will be provided, if at all to this development. The Tigard-Tualatin School District should be consulted and approve access provisions, since it is proposed that 74's be barricaded at the south end of its frontage with this development. f. At present, the resident of a lot west of 70 in the Ash Creek canyon accesses his property via 74th, coming from the south. Based on material in the proposal, since 74'h will be barricaded from the south, how will this resident gain access? Will the development provide access off of the regarded 74d ? g. On 74`h, just north of the planned development, the driveway from the east includes a slope to the middle of 74`h. It is not clear how the revision of 74'h will accommodate this driveway without a sharp change in slope which makes it unusable for a car. h. The rationale for waiving the normal grade requirements for 74'h are not adequate in my opinion. If indeed, a waiver is granted, then the difference in construction cost should be considered an impact of this development which requires mitigation. i. No provision for bicycle use is included in the development plans. Such should be provided, inasmuch as this is a residential use. j. The waiving of requirement for a planter setback for the sidewalk on portions of 74"4 should be considered an impact of this development which requires mitigation. This applied both to the sections south and north of the intersection of Street "A" and 7e. As another example of the preliminary nature of the application and submittals, the section and plan views provided by the applicant differ on whether a planter setback will be provided on 7e north of Street `A'. k. The rationale for not requiring a full street development is inappropriate, considering that 7e will eventually be developed as a thru street from Barbara to Locust. The cost difference in granting this waiver should be considered as an impact of this development which requires mitigation. 1. Provision for a street named "73"" is included in the planned development. The location of this street will create more difficult traffic conditions if it is completed through to Barbara, because it is not in alignment with Shady Court which extends north from Barbara. Again this re* intersection with Barbara will occur at a very steep location, with minimal visibility for some third of the new traffic anticipated for this development. The provision for a 73`d should be moved to an improved location. in. It is not clear how owners will access lots 28 or 29. They are on the south side of Ash Creek, but 74 will be barricaded to their south. Some provision for access from the south on 74" should be provided. n. If waivers are granted for the slope of the fill across Ash Creek, such steeper slopes should be fenced by the developer for safety. Similarly, the area around the retention pond should be fenced. STORM DRAINAGE a. The Tigard Development Code, Section 110, states that the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that development "is commensurate" with given land characteristics of the area. I don't believe this proposal meets this provision of the development code because the area is steep, inaccessible and contains significant wetlands. b. A stated provision of approval from CWS appears to be that the roof drains from homes in the development should be piped to the storm sewer system and detained/treated before entering Ash Creek. If this is done, the situation of keeping post-development peak flows at pre-development levels does not appear to be met nor calculated by the project engineer. Such calculation and changes in the storm drainage detainment system should be completed before planning approval. Later changes will likely be met by cost objections of regrading the site. c. The provisions for storm drainage detention for the lots south of Ash Creek is not clear. The term `drainage way' is used to describe these areas. In the Tigard Development Code, Section 120, a `drainage way' is defined as a gully which will carry more than 5 cfs in a 2S year storm If this is so, more sophisticated retention facilities should be provided. A specific design and calculation for this steep area should be presented as part of the development proposal. d. The maps for flood area, buffer area and natural habitat sensitive area are not clear and should be made clear before approval, including the location of a required fence on the downhill side of the development areas, both south and north of Ash Creek. e. The geotechnical report submitted with the proposal recognizes that certain lots cannot be developed without additional study. Approval of the development without this additional study should not include any approval to build on these lots because it may change the economics of the entire development The exact extent of fill necessary to build on all of the lots facing Ash Creek (those limited to a 2:1 slope of fill) should be noted on maps prior to approval. K f. Tigard should not allow any alteration in grade or tree cover on die site of this development greater than that required for use. The Tigard Development Code, Section 350- states that the purpose of considering planned developments is to provide some flexibility while "preserving to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features". This has not been done in the present case - the cheapest way to develop this area does not meet the test. The Tigard Comphrensive Plan notes that building costs increase 5016 for slopes of 8-12% and increase 100% for slopes in excess of 18%. Much of the proposed development area exceeds even these grades. g. Steep slopes are recognized as contributing to land movement, excessive runoff and stream degradation in the Tigard Comphrensive Plan. This plan, at page I-27 specifically says that density restrictions are one of the tools Tigard will use to limit disturbances on steep sites. While the Tigard Comphrensive Plan seems dated and very general (this section of Tigard is not even shown on its topographic map of the city!) and does not appear to have any enforceable standards (notwithstanding the notice of this hearing), its general advice should be followed. Instead, the staff report allows maximum density including credit for trading open space. h. Because of the steep slopes on the home sites, the foundation and crawl areas themselves will be sources of drainage. The developer should be required to ensure that such areas are properly drained to the storm water drainage system. On lots downhill from proposed streets, this may mean provisions for pumping. i. On page 11 of the development report, Lot 22 should have a 15' rear setback like other nearby lots. J. In the proposal, there is no finding that the PD meets the 1981 Master Drainage Plan requirements (18.385.040 (D) (5). k. Page 3 of the staff report allows private storm lines to convey runoff from lots downhill from the street directly to the stream. This practice negates the analysis of stormwater retention which is cited by the developer, since hardened surfaces, eg driveways, walks, patios, etc will drain faster to the stream than in their undeveloped status. DENSITY a. This planned development is on a difficult site where maximum development should not occur. Tigard should use its regulatory discretion to limit the number of lots to no more than 12, based on topography, soils, stream frontage setback and access limits. b. The definition of Right of Way in Section 120 of the Tigard Development Code states that such areas should not be included in the dimensions of lots or parcels. Making this change in the present application will reduce the number of allowed lots on this property. The definition of the code should be followed. TREE RETENTION a. This developmeut should not be approved, inasmuch as it explicitly states that nearly all trees on the lot will be removed. This is not in accordance with Tigard's tree policy to retain trees wherever possible. Moreover, removal of trees along side Ash Creek (they are so marked even within 2 feet of the low-flow stream bed) will cause siltation and channel changes in Ash Creek. b. The Tigard Development Code, at 18.350.100 (B) (3) (1) states that site elements shall be designed and located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest extent possible. This has not been done in this case, with the forest deferral notice stating that "clear cut" is the proposed action. L Finally, the notice and front page of the staff report do not mention that Development Code: Section 18.730 and its standards are relevant to this decision. This section, entitled "Exceptions" governs the several `adjustments' which the applicant seeks and the staff seem willing to approve. 1 find no evidence of review and approval by the City Attorney of the draft restrictions and covanerr+s of the Neighborhood Association as proposed in the application. This is required by section 350.090 of the Tigard 1 Development Code. The notice and findings are therefore deficient on these procedural matters. My review has been brief, and I have probably overlooked many additional deficiencies of the application and proposed staff J findings, but I stand ready for your questions. F L ~ i J ( L'g, A P J. E 4 ~ i,~.y yl ~ f'•~ P LEGIBILITY STRIP yt Now 0,531 7155 865ft 13,261q. ft7:921` Sq' ft 7,25ft sq. sq. it sq. ft' sq 9626 sq, fti 9606 sq. ft 10,150 sq. ft . , 1 Ash Creek Estates ft- oasVm n m 10,120 • Zoned R 4.5 - 7,500 sq Sq. ft 10,225 sq. ft { 13,260 sq. ft t 10,049 8542-. 7160 ft~ 6340 8659 Sq ft • ft ft r 8416 796 Sq sq. ft Sq. ft sq. ft ' $552 ~Uqo . ti S 8351 8221 sq 2 • sq sq. fit sq. ft # r~ N COMMENTS ON THE ASHCREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL July 7, 2003 Submitted by: Susan G. Beilke, Director, The Biodiversit~ Project of Tigard 11755 SW 114` Place Tigard, OR 97223 Section III. Background Information: This section lacks the following information: Only Lot 4400 of the site is developed, and this is the only piece that taxes have been paid on. Lot #300 is a western red cedar forest that is undeveloped. The neighbors worked with Metro Parks and Greenspaces Department and the Three Rivers Land Conservancy to purchase this property as an open space for the city. The latter groups could not raise all of the purchase price asked for by the Senn family, so they asked the City of Tigard to come up with remaining money. The city said they could not do this. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screenine: It is stated that the applicant "proposes to leave the open space tract in its natural state". Since all of Lot 4300 is open space, this means the applicant is leaving all of the 8.92 acres in its natural state, not just the 4 acres as stated previously. We therefore conclude that there will be no development since all of the open space will be left in its current state, namely as cedar forest. Chapter 18.780, Signs/Relationship to natural and physical environment: This section of the Tigard code is written to preserve the existing features on the site which includes steep slopes, wetlands. and a creek. Since all of Tract 300 is "Sensitive Land", according to city code and Title 3, removal of "ALL" of the trees violates this code as well as state and federal laws. The comments by the city even address this, stating that "it is unclear to staff how the above standard is being met when opportunities exist to preserve several trees outside the building envelopes and grading areas". Staff L goes on to say also that the "drainageway will be slightly impacted by the proposed r crossing of SW 74"h' , and that there will be "fill encroachment into the corridor". This project as proposed will greatly impact the stream and buffer on the stream by causing severe erosion and impacts to water quality by removal of the trees on the slope above. There are many examples of similar projects that have occurred where trees were removed on such a steep slope, and as a result adjacent landowners sued the developer, new property owners and the city involved because of damage to their properties due to windthrow, soil erosion, etc. The cedar trees on the site indicate the most sensitive of wetland forests we have in this state, and this kind of impacts to the slope above will cause such severe impacts no amount of mitigation could ever make up for the damage that would occur. Areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; The geotech report states that several lots would be on very steep slopes,and groundwater was encountered. This clearly indicates again, that development cannot occur in these areas without causing great damage to the wetlands and adjacent properties. The applicant currently is developing a site on SW Walnut, called the Green Heron Point, and the clearcutting of the steep slope on that site caused severe soil erosion in the creek and wetlands below in the winter of 2003. Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal: There should be NO tree removal in the open space tract, period. Any tree removal in this area would cause such severe impacts to the surrounding soils and vegetation that it would greatly harm remaining trees as well as sensitive wildlife including state listed red- legged frogs, and other amphibians, birds, etc. In addition, the applicant stated at a meeting with the homeowners last year he would leave a large buffer of trees between existing homes on Barbara Lane and the new homes. He has failed to do this in the current plant for this site, and so violates the understanding he had with the surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping and open space: This section requires that 20% of the site shall be landscaped. There is no plan for this to occur, since the applicant has stated that he homeowners will do it separately, but the applicant has not stated how they would accomplish this. We do not see how the project "exceeds the minimum 20% landscape criteria", as stated by city staff, since there is no plan submitted as to how this would be accomplished, and having open space and drainage tracts that are naturally vegetated does not contribute to the 20% requirement for landscaping. i Chapter 18.775, Sensitive Lands: This site qualifies as "significant wetlands" and if it does not appear on the City of Tiaards mars it was a serious mistake and breach of public confidence and should be corrected!!!. To state otherwise is absolutely ludicrous when we are discussing a rare, forested wetland open space that is so significant it is now the last remaining cedar forest left in the city of Tigard.!!! It is the city's responsibility to protect such rare sites for its citizens and as part of the protection of natural resources, as is required by the law. Steep slopes: The applicant has proposed to clearcut the entire slope above the wetlands, a slope so steep that removal of all or even some of the trees will cause severe impacts to the wetlands below as well as adjacent properties. The erosion control plan, no matter how good, will not prevent the harm done to the site by the removal of trees and other significant vegetation, wildlife, etc. We request that all plans to develop on any steep slopes be denied. The proposed development will result in severe erosion, stream sedimentation and ground instability as we stated above, due to tree removal and ground disturbance. This violates this section of the code. Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal: The fact that the applicant has stated the site is subject to a timber deferral status and he wants to remove all the trees is so outrageous and detrimental to the site, we are hereby requesting this applicant be denied. The applicant expresses stated last year in a meeting with the surrounding property owners he would leave as MM trees as possible on the perimeter of the site adjacent to the existing _homes, as well as leave trees around the new homes to provide shade, etc. and stability on the steep slopes. In addition, we are requesting that NO trees be permitted for removal within the Sensitive lands areas, as this would cause great harm to the trees, the surrounding trees, soils, etc. In addition, since NO arborist report has been submitted, we cannot comment on this and we are requestin tg_hat M hearing be postponed until a resort is available to the community. - in addition to the above comments we are requesting an arborist tree report for the site which has not been done. We cannot adequately comment on the impact from tree removal plan submitted by the developer if information from a non- biased source is not available. C In conclusion, this site is so rare and unusual we hereby request that the City of Tigard assist the citizens in purchasing this property so that all of the rare trees and wildlife found on the site can be protected and enjoyed by all of the people in this community. i i i ATTACHMENT 4 - EXHIBIT A Agenda Item: 5. Hearing Date: July 7. 2003 Time: 7:00 PNISTAFF REPORT WINE PLANNING COMMISSlOP1= CmoFTl°Aa Comtiiunity Development FOR THE CITY OF-TIGARD, OREGON 11 "gABettenc ,m pity 120 DAYS = 10/2/2003 SECTION i. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: Subdivision (SUB) SUB2003-00010 Zone Change (ZON) ZON2003-00003 Planned Development Review (PDR) PDR2003-00004 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) SLR2003-00005 Adjustment VAR VAR2003-00036 Adjustment AR VAR2003-00037 APPLICANT: Dale Richards OWNER: Ernest E. and Elda H. Senn Winwood Construction 9750 SW 74 Avenue 12655 SW North Dakota Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 PROJECT Kurahashi and Associates CONTACT: Attn: Greg Kurahashi 15580 SW Jay, Suite 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 REQUEST: Approval of a 29-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 9.3 acres. The lots are proposed to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are proposed to be between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. Sensitive Lands Review is required as the project includes areas of steep (>25%) slopes, a drainageway and wetlands. The applicant is also seeking an Adjustment to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units ermitted on a ZONING cul-de-sac, as well as an Adjustment to the street grade on SW 74" Avenue. DESIGNATION: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74U' Avenue; WCTM 1S125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. j APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Planned Development and street adjustments will not adversely aff "d th6 health, safety and,weifare of-the. City and meets the Approval Standards as outlined in't is, reportTherefore, Staff r ecommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval and Findings within'the staff report: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB200MM10) PAGE 1 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7!1!2003 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: Submit to the Planning epa men organ racy, 639-4171, ext. or review an approval: 1. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit an arborist report with tree protection recommendations, and shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 2. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a complete set of construction documents with the tree locations for the City Arborlsts review. 3. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction when the tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly. 4. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide evidence of all necessary approvals for work within the wetlands from US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. 5. Prior to site work, the drainage tract must be clearly identified in the field with permanent (preferably with minimum 4-foot-tall black chainlink) fencing so as to insure no grading or material is placed in this area. Any fencing that is damaged during construction must be replaced prior to final building inspection. If the damage is such that it will no longer effectively identify the tract, it shall be replaced/reinstalled immediately. 6. Prior to site work, a signed approval shall be included with the City's construction drawing packet. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 6394171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 7. Prior to approval of construction plans, the applicant shall pothole the City of Tualatin's main water transmission line to determine the exact location and condition of the pipe. The applicant shall notify the City of Tigard and the City of Tualatin 48 hours prior to the pothole inspections and when any construction activity will impact the pipe (such as placement of fill and excavation in the immediate vicinity) so that a representative from the City can be present. 8. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover all infrastructure and any other work in the public right-of-way. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plan; are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). i 9. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will Be-designated as the "Permittee", and who will ! provide the financial assurance for the ppublic improvements. For example, specify if the entity is I a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City applicant The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. Eg.. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 2 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/7/2003 - 11. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 74 Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a.neighborhood route, without bike lanes, from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet, with a minimum pavement width of 24 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5-foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip (unless adjusted); F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (If applicable); L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 74th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department; and M. right-of-way dedication to provide 27 feet from centerline. 12. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shali be designed and constructed to local street standards. 13. A profile of 74th Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 14. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 15. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility Improvement permit. 16. Final design plans and calculations for the pro osed public water quality/detention facility sha!l be submitted to the Engineering Department Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the plans s~all be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual fo` the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City j will take over mainenance of the facility. In addition, the Cit y will not take over maintenance of i the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time i during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 17. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFQ permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control esign and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." 18. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2M3-00010) PAGE 3 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7!7/2003 - i away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 19. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted geotechnical report by GeoPacifc Engineering, inc., dated May 9, 2003, into the final grading plan. The applicant Shay! have the geottech engineer review and approve the construction plans for the City's review and approval. The geotechnical engineer shall be employed by the applicant throughout the entire construction period to ensure that all grading, including cuts and fills, are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 20. 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. 21. The final construction plans shall be signed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that they have reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading plan at the end of the project. 22. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIEI?'- PRIOR TO APPRCy)UAL' OF THE FINAL PLAT: u mi tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-4171, ext. or review an approval: 23. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall revise the plat to accommodate a minimum of 25 feet of frontage for all lots within the development. 24. Submit a revised street tree/landscape plan that shows an alternative tree species used for either the public or private street to vary the streetscape. 25. The applicant shall provide joint access within an easement or tract to Lots 28 and 29 and case a statement to be placed on the plat limiting additional direct vehicular access to SW 74 Avenue. 26. Provide a plat name reservation approval from Washington County. 27. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall convey title for the proposed open space to a homeowner's association in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.350.110.A.2.b of the Tigard Development Code. Subunit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillen, 639-4171, ext. 2542) for review and approval: i 28. Prior to approval of the final plat the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the i construction of the private storm line in the private street. 1 29. Prior to a proval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of i $900.00. STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 30. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street(s) will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it (them). 31. 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(s). The CC&R's shall obligate ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDPASION STAFF REPORT (SU132003-00010) PAGE 4 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 717/2003 - the pri vate property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 32. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. 33. Prior to a prival of the final plat, the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 74 Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in- ieu 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 $11,578.00 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 34. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and have a structural section capable of accommodating a 50,000-pound vehicle. The paved width shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide, and there shall be two-foot rock shoulders provided on each side. If the maintenance roadway is over 150 feet in length, a turnaround shall be provided. 35. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: e GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 36. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 426). C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORBS 92.05), Washington Coun, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for 74 Avenue shall be made on t e final plat. E. NOTE Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community L evelopment Director signatures (for subdivisions). TH TOI G:,CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR. ANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: J tl mr tote Planning Department organ racy, 639-417 , ex . or review an 'o approval: 7 37. Prior to issuance of any building permits, re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading in conformance with the Clean Water Services Standards as set forth in the site assessment file #2819, prior to obtaining building permits. 38. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit plans that show one (1) off-street parking space, which meets minimum dimensional requirements and setback requirements as specified in Title 18, provided on-site for each new home. 39. At the time of application for building permits for individual homes, the applicant shall demonstrate that each site will be accessed by a minimum 10-foot-wide paved access. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-OMIO) _ PAGE 5 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7[712003 40. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 41. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised plan that indicates the modified setbacks as set forth In this decision (page 11) and record a copy of the approved setback plan with the deeds for each lot. 42. Prior to issuance of building permits for structures on the individual lots within this development, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the height requirement of the underlying zone. The requirement calls for a 30-foot maximum height for primary units and 15 feet maximum for all accessory structures. 44. Prior to the issuance of building permits on any lot, the applicant must provide city staff with a . letter from Clean Water Services that indicates compliance with the approved service provider letter (#2819). Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 45. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant's engjneer shall provide a post-construction sight distance certification for the new intersection at 74 Avenue. 46. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits. 47. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3 any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street ligNs are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). 48. Prior to issuance of building ermits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features)) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 49. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat. 6 50. The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT, SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE. FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF TEiE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT" CODE; THIS IS NOT'AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: i 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approva 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 En ineer 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. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-M10) PAGE 6 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7r/!2003 The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As require erection 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filing and Recordin : Within 60 days of City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Rec uireme~nts: re:e copies o the subdivision plat prepare by a al nd 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: I. 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; i? 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and a 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. i Monument Boxes Ree uireedd Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, i cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities uti ity rues inc uding, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 7 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/7/2003 ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Re uired All improvements installedy the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prere uisite No an division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans, therefore, have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin the City as been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 En ineer's Certification The an dividers engineer s a provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineenncp 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 APPRaVAL SHALL BE'_VALIQ FORTMONTH&,FROM<THE_EFFECTIVE DATE & TtiE PLANNING COMMISSIC?N'S DECISION < SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The property is currently developed with one single-family residence and a couple of small outbuildings. An effort by surrounding neighbors to acquire this property for open space purposes was unsuccessful. A search of city records found no previous land use cases associated with this parcel. Vicinit Information: e site is located 1[i the northwest corner of the City limits, south of SW Taylor's Ferry Road, on the east side of SW 74 Avenue. The property is surrounded on all sides by single-family residences on rL lots that vary in size. There is a stream (Ash Creek) on the property that runs in an east west 2 i direction along the southern property boundary. This drainageway contains wetlands and areas of steep slopes. Proposal~Information: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into 29 lots for single-family residences. Because of the trees, wetlands, and slopes on the site, the applicant has requested a planned development to 2 allow them to vary the underlying zoning standards to develop around these features. The applicant is also requestinan adjustment to allow a curb tight sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk separated from the travel surface by a planter strip, and an adjustment to the cul-de-sac standards limiting the number of units on a cul-de-sac and the 200-foot maximum length permitted for a cul-de-sac. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES PERMITS AND USE USE CLASSIFICATION: SECTION 18.130.020 state Use Categories. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB200300010) PAGE 8 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7!7/2003 - " The applicant is seeking approval of a 29-lot subdivision on 9.3 acres. The lots are to be developed with detached single-family homes. The existing single-family home is to be demolished. Lot sizes within the development are between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to set aside an approximate 4.15 acre open space tract for the drainageway and wetland area. A private street cul-de-sac is also proposed to extend from the public street stub into the property. The site is located within the R4.5, Low Density Residential District. Planned Developments are permitted in all districts. The applicant has applied for conceptual and detailed planned development approval in conjunction with the subdivision. SUMMARY LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type towhich the land-use application is assigned. This is a Planned Development/Subdivision, which is defined as a Type 111-PC Application. Adjustments are typically Type II Administrative decisions and Type III sensitive lands decisions are heard by the Tigard Hearings Officer; however, when applications are heard concurrently, the highest decision making body will make the decision on all matters, as described below. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi- udicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type 111-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. Type III-HO actions are decided by the Hearings Officer with appeals to City Council. In cases where both the Hearings Officer and Planning Commission are involved, the Planning Commission has preferential jurisdiction, per Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 18.390.080(D)(2)(a). SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500. feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. In addition, the applicant is required to post the site with notice of the public hearing. Staff has verified that the site is posted. Staff has not received any written comments from any neighbors about this application. A number of nearby neighbors have expressed interest and concern about the subject proposal; however, no comments have been received since the application was received. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS GENERAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: CI':'%hTER 18.350 The applicant has requested a Planned Developrinen? (PD) overlay zone Change for the subject property. The PD overlay requires developers to f%31'k', the Planned Development process for any ` proposal on affected sites. The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development design and allows deviation from certain standards of the base zone. The following addresses compliance with the process and applicable base zone standards. The Planned Development Process: i Section 18.350.030 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval i process, as follows: i The approval of the planned development overlay zone; The approval of the planned development concept plan; and The approval of the detailed development plan. This application is for all three elements of the planned development process, overlay zone, concept plan, and detailed plan. Applicability Of The Base Zone Development Standards: Section 18.350.070 requires compliance to specific development standards: The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-M10) PAGE 9 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/7/2003 - " Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; The lot sizes range between 4,702 and 11,616 square feet, and there are two tracts proposed to accommodate the private street and the proposed open space. The required lot size for the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet unless an applicant specifically requests different lot sizes through the Planned Development (PD)) process, as is the case for this proposal. The proposed lot widths have been varied, but all are 5b feet or wider on the building portion of the lots. Average lot depths range from approximately 68-153 feet deep. One of the lots (#29) does not have adequate frontage, and will be conditioned to be modified as described later in this report. The applicant has identified and detailed the requested lot dimensional standards for this development, and the minimum and maximum density requirements have been satisfied as discussed later ►n this report. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; There is no site coverage requirement in the R4.5 zone; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and The height restriction does not apply within a Planned Development as long as the developer proposes an alternative that is approved. In this case, the developer has not requested an alternative height requirement, but has indicated that the lots will be developed with single-family residences. Because it is not proposed to the contrary, development within this development will be subject to the height requirements of the underlying zone. Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The applicant has provided a site plan that illustrates building envelopes within the development. The applicant has proposed to maintain a 15-foot rear yard for all structures on lots 1-13, on the perimeter of the project. Lots 24-27 will require a 20-foot front yard, and proposed lot 29 will require a 10-foot south side yard, as it is considered a flag lot. The applicant has proposed specific reduced front yards on the interior of the project to reduce the need for deeper lots and to reduce the grading necessary to accommodate the homes. The applicant has requested that the required front yards within the development be adjusted to 8 feu' for primary structures and porches. They have indicated that the setback to the face of garage is proposed to remain at 20 and 22.5 feet. This C61terion is satisfied. Thn side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) .equirernents for fire walls; r The applicant has proposed reducing the side yard setbacks from 5 to 3 feet. Three feet is the minimum separation required for UBC compliance. It should be noted that no projections, such as chimneys or bay windows, shall be permitted to encroach into this side yard area. This criterion has been met. i Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 i feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street* (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attache single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the regwred off-street parking spaces are provided As described above, the lots provide a minimum 20-foot setback to the garage. The front and rear yards have been modified as shown in the applicant's plans, however, there are several setbacks that =with to comply with the code standards as they are perimeter setbacks.. Lot 27 is shown with a storm drainage easement. This will need to be set aside in a separate tract, and as such, Lot 27 will no longer front on SW 74th, making the front yard on the new public street. A 20-foot front yard setback will be required on this side, as it is a perimeter setback. Lot 29 is a flag lot and is ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 10 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7!712003 - subject to 10-foot side yard setbacks on the perimeter of the project. Additionally, staff recommends that standard rear yard setbacks be applied to the lots that have depths of 100 feet or more (#13-19) as a suitable building envelope has been provided through reduced front yard setbacks, and to further protect the sensitive land resource. A summary of these changes is shown in the following table: Table 1. Modified Setbacks for Ash Creek PD Lot ara a Front ear Side Lot # ara a ron ear Side 3'/3' • 15' 3'/3' 15' 3'/3' S-' 15' 373' -f T- 20' 15' 373' Y 15' 31/3' 15' 3'/3' 20 -M' 3' 373' -2-f 20' 15' 3'/3' 3' 373' 15' 373' 3' 373' 15' 373' 3-' 15' 373' 15' 373' 3' 373' 15' 373' 3' 373' 15' 3'13' 25 20' 3' 373' 12 20' ---gr 15' 373' 3' 373' 13 15' 373' 3' 373' 373' 29 -20' 3' 3'/6"' 10' -f 5- 20' 3'/3' With the changes outlined in the above table, this criterion has been met. FINDING: Several perimeter setbacks do not meet standard code criteria. Staff recommends against the proposed reduced rear yard setbacks on several lots where lot depths exceed 100 feet. CONDITIONS: • Prior to the issuance of building permits on the individual structures within this development, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the setbacks outlined in the above table. Moreover, the applicant shall submit a revised plan that indicates the modified setbacks and record a copy of the setback plan with the deeds for each lot. • Prior to issuance of building permits for structures on the individual lots within this development, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the height requirement of the underlying zone. The requirement calls for a 30-foot maximum height for primary units and 15 feet maximum for all accessory structures. Other roviwons of the base zone: ( of er provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. i Any additional provisions of the base zone are discussed within the body of this report or will be i reviewed during the building permit phase. FINDING: The base zone standards that are related to the previously discussed criteria have been satisfied. PD Approval Criteria: 18.350.100 Specific planned development approval criteria. The Commission shall make findings that the or approving with conditions, the concept plan. following criteria are satisfied when approvin The Commission shall make findings that g the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application. All the provisions of the land) division provisions, Chapters 18.410,18.420 and 18.430, shall be ASH CREEK ESTATES SUUOMSION STAFF REPORT (SU82003.00010) _ PAGE 11 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/7/2003 met; The applicant has applied to subdivide the property concurrently with the planned development approval; therefore, all subdivision criteria must be satisfied. Compliance with the subdivision approval criteria is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 18.430. The application has met or can be conditioned such that the subdivision provisions are satisfied. This criterion is satisfied. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed in Subsection 3 below. The developer may choose to provide or the commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below, density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district. The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10% as an incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/or site variation incorporated into the development. These factors must make a substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which the Commission may approve according to the following: A maximum of 3% is allowed for the provision of undeveloped common space; A maximum of 3% is allowed for landscaping; streetscape development; developed open spaces, plazas and pedestrian pathways and related amenities; recreation area development; and/or retention of existing vegetation; A maximum of 3% is allowed for creation of visual focal points; use of existing physical amenities such as topography, view, and sun/wind orientation; A maximum of 3% quality of architectural quality and style; harmonious use of materials; innovative building orientation or building grouping; and/or varied use of housing types. The applicant has not requested any density bonuses. Density will be discussed later in this report under Chapter 18.715. Chapter 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; None apply. This criterion is not applicable. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; The applicants plans show the areas for visual clearance at street intersections. These areas, as well as the areas at the intersection of the driveways and the street will need to be maintained free from obstructions taller than three feet in height. Any violations of this chapter will be remedied through code enforcement. n Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; This is a detached single-family proposal adjacent to detached single-family homes. As such, there are no requirements for screening or buffering from neighboring properties. However, as discussed later in this report, the applicant is required to landscape at least 20% qf the site within a Planned Development. The applicant has provided a street tree plan for SW 74 Avenue and proposes to leave the open space tract in its natural state. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements; The applicant has proposed that all homes will be provided with 2-car garages and at least 20 feet in front of the garages, which should provide more than enough parking for the development. The applicant has also designed the street with adequate width to allow parking on one side of the street. The minimum requirement for household living is one space for every unit. -This criterion is satisfied. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 12 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 717!2003 ' Ilk Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; and The applicant has indicated in the narrative that each lot will be served b a driveway to a public or private street. The minimum required width for a driveway is 10-feet, which will be assured at time of building permit review. The proposed private street improvements are evaluated under discussion of compliance with street and utility standards in Chapter 18.810 later in this report. Chapter 18.780, Signs. No signs are proposed in conjunction with this development. Any future signage will be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. There has been a proliferation of sign violations from new subdivisions. In accordance with a new policy adopted by the Director's Designee, all new subdivisions must enter into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the guidelines listed in the Planned Development Section 18.350.100.13.2. To expedite enforcement of sign violations, a sign compliance agreement will be required. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: Relationship to the natural and physical environment: Tfie streets-, buildings an other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; The site is constrained naturally by steep slopes, wetlands, and the drainageway that bisects the property alon the southern property boundary. The property is in forest timber deferral through Washington Ggounty and is, therefore, not subject to the tree removal ordinance with the exception of the trees in the sensitive lands areas. The applicant has proposed to remove all the trees within the developable area, and retain the vast majority of trees in the open space tract, except where public facility improvements necessitate tree removal. While this is permissible under existing rules and no mitigation is required by the code, it is unclear to staff how the above standard is being met when opportunities exist to preserve several trees outside the building envelopes and grading areas. The Planning Commission will need to determine whether the preservation of the trees within the open space tract satisfies this standard. With regard to preservation of topography and natural drainage it's clear that effort was taken to preserve as much as possible of these features in their natural state. The road width has been reduced in conjunction with public easements and reduced setbacks to minimize the degree of grgdin reqquired to accommodate the roadway, for both the private street and the extension of SW 74 . Tie drainageway area will be slightly impacted by the proposed (and City required) crossin of L SW 74 . This impact will be minimized by utilizing oversized culverts and retaining walls to limitghe r amount of fill encroachment into the corridor. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; 3 The site is characterized with several areas of slopes greater than 25%, and in limited cases up to i 501% slope. From the applicant's geotech report, there is one area where previous land slumping has i occurred, southwest of the existing residence in the open space tract. The applicant's geotech report notes the locations of construction limits where no further geotechnical study is required, which generally coincide with the rear lot lines of lots 13-27. There are two notable exceptions, on lots 13, 14, and 15 and between lots 22 and 23 where the slopes are steeper, and groundwater was encountered for one of the test pits. The geotech report contains recommendations to address stability of structures and fill on the project site, and requires further study in those two areas. The recommendations of that report will be required as a recommended condition of approval. 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; ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 13 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7!7/2003 N The current proposal does not call for any reduced setbacks along the rear yards of lots 1-12. The open space tract provides ample separation for air circulation and light penetration. The street and front yard setbacks will establish a 46-foot separation between the fronts of the homes. The side yard setbacks have been proposed to be reduced to 3 feet which complies with the UBC without the need for additional rated firewalls. Due to the reduced side yards, no projections into the amended side yards will be allowed. This criterion is satisfied. The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and The proposed structures will be oriented with considerations for sun and wind to the extent practical. The majority of the lots are oriented in a north-south direction providing for opportunities to maximize southern glazing exposure. Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. Trees are preserved in the open space tract to the maximum extent possible for this proposal. Trees outside the sensitive lands area are exempt from the tree removal standards as the property is subject to a forest deferral. Buffering, screening and compatibility between aftinin uses: Buffering shall be provided between different types of and uses, e.g., between single-family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses; Because the proposed development is for single-family homes in an area characterized by single-family development, the Tigard Development Code (TDC) does not require any additional buffering. This criterion is inapplicable. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: O The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; r The required density of the buffering; and Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. As stated previously, there is no requirement for buffering between existing single-family homes and new single-family homes. This criterion is inapplicable. ®n-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, a 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 (a) What needs to be screened; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and 2) (c) Whether the screening needs to be year- round. a There are no specific service areas, storage areas, parking lots or mechanical devices proposed with m this development. No additional screening is required. This criterion is satisfied. Privacy and noise: Nen-rest entia structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; Private outdoor area multi-family use: Shared outdoor recreation areas multi-family use: These criteria relate to non-residential or multi-family structures and are not applicable to the proposed single-family development. Access and circulation: ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDMSION STAFF REPORT (SUB200&00010) PAGE 14 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 717=3 - The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; Each lot will have direct front7pg to a public or private street. Staff recommends that to reduce the number of driveways on SW 74` a Neighborhood Route, lots 28 and 29 should share access. This will be discussed later in this report. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and Comments from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF & R) indicate that the proposed circulation system for the development is acceptable if their conditions are addressed. See Section VIII of this report for more details. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The project fronts on SW 74 h Avenue, which is a neighborhood route but has not been designated for bike lanes. This criterion does not apply. Landscaping and open sace: esi entia Development: in addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (4) and (5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped; The open space and drainage tracts of this proposal constitute approximately 44% of the site area. The applicant has indicated that landscaping on the lots will be accomplished by each homeowner separately. The project will exceed the minimum 20% landscape criteria. There is no landscape plan for the open space tract, however, areas of steep slopes that are disturbed are required to be replanted per the recommendations of the applicant s geotech report. Areas within the drainageway and wetlands will require mitigation replanting per the requirements of Clean Water Services and the Division of State Lands. This criterion has been met. Public transit: Provisions or public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: The location of other transit facilities in the area; and The size and type of the proposed development The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: A waiting shelter; A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area L This site does not abut a public transit route and, therefore, this criterion is not applicable. C ry $i ns, No sigcg~nage is proposed with this application. Any future signage will require a permit in compliance with tF~e sign code. 3 Parkin I par ing and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter Chapter 18.765; Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. Parking can comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 18.765. Drainage: Aff- rainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) _ PAGE 15 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/7/2003 forth in Chapter 18.775, and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Storm drainage complies, or will be conditioned to comply with applicable City of Tigard and Clean Water Services (CWS) requirements. For a more detailed discussion of storm drainage, see the discussion of compliance with the requirement of Chapter 18.810 later in this report. Flo~odpllain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the Ci!,y shall require consideration of 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. No areas within the 100-year floodplain exist on the site. The applicant's narrative erroneously refers to areas of "100-year floodplain" but this is in fact areas of 25-year floodplain used to identify the extent of the drainageway. Since there are no 100-year floodplains on the property, this criterion is not applicable. FINDING: The proposed development complies, or can be conditioned to comply with all planned development approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.100 of the Tigard Development Code. Shared Open Space: Requirements for shared open space: Where the open space Is designated on the plan as common open space the following applies: The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded with the Director; and The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods: By dedication to the City as publicly-owned and maintained as open space. Open space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable to it with regard to the size, shape, ocation, improvement and budgetary and maintenance limitations; By leasing or conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation, home association or other legal entity, with the City retaining the development rights to the property. The terms of such lease or other instrument of conveyance must include provisions suitable to the City Attorney for guaranteeing the following: The continued use of such land for the intended purposes; o Continuity of property maintenance; When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such maintenance; L + Adequate insurance protection; and r Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise. n By any method which achieves the objectives set forth in Subsection 2 above of this section. 1 The applicant has indicated that the open space areas on the site will be conveyed to the o developments' Homeowner's Association. To ensure compliance with City of Tigard standards, the following condition shall apply: CONDITION: Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall convey title for the proposed open space to a Homeowners Association in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.350.110.A.2.b of the Tigard Development Code. Special adjustments 18.370: Adjustments to eve opment standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). The Director shall consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved, approved wifil conditions, or denied provided the Director finds: ASH CREEK ESTATES SU13DMSION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) _ PAGE 16 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/7/2003 - The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the street improvement standards on SW 74th Avenue, and an adjustment to the cul-de-sac standards. Under the new Transportation System Plan, the development is required to provide a planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the standard to allow the sidewalk to be curb tight in order to reduce the amount of fill required in the drainsgeway area. Also, the applicant has requested an adjustment to allow the proposed private street cul-de-sac to exceed the 200-foot length standard by 420 feet, and to permit 23 homes on the cul-de-sac as opposed to the code maximum of 20 homes. These adjustments are discussed simultaneously in the following discussion. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; In the case of the curb tight sidewalk, the site plan indicates the areas of sensitive resources, including Ash Creek, and the associated wetlands. If a 5-foot planter strip was required, then an approximate 1,100 additional square feet of impact to the dramageway and wetland areas would occur. The unusual circumstance for this property is the presence of the stream and the fact that the development is required to cross the stream for street connectivity.' In areas outside of the resource corridor, the sidewalk will meet the public street standards for sidewalks. This criterion is satisfied. In reference to the adjustment to allow the cul-de-sac length to exceed 200 feet as opposed to the proposed 620 feet, the presence of the sensitive lands and stream corridor limit the developable width of the property, such that a looped street system is not feasible. The presence of existing development to the south (Washington Square Estates), east (Washington Square Estates II), and north (the Razberry Patch) precludes future street extensions. The applicant's plans propose a public street that will terminate at approximately 1/3 the total depth of the development site. While a connection further east could be accommodated, the applicant's proposal provides for future developm Pt potential of the northern lot, as well as, creates a better alignment for ultimate extension of SW 73` Avenue. There are specific toppography constraints, as well as existing development patterns that limit the ability of the applicant to extend a road all the way through the development to eliminate the cul-de-sac. The resulting length of this cul-de-sac is the primary reason for the need to exceed the 20 home maximum on the cul-de-sac to a total of 23 homes. This criterion is satisfied. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; The adjustment for the curb tight sidewalk standard is necessary for the design of this subdivision to reduce impacts on the natural resources on the site. This criterion is satisfied. The adjustment requested for the cul-de-sac length is necessary to provide access to lots 3-19 of this subdivision. A standard dimensioned cul-de-sac bulb has been proposed to serve emergency equipment and garbage trucks. This criterion is satisfied. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or infurious`~o the rights of other owners of property; and Granting of the adjustments v.,ould not be detrimental to the he~lth, safety and welfare, nor, is there r any evidence to suggest that the adjustments would be injurious to the rights of other owners of property surrounding the site. The Fire Di-trice has reviewed and commented and offered no objection to these adjustments. The private street will be required to meet fire district standards for width and construction. 3 The adjustment 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 i regulations of this title. In order to develop the property in the proposed manner, the applicant would need to request the adjustments to_the standards for street improvements and the cuf-de-sac length. These adjustments are necessary in order to develop the property as proposed. FINDING: The criteria for granting the adjustments to the street design and the cul-de-sac length standards have-been satisfied. The adjustments are requested to accommodate this development specifically because of the natural resources and shape of the resulting buildable area of the ot, as well as the consideration of pre-existing development patterns in the area that would not permit compliance willh the applicable chapters of the TDC. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003.00010) _ PAGE 17 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEAPING (/7/2003 Zone Change: Standards for Makin Quasi-Judicial Decisions: Chapter 18.380 with conditions or to deny an application recommendation at►on or a decision to approve a p for a quasi judicial zoning map amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; The Development Code implements the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and planned developments are permitted in all districts when they meet the code criteria of the Development Code. This criterion is satisfied. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and According to the analysis of sections below, the proposed zone chan a is, or has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the requirements for planned development VD) in Section 18.350.020 and all other applicable requirements. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. There is no change in circumstances or inconsistencies to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map that warrants a zone change from the underlying zone. However, a zone change is necessary to place the PD overlay designation on the property. This criterion is inapplicable. FINDING: The ~roposal satisfies the criteria for a zone change to place the Planned Development Over ay zoning onto the property. Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval Criteria: 18.430.040 Approval criteria: The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; As illustrated in this report, the proposed plat complies with the zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; L The applicant has not provided documentation of a plat name reservation; therefore, the applicant will need to provide an approved plat name reservation prior to final plat approval. a The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adl'oining property as to width, general direction and in i all other respects unless the City determines it is in the pt!blic interest'to modify the street or road pattern; and a There are no street stubs to this property from adjacent properties. Existing development and topography limits the ability for this applicant to provide stubs for future road service to adjacent properties to the east and south; however, a street tub has been provided for the property to the north, and extension of the improvements to SW 74"' Avenue to the south ►s also proposed. This criterion has been met. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 18 OF 37 PLANNNG COWAS51ON HEARING 717!2003 FINDING: The proposed development complies with all preliminary subdivision criteria, however, the applicant will need to provide evidence that the plat name is not duplicative of others in Washington County. CONDITION: Provide a plat name reservation approval from Washington County. ZONING DISTRICT Residential Zonin District: Section 18.510.020 The zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Planned Developments are permitted in all districts provided the application satisfies all applicable criteria. Development Standards: Section 18.510.050 States that Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table .2 below: The subject site and the surrounding properties are all designated R-4.5, Low-Density Residential. EXCERPT FROM TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD. R4 5,; ;;PR41?QSED' PD Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 7,500 sq.ft. 4,702-11,616 sq. ft. - Duplexes 10,000 sq.ft. N/A - Attached unit 1 N/A Average Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit lots 50 ft. Varies 58 ft.+ - Duplex lots 90 ft. N/A - Attached unit lots N/A Maximum Lot Coverage - - Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 20 ft. 8 ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots 15 ft. 15 ft. - Side yard 5 ft. 3 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. 15 ft. and 3 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - N/A - Distance between property line and front of garage 20 ft. 20 ft. and 22.5 ft. Maximum Height 30 ft. 30 ft. Minimum Landsca a Require ment - 20% For PD Overla [1I Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more than five attached units in one grouping. [2I Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. n FINDING: Since the proposed development is a Planned Development, these standards can be altered to fit a specific design. It should be noted that the applicant's narrative includes o a table listing the various eat widths for each lot. The methodology utilized to establish these lot widths was incorrect. The width is measured at the front and rear yard setback and averaged to obtain the code specified lot width. In any case the lot widths exceed 1 the minimum requirement, and are authorized through the Planned Development process. ACCESS AND EGRESS: CHAPTER 18.705 mimum access requirements or residential use: Section I 8.705.030H. Access Management Section 18.705.030. Section 1 . saes that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meetin_gg adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set 6y ODOT; Washington County, the City and AASHTO. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-M 10) PAGE 19 OF 37 PLANNING COMANSVON HEARING 717/2003 - The applicant's engineer indicates that sight distance will be met. Staff recommends that the applicant's engineer provide a post-construction sight distance certification. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. 74th Avenue is classified as a "Neighborhood Route". Taylor's Ferry Road is classified as a "Collector" street. The proposed new intersection of 74th Avenue and Street 'A' is not within the influence area of the 74th Avenue and Taylor's Ferry Road intersection. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The proposed intersection is over 280 feet away from the intersection of 74th Avenue and Barbara Lane. Therefore, this standard is met. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; TABLE 18.705.1 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS: RESIDENTIAL USE 6 OR FEWER UNITS we~iiongrCJmfs ry Minimumr~,W ~rrb" of tNlb m J.m `o6 swidth Pdlm~rrium Pavement Width xt , Dnvevra .S Fie "k~ or . feet 10 feet The applicant has indicated in the narrative that each lot within the subdivision will have access to a public or private street and that each access will meet the 15-foot access requirement. It should be noted that staff will recommend a condition requiring joint access for lots 28 and 29, as discussed later in this report. FINDING: All proposed lots will meet the required 15 feet of access frontage required for a Single-family dwellings. To ensure that the minimum width pavement requirement is met at the time of development of each parcel, the following condition shall apply: CONDITION:At the time of application for building permits for individual homes, the applicant shall demonstrate that each site will be accessed by a minimum 10-foot-wide paved access. 3 Vohicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the J dwelling units. This is a proposal for a single-family development. This standard does not apply. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. The individual homeowners will maintain the access drives once the property is developed and sold. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the proposal and the comments have been incorporated where necessary. This criterion is satisfied. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SU82003-M10) PAGE 20 OF 37 PUWNING COMMISSION HEARING 717I2003 Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: A circular paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40-feet and a minimum width of 20 feet;. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. There are no access drives proposed that would exceed 150 feet in length. This criterion has been met. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length. There are no proposed driveways in this development that exceed 200 feet in length. The deepest lot in the proposed development is 165 feet, therefore, this criterion does not apply. Where permitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. The site is not adjacent to a collector or arterial. This standard does not apply. To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning. movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Since SW 74th is designated a neighborhood route, and will eventually be extended to connect to SW Locust Street, it is anticipated that traffc volumes will increase on this presently dead-ended road. To minimize traffic conflicts in this area where driveways may be difficult to see due to the vertical curves near the stream crossing, staff recommends that the two southern lots, #28 and 29 share access through one driveway approach. This driveway is required to be a minimum of 10 feet of paved width within a 15-foot easement or tract. FINDING: The proposed development can comp! with all applicable access, egress, and circulation requirements of Chapter 18.705. Joint access for lots 28 and 29 will improve traffic safety by reducing the number of access points onto this neighborhood route L street. CONDITIONS: • The a plicant shall provide joint access within an easement or tract to Lots 28 j and 29 and cause a statement to be placed on the plat restricting additional direct vehicular access to SW 741' Avenue. i At the time of application for building permits for individual homes, the applicant shall demonstrate that each site will be accessed by a minimum 10-foot-wide paved access. DENSITY COMPUTATIONS: CHAPTER 18.715 Density Calculation: 18.715.020 Definition of net development area. Not development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-0001Q) PAGE 21 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 717/2003 - " r from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property to be developed: All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; c. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. • All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; Multi-family development: allocate 15% of gross acreage. All land proposed for private streets; and A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. Calculating maximum number of residential units. o calculate the maximum number o rest ential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. The net development area is determined by subtracting from the gross area, the land needed for public,and private streets as well as areas for sensitive lands. The calculations are as follows: Gross lot area 407,721 square feet Public Street dedication 17,828 square feet Private Street dedication 22,670 square feet Drainageway 70,862 square feet Steep Slopes 107,556 square feet Wetlands (wholly contained in drainaaewa NET DEVELOPABLE AREA: - 8,8 5 square feet (Before Density Transfer) NUMBER OF LOTS: 25 lots Residential Density Transfer Willes governin residential density transfer. The units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in %ection 18.715.020 A. 1a - c from the ross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the followingimitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. Based on the rules for density transfer, the applicant is able to utilize 25% of the constrained lands as part of the net developable area. In this case, the drainageway and steep slopes constitute a total of 178,418 square feet. Twenty-five percent of this area is 44,604 square feet, for a total net L developable area of 233,409 square feet. A To calculate the maximum allowed density, net developable area is divided by the minimum allowed square footage within the zone, as follows: J R-4.5 zone o 3_,4DY_+7,500 = 31 dwelling units. 9 U The total number of units based on 125% of the gross site acreage would be 25 lots x 125%, or 31 J lots. FINDING: The proposed 29 dwelling units do not exceed maximum density of the net developable area. This standard is met. Calculatin minimum number of residential units. As require by ection , the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in Subsection B above by 80% (0.8). ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003"10) WAGE 22 OF 37 PAWNING COMMISSION FEARING 717/?003 - The minimum required density is determined by the following calculation: 25X0.80=20 FINDING: The standard for minimum density is met. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.725 These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 oo'Te Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, t ere s all be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or o{her point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitte in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily etectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. This is a detached single-family project, which is permitted within planned developments in the R-4.5 zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be met. However, ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be 1 addressed by the City of Tigards' Code Enforcement Officer. Y FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. a I- LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING: CHAPTER 18.745 3 Establishes standards or an scaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic o environmental quality of the City. 9 The R-4.5 zoning district does not require any landscaping, however, planned developments require that a minimum of 201/0 of the site be landscaped. As discussed previously, the common areas that are to be landscaped constitute 27% of the site, and additional landscaping will be planted with the development of each lot. Section 18.745.040. states that all development projects fronting on a public street, private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040C. The applicant has provided a street tree plan for the development to include the planting of 62 Red ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 23 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Y712003 - Sunset Maples aloe the front of the lots facing the public and private street and along the site frontage along SW Alfi Avenue. The proposed street trees are acceptable species; however, staff recommends a greater variety of trees be used by utilizing an alternate species along either the public or private street. This will further distinguish the private from the public street as well. With the change outlined above, this criterion is satisfied. FINDING: The proposed street tree plan should offer a greater diversity of tree species. CONDITION: Submit a revised street tree/landscape plan that shows an alternative tree species used for either the public or private street to vary the streetscape. Buffering and Screening - Section 18.745.050 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The subject site is surrounded by single-family developments; therefore, there is no requirement for buffering and screening for this project. FINDING: As conditioned, the proposed development will comply with all applicable Landscaping and Screening requirements of Chapter 18.745. MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE: CHAPTER 18.755 Although listed as a review criterion for this application, this chapter is only applicable to multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non-residential construction. Therefore, this chapter is inapplicable. The applicant has stated that they intend to serve the site as any other single-family development would be served, and Pride Disposal has signed off on the site plan for serviceability. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: CHAPTER 18.765 This , apter is applicable or development projects when there is new construction, expansion of existing use, or change of use in accordance with Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The proposed project will create 29 lots for single-family dwellings. Submittals of detailed plans for the construction of homes within the development are not necessary at this time. Table 18.765.2 requires that one (1) off-street parking space be provided per detached dwelling unit. There is no maximum limit on parking allowed for detached single-family dwellings. There is also no bicycle parking requirement for single-family dwellings. Staff notes that there is a 20-foot required setback from the face of garages to property lines in all residential zones. To ensure that homes constructed in this development comply with these standards, the following condition shall apply: CONDITION: At the time of submittal for building permits for individual homes within the development, the developer shall submit materials demonstrating that one (1) off-street parking space, which meets minimum dimensional requirements and setback requirements as specified in Title 18, will be provided on-site for each new home. SENSITIVE LANDS: CHAPTER 18.775 The development site inc u es area of drainageways, associated wetlands, and steep slopes. Development of sites that include these areas requires review through the sensitive lands criteria as i described below. i Jurisdictional wetlands. Landform alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard Wetland and Streams Corridors Map.,_ do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within the 100-year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. The wetlands within this site do not appear as significant wetlands on the City's map, but are ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 24 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7!7/2003 regulated by CWS and state agencies. A condition of approval will be imposed requiring the necessary permits from Army Corps, Division of State Lands, and CWS be obtained. Steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; 2. 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; 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressiblelorganic; and shallow depth4o-bedrock; and 4. 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 Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The proposed land form alteration is limited to the extent necessary to provide for a street, sidewalk, and utilities. The applicant has attempted to limit the land alteration by narrowing the street, eliminating the sidewalk on one side of the private street, and reducing front yard setbacks. The predominance of the landform alteration will occur outside the stream corridor and drainageway. Also, a geotechnical report has been performed. An erosion control and grading plan will be required as part of the engineering approval process to insure that grading within the steep slope areas will not result in sedimentation or erosion, as well as avoid on or off-site adverse effects. Furthermore, the City will require the applicant's engineer to submit the proposed construction plans to the geotechnical engineer for review andpapproval prior to City approval of the construction plans. A geotechnical report has been conducted to evauate the suitability of the lots for building placement. The geotech report provides a designated area where no further geotechnical evaluation is necessary, and areas where a more detailed analysis will be required. This designation affects a portion of the private street and lots 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23. A condition is required further in this report to have the geotechnical engineer review the proposed grading and building placements prior to f nal plat approval for these areas. To address erosion concerns and removal of vegetation, the applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan prior to any grading. The applicant has not indicated that areas affected by landform alterations will e re-planted if not covered by structures or impervious surfaces, however, this will be insured by the erosion control plan and a condition requiring areas to be re-planted prior to final building permits will be required as part of this approval, and is furthermore required through the CWS service provider letter. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; L r In this case, the landform alteration will include a stream crossing to extend SW 74°i Avenue. This is a requirement of the City to improve the site frontage, provide access to the two proposed lots, any, further implement the objectives of the City's Transportation System Plan which designates SW 74 any, as a neighborhood route. The applicant has proposed a small retaining wall to minimize the amount j of fill in he stream corridor. The extent of the disturbance is no greater than that required for the o roadway. No disturbance within the drainageway is proposed to accommodate the lots or internal streets. J 2. 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; As described previously, an erosion control and grading plan will be required as part of the engineering approval process to insure that grading within the steep slope areas will not result in sedimentation or erosion, as well as avoid on or off-site adverse effects. Furthermore, the City will require the applicant's engineer to submit the proposed construction plans to the geotechnical engineer for review and approval prior to City approval of the construction plans. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 25 OF 37 PLANP!ING COMMISSION HEARING 7/7/2003 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; The applicant has submitted a stormwater report that shows that the capacity of the drainageway is not affected. The applicant has proposed using an oversized box culvert to ensure that upstream properties are not affected. 4. 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 Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; To address erosion concerns and removal of vegetation, the applicant will be required to submit an erosion control plan prior to any grading. The applicant has not indicated that areas affected by landform alterations well be re-planted if not covered by structures or impervious surfaces, however, this will be insured by the erosion control plan and a condition requiring areas to be re-planted prior to final building permits will be required as part of this approval, and is furthermore required through the CWS service provider letter. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; The 1981 Master Drainage Plan does not identify any public facilities for this portion of Ash Creek. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; The applicant has shown approvals from Clean Water Services, but has not yet obtained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Division of State. Lands approvals. These will be required prior to commencing any site work. 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100- year floodplain the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within ana 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. There is no 100-year floodplain within or adjacent to the proposed development. This standard is inapplicable. FINDING: Provided the applicant complies with the following conditions, the proposal can meet the criteria necessary to issue a sensitive lands permit on this particular site. CONDITIONS: r Prior to the issuance of final occupancy on any building, the applicant must • provide City staff with a letter from Clean Water Services that indicates compliance v-4th the approved service provider letter (#2819). i Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide evidence of all necessary approvals from US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. i Prior to any site work, the drainage tract must be clearly identified in the field with permanent (preferably with minimum 4-foot-tall black chainlink) fencing so as to insure no grading or material Is pPaced in this area. Any fencing that is damaged during construction must be replaced prior to final building inspection. • Prior to final plat approval submit and receive approval for an erosion control and grading plan for alteration on slopes exceeding 25 Re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading in conformance with the Clean Water Services Standards as set forth in the site ASH MEI(ESfATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PANE 26 OF 37 PIAWNG CrWASSION HEARING 717003 - assessment file #2819, prior to obtaining building permits. • Prior to commencing on site improvements, the applicant shall have the geotech engineer review and approve the construction plans for the City's review and approval. TREE REMOVAL: CHAPTER 18.790 A tree an or t e planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review 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. The applicant indicates in his narrative that the property is subject to a timber deferral status and the owner has elected to remove all of the trees on the property that are outside the sensitive lands areas as provided for in the Development Code, Section 18.790.050 (D)(4). There are several trees that are indicated for removal within the sensitive lands areas, and thhese trees will require separate tree removal permits. Staff estimates that there are 74 such trees. The applicant should note that a separate fee is required for each tree removal in a sensitive land area and based on the estimate and current permit fees, this equates to $4,200. The applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the removal criteria in Section 18.790.050(A). The applicant has not submitted an arborist report regarding the protection of the trees that will remain on site. FINDING The applicant has provided a tree removal plan indicating the trees proposed for removal. There are approximately 74 trees in sensitive land areas that will require tree removal permits. No arborist report to address the protection of the remaining trees on site has been submitted. To ensure that the trees are preserved according to the tree removal plan, the following conditions shall apply: CONDITIONS: e The applicant shall submit an arborist report with tree protection recommendations, and shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a complete set of construction documents with the tree locations for the City Arborists review. e The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. Vis~ial Clearance Areas: Section 18.795 Cleas° v isi on areas al be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle hedges planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary i or permanent obstru-0ion exceeding three f 3) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, a or where no curb exists, from the street center grade, except the trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. For arteriar streets i the visual clearance shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. No specific plans for the construction of structures are required through the subdivision process. Compliance with vision clearance requirements shall be confirmed through the building permit process for all homes to be constructed within the development. The applicant has illustrated the clear vision areas on the plans and included details at a larger scale for the intersection of the private street at the new public street, and at the new public street and SW 74 Avenue, and has indicated in the narrative that here will be no obstructions placed within these areas. This standard is met. G. IMPACT STUDY: SECTION 18.390.040.B.e ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-=iO) PAGE 27 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 717/2003 Requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code regsires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS Any, required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington Count Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Effective July 1, 2003, the TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $2,530. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's totaling approximately $73,370 ($2,530 x 29 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TiF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $229,281 ($73,370 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered as unmitigated impact. The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the need for these streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for. the internal streets is created by the development, the impact of the development is directly proportional to the cost of dedication and construction of the internal streets and not considered as mitigation for the development impact. With regard to off site mitigation measures, the applicant is proposing to make % -street improvements and provide a rossing over Ash Creek. The applicants estimated cost of these street improvements along SW 74u' Avenue is $250,000. Using the City's standard methodology, the amount of mitigation provided through the applicant's street improvements exceeds the estimated value of the full impact from this development by approximately $94,000. This is not roughly proportionate to the impact of the development; however, it is required for the proper function of the applicant's subdivision, to provide access to the lots within the subdivision, and the applicant has proposed this improvement. With regard to the dedication of real properly interests, the applicant will be required to dedicate an additional 2 feet of right of way totaling 847 square feet for a total value of approximately $2,526. This amount of real property dedication is roughly proportionate to the full $229,281 impact. Although the cost of the physical improvements exceed the full impact, the applicant has proposed these L improvements and is required to provide them in order to satisfy the standards of the street r improvement chapter. Full impact 73,370=0.32) $229,281 " Less TIF Assessment lots x $2,530) -$73,370 Less mitigated costs 74" Street Improvement . . _ -$250,000 v Estimate of Unmitigate mpacts -$155,9ff 1 j FINDING: The applicant's proposed street improvements are required to address the standards of Chapter 18.810 and to allow the subdivision to function properly. While the cost of these improvements is not proportionate to the level of impact, the improvements have been F roposed by the applicant. The required dedication of right of way is clearly proportionate o the impact of the creation of these 29 lots. Therefore, the conditions are either roughly proportionate to the impacts sustained or required to meet the code standards and are thereby justified. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.810 apter provides construction standards or the Implementation of public and private ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-0001Q) PAGE 28 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 717/2003 facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a neighborhood route street to have a 54-foot right-of-way width and a 32-ffoot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. SW 74th Avenue Is site lies -adjacent to SW 74`h Avenue, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant is proposing to dedicate additional ROW to provide 27 feet from centerline. SW 74th Avenue is currently unimproved. There is an existing drainage way that crosses 74`h Avenue just south of the proposed intersection. There is also a 36-Inch water transmission line, owned and operated by the City of Tualatin. The applicant's engineer found that if he designed the roadway to meet Tigard's standard for a sag vertical curve it would require significant fill to be placed over the water line. The City of Tualatin was not in favor of this amount of fill. Another issue is the fact that the more fill that is placed in the sag curve the more impact the fill has on the drainage way wetland area. The applicant and his engineer met with representatives from Tigard, Tualatin and Tualatin Valley Water District to discuss this issue. All parties agreed that the applicant should be permitted to construct 74th Avenue with a steeper grade than the standard in order to minimize the impact on the water line and the wetlands. The applicant would be required to apply for an adjustment to the grade standard. This discussion will be covered later in this report. The result of the applicant's design proposal is that they will be constructing a 3l4-street improvement along the frontage of their site. Adjustment for Curb-tight Sidewalk: Because o the stream corridor an associated wetlands that traverse the proposed street crossing of SW 74 Avenue, the applicant would like to move the sidewalk to curb-tight to reduce the width of the street and the resulting amount of fill required to build the street. By placing the sidewalk curb tight, 5 fewer feet of width into the stream corridor is avoided. Adjustments to street standards are covered under TDC 18.370.020.C.11, where the Director must find that the following criterion is satisfied: "Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep L slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director r shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards." The drainageway and wetlands in Tract A adjacent to the roadway cannot be avoided while still 3 providing for the street connection. The applicant has reduced the street section to the minimum 6 width of 24 feet and has proposed a retaining wall to limit the amount of fill and protect the roadbed from undermining and erosion. By moving the sidewalk to the curb line, the required planting strip is eliminated; however, additional preservation of wetlands, the stream corridor, and existing mature trees will result. Staff finds that the adjustment would not adversely affect the public benefits, as citizens often comment that they do not like to see mature trees being removed with development. The applicant has proposed planting street trees on the outside of the sidewalk to maintain the street tree plating scheme. Staff recommends approval of this adjustment. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(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 ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 29 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7!7/2003 the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de- sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant's plan shows that they will stub a public street to the parcel to the north. The location of this street stub will accommodate effective development of this parcel. Staff concurs with the proposed plan. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030(G) states that staggering of streets making "T" intersections at collectors and arterials shat not be designed so that logs of less than 300 feet on such streets are created, as measured from the centerline of such street. Spacing between local street intersections shall have a minimum separation of 125 feet. 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. As was stated above, the steep slopes and creek to the south preclude extension of a public or private roadway further to the west. No public street connection is proposed to the east due to the fact that all parcels around that part of the site are fully developed with no street extensions available to this site. Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.K states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. The applicant is proposing a rivate street cul-de-sac that will be approximately 600 feet long. The applicant has asked for an adjustment to the standard. Adjustments to provisions under 18.810 are L covered under 18.370.020.C.11, which states: `The director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards". The applicant states that no practical alternatives are available to provide reasonable and efficient access to the entire property. The applicant proposes a private street that would have a length of approximately 500 feet. Again, the adjustment criteria found in TDC 18.370.020.C.11 applies: "Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 30 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING W M2003 application of the standards." The site is over 967 feet deep, which poses a challenge immediately when it comes to serving developable lots with street frontage. In addition, as was mentioned before, the steep slopes and creek to the south preclude any connection to the south. Existing development to the north and east also preclude street connections. Therefore, in order to serve the developable portion of this site, a street of over 200 feet is necessary. The impacts to the steep slopes and creek channel would exceed any perceived public benefit of a through street, especially when this street will only serve a total of 29 homes. Staff supports this adjustment. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030A states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15 /o for distances of no greater than 250 feet), and: The applicant has applied for an adjustment to this standard, but review of their submittal shows that the proposed street grade does not exceed 15% for over 250 feet. Therefore, an adjustment is not required. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.S states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments. The applicant is proposing to serve lots 2-23 with a private street. Because this development is proposed as a planned development a private street is acceptable. The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it/them. In addition, the applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that wilt clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private streets). These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement des!gn 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. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic ana recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.6.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: I. . Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of C water or, pre-existin development or; For blocks adjaceni to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. d Because of pre-existing adjacent development and the stream corridor, there are no further 9 opportunities for connections. The applicant's proposed street stub to the north will eventually provide a block measuring approximately 1,250 feet. This standard is met. Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet except where precluded by environmental or topogra hical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. The applicant has proposed to serve the site with a sidewalk on one side of the private street, and to stub a pedestrian connection with the street stub to the north. There are no opportunities for a ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB200300010) _ PAGE 31 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7!12003 i pedestrian connection to the east or south due to pre existing development patterns. This standard is satisfied. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. Only one lot exceeds 1.5 times the minimum lot size, however this lot (#13) is 69 feet in average width which is less that 2.5 times the lot depth of 170 feet. This standard is satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15 foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. There are several lots around the cul-de-sac that have less than 25 feet of frontage. This will need to be revised on the final plat so that all lots meet the minimum 25-foot standard. All other lots with the exception of lot 29 have 25 feet of frontage onto a public or private street. This is not a standard that can be deviated from through the planned development process. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: Lots 9, 11, 12, and 29 do not have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. CONDITION: Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall revise the plat to accommodate a minimum of 25 feet of frontage for all lots within the development. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. The applicant is proposing to construct sidewalks with their street improvements. This meets the standard. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an exiting sewer manhole in 74" Avenue. The applicant is proposing to extend the 8 inch c line north in 74 Avenue and then east in the new public and private streets to serve all lots. They are stubbing a line to the north for extension with future street improvements. Storm Drainage. i General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate i provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. i Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There is a creek on the south portion of the property. The applicant is protecting that creek by setting the development away from the sensitive area boundary in accordance with CWS standards. The drainage way will have no impact on the proposed new lots. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003 M10) PAGE 32 OF 37 - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING W M2003 Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.1) states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to.the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The site slopes to the south towards Ash Creek. The applicant has shown a new public storm system located within the proposed public and private streets. They have also shown that a stub for future connection will be provided to the north, serving the future north-south street. The storm system will outlet to a pond that will provide both water quantity and quality measures, in accordance with CWS standards, prior to discharging to Ash Creek. The applicant will need to provide access to the pond for maintenance. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 5-foot by 10-foot box culvert under 74th Avenue to accommodate the crossing of Ash Creek. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. 74th Avenue is not classified as a bike facility. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. This standard is not applicable. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated L from the road is eight feet. C This standard is not applicable. Utilities: i Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric l communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes I and meter cabinets which may be laced above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streetsi and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 33 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/1/2003 I a Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding n conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground an which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW 74th Avenue. 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 421 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 11,578. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Stud Findings: A-Traffic Impact epoq was submitted by CTS Engineers, inc., dated April 30, 2003. CTS analyzed the intersections at 74 Avenue and Cedarcrest Street and 74 Avenue and Taylors Ferry Road. CTS found that under existing conditions these intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) B or better. When this project is developed it will generate approximately 278 vehicle trips during an average week day, with 29 trips occurring during the PM peak hours and 22 trips occurring during the AM peak hours. CTS found that with the build out of this site and 2005 traffic conditions that these intersections will continue to operate at LOS B or better. CTS found that the vehicle trips will slightly irlprease traffic volumes on surrounding streets, but will have little impact on traffic operations along 74 Avenue, including the study intersections. Based on the findings of the traffic impact report, staff finds that this project will not have a negative impact on the transportation system. Public Water System: There is an existing TVWD o!ater main in 74 Avenue. The applicant will extend a public water main within the proposed streets. The applicant will need to obtain a permit from TVWD prior to construction. Storm Water Qualm: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site Water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the pho .phorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenaw-e plan shall be submitted in, icating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained thirough the year. i Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calcula ions for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to provide a pond that will provide both water quantity and quality for this project. The applicant has indicated that the pond has been designed per NS standards. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-W10) PAGE 34 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/7rA03 have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. if at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Gradin and Erosion Control: CV S Design an Construction Standards also regulate 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 CWS 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 one or more acre 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 all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved byy the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward- adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. A geotechnical report was submitted by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc., dated May 9, 2003. The geotechnical engineer indicates that the proposed development is likely geotechnically feasible provided the geotechnical recommendations in his report are incor orated into the design and construction phases of the project. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also 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. Since the site is over 1 acre in size an NPDES permit will be required. Address Assi nments: e ity o Tigard for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat. L For this project, the addressing fee will be $900.00 (30 lots and/or tracts X $30/address = $900.00). The developer will also be required to provide sig~age at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. 3 v Surve fteuerements j Tfie_a)p iranf's fins pat shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91~ on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SUB2003-00010) PAGE 35 OF 37 PLANNING CONMdISSION HEMNG 7n/2003 engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal but did not provide any additional comments. The City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed the proposal, and notes that tree protection fencing will be required for the trees to remain. The City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed this proposal but did not provide any additional comments. The City of Tigard Crime Prevention Officer has reviewed the proposal and recommended that a monument be placed at the start of the private street identifying house addresses to reduce delays in delivery of emergency services. RESPONSE: The private street will be named separately from the public street. Houses will be addressed off that private street and, therefore, separate addressing identification (as is typical for flag lots) is not required. The developer may choose to install such signage, however, staff believes that with the separate street name, this signage is unnecessary. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: i) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an uno structe wI t o not less than 20 feet 5 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance o not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 28 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) The private street shall conform to Fire District standards. 2) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate pare vehicles an 0 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed L on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) Signs shall conform to the City of Tigard engineering standards. a 3) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet an 5 eet respectively, measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) 0 4) GRADE: Private fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed an average grade of 10 percent with a maximum grade of 15 percent for lengths of no more than 200 feet. Intersections u and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. ' Public streets shall have a maximum grade of 15%. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.6) s) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES - FIRE HYDRANTS: Fire hydrants for single family dwellings, duplexes an sub-divisions, shall be placed at each intersection. Intermediate fire hydrants are required if any portion of a structure exceeds 500 feet from a hydrant at an intersection as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along approved fire apparatus access roadways. Placement of additional fire hydrants shall be as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.2) ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT (SU132D03-00010) PAGE 36 OF 37 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 71712003 - - - 6) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet rom an approve ire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4) 7) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation o reflective markers. The markers s all be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) s) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for singe family we Ings an duplexes shall be 1,000 ga ons per minute. If the structure(s) is(are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix Table A-III-A-1. (UFC Appendix III-A, Sec. 5) 9) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways an ire Ig tingg water supplies shall be installed an operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. ((JFC Sec. 8704) Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and had no objections to it. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: • Roof drains from all new homes shall be collected in a public storm system and conveyed to a water quality facility for treatement in accordance with R.O. 03-11. • Proposed modifications to flood plain elevations may have impact on development. • Design must include requirements of Service Provider Letter #2819, issued May 13, 2003. The City of Tualatin has reviewed the proposal qpd offered the following comments: The City of Tualatin owns a water main in SW 74 Avenue. The proposed grade of the street means that our line will have between 15 and 18 feet of cover. The City would like to request that before construction plans are approved, the developer be required to pot-mole the line to determine the exact location and condition of the pipe. Additionally, the City should be informed 48 hours prior to construction so that a representative from the City can be present when they are impacting our pipe. RESPONSE: This will be required as a condition of approval. Washington County, Portland General Electric, Tigard Tualatin School District, NW Natural Gas, Verizon, Comcast Cable, and AT&T Cable were additionally notified of the proposal but did not respond with formal comments. L r n _ June 30, 2003 3 PREPAREJh BY: o-"Morgatf- rac v Associate Planner a J I ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDMSIO,4 STAFF REPORT (SUB2003.00010) PAGE 37 OF 37 PLAN NG COMAMSSION HEARING 7f7rM - G T,q y e O{OOA AIMIC INIOAYATIOX tYtTtM VICINITY MAP SUB2003-00010 PDR2003-00004 ZON2003-00003 SLR2003-00005 W VAR2003-00036 VAR2003-00037 T SHADY- LN ASH CREEK ESTATES T I T- SUBDIVISION ELMWOOD T LN ALF LOLA ns rrN D is . TE r ARA a~, rrrn t 4 j > D LN V U Tleud Nu Map / N 0 100 200 300 400 Feet V- 323 Wt J ME, Im ENE -MEMEN's \ I d City ofTigard VENTURA Infom Wn on We map I for general balion only and Mould be cadged whh the Gwlopmetn Belvleee DMebn. DR 13125 SW Hat Blvd Tgerd. OR ".3 L -TTT (503)53441T1 htlp: .d.figeld.ot.ua Community Development Plot date: Jun 4, 2003; C:UnagielMA 103.A R d1VJ.S AM 1191031 Uv-%MIoDU I T 31 Kir LEOEND - n999°... >h ~ 1 ~ „ I ~ID ii [x[ .a ..[v..a n., [.a+ ,a a ,al I 1 it ti~~ i~ ~ [•fIOT[• 6•-,... Y~[r [K I l I ~I' I I. I I I ' B{."k7LWMW MGM I I ;;I S~ RA't~EF\RY Yd►TCH I I ° TAi10T:1ot ~I 4I I~ 35 37 .e ue. a♦ W } i waowwaa•.c[ STREET 'A' ` •[o [eua .SOU 3z [9 'i fo.v' •'4T > Z s 1'-iir[ a~ 2 -dl I p so SL I 9 bl d iIi S 1I u..cw ~I ili D ilis.IS2 s.r. ; i i ; 1 " 6 i ' i i Ynilal k2 5,)69 S.F. II~6,0)I 5.1. 116.290 S.f. iIi III Ili 5,11. Sf.III 10 r > -M1RDS . [.ul, x le[,cn = W[xi I I ♦ow, 6.509 S.I. n 215 II' 26 :1~ 24 i IE •a sizes sr ~i.,TO2 sr, 1.I ~a ~ _ _ _ _ ~ i t - ill •.95.09 S.f Ili S..])S.f. 1I' ` _ / " /`-Y fir. - ~ In I.L r - ~ '•C 11 6"'M.f.~ LL-pgl! ~\'\iIl )~.53.l. II`•_`_.~],r----'•~•r_ _~_r - i3.90651~ ~vcw~vlw 22 tY ~•:I ~ Pmcul ` II:..as S.F. iIi •955 S.F. iI15.205 S.l, ) • ; I'I ~ q,122 i ie'eu~i9[ n III .f1rt 12 ~ ' ~-\a il~ _.li III iI~ [•[n:a III n..cui 16 'II ` . a.os. sr I GCL / [ _ ~ J ilia.ee• ST. t5 iI1 Iii \`.1 9{I•rK 1I I _ \ ` iIi 6.601 S.F. 6.513 S.F. i I I N n , it (~I e.m. S.F. Tj I `•I ♦ [S 1 191Ci A uFLo7 300 I I\[r J r a\'[ ~•~w~ (DRAINAOC EaSCYCNi) `J L :L=-~_ u ~ p I C'1 iNwu • i ~I •J L,'` III 9.310 5.l. 11.616 S.F. 52 c \ / tmal.t } 1']`Ea. I4 ~r~"\:\• r•__ 21 :j: 1~ 0•• L_ Y______ 967. 6 7 ----5--' TRACT 'E TkA!i`~ c' OF SUB2003.000101PDR2003.000041ZON2003.000031 SLR2003-00005NAR2003.000?&NAR2003.00037 a is not to scale srm PIAtv N ASH CREEL( ESTATES SUBDIVISION M Attachment 5 KURIA.HASHI ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Tigard Date: May 27, 2003 Attn: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Morgan, Enclosed are 27 copies of our submittals. We have included evidence of forest deferral and proof of ownership by the Sen's. A street light legend has been added to sheet 4 of 12. Water services will either be installed at the beginning of the road as requested by you. If Tualatin Valley Water District will allow Water services on a private road the services will be located along the private road. The storm report indicated that the lot was 6.42 acres. The actual lot is 9.36 acres. The 6.2 acres refers to the development parcel and right of way. The 5.26 acres is a conservative estimate of the area captured by the drainage system, including all impervious area. Also, the acreage use to calculate density excludes area that are wetlands, and would normally include area considered as drainage way. The drainage way is the 25-year flood boundary in this area. This area is all within the area encompassed by the wetlands. Additional area within the wetland boundary could have been identified as upland, interior to the wetlands and was available for density transfer. This area was not used since it was not needed to justify the number of lots allowed. If you have any additional questions or need additional clarification please call. Sincerely, ti Greg Kurahashi, P.E. L 'r 1. J D 9 u J 15580 S.W. Jay Street, Suite 200, Beaverton. Oregon 97006 503.644.6842 Fax 503.644.9731 Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning Surveying 05/2-7/2003 15:57 FRTCO TIGARD 4 9-5036251756 NO.148 D001 5037957684 10/17/2002 07:25 FRTCO TITLE DEPMTMENT i LT No.370 17001 First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon An nwmN POAM w'rnU tnSVRANCF. r(kMPANY nr nRC6o.'j v 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512 r (503) 222.3651 • FAX 1503) 790-7865 or 1503) 790-7858 Preliminary Title Report October 16, 2002 ALTA Owners Stand. Cov. $1,350,000.00 Premium $2.630.00 ALTA Owners Ext. Cov. S Premium $ ALTA Lenders Stead. Cov, S Premium S ALTA Lenders Ext. Cov. $1,100,000.00 Premium $727.00 Order No. : 978579 bWorsemant -100. 116 4 6.1 Premium $ 80.00 Escrow No.: 02053442 other cost $ Re Senn/Windwood Construction Govt. serv. Charga Cost S 50.00 A consolidated s»nement of all charges and advances in con- necton with tWs order will he provided at closing. First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon 10260 SW Greenburg Road Suite 170 Portland, OR 97223 Attention: Tammy Stehn Telephone No.: (503)244-8323 Fax No.: (503)244-8377 We are prepared to issue Title Insurance Policy or Policies in the form and amount shown above, insuring title to the following described land: Lot 28, Block 1, BOULEVARD HEIGHTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; and as of October 3, 2002 at 8:00 a.m., title vested in: ELDA H. SENN; Subject to the exceptions, exclusions and stipulations which are ordinarily part of such Policy form and the following: 1. Taxes for the fiscal year 2002-2003 a lien not yet payable. 2. Taxes for the year 2001.2002; Tax Amount $2,563.94 1L Unpaid Balance $2,563.94, plus interest, if any. Code No. 023.81 i Map & Tax Lot Nc. 1S1250C-00400 A Account No. 8231920 J Taxes for the year 1999.2000: n Unpaid Balance $2,245.60, plus interest 9 U Taxes for the year 2000.2001: J Unpaid Balance 02,409.02, plus interest NOTE: The taxes shown above are delinquent for at least 3 years. Pursuant to statute, the land described herein is subject to foreclosure and additional charges may be levied. (Affects Tax Lot 4001 This report is for tfle e=lusWe use of the parties herein shown and is preliminary to the issuance of a tide insurance policy and shall becon @ void u IM a policy is issued, and the lull premium pad. 05/27i2W3 15:57 FATCO TIGARD 4 9-5036251756 NO.148 0002 07:25 FATCO TITLE DEPARTMENT LT NO.3?0 0002 Page 2 Order No. 978579 Taxes for the year 2001.2002' Tax Amount $18.47 Unpaid Balance $18.47, plus interest, If any. Code No. 023.81 Map & Tax tot No. 1S125DC-00300 Account No. R231911 (Affects Tax Lot 300) 3, The assessment roll and the tax roll disclose that the premises herein described were specially assessed as Forest Land pursuant to O.R.S. 321.358 to 321.372. (f the land becomes disqualified for the special assessment under the statute, an additional tax may be levied for the last five (5) or lesser number of years in which the land was subject to the special land use assessment. 4. City Liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. Note: There are no liens as of October 11, 2002. 5. Statutory Powers and Assessments of Clean Water Services. 6. These premises are within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and are subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 7. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits of roads, streets or highways. 8. Line of Credit Trust Deed. including the terms and provisions thereof, given to secure an indebtedness of uo to $120,000.00 Oared September 3, 2002 Recorded September 30, 2002 as Fee No, 2002-113829 Grantor Elds H. Senn, an unmarried woman Trustee Wells Fargo Financial National Bank Beneficiary Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ' Loan No. 0654-684-3965252-1998 9. The following matters pertain to tenders Extended coverage only: (a) Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary limes, shortage in area, encroachments or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. j (b) Parties in possession, or claiming to be in possessiun, other than the vestees shown herein. (c) Statutory liens for labor and/or materials, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon for employment compensation and for workman's compensation, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appears of record. NOTE: Washington County Ordinance No. 267, filed August 5, VD82 in Washington County, Oregon, imposes a tax of $1.00 per $1,000.00 or fraction thereof on the transfer of real property IocatO within Washington County. Certain conveyances, may be exempt frvrn said ordinance, in which case, Washington County wit require a correct and tanefy filling of an affidavit of exemption. For aN deedsiconveyance documents which are recorded retcluding situations to meet lender requirements) either the transfer tax must be paid or affidavit acceptabim to the county must be filed. ro 05/27y2003 15:57 FATCO TIGARD 4 9-5036251756 NO.148 D003 10/17/2002 07:25 FATCO TITLE DEPARTMENT 4 LT N0.370 M03 Page 3 Order No. 978579 NOTE: The address of the property described herein is: 9750 SW 74th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 NOTE: We find no judgments or United States Into, al Revenue Liens against WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC.. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON JAMES J. WELCH Title Officer (503) 795-7669 JJW:aIr cc: Elda Hoist Senn cc: Windwood Construction, Inc. CCR'S provided, if applicable cc: Meadows Group, Inc. Attn: All Robertson Attn. Heather Adams Attn: Closing Coordinator Recording Information: Filing Address: washington c6nty 155 North 1st Avenue Hillsboro. OR 97124.3087 Recording Fees: $5.00 per page $6.00 per document (Public Land Comer Preservation Fund) IL $11.00 per document (OLIS Assessment & Taxation Fee) Q-, 06.00 for each additional document title $20.00 non-standard fee N _J m W J TNANK YOU FOR CHOOSING RRST AMERICAN TITLE Wt /vok 1WW Wd to acdlsdv you in all of yaw oft and eserow Reeds 05/27/2003 15:57 FATCO TIGARD a 9-5036251756 N0.148 9004 . 10if72002 07:25 FATCO TITLE DEPARTMENT LT NO. 370 om tsse-na (Cos) Z1SS-la7.C6 k!o 'oNvilliod *SnN3AY Fuunoa 'M'S out rrooauo a ~.nms0o 3owtnnSNi 9'4111:0 a..w sswr+m v.a.+sse ><v a `o P a-WU Ue =.MY PA.9 *a ~~.ynv s• AMvrjS wnloti.49 a3so'1o1a 3o Arw Si SNGLIVIHVA ANY dad UMOVI-1 ON S3Y1 my AN*W3 3111 GWV UN3d0Vd MLY001 NI SOMMAN09 V SV MMNHfW SI dVVd S*U -1, all, t G Z 1 n'~ a nec to - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wa - - - asp • w, ow am aoG eoN ioi.. aoo 1 EMI vanlN3A • z 'A'S Wmi wav awn ni GOti OOR 0001 000 OOiI 0011 aos OOiI Wn am s ~ t - S L H ~1 3 H ~ a f Q~tr~a"inoe as Is { t .i Ii r w 111 t ~ • !OL 2 oei. Rio am oos, aii' ~ m 0w. 3~YY l s*- ..N oo: A • a aa. ..•i s: °Pit ooe bi111HdV6 A1S ~ APR-28-03 10:05AM FROM-WASHINGTON COUNTY 503-661-3808 T-743 P.02/02 F-800 THIS 13 NOT A PILL. 00 NOT PAY. Calculation of deferred taxes when land disqualified from special assessment aS DESIGNATED FOREST LAND - ORS 321.359 Account: 151 25DC - 00300 8231911 SENN, Ernest $ Elda 8.90 acres 71 1998-99 23-81 453,760 1,110 452,650 15.2174 6.888.16 1999-00 23-81 467,370 1,130 466.240 14.2696 6,653.06 2000-01 23-81 481,390 1,200 480,190 15.2749 7,334.85 2001-02 23-81 495,830 1,230 494,600 15.8736 7.851.08 2002-03 23-81 510,700 1,260 509.440 16.8894 8,604.14 Total additional tax liability if dis"allfied prior to July 1st $ 37.331.29 Less 376 discount if paid on or bef are November 15th - 1,119.94 Net paid on or before November 15th $ 36,211.35 This is in addition to any cw"nt or prior year levied taxes. L96ENS 1= Tax Year Disqual,fied 5 - Difference between Market 2 = Tax Code and Farm Use Values in $ 3 = Market Value of Deferred Acreage in $ 6 =Tax Rate in $ per $1000 Value Be: 4 = Farm Use Value of Deferred Acreage in $ 7 = Total Amount of Tax for All Years Disquahed F W _J W J NOTE: IF DISQUALIFICATION IS DESIRED, IT MUST BE REQUESTED ON THE PROPER FORM FROM THIS OFFICE OR IN A LETTER FROM THE SELLER. CALL (503) 846-3927. s,.o raw,os> ■sy 28 03 10:04a M. Ds'e Richards 503-590-9109 p.1 t 12655 SW North Dakota Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 625-6526 Windwood Fax(503) 625-1756 Construdtion In C. Fax To: )A L From: Fax: Pages: (Including cover) Phone: Date: Re: CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle e Comments. 3 H J_ m W J May 2,8 03,10:04a M. Dale Richards 503-590-9109 P.2 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS APPLICABLE TO ASH CREEK ESTATES DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS IS APPLICABLE TO ASH CREEK ESTATES. WHEREAS, WINDWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC., HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DECLARANT, IS OWNER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, IN THE STATE OF OREGON, KNOWN AS ASH CREEK ESTATES, A DULY RECORDED PLAT. WHEREAS, THE DECLARANT WISHES TO MAKE PUBLIC ITS INTENTIONS TO CREATE CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS TO THIS OWNERSHIP OF SAID PROPERTY: NOW, THEREFORE THE DECLARANT DOES HEREBY CERTIFY AND DECLARE THAT THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS SHALL BECOME AND ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF ALL CONVEYANCES OF LOTS WITHIN THE PLAT OF ASH CREEK ESTATES RECORDED ON (DATE), PLAT BOOK , PAGE OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON AND THAT THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS SHALL BY REFERENCE BECOME A PART OF ANY SUCH CONVEYANCES AND SHALL APPLY THERETO AS FULLY AND WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS IF SET FORTH AT LARGE THEREIN. ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS I. "ASSOCIATION"SHALL MEAN AND REFER TO THE ASH CREEK ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN OREGON NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. 2. "BOARD OF DIRECTORS" IS THE DECLARANT SO LONG AS HE IS AS OWNER AND DESIRES TO BE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND THERE SHALL BE THREE (3) OWNERS SELECTED BY THE DECLARANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DECLARATION. 3. "COMMON AREAS" SHALL MEAN THOSE AREAS OF LAND SHOWN OR DECLARED AS SUCH IN ANY RECORDED PLAT OF THE PROPERTY AS TRACTS A, B OR C, AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED OR PLACED THEREON WHICH ARE INTENDED TO BE DEVOTED TO THE COMMON USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE CL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. 4. "DECLARATION" SHALL MEAN THESE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND y RESTRICTIONS FOR ASH CREEK ESTATES AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AS SET FORTH IN THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT. F" 5. "LOT" SHALL MEAN EACH OF THE NUMBERED PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN J THE PLAT. n 6. "MEMBER" SHALL MEAN EVERY PERSON OR ENTITY WHO IS OWNER IN ASH CREEK ESTATES AND WHO HOLDS MEMBERSHIP M THE ASSOCIATION. U J l Matj 28 03 10:04a M. Da , Richards 503-F 1-9109 p.3 ARTICLE 11 PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THESE COVENANTS INITIAL DEVELOPMENT DECLARANT HEREBY DECLARES THAT ALL OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE IS HELD AND SHALL BE HELD, CONVEYED, HYPOTHECATED, ENCUMBERED, USED, OCCUPIED AND IMPROVED SUBJECT TO THESE CONDITIONS. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT DECLARANT HEREBY DECLARES THAT ADDITIONAL REAL PROPERTY LYING ADJACENT TO THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE MAY BE SUBDIVIDED AND PLATTED AS ADDITIONAL PHASES OF ASH CREEK ESTATES AND AT DECLARANTS SOLE DISCRETION MAY BE MADE SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS. TRACT "A" (PRIVATE STREET) SHALL BE OWNED BY THE DECLARANTS, THEIR SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS, AND MAINTAINED PER COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND PUBLIC BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY. TRACT "B" IS FOR A WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION FACILITY, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND ACCESS EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY TO THE OWNERS OF LOTS 1-18. TRACT "B" SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE DECLARANT, THEIR SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS. TRACT "C" IS AN OPEN SPACE TRACT AND SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE DECLARANT, THEIR SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS. OWNERS EASEMENTS OF ENJOYMENT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH BELOW, EVERY OWNER SHALL HAVE A RIGHT AND EASEMENT OF ENJOYMENT IN AND TO THE COMMMON AREAS AND THIS RIGHT SHALL PASS WITH THE TITLE OF EVERY LOT, SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC UTILITY ACCESS FOR THE OPERATION, INSTALLATION, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM DRAINAGE, NATURAL GAS, CABLE TELEVISION, ELECTRICAL POWER, LIGHTING, AND SECURITY AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. EXTENT OF OWNER'S EASEMENTS r THE RIGHTS OF ENJOYMENT CREATED HEREBY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: A A. THE RIGHT OF THE ASSOCIATION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF GUESTS OF OWNERS. B. THE RIGHT OF THE ASSOCIATION TO CHARGE REASONABLE FEES FOR THE USE 'p AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COMMON AREAS, STREETS AND WALKWAYS. THIS RIGHT TO CHARGE FEES SHALL INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO LEVY LIENS ON ANY PROPERTY AND CHARGE INTEREST FOR ANY FEES NOT PAID BY THE OWNER (S) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS HEREOF. ARTICLE. I I 1 May 28 03 10:04a M. Dr's Richards 503-`0-9109 p.4 OWNERS ASSOCIATION I . ORGANIZATION. THE DECLARANT SHALL ORGANIZE AN ASSOCIATION OF ALL OWNERS OF LOTS WHICH SHALL BE ORGANIZED UNDER THE NAME "ASH CREEK ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION SHALL BE TIED TO AND MAY NOT BE SEPARATED FROM OWNERSHIP OF ANY LOT. THE ASSOCIATION SHALL BE ORGANIZED AS A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE ASSOCIATION SHALL PROVIDE FOR ITS PERPETUAL EXISTENCE, BUT IN THE EVENT THE ASSOCIATION IS AT ANY TIME DISSOLVED, WETHER INADVERTENTLY OR DELIBERATELY, IT SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY SUCCEEDED BY AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF THE SAME NAME. IN THAT EVENT, ALL OF THE PROPERTY, POWERS AND OBLIGATION OF THE INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION EXISTING IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO ITS DISSOLUTION SHALL THEREUPON AUTOMATICALLY VEST IN THE SUCCESSOR UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION AND SUCH VESTING SHALL THEREAFTER BE CONFIRMED AND EVIDENCED BY APPROPRIATE CONVEYANCES AND ASSIGNMENTS BY THE INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION. ARTICLE 1V RESIDENTIAL COVENANTS LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE FOR ATTACHED HOMES NO LOT SHALL BE USED EXCEPT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. NO BUILDING SHALL BE ERECTED, ALTERED, PLACED OR PERMITTED TO REMAIN ON ANY LOT OTHER THAN ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND AN ATTACHED PRIVATE GARAGE FOR NOT LESS THAN ONE. (1) CAR. DAYLIGHT BASEMENTS RESULTING IN MORE THAN 3 Y. STORIES ARE PERMITTED ON DOWNHILL LOTS WHERE THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS BELOW STREET LEVEL. THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS SHALL NOT EXCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIVATE GREENHOUSE, STORAGE SHED, PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL, OR FOR THE STORAGE OF A BOAT AND/OR CAMPING TRAILER KEPT FOR PERSONAL USE, PROVIDED THE LOCATION OF SUCH STRUCTURE IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS, AND IS COMPATIBLE IN DESIGN AND DECORATION WITH THE RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED ON SUCH LOT AND IS APPROVED IN WRITING BY DECLARANT. NO LOT SHALL BE SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO OR MORE LOTS BY AN INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNER EVEN IF THE LOT SIZES AND ZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR SUCH A PARTITION OF LAND. THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS SHALL NOT EXCLUDE THE DECLARANT FROM MAKING LOT SIZE ADJUSTMENTS, LOT LINE REVISIONS/ADJUSTMENTS THAT MAY RESULT IN THE IL IL ADDITION OF ONE OR MORE LOTS AS LONG AS THE ADJUSTMENT IS APPROVED BY THE E, CITY OF TIGARD AND CONFORMS TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS. N THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO PROHIBIT THE RIGHT OF J ANY HOMEBUILDER TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENCES ON ANY LOT, TO STORE CONSTRUCTION m MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON SAID LOTS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, L9 AND TO USE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AS A SALES OFFICE OR A MODEL HOME FOR W THE PURPOSE OF SALES IN ASH CREEK ESTATES. J ALL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED SHALL CONFORM TO EXISTING CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING AND ZONING CODES. ANY IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO ANY LOT (INCLUDING LANDSCAPING) WITHIN THE CITY OR COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL REQUIRE THE PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD. May 28 03 10.05a M, Dal- Richards 503-540-9109 P•S DWELLING SIZE FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOME DWELLING SIZE: THE GROUND FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF ANY HOME, EXCLUSIVE OF OPEN PORCHES AND GARAGES, SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 500 SQUARE FEET FOR A ONE-STORY DWELLING, NOR LESS THAN 1000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TWO STORY DWELLING. THE TOTAL LIVING AREA OF MULTI-LEVEL HOME DWELLING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN A TOTAL OF 2000 SQUARE FEET. EASEMENTS FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE RESERVED AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT. SOME PUBLIC EASEMENTS INCLUDE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS WHICH SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF DEBRIS AND OBSTRUCTIONS (FENCES, ETC.) AT ALL TIMES. NO REFUSE DUMPING IS ALLOWED IN THESE AREAS. LOT OWNERS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ANY PRIVATE UTILITIES LOCATED WITHIN PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENTS. LOT OWNERS WITH PRIVATE STORM DRAM FACILITIES LOCATED IN PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENTS (RECIPROCAL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS), WHICH ALLOW FOR CROSS-LOT DRAINAGE FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, SHALL BE REQUIRED AT ALL TIMES TO KEEP SAID STORM LINES FREE AND CLEAR OF OBSTRUCTIONS AND SHALL NOT ALTER THE DIRECTION AND FLOW OF SAID DRAINAGE LINES. THE COST OF COMMON MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE DRAINAGE PIPES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OWNERS ALONG A SHARED DRAANAGE LINE SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY AMONG ALL OWNERS ALONG SHARED DRAINAGE PIPE. COST TO REPAIR A DAMAGED DRAIN LINE DUE TO AN INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNER, SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL 3_:T OWNER CAUSNG THE DAMAGE TO THE DRAIN LINE. NUISANCES NO NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE ACTIVITY SHALL BE CARRIED ON UPON ANY LOT, NOR SHALL ANYTHING BE DONE THEREON WHICH MAY BE OR MAY BECOME AN ANNOYANCE OR NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PARKING PARKING OF BOATS, TRAILERS, MOTORCYCLES, ONE TON OR LARGER TRUCKS, TRUCK- CAMPERS AND THE LIKE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON ANY PART OF SAID PROPERTY NOR ON PUBLIC WAYS ADJACENT THERETO EXCEPTING WPEN PARKED IN THE CONFINES OF AN ENCLOSED GARAGE. PARKING OF BOATS MOUNTED ON A TRAILER OR CAMPER TRAILERS SHALL BE PERMITTED IF THEY ARE FULLY SCREENED FROM VIEW OF ANY STREET, PROVIDED, ANY BOAT MOUNTED ON A TRAILER, INCLUDING ITS WINDSHIELD, OR CAMPER TRAILER, DOES NOT EXCEED 6' FEET IN HEIGHT. VEHICLES IN DISREPAIR NO OWNER SHALL PERMIT ANY VEHICLE WHICH IS IN AN EXTREME STATE OF DISREPAIR TO BE ABANDONED OR TO REMAIN PARKED UPOi ; ANY LOT OR GIN THE OPEN SPACE OR ON ANY STREET FOR A PERIOD IN EXCESS OR FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS. A VEHICLE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN AN "EXTREME STATE OF DISREPAIR" WHEN ITS PRESENCE OFFENDS THE OCCUPANTS OF TWO (2) OR MORE LOT OWNERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FENCES AND HEDGES AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION, "FENCING" SHALL MEAN ANY BARRIER OR WALL OTHER THAN NATURAL LIVING ORGANIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING TREES AND SHRUBS. PLANTING OR SITE OBSCURING FENCES SHALL NOT EXCEED FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD OR ON SIDE LOT LINES FORWARD OF THE BUILDING LINE WITH THE May 28 03 10:05a M. D%'e Richards 503-°q0-9109 p.6 GREATEST SETBACK ON THE LOT OR ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL LOT. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A SITE OBSCURING FENCE LOCATED ON THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT SHALL BE SIX (6) FEET. FENCES SHALL BE WELL CONSTRUCTED OF QUALITY WOOD FENCING MATERIALS, DESIGNED AS A "GOOD NEIGHBOR BOARD ON BOARD FENCE" WITH A WOOD CAP OR VINYL CLAD CHAIN LINK. ALL FENCES SHALL BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY DECLARANT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL NOT DETRACT FROM THE APPEARANCES OF THE DWELLING HOUSES LOCATED ON ADJACENT LOTS OR BE OFFENSIVE TO THE OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS THEREOF. SIDE AND REAR YARD PLANTINGS SHALL BE SITED SO AS NOT TO OBSTRUCT VIEW CORRIDORS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SIGNS NO SIGNS SHALL BE ERECTED ON ANY LOT EXCEPT THAT NOT MORE THAN ONE "FOR SALE" SIGN PLACED BY OWNER, THE DECLARANT OR BY A LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENT, NOT EXCEEDING TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES HIGH AND THIRTY-SIX (36) INCHES LONG, MAY BE TEMPORARILY DISPLAYED ON ANY LOT. THIS RESTRICTION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF "POLITICAL" SIGNS ON ANY LOT BY THE OWNER, OR THE PLACEMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL PROJECT SIGN BY DECLARANT, WHICH MUST COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD SIGN ORDINANCES- SAID PROJECT SIGN WILL BE ON ANY LOT CHOSEN BY THE DECLARANT FOR THE DURATION OF SALES ON THE PROJECT. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES NO STRUCTURE OF A TEMPORARY CHARACTER, TRAILER, BASEMENT, SHACK, GARAGE, BARN OR OTHER OUTBUILDING SHALL BE USED ON ANY LOT AT ANY TIME AS A RESIDENCE WHETHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY. TENTS USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES WILL BE LIMITED TO SEVEN (7) CONSECUTIVE DAYS. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY NO ANIMALS, LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY OF ANY KIND SHALL BE RAISED, BRED OR KEPT ON ANY LOT EXCEPT A REASONABLE NUMBER (3 TOTAL) OF DOGS, CATS OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD PETS MAY BE KEPT PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT KEPT, BRED OR MAINTAINED FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL NO LOT OR OPEN SPACE SHALL BE USED OR MAINTAINED AS A DUMPING GROUND FOR RUBBISH. TRASH, GARBAGE OR OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF SUCH MATERIALS S14ALL BE KEPT IN A CLEAN AND SANITARY CONDITION. L UTILITIES ALL PLUMBING FACILITIES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLUMBING CODE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD. NO OUTDOOR OVERHEAD WIRE OR SERVICE DROP FOR j THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY OR FOR TELE-COMMUNICATION PURPOSES, NOR ANY POLE, TOWER OR OTHER STRUCTURE SUPPORTING SAID OUTDOOR OVERHEAD WIRES a SHALL BE ERECTED, PLACED OR MAINTAINED WITHIN ASH CREEK ESTATES. ALL OWNERS u OF LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, THEIR HEIRS, SUCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL USE UNDERGROUND SERVICE WIRES TO CONNECT THEIR PREMISES AND THE STRUCTURES BUILT THEREON TO THE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, OR CABLE TV UTILITY FACILITIES PROVIDED. MAINTENANCE May 28 03 10:05a M. D?'e Richards 503-=q0-9109 P,? ALL LOTS, AT ALL TIMES SHALL BE KEPT M A NEAT AND ORDERLY CONDITION FREE OF BRUSH, VINES, WEEDS, DEBRIS AND THE GRASS THEREON CUT OR MOWED AT SUFFICIENT INTERVALS TO PREVENT CREATION OF A NUISANCE OR FIRE HAZARD. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL USES NO GOODS, EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES, MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRADE, SERVICE, OR BUSINESS SHALL BE KEPT OR STORED OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE OR GARAGE ON ANY LOT, EXCEPTING THE RIGHT OF ANY HOME-BUILDER AND THE DECLARANT TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENCES ON ANY LOT, TO STORE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS ON SAID LOTS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF SAID CONSTRUCTION AND TO USE ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AS A SALES OFFICE OR MODEL HOME FOR PURPOSES OF SALES IN ASH CREEK ESTATES. LANDSCAPE COMPLETION ALL FRONT AND REAR LANDSCAPING MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING NOTICE OF COMPLETION OR THE DATE OF OCCUPANCY OF THE RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED THEREON, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. ANTENNAS AND SERVICE FACILITIES EXTERIOR ANTENNAS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE PLACED UPON THE ROOF OF ANY STRUCTURE SO AS NOT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE STREET OR OTHER LOTS. ANTENNA SATELLITE DISHES ARE ALLOWED ON ANY LOT. NO BASKETBALL HOOPS OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE AATTACHED TO THE OUTSIDE WALL OF ANY HOME. EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND FACILITIES EACH DWELLING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE PER ARTICLE I, PARAGRAPH 2, FULLY FINISHED, EXCLUDING NON-HABITABLE APPURTENANCES SUCH AS GARAGES OR ENCLOSED PORCHES. EACH DWELLING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED USING CONVENTIONAL DOUBLE-WALL WOOD FRAMING, EXCEPT WHEN USING ALLOWED PLYWOOD SIDING DESCRIBED IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. SIDING MATERIAL SHALL BE NATURAL WOOD MATERIAL, OR HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF NATURAL WOOD, MASONRY BRICK, STONE, STUCCO, OR A COMBINATION OF THESE. MANUFACTURED WOOD SIDING IS ALLOWED. PLYWOOD SIDING SHALL BE ALLOWED ON THE NON-STREET SIDE OF HOMES ONLY. L COMPOSITION ROOFING MATERIAL WILL BE PERMITTED. ANY ROOFING MATERIAL, OTHER THAN WOOD, TILE OR ASPHALT COMPOSITION IS NOT PERMITTED. WINDOW 0 FRAMES WILL BE EITHER BRONZE TONE, WHITE VINYL, OFF-WHITE OR WOOD. NO MILL GRADE ALUMINUM FRAMES WILL BE PERMITTED. THE LOCATION, COLOR, SIZE, DESIGN, LETTERING AND OTHER PARTICULARS FOR PAPER I DELIVERY BOXES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE DECLARANT. 1 ! WINDOW COVERINGS, OTHER THAN COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED CURTAINS, SHUTTERS, DRAPES OR BLINDS OR THOSE NON-COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED CURTAINS, SHUTTERS, DRAPES OR BLINDS OF COMPATIBLE QUALITY TO THOSE THAT ARE COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED, SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE VISIBLE FROM ANY PUBLIC STREET OR OCCUPIED NEIGHBORING LOT AT ANY TIME AFTER OCCUPANCY OF DWELLING. May 28 03 10:05a M. D-'e Richards 503-~70-9109 P.B ARTICLE V ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL SHALL BE BY THE DECLARANT. THE DECLARANT SHALL APPROVE ALL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF HOUSES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ASH CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION M WRITING. IN THE EVENT THAT THE DECLARANT FAILS TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, OR IN ANY EVENT, IF NO SUIT TO ENJOIN CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION THEREOF, APPROVAL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED AND THE RELATED COVENANTS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FULLY COMPLIED WITH. DECLARANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REASONABLY WAIVE OR MODIFY THE TERMS OF THIS DECLARATION AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THE DECLARANT OR ANY DESIGNEE OF THE DECLARANT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO ANY OWNER, OCCUPANT, BUILDER OR DEVELOPER FOR ANY DAMAGE, LOSS OR PREJUDICE SUFFERED OR CLAIMED DUE TO ANY ACTION OR FAILURE TO ACT BY THE DECLARANT OR ITS DESIGNEE, PROVIDED THAT THE DECLARANT OR DESIGNEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE POSSESSED BY IT, ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. ARTICLE VI MAINTENANCE I. AFFIRMATIVE DUTY OF MAINTENANCE. THE ASSOCIATION SHALL USE GOOD AND REASONABLE JUDGEMENT IN MAINTAINING AND GENERALLY KEEPING IN GOOD ORDER AND REPAIR AND KEEPING CLEAR OF RUBBISH, THE EXTERIOR OF ANY IMPROVEMENT ON ANY LOT OR COMMON AREA. 2. MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREAS. THE ASSOCIATION SHALL PROVIDE FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE PRIVATE, COMMON ROADS FOR THE USE OF ALL RESIDENTS WHICH ARE DESIGNATED ON THE PLAT AS THE COMMON AREAS FOR THE USE AND ENJOYMF,NT OF ALL. TRACT "A" IS A PRIVATE ROADWAY. TRACT "B" IS A STORM WATER AND DETENTION POND AND TRACT "C" IS OPEN SPACE. 3. WATER QUALITY FACILITY MAINTENANCE. THE WATER QUALITY FACILITY IS TO iL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: A) INSPECT POND A MINIMUM OF THREE TIMES A YEAR WITH a7 ONE INSPECTION OCCURRING AT THE TIME OF LATE SUMMER/EARLY FALL "FLUSHING" STORM EVENT. B) INSPECT OUTFALL STRUCTURE AND FLOW- CONTROL PIPING TO DETERMINE PROPER OPERATION. C) REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN DEPTH IS GREATER THAN 6 INCHES IN ANY LOCATION. D) POND SURFACES INCLUDING TOP, SIDE SLOPES AND BOTTOM SHOULD BE MOWED A MINIMUM OF p TWICE A YEAR TO PREVENT GROWTH OF UNDESIRED VEGETATION AS WELL AS FOR AESTHETICS. 4. NATIVE PLANTINGS. IT IS REQUIRED THAT NATIVE PLANTINGS THAT DO NOT SURVIVE THE FIRST TWO YEARS MUST BE REPLACED AND THAT REPLACEMENT PLANTS MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR TWO YEARS FOLLOWING REPLACEMENT. THE CC&R'S SHALL OBLIGATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE Ma,y 28 03 10:06a M. D-'e Richards 503--90-9109 P.9 SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO ENSURE THAT THE PLANTINGS ARE MAINTAINED. ARTICLE VII COVENANT FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS 1. ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS. THE ASSOCIATION SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LEVY ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS TO PAY ALL EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ASSOCIATION PERFORMANCE OF ITS POWERS, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS DECLARATION, AS WELL AS TO PAY ALL PROPERTY TAXES, LIGHTING, INSURANCE, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMON AREAS AND ANY AREAS THE ASSOCIATION MAY AGREE (PURSUANT TO AN EASEMENT OR OTHERWISE) TO MAINTAIN, AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON. WATER IS PAID BY ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENTS. THE AMOUNT OF EACH ANNUAL ASSESSMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET APPROVED AT THE BOARD'S ANNUAL MEETING. THE ASSOCIATION SHALL BILL EACH OWNER FOR EACH OWNER'S SHARE OF THE ASSESSMENTS ON AN ANNUAL, QUARTERLY OR MONTHLY BASIS, AS THE BOARD MAY DETERMINE. EACH OWNER SHALL PAY ANY SUCH ASSESSMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF BILLING. 2. INITIAL ASSESSMENT- THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT SHALL BE SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS (75.00) PER MONTH ASSESSED ANNUALLY ON JANUARY 10. THE MTTAL ASSESSMENT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT AND CONTINUE UNTIL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT DUES REPLACE THEM FOLLOWING THE TURNOVER MEETING AT WHICH TIME THE OWNERS SHALL VOTE ON AND APPROVE AN ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE ASSOCIATION AND THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT. 3. ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET. FOLLOWING THE TURNOVER OF MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION TO THE CLASS A MEMBERS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR APPROVAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP VOTE. THE BUDGET SHALL FIX THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AGAINST EACH LOT. THE BOARD, THROUGH ITS TREASURER, SHALL GIVE THE OWNERS SUBJECT THERETO WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH ASSESSMENT AT LEAST 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DUE DATE OF SUCH ASSESSMENT. 4. CREATION OF A LIEN: PERSONAL OBLIGATION OF ASSESSMENT. EACH OWNER OF ANY LOT AND HOME BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEED THEREFORE, WHETHER OR NOT IT SHALL BE SO EXPRESSED IN ANY SUCH DEED OR OTHER CONVEYANCE, SHALL BE DEEMED TO COVENANT AND AGREE TO PAY TO THE ASSOCIATION, ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE BY THE ASSOCIATION PURSUANT TO THIS DECLARATION. SUCH ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE FIXED, ESTABLISHED AND COLLECTED FROM TIME TO TIME AS HEREIN BEFORE PROVIDED. THE ANNUAL AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, TOGETHER WITH SUCH INTEREST THEREON AND COSTS OF COLLECTION THEREOF AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, SHALL ALSO BE A PERSONAL OBLIGATION OF THE PERSON WHO IS OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN ASSESSMENT FELL DUE. SUCH PERSONAL OBLIGATION SHALL NOT PASS TO HIS SUCCESSORS IN TITLE UNLESS EXPRESSLY ASSUMED BY THEM EXCEPT IN THE EVENT OF PASSAGE OF TITLE OR DEATH OR FORECLOSURE IN WHICH CASE THE LIEN FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS SHALL SURVIVE THE PASSAGE OF TITLE. mmmmmwm~ Hay 28 03 10:06a M. Da'4 Richards 503-5^9-9109 P.10 ARTICLE VIII GENERAL PROVISIONS TERMS THESE COVENANTS ARE TO RUN WITH THE LAND AND SHALL BE BINDING ON ALL PARTIES AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER THEM UNTIL AMENDED OR REVOKED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED HEREIN. THESE COVENANTS CAN BE TERMINATED AND REVOKED OR AMENDED ONLY BY DULY RECORDING AN INSTRUMENT WHICH CONTAINS AN AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR TERMINATION AND REVOCATION OR AMENDMENT, AND WHICH IS SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF A MAJORITY OF THE PLATTED LOTS, PROVIDED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE DECLARANT HAS SOLD ALL OF THE LOTS OF ASH CREEK ESTATES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT PHASES OF ASH CREEK ESTATES MADE SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION, ONLY THE DECLARANT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND THIS DECLARATION. COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION LOT OWNERS SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE TO BE BUILT UPON ANY LOT SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR OF THE DATE OF CLOSING AND COMPLETE THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF THE SETTING OF THE HOUSE' FOUNDATION. EXCEPTIONS TO THIS SHALL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE DECLARANT. ENFORCEMENT SHOULD ANY PERSON VIOLATE OR ATTEMPT TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THESE COVENANTS, ANY PERSON OR PERSONS OWNING ANY REAL PROPERTY EMBRACED WITHIN THE PLAT, INCLUDING THE DECLARANT, AT ITS OR THEIR OPTION, SHALL HAVE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ANY PROCEEDING AT LAW OR IN EQUITY AGAINST THE PERSON OR PERSONS VIOLATING OR ATTEMPTING TO VIOLATE ANY OF SAID COVENANTS, EITHER TO PREVENT THE DOING OF SUCH, OR TO RECOVER DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY REASON OF SUCH VIOLATION. FAILURE BY ANY OWNER TO ENFORCE ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL IN NO EVENT BE DEEMED A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO DO SO THEREAFTER. L EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES H n ►IN THE EVENT ANY PERSON OR PERSONS OWNING ANY REAL PROPERTY EMBRACED WITHIN THE PLAT OF ASH CREEK ESTATES INCLUDING THE DECLARANT, SHALL BRING ANY SUIT OR ACTION TO ENFORCE THESE COVENANTS, THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM IN CONNECTION IJ WITH SUCH SUIT OR ACTION, INCLUDING SUCH AMOUNTS AS THE COURT MAY DETERMINE TO BE REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AT TRIAL AND UPON ANY APPEAL THEREAFTER. SEVERABILITY haj 28 03 10:06a M. Dale Richards 503-590-9109 P.11 INVALIDATION OF ANY ONE OF THESE COVENANTS BY JUDGEMENT OR COURT ORDER SHALL IN NO WAY AFFECT ANY OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS, WHICH SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF DECLARANT NEITHER DECLARANT NOR ANY OFFICER OR DIRECTOR THEREOF, SHALL BE LIABLE TO ANY OWNER ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ACTION OR FAILURE TO ACT OF DECLARANT IN PERFORMING ITS DUTIES OR RIGHT HEREUNDER, PROVIDED THAT THE DECLARANT, HAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE POSSESSED BY IT, ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this declaration to be duly executed the day and year first above written. Windwood Construction, Inc., an Oregon Corporation President Dale Richards STATE OF OREGON County of Washington BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this day of _i9_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the within named Dale Richards, President of Windwood Construction, Inc., and Oregon Corporation known to me to be the identical individual described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same freely and voluntarily. L NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF OREGON My commission expires: D J J B KURAHASHI civil Eq$IMpgIn6 • - Witct Re~ourec. ; . • Lallooze Ambiteetuve - Pl nnilt,0 : - PFLI 'ATION FOR. - :.SYrvcylaq - Planned T euelopment Revieyv with Adjustments;: 153$0,'SW Jay, Suite 2Q0 ;BepVerfon0,regon 97006 Al-' EK y~ 50 6446$42ofce~7, 5¢3 4:973if ax ES'TA`TES A Twenty-Nine Lot'. Planned Development Community Location:: 9750 SW 74rh.4venue Tigard, Oreon Project# 2129 Prepared by Kurahashi Associates, Inc. for:, Winwood Construction Inc. : 12655 -SW, North Dakota Street Tigard; Oregon 97223 May 13; 2003, . J TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Vicinity Map 3 1. General 4 11. Tigard Development Code Title 18 Compliance A. 350 Planned Developments 5 B. 370 Variances and Adjustments 16 C. 390 Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study 18 D. 430 Subdivisions 20 E. 510 Residential Zoning Districts 21 F. 705 Access/Egress/Circulation 23 G. 715 Density Computations 24 N. 725 Environmental Performance Standards 28 1. 745 Landscaping and Screening 29 J. 755 Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage 31 K. 765 Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements 33 L. 775 Sensitive Lands Review 34 M. 790 Tree Removal 36 N. 795 Visual Clearance Areas 38 M. 810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 41 III. p2endices 1. Neighborhood Meeting letters, Minutes & Certification 42 2. Pre-Application Conference Notes 51 3: Clean Water Services Analysis 60 IV. Exhibits 1: Preliminary Storm Water Report Aspen Estates Subdivision 2: Proposed Covenants V. Attached Planning Drawinas Sheet 1: Preliminary Plat Sheet 2: Site Plan (with Setbacks, Curbs and Street Trees) Sheet 3: Utility Composite Plan L VI. Attached Construction Drawings C Sheet 1: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet 2: Preliminary Plat Map Sheet 3: Site Development Plan Sheet 4: Landscape Plan Sheet 5: 74"' Avenue Plan/Profile Sheet 6: "A" Street Plan/Profile Sheet 7: Private Street Plan/Profile Sheet 8: Grading Plan Sheet 9: Utility Composite Plan Sheet 10: Storm Drainage Plan Sheet 11: Typical Sections Sheet 12: Tree Preservation Plan 2 Vicinity Map J+ .1 AL~"~ - Sr ~k L { OOD T ~Lp N s - „t u " V RA G~ k E 4 P/ yi r Q RA DR ~ GUST ST _T Sri; Q _J M W J 3 I. General Winwood Construction, Inc. is seeking approval to develop Ash Creek Estates, a twenty nine lot Planned Development. The site is situated adjacent to SW 70 Avenue and is identified as Assessor's Map IS 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400 that comprises approximately 9.36 acres. This application seeks a Development Review approval for a Planned Development Overlay with adjustments for setbacks, the maximum number of lots on a cul-de-sac, and the cul-de-sac length. The Applicant will construct a water quality facility to treat and detain the stormwater from the development and has elected to use a planned development to facilitate the efficient use of the land, minimize the impact on the sensitive land within the property and preserve the existing open space. Winwood plans to build and market the upscale, family homes in the community on completion of the development. Each home will be individually designed with three or more bedrooms and two or three car garages. The project includes the demolition of the existing house. On October 8, 2002, the Applicant and its engineers met with the staff of the Tigard Planning Division in a Pre-Application Conference to review the Applicant's proposed development. Location: 9750 SW 74`h Avenue. Zoning: R-4.5 Area: 6.42 acres Tax Acct. No.: R231911 & R231920 Tax Map: 1S125DC #300 & 400 L r i i is i 4 ll. Tigard Development Code Title 18 Compliance The Applicant finds the following sections of the Development Code to be applicable to the proposed development. Chapter 18 3S0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.350.020 The Process A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. B. Elements otapproval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: 1. The approval of the planned development overlay zone; 2. The approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. The approval of the detailed development plan. Response: The applicant seeks approval of all three elements of Planned Development by this application. 18.350.060A11owed Uses A. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned development approval may develop the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to the densityprovisions of the underlying zone and the density bonus provisions of 18.350.100 B2. The following uses are allowed with planned development approval: 1. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district; 2. Single-family detached and attached residential units; Response: The proposed development is for single-family detached residential units as permitted in the underlying R-4.5 Zone with modifications as permitted under this section and described in this application. C i i i i i 5 18.350.070 Applicability of the Base Zone Development Standards A. Compliance to specific development standards. The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: 1. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.-715; Response: The minimum lot size specified in the R-4.5 Base Zone is 7,500 square feet, which was employed in the Density Computation under Chapter 18.715. As shown in table 18.510.2, the Minimum Width is 50'. The proposed development seeks to modify the minimum lot size, and width as specified in the Base Zone Development Standards through a Planned Development. The proposed development lots will average 6,596 square feet in size: and have an average width of 52 feet. The largest lot will be 12,846 square feet; the smallest will be 4,702 square feet. All lots exceed 50 feet in width except for those in the cul-de-sac. See the Lot Dimension Analysis on Page 8 of this text for the lot widths of the proposed project. 2. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; Response: There is no maximum lot coverage for R-4.5 lots specified in the Development Standards as shown in Table 18.510.2. The proposed development will not create significant variance from a typical detached single-family neighborhood. 3. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and Response: The proposed development does not seek to modify the 30-foot maximum height limitation. 4. Structure setback provisions: a. Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 13.360; 1 Response: The proposed development will employ reduced front and rear yard 'n setbacks except at the perimeter of the property as permitted under Section 18.350, Planned Developments. J o Front yard setbacks throughout the project shall be 8 feet except as to setbacks to garages, which shall be 20 feet in compliance with the provisions of Section 18.350.070 J A. c. (1). Rear yard setbacks on lots 1 through 13 will be 15 feet where they abut adjacent residential properties. The rear yard setbacks on the interior lots (14 through 26) will be three feet. 6 b. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code requirements for fire walls; and Response: The proposed development will employ reduced side yards as permitted under Section 18.350 Planned Developments. Side yard setbacks on all lots will be three feet except on Lot 28 where it abuts 74th Avenue, in which case it will be 20 feet. Lots 27 and 28 will have 15-foot sideyard setbacks adjacent to the street and Lot 29 will have a 5-foot setback where it abuts adjacent development on the south. C. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street. Response: The proposed development will provide a minimum setback of 20 feet from the garages fronting the streets in the development. On Lots 1 through 11, the setback to the front of the garages is 22.5 feet to provide a 20-foot distance to the public sidewalk. A Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Response: The proposed development complies with all other provisions of the base zone. C. ExcUtions to landscaping requirements. The Commission may grant an exception to the landscape requirements of this title upon a finding that the overall landscape plan provides for 20% of the gross site area to be landscaped. Response: The proposed development is for site development only of single-family detached residences; therefore, this section is not applicable. Forty-four % of site will remain in open natural state. L k a J 0 7 - - - - -Ash Creek Estates - - Lot Dimension An is Sections 18.350, Planned Developments and 18.3702020, Adjustments IT - F I— - ~ - - - Lot# Lot Width Lot Depth Area _I Notes (At street) Left Side Ri ht Side Average (see Note 2) 1 66.3 82.0 99.0 90.5 6,670 Measured at narrowest point _ 2 58.1 99.0 102.8 100.9 5,789 3 58.1 102.8 106.6 104.7 6,071 4 58.1 106.6 110.3 108.5 6,290 _ 5 58.1 110.3 114.1 112.2 6,509 6 58.1 114.1 117.9 116.0 6,729 7 58.0 117.9 119.0 118.5 6,938 Measured at right angle to sides _ 8 58.0 119.0 90.5 104.8 5,744 Measured at right angle to sides 9 24.8 90.5 117.0 103.8 5,192 Cul-de-sac lot _ 10 30.9 117.0 107.2 112.1 7,903 Cul-de-sac lot _ 11 24.9` 107.2 94.4 100.8 5,906 Cu1-de-sac lot 12 25.0 94.4 142.8 118.6 6,054 6u1-de-sac lot 13 28.8 142.8 152.5 147.7 12,846 Cul-de-sac lot 14 45.5 152.5 154.5 1515 11,634 Cul-de-sac lot _ 15 58.0 154.5 ___127.6 141.0 9,312 Measured at right angle to sides 16 58.1 127.6 117.1 122.3 7,531 17 58.1 117.1 118.9 118.0 _ 7,178 18 58.1 118.9 106.4 _ 112.7 6,601 _ 19 58.1 106.4 76.4 91.4 5,122 20 58.1 76.4 91.5 83.9 5,205 21 58.1 91.5 72.7 82.1 4,985 22 58.0 72.7 103.4 88.1 4,853 Measured at right angle to sides 23 58.0 103.4 121.1 112.3 _ 7,445 Measured at right angle to sides 24 58.0 121.1 72.1 96.6 5,437 25 58.0 93.5 82.2 EE87.8 4,951 _ 26 58.0 82.2 77.5 79.8 4,702 _ Measured at right angle to sides 27 68.0 99.0 104.0 101.5 6,638 Fronts 74th street _ 28 60.0 118.6 61.1 89.9 4,806 Sides to 74th street - 29 20.0 81.1 56.0 68.6 6,234 Flag lot Totals 1497.5 3,068.3 191,275 _ Averages 51.8 105.8 6,596 Average without Lot 29: 52.8 - „ _ i I 1 I I 18.350.090 Conceptual Development Plan Submission Requirements A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type 1118 procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following: 1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include a description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. Response: A major portion of the subject property is unavailable for development due to the floodplain and wetland characteristics. The planning objective is to use the developable land efficiently while creating a neighborhood of attractive single-family detached homes. To accomplish this, the applicant has elected to limit the impact of the streets and reduce the setbacks to the least practical for the character of the homes. 2. A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed. Response: The applicant intends to commence the site development on or about August 15, 2003 and complete the on-site work by June 1, 2004. 3. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all orportions of the planned development. Response: The developer intends to build and sell all of the homes in this project. 4. A narrative statement presenting information, a detailed description of which is available from the Director. Response: This narrative statement accompanies the application for Development Review. 01 A Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the conceptual development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the Director: i 1. Existing site conditions; I I Response: The rectangular site is approximately six and one-half acres with an existing home that will be removed during development. The narrow dimension (420 feet) fronts SW 74"' Avenue. It is wooded with approximately four acres of wooded wetland, floodplain and slopes. 9 2. A site concept; Response: The applicant seeks to develop a community of 29 up-scale single-family detached homes with quiet streets that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. The major natural area within the property will be preserved. 3. A grading concept; Response: The project's grading plan and design minimizes the impact on site while creating efficient building sites for the homes. 4. A landscape concept; Response: The completed development will consist of Individual residences that will be individually landscaped by their owners. No overall community landscaping is planned except that the major sensitive land area saved will provide a dominant feature. 5. A sign concept; and Response: The applicant does not propose constructing a sign identifying the project. 6 A copy of all existing or proposed restrictions or covenants. Response: The proposed Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for this development are attached to this application as Exhibit 2. 10 18.3S11.100Approval Criteria B. Speci rc planned development approval criteria. The Commission shall make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with conditions, the concept plan. The Commission shall make findings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application. 1. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapter 18.430, shall be met, Response: All of the provisions of Chapter 18.430 with adjustments as provided under Chapters 18.370 and 18.775 are met in the plans submitted with this application. 2. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to juste the modification of the standards in the chapters listed in Subsection 3 below. The developer may choose to provide or the commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting. a. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below, density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district. The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10% as an incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/or site variation incorporated into the development. These factors must make a substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which the Commission may approve according to the following: (1) A maximum of 3% is allowed for the provision of undeveloped common space, exclusive of areas contained in f oodplain, slopes greater than 25% drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; (2) A maximum of 3% is allowed for landscaping; streetscape development; y developed open spaces, plazas and pedestrian pathways and related amenities; recreation area development; and/or retention of existing p vegetation; (3) A maximum of 3% is allowed for creation of visual focal points; use of ,j existing physical amenities such as topography, view, and sun/wind p orientation; (4) A maximum of 3% quality of architectural quality and style; harmonious use J of materials, innovative building orientation or building grouping, andlor varied use of housing types. Response: The applicant is not seeking an increase in density under the above sections. The density conforms with the requirements of the underlying R-4.5 zone with density transfer from the sensitive area to the remaining higher land portions. ii 3. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: a. 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; Response: The development is designed so as to preserve the existing natural areas. (2) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; Response: A soils report is attached as Exhibit 3 showing that the structures will be constructed in areas not subject to slumping or sliding. Figure of that report shows that additional study will be required on Lots 13, 14, 15, 22 and 23 prior to construction on those lots. The developer will engage Geo Pacific Engineering to perform such additional studies as required at the appropriate time during the site development. (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; Response: The homes to be built on the property shall be constructed in accordance with the building codes in conformance with the requirements of this section. Additionally, the preservation of the sensitive area on the site will add significantly to the availability of light and air circulation. (4) The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and Response: The homes to be built will recognize the elements of sun and wind to the extent possible. (5) Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. r Response: The property is the subject of a Timber Deferral. The owner has elected to ~ harvest the trees in the area outside of the sensitive area shown on the Preliminary Plat as Tract "A". n 9 u 12 b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: (1) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, e.g., between single-family and multi family residential, and residential and commercial uses; Response: The proposed development is adjacent to other R-4.5 single-family residential development and buffering is not required at the perimeter. (2) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; (b) The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; (c) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed,; (d) The required density of the buffering; and (e) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Response: The proposed development is surrounded by R-4.5 residential development so that there are no differing uses to be buffered. (3) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities 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: (a) What needs to be screened,; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c) Whether the screening needs to be year- round. Response: The proposed development is single-family detached residential that does not require screening as described in this section. L g. Landscaping and open space: n (1) Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs 3 (4) and (5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped,; J Response: The proposed development will preserve approximately forty-four percent of the total site as open space. The homeowners upon completion of the development will landscape the individual lots. 13 h. Public transit: (1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. Response: The subject site does not abut a public transit route. Signs: (1) In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.780, Signs: (a) Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and (b) The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; Response: No signs or monuments are proposed in conjunction with this application. j. Parking: (1) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; Response: Each home will provide at least two off-street parking spaces within attached garages in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.765. k. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.775, and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Response: The storm water system of the proposed development has been designed in accordance with the latest standards adopted by Clean Water services. 1. Floodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100 year jloodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the 1 jloodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the jloodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. 3 Response: The proposed development includes an area designated as lying within the 100-year floodplain that incorporates a wetland area as shown on the Existing U Conditions Plan attached to this application. The applicant proposes that the Home J Owners Association will retain the ownership of this area with the appropriate easements to the public for the wetland area. Due to the fact that no other pedestrian or bike pathways exist in the area and the sensitive wetland condition, a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain is not included in the plan. 14 18.350.110 Shared Open Space A. Requirements or shared open space. Where the open space is designated on the plan as common open space the following applies: 1. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded )pith the Director; and 2. The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods: b. By leasing or conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation, home association or other legal entity, with the City retaining the development rights to the property. The terms of such lease or other instrument of conveyance must include provisions suitable to the City Attorney for guaranteeing the following: (1) The continued use of such land for the intended purposes; (2) Continuity of property maintenance, (3) When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such maintenance; (4) Adequate insurance protection; and (5) Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise. Response: The applicant proposes conveying title to the open space to the Home Owners Association with the appropriate provisions to the City of Tigard. L r m u 15 Chapter 18.370 VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS 18.370.020 Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances: 1.. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards, " these can be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. 2. "Special adjustments " which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020. C. Response: The applicant seeks "Special Adjustments" from the development standards for the following matters that are more completely addressed in the appropriate sections. C. Special adjustments. 1. Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). The Director shall consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds: a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; Response: Over 40% of the subject property is classified as a sensitive area that creates a unique circumstance to this property. Its particular proportions also dictate a street design that is unusual to most properties of this size within the City. b. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; Response: Due to the specific conditions of this site as described above, it is necessary that the applicant seek Special Adjustments under the Code so as to reasonably develop this site. In order to create a connection to the probable extension of 73`d Avenue to the north of the subject site, it is necessary to locate the public street to be constructed by this project as it is shown. The resulting distance to the eastern end of the subject property dictates that the length of the cul-de-sac exceed the City's design standard. An efficient use of the property creates twenty-three lots on the resulting street. The applicant seeks approval of this adjustment. J 16 c. The granting ofthe adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, d and welfare or iniurjous to the rights ofother owners ofproperty:an Response: The modified lots are generally comparable to others in similar neighborhoods within the community and the applicant believes that the cul-de-sac length does not impair public safety nor does the development injure the rights of other nearby property owners. d. The adLustment is necessary for the preservation and enLoynrent ofa substantial property right because o fan extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations ofthis title. Response: The proposed adjustments provide the opportunity to develop this in-fill site in accordance with the community standards. II. Adjustments for street improvement reguirements (Chapter 18.810). By means ofa Type 11 procedure, as governed by Section 1& 390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. Response: Two unique circumstances influence the design of the 74'h Avenue improvements: (a) the existence of development on the west side of 74th and (b) the substantial wetland feature on the subject property. The proposed grade of 74th Avenue is necessary to avoid altering the connection of the nearby existing streets. Further, it will minimize the fill and any further encroachment into the wetlands on the site. These two features cause the applicant to seek adjustment of the proposed grade on 74th Avenue. 'r 0 i i i 17 Chapter 18,390 Decision-Making Procedure 18.390.50 Type III Procedure 2. Content. Type III applications shall; e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quanta the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the impacts of the development. Response: The following itemizes the impact studies that have been performed in accordance with the requirements of this section. 1. Transportation System: A Traffic Impact Study of the proposed development is attached with this application as Exhibit 2. 2. Drainage System: A Preliminary Storm Water Report is attached to this application as Exhibit 1 that evaluates the drainage impacts of the development on the system. 3. Parks System: The proposed twenty-nine home development will not make a measurable impact on the City's park system. 4. Water System: The applicant has confirmed with the Tualatin Valley Water District that there is adequate quantity and pressure in the vicinity of the subject site to adequately serve the proposed development without impact on the service to the neighboring property users. See the water system map of the immediate area on the following page. 5. Sewer System: As shown on Sheet 9, Utility Composite Plan, of the attached utility plans, a sanitary sewer main is existing in SW 74th Avenue that will adequately serve the proposed development. The applicant will, in the final plat, dedicate all necessary rights-of-way and easements to provide for the proper location of needed public facilities as required by this section. r 18 L~G191Lff`~ gTRip Q 2"80 6 ,of , ¢CD v S LN . B A A - B A 4 g^Gv I - ~I GI I 1 U Subject property I ~r ~ I 1 Water Mains Vxistin9 Chapter 18.430 SUBDIVISIONS 18.430.040 Approval Criteria: Preliminary Plat A. Approval criteria. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: 1. The proposed preliminaryplat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; Response: As shown on the attached drawings and described in this text, preliminary plat complies with the zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances. 2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. Response: The proposed name Ash Creek Estates does not duplicate other plat names and satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. 3. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions 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 mods the street or road pattern; and Response: The streets and roads conform to the existing and planned streets for adjoining property. 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Response: An explanation of the proposed development is shown on the attached drawings and described in this text. L % 't i i i i a 20 Chapter 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts D. R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7, 500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Response: The proposed development is situated in the R-4.5 zoning district. 18.510.030 Uses B. Use table. A list ofpermitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones is presented in Table 18.510.1. TABLE 18.510.1 USE: TABLE USE CATEGORY R-1 R-, R-35 R4', R-7 R-I2 R-25 R-40 RESIDENTIAL Household Living i' P 1' P P 1' P P Group Living WC R'V WIC R',C R';C Wl' R'X' R''C Transitional Housing N N N N N C C C Home Occupation R' R' R' R' R- IZ' it' R' 11011SiNG TYPES Single pmts, Aunched N N N it, R" ;C P P P Single Units, Detached P P P 1' P P P P Accessory 1 `nus R-` W R'' R' R' R' R' R' Duplexes" N N C C P P P P Multi- amity Units N \ N N N P I' P Manutaciured 1'nits P P P P 1' P P P Mobile Home Parks;Subdivtsions N N C C 1' P P P Response: The proposed development is for detached single-family residential units as permitted in this section. C 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities a B. Calculating minimum and maximum densities. The calculation of minimum and maximums densities is governed by the formulas in Chapter 18.715, Density Computations. 1 Response: The minimum and maximum density calculations are shown under l Section 18.715 below. 21 M510.050 Development Standards A. Compliance required. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370; 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. B. Development Standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. ►'ABLE I&SIO1 UE1'6LO1'~IF:\'f ~►':~\0:1F(BS IV I(F.SIDF:SI'LU. ZONES STANDARD K-1 R-2 R3.5 R4-1 K.t Minimum Lot Size • Detached emit 30,(W.ml tl. 20,00) sq ft 10,tY)lt MIA 7.500 eq. fl. 5'Wl stl n - Duplexes 10.040 $q A 1 o m sq 11 -Alt hed unit T 5,M) W ft. Ararafie Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit log 10411 100 R. 6511 50 tl 5011 Duple\ tuts 9011 q0 ft so h Attached unit lots ib It MAXimWn Lot Cuvemae 2 Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 30A . 30 fl. 2011 20 fl. MY - Side facing street on comer l through foie 20 Q 20 R. 21) 11 13 ft. 10 ft. -Sidevard 5 ft 5 ft 511 5 ft. 511. Rcw gani ]5 fl 2511 151) 1511 1511 - Side m rear yard abuning moic restrictive zoning district 30 ft. - Dimance tw%seen patperty line and ftont of araue ft. 20 ft. 2011. 24 ft. 20 n, Maximum I1601t 3011 3011. 3017 30 tl. 35 0 Minimum Landscape Ite Covent --0% (I) Single•f ond'v attached residencaf units bxnniaed at are duelling perlol unh no msfe that fise atached units in tine gawping. 12) Lot covers w, includes all buildings and unpentaus surfaces. Response: The proposed development seeks approval under Chapter 18.350, Planned Developments, to modify lot sizes and setbacks. Additionally, Special Adjustments are requested under Chapter 18. 370 for street design. Density is calculated in accordance with Chapter 18.715, and complies with the standards set out Z in the R 4.5 Base Zone. r7 J 22 Chapter 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.705.030 General Provisions D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Response: Each of the lots in the proposed development provides vehicular access to a public or private street as shown on the attached plans and required by this section E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Response: Each of the lots in the proposed development provides shall have curb cuts as specified in Section 18.810.03 and shown on the attached plans I. Minimum access requirements for residential use. 1. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; TABLE 18.705.1 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS: RESIDENTIAL USE 6 OR FEWER UNITS Number Dwelling Minimum Number or Minimum Access Width Minimum Pavement Unit/Lots Drivewavs Re wired Width I or 2 I Is, 10' 3-6 1 20' 20' Response: Each of the lots in the proposed development shall have curb cuts as shown on the attached plans in accordance with Table 18.705.2 above. 3. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code; Response: No private residential drives are included in the proposed development. 0 9 u 23 Chapter 18.715 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 18 715.020 Density Calculation A; Definition ofnet development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property to be developed: L All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100 year,noodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; e. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: a. Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; b. Multi family development: allocate 15% of gross acreage. 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. Response: The following shows the Density Calculation for the subject property. See page 29, Sensitive Area Analysis, of this text and Sheet 1, Existing Conditions, of the attached drawings for location of the Sensitive Area. Gross site area 407,721.6 Sq. Ft. Less 1. Sensitive land areas a. 100-year floodplain area - 70,862.8 Sq. Ft. b. Slopes exceeding 25% -107,556.2 Sq. Ft. c. Drainage ways (Included in Floodplain) NA d. Wetlands (included in Floodplain) NA Sub-total Sensitive land areas -178,419.0 Sq. Ft. i 2. Land dedicated to public park None 3. Public street right-of-way - 17,828.0 Sq. Ft. 4. Private street right-of-way - 22,670.0 Sq. Ft. 5. Existing home lot area None Net Development Area 188,804.6 Sq. Ft. 24 B. Calculatimy maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. Response: The following shows the calculation for the maximum number of residential units for the subject property. Net Development Area 188,804.6 Sq. Ft./7,500 Sq. Ft. = 25 lots maximum. C. Calculatigg minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in Subsection B above by 80% (0.8). Response: The following shows the calculation for the minimum number of residential units for the subject property. Maximum number of lots: 25 lots X 0.8 = 20 lots minimum. 18.715.030 Residential Density Transfer A. Rules Qoverning residential densi transfer. The units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.020 A. ]a - c from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and Response: The following shows the calculation for Density Transfer within the subject property. Land areas from 18.715.020A. 1 c above: 178,419 Sq. R. 25% of unbuildable area: 44,605 Sq. Ft. Divided by 7,500 square feet equals: 5.95 or 5 additional lots Number of lots calculated under 18.715.0206 above: 25 lots Additional lots by Density Transfer 5 lots Total lots permitted with Density Transfer: 30 lots i The proposed development includes 29 lots in conformance with the requirements of this section. i t 1 25 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. Response: The following shows the calculation for maximum Density Transfer within the subject property. Number of lots calculated under 18.715.0206 above: 25 lots times 125% = 31 lots. The proposed development includes 29 lots in conformance with the requirements of this section. C. Underlying development standards. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.440, Planned Development. ❑ i Response: The proposed development is to be developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.350, Planned Development. L K 0 26 4 05-v Gy, fl5s"" PL~p PLAIN MAP L000 PLAINOS~OQ4PINOISNSNOIINN ,T . „FEM , YEP, f A 1 Ft' NpO APPR ANO BOUNOAR ' MAjGHES WEZL T T -10~5562Aa PT . ~ AREA - s -22,6'10 S 'FS • -25% C)PIVE AREA 11,x28 T' pRIVATE p'4E AREA - 1 SQ. FT. 50 100 p~LIG 0 RN A A - I98,63~ 93 0 ~T~R A . }2255~6~ FT' F 5 AREA - ScALE' 100 2 TOTAL WjLOA~E LOT5 ALLOWED !i+ Vtl V1;~1 1111 1'I ~ i ul i4l 11 t4 111 III ,1.. ~ ~ , 1~ I' $ ~ ~ _ A~ _ r~~ ( y~ipp f ~~81~, i ! , ` _ 1.,, ~ ~ ~ , ~.4. ~ ti ~ 1~4 _ Y`tr1 A }2267 Sq. \ \vrJ i ~ ;~.i----'.~t„-~' \ y"t`4"~ ~.i`1~`1lt-.: ~ f'~ r-----:':... t ` ~ ` ' W , z: J. ~ r v _ a&sr MR~"y- 'ti `a,,` - _ w ,jlitt_;:. . mow` \y .r / ~ib _ ~ 'p tLA.rJ'' ~r~ ~~ll...,n _ - _.-~Q ! 1~ u A'SpCIA feler+ Pp mint ~ ..f, / J/4 /~-~eC«n~ •'r~~~. ~ `,ir - r{~'~...,.--..- -~'~I ~ p W ugun T°5 i yon ` ~ , l-~.~"1~i r ~ .,wry`, }~!M..r:M.,l~.. _,i` s „r s'vroos _q~, ` - 1 y, ll/ a •`~it 1,_..~~.; ~ - _.t...._. 1,.*.f titi i~.e.,w~~a°ai.s l~o',~'' 1h\r 1'VEA7 ' \ uv - n. '0 Chapter 18.725 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 18.725.020 General Provisions A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non point source pollution control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules shall by this reference be made apart of this chapter. Response: The proposed development will be detached single-family homes that will conform to the community standard of similar neighborhoods. No excessive noise, odor or discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream regulations will result. i i 28 Chapter 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.040 Street Trees C. Size and spacing ofstreet trees. 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Section 18.745.040.0.2 below; 2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: a. Small or narrow-stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; b. Medium-sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; c. Large trees over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; d. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.H, trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility poles to maintain visual clearance; e. No new utilitypole location shall be established closer than five feet to any existing street tree; f. Tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) in the tree well, g. On premises utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; h. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards; L i. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to existing street trees 2 except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer than 10 D feet; 5 j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a type which, at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines; 7 k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb; and 1. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway: 29 (1) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand, paver blocks and cobblestones; and Response: The Street Trees are shown on Sheet 4 of 12, Landscape Plan, with placement specified in accordance with the requirements of this section. (2) Sidewalk cuts in concrete for tree planting shall be at least four by four feet to allow for air and water into the root area. Response: No sidewalk cuts are required in the proposed street tree planting. 30 Chapter 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.755.040 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance A. Alternative methods o compliance. An applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: 1. Minimum standards; 2. Waste assessment; 3. Comprehensiverecyclingplan; or 4. Franchised hauler review and sign-off Response: The proposed development is for single-family detached residences. Each homeowner will store their solid waste and recyclable materials within their property until it is collected by the contract disposal service. A franchised hauler will remove solid waste and recyclable materials. See the review letter from Pride Disposal Service on the following page. a oc Li M to 31 05112/2003 11:33 5036256179 PRIDE DISPOSAL COMPM PAGE 01/01 20 Sherwood, OR 97140 pride • e • • . Phorte; 603-625-8177 pSX 5034256179 F•om Floe To: Toy May 13, 2003 FaOc 503.644-9731 pPOW. ages: 1 phone: CC: PRIDE DISPOSAL COMPANY RM Ash Creek Estates = UMM,{ ❑ For Review d i•feass A D Please ROOV 0 Plea R*0'4® •Com mu"t Tony, The preliminary plots Propos04 for the Ash Creek Estates are acceptable. L Thank you, r Ross 3 05/11/2003 71JF. 10:27 rTX/RX NO 76081 1?1001 Chapter 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.020Applicability of Provisions A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off- street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. 18.765.030 General Provisions A. Vehicle parking plan reguirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follo►vs: 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s); Response: Off-street parking as required by this section shall be provided on each lot. Each home will have a minimum of a two-car garage. 33 Chapter 1& 775 SENSITIVE LANDS 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming A. CWS Stormwater Connection Permit. All proposed "development, must obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from CWS pursuant to its "Design and Construction Standards"* As used in this chapter, the meaning of the word "development" shall be as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards"- All human-induced changes to improved or unimproved real property including: 2. Land division; Response: The applicant has submitted the proposed development to CWS for a Title 2 Analysis. The assessment report is included on the following page and confirms that the project meets all criteria for approval. A further soils analysis will be necessary for Lots 13 through 27 because construction will be allowed within 15 feet of a 25% slope bank. The applicant will obtain such a report prior to construction in this area. 18.775.080 Application Submission Requirements A. Application submission requirements. All applications for uses and activities identified in Sections 18.775.020.A -18.775.020.G shall be made on forms provided by the Director and must include the following information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The specific information on each of the following is available from the Director 1. A CWS Stormwater Connection permit; 2. A site plan; 3. A grading plan; and 4. A landscaping plan. Response: The Type 2 CWS analysis is pre-requisite to obtaining the necessary Stormwater Connection Permit. The approval on the following page assures its issuance. Each of the above-required plans is submitted with this application. 3 0 5 34 CWS Analysis: See Appendix 3, Page 60 L 3 35 Chapter 18,790 TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. A Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; i 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Response: The property is subject to a timber deferral and the owner has elected to remove all of the trees on the property that are outside the sensitive area as permitted under that deferral. 36 18.790.050 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type 1 procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes; a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 112 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden ,/lows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. Response: The owner will obtain the necessary permit prior to cutting the trees in accordance with the requirements of this section. L r i i 37 Chapter 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements A. At comers. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the comers of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or permanent obstructions shall be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent of the required clear vision area. Response: The visual clearance at each of the two intersections of the proposed development is shown on the following two pages in accordance with the requirements of this section. 38 J- VISUAL CLEARANCE TRIANGLE NO OBJECT i` HIGHER THAN 3 FEET AREA TO BE RE-GRADED WALL CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW FOR SITE DISTANCE o r 30. I_ _4 ss 'S 5s \ - p ••,30.0 ~ . 4 - > VISUAL CLEARANCE I r I TRIANGLE NO OBJECT HIGHER THAN 3 FEET I I I 27 i rams KURAHASHd de ASSOCIATES. INC. %fimaO cO(mance Triangle ° Shoot I C1,9 a 0oft-rfnt . toter Reaoo Laa&a " dreniteetare . M oaine .T.. rftt. a< t55M tb SV Slf!ey Sttreet, 9ufte May 18, 2003 200 BeaaeHoa. Orator trm (503)644-6642 fat: (503)644-Mi r (D\ 36 i W W, ~ y . 15 75 Y \ 23, ISM & TRIANGLI NO,rdd C'fi' £T % NIGHER THAN \v = \ \ ~ rim robs KURAHASHI 6: ASSOCIATES, INC. Anal Clearance ` yionpla ° fleet 2 CM 90&efti" • few Ramat a - FU%W g cy,~~ 15M SW Jay street, Suite am Ma~, tleJ g 20©3 &aretoe. Qe~ 9799E (593)914-6N2 tex: (503~N-9731 Chapter 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.810.020 General Provisions A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. B. Standard specifications. The City Engineer shall establish standard specifications consistent with the application of engineering principles. C. Section 7.40 applies. The provision of Section 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply to this chapter. D. Adjustments. Adjustments to the provisions in this chapter related to street improvements may be granted by means of a Type 11 procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.030 C9. Response: The applicant seeks adjustment to the Street Design Standards for the following: a. Curb-tight sidewalk on a portion of 74th Avenue as shown on Sheet 3 of the attached construction drawings. b. The grade on 74th Avenue between stations 16.50 and 18.50 as shown on Sheet 5 is proposed to be 13.2%, which exceeds the standard of 12%. This is necessary to complete the street improvements between the existing street to the north and south of the project boundaries and maintain connection with the existing improvements on the east side of 70 Avenue. c. On the new public street entering the property designated as Street "A" on the attached drawings, the sidewalk abuts the curb for a distance of 140 feet so as to accommodate the required curb radius at the intersection with 74th Avenue. L 2 d. The private street within the project is 619.85 feet in length as measured from the centerline of Street "A" to the end of the cul-de-sac, which exceeds the design standard of 500 feet. No practical alternatives are available to provide reasonable J and efficient access to the entire property. The location of the future extension of 73rd Avenue is dictated by the available opening in the adjacent property and cannot be moved further west. 41 503598' 11/22/2002 12:01 FAX 5035981960 CITY OF TIGARD r l~FFIDAVIT OF MAII-ING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE - _~~r .'~.~tll ,L~fl.'R~~ - :;F=ar:•:.icz'~ra- t• a>-~•`;_~ 'i+;'~•,,.~ hi ._53..5 'r :•Tj~• -'4Y lff:.••ib' - .-.'f 1~i::.: ii~I.> K,• yr !N DD1 B@!IT 0 1 VEAU NO Nikki • CA OIV. '~.~m MAILING: D I. d-L S being duly sworn, depose and say that on the -2a day of 20-D2 . I caused to have malted to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed devebpment at (or near)~~ Ze /A 8 COPY of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof, I further state that said nollc es were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed jo said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at fS/Se (9%r5c~ WM postage prepaid thereon. ' Signature On the presence of a Notary Public) POMNG: 1. -&K ~ZtGhQ~z~S do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in• a proposed 1t nD-r affecting the land CocaW at {slate the approximate location(s) IF' no addres(s) and/or tax lot(s) can ently~ !9'2 571 Q- 2611---j- /5/ .?S OG aoy 15 S~ ~3rtb and did on the 7D, - clay of - , 20 CSr " personally Mast notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a _ Su w~sc+l. application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. ) f The sign was posted at rn 6 DLvp j 4 , sl e z ,1170 G (state location you posted notice on property) -Signature (in the presence of a Notary Public) (TiiIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETEINOTAME) it ~ STATE OF dr&7"- ) County of w s. rG Subscribed and swortt/affirmed before me on the -~22day of nvy`e~ 20 LO w OFFICIAL SEAL {-TAMARA L. STERN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 336931 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 13, 2004 NOT RY PUBLIC F'ORECON My Commission Expires: AppOcant, please =nplete•the information below- ` AME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: ' APE OF PROPOSE[) DeAiOPMENT: J*88s or General Location of S*XA RVpw - Z Mod Property Tax Map(s) and l pt #(sr • - - _ - s IV61)2 Meeting at City of Tigard For Proposed Development by Wmdwood Construction Inc. at Ash Creek Cedars Meeting began at 6:02 Introduction and Bio by Greg Kwrhashi & Dale Richards. • Explanation of Site and Requirements with display of proposed plat maps Question and Answer Session Q. Is that a variance or a standard code for the development? A: It is allowed by code to dD PD, refer to city and process. Setbacks are according to code. Q. What are standard sedwks in That area? A. Front is 15 feet, 20 to gnage, 4-5 R for curb to property line, sides are 5 ft Q Are these zoned 7500 sf? Can FD be smaller? Isn't it zoned 7500 per lot? A. Zoned 7500 Q: Would access point be by Barbara Lane? A Yes. Q. Will it be a permanent enhance? A Yes, it will be for future development required with barricade provided required by city for future access. Q Who's property is it on and where? A (they demonstrated on a map) Q. Why is roadway on wetland (for 74th connectivity)? A. City requires for future extensions of rwdway and utilities and storm sewer. Q: Would you still have to extend the road if yon didn't have the 2 extra houses down there? A: Yes. L Q. Is the 72nd street on the map owned by Washington Square Estates? r A: No Q County said it would never extend to 72nd due to impact on the neighborhood 3 & We d0 not know if they will require it. L17, Q: There is already a speeding problem off 72nd Traffic will be increased by development. What is going to be done about that? Can City Install Speed Bumps? A: Speed Bumps take a long time.. Q: Extending 74th would be more convenient, why not do it? A Would be encroaching on other peoples properties not now under development. Q. How far over the creek will the barricade go? Will there still be a trail? A Trail will probably still be there. Q: What is the impact to the waterway? A There will be a advert across it 60-70 ft of impact on waterway. Q. Can you bridge it? A Going to refer the culvert to the city . Proposing culvert. Looking at fish passage issue. Q: What is the ave. sq ft and architecture of the homes to be built? A. We will build as well as develop. Plus I or 2 other builders. Prices will be $300,000-$500,000, 29004300 sq it. All single family. Should help neighboring property values. Q. Do you have plans to preserve trees? Or are you leveling it all? We wanted to keep it natural as possible, We tried to buy it ourselves to keep it natural. A: We are local developers and builders, we live here, our families live here. We want to keep it as natural as possible. We will provide examples of other developments of ours to look at. Q: Will you leave trees in the yards? A We will preserve as many trees as possible. The City has stringent tree policies and we will maintain as many as we can. Q: Will you protect the root systems? A: We will have a consulting arborist. City of Tigard has a minimum 35% savings on site. We will try to do better than that if possible. Q: Who has ownership of the buffer? A. There are a couple of options to explore with the city. HOA w/dues and access easement are one. Q. How can you draw a line for what should be wetland and what should not? It all seems delicate. A Deliniation of wetlands designated by mitigation of agencies looking at it, core of engineers, City of Tigard ` Sensitivity live all other projects. Buffers are more significant than they need be. Buffer definition made by clean water services. Min. 50 lt. We have 50-100 ft. Some trades may be done using analysis by clean clean water services who have to ok It is not a public process. Constraints imposed by metro make sights inside UGB like this and difficult to find This provides minimum impact. Q: Metro wanted to buy it. Why are you rushing in. A The sellers wanted to sell A Q Do you own the property' A: We just have an option on the property. If our development doesn't work someone else may develop it. Q. Will this development mess with the greenspaces of Washington Square Estates? Will it become a public walkway? A. We are working with public agencies to figure out what will be done with it. No proposal access yet. Clean Water Services is proposing landscaping & CCIVs with possible requirements for fencing y . S Q: Will there be any security fencing for water areas? A: We will not know until requirements are stated. Not fencing all the way around. Location of water quality and detention facilities yet to be determined but will be put in. Will this be on the same side of creek as development? A Has to go by low spot. Depends on that location' Q: There are: traffic problems with 74th. We have kids. What is city going to do about traffic impact? What will happen to the coyote's on the property? A The pant of this meeting is to voice your concerns and this one seems prevalent for further &%ussions with the city. Q. How many public hearings will we have access to? A: You will get notices from the city. Q. How does the city know our concerns? A: We have someone taking notes. Q When will there be public hearings? A: There will be postings and mailings. Take my card and call me with questions (Dale Richards) Q: Where will pedestrian access be? A: Whatever is coming off at roadway will stay. Q: Are there height requirements on the homes to be constructed? A Yes. No higher than requirements which will be 2 stories & roof stricture. Plus design regulation & review. Q Have you finished the wetland delimation? A 2 weeks ago. Q Can we get copies of that? A. Yes. Not gospel however, until approved by Clean Water Services. Q: Did you find any rare prints? A No Q: Some rare plants were found on another project of yours. A. Then fake another look at this one. L C Q Will there be less impact if carved out extra g~reenspace on north end? (detention areas) A. We have to try to make it fit But we would consider it Cannot be sure yet. Q: What is detention area? f A Hole 3 R deep and 40 ft across, 70 fl long and pond like with plantings. I Q What is the spray paint on the trees? A: To locate trees surveyed already. Survey tags. Q: Limbs have been broken and taken down, made a mess. A. Sun Wor trying to get through, sorry about that. 14 S s Q: Can you still make a profit with less than 29 homes? Like say 10 or 15? Will you consider that? Why did you come up with 29? Why can't the lot sized be in tune with the rest of the area? Why such small lots? A We could have done 40 but we think that 29 is reasonable. We could even have put attached homes. Q: What about the traffic impact on Ventura? A. We will have to provide a traffic study. Q: What about stop signs? Firemen don't want speedbumps but less accidents. Doesn't make sense. A Stop signs are easier to get thaw speed bumps. Q. What is an *Option on a Property*? A Only purchasing if it makes it through approval. The sale will not go through if it doesn't come together. Q: Do you have an email address? A. No. Q. Is the tum around size set yet? A Not yet. Q. Is the street going to be skinny or full street width? A. Skinny with parldng on 1 side only and 2 way traffic. Q: It is going to be a cul-de-sac? Aren't cul-de-sac's no longer allowed under code? A An exception was made in this case because there was no other option. Q: According to Morgan Tracy, the city will allow no more cul-de-sac's. A Morgan Tracy allowed this one due to no other options. Q: What is the timeline for full completion? Will you build as you sell? A Before f all of next year just the development will be completed. Housing will probably take 1 year. We are not doing all ptesales, some speculative selling. Q How is your marketing done? A. That will have to be deferred to our marketing team. Q. Will there be sidewalks? A Yes. Q: Can we get pictures of sidewalk plan? A: Yes. a. Q. Can you put in that many homes in one year? A Yes. J Q. Will they be built all at once or in clumps? m A All development, sidewalks, platting etc will be completed prior to banding then the homes. U Q. Will you have to take out more trees for underground utilities? A. No, the underground utilities will be in front. Q: If funding came up to purchase property would you stand aside? A: Yes. Q When will you start tearing up the ground? A. Next June or duly. Q. Is there mitigation for sensitive plants? A. We cannot disturb or remove them Camas is sometimes found because it grows in sensitive areas. You will find it in some areas and not others. Q: Are you following a sensitive plugs list? A No. If in developable area, No. You can have access if you call the ;;eon's first Q: Will there still be pathways? A. No proposed access for new development to greenspeoe. Q Will that strange? A. Most Hkely no but we will have to get a water quality facility. Q: Concerns to leave in natural space, fear of traffic, lids & dogs screwing around and messing up sensitive areas. A No access planned from developmeant to greenspacc. Websibe for the neighborhood www.madwartian.comhm L C t) J J y} ASH CREEK ESTATES PUBLIC MEETING SIGN IN SHEET DECEMBER 6,2002 NAME ADDRESS PHONE # _jb an! i3viZ~ -7,T5- SW y~--"a0-•T'gq~~V J0Z -Lt q- - 1 -7 A;)(IAA F- 7- 30 kD ?firr ~n4r4P ~o1v Z-1572,-Di L t c(~ael_L~- off' -70Z,_2 Sul "Z^. ,r03 - ~Sz _0~5;2- pads i f l1: rtm J780 5W VaJuo, Ct. 603-2.46--GS -Z 2 ,ti/-R Wcc A_ 3 6 5 ~C 3-560 -72 Y ar (.S U) CS-, 27-0 567 l~li1~ ' KQ. 6 1 -71) d-5 t~ ~qq-36 6 6 7715 1 C- 3 in l- 0 w -,Seca T11cJ~ ~~ekti `C- - -7o s-4 s~ ~U c--, 2 yS-- ^z X 6 3 4 e ASH CREEK ESTATES PUBLIC MEETING SIGN IN SHEET DECEMBER 6,2002 NAME ADDRESS PHONE # -r 70ga L W IA- a e 2 S cv Bnvva 3- Z C4 1 LjAW&!ZZ__ lf-aw~ X2,5" ~W 420- 3 Eeky $1 I o sti/~Tlws ~v1 W 3-31ZV- U )an-m Avxw' - - 940 sw 4fG 4cAe 9 2-iz 6on-2-46-66 -1130 L r 0 J J N9 11/22/02 Resident Re: Ash Creek: Estates IS125DC00400 IS125DC00300 9750 SW 70 Avmue Dear Interested Party. Dale Richards is the representative of Windwood Construction Inc. for the property located at 9750 SW 74m Avenue. We are proposing a twenty-nine lot single family residential subdivision at this location. Prior to application to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with any sunvianding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on, December 6 2002 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard Oregon 97223 6: 00 P.M. Please note that this is an informational meeting'on preliminary plans. I am looking forward to discussing any details of the proposal with you. Any questions prior to the meeting, please don't hesitate to call Dale Richards at 503-625-6526. Sincerely, i Windwood Construction Inc. M Dale Richards, President So CLT~( y "F tv AkD E CE NOT t S or, PRE-A'PPLI i I uni{ Pty-pDQlicatiQp; Mee~~3?~y~ !J;~y1[ `rd (t0 ~IX' /flti"~ 1 IItI1S S A{BettcK mm y .~r-.N-; .I.lin. ..1...;.~."..Ii0.Ct~li6tl1`.~A~~~'S':W Y•f~.. f IY.I.. iI _ RESIDENTIAL FffE.IAP MG oae Z _ sar APPLICANT: Wlfl wdOd G0 " 12 AGENT: Phone: ( ) Phone: ( 6ZS- 6526 PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESSIGENERAL LOCATION: J750 5ul 7Y ' TAX MAP(SYLOT #(S):. 15125 DG t f• 300'O'ng VARor NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: PPR/6tg/_7/Na Ptitt,,,. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: ~I cu► ~ Pd ~P,,/P,~370(l , `H u c /ti5 113 yn t k COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: LoL., 4 f r w ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R`LI CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: I ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.90 I L MINIMUM LOT SIZE: ~ sq. ft. Average Min. lot width. Sa ft. Max. building height: `3b ft. Setbacks Front _?j2 ft. Side 5 ft. Rear /C- ft. Comer K ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: o Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: GARAGES: 101t ft. ~/yn~ 0 ~*/t9 3 n . 9, wf Ppt ,nvi' ' prwtd3z Ot•~"Sl~'Y wt p rlu do c ongttr►54k NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING [Refer to the Neigbborbood Meeting Randoutl THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S), AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two. (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout conceming site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD PwApplication Conference Notes Page 1 of 9 Residr" Amp 7iW*n secson J ) I j NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.3901 The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE AN IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proDortional to the projected imnacts of the development. ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.105 and 18.7651 Minimum number of accesses: I rr f-ZvniL 15'm in I Yn/ 3--b,,-, , 20Lmm ❑ WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Chapter 183051 Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA, COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151- SEE DIMPLE BELOW. The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: 3W y 4 7' ~l ~uss~ All sensitive lands areas including: 7711 1 Land within the 100-year floodplain; /t1 ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; 122 r`er,¢imr~ ~(dru,~kq~wtu~p.~c ➢ Drainageways; and ➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. Sf''`~ t,F NGT Public right-of-way dedication; I $71 ZQq Pet 251615 rvMax ➢ Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or TV 106 Mtn ➢ Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or hI „y ➢ If available, the actual public facility squar footage can be used for deduction. 2-110 max V cl d" ~~i4tr 217, 916 d~hed 14 z.3 /a> m,,l a (zs7o 0~ 614't ~ rhve, 1 a EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: '60,156611'. .I EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS to U Single-family MUId-Fami1V 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8,712 sy ft (20%) for public right of--way 6,534 sq. ft. (15%) for public right-of-wa KIT: 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet 3,050 minimum lot area - 3.050 (minimum lot area i1Aunits er cre = 17. nits er AcreTMBeretepmeatteferagaiiadistMeAdstteareaUMInthenWVA919WWII aa6.NBBOUNDINGUPISPEBMIMB. * Putt" aftlis80%ddiemoilowalraddeaftTONETEBMINETNISSTANDlA MUITIPLYTBEMAMMUMNUMBER BFUNITS RYA. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-AWrafion Conference Notes Page 2 of 9 PM"MpopkaiwArift o ,see" 5 Z SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.130) STREETS: feet from the centerline of ➢ FLAG LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures. A ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multiple-family residential developments. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. [See applicable zoning district for Me primary structures'setback requirements.l ❑ FLAG LOT BUILDING NEIGNT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7301 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1 Y2 STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2y2 stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are satisfied. BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745) t a ~l.e~ hov'i~q Osed In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINA~E ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or f)nces may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is: Buffer Level along no boundary. Buffer Level C-- along east boundary. Buffer Level C. along boundary. Buffer Level along east~boundary. ~s IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURIN SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: LANDSCAPING (Referto Code Chapters 18.745, X765 and 18.705) STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. RECYCLING [Refer MCiade Chapter 118.755) Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a dear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. MY OF TOW Pre-AppfzJ- on Conference Notes Page 3 of 9 ftI*MAQQf *n PW ft DivWm Sedan 53 PARKING (Rotor to Code Chapters 18.165 x18.1051 ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. ➢ Single-family............ Requires: qq~~ 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and Qne 1 space per unit less than 500 square feet. ➢ Multiple-family......... Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking. NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. ❑ BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.7651 BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. j' SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precise identify sensitive land areas and their boundaries is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. L STIED SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.115.010.C1 N When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall ~ . include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.0. J Er CLFANWATER SERVICES (CVItSI BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to R a 0 96441USA Regulations -Chapter 31 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: CITY OF TMW Pre-AWcadon Conference Notes Page 4 of 9 Appir*UPla L4 (Sutsiai sedw TABLE 31 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION a ORDER 96414 SENSITIVE AF H iE KKI Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% 10 to <50 acres 15 feet > 50 to <I 00 acres 25 feet Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre <25% 50 feet Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres ♦ Natural lakes and ponds e Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% 30 feet 10 to <50 acres > 50 to <I 00 acres 50 feet Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure ♦ Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine3 Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 'Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 3The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 45 feet, if a stamped geotechnicat report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the USA Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter: t PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. ❑ SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801 I SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or I height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. TREE REIIEOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.0 A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is fitted. Protection is preferred over removal where passible. CrrY OF ~al T~ Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 55 Hes~lc DVWM Swim THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: ➢ Identification of the location, size, species, and condition of all existing trees greater than 6- inch caliper. ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: 4 Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D, of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper reeqquires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. Rr MMGADON [Refer to Code Section 18.7911060.EJ REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. Cif.AR VISIONAREA (Refer to Cade Cbapteri8.7951 The City requires that CLEAR, VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the dear vision area. The applicant shall show the dear vision areas on the site plan, and identify any obstructions in these areas. CRY OF TICS M Pre A *atlon Conference Notes Page 6 of 9 y b Re~idenUl Appira~nRlarciYg OiAsbn Secfai W FUTORE STREET PIAII AND EIITENSION OF STREETS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0301JI A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: ➢ Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall includo other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. 15e ADDITIONA110TDIIWENSIONALREQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1'h fimes the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. B10CKS Moller to Code Section 18.810.0901 The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. CODE CHAPTERS _ 18.330 (conmonal use) _ 18.620 (rigaar Tdangie oesbri standards) ✓ 18.765 (ofrStreet Parking0.oadm Requirements) 18.340 pecioes inberpretarion) 18.630 (washugw square Regiionai cenM 18.775 (sens vet ands Review) 718.350 ( wvw mwopment) 18.705 (AcoessrE9r= ckcuiatbn) - 18.780 (signs) 18.360 (sleDevelopment Review) 18.710 (Accessary Resideau unb) .11.711rrwp,rary use Pea fb) 18.370(vadawjA*strnents) :Z 18.715 (Density computations) 18.790(rreeRern wao 18.380 ( **v m*TextAmendments) 18.720 (Design conrpau* standards) 18.795 (vao clearance Areas) 18.385 (Arrears pemr~) -18.725 (Environmental Pedonssanee standards) 18.798 ffniess communication i as ks) 18.390 pecwm mwi-g pmmkwesAm pactsb*) _ 18.730 (Exceptions To wwDpment staridards) Z 18.810 (street a wty improvement standards) _ 18.410 (LoUJne as r,ts) 18.740 of omiay) i 18.420 (land partitions) 18.742 (Home oxup wn Pem*) 718.430 (sumviska) 18.745 gzndscov & screeniw standards) j ~ 18.510 (Residenu Zit fxj l s) 18.750 (ManulachxeAW Horne Regutatims) - 18.520(commexw&riV tjs5icds) 18.755 ped sold wasteJRecydhg storage) - 18.530 pna *w zu*g Districts) _ 18.760 (PrcrKOntorm kv situations) CITY OF TWM ftApplimfiw Conference W n Page 7 of 9 Reatdr~i~g tx~sion Sec6as ADDMONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: rLIVA 111, 1- - 12 a ZD e. c~ 5 ALA E.-I-2 '7-1 ?-C7 M 7 ?{Zi.)1_:r 7~ n v✓I o i, r)Prte c(v r dd t ei tak)o AL loa.- e on ch.J 4 e ~ r~(-Ie yed 1S 4" + l --P s. ~ 7K~ 5~rv~,re~e~Y,[~ u~~ ~t5 sc~ rlo LoIV~iOoxp ~y s:tP ~1Gcn fc.~~S. _ 11 ~ ✓r'1 DuL,f 5~ /ye-ell . /f~~ . ~/~7~ YlD L - i- apa+ ~ la.r by-54 arta. o Sog ileaa o / 45 Ca,n IAIV J . ('CAn ffa e)au.,1 12 la" W",L 54,/ A-5t,14 P/b ,~.jjj jd1Au 0--afi~~t s l ter. o n 5 _i[UZ U t kx ja-~y (AL • G04uc (-EA/5 ~ r joSS c ~y n.f VIM (i5 ~1-L l~ tin e , / ~•~G rnc,Lyi~P SUI; 1I.;J7,0 FPR 4,715 `0 +~n3xo-Y,9g5 ' ~a~res~ A551WJaflA~ }l,nSao, ya(~r a~~u t/ ttLkjL6 r`D~lD 5LR i72o`o-livK10 or Ig60°~Cty ) 7W 2290 ART PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. (6-S vlu,~c- 9/~ ! c.jy/E,lt,,~ Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION S9RMITdAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or drooped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned The Planning counter closes at 4:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1), 8%" x 11" map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative deciseon . Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Appreation Conference Notes Page 8 of 9~ RWdKUAppfica6MAWOV UVWW Swoon The administrative decision or public hearing will typlcally occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the fP'Ilanning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appeal p d follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard ~ ~ 1 ~n (A < A basic flowchart which illustrates the review process is vailable from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a ppublic hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. SURDR MOM PLAT NAME RESERVATION 16oaapl Satvey0fS OtBce: 503-648-88841 PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are required to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it Fs recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the Ci 's Policy is to a I those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHER ISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THE DEMOLITIONPERMIT IS OBTAINED). The conference an noes canno cover a e requiremen s an aspects related to site planning that should Me to the develoment of our site plan. Failure of the staff to provide n formation uired b the shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirern ts. it is recommen ded that a prospective applicant either obtain and read t~e Community Development we or ask an questions of City staff relative to Coderequirements prior to submittin an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION . FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A L PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). i PREPARED BY. o u. r>~ CAY OF T1 D PiANN1NG D ION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (S03) 6394171 FAX: (S03) 684-7197 E-MAIL "ran um1@d.tigard.or.us TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: www.c1. harder us a x KipatiftwstersiPre-App Notes Residential.doc Updated: 26-Jun-02 (E O*ering section: preapp.eng) CR OF TOM Pre-A wkation conference Notes Pago 9 of 9 RedsiertlrlAppfakn Dam seam 51 -0.~E Z( z9 P File WL Number ~ieanWater Our commitment is clear. Clean Water Services Service Provider Letter Jurisdiction Tigard Date May 13, 2003 Map & Tax Lot 1 S1 25D000300 400 Owner Dale Richards Site Address 9750 SW 741, Ave Contact Kurhashi and Associates Tigard Address 15580 SW Jay Street, 200 Proposed Activity Subdivision Beaverton, OR 97223 Phone 503-644-6842 This form and the attached conditions will serve as your Service Provider letter in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (R&O 03-11). YES NO YES NO Natural Resources Alternatives Analysis Assessment (NRA) ® Required Submitted (Section 3.02.6) District Site Visit ® Tier 1 Alternatives Analysis Date; Concur with NRA/or ® 1:1 Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis f7l submitted information Sensitive Area Present Vegetated Corridor On-Site - ® ❑ Averaging ❑ ❑ Sensitive Area Present Vegetated Corridor Off-Site ® F1 Mitigation Required ® ❑ Vegetated Corridor On-Site Mitigation Present On-Site ® ❑ 7298.6 s.f. ® ❑ Width of Vegetated 35' from break in Off-Site Mitigation 1171 Corridor (feet) slope -total varies Planting Plan Attached Condition of Vegetated Good, with sections Plan required prior to any ❑ Corridor of degraded areas clearing, grading or V\j construction Enhancement Required ® Enhancement/restoration To be determined start and completion dates Encroachment into Vegetated Corridor ® RSAT (no longer required) V\j (Section 3.02.4) Type and Square Footage Road crossing, oUtfall & lots / Geotechnical Report ® ❑ of Encroachment required 7289.26s.f. Allowed Use Conditions Attached ❑ (Section 3.02.4.b.2) road, twtfatl lots This Service Provider Letter does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. Page 1 of 4 ~Q File Number In order to comply with Clean Water Services (the District) water quality protection requirements the project must comply with the following conditions: 1. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the sensitive area which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed by Section 3.02.3.b. 2. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the vegetated corridor which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed by Section 3.02.4.b.2). 3. The vegetated corridor width for sensitive areas within the project site shall be a minimum of 50 feet wide, as measured horizontally from the delineated boundary of the sensitive area. In areas where slopes are greater than 25 percent, the required vegetated corridor extends 35 feet past the break in slope. 4. For vegetated corridors that extend 35 feet from the top of a ravine, the width of vegetated corridor may be reduced to 15 feet wide if a stamped geotechnical report confirms that slope stability can be maintained with the reduced setback from the break in slope. The attached graphics assume a 15-foot setback from the break in slope. If the geotechnical report does not support this reduction due to slope instability, the setbacks shall remain at the required 35 feet from the break in slope. 5. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction the vegetated corridor and water quality sensitive areas shall be surveyed, staked, and temporarily fenced per approved plan. During construction the vegetated corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed except as allowed by Section 3.02.5.a and per approved plans. 6. Prior to any activity within the sensitive area, the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant shall provide the District with copies of all DSL and USACE Project authorization permits. Permits are required for the road crossing and culvert upgrade. L r 7. For vegetated corridors 50 feet wide or greater, the first 50 feet closest to the sensitive area shall p be equal to or better than a "good" corridor condition as defined in Section 3.02.7, Table 3.2. a 8. An approved Oregon Department of Forestry Notification is required for one or more trees 0 harvested for sale, trade, or barter, on any non-federal lands within the State of Oregon. j 9. Clean Water Services shall be notified 72 hours prior to the start and completion of enhancement/restoration activities. Enhancement/restoration activities shall comply with the guidelines provided in Appendix E: Landscape Requirements (R&0 03-11: Appendix D). 10. Prior to installation of plant materials, all invasive vegetation within the vegetated corridor shall be removed. During removal of invasive vegetation care shall be taken to minimize impacts to existing native trees and shrub species. Page 2of4 (off File Number 11. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction, the applicant shall provide the District with the required vegetated corridor enhancement/restoration plan. 12. Protection of the vegetated corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided by the installation of permanent fencing and signage between the development and the outer limits of the vegetated corridors. 13. Maintenance and monitoring requirements shall comply with Section 2.11.2 of R&O 03-11. If at any time during the warranty period the landscaping falls below the 80% survival level, the Owner shall reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity and the two year maintenance period shall begin again from the date of replanting. 14. Performance assurances for the vegetated corridor shall comply with Section 2.06.2, Table 2-1.4 and Section 2.10, Table 2-2.2. 15. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Erosion Control, in accordance with the CWS Erosion Control Technical Guidance Manual shall be used prior to, during, and following earth disturbing activities. 16. Prior to construction, a Stormwater Connection Permit from the District or its designee is required pursuant to Ordinance 27, Section 4.6. 17. For any developments, which create multiple parcels or lots intended for separate ownership, the District shall require that the vegetated corridor and the sensitive area be contained in a separate tract. 18. Activities located within the 100-year floodplain shall comply with Section 3.13 of R&O 03-11. 19. Removal of native, woody vegetation shall be limited to the extent practicable. 20. The water quality swale and detention pond shall be planted with District approved native species and designed to blend into the natural surroundings. 21. Removal of invasive non-native species by hand is required in all vegetated corridors rated "good". Replanting is required in any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet. 22. Final construction plans shall clearly depict the location and dimensions of the sensitive area and the vegetated corridor (indicating good, marginal, or degraded condition). Sensitive area boundaries shall be marked in the field. C 23. Final construction plans shall Include landscape plans. Plans shall Include in the details a description of the methods for removal and control of exotic species, location, distribution, condition and size of plantings, existing plants and trees to be preserved, and installation methods for plant materials. Plantings shall be tagged for dormant season Identification. Tags to remain on plant material after planting for monitoring purposes. 1 1 24. A Maintenance Plan shall be included on final plans including methods, responsible party contact information, and dates (minimum two times per year, by June 1 and September 30). Page 3 of 4 (02- File Number Min-j 25. Temporary impacts are proposed associated with the required extension of 74ei Avenue. These areas shall be restored in place. No slopes over 25 percent shall be created in the vegetated corridor. An 8- foot (4' above ground) engineered retaining wall Is proposed at the bend of Ash Creek, within the vegetated corridor to protect the new road slope from any future movement and potential undermining.. The wall shall be located no closer than 7 feet from the existing top of creek bank. ALL construction is to take place on the road side. No impacts-will occur In the undisturbed 7-foot buffer from the top of bank. 26. Should final development plans differ significantly from those submitted for review by the District, the applicant shall provide updated drawings, and if necessary, obtain a revised Service Provider Letter. Please call (}503) 846-3613 with any questions. Heidi K. Berg Site Assessment Coordinator Attachments (1) e i i i Page 4 of 4 (63 NOTE: UTILITY POLE LEGEND wE.Ha 5-05-0 ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON WASHINGTON COUNTY EH 5-05 0 BM#820 (CITY OF PORTLAND ELEVATION 481.975) WATER VALVE p WATER MANHOLE GK 5-05-0WETLAND 1 FOOT CONTOURS i VENT PIPE tllltll~ 1 w Cn"oWl. pa. BOUNDARY p SANITARY MANHOLE BUFFER UFFER MITIGATION ALL SURVEYED POINTS ARE ACCURATE WITHIN a 0 40 80 0.3 FEET HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY. DATA POINT (OPTION4) n FIRE HYDRANT TOP OF BANK SCALE: I"=40' ENCROACHMENT - - - - " - CENTERLINE OF CREEK -SM-SAN-SAN-- SANITARY LINE MITIGATION - - - - STUDY BOUNDARY - - - - - DRAINAGE DITCH W ENCROACHMENT/MITIGATION -o--= - c fl BARBED/WIRE MESH FENCE uralc uarlv[,~u 1C~IlL:F1l III III I (i I(I s ° Tua.07201 I N N I FILL APPROVAL IN PROCESS 38 37 36 35 ,r 34 WITH CORPS OF ENGINEERS/OSL 33 III I(~ 96767 I L14 *48X p~ r ° BUFFER (OP 4} 6.670 s.F 2 3 4 5 ITIGATI I 7 B 5..92 s.r. W 5.789 SF 1 6 I 1- o_ I 1 t t6t4A sa J 6,071 S.F. 6,290 S.F. 10 CROA T) 7.k98. so. l (TOTAL MITIGATI } I 6,509 S.F. I 5.744 S.F. I / 1417.08 SO.Ft. EEN I 1 6.729 S.F. 16 Q (rtuvoluxr 7,298. S0. NCROACHMENT) I I I ,93e s.F. ENt~tOALNNEN71 I I T'M 24 TOTAL R ; 1,716.97 EET I I I ! , 7.903 S. F. ,637. Ls a 9.. I E CROACH NT LEN Z .v9 s. 5.437S.F. E CROACH LENGTH IN X OF W V_ 0~ RALL BU ]`Z$$y 23 n J N£ST CC•r~~r) ~ 1 7,445 S.F. ' 5,906 S,F. W r I 0, 22 21 20 I ° W 14.553 S.F. 1 4,935 S.E BU I 19 i . / W 5.122 S.F. 18 17 j W 12 U LL 6,60t S.F. 16 I I F 843 S.F. ; 5 054 S.F. I 15.684 S.F. (ENptOACH1ElM, 6397.09 SOFT. 14 to (n ENA (TEMPORARY Alt S.F. ;~yna•~j.F. pa I _ / N % ~b 29 I,ao6 S.F. 6~% 1 8 r~ d' ME -~4D~ / 6 r 4 ` r \ I \U I ~ ig s st $ ~ ~~+.s o _ 6,23d'~1~ 7 M sd ~ Al A A_'~~U ' ► J l 0 J lei ` -P\ q Mir, 96204' J - _ p s<N _ KURAHASHI 9.I .42w r + k ASSOCIATES, INC. SA74 - I ` ON tyu.nl,4 • - 1- 2 j 2 4 5 6 7 8 ~ 9 SAW TRACT 'E' tv - sue. oI,".'Jmr~ ur zW h a 1p~~f{e~~i~~g g~7~~~ S I~MJ" 1., INN-ml IPYJVY,S.tl. U6ry to-. OPTION Cws 5~7N~ 4 KAIr2129 1 Of 1 AS~ 0 ~pe-11 w CS DOVER 8 , GON 'PP O 10112 Ex1R N pl `yam' W As" PRELDE~ N P 6 ~Y1 2 0112 504 al X706 I 3 0112 ~ D'0 NUE p ANIP~pE E f Z7 s 4 01 12 l.) 400 CREEK X501 g o112 74, S REE1 pP. RDEI4E n n 1l V 45 % A1E$ PD. r 7 0112 PR A G PLAN p4AN Vc~ Q p. 8 0;12 COMP GE pLp N Q b 12 140 ° s $ S ~ " 190 0011 2 {p CAD VA N = N n we it 900 2 of 12 -flee PRE ~ Q 3; ' ' VICIN►~ M NT5 ~ ~ a O 7 5) gENC TY BMk84B FECET 9 n(~ 5 WASHI O`iFpRi~AND gi{~1NV0.3 v~ SiArON DE~GNATION= ~gt1Y CNRAIF 'y AREA AC q 5i1R AIID AODItR1ICAlEY ALL HoalzoN ,I tl , ,.y ~ f 6 4 19641 y K .o, f l ) ¢ Fy 1 COVEN a. W ' u N M N ~~Atl} a 109 111 - I Dravn - wh e>•. w,Df,m CMCA/A,ris~ wls TOTAL AREA WITH SLOPES 257 SLOPE =107,556.24 SQ. FT. LEGEND AEVI5K)N5 CENIEFUNL Of CREEK I ' I I FLOODPLAIN AREA = 70,862 S.F. - - - TOP OF CREEK BANK WA BU FIR BOWEILAND WETLAND AREA = 61,029 S.F. UNDARY FLOCOPLAW II 1'11 BOUNDARY - 25% SLOPE BOUNDARY 0 DECIDUOUS TREE (SEE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SHEET 12 OF 17) EVERGREEN TREE A (SEE IAEE P RESERVATION PLAN SHEET 12 OF 12) 200--- 5' CONTOUR EXIST. R/W 1' CONTOUR 1 Ix Pf„II l I ,i~eM1 II ' r. W ' 7I. EXISTING DRIVEWAY HE113H E,7 P.; W raXEO,:zot a 0 PARCEL AREA 9.36 ACRES 967.67'\, S 9' 14'48" - O I II j M I^ 0 rn `4L- EXSISTING HOUSE TO B Ss w~ %\Q DEMOLISHED _ C ~d d , . Q 0 o 125% SLOPE' z 3 oQ! b AREA = 5,556 SO. FT 0 zm9 p I 0000 p Q Z © pp - z N° 0 (F1 o~ A 4,4 + _t cl) _44 ILILII U ;rv, l +\I . G Gt✓. P \`~1 IIIIII~, d. R - n ,e= _ - O LJ Q Q~ v=ii 4 25% SLOPE + [ cr W AREA=31,660.50 S0. FT a 4, J 0 fPCC c r c. 7~ 52 ``25% 'LOPE AREA=53,681.47 SO FT 00 AIREA862. RN- 1 L I 1 it ` ✓ i •.D r l \ p `I /j~/;~(!~J]L~ ~~,~`3``4,_a a'I. `AP~{'RYltvi Si c ++-"-•:'-~,"r _ p- l i1lob, I 9& Q4 KURAIIASHI DM~T_ 7. _ . ~ tREf~T E rr _ + 25% SLOPE CENTER a CREEK AREA=16,658.27 S0. FL / I hL"dJn,l ;lL . EXIST. CONDITIONS / PLAN ~ ~ s~T ND 1 of 12 MOOSUP SEEMS 10001100 - S W 7 4 T H A V E N U E DHa InSa mD4AgAD ~ A c0' S CCO ZDUsi a° f I C V°i ( / ~y O ~A.i 2~mrD- SET~AC NSA Fp i ~_3 / m~7 1~ II1111 pryy~ e / ! N ~ ~x iOZ°> p m "y .'l.; ~~j ~IJ, l~~ I! f0,y m L N4 D ACA 'A 'H J 0) f~j7 4L 1) 1, ?SET ACK T-P ll 11111 ~"?111)11 l 5.~~1-,>~~ I/P - - - - - - - - - - - ...FUTURE ErTENSION SW 73RD. AVE, - - - - - - - - - - - I 4 I \ ~ _ 1, li , ~ %fl , I' a ~iaa -&D 1 , VII L . i;> -'J I l ;eke/ IN uO; r'I'~ ~►/'a/ ~~)~I l~lill ,l ~ .Im l;, I I!/N 'o 1 I/ l ;fi~-//!~' 1 1 p I/'~ ' ~I~ll /l ~ i l~ S 7 I N ~ I ..Y T I I 1ir / I' L _ ' I ~r ~l I / /l1/ltil l~~ /~~l/l A~7/. ' I 1 L'41 ( I T7 t m^ r j I 1/j ll d u o, I L01 J' I I f ' r /II1 17 . ~ , ~`N'•..._ X778.93_- ~ ~ o " ~ I I tt DJ N I - I , -I' z I I , I /Y7 ~I~~IIII II I~.I~III~I II U~I~I Ilim k ~o~ Ia -"11412' mb i ,ll Il ull~~('~II ^u li 'll'°w/ Lc i I~ T' I,il I I I I ~I~II~j L 11'7.05_x+ -f x N O1 i m i ' R11 ~I . I a I r I' I 1 n IIilllllil~~~ --_U I>°~ io 3m o - C I I - t{ o f 'T''~J~'7 ((`II~IIIII 1111W IW. Ix~sT DRS O 1 r z ( 1 Q 7l Ip~4,/ rl I ~ rn - til! II L-=_r - In < = 2715$' o m / l 6 4" r Lt° z o z pc D~ z~ v. gym- - t g A ul j _ 1 7 I,II~Im 1 Iliq,~~ rl t dyad ~I X90 2~--'~ ~ m m ~ ~ ; ~ I ^ I I 1 r ~ ~ f„Ati' ~,~ii , (j ~ ~ r a m ~ I ~L=14.9,/ l ti V ~ ~ =oc~i,noc- (,l\ Z'p^c°, cr z 'z i 7, 25.31' 9 4/'~l l 40459' '70. JJ': _ 08i " cn 5 N i rn ' 7 x >xy1 ASH CREEK ESTATES pops CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON - ro Y DALE RICHARDS - WINDWOOD HOMES SI98 9 M I4- - tte66 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST. TIGARD. OR 97223 - _ L (8031750-4376 0•Npntd DM• LEGEND 'v CENILRLINE Or CREEK 1 OI. OJl00/0 7OP OF CkEEK RANK Lh•<K/R1.b• pol. WETLAND ' BUFFER III PGYISPLLS _ - - - - _ , nN '.n.,0.,0 WETLAND BOUNDARY - FLOOOPLAIN 1 BOUNDARY I 1 759 SLOPE BOUNDARY h, g 1 I L) U DECIDUOUS IEEE a (SEE TREE ['RESERVATION PLAN SHEET 12 OF 12) hl • w o I y'^ I EKRGREEN TREE (SEE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SHEET 12 OF 12) n I - PROPOSED STORM SEWER LINE q I I g l .-W--- PROPOSED WA7ER LINE F11{•1 'f TIC' ~l'f1LP; ,I d I 11 i 11 --SS-- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE i t r~4' li I iv IN Sao 111 ~ 1F~`CjAlJ~1,]E1uP.>ff"AII 1K1E111;;L1H'7 1 FUTURE SIDEWALK i 1 W/ PUNTER STRIP 1 I313407 RD 'A'= TA%LOT1201 HT I o _ 1 5' WIDE i w PROPOSED - I i PROPOSED 11 SI STREET 'A' it AWL BOX LOCATION Ip'BLOG. e i t-`€IDACN ~ CURB RAMPS i I: 25'RAO ' ' 967.67' 1119'14 ICAL) Q O SD 56a m r,_____, UJ 111 I'I SEIBACN I'I I,l I:I 7' 56 a cc ' - ~-~f _ --+SEIBADO'1'I 2 IiI III I W fit. _ i-----. w ipp7670 sF~KIII iii 3 I.1 4 1 5 i i (TYPICAL) III III III 9 1 0 / T 1.1 I I I'I 1~1 I 7 8 115,192 S.F. n/ vv 5, l U-- 789 S.F. I '1 R/n1 6 ICI 1~1 I;I _ I III IS'BLDG 1 ^-F--- - - _ H'P.U.F. WIH JOIM TRENCH 11 X\ III 5'PRIVATE 1,16,071 S.F. 116,290 $.F i Ill 6,509 S FIII III I SE7BACK-I W III A O DEWALK 1 I III 5,744 S.F. p PROPOSED N ICI / (SglOt. - -1'r-- r n I'I B' PUE WITH '16,729 S.F, A \ 1 EASEMENT IL- - I JOIN7 UDLIIY I' SI I I'1 225'CARACE I 18,936 S.F. Z = STORM SEIBACN 1 ' 26 III 25 o T III I \ 1\ \ J ' o \ " I I s _J iRENDN IYP. I I1I EASEMENT 24 = ICI -+m I II L II keBLOG J 27 II o R I1 7,903 S. F. < 1 IS II 1,1 IT \ SETBACK II ~i~'I O QF 6,637.80 S.F. 702 S.F. Nw p \ SS _ - I-_--_ I 1 ~i .I III III 5,437S.F. - \ ff I 1,14.95.09 S.F. I III SS 5 T U i_~T~A~♦ ARLOT 400 L__-_ J L__;__ II Ifl 3 Np r „ ,I( ~ W y-_~ 25RAD 11 E: U Z .Ir / r>c 1 ♦a. III fA _ W - 1-_--- I I h n AGy- t~AC H P.U.E. EILITY JDxv7 ICI 7,446 S.F. 1, _ I 1 5.906 S.F. I UICAry `dUBL1iY TRENCH (IYP.) II - 49- II I a~ nFln U 3'8L DC SETBACK \ I 1 1 r--- W,. I u Z H F SIDE/BACK YARD N I1 22 I'I ~ I 20 1- r----- O (TYPICAL) l Il 1I II '1~ f~,:~, N^ 1II `-I~____ + 11 / ,\~_J ,,_I ~_I T Qoe 4853 S.F. IJ 4,985 S.F. III I,I 19 iII I, 5,205 S.F. I 5IDEWAL 1 I J I'I 115,122 S. EI; III III 9SEMEN f~-, g 1 I ♦ \ 1 ` III III 111 120'CARAGE 1~1 O UCMENt III i/ ( 12 \ I'I 3 I 1,1 I k 6'BLDG. A'i to'PUE ICI ppp pp LOCI(-BLOCK SETBACK (TYPICAL ) II6 lJ W 16 Ijl l Id , .v 6.054 S.F.I - Q e RETAINING WAl 1 1 -,A >1A v.- I'I PI C1,884 SF 11, . i ~~'4t~ `~-,J L_'~ III 1, ICI 1 I II1 tll 1 r' 15 I 1 61 6,601 S.F. III 6,84.3 ST 1 VI I'I 11,1 r`I ~/IJL, w $ 8.884 S.F. III 111v~~,K - - Q Q • CsE ~I I U ~ E51 I I I 1. ~ I PAOPpSE \;1 `S/~~ ' 4'•~ 1 \ 'L (DRAINAGE EASEMENT) l'-----J L___ I; III 11 F- SE TRACT A TA%LOT 300 SETBACK 14 13 EASEMEN a,- % 1 WETLANDS 9.310 S.F. 1`11 11,616 S.F. I [Il //JJ//~~ 0 /:o 3'BLDG. 1 11 I 1' JI i 15'BLDG CK . - \ SIDE/BACK YARD TBA '.--,1♦• r~~♦ `1 1'1 52 Il (TYPICAL) 1 1 III I'I(~,a( I"~ T \ ,BLDG SETBAC l ~l ,.,/B 'K YARD' 1 1 gin: 4° s 28 ¢,806 S.F. II 1 ♦i a 1( ♦ r„A ♦y Pzr, L_-J_Jil \ ♦ w: V~~y 111 I y. t/ 1 41.° ~ 15 i - - I 6.234 S.F- v aNa 1 11N ♦ ' Rl 51 96704' 1 Sf iBA K s _ - ♦ TRACT e ' t i r f i 'i 1 ry EN'ER0, J lEL CREEK KURAHASHI il, 1 Kr Acv OCIATF..'. IN(' PLAN r SiTE DEVELOPMENT SHEET 40. 3 of Q Sp)'EIIl~ 51ZE 3v _O. 5 %tlla .VICIAL JCt7MAwN E D t 1A AMC- Y CAL. "~(\R/AB6'L~/) 'RED SUNSET ` ~.J "CER RURRVM ,C SC 10. GRApR STREEt UOMT 10 BE PRESERVED PNC REMOVEOI la +.mt 1 n uFy . REE PRE4.RVA(ICN PLAN FOR TREES Y 111 I11 ~ ( 'I 57 rrr , rrr z C"E 1~GR r~'R°° i7 ` 'r~r I yrr r a. "T 30'_O' o.C. I N l W STREET 1REE5 l iv- m 33 ' r ~r g, y 'rrk err ~~C 34 ~ 0 t rr it ` 35 56 S rr I, rl r 36 31 w N 1 c1° ~1~ 9•11'48~'E'-"' 1 $ 1 N U 0 2~ 1 111 ~ ~ ~ 55 rrr` 967.67' t I 5 6 r w 3 1 ' 1' 1 3s f 4 tAwor2o+ STREET ,A r r 2 I s I STREET r N; N PRVVATE % 54 5+69 BS _ -4 A2 53 p 23 A6 A9 1 ~ is 1~ 15 j r ro" eF UENI 2 I 21 1 1 t I t KS ~ P"1 52 V IA2T7 300 V-4 It! . cq T' , ' J!'-• ,r ~ v. ; r ;.r ~ '~'''.:.~~'.'~"'z--.~'~;t~:,s _ cmcw: epf ~ ~ ~ 1RncT ° A,~A Sill .JJ ~ 1-.-_. 1~'oa ~ \4\ -c_'~ ;~,~..,,5.. ~ r=~.~ _ 55~''~ ~ 1ftACT EKj.J'R c~A•rss Ir+c. CEX R OF pRnc 1 9M1 J / 1 / C,pf (1 UAW 1 ~ ) ~ p \ J ~ \e:./~ $aNN♦~~ty \ \ Jr _ ~.,,..r _ $5%„'=°~__ - - s+~n i a ~ 7 , 29 Pal. 6 a 967,04' 140 t k~ Z ~j - erg m✓mroe L E G E N D o.ay .a Apl. _ ehY_ ovoua z PROPERTY BOCINDARY _ e+. nroHOe w GN:AI'IIIC SCALE w _ CENTERLINE OF DITCH ALVis1°Ns O Q w R GAS LINE / I w trier I _ . w ti SANITARY SEWER LINE W 11ix~ ~ II a ~ N ti STORMWATER LINE a S W 7 4 1 it A V Ll N U E 7 ? FENCELINE 0 1 ! m u z !I O w w m 1 i ! m SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM SEWER MANHOLE \Y LY ro -I p0- w , 1 {ge-m4 2Hm PROPOSED LOCK BLOCK WALL \ 5' F'-- --I-- --'-i-'---- -t~~ 1127 C0 5. -.....°d 14' 1117, F./- ~'_-_-F-_-_-_ ❑ PROPOSED STORM FILTER -mow - NFL SEE SHEET II OF 12 FOR STREET CROSS SECTIONS. 1 8/7 A- - 15 74TH AVENLE PLAN O p € 0 o 9% 270 270 Z 3 'oof d , Pd57A 16/50.~J CA (r 1 ;o M FLEY = 21773 ` - - - 260 260 Q Q K = 387 1-~ V m 250 h „ - - - e 7WVPM roN- T 4- v 20 er--E - + L . - i 250 ~ J h h N1 SrA 20+25 Lbw POINr [ fV = 2o7 4J 1 Q _l _POINT f ll = 205 7_ (yv = ) 99 __1GIY,POLNLS L FU'N7 5 = 1915364 A.D. _ -22.31 flN 5IA 21+75 N FIFV =,70623 1 _ . 240 240 „ xr= 5.101 579 pt, e~ A0. 2501 126 yr - ~N 7ira O I 130. ' AL I m - I~o~+ 230 - - - - - - 230 a~ m ry h ry I a U _ _ h a h ry U B o b 220 220 ~ - - - _ I 1 - - - - I ' E0 E' ..1GT` 210 77 ?4 fY,11NG 200 200 mobs - - - - ~Nrl KURAHASHI F 1 0' HORL7 k AS~'OCIATE IN +5+00 16+00 17+00 16+00 WOO 20+00 21+00 +00 74TH AVENUE PROFLE SCALE 74TH AVENJE HORM f - 30' PLAfJ/PRCFLE VERT. I" - IV IT N0 5 of 12 - er. _ ovoyn ' wap~.a Dox I. 1 I u w I ea. woeroe ~ it w1~ j 1 er. avoe;w u ~ LNkY/RNYbN wt. OWx ;h REVISIONS ARdeaeL 0-111 TO Ol' C GRAPHIC SCALE WAIL IN CWISWNG PoLNT OP WAY ' IJfJ907 hQ M 1 0400,00 PRNATE N+i y TAXLOT; 201 I I ; IIIN ILLT I 1~1g I,, n-wu F STREET 'A' pr ",6858 tf~ A ~ I , Z n I 1 i 111 17.00 goo If 00 O 0 O w PC = 0.11 / D_ cc ;PRIVATE } I f 26 25 1 aZ 24 o 27 1 STREET U 08 Z I TAXLOT 400 23 _ O 3 „f ` L~. ,'~F~;TF'±~ ! L Z yob z ~V A STREET PLAN PIT S7A - 13.15 1111 11 1° PO REV = 11507 W p AD. _ -4.51 CC _j M = 1I.09 OQrt 0 PVT fA = 11100 1 1 nll 11~ 5000' YL `J PW fjEY = 171.)5 A.D. = 3.277 H = 13.26 LL ~ n 1 50 W' Lt 1 o m: O LOW POWf ELEV • 11717 n : W (JV{,(nJ) F ;9h 6 PA S7A_ 10151 + m - Q n - 250 FYI _D ELEV = 2M97 m 2.50 U x-5.00 70. 'YC vi L~; 240 '140 Gw 230 PRORLE SPNG fR (Mpll ice. 10• HORIZ. I robs KURAHASHI h ASSOCIATES IN<' WOO Af00 - _..12+00 1 - 13+00 14+00 15.00 15+ A STREET PROFLE 'A' STREETS SCAM PLANJPROME HOPoZ: f - V VERT: f - XP sIEET No. 6 of 12 I OCR PANAIf RD 1 ~ '-Rr !N_ GJ/OA_O! Rr , I .e8 5e89' 14'44:'L / 56 R,a,'N cvl. _ avovoR ~ 967.61 Ch.cY~R `y REV,Slpga I = „oo~ 3 Q 5 I 6 I 1O _ _ \ 1 PR'~VATE STkEET I ' GRAPHIC '~CAIX on 00 ~ \ a I \ - 7+00 300 HOD 5,00 5I69.B5 I w ` \ I I 2G rrff q I \ ~ n \ II 1 I21 1 20 ' 17 I 11 I \ \ \ tL - \ I I I I 18 I 17 I I \ - \ 1 I '6 0 \ 15 n LU I I I 13 Fi 14 0 a TAXLOT 300 _ 0 0 Z 0 n Q i PLANATE STREET PLAN Z 1 Z N~^ <a cal) ccr, 300 'a U~V -C- - _ j W ~ 2o - - - - - - --I a<~ AD. A.92 2W U- O 276 - - - m ti - [QI it- n N ~ ' Y . ) 0 260 - --0 me w ` - - 1 _ - SAC IC_ENTER 250 I UL- c D ( GNAp Eg51MG GRAD[ 240 t fvShRE LR DE (Rpli) - 1• JD' 2 I _ _ TT ( - f - - - - 0+60 -Hoe 2+06 3+00 4+00 --5+00 6+00 KURAHASHI k AY.-CIATES, INC' PWATE STPEXT PLAN MATE STREET PROFL.E 'CL LE HORR. f= 50' vfu( r. ID' s>rra 7 01 Y2 ® of ® ® ® ® o o ® o o ® o~ ® ® ® ® ® ~s i S W~_' 7 4 T H A V E U E ~ ~Mi T, (_I I_i ~f - rrr - zre_ - - 22~12 97 H H4+ -I •I ,1 _ - , ~ FIB .~.i t ] I r { 1 ~ ~ .i 1 ~ ~ 1 z n n ( r '/,j J~ I 1~( 111 ^ I ~`l {J~j/' l'I - I i9l/P411 r _ al I = 7d = Irn - t~ ~ rr .i I r r , I I` c0 J / a/ ♦ / r~ I'~J~Ifil Ir i~ _r T-__ „ I ♦11 mD ~m 111 S`~° 1 ~lu _ a~ Jr1 fIJC ~-71 1 'o 1.11 Id A z Ai - - y.r~ i'~~ C l / II 11'11 i,fLL ~1 1I - O I ~ kl-+y~,•~ j~id'' -j{ i d~ /~1{I),~ III// i~~ I '171. ~ S~ 1,' ~~~Ill~l~ 1~///~!// l '~r 'lI~l,r ~ ,N "I: ~I ~ - - -d.»~~ III II. VIII ~~.I - I J r , i~~ I III II ~I di =q l r '~r/,. ll 'moo III I'II'" ~din~ / i~ ll'IIIt r - r,j r III rl 111 ♦ r ~l - ur lm\N - ♦ I / n I1 11- 4ir` 4r'I( ♦1 jDJ 1 ' r f I I ~1lli' (fit 11" / t. ♦ t~Ar ~~r I f ( J L ~ Cry~El'I /rr ~ ~ ` I 1 +00 FUTUPE Ec7ErJ5r0'r _ .~rl. ~I 'I /Ir1~I' I I ll, l/ e I - , _ I 1 2/1~~ ICI. , Il/ l I I All/I II I) rl / / 's t = _ _ _ I I),r- ~<'4,-.! ' ~1~~1 I'~llll~llrrl~lr!l/111 II ~ tr "I1 rl( U _ ~A f - AI /l,r ~l ! r/,ri ,I I ry - i , ry IS i ♦f~~~ u'I -i lyu h i' II ((1 1I l II I' it o Jllil:~lli'~~~~IJII(I ~II II/ - 1 JI t ~r ~rlll//~I"~~I, 1,~7rrl r/ r' 'r~r r ~ L_~ ~ ro+ IIJ JI I:~~' by il. ~r I, , ppF,~ 5/~ a/~ ,J- ')I~ Vllrlllfl 1111 ~l iJ ~ 1 / r I I ' 4; +~"ti~~M li~~ r jJIII~J'n II if l,ilr 111111 !III (r i . 1, / / ~'I II ,JI ;~'I/I~,~I 1 I 111 I ~ ~ II I f I I ltt I ,~'/~/1 i / )1 I I' r r~ I rr rTi / - i d% II I 'r I "lb 1 CD9. - - i ffl IX'4 I I) I I (r a _ r Z f f r ,I, I :r , i [ M {I ~V, ' 11''!illn li'I ' I II I 'y - D D D IT A „rll t - - y _ p z z N z o ll ti rn 3> r i m m (n 70 A m r A 1 t. \ _ lrl ilip I, -l -S IT t 1 A I' / li i II 70 T m m CJ 3 - - - • m > 20 70 70 > „I4 - - Cpl n /j.~ iI 1I L, 1. 1 1,`~ > II , m IT, z 15 N r ~Qg _ O Z A j S00'45'45"IV v Jane g g m i -u z a m _ I I o_I o: _ pIti,IT piy ASH WEEK E87A7ES PJ~o j, ~ `I I 1 Z D CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ~i p = _ _ M DALE RICHARDS - WINDWOOD HOMES 9 ° 8$19 12666 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST. TIGARD. OR 97223 - - _ _ Z W (693) 761 ryi a .SD. I CnNq/A.rh. Uol, A GNMI p' .SCALP! L E G E N D AEVB✓NS - -itttttttttrtttttttt~~ PROPERTY BOUNDARY STORMWATER LINE I IN f'LF.1 I ~rr~n • mn CENTERLINE OF CREEK ...r tAJDERGRIX.NJ TELEPHONE LINE _ GAS LINE - o FENCELINE -SS SS- SANITARY SEWER LINE AAAr r a WETLAND BOUNDARY A I - I -W W WATERLINE +f I I ~ i SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM SEWER MANHOLE I3179A7 RD. 'A= O TA%LOT:201 k t e (1' i z T ' - STREET ,A $ I'' Pi = IbAB.59 0 W 4 967.67' 'g9' 14'48:E, co) u J 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 9 56 L z 0~ 5 1 1 7 B 0 I p 1 I 6 / 0U 06 q Z o$ 10 x \ 26 I ~ ~ I PRIVA 1 I Q 27 25 24 - _ _ _ _ _ _ T1E STR ET i~ _s AxLOT 400 23 1 \ _ W SS _ \ \ /11 rn of 'w - w- _ j ---j 0~ _ W - _ c-r CI n Q 22 21 20 W ~n.iwi~ v ..^M _ ICJ 19 ~i p~p U ° E I I QLD--- r I \ ~ I ku g 5' CULVERT - - n fl n ,c \ ~V I I I cc J C ` \ \ fr 12 \ (ta Q Q QQ I r-- _ VVt i~ { A I 1 _ _ L,t LL v~ ~CP[E~ 'l 1 °Aq~N \ \S1~ TARLOT 300 G URGE DIAMETER A `r- DETENTION PIPE 3 14 tl 13 52 ~I- - - - t) i / d 28 ley 4pe 29 .f 51 967,04' N6914 41"W - t - ~t ASHI - 4 6 fI ' 7-'~- TRACT F J A~SUCIATE R.c CENIER CREEK UTUTY COMMUTE PLAN GIEET NO. 9 of 12 LEGEND Gk11'llil' rCALh PROPERTY BOUNDARY STO LINE y, FENCELINF R ELINE R[VISbIlIS CENTERLINE OF GREEK 1 ' I w rcer SANITARY SEWER LINE ~ CATCH BASIN I ~ ICI - I f I f,i TOPOGRAPHY ' II I i~ _ ^ I SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE {I I ~ I 1 I I l o l I', ~ lil I I I I'. ME h?, '1 t ICII7HI II~Ii 13+39.07 or rrt I;~ I III _ - g TaxLOr:2m g I it S I I I LI P = u+esse Z STREET 'A' 9.67.67' W 89'I4'48~. V f D 56 W h e 5 9 I w 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I I 7 I 8 W 15' 6 W ~i io w - PRIVAt MJ !t) $ 1 I I _ C o I I ~ I -IE STREET i' = ~ r~' O og :E E: T stoat 25 24 I d ~musE - qq5 0 Gyi FULL DA NENt Z 12• \ AXLOT 400 23 x~y c eox CULVERT 22 21 20 j! 1 Z y 19 I I I \ OLG_ fr r- co ~ 18 t7 V~~I 12 p~ Q ¢3 3 I 7 16 _ F 0„ I E7 r i l f I 15 1 Q 7 cc W i V ` ,cPU~ \ o~Nq TAxLOT 300 r: 1- 14 13 LL L p/~ 0 1q Qe 52 it ' 1, ^o / ETEN110N - / I I'~~\9 PIPE 28 w / I v / L ~ / B'NS ~v w ~'L11~ ~iI Ha,~x I v ~ ► fs,-~i+«~ 2 \ 29 m \ 51 G 1 w ~ of 96704' Ne9. 4aw 4 TRACT r I 6 liis I _F KURAHASHI p~CREEK R SOCIA'rr:s. INC STORM DRAINAG'E'" PLAN _.i SHEET NO, 10 of 12 Of. OYOJA]A ooy Na DoT. e.^ ava7m D,- al. Or. akoa7oa CM<V/R4YH~ hole R/W 25' 25' R/W REVSIONc 8' 16' B" PUE 6 6 20% PROFILE GRADE -aox 5'I ASPHALT CONCRETE 1 ROADSIDE R/W 25, ( R/W ROAD40E 3/5'-0 AGGREGATE BASE ` COMPACT $UBGRADE 11) 95xpICN DITCH I i/ *-0 AGGREGATE BASE RELATIVE COMPACTION (7-IBO) S W 74TH AVE TYPICAL SECTION 14 4 9' B" PUE STA. 20+40 TO STA. 22+00 0.5' 7.5' MONOLITHIC 6' MONOLITHIC 3,5 5' D5' N. T. S. 1 qlDELAN TE CURB kGUTTER CURB k GUTTE +2.Ox LANTTSIDf- GRADE-20x I WALR +2x S I Jp} Jp+ B, J/5 -0 ASPHALT CONCRETE AGGREGATE BASE ' AGGREGATE BASE }/4'-0 AGGREGATE BASE 4 y} ` COMPACT SUBGRADE 70 95x k 1 1/2'-0 AGGREGATE BASE RELATIVE COMPACTION (T-180) e Z S.W. STREET 0 TYPICAL ROAD SECTION I.L. R/W 25' 27' R/W R//II O o) r-2 B' 16e' PUE VARIES SLOPE 6- MONOLITHIC n12 EASEMENT Z = 4' ASPHALT CURB CURB Jf i7CR 7 OFILE GRADE O 0 2.Dx -2.Ox ET3 W/ O 0 J. ASPHALT CONCRETE 3/4'-O AGGREGA o TE X.) -0 AGGREGATE BASE BASE 3 I i/2'-0 AGGREGATE BASE COIAPACT SUBGRADE TO 95x RELATIVE COMPACTION (Z I O SW. 74TH AVE TYPICAL SECTION = oo„v STA. 18+00 TO STA. 20+39 w `q N.T.S E, ^ f, Q = z Ill IIJII 77 U a ¢n C P Jn ~ o t, LL ~fff(P1E8 lit pt", RF -VIFAM OX I$tfo-,M Nf xnrxL fktAlx N6fnWBi A2s ILL f Ef&MNf ( ASNBdO R/W 25. f 27' R/W YARIE6 ~l v'Y#SIi 5 C I' n , l SLOPE G - _ ' S' B' 16' EASEMCNT s ~._IDyuF,T.)s .]/,u1 ANRR SIDE- PUE WA" Y7'% Yi' j1~' 0 o~-. MONWTHIC ASPHALT CURB CURB k GUTTER o0 PROFILE GRADE PEr,Yrf10 „YTS, aWkl 1L AlMEHt HI(NAl lldifGN l 2. 2.02 +2x 14 A7,Ul IOl IN, - - -2.Ox ASPHALT CONCRETE 1 38/A 0 AGGREGATE "1+ J L }/A'-0 AGGREGATE BASE COYPAC7 SUBGRADE TO 95S 11/2'-0 AC,CREGAlE BASE RELATIVE COMPACTION (7-180) PRIVATE STREET TYPICAL SECTION S W. 74TH AVE TYPICAL SECTION STA. 16+12.90 TO STA. 17+75 N.TS KURAHASHI N is. h A.1.~UCIA'I'F.S. INt' ' TYPICAL SECTIONS 51EET ND. 11 of 12 s ~ Ilr lII~1 ® III ® I® ®r . ® ~ r ~ ~ + 'Al` D g1NgOED I ,1 dy F~ N • 1~.7 ! O m D I I 4F 0, Ilk ,LPL',. ~ / pRq N l O - p / h q w i . 74+00 7 '77 ` / s I a X X Z] dF\/ \ 1mt / I/ x I ! I / _ ~z+ 1110 / / c i Wtfl / O `J x 9~ [I I !,Y O }CK x t x XX O I ~ x ,t X :.a I lK T x = r VA XX-- 0 boo x xlk x u~ ~ a ICI r.tl~ 41 D - g x N Z 'y ~ U j i I I ~ ; ,~slo ASH CREEK ESTA7ES F.D. CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON 1 c > DALE RICHARDS - WINDWOOD HOMES 8 9 8198,9 - _ : Z w 12655 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST. TKIARD, OR 97225 - yt - _ _ _ (603) 750M775 Preliminary Stormwater Report Ash Creek Estates Prepared For Win wood Construction, Co. 12655 SW North Dakota St. Tigard, OR 97223 i 5115/03 i I j Kurahashi and Associates { 15580 SW Jay St. Suite 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 r Ash Creek Estates Preliminary Stormwater Report 5/15/03 t Introduction Winwood Construction, Co. intends to construct a 29-unit subdivision in Northeast Tigard called Ash Creek Estates. The historical land use of this 6.42-acre parcel was residential timber zoning. Ash Creek, a tributary of Fanno Creek, crosses the site. The proposed subdivision involves adding streets, sidewalks, utilities, homes, and landscaping which increase the amount of impervious surface on the parcel. The project also includes an extension of 74'h Ave, which requires a culvert crossing of Ash Creek. The hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of this culvert is not included in this preliminary stormwater report. Appendix C contains a site map of the proposed facilities. Table 1 summarizes the hydrology and hydraulic calculations for the site. The following information summarizes the design assumptions of the stormwater system. Contributing Areas The over all site contains 6.42 acres of which 5.26 acres is under development. Site Hydrology Site hydrology was calculated for both the existing (Predeveloped) and post developed conditions. Site flows were calculated using the Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph (SBUH) methodology. The Washington County Soil Survey identifies the soils on the site as Cascade and Helvetia both with a hydrologic classification C. Using this soil data the pervious areas were calculated with a CN of 81 and the impervious areas received a CN of 98. Table 1 summarizes the SBUH assumptions. Existing Site Flows Based upon a composite CN of 81, existing site runoff flows were calculated for the 2, 5, 10, and 25-year stormwater events. Appendix A contains the data and SBUH printouts for the predeveloped conditions. Table 1 summarizes the site flows. (Note: Hydroflow by Inteilisolve L was the software package used to determine flows and make detention calculations.) C Proposed Site Flows Based upon a composite CN of 95, existing site runoff flows were calculated for the 2, 5, 10, and i 25-year stormwater events. Appendix A contains the SBUH printouts for the postdeveloped conditions. (Note: Hydroflow by Intellisolve was the software package used to determine flows and make detention calculations.) Detention System Since Clean Water Services ordinances require runoff control, a 4800-square foot detention pond was included on the site. This detention pond uses a multiple orifice outlet (note preliminary pond sizing uses single orifice) to limit offsite flows. Appendix B contains the stage storage and stage discharge tables for the detention system. Water Quality Treatment In order to meet the Clean Water Services water quality standards, the volume was added to the detention pond for water quality purposes. Based upon the standard 0.36-inch water quality storm, water quality treatment requires approximately 5500 cubic feet of storage. Conveyance Actual site conveyance will be designed in accordance with Tigard and Clean Water Services . standards. The conveyance system consists of mainline pipes, manholes, catch basins, house laterals and other normal storm drainage appurtenances. Appendix C shows preliminary drawings of the storm drainage system. Public System Impacts The stormwater from this site will discharge directly into Ash Creek. Since the detention pond maintains the runoff from the site at pre-development conditions, the development will not create any downstream impacts. i~ l eG'19 L.tTY STRIP Criteria Table 1 ~Ftatea a ata Ash Creek praina9 summary of Storm evelo me+~t d t Data Post D Grou C 5115143 Pre pevelo men Cascad6 42 Cascade Grou C 5 26 6.42 4.26 SO-11T e 5.26 1.01 Total Area ac 0.10 81 pevelo ed Area ac 5.16 98 km ervious Area ao 81 95 pervious area ao 98 5 CN. ervious 81 5567 CN-lmvious 12 CN•Com osite 0.39 ~ na -To min {t3 na inches Water Quali Volume Detention Rainfall Quali Plow cis 2.5 Water develoPrnent Release cfs 3.1 t Post no 3,45 Plows cis predevelo cis en 2.66 no 3.9 plows 3.45 no 4.2 3.91 1.S 4.5 .35 2 ear 1.68 na na 5 ear 2.11 5.28 10 Year na 25 Year 2.74 50 ear 140 ear based only upon 25-year event ' Note Preliminary Pond sizing Hydrograph Return Period Recap Pagel x, Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (c1s) Hydrograph No. type Hyd(s) description f (origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr t 1 SBUH Runo 0.83 1.35 1.68 2.11 2.74 74th Predevelopment 2 SBUH Runo 2.66 3.45 3.91 4.50 5.28 74th Post Development 3 Reservoir 2 1.43 1.60 1.70 1.81 1.96 I Proj. file: 74th prelim pond2.gpw Run date: 05-15,2003 Hydraflow Hydrogrsphs by lntelisoive Appendix A Predeveloped and Post Developed Flow Calculations Hydrograph Return Period Recap Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph i:: No. type Hyd(s) description t (origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1 SBUH Runo 0.83 - - 1.35 1.68 2.11 2.74 74th Predevelopment V. 2 SBUH Runo - 2.66 3.45 3.91 4.50 5.28 74th Post Development 3 Reservoir 2 1.43 1.60 1.70 1.81 1.96 -For L "r 0 u a Proj. file: 74th prelim pond2.gpw Run date: 05-15-2003 Hydraflow Hydrographs by IntelisoNe Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cis) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cult) 1 SBUH Runo 0.83 6 486 17,821 - - - 74th Predevelopment 2 SBUH Runo 2.66 6 474 37,413 - - - 74th Post Development 3 Reservoir 1.43 6 498 37,413 2 102.26 3,368 t. ~ is m i D J i Proj. file: 74th prelim pond2.gp Return Period: 2 yr Run date: 05-15:2003 - Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve r Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow Interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) ON (min) (min) (cuft) (R) (cu(t) 1 SBUH Runo 1.35 6 486 26,322 - - - 74th Redevelopment 2 SBUH Runo 3.45 6 474 48,542 - - - 7.14h Post Development 3 Reservoir 1.60 6 504 48,542 2 102.78 5,108 n io J n J Proj. file: 74th prelim pondZgp Return Period: 5 yr Run date: 05-15,2003 - Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograo Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (it) (cult) 1 SBUH Runo 1.68 6 486 31,582 - - 74th Predevelopment 2 SSUH Runol 3.91 6 474 55,079 - - 74th Post Development 3 Reservoir 1.70 6 504 55,079 2 103.09 6,234 rE J a U J i Proj. file: 74th prelim pond2.gp Return Period: 10 yr Run date: 05-15,2003 - HydraBow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No, type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) ON (min) (min) (cult) (it) (cuft) 1 SBUH Runo 2.11 6 486 38.591 - - - - 74th Predevebpment 2 SBUH Rune 4.50 6 474 63,515 - - 74th Post Development 3 Reservoir 1.81 6 510 63,515 2 103.48 7,832 f. i a _J m U .t Proj. file: 74th prelim pond2.9p Return Period: 25 yr Run date: 05-15-2003 - Hydraflow Hydrographs by intetisoNe iv Hydrograph Summary Report Pagel "yd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph No. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cis) (min) (min) (cult) (it) (cult) 1 SBUH Runo 2.74 6 480 48,275 - - - 74th Predevelopment 2 SBUH Runol 5.28 6 474 74,804 - - - 74th Post Development 3 Reservoir 1.96 6 528 74,804 2 104.04 10,165 r J_ m J ' t Proj. tile: 74th prelim pond2.gp Return Period: 100 yr Run date: 05-15x2003 - Hydraftow Hydrographs by Intelisoive Ap,~endix B preliminary pond pata m m_ Reservoir Report Page 1 Reservoir No. 1 - preliminary pond Hydra0ow Hydrographs by intelisolve Pond Data Pond storage is based on known contour areas. Average end area method used. Stage / Storage Table stage (ft) Elevation ((t) Contour area (sgrt) Incr. Storage (curt) Total storage (cult) 0.00 100.00 1,600 0 0 1.00 101.00 236 918 918 2.00 102.00 2,944 1,590 2,508 3.00 103.00 3,724 3,334 5,842 4.00 104.00 4,576 4,150 9,992 5.00 105.00 5,029 4,803 14,795 6.00 106.00 5,500 5,265 20,059 Culvert / Orifice Structures. Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [D] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise In = 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crest Len It = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Span In = 6.2 0.0 0.0 0,0 Crest El. It = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Invert El. i< = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = - - - - Length it = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Multistage = No No No No Slope % = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N -Value = .013 .013 .000 .000 Orif. Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 O.OD 0.00 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Extillration Rate = 0.00 in/hr/sgft Tatbsater Elev. = 0.00 ft Me: M mWom have been anayced under 7M and 0" cm". Stage I Storage I Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Ctv A Clv B Clv C Ctv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfii Total ft cuft It cis cfs cis cis cis cfs cis cfs cis cfs 0.00 0 100.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - 0.00 1.00 918 101.00 0.87 - - - - - - - - 0.87 2.00 2,508 102.00 1.33 - - - - - - - - 1.33 3.00 5,842 103.00 1.67 - - - - - - - - 1.67 4.00 9,992 104.00 1.95 - - - - - - - - 1.95 5.00 14,795 105.00 2.20 - - - - - - - 2.20 6.00 20,059 106.00 2.42 - - - - - - - - 2.42 L J D a WWWWOPPOW Appendix C e facilities storm Drainag preli~ninar~ Site 1Viap ffi S i 4 a ~ t m T t t 4t t. . A U S 74TH / A _ 11 ~ ``r~ raA dq !!yyVV~' ~ o _ A %C J f G r r ' r ~I 1 m 1 ' p n, I C - m I I 11~' I 1 it III I 4 T 1 „ lit 1 ~I a y + ~ m 11 4,S l4~ & - ~ 11 cn - " ~ 1 ~it I~ij 1fi ± ' y M Vol 11 I i _ 1 's N INI iF ~ ~ m 1 't I t 1 ~ ~ ts v ~ m ~~a' X11 r a , ~ w I~ > I ~n a N r ' J a OREpON rr, SVWGTON cow v4p, Owes m E ? 6G' C OF npAflUgr,w°af a iil~rs,~ Y GOP cific Real-World Geotechnical Solutions Investigation • Design • Construction Support May 9, 2003 ' Project No. 03-8191 Windwood Homes, Inc. 12655 SW North Dakota Street 1 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: M. Dale Richards - Fax: (503) 293-6173 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation 74th Avenue Subdivision Washington County, Oregon This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation conducted by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. (GeoPacific) for the above-referenced project. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide general geotechnical recommendations for site grading, anticipated foundations, and construction. Project Information Location: The study site is located east of the terminus of SW 74" Avenue, immediately north of an unnamed tributary drainage to Ash Creek in Washington County, Oregon (see Figure 1) Developer: Windwood Homes, Inc. (see address above) Civil Engineer: Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. 15580 SW Jay Street, Suite 200, Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Jurisdictional Washington County, Oregon Agency: Y SITE DESCRIPTION A14D PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT p ' The 9.3-acre site is located on the east side of SW 74`h Avenue, along the north side of a 9 tributary drainage to Ash Creek. Currently, 74th Avenue terminates at the west end of the site, and does not cross the creek. The site is about 420 feet wide by about 965 feet long. The tributary drainage meanders within a relatively wide floodplain with an average width of about 100 feet. Along the flanks of the drainage, steeper slopes predominate with grades that generally average between 22 and 30 percent. Beyond the influence of the drainage, topographic grades range between about 7 and 12 percent. Most of the site is densely wooded with cedar, Douglas fir, alder, and maple. Native understory vegetation consists of ferns, vine maple, Oregon grape, and berry vines. 7312 SW Durham Road Tel (503) 598-8445 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503) 598-8705 May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 The proposed development includes 29 lots for single-family residences and about 950 feet of streets with one cul-de-sac. Based on site topography above the buffer zone, a considerable amount of grading that involves more filling than cutting will be required on specific lots during site development. The existing house that is currently located in the northwest area of the site, adjacent to 74'h Avenue, is planned for removal. Improvements to 74th Avenue are planned, which include continuation of the street across the tributary to Ash Creek, installations of culverts, 10 tol5 feet of fill placement, and some retaining wall construction. REGIONAL AND LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject site lies within the Willamette Valley/Puget Sound lowland, a broad structural depression situated between the Coast Range on the west and the Cascade Range on the east. A series of discontinuous faults subdivide the Willamette Valley into a mosaic of fault-bounded, structural blocks (Yeats et al., 1996). Uplifted structural blocks form bedrock highlands, while down-warped structural blocks form sedimentary basins. The site is located in the northeastern Willamette Valley where accumulations of catastrophic flood deposits overlap topographically elevated exposures of Boring Lava and Columbia River Basalt in the west Portland areas of Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas Counties. In the site area, westward flowing tributary drainages to Ash Creek have eroded through thin surficial remnants of catastrophic flooding and into residual soils of deeply weathered Boring Lava below. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS On March 17, 2003, GeoPacific explored subsurface conditions at the site by excavating 12 test pits at locations shown on Figure 2. Exploration points were located in the field by taping distances from fence lines, tagged trees, and other features such as topography and structures. As such, the locations should be considered approximate. Field methodology is discussed in Appendix A, which also contains logs of the test pits. The observed conditions and soil properties are summarized below. Tops oi!-Topsoil in the 12 exploratory test pits ranged in thickness between 6 and 12 inches. It is generally brownish-grey to dark grey, soft, and moist. Locally, up to several inches of forest duff (decayed leaves and branches) blanket the surface. n. ' Colluvial Soil - Colluvial soils are those that have accumulated near the ground surface as a result of bedrock weathering, and are in the process of moving down slope under the influence N of precipitation and gravity. The near-surface colluvial soils observed in the test pits consisted of a brown clayey silt that is finely fragmented and soft. It appears to be moisture sensitive. At .:I depth, the colluvial soil becomes more coarsely fragmented, and stiff. This soil unit rests on top m of and grades into the underlying in-situ residual soil. Colluvial soil was encountered 3 immediately below the topsoil horizon in all 12 for the exploratory test pits where it ranged in W J thickness between 30 and 48 inches. Residual Soil - Residual soil is produced by in-situ weathering of the underlying parent rock (Boring Lava) with no lateral movement. In the case of the Boring Lava Formation, the weathered rock retains little of its original characteristics. Although residual soil generally exhibits a high density when encountered near the ground surface, this soil type often becomes less dense with increased depth as a result of increased moisture content. The top of residual 03-8191-74°i Avenue Subdivision 2 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 soil was not found in test Pit TP-10 due to groundwater seepage. In all of the other test pits, the depth of residual soil below the ground surface ranged between 48 and 66 inches. Soil Moisture and Groundwater Slow seepage of groundwater was encountered at a depth of 44 inches in test pit TP-10. About 50 to 60 feet down slope from TP-10, slow seepage of water was observed at the ground surface. The site soils were typically moist to a depth of about 3 feet due to recent ' precipitation, and damp at greater depths. It is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on the season, local subsurface conditions, changes in site utilization, and other factors. LIQUEFACTION HAZARD The conditions necessary for liquefaction to occur at any site are: (1) the presence of poorly- consolidated, cohesionless sediment, (2) saturation of the sediment by groundwater, and (3) an earthquake that produces intense seismic shaking (generally a Richter Magnitude greater than M5.0). In our opinion, the potential for liquefaction related ground failure at the subject site is moderate within the stream flood plain and low elsewhere on the site. Additional explorations would be required to quantify the lateral spreading hazard within the stream floodplain. SEISMIC SETTING At least three potential source zones capable of generating damaging earthquakes are thought to exist in the region. These include the Portland Hills Fault Zone, Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone, and the Cascadia Subduction Zone, as discussed below. Portland Hills Fault Zone The Portland Hills Fault Zone is a series of NW-trending faults that include the central Portland Hills Fault, the western Oatfield Fault, and the eastern East Bank Fault. These faults occur in a northwest trending zone that varies in width between 3.5 and 5.0 miles. The combined three faults vertically displace the Columbia River Basalt by 1,130 feet and appear to control thickness changes in late Pleistocene approximately 780,000 years) sediment (Madin, 1990). The fault zone extends along the eastern margin of the Portland Hills for a distance of 25 miles, and lies about 1.5 miles northeast of the subject site. Geomorphic lineaments suggestive of Pleistocene a deformation have been identified within the fault zone, but none of the fault segments have been shown to cut Holocene (last 10,000 years) deposits (Balsillie and Benson, 1971; Cornforth and co Geomatrix Consultants, 1992). No historical seismicity is correlated with the mapped portion of the Portland Hills Fault Zone, but in 1991 a M3.5 earthquake occurred on a NW-trending shear plane located 1.3 miles east of the fault (Yelin, 1992). Although there is no definitive evidence of recent activity, the Portland Hills Fault Zone is judged to be potentially active (Geomatrix O ' Consultants, 1995). W J 03-8191-741' Avenue Subdivision 3 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone The Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone is a 50-mile-long zone of discontinuous, NW-trending faults that lies about 15.5 miles southwest of the subject site. These faults are recognized in the subsurface by vertical separation of the Columbia River Basalt and offset seismic reflectors in the overlying basin sediment (Yeats et al., 1996; Werner et al., 1992). A recent geologic reconnaissance and photogeologic analysis study conducted for the Scoggins Dam site in the Tualatin Basin revealed no evidence of deformed geomorphic surfaces along the structural zone (Unruh et al., 1994). No seismicity has been recorded on the Gales Creek or Newberg Faults (the faults closest to the subject site); however, these faults are considered to 1 be potentially active because they may connect with the seismically active Mount Angel Fault and the rupture plane of the 1993 M5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake (Werner, et al. 1992; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Cascadia Subduction Zone The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a 680-mile-long zone of active tectonic convergence where oceanic crust of the Juan de Fuca Plate is subducting beneath the North American continent at a rate of 4 cm per year (Goldfinger et al., 1996). Very little seismicity has occurred on the plate interface in historic time, and as a result, the seismic potential of the Cascadia Subduction Zone is a subject of scientific controversy. The lack of seismicity may be interpreted as a period of quiescent stress buildup between large magnitude earthquakes or as being characteristic of the long-term behavior of the subduction zone. A growing body of geologic evidence, however, strongly suggests that prehistoric subduction zone earthquakes have occurred (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). This evidence includes: (1) buried tidal marshes recording episodic, sudden subsidence along the coast of northern California, Oregon, and Washington, (2) burial of subsided tidal marshes by tsunami wave deposits, (3) paleoliquefaction features, and (4) geodetic uplift patterns on the Oregon coast. Radiocarbon dates on buried tidal marshes indicate a recurrence interval for major subduction zone earthquakes of 250 to 650 years with the last event occurring 300 years ago (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). The inferred seismogenic portion of the plate interface lies roughly 50 miles west of the Oregon coast and 20 to 40 miles below the ocean surface. SLOPES Maximum grades on the site are located along the incised flanks of tributary drainage to Ash a_ t Creek. As previously described, these slopes generally average between about 22 and 30 percent grade; however, a few, very limited slopes may exceed 50 percent grade. Based on our v> observations, a small landslide is present about 30 feet down slope of the southwest corner of the existing residence in the northwest corner of the site. This landslide may have developed as a result of sewer construction along the north edge of the stream flood plane or as a result of m stream erosion along the toe of the slope. No other distinct landslide features were observed on the site; however, several erosional features that appear to have begun either as a result of old ~ logging activity, minor landsliding, or both have severely altered the surface topography on lots in the vicinity of test pits TP-2, TP-9 and TP-10. The potential for shallow slope creep is considered to be moderate on slopes steeper than 30 percent. 03-8191-74"' Avenue Subdivision 4 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of this study indicate that the proposed residential development is likely geotechnically feasible provided the geotechnical recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. Site areas of concern include erosional features on the south side of the proposed street, which will require considerable drainage installations, and engineered fill placement. Minimal filling of these features are indicated on the grading plan, Figure 2. Appendix B contains an itemized checklist of soil testing and inspection procedures that are recommended to help guide the project to completion. Slope Setbacks We understand that the buffer line shown on Figure 2 was established to allow slopes of 25% grade or less for the last 15 feet of the lot. In site areas where the soil at the buffer line is sufficiently stable, the limit of site construction will be set at the buffer line, otherwise appropriate setbacks will be established for construction as noted on Figure 2. Site Preparation All areas to receive fill should first be cleared of vegetation and any loose debris or undocumented fill be removed. All debris from clearing and demolition should be removed from the site. Any existing subsurface structures (tile drains, old utility lines, septic leach fields, etc.) beneath proposed structures and pavements should be removed and the excavations backfilled with engineered fill. Following site clearing and demolition, organic-rich topsoil should then be stripped. We anticipate that the depth of stripping in undisturbed areas will average about 9 inches. The final depth of stripping removal will be determined on the basis of a site inspection after the initial stripping has been performed. Stripped highly organic topsoil is not suitable for reuse as fill. It should be stockpiled in designated areas and reserved for landscaping, or removed from the site. Stripping operations should be observed and documented by the geotechnical engineer or his representative. In construction areas, once stripping is approved, the area should either be stripped again and reused for fill or be ripped or tilled to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in-place prior to the placement of engineered fill or crushed aggregate base for pavement. Exposed subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. For large areas, L this evaluation is normally performed by proof-rolling the exposed subgrade with a fully loaded scraper or dump truck. For smaller areas where access is restricted, the subgrade should be evaluated by probing the soil with a steel probe. Soft/loose soils identified during subgrade preparation should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition or over-excavated and d replaced with engineered fill, as described below. The depth of overexcavation, if required, 10 should be evaluated by GeoPacific at the time of construction. a U Engineered Fill All grading for the proposed development should be performed as engineered grading in accordance with Appendix 33 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), except as modified herein. On-site soils are considered suitable for use as engineered fill provided organic material is removed and the soils are properly moisture conditioned. Any imported fill material must be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to being imported to the site. Oversize material 03-8191-74th Avenue Subdivision 5 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 greater than 6 inches in size should not be used within 3 feet of foundation footings, and material greater than 12 inches in diameter should not be used in engineered fill. Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction equipment. We recommend that engineered fill be compacted to at least 95% of t the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor) or equivalent. On-site soils may be wet of optimum; therefore, we anticipate that aeration of native soil will be necessary for compaction operations performed during late spring to early summer. Proper test frequency and earthwork documentation usually requires daily observation and testing during stripping, rough grading, and placement of engineered fill. Field density testing should conform to ASTM D2922 and D3017, or D1556. All engineered fill should be observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer or his representative. Typically, one density test is performed for at least every 2 vertical feet of fill placed or every 500 yd3, whichever requires more testing. Because testing is performed on an on-call basis, we recommend that the earthwork contractor be held contractually responsible for test scheduling and frequency. Earthwork is usually performed in the summer months, generally mid-June to mid-October, when warm dry weather facilitates proper moisture conditioning of soils. Earthwork performed during the wet-weather season will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact fill to the recommended engineering specifications. Fill Embankment Slopes We recommend that fill slopes for the project be planned no steeper than 2H:1V. For fill slopes constructed at 2H: IV or flatter, properly drained, and comprised of fill soils placed and compacted as recommended herein, we anticipate that adequate factors of safety against global failure will be maintained. Prior to placing compacted fill against the existing natural slopes, all loose undocumented fill and underlying old topsoil must first be removed. In addition, adequate benching must be maintained, in accordance with the Fill Slope Detail, Figure 3. Fill slope keyways should be constructed in accordance with Figure 3, with minimum depth of 2 feet and minimum width of H/2 (10 feet minimum), where H equals the vertical height between the base and top of the fill slope. Both benches and keyways should be roughly horizontal in L ' the downslope direction, but may slope up to 20 percent along topographic contours. A subdrain should be incorporated in the fill slope keyway, as recommended in Figure 3. A GeoPacific engineer or geologist should inspect the keyway excavations and subdrains prior to the placement of fill J Measures should be taken to prevent surficial instability and/or erosion of embankment material. This can be accomplished by conscientious compaction of the embankment fills all the way out to the slope face, by maintaining adequate drainage, and planting the slope face as soon as possible after construction. To achieve the specified relative compaction at the slope face, it may be necessary to overbuild the slopes several feet, and then trim back to design finish grade, as shown on Figure 3. In our experience, compaction of slope faces by "track-walking" is generally ineffective and is therefore not recommended. 03-8191-74h Avenue Subdivision 6 GEOPACIFIc ENGINEERING, INC. May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 Subsurface Drains A subsurface drain should be placed in the bottom of filled drainages prior to placing any fill. The subsurface drain should consist of a minimum 6-inch diameter Schedule 40 or ADS Heavy Duty grade perforated or slotted, plastic pipe enveloped in a minimum of 10 ft3 per lineal foot of 2"-1/2", open-graded (drain rock) wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent. The drain may be installed in a trench having minimum width of 12 inches, or may be placed directly along the bottom of the removal excavation. The drain should slope at a minimum gradient of 0.5 percent, and should be provided with a suitable outlet. The geotechnical engineer should monitor subsurface drain installations. Wet Weather Earthwork The on-site soils are moisture sensitive and may be difficult to handle or traverse with construction equipment during periods of wet weather. Earthwork is typically most economical when performed under dry weather conditions. Earthwork performed during the wet-weather season will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact fill to the recommended engineering specifications. If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet weather or under wet conditions when soil moisture content is difficult to control, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the contract specifications. ➢ Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soils should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean engineered fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe to minimize subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic; ➢ The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water; Material used as engineered fill should consist of clean, granular soil containing less than 5 percent fines. The fines should be non-plastic. Alternatively, cement treatment of on-site soils may be performed to facilitate wet weather placement; ➢ The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, and under no circumstances should be left uncompacted and L exposed to moisture. Soils which become too wet for compaction should be removed and r replaced with clean granular materials; o A Excavation and placement of fill should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to verify that all unsuitable materials are removed and suitable compaction and site drainage is 3 achieved; and 0 ➢ Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control erosion. If cement or lime treatment is used to facilitate wet weather construction, GeoPacific should be contacted to provide additional recommendations and field monitoring. 03-8191-74"' Avenue Subdivision 7 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. ' May 9, 2003 ' GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 Excavating Conditions and Trench Backfill ' We anticipate that on-site soils can be excavated to depths anticipated for this project (up to 10 feet) using conventional heavy equipment such as scrapers and trackhoes. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Actual slope inclinations at the time of construction should be determined based on safety requirements and actual soil and groundwater conditions. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be sloped in accordance with U.S. Occupational Safety and Heath Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926), or be shored. The near-surface existing native soils classify as Type A soil and temporary excavation side slope inclinations as steep as 1 H:1 V may be assumed for planning purposes. This cut slope inclination is applicable to excavations above the water table only. Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause some caving and raveling of excavation walls. In such an event, lateral support for the excavation walls should be provided by the contractor to prevent foss of ground support and possible distress to existing or previously constructed structural improvements. In areas where deep trench excavations extend across relatively steep slopes in a direction approximately parallel to the topographic contours, care should be taken to avoid collapse of the trench walls. In such areas, trenches should not be allowed to remain open, and backfilled as quickly as possible. PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D2321. We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density obtained by Standard Proctor (ASTM D698), or equivalent. The initial backfill lift thickness for 3/4"-0 crushed aggregate backfill may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening underlying flexible pipe. Subsequent lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot. If imported granular fill material is used, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be up to 2 feet, provided that proper compaction is being achieved and each lift is tested. Use of large vibrating compaction equipment should be carefully monitored near existing structures and improvements due to the potential for vibration-induced damage. Adequate density testing should be performed during construction to verify that the recommended relative compaction is achieved. Typically, one density test is taken for every 4 vertical feet of backfill on each 200-lineal-foot section of trench. Pavernent Design r Tables 1 and 2 present our recommended minimum pavement section for dry-weather and cement amended subgrade, respectively. For design purposes, we used an estimated resilient modulus of 8,000 for compacted native soil and 22,000 for cement-amended soil. These designs were formulated using the Crushed Base Equivalent method, Traffic Index of 4.0, and are in general accordance with flexible pavement design methods prescribed by AASHTO for light-duty street with a design life of 20 years. 03.8191-7e Avenue Subdivision 8 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 9, 2003 ' GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 Table 1 - Recommended Minimum Dry-Weather Pavement Section Material Layer Driveway/Parkin Compaction Standard in. Asphaltic Concrete (AC) 3 91 % of Rice Density AASHTO T-209 (base lift); 92% to lift Crushed Aggregate Base 3/4"- 2 95% of Modified Proctor (leveling course) ASTM D1557 Crushed Aggregate Base 1 /2' 8 95% of Modified Proctor 0 ASTM D1557 Subgrade Soils 12 Competent Native or 95% of Standard Proctor Table 2 - Recommended Minimum Pavement Section For Cement Amended Subgrade Material Layer Driveway/Parking Compaction Standard in. Asphaltic Concrete (AC) 3 91 % of Rice Density AASHTO T-209 (base lift ; 92% to lift Crushed Aggregate Base 3/4"-0 4 95% of Modified Proctor ASTM D1557 Cement Amended Subgrade (3% to 5% cement by volume when 12 95% of Standard dry, Proctor 5% to 7% cement by volume when wet Note: No construction traffic should be allowed on cement-amended soils for at least four days after treatment. Any pockets of organic debris or loose fill encountered during ripping or tilling should be removed and replaced with engineered fill (see Site Preparation Section). In order to verify subgrade strength, we recommend proof-rolling directly on subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of base course in wet weather. Soft areas that pump, rut, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. If pavement areas are to be constructed during wet- weather, the subgrade and construction plan should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of construction so that condition specific recommendations can be ` provided. Without cement amendment, wet-weather pavement construction is likely to require a 10 base rock section of 6 to 8 additional inches over geotextile fabric for construction support and minimization of locally unstable subgrade soil conditions. i During placement of pavement section materials, density testing should be performed to verify i compliance with project specifications. Generally, one subgrade, one base course, and one asphalt compaction test is performed for every 100 to 200 linear feet of paving. Foundations The subject site is adequate for shallow foundation support. Foundation design, construction, and setback requirements should conform to Chapter 18 of the OSSC. For maximization of bearing strength and protection against frost heave, spread footing should be embedded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below exterior grade. The recommended minimum widths for continuous wall footings are presented in Table 3. 03-8191-74 h Avenue Subdivision 9 GEOPACIFIc ENGINEERING, INC. _0 May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 Table 3 - Recommended Minimum Width of Continuous Spread Footings Number of Stories Minimum Width of Continuous Spread Footings 1-Story 12 inches 2-Story 15 inches 3-Story 18 inches The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure is 1,500 Ibs/ft2 for footings on stiff, native soil and engineered fill. The coefficient of friction between on-site soil and poured-in-place concrete may be taken as 0.45 (no factor-of-safety included). The maximum anticipated total and differential footing movements (generally from expansion and/or static load settlement) are 1 inch and 3/. inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively. Excavations near foundation footings should not extend within a 1 H:1 V plane projected downward from the bottom edge of footings. Retaining Walls Recommended lateral soil pressures for design of permanent retaining structures with adequate drainage can be calculated using the equivalent fluid unit weights provided in Table 2. The effect of surcharge or live loads on lateral pressures has not been included. Adequate drainage is such that no hydrostatic pressures are realized behind the walls. The unit weights in Table 3 are for backfill consisting of free-draining granular material only; on-site soils are not recommended for use as wall backfill. All backfill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D698 or equivalent. Table 3 - Recommended Equivalent Fluid Unit Weights for Calculating Lateral Earth Pressures Unrestrained Wall Restrained Wall Type Level Profile 2H:1V U sloe Level Profile 2H:1V U slo e Active Pressure 35 52 Ibs/fig/ftAt-Rest Pressure - 53 68 Ibs/ffz/ft Passive Pressure 325 325 150 150 Ibslfflft • The upper 0.5 foot should be ignored for passive pressure Subdrains installed behind walls 3 feet in height should consist of a minimum 3-inch diameter Schedule 40 or ADS Highway Grade, perforated, plastic pipe enveloped in a minimum of 3 ft3 per lineal foot of 2"-1/2", open, graded gravel (drain rock) wrapped with geofabric filter (Amoco 4545, Trevia 1120, or equivalent). A minimum one-haft percent fall should be maintained p throughout the drain and non-perforated pipe outlet. i For retaining walls, the average allowable bearing pressure may be taken as 1,500 Ibs/f:3 with a i maximum allowable toe pressure of 2,000 lbs/ft2. The coefficient of friction between soil or engineered fill and poured-in-place concrete or masonry may be taken as 0.45 (no factor-of- safety included). The minimum recommended depth of embedment is 12 inches for walls less than 8 feet high and 18 inches for walls 8 to 12 feet high. A minimum setback of 1 H: IV should be maintained between the footings of adjacent structures. Seismic Design The project site lies within Seismic Zone 3, as defined in Chapter 16, Division IV of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Seismic Zone 3 includes the western portion of Oregon, and 03-8191-74"' Avenue Subdivision 10 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. z / e May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 represents an area of relatively high seismic risk. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the proposed improvements, and the structures should be designed to resist earthquake loading in accordance with the methodology described in the 1997 UBC. Even though the some liquefiable soils are present, UBC Soil Type Sp may be assumed for normal design aspects of the building, excluding the foundation. The corresponding seismic factors may be used in developing a normalized response spectra for the assumed UBC Soil Type. In our opinion, the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading is moderate to high. Drainage Surface water should be directed away from future structures and slopes. Roof drain water should be directed to the driveways. Footing and retaining wall drains should be directed to the storm water disposal system. Given the depth to groundwater, footing drains are recommended on the uphill side of structures only. The footing drains will limit adverse effects of water on foundations, but will not prevent all water from entering beneath slabs or crawlspaces. Footing drains should consist of a minimum 3- inch diameter Schedule 40 or ADS Highway Grade, perforated plastic pipe enveloped in a minimum of 1 ft3 per lineal foot of 2"- %2", open, graded gravel (drain rock) wrapped with geofabric (Amoco 4545, Trevia 1120, or equivalent). A minimum one-half percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non-perforated pipe outlet. Removal of Existing Fill Limited areas underlain by existing fill were observed but few appeared extensive. These fills include a gravel driveway, foundation, and landscaped area related to the existing residence in the northwest corner of the site. e Erosion Control Considerations In our opinion, soil types observed at the site are should be considered moderately to highly susceptible to erosion. In our opinion, the primary concern regarding erosion potential will occur during construction, in areas that have been stripped of vegetation. Erosion at the site during construction can be minimized by implementing the project erosion control plan. If used, these erosion control devices should be in place and remain in place throughout site preparation and construction. Erosion and sedimentation of exposed soils can also be minimized by quickly covering or re- vegetating exposed areas of soil, and by staging construction such that large areas of the project site are not denuded and exposed at the same time. Areas of exposed soil requiring d immediate and/or temporary protection against exposure should be covered with either mulch or n 5 , erosion control netting/blankets. Areas of exposed soil requiring permanent stabilization should 11 be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or hydroseeded with an approved seed-mulch- fertilizer mixture. Pavement Construction Based on our experience with similar soils, we used a resilient modulus of 3,000 pci for design purposes. Table 3 presents our recommended minimum pavement section for dry-weather construction. This design was formulated using the Crushed Base Equivalent method, and a 03-8191-74th Avenue Subdivision 1 1 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. } May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 traffic index of 4.0. This Traffic Index is typically used as representative of light-duty residential streets. i Table 3 - Recommended Minimum Dry-Weather Pavement Section Material Layer Minimum Driveway Minimum Parking Compaction Standard Thickness Area Thickness inches inches 91 % (bottom lift)/ 92% (top Asphaltic Concrete (AC) 3 2.5 lift) of Rice Density AASHTO T-209 Crushed Aggregate 95% of Modified Proctor Base 2 over 10 2 over 8 ASTM D1557 or equivalent 3/:'-0 over 1'/T-0 Sufficient density testing should be performed to verify compaction of pavement section materials. Generally, one subgrade, one base course, and one asphalt compaction test is performed for every 100 to 200 linear feet of paving. Any localized areas of soft soil subgrade in pavement areas discovered during construction should be ripped or tilled, moisture conditioned, and recompacted in-place to at least 95% of ASTM D1557 or equivalent. In order to verify subgrade strength, we recommend proof-rolling directly on subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of base course in wet weather. Soft areas that pump, rut, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. If pavement areas are to be constructed during wet weather, GeoPacific should review the subgrade at the time of construction so that condition specific recommendations can be provided. Wet-weather pavement construction is likely to require soil amendment, or geotextile fabric and an increase in base rock thickness. UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the owner and their consultants for use in design of this project only. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and groundwater conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, GeoPacific should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided during I construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by explorations. The checklist attached to this report outlines recommended geotechnical observations and testing for the project. Recommendations for design changes will be provided should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. 03-81gi-74th Avenue Subdivision 12 GEOPACIFic ENGINEERING, INC. May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, GeoPacific attempted to execute these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made, The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. Sincerely, GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. /r,~' ~tvG I N X19 'so 14743 OREGON Ail` 6. IM'~~' / James E. Pyne, R.G. James D. Imbrie, P.E. Senior Geologist Principal Engineer Attachments: References Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Site And Exploration Plan Figure 3 - Fill Slope Detail Appendix A - Test Pit Logs Appendix B - Checklist of Recommended Geotechnical Observations And Testing n D 03-8191-70 Avenue Subdivision 13 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 9, 2003 GeoPecific Project No, 03.8101 REFERENCES Atwater, B.F., 1992, Geologic evidence for earthquakes during the past 2,000 years along the Copalis River, southern coastal Washington: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 97, p. 1901-1919. Balsitlie, J,J, and Benson, G.T„ 1971, Evidence for the Portland Hills fault: The Ore Bin, Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries, v. 33, p. 109-118. Carver, G,A., 1992, Late Cenozoic tectonics of coastal northern California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists-SEPM Field Trip Guidebook, May, 1992. Cornforth and Geomatrix Consultants, 1992, Seismic hazard evaluation, Bull run dam sites near Sandy, Oregon: unpublished report to City of Portland Bureau of Water Works. Geomatrix Consultants, 1995, Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report. Goldfinger, C., Kulm, L.D., Yeats, R,S„ Appelgate, B, MacKay, M.E., and Cochrane, G.R., 1996, Active strike-slip faulting and folding of the Cascadia Subduction-Zone plate boundary and forearc in central and northern Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, v. 1: U,S, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 223-256. Madin, I.P., 1990, Earthquake hazard geology maps of the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report 0-90-2, scale 1:24,000, 22 p. Peterson, C.D., Darloenzo, M.E., Burns, S.F., and Burris, W.K., 1993, Field trip guide to Cascadia paleoselsmlc evidence along the northern California coast: evidence of subduction zone seismicity in the central Cascadia margin: Oregon Geology, Vol. 55, p. 99-144. Unruh, J.R„ Wong, I.G., Bolt, J.D., Silva, W.J., and Lettis, W.R., 1994, Seismotectonic evaluation: Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Northwest Oregon: unpublished report by William Lettis and Associates and Woodward Clyde Federal Services, Oakland, CA, for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO (in Geomatrix Consultants, 1995), Werner, K.S., Nabelek, J,, Yeats, R,S„ Malone, S„ 1992, The Mount Angel fault: implications of seismic- reflection data and the Woodburn, Oregon, earthquake sequence of August, 1990: Oregon Geology, v, 54, p. 112-117, Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P., Werner, K.S., Goldfinger, C., and Popowski, T., 1996, Tectonics of the Willamette Valley, Oregon: In Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, Vol, 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 183-222, 5 plates, scale 1:100,000. Yelin, T.S., 1992, An earthquake swarm in the north Portland Hills (Oregon): More speculations on the seismotectonics of the Portland Basin: Geological Society of America, Programs with Abstracts, v. 24, no. 5, p. 92. 0 I 03-8191-70 Avenue Subdivislon 14 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. VICiNIT'~i ~pP f 3125 Durham9 22 596.8705 yIttril { 5 ~J Mslw Portland Oregon ~~®P~C 503.598 J• . ~ ~ 1 ' +N 141, t ' 1 ~ • { , * • t i 64 i ` t . ~ l 1,, ~}}~1 t'1 •.~.a 4 ~ n,P..w'ps ~ u~, r~ , ~!•3Vi. . U R • 1 1 l ' yo t TA as<- l ndr UIBJFG~ ~'i•\.~Le' 2~1 ti I,~~I~ 1 ` k~~ ' OiM~,7~'fe• *1 t': ~ ~ J` , L • :•ic `y' ' 1, ~ ti . { ~ ~j,.ll s ~ ~ ~ s. • t) Itn ,1 -Q t .t~. ~ Yr'••''' t. • 't♦~ .c.`.'+'+.-;,r',~~.i ~qi S•T , 4~ rl 1 i5 ~ i k I ` ~ k y 1"• i'0.-,~' 1 + j~(i'i >s x,-•ac•.: , •'1 'll ,t•"y%' e,' ! p i X111 1 t« (v. fib) roir ur'~..,'~'•• ° r•• ~ ~ ~ - „~s~1 1 1, t Ewa. , W 1, ~teCs'te• a +•i., `•7 n"nN~ 1 1 `r to ~4~:~ , Y ` _ 5 s ~1, "4 ria~idr c > of 4 S r C, ~X CJJ{r'1"~~f 7M1• l• .t'''1 1 'r mil' e4l 100'..;; ,Ak'nrkt ♦ ~ : ' ° J I`~',,i:...;: • ' ?i QA1U ~~d 64. ~ ~pG „ ~i"i'. •C~•rl r-~ > tlit~~ ti ; , r-' ~ ~1 ` :l:~ii:• 1 , .•1~~~ a rig { g ' t4kti1 ~It~,'.~.~ 1~ 1•R I l~s•1.~~~:. { ~n'~t S`~•b~i.• i~ , % ; ,.'1. , fkp x::51 ~ ' ~ k.M~.~~{ 9'" 9`i:t,, r ,r, ' ~ 4 YI ~ { •~v,~,...",` •Ifyt'• , 39 a ORS 7 Fr A °i ~'t _ 5109►03 rawnby,EJK ~ 8 swa9c• Qte4°n Quadvan9 a a•. C~ roXimate SCale 1 in J 21000 h ae Q nd Lak APP Beavadcn• J $e~ea• FIGURS 1 Legend taphic Map 7.b minute'ioP°B 1 U•s• Geok091cal Survey Project IJo• 03-619 Bass maP ubdWISIOn 74th pvenug Countj 0 Or 9on Project vraat►in9ton I~! ilI SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN j,!'.. lli~ III I OR I+1 ill III ' 111 BUUI EV HEIMM III i THE RA-MMRV. PATCH 57 I ~ ~a T&LO1: Ill I~ 1 r 33 ! STREET 'A' 1 ii Ill JE 30 56 '7t -i I s I W-4 1 `h TP.2~ TP-12 L 55 54 1 i ; f . `TP rP•tt• Lr' lJ ~ C•.t ~ ~ Y ~ tr 51 2 3 _ s N - ra. _ ; raA~, t' +Ic 'J NORTH ~/VC~1 l 12 UGH I u 0 80 P5 ,1 I APPROXIMATE SCALE V=80' Legend TP•t 7312 SW Durham Road Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location Date: 05/09/03 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision County, Oregon FIGURE 2 Wahington VU OEM Tel: Portl 503and,.598Oregon .844 98.8445 Fax: 97224 503.598.8705 limit of Construction Without Additional Geotechnical Study Drawn by: EJK Project No. s03-8191 7312 SW Durham Road GEOP8Cfi1C Portland, Oregon 97224 FILL SLOPE DETAIL IMMIffliff Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 TYPICAL KEYWAY, BENCHING & FILL SLOPE DESIGN 3-Foot Horizontal Overbuild Final Fill Slope Face (2H:1V max.) Engineered Fill Original Ground H Native Native o Keyway Benching H/2 (10 ft min.) Subdrain L s: H/10 (2 ft min.) J a Recommended subdrain is minimum 3-inch-diameter ADS Heavy Duty grade (or equivalent), perforated plastic pipe enveloped in a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot J ' of 2" to 112" open-graded gravel drain rock wrapped with geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). JProject: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03 - 8191 FIGURE - 3 Washington Co., Oregon May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 r t APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS, SAMPLING, AND LABORATORY TESTING On March 17, 2003, 12 exploratory test pits test pits were excavated on the subject property at approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The test pits were excavated to depths of between 4.5 and 6.5 feet below the ground surface. A GeoPacific Geologist supervised the field exploration, evaluated and logged the test pits with regard to soil type, moisture content, relative strength, groundwater content, and collected representative samples for laboratory analysis. Logs of the exploratory points were also prepared, and are presented in this Appendix. The test pits were excavated with a 16,000 lbs. trackhoe operated by Dan Fischer Excavating of Banks, Oregon using a 25-inch-wide bucket. All excavations were backfilled immediately after completion of logging and sampling. Minimal compaction effort was applied to the test pit backfill. Classification. Moisture Content, and Unit Weiahts Soil samples were evaluated, described, and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Soil and Rock Classification Manual. No soil samples were retained. Soil tests were limited to pocket penetrometer readings at V intervals on the walls of the test pits. r . 03-8191-741' Avenue Subdivision 15 GEAPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. t , t 7312 SW Durham Road GIIZ oo Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP- 1 Washington Co., Oregon ~o C E at 2, 05 n 2 m Material Description c o t o. o J o _ oc a - a p C M Ov M o m Brownish-grey clayey silt, organic, abundant berry roots, soft, very moist, - S10_' ToQsoil _MLl------------- Brown clayey silt soft, moist, fragmented; medium stiff between 18 and 2 1.25 30" depth, stiff below 30" (Colluvial Soil - ML) 3.0 3 3.5 . IT Brown silt with some clay, very stiff, moist (Residual Soi-1--M-L-) 5 Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet, 6 No groundwater encountered. 7 8 9 10 11 12 a ' 13 14 15 m W ` 16- 171 LEGEND o Date Excavated: 03117/03 scat Logged By: J. Pyne a Buace Surface Elevation: 215.0' Bag Semple Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment ~ 7312 Sd, Durham Road TEST PIT LOG 660p ~1~~C Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP- 2 Washington Co., Oregon o a to o) Material Description E - z- m o a to 3 a) Grey-brown clayey sit, some fine organic debris an roots, fragmented, - -sot zaaisl42JDPWUZ.Mu----------------------------- Brown clayey silt, soft to medium stiff, fragmented, moist 2 1.25 (Coliuvial soil - ML) 3 2.5 Soil similar to above, stiff below 3 feet, fragmented to 4 feet depth; 4 3.0 Some completely weathered fragments of basalt between 4 and 5 feet depth 5 6 Brown silt with some clay, moist, stiff (Residual Soil - ML) ■ 7 Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet, 8 No groundwater encountered. 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- IL 14- 15- 16- .J 17 LEGEND o Date Excavated: 03117103 say. Logged By: J. Pyne i~ 1z 7 Surface Elevation: 219.0' gay 3ampie Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sampb Seepage Water Bearing Zane Water Level at Abandonment 7312 SW Durham Road TEST PIT LOG G PrC Portland, Oregon 97224 MK=.J= Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP- 3 Washington Co., Oregon ~ Material Description m 1 g. E v o" a 2" Grey-brown organic forest duff over 8" grey-brown silt with some clay 1 .sadbae_Q'aaniQdRbd%iwi5l wft.t1D'_ZQPBQjL-.MQ------------ 0.5 Light to dark brown and rust clayey silt, stiff, moist (Colluvial Soil) 2 1.0 3 2.5 4 4.0 Brown silt with some clay, very stiff, moist (Residual Soil - ML) 4.5 5 Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet, 7 No groundwater encountered 8- 9- 10- 11- 12-- L ~ 13- 2 14- 15- 16- 17- LEGEND a Date Excavated: 03/17/03 sc~• V Logged By: J. Dyne taoro °00 Surface Elevation: 223,0' S+8 Sample Socket SamPN sberoy Tubs Semple Seepage Water Beartrp Zone Water Level at Abandonment ~ 7312 Sd, Durham Road Portland, Oregon on 97224 TEST PIT LOG aIioprcifi~' sim-mmmirm Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-3191 Test Pit No. TP- 4 Washington Co., Oregon _ a o g Q b= a o C. s a 3 Material Description at CL 0 E 5 2 " ~ = ra a O Co Light grey-brown clayey silt, wet, very soft, organic (7" Topsoil - ML) 1 0.5 Brown clayey silt, moist, fragmented, numerous small fragments of completely weathered basalt below 30" depth (Colluvial Soil -ML) 2 1.5 3 2.0 Becomes stiff below 3 feet depth 4 2.5 5 - 3.5 Light brown silt with some clay, stiff, moist (Residual Soil - ML) 6 - 7 Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- L 13- 2 D 94 15 16 17 LEGEND a Date Excavated: 03117103 a soy. 0 0 7 Logged By: J. Pyne Surface Elevation: 224.0 a" Samp>a BUOket Semple Shelby Tuba Sample Seepage Water eearinp Zone Water Level at Abandonment 7312 SW Durham Road 6e0P ifjC Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP-5 Washington Co., Oregon V OE d Ba0i yc 2" o I g . E t~ ~ 3.1 Material Description a o m 8" Dark brownish-grey organic forest duff, loose, wet; over 4" grey-brown 1 4,0 silt with some clay, soft, moist (12" Topsoil - ML) - - Brown clayey silt, soft, moist, fragmented (Colluvial Soil - ML) 2-0.75 - 3 2.75 3.0 Mottled light to dark brown and rust silt with some clay and abundant fragments of completely weathered basalt, stiff, moist 4 3.5 (Colluvial Soil - ML) 5 - 6 4.0 Brown silt with some clay, stiff, moist (Residual Soil - ML) 4.5 7- 8 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15 1 , 16 17 t LEGEND a Date Excavated: 03/17103 raw Logged By: J. Pyne ® 7 Surface Elevation: 221.0' 1 ap Sample Bueket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Watsr Bearhp Zone Water Level at Abandonment ~ 7312 Sd, Durham Road TEST PIT LOG 6BOP8CIiiC Portland, Oregon 97224 mn-imm. 0= Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 538-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP- 6 Washington Co., Oregon e ° LE mc~i ~'i °1rn Q a o E 0= Material Description -58 M a ° to - 4" Forest duff over 6" light grey silt with some clay-loose to soft, moist - 1 0.75 -.(1TJopso =ML)------------------ 1.0 Brown clayey silt, fragmented, medium stiff, moist (Colluvial Soil - ML) 2 1.25 2.0 3 _T9 - 3.0 Mottled light grey-brown and rust clayey silt with numerous completely 4 4.0 weathered fragments of basalt, stiff, moist (Colluvial Soil - ML) S 6 Brown silt with some clay, moist, very stiff (Residual Soil - ML) 7 Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8 9- 10- 11- 12 IL ' 13 OC E- 14- 15 m W 16 J 17 LEGEND a Date Excavated: 03/17/03 5 10010 Logged By: J. Pyne uric 000 7 Surface Elevation: Bap Sample Bucket Semple SAslby Tube Sempb Seapeps Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment 1 ~ 7312 SW Durham Road GeoPcifi~ Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG 1 tEmi~,oTel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. Washington Co., Oregon TP-7 m a 2Sc q ~Dn y ~c a s E = z-- 3 Material Description a o c`~ m 2" Forest duff over 5" grey-brown clayey silt, soft, moist (T' Topsoil - ML) 1 0.5 Brown clayey silt, soft, moist, fragmented; mediums stiff to 2 feet; 1 1.0 stiff 2 to 4 feet (Colluvial Soil - ML) 2 1.5 1 3 2.5 4 3.5 1 5 - 1 6 Brown silt with some clay, moist, very stiff Residual Soil - ML 7 Test pit terminated at 6 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8 9 1 10- 11- 12- L 1 13- 14- 15- a 16- 17 1 LEGEND a Date Excavated: 03/17/03 1 ,Tw~w u Logged By: J. Pyne 7 Surface Elevation: BaQ SNnpls BuokN Semple Shelby Tube Sempb Saepepe Weter beery Zone Water Level at Abandonment „/~f~~. 7312 SW Durham Road GBOP all, Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP-$ Washington Co., Oregon y E H 3R-- Qb a ~p~ ya~i ~c ~i Q g E Material Description a a4 ~ ~ m Organic forest duff and grey-brown silt with organic debris, soft, moist (12" Topsoil - ML) 1.0 Brown clayey silt, fragmented, medium stiff to 2 feet, stiff to 3.5 feet, 2 1.0 moist, some completely weathered fragments of basalt 2.0 (Colluvial Soil - ML). 3 1.75 4.i) - 4 3.5 Mottled light to dark brown silt with some clay and some completely weathered fragments of basalt, very stiff, moist (Colluvial Soil - ML) 5 - 6 Brown silt with some clay, less stiff due to increased moisture (Residual Soil - ML) 7 Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- CL ' 13- 14- 3 - 15 n e 16- 17 LEGEND Date Excavated: 03/17/03 ® ~ bogged By: J. Pyne Surface Elevation: Beg San Bucket Sampb She by Tuba Semple Seepepe Water Beednp Zone Water Level at Abandonment 7312 Sd, Durham Road TEST PIT LOG GaP' 1;lfic Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP- 9 Washington Co., Oregon 41 e o o a O 3.E Material Description av - - - - 1" organic forest duff over 8' grey-brown silt with some clay, soft, moist - - - A'J9psuil-M)---------------- 1 0 1.0 Brown clayey silt, soft, moist, fragmented (Colluvial Soil - ML) 2 0.5 1.5 3-1.25 4 3.0 Mottled light to dark brown silt with some clay and numerous completely weathered fragments of basalt, very stiff, moist 5 (Colluvial Soil - ML) - 6 Brown silt with some clay, less stiff due to moisture Residual Soil ML 'Test pit terminated at 6 feet, 7 No groundwater encountered. 8- 10- 11- 12- L ' 13- 14- 3 15- U 16- 17- LEGEND o Date Excavated: 03/17/03 sc~. Logged By: J. Pyne tpo a °D0 Surface Elevation: Bap Sample Bucket Sample She~y Tube Sample Seepepe Water Bserinp Zone Water Leval at Abandonment ,f`~ 7312 SW Durham Road 6e0p` fiG Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG 1 , Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP-10 Washington Co., Oregon d Et F Z' MN n a 0_ c n ~Oa H y c o c° a zv 3 Material Description Grey-brown clayey silt, organic, soft, moist (8" Topsoil - ML). Brown clayey silt, fragmented, soft, moist (Colluvial Soil - ML) 2-1.0 1.5 3 2.5 1.5 Mottled light and dark brown clayey silt with some completely weathered 4 rock fragments, slow seepage of perched groundwater at 44" depth 5 Test pit terminated at 54" due to groundwater seepage. 6 7 8 9- 10- 12 ~ 13- 14- 15- 16- LEGEND a Date Excavated: 03/17/03 5~t Logged By: J. Pyne t00to Surface Elevation: Sap San* Bucket Sample Shelby Tube 3ampb Seepepe Water Searing Zone Water Level at Abandonment 7312 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG 6COP8~If6C Tel: (503) 598 8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP-11 Washington Co., Oregon (ab v E T w 41 N OW ~ N oC 0 (n o a o Material Description ct a o c~ ) 1" Forest duff over 6' grey-brown silt with some clay, soft, moist (7" Topsoil ML). 1 a Brown clayey silt, fragmented, soft, moist (Colluvial Soil - ML) 2-- 2,0 Brown and rust clayey silt, stiff to very stiff, moist (Colluvial Soil - ML) 3-1,0 .0 S - - - - - - - - - - - - Town sir wit}i some clay, very stiff, moist (Re icfual YoiF-WL7 7- Test pit terminated at 6 feet, No groundwater encountered. 8 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- IL F- 14 15 m - W 16 J 17 LEGEND o Date Excavated: 03/17/03 e M Logged By: J. Pyne e 7 Surface Elevation: Bag Semple Bud* Semple Shelby Tube Semple Seepage Water Searing Zone Water Level at Abandonmont 7312 SW Durham Road Portland, 0 egon 97224 TEST PIT LOG 6eoPacifiC NCM~ Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 Project: 74th Avenue Subdivision Project No. 03-8191 Test Pit No. TP-12 Washington Co., Oregon >w:z r a s N~ o 3 Material Description acs E -Zc~c Q. to - - - - - - - - - _ _ Dark~rer_brown silt_ some clay, soft, moist 6" Topsoil - ML = - - - - - - - 0.5 Brown clayey silt, soft, fragmented (Colluvial Soil - ML). 0.75 2.5 Brown clayey silt, stiff, moist, fragmented (Colluvial Soil - ML) 3 2.5 3.5 4- 5- S - I-B-ro-w-n silt with some cla stiff moist Residual Soil - ML . Test pit terminated at 6 feet, 7 No groundwater encountered. 8 9- 10 11 12 13 a 14 15 m W ' 16 J 17 LEGEND m Date Excavated: 03/17/03 e ood. 7 Logged By: J. Pyne n."" Surface Elevation: Bp sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Semple Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment r May 9, 2003 GeoPacific Project No. 03-8191 APPENDIX B CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNicAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION 1 Item Procedure Timing By Whom Done No. Prior to beginning site Contractor, Developer, 1 Preconstruction meeting work Civil and Geotechnical Engineers 2 Stripping, aeration, and root- During stripping Engineering Geologist picking operations. Geotechnical engineer Compaction testing of During filling, tested every 3 engineered fill (95% of 2 vertical feet per lot. Soil Technician Standard Proctor Verify subgrade strength in Prior to pouring 4 footing excavations concrete Geotechnical Engineer Compaction testing of trench During backfiliing, tested 5 backfill (95% of Standard every 4 vertical feet for Soil Technician Proctor every 200 lineal feet 6 Base course compaction Prior to paving, tested (95% of Modified Proctor) every 200 lineal feet Soil Technician o AC Compactiono During paving, tested 7 (91 /o (bottom lift) / 92% (top Soil Technician lift of Rice Density) every 200 lineal feet 8 Final Geotechnical Engineer's Completion of project Geotechnical Engineer report d O H en J C9 J F= 03-8191-74th Avenue Subdivision 16 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 3300 NW 11 /`h Terrace Hillsboro, Oregon -597124 930 Tel [503J 690-8080 Fax (5031 645-5930 C S Engineersf E-mail Inc. E-mail: cts c• ineers.com CIVIL • TRANSPORTATION • STRUCTURAL • LAND SURVEYING April 30, 2003 Project: OR03.010.T01-Ash Creek Estates Mr. Brian Rager, P.E. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis for the proposed Ash Creek Estates along the east side of SW 74th Avenue, and south of SW Barbara Lane in Tigard, Oregon. Dear Mr. Rager: As you requested, a traffic impact analysis and access management plan have been prepared considering full build-out of the proposed Ash Creek Estates subdivision. This development will consist of 29 single family homes, on approximately X acres. The site is zoned R-4.5, which permits the development proposed. This development is located on the east side of SW 74`h Avenue south of SW Barbara Lane (see Figures 1 and IA.) The applicant is proposing to construct a new street connection along the east side of SW 74'h Avenue approximately 200 feet south of SW Barbara Lane. According to the City of Tigard's adopted Transportation Systems Plan (January, 2002 - DKS), SW 74`h Avenue's functional classification is a neighborhood route. Based on this classification, the City of Tigard Development Code requires all intersecting streets and driveways along SW 74`h to have a minimum access spacing of 125 feet. The access street proposed is approximately 200 feet south of SW Barbara Lane, which meets this access spacing requirement. It should be noted that SW 74`h Avenue currently terminates at the proposed site access street location. The applicant will be extending SW 74`h Avenue from this location to the south approximately 380 feet in order to serve two lots as part of this development that are south of the creek. This extension will also serve two existing single family homes along the west side of SW 74`h Avenue that currently access their homes from the south via a private gravel road. The new extension will be barricaded until future developments gain approval to the south of the Ash Creek Estates subdivision. There are no other driveways or streets opposing the proposed new access street along SW 74`h Avenue. The nearest driveway opposing the new access street is approximately 220 feet north and serves a single family home. As demonstrated in this study, vehicle trips into or out of the r single family home driveways in the vicinity are relatively few and thus, there will be minimal, if any, conflicting vehicle maneuvers. This traffic analysis includes a detailed assessment of the traffic ` impacts for the proposed Ash Creek Estates, as well as growth in background traffic due to other .i sources. Based on the results of this analysis, it is concluded that the proposed Ash Creek Estates can be constructed without adversely affecting traffic operations or safety characteristics of the adjacent street system. O Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 2 Specific findings of this study are as follows: • When the entire site is developed, it is estimated that the proposed Ash Creek Estates will generate approximately 278 vehicle trips on the adjacent roadway system during a typical weekday, including 22 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 29 trips during the PM peak hour. Access to the site will be provided via a new street connection along the east side of SW 74`s Avenue located approximately 200 feet south of SW Barbara Ln. • Analysis of existing traffic conditions found that all major intersections and driveways in the study area currently operate at LOS B or better. • In the future (2005), the intersection of SW 74a' Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street will operate at LOS A or better, and SW 74a' Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Rd will operate at LOS B or better during the critical PM peak hour, regardless of the build-out of the Ash Creek Estates subdivision. • Additional vehicle trips that will be generated by the proposed Ash Creek Estates will slightly increase traffic volumes along roadways in its immediate vicinity. However, these trips will have little impact on traffic operations along SW 74a' Avenue including the intersections of SW 74th Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street and SW 74a' Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Rd. These intersections will continue to operate at LOS B or better, and the proposed new access street to the site will operate at LOS A during both AM and PM peak hours. • Analysis of 2005 future traffic conditions with build-out of the Ash Creek Estates found that traffic generated by this development will not adversely impact future Levels of Service. No other specific off-site roadway improvements are necessary to accommodate this development or mitigate its impact. The following report documents the details of our analysis, study results, and major findings. a J m Jr Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Area Figure 2 shows the approximate location of the Ash Creek Estates development relative to the surrounding roadway network including lane configurations within the study area. Area Roadway System The main roadways in the study area include SW 740i Avenue, SW Cedarcrest Street, and SW Taylors Ferry Road. Table 1 presents the characteristics of these roadways. Both existing and future traffic analyses in this study were conducted assuming existing roadway conditions with the exception of required site access and frontage improvements along SW 74th Avenue. With these improvements along the site's frontage, additional pavement will be added to the existing cross section along SW 74th Ave. Currently, at the site's proposed access location, SW 74th Ave consists of approximately 20 feet of asphalt/gravel with no shoulders. The applicant will be improving SW 74th Avenue to consist of a 24 foot paved width (16' half width east of center line + 8' additional west of center line) from SW Barbara Lane, to the south property boundary of the development proposed, and new sidewalk along the site's frontage only (see Figure IA.) Table 1: Summa of Stud Area Roadway Characteristics Street Name Road Width Speed Sidewalks Bike On-Street Class (Feet) Limit Lanes Parking SW 74`h Avenue Neighborhood 20'-24' 25 No No No Route SW Cedarerest Street Local Street 20' 21 No No No SW Taylors Ferry Road Collector 23' 30 No No No Study Area Land Uses Land uses in the vicinity of the site consist mainly of single family homes and vacant, forested land. Along the east adjacent property line of the Ash Creek Estates is the Washington Square Estates subdivision, and to the north is the Razberry Patch subdivision. Across SW 740i Ave to the west, and along the south property boundary are a few large forested lots with single family homes. IC Pedestrian and Bicycling Considerations q Few pedestrians or bicyclists were observed during our intersection volume counts. In the immediate vicinity of the site, and along the entire length of SW 74th Avenue to SW Taylors Ferry Road, no bike lanes are present. The only sidewalk that exists is an approximate 75 foot linear section along the west side of the street extending south from SW Elmwood Street. The same is lacking along SW Taylors Ferry Road, with the exception of approximately 100 feet of sidewalk on J the north side from SW 74th Ave (SW Picasso Place) extending west. This section of sidewalk is offset approximately 10 feet from the edge of pavement. The north leg to this intersection (SW Picasso Place) has sidewalk present along both sides of the street, but no bike lanes. No sidewalks or bike lanes are present along SW Cedarcrest St. The applicant will be constructing/installing curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting as required by the City of Tigard along the site's frontage of SW 740i Ave as well as the proposed new access street serving the Ash Creek Estates subdivision. Ash Creek Estates ' April 30, 2003 Page 4 Transit Considerations Tri-Met operates the No. 43 bus route along SW Taylors Ferry Rd, which is within 0.25 miles of the proposed Ash Creek Estates development. The No.43 route provides service to/from downtown Portland from/to Washington Square with a scheduled stop at the intersection of SW Taylors Ferry ' Road/SW 74`h Avenue. With a relatively convenient bus stop location, it is likely that a few residents traveling to/from Ash Creek Estates would use transit as an alternative mode of transportation. • FeTTY aMWdQ t N y*ms Aw Swvks Op PSU ■ 35 35 9natw~'.~ 35 ♦ Zan 1 4m . ~..~2, % l 2 JE 35 45 zw»a zars se 0~'f n eav. ~ r~ s Huber AbbW A ! 20 u 0 M a NgIT1 Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 5 Existing Traffic Volumes A reconnaissance of the site and its vicinity was conducted. To assess the build-out impact of the proposed Ash Creek Estates residential development, traffic operations were analyzed during both AM and PM weekday peak hours because these periods represent a reasonable "worst case" for traffic scenarios in the study area. Traffic Volumes Figure 3 shows recent weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes obtained at key intersections in the vicinity of the site. These counts were performed during April of 2003. Traffic volumes greater than 25 were rounded upward to the nearest five vehicles. This data collection revealed that the morning t peak hour typically occurs between 7:30-8:30 AM and the afternoon peak hour typically occurs between 5:00-6:00 PM. Trucks accounted for less than 3 percent of the traffic observed along SW 74u' Ave. Peak Hour Traffic Operations Traffic conditions at key intersections in the study area were analyzed during both AM and PM peak hours. Intersection operational analyses were conducted using Highway Capacity Software and the procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual (2000) for evaluating signalized and unsignalized intersections, which describe the traffic operations of an intersection in terms of its Level of Service (LOS). For unsignalized intersections, the intersection's LOS is stated relative to the most critical intersection approach or maneuver, typically the left turns from the minor street approach. The LOS criterion is stated as a letter grade, ranging from "A," indicating little or no delay, to "F," indicating that drivers experience long delays. The LOS worksheets for the results presented in this study are attached in the Appendix to this report. The City of Tigard standards require that signalized intersections operate at LOS D or better and unsignalized intersections operate at LOS E or better (if a signal is not warranted.) Table 2 shows the calculated existing LOS estimates for the major study intersections based on the weekday peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure 3. Traffic operations at SW 74th Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street, and SW 74"' Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry were estimated to operate at LOS B or better during both AM and PM peak hours. Table 2: 2003 Current Levels of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Minor Street Stop Control Avg Vehicle LOS Avg Vehicle LOS Delay (Sec/Veh) Delay (Sec/Veh) SW 74'h Ave SW/Taylors Ferry Rd 12.2 B 11.6 B Critical Leg: SB(NB) Approach + SW 74th Ave SW/Cedarcrest St 8.8 A 8.6 A j Critical Leg: EB Approach +Note: X019 =AM(PMJ Direction Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 6 Traffic Safety Available crash records were obtained from ODOT and City of Tigard staff to analyze past crash history (1999 thru 2001) in the study area. These records indicated that there were only two reported crashes in the vicinity of the study area during this time period. These data are summarized and presented in Figure 4. These two accidents were reported to have occurred at the intersection of SW 740i Avenue/SW Cedarerest Street, which equates to an average annual crash rate of 2.16 crashes per million entering vehicles. This crash rate is artificially high due to the very low average daily traffic (ADT) volume (less than 1,000) at this intersection used to calculate the crash rate. Upon examining the equation used, [(Number of Crashes/3 Years)/(ADT x 365 Days)] x 1,000,000 Vehicles, it is apparent that even with 1-2 crashes occurring, the crash rate could be 1.0 or higher with a very low ADT. Both the number and rates of reported crashes are typical of similar intersections throughout Tigard and Washington County. At the proposed new site access street connection with SW 740i Avenue, driver sight distance is more than 300 feet to the north from a position 10 feet from the edge of pavement. (Photos in the Appendix document available sight distance along SW 740i Avenue.) Currently, a retaining wall along the east side of SW 740i Ave (within the R.O.W.) belonging to the adjacent north property is preventing sight distance from being achieved at 15 feet back, which is the required criterion. The applicant is proposing to re-construct the retaining wall further east to a point within the adjacent north property, and consequently outside the public R.O.W. at no cost to the property owner. Once the retaining wall has been moved outside the public R.O.W., and access street/SW 740i Ave improvements have been completed, adequate sight distance can be achieved at the standard 15 feet from the edge of pavement. This exceeds the City of Tigard Code requiring 250 feet of sight distance for a roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It should be noted that sight distance to the south is not applicable at this stage due to SW 740i Street terminating at the proposed site access. When SW 740i Avenue is extended to the south property line, and site frontage improvements are completed, it is estimated that the required sight distance will be achieved to the south as well. The new site access street will be located approximately 200 feet south of SW Barbara Ln. Photos in the Appendix document available sight distance along SW 740i Avenue. Based on the above crash record information and our field observations, it does not appear that the applicant needs to address any traffic safety problems in the immediate vicinity of the site. Area of Influence Figure 2A is a "to scale" dimensioned map showing the "area of influence" as required by the City of Tigard traffic study policy. SW Taylors Ferry Road is classified as a "Collector", SW 740i Avenue is classified as a "Neighborhood Route", and SW Cedarcrest Street is classified as a "Local Street." The City of Tigard requires that at a minimum, our analysis consider all road segments, i ' access points, and intersections of significance within the influence area, defined as the site's frontage and a distance of at least 1,000 feet extending out from the site's property line. Following this distance criterion, SW Barbara Ln, SW Elmwood St, and SW Shady Ln would need to be considered in this study. However, due to the insignificance of these streets, the City of Tigard staff has expressed concern with SW Taylors Ferry Rd and SW Cedarcrest St because of their current function relative to how the proposed Ash Creek Estates may impact capacity and delays at these intersections. Although SW Taylors Ferry Rd and SW Cedarcrest St are outside this requirement, these intersections are of the most significance within the study area, and will be analyzed in detail. Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ' The impact of traffic associated with the build-out of the Ash Creek Estates on the surrounding street system during the critical weekday peak hours was analyzed as follows: • Based on the projected year of completion for the Ash Creek Estates (i.e. 2005), existing traffic volumes were adjusted to estimate future background traffic volumes that will occur regardless of the proposed development. • Total daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed development were estimated for the Ash Creek Estates. • Existing traffic volumes at key study area intersections were evaluated to logically estimate the trip distribution patterns throughout the study area for assignment of vehicle trips generated by the proposed development to the roadway network. • Future 2005 Levels of Service at key study area intersections were calculated for both the future background and full build-out traffic volume scenarios. Future 2005 Background Traffic Volumes Full build-out of the proposed Ash Creek Estates subdivision is expected to occur by the year 2005. To assess the likely future traffic conditions regardless of the proposed development, we estimated increases in traffic due to general growth and other proposed/approved developments in the vicinity of the site. Discussions/meetings were held with City of Tigard planning staff to review the area. This research found that there are no other major developments that must be: included individually. To account for general growth trends, existing volumes (Figure 3) were increased by 3 percent per year to account for other increases in traffic due to sources outside the study area during the next two years (2005). Thus, total future 2005 background traffic volumes were estimated by multiplying existing peak hour traffic volumes (shown in Figure 3) by 1.06. The resulting peak hour traffic volumes are displayed in Figure 5. Capacity analyses of background 2005 volumes at study area intersections were performed for traffic volumes in Figure 5, and the results of these analyses are presented in Table 3 below. Comparing these results with the LOS results for existing conditions indicates that with these conservative assumptions, traffic conditions will degrade slightly, but will continue to operate at LOS B or better during at SW 74a' Ave/SW Taylors Ferry and LOS A or better at SW 74ei Ave/SW Cedarcrest St during both peak hour periods. Table 3: Future Bac round 2005 Levels of Service 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I ' Intersection Minor Street Stop Control i Avg Vehicle LOS Avg Vehicle LOS Delay (Sec/Veh) Delay (Sec/Veh) SW 74th Ave SW/Taylors Ferry Rd 12.5 B 11.9 B Critical Leg: SB(NB) Approach + SW 74'h Ave SW/Cedarcrest St 8 4 A 8.7 A Critical Leg: EB Approach . J- + Note: X017 = AM(P* Direction t Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 8 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes As shown in Figures I and 1A, the proposed Ash Creek Estates development is located on the east side of SW 741i Avenue and south of SW Barbara Lane. This development will contain 29 single family homes, on approximately 8.89 acres. The number of vehicle trips into and out of the Ash Creek Estates subdivision were estimated using the trip rates for residential uses presented in the ITE Trip Generation Report (6th Edition) (Land Use Code 210). Table 4 below presents the estimated vehicle trips that would be generated by the Ash Creek Estates subdivision. It is estimated that this development will generate approximately 278 vehicle trips throughout a typical weekday, including 22 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 29 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation for Full Build-Out of the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Trips Total In Out Total In Out Ash Creek Estates - 29 Homes 278 22 6 16 29 19 10 1 (ITE Land Use Code 210) Directional Distribution and Assignment of Site-Generated Trips The directional distribution patterns for traffic generated by the Ash Creek Estates subdivision were estimated by considering existing travel patterns to/from homes along SW Taylors Ferry Rd, SW Cedarcrest Street, and SW 741i Ave in Figure 3. Based on this estimate, Figure 6 shows the estimated directional distribution and assignment of vehicle trips generated by the Ash Creek Estates development onto the roadway network. Total Future 2005 Volumes and Traffic Operations Total future 2005 peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding the background future traffic volumes displayed in Figure S to the volumes that would be generated by full build-out of the Ash Creek Estates subdivision shown in Figure 6. The resulting total future 2005 peak hour traffic volumes, which considers full build-out of Ash Creek Estates, are shown in Figure 7. Table 5 below summarizes the results of the intersection LOS analyses for this total future build-out scenario. The LOS results in this table are very similar to the results for the future background traffic conditions. Thus, the intersection of SW 741' St/SW Taylors Ferry Rd will continue to operate at LOS B or better, and SW 70 Ave/SW Cedarcrest St will also continue to operate at an L ® acceptable LOS A or better during both peak hour periods. The site's proposed new access street ■ intersection with SW 74 h Avenue was estimated to operate at LOS A or better. Table 5: Total Future 2005 Levels of Service with Build-out of the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision i AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Minor Street Stop Control 1 1 ' Avg Vehicle Avg Vehicle Delay (Sec/Veh) LOS Delay (Sec/Veh) LOS SW 74'h Ave SW/Taylors Ferry Rd 12.6 B 12.0 B Critical Leg: SB(NB) Approach + SW 74 h Ave SW/Cedarcrest St 9.0 A 8.8 A Critical Leg: EB Approach SW 70 Ave SW/Site Access Street 8.4 A 8.3 A Critical Leg: WB Approach + Note: X(V = "(P* Direction Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 9 ACCESS MANAGEMENT To access the proposed Ash Creek Estates development, the applicant is proposing to construct a new street connection along the east side of SW 74th Avenue approximately 200 feet south of SW Barbara Lane. According to the City of Tigard's adopted Transportation Systems Plan (January, 2002 - DO), SW 74th Avenue's functional classification is a neighborhood route. Based on this classification, the City of Tigard Development Code requires all intersecting streets along SW 74th to have a minimum access spacing of 125 feet. The access street proposed is approximately 200 feet south of SW' Barbara Lane, thus meeting the City's street spacing requirements. It should be noted that SW 74th Avenue currently terminates at the proposed site access street location. The applicant will be extending SW 74th Avenue from this location to the south approximately 380 feet in order to serve two lots as part of this development that are south of the creek (see site plan Figure IA.) This extension will also serve two existing single family homes along the west side of SW 74th Avenue that currently access their homes from the south via a private gravel road. The new extension will be barricaded until future development occurs to the south of the Ash Creek Estates subdivision. Thus, vehicles currently using the gravel driveway from the south to access their homes will now be required to use SW 74th Avenue from the north. There are no other driveways or streets opposing the proposed new access street along SW 74th Avenue. The nearest driveway opposing the new access street is approximately 220 feet north and serves a single family home. SW 74th Avenue improvements are to include new pavement from SW Barbara Lane to the proposed development's southern property boundary, and new sidewalk for safe pedestrian passage along the site's frontage. Currently, at the site's proposed access location, SW 74th Ave consists of approximately 20 feet of asphalt/gravel with no shoulders. The applicant will be improving SW 74th Avenue to consist of a 24 foot paved width (16' half width east of center line + 8' additional west of center line) from SW Barbara Lane, to the south property boundary of the development proposed, and new sidewalk along the site's frontage only. The 16' half width improvement is consistent with SW 74th Avenue's functional classification as a neighborhood route. Sight distance information can be reviewed in the Traffic Safety section of this report. ~r 2 O Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 10 Additional analysis was conducted to determine whether or not increased traffic at the key study area intersections resulting from build out of the Ash Creek Estates subdivision would meet warrants for separate right turn lanes under total fixture 2005 conditions. As shown in Table 6, and based on the volume criteria in ODOT's Turn Lane Warrants, the eastbound right turning vehicles t along SW Taylors Ferry Road, and the southbound right turning vehicles along SW 74th Ave onto SW Cedarcrest Street do not meet warrants for requiring a separate right turn lane. Table 6: Results of Right Turn Warrant Analyses under Total Future 2005 Volume Conditions Full Build-Out of the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision Total Future 2005 PM Peak Hour ODOT Criteria Intersection Right Turns Design Hour Volume Minimum Criteria Warrant v h v h/Lane ht Turns-v h Met? SW Taylors Ferry at SW 74'h Ave 4 300 73 No (Taylors Ferry Eastbound approach) SW 74 at SW Cedarcrest St 5 32 109 No (SW 74 ,,Ave 4 Ave Southbound approach) Finally, an analysis was conducted to determine if vehicles turning left onto SW 74th Avenue from SW Taylors Ferry Road (westbound), and vehicles turning left onto SW Cedarcrest Street from SW 74th Avenue (northbound) would meet warrants for requiring separate left turn lanes under total future 2005 (full build-out of Ash Creek Estates) conditions. These warrants are based on the number of vehicles turning left, the total approach volumes, and the opposing conflicting volumes during the critical PM peak hour. As shown in Table 7 below, and based on the volume criteria in ODOT's Turn Lane Warrants, these projected future 2005 traffic volumes will not meet the criteria for requiring separate left turn lanes at these key study area intersections. Table 7: Results of Left Turn Warrant Analyses under Total Future 2005 Volume Conditions (Full Build-Out of the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision Total Future 2005 PM Peak Hour ODOT Criteria Intersection Left Turns Opposing Plus Minimum Criteria Warrant (vph) Advancing Volumes (Left Turns-vph) Met? v h/Lane SW Taylors Ferry at SW 74th Ave 38 307 47 No (Taylors Ferry Westbound approach) SW 70 Ave at SW Cedarcrest St 21 39 111 No 4a-, (SW 70 Ave Northbound approach) rH C J Ash Creek Estates April 30, 2003 Page 1l CONCLUSIONS ' Based on the results of the analysis described in this report, the Ash Creek Estates subdivision should have little impact on future peak hour traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site. The major intersection in the study area, SW 70 Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Road, is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the critical AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of SW 74`h Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street is expected to operate at LOS A during these same peak hour periods. These delay results indicate that drivers will experience very little to no traffic delays at these intersections when this development is fully built out. Thus, no specific off site roadway improvements are recommended to accommodate this development or mitigate its impact. If you have any questions related to the data or analyses discussed in this report, please contact me directly. Sincerely, Howard S. Stein, P.E. ~~ED PROS, Transportation Engineer ENO NEF~'io 17,04 Attachments v OREGON qH 19. if RENEW DATE L 2 J J Figure 1: Site Area And Vicinity Map . I Ash Creek Site urea i I I I ? I ~ ~ SYV Muftriomah=BlvJ---- i s vii w~ NOR19Rdi+_-- 1 " m Downsodf Courae I ~ I d. Moreno Cn , u4i , Tay(O'rs Fgrry ,d+ 3 RobifiM 45 ishhgtonl SW.pJrred SY -r- ~e ~ r J J' Imo- .I i m. ~SVY Cpiat-t G ;m japl~Iaal St N>!U IV Sik Pomona_ Oa1c St r. ti yea or2tt S'Pm St -I ate A SW'Sp~rvca~Sr' o~'i i Eorondo Sr (f J L:11 _j7 (~A Sw Yesta St z , st d;' I a + I y avi; E e qua; = kvr- =n?+ III ~Pa,~ ~ j l.alte OswEpo it N Drawing Not To Scale ❑ Proposed Site C-CAM CwI Engineers, Inc. Figure 1A: Proposed Site Plan For Ash Creek r MUM r II ~I s, s, x a i u ~ nnl-IF1 ~i ~n M r u r 0 ~ 5 t t S ° o TRACTV BOtM HER ~ ierr a ' WA MOM KUUB BMAM J W J AN DrawinAsh Crook , Inc. Figure 1 B: Area of Influence For The Proposed Ash Creek Subdivision w HADY o a t ELMW DD ST. L LA 0 1000' . BAR ARA Z a 198' D W ~Z o It J SITE ACCESS STREET J ' S ITE SITE ACCESS A ■ Scale: V =150' ctS Ath Creek Engineers, Inc. Figure 2: Study Area and intersection Lane Configurations W+ + M s 1 ~p 4 o0 M - Home Pak i Dr m }e 51N Aden-n Sl Wden- St SW A~ + -~'sMate ,Dt .li.._ n- - I'---_' - - . `e dt` m Progress Downs i t I p~ l N Syy ~o`N+tl West Golf Course I -~l - - - 1 - - - 1a, ' Fl or ceCn iSW Brdyger St t - ( I SW Taylor Fry Rd m r ~ji 1' I I v SW Wi16aM St's , 4 SW n Ced crest St - x- J r ~ C 'I SW-~hestnui` Sr _ AKiad Si Portland Crescerd1 ' ' 'Srov~ L~ St- - I z L L r svr-for st st w`ve SW Landad' 5 cg ~i IIL ~ I I i -ir ;Locust Sl a p ~ f , > a rn I,eS ~i4 f SY~ Mapl Ilea( St m m > t r D ■ ` t c = SW oak-St Oak St I I 1 II ` i.. Fn '•`I ~ I -a _ 0.217 Ew~ t I~sd r ~eavr, .q G st =7 L DC AN d Traffic Signal J Stop Sign a Proposed Roadway - - - AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes * Not striped for separate left and right turn lanes, however due to the approach lane width, vehicles were observed Drawing Not To Scale creating separate left and right turn queues. ❑ Proposed Site C-cS Ash Crook Engineers, Inc. r 1 Figure 3: Recent Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes In The Vicinity Of The Proposed Ash Creek Subdivision 1 ril 2003 April 2003 n M ~t 1(3) (4)1 4m- 195(260) (7)4 1 (275)220 - 2(30) (25)3 - +i t (3)3 i to co (70 ~ 1 SON ~ v C-4 .~.i.Ni tome Par Dr , LG I I-- 0 _ SW ~tderr=St SW Aden-St A I' ~r o . sN Asltd?fe-;cx pis CP Progress Downs' 'y Sw West Portland e Golf Cou'e 00 SVY or -ce Ln :SW Bragger-St , 4~~; ( l t - SW".Taytbra Fe ty Rd 1 ` III ° Birch Sr - ( y r SW Wilbard-1 = 1( S~V=Ge rerestestnuiSt=Sr I - 3 I1~ _ $ 1i Portland - h SW gt6~SSt 'In oul I'• kln~onPjrk 1 creswt~~' I = r L ksh ~wre ~ _ i i i1 k - St 5w verrh,re. _ La - - !L _ a or st _1N dau Dr 1 L y ~-I ~ iflocusf(St. 10 it a _ I'~ QS°• SYJ tftjP1 eaf St oa -St-- I 7-1 1 t .1~ 01217 F Epl6 SW ,A -~pruCaSt-=-` G st I ~~L 21 k.. I I !rtl - I~ T IL j , AN °tID Traffic Signal .tea , Stop Sign s Proposed Roadway - - - AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Drawing Not To Scale Proposed Site C: S Ash Cr"k Engineers, Inc. 4 Figure 4: Traffic Accident Patterns Throughout The Study Area (1999-2001 C No Crashes PDO-1 Reported INJ -1 No Crashes Acc. Rate - 2.16+ Reported RE -1 No Crashes Other -1 Reported Home Park j Ood Or No Crashes No Crashes - SW Alden St Alden St - A0 , $ Reported Y " v. S^N Swale Ac Progress Darns Cotl course W 6M7d West Po and j i sw SW fior ce Lri ;SW Brugger St SW Birch Sw Naylor ferry Rd SW Cedaicrest 5t o SW Wilbard St D SW Chestnut'"St Alhad-S ~ J- 7 L : I Po and 47 Crescent Or ~h _emeterrr Corral S< - - _ - SW LandaD:~.SY, SW Ventura._4' r l SW'LOCUetlSl pleleaf SI'L 53. SW Ma ~n ro a SW Oak St 4 Q SW Oak" Sr < a r e 0,21 $Vy Pine S!_. ti tail j_ z o.sn . a I rztz`~` I~:_: ITMBrd I y G St- + See Discussion in Report L C J KEY: RE = Rearend l , SIS = Sideswipe Fix Obj = Fixed Object N PDO = Property Damage iNJ =Injury Traffic Signal Acc Rate = Average Accident Rate Per Stop Sign Million Entering Vehicles Drawing Not To Scale ❑ Proposed Site ¢ cS Ash Creek Engineers, lnc. Figure 5: Future Background 2005 Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes In The Vicinity Of The Proposed Ash Creek Subdivision M^o ^ ~.Ni MOO 4~ c 1 D(276)) 1 (7)4 1 (292)233 -0* (-2(32 (27)3 (3)3 n~ '1 t r ~ M M O M --N Co v04 dp Home Per 'I ,nd,Dr,,. ci+ SW Alden St SAM Alden St_ SJY.A SYiI^, : - 1 SVJ :AslMafa..~0~ .9 j West Portland O 01` R 00~= it ditass ourse ' I :_,I •I floc es Cn _syy6- II _~L ,1 ~ !SW BruggerSt aylors Fet Rd ~->3i Cad rcresi $t ~ , I' c "StN wifaard-St ) .I yZE,I _ 1 SVY £hesinut -Sfi SW Alfred St Po a6 r 6, jt -n Dickimon tl - r Crre DSCVe~idJ I .'r _ I' _ III 1 •I emeteiyl Dr 1 TJy f LSYV'6o I~, 5E fir' !i-I I it Landad-St Sw VerAL" SwrLocusE St i-- p Sw Mapiateaf SE m ro - li Q mf a oa st --sw oak St r, ml a \ _ - ! 2 Deft t K _ T~ _ I I 1~ f _ 04217 * I 4. w_ _ r Yra~ h tMierd ~~lr ' i~-..- sauv ; y G SE II AN N m Traffic Signal J Stop Sign Proposed Roadway AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes + Funded Traffic Signal Project Drawing Not To Scale To Be Completed in 2003 S Q Proposed Site C,c Ash Creek Engineers, Inc. I Figure 6: Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Generated By 1 The Proposed Ash Creek Subdivision I: IN 1 sr2(6) i 41 (6)2-w4, v~ M _-'Nome Per i Hr 0 SW Alden St SW Aden St A`pp` ~ ` y 1 r ,XI 3~ ON Asl!dare Progress Downs b Owl 3(6) Golf cwrse sw Flo nce Ln SW f Bru er 0 P 5 3Q%3: AA c0 r ~i { ( Rd i 1 : $W Birch St - ' 00 -SW Cede 3Q% 4 " AW Ibart ' to ~St L i -_A - SW 4heslnutl sWAN I Il_ ~r~ i 'dst i P 6 Insan rk ano cxcswu t ,~i ~ Loh i cindery L 'I st -sw=v i-.-. SW dad`St eDtkB -Me eleaf St' ` m Q.. Q i - SW, oali S 'z SW Oak SI m Sw Pn .SL _rmc= - f 0r217 Ewl6 i ~ ,rr\~ Sw.s nice St Tlae►d r Aspen Creek (27 Homes) IN OUT c~ AM 5 15 N LO PM 17 10 ® Aspen Creek (2 Homes South) AN 1 15(10) IN OUT J AM 1 1 Traffic Signal 1 PM 1 1 Stop Sign Proposed Roadway 04 Existing (2 Homes) AM(PM) Peak Four Volumes N IN OUT Drawing Not To Scale AM 1 1 ❑ Proposed Site PM 1 1 CICS Ash Cmek Engineers, rnc. Figure 7: Total Future 2005 Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Buildout Of The Proposed Ash Creek Subdivision r= o c W 1 Moll` 44))l 4)~ L1(3) roo 1 (4)1-1 +-207(276) 76) (7) 1 (290233 4(38) (33)5 (4)3 1 N 41 cn 0 Co 0" 04 U) v.i CSEN N v dome Par i.,. z00 Dr '1L -SW Alden St''..., Sw Nden.St -SW Aj. ~t m Progress towns .e West Portland oat course I jo sw Sw Ftor ce l ri i SW Brugger St - dI_ .I I Taylors Ferry Rd i s 1 2 SW-strcn sti I 4 sw wmast - -1. = i I i I , Sw Cedarcrest 5t r) J L- II % IIBI~ - GlneSinul SC= v SW Alfbd Sl Dickins PonP ~a OrMnl / Crescent 0 I fin} Dr -6ro~ir ~yVt - _L emet IL _ I SW dad St r-SW Ver+tt+re$ l t . SW bar 1 St _ Iocust -St- 4 < fs o~ I S4V_Maplet D D eat St... m Q _ Oak A SW k-St Q t v Sw O d Oa t I lK{ N _ ~W P16- l~- OFZ17 I ~ I~ Ewte i - - m Cr Si SL. L_ r In d ~ v~ N N L 5 1 to AN ® t• 15(10) Traffic Signal 1 Stop Sign A Proposed Roadway N AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Drawing Not To Scale ❑ Proposed Site C L/ S E»gtneers, Ash lnr. Ash Creek C-cs Engineers, Inc. TECHNICAL APPENDIX Attached is the Technical Appendix for CTS Engineers traffic impact study for Project OR03.010.T01, Ash Creek Subdivision. It includes the following information: 1) Photos of the Proposed Site Access and Key Study Area Intersections 2) Crash Analysis Worksheet 3) Trip Generation Worksheet 4) Left Turn Lane Warrant Analyses 5) Right Turn Lane Warrant Analyses 6) Manual Turn Movement Counts 7) Capacity Worksheets for Existing Traffic Volumes 8) Capacity Worksheets for Future 2005 Background Traffic Volumes 9) Capacity Worksheets for Future 2005 Traffic Volumes with Build-out of the Proposed Ash Creek Subdivision. J I~ t M-- 1 0 AREA TYPICAL VIEWS STUDY ASH CREEK SUBDIVISION City of Tigard, Oregon I. Looking eastbound at the proposed site access along SW 74` Avenue. (Currently a single family home driveway.) i 2. Sight distance looking northbound along SW 74`h Avenue from the proposed access street location. (Flag at 300') a o~ m J 3. Looking south from the proposed access street location (end of SW 74' Avenue.) Photos Taken by CTS Engineers 418103 s STUDY AREA TYPICAL VIEWS ASH CREEK SUBDIVISION City of Tigard, Oregon ' 4. Looking northbound along SW 74 Avenue at SW Cedarcrest Street on left. 5. Looking westbound along SW Cedarcrest Street from SW 74 Avenue. L H Yi J_ J 6. Looking southbound along SW 74' Avenue at SW Cedarcrest Street on right. Photos Taken by C7S Engineers 418103 0 r STUDY AREA TYPICAL VIEWS r ASH CREEK SUBDIVISION City of Tigard, Oregon r r r 7. Looking northbound along SW 74' Avenue/SW Picasso Place at SW Taylors Ferry Road. it, r r r r S. Looking westbound along SW Taylors Ferry Road at SW 74' Avenue (left)/SW Picasso Place (right). IL F- Jr m JI I r 9. Looking eastbound along SW Taylors Ferry Road at SW 74` Avenue(right)/S W Picasso Place (left). Photos Taken by CTSEngineers 418103 Project: OR03.010.T01- Ash Creek Subdivision Accident Analysis Worksheet 1999-2001 Intersection: SW 74th Avenue @ SW Cedarcrest Street Percent Percent Property Rear End 1 50% Damage Only 1 50% Angle 0 0% Injury 1 50% Turn 0 0% Total 2 Other 1 50% Total 2 PAN Peak Hour 93 ADT 845 Assumed to be PM Peak Hour/11 percent Ace/clam Rata= (Number of Acddents)/3) / (ADTX 365)"1,000,000 Vehicles Accident Rate= 2.16 Average number of accidents per million entering vehicles 1 IL rK Ai 1 1 1 . TRIP GENERATION WORKSHEET RATES Development: Aspen Creek Estates Size: 27 Homes t ITE Land Use Code: Single Family Homes, Code 210 Variable: Number of Homes (H) Total Weekday Trips T = 9.57x(H) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 129 129 258 Site Distribution 50% 50% 100% Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips T = 0.75x(H) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Tri 5 15 20 Site Distribution 25% 7501a 100016 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips a ' T=1.01xH Enter Exit Total r ' Vehicle Trips 17 10 27 t Site Distribution 64% 36% 100% J m J cts Engineer Inc. TRIP GENERATION WORKSHEET RATES Development: Aspen Creek Estates (2 Remote) Size: 2 Homes ITE Land Use Code: Single Family Homes, Code 210 Variable: Number of Homes (H) Total Weekday Trips T = 9.57x(H) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 10 9 19 Site Distribution 50% 50% 100% Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips T = 0.75x(H) Enter Exit Total ehicle Trips 1 1 2 Site Distribution 25% 75% 100% Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips IL T= .01x(H) Enter Exit Total ehicle Trips 1 1 2 Site Distribution 64% 36% 100% u c-cs Fwginew4 Inc. TRIP GENERATION WORKSHEET RATES Development: Two Existing Homes Size: 2 Homes ITE Land Use Code: Single Family Homes, Code 210 Variable: Number of Homes (H) Total Weekday Trips T = 9.57x(H) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 10 9 19 Site Distribution 50% 50% 1000/. Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips 1 T = 0.75x(H) Enter Exit Total ehicle Trips 1 1 2 Site Distribution 25% 75% 100% Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Z T= .01x(H) x Enter Exit -T-To-ta-1-11 ehicle Trips 1 1 2 Site Distribution 64% 36% 100% 0 C t~ S Fngineers, Inc. r TRIP GENERATION WORKSHEET RATES Developmont: Aspen Creek Estates (2 Lots) Existing Homes (2 Homes) Size: 4 Homes ITE Land Use Code: Single Family Homes, Code 210 Variable: Number of Homes (H) Total Weekday Trips T = .57x(H) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Tri 19 19 38 Site Distribution 50% 50% 100% Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips T = 0.75x(H) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 1 2 3 Site Distribution 25% 75% 100% L ' Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips T=1.01x(H) ,n. Enter Exit Total d Vehicle Trips 3 1 4 n Site Distribution 64% 36% 100% ccs Fhgaeels, Inc. Ash Creek Subdivision OR03.010.T01 April 24, 2003 Taylors Ferry Rd/ 74th Ave PM Peak - TF 2005 Right Turn Lane Criterion 800 SEE NOTE 700 600 C l0 500 m s ~ 400 c, >45 mph IM SW Taylors Ferry Road <45 mph SASW Taylors Ferry Road 0 ~asaus 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 Right Turn Volume NOTE: If there is no right turn lane, a shoulder needs to be provided. If this intersection is in a rural area and is connected to a public street, a right turn lane is needed. Right Turn Criterian L Right-TurnVolume Design Hour Volume Minimum Criteria r 2 Approach (vph) (vph per Lane) (Right Turns-vph) Criterion Met EB SW Taylors Ferry Road 4 300 73 NO WB SW Taylors Ferry Road 3 317 71 NO 7 i C-CS Engineers, Inc. Ash Creek Subdivision 01103.010301 April 24, 2003 74th Ave/Cedarcrest St PM Peak - TF 2005 Right Turn Lane Criterion - 800 SEE NOTE 700 600 m C !0 a m '00 E aoo u >45 mph <45 mph ~ 300 200- 100 SB SW 74th Avenue 0 A 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 Right Turn Volume NOTE: If there is no right turn lane, a shoulder needs to be provided. If this intersection is in a rural area and is connected to a public street, a right turn lane is needed. Right Turn Criterian ? Right-Turn Volume Design Hour Volume Minimum Criteria Approach (vph) (vph per Lane) (Right Turns-vph) Criterion Met SB SW 74th Avenue 5 32 109 NO I I i I CAS Engineers, Inc. Ash Creek Subdivision OR03.010.T01 April 24, 2003 Taylors Ferry Rd/ 74th Ave PM Peak - TF 2005 Left Turn Lane Criterion loco e 800 m 'eiaaimm.+ 7 ~ J mm C G 600 V m 0O ° = 400 Oa jB SW Taylors Ferry Road a. Y a WB SW Taylors Ferry Road s 200.M1,. ~5r NipdJ: 0 0 10 20 30 40 10 60 70 80 90 100 110 - > 55 mph Left-Turn Volumes - 45 mph (Design Flour Volumes) < 35 mph L Left Turn Criterion Opposing Plus Left Turns Advancing Volumes Minimum Criteria Approach (vph) (vph/Lane) (Left Turns-vph) Criterion Met J EB SW Taylors Fe Road 4 290 50 NO WB SW Taylors Ferry Road 38 307 47 Yes for Speed > 35 mph CcS Engineers, Inc. Ash Creek Subdivision OR03.010.T01 ' April 24, 2003 74th Ave/Cedarcrest St PM Peak - TF 2005 Left Turn Lane Criterion loco 800 mm C WYA'J4.VW'GI E C J ~ d 600 C 3E0 > _ ' 7 7 75, d = 400 C C r,N+. o m k r w, 200 0 NB SW 74th Avenu 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 - > 55 mph Left-Turn Volumes - 45 mph (Design Hour Volumes) - < 35 mph L Left Turn Criterion r Opposing Plus q Left Turns Advancing Volumes Minimum Criteria Approach (vph) (vph/Lane) (Left Turns-vph) Criterion Met 3 NB SW 74th Avenue 21 39 111 NO 0 u C-CS Engineers, Inc. CTS ENGINEERS, INC. MANUAL COUNT DATA COLLECTION SHEET LOCATION: SW 74th Avenue at SW Cedarcrest Street N/S STREET: SW 74th Avenue ENV STREET: SW Cedarcrest Street PEAK: AM Job No. OR03.010.T01 DATE: Thursday Apr 10, 2003 TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM CONDITIONS: Cloudy, Cool OBSERVERS: RS Compiled By: TWB TRAFFIC VOLUMES: STARTING Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound 15 MIN TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT SUM TOTAL" 7:00 AM AUTO 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 0 2 0 3 15 HV' 0 15 7:15 AM AUTO 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 1 12 HV' 0 12 7:30 AM AUTO 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 5 0 1 0 0 18 HV' 0 18 7:45 AM AUTO 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 4 0 1 0 0 17 HV' 0 17 8:00 AM AUTO 0 2 2 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 11 HV' 0 11 8:15 AM AUTO 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 5 0 2 0 3 17 HV' 0 17 8:30 AM AUTO 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 1 9 HV' 0 9 8:45 AM AUTO 0 5 2 0 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 1 22 HV' 0 22 HOURLY SUMMARIES: STARTING Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound HOUR TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT SUM TOTAL" 7:00 AM AUTO 3 2 31 18 4 4 62 HV* 0 62 7:15 AUTO 4 3 33 15 2 1 58 HV' 0 58 0; . 4 3. 33 16 4. 3: 63 y { 0. 63 7:45 AM AUTO 4 3 23 15 5 4 54 HV' 0 54 8:00 AM AUTO 8 5 21 16 4 5 59 w 0 59 PHF 0.438 0.766 0.350 0.875 V 7 49 7 63 V(p) 4 16 5 18 L ~ PEAK HOUR VOLUME ' HV REPRESENTS HEAVY VEHICLES (BUSES AND TRUCKS) A PHF = PEAK HOUR FACTOR TOTAL REPRESENTS AUTO + HV(2) V =PEAK HOUR VOLUME V(p) = PEAK QUARTER HOUR FLOW u0 MAW 7.010-AM Ceenl-741h Ave of CedwmK* <238 MAW V1 0 PM CTS ENGINEERS, INC. MANUAL COUNT DATA COLLECTION SHEET LOCATION: SW 74th Avenue at SW Cedarcrest Street N/S STREET: SW 74th Avenue E/W STREET: SW Cedarcrest Street PEAK: PM Job No. OR03.010301 DATE: Thursday Apr 10, 2003 TIME PERIOD: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM CONDITIONS: Cloudy, Cool OBSERVERS: RS Compiled By: TWB TRAFFIC VOLUMES: STARTING Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound 15 MIN TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT SUM TOTAL- 4:00 PM AUTO 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 0 5 11, HV* 0 16 4:15 PM AUTO 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 0 9 18 HV* 0 18 4:30 PM AUTO 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 13 HV* 0 13 4:45 PM AUTO 0 5 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0. 5 15 HV* 0 15 5:00 PM AUTO 0 10 2 0 0 0 3 6 0 3 0 5 29 HV* 0 29 5:15 PM AUTO 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 7 17 HV* 0 17 5:30 PM AUTO 0 2 2 0 0 0 6 6 0 3 0 7 26 HV* 26 5:45 PM AUTO 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 6 21 1 HV* 0 21 HOURLY SUMMARIES: STARTING Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound HOUR TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT SUM TOTAL" 4:00 PM AUTO 10 6 10 4 9 23 62 HV* AU 0 62 4:15 PM AUTO 18 7 10 8 9 23 75 HV* 0 75 4:30 PM AUTO 21 5 10 10 7 21 74 0 74 445 PM AUTO 20 5 15 15 8 24 87 HV* 0 87 'P AUTO 19 <5 17 20 25 93 93 1 fTV ..i 0 PHF 0.500 0.771 0.800 0.802 V 24 37 32 93 V(P) 12 12 10 29 L C PEAK HOUR VOLUME ' HV REPRESENTS HEAVY VEHICLES (BUSES AND TRUCKS) PHF = PEAK HOUR FACTOR TOTAL REPRESENTS AUTO + HV(2) V = PEAK HOUR VOLUME j V(p) = PEAK QUARTER HOUR FLOW 1 . PrintrJ u10 3f PM 3.010-PtA COW -741h Aw at CeOrawtdS 4:31 PM CTS ENGINEERS, INC. MANUAL. COUNT DATA COLLECTION SHEET LOCATION: SW Taylors Ferry Road at SW 74th Avenue N/S STREET: SW 74th Avenue ENV STREET: SW Taylors Ferry Road PEAK: AM Job No. OR03.010.T01 DATE: Tuesday Apr 08, 2003 TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM CONDITIONS: Clear, Warm OBSERVERS: TWB Compiled By: TWB TRAFFIC VOLUMES: STARTING Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound 15 MIN TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT TFIRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT SUM TOTAL" 7:00 AM AUTO 3 0 1 0 19 0 0 0 5 0 32 0 60 HV• 0 60 7:15 AM AUTO 2 1 0 0 32 0 0 0 8 0 52 0 95 HV* 0 95 7:30 AM AUTO 1 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 8 1 46 1 96 HV• 0 96 7:45 AM AUTO 2 0 2 1 58 1 0 0 6 0 67 1 138 HV* 0 138 8:00 AM AUTO 4 0 0 1 47 0 3 0 4 0 55 1 115 HV* 0 115 8:15 AM AUTO 0 0 1 0 49 0 0 0 4 0 49 0 103 HV* 0 103 8:30 AM AUTO 1 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 2 0 34 0 81 HV* 0 81 8:45 AM AUTO 0 0 0 3 36 0 1 0 3 1 49 0 93 HV* 0 93 HOURLY SUMMARIES: STARTING Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound HOUR TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT SUM TOTAL" 7:00 AM AUTO 8 1 3 1 148 1 27 1 197 2 389 HV* 0 389 715 AM AUTO 9 1 2 2 176 1 3 26 1 220 3 444 HV* 0 444 7 3' 2 193 1 3 22 1 217 3 452 x..~ ` 0 ..452 t 7:45 AM AUTO 7 3 2 198 1 3 16 205 2 437 HV* 0 437 8:00 AM AUTO 5 1 4 176 4 13 1 187 1 392 HV' 0 392 PHF 0.625 0.817 0.781 0.813 0.819 V 10 196 25 221 452 VW 4 60 8 68 138 PEAK HOUR VOLUME • HV REPRESENTS HEAVY VEHICLES (BUSES AND TRUCKS) ? PHF = PEAK HOUR FACTOR TOTAL REPRESENTS AUTO + HV(2) V = PEAK HOUR VOLUME V(p) = PEAK QUARTER HOUR FLOW 1 1 PMbd 7 3.010-AM CwM- Tw/Wo Foq at 741h Avoid$ 334:34 0 3 PM 10/61 2003 09:01 5036438866 TRAFFIC SMITHY PAGE 04 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT PEAK HOUR REPORT File: DLMM e To 0 % P- 0.5 Peek Hour LOCATION: 16,30.17t30 4 9 SW TAYLORS FERRY ROAD AT SW 74TH AVENUE Total Entry Volume TIGARD, OR 3 1 0 590 rIT= z65 4 F--• 288 Date: 04/17/03 Day: THU 4 t-3 ' From: 16:00-18:00 2.195: T;q 211 % 275 .-a E - 257 Report Prepared for g P- 0.85 CTS ENGINEERS 3 -y 28 .5lrrwyed BY. 282 , TRAFFIC SMITHY, INC - 5 2 17 292 1225 NW Murray Blvd Suite 111 T=% Trucks 8y Approach ' Portland, OR 97229 32 24 ~ Phone: hone;503-641-6333 Fax; 503.643-8866 P = PHF By Approach T= 0 % P= 0.75 Report Reviewed by. 16 TIME PERIOD 71 EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUNDI NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND ALL T ALL VEHICLES :.&:3015:45 2 75 1 0 p 0 2 1 4 8 59 0 152 - a ^0 1 67 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 52 0 132 :.7:70.17:15 0 65 2 2 0 0 1 0 4 6 69 2 151 17::5.17:30 0 68 0 1 1 0 2 0 6 7 77 1 163 .-IGHT TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT 2 AXLES) 16:30-16:45 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 16:45-17:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 11:00-17:15 0 1 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17:1-5-17:30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 MEDIUM TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT > 2 AXLES) 16:30-16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HEAVY TRUCKS (SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER) IS:2;'-:6:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCLES - 16:30-16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:45.17:00 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:7:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PEDESTRIANS Crosswalk SOUTH WEST EAST NORTH ALL D. 16:30-16:45 0 0 0 0 0 16:45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 a 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 mojr 5y Movement 0.38 0.92 0.5 0.38 0.25 0 0.63 0.5 0.71 0.88 0.83 0.38 0.92 1/o Trucks (All) 0 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 2 U %Trucks (1,1+H) 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stopped Busses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ►-►ourty Totals 1.5:00-17:00 4 253 3 1 0 0 4 3 11 24 235 0 538 16:15-17:15 4 262 4 2 0 0 5 3 13 26 236 2 557 16:30-17:30 3 275 4 3 1 0 5 2 17 28 257 3 598 16:45.17:45 3 270 3 3 1 0 4 1 14 23 261 4 587 17:00-18:00 2 266 5 6 1 0 4 0 17 22 262 4 589 MITIG8 - AM Peak Thu Apr 24, 2003 17:15:45 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Existing Conditions - Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Voluiae Alternative) Intersection #1 SW 74th Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Road Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T - R L - T- R L- T - R L- T - R 11 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------1--------------- 11--------------- II---------------tl---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Base Vol: 3 0 22 7 0 3 1 220 3 2 195 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 0 22 7 0 3 1 220 3 2 195 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.62 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 4 0 27 9 0 4 1 268 4 2 238 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 4 0 27 9 0 4 1 268 4 2 238 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------I--------- ------il--------- ------II--------- ------II--------- ------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 518 xxxx 270 529 xxxx 238 239 xxxx xxxxx 272 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 472 xxxx 773 463 xxxx 805 1340 xxxx xxxxx 1303 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 468 xxxx 773 446 xxxx 805 1340 xxxx xxxxx 1303 xxxx xxxxx ------------I---------------II---------------It---------------11---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 717 xxxxx xxxx 515 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxxx 12.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * B ApproachDel: 10.2 12.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B B Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIG8 - PM-Peak Thu Apr 24, 2003 17:16:22 Page 1-1 OR03.010.TO1 - Ash Creek Subdivision Existing Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 SW 74th Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Road Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T - R L - T - R L- T - R L - T- R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Base Vol: 5 2 17 0 1 3 4 275 3 30 260 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 2 17 0 1 3 4 275 3 30 260 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 5 2 18 0 1 3 4 299 3 33 283 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 5 2 18 0 1 3 4 299 3 33 283 3 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx I--------------- II II II I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 661 660 301 xxxx 660 284 286 xxxx xxxxx 302 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 379 386 744 xxxx 386 760 1288 xxxx xxxxx 1270 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 368 374 744 xxxx 374 760 1288 xxxx xxxxx 1270 xxxx xxxxx I II II II ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A Movement: IT - LTR - RT LT LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 574 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 604 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 11.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 11.0 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * * B * ApproachDel: 11.6 11.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B B L D l Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIG8 - AM Peak Thu Apr 24, 2003 17:16:02 Page 1-1 L-------------------------------------------------- OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Existing Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 SW 74th Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Base Vol: 35 16 0 0 4 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 35 16 0 0 4 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 40 18 0 0 5 3 5 0 3 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 40 18 0 0 5 3 5 0 3 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I--------------- II II--------------- II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 104 xxxx 6 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1626 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 899 xxxx 1082 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1626 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 882 xxxx 1082 xxxx xxxx xxxxx I li II--------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx 8.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * + * A * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * + A L 07 J 0 u Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIG8 - PM Peak Thu Apr 24, 2003 17:16:34 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Existing Conditions Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection N2 SW 74th Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T - R L- T- R L- T- R L - T - R ------------I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Base Vol: 17 20 0 0 19 5 7 0 25 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 17 20 0 0 19 5 7 0 25 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 21 25 0 0 24 6 9 0 31 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 21 25 0 0 24 6 9 0 31 0 0 0 ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 30 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 94 xxxx 27 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1596 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 910 xxxx 1054 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1596 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 901 xxxx 1054 xxxx xxxx xxxxx I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------i Level of Service Module: Stopped Del.: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx 8.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A Movement: IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A a F ~r J Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIG8 - AM Peak Wed Apr 23, 2003 16:37:38 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Future Background 2005 Level of Service Computation Report 1 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 SW 74th Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Road Average Delay (sec/veh): 0,8 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T- R L - T - R L- T- R L- T- R I II--------------- II--------------- il---------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Base Vol: 3 0 22 7 0 3 1 220 3 2 195 1 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1,06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 3 0 23 7 0 3 1 233 3 2 207 1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In-Process: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 0 23 7 0 3 1 233 3 2 207 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 4 0 28 9 0 4 1 284 4 3 252 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 4 0 28 9 0 4 1 284 4 3 252 1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------I--=------------11---------------11---------------II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 549 xxxx 286 561 xxxx 253 253 xxxx xxxxx 288 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 450 xxxx 757 441 xxxx 791 1324 xxxx xxxxx 1285 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 446 xxxx 757 424 xxxx 791 1324 xxxx xxxxx 1285 xxxx xxxxx ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------1(---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A + * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 699 xxxxx xxxx 492 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 10.4 xxxxx xxxxx 12.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * B L ApproachDel: 10.4 12.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx r ApproachLOS: B B J u~ J Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. 1 MITIG8 - PM Peak Wed Apr 23, 2003 16:37:09 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Future Background 2005 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 SW 74th Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Road Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 ---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Base Vol: 5 2 17 0 1 3 4 275 3 30 260 3 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 5 2 18 0 1 3 4 292 3 32 276 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 5 2 18 0 1 3 4 292 3 32 276 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 6 2 20 0 1 3 5 317 3 35 300 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 6 2 20 0 1 3 5 317 3 35 300 3 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------1--------------- 1l--------------- il--------------- 11---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 701 700 319 xxxx 700 301 303 xxxx xxxxx 320 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 356 366 727 xxxx 366 743 1269 xxxx xxxxx 1251 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 345 354 727 xxxx 354 743 1269 xxxx xxxxx 1251 xxxx xxxxx I II II II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 551 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 583 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 11.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 11.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * * B * * # * * # L ApproachDel: 11.9 11.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx 2 ApproachLOS: B B J i Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIG8 - AM Peak Wed Apr 23, 2003 16:37:53 Page 1-1 OR03.010.TO1 - Ash Creek Subdivision Future Background 2005 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 SW 74th Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Base Vol: 35 16 0 0 4 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 37 17 0 0 4 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In-Process: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 37 17 0 0 4 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 42 19 0 0 5 4 5 0 4 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 42 19 0 0 5 4 5 0 4 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I--------------- I I--------------- I I---------------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 110 xxxx 7 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1625 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 892 xxxx 1082 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1625 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 874 xxxx 1082 xxxx xxxx xxxxx I II--------------- il--------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx 8.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 1.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * IL ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx a ApproachLOS: * * A WUW J Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIGB - PM Peak Wed Apr 23, 2003 16:37:25 Page 1-1 oR03.010.T0I - Ash Creek Subdivision ----_--Future Background 2005 Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 112 SW 74th Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L - T- R L - T - R L - T- R ------------I---------------II--------------- 11-_-------------II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------)---------------II---------------ii---------------11---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Base Vol: 17 20 0 0 19 5 7 0 25 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 18 21 0 0 20 5 7 0 27 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 18 21 0 0 20 5 7 0 27 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 23 27 0 0 25 7 9 0 33 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 23 27 0 0 25 7 9 0 33 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------1---------------11---------------J1---------------11---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 32 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 100 xxxx 28 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1594 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 904 xxxx 1052 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1594 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 894 xxxx 1052 xxxx xxxx xxxxx I---------------Il--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx 8.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A Movement: IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.7 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A 1 j Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. 1 MITIG8 - AM Peak Fri Apr 25, 2003 13:39:53 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Total Future 2005 (With Development) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 SW 74th Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Road Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R ------------I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled RigHts: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 l! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------1---------------II---------------il---------------II---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Base Vol: 3 0 22 7 0 3 1 220 3 2 195 1 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 3 0 23 7 0 3 1 233 3 2 207 1 Added Vol: 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 In-Process: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Ft: 4 0 28 7 0 3 1 233 3 4 207 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 PHF Volume: 5 0 35 9 0 4 1 284 4 5 252 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 5 0 35 9 0 4 1 284 4 5 252 1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 xxxx 6.2 7.1 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------I II II--------------- Il---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 554 xxxx 286 569 xxxx 253 253 xxxx xxxxx 288 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 446 xxxx 757 436 xxxx 791 1324 xxxx xxxxx 1285 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 443 xxxx 757 415 xxxx 791 1324 xxxx xxxxx 1285 xxxx xxxxx I--------------- 11--------------- II---------------II---------------! Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 694 xxxxx xxxx 484 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd Stpbel:xxxxx 10.5 xxxxx xxxxx 12.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * B * * * # + i ApproachDel: 10.5 12.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B B 1 f ~ i } Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. i MITIGS - PM Peak Fri Apr 25, 2003 13:40:05 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Total Future 2005 (With Development) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 SW 74th Avenue/SW Taylors Ferry Road Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T- R L- T- R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Base Vol: 5 2 17 0 1 3 4 275 3 30 260 3 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 5 2 18 0 1 3 4 292 3 32 276 3 Added Vol: 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 6 2 22 0 1 3 4 292 4 38 276 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 7 2 24 0 1 3 5 317 5 41 300 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 7 2 24 0 1 3 5 317 5 41 300 3 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4_0 ---3_3 xxxxx 4_0 ---3_3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ------------I ------II------ II--------------- 11---------------i Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 714 714 319 xxxx 714 301 303 xxxx xxxxx 321 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 349 359 726 xxxx 359 743 1269 xxxx xxxxx 1250 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 337 346 726 xxxx 346 743 1269 xxxx xxxxx 1250 xxxx xxxxx i----------------1l--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx. 7.8 xxxx xxxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * # * + + # A + * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 552 xxxxx xxxx xxxx 577 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 11.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 11.3 .xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * * B I ApproachDel: 11.9 11.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B B 1 Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. i MITIG8 - AM Peak Fri Apr 25, 2003 13:39:43 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Total Future 2005 (With Development) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection ()2 SW 74th Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T - R L - T - R L - T - R -----------1---------------II---------------Il---------------II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Base Vol: 35 16 0 0 4 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 37 17 0 0 4 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 Added Vol: 5 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 In-Process: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 42 23 0 0 6 3 4 0 5 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 48 26 0 0 7 4 5 0 6 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 48 26 0 0 7 4 5 0 6 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTira: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------1--------------- ((---------------II--------------- 11----------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 11 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 131 xxxx 9 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1622 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 868 xxxx 1079 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1622 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 848 xxxx 1079 xxxx xxxx xxxxx I Ii--------------- II--------------- II---------------i Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.3 xxxx 8.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx } Shared LOS: A * ' ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A t 1 1 I Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIG8 - PM Peak Fri Apr 25, 2003 13:39:31 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Total Future 2005 (With Development) Level Of Service Computation Report 1 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 SW 74th Avenue/SW Cedarcrest Street Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L - ,T - R L - T - R L- T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I--------------- II--------------- II II I Volume Module: PM Peak Base Vol: 17 20 0 0 19 5 7 0 25 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 18 21 0 0 20 5 7 0 27 0 0 0 Added Vol: 4 4 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 22 25 0 0 27 5 7 0 33 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 28 32 0 0 34 7 9 0 41 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 28 32 0 0 34 7 9 0 41 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------I II--------------- ll--------------- II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 41 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 124 xxxx 37 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1582 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 876 xxxx 1041 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1582 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 864 xxxx 1041 xxxx xxxx xxxxx I II--------------- (f--------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx 8.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * # A * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * L ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.7 xxxxxx 12 12 ApprcachLOS: * * A J u~ .i Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIG8 - PM Peak Fri Apr 25, 2003 13:44:04 Page 1-1 OR03.010.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Total Future 2005 (With Development) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 SW 74th Ave/Site Access Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T--=--R- L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R i Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0-10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 I-------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 2 0 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 2 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 P11F Volume: 0 2 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 li Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 FollowUpTim:xxxxxxxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------II---------------II---------------I(---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxx. 1633 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1088 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1633 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1088 ------------I---------------II---------------1(---------------II---------------I Level of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.3 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * x } * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * A * * * * + * + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.3 ApproachLOS: A 7 Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC. MITIG8 - AM Peak Fri Apr 25, 2003 13:32:32 Page 1-1 I---------------------------------------------------------------- OR03.O10.T01 - Ash Creek Subdivision Total Future 2005 (With Development) Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 116 SW 74th Ave/Site Access Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L- T - R L - T - R ------------I--------------- li--------------- II--------------- II---------------i Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ------------I---------------il---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 User Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------i Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1633 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1088 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1633 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1086 I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.4 LOS by Move: + + * A * * * * * * + A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * A ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.4 ApproachLOS: * * ' A DA J ✓V 1 J Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to STEIN ENGINEERING, INC.