Hearings Officer Packet - 04/27/1992 CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER
1. Concerning Case Number(s): SUB 92- 0001 /VAR 92- 0001 /SLR 92 -0001
2. Name of Owner: Constance Robinson
Name of Applicant: OTAX, Inc.
3. Address 17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd. City Lake Oswego State OR Zip 97035
4. Address of Property: 12000 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 10BD, tax lot 1200 & 2S1 10BC, tax lot 1500
5. Request: A request for approval of the following development
applications: 1) Subdivision approval to divide a 16.83
acre parcel into 50 lots ranging between 9,570 square feet
to 67,495 square feet; 2) Variance approval for the
following: 1) to allow local street grades of as much as
13.5 percent whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (M) allows a
maximum local street grade of 12 percent; 2) to allow
development of two cul -de -sac local streets of 432 feet
whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (X) allows a maximum cul-
de -sac length of 400 feet; 3) Sensitive Lands Review
approval to allow road construction and residential
development on slopes in excess of 25 percent. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1,
3.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.1, 8.1.3. and
Community Development Code Sections 18.50, 18.92, 18.134,
18.150, 18.160, 18.164.
Zone: R -4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) The R -4.5 zone
allows single family residential units, public support
facilities, residential treatment homes, farming,
manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations,
temporary uses, residential fuel tanks, and accessory
structures among other uses.
6. Action: Approval as requested
X Approval with conditions
Denial
7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall,
and mailed to:
X The applicant and owner(s)
X Owners of record within the required distance
X The affected Neighborhood Planning
Organization
X Affected governmental agencies
8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON April 27, 1992
UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can
be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW
Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in
accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that
a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and
sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be
accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs (varies up
to a maximum of $500.00).
The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. April 27, 1992
10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard
Planning Department, 639 -4171.
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY ORTIGARD, OREGON
In the matter of an application by The Aspen Group for ) FINAL ORDER
approval of a preliminary plat for a 50 -lot subdivision, ) SUB 92 -0001
sensitive lands review, and cul-de -sac variance south of ) SLR 92 -0001
Bull Mountain Road and west of McFarland Boulevard ) VAR 92 -0001
in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Aspen Ridge)
I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide about 16.83 acres into a
50 -lot subdivision. Proposed lots comply with the dimensional and frontage requirements
of the R -4.5 (Residential) zone and will be used for single family detached dwellings.
Portions of the site exceed 25 percent grades. The applicant requests approval of a
sensitive land review to allow roads, utilities, and homes on those portions of the site.
The applicant will dedicate and improve a public streets on and adjoining the site. Two of
the proposed streets are cul de sacs that exceed 400 feet in length. One of the proposed
streets will have a grade that exceeds 12 percent. Both these circumstances violate City
road standards. The applicant requests approval of a variance for these streets.
Hearings Officer Larry Epstein held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 1992 to
consider the application. City staff recommended conditional approval of the subdivision.
The applicant accepted most recommended conditions of approval, with clarification. The
applicant objected to having to identify finished floor elevations on required grading plans.
Ten area residents testified with objections and concerns regarding the subdivision. Chief
among those concerns were the impact of the subdivision on access to adjoining property,
the substandard condition of Bull Mountain Road, the impact of the development on storm
water and ground water drainage on downstream property, and the character of the area.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearings officer held open the public record for 10
days to provide time for additional public testimony, particularly regarding the "future street
plan" and geotechnical conditions. The applicant and other witnesses introduced additional
written evidence. City staff responded to that evidence by memorandum dated April 10.
LOCATION: 12000 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S1 10BD, Tax lot 1200 and
WCTM 2S1 10BC, Tax lot 1500
ZONING: R -4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units /acres) (once City zoning is applied to the site)
APPLICANT: The Aspen Group represented by OTAK, Inc.
PROPERTY OWNER: Constance Robinson
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Ch. 18.50, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92,
18.150, 18.160, and 18.164 and Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2,
7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3; Resolution and Order 91-47
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve
HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION: Conditionally approved
Page 1 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS -
The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the findings about the site and surroundings
in Section II of the City of Tigard Staff Report dated March 23, 1992. •
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
A. Community Development Code.
1. Chapter 18.50 contains standards for the R -4.5 zone. A single family detached
residential unit is a permitted use in the zone. Lots in the zone and structures on those
lots must comply with the following dimensional requirements:
Minimum lot size 7500 sq ft Front setback 20 feet
Ave. min. lot width... 50 feet Interior side setback 5 feet
Rear setback 15 feet Street side setback ...15 feet (20 feet garage)
Max. bldg. height 30 feet
2. Chapter 18.84 contains the regulations for land subject to sensitive lands review.
Section 18.84.040B provides development on land with slopes of 25 percent or more
must comply with the following criteria:
a. 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;
b. 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;
c. 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;
compressive/organic; and shallow depth to bedrock; and
d. 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 18.100, Landscaping and
Screening.
3. Chapter 18.88 contains solar access standards. A lot complies with this chapter if it
has a north -south dimension of 90 feet or more, and has a front lot line that is oriented
within 30 degrees of a true east -west axis; or if a protected solar building line is
designated on the plat or on documents recorded with the plat; or if solar performance -
oriented standards are imposed on future structures. A subdivision complies with this
section if 80% or more of the newly created lots comply with this standard.
4. Chapter 18.92 contains standards for density. The number of dwelling units
permitted is based on the net development area, excluding sensitive land areas and land
dedicated for public roads or parks. To determine the number of lots, multiply the net
development area by the number of units allowed per acre in the zone.
(.
Page 2 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92 -0001 /SLR 92 -0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
•
5. Chapter 18.150 requires a permit and contains standards for removal of trees having
a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter 4 feet above the ground on undeveloped land. A
permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria:
a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere with utility
service or traffic safety;
b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements or to
otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner,
c. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage problems;
d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or as a desirable
balance between shade and open space;
e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the
tree removal; and
f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the aesthetic value
of trees to be cut.
6. Chapter 18.160 contains standards for land divisions. To be approved, a
preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria:
a. It must comply with the City's comprehensive plan and the applicable zoning
ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations;
b. The proposed plat name is not duplicative, unless the land to be platted is
contiguous to and platted by the same party that platted the subdivision originally
bearing the name, or unless the applicant files and record the consent of the party
that platted the subdivision originally bearing the name, and the plat otherwise
satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92;
c. 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 modify the street or road pattern ...
7. Variances to the Code development standards may be approved if:
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;
b. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision;
c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and
d. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict
compliance with the regulations of this title.
Page 3 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
8. Chapter 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities.
a. Section 18.164.O30(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be
dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street.
b. Section 18.164.O3O(E) requires a cul de sac to be improved with a minimum 42-
foot paved section between curbs in a 50 -foot radius right of way. .A local street is
required to have a 34 -foot paved section between curbs in a 50 -foot right of way.
c. Section 18.164.O30(F) provides:
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...
d. Section 18.164.O30(K) states that a cul -de -sac shall be as short as possible, not
more than 400 feet long, and shall terminate in a circular turnaround.
e. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 2 -1/2 times the lot
width and requires at least 25 feet of frontage on a street.
f. Section 18.164.070, 18.164.090, and 18.164.100 requires sidewalks adjoining
all local residential streets, sanitary sewer service, and adequate provisions for
storm water runoff.
B. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies.
1. Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure citizens will be provided an opportunity
for be involved in all phases of the planning process.
2. Policy 3.1.1 provides the City will not allow development in areas with a high
seasonal water table, severe erosion potential, earth movement, slopes exceeding 25 %,
or severely weak foundation soils except where it is shown that established and proven
engineering techniques related to the site plan make the area suitable for development.
3. Policy 4.2.1 provides that all developments within the Tigard Urban Planning Area
shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards.
4. Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, and 7.6.1 provide the City will require as a condition
of approval that public water, sewer, and storm drainage will be provided and designed
to City standards and utilities placed underground, and that there is an adequate water
supply for fire protection purposes, that the use will not reduce water pressure below
levels needed for that purpose, and that the fire district has reviewed the request.
5. Policy 8.1.1 provides the City will plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway
system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development.
6. Policy 8.1.3 provides the City will require as a precondition of approval that:
a. Development abuts a dedicated street or has other adequate access;
b. Street right of way shall be dedicated where the street is substandard in width;
Page 4 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
c. The developer shall commit to construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to
City standards within the development; and
d. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or signals shall be provided
when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard.
C. Resolution and Order 91-47.
Resolution and Order 91-47 requires all new developments that add additional
impervious surface to include a water quality treatment facility.
W. HEARING, TESTIMONY, AND NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Hearing.
The Hearings Officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on
March 23, 1992 and from that date until April 10, when the public record closed. A
record of that testimony is included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B
(Taped Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at
the Tigard City Hall.
B. Summary of selected relevant testimony.
1. Jerry Offer and Chris Davies testified for the City. Mr. Offer summarized the staff
report, highlighted issues raised by Tri -Met and area residents, and recommended an
additional condition regarding geotechnical review and an amendment to a condition of
approval regarding a pedestrian easement. Mr. Davies testified about road and drainage
concerns. He noted that final engineered plans for the drainage system will require that
the on -site storm water detention facility be adequate to accommodate design storm
flows and to meter out water at no greater rate than can be handled by the King City
treatment plant. He opined that on -site water quality enhancement is inappropriate,
because of the steep grade of slopes on the site and problems regarding City access to
water quality facilities. He conceded erosion control could be problematic; therefore,
erosion control plans need to be prepared in great detail and implemented as approved.
2. David Bantz testified for OTAK on behalf of the applicant. He discussed the
proposed road plans at length, arguing that the proposed intersection with Bull
Mountain Road provides the greatest sight distance possible; that shorter cul de sacs
east and west of the main north -south street would be inefficient and create oddly -
shaped lots; and that alternative street designs studied by OTAK created severe grade
problems. Regarding the future street plan, he explained the cul de sacs do not extend
to the west edge of the site, because it would require a greater variance and would force
new homes on land to the west to be closer to Bull Mountain Road. He requested that
the decision allow variations from existing City mad standards if new City standards
are adopted before the subdivision is built. He described the storm water drainage plan
and testified that preliminary calculations show the detention pipeline can function as
planned without increasing the rate of storm water run -off. He described how the
proposed alley would work and why it is proposed. He objected to a recommended
condition of approval that could be construed to require sidewalks and driveways to be
installed before the final plat is recorded. Mr. Davies responded that improvements are
not required if a bond securing such improvements is posted. He also objected to a
recommended condition requiring the grading plan to show finished floor elevations at
Page 5 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92 -0001 /SLR 92 -0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
four points on each lot, arguing that the applicant does not and cannot know for certain
what finished floor elevations will be, because that depends on the house plan and
location selected ultimately by the purchaser of each lot. He objected to a recommended
condition requiring a pedestrian easement at the southeast comer of the site, arguing it
leads only to private property and will not result in a continuous pedestrian system. He
requested that the improvements the applicant will make to Bull Mountain Road qualify
for Traffic Impact Fee (111-9 credit, because it is a collector road. Mr. Bantz also
responded to the neighbors' testimony. During that process, he agreed to accept public
review of the final drainage and erosion control plan for the site.
3. Ken and Ellen Dickey, Thelma Perry, Shirley Burback, Nick Garrett, LW. Morgan,
Richard Stelow, Beverly Froude, Bruce Strahan and Paul Whitney testified with
objections and concerns. Mr. Whitney, Mr. Stelow and Larry Westerman also
introduced written statements.
a. Several of these witnesses testified with concerns about the density of the
proposal when compared to the density of surrounding development generally.
These witnesses requested that the density of the subdivision be reduced, noting
that also would reduce drainage and traffic concerns.
b. Most of these witnesses testified with concerns about the existing substandard
level of improvements along Bull Mountain Road, particularly the lack of sidewalks
and sight distance constraints. Witnesses requested that the road be improved
beyond the limits of the project in question, particularly sidewalks between the site
and Highway 99W. One witness requested a signal at the intersection of Bull
Mountain Road and McFarland Boulevard and another requested a center turn lane.
c. Many of the witnesses, particularly those south and east of the site, testified with
concerns about storm water and ground water drainage. Witnesses noted that the
project requires considerable grading that will remove vegetation and could allow
erosion to occur. Changes in surface and subsurface conditions could change
ground water drainage patterns, as it has on other property in the vicinity. Some
witnesses argued that the lack of drainage calculations, geotechnical information,
and detention system performance details makes it impossible to ensure that erosion
and adverse drainage effects will not occur. One witness requested a continuance to
have a geotechnical study prepared.
d. Owners of property east and west of the site testified with objections to the
future street plan, arguing that the lack of extension of street stubs to their property
effectively landlocks them. The owner of the property to the east explained how
access could be provided to his site. He argued the future street plan is unrealistic,
because it requires aggregation of several smaller parcels to be able to provide
access. He also raised concerns about drainage impacts and loss of trees on his
property. The owner of the property to the west also requested that the applicant
extend a sewer lateral to their common boundary and a fence along the common
boundary.
4. After the hearing, the Hearings Officer received written statements from Mr.
Garrett, Mr. Strahan, and Mr. Stelow raising many of the same issues raised in their
earlier testimony. OTAK submitted a written statement, preliminary grading and utility
plans, an on -site detention calculation sheet, and a preliminary soils investigation. City
staff also submitted a written statement about the information received after the hearing.
Page 6 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001/SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
C. NPO and Agency Comments.
The Hearings Officer incorporates by reference the NPO and agency comments in
Sections IV of the City of Tigard Staff Report dated March 23, 1992.
V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A. Compliance with Community Development Code.
1. The proposed lots comply with Chapter 18.50. The lot comply with the use
standards of the R -4.5 zone, because they will be used for single family detached
dwelling units. The lots comply with the dimensional standards of the R -4.5 zone,
because they each contain at least 7500 square feet and a minimum average lot width of
50 feet. The existing dwelling on proposed lot 1 will continue to comply with
minimum required setbacks.
2. The proposed land form alterations on slopes exceeding 25 percent do or can
comply with Chapter 18.84, because:
a. The development does not disturb the site more than is required to provide
streets, utilities, and developable areas for each lot, based on the preliminary
grading plan. Less grading might be required to develop a subdivision with fewer
lots; however, the Hearings Officer finds such a reduction in density is not required
to comply with this chapter.
b. The proposed development could cause significant erosion. The applicant
proposes to use fabric fences and and erosion control fabric in areas of steep slopes
to minimize the potential for erosion and to trap sediment before it leaves the site.
The applicant also will protect catch basin inlets by some means to prevent them
from being clogged by sediment. The applicant proposes to re- establish vegetation
before removal of these erosion control measures. The applicant also lists
alternative measures and supplementary measures in the erosion control matrix on
the preliminary grading plan. Hydroseeding is not proposed except for
construction occurring between October 1 and April 30. Based on successful
implementation of primary or alternative erosion control measures and supplemental
methods listed for the "wet" season, including maintenance of those measures and
methods, the development is not reasonably likely to cause significant erosion of
sedimentation. Conditions of approval are warranted to ensure measures listed on
the preliminary grading plan are implemented and maintained, and to require
submission of a final erosion control plan before development on steep slopes.
c. The development could cause slope instability due to its steep slopes. However,
based on the preliminary grading plan and the soils analysis dated March 31, 1992
by James McDonald Engineering, the development will not cause slope instability.
The soils analysis does not contain any recommendations for how to protect slope
stability. A condition is warranted requiring the applicant to submit a report by a
professional engineer licensed in Oregon listing recommendations to protect slope
stability and the reason for each recommendation, and requiring the applicant to
comply with those recommendations.
d. Based on the soils analysis, the site does not contain the following soil
conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink -swell capability; compressive/organic;
and shallow depth to bedrock.
Page 7 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
e. The applicant will remove most existing natural vegetation. Basecton the
erosion control measures on the preliminary grading plan, the applicant will replant
areas disturbed by the development in accordance with Chapter 18.100.
f. Because of the size of the area of steep slopes that will be affected by
development and the potential for downhill adverse effects, a condition is warranted
requiring public notice and an opportunity for public review of final drainage, soil
stability, and erosion control plans before the City approves those plans.
3. The subdivision complies with Chapter 18.88, because at least 80 percent of the
proposed lots, (i.e., 80% x 50 = 40), will comply with solar access standards. Thirty-
five proposed lots have a front lot line oriented with 30 degrees of a true east -west line
and a north -south dimension of at least 90 feet, and the applicant proposes to use solar
building lines on five other lots. Conditions are warranted to ensure the final plat
contains solar building lines on at least five lots.
4. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92,
because the net developable area of the site (11.86 acres, excluding rights of way and
land sloped more than 25 percent) divided by 4.5 units per acre equals 67.9 lots and
only 50 lots are proposed. The City Code does not require the applicant to increase the
size of proposed lots to conform to the size of surrounding lots. The density proposed
does not exceed City limits. The subdivision will be more densely settled than
surrounding land, but that does not violate City standards or policies. Therefore, much
of the public testimony objecting to the density of the development because of its
inconsistency with surrounding lot sizes is not relevant.
5. The proposed subdivision will comply with Chapter 18.150, because the only trees
to be removed from the site are filbert trees. Unless removed, those trees could harbor
insects and diseases harmful to other nearby filbert orchards. Many of the trees have to
be removed for proposed improvements and building pads. The trees are not needed to
prevent erosion, instability or drainage problems and do not protect nearby trees from
wind. The development of the subdivision will have a much greater visual effect that
removal of the trees. The applicant will revegetate the site, based on the erosion control
measures on the preliminary grading plan. Therefore, the applicant can remove the
filbert trees pursuant to this decision and without applying for a tree removal permit on
a lot by lot basis.
6. The proposed subdivision complies with Chapter 18.160, because:
a. It complies with the Comprehensive plan map designation of the site, the
applicable plan policies, the regulations of the R -4.5 zone, and other applicable
regulations, except as otherwise noted herein.
b. The proposed name of the subdivision is not similar to the name of other
subdivisions in Washington County.
c. Streets are laid out to serve the subject site and to serve adjoining
underdeveloped land west of the south portion of the site. There are no approved
plats adjoining the site with which proposed streets must conform.
(1) Proposed streets do not serve the underdeveloped land west of the north
portion of the site (the Garrett property).
Page 8 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
(a) Access could be provided to the south portion of the Garrett property
from the southerly cul de sac by extending the cul de sac to the west edge of
the site or by granting an easement from the cul de sac or along the flag pole
for proposed lot 19 to the Garrett property.
(b) Such a right of way or easement is not required by Chapter 18.160,
because it is not necessary to conform to the plat of an approved subdivision
or partition. Such a right of way or easement may be required by Section
18.164.030(F) and Policy 8.1.1 to provide for an efficient street system that
serves anticipated future development. The south portion of the Garrett
property could be divided in the future, because of its size. The issue is
whether the City should require access to the Garrett property from the
subject site.
(c) Because access to lots that could be created from the Garrett property
can be served by a private street along the west edge of that property, and
there is more than 400 feet of sight distance where such a street intersects
Bull Mountain Road, the easement is not necessary to serve the Garrett
property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer fmds that the applicant should
not be required to grant an easement to the Garnett property.
(2) Proposed streets do not serve the underdeveloped land east of the north
portion of the site (tax lots 1300 [the Strahan property], 1400, 1500 and 1600
of 2S1 10BD).
(a) A right of way or easement for the Strahan property is not required by
Chapter 18.160, because it is not necessary to conform to the plat of an
approved subdivision or partition. Such a right of way or easement may be
required by Section 18.164.030(F) and Policy 8.1.1 to provide for an
efficient street system that serves anticipated future development. The
Strahan property and tax lots 1400, 1500 and 1600 could be divided in the
future, because of their size. The issue is whether the City should require
access to the Strahan property from the subject site.
(b) Access could be provided to the Strahan property from the north-south
street on the site by extending a right of way or granting an easement from
the street to the Strahan property.
(i) Extending the northern cul de sac to the east would have negligible
value, because it would intersect (or nearly intersect) the home on the
Strahan property. Therefore, it would not provide desirable access to
the property unless the existing substantial home there is removed, and
it would create a lot with roads on three sides.
(ii) Extending the southerly cul de sac would not serve the Strahan
property.
(iii) An easement for a private street between proposed lots 46 and 47
or 47 and 48 could provide access to the three lots that could be
developed on the south portion of the Strahan property without
requiring removal of the home on that property. It would create an
intersection within 100 feet of the cul de sac streets. The applicant
Page 9 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
argued this would create a hazardous condition; however, the City does
not require intersections on a local street to be separated by a minimum
distance, and there would be ample sight distance from the intersection
of a private drive to the Strahan property and the north -south street on
the subject site. Therefore, the Hearings Officer concludes that a private
driveway to the Strahan property from the north -south street would not
create an inherently dangerous condition.
(c) The subdivision could be redesigned to serve the Strahan property. For
instance, the north -south street could be aligned along the east edge of the
subject site, although that would increase the variance needed for the
proposed cul de sacs on the site. Or the northerly cul de sac street could be
relocated south, although that would decrease the efficiency of development
on the subject site. Due to the adverse effects of such a redesign, the
Hearings Officer concludes the applicant should not be required to
substantially redesign the preliminary plat to provide access to the Strahan
property. .
(d) Steep slopes on the south portion of the Strahan property make an ease-
west street across that property problematic; it would have a grade of 22
percent based on the applicant's analysis. Further east, the slopes are even
greater, making a safe east -west street there impossible. Therefore, that part
of the Off-site Analysis Circulation Plan (Exhibit C) showing such an east-
west street is not realistic. The only access feasible from the site to
properties to the east is an access that would serve the Strahan property
exclusively.
(e) A north-south street extending south of Bull Mountain Road at
McFarland Boulevard (Exhibit 3) is possible within City street grade
standards. Such a street would require cooperation of three property
owners, making it more difficult to develop.
(f) Based on the foregoing, access to lots that could be created from the
Strahan property cannot be provided except across other properties. The
instant subdivision provides an immediate opportunity for such access to be
created. The Hearings Officer concludes that, under these circumstances,
there is a public interest in requiring the applicant to grant a minimum 30-
foot easement for vehicle and pedestrian access to the Strahan property
between (or over) lots 46 and 47 or 47 and 48 so that the Strahan property
can be developed as permitted by existing zoning without relying on
cooperation by third parties who do not propose to develop their property.
7. Variances to the cul de sac length standard and street grade standard are warranted
based on the following findings:
a. The street grade variance is warranted by steep slopes. The cul de sac length
variance is warranted by the limitations on sight distance along Bull Mountain
Road. Steep slopes and sight distance limitation constitute special circumstances
affecting the property that are unusual and peculiar to the subject site as compared to
other land in the same zone and vicinity.
b. The street grade variance is necessary to provide access to the site without
requiring excessive grading with more significant potential adverse effects. The cul
Page 10 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
de sac length variance is necessary to prevent creation of lots that exceed lot depth
to width standards or that violate frontage standards.
•
c. The street grade variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare or to the rights of owners of other properties, because of the short length of
the street section that will be affected by the variance, and because emergency
vehicle access is adequate based on responses from the Fire District. The cul de sac
length variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or to
the rights of owners of other properties, because of the relatively small size of the
variance and the number of lots served by each cul de sac.
d. Denial of the variance would result in an extraordinary hardship to the applicant,
because of the loss of at least one lot and the resulting design of the subdivision
which would be inconsistent with the design of other recently approved
subdivisions in the vicinity.
8. The proposed subdivision can comply with Chapter 18.164, because:
a. The applicant will dedicate to the City right of way for streets on and adjoining
the site and will improve those streets to applicable road standards, with the
exceptions noted above. The Hearings Officer agrees with City staff that immediate
improvement of Bull Mountain Road is warranted, despite the recommendation of
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation. A bus turn-out
should be provided east -bound along the Bull Mountain Road frontage as
recommended by the school district to accommodate increased use from the
subdivision. A turn- around should be provided at the west end of the stub street to
provide adequate maneuvering for emergency vehicles.
b. The applicant should be required to grant an easement for access needed to
permit future division of adjoining land to the east, pursuant to Section
18.164.030(F). See finding V.A.6.c.(2).
c. The proposed lots are consistent with Code standards for maximum lot depth-to-
width ratio, minimum lot frontage, and other lot standards. Although proposed lots
1 through 6 will have frontage on Bull Mountain Road and the northerly cul de sac,
deed restrictions can prohibit direct vehicular access to Bull Mountain Road to
protect the traffic carrying capacity of that street and minimize the potential for
intersection conflicts. A joint use and maintenance easement should be executed for
proposed lots 26 through 31 regulating use and maintenance of the private alley that
will serve those lots, and the alley should be signed as recommended by City staff.
d. The street on and adjoining the site will be improved with sidewalks.
e. All lots will be served by public water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage
systems. Conditions are warranted to require the applicant to provide for extension
of sewer lines to the west edge of the subject site in the public right of way of the
southerly street and in an easement from the southerly cul de sac to the east edge of
the Garret property, given the need to consider and serve potential additional
development in the vicinity. Conditions also are warranted as recommended by the
City Engineering Division to ensure that adequate storm drainage is provided along
the east edge of the site, to use storm sewers rather than open drainage channels, to
provide system details and capacity calculations, and to ensure downstream
properties are not adversely affected by off -site flows. The Hearings Officer
Page 11 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
concludes that the proposed development will not increase the potential for adverse
off-site drainage effects due to effects on subsurface water patterns, based on the
report by Mr. McDonald.
B. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies.
1. The subdivision complies with Policy 2.1.1, because notice of the application or
hearing was provided to the neighborhood planning organization, to the community
planning organization, and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site, and notice
of the hearing was posted on the subject site.
2. The subdivision complies with Policy 3.1.1, because the applicant provided
sufficient detailed information that shows development of portions of the site sloped
more than 25 percent will not cause erosion or soil instability. More detailed
information about the proposed grading, drainage, erosion control measures should be
required and subject to public review before development to fulfill this policy and
Policy 2.1.1. Conditions recommended by the Building Division regarding grading
should apply to development.
3. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to require the
applicant to prepare an erosion plan as part of the grading permit application, consistent
with standards for the Tualatin River. Basin and Resolution and Order 91 -47 or
subsequent amendments thereto.
4. The subdivision complies with Policies 7.1.2,7.3.1, 7.4.4, and 7.6.1, because the
applicant will extend public sewer and water system to the site, will provide a storm
drainage system and will provide underground utilities.
5. The subdivision will comply with Policy 8.1.1 and 8.1.3, because the subdivision
provides a safe and efficient street system and includes dedications and improvements
necessary for that system. See findings V.A.6 through 8.
C. Compliance with Resolution and Order 91-47.
The proposed use can comply with Resolution and Order 91 -47 by providing on -site
surface water quality features or alternatives permitted by law.
VI. SITE VISIT BY HEARINGS OFFICER
The Hearings Officer visited the site and surrounding area.
VII. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed subdivision and variances will promote
the general welfare of the City, and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to
surrounding land uses, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with
applicable local, state, and federal law.
In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff
Report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in
this matter, the Hearings Officer hereby approves SUB 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge), SLR 92-
001, and VAR 92 -0001, subject to the following conditions. Staff contact for all
conditions is Chris Davies, Engineering Division, 639 -4171, unless otherwise noted.
Page 12 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92 -0001 /SLR 92 -0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
1. The applicant shall submit a final plat to the City for review and approval within 18
months of the effective date of this decision. Before the City accepts the final plat for
review and approval, an order annexing the subject property to the City shall be
executed and filed with the Oregon Secretary of State.
2. Unless otherwise provided by this decision, before the City issues any permits for
construction of the subdivision, the applicant shall:
a. Fulfill all conditions of approval; and
b. Either complete public improvements and have those improvements accepted by
the City or financially secure completion of those improvements.
3. Before the final plat is filed with the Washington County Recorder, the applicant
shall comply with the following:
a. The final plat shall:
(1) Provide for the creation of not more than 50 lots substantially similar to
those illustrated on the preliminary plat;
(2) Show lot dimensions comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-
4.5 zone;
(3) Comply with ORS 92, City of Tigard Community Development Code
standards except as otherwise allowed herein, and Washington County
standards except to the extent otherwise provided, by the County;
(4) Provide for dedication of rights of way for public streets in and adjoining
the subdivision substantially similar to those illustrated on the preliminary plat.
A minimum 50 -foot right of way shall be provided for streets within the
subdivision. A minimum 33 -foot half -width right of way shall be provided for
Bull Mountain Road, increased as necessary to accommodate a bus . turn-out
adjoining the east -bound travel lane. The applicant shall submit to the City
Engineering Department written proof that an instrument dedicating required
right of way has been submitted to Washington County;
(5) Show a one -foot non - access reserve strip along the Bull Mountain Road
frontage except at its intersection with the north -south street on the site;
(6) Show a minimum 10 -foot wide pedestrian easement from the west end of
the southerly cul de sac to the west edge of the site, and identify the easement as
such. The applicant is not required to improve this easement.
(7) Show a minimum 30 -foot wide vehicular and pedestrian easement from the
north -south street to the east edge of the site roughly between proposed lots 46
and 47 or lots 47 and 48, and identify the easement as such. The applicant is
not required to improve this easement.
(8) Show a utility easement for a sewer line from the southerly cul de sac to the
west edge of the property for extension of public sewer to land to the west, and
label the easement as such. This easement may include land burdened by the
pedestrian easement required by condition 3.a.(6) above.
Page 13 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92 -0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
(9) Show a one -foot reserve strip at the west end of the east -west street that
stubs to the west edge of the site and convey that strip to the City.
(10) Identify the private alley as such and note that the City has no
responsibility for the improvement or maintenance of that alley and that owners
of property served by that alley are subject to a joint use and maintenance
agreement regarding the alley.
(11) Show easements for private storm drain lines along the west property lines
of proposed lots 14 through 17 and the east property line of proposed lot 18 to
serve proposed lots 7 though 11, unless an alternative location for such lines is
approved by the City Engineer.
(12) Show easements for a public storm sewer along the south edge of
proposed lots 32 through 41 and along the east edge of proposed lots 41
through 50 and for access to that sewer approved by the City Engineer.
(13) Show or note a 20 -foot setback is required on the north and south sides of
proposed lots 2 through 6 and a 15 -foot corner yard setback is required for
proposed lots 1 and 50. Staff contact: Jerry Offer.
(14) Show protected solar building lines on at least 5 lots in the subdivision
that do not comply with the basic standards for solar access, and prohibit
development south of the line on each lot unless it complies with the solar
balance point regulations of the City.
(15) Note that, before the City issues a building permit for development on
slopes exceeding 25 percent before development, an applicant must show that
the proposed structure will be sited and designed to ensure structural stability.
Also note that development on each lot shall comply with approved erosion -
control measures for the subdivision, a copy of which is available from the City
Engineering Department.
b. The applicant shall submit two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and
profile construction drawings to the Engineering Department for preliminary review
and approval. The applicant shall submit seven (7) sets of approved drawings and
one (1) itemized construction cost estimate. The plans and estimate shall be
prepared by a professional engineer licensed in Oregon. These plans are in addition
to plans required by the Building Division and should include only those sheets
relating to public improvements.
(1) The plans shall show that the maximum grade on proposed streets will not
exceed 12 percent generally and, for any given 200 -foot section, will not exceed
13.5 percent. The plans also shall show that proposed cul de sacs will not
exceed 440 feet in length.
(2) The applicant shall submit a statement from the Tualatin Valley Fire and
Rescue District approving the final proposed grades for the streets.
(3) The plan for the southerly east -west street shall provide for a temporary
turn- around and barricade at the west stub of the street.
(
Page 14 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
(4) The street plans shall provide for full width street improvements to local
street standards, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete
sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary
sewers, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities.
(5) The applicant shall submit a plan profile and cross section details for the
proposed private alley.
(6) The applicant shall submit details of the proposed drainage system,
calculations about the capacity of existing, proposed and future on- and off -site
system features assuming full build -out of the drainage basin, and a topographic
map of the drainage basin as part of the public improvement plans. The plans
shall show that the storm drainage system will not significant adversely affect
downstream properties and facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(i) The applicant shall use a pipe material for the storm water detention
facility that complies with City standard or apply to the City Engineer for an
alternative material that has a minimum design service life of 75 years
consistent with Oregon Department of Transportation standards.
(ii) The applicant shall replace the proposed private storm drain line
between lots 7 through 18 with a public line and an appropriate access road
or provide private easements and systems along the west property lines of
lots 14 through 17 and along the east property line of lot 18 to serve lots 7
through 11; or an alternative acceptable to the City Engineer.
(iii) The applicant shall provide a public storm sewer along the rear lot lines
of lots 32 through 50 with adequate access for maintenance purposes as
approved by the City Engineer.
(iv) The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report by a professional
engineer licensed in Oregon that investigates and evaluates soils and
subsurface drainage conditions on the site and recommends specific
measures to prevent development from causing significant soil erosion and
slope instability. The public improvement plans shall comply with
recommendations in the geotechnical report.
(7) Not less than 20 days before approving the plans and details required by
condition 3.b.(6), the City shall provide written notice to owners of property
entitled to notice of the hearing regarding the subdivision application that final
drainage plans have been submitted. That notice shall invite public review of
and comments regarding those plans.
(8) Plans for the proposed sanitary sewer system shall include extension of a
line to the west edge of the property within the public road right of way and a
line within an easement extending west of the southerly cul de sac, or an
alternative location approved by the City Engineer.
(9) The plans shall provide that the applicant will install all public sanitary and
storm lines in public rights of way except as otherwise provided herein or
approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall install the approved lines.
Page 15 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
c. The applicant shall submit plans, obtain City approval, and provide financial
assurance for the construction of all public streets within the subdivision and for a
storm drainage system to serve the subdivision. These improvements shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Tigard.
The improvements shall be completed and accepted by the City within the time
frame specified in the public assurance contract.
d. The applicant shall submit a grading plan showing existing and proposed
contours and typical fmished floor elevations on each lot, including elevations at 4
different corners of the floor plan tied to the top of the curb elevations as shown on
the public improvement plans.
(1) The 4 corner elevations shall be based on the proposed grading plan and
reasonable assumptions about finished floor elevations. The actual fmished
floor elevations may vary from those on the approved plan, provided such
variations are approved in the review process for building permits and any
subsequent grading permits necessary to implement them.
(2) The grading plan shall identify proposed tree removal. A copy of the
approved grading plan shall be available on -site during tree removal activities.
(3) The finished slope of cuts and fills shall have a maximum slope of 2:1 or
else a professional engineer shall certify the stability of steeper slopes.
e. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of an erosion control plan. The
plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook,"
November, 1989. Areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces shall be
revegetated as soon as possible after grading.
f. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre- construction meeting with the
City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the plans but prior to
starting any work on the site. The applicant, applicant's engineer, and contractor
shall attend this meeting before receiving approved plans/permits.
g. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of construction of a water quality facility as
authorized by Washington County Resolution and Order No. 91 -47.
h. The applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department a profile of Bull
Mountain Road adjoining and within 300 feet of the site, showing the existing and
proposed road grades and improvements. The applicant shall submit a written
statement by a professional engineer licensed in Oregon certifying that the sight
distance at the proposed intersection of Bull Mountain Road and the proposed
north -south street complies with City standards.
i. The applicant shall submit plans for Bull Mountain Road improvements to and
obtain approval of those plans from the Washington County Engineering Division
and City of Tigard Engineering Department and submit a Facility Permit for those
improvements from Washington County to the City. The applicant shall install
standard half - street improvements along the Bull Mountain Road frontage,
including concrete sidewalk, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, storm drainage,
street lights, underground utilities, and a bus turn-out.
Page 16 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 /SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
j. The applicant shall execute joint use and maintenance agreements on forms
provided by the City for lots served by the private alley and any other common
driveways and file those agreements with the Washington County Recorder.
k. The applicant shall improve the private alley, post signs on the alley prohibiting
parking there, and post a sign at the entry to the alley noting that the alley is
privately owned and maintained.
i ATE /this 15th da -' April, 1992.
•
pji
— A AA . _ , _
Larry Epste ire g • Officer
Page 17 - Hearings Officer decision
SUB 92- 0001 1SLR 92- 0001 /VAR 92 -0001 (Aspen Ridge)
, - vili
The City of
.• RYLiSCT. W
II. T I CARD r� I
'' S UB 92 -0001
____
-___ Sr
r.r
END. \\N
f ylOWTAIN Site Area �\
BULL �
\ \ 1,
illitiPVI ,,
G
..._ hp dill , ,
\ Ow. RD ,
i le -> SITE f
2S 1 1 B C— 0 1 0 0 a DI gite� le,. b map rep
. �i�,r Wien tom (hid by the tlly
2S11 8D -01 00 °PI .. OW of 'Maud ulilitieg teegra—
erne ►Iic Internetlee Syete CIS) oellearo. letor � , V "i -dr ' 'Maud motion pertroye/ lor 1
r.________ .O � to ` 0430..'.! .,, moy be ieteeded to be
` ( ,. , _ � . 000d ei'Ib addition
4 N U R T fl Ise iedl a / /or
� ill
o inter retoliee do ;e
u deternl.el l y
Si 44 . gia# - `� it ?:.�
:2r:;?gl♦ tblctty fige
iiimm
. Q
� Ai (llpsuebtt)
dbo (t11/31112)
0