The URL can be used to link to this page

SDR1992-00020 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. 1 } . �• ,,i..•as,-Jwh.a..+.n' ._,,,;,,,,,,,,.}•w✓ f,t t YM i`r 1;..,.A f <. 1�II qt`s J v.,4:: %;s r ' {{ ��/ �.. �,.:.,.. '., .,�}' 9 f ��F � K�+.It+ `1ra }n , •..1:..Ai..�.T t.,yn.�Lji�i v.c. ;+°,Y.d �' 4 .,1..; .-'.' k wr{+w,l. "ikNMM�fi'h'hn Ya n .,:: / .� ,1 OI Ai a. , . .. ,,,,. 1/'''�t I, $ )t I. 9{.2r 1 2 W�� f I °N 1 133840 s P5O.8 14.4 '.11, v - : -§ : to :, '' � r' 1 2$1 2DI SOo & '41oO i C • l (71 Ij� ,.. / • ... .',. � rA.Y'14�i„'�td,+�+L•M•.r•4 fig 1t,�J . 1 r n Ma.S��:Lu•n'.GYWM�'M.w,�.•+uv.�rv,n•MM3�{I. .wr�4aYt rv:., •i . ' • � ,,, �:�..-�Y I_,.u:,,.+a -�R_ �..w..uul•:'+ie.drraa..xwus.,_i1...waiA'�t,At.S:ry'wu;:.PPI' 1 '/ � N,.n..+:4'.-•w,,..:Gl..-...:::.....Mw..,...�+ad.....GiTt,ii,.k.w..-7w....k.,k•;,.:J d.,,a,.+.L.1 M..t,l:a:,.,..u..ta..+...x-,M1 A ld... Y.r• , i f I m 1 ,s p' d S, �V 11 1 % i 11 I b,l' 1)• ff 1 I1 1 , , l If .1 . , A c 1994 , CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .' AGRFEY NT WITH DEPOSITOR AND TRUSTEE ON SAVINGS OR 'DEPOSIT Th;s agreement is for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements c� __ Compliance P.greernenc, • F dated Q994 _. between the City of Tigard and ' l an Solares, an ].?lt?. "J?dual and is ent rr d into by the Depositor �;1 l �rx 0o,..4' .es ar' ' H '' r'a ' Triste n I`}' ^.�+h,: undersigned depositor and trustee do hereby assign the right to . he ' • CIL:fit cE Tigard to determine at its discretion the payment of all funds` .: . held by Trustee in the amount of $89300.00.. in Savings r or' securities . 259-6510189 - , or Deposit No. ill. ao,:o.r ,write with and for the purpose of assuri nr ' ' improvements described in the above states'. ..ace , ;: Comp_ a • fi . A,.7 r erne n t, r:' . .+ Ic 1 understood an-4 agreed that the Trustee will hold such funds O. ... ,� 89,300.00' until ' - i r : se..u.w ties in the a curs. of �� _ un•ti� an autr.ur at.._ c, d_to Lion for payment or partial payment is received from the City ., Tig.Ird and that the City cf Tigard has the right to withd-.aw Princin,_ • Fun,:.s with City cf Tigard sigr'ature only, in the event t of I'L r:- . Perf:_:nanc . . term,:fund deposits shall he renewable maturity and at e and e i? effect at the time o: renewal, and all inte:est shall be paid to tL" ac :r ied as directed by the Depositor notwithstanding anyt-:ilia conta e.: . , herein to the contrary.,';. Thd:. account is to remain open until such time as all Public Imp:oveme:tts 4 . • ar- :.`'cnrpletet�. and a cectea by the City of Tigard. . • J ' a dated az _ Tigard gor . , , This. I�, 22 day '..-if ___April 9�1 wµFY , Si n� tare M- City of i+ rd Signature or Depositor + ,..��Or (Allan SVlare:s) i 11 ' s W. !Flab. G:•,+,�t r'i.• r i t')P 972':3 x13556 Twin dates Lane ~ V . Address Lake O e o OR 97,11'; t�d� c-s� ,- u� fi t -L -:`. ACCEP Ai"1c. 'I (Trull-,ae j T!i uno_ers, n;d hereLy accepts 'he funds or securities de "osit;ed in Cllr attt,)urst of .89 300. t,hi;s 22 ____ day of ,April _ 0 1994 . and w Y s a� .;�''. 1a� reo�y acknowledges is � �ipt of f~`rir, Passbook Sartingfi Account L`!u: n/a ,u riL, t r the CertifiLcattr for Deposit No t1lyt ,r (-r t e' issued , ,;a., certifies that thaL�,r• 1.: no >:-acys;L�o��. d for. this account , It �:� t • • ut l,he'r agreed that sh:►id account will be held for the .uses and purpO eJ al*,,")vE, stated Until : t t I„w it,at:Loti fpt: disposition is granted by the City of +l igarca '. \: Authorized Signature (Tru:�Lee) ,,`\ ► 1 1h5, 14W PaC.'i t'i • 1irdV 'I i 1.-tl Or. 0 ',.' ' ' �I tv'',I l t t w't't)i;1 i t,t 11'(I1',. 1' 14R' , J f �,J I 1 ' { I)0;y.., r`), .[�' � t , 7 \'1 ,{1+Y l', � i ‘I . '1 .U1 /•1•, •1 a � ' ' + ., ' - I- r - •�� .,t ��!��.,', . C ,L \ . 1.'_1 Iii�W , 'I. ,I._t. I / .i ., I` 1 '. ., ', � I I ••y 1 I -t t l + I.171 ..,.f `, ! ,'d A 1• { 4x •,' . 1. • SUBCONTRACT FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 1ECTION 1 f AGREEMENT • • . • This Agreement is made this 2nd day March, 1993, by and between Kenneth Solares hereinafter called • �• • . Landscape Indui Subcontractor, to • the Contractor or C2wner,and Northwest Industries hereinafter called the Subcont perform pars of the Work on the following Project: '• • y. • 1 C, PROJECT: Fanno Creek Village, Inc, • . ' 13300 S.W. Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 :p. OWNER: Kenneth Solares 13556 Twin Creeks Lane Lake Oswego, OR 97035 • (503)624-9601 • OWNER'S • AGENT: Allan Solares 13556 Twin Creeds Lane, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503)624-9601 '` ARCHITECT: Macketizie Saito and Associates f 0690 S.W. Bancroft �. Portland, Olt 97201-0039 CONTRACTOR: Same as Owner SUBCON"i'RACTOR Northwest Landscape lndustrles • 16075 S.W. Upper Boons Ferry Road Tigard, OR 97224 (503)684-1450' • • CONTRACT PRICE: $89,300 Notice to the parties shall be given at the above addresses. t f II 1 rvj �{ • ' 4, • , •k . '�1, r 1• i.� i .� r� ,' (, I• / r n. n r � w r,. l r I I OONTRAOTOR (Seat) SOl.ARES HOMES, IN`^a Attest: f 41 I { 1 Project Manager CTOR (Seal) I U CONTRA r • � B NORTHWEST l NDSCAPE INDUSTRIES k • Attest: y: rr• Title:, Title: • r. I • r , • I ti f • 12 , { I S{ I • r. q • -. r.:...r...r•. 'w. .,,.x lam..:,.... ,.,...„yi,l.r t, .<.� . '-4 «.,...: _.,..... ,r.. t.,. ..«. .., Lr ..lJa+ ul 4.1.....L..., ..m.w-...,. -r r.A.—. J.Sia,...n-. r-.1. ...1, • �y k � PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: SDR 92-0020 1 VAR 92-0020 FILE TITLE. SOLARES ' ;'"kPPLICANT: Allan Solare 3 OWNER: Kenneth Solarea, 1 62 Estates :Drive Creeks Lz't. Twin C 1:356 6T �. ' •� , Lake Oswego,' OF 9 X 035 Piedmont,ont C A 9401 .r. REQUEST: Applicant request approval for the following development applications: 1) Site Development Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with construct related , , site from Hall Boulevard would be< i street heading eastward ' improvements. public created. Area of the site within the 100 year floodplain of Fenno Creek "is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard; 2) ' . Variance approval to allow a 20, feet seperation between two multiple family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030.A(1) requires a minimum ',of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing each other. 3) Variance approval to allow one'drivveway'whereas Code Section 18 108 0 070(D) requires ` 0 two driveways for vehicular access an:d for multiple y residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance •, IEama.l a.es approval to allow an existing structure on the site to r foot . setback whereas Code Section 18.54.0 requires d D � .,M1• maintain a.ts current 6 to 50.A 3 C e da 10 foot •;,. side yard setback; 5) Site Development Review setback e oeption approval to allow a 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050.3(e) requires a 30 foot set °' side yard of an attached multiple family�aac,ls~, for the .sad,. r+_A dwelling abutting a more restrictive zoning di-etrict. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development code Section 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.1000 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.15$ and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 SW Hall Blvd.. (WCTM 281 2DD, tax lot 500) and 13750 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S1 2DD, tax lot 400) )' •b ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 Unite per acre) The R-12 zone allows single family mily a ttached/detache residential units, multi ple-- ,. ' family residential units, residential Care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision* p ublic sx Ptort services, f amily da y care, home occupations and accessary structures NPO NO: 5 CHAIRPERSON: Craig Hopkins ^, PHONE NUMBER: 639-5823 CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY X STAFF DECISION COMMENTS DUE BACK TO STAFF 0 12/15 1992 4 ' z. ,r,xr, yA 1..1,14 zcr DATE Ot TIME730 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OP HEARING. _.� T1 ME:7: t) 0ITY COt1'CIL DATE OF REARING. , 7.3[Y DATE A.R1:A1 1°11 7 • I � , I I I I i • • r• r�i r 4 ' 4 � ' a�. Ir ..rp I I, l• • N .i ti:` u.._ukh a > w! tu _.Fu14r4e : kidUM,_ d.wd- .,. tn. • • ,.r ATTP,CHPAIENTS X VICINITY ZiAP X LANDSCAPING PLAN X NARRATIVE X ARCUITECTtIRAL 'PLAIN • X SITE PLAN X OTHER: GRADING PLAN STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer. 639-4171 • • • • ' •rl • • t;d i i I ,R� {{ 1 , ,,,,, r ` :L:: CITY F I A ' 0 . 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 Box' °.� , 125 SW Hall, �'0 Boy '2:3397. Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY • Tigard, 7N 3.dal t CASE No. =-)f 0 '.�. OTHER CASE f n NO 5u y RECEIPT N0. `Zr,- ' 1 APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY' 4 DATE: 1 f ,."-cr t'. 1 - 1. GENERAL IN, FORMATION Application tioation el emen is submitted: \: m PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION .Application form (1) ' : (B) owner's 13840 S.W. Hall _ .. 37,5c) , .� ner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO 2S12DD #400 84 #500 authorization i . C) instrument (1) Title transfer rostrum SITE SIZE 6 .3 acres ) Assessor's map (1) , PROPERTY OWNER/'DEED HOLDER* Ketrleth Sol Ores E) Plot plan (pre-app checklist) } ADDRESS 162 Estates Dr. PHONE 510/530-2487 ,� Pp A licant's statement " , re—app checklist) I,, .. California 7 form a ZIP 94011 CITY P�edn�ont Cal CI�c APP;fJICANT* A11 an so1ares' (G)'-L-rgsr a ADDRESS 13566 Twin Creeks Lane • PHONE add e NY r' 3 4eet41) ' CITY Lake Oswego, Oregon ZIP 97035 Filing fee ( 2c '2 )_ ` ' *When the owner and the applicant are different '; l ) Construction Cost Estimate ? .',/ people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record i or a leases in possession with written on DATE authorization DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE:. • ' from the owner or an agent of the owner with written A' '' : authorization. The owners) must sign this 1 L. application in the space provided on page two or FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: to 1 submit a written authori�at on with this application.an. is COMP. PLAN/ZONE .DESIGNATION: 1 . '' 2. PROPOSAL SIDIMAlt.Y � iir:Le;;I!li, "�`� ,..... ....,_____1,-/p, `, The ,oli.ers of record cif the subject property r request site development review approval to N.k'.0. Number: allow _; z $0,t; t,"., w e)Vi, .. r av _ , . Approval Date: ' tment co:mp.7 e>t and cor servat i on of , . the rtenwa within the f1a2d lain. Final ApprovalDate» �1 . n �61..t• ,,.. .,. ..Xj ,„+ ".d Planning :r Eng 3.neering �., 0524P/13P I Rev°'d 5/87 �' -- I I I I, , { r l�rJ 1 ,....a..w..« .•1•...'A..0 ..v...AWC•: .J.1 ,,,..Lr . .c.t .. .. r r 4 '' , 3o List any variance, conditional use, sensitive lands, or other land use actions „1' to be considered as part of this application: the variances or exception!1 described on the attachment . •', ' 4. A PP licants: To have a complete application you will need ed to submit attachments .• described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5 THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property;r BA If' the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, , exhibits transmitted. . , a.nsmitted herrewithr are true; and the • . attachments, and ex applicants so acknowledge that any permit, issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. 1 , D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including • the P � i s ' requirements and understands, the re uirements for approving or denying the application'. DATED this day of r . SIGNATURES of each owners sub`e . husband and wife) of the subject ( L � t property. 4 . a I r • (KSL:pm/0524P) • • c f!� 1r {��qMU ,yG�jIk 4Nyyt^ yyrn�y �,[�rYyw��{n a r ..�{} 'yyw �x wyyv y[W yyl�+i 1 +:ix. p4,.�.-r 'j�1 '/A�t+� ,u!e{,+,,wa p J! • • rh. .. F ��i. 1ARA'atRW ,— 4Rr CF.�k )r.., CN'�a 4°� � WV 4 I 4pA AP4�! P�, �aP�1T RI aA �rtte 6w yp,�J��ftw>+yyti�t��}, l + II �g lu Iw � b �y � M y r+pN�a b Yt 1(�ri�, 11 C11 A„.a1^: i�f�v� f YwN k.. t',iet.,u ”. (..: a z t„w I. ' 'b c Y w 1�Y 1 n.v+ 1 J6 G•F,w"4' w! i M Ms J, f 1 � fl N t kF , 1N r ,+W k . y[t.N .�yay {p {r,y�'rA 9(�,qN� k rp �` y q( p.w+per' y,{ ,+ ^y,,jy } .•:),/ �"t ��S�' t�,�6vr N9 491�A f.e a �I+NP M��1�',��+,«r.rk of Y�� 'N.N`l.x �). �'-I'�i�Y��hoY D*�A.... ��:%rM hJ P�J.M.��+., N�eMY • r M »Y 4jy"N w NK OP' ][.w� r y�y`.3( {'G( ��1 9N�r{ k1}•r+yKjr (((1:1 It(a) P1,1j rgy,1{Y�$h y'QMnr qu+ .{n,4�y�fpt%'111•;uy ., ($ o,rtj 1}i/yy n.. +�f:,*„.t !j ''' �,v'Yi � �.'S.M*if�NtY'.1.'�pIMA lww, il 'I'R1 tlPN Mh P.W��I Ir1bYA ! �4 M ILIA^' N'IH NAnN�IiIYY Aw ...N!E11MN' •Y11 1 �:IFR` F}i5} IY•{ ,wiMNUrr+Aa,.ranw+JWa1+1 i.kluf:Y•W,ly,o1lCyvs,HlNn+i444V40w.t/IM4.440.4,4 ly1 ia1gM4NCaF11tFWPlalw 4',k+eN.w,www{trNnI,NMHWYN ''l1uw.Nlaerwrw9rf+wNkWi.a.�m all+,.,n1».,crAMwtwN+Mr.:+lv.»s.wwl;w.ha+.au+n ,4u1 wMMuNlWa.kl•dMHNNMiI•rwww.w.u.,Wf.yrn :� +•. 94:i:f 1�p�+�gvn} �: w,q , ya. .,y„ ,.�M. ,w i.. wd w �. 1�.�.� � ,xr1.+r< c, t y 1�1,� ��d%'7A� �'�k^"CC+''�V kw��a�`'1°I ivN°a»w %�'� wd��a�,f�i'� #xl�� y `l,71"� yalh.e�6„ M1'�,d�"�v eq1,,, !. x'x.1.. �q}'7 ki9A {� ae l+� I„n Sl+•1 I a � ,* d! 1� ra L.ni lA// �1 �`��1�"'�[e:5: 'Y��.In �,w,l•,% 6 R , 1 I : r tl1' yipp it n y/y p d py�. }F{ �y rrp ry ry�; `,1 f , I (111'1' �f'b,�1R� "w AT51 't u�:W Y� .r! R<t u,w 1wi.�JA,,l�,T Ma,i ht j/.41i' • .� �: "lt1.Yw � I : bbb 1 •• B +' I , , I a' I I 1 I , . L • • • • • , I r' I � i ' I I • t I I , I I tf r I .. f ” I ' .III '1. . r.• Ir MACKE NZIF)`k.kITO 8t ASSOCIATES, P C. J'' . ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, INTERIOR DESIGN 0690 SW.BANCROFT ST " P.Q.BOX 69039 '§ ''• PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 44 (503)224-9570 n FAX(503)228-1285 ' is• } I ' I November 16, 1992 r , • City of Tigard - . . I ',, Attention: Mr. Jerry Offer•"a P. a Box 23397 . Tigard, Oregon 97223 ° • Re: Fanno Creek Village I ': oiares Homes, Inc. l W. Applicant's Statement • fiSA Project Number 292210 . 4 Dear Jerry: •� • �. •:• . .-` : Pursuan t to th e r equ irements of the Application for Design n Feviev ,the following summarizes � • • the proposed project. Y Solares Homes. proposes to construct a 62.•-unit apartment complex, located on a site t :'. '. ,i • abutting Hall Blvd., approximately one mile south of Highway 99W. r. ' The site consists of two tax lots (#400 and #500), zoned I:1-'12. These two lots comprise I,I . a on the east by h� < y (a,42 acres bounded on the west by ./ Creek, � . • . approximately b Hall Blvd Fanno ire and on the north and south by residentially developed and vacant land Currently, the site is developed with existing residences and several buildings outbuildings located ort -•�. - ��` •��' the western portion of the lot. all of th ese lll be demolished, with t he exception :', is of the residence i will be developed in a eat the northwest corner of the .site. This residence wil y p p o the overall ro ect. The eastern portion of the site .: and incorporated into 1 p t the `• ' . �, s open pasture land, with sparsely scattered ornamental and fruit trees extending to.... II .. flood lain of Fanno 'Creek. l� !, • p { .` C11irr g i provides density calculation, based upon the ' _ sheet of the drawing submittal The title she al rove es a _ , A ' hin the requirements requirements of the.Cammunl�ty Development Code. Densities are volt • • . • of the Code. , 1 ., ., . i af• , ^r A number of public improvements, dedications and easements are being provided •;..,. association with development of the project: ' � • , 1. A dedicatic)n (of 45 ft, from dented ne) and partial street irri roveni(Int of Hall Blvd, ! , i • • . 't\92-i i 9 210 b6L1, 'I 4 {I; I , I I s, • I � 4,. I\ ®I '' ` s ♦ - • I ,.''tt,� I t . ..........:..... .w,.0.. ,w.:...,.,,,.,«_..,....,....,'.a,. .... .«.. _...,...,,......,,......:...„..n... .«,,,.. 5.:_.,«a...;, ..c.+w._„,..-i.«-.... ._.,,.row. .»v-r...:n. dw ;•.rw. »,Fw..7... Mr. Jerry Offer Fanno Creek Village MSA Project Number 292210 November 16, 1992 • Page Number 2 2. Dedication and construction of a full-width th t r et improvement for approximately mately.150. • a ft. of Fanno ' . . Creek Drive at the southwest corner •. st corner of the property. 3. Construction of an 8-ft.-wide bike path paralleling the flo()dplain at the east end of the project, along with associated access easements. • • 4. Construction of public sanitary sewer and dedication of appropriate easement along . the south boundary of the property, extending east and then south, connecting to ary • existing sewer. 5. Dedication of the area within the floodplairl to the City of Tigard or conservation group. .• • . The proposed apartment project consists of eight new apartment buildings, a new community center/manager's unit, an existing residence, three new carports, and 10 new • garage buildings. A unit mix of 19 one-bedroom units, 29 two-bedroom units, and 12 three-bedroom units has been provided. ` • The apartment buildings consist � ,' . , f < of � ` 1 eight-plex � p J 3 four-plex buildings, es high; . , two store � , building, two stories high; a �� lex buildings, two stories high, with basement units. and 1 , g � u �yryaA of,: 4y i i fb f i f 1 ` sheet o9� the. S ' f p on the title i., . A detailed breakdown of buildings and unit mixes as provided drawing subniittal. The community center is a single-story building, which incorporates the manager's unit unt and manager's office. The community center portion consists of a large community room with adjacent kitchen, laundry facility, public restroarins, outdoor spa area with indoor and outdoor shower facilities, and exterior patio areas. Constructed in conjunction with the community y center s a o e bedroom ono gee r g s unit t Site amen ties include screened garbage areas,a recycling area,Site � recycling ea, a formal play area with play to the ,'• • structure, an adjacent paved plaza area which is a common use area access 1 p p sidevwe0k and bike path along Fanno Creek, and covered parking distributed throughout the ' site In convenient locations. { ° ., • .. 4 .. ( I' „ ' Mr. Jerry Offer i • Fenno Creek Village , Project N ..� !SA Pro 1 Number 292210 I ' November 16, 1992 4 . • Page Number 3 }I r o 9 '• All ground floor units are designed to be handicap p accessible, with access via ramps or walks. Interior amenities include larger doors (a minirrnurn of 21-10"to all accessible are .„ larger bathrooms for future conversion, l g { at 15 inches above finish floor; i .•larger kitchens for future conversion (outlets receptacles no higher than inches). Blocking f oor; switches and rece feels g ) g and ' backing have been installed around bathroom areas for future grab bars, etc., as well as lever handle door hardware, and mixing valves in the showers and bathtubs. Ln I a d seai n designed to comply o ' p y with code requirements, providing adequate buffering t .. and screening and street trees along g 0 screening onrg appropriate rights-of-way, In addition, a number of key �, , a existing trees and groves of trees are being retained and incorporated into the project. ' ;: : .4y Parking has been provided at a rate of two spaces per unit. This ratio exceeds the minimum . P code required for parking. Covered spaces have been provided at a rate required by the . code standard; handicap spaces are provided to meet or exceed the minimum code } 1 • requirement. A complete parking analysis is provided on the title sheet of the drawing submittal. Solares Homes is requesting four variances as part of this Design Review: 1. Decrease of face-to-face distance of window wall to window wall of 00 ft. to 25 ft. between the manager's unit and Building #1, i•: q ;'angle ,ro project access from Fannno Creek driveway to i ' Request for a r-�; • , driv be used for private drive serving the existing reside p reef Drive. North p g g nc�, and emergency vehicle • -. access only. - and setback on the . f ' Side -yard 3 � � y e north property line for the existing residence,, t , decreasing the requirement from 10 ft. to 5 ft. 4: Side-yard setback along the south property line, reducing required setback from 30 ft. to 24 ft Additional discussion regarding these variances is contained in I � g Attachment A.' , ;i eb { Gilbertson Engineering has received permits for the public sanitary sewer, These permits separately from the > have been processed eep y Design Review docureritr, , l I I , a: ,.yR } Y . i ti , 1 9 �� U�Li,kc . I r w i1: , :',„ii •. .1), '. , . ti. i •.�• tx _ _. .,I... r«>J4. r .r....4 e•-.,.::...I IM.. .ti kra- .....J'J F+- .1._...,-,-....w.....•.-.i.1+•.-+e..-r,» „ , Mr. Jerry Offer ( ry Fanno Creek Village 1 I 1 .) AfiSA Project Number 292210 November 16, 1992 • t` r Page Number 4 • Solares Homes retained Scientific Resources, Inc. (SRI), to accomplish a wetland determination for the site. The project survey identifies these wetland areas as'a result of . „f ' SRI's report. Currently, no development is proposed within these areas. . The Fanno Creek f oodp Ia i n exists along h e ea seastern portion of the p r p e rty Work within in the floodplain consists of storm water outfalls, bike path construction, and development of • a water quality facility. . • •` Three previous pre-application conferences were held for the proposed project. These pre- application notes are also provided as Attachment B. ar, We believe that this project is in compliance with the current Tigard Community DeveloprrEent Code Standards; with the exception of the variances noted above. I I ' :. I I of H regarding, ' '�' _•• Please do not hesitate to contact either me or Allan ��o ares� o Solares arses, rage d� g ' ,'. .' any {testions or concerns. , Sin tiely, 11 i'i' . 4 .' ,' ' / ./\,_... _„--' r C/egory A. rare-rc, Architect (!AH/kt� 1 I` ” "' Attachments: 1: Attachment A ' 2i* Pre-application Conference Notes • cc Allan Solares Allan Solares . ' Ken Solares Doug Gilbertson - Gilbertson En ::',leering Dave Williams / Paul Chapel - Mackenzie/Salto at Associates + r F\92.11\9221O'`O6LL.ko I I ' r f , rt I ' q' ' ' i■ • )i, ' ' t:''\'' 1 'a. Mr. Jerry Offer Fanno Creek Village ; November 12, 1992 h f Page Number Below are a number of items not otherwise addressed in this lication pp narrat'/ a.ve o Neighborhood Meeting, I met with Craig Hopkins and members of the Neighborhood Planning Organization #5 vtin August 19, 1992 to describe the project and answer questions. Fee o Cnstruction Cost Estimate. The construction costs exceed the $1 million maximum for the design review fee resulting in a fee of $2000 plus $8 for the Design Review and Administrative Variance :" applications. Lot consolidation. A lot consol3 dation of Tax Lots 400 and 500 has ' „.., • been applied for to the Washint: on County assessor. 1 \ Outdoor Recreation Area. Pui' ant to Section l8.d12 0. 18 0.A o 7, the • requirement recreation area is calculated at �~eq t for shared outdoor revreat . :., 13,700 square feet. This project provides well over 15, 000 square ° r feet of such area treat storm , .. , Storm designed a riparian accordance vegetative� tr T to n�.�al Guidance,m Ovate w have d 'p r �, g p runoff from buildings and driveways that conforms with USA . . requirements. Storm drainage details and calculations; have been t,' '•'• ”cements. R � ^ prepared, � � g. g provided with b Gilbertson En Engineering and will, be rov�_ded with the public improvement plans. Modification to Grading. The finished floor grades for building #7, an d the driveway and garages west of it, will be raised y , a roximatel 3 feet allow storm water to flow north to the • vegetative strip for storm water treatment. 4 Fanno Creek Drive. A diagram showing a potential aligntent for Fanno Creek Drive and a justification for this alignment are a attached, Hill Boulevard. We will obtain an access permit from the Oregon � State Highway Division for the proposed lodal street ntersection , with Hall Blvd. which will provide the required 45 foot from centerline for right of way and will Meet standard half street improve according Oregon Highway cards. meats accord�n to Ore on State. Hi hwar street start ' son with the Oregon Department of Sidewalk. �urs'�.ant to disc�uS, Transportation which does not seek an 8 foot sidewalks we request previously Rt requirement that the revousl stated re ui is for an 8 foot sidewalk be reduced to a 5 foot sidewalk, This is consistent with several other sidewalks in the area,. (A nap of nearby sidewalks 5` can be provided at your request. ) rf. : 1r . I - f. ' • ,,�ia «.w,>�.�,.,-.w,,. ..1.1...« ■...,,.■ ■w..«.7+. .. ..... J .. -,,.._. ,.wI r1k.isj4,...wt_.J..,.x...»._.a., —ii..,, .x W.1 1,,,,14!r+...+:.d.,H..6:,.-...:ia4,r..i4.J-:..4w.4.ma..,.....1.1.,+...:.:.1id lt-....,...1 a,.....JIM,4,1.0,., i;.......,..:a..aa..,+st ,1,,..a.,...c,.....,,,,,u.,.,..,..,w,∎,,,...,. a 1tJ}f 1� Mr. Jerry Offer • Farnno Creek Village 1, November 12, 1992 1 ,,: Page Number 6 7 .:' Y 1 ,1 I Easement. An easement will be provided to the City for the 1` s and sewer accesswa. on the site. ,, portions of the bike path n y' � __ .gl,_ We will apply for a sign permit prior to submitting building Permits. Sincery Allan Solares 1, a AS s , • Attachments: Attachment C° Vann® Creek D rive alignment i c: Doug Gilbertson Gilbertson Engineering i Dave Williams ' / Paul Chapel - Mackenzie/Saito & Associates , i y k . r , a G i I i I i I 1 1 P ;• I r , �r �x V � P , I , t ATTACHMENT A 1 EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE REQUEST We are requesting a variance for the distance between two J buildings, two exceptions to the side yard setbacks, and a variance for the second driveway requirement. These requests are shown on the Site Plan as numbered below.' ° requesting a variance• Section am re section t 18.96.030 nregardi g the distance between multiple family residential structures. This section requires 25 feet between two buildings with windowed walls facing unit ,'other. 1 °' bet, g which has The ,south... side of Building , a kitchen window facing n Building story 41-plea g it adjacent to it. The manager's unit is only.. a one story r/ building so only this one window invokes the requirement. z am requesting that the distance between Building #1 and ° g #2 feet. This request reduces Buldin #`� be allowed to be 20 f the required separation by 20%. Building #1 cannot be moved y up g . q ° 5 �,. { 1 south as it is already u against the required 20 foot setback � from Fanno Creek Drive. To the north, there is not sufficient room without either seriously impinging on the size and layout of the manager's unit or community center. More importantly, g , length of the ui1 d the main east-west 1 if these buildings . drivewa. would nbe misaligned with the Community Center and Y severely distort the site layout. The current requirement would cause severe hardship, and the variance requested is the minimum variance that would alle�.riate it 2 . Pursuant to Section 18. 108. 150, I am requesting an access variance. Section 18. 108.070(D) requires two driveways for • . veY ,.cular access and egress for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units. The Oregon Department of Transportation has stated that it would oppose a second egress serve Hall f ' driveway Blvd. am requesting that one �� dry. ° . i Thus I q g Project. The second access will to limit its use to serving as a Fire Lane and as be driveway for the existing residence. Jean Birtchell of the Tualatin Valley Fire'' ° that he will require ` that District has stated th a Fire Lane and M q. ° nce is the the existing dr�.vewa for the existing residence preferred ` g Y g fer'red loci.ion for it. _ would be 20 feet wide.. as It w equired for a Fire Lane. Since only the existing residence required would use this wou . � � :driveway', it would exceed the 10 foot width required for an a r g 1--2 dwelling, units under section ,ess for 18. 108. 070 (D) O Dt�T has �n di,cat ed the,ir willingness to accept this modification. This request is not self imposed. single egress will hav e less impact on Hall Blvd. traffic. _ ° This ° ce that would. alleviate the ' ° ian s is the minimum var�, ' hardship. • • i O , • • is ,.. i .. A • • I ' w y.1•:.Fr Ji r.. ._. J...,i... vL:.,wi N Lrr r; v :3'.... V:.. H 11 l z aaa.. .NH LA;w. V..ML SLC....,e .n o,at,... d . c. ..,•.L .b a.. L'" +t Ft.+.3+. ,7A ,d- a4. t.i,tic,A.r x i_a,.•,....v.Ja.wl . ....vu',y { 3a Pursuant to Section 18. 120.070 (or Section 18. 134.050 if a . variance is necessary) I am requesting an exception to the side yard setback along the northern property line for an existing residence. Section 18 54.050(3) (c) requires a 10 foot setback for the side yard. The north face of the existing residence sits at a slight angle to the northern property line resulting in an existing setback of approximately 8 feet at the front of the residence to about 6 feet at the back of the residence. The hardship is not self imposed as the residence was built prior to the current project. It does not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. This is the minimum action that would alleviate the hardship. • 4. 4 S . . am requesting an °'�'xception Pursuant to Section 18 120 070, T to standards“ for the required side yard setback requirements along, a short portion Of the south property line. Section. 18.54 . 050(3) (e) requires a 30 foot setback for the side yard of an attached multiple family dwelling ' abetting a more �r restrictive zoning district. The abutting district is R-7. T am requesting that Building #8, a two-story four-plex, be allowed to be located 6 feet closer, i.e. , 24 feet north of 1, Property ( the southern ro e�t line (adjacent to Tax Lot 600) . 'The ' purpose is to provide a recreation area for children near the center of the project which is the only adequate location on , the site. If the setback is not allowed, the play area would not be feasible as the only remaining location would be exposed to Farina Creek Drive and the adjacent property. This a� could pre. ent a safety hazard to children in terms of both. traffic and security. The requested exception is not greater than 20% of the required setback. The exception affectE Only one two-story building. It will have no adverse effect on adjoining properties. It will not block light as it is north of the adjacent property and will be properly landscaped. rr I! 7"J .., M^1-+. v{,� ,A * •,1Ll+A..va...r. . r-Wi.+..., v, v.ncrL:.rnr ..,v nA a, it r.a r .n,.M1 In.r .u....n „(,4. r+.+.r.w....s \ • nn�-•vro-r v„..a, .--..um...h..rA.,x.0 ewM.M1Smr".nl.-..+ ....m...L - .h.a. ,-Y.ww..-..r w.l .✓.,,..n Jrn..r.'i Iw. M ,.,.s 19 N.n ..,... MACKENZIE/ „.:.10 & ASSOCIATES, P.C. • PLANNING INTERIOIR DESIGN ARCHITECTURE, 0690 S.W,BANC,ROFT ST. • P.O.BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 • (503)224-9570 • FAX(503)228-1285 RECEIVED PI tNNIt G v Jun JUN 3 0 199 ) . June 29, 1992 I � •1 I City of Tigard Attention: Mr. Jerry Offer P. a Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Fanno Creek Village Pre-Application Meeting Notes Soiares Homes MSA. Project Number 292210 t , • Dear Jerry: This letter summarizes some key issues discussed during our pre-application me i (� + h This meeting with I you on June 23, 1992, regarding the subject ect roject. • Present at the meeting were: Chris Davies (City of Tigard), Doug Gilbertson (Gilbertson Inc , (Solares•• Engineering, .) ( Homes), Jerry Offer (City of Tigard), and Greg , �n in�,erin , Allan Solares Sola Hranac (Mackenzie/Salto & Associates). Allan Solares provided a brief description of the project which currently consists of 64 one and three-bedroom apartment units, located on Tax Lots 400 and 500. The unit one-, 1 Y two-, an ' p it rnix of 24 three-bedroom, 24 two-bedroom, and 16 one-bedroom units divided up into nine buildings. The buildings are basically either'four-plea, eight-plea, or 10,plex units, with the ntin on -an,no Cr 10-plex units genaraliy fro � In addition to the boil i r yra � . dings, a recreation g Creek. '.: arid manager's facility will be develop„d, along with parking at approximately twee s aces er p � p per i' ;. .� Gilbertson En gi neerin g, Inc:, is accQm p iis in g the civil en g ineerin g work for Hall Blvd. °k . the Fanno Creek Drive public improvement, as well as associated public improvement' • sewers g property �' �� southeasterly i � 1 ; a on the.::south line, and then eneraU sautheasterl from the southeast p tying i gineering toe.. oses earner of the roperty tying rota existing public sewers.) Gilbertson �n p p sh the public improvement portions of the project on a separate track from the to accomplish p p portions p 1 p l ' • development of the overall project. Gilbertson lEngineering has prepared drawings for these improvements and provided them to Chris Davies for his review, •f 5i\02-06\92210\29L i∎kt; I I t-Y 1 L' „ a L •F . c \,....., I. A r I .r _..- x ,.• 4 n n. ..Iw}M . +r w}o.r.-i ix..A c!'Y\ ..„r,,,f u,mr..+...:..+.1„.,,,....---n•-...wL,-.41:...-•-rrr,.V..,.-_.,.H.iwl.........._t+_.:.....,,....w..:..-`....t.,. ....«-...xa........4-,«..M....,. .u., .- ' • i r I r, Mr. Jerry Offer Project Number 292210 r,. June 29, 1992 Page Number 2 A proposed alignment for Fenno Creek Drive was reviewedi, This proopoed alignment is M f acceptable as long as it meets the City design criteri a and allows for logical development the adjacent properties.es. The City's requirement will be for a f ull-street improvement from Hall Blvd. to approximately the east line of the access driveway into the a partment project This s should be equivalent to a two-thirds street improvement along the er,tir right-of-way being dedicated. • rl ; I .p i Currently shown is a meandering sidewalk on the north side of Fenno Creek Drive, to save . the existing fir tree. Any sidewalk beyond the right-of-way will require an easement :7 • dedicated to the City for access to the sidewalk. ,,\ r Chris Davies b e eves that an eight foot sidewalk on Hall Blvd.. will be r �, uir'ed. Street t trees. k would typically.be Ietnted behind the sidewalk. D Gilbertson `' review i ` ou with Cilbert�on �rvill the sidewalk p Doug t '.• requirement on Hall Blvd. with the State Highway Department. Currently, the State has indicated they would like the drive access from Hall Blvd. to be a , ` curb cut, This is contrary to the City policy which will require road access and curb returns City l prevail q. ■ improvement Chris Davies believes the Ci#� will revail {n ill `r for the im r their requirement for a fLJll ,i • ' . : street development, as the traditional criteria has been that the local plan has overlridirig authority to the State plan. onto Fenno Creek Drive is not a problem with the\ Acceptance of drainage fron, Ha{{ Blvd, � p' • i . City. On a temporary basis, however, •, , g y accepted p private I this drainage would actually be acre tad on riv r - property as part of the private drainage system for the Fenno Creek Village project. { I p minor amount of storm drainage Hall , onto Fenno With the acceptance of the mrnp , . storm ,. ainage from Hill Bivd. titer. Creek Drive, the State should . ill allow w. p th not require�torrrt drainage along I-�la u inlet located at the north It v and w to drain north along the curb• Only a sin le catch basin or curb ' �. g i i t I end of the property piped and daylighted to the ditch at the north would be lv i bl'sa i l i 8 b �' acfC preferred g olares Homes, This is the referred co nfi oration for �� i i. rding a median lane and ri�llated Allan Solaces has had some discussions with the ODOT raga r e n path. appear preferable p b` lvd: improvement to extend the median i with the Hall th ro,ec;t. Milan .Solaces , bike ath.; It would a ear referable c lane ast the sub ect oro ect to allow for safe left turn access into e will continue. ' past ue to have discussions.with..the, State and, hopefully, the C1ity of Tigard can coordinate with the State, so that the best option for all parties can b , p ` p be accomplished. i I I r I I I r:\92-06\L ii)\29L1,ka ' I I . I i A t I I ' ?. 1 i ,III l •t I 1. �1 • ICI 1r. Jerry Offer Project Number 292210 June 29, 199 Petge Number 3 Vlall Blvd. is eligible for traffic impact fee (TIF) credits. TIF credits must be requested within 90 days of acceptance of the Hall Blvd. improvement by the State and City. Further investigation by the Design Team should occur regarding what can be included as part of T'iF credits. However, Chris Davies believes that engineering time and the cost of construction for work beyond the 14-ft. centerline could be claimed for credits. ' Current TIF fee, as of July 1 1992, will be $146.00 x 8.2 trips units.ps per day x the number of units � �••, This appears to be approximately $58,000.00, and should be clarified prior to final • calculation. The question arose as to whether or not a water quality facility should be provided (i.e., grassland swale). Currently, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) requires projects of this size to have water quality facilities. In the past, the City has accepted a fee, based upon ' per .q. impervious i , the development of the water �. 2,640 rvious surface, in 1�eu of th .. $280.00 er 040 s ft. of im e quality facility. The City would typically rather have the fee, and USA desires to have a water quality facility in place. Currently, the City would accept the fee in lieu of the water quality XI facility. quality facility placed the site, it could not occur If a water unlit faciiit were `ta be laced ..ant in any sensitiv® • The reviewing agency for the water quality facility would be the City of Tigard. lands areas Th q tY facility � USA; however, would provide cdrments. The Design Team will further evaluate water quality. . g � oats .whether or not to provide a w q 'ty facility for - this project and will have further discussions with the City. . In general, the bike path (shown at the east end of the property) is above the floodplarn and f, t p any Tigard y. � p ` 30 Both the Ti ard Community Development Code at least X30�� from the top an stream bank. !80 ° and the USA Code allow for construction of bike paths and grading within the flood laird to • p accommodate the bike path. However, minimal surface g radi ng only s hald occur without I .1 ' significant change in grade or land form. Should the bike path occur out of the flood..lain, an easement will need to be . Should City the � p this p � provided to the City of Tigard for this area. The site plan shows tandem parking arrangements. Jerry Offer believes that the tanderrr parking arrangement is contrary :ty Development Code p g i g ontra to the c�'omrn�.�ni Devel p Requirements and will investigate further and contact findings, At least one space per unit is ;. g ntact me as to his fin required to be covered. Currently, the proposed site plan is deficient for covered spaces, F,\92 46\02210\29L1,ka f , y n tl Mr. Jerry Offer t ' m Project ec t Flu er 292210 b June 29, 1992 . . Page Number The density calculation was reviewed and will regt.iire that all public right-of-way be deducted • ` from the gross land area. In addition, a 24-ft.-wide aisle (private street) that serves parking also (and any turnaround areas) should be deducted from the gross land area. The current ' density calculation requirement, therefore, is in error, and will need to be revised. `', - , The proposal for fire lane only for the second access does not need to be deducted as a 'i, " private street. [VISA will discuss construction of the proposed fire lane with Gene Brchill to further define the parameters prier to submittal for Design Review. , It appears that three variances/exceptions will be needed through the Design Review • process to accomplish the project The variances are as follows: 1, An exception for the side-yard setback of the existing house. ,' 2. A potential variance for the side-yard setback, adjacent to Building #8, so that this building could be moved six feet farther to the south. a A variance for the second access onto the site from the north. A lot consolidation will be required to create a single lot from the current two-lot ' .. configuration. In addition to the side-yard setbacks; a 10-ft buffer is required on the south side. Buffering N requirements are specified in the Community Development Code. Currently,the Community Development Code appears to be in error regarding buffering on the north side. Jerry Offer, however, requests that we perform a reasonable job of buffering and screening on the north side of the property. • Jerry is we submit- suggests bolt the project early enough, so that we may notify and. . Jer Offer �ugge;� `~ will expedite the overall review rocess: schedule the local BFPO neighborhood group. This xp p. . Jerry will provide the contact in p neantirne to me. Jerry recommends a presentation to the nei g hborhood group regarding the p ro act during the course of Design Review. Jerry indicated that the Design Review process is taking four to six weeks; and we discussed possible p Jerry said pl application . i l will be the ossibie rr�ear��s to expedite. JQi� sid a.full, complete and submittal p .� best expeditor of the entire project. F, , f _ site directly into I"anno GreeiC vuith no On-site r f Set t dl5r la a dlrec CUrrentlya L��e Storm water is to rg , � � _ �, retention: I. +\92.oe\92210\.9Li,k0 }. it f 't 4. d- tl H I r t d 1A•. , .: ‘4,,i,) 1111111111VIE1111111111111E1111111111111N1!11111111/1111111111111111111111.11111111111k1 Illint1101111111171111111111111rit 1 i f �-" .e... .,;.s,r.u-...,uat..,.:.,.;w-s r•:aura.a.s...,.a...,.»v.,....._ ..»F» A ,. `•. d Mr. Jerry Offer Project Number 292210 i ' June 29, 1992 , 'L Page Number 5 , � ' ,. Based upon review of the USA Code, it appears that the requirement for setback from sensitive land areas is defined as 25 ft. from top of sensitive areas, or, in this case, based . upon USA's requirement from top of the stream bank, the Design Team will proceed, based upon this interpretation. , I Garage J (indicated on the site plan) extends to within 20 ft. of the south property line. The Community Development Code indicates that garages could occur within 20 ft. of this side ; , yard setback. We, therefore, extended the parking and paving to access the garage. In addition, this paving will be extended to accomplish the paved connection from the parking ,fJ•• lot to the bike path, providing the required maintenance roadway for the public sewer along the south property line. .� ', . The Community Development Code allows utility lines and paths that access roads within i, the required side-yard setback ,) Jerry indicated that, at some point in time, an easement along the entire south pro e line would be required from both properties, to ensure access to the bike path and Fann property eek ,. q p � p , We trust this covers the k(ay issues as we discussed. If you find any inconsistencies or j. rec.II any additions o not hesitate to give me a call. ; y you wish to indicate, please do ,�); Si erely, , ii,/,, �y0/ V ,ego ;, ., I ha , A clhitect g i' 4, cc: �►ou 1er tson Gilbertson Engineering, Inc Chris . les = City of Tigard . Allan Solares - Solares Homes i` Ken Salares It i Dave Williams - Mackenzie/Saito & Associates :\92-o6\o22 0\29Li,k , .vas" { J r ". s, Hy-tir r , • J i 1 MAt..ri ENZIE/SAITO 8( ASSOCIATE , P.C. „ , ARCHITECTURE ■:PLANNING • INTERIOR DESIGN 0690 S.W.,BANCROFT STREE"•P.0.BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039• (503)224-9570•FAX(LO3)226-1285 i 4 RECORD OF Tl1'LEPHONE ERSAT1�iW Ili i. , I JOB NAME: I"anno Creek Village JOB NO 292210 DATE OF CALL: 24 92 TIME: :,, CALL: / � I �' IN�B�IUIgN� CALL: ,/ PERSON: Joirry Offer OUTGOING CALL: r , COMPANY: �� 'pity of Tigard PHONE #: �. .I • Y rra r , ta.rar:.. SUBJECT: ►`lesponse to Pre-Application Questions REMARKS: find any community development code requirement that addressed tandem en could arkint He still has concerns regarding the potential conflicts relative) to n would g F �. parking. 9 ' tandem arkIn , and his preference ou d b p g p be to exercise care in assuming tandem � parking in the basic parking counts. ) g p 2. The neighborhood organization contact i s Craig Hopkins r 6��-5�� , NPO #5; their ' meeting date is July 15, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. • I` 3. The Tigard Community Development Code does not allow"r ouncing up"—only rounding down o , Currently, our calculations indicate 84 6 ttal units, and we would therefore like W.. t . ,, ' ' � �.. r indicated some if the calculation r `� to round up and gain the 65th unit. J� ® vt, ,w, t'' were at 64,8 or 649. Jerry will talk with the senior planner regarding the City's position, . relative to rounding up. .I ,I • �i � Lot consolidation, right-of-way de dic atl an, and dedication of easements s oust be accomplished prior to issuance of Building Permit. (, Si Application for va rianc es should be part of the Design Review suhrTiittalu 1 Every effort has been made to accurately rec• • this canversatk)r, If any errors or j omissions are rioted, please p ray d- written res.••n.e within five days of receipt G egory fir,. k9, Architect GAH/kc • cc.Jerry Offer - City of Tigar+` Allan Solares - Solares H',yes Ken Solares , bong Giibertson - + 1Ibertrrsdri Engineering -as sz� � r ��It Dave Williams / Greg Hna►nao MSA is .I ;i•rl 7, y ,, 4y ^' - •f l it d ■ • a A,}�..m ..5+....-Y,»G:i,e ...+rAi., ,.....Ja..N. ........AJ....,x.;:..4 .-wk.» w,. ..-..-.l.ti.iV.,,na.h.w..urv,4..A•-».. w.u-i.....+*1n........3..:aJ+.'J'r.i-.rMiAs:J .w.F1.N'....:i:.rlr w.xu. ... . . '1 .. 'S L'.. MAC KENZIE/ 1't1TO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. M.i•' ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, INTERIOR DESIGN ` 0690 SW.BANCROFT ST • PO,BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 0 (503)224-9570 0 FAX(503)228-1285 June 16, 1992 . City of Tigard Attention: Jim Ja,qua, Plans Examiner • P. a Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Exiting Occupant Load - Farina Creek Village, Tigard, Oregon Project Number 292210 Dear Jim: : Allan Solares and I appreciate the time spent reviewing the proposed Fanno Creek Project for exiting and occupant load, This letter ,summarizes our understanding of -('igard's policy and code requirements n regarding exiting and development of occupant load for apartment busidings, City of Tigard has a building code policy requiring two occupants per bedroom. This policy is administered consistently_from the Building Department and Fire Marshal's office. Exiting from second levels where four one-bedroom apartments access onto an exterior exit balcony, onl y a sin gl e stair need p rovide d (occupant load less than 10). When the i p 10, stairs must be provided from the exterior exit balcony. occupant load exceeds �o two exit staff . This would,occur when one-, two-, and three-bedroom mixes occur. The bridge connection . of the exit balconies and access to two stairs was acceptable to you. Again thanks for the time. I-HIopefuily this early review will make the plan review as easy as possible. d !j Sin i • rely, Y 4 : t reC7I • Hr a rC�l" t g y � , ii act . I A ks cc: Allan Solaro Ei\92-C DO 92216 16L'I rkw x ,,, . . • 1 , 1.,'fir. A . rjer COR TITLE INSUR NC j TI CF ' IT � W shingt®n :t)e;nty INSURANCE j',9 8 i,STATUTORY 'WARRANTY DEED HOOD VIEW HOOD BUILDERS BUILDERS•INC. ; AND HAP ARNOLU. WHICH ERRONEOUSLY TOOK TITLE AGrancor, �' INC. , AN OREGON CORPORATION, a , '- , AS TENANTS IN COMMON 1,,.. . It conveys and warrants to KENNETH H. SOLARES AND S. GLORIA SOLARES, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED .2/3RDS INTEREST''-AND ALLAN SOLARES, 'AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3RD INTEREST f ': ' : Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein situated in f • WASHINGTON County, Oregon,'to wit: i I, ; ' ' SEE 'LEGAL DESCRIPTION': ATTACHED HERETO AND EY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF 1 • f THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE Ol:'THE PROPERTY DE VIOLATION OF APPLI• f. CABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIR- SCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VI V ` FEE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT a property '�, '0 VERIFY APPROVED USES,The said SHOULD is encumbrances lPRO ep A.TF! COVENANTS, CONDITIONS o -i , RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, .. UNPAID. EASEMENTS k .` • RVATiONS� SET BACK LINES,' FINAL 2 3 OF 1991-92 PROPERTY TAXES AND EAS j . �"- OF R1,,CORD, IF ANA', ALSO F / I ' The true consideration for this conveyance Is$ 205,500.00 (Here comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030) 1 , • HOOD VIEW BUILDERS, INC ' Tit _ ., Dated this d, `�"'day of NOVEMBER 19 91 BY-. S�ri � i ' . ran 6. corgi ,r1► P' f HAP f,• OLD I State of Oregon, County of _...Multnoma State of Oregon, County of __i`'t _._._. �._. i' ` The foregoing i,.s ru -� w' r4, 4 •SEAL. is Tl, foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this tir ' C"+'-� E ry► }il9 by day of by day of .� d. l dG - -- l9, 91 b emla e 91 November Ha m r e+''=cI • ,:, -, l;,�,►r.nRrr;riN �F n D Mbare _ President i I °'/ CO,Mi . t • 19 5 - M 'i Oiii C AL.�.SEAL 1 �'w r dJ 1133 -�-�-�------°-�-°- it�IJ NO , . � • ,. � d. 1.e. C `� a { ` NOT1,r;' P 0 rifcl M, r' \�;, cOlvimissION I`lO.o0J133 on behalf of the cor�oratxo , l y ..,.. , y �® .yid_ � �lV COI, .SIGN EXP faES MAY 30, 1999 Notar, ' < is Clregon ; r' 4 s°` 6t-r` 't....!My ..• issio pires: $- e) Notary P IYc fu'Oregon is My co r-ssion expires: ,5 ',5.' WARRANTY DEED This Space Reserved for Recorder's Use • HOOD VIEW BUILDERS, INC HAP ARNOLD GRANTOR GRANTED, ALLAN' SOLARES • k Until change q all tax statements shall b . 'a rliars a is requested, zi c ..:�......._.".:._...,..._. _ w...w,�.w.....�.,.....,.:.,.....:�:+. semi to the following address: :v,'''.'.4*-. ..,, V.f',14t..e.. •;C1-1 r.,o .i'r 1 . ALLAN SOLARES ,.1 r�3;y '''t ', ,41A-AL i`t t✓r i $ra Y't%r' }:,3)4**l . 13556 TWIN CREEKS LANE Yr" =`I rr r_ ,. . , -, LAKE OSWEGO OR 9703.5 :`' <� '� Fib AID £} T • l;sccow No, 581415+75 Title Na. s4-15219 ', °,,,,-,-.--'., j After recording rett,trh to; - s A ,LFIN SOLARES p 1:3556 TWIN CREEKS LANE « • LAKE OSWEGO OR 97635 I '''.40.- f: , ....... Warranty l3llt Ticor form No, 137 Statutory W y b iced 8/85 , ,• ■ , ■ 1 -° '• r .l,.0 w:,. 'i. ... i(•d waa,M'i.FY»,n.f-.wh4,,..KV.Iwi..:V ,e.IP•i -y( •, I t *w' ,. vv r�T ry E HI L I A . ' Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 3 , of EDGEWOOD, P lit of V' a record in Section 2 , Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, and being 1.` South 88° 33 ' West, 114. 6 feet and North 364 .0 feet from the ' Northwest corner of the James Hi? klin Donation Land Claim No. 43, and running thence North along the east line of said Lot 3, a distance of CI` 7 J .' 0. 24 25 feet to a point South 100. 0 feet froze the Northeast corner , • thereof, running, thence South 89° 29' West on a line parallel to the . North line of saga Lot for a distance of 847.7 rest to a point on' the West line of Lot 3 and South 3° 14 ' East 100., 1 feet from the Northwest corner thereof, running thence South 3* 14 ' East, 239 .1 C " feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3 , running thence North 89° • '''' • 34 '' East 834 .2 feet to the point of beginning, being the plat of ,, P NODD, now vacated. , EXCEPTING 'Tr EREFROM that portion deeded to the State of Oregon, b�r , and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division by deed recorded May 22, 1989 , Recorder's Fee No. 89-22855, in the County of Washington, and State of Oregon--.. -- -- -__;.__- .__ _-_ , 1 } STATE OF OREGON s0 rity to VIlashtngtoe► i,Jerry R.Hanson, tsar of Assessmi nt and Taxation,a,nd:ei fflaF�l§leorder of Con- ve'ancea for said cc5Ufl dathere the wfthln Instrument writfn wM.Pettify+that ,wer�recefved • and recordod in,bot k.of;reGOrttafselt tllinty: �, 4 4Orry Fi. Ftanabf 4 rector of OtfAaseaa icioGnnot r�Y n i:T rOC a tttg n Ex' . .j Ct)U1A a Doc 91062458 ,,,, Fe of: 65375 ,, 11/09/1991 02: 26'a55PM • , 1 u e , p • w c*0, v \eG� w I ti I t• r / t 4!' T IGARO a 4' c' ♦ ..�• '. CIENTER ® 9 J . S��at,,. G �SEP, ip TIGARO °;';�� ,� , aSENioR .., t co �-,.4..4.,,,. VIII-`' ® ER 1 G J rG� I � ' r . 1' �li�, W.11411 STREET yF� > nor �A1 ®` y' •, i ISW, EDGEWCIO �— 1 .L—] I --- ' i '' E (^�. /..� e9/ u I ,r : , ' Q ST 2 ' 1 .� ,. �•, I w , ._...w, ,1 _ i u, r'® "1 a ELaOSE CT e 0 .. S F . � n ' S. ®111 W' aNI11// " " /t/ q 0 U •--- .10l9N TA I N VIEW `�""�° u ♦ ,4. 1 E W LN ® , '�s/y g "' Nil --1--°---•,1- I601EENSWA"'Il� J a' ,I, S-W,YWAEyVER I �� 51 W+ _._ v ' 1111111 wE� nil �"' �' NROES ~�• VIEw TERR y ,r' ; li t 11111111 b > .: lipir Z L..• r it'llINEZ 'm ' r n S.W. ai �m S,w. ;!?AIIYAr _•m FD, ®I iii INEZ®a. . . (+ �^ ® FtNEEftO'JK v \w yi" v r", pap C TWALITY �,1 ■ eT, 4 --Q j _ s.0 i . , Q' ® y q "3t,n r ®�� ui HIGH Q — El* sillvESRO0K �+ SCHOOL I ®ii■ 11m, um 11 k 1 1/ *I III ® 4 �MURn^CK TF'PAPLETON , <-1 + OR 'S.91i, USDOwI+ ST. a �JI ELENiENTARY. NEICII .•�� d I= t e 41 L5A N. ■ SCHOOL o .l j ,, E C y oh I W. 4 h, ,T. 4V ct, a EST �ND m `4- ® T` S 41', ROSS ftE 1 ._.J 1 - =III Iii 5T �tg•v),<'• ' b,Tl't.Er� �' tr S < o• 3 VI 5MNPL), — m w �L1 NMI ® g !`W dN I® 'R • LIT) ,.3 LE �- ° -$a s. MI iii®e � z 4.�r>{ ��i I 41 • ASI-'1 N G T 0 N COUNTY OREGON - SCALE I 100 i { . 1 t ''� f/ hV/ll r�3W�{(/l/if//// ///11/f//>l/!/'Ili!/Y/ /ilf,�l�j"! il�1�/1//l/if ��/�/�t/y//��rr��io�/��i/�iir,/y��ii�.Y.sa��iri�rr�/ir�ii/iirr .�'/is./�i/ii�ss{ii/rr/y/�iihrofarr� _ � - - , 143 10 _ - 130.3 40 ,c .3::�T�ic � � _ 71Ac t a 1 _ ; - t ` 13.24`CH. i \ _ - r - 1 oo w . 337A'c_ T ` it-ri - - - . ' ASS ri I. i 384',°4O'w S- or Q EAST [324 CH. ST3S - f1. =� WEST 9_8O CH. a4a'8 a4 5- TAX-LOTTED ZS-1-1 F 2,a 11 CH. 1 1 300 �►'w . , _ -- t 1 - g..I [ _ ,t3 's _. ' - _?{w? 2.fi.5,a5 1 k ,, a • t \ a 1(— J E 0 0 k z 7272,.. 12.94 CH_ �' i - ^r:`i TJ =__ 4 -.r ,fir"_ _ __.. .-:: ..,."":.,-w*.--r• '_i•^ e. -rs+af.-5r'.z+rg045 H:Y'"' 400 __ _ e. I 't 1,5'5A(---. - a I85,7 N gSt 5,32 CH •r��Y/fir ,' ,94/4Tr,.?'r''/ /7/////./r//,/ 1 15 •7�i RE-ENTRANT LINE GRAMHAM 0 L C 39 r. r..<,.rrt. FANNO CREED VILLAGE June 23, 1992 DENSITY CALCULATIONS Gross acreage 279634 Less k dGN'"61 ---Hall Blvd dedication scat ion 4 5 8 9 fa 1570 Flood Plain 55878 -�-- Private streets 23407 Subtotal 195760 divided by 3050 sffunit = 64e18 �a Existing house 1.00 Total 65.15 UNIT MIX 1 bedrooms 24 (2 .5 bldgs) 2 bedrooms 24 (2 .5 bldgs) fi 3 bedrooms 16 (4 bldgs) Mgrs Unit 1 Total 65 ?' INC Garages Carports Open • Han.diCapt)ed l Total } . «,,..1 .,..-..wulY...,. ......,.. .a, a. ., •.. ,.. ,w. a. .,. .,....« ...-.. .1... .. .1,. ,K.i..,,,f.3..a M lai . ATTACHMENT B CITY OF 'IG.'.?. pRE-APPLICATION�Iw �' CQNr E.�.EMC.c. P2C7I''�.��e I.4_1_411. ., DATE: - '�y 5 _ Tt1 • APPLICANT: 4LtA, La(A'.°'�a AGENT: Phone: _, �_�- „_e.. Phone PROPS14.TY LOCATION • .ADDRESS: .....12 ., L C,� C.'t/[... TAX MAP & TAX LOT: �A )I) 1a.;� C,cf 4c 2 NECESSARY pLICATION�s "r" DE--\die:Lopm ---A,3T- l °-(.tJ " S tPROPOSAL UEScRIPTION: t 5 ,. yi� l y'o ied & • 4. ..). -1 4 E. 11• f' Sur 3 , 'a YrtkC+10 61 F 1u ± 1g LJ r , ,4L__.., SDI Ch�T..l 14 b, .iahui, rci ,tq9a ir+ ovder' 10 (c•.eep its a valid JteCi-I'i • S di .. KS �L. 5 i `e ►c I i CX�2�'RI3.HEI�SIVE PLAN D$.,IGNATxON: � � o �� '�ZONIN . • NEIGEBCORHOOD PLANNING ORGA,NXZATION &g,, CEA.I,FIPERSON Pct ' 4i:I'''SC I& PHONE: ° 41 .�:N6 ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQII ENT Minimum lot size: ,sq. ft.I c.+!lit e ' , • Minimum lot width: f Setbacks: front- t1C2. ft. side-j ft., rear-c00 ft. site garage- . t. from both streets. I 'corner-21Q ft. �, Maximum site coverage: $J% Minimum landscaped or nat 'r vegetation area: a , 24axi murn building height ft" , ADDITIONAL LOT DI31iENSJ ONAT.L REQUIREMENTS 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' ess. minimum of frontage or have ,a minimum 15 foot Wide access " '� easement. Maximum lot depth to width ratio 2.5 to 1. , SPECIAL SE'l'DA.0� �� Sc Streets. ft ,._ from t:erxte�3.irze of . Established. areas: ft.l from al©rz the Bitola ... ary Lower intensity Zone; "..._-- ft., g a 54IA1. '� bound ' ', I . Flag lot= 10 ft, side yard setback Accessory stzuctures I up to 52B sq ft. in size=5 ft. setback from side . and rear lot lines Accessory structures up to 1000 sq. ft. (where allowed) -- See appu'icable zoning district setbacks zero lot line lots: minimum 10 foot 'aeparatioi between buil.di.rigs y residential building separation: See Code Section 18.96.030 k3uYt�.�faat►i1. resic�r?n,, Page • • SPECIAL BUILDING I IG`f PROVISIONS . Flag Lots: . axum height of 1-1/2 stories or 25 whichever is less I: in most zones; 2-1/2 stories, or 35 ft. is R-7, R-120 R-25 or ?x-40 zones if standards of Code Section 18.98.030(8) are met. ( Building 1 eight Exceptions (Code Section 18.98.020): Buildings located in ` v. a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: 1. A minimum FAR (building floor area to site area ' AR, build f ratio) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; 2. All actual building setbacks will he at Yeast 1/2 the building's height; and 3. The structure will not abut a residential zone district. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION Community Development Code Chapter 18.92 P specifies that the net residential units allowed on a• articular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable area by the minimum number of square, feet required per dwelling unit in the'applicable zoning district pme gross •s. . y subtracting the following land Net development area �.s calculated• b subtract: areas) from the g site area. 1 All sensitive lands areas ; ;n - land within the 100 year floodplain - slopes exceeding 25 - drainagew .ys 2,. Land dedicated for park purposes 4 3. Public right-of-way dedication a+�f- tai 4. All land provided for private streets (includes accessways ' . through parking areas) The City of Tigard allows a residential density transfer of u p to 25% of } tie units that could otherwise have been developed on sensitive lands areas listed in (1) above to the developable portion of the site in accordance with Code Section 18692.030. t4 res nsibilit of the residential It is the � ., ra po y applicant fear a avp].a.cyt .on to provide a detailed calculation f per ! for ja�.tted re9a_e3.ntival density and density transfer. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOLAR ACCESS RBQuIREmENTs Effective May 1r 99T"gl. »div'isions - •d minor partitions are subject ect to P 7 solar access requ ements wh ch st that 80% of all lots developed must . be solar. orient- . The chara istics of a solar-oriented lot are high i test`��a sun s �;rig' the south wallS and roofs of the houses levels of w.� house orieatatioz ”-.., r zing -uth window area, and a south-sloping roof area To achieve this, one m y utilize the following: } 1. 3aslere ir'ement: Dedii a r - lot with at least 90 feet of north-south Protected . . n 30 degrees of south; I, sSolar 8uildii' eLxne: The solar building line must a) be ` 9 of south0 b) have a minimum of 70 feet • oriented within 30 de reed the ent ) • of 45 it and the mi.dle of the lot to the south, c have a min mUM • lot on feet between it and which the hu:ldingt line is lroccated buildable boundary of the oriented Within .3* ae roes of s an Oast-west . least . � s � � � 9 es axi3 and to c f - X erformance Option . T 3 y requites the house d have at least 80% of the ground door sd.ith wall protected from shade. The • • c M. at px option r Lres at least 32% of the glass a SOO square feet; of the roof area to fl- .;.uth and b e protected from shade. Total or par•ti- . exemption of site from the solar acc--s requirement can be for the f• lowing reasons: . • . Easy,as r west t� n o rth slope- steeper than • . 2. Of,-site shade sources (s. ctures, ve- tation, to gag p Y) 3. • site shade .sources (veg'tation) A:djus • -nta allowing reduction of tha -0% solar lot design requirement can t i be for he following reasons: /. density or a incr '=sed cost of at least five percent due e-`:• west north slope greater than 10%, % - significant natural featu.e, existing road or lotting -ttern, ' .- public easement or right-- f=way. 2. Reduction in important deve,o Pm.._rant amenities. 3a Pre-existing shade (vegetat on). Maps and text sufficient to show •e development complies with the solar design standard, exce at for lots or which an exemption or adjustment is required, including all of the f .lowing items: 1. The north.--south lot dimes'?an and front lot line orientation of each y; Proposed lot. i b 2. Protected solar buildiu. lines and , relevant building site 1 restrictions, if applicab e- - 3. For the purpose of a.dent i,!yi sg trees exempt from Section ?, a•map showing existing trees a least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 Beet above their height pe stating that they are to be retained and 4 are exempt. ' to diameter and species, at. s 4. Copies of all private r str relating fictions gelati to solar olar accesgd If an exemption or adjustme is requested, maps and text sufficient to show that given lots or ai ea, in the develo ;sMply` with the standards for such an ex tion or a ustment ehall a submitted.� c� fo f. • emp r� RESIDENT CAL DENSITY TRANSITION Regardless allowed housing. tensit y in a zoning district, ah y , property within 300 feet a desi n.ted established area shall nOt be 1 developed at a densit y greater. than 125 percent of the a ci it ti - Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adjacent parcel:. j EARKY TG AND ACCESS ...� , •. f I Regt,u�Yred di�tomQbL.�e pd,�r`king for this type of use:,-„� `�� 8� _ ��C,�,�;�� i • dart' use required T ark ng: 3 to . Secart • 25% of required spaces may be designated corn act-onl " saces. p V Standard parking space dimensions: 9 ft. 3( 18 ft. " , space 4 f I.w.. 1 .I Compact parking space dimensions: 8.5 ft: .� 15 - � ' Handicapped Parking: All parking area Providing in excess of five ... _ required au tomcbile parking spaceS shall provide appropriately located ask,1 • designated handicapped parkIng spaces. The Minimum number of handicapped ta�e� i 1 • i I , r � r ,r' d n� �[ I • fit, Y 1.1 , • e r parking spaces ;Ry be provided and parking space ,,,-ze are mandated by the Oregon Revised Statutes (see handout). A handicapped parking space symbol shall-he"painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate 4 sign shall be provided. ( Bi. cle racks are re ired for civic uses', on-residential uses, l commercial uses, and industrial uses rovidin 15 or more automobile P 9 parking spaces. Bicycle parking must be provided at, a ratio of. rave . bicycle rack space per 15 auto parking spaces Bicycle racks shall ha located in areas protected from automobile traffic. The Planning Diviaiort can provide specifications for approved bicycle rack types., All parking areas and driveways must be paved. e ___:_ =4 ,;i7 '...____ v .. 917, H.inimum cumber of accesses: U>�C7 r Q—Min m m access width: l - - ' e maximum access width: • je,t# Pedestrian access must be provided -between building' entrances and parking , areas, outdoor coon areas, and public sidewalks and streets. For detailed information inn design requirements for parking areas and c accesses, see Community Development Code Chapters 18.106 and 16.105. ;' CI.AR VISION AREA The City requiy:es that clear vision be maintained between three and eight feet above grade at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road ' intersections in specified clear vision areas. The size of the required 19~ clear vision area depends upon the abutting streets functiona .. classification , ' \ • LANDSCAPING Street trees are required for all developments fronting ore, a public or ,. . •' private street or'a driveway more than 100 feet in length. Street trees f must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private ' property ig y boundary. Street trees must , !( have a minimum caliper per of two inches at four feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on mature tree Size. p�, Ft regulations p affecting street trees and a fist of �' ' s ' ether information on $ recommended street trees may be obtained from the planning Division. A minimum of one tree r seven parking S; Per P g Spaces must be planted ,, I ' �i and '. �creearound p ound xaark�.n areas -zn order to provide a canopy effect, Landscaped d ning of parking areass' from views from public rights-of-Way must be screening parking provided Page 4 I ti s 1 � W i • • .,,,,...�.,.u61+,w,,..r,,,A,J.+a,.i,a-o, 4t,...._.,...,.rw.,,.1,.r._.... u .,.,..,.. , _d.u.'.;.,,,m., ,..n«m....._.,. µ,w..,.a. ,u.,,,, w , ,..... • BUrFERING AND SCR.: NIN" In order to inc se privacy and to reduce or el .,czate adverse >noise o • vASU 1 irtipa~ts be t.reen adjacent developments, especially between dit±event a, 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 he occupied_ by a mixture of deciduous and . evergreen trees and shrubs- Site obscuring screens or fences are also, requi red in some cases, and often are advisable even if not required. 'lc Required; buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and sidewalks. information on required buffer area mat,rials and'sizes may be. 1' Additional aafr rur • found •in Code Chapter 18.100 and the Planning Division bulletin on landscaping and buffering. Required buffer widths applicable to your proposal area C) ft. along north boundary ft. along east boundary_ ft. along south bound ft. 'along west boundary In addition, sight obscuring screenin g is required along agr1{-G1 ' ` • emu, � i SIGNS permits mu$t be obtained before erecting any sign in the city of T a.g .d. #, A -Guidelines for Sign Permits`" handout is' available upon request. s- Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be 'permitted i the sign proposal Le reviewed as part of a development application. f'c"'C 1rPlX . C�U..,_.,. d� . d ttt ED�i. , SE2�TS'tTI� �NI?..� ' �'3..� .. gC9tQd1C11,fr ' II ADDITIoNAI PLANNING CONCSRNS OR C OxtTs ()t ‘1/4-f"( -"°1\4:D 11.( s teo A, 0 _ , , s I • � � A page 5 .... .. ....,.. .... .,....„u r I ... ... ...... ......,,. .. .... c , ,., ,. .,. .. I. w nu r,,,1 n.M en ,x.v„A, „ ..,r r.,n .., v>.1 n .,n .w., 'lu w.. .,.... , ....•, r•:�� ...I.., • �� , n ' ' , 1, I • LTFtE /' Administrative staff review Public hearing g before the land use hearings' officer. M Public hearing before the .Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission C making a recommendation' on the proposal to the City Council. Another public hearing is held by the City Council. All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member- at the Community Development Department counter at City Hall. Applications subm,&.tted,by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be .returned. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for , processing with ' the following week's applications for.processing. No applications will be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other days. :. Maps saubzxiitted with an application shall be folded in advance to 8.5-by 11 inches. one 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be . submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. The Planning Division and Engineering Divi,i ion will do, a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether' an application is , complete within 10 days• of submittal. Staff will notify an applicant if additional information or copies of the submitted materials are needed. The administrative deois.ion/public - hearing typically will occur approximately_45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional tine to review. Written decisions are issued within, 10 days of the hearing. A 10 n day appeal period f owe all decd. ions.. An aPPal on this matter would heard by the 14 NsQ JC7 Wt 1' � {�J ( be h • gr illustrating the w process is available from the A. basic flew diagram �.11us�tratn t*he reuse Planning Division. The 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 development of a partilar site and to allow the staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your Site plan. Failure of the staff to provide any information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements, It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting' an application. ' Another pre-application conference is required if an application £3 to be ' submitted more than six months after this pre-application conferences unless the second conference IS deemed unnecessary by the Planning Division: 1 p?�pA.R:ED BY: t - PLANNING D ISIoN PHONE: 639-4171 rh" page 6 a," 4 P�LIC FAcIL$TIES The purpose 0L, the pre-application conferenct:,- i3 to: (i.) identify applicable Com-reheitsive Plan policies and ordinance provisions; (ii), to PP P provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns; and (iii) to review the application revew process with the applicant , � including identifying who will. be th final. decision 'maker for the (r N . will � s to be application. The extent of public �.azi• �veatients and dedications required of the applicant ill be recommended City staff and approved by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to by City staff until all commenting agencies, City ,staff and the decision ubl have had an opportunity .to review and comment on the r aPPiicatiof. The following comments are a projection of public • improvement related 'requirements that may be required as a• condition of ; development approval for your project. 1.1.4.aht-o£-war dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public to increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ; ultimate functional street classification right3-of-way width specified by the Community Development Code. n. Approval of a development application for• this site will require '.i.) dedication of right-of-way for . : • 9', 1......, L-�/ to fe et from centerline. , to feet from centerl • Clj ..._ �..�._;;�..:.....__ centerline. Street im rovement s C . 1. street improvements is v�ll ,be necessary along : -(.-- L4) . 2. street improvements will be necessary along . i I q, -'" r Needed street include 1-ttt.,IC /D 9L c � � A centerline, improvements will s.n feet of pavement - from cex . curb and � gutters, storm sewers, a five-foot wide teat ro .. 2 . , ary . streetlights, and a two year sidewalk, necessary street signs. 4 ss. ' , ` „ streetlighting fee. ,_ In some cases w here street sm p r . ants or necessary s public ..--, . improvements - -eyeas may be � 'are not currentls a �� 1� t of development approval,4_ , deferred. In these cases, pment a, roval, .they property owner(s) must exe non r •�onstrance agreement which waives s the property owner's right to remonstr- a against the formation of a local p formed to mprov- r asu rovemerit district • 1. Pedest ys: w,, k M�_ r~AA LA.1 A, _,: , US�_.�,.. y a rs.an�ra s bi3cew .... . a ,ewes The closest sanitary sewer to his Property is as �: �~ a�▪ i-.line located -ems _.-ib 1.t q?.. :.i�p e ,.:._... The proposed development Must be connected to a, sanitary sewer rt is the develo- per's. a responsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed development site's � _Storm sewer Lsnxz ovenietts ,9 L:rC.� ..L ( (mar b C,"1 ^' ` Zf l.Gf(. Ci S i_ce g 14 �.:..... ) Page 7 , . I 5 rl ^ G r� A.:..e.,.,..,.1•,d-;.w,.,el,w':.,. ,«._..•,.r,.r ...._: o..;:. . ,r..r..,,...,,�4.,.wu W.1s�t ..,,..._a'.:.....,. ..lM,.J. .. u R r .r.+u.4+r x H �,r a w+n.h„i r:, , -:.. ,, u.. •,. u.-,F,:n Jn.w ae,Wr. eeary - , ` Fluter 5 1v,�: T ,._„1 1.Cs A CA D _ Water Dis t�` :t `('Phone: C,237-11 provides public ter service in the area of this' site. The District • should be contacted. fos .information regarding water supply for your x proposed 3evelap ment, ( Fire Protectin: ,Tualatin 'IValley Fire and Rescue District (contact: Gene Flirchill,, 645-85.33) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District 'shou.ld be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Other Agency Fermi-ts: - ,,.., __OPI..C6+ `11-C.-/ __.......,=....,.......LW... . . TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In August,, 1990, the Washington County Board.of Commissioners adopted the county-wide Traffic /Impact Fee (TIP) ordinance and referred the,measure to gt y September, 1990, th"e Washington County the Washington County voters. , In . electorate overwhelmingly approved expanding ,the TIP program throughout, all jurisdictions within'the county. This action 'placed into effect an in Creased street development free on all 'new deve1opcneut in Washington County.' The City of- Tigard. has adopted the county's program. The City Traffic Impact Fee program will collect fees from new development based on the development's projected impact on the transportation system'. they are projected prt to `l be required to pay based on the number of trips theylo are p rtles g aerate. The TIP is. calculated based on type of use, size of project, and a general use based...fee category. The TIP shall be calculated at time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payttent` of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until issuance of occupancy- permit. pym p cy ■ al of a eat until oec�u an ys }, permissible only when th I2 is Deferral than $5,000.00. . , STOsrATER QUALITY PEES The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to . enforce, Resolution Noo 9043, Surface. Water 23anagement Regulations, requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in • lieu of their construction. The resolution. requires that a fee, and/or i y _ y n J' construction of a water quality facility bar built. The fee �.s based on the amount of impervious surface, for every 2640 square feet or portion thereof, the fee shall be $375.00. The City^ of Tigard.determines if a fee or facility shall be built. STREET OPENING PERMIT No work within a public right-of-way shall com ence until the applicant , has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department- FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS ' ` On all proaects that require a gradin g p lava the applicant Shall submit with the grading plan a typical floor plan for each lot which shall have r corners of that plat along With elevations at the corner of ofach lot�r,uzr.. ju PR.EI"AF�D BBC Igo... A .. I ,,;» ENGINEERING DIVISION N 11 PHONE: 639-»4171 J0:pR8ApF,msT Page 8 C 'I • ' r i II rvy e, 1 ,, r 6 pa . , I_ . .v...w..-.w..,.r.--.1 ...,..-.n..wl.r.....„..�u.... r.x..-.,.:r.,,.1....ti ..,...,... ..r ,,.._,;- ........ r. ..,,. .,a.,- .. .-w ti-` ee CITY. OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE„hNOTES („), (-) -- 'E (2- A 1 cli APPZ,.ICANT. A. I1�4lCf/f ' AGEN"�. _� phone: . ,,4 —ti 0u! Phone: PROPERTY LOt:A� � ADDRESS: "?. I t3" 1 W. s�? ,& � $I C _ ,AX MAP & TAX LOT: `S _ cjv•�LL L ' Lc 4COQ F NECESSARY P.LICATION(S : L g L e_ rat • e a � w PROPOSAI. DE c II?TI.ON: t'i;. r ,ur t 1 _ - drC)(✓€ {, . (1) V" %,"61. 6€3 -t�` ! r- 014.. A .• `e, 5:� tpti itiy+ a is 4. .r14.irl i= 7_- V444'--t47. t e,.r4., y.,.?.,,, it:ig , r. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ott vi,,,,, -Devi 'J c 5\d,,e.fft,- -0 f ' . , , i.4 ZONING DESIGNATION: " .. �. r , .w IZATION ._ CHAIRPERSON:x y 1. t :A 1e. p L __, fit,`, ' NEIGF3Bc�RHOOD PLANNING ORGAN PHONE: -C1'��i �.�O it n�„ P xd ),, ' f,.'it ZONING DISTRICT',DIMENSIONAL :REQUIREMENT; ,� Minimum lot size: ._ sg. ft. 0U/141- Minimum lot width: ft ft. ,.. Setback��: front- '�,�<' ft. side- ft) ft., rear—�..� �, garage- ft. corner-, ft. from both streets. Madcimum site coverage: � g � pe fv.g % r 1 vegetation area building height:Maximum bualdca d or nat Ma.na.xnt�m lands ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ` 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 eat;ement u Maximum lot depth to width ratio of 2.5 to 1. i - SPECIAL SETBACKS ' r ' Streets: ft. from centerline of —_. e ft. from _ Establa�shed areas: - Lower intensity zones: ft., along the site's 5O 4 . boundary is . . Flag lot!: 10 ft. side yard setback AccessorY, structures,.,. up to 520 sq. ft. in size--5 ft. seth)ack from side and rear lot lines . 1000 sq. ft. (where allowed) See a up to 0 .trut�ture. . � �.cce�sor � q y p applicable zoning district setbacks hero lot line lots: minimum 10 foot separation between buildings Multi-family residential building separation: See Code Section 18.96.030 Page 1 r. x � r a 1 , ■ ...._,A>.,. _ .�, ., ,_,»a,. ..,:i�..,,,..,�.,..... �.w:-...4�,. ........,mac .. 0 SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Ns S ' Flag Lots: Maximum height of 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less in most zones; 2-1/2 stories or 35 ft. in R-7, R--12, R-25 or • R-40 zones if standards of Code Section 18.98.030(B:', :errs met.', Building Height Exceptions (Code Section 18.98.020): Buildings located in, a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: 1. A minimum FAR (building. floor area to site area ratio) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; 2. All actual building setbacks will be at least 1/2 the building's height; and 3`. The structure will net abut a residential zone a district. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION Community Development Code Chapter 18.92 specifies that the net ■ IA residential units allowed on a particular site may be calculated by g developable by minimum number of w, dividing the n tired per the develo able area b the min net area of pp X-4.-(' ''."------) unit le zoning district. square feet req pe dwelling ura�.t in the•a l�.cab Net development area is calculated' by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: 1. All sensitive lands areas -- within the 100 Year flood lain land 1 P - slopes exceeding 25% _ . - drainageways 2. Land dedicated for park purposes 3 Public right-of-way dedication At4 Ai .• 4. All land provided for _ _ . p rivate streets (a'nclu des accts s ways ct405 through parking` areas) The City of Tigard allows a residential density transfer of up to 28% of that Could otherwise have been developed on sensitive lands h P the units areas listed ,n ed in (1) above to the developable portion of the site b accordance with Code Section 18.92.030. It is the responsibility of the applicant for a residential development applacation to provide a detailed calculation for PerMitted residential density and density transfer. v •t � RESIDENTIAL DE'tT.BLOP2fiF�N.� 5 2"a�.�"' bS5 REQtl`l�I��.81�T•si:noz Partitions are sub ec ' ' SOLAR ACCESS r ' S Effective May 1 19 divisioins d a+ j t to solar access requ'rements wh`.ch''st that 80% of all lots developed must be solar-or'iente•. The char., istics of a solar-oriented lot are high levels of w' .. g walls and roofs of the house, 1.w g :ou house orientation zing � n the south ;sal south-Sloping roof, x.nt-ert a sun - eh y window area, and a south-s ` area. To achieve this, one m-y utilize the following: �•j Basic re e 1. •, (�Ji ment y Desi n`a lot with at least 90 feet of north-south lot, dimension and an,or'entation within 30 degrees of south; -'2. Protected Solar B iildi"g Line: The Solar building line must a) be oriented within 3 , r feet between it and the miedle, of the lot to the south, c) have a minimum b) minimum of 45 feet between it and the northernmost buildable boundary of the lot on which the bu'lding line is located: • 3. Performance Option-: >The first , option requires the house to be oriented within 31 degrees of an east-west axis and have at least 80% of the ground loor south wall protected from shade. The, second page e 2 •rr , i e a • w 4.l. a.A a:d4.L.,.... ..,.� —.e. r. �,� ..::,iw.-1 r A 6, r option requires at least 32% of the g lass and 500 square feet of the roof area to f outh and, be protected from shade. T otal or part exemption of site from the solar acc-=s requirement can be for the f• lowing reasons: ,^ Eas , west or north slope.: steeper than 2.. Of' -site shade sources (s•ructures,_ ve►-tation, topography) 3 . 0 site shade sources (veg-tation). Adjus t..-nts allowing reduction of th= =0% solar lot design requirement can be for the following reasons: 1. R duced density or a. incr--sed cost of at least five percent due to �- e. s north slope greater than 10%, I.- significant natural featu'e, -. existing road or lotting ±attern, or right- €- . Reduction in important deve o went amenities. P g ]' 2. � important Pm "I 3. Pre-existing shade (vegetat on) MaPs and text ry sufficient to show he development complies with the solar design Standard, except for lots ior which an exemption or adjustment is required,' including all of the fa lowing items: • 1. north-south lot dimens" .n and front lot line The norther-s in® or�.entat ,on of each proposed lot. 2. Protected solar buildin» lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicab e. 3. For the purpose of 'identit ying trees exempt' from Section F, a map showing existing trees a. least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 "•eet above grade, including their height diameter and species, an�� stating and • diam p , g that they are be retained • are exempt. 4. Copies of all private r strictions relating to solar access. • If an exemption or adjustme is requested, maps and text sufficient to show that given lots or area in the development comply with the, standards . for etch an exemption or a justment shall be submitted. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSITION Regardless of the allowed housing density) in a zoning district, any property within 100 feet of a designated established area shall not be developed at a density greater than 125 percent of the maximum Comprehensive Plan designation not zoning) adjacent parcel. • I of the P ACCESS IRR�i redautomobile parking for this type of use: + . 13 ".' �' Secondary use required parking: 'a ti5it 25% of re .red spaces may he designated compact-only y spaces m ,144' standard ark p i.ng space dimensions: 9 ft. X 18 ft. Compact parking space dimens tons. 8.5,'ft. Y 15 ft Handicapped parking: All pa,..rkin g areas providing g" i n excess xcess of five • required automobile parking spaces shall provide appropriately located and designated handicapped p ark ing spaces. The minimum n umber of handicapped page e 3 I ' P^ A t r, parking spaces to be provided and parking space size are mandated by the Oregon Revised Statutes (see handout). A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate *16. sign shall be provided. . Bicycle racks are required for civic', uses, non-residential uses, commercial uses, and industrial uses providing 15 or more automobile parking spaces. Bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of. one bicycle rack space per 15 auto parking spaces. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic. The Planning Division •, can provide specifications for aP. P rove d bicycle rack types. •,, All parking areas and driveways must be paved. c � -qaaeu , ivL. , ' Min imum number of accesses: V,, c 4 1 _. _ access width: _ ' . ' , Maximum access width: """ Pedestrian access must be provided between building entrances and parking areas, outdoor common areas, and public sidewalks and streets. For detailed information on design requirements for perking areas and accesses, see Community Development Code Chapters 18.106 and 18.108. CLEAR tlI S lON AREA The Cit y requires qu that clear vision be maintained between three and eight feet above grade at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road `Intersections in specified clear vision areas. The size of the,required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. LANDSCAPING Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or R Private street treet or a driveway more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way 'or on private . ` property within s .right-of-Way boundary. es must ,. at ere have a minimum caliper fetofftw the inches at four feet rabo e r grade. Street ' trees should 'be spaced 20'to 40 feet apart ` g trees depending on mature tree size. ! Further information on regulations affecting street trees and a list of ` recommended street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. I A msnamp un.. of one n e tree per seven parking sp aces must be planted a.n and aro u nd parking areas order to p rovide a canopy effect. Landscaped perescreening of parking areas from viewe from public rights-of-way moat be .� � 1 rovided Page ,4 F • ,'• aW ,t ..,Y?.U.!».wY,h♦4.1,•Meru.a.warli:.L:W:♦..J..4M<:..,.A. . '. f v4knn«.xr k..,. Y ,r.,.ti♦,, m«t,.,+.«._.1..-..x... .,.N,I..,ra....::..na,.uia ti... _ ,,_. w. aaw.uwre,_..M.I,,.v,.a:xN 1_ _ .««. .». BUFFERING AND SCREENIN ri In order to increase privacy and to reduce or eliminate 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. Site obscuring screens or fences are also .rod e in some cases, and required , often are advisable even if, not required. Required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and sidewalks. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be + found in Code Chapter 18.100 .4 ad the Planning Division bulletin on landscaping and buffering. Required buffer widths applicable to your proposal area: I ft. along north boundary ft. along east boundary ' L ft. 4tlong south boundary ft along west boundary In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along V)0V- 'mil. SIGNS rm Peits must be obtained before erecting any .sign in the City of Tigard.♦, g A "Guidelines for, Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if ' the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development application. +, SENSITIVE LANDS CA C=c .. �( .0C[ R ail I �► e.1 �1 CC � /1. f,' z ,AND rel., ' tt v- oav: o.I'd rte •tyie r _:ttec.—e i poi li. _ t Icipole$1,T ......._41,„,7i..1,7 \l,A •. mC 1 y e.›til IA d'1 _ I , ADDITIONAL PLANNING CONCERNS OR COMMENTS 1. 4,rs t 1 i x..17 + x 1 1 9 I ......0_1 (1 e. e e.,. -`r 0 (6, 1 O, t 0, A ■ 1 i i • ti h ?age q a a ■ , _Au ..,_.mtiw. uka .au ;. w «c+V <. rrwwF :K,. w ' ( (... PROCEDURE / Administrative ve staff review. Public hearing before • and use hearings officer. .,Public hearing before the Planning Commission. ' Public hearing before the Planning commission with the CoMmission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. Another public hearing is held by the City Council. + All applications mast be accepted by a Planning Division staff member• at the Community Development Department counter at City Hall. Applications, submitted-by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division i' acceptance may be returned. Applications submitted after 4-:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week's applications for-processing. No applications will be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other days, !, Maps submitted with an application shall be folded in advance to 8.5 by 11 inches. One. 8.5 inch by 1.1 inch map of a proposed project should be . submitted for attachment-to the staff report, or administrative decision. !` The Planning Division and Engineering Division will do a preliminary f r review determine. w of the application and will determi whether, an application is 4�. ,, days information or submittal. Staff will notify an applicant if • ' � complete within 10 ays of copies of the submitted`materials are needed. The administrative decision/public . hearing typically will occur approximately 45.to 60 days after an application is accepted as complete . by the Planning Division. : Applications involving difficult issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written decisions are issued within 10 days of the hearing. A 10 " day appeal period foAows all deci, ions. An appal on this matter would be heard by the „ „ L-, Nt -t h.3C✓ `L0vih',N1.1 dd ti.J. A basic flow diagram illustrating; the review process is available from the Planning Division. The pre-application conference and the y notes of the., conferenc>e ate , intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community .• site and Development!✓o Code allowe Cher st staff and applicable oev applicant of a particular Prospective pplicant to discuss the , opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. The conference and notes cannot cover all k' a 11 +Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the dvelopment of your site plan, t Fax.l ure of the staff to provide any information required by the Code shall ' not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or re irements. It is recommended that a• a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions Of city Staff relative to Code, requirements Prior to submitting an a plicationw P g PP conference is required if an application Another Pre-appX icat ioz� confer .�r,{u� is to he submitted more than six months after this pre-application conference, Y unless the second conference is deemed unnec essary by the Planning • Divisions J C 'P PEPAREII BY w . PLANNING DI 1SION PHONE;.. 639- 171 Page 6 , • .,...::-+.f......,+....t.r w._a_..,L i -.il: ...t:c... .,u.,.., .4.....s...... . , _ _ WW PUBLIC LzC F ACIL'ITIES The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (i) identify k • applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions; (ii) to , provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns; and (iii) to review the application review process with the applicant including identifying who will be the final decision maker for the application. The extent of public improvements and dedications to be r ' required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and approved f , by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to I the decision maker by.City staff until all commenting agencies,. City staff r and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your project. Right-of.-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be j dedicated to the public to increase abutting public rights-of-way to the , ulti mate ° classification rights--of--way width specified by f: ' ate functional street the Community Development Code. p Approval of a development application fos.'' this site will require I _LA dedication of right.-of--way for ..�.�r • • L»� � to feet from centerline,. to ...� feet from .cent 2 w.� erllne• Street et im•rovements: V M ` street in rovemen n is w ill be necessa rY aloe ga ,� street improvements 2. � . will be necessary.,.along �� l'-A1 JA.)"() : ;.)A'it� of " 3. Needed. street improvements will include f eet f pavement from centerl. ,ne, curb and gutters, storm sewers, a five-foot wide ■ sidewalk, necessary street signs, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. In some cases where street 4-- improvements are not currentl 1 actic-1, the sq,Other pre�nements may be owner(s)In must exec non-remonstrance agreement which waives deferred. s -s a cone of development approval, the I � property , m g the property owner's right to remonstr. e against the formation of a local t e improvement district formed to improv- w yl 2w � ,r --�,Pedestrianwa s bi3tev�d s. �' 1� Lf� �tJ x , y / � � ._....,..�. _ to . • . _ sewer to this ro ert �s aft �' �;d.4d'�'j. san�.•tary s P P �` � line located sewers: The closes'L t$f �, w The proposed SanL1.. r __ ated � � er development rted 'to a sanitary sewer. It is the developer's nt must be corm responsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed development site's }' P Storm sewe5. improvements: Id1 e . V" t X u91" G1 c big I- ree ge 7 Pa ,� I is � ,I I ... -.„ .n"•a*..•?4:_....NYi+..Wt.L:h.'!t'a..#w14aJ..fw.+"f Water supply': Th l C2 ? Water District (Pl�one. 9 k provides public water service in the area of this site. The District . should be contacted, for 'information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: •Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. (Contact: Gene Dirchillr 645-8533) pro' ides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be 'contacted for information regarding the • adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. d r ' brae Other Agency perm s:s: �, �'t�1rt► C )sl y TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In August, 1990, the Washington County Egard of Commissioners adopted the county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Ordinance and referred the,measure to. the Washington County voters. . In Septeiber, 1990, the Washington County electorate overwhelmingly approved expanding the TIF program throughout all jurisdictions within'the county. This action placed into effect an ' increased street development fee on all new 'development in Washington County. The City of Tigard. has adopted the county's program, City Impact program will. collect fees from new development t based on the development's .ro ected im Fact on the transportation The C�.t Traffic Im act Fee projected impact po anon' system•, Developing properties will be required to pay based on the number of trips they are projected to generate. The TIF is. calculated based on type of use, size of project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall circumstances, payment of the TIF may permit issuance. In limited be calculated at time of building be allowed to be deferred until issuance occupancy' pe • Deferral of payment until il occu ancy, is permissible when rIF is g x eater than $5,000.00. '/ / STURMwTheRtlni�ied Agency Sewerage A has established g g ablished and the City has agreed to . enforce, Resolution No 90-43, surface. Water Management Regulations, requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in lieu of their construction. The resolution requires that a fee and/or construction of a water quality facility be built. The fee is based on the amount of impervious surface; for every 2640 square feet or portion or thereof, the fee shall shall built. 3.5.00. The y' Tigard determines if a `fee e Ct of, T� and X STREET OPENING PERMIT No work within , ` �;n a public right-of-way- shall commence until the applicant • p has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department.. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS On all projects that require a grading plain the applicant shall submit With the grading plan a typical floor plan for each lot which' shall have the elevations of four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. PREPARED By; A ENO NEERING DIVISION PHONE: 639-4171, JO:PREAPP 2ST Page 8 • x .�:.a...;. .....e..nii rl r4 ....r.w.m_ 1»�♦::.,,.:.:.u,a.,ial..-.:_r..—... ...: r.: r -.. H r..:1.... .:a .,,..': ..o •.:.-•.i........; r r. . nur r • • a d ' ' "r NOTIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONF.a ( L copies CPC)„;r 10. 1. NPO NO. 2„ (: a ' 2- CITY DEPARTMENTS '. `; ' Board�a Recreation B / d R !i' P rks & t/ Official/Brad' Building rC►i,fi 9 , • Police City Recorder 'Field Operations '.� Engineering/Chris D. y• ""�� ator/Viola 0. ' . _ Permits Ccsordin .• 3. SPECIAL DIS CTS ' - Fire District School Dist No. 48 .---- (Pick--up box) (Beaverton)$ Joy Pahl PO Box 200 Beaverton, OR 97075 (,/'/Tigard Water District School Dist.. 23J r . i 8 77 7 SW Burnham St.' ,(Ti a rd ) Tigard, OR 97223 13137 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, OR 97223 Tualatin Valley Water District ' • ' , , , 6501 SW Taylors'Ferry Rd.•' Tigard; OR 97223 ' 4. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS , Wash. Co.'Land Use &'Transp. Boundary Commission 150 N. First t a 97124 320 SW Stark Room 530 ' „ Hillsboro, 7 Portland, OR 97204 , Brent Curtis Joann Rica 3 2 lSWd OR ave.Martit 2000 SW 1st ave. ' ' Scott King ; 97201-5398 Fred Eberle , Mike Borrenon DLCD (CPA's only) • City of Beaverton 1175 Court St. NE �� dim BOx x755' 4 Salem, OR 97310-0590 ' Beaverton, OR 97076 Other ” . City of King City City of Durham ' -r'"• City Manager City Manager ' ' 15300 SW 116th 17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.' ' i` King City, OR 97224 Tigard,' ORi 97224, ' City, of Lake Oswego City;of Portland ' City Manager • Planning Director ' ' 380 SFr 74 1120 SW 5th g ; 97034 ' Portland, OR 97204 aka oawe o OR 970 ��, ghWay Divisi on �r ; , Bob Corm P® Box 2412 �� C Portland OR 97225-0412 5. SPtC ,t AGENCIES ,y,,y General Telephone' t" Portland General Elec. 1, , , . , 7"...a.... Russ Wells Brian Moore . ' 12460 SW Main St. 14655 SW Old Scholls Fry. ' • i and OR 197223 averton OR 97007 NW Natural'Gas iJ Metro Area Communications , - Scott Palmer Jason Hewitt ry NW Second Ave.. TWin Oake Technology Center ! ' i • Por 115 NW 169th Place S-6020 ' CI- i - 97209 r, Portland OR Beaverton, OR 97006-148$6 . TCI Cablevisien of Oregon ' ' ' Mike Hallock US Weat 3500 SW Bond St. Pete Nelson ertlandy OR 97201 421 SW Oak St.' Portland, OR 97204 . Columbia Cable (Frank Stone) 1 _4200'SW Brigadaon Ct. Beaverton, OR 97005 (' . 6. STATE AGENCIES Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) OGAtit Engineer Division of State Lands Board of RReblth Comsaercb Dept. - N.H. Park Fish & Wildlife " Parke & Recreation LCDC , " Suidivieion supervisor "`"'-'" Dept. of Energy Pile 1 p y ,._Mai h l �. De t. of 3nviron. t4alit hire Otha�r' e, 7. FEDERAL AGENCIES _ Corps:'ok. Engineers Other Past Office :...,._. r 8. OTHER Southern PaCI c r e arta�'-3oY Cora a f i Tan n . y Duane N. Forney; !Px+S Project Rng3nlee,r � 6 000 kW th Avenue; R. 32d, Union ,5tatiG,on Portland, OR 97209 I fi s • I.1 1 a i • :;.». ...,,,: ,. a iu,w..;wa • • Staff ---- /,. . .Y. Date 10_,2,,9_14/ CITY OF TIGARD , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST c li below are required for the successful completion of The items ante checklist st b q p ' . your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your;. application. This sheet MUST be brought •\ and submitted with all other materials at the time you submit your , application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call Planning at 639-4171. ITEMS TO BE BASIC MATERIALS INCLUDED: + . • A) Application form (1 copy) B) Owner's signature/written authorization [ 1, C) Title transfer instrument L a ' D) Assessor's map C k E) Prot or site plan [Z3 F) Applicant's statement L L ..�a-� •�-•f1 bt��A !�F;i•^-d�.- M�G4'P-e...s P s..iL]. r- •.- --�.'1^ fc?-t C (H) Filing fee SPECIFIC ► AT RxAL E a s ow'h (No. of copies ( ):to �h � C arr �, �, n A) Site Inf n p � 1)) Vicinity Map ( Ct, 2) Site size & dimensions L 3) Contour lines <(2 ft at 0-10%;or 5 ft for grades > 10%) [W , 4) Drainage patterns,) g p • s, courses, and ponds L 5) Locations of natural hazard areas including: a) Floodplain areas L f b) Slopes ih' excess of 25% L c) Unstable ground C ] d) Areas` with high seasonal water table C e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential [ f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils t • n . 6) Location � �� areas as oh the Comprehensive Map inventory including: a) Wildlife habitats C b) Wetlands C " " '" s etue . other r s t,e f a r h 7 � " outcroppings c t' R oC b), T Trees " . measured 4 feet ' with 6 �- caliper m '4t from' ground level. E 8) Location of existing structures and their uses 9) Location and type of on and off—site noise sources [ 1 , ' . 10) Location of existing utilities and easements ' I 11) Location an of existing dedicated right of _ways L+ . t Plan showi No. of co ies -1)Site Deye].orh pen n 'W�_ .( P 1) The proposed site and urrounding properties L 2) Contour line 'intervals C 3) The location, dimensions and names of all: a) Foisting & platted streets & other public ways and easements oh the site and on adjoining C pruperties S APPLICATION CNECIiLIT Page 1 • b) droposed streets or other publi mays & easements on the site. ['m�J c) Alternative routES of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension [ ] 4) The location and dimension of: a) Entrances and exits on the site [LT b) Pa rki n g an d c ircula io n areas ' c) Loading and services areas • d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation [ e) outdoor common areas,, [ f) Above ground utilities [ 5) The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent Property within 25 P p feet of the site C b) oe structures, improvements, Proposed utilities and easements on the site 6) Storm drainage facilities .a Pfd 'tn s 7) Sanitary sewer facilities [ r 8) The location of areas to be landscaped [La.'' 9 The location and`_-type of outdoor lighting ) yp_, I _•• considering crime prevention techni• ques q C 10) The location of mailboxes [ 11) The location of all structures,.`. ii and their orientation [ 12) Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements ( 3 C) Grading Plan (No, of copies ) [ The site, development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale .as the ,, .he s scale site analysis drawings and shall ' contain the following information: 1) The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating general contour lines, slope p e ratios and soil stabilization {�-.�roosals', and time of Year ' p y it is proposed to be done, [ ) , 2) A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report [ b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals C c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated [ 3 • D) Architectural Drawings (No. of copies ) [ The site development plan proposal shall include: 1) Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on—site; and 2) Typical elevation drawings of each structure, C L 1= Landscape plan (No, of copies ): � [ The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1) Description of the irrigation system where applicable [ 2) Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings [ APPLICATION C- C t LxST° — Page e 2 I • 0 ..w.-:.:.,.., ,.a.. ..,.,» ..,.....,.A..:.;...w...-,.r,..T.'„rwW.-,w-wi,..,,», ,.. ......, »..o a.a ++.f-,n;i_...._. ..,....;n 4,a.........i'..,r-.+......w...:.:..M.....,y-«,i-....•.....w.,+ ,;a...wu...•.aa. . ..,.«,4.. .-w•., .... o .::a>k .. ... ....a.,.,«Fw.eaA , f ( 3) Loc on of terraces, decks, shelter( play areas and common open spaces . [ 4) Location, type, size and species of existing and ,1 ,. proposed plane materials. A. The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: ,,,.. 1) Soil conditions. [ 3 . • 2) Erosion control measures that will be used. [ r F) n Drawings • Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct the sign, [ G) Traffic generation estimate [,3 • , H) Preliminary partition or lot line adjustment map showing (No. of Copies � ) 1) The owner of the subject parcel [ 2) The owner's authorized agent [ 3) The map scale, (20,50,10 or 200 feet=1), inch north arrow and date E ] ; ' 4) Description of parcel location and boundaries Ca 5) Location, width and names of streets, easements and ° other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel [ 3 6) Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of.all property lines [ 3 7) Location and width of all water courses [ ] 8) Location of any trees with 6`” or reater caliper at any � p 4 feet above ground level [ ] 9) All slopes greater than 25% , [ 3 ,, 10) Location of existing..utilities and utility easements [ 3 11) F`or, major land partition which creates a public street: �. a) The proposed right—of—way location and width [ • b) cross—section Of the proposed street • A scaled cr proposed ; plus any reserve strip L 3 . 12 1 An y applacable deed restrictions , 13) Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable e [ 3 e_a O C I) Subdivision Preliminary plat N!a and data showin Noy of • Copies ) : 1) scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet [ 3 I 2) The proposed name of the subdivision [ 3 4 3) y p property's s 's relationship , 3 Vicinity map showing relat�.onshx to arterial. and collector streets 4) Names, addresses' and telephone numbers of the owner developer, engineer, surveyer, designer, as applicable[ 3 , 5), sate of application C 3 6) 13ouhdary lines of tract to be subdivided [ ; 7) Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded i owners of adjoining parcels of unsubdivided land [ 8) contour lines related to a City-established bench- mark at 2—foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater , than 10% [ ,, APPLICATION C E CKL l 8Y — pa 1 n . t , .,.._ 1.w-.,a_........._,.... .n,.H...�.:,«w.....v.'_:..k•.4., •,..,...F..ra »..H-,,.».... .'. .,lw:c:w.w«.,.a.^.WMw. ...rm1.:1:.«.a-.s.w:.«..wn+-F...,s-w�.w..,..u..,..a:;.lli.,..a.an..:.+T.a.'._.,,:'.'i......,w-u..au� 4 • 7" 4 la 9) she 4yy purpose, location, type and size''-of all of the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): C ] a) Public and private right—of—ways and easements [ ] b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines [ ] c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants [. ] d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) [ ) u e) Watercourses [ ] ' f) Deed reservations for parks, open space, pathways and other land encumbrances C 3 10) Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and grades pipe sizes indicated [ ] storm saucers with rades and ip.. sx�es 11) Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes., and the location of valves and fire hydrants [ ] 12) Approximate centerline profiles showing, the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision. C '] • 18) Scaled cross sections of proposed street [ ] 14) The location of, all areas subject to inundation or . storm water overflow [ ] 15) Location, width and direction of flow of all water-- .. courses and drainage ways C 3 • 16) The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where loses are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots [. ] 17) The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater g the of proposed tree plantings,measured at 4 feet above ground level, and M ntings, if any [ ,] 18) The existing uses of the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses of �` • are to remain after platting which structure.. the .�tru�t«�re�, and a atement of • m p g C ] 19) Supplemental Information including: ) s p deed restrictions (if any) [ ] b) proof of property ownership C ] c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements C 3 2�?) xzs t xng natural features including rock out _,. �croppings, wetlands and marsh areas [ 21) If any of the foregoing information practicably • ` �� .on cannot be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the applic 'cione C 3 L 3) Other information formati.pn C J • (2362P/0028P) APPLICATION CHECkLIST - Page 4 • 1..+[.Al:n @ ++..1..r.. 1 a .rs.. _ .w"i-,..:. .m v ..11. .A ..11 ...av ..<_. . .._... .•.4-.. a...u. -. ......v♦ �I, n • CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES p,.o I APPLICANT: �4�r �L.. v e� � "� .� AGENT: Phone: 1 _�_...� Phone: PROPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS: 4 L. TAX mAP & TAX LOT NECESSARY APPLICA IONS • " LI 1() ' 44 f °Pekit)e r ►^'..te » i . � PROPOSAL DES RI 'r ON: �.» V t once, 40 ktf�Ve„ e 4i6,4,0... O "tied Loy ohs �._, -A rI•#/ r. dot, y[. ° iy _4 +) • I . COMPREHEN.�r'VE PLAN DESIGNATION: 114/e0(..k �� ..i1L`�,e C �� t t' ZONING DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION 4_� CHAIRPERSON: ` PHONE: ZONING DI ZQ G DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size: 0,0 " q. f,t. Minimum lot width: ft. Setbacks:: front- ft._ side ft., rear-fl . ft. garage- _ ft. corner- ' ft. from both streets. Max imum site coverage: % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: Maximum building height ft. ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: unless lot is created through the minor lax+ u Lots c r eated as part of a par=tition must have a minimum of 15 feet of fr ontage or have a minimum 15 foot wide access easement. Maximum lot depth to width ratio of 2.5 to 1. SPECIAL SETBACKS S ft Y streets: from centerline of I, Lower intena r._mDf1e r T- t«� along the ste's boundary i ', a10 ft. side yard setback Accessary structures: u::, to 52 3 a . ft. in size=5 P ft; setback q k froth side and rear lot lined —Accessory str • y. structures: up to 1000 sg fts (where allowed) - See applicable zoning district setbacks l�iult.i- fami1 resin, building i _y i Zero lot line lotdent al i1 ee orate separation: between buildings , . . P See Code Section 18 96.030 Page i • I , i • r r r • r it ........... r...v..,.. ..,........r. ..m:.. fw..r I :.w . ..'....v .n. x. ...rw r,. el. v.. airvr. rr..r .. x...r le , ..r a rr .. u '4.._ SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT, PROVISIONS , Flag Lots: Maximum height of 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less in most zones; 2-1/2 stories or 35 ft. in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones if standards of Code Section 18.98.030(B) are met. Building Height Exceptions (Code Sedti ,4:8:' 020) Buildings located in . ..aet-gyp a non-residential zone may be built o a Y�ei• t of 75 feet provided: 1 A minimum AR (bui :inr .,,floor'area to site area ratio) of 1 t .-«'wrli exist; 2. All actual bui •ing setbacks will be at least 1/2 the building height; and 3.. The strsotiare will not abut a residential zone distr-; RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION Community Development Cole Chapter 18.92 specifies that the net residential units asl,a;,:ed on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net ar.3a of the developable area by the minimum number of , q required per dwelling snit i. ` square feet re n the applicable zoning distr�.ct. �P 4 Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land . • area(s) from the gross site area: 1. All sensitive lands areas W land within the 100 year floodplain .... slopes exceeding 25% ' - drainageways 2. Land dedicated.for park purposes 3. Public right-of-way dedication 4. All land provided for private streets (includes acceseways through parking areas) The City of Tigard allows a residential density transfer of up to 25% of the units that, could otherwise have been developed on sensitive lands portion Code Section 18.92.030.areas listed in (1) above developable to the of the site in accordance with Co It is the responsibility of the applicant for a residential development application to provide vide a detailed calculation for permitted residential densit y and density transfer. ,, RESIDENTIAL SOLAR�LAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Effect .. y 1, 1991 all subdivisions and minor partitions are subject to solar adle.e4ss requirements which state that 80% of all lots developed must be solar-0 ented. The characteristics of a solar-oriented lot are high levels aof wrote im sun n striking the south walls and roofs of the house, m a� z g south window area and a south-sloping roof area. To achieve t , , one may utilize the following: n a lot at least 90 feet of:�. Basic requitement; s�a'.g with with north-south lot dimension within 30 degrees of south; . 2. Protected Solar Building LLhtan w • g e, The solar building line must a) be oriented� o the south nimum of 70 feet.. betweenit within tY e�m middle of the e h d b)t have south,a m c have a minimum - ''' of 45 � ) lot on feet between building .line is located. the ween it and the northernmbs, buildable boundary of th 3. Performance option : The first option re i the house to be P � oriented within 30 degrees of an east-West axisn have at least 80% of the ground floor south wall protected from sha" b The second Page 2 . • r ' •, I r I w option requires at least 32% of the glass and 500 square feet of the , roof area to face south and be protect from shade, otal or partial exemption of a site from the so access requirement can ,:, for the following reasons:; 1. ast, west: or north slopes steeper than 20%. 2. site shade sc►urres (structures, vegetation, topography). . 3. On- to shade sources (vegetation). Adjustments a l.owing reduction of the 80% solar lot design r quirement can be for the folt wing reasons: 1. Reduced dense'ky or an increased;.cost of at leant five, Pe ent due s to: - east, west or r" rth slope greater than 10%, . - significant natua a1 feature, - existing road or 16,4tng pattern, - public easement, or rx. ht-of-way. 2. Reduction in important di6xelopment amenities. 3. Pre-existing shade '(vegeta lLj-on). • Maps complies ` design standardufexceettfor late for ea.o� an �om,lieswith the solar P except e exemption or adjustment is ' required, including all of the followin items; 1. The north-south lot dimension and front" of line orientation of each Proposed ose d lot. 2. Protected solar building lines and elevant building ding site restrictions, if applicable. • 3 For the purpose of identifying trees exempt fr Section F, ma P , a map showing existing trees t a least 30, feet tall a d over 6 inches j ' di me ter at a point feet � v grade, r g their height e n� s p ecies, and stating thatthe are to be retain ed and axe ,xem t 4. Copies f all private restrictions relating to solar ace , If an exemption o adjustment is requested, maps and text sufficie 1.c to show that given lots or areas in the development comply with the standa 'ds for such an exemption o adjustment shall be dubmLtt ed. RESIDENTIAL DENITY TRANSITION i zoning diet Regardless of the usin density in a zon • .. ��. Zowe�. g y g j rich, any rp ' property within 100 feet of a signated established area shall not be developed density g than 125 percent of the maximum p at a density Leate Comprehensive Plan designation (not na g) of adjacent parcel. PARKING AND ACCESS d Required automobile . qu parsing for this type of use: R Secondary use required parking: 25% of required spades may be designated compact-only spaces. Standard parking space dimensions:' 5 ft. X 18 ft. ' Compact parking spade dimensions: 8.5 ft. X 15 ft. ' Handicapped parking: All parkin g areas providing `in n excess of five required automobile Spaces Shall provide appropriately iodated and designated handicapped parking Spaces. The minimUM number of handicapped Page 3 I � parking spaces to be provided and parking space size are mandated by the Oregon Revised Statutes (see handout). A handicapPed parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be provided. . Bicycle racks are require d for civic uses, non-residential uses,' 0' commercial uses, and industrial uses providing parking spares. prov�.dx.n 15 or more automobile p g Bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of one }J bicycle rack space per 15 auto parking spaces. Bicycle racks shall, be ,, , , located in areas Protected from automobile traffic, The Planning Division • can provide specifications for approved bicycle rack types. All akin areas driveways must be paved. P g. ds and dri rive-in-gsp c u, -ng•--a sz Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Maximus access width: Pedestrian access must be provided between building entrances and g t parking areas, outdoor common areas, and public sidewalks and streets. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses, see Community Development Code Chapters 18.106 and 18.105. CLEAR 'VI S ION A13Pi The City requires that clear vision be maintained betwsen three and eight `.. feet above grade at road d ri v e a y, -o ad/rail r o ad, and road/road intersections in specified clear vision areas. The size of the required / clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. l i LANDSCAPING Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a _ i P g public, or r private street or a 'driveway more than ton feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the � .:, .public right-of-way or on private Property within six feet of the right-of-way b oundary St reet trees must have a minimum per of two inches at four feet above grade. Street % trees ; { be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on mature tree size. Further h�nfo rmation on regulations affecting street trees and a list of recommended street trees may► be obtained from the Planning Division. m of one tree per seven! parking spaced must be planted in and around A minimum parking " in order to provide canopy effect. Landscaped i + areas cis a. c screening of parking areas from views from public rights-of-way, must be p�:ov .ded Page 4 1k..,,... , a. r. • ... ,'.ti_.4 F•..++.•Y A k,—w.-uY 1r4..t4.....++w..c-.✓.w..«I.i-i..s}.w w 4:lw.wu3.l..Y rauk..+.n...A. .. w w....r.s.w. _ {'Y BUFFERING AND SCREENING 4; - Y In order to increase privacy and to reduce,or eliminate adverse noise or Et. visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different I; land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site ' • perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of I� width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. Site obscuring screens or fences are also required in some cases, and often are advisable even if not required. Required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, • utilities, and sidewalks« ' Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in Code Chapter 18.100 and the Planning Division bulletin on landscaping and bufferin g. Required buffer widths applicable to your proposal area: ft. along north boundary ft. along east boundary ft. _along south boundary ft. along west boundary In addition, sight obscuring screening is ' g g required along i � fOo , SIGNS Permits must be obtained before erecting any the Cit y of Tigard sign in . �. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. • Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development application. w � dccdioOf fin,. (0 �; 1 ... ' SENSITIVE LANDS - ADDITIONAL PLANNING CONCERNS OR COUNTS • yy Page 5 , 1 • • PROCEDURE Administrative staff review. Public hearing before the land use hearings officer. Public hearing before the Planning commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission , makin a recommendation on proposal to the Council. making dp po Another public hearing is held by the City Council All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member at the Community Development Department counter at City t3a11. Applications ' submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week's , ' applications for processing. No applications will be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other days. • $ -• maps submitted with an application shall be folded in advance to 8.5 by 11 1 inches. one 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be ,.: submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. . 4 The Planning Division and Engineering Division will do a preliminary application is �. review. of the application and will determine ,,t complete within 10 days of submittal. Staff will otifyan applicant if M' • ' additional information or copies of the submitted materials are needed. ,' The administrative decision/public hearing typically will occur ' • ,' a zoximatel 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as complete 1�P �' by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult issues or . "" jurisdictions may take additional time to �, re requiring review by other ur review. written dec aions are issued within 10 days of the hearing. A 10 day appeal period follows all deisions. matter would • �� 4 An�appeal on this matt be heard by the; ---1P---1:1413-411.16-5------- ,R basic flow diagram illustrating the review process is available from the ' Planning Division. F .on The pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are ar • ,T a intended to inform the prospective applicant of the, primary Commit rlity Development Cade requirements P applicable development of a particular e liCabl� to develQ 1, : site, and to allow the staff and prospective applicant to discuss the ti, - ' opportunities constraints affecting development of the site. The 1j ` :ry c,pprirtuni.t:.�s and c.o conference not cover all Code requirements and aspects of site n good renc P and la notes ' c that should apply to the development.. of your site plan. railure of the staff to provide any information required by the Code shall ,nom ' , ' not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It , its recommended that 'a prospective applicant either obtain and read the �, Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to g? Code requirements prior to submitting an application. Another pre-application conference is re ired if pp. .; qu an a• li,cation is to be '6, a submitted more than six months after this pre-=application conferences e'.. sar:` b.'.. the Plannin'. �. deemed unnec s g unless the Second conference g y by 1 ',„ , Division. A PREPARED BY: • PLA]N'NTNG DIV slew PlIOtQ: 639-4171 ,y 1 Page 6 1 • • • b . �' ''i A. w , I Alif 1. M. � .., ( ' PUBLIC FACILITIES The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (i) identify t; a applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions; (ii) to i, provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns; and i (iii) to review the application review process with the .applicant including identifying who will be the final decision. maker for the I The extent of public improvements and dedicationsato be application. required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and approved by the appropriate authority. There will be, no final recommendation to the decision maker by City staff until all commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public 1. improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of .i' development approval for your project. ' Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public to increase abutting public rights-of-way to the • ultl mate functional street classification rights-of-way width Specified by the mmunity Development Code. Approval L application this site will require of a develo�nent a lcaton for �.re dedication of right-of-way for ' 1. to feet from centerline. i •1, 2. to feet from centerline. F;Street� a.mt ro rernent.�. U N 1. street' improvemen will be necessary along _ 1440. 2 street im rov ements w$ >� be necessary along 3. Needed, street improvements wil include feet of pavement ' from centerline, curb and gutter storm Sewers, a five-afoot wide . street signs, treetlight9, and a two year sidewalk, necessary g , @ , streetlighting fee ti In some cases where street improvements o other necessary public . not urrently practical, the s Teet improvements may be improvements are nr�t- c deferred.o In these cases, as a condition of deer opment approval, the �� canproperty ai v"es er owner(s) must execute a non-remonstrance d •eeme�at which w improvement he property owner s right •. the local right to remonstrate against #�he f ata.on of a y distract formed to improve 1 2. _,......_.... ._ ...._.._._... Pede • si.ra,nways/oikeways o I I ' Sanitary Sewers: The closest sanitary sewer to this property is an 4 * I`di.. 'Y p AQ Y - inch line loCated at �.. The proposed development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It is the developervs , g proposed development site's respon i y extend the sewer. alc>��. the ro sed d.�►velo tsfent si saibil�.t to I , • ,,. storm sewer improvements: �` ( . Page 7 I i i I I � 1� ' '" r:.W-w .,.J.....a...., .../.....✓w ki.......a..x..»1wx.:.F.. w,, ,- i.M..4 ..w. -'....-a..W...-.. -.W. .. . ... ....+ .a...l - . i Water G:apR1Ys The , b.;110 Water Diatr.:.ct (Phone: y 1 provides •public water -e vice in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water etipply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and. Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, 645-8533) provides fire protection eervicee within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. other Agency Permits: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In August, 1990, the Washington County Board of Commissioners adopted the county-wide Impact (TIF) and referred the measure to Traffic Im act Fee TIF Ordinance the Washington County voters. In September, 1990, the Washington County electorate overwhelmingly approved expanding the TIE program throughout all jurisdictions within the county. This action placed into effect an increased street development fee on all new development in Washington :' .• County. The City of Tigard has adopted the county's program. • The City Traffic Impact Fee program will collect fees from new development based on the development's projected impact on the transportation system. Developing properties will be required to pay based on the number of trips they are projected to generate. The TI ' is calculated based on type of use, size of project, and a general use based fee category. The TIC?' shall at.` b calculated building permit� suance In limited cLrcumstance0 payment of the TIP may be llowed to be deferred unt31 issuance of occupancy permit. Deferral of payment until occupancy is J permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. STORMWATER QUALITY FEES The c the Cit. has agreed to unified Sewerage TA.geri.,y has established and h City g enforce, Resolution 1o. 90-43, Surface Water Management Regulations, requiring the con Resolution_ _ F quality faCilit$.es or fees in � 9 construction of on-site water lieu of their, construction. The resolution requires that a fee and/or construction Of a water quality facility be built. The fee is based on the amount of impervious surface; for every 2640 square feet or portion thereof, the fee shall be $375.00. The City of Tigard determines if a fee , ; or facility shall be built. STREET 'OPENING PERMIT, No work within a public within.. �' � � h shall commence ri ht-of-�wa ce until. the has obtained a street opening permit from the Bngineering 'Department. + FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS 1 On all projects that require a grading plan the applicant shall submit y; with the grading plan a typical floor plan for each lot which shall have the eleva that plan along with elevations at the r corners of corner of each lot. ons of eau PREPARED BY*_ V'( t' E IN8ERING DIVISION PHONE 639-4171 JO.PREAPP.MST Page 8 k, 1 I " 1 t' I t a r • n i i • ' staff pate CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST • The items on the checklist below are required for the successful completion of your application '' submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted q - with your application. This sheet MUST be brought ' and submitted with all other materials at the time you submit your application. See' your application for further explanation of these items or ' call Planning at 639-4171. ° , ITEMS TO BE BASIC MATERIALS INCLUDED: • A) Application form (1 copy) [ �. S) Owner' s signature/written authorization [ Y C) Title transfer instrument [1.0 D) Assessor's map [ ,, E Plot or site la Y i -eta t y�A'5 � "Nd " �"5 1 d/tei,•''' [ ] a-c-ar c� er-s " de.sw.ut .tO [ (H) ra,l. ng fee ( . ) C )' SPECIFIC MATERIALS A) Cite Information showa,.hcl, (No, of copies M) . ; 1) Vicinity Map 5.t1 2) Site size & dimensions C ' , ` at 0— 0�n or 5 ft for grades > 109 .-� t lines (2 ft 1 r 3 � Contour line f a 'Y g ) 4) Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds � C�rai 5) Locations of natural hazard areas including: a) Floodplain areas '" b) elopes in excess of 25% [ ° • c) Unstable ground C 3 ' d) Areas with high seasonal water table e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential [ 3 f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils - s - 6} Location of resource areas as sh ow n on the Comprehensive Map inventory including= • a) Wildlife habitats [ I] b) Wetlands [ 7) Other site features: a) pock outcroppings [ 3, b) Trees with 6" ,+ caliper measured 4 feet from ground level L3 • ) Location of existing structures and their uses 9) Location and type of on and off-site noise sources [ 10) Location of existing utilities And easements t . '11) Location of existing dedicated r�ght—of:-•-ways [ :. • d' ll) a to Deuel o inert Plan showin (No, of copies ' ) r 1) The proposed site and surrounding properties 2) c +ou r line intervals -� 8) The location, dimensions and names of all: a) xisting t, platted d streets & other Public ways and easements on the site and on adJoining • properties , APPLICATION CHIECKL XST i- Page 1 • ,,fi • b) Proposed streets or other public says & easements on the site. C ] c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension [ n) The location and dimension of: a) Entrances and exits on the sit " b) Parking and circulation areas 1* c) Loading and services areas L` d) Pedestrian d -b - e circulation [ e) common areas,Outdoor commo e s r� _ f) Aboveground utilities 5) The location, dimensions & setback distances of all a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 �. feet of the site b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and ,easements on the site C 6) Storm drainage facilities a a-1 s- 7) Sanitary sewer facilities I3°' 8) ' The location of areas to be landscaped 5) The location and type of outdoor lighting • considering r rime prevention techniques [ ,,.,� 10) The } location of mailbox 11) The location of all structures and their orientation 12) Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements C Grading Plan Pao, of copies The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the followinc information: l. The location c i0 and extent to n a� d .. t, tr whxch radon will take g t place indicating general contour lines, ` slope ratios and soil stabilization 'proposals, and time of year it is proposed to be dope, 2) A statement from' a engineer r supported by datafactual substantiating, a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report [ 3 b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainacje service proposals , [ 3 c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated [ 3 D) Architectural � s o 0 (� i u al rawin 111 of copies ,, r � f� The site development plan proposal shall include: ] ) Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on—site, and 2) Typical elevation drawings of each structures [,> Lan Isc.a e Plan No, of copies 9:2) The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the 1 ;site �a►�al sis lan or<, a larger scale if necessary and shall y p ark ► 1 ind icate! 1) Description n of the irrigation system where applicable ] 2) Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings APPLXCATXON CHEC1tLXST Page 2 ' I' ,, . .....u....:xr,..., '.. . .._,. ,..-.,..•w a»: w.....x�.::......._.t..W.,,.:.,«. ,«..... •..:.r»:,..,..,,,w...:._N..Lwri«:' .-,A cu...:; t.ns,, r,. .,k-...,.w,.�....s.ir.,�u..:....a.,.-:.... ....L.I.a 3) LoL,:ion of terraces, decks, shelter ; play areas y and common open spaces �` i 4) Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials. The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses 1) Soil conditions; 2) Frosion control measures that will be used F) Sian Drawings sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18. 114 of the Code as part of Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct the sign. [ 3 fl G) Traffic generation estimates [ 3 H) preliminary partition or lot line ad'ustment _ma showing (No. of copies , .,.,,.;,._ ?.:. ) 1) The owner of the subject parcel [C . 2) The owner's authorized agent [ ' 3) The map scale, (20,50,100 or 200 feet=1), inch north arrow and date C" - 4) Description of parcel location and boundaries [ -' 5) Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public c wa within and adjacent to the parcel 6) Location of all permanent buildings on and within . 25 feet of all 'property lines 1` • 7) Location and width of all water courses [ , 8) Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level 9) All slopes greater than 25% '10) Location of existing utilities and utility easements ,, "" 11) For major land partition which creates a public street: a) The proposed right-of-Way location and width [ b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip 12) Any applicable deed restrictions C 18) Fv idence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable able [ .� x) ubdivision Preliminary_Plat Map and ,data: showin (No. of Copies ) 1) Scale equaling 30,50,1.00 or 200 feet to the inch phase s and limited to one ha,,e per sheet 2) The proposed name of the subdivision [ 3 ,. 8) Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets [ 4) Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner developer, engineer, surveyer, designer, as applicable 5) Date of application L 1 : 6) Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided � , 7) Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoi.nd.nc a�. divided land.i parcels eels of unsrrrla [ � 0) Contour' lines r"elaued to a City-established bench- mark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% ] APPLICATXON CHI.CRLI T s- Page 3 • , h h • 9) The purpose, location, type and size otf'`all of the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision) a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements [ ] b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines [ c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants [ ] d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) [ e) watercourses [ f) Deed reservations for parks, open space, pathways }R" and other land encumbrances [ ] 10) Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated [ ii) plan of the proposed water distribution sys,tern, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrants [ 12) Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision. [ ] 13) scaled cross sections of proposed street right--of-way, [ 14) ; The location uf all areas subject to inundation or storm, water overflow 15) Location, width and direction of flow of all water- courses and drainage ways [ 16) The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where loses are to be • used ed for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots [ 3 17) ` The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings, if any 18) The existing uses of the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting C 15) Lupplemehtal information including; a) ProPosed deed restrictions (if any) [ b), Proof of property ownership [ .) c) ` A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements [ 3 i 20) (-ZXi six ng natural features including rook out- croppings, wetlands and marsh areas. [ ] 21), If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the applications L ) 3') Other Zn, armatiOn [ 3 . t •, '4wlU.....» _.:.. wgMf.r..wJ..._ +� w'+�.—.....«w.:,..�+, .... -wow, .......+. ..- ww...w.rw.w....,.N.«.+..«-i.....:ww,ww«wr4 . 'I'r.i....uJ.+w:..+.«"ir....w:...Mw«i..,..,.......w..w:."..wu.w......»o.d Y...:..rw......w.ww.,.u+ .t »..:w.' , ( 862P/0028P) APPLICATION CHECkL:tST - Page h . . r ,ham,., ,. y . • .. / , , i : : TIGAR CIVIC :,> CENTER o r + Y , • - •• y TIAD� \ \ .. , dhi id 00 .. - - .4‘i• . SENIOR , ' ' • , , + �e . . 4111171 ' Mill . 1 . ' ,,, ' 'qiiiillall SINIM OMi�oAA -~s .. > • d • E©GEIA/OOp • j I • ' , ,r• , _._—.. , . . ,. _•,:.,-/ , '?i • . 7,r7:(..- ,.:(//::.,- ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' , a' -^ Q > . ti• 8,W> Gdvf FCF J � _�F.. • t _RO C 1i. > 4 1, , , , 11 +.� .. , Is 1 , , , y yp , ,, /104t\i'l-A IN I V(EW Liq. 1 1 '• •, , ',• , ", ' • • • , ' ' ' ''' •' ',, • • . ' ' ' .• t;t) • . , • • , .I . J r ' • •- • O • '� • B • • • • ,, $MN ' , ;03 ' , e •.- ,■. � • bbl, r O • • 0 44 0).00(40• .•• • 6, • •y �, ■ , k • hr 'f + • ■ • �r • r •, 0 6, •,, el ', i f: *' • •' o • • <'• • ffir[ p r • r • tot • 0 1 0 r• ►" • • "• • 'i • 00 -10 • • • e .�► •-,,, I t • ♦ t''•�T8 . •. • • ew , 4 •,'• s ,4 d w ri • 0 ', �' 5 'gyp:r: `' •/44 • •, • ^ r'�''•t• V b i0 Y 0 it., (# ' i, iI }.. • •" 9, ■ • • ■ 46 a»*:4p • ..• /•. 4,r c, • •' ■ • • / , _ e µ\ ; ,� f► • 4, .• ■ • • ■ • •` 4,,, a"t•*e �.p• • • • • r �1 * M,,y�,,�� 1 ; 1 l Y • • ,.• ♦ •` fy • e 111 to* ■ • ■ ,��// i t I • • A '� • Y • •• a tall 4 ,' / ,' i ' • •• • e • • ' 4;o, fa r • • • + `gyp • a M, • , 1, e's. • • • cits 'r1, • • •Y • 0 •Ve ,,✓ / `<, !' f e S e e to, * a • e�,ro .' • • • • ,, 0 1* m • • o • • • • • • • 0 • • p } w. • • • • •,/5r •� •s (� • • • r • 4r ' j ' i� • • • • * Mr r, • • • • rP •. 11 • / ,i, "-,4 } 0� • • • p • o Y4V.• • • • • • • r ■ • • ■ •' • •r • • •• ■ •.3• • • el O ••i•.li r • • • • • •' • •, • • • • /d +. 1■ ,. 1 ^,r7 ■ • • • • • e 0 • _'V* 0 • 0 ',� \ r,. a • ■ p.' • • • • ' r) •' • • • • ` \* •y' , • •: »,e, ii, • • • 0 • • • • • '�!ti o S ii, :0 », . ' f 1 y , 1 • ,, a • e • }► • • • • • ,■'», "1" "; � m • • • • ■ • • r 0 B p• e • 0 • • e • • 0 • • m r 'N i • 0 • '(• 0 o e, • ! • • 4 • • e • ,, .. � � Lam .� ' � ' r • • • • • O • • •• • • • • • '',,,• " • • e • • • • • • • • • • • ✓ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e,\ 4y'» ! i4■ • • •. • •, •. ,'• 0 • • • • ,•„:. ,-a' .• . " w. ,; w' o • a e `b o a • • 0 0011�0*4 r 74✓ • 0 . + f S W a, ; • •/`' a�w d ati • a 0 0 • • • • � • s • . ,„k • .a• . • • • 1.,234 o a ,,� b —' 6, • • • • • • t • • ■ • • e a 1 i .e."' ' • •. • •e •• • 0 e4-7. ••C ll'`a • ,e b. , } e ° ♦ L , i•5, • • • • • f E:m • • • • * ` I 1. W. d �y� • �D • p 1 I a ® • • • • ♦ , k , , S� ' � • T� " ''MI■ Aliell'i41!) f' IIII 111.- , T' i ,fir. .. Y T ! L u:t 1,bil,it Ft: 1 i 044.04+...0 Wue,a , w !" 1- , ,a lt f fl , A f i• `I t X 4 • ,, '�"`".,� r, !- '^1 i I W ,, OL Old, `i,..I 1u it'�} ,a f r r r M Ii 1, ry I* r, ,: 2.,, ,,, w 6',.i.-- .,r E r9 11 4 I, AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard k 4.�( being I r ,2�� U�,..t 1� , first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) That I am a ,VA(ON- () C'2 /41't,!)1 4451iPol(4 for The City of Tigard, Oregon. r That T served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR. _ City of Tigard Planning Director v"'Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer , Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (marked Exhibit i°A") was mailed to each named persons at the address' shown on the attached-list marked exhibit �"B" on the :„_, `N^day of j!_ Ai ,e �' 19 'LY said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as here attachedo was posted on a' appropriate bulletin board on the day of , 19 ; and depo ited in the United States` Mail on the day of .�.0 19, ,r5 postage prepaid. ai Data a are d. Prepared Notice -- Subscribed and sr�orn/affirm to me on the ,�u- day of 41.11P, 19 e . pr __: , w. � . NOT/fliEJ$ibn� LBLIC Off" t�Rk�C70N My E,*pire : fr • • NCT CE }DF PUBL I C HEARING PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A CORRECTED NOTICE THE HEARING D1y.Ti:, REMAINS THE SAME. • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, +7anuary 25 1993 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC • CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING • APPLICATION: FILE NO: SDR 92-0020/VAR 92-0020/SLR 92-0005 • FILE TITLE: Solares NPO NO: 5 APPLICANT: Allan Solares OWNER: Kenneth Solares 13566 Twin Creeks Lane 162 Estates Drive g , t , 94011 • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 piedmont:, CA 9 REQUEST: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR.922-CommiesEonITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 92-0005 SOLARES (NPO #5) The Planning will consider a request for the following development applications: 1) Site complex atedpsiteaimproJements. A construct a new 62 unit Development Review apartment fro :l Ha with related Boulevard would be improvements. A portion of the original site isaW thin • P the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard; 2) Variance approval is requested to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential Structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030 3) Variance approval family buildings with (A) (1) requires a minimum of 25 feet between windowed walls facing each other; ) pproval ta allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval is requested to allow an existing structure on the site to maintain its current , , six to e i.ght foot side yard setback whereas C od e Section 18.54.050 (A) (3) (c)) requires 10 foot side yard setback; 5) S it e Development Review setback exception approval to allow a 24 foot side y ard setback whereas Code Section p side yard of an attached 18.54.050 (3) (e) re alres a 30 foo"h setback for the district;multiple family dwelling abutting a more restrictive district and 6) Sensitive Land Review approval is requested to allow development of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. NOTE: All of the above listed a lications are typically reviewed by the I, ' community y p p-. lap � YF g� It has Y been z.t Development Department without a tabl hearing. by is review of these applications should be referred toopment t Commi sion under the authority t determined b the Community Development the Planning - of Community Development Code Section 18.32.090.D.4,' due to the need to determine the proposal con isten with Note 'I of the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation • p p Y ,gip Plan Map 4 APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRC'2ER1A. Community Development Code Chapters tere 1Fe 2, 18.54, 18.84, 18.92 18 96 L8 100 13.102 18.1 1 a 18.114 18. 2018.134 � , a n, 1 18.144, 18.150, and 18.154p and the Comprehensive Plan's Transporation Plan Map. LOCATION: 13750 & 13840 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 281 2DD, tax lots 400 and 500) . ZONE: R..-12 (Reeir � unit-El/acre) � ts/acre) The R-12 zone allows Single le family - attached or d etached res � �tial units multiple family residential units I residential care faoilities, mobile hom e parks and subdivisions, public support serw ices, family day care, home occupations; and adCeSSor y s�r tzc ered among other uses. e ,, • v i' gyp_.. • • THE PUBLIC HEARING ON( IS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN 4,, JRDANCE WITH THE RULES ' OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULE; OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED i . BY THE 'TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30 ANYONE ON THIS r TION MAY DO SO IN PROPOSED AC WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE xHEARING. ' ORAL a,'ESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECIEVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND , INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE • ' PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE ' Q IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER January 5; 1993 , ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. • INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 1 ' APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE RELATING TODTHE�RE U rEST�Pt;RTAI.N�SPE�TF2CALL�C�TO THETAPPLxCABRTAN1` THAT COMMENTS ' • LISTED. APPLICABLE CRITERIA.,,_,, N OR BY LETTER AT SOME PRIOR TO THE CLOSE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OME POINT. O�,C THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO T'HE LAND USE BOARD OF.APPEALS RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO AFFORD THE DECISION MAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO ` ED ON THAT ISSUE. CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE '� AVAILABLE FOR ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR. TO THE HEARING ' A COPY bF THE STAFF REPORT WILL B E AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION TEN CENTS PER PAGE. . SPECTZON AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TE THE STAFF PLANNER Jerry Offer AT � . FOUR. FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT 631 -4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ' PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) # a' . CHAIRPERSON: Crain `'�•i°nkjn PHONE NUMBER: 639'-5823 / /4 0 0 Ot. e \ \ ' it 4 i u ti Imo. +•• . TIGARD g \ , , • ® ® al srsEE, J - ' ndXRX All■ a"® 'I 11 /- . j . . , ,\%, _ i slrE, i r., yy, 111,,•1l y. "i� �} v"^•. 1 wL ci� ,�r i I r Al..... sit r• (i3 AI /A Y 11 VI 1W f � 7 i1M . E .NE , j__ 1 . r p yy f • y � 25103.000-01200 owa.e.e.. pwiwe000.ew 251010 o«w■ws............w. F' W F INVESTMENT COMPANY ST AITHSR, IWAN M TROST +�1 COLUMBIA SUITE +!0 A►RKWEATR R, ROBERT TRUST • . 111 SW COLQMBIA ��J..Ca 1040 PORTLAND OR 97201 BY BROl'IN, MILTON 0 301 BW 1110RItAY RD . yyl� f�h40�/O�IR�y� 97229 • - 2510213-00300 ewsawae,.w•o.weei•re�gw 2S102DD-00600 ..•wwaeweaeawrow41�4aeow ZANDER, DERELL D .LEAF; , AIL Jr GERTRUD : CAROL M 13880 SW BALL BLVD 13700 SW BALL BLVD TXGARD OR 97223 . TIGARD OR 97223 , 1 25102DD-00700- w w.�e.,e.e s.. 1 25102�tD-00701 w«a w.�.www.�o r,aw�nre«...a ". • ,w w w•w w o ew w i , VON HEIDEgE1N, EVEN AND ANNE VONEEXDEKEN, NvEN ai ANNE 13990 SW HALL BLVD 13990 SW BAS TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S1O2A0-00803. w..a a w�. 0 p� ° ..o..eae..n.nw 281t�2DD-�0®8M2 .aowa.M.+'w .sa CHUPP, KEVIN L AND ANGELA T. BOSSHARDT, ARTHUR A , 13855 SW HALL BLVD 13915 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 • , n 2510 00-00803 .M ew. s .w w 2810288.'..00808 w DURBI' CARL E��/JENEANE SCHULD, K ' 1• 13985. SbrT 2ALL % CURTIS, DAVID L ANA TIGARD OR 97223 CONSTANCE G 14610 SW ;C A WTRIDGE RD ' TIGARD OR 97224 2510200-008°9 . ror. 28102DD-00900 .e..«w..d,e w.rwo.so.s• GIUlt.DNER, RICHARD A. VANDENBEIEDE RUTH M TR 13940 SW 8'7TH % VINCENT, FRED A. & SUE fJ R 97223 TIGARD 13835 SW HAIL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 2S102DD-01000 .. .a ... ..* ... . 251020B-01100 a.. a.aww.a rob CHORUBY, tARRY T/REBECCA R FISCHER, GEORGE M {, , 13705 SW HALL BLVD LILLIAN .F ;. ' TIGARD OR 97223 13638 SW BALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 • ALLAN SOLARES 13556 TWIN CREEKS LN LAKE OSSWE OR 97035 KENNrE,T h SOLARES 162 ,ESTATES bR PIEE)tix)ig,r eA 94011 • i 1 CRAIG 'liOPKIN.S M r 7430 Sw 1tARN.B S1 'J GAF D OR 97223 n .tWK+,•+ ,.....k» .. .,,.., v,,.k.+._ . . i.. .... ... s,..aA+.w.., .w,✓..-.:., ,a..f.,.:,. . :.1;a..J.a.V,S+.:.1.'::, . ..-wi.a,. .1...•a..a..eae-, k - _,,.0>r...:✓.K+. .J+.. 4 I. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1 STATE OP OREGON ) t; County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Sw Vt. �"`�c.�l �"+� ,, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) That I am a 1 - ( for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director ); Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer. Tigard City Council II I I A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "Au) was mailed to each named persons' at the address shown o the .. ' attached list marked exhibit ►►B" on the �„`` day of 19 6 ' said notice_NOTICE OF DECISION as heret attached, was posted on ak appropriate bulletin board on the day 'of J,/' , 19 and dePg.flited in the United States Mail on the day of t 19 . postage prepaid+,4131 I I �t .. Prepared Notice subs,9ribed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of L �,..� y,s.� - r ; , ` NOTARY B ,IC OIL My Cq. salon EzpireseI • I, r ' • • w : • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • • x;. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON " MONDAY, '.1.nuary 2.5, 1993 AT 730 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: SDR 92-0020/VAR 94-0020/SLR 92-0005 FILE TITLE: Solareo NPO NO: 5 P.°; P:['I+ICANT. 13566 Twin Creeks Lane ... OWNER: 152nEtateaarea. �o,, , Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Piedmont, CA 94011 ' 1 1 ::1 LANDS REVIEW SLR 92-0005 SOLARES (NPO #5) The Director has a roved subject U•p`S�y REQUEST: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR VARIANCE VAR 2�- 2 SENSITIVE wr to conditions, a request fox' "the following development applications. 1) Site Deyelo~anent Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall m 1 IV Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site is within the 100 p •r', year f loodplain of Fanno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard; 2) 'Variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple .' , family residential structures whereas Code Section 18:96.11.30 (A) (1) requires a i• minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code r. Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for Section y s of 50-100 units, 4) Variance approval to allow ( ) an existing structure on the Site • �. multiple Tamil residential use • eta maintain its current. sip to :eight foot. aide. U y Whereas C 18.54.050 (A) (3) (c) requires a 10 foot side i yard setback; 5) Deve 1 pment Review setback exce ion approval to allow a 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code ,Section 18.54.050 (3) (e) requires a 30 foot setback for the side yard Of an attached multiple family dwelling abutting a more restrictive zoning district; and 6) Sensitive Land Review approval is requested to allow development of a pedesttian/bicycle pathway' within the 100 year floodplain of 'Farino Creek: ,� • ' : All f the ... o e td applicati ons are typically, reviewed by the Community D tpeent artent withotit a public hearing. It has been • determined b y the Community Development Department that review these applications should be referred to the Plannin g Cammisson under the authority .ed to determine of rrproposal's amtnun ,;� Development Code Sect,�.c�n. 1.8.32.Q90:pD.4, due to the need Transportation the consistency with Note 17 of the Comprehensive Plan Plan Map. APPLICABLE APPROVAL RC T Community Deve la m enu Code Chapters 18.32, 1$ :54 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.144, 18,150, and 18.164; the Comprehensive Plan's Transporation Plan , mar' LOCATION: 13750 13840 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 281 2Db, tax lots 400 and. 500) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/'acre) The R-12 zone alloWS single family attached/detached residential units, multiple family residential units, residential car public; support d�acees�s,�visians, y day s p r}cs e fac�.litiea, mobile home parks y structures among Other . services, Tamil da care home oCCU atic�ns�, and st uses. a I 'U:t'.P ..... ....., .,,...,,,r ,z • .. e ...wa..w, u r.. . i:io. ,i, .. , M . . -I I .. k JJ ' �• • • 1. + r y e• A ' THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ., IS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN E .ORDANCE WITH THE RULES '•., OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE 6OMMUNI' Y DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION N1AY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR ..-41... . TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL 'T°,ESTIASC)NY MAY BE PRESENTED AT '•' ,"' TI-1E PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, `THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL REC 1;EV E • a : A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM TEE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND. •• ••• INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE •PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE •. PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ANT) TAik.E ACTION ON THE APPLICATION.. ., �' I,F A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER ;3anuar 5 1.993 ,, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEI1 ', • 1 , FOR AT LEAST SEVEN "'JAYS AFTER HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST` FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS CODE AVID THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND `THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS .,ATINC� TO THE r , Cy�I ' �tF.f� REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY T'O THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. '",. FAILU34E TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE • ',„;,, OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ,SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO ' , • AFFORD THE DECISION MAN•ER AN OPPORTUNITY FGQ RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN ' APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. , ' ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ' . INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST 'a. , SEVEN DAYS THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR b INSPEC ION AT NO TC ST,, ORAATCOPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER Jerr,Y„ Q er AT 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW,HALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) # 5 ,' :.' : CHAIRPERSON: Craia Ho a .an , PHONE NUMBER: 639-,5823 ..; .'•:- '' * / iis st 1 ..i. ' • . : r' �. ,"+y CIVIC "" . y CENTER : . 1'ill r, T1GARd ''' --1-3 '' i • I" alloy ! 11*LIJIE al, ✓; .., -A\ ,,.., , . ® Afr sirC 1 S.W CoL.dNY CRC() •e ' li JI' i 0..A:L.1 AO WTb101 VIEW LMT 112 1 % �:. ��' • " ' , r 2S10100—01200 •o n+o r♦.•m w o♦r•a o•w o• 2S1O1 00 4-L-00 N i•••i t••o••♦•w•r N'.N w w . f PWPINVESTMENT COMPANY TRUST STARICWSATRo IWA2� F 111 SW COLUMBIA SUITE 1040 SaARKWEArMER, ROBERT TRUST PORTLAND OR 97201 BY RRowN, I4ILTON 0 303.`NW MURRAY RD� PORTLAND OR ..,.•9.7..2.29 • 2S102 D-�0U10 2S102DD.-00600 d• •r•y Y•O O w i DICN1gLL D LEASCON, ILL a GERT'RTIDE CAROL M 13880 SW HALL BLVD 13700 SW laALL DLL TIGk.RD OR 97223 •41 TIGARD OR 97223 251D2DD re h0700 2S102DD-00 701 N.♦d♦a N N e•�O 0,9•A O N.♦N O N. . VON HEIDEKEN, SVEN AND ANNE V'GNHEIDEIKEN, SVEN & ANNE 13990 SW MALL BLVD 13990 SW BALL TIGARD Olt 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 . ;. ry 1y0/� D O/� 8p�0/ ....�1 " 7�.K4d�DDe•'M�O/OD1 rea♦♦•i♦oe r.«a•sNerads � 0OD$®2 r••..iwiwo•ra's♦••or•♦ , CHUPP, KEVIN L AND ANGELA L BOSSBARDT, ARTHUR A 13855 St HALL BLVD 13915 SW 'TALL BLV$) TIOAIW OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 O'� ear ♦w w w '• �Q'.S�D�DD'�d.D/� .Ay 25102I:6D.»0080 I.7 iO a••;dOOO•'•O•�OOO•«d0.. '., ,' DU1 BIN, CARL LEE/JENEANE A SCHULZ, Z RTSA 13985 SW HALL % CURTIS, DAVID L AND TIGARD OR 97223 CON STANCE G 14610 SW HAWRIDGE RD TIGARD OR 97224 2 51ryry2..-00809 2S10 DD-00900 ri♦•so•Aw'nii•+••ue.♦oe % VINCENT, ��y�y der' M TR �� 4 .. `6 4Y.S1,4ii"dlti 3. 8:A�d.SAl i.l�. E`er �iL , ` CARDNER a RICHARD A ' ANDE41NF EDE RUTH M T �' .Pi 139. SW 87TH TIGARD OR 97223 13835 SW HALL BLVD " TIGARD 1DR 97223 2S10 2D D-01000 I 2S.102 DD-011 00 ♦.r1 s•r ir.a w d Jr e o a e•m s♦e N b CRORUIY, LARRY T/REBECCA R « FI SCHER, GEORGE M /. , 13705 SW HALL BLVD LILLIAN F TIGARD OR 97223 1 13535 SW HALL BLVD , .. 7223 ., I ALLAN SOLPRES 13566 TWIN CREEKS 'LN LAK8 0swg6.0 OR 97035 . y KENNETH SODS 162 ESTATES DR ' PI I7N7C�1�'�' CA 94011 Ht� K1 N5 CRATC P 7430 SW VAR NS ST TIARD OR 97223 y: - r•" I '� � . , • • , ,, • .. mow. ..�_.:.<,.. ,,_: w.,,_...;....,...w ..,•.•...,,:., .. .:., ,a,.,.w...... �« .:.,ti :« . ..,, ��... .z,....d.....,,.•+ ._, 2510100.-01200 . . • •y.,•u.. .lYa�-•. • • • .. 2510100-Q .fO «. • .• ••...., FW F I 3VE BTMENT COMPANY STARKWEAT3ER, IWAN M TRUST • 111 SW COLUMBIA SUITE 1040 STARXWBATHER, ROBERT TRUST ' PORTLAND OR 97201 BY BROWN, MILTON 0 301 NW MURRAY RD }' PORTLAND OR 97229 2S102DD-00300 • 2S102DD-00604 .•♦ ee • 1•.•b,•••••,•. • • ZANDER DENELL D •• LEASON, EMIL 67 GERTRUDE �•.. 1.. CAROL M 1 13880 SW HALL BLVD ( . .• 13700 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 11, TIGARD OR 97223 251 0 2DD-00700 • e • • • • O • • • Oe • O •• • • •• O 28102DD-007031 •• OOW/IeY•O• ••• O¢•• •,• �` + VON HEIDEKE N, SVEN AND ANNE VONHBIDE CEN, SVEN & ANNE 13990 SW HALL BLVD 13990 SW HALL TIGARD OR. 97223 1 TIGARD OR 97223 II ' 2S102DD-00801 • N •• •,• •, •• •♦, •••I•• 25102DD-00802 ,•�•e,db•i•„.1••♦i•• CHUPP, KEVIN L AND ANGELA L BOSSHARDT, ARTHUR A • ,• .° 13855 SW HALL BLVD 13 915 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 • • 2S102�'1 1 n yyy� �]�'1 Q DD-»00803 d • O•,1•i0 •,•• O •• YOO .O 2S102DD-00808 O•be, WO b• •i • • b•N••e•• DURBIN, CARL LEE/JENEANB A SCHULZ, MARTHA 13985 SW HALL % CURTIS, DAVID L AND TIGARD OR 97223 CONSTANCE G 14610 SW HAWRIDGB RD f' TIGARD OR 97224 4 , ' ' 2S 0 2DT—00809 •p it s,•Y •• e''ll• s•.d t• 11.i e e'• '` . G��02D) Od9 V� G�DNER, RICHARD A VAN DElH:TDE, JJJ J RUTH. NS TR 13940 SW CT % VINCENT, FRED A & SUE A 87TH TIGARD OR 1 97223 13835 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD OR 97223 r' • 0 "" 1000 ''A + •by•oWi ♦ e • sib • '. 25102DD ® �'I 1�/'��tt� 1'1 /�t'1 , .:'• 25102DD-0�.10fJ •d•••ry i N••b•r o i i•b b :b '. �( • CHORUI3Y LARRY T REk3ECCA R • • . FISCHER, GEORGE M r / 13705 SW HALL BLVD LILLIAN !h t.' TIGARD O R 97223 I 13635 S6' HALL BLVD• .: TIGARD OR 97223 • I �1 • _ tL H t I = 'i,�t,� _ SEE, M A P • I S 13€c SEE M A P SCI MA- P - - ,.• _ I'S I 35pp - l IS 3-SQ r - '' SEE ' ?AP t _ I __ ?S i i B B /� - °aRQE" C Ai 4. ,� sw �� O N SEE MArP _ 2S I !'�A_ _• w_�t Oizai-iAM - - 0.S-.G_ 33 / i SEE-M'AP -- ,r . a i aAA r�i j -_ b. _ o - t - SE E M'-A P q' - - -- - - \ SW IBC VEL N 2S I G ` 8� I SEE MAP - - f 2S I L�a �Q Na5°592G"'w 9.; \\// a3 Ri E ti?R AA.CViLEiC - . N F - - - --_. : ,„, , \ _ .. 04 6 ` _ 4 Q 4-g r� 0 $• S_ PJE E NZIKER .� a fc � g 0 �. B� y ,I., $'6.,, •-•',5,-.4,...s '- � G CC /27 -if e_- - N �� -fro 0 +- f I O”" m r Q � $' f `L - . .. _ _ - - • ,,, - \ . . „. - _ .. -• . , . . • . . ‘ _ , ' . _ - I „b■ - IV- - CO I- 0 . q, 7 ti, \ ‘7.: 76., . . '' , : , - - • = • . -`•<2, o e- la mo ' . ; I- . .. , .-- /- ie ,- . : 1 - - ,, ,-, 1 f .... , "?.., . - ; , N o .... ,., • ; -l;.9 0 (•4.7 ' se, 0 .43- , SEE MAFt . \ - -, •-, ,),-, ,,..., / .s4., _(tr 1„ . -,, '0 ••••• \ — - -- SEE MAP '4flt . / ., _ !... s W vAFiNS 1 . _ ,?._,. I 1 ,. • - - - 2S1 2DA - •;- z: t <,-0 - 0, ; _ sp.. ' - F. ,\ * M /— •- 4 z\ _ ... , ..... L._ - ' ..-, W FIR ST r-----,---- , ---- ---.-in 112 0 0 °• 2.6.8c 999-4 . ' - =------------'-- 13 Efile - • ".• / . , . _ . NE CORNEFI .- • -,. _ . , ,_.... _ ...1 ., 6. \ t -I- - CrfERF2y ! . ' - 848 f,,S4,_ ,, al*N r _ ..1•';- --- . •' ' - ,- - \ - -- SEE M4P , o= 2S 1 IDC _ •. t ,,,, t - w-t... -- - - _ . 1 ? i " - - - . 2 1111111Fs'Ir..:1/.1111110111ii14;#10$14,31:ild4:- .. ...NT, co R,.' .,------- SOUTH LINE W.Vi GRAHAM D L.0. 39. :. = r W Vt..GFZAHAM k N8'"e23'W . ,.. D.L.C. f.:1 39 3 FA 7,a' . ,--• - ..,. . - 1400 GO V. -) . 4JC - C.`,..)V, LOT 6 a.48Ac i GOV.i_OT 5 10.8c.A c. . , :. 2 - 1 t 1 - _ __............,.......k,..........r. ..,t..p , giscaving.m.........--............. ''\.--, ..-— ,.........„...,./' %i. —--- .............,....------...,____,....—-,-.... 1 .., • \ -' i t I - 1 '' I'''. SEE MAP - \ SEE MAP .--• _ - ' - - 25 1 leBB 25 1 128A ! - - - - - _ . . . . . N . � �REQUEST FOR COMEgEIQ'TS „, ' . T2: ter _ DATE: November 24,E 1992 a FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE VELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES (NPO #5) A request for approval of the following development applications: , 1) Site Development Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site is within the 100 '. year floodplain of Fanno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard; 2) Variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030 (A) (1) requires a minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing each other; 3) Variance 'approval to allow one driveway whereas Code `; Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for ' multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units;';4) Variance approval to allow , to eight foot side an existing structure on the site to maa.ni.ax.n its current six t i h e yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 ( g ��.,��: set.back�) (c) requires a 10 foot side ; k yard k, 5) ;Site Develop.ment Rew�.ew ) ( exception approval to allow a 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (3) (e) requires a 30 foot setbaCk for the yard attached multiple family';dwelling abutting " a more restr�tvezon n g dish t. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.].06, 18.108, 18.114, ,18.120, 1.8.134, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 & 13750 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S2 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R-12 S units acre The R- 2 zone allows single family residential units (Residential 12 ., '' units, multiple family residential units, ( ) p hpd/detached r redid facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support at ac ential care faciliti services family day care,, home occupations, and accessory structures among other uses. , Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information ,supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Dec. 4, 1992. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by. the above date, please phone the,staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as k possible. 1f you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, ,PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer PLEASE CHECX THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: .� Pleaseecontacted the propoSal and i hof�our office.' o I it. reviewed p p � objections ob Please refer to the enclosed letter. written Comments • commenting: : w Name of Person tin Phone Number: , il;ding Official/Brad R. /0 Pax.tc,s 6 Recreation Board 1 :s' , City Rf .der V _zzroerationi 1 ,i'' Permits oordivator/'Viola O. 1 5P bI� 3. ECIRL Fire District __ _ School Dist No 48 ' (Pick-up box) (Beaverton) , 1 / Joy Pahl 1 i , PO Box 200 f a,r Beaverton, OR 97075 t ur r• 1 tgard Wa 4er District '' School Dist. 23. e/` . ,..,.. 8777 SW B�+trnh'aa St. "' (Tigard) ' Tigard, OR 97223 13137 Std Paolfic gwy. E ti Tigard, OR 97223 1 Tualatin Vailmy Water Distri ct . - 6501 SW Taylors Perry Rd. Tigard, OR 9722 4. ,A1!FECTED JURISD3 IONS ( d Wash. Co Land Use & Transp. Boundary Commission` ` • BillstaoxagsOR 97124 �^ 320 SW Stark Room 530 Portland, OR 97204 Brant Curtis '\'\. ""' Kevin Martin • METRO : , oann Rice 2000 S'W' 1st ave. 1 r Scott icing Portland, OR 97201-5398 } • • • Fred Eb arl® ti Mike Borrasca _ DL CD D (CPAs only) I- , city r Bend Salem, NE . . PO, or Beaverton 1275 Court 9?3a.0-059 , Beaverton, OR ,97076 Other City of Xing Cit1. City of Durham , .,..-- City Manager city Manager . ,,,,,,,....,'„,'/\ 1530Q SW 116th 17160 SW Upper Scones Perry R . i ' Xing City, OR 91224 Tigard, OR 97224 '; .e. ' City of Lake.Osi egb' City of Portland City Manager Planning Director 380 SW A 15.20 SW 5th ' ' ken Oswego, OR 97034 Portland,, OR 97204 f' State B1gtn+ay Division ;4;;, Bob Doran PO Box 25412 Portland, OR 97225-0412 ( 4 5. SPEC AGENCIES General Telephone i;5 '.' Portland General Elec. • gook® 12460 SWlMain St. 14655 SW Old Scholia F'/. . igard Out 97223 overtop, OR 97007 ! • ° ,, ` Metro Area Co pinication>a .f ,. NO Natural Gas 44,. :',''' • Scott Pzil.noex ." Jam Hewitt 220 NW.Second Ave.. Twin Oaks Technoloryy Center . • . • and, OR 97209 1815 tai 169th Place S-6020 Portl Beaverton, OA 97006-48n5 �• ' , .---- TC'1 Cablevisiod of Oregon Hike ga.11ock US West 1 , 3500 SW pond St. .•-••- Pate Nelson , Portland, OR 91201 421 SW Oak st. • Portland, OR 97204 Columbia Cable (Prank Stone) 14200 SW Brigade Ct. •, . Be everto8, OR 97005 , 6. s'1:7= AGENCI •, . Aer'aaaOtics Div, (ODor) ' a ` ...,.r..W Engineer Divi�ion of State Lands , , ' .._.,,,�, BoarKl �yf Reanit)i ,.,...._ comamc+lrce Dept. )d.R. Park I � ' .• �....., Fish Wildlife " arks 6 Res raeti an I1v. �„.....,.....„rO7CtlD C i Sibdiviaiob StPexais or I �_ Dept. of Energy PUC car �,. ; boot. of Exvizon. Quality ' `"" Fixe Za:�hp 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES; � Corpse.`.of Engioeirs other • Post Office , 9 Southern Facifid Transportation Corny Duane H.1FormeYi PAS - Pr8je t Engineer 1 A. 324. Union Station 4 ”' .. _ 800 Nei''6th Fwentibr r 1 Portland, OR 97209 1 (', . ,.'',''''1,,,,1';';','t.... ..,,,': • • , ' '' .,•,, .1 ' , '' '' ' ,,,,, ' , • 1. '• , , ' . . , . ' . • . , .' , . ' i' •`., :' ' ' • , ' ' .' . , . . 1.,,, , , October 7, 1996 /r 4,fiff,tirt,IPI,�1P•('~r CITY OF TZAR Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society OREGON • Sandra L. Johnson Norris Beggs & Simpson 121 SW Morrison, Suite 200` ,` . Pdrtlarid, OR 97204 ..•K Dear Ms. Johnson: • This letter is in response to your letter dated September 12, 1996 requestingA zoning verification. The property in question is Washington County Tax Map M 2S1 a2DD tax lot 00400. In _1993, this property received a Site .•� -. . . (VVCTM) . ' . DR 92-002Q/\i'�1� 92- • Development Review/Variance/Sensitive Lands approval (S DR, 92-0005)for the development of a 62 unit apartment complex. The following is the information you requested: 1. The property is zoned R•412 (Residential, 12 units per acre). Multi-family use is a permitted use in the R-12 zone. q parking p (SDR 92-0020) is 101 spaces. • � The required number of a ' � p ruin spaces for SCR 9 . use status of thc, y residential use complies with the permitted ,. � l�ult��farntl re�i e p p R-12 zone. 4. The property received Site Development ReviewNariance/Sensitive , Lands approval. 5. Non-Con forming status does not apply to (SDF 92-0020). 6. A Site Develcpi,rent Review approval was granted on (WCTM 2S1 02DD, tax kit 400). 7. The Site Development Review approval did not contain subdivision regulations. •. If you have any further question, please feel free to Call me at 503)639 4171 h Sincerely, idA0 Db\,,1 Wiilliam D°Andras Associate Planner I x, • ` is It�llrt'sllltahn►c idtr, S - �'le � �l�92 land Use 13125 SW Noll Blvd.,;1 .d drd1 oo 97223 (503) ()-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 it 1 i f ' o r, r r II,'' a t....4 ,•.._ _ .�.. _ .... .I f. ..•u.» ~�' ., rf...w,r,w ....,.r aw.,.r.wu,r.«w,,..,aw,w,•.wW .ter`«+...wMa.,.rr:.lw.'wrr..xv.+,..+w•✓a w«n,n,, •nr—,-,r.,r.,.n».•...•y.. »aw+r,r,dw.+l.+...irr.— -a'Y--.tH+I..*New:.'!wa+u+.rw,r+k�l ep�Y+nwr+.wwp+,rwu,lwaiw».N.f.*.•wm•..w::;r�I,W4+iGywuWrra+awr,rsur'+.°' .• �1 ` '��Iq' �' r k. � r• �v. • I ' I g / q n , rr rrr 1 I F! hhAI x« F n NN e YI ! / 4 a i � d P I' yy., I V A a l» H M. r r I l'' q {{ �pg � 1"••411,* t 71 ( 1f t�� 6 is .r�v�6 �� Tx.� .,,f� � 41u �:�2�1�w 1i. Sn�. �'�a�r'�k:�vr.��" � R�� ''� a, § 'a , An � i.,,i).`vi, :+/`t «'i' '.IXjL,ty uV Prtf !a.0a.,• A u,.r y.t d I • tr. S�`w e,p' •�A!y��-°!` Y! ti �.' � i, ii`.,;.r i„?.,a4 *'. ,.,. :.�.., �$,:" 'r 'i,.�•.la f>+.�, `�I , y ppg > dd� I ( ,. ,,,,la�,tl,!:RI La' P" 1 ,, ��'' A19,,,�,. , ,,;f,,,.1,4 R t,. .i i, i! 1'F R n" i , a. , r . � 4i� �jr * ! '� ., r .�-�'I� t.`�1..� rr )G '+�. �� mt n. v'A p11� .Y �'�r.K ,1 dr 6 k.. +'H!IHM,�, c, T,t,,ay�M k } ti.! n .. 1 A� •. t C: r Ur � r i*'r 44,x ,� 1.11t,',1! � '�t t"-�x��t t' f"n t �°'g,�"G" �`�"- °.` }.11,:,,,,,,,I� .y i y{iM t �i qM'p■ , Ai 4�.1 t U G Aid�.'-7 �' ��r d��#•tr .i.�� 0.1��'i F,iIP` ," �'.,�1 I r s , • I ., 1, '4,0'; !1` P 11 'a. + 1' a,'s pre! �I •h�.,A' r. a.?r`2,i,.'w,°.t y ".1, r•� x 'ail 'c1 f r' y gq p,.„�,�'�'�'rP�`� �I„�,`, � ��:".� �"'�rV�rq ,• �-fir•��t�4�� .�,��-h,.rel•.� Y��C�'r.�'�C'� ��». C''�P t' ,� �. '�v,°.rr�;�lriz,�� 4 v. y` }g y7y , y tt N rr I , n��Y �`9 „,. 2.� ro r.�rA R ��„��A n60'�tr'. ��aR � al I!'G.F.#'-rr.,,�,;�r �. u , a . .v w..�...,.....• ...._...... .« ...w..•...s.. _ ..„ ..axv., �. ,...w.,..n .......tire .w..,...�..,t..,a_.�... i r I , . ,xl., CHECK • • .roc 105311 r I f ' •n GI. Accountt # tnvoi e f in i ate Co-Pro P.O. # Amount to Pay , • 6345-13 -` aISBURSE REQUES 09/27/96 90 000 5O OO • '•. ' . ., ' ,00 11 (,,,,,O1-4,#),„.kt''' ' 51 • (Z.. 0,/,jls 0 i(k '„ •. '•; l';7i°'.' k A . 5 4 A 41,1Y/NG ' . ' 1 I V * s I I I . � I Ir . 'y' r I r .t • n V „ • 1 i SENT BY: NORRIS BEGGS SIMPSN; 9-12-96 11 :46AM; 5032739278 — 503 684 7297; #1/2 ' ,' I+ ;, R /f City Fax To: Tigard. Y of and g // C"ornmunity Dv/elolprnetat 639-41'71/684-7291t-Fax Date: Septenhber 12, 1996 j m 4),J5 , . . Re: Fan; Creek Apart erti q: Y „y i �:� I, Tigard,Oregon �/�/\J Yr apartment comp l 4.17 ac ; 132 parking space legal description attacIted The lender requires an original zoning letter addressed to ' modnnen eat' eft) Norris, Beggs fir.. Simpson, 121 SW Monisori Street, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97204, Attention; Sandra L. Johnsorn, and signed by an authorized representative of the a ro riate nitinici iii authority, k PEi,ka:se fax your letter to 273-9278 before mailing. 1 oars al ti be reached at 273-0350. The zoning letter must clearly idetitif,'the property and must include the followh g; I, The zoning code affecting the Premises is .w..�_wkeh permits use '' as 2, The required number of paricirig spaces for the Premises is 3, Confirmation that the Prerriises and its use as a complies with such 4' • zoning code, city ordinance and building and use restrictions. 4. Confirmation that there are no variances, conditional use perrriits or special uuse permits required for the improvements as constructed on the Premises or their use or if there are, sped the same avid their to s. 5. If the Premises is a non-confor nnirig rise, the zoning letter must set forth the conditions under which the Premises may be restored if th are damaged or destrdyedK 6, Conhrrnation that the Premises as described comply with applicable platting ordinances and can be conveyed Without the filing of a plat or replat otthe Premises, Y. 7. If the • Pr Ortiz ;, f ls within n aa l subdivision on or laetin. tvl s or te�: .-. lat� on� evidence compliance with such subdivision regulations or waiver appropriate s must be provided cc. John Lobos o Loan File .. • • � � 1. . •�' 5 .\. � � ' 4 • , &ENT BY: NORRIS BEGGS SIMPSN• 9-12-96 11 :47AMq 5032739278 => 503 S847297; #2/2 E3XII 1.T"A" ,M LOCH.-TED LOT 3, EDGE OOD 'i J.' .GR r.),1L.c. #39, V THE SE 1/4 of SEcTioii4 2 Ti ' ' sW 1/4 O'F SECTION 1; T. 2S, R. 1W, W.M., CITY OF TIG , WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON , • a • r . 4 r t t a t r , fir; w� _��::: .��. i ..a«�,;,,,u..,,�,,.,—.... q?^�'., • .. ,,,.uLG.1,,��:,�.........k..+.:z�.••,i «:.a.a;:i�.l-.1...�.m...�.1,,.,_._ i.,..+,...e,..c..n:. ..tau. .v..w•...r......t,-•a...�.r...,.:..+.....+..,,..G.,.u..,«.L..i .b,—u,...,�x.�,:...e ,.w. ..,,u..iw --•.,..+,.+..,.... ..�.c+� - � ,p ��i h,.+'�x,M lJ n;4+Y.rc.Jw,r�,,, f,,,,�;r•.IM'' .A` a .�•�..r�w.r },vi .ems f'+k r S '• e r cw TI r . .. July 1, 1994 A . OREGON Washington mutual 4 11565 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97233 Re: Secruity°Deposit for Fenno Creek Apartments Landscaping To Thom it may concern: 1' ':,". This letter is in response to the Depositors request for xrelease from the Agreement With Depositor And Trustee On $ ,wings Or y, De---rsit" dated April 22, 1994 to secure landscape impi.4� ,'`t`A. j,t, for t �' Farna Creek Apartments. A sum of $89, 300 ra � "::. . ced site in security under Account #259-6510189 to insure completion of site r '` landscape improvements (see attached) , The City has inspected the landscape improvements and has found the 1 ' ' . landscaping g s�bsta�taally in with the approved plans and s „ therefore authorizes release of the entire $89,300. Piase feed: free to contact me concerning this information. n i Sincerely Mark Roberts Assistant Plannee. ' k r , n ;• ' C: Allan Solares • o • , , al� Ivc�o, iga� 13125 SW E d, OR C)7223 (503) 639-4171 TG)I) (503) 684-2772 y� ,L' ;tJ ry,. r M n V 1.M,.,, ..f. • .„ -,a,+..:..x...,.•••.IG.w.l.,..1'4..—i.,, ,f X.•»i..,•IiM..■ «Mw«I L.•, .,,4. .x ti7 .,.,.,.+.I w,._,w w...........I.....i._w»..:;....,�a..:,... ,1,�. .•a..:;t„+m�f a..,,•..:J;.,.,.w..,,... y,,,.•Hw`•-�,......a..a.;«„,.n„�4,.+.,..:.wtn.5.1, . dv.. r d .5'c ,. N. r IP . a• ti AFFIDAVIT A'VST 01:' MAILING • STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss g City of Tigard , . ^ ) I,- ►- C VO I• C..r p,,,.- _, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) M,• That am a s � _L____-'� ( � - for The City of Tigard► Oregon. ' That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: .' That 'I sere City of 'J• and planning Director , Ti a rd I nin g Commi ssion ss�o n i ,_ Tigard ” rings Offioer , r Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named peens at the .-•dress shown on the attached not fiat marked exhibit "B" on the 4 day of d.'�' -..; 19 1i a , saidchetice NOTICE OF DEC ,ION as hereto attached, was posted on a appropriate bulletin board on t2xe 1 � day of ..- ► P deposiate in the � ,_..�., ,_•, , 1.9 4.?► and deposited day postage prepaid. Ma ;.• United States Mail on the 6 ,�� • Prepared Notice i • f• Bu►b -ibed and aworn/affirm to me on the- da of /' r.; • °.f.L: .►../it ' • M NOT',PUBLIC 0... +REGON �--�-d'” . My �•mmission Expires:` „..„.,_--_"5.:_--,,,„±..". ': •• 4 ,.A ( I i .. f I I ' j ' e r , x , •. i i • CITY OF TIGARD Washington County !!� NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER, - BY PIANNINIG CPJMMIS8ION 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 921-0020�iVAit 92-0010/SLR SLR 92--0005 2. Name of Owner: Kenneth Solares Name of Applicant: Allan Solares 3. Address 13566 Twin Creeks Lane_ City Lake Oswego, State OR Zip 97035 4, Address of Property: 13840 and 13750 SW Hall Blvd. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 251 2DD tax lots 500 and 400 „ 5. Request: The Planning: Cammi®Sion considered a ireguest for the following development applications Deyelppment keview approval is reguesteda p ' wy 62,unit apartment, cram lex with related site _mrovements Apnewnpublic s ieet h adirag eastward from Hall _Boulevard would be created.. A portion of the or ginal site is within the 100 year f],00dplain of,Fanno Creek 9 ' and is proposed tc be dedicated to the- City cif Tigard; 2) Variance approval is d residential u structrer whereas tCode aSection b l.896.030nomultip3e farts, A) P 1) requires as , minimum of 25 Mfeet .b,tweenatwo muplti..e family bu3,ld�.nith 'windowed wails facincx each of-he e a proval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070_ 01 requires two drivewa s, for vehicular access and for ' multiple family residential uses of 50.-100 units; 4� Variance approval is s�sxst:o�e�ght f000i��sideeXardisetbackcwhe�ea e Co�des�te to maintain its current ��;' ection 1.8.54x050 (A)t3)( r, re Tres a 10 :foot side x, and setback• 5 Si tI e n Review e ggeptil n A ;oval to allow a 24 foot y rc setb kwhreasCoe Section i 050 3) (e1 requires rd of an attached x.8.54. ( _a 30 foot setback for the side ard Land eview approval is requeestedstolallow devel�_estrict; and 6'' ' Imu3.ta.ple fam11 dwelling abutting a a_.' ,....1(10 re of a Ped�trian�bicycle�pathw within the X100 year floodplain of Panto Creek. NOTE All of_the_ above listed applications are typ.Lcally reviewed by the Communit Develo ent De a - �' .� pm p ri.menfi without . It has been determined by the Community beve��► mer►t Department that the review of these applications should be referred to they► Planning Commission 'under the • +a utho._rtt y. of Co mm unit De10 p re nt '.Coe Sectio n n 18.32 09 0aD.4h,.e._d ue to t he need to determine the pr�oral s consisterc� w�th Note 7 of t .CorepNen e Plan's Transportation Plan Map�APVLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA. Comuna,tjt Development Code Chapters 18.32/ 1854 18.84 and 18 :164 18.92 18.,9_5_, 0 ant� + the 18.106 18.108 18.114 18.120 18.134 i l.8 w 144 18 150.a_ Corn prell7ene ive Plane 9 Transporatik;on Plan Map. Zone: (Residential,id eeti al, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows llows single family attached/detached residential unite multiple family residential u , residential care facil�:t3.es,r mobile home parks and subdiv�.s�.onsr public support services, family day care, home occupations, and accessory Structures among other uses. Action: Approval as 6„, I I requested I I K Approval, conditions Denial 7. Notice: published is the newspaper, posted at City Nall, and Not"isr.e was mailed to The applicant and owner(a', K Owners Of record withi n t.he required distance . ] The affected Neighborhood Planning X. .. Affected governmental 'agencies q 8. Final Decision: THE DEciEron Li LL BE FINAL ON rebruary 11, 199J. UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. • A , • . I ti .,»�-;.h$,.M r ,«i, »r".1�,,w.,.� «!«,, .wS�w.,..,+.,.M,:;..i...a.«.i..r,,.:wx...« a:,....w,.t..�,n,wJj.i......,o-«.k;..�..l .;�" F '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. cal Any party to the decision may appeal this' decision in accordance . ' with 18.32.290(8 )• and Section 18.32.370 which'provides that a written appeal ba:,®bemfiled within. 10 days after notice is given and sent. The appeal', may ' may be f submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee s 3 ) .p up to `a maximum of $500.00 . „ ($ 18.00 and trraxtecr t cosat® (var�.es The deadline for filing _of an appeal is 3:30 p m. February 11, 1993 10. t�uesticsne a If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard . g P s 39-43.71. i. Plannin �e artment 6 , 4 l i Y , e �y M.+..�,....k ra ..«+ti W n Ewa.. .rv+,-A� ..L..x.++i.lil.. ;.• ,....,,.'.:...,.�l........»U.,...,m..e,.,,.-, wA.:+a -....,.....-u.:....� �z"FM,:::....u...�,.».u.i / .,�a .t...r ,w. .w�.M...«.. .,..u..,'�,.. r µ.-Im..s-+..,_.t.»1,... .,...iA.r*kr.»..u.+....,dVw.._... K.V....- ,.A . l r 1 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 93-0002 P r INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING AN A FINAL ORDER T, s APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SIXTY-TWO UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX PROPOSED BY ALLAN SOLARES. The 'Tigerd Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's plans and narrative materials, comments of reviewing agencies and neighbors of the proposed development site,; and the Planning Division's staff report and recommendations for the application described below. The Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony on this application on January 25, 1993. The Commission has based its decision on .the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. • A. FACTS 1. .General Information CASE: FANNO CREST{ V1LLAGE/SOLARES HOM5, INC. Site Development Review SDR 92-0020 Variance VAR 92-0020 Sensitive Lands Review SLR 92-0005 REQUEST: A. request for Site Development Review approval of plans for development of a sixty-two unit, . ten building multi-family residential complex on a 6.42 gross acre site. Site Development j. Review Setback Exception approval is requested 4, to allow' one building to have a 24 foot setback from the site's southern property line whereas Community Development Code`Sect. 18.54.050.3.g requires a 30 foot side yard setback • Three 'Variance requests are included: a. To allow a 20 foot separation between two residential buildings Where as Community Development Code Section 18.96.030 1 requires a minimum 25 foot separation between. windowed walls of abutting multi- family residential buildings; b. To allow the sixty-two unit multi-family' development to be served by one access driveway and a second emergency vehicle access driveway whereas Code Section 1€3 108.070 requires tw'o access dry. ews i..ay far a multi-.family residential development of bet seen fifty and one hundred units - S rINAL -OI�l�R. SDR 92,-0020 ��5 gage 1 PI • ' 111,111/0111V.,`111111 C. TO allow a five foot side yard setback from the northern property line for a multi-family residential building whereas Code Section;18.54.050.3.c requires a ten foot side yard setback. The request is is to allow for the eo nti.nued. use of an existing building without having to make modifications to the structure to satisfy the setback standard. Review approval is requested to allow band nae�:t of p � ., Sensitive w develop f ,a pedestrian/bicycle pathway aitha.ri. the 100 year floodplai.n of Fanno Creek. NOTE: All of the above listed applications are typically by reviewed b the Community, Development Department without a; public hearing. It has been determined by the ".Cozriunty Development Director the review of these applications shoul0 be referred to the Planning Commission under the authority of Community Development Code Section 18.32.090.D.4, due to the need to determine the proposal's consistency with Note 7 of the Com prehensive Plan's Transportation Plan. map. OWNER: Kenneth Solares APPLICANT: Allan Solares • Lake Oswego,Creeks 162 Estates Drive Or 97035 Piedmont, CA • go, I •. AGENT: 1 c en��e/S aito & Associates Contact: Dave Williams or Greg Hranac 0690 SW Bancroft Street PO Box 69039 Portland, OR 97201-0039 LOCATION: 13750 and 13840 �rard (WCT�d '2S1: 2DD, 1840 S�' Hall Boulevard Tax Lots 400 and 500) , PLAN DESIGNATION Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R -12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) • APPLICABLE LAW: CoManunity Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 4 ' 18.'106 0 ; 18.108, 18.1140 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, ' 18,150, and 18, 164 and the Com p r eh ens�.ve Plan Trians p oti a. t ion Plan ' Sa p and Com rehensive Pl an Gceenw�y s and Open 5 p c es Ma ri. r1l4A14 ORDER S DR 92-0020 - SOLARtS Page 2 • r• 0 Q 7 °1#' • t...-. . ..,....a.::.l nr....r a...! .:ni..rnn..,al1µ -r nr.-..J .w... _.,....m.m.A..-a. ....tw.. .' 1,,,,�iwl..-.alri«•+A.+..nN$-C4'. L 1-... .r{1 II ....« _ n-!«r..,....r.m.-..r ...«..,r. ....«n. .r.•.m..-... .nn+a,xnrn•«e.rr..�.lir mrmr,.r—a..,.+r. ..wuuu .-:rm+mm...Mn..w N..w nwm.r«, n ..r.+..J.M«...r.wr.«..r,u:•.+r+..Yr mn.nJ .mF r 2. Background Information 4' The subject properties have been planned for medium : density residential use, with the floodplain area ' designated as open space, since at least August 22, 1977 when the NPO 5 plan was adopted. Zoning history is less ! clear. However, the subject properties have been zoned R-12 since at least November, 1983. The Comprehensive l Plan's Transportation Plan Map (exhibit . , one) designates a study area which includes the subject ,:' • property. Map Note 7 which refers to the study area ' � yr ! seeks Connections between Hunziker street, Hall. Boulevard at 0 Mara Street (generally) , and Bonita Road. ' r A Site Development Review approval was granted on July R' 10, 1989 for development of a forty-four unit apartment complex on tax lot 500 (SDR 89.14) The plans for that application provided for a public street extending eastward� ;from Hall similar eas ° currently- proposed, � as well as many other site layout elements similar to what is curren tly proposed. The Director's decision n report for that application was P rovided to the City • Council. That decision was not appealed nor was it , called up for review by the City Council, I f 3. Vicini Ynfortation Properties surrounding r the site are zoned R_1.2 to the north, R-7 to the south, R-4.5 to the west across SW' Hall » th Boulevard, and I-] to the east across Fanno Creek. Single family residences occupy all of` the surrounding) properties except to the east. Neighboring properties across Fanno Creek are vacant. The subject property has approximately 335 feet of frontage on SW Hall .. Boulevard Which is functionally classified as an arterial by the City's Transportation Plan Mal). SW Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon Highway Division. This stretch of SW Hall Boulevard is generally substandard in width and 4 state of improvements, with the exception of its intersections with with McDonald d 5treet and Bonita Road to the south of the subject site. 4. Site Information and Proposal Bes01rri t .on s The subject 6.2 acre Property contains two. n single family a p r several outbuildings, The eastern 80 percent or so of the property is variant FINAL ORDgR S�� _�o�o . r Page 31 I r. I r 7' v • . ..,w.s,.-..... 1........... .........:,.-......w ......., .... ....'.......s.4..,w l.'.,n. ...I.i..1A«. n:...:.1...._....,...-n.....,—.u._iw-._... .e I .-.W« covered with a combination of tall fir trees, lower i height deciduous trees, and brush. The property slopes • predominantly to the east and southeast at varying grades Approximately 1.7 . acres is within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek at elevations of less than • 140.5 feet according to the us Army Corps of Engineers Fanno Creek f loodplain, study maps. The application submittal includes an existing site information map. The applicants propose to develop a sixty-two unit apartment complex on this site. The development would include 19 one-bedroom, 31 two-bedroom, and 12 three bedroom units within ten buildings, including one unit within the existing house at the northwestern corner of the site. The proposed development plan necessitates the following building setback variance or Site Development Review setback exception requests: a. Site Development Review setback exception approval is requested to allow proposed building #8 to have a 24 foot setback from the site's southern property line whereas Community Development Code Section . 18.54.050.3.g requires a 30 foot s side yard setback. tback. approval is requested to allow a 20 " foot b. Variance app requested gr separation between two residential buildings whereas Coxndmunity Development Code Section 18.96.030 requires a minimum " 25 foot et separation between en windowed walls of abutting multi-family residential buildings, Variance a approval is requested to allow a five foot c. . pp qu side yard setback fr om the n orthern property line for a mrmult,a--family residential building whereas Code Se ction 18.54.050.3.c requires a ten foot side yard setback. request is made to allow for the continued use of an existing building without having to make modifications to the structure to satisfy the setback standard. The applicant has su bmi tted j ust. �ox statements n is for the requ sted exceptions and var a.ances A recreation is building ` �` proposed to be located near the center of the site's western border along Hall Boulevard. Laundry fa w• .omm .nity room and kitchen, and an Outdoor spa are proposed s s, a C ' « the recreation �� O'V',Lded .at • � � � � tC) be �� ar.t c ing. A two bedroom manager's apartment ment woul d be e Part oE the recreation building. Additional p rop osed recreation facilities include a p layground are an open w common plaza and pathways connecting to the proposed b icycle p ath within the Fenno Creek flood plain area. 7,f FIN/a, ORE)ER st)R 92-0020 - s Page 4 J 1 .. I , parkin would be provided by 122 total parkin spaces f consisting <of 63 overed parking spaces (combination of garages and. carports) , 5 designated handicapped parking spaces, and spaces. The proposed p . 54 other uncovered Spac development would be served by one 24-foot wide access .. . I driveway from a proposed ro osed local street in the southwestern 1 corner of the site, as well as a 15 foot wide driveway from Hall Boulevard to serve two parking spaces adjacent �:. '-o the existing duplex in the northwestern corner of the { site. This second driveway is proposed to extend eastward from the parking spaces as a fire access • remainder o f he connecting w�.th the rez�na t I driveway only g � . . internal driveways. No details are provided on how access on this adriveway will be restricted to emergency use, only,, a variance is requested to allow the development to be served by only) one full use access ti y whereas two driveways for a multi-family residential development wit • driveway, wh+�rea.� hod y •- y A70.D requires tth � . Code Section 18.1 8 between 50 and 100 dwelling units. bet I � The development site would be bordered .!.n its southwestern corner by a new east-west local street extending approximately 150 feet eastward from Hall Boulevard was :� . oulevard, largely similar to the street that approved for construction as la condition of approval for SDR 89-14. A sketch plan has been provided that • illustrates how this street could be extended to connect with the existing stub of Fanno Creek Drive approximately r 430 feet to the south. The alignment of this street as it extends to the east of the proposed development's access driveway is proposed to be curve southward onto the adjoining property. Consistent with the decision for SDI. 89-14, the applicants propose that they be responsible for full street improvements for this section ° of street until the driveway to the proposed development cuts off to the north, with the remainder of. the right- of-way to be dedicated but unimproved. The application proposes dedicati on of the ;s portion of the site to the City or a conservation group as greenway/open space An eight-foot wide public 11iC clef edest, is J St �xan. ath�aa"� a.s ro used to either Straddle • the f to d plain boundary or else to be located on the �' pathway apartment a b'. etwi�enproposed�bubldzness 5 �anc� 6 wrould� connect the . sidewalks and driveways within the proposed development g �d ' ` Pedestrian/bicycle path. In addition, a 12 foot wide gravel road along the southern edge of the property 18 proposed to extend eastward from the parking area t o I , maintenance-p y to provide an access r ead for sewer Sensitive Lands Revie W p v i8 requested to allo w development of the p ortion o f the I I FINAL ORDER - SDR 92i."0020 SOI & Page 5 • , pedestrian/bicycle pathway that would be located within the 100 year floodplain of Fanner Creek. A network of four foot wide sidewalks would be provided ', ) along the primary roadway into the site and between parking areas and residential buildings. The preliminary landscaping plan shows existing trees that I , • • are proposed to:, be retained as weU.U. as proposed• additional landscaping. Red sunset maple trees are proposed as street trees and parking area trees. Ten- ,` foot wide buffer plantings containing a variety of trees • '+; , and bushes are proposed along both the northern, and southern property boundaries of the site.P �• site. Split rail fencing is proposed along all property boundaries other than along the eastern boundary with the area to be 1 dedicated as greenway 5. Public Hearing, gency, and NPO iCoxtImerits 1, . The Planning g Division staff submitted a staff report and recommendation dated January 15, 1993 for the Commission's review. The staff report: was provided to applicant the and Property owner anuary 15, 1993 and was ailable forreview from that�7 time on consistent with the requirements of ORS 197.763. The Planning • Division staff presented an oral report recomm.endations on the proposal at the public he.a3'ing The staff submitted revised recommended conditions at the , hearing. These revis ions are hereby made a part of the record, to be attached to the staff report. Comments were received at the hearing from the applicant 1'�'YIIr IT' Allan So lares a neighboring p ro p ert y owner er Fred Fie lds, and Hal Keever of WH Pacific representing John Lea son. Hearin g minutes are bein g prepared at this I a Oregon sca e t proposal and has c commented that access permits must be ti 4.'. obtained from. ODOT for both the emergency access driveway . .K and the new intersection of Fanno Creek Drive and Hall ,1 • r � r ; desie�ard.plans and financial need to review the $' g pl assurances for the improvements to SW Hall Boulevard, including adequate provisions for Storm drainage south of the site At the January 25, 19 9 3 hearing on this application, bew elopment Review Planner Jerry Offer reported that the Highway Division withdrawn their revi ou�� re taiest that 1 , the Na M applicant would � ,� p � �. sppOn can t�woild ,need to a. the costs for re-striping pay Hall Boulevard to include a left turn into the site (personal {{ ' conversati on on between Jerry Offer and 8ob Doran of °DOT, a ua 25,1993, approx . 3 PM) . �ry+�•7� FINAL ORDER SOR 92-0020 - SOLAR ES Page 6 P w 9 . • Ia,•..+..w..T:-....4ka1...!r'. ,r _..u....»N,! .,,..,.. »„...,,.rzxi: ..«!i._ ,,,...' -..->n:....r.:,.. .., ,.,.,ilY,_I..AM,µ„A+rw...,.LJ...,.u:::c.,4...,.. .._.+,.._,+».,,„...r..,„w✓....,M:..w... ... .,w..,,,»,;I.....,«.,.::. uk i.:u,+ .,.a.,.w ..,. ..._ The City of Tigard Engineering Department has submitted written comments and recommended conditions of approval which are included in the packet of information provided I. to the Planning Commission with the staff report- 1� Comxn:� n The City of Tigard Buildin Division reviewed the g Building proposal and provided the following comments: a. A demolition ermi pt should be obtained p : par• rar to destruction or moving any of the existing buildings A on the site. The septic tanks will need to be pumped out and either removed or filled with sand or gravel. An inspection should be obtained after the ` ~ t ank is filled'. A co py of the receipt , far septic � tank pumping should be provided to the Building ,. Division. b• A sewer permit will be required for connection of the existing house to the sanitary sewer. c. M l� --f a it dwellings s are subject to the Fair Housing Americans with Disabilities Act for Act Ac , and disabled person accessibility. The buildings should be designed accordingly. d. The limits of the 100 year floodplain should be marked prior to building permit issuance, and the y marking shall be maintained throughout development of the site. Tigard School District 233 reviewed the proposal and has develo. ►ent we uld be projected try noted that , hat the proposed, P p � generate 5 new students Elementary School, udea�ts for Phil Lewis �lementa 2 students at Fowler Middle School, and 1 student at 'F Tigard High ° school. The School District notes that i g school capacity at° the High School is already exceeded, • although Phil Lewis and Fowler Schools are Presently below capacities. The District notes that the core facility of the High School is insufficient to be e at+le to � . . Consider portable e additions. Additional al Sc. hool capacity q+ ty may be provided by o p G1 �ns under consideration �Y the school D str ct, includin : grade level reconfiguration rescheduled school y ear boundary s nts r ouble shiftin u ibusin to underutilized' facilities future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. I ' #L'I J.W.t'1JJI - ... g d 0 2 0 - S O�.iAR�'i S Page e' 7 • I. The Tualatin Valley F ire and fescue District has reviewed . the proposal and has provided the following comments: a. Hydrant locations will need to be coordinated between the Fire District and the Tigard Water a' District. Hydrants will need to be placed within , 250 feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; . . however, may this distance ma be increased if buildings are equipped with automatic ` fire sprinkler. Hydrants uldd be placed at all intersections b. The Fire District would prefer to see an emergency vehicle access be a grass--crete pad through! the development's landscaped area with appropriate signage provided at the emergency access driveways intersections with both the internal roadway and . . plans the emergency Half. Boulevard. Final lans� for th access should be required to be approved by the Fire District. g ,s , en The State of Oregon Division of State Lands has been notified of the proposal due to the floodplain portion of the site being included the National Wetlands Inventory. The Division of®State Lands ,has commented that a joint DSL/Corps of Engineers permit must be obtained if grading, removal, or filling ithin the banks b d of Fan.no` Creek will involve g' �r more than �0 cubic, yards of - material. The Unified Sewerage Agency has pr ovided the following comments . a� A water quality facility should be required to be constructed; ■ transpo7:tang drainage from. public b o right-of-ways g shou�lc. b,e publicly owned and should be raj P Y' centered within a minimum 15 foot wide `_:iement, c. • • e w The T' pra project should be designed in ary coriance with USA Rule & Order 91-47, as amended by 91-75 The Metro olitan Area Communications Commission p p future residents of the p e proposed develop ment have franchised cable service available to then The develo ers should notify Columbia when trenches will Cable in advance as to why umb�.�� Ca for electricity and telephone service,, so that be opened ice Columbia Cable can install cable most efficiently. • l� P.DE R �2 - OQe a SO7ChRES Page 8 rl . .. .,......>:>«.»:1......:::......._wry;;;:,.,.a,..,.,U....,_._I..«.r.,c.w,.,,,......;:e,....,.uw...r'.rM,.1N_..«w:....i..:;; „ ; GTE has requested that the developer contact GTE Engineering at least 30 days prior to opening trenches. The applicant has had several meetings with Neighborhood , Planning Organization NPO #5 to review preliminary site r` plans for the proposed project. NPO #5 was provided with a request for comments and a copy of the application materials, but the NPR? has not submitted any comments. No comments were made by the NPO at the public hearing., A letter was received from William Hawley, a member of That letter is dated December 15, 1992. Mr. Hawleyl's comments are his own and are not raised by the NPO. That letter was made part of the staff, report and therefore ? is made part of the record for this application. • The City of Tigard Park Board and Operations Division Ti .and Water Di.strict, Northwest Natural Gas, arr-d PGE E have reviewed - ewed the proposal and have issued no comments or objections. A letter from John season, Sven Von Beideken, and Edward z. Finley three property Owners to the south of. the sub ect has p p Y �'' (the s�.�.e �i s been'. recei.'Ived.` The letter' is dated December 1, 1992. attached to the That letter also was staff report ` and is part of the record. The letter raises questions with regard to transportation concerns related to th e proposed development and abutting properties. The letter requested that the proposal be reviewed by the Planning Commission n because the proposal raises q questions related to dote 7 of the Transportation plan map. • subsequent letter.' from Messrs. season Von ` I � � kie�.d.eken r r . 14 and Finley dated January. 5 1993 was also attached to the staff report. The letter motes that they have met with and have reached agreement r the applicant pl l ic,ant a aehed an a regiment o The revised alignment for the proposed local. street.g tes t a 1 the lg gopposition to the proposal noted in the no , letter” will be withdrawn if the City makes the agreed upon road alignment a condition ' of alanosubm tied with this letter has been road alignment . pp proposal The P ha b n y s�.t�nedb�rA. iarx f Solares. This plan was submitted prior to the sending of to e treated as an a nn g proposal to he site l and therefore is lan. ' notice of the hearing on this ro osa b �. FINAL ORDER SDI. 92-0020 - _..OL:A'E S S Page e 1. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter �ter 18. ��, ' 32 � uas�.---audics.a Proce ores,. ' All of the application types requested are typically reviewed • by the Community Development Department without a public hearing (Community` Development Code Section 18 32.090.A) However, the December 1, 1992 letter from John. Leason, et al l noted that,the site of the current proposal is contained within a study area on the Transportation Plan Map. Mr. Leason's letter requested that this application be reviewed by the Planning Commission or Hearings Officer because review of the proposal requires interpretation of an imprecise directive from the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Division agreed with Mr. Lea sort's concerns that this application would involve a discretiona ry interpretation pretation of the Plan. � • Therefore, it was determined by the Community Development r � y ].opment review of these applications would be Director a Planning pP referred to that the reng Commission under the authority of Community Development Code Section 18.32.090.D.4, due to the r d • need to determine the proposal's consistency with Note 7 of the p � Transportation Map. The Commission Comprehensive Plan's Trans ortation Plan has no problem with accepting the review responsibility for • this application. Analysis of the issues related to Note 7 is !` contained in the section of this report relative to Code Chapter 18.164. Chapter 18.120 - Site Development Review Code Section 18.120.180.A.1 (Site F� - approval. Site e�rie w' standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community r , Development Code Chapters' The Planning Comr�ass°ion, finds that the applicable .a in this case are City of Tigard Communit Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.92, 18.96, 18 l0® l8•102 18 106 18.x08 v 18 ~ 11 4 .120 18 44 18 150p r and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these other Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal p p contains no elements to the provisions of Code related tca t ' Chapters 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile H ome Regulations) Chapter 18.98 (Building Height Limitations: Exceptions) which , Code Section 18 120.180..,.1. These Chapters are therefore are also listed under, . ' p found. to be inapplicable as approval . . standards. Code Section 18.120.180.A.2 provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions' of these other Code chapters. These other standards are addressed immediately below. FINAL ORDER - SDP: 92-0020 - SOLES Page 10 ..:.1. L1. • e. ., u e._,-. _ .tn u..,. _ _..a...•.. .. :w . 1.. 41.., a-.. -« .•1.• . I The proposal is found to comply with the applicable e Code section 18. 120.180.•.2 Site Development Review approval standards for provision of private outdoor areas (balconies or patios attached unit) , screening of service ce facilities see details cn sheet All) , multi-family residential building separation (except as described below) , design offsets along building faces, and buffering and screening of the proposed development through compliance with the buffering and screening requirements of the Code as well as careful positioning of on- site plantings to provide privacy between different units within the development. - .. Code Section 18. 120.180.A.7 requ ires multi-family devel o p mentS 4� to provide shared recreation facilities based on unit sizes. r The development proposal proposes shared recreation facilities including a playground, recreation center, and pathways to y° this standard (approx 13,700 sq. ft. of shared aatlsf �. . recreation facilities required; approx. 15,000 sq. ft. provided) , Dwelling, units and the Playground area have been recreat�.o P' d) toward p � interior of the site so as to reduce �� possible ' noise impacts eon neighboring properties and to . possible • increase visual privacy between adjacent )uses. Reasonable care ` • has been taken to preserve a number of mature trees on the site as shown on the landscaping plan (sheet 1,1) although with the amount of development proposed and the grading necessary, a number of trees will be removed. « bode Section 18.120. 18Q..�.r 9 «� nd 10 re ux.re e.•onsa.deration of crime prevention and safety in the design of a, proposed development. The Tigard Police De p artment have requested tha t • appropriate signage be p.. laced at entrances to apartment ent complexes and that adequate addressing be placed on unit entrances ''so that emergency service providers can locate units quickly. The developer will therefore be required to contact the Police Department prior to occupancy of the complex for ` the review and approval '� g addressing � pP n. of n cow lax. oval of the signage a and adds es.� p Code Section, 18.120. 180.10 also requires that site lighting be provided in areas vulnerable to crime, areas of heavy Pedestrian or vehicle le tP raffic s and in potentially dangerous areas such as i abrupt changes.of the applicant's submittal l s wtat adequate site lighting will be P rovided in the p arkin g lot, around the Playground and recreation, buildings, and common sidewalks, ight l�in�.na ts upon adjacent properties are anticipated. effects co de section 1�Y L 2 0. 180 Y A.8 requires that dedication of sufficient it open n n...,r g r y bI e required where development is allowed d «thin or ad j a cent to the 10 0 ear oed pl �� The applicant's statement has offered that the 100-year floodplain portion o f this site either be dedicated FINAL ORDER SDR` 92-0020 SOLES Page 11 it , I I I , e . ' • to the city or given to a conservation group. Since the floodplain portion of the site is identified for greenway/park use in the adopted City of Tigard Park Plan, this area will be a R required to be dedicated to the City. • Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 also calls for construction of a an bicycle c l _ pedestri y e pathway "within the floodplain" in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian-Bicycle Man, which is , I incorporated within Volume One of the Compreher,.sive Plan, calls for a pathway systeit. long the length of Fanno Creek. The proposal provides for ueveloprnent of a pathway consistent with the Plan, although tla pathway would be partially outside of a' the f lood lain. This location is more appropriate than within P , " the floodplain , at this location, and therefore. should be approved. The developer will be required to provide' a public easement for the pathway where it will be located on the }' -" apartment Parcel. In addition, because the proposed sidewalk pathway proposed . connections between this ath�va and the .�o Deed. . would include stairways that would not be conducive to bicyclist access, the proposed gravel sewer access road along the southern edge of the property will be required to be paved with a minimum of 8 feet of pavement to serve _as a bicycle m . access path. Cha ]District and Chapter 18.92 )Dens i.ty ! The proposed use, multi-family residences, is a permitted use • in the R-12 zoning district. Sixty -two dwelling units are i , proposed on area that provides an opportunity for sixty-two • - (utilizing original site la ) units a.n the R. 12 zone utila.za.n the ox that would have `, considering a 25% density transfer of units tha been permitted within the 100-v ar floodplain of Fanno Creek °.� if not for the floodplain restrictions. Such a density transfer is permitted by Code Chapter 18.92 in exchange for the dedication of floodplain area The applicants' density calculations are noted on the cover sheet for the proposed site plan. change the SW Fanno Creek Drive alignment ro osed on the m affect the density calculati • the xr�a ' by Pacific on ific wall afoval of the slightly. A condition of approval he Site Development. Review application will require a new density calculation to indicate a • for .no less than 61.35 dwelling units di.0 ate an in order to permit the 62 units proposed. the City P p p Although th does not normally allow rounding, upward on density calculations it will be tight-of-way- dedication allowed in this case to recognize. .. that ecogr�.�.�e en agreed e ut�nre development g to by change e applicant proposed to ' has b inte sts of te neighbors and not because of needs related to FINAL ORDER - SIR 92-0020 - SOLARES Page 12 I I L , • Via, , the proposed development or typical (City requirements. It ' should be understood that slight modifications to the site plan ( ' ma be necessa�to reduce on-site roadwa ys to maintain this density o pp ort t Y• Proposed site qe improvements emen t is con 1 Y with the R-12 zoning district req uirements for bui din g height ((35 foot maximum • 35 ' um height proposed) , lot coverage / allowed _,n R-12 foot ma��.m ed site coverage percent zone; maxi.�cum allowed g of 80 er�,ent in the R�12 proposed site coverage of less than 50 percent) , and landscaped • area (minimum landscape coverage of 20 percent; proposed landscape coverage of greater than 58 percent) All proposed building locations satisfy mintuwn building setback requirements except as have been requested to be varied or excepted as` discussed below. (This assumes that lot consolidation is completed prior to issuance of building permits. Lot consolidation has already been applied for with #" the Washington ashx ngton County Assessor's office) BUILDING #8 SETBACK EXCEPTION Site Development Review setback exception approval is requested to allow proposed building #8 to have a 24 foot setback from the site's southern property line Development Code Section 18.54.050.3.g • e , II I 18.54.050» . requires a 3 0 foot side yard setback. Code Section I8 0 l7 O»A , allows the decision-making body �-_ ; :an,t an exception of than 20% of the required s etback if it is fou nd . that the proposed reduced setback will have no adverse effects upon adjoining properties in terms of light, noise, or fire hazard; and will have no detrimental effects (or will aiave positive • ,,• ive effects on : access, p gP preservation natural I is features. The requested exception e roses a 20% exception; _ should have no landscaping,�.n effects on landscaping p' g or natural features of the site; • and should:. not gestalt in any adverse effects l upon north of the adjoining. th» The subject site is �' property Y and therefore the requested exception would not result in blocking sunlight to the adjoining property.. In addition, if the exception .,I was not granted, the applicant's response might be to relocate the proposed playground area to the south of building #8 which could ld resp u It in much more significant I noise and privacy effects u pon the property to the south than would d result from pl acing the proposed' building 6 feet Closer to this property boundary than is normally / required, The Planni ng Commission finds' the reqUeSted ) setback exception satisfies the applicable approval • P� Pp criteria and therefore approves the request. I I FINAL ORDER - SDR 92-0020 _ SOLARE8 Page 13 in& , , 7 `a Ill•\I ; • EXISTING RESIDENCE SETBACK VARIANCE Variance approval is requested to allow a five foot side yard setback from the northern property line for a. multi- family residential building whereas Code Section { , 18.54.050.3.c requires a ten foot side yard setback. The request is made to allow for the continued use of an existing building without having to make modifications to the structure to satisfy the setback standard. t k Code Section 18.134.050 provides the applicable criteria for a setback variance request. Because the existing residence would continue to be utilized, as one dwelling unit with no increase in height or bulk, the `requested variance would not appear to result in any adverse` effects upon the neighboring property to the north such as increased shading, increased noise, or other possible negative effects. In these ways, the request would nok: conflict with Code and Plan purposes in requiring greater " ° setbacks for multi-family buildings than single family y 9 g y residences to typical g reat er building heights or bulk or more intensive usage of the multi-family ; buildings "* This situation is relatively peculiar to this application and site since few multi-family developments have the N opportunity to utilize existing single family residences '. as a portion of the available dwelling units, or would) `' )J choose to do so if • 1 n the y had the opportunity. The requested variance would affect only a structure's ' placement and not the possible usage of the site. Because the house is existing and is set back from Hall �1 kof Boulevard, there would be no apparent effects ui can any any physical or natural systems, and certainly no greater effects than 'if the building was situated in accordance with Code requirements,y The hardship is not.;selfairaposed since the horse has been in this position long before the applicant's ownership of the property and long before the exi. • of the setback standard, in. fact, ° the fl existence applicant should be credited with using resources wisely by�uti1iging the existing house as part of the proposed P �' / " p instead of tearing it down and ',replacing it devela men's �.nst . u with building constructed to conform with Setback sndards. The request is therefore consistent with standards. variance approval criteria. The Planning Commission a roves the variance request. pp ter p l0.04 Sensitive Lands Review va.ew� Chapter p bicycle � pedestrian paths Section 18.84.015.A 1 s bic� cle and edestr.i.an as permitted e Code S ermitted use within sensitive lands area. ° " � •, P areas, .�nc furling FINAL ORDER - �DR 92-0020 - �S Page 14�a� , . I I t • ..w-,..r r,... ..n yr.. ...,. .I.un_., .'1 .a '..,.0.. n. ... .v r .u.,.. ..,. I ., .u. . , v. u..... ,e.w., r.n...i. . e..n s.. u•...xw . 11 ,\ ' r floodplains. As noted above, the proposal includes provision of a bicycle path that would minimally intrude into the 100- year floodplain in the northern portion of the site (see sheet SD1 of the site Plan package) . The grading plan (sheet SD2) indicates very minimal grading a,.n this area to accommodate the proposed pathway. This minimal amount of grading related to a athwaY normall would be re, a permitted use .like a p y y dewed and approved by staff with no notice other to the applicant. The Commission approves of this minimal amoun t o f grading within the floodplain to allow the development of the pathway. Section 18.04.915.II permits installation of utilities and • minimal ground disturbances within sensitive lands areas, including floodplans, as a permitted use subject to receiving 'r permits from the Community Development Department.. The landscaping plan (sheet L1) indicates a 5,450 square foot riparian vegetative strip to be planted within the northern portion of the f loodplain on the original site to Storm drains satisfy the USA requirements for a water quality facility. S - from the development, will outfall to this facility within the 1.. 100 year this s project may involve minimal grading b p• P importation of fill. Therefore, this project if permitted should not result in a landform modification Hash n he conceptual The year flaodplain Zhe for thig CoYrimiss�.on gra f, li,t and approval to the plan Y this water quality fac stormdrainage construction, with actual to occur with submittal City g e sal- of detailed plans for US�4. and Ci�t of Ti acrd Engineering Department review. If the Project will result in the disturbance of grater than 50 cubic yards of material within the floodplain, a Division of State Lands Removal/Fill permit may be required. The applicant retained wined Scientific Resources, Inc. (SRI) to i conduct a wetland identification for the site due to the probable existence of wetlands on this site noted by the National prepared by Wetlands SRI for the Kitty. it and 1990.9 city ae-wlde wetlands only wetland areas identified by SRI on the site are within the 100-Year Y floodplain. No development or landform modifications are Proposed in or around the wetland areas. Chapter 18.96 g " -- Additional Yard Setba.ol� Requirements . r Code ode Se ct ton 18.96.030 provides s for m�n imu_.m. setbacks for-- 9.multi i- ly stxuct�res fr om other buildings on the sa.te from sidewalks and from driveways and p arkin g lots The p r o p osal . t .on e ' ept that .8 consistent with the Standards of his the windowed wails of a 20 foot separation is proposed between th proposed buildings #1 and #2. Variance approval is requested by pp agrees with Staff that it b the applicant. The Commission PIlAL ORDER - SDR 52-0020 soLAREs page 15 Jtr'v would be difficult to make positive findin gs for this s re que st • relative to the variance approval standards of Code Section 18.134 for the following reasons: 1) the recreation center could either be reduced in size or redesigned by placing the near)(ager's apartment north of the recreation center and spa area so as to eliminate, the non-conformance` with the building separation standard; and 2) the situation is clearly self \ imposed. ' r Nevertheless the Commission finds that the requested site layout for buildings #1 and #2 can be permitted through , application of the Site Development Review setback exception standards of Code Section 18.120 .170..A instead. These standards are described above. The building separation e essentially ration : " . 18.96.030 r ally setback standards, n standards. The requested 2 0 foot building separation aration is within Q g p 80% of the 25 foot separation normally required. The 20 foot separation should not pose any potential for adverse effects from fire, noise or light. Access on the site would not be affected. The proposed configuration of the recreation building complex makes more efficient use of the existing arbor vitae hedge north of as screening for the spa and patio areas than if the hedge was screening the manager's apartment if the ` building was reconfigured. Likewise, moving the spa and patio o to the south side of building #2 could result in greater potential for noise impacts upon residential units in building n g f #1. Requiring g t i conformance with Code buildzn se p aration standards could result in lesser quality development than :is proposed. above, ..L For the reasons stated above the Commission finds that the requested building separation meets the setback exception approval criteria Code Section 18.96.020.13.1.a requires a m inimum 45 foot setback " from the centerline of Hall toulevard, in addition to the standard 20 foot front yard setback of the R-12 zoning g in ." district.site The existing residence northwestern corner �dence �,n the nor ll as proposed #2 will:• Deed b�.xldin s #1 i of have setbacks of well of ] all 0 setbacks Boulevard. This standard i is therefore shat s f ied Land chapter. �.8 ,3.�90 �- scap ar in - I Code Section 3.8.100.030 �e requires street trees be planted accordance with certain detailed standards for all de ... ment ted �n 'elo a op S fronting on a public or private street. The landscaping plan street ) p minimum sizes for Red Sunset maple si- trees of 2 and �xrrt plantx.ng (sheet Y�1) proposes m�. d 1/2 " . • , :inches caliper, other flowering and retention . accent trees at 2 inch Caliper no more than '3 0 foot spacing Cody: veral tent�.on of �e existing mature trees at cis Section 18. 108 035.A specifies a minimum caliper size of 2 F1'NA.L oRDHR - S DR 92-0020 - SOL iR Page 16 fr ES g i I • • • inches at `planting and 20 to 40 foot spacing. Therefore, the •- 'proposed landscaping plan provides appropriate types, sizes, and spacing for required street trees consis tent with Code ` . standards. The landscain plan also provides appropriate low height p g P plantings along the site's frontages to reduce the impacts of on-site lights on adjacent uses and upon traffic on the streets, well as trees within the parking area at abratio of at least one tree per seven parking spaces. The .. •, parking area landsca p in g is therefore consistent with the standards of Code Section 18.100.110 A. Refuse and recycling A facilities are proposed to be screened from view as required • by Code Section 18.100.110.B and D. Code Sections 18.100 80 and .130 provide for vegetative buffering F and screening between a proposed development and land uses. The landscaping plan provides for ten-foot abutting p g �' wide buffer yards consisting of a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees as well as lower shrubs along the site's northern and southern boundaries whereas the required buffer areas between this site and the adjacent existing single-family ten feet in width. Proposed planting sizes meet or uses are. A_�i Y ' exceed Code standards. The applicant proposes erecting a • ex� ,. •. split-rail fence along these site borders. The screening , requirement specified by the Code typically would require a ' 'd fence or continuous opaque hedgeY The proposed soli. combination of fence and buffer plantings may satisfy the screening standard' howeverr additional details on the . plantings should be required as a condition of approval to . assure the screening standard will be satisfied. The • Cmmass ionf agrees with comments that have been made by the p in not blend well p fence a.n this, area would applicant l�.cant that a at g compatible with other with its surroundings and would not be `com ". fencing in the area. . The eastern, section of the site within the Fanno Creek existing vegetation,. except �.s,will . water,• retain its ex�. flood �aa.n will re need � be rez�►ov'ed to create a ' �quality facility. Howrever ;", • in the remainder of the site the proposed development and its attendant significant amount of grading will necessarily require removal of a n re � amber of are trees. . able.. cake ,a Reasonable appears.. to have been taken to plan the development with respect ,u} retaining tl J ,. existing possible t tC7, . . � re �.s always tic r � pexxstiri� the applicant �. significant" amours� o f the �'' s urges that if at all should endeavor to retain more mature trees. Cha er _1.8.102 Visual Clearance Area • Chapter 18.102 s ecif ,es vision clearance triangles- angles adjacent to intersections in which the height, of plantings, sign' etc. FxN , O ER SDR' 92-0020 * SO RE Page 17 .,.. ... •,., ,. .i..�saw...,.. ... ...... .... . .... .., y,,,... ..... .. _... .. .....•...1,..,i.,ti.,. •. ....,•. .,, ,.,.i.. i._... ... , . ..., .. • • are limited in height to assure proper sight distance at the s intersection to reduce the hazard from vehicular turning movements. The landscaping plan (sheet Li) does not appear to violate the standards of this Chapter, as long as lower shrubs are kept trimmed below three feet in height and deciduous trees are trimmed so that no branches are lower than eight feet in Y height. The proposed sign at the intersection of Hall and :Earl/.lo Creek Drive will need to conform with these standards w Boulevard or else may need to be relocated. The large fir tree to the south of this intersection on adjacent property will also need to be kept trimmed so that no branches below eight feet above grade interfere with sight distance requirements. Chapter 18.106 - Parking The site plan provides for an appropriate number of parking spaces for a sixty-two unit apartment development (101 parking spaces required per Code Section 18.106.030.A.4,, 122 parking spaces provided) , covered parking spaces (62 covered parking` spaces required; 63 covered spaces provided) : and less than the allowable 1 to 4 compact to total required parking space I' G , distribution. The site plan designates 5 handicapped ble p g p distributed ` rtssug hautt site (aminimum of 3 designated handicapped accessible s ac es are required) . It is recommended that several of these designated handicapped parking sp aces tl`r be relocated under cover to better serve the needs of handicapped residents of the r proposed development and handicapped visitors. It is also recommended that the handicapped accessible spaces placed in f' .. front of the garages in garage building C be moved away from the garages, be split apart i•n differing po. rtions of the development, or these spaces should be re locatable in case ,, these garage units are assigned to residents who do not require handicapped accessible spaces. Chapter 18.108 Access and Circulation The site plan's proposed internal street and sidewalk system largely satisfies Code Section 18.108.04 0.A s requirement uirement that ` r 50 feet of re . . access p residential units an a Section 18 4108.050,B st requirement for sidewalk connections between the drivewa s and the entrances t o the dwelling units. However, a sidewalk connection n the betwee . existing dwelling in the northwestern corner of the site and the driveway serving it will need to be added Section 18.108.050.B also re quires that _.s idew alk connections bep r ov� e between all dwelling units and common open spade y be recreation areas. . p p .� e. . network does not provide a coaiti The Pro Posed ,sidewalk nety� pr xxuous pathway connection between I all ' dwelling SDt 92-00 �`Y�1TAL ORDER 2 Q - SOLAS gage 18 oa• ..'» ..._ Y..,. ....+i.,:: ._ • ._..,i.. ..... . ..:r>• . .. ..r M ate.. .,... _ ,.. units and the recreation center, playground, or the public ° the streets abutting the site The proposed th • sidewalks along � network would require pedestrians to walk within vehicular accessw s ay to get to these areas, not just across the vehicular driveways. This clearly is not appropriate in a development ' that could include a number of children. In order to be consistent with the Code requirement internal walkways, the site plan will therefore need to be revised. It`is recommended p • • that at a `minimum, an east-west sidewalk be provided between buildings 3 and 4 and garages B and C to provide the needed connectiveness. A sidewalk between building 9 and garage K would also be advisable. `f The proposal satisfies Code Section 18.108.070.Di s standard for internal roadwa y width (minimum width of 24 feet) The ' 4 proposed internal roadway system should provide good circulation for emergency vehicles through the site, despite the request to allow .only one full service access driveway to serve the site. The proposed dead end legs of the private roadways on the eastern portion of the site are of a short �~ enough distance to not require turnarounds other than the circular area that has been provided to the west of proposed building six a - e p p o l includes a proposed emergency a ccess r eway from SW Hall Boulevard that would provide ovide a cce ss to two parallel parking arkin g spaces,. apparen l y intended to serve rve the existing dwelling in the northwestern corner of the site which is to be retained. The access driveway is shown to be 15 feet in width. No plan is P r ovided showing haw this driveway would; • ' � l be limited to emergency vehicles and this ex isting dwelling n y driveway mininum 10 feet y for serving one or two units within only. While this dravewa would provide the of driveway width necessary fo s "-» mealy development as specified by Code Section • r 18. 108.070.D, it is unclear how vehicles using the parallel parking spaces could turn around without backing onto Hall Boulevard or without this driveway being a one-way driveway with no real control on access. Code Section 18.108-060.B. 1 , states that in no case shall the desi n driveway require r •9• backing movements onto ahro roadway. Vehicles backing onto Hall . Boulevard clearly would present a hazardous situation that should not be permitted° Additionally driveway the western corner of the �.h� no�'thw •, ste has not been deducted n fro m. the net site figuz e for purposes " g allowable ty. While the of de�rex��anin allows allowed ,a driveway that • Commission believes this S ouid be all y. provides emergency access only, this should not be permitted ' for a driveway which will serve parking spaces. The Commissioxi , recommends that these two earking spaces along the emergency access driveway either be eliminated or relocated so as to remove cwe' backing movements onto Hall • the potential for hazardous backan F1/4241.i ORDER •- sriR, 92-0020 - SolARES , ' Page 19 • N. ° , • I .ti r'•wr«.« '«r..,..._,;.,..1.,..„,«.».:.., ..,....M J Jw...-4.wI..,.nat.r•..1N.i ) L .. .n.+.e..a..,..n. «-.-. JUr Sa ...-....f'. .............+.r-...-+-w re.rr-...N..r........ .«..::dH......,..-.w..:..w WI - w...._...I. .. .... ........ !.n,..e...v ..i4:v.:..w. J.u...N a.N,...:.0 J.;w,1.::.! Boulevard, eliminate the need to deduct this driveway area from the net site area negatively affecting the allowable dwelling units on the site, and to allow the driveway to be developed so that it clearly is for emergency vehicle use only. No driveway has been' provided for how the proposed emergency access . would be developed so as to limit usa a and so as to � p g' , • clearly indicate ' to drivers of emergency vehicles of the driveway's existence. The Fire District and Police apparently do not have a problem with this being an emergency access driveway. A condition of development approval will require the applicant to develop a plan for how this emergency access driveway will be developed and signed. This plan will be required to be approved by both Ron Goodpaster of the Tigard Police Department and Gene Bi •chill of the Tualatin,Walley Fire and Rescue District prior to the issuance of building permits for this development. '' ACCESS VARIANCE REQUEST fi 6 '' Code I Section 18. 108.060.D provides a° sliding '' scale standard for ` number of required driveways for a multi- family development complex based on the number of units. Using this section, a development with 62 units would be ° provide two access ' points. The proposed required to • development ®u ld have one full access p oint from the proposed new e ast-west local street and one limited access point to Hail Boulevard in the northeastern corner of the site. The applicant intends for the limited access point from Hall Boulevard to serve only the existing dwelling and emergency vehicles. Nf emergency No details have been provided on how the development would limit usage of this driveway. The applicant requests that a . of access points standard of I variance to the number granted Permit y Section 18.108.060.D be ranted to err�gi. less than two full accesses to serve this development. The Code recd nines that variances from the access standards may be necessary and provides standards for an access variance that are different than for variances in general. The a ccess variance approval standards area qq 1. It is not possible to share access; 1 2. There are no other alternative�l►er' • "ve access points on the street in question qu Lion or from another street; a'' 3. The access • ss separation cannot be met; 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate a co eSS I I rlM ORDER - SDR 92-»0020 - soLAREs pa I I • • I I i I i i I t; I ,, M. I 4 I " 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and 6. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. Analysis/Proposed Findings Due to the single family]� zoning applied 1 �.�., d' to tax lot 0 the south .� y g� ��' �.,, , Impractical to require the t th a.t would be developers of the current proposal to obtain an access easement across tax lot 600 to connect with a future extension of Fanno Creek Drive. Because of the pattern 1 . of existing single family development on the abutting parcel to the north (tax lot 300) , it is not practical for the proposed development to share access with that parcel at this time Therefore, the Commission finds that it is not practical to require any shared access at this time. P s r, provides s driveways s stubbed 2 0 to . _ rovdes . The site lean however h of the common boundary between the subject y site and tax lot 300. It 25 feet scut~ �0. y becoine possible that these internal�rterns y could be a nded northwa rd in the future , to provide for a joint access, or at least, ; lot 300 is�deVelo developed between the � , tax � with multi faMil reside e emergency parcels, sif Asa P y condition of approval of the access variance,' an access easement through the proposed development will be for r possible future joint '' prr�vide re ired to be granted in favor o f tax lot 3 0 0 to " p these ;Parcels. • re count access between they There are no other practical possible access, points for the development. ODCT's Highway Division has r stated proposed sPllannin Division staff that no State Highway.,. can be granted on access perm�.ts ca g Ball Boulevard, other than for the limited access/emergency access driveway and Creek Dr_ Any driveway for the proposed �'anno � Drive. to SW Fanno Creek Drive would need to be located to close to the proposed access driveway tka do any good for accesibility. Any additional access driveways to either Hall Boulevard or SW Fanno Creek Drive -re not practical because they w r . City would not be able to .meet. ODOT or Cat of Tigard access �e separation standards. and ac. Since` the proposal would only delete one required full ' � I service driveway acee�S but would still include a second driveway for emergency acces s the degree of variance considered is the minimum variance required to provide safe and adequate accessd FINAL ORDER - 8DR 92-0020 002 - Saes Page 21 I r Because the proposed full service a cc ess and emergency Y access driveways would be located at points, where adequate sigh t distance will be provided, the proposed Y access points should provide for adequate and safe access for the use proposed and levels of traffic anticipated from these driveways. Based upon the above positive findings relative to the access variance approval standards of Section 18`.108.150, �'. staff recommends approval of the access variance request subject to a conditional of approval requiring the . applicant 'to rent easements in favor of taxx, lot pp g access e 300 through this development to SW Fanno Creek Drive. . Chaff•ter 10.114--'5 ig The site P lan shows a sign to be located at the, proposed intersection of the proposed east-west street with Hall. 1 . . J.oulevard, just to the west of the entrance to the proposed development from the new street. Community Development Code s , identification r . 14.130:permits housing complex signs at entrances multi-family developments. SeCt,]_on �.� 1 '` �aY111. �j' all en•txances 'to multi So be located and height details have not been provided at this 7r Sign time. No further review is necess ary at this point. A sign permit must be obtained prior to erecting any sign. Sign size, height, and location must be shown to conform. with Code 1i standards (including vision clearance) in order for sign I permits to be issued. . chapter 13.144 ccessorlr Structures Cade Section 18.1144.070.A.1.b ' square :...; ' ... p ermp its sccesso structur such as the proposed garages and carp ores, to have than ' 1 000 foot in size d , ; and heights hts of no greater than 18 feet on residentially zoned p arcels larger than 2.5 acres in size' Proposed garage buildings B, Cr k°, G, Jr and K all are g-: the maximum 1,000 square foot, permitted size. A w • larger than v. is therefore warranted requiring that condition of approval i _ clu �' r ° y., ° the a: these buildings be redesigned or replaced , comply with tl r re laced to ' . um accessory structure size standard. All other proposed maximum garages and carports are consistent, with the xLiaXamUm accessory y structure size standard. All proposed garages 'and carports are • Y g consistent with the rr�axu�unnaccesso : fracture bualdin. height i s� standard and with applicable building setback standards. 'Ilia ter 10. 150 .. Tree Removal • • Chapter 18.150 Will be satisfied tisfied because the applicant licant will be required to obtain a tr ee removal p ermit prior to removing •i FINAL C�D� � s�H g 2 _ 0020... S� S page 22 r , 1 56' 1 trees in preparation for development. Permits will be granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures, sidewalks, driveways, utilities, or r other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the development that will be retained or that will removed. An arborist s ' report outlining methods o need to be protection of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading or tree removal permit. Chester 18. 64 Public: Improvement Requirements STREETS located at the southern edge of the stud area . The site is loca a ,.. g �' , defined by Note 7 on the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Map. Com retie �. Plan Map Note 7 calls for consideration of `a future road in • network connecting to Hall Boulevardn the vicinity of O'Mara Street, to Bonita Road along the east side of Panne Creek,;, and Hunziker Street. The Commission understands Note 7 to be primarily intended to provide for a future collector street . system to provide access 'ndustrially zoned areas �► p cuss to the ar, well as providing a �. this site, as located north and east of t 1 to currently proposed does connection to Baal. The development c not l interfere with potential alignments for the future roads suggested by Note 7 There does not appear to be a need to require that this development provide for any of the roadway system requested by Note 7 . They Proposed ed objectives Note plan ' t with the b ' p to 7. . therefore does nok, ccanflz�c wa_ Code Section 18.l64.030.D. 1 b(i) states that where the location street an merit approved street i plan, the pp . arrangement of streets in a development a .� teat �.s not shown in g vplop provide for the � continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in g The plan for Fanno Creek Drive by the surrounding area. ' ` submitted by the applicant and Mr. Lea.son, et al,, shows how Facifa.0 submitt , SW P could be extended beyond the subject site toconnect with the stub of SW Panno Creek IDrive within the Colony Creek subdivision, s well as_.. providing d in g opportunities s for rodev� p of th e intervening p ro ertaes The WH Pacific require plan would requre slight modifications to be made to the site lans originally submitted with this p application The proposed development • the east side of site is located on Hall Boulevard approximately 350 feet north of the `Signalized • Mc8onald Street/Hall Boulevard intersection. To the South outh of M.cvonald Street Colony Court currently provides access to Hall Boulevard. When the Colony Creek Court access was developed, it was intended as a temporary access to serve the area until Fanno Creek Drive was extended northward ' and FINAL CIDER - 'SbR 92-0020 SOLAIZEs Page ge 21 i M po"` *- ' „.re.�,. .....Tw;. ...»,.,.,�:. ...n.«..'.«:.. ,.,..... w.H,µ....-..i .,•..,..... , .-a,.. li:..............w.w«.J-.,,.:h,.,,. ........a.:..,J. J,...r,u:».J r..«.4;...5....tr..,,-..a:s,........ .., N YfjV f connected to Hall Boulevard. Pa st review by City ty staf f has �• determined that the future connection of Fanno Creek Drive to • Hall should be in the vicinity of the site currently under consideration. ' south could create t' • Locations further to the sou conflicts with the HcDonald Street intersection and would violate Code Section 18.164.030.g's intersection separation , standard for arterials, unless located directly at the Mc Donald intersection. A local street extending eastward from the McDonald Street intersection could attract too much traffic through a single-family local streets. Locations further to the could have z de qu ate sight • distance due to existing grades on Hall Therefore, the proposed street location shown on the application appears to be appropriate and consistent with past planning for the area. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed street, system is appropriate and consistent with other plans for the area and should be approved. ,, Code Section 18.164.030»A.1.a requires that streets adjacent development approved ' shall be dedicated and a accordance raved. in with Code standards. sw Hall Boulevard is under the to a jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation. Half street t; im rovements and right-of-way dedication to 45 feet from stree line are typical-1. required for developments which front SW Hall. The Department of Transportation has half street improvements rovem nts and right wa: dedication to �' g y 45 : from centerline. Based on the applicants submittal, they are prepared to provided the half street improvements with, the retired right-of-way dedication. The Engineering gineer,i , n+g Department has r reviewed the preliminary plans for the proposed SW Fanno Creek Drive and has found the plans ' to be consistent with Code ...local street development p nt standards r • contained in Section 18.164.030 and the City of y Tigard Design Standards Manual. Final detailed public improvement plans will • need to be reviewed and a pproved p rio r to issuance of building permits for the proposed develrapment,to the uncertainty y of whether and when a further extension of Fanno Fanny Creek Drive to the south will be necessary/recommended that th applicant be required cessar��r, i is not r the app �` to extend the street past the access driveway complex at �. to the apartment czo�n�► driveway a artm this p. . However, g of way as illustrated this time �iowever dedication of right : � . on the Pacific plan should be required at this time. If it is a er found to be unneeded, the right-of-way may be vacated. strip C. - y s end of the right-of-way. A reserve sera. should be deeded to the Lit across the t 1e aThe Drive leading into p artm e nt driveway should be curbed to give the appearance of completed Street; d. • a c p , hoWevshould r, a sign should be posted FINAL ORDER - r �DR 92-0020 rw sOratS page 24 . I f.. tn. may de .° dicatin that the street ma. be extended the future. ' The Commission finds that responsibilit7 for installing needed street Improvements in the dedicated but unimproved section of op the street typically should be the responsibility of any future 4, - development connect to this street The applicant Allan�Solar s, however indicated at the hearing that he had enterred into an agreement with the property owner immediately to the south that would make the applicant financially responsible fo r extending these improvements to the , edge of the dedicated area, if development was to occur on the property to the south within a limited period of time. The Commission was aware of M.r. Solares' statement with regard to this private agreement, but the Commission has not made this ( ' ` agreement a condition of approval of the application. t' SIDEWALKS I Code Section 18.164.070.A. requires that sidewalks be constructed as a condition of development approval on both ` local streets and arterial streets. The proposal sides of loco indicates an eight-foot g wide sidewalk to be provided along the site's Hall Boulevard frontage. The applicant's statement, requests f' foot sidewalk be Permitted aloe SW Hall. e Hall. A.t the public hearing, the Commnission questioned whether an eight-foot wide wide sidewalk was appropriate in this location. Staff responded that SW Hall Boulevard is an arterial street and that the City's , Ci y design standards call for r sidewalks along arterials to be eight-feet wide. In addition, staff noted that a recently constructed sidewalk a pp roximatel y width and was constructed to eight feet in • 600 feet south of the site wa . pp d the sidewalk on the applicant s site should. n�a.tch For these reasons s�_ eight-foot wide side applicant required Hall � E walks along the frontage�of S.W. l Blvd. The site an Proposes a five-foot wide sidewalk on only the p p' p north side of SW Fanno Creek Drive. Because a sidewalk on the south side of SW Fanno x Creek Drive would of provide an better pedestrian access to the development site than is proposed and because a sidewalk would likely damage the 48-inch diameter fir at tree On the abutting property, sidewalk will be required 1 not b is time. frontage should be deferred until such t3.�me$id Sidewalk .along this - _ I redevelops and the P street is extended. property to the sou �, re a the SANITARY�� SE W' 1 . that new developments Code Section 1€3 d 1�i4»090 requires t� onto be adequately served by sanitary �_. • ec.t. ion facilities developed consistent with City of Tigard design standards. There is an existing public sanitary sewer system that is PINAL ORDER SDR 92-0020 ao2r o - SOLARES Page 25, • clikt . {«. 1.+......-1Y... .-..f... +.....er,..:...Jam. ....« , f ff located in the southeastern corner of the development. The pp proposing tend, a private sewer system applicant is to extend the development from this public line to serve this deve _,k.„aent. This plan is consistent with the master plan for the sanitary sewer system. In addition the applicant is J • . proposing to provide access for maintenance purposes to the 1 P u blic Portion cf the system. The City Engineering Department nt has found that the proposed sanitary sewer system should provide adequate sanitary sewer service to the proposed development. ,. STORM SEWER Code Section 18 a 164 100.A states that development permits shall only be issued, where ,adequate provisions for storm drainage have been made The applicant is proposing a private on-site storm sewer system to serve this development. s serve storm drainage from Fanno Creek Drive will be transported along its curbs then channeled along a temporary curb into the on-site storm drainage system. In the long term, when Fanno Creek Drive is developed, the storm drainage will g y along continue flowing southcaster�. alan the curbs to be picked up c by the future drainage system. The storm drainage from Hall Boulevard will be collected in a ro ert north a f the ropeped to an improved ditch on the P P y northh oasin. and piped The landowner on which the, drainage ditch crosses o gasses , has granted ' the Oregon Department of . Transportation an easement for this, purpose. The Vnified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) Surface water;Management Regulations requiring the construction of on- , site water quality facilities or fees in-lieu of their construction. The applicant is proposing to construct an o n- site water quality 'facility- Based on the preliminary plans, the storm water from the site will be piped into a private system. It will then be .transported to the northeastern Carver of the development and pass through a water quality facility ior' to being discharged into Fanno Creek. prior Fanno Creek runs along the eastern portion of the property. ranno Creek is classified as a sensitive area under Resolution and Order No. 91-47. An undisturbed corridor is required which is a minimum of 25 feet wide measured 'horizontally from the defined boundaries Of the sensitive area. The applicant has defined the sensitive area and has appropriately provided for the 25 foot undisturbed buffer area on either side of the creek. FINAL ORnER SDR 92-0020 - SOLES Page 26 • • d • r . h i ° • BIKEWAYS Code Section 18.164.110.A, requires that developments adjoining . ,��axned bikeways p rovide dedication of l and or dedication of * easements for the development of bikeways. Code Section 18.164.11O.B requires that approval of developments adjoining proposed bikeways be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikewiy .improvemen ,>s. The proposal appropriately includes provisions for a bicycle/pedestrian pathway roughly paralleling Fanno Creek and either dedication of floodp.lain area or easements, as necessary, to contain the pathway. Code Section 18.16 4. ..10.D requires a minimum bikeway width of six feet. The proposal would provide for an eight-W foot wide pathway which is the preferred p athwa width that has previously been specified by the City of Tigard Park Division. 1; The proposal therefore adequately satisfies the requirements N of Code Section 18.164.110. r, OTHER. UTILITIES Code Section 18.164.120.A requires new developments to provide men electric, telephoner cable television, and natural - { for the underground placement of utility services such as • , r � n, na�.ural gad y fee-in-lieu-of underground : The City Council has established a placement of utilities where it is found to be impractical to place these facilities underground due to utility provider concerns, limited frontage affected, or other reasons. The Engineering De artment recommends that the developer site be responsible for underground Placement of u ilities on p p the site and along SW Fanno Creek Drive, but that a fee-in- lieu-of • g . d s may be found to be � nd�rg�ound placement of utilities It u necessary for the Hall Boulevard frontage of the site. The . conditions of approval provide for the Engineering Department to review the public improvement plans and determine whether '! ° ` need to be placed underground or if a n should be e � � g fee E _. • the utilities w,�ll e rr C. DECISION The Planning Commission APPROVES the applications for Site ent Rev�ie • Development nno Creek • . P SDR 92-0020 Proposed Village apartments- Site Development Review exceptions � i•L . g building se., aration; .� and bu �3 p relative to building setbacks an Variances VA.R, 92 0020 relative to the requested access variance M `.:: it w Haack variance for the I existing dwelling in the and setback rael�: northwestern �. Sensitive. � iew ke• ath r..nd stormdraina-e installation Lands Review tern corner of the site and the 100-year Q flood!- lain. of. Fanno Creek, A .roval i granted p pp �' i • I'.. -. subject to the following cono.itlons FINAL ORDI R - SDR 92-0020 - SOfl RES Page 27 n ii.;,.-, ,..w...k,- +,,. .,..n...♦» 1......w«..♦,: ...J....w.«.-..,...5....11•x_ ...,.... ♦«-, 1 d I.,.,.........xl+..._.wi. ....,,.-.+i.».,., .I.::.;:,.. .,............ f..x.. I ar THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET OR FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. UNLESS STATED OTHERtWISE, STAFF CONTACT IS CHRIS DxvIES OF THE ENGINEERING DIVISION: 1. Lot consolidation shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. Evidence of the consolidation shall be � ,, p rovided to the Planning n g.Dxrsion. STAFF CONTACT; J erky Offer Planning Division. 2. A. demolition permit shall be obtained prior to f r destruction or moving any of the existing buildings on the site. Septic tanks shall be pumped out and either removed or filled with sand or gravel. An inspection shall be obtained after the tank is filled. A copy of the ce re x.pt for septic tank pumping shall be provided to the Building Division. STAFF CONTACT; Jam, Jaqua, Building Division. 3. • • The shall � revised eliminate the parking spaces along the proposed emergency vehicle access driveway in the northwestern c or ner of the site. The applicant eVr p a p lan for how the proposed emergency access driveway. will be developed. This N p , driveway shall be developed, signed, and maintained for emergency emtergency vehicle use only. A minimum 2® foot wide fire lane shall be provided. The p e ehnergency vehicle driveway access plan shall be approved by the Tigard Police r Department and Engineering Department, Oregon State Highway Division, and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue issuance of building permits. • prior to the a.s s u F I' Evidence pry. pproval shall. be provided to the Planning vidence of approval STAFF CONTACT: Jer ry Offer, Planning Division, 4. Additional onal details on the plantings a lon g the northern and southern borders of the site shall be provided to assure that the screening standard will be satisfied STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 5. The Site plan shall be revised to ..;:`educe the size of all proposed accessory structures to no larger than 1,000 square feet in size. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 6. The site plan shall be revised to rovide s" a zdew�►lk • connection between the existing dwelling in the northwestern ccrx.er of the site and the driveway and/or parking spaces serving this unit. STAFF CONTACT; Jerry Offer, Planning Division. N p7 a The site plan shall be revised to provide continuous walkway connections between all units, the playground, -;i FINAL ORDER - SDR 92-0020 - SQL } E S Page • , v t •, r „a1.,.c«,....HS.. .....,:..; .«..-......i'.:i u....'' i«d.......:.:' ...,1_. -k.i..,. i.r.,:. ...;,.:,,..„.,a,..4....,. .. ... ,......,.--..1-.:t?J'..,L....,t.w"...wr:.«, wi,.'-:::.,.,.-- t ...«m. ..... _ , ....... recreation building, and the public sidewalk along S • . the re �� P Fanno Creek Drive. It is recommended that at a-minimum, • an east-west sidewalk be provided between buildings 3 and 4 and garages B and C to provide the needed conectiveness. A sidewalk between building 9 and garage K is also advisable. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 8. Final fire hydrant locations will need to be coordinated between the Fire District and the Tigard Water District. Hydrants will need to be placed within 250 feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; however, this distance may be increased if buildings are equipped with - fire spra.nJklez~s. , Hydrants should be placed ed at all intersections. CONTACT: Gene `Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (526-2502) 9. Art access erin it shall be obtained`from ODOT for both the emergency access driveway and the new intersecti on of Fanno Creek Drive and Hall Boulevard. In addition, ODOT will need to review and approve the design plans and • financial assurances for the improvements to SW Hall Boulevard' including Provisions for storm draina g e south of the site y.. CONTACT: Bob' Doran, ODOT (229-5002) . 10. A joint: DSL/Cor s of Engineers permit must be obtained if grading, removal, or filling Ogin � banks a j nn o • ' Creek will involve more than 50 cubic yards of ma ternal. CONTACT: Division of State Lands Wetland Program (378 - 3805) 11. An access easement through the site of the proposed .. favor of tax lot 300 to provide for s possible granted joint access between these parcels for enc. vehiclesa t r berg emergency 12 . A detailed tree protection' plan shall be s bmitted for Planning D "vision approval which includes locations and ~ types of trees to bep w removed or retained, an arborist's recommendation for methods of ` protecting retained trees ,. g . of proposed p , for the 1c+rY ternw health '�,f osed. a artments as well as during construction of the ro tl�sse trees. This tree f shall include at a minitu all trees ' Protection plan designated for retention on the preliminary landscaping plan . ... additional mature trees endeavor • as practicable. The',trees to be saved lain a�.d should r to add adds, protected .. . � shall bc��: • ,� du in construction by fencing or similar means approved by the Plannixg_ D�v isa vr No site e gradin clearing tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of thG t condition. Fly' ORDER - SDP, 92-0020 - SOLARES Page 29 • \ , • 13. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as greenway all r: portions of the site that fall within the existing 100 : ; year floodplain of Fanno rcreek (i.e. , all portions of the property below elevation 140-0) . 14. The applicant shall construct a minimum eight-foot wide asphalt bicycle/pedestrian pathway within or adjacent to the Fanno Creek floodplain as indicated on the site plan. {' • Where the , . pathway will. be located on the development r ten-foot wide nubl site, a minimum to � is easement. shall be c provided. In addition, the proposed gravel sewer access drive on the southern boundary of the site shall include a minimum eight-foot wide asphalt or concrete pathway. connecting the development's parking lot with the public pathway. STAFF CONTACT° Jerry Offer, Planning Divisionp 15. The appliCant shall obtain a permit from the State' of Oregon Highway Division to perform work within the right--' of_way of SW Hall Boulevard. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior` to issuance of a City of Tigard public Improvement permit. 16. Additional right-of-way shall he conveyed to the State of by and g yr Oregon,• b and throe h its Department of Transportation, • y . g •Hall frontage feet the . Highway Division, along the SW' txh�. of-wagr to 45 feat from �ial.,l Blvd. j increase the r� subject site to centerline. The description shall be tied to the, existing right-of-way centerline. Verification that the • }conveyance has been s ubmitted to the shall be provided to the Cit y Engineering Ae artment (For . additional information contact act y on 1elic Oregon De p artment of Trans p ortation, Right-of-Way Section, 7165 • SW Fir Loop, Tigard, 684-1510) . 17. Standard half-street im p rovements including an eight foot wide concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, storm drainage, and Streetlights shall be installed alon g site's the SW Hall � Blvd- frontage- Im p xovements s hall be designed and constructed to Oregon Department of °'ransportatio street standards and shall confor a to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. A copy of the approved plans, and any associated permits shall be submitted to . the Citya 18. PYPxca 11y, the City will also require that all utilities placed underground along the Hall Bo. frontage. However if this is found to, be impractical l in the judgement o f the Engineering Department` in the review of • FINAL ORDER - SDR 92-0020 - SOLAR8S Page 30 ,. 4 detailed improvement plans, the applicant may instead be r required to pay- a fee in-lieu of undergrounding utilities along this frontage. r }; 19. Full width street ll wa.dt treat •� provements, including traffic control devices, concrete sidewalk on the north side of the street, driveway aprons, curbs,, asphaltic concrete I • pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, j r and underground utilities shall be installed within SW Fanno Creek Drive. The improvements will be required from the intersection with SW Hall Boulevard for a distance of 137 feet. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 20. Right-of-way-wa shall dedicated g v' be be to the . public bliG• alon g the e S.• Fanno Creek Drive frontage. The specific right-of-way to be dedicated shall be determined by the City Engineer. In general the right-of-way shall be a full 50 feet in •width •along southern property line of the site, beginning at the state�'right- of� a for a distance of Y I� pp. _ .. o a roxmatel Y 95 feet. Additional right-of--way shall be dedicated along the southern border of the property which follows the approved al i ent o f SW Fanno Creek Drive a pp s , r illustrated in the January 5, 1993 map prepared by WH Pacific 21 A profile of SW Fanno Creek Drive shall be required, extending 300 feet to the south from the subject site • Y � � g existing grade and proposed future grade. showing the e��.st 22 The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting imPacting properties downstream. • 23. The applicant shall be required to provide an on-site water quality facility as established the guidelines of Sewerage A g enc y Resolution and Order No. 91-47.The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, a 25 foot 2� buffer on either side of Fanno Creek which meets the II requirements of Section 6.08.3, of Resolution and Order No 91-4/ 25. sets of detailed public improvement plans and '�.'wio (2) set public �a construction on drawings shall be submitted for Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and. one (1) itemized • to the Engineering,. censttuction cost estimate, all prepared by a tl P ofessional Engineer, shall be submitted for final approval (NOTE: these plans l'are in l re�r�eu� and app ( - p addition to I ' FINAL ORDER - SDR • 2.- 020., 9 0. .. .. .S Page 31 • I � I I I , II �, any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. • • g p • • and construction of 26. �u�.lda.n• permits will not be issued a P shall not comunence until. Proposed Public �.nca x�veYnents after the Engineering Department has reviewed and street opening g� plans permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/ streetlight fee are required. . a 27. The applicant shall be re ired to obtain a "Joint permit" from the City of Tigard. This permit, shall meet the requirements of the NPbES and Tualatin ] asin Erosion Control Program. 28 Street centerline monumentation shall he provided as follows: a) Centerline ine Monumentation � 1) In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection 2 , the centerline of all street and roadway rights--of-way shall be monut ented before the City accepts a street improvement. /r 2) The following centerline monuments shall be ' set: w� A) All centerline-centerline intersection points.' �. . b) Monument Boxes Require 1) standards nforming to City st 1 will be required� c o.... around all centerline intersection points and cul-de-sac center points. l 2) T he tops of all Monument ha :l he set to finished Pavement grade. 'IN ORDER SbR 92-..6020 SOLES page 32 d , p r PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THIS SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR A SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MAY BE POSTED GUARANTEEING COMPLETION OF THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT 29. s ignage shall be placed at entrances, to the apartment complex and adequate addressing shall be placed on unit entrances so that emergency service providers can locate units quickly- The developer shall contact the Police Department prior to occupancy of the complex for review and approval of the signage and addressing of the complex. 30. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed as per the revised landscaping and site plans. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639-4171) • 31. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning , Division location to the erection of an identification sign. e S r grx a n an size must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the Conn unity Development Code. Sign locations and/or` height shall not conflict • with required vision clearance at intersections 32 Adequate vision clearance at intersections shall be • provided in the installation of all site improvements. It shall responsibility of this ri develo m t�to assure that vision clearance is maintained throughout usage of the site through maintenance of all structures, signs, and vegetation both, on the site and . r within the public right-of-ways abutting the site. y : THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN r MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE a,. It 'applicant t 3.L�°i further e the, f Ppl:�.cax�t be nOtified of the entry � h r ordered that th�. a of this Order. PAPASSED: ,day of 'anv.ary, 1993, by the Planning Co Liss 1.7 a.J i�irD i 77 ��ryry of the City of Tigard. Harry a Aorta, Vice-President 9 Tigar, lanna:mg Conurission VIN AL ORDER SDR 92-0020 -° SOLARES P E' 33 ,. 4 1 vim (` V- • • • • I t ARD. r I /� Erg` � �. e, • j,, SSA` �p nit, , . 1 3 REED °`'°N. . .. . .. 1 , . . , , , , , . ,, 41111,111. milimily, : , 7 1.•.' , ,' , ' ' ' ' h J - r w OGEr�an+� rr , ', , yr ., , sire., (,, SSW: JCS ...) S. t. C()T..ON1 EEt-t C'r '� . - S C r '1 ,-' ', ' i , • iii, , . . . ••..., ,,.,.,...... .... . in .. z , Il.r , ' ' , ,: ' - ,. H , . - ,,gag :11 ro a . • . ., .. ... • , , • . , , , , , • , , , . rrr r�rr. . . . . • . . . . • f ....., 0 , , , ,, , ., , 1 NTAIN' view L'• , • , c.) smo . r*,4$1. .., • Nil .*'. a �,} fit, i . • ..,,,a..;:;,.,,,, ,. ,•-,..«G..........w. ..o-._.i,,,,.,./...,-■- .. _...._ ;,,a_...,:.. :4.._....i.k. , ....:.x. iwµ.. ._....,I;44,. .�.., u.:k:1.,, ,.,.:; .,,k«. .:L...;..:.,.,,....-'-A w ‘,= , ,ti ' ' rJ a FRED FED FIELDS • , 93 � � 7 OSWN_ IMB • NIMBUS AVE p TIGARI) OR 97223 HAL KEENER ,.,, I, 8405 SW NIMBUS AVE l' BEAVERT •N• OR 97005 ,,. ; v . .�. ALLAN SOLARES - ,.: • 13566 SW TWIN CREEKS LANE" LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 ,, KENNETFT SOLARES • 1 162 ESTA'ED DR 1 PIE DMONT CA 94011 • I - CRAIG HOPKINS 7430 SW DARNS ST TIGARD OR 97223 ' N ,r ..01!.‘, ,{, 1 I. ■ i i « x . `',, a a wt rr i., r ,•, wr«I.wr.wAlw.,h+.wr M+««« ««.sr.a+. .. .-./. w...,,�„n �,y t • • v , i..YC:.:I':,.J.»a.....,ls..i...umµ.�.r-t:'w-.f+,d�....,,!:.4✓µ..x:.a.iry ..... _.ynaa;:waui.c.,«.'t -.i.�,...,..w ra,.:..iawsnrw-.-i+,<,a,u..::+,l I.:+L'AI:F..:.l.....:«..i-,..d+.d,::.a:7t.SM-...»,.d.CW. .i.aiew..,wa.;. .. ....a.,uu...vm.ac:rwrw:+.irwuw.i..Sii.�...,..J�w: , .. as � _. ._... ... .... Y 'a" RECEIVED PLANNING '6. 1 PA F 4..,, 8405 S.W.Nimbus Avenue• . ' P O.)3o)(80040 JAN A 6 199 Portland,OR 97280 • January 20, 1993 Mr. Jerry Offer City of Tigard ' P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 • RE: CASE FILE SDIt 92-0020 Dear Mr. Offer: I am �vritn you to clarify a concern that was brought ht to my attention. ' g J' clarify concern g y The exhibit,map that our office prepared indic�aiing an acceptable road alignment for. F'anno Creek Drive is preliminary and should be considered so. Mr, Soi.ares and Mr.Leason may want to adjust the alignment slightly to the west pending further analysis, Final alignment will be somewhere between Mr. Solaces' original proposal and that which was shown on , E our exhibit submitted to you earlier, Should you have any questions or concerns please contact me directly, Sincerely W:34 PACIF.• 4 flit 400 ' eever, • ,S,L, .. • ssociate Development Services Manager HGK/i(al 1 Y� w .s-'t, ,_ ° ;' e4) `; / t., `,93 (503)626-0455 Fax(503)526-0775 Planrming e Engineering i Surveying 6 Landscape Architecture s Environmental Services a. Q • ■ • • f, x ar , bike path and stormdrainage installation within the 100-year P g fit' r floodplain of Fanno Creek. It is recommended that approval •" "I granted subject to the following conditions: f Acs 4 S . . CONDITIONS SHALL BE ME'7� !P'RIOR T® THE ISSUANCE OF THIS FOLLOWING COIN BUILDING PERMITS. UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE, STAFF CONTACT IS j CHRIS DAVIES OF THE ENGINEERING DIVISION: ; 1. Lot consolidation shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. Evidence of the consolidation shall be provided to the Planning Division. CONTACT: Jerry , . +cyn. S�`a�?1FF I Offer, Planning Division. ion permit shall be obtained' ?. A +demolit' _ .prior to destruction P ta_on or moving any of the existing buildings on ; the site. Septic tanks shall be pumped out and either • removed or filled with sand or g ravel. An ins ection gravel. P ,. `s filled. A copy f shall be obtained after the tank is co o the receipt for septic tank pumping shall be provided to the Building Division- STAFF CONTACT: Jim Jaquay Building Division. 3. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the parking space:; along the proposed emergency vehicle access driveway in the northwestern corner of the site. The - applicant�caxt s a l l develop a plan an for how the proposed emergency acc ess driveway will be developed. This ldrave way shah be developed,d, s xg ned A and maintained,-fc - emergency vehicle use only. Amininiun 20 foot wide fire - ane shall be provided. The emergency vehicle driveway access plan shall be approved by the Tigard, Police Department and Engineering Department, Oregon. State Highway 'Division, and`tho Tualatiri Valley Fire and Rescue District prior to the issuance of building permits. Evidence of approval shall be provided to the Planning . Dtvasion. STAFF CONTACT: Jer ry Offer, T annin g Division. • id borders on the plantings along the northern 1 and' southe plantings 4. Additional details site shall, be provided to O O assire+ that the screening h standard will , be satisfied. STAFF CONTACT Jerry Off" , g , "on, er, Planning Dva.si I V p. reduce the size of 5. The site Ran shall be revised to redo all proposed accessory structures to no larger than, 1,000 square feet in size. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, planning Division. 6. The site p lan provide shall revised to a sidewalk connection hea�en the existing dwelling in ' the 1 . northwestern eway a h�estern corner of the site and the da�i�v and/or STAFF REPO�� s R 92-0020 � ��L IME8 Page 27 rb k?`,.?�a r 1 .. • r Ys 1 f parking spaces serving this unit STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Y , . Offer, Planning Division. 7, ' ,' - 5 ire plan shall be revised to provide continuous r .l.kway -c .faneC : ens between all units, the playground, the recreation bu4.i,ding, and the public sidewalk along S Fanno Creek Drive. It is re:.conunended that at a minimum, an east-west sidewalk be provided between bu..ldings 3 and 4 and garages B and C to provide the needed iven sidewalk dewalk between building 9 and garage �.t ess A K is also advisable. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, s'l; Planning Division. 8. Final fire hydrant locations will need to be coordinated between the Fire District and the `Ti and Water District. g p Hydrants will ll need to be placed within 250 feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; however, this '° distance may be increased if buildings are equipped with fire sprinklers. Hydrants should be placed at all .intersections Y v CONTACT= Gene Birchill, Tualatin V�.11elr n Fire and Rescue District (526-2502) / 9 . Axe. access e ra�i•t shall be obtained ODOT for both the 1� emergency access permit drivewa and the xitew0` ntersection of r Fa nna Creek Drive and Hall Boulevard. In addition, ODOT Y will need to review and approve the design plans and financial assurances for the improvements to SW ', Hall. l Boulevard, including provisions for storm drainage south T: Bob Doran, ODOT (229-5002) . of the site. CONTACT: , a. hall a p y e e - : for " stripi.n: I',' 1 le to, � ,� e r 1 '� �fi � ,. �, n n C,.� . Bob r r,ran, ! ODOT (22' 0. 2) . 4` 11. A joint DSL/Corps of Engineers permit must be obtained if grading, removal, or filling within the ' banks of Fanno Creek will involve more than 50 cubic yards of material. CONTACT: Division of State Lands Wetland Program (378 - easement through the site of tp ro rase 12. • development o An a.cc�ss granted in favor� of t lot 0'. shall 1 v� ��`•Fi f' ' 0 Q to t 3 provide for possible future joint access fbetween these parcels. , 13. A detailed tree protection on plan shall be submitted tted for planning Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be removed or retained, an arborist's recdxumendation for methods of protecting retained trees g of the proposed apartments as well as Burin construction for the long-term health of these trees. Th s i tree protection plan shall include at a minimum all trees STAFF REPORT -» SDA 92-0020 = St3 G A S Page 2� I I ' I I C I } te T designated for retention on the preliminary landscaping plan and should endeavor to add additional mature trees as practicable. The`trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or similar mean- approved by the `Planning Division. No site grading, clearing. or tree removal shall occur prior; to satisfaction of this condition. 14. The applicant shall dedicate to the City as greenwar all portions of the site that fall within the existing sting 140- year floodplain of Vann() Creek (i.e. , all of " the property below elevation 140.0D , 15. The applicant shall construct a minimum eight-foot wide asphalt bicycle/pedestrian pathway within or adjacent to the Fanno Creek floodplain as indicated on the site plan. Where the pathway will be located on the development site, a minimum ten-foot wide public easement shall be provided. In addition, the propose,4 gravel sewer access drive on the southern boundary of the site shall'einciude a minimum eight-foot wide asphalt or concrete athwa connecting ;M p Y p the development's parking with public L.�ath�aay. p g th the STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer Planning Division 16. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway to perform! work within the right- - gray Fof SW Hall- Boulevard. A copy of the permit shall be Provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a City of Tigard public improvement permit'. ed to the State of and throw h -shall be conveyed 17. Additional right-of-way its Department of x°ran�s orta°!ion, p. °Oregon, Division, along the SW Hall Blvd. frontage of the subject g y site to increase the r � centerline. ~ The description right-of-way be tied feet from g' Y L.. p the existi n right-of-way centerline. Verification that the conveyance has been submitted to the State, shall be provided ided to the City engineering De partment` (For additional information, contact y Oregon Department of Transportation, Ri ht of Wa Section, 7165 SW Fir Loop, Tigard, 684-1510) . 18. Standard half-street improvements, including an eight foot wide concrete idewalk► .a - iron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement r =:'u ; .ru a storm drainage, • streetlights shall a led. along the site's SW Hall .Blvd. frontage, Improvements shall be .• p designed and constructed to Oregon Department of " nsportation street stan dards and...shall confor m m to• the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an STAFF page 29 AFF RE�'Cy�,T -� SDR 9� 0 0�4 �Ob�k.R�� fwr, ,,, �s� •�.„r•., • �'. x+.l.,..... f%11 ti•k'1Llkitf/Cit G of e..r.• t++..-r,. i,�r,. r,.+,rw.rt ..... htrt t tfk • . . . rc-- , • alignment approved by the Engineering'Departmentt A copy of the approved p 1ans. and any associated permits, shall be submitted to the City. 19. Typically, the city' 1413.1 also require that all utilities .., be placed underground along the Hall Boulevard frontage. if However. if this is found to be impractical in the judgement of the Engineering Department in the review of , detailed improvement plans, the applicant may instead be fee in-lieu of under roun.din utiiita.es required to pay a .� a �. g �' alon g frontage.f ronta e. 20. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, concrete sidewalk on the north side of the street, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage,e streetlights, and underground utilities s l installed within SW Fauna Creek Drive. The improvements will be required from the intersection with SW Hall Boulevard for a ° Improvements shall be rnin.amuru distance of 1�' feet. designed and constructed lad. g al street standards. be dedicated to the public along the �.ig�,t-off-way shall P g 21. SW Fanno Creek Drive ;frontage. The specific right-of-way to beck determined by the City Engineer. In general the right-of-way a full 50 feet in dedicated �wa shall width along the southern property of the site, P p y beginning at the state right-of-way ht� g �� °+g oaf--�ra,y , for a distance of approximately 95 feet. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated along the southern border of the property which follows the approved 'alignxr►ent of SW Fanno Creek Drive as �. illustrated in the January 5, 1993 map prepared by W Pacific. profile of SW I's.nraa Creek D�.izre shall 22. A. p be requa��re l extending 300 feet to the south from the subject site showing the existing g lade and f uture grade. 23. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage t runoff can be discharged into the existing drain.ageways without` sig nifxcantlyimpacting properties downstream. • 24. The applicant shall be required to provide an on-sate water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and • Order Vb.,. ;91.47 • 25. The applicant sh .11 rovide, at a a 25 foot I N buffer on either side of Fanno Creek which meets the q i° Resolution and Order re s.,rements of Section 6:08.3 F of No. 91--47 STAFF REPORT RT' SDI 92.,-00 2 0 53 �5 Page 30 v h d r f 26. Two (2) sets of detailed Public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for ! /' >• " " preliminary review to the:Engineering Department. Seven ; (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized , ° construction cost estate all prepared by a consruclt:i Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to [ any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. " ' 27. Building permits will not be issued and construction of I' I proposed public improvements shall not commence' until after the Engineering Department has reviewed, and approved the public improvement Plans and a street . opening permit or construction compliance agreement has a, : been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the , payment of a permit fee and a sign installation, ` streetlight are required tl�. ht .;fee ar • scree: 28. The applicant shall be i required to obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet .Q the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control. Program. 29 Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: '4L• a) Centerline 4o :umentation • rte , - g .,. Revised Statutes �.� In accordance with Oregon 92.060, subsection (2) , the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of--way shall be , monumented b efore the Cit y accepts a street A improvement. te � b. be set: ©w centerline e monuments shall following The�} Th g M1 A) All centerline---centerline intersection points b) Monuunient Boxes Required. 1) M[anument boxes conforming to Cit y standards ; } will be required a.�ronn' all centerline iptersection points center `�zter5ectic�n oa.nts axad cu.:l,--de-saicz points. ,�>� 2) The tops of all monzxmen.t boxes ' siza,ll be set to i finished pavement grade. STAFF IZE13ORT - Sbr 92-0020 : SCLRS Page 31 i) ire k \.r u , PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY pERbilT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THIS SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SR L BE SATISFIED OR A. • SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE iSSVGANoE MAY BE POSTED GUARANTEEING COMPLETION OF THE NP NECESSARY INIPROVEMNTS WITHIN NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY OCCUPIUICY PERMIT. , 30• Appropriate •gn g shall b e placed at entrances to the apartment co m c�ex a nd adequate addressing shall be placed ♦ on unit entrances s o that emergency service providers can f' locate units quickly. The developer shall contact the p prior •occupancy of the complex for review and appr noval of the s c na g e. and addressing of the review approval g g g complex. 3l• All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed as per the revised landscaping and site per. ms. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639-4171) 32. A sign permit shall be obtained front the Planning hpryhr Division prior to the erection of an identification sign. Sign location and size must be in accordance with the provisions o( Section 18.114 of the Community Development Code. Sign locations and/or height shall not conflict with required vision clearance at intersections. 34. Adegtiate vision clearance at intersections shall be provided in the installation of all site improvements. 1 It shall be the responsibility of the owners of this development to assure that vision clearance is maintained throughout usage of the site through maintenance of all ,' structures, si ns and vegetation both on the site and g � g c;' Y within the public right-of-ways abutting the site. THIS APPROVAL SHE BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS O'F THE FINAL APPI$OVAIL DATE. of � r , PREP"± 4 D e J irry fr Offer, Devel.Opment Review Planner r ) e d_.)(! -e.�i.7 �--"' } APPROV" D BY: Dick B- ersdorf f, Senior Planner S T AIF EPOT _ S �B 9 2-OQ�� - S C r S page 32 • . II li 1 , r1 • AGENDA I TEM , 5.2 STAPP REPORT TO THE PINING COMMISSION • HEARING DATE: January 25, 1993 - 7:30 PM HEARING LOCATION: Tigard City Hall - Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information ' CASE: F tJ` CFiEE 7 LLGAGE/EtOLARES HOME. , R i Site Development Review SDR 92-0020 Variance VAR 92-0020 Sensitive Lands Review SLR 92-0005 QUEST: A RE request for Site Development Review approval of plans for development of a sixty-two unit, ten building multi-family residential complex on a 6.42 gross acre site. Site Development Review Setback Exception approval is requested to allow one building to have a 24 foot setback from the site's southern property line whereas - Community Development Code Sect. 18.54.050.3.g 4 requires a 30 foot side yard setback. Three Variance requests are included: a. To allow a 20 foot separation between two , residential buildings whereas C 7mm na Y • Development Code Section�.0 1II.96.030' requires a minimum 25 foot separation between windowed walls of abutting multi- family residential buildings; b. To allow the sixty-two unit multi-family by access driveway a to be served �� one a development ieand a second emergency vehicle access driveway whereas Code Section 10.100.'07 0 requires driveways two access for a mauliti family residential development } of between fifty and one hundred units; c. To allow a five foot side yard setback � northern ...property line for a f roam the Multi-family residential building whereas Code Section 18.54.050..3.e requires a`ten foot side yard setback, The request is made to allow for the conti .aed use of an existing building without having to make STAFREPORT son 92-0020 - SC?LARES Page 1, modifications to the structure to satisfy the setback standard. Sensitive Lands Review approval is requested to • Pp allow development of a pedestrian/bicycle Pathway X p Fanno athwa within the 10 0 ear flood plain of Creek. - NOTE: All of the above listed applications are typically reviewed by the Community Development Department public g has been determined by the�Coamnnuni t Development .r � y y Director that the review of these applications should be referred to h Planning Commission Coder the authority of Community Development Code Section 18.32.090.D.4, due to the need to determine the proposal's consistency with Note 7 of the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Plan Map. APPLI .NT:A.11an Solares OYn ER:Kenneth Solaces 13566` Twin Creeks Ln. 162 Estates Drive Lake Oswego, Or 97035 Piedmont, CA 94011 AGENT: Mackenzie/Sai to & Associates Contact Dave Williams or Greg liranac 0690 SW Bancroft Street PO Box 69039 , Portland, OR 97201.0039 • LOCATION 13750 and 13840 SW Hall tiou. evard W( TM 28°1 2DD, Tarots 400 and 500) . PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 unitS/acre) .APPLICABLE LAW Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.150, .n.sporta.ion. Plan and 18.164 andl the Comprehensive Plan Tr�. p ve Plan Greenways and Open Spaces Map Nap and Comprehensive STAFF RECOMMENDATION:DATIO N: Approva l a f all applications icat i)ns listed above (except the variance re ,iest relative buildin g separation) subject to several modifications and Approval of a Site Development � conditions caf approval. pp evelopmeait Review Setback EXce P tis n to Permit the bu ild ing ,, separation between buildings 41 and 42 as proposed" , ST r REPORT - SDR 92-0020 - SotR Page 2 g i I •tifY A: 2. Background Information The subject properties have been planned for medium m density residential use, with the floodplain area r designated as open space, since at least August 22, 1977 when the NPO 5 plan was adopted. zoning history is less clear. However, the subject properties have been zoned I; R-12 since at least November, 1983. The Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Plan Map (exhibit ; one) designates a study area which includes the subject , property. Map Note 7 which ` refers to the study area 4 seeks, "Connections between Hunziker Street, Hall C : Boulevard at O'Mara Street (generally) ,, and Bonita Road. " A Site Development Review approval was granted on July li Site i a I Y , 10, 1989 for development of �aP forty-four unit apartment complex o • - p n tax lot 500 •(SDR 89-14) - The plans for that I . application provided for a public street extending eastward from Hall similar to what is currently proposed, . as many layout elements similar to as well as mangy. other site la what is currently proposed. The Director's decision p application provided ded to the City Council.for That decision w s wn t appealed nor was it called up for review by the City Council. ED f+ 3. Vicinity,information' Properties p s surrounc3.ing the site are zoned R-12 to the • north, R-7 to the south, R-4.5 to the west across SW Hall Boulevard, and I-P to the east across Fanno Creek. : Single family residences occupy all of the surrounding • properties except to east. Neighboring Properties erties across Fanno Creek ar e vacant The subject property has approximately. m 335 feet of a P p �' � frontage on SW Hall Boulevard which ,is functionally arterial by the City's Transportation classified as an a jurisdiction lan Map. SW Hal . ' ha Division. This stretc Sf the State of Oregon Highway is under th a h of SW Hall Boulevard �s genera substandard i - generally e ce exception i ooh a is � • + . of improvements, with e the p state ` Bonita Road to the intersections with 1�eDcznald. Street and south of the subject site. 4. Site Information and Proposal: Description • p • The subject 6.2 acre p r,.op p erty- c ontai ns two. Single fam i ly re sidendes a duplex and several outb uildings The eastern 80 percent or So of the " propery` is vacant, 8T 'r REPORT m SDR 92.0028 - SOLARES Y Page 3 i I 5 r a * R • r of tall fir trees, lower covered. ,with a combination r height deciduous trees, and brush. The property slopes predominantly to the east and southeast at varying 4 grades. ' Approximate y the 10 0 year 1 1.7 acres is within floodplain of Fanno Creek at elevations of less than r 140.5 feet according to the US Army Corps of Engineers g y ��, I Fanno Creek floodplain study maps. The application • • submittal includes an existing site information map,pR . . The applicants propose to develop' a sixty-two unit t , I apartment complex on this site. The development woj ,z id ' inolude 19 one-bedroom, 31 two-bedroom, and 12 the bedroom units within ten buildings, including one unit within the existing house at the northwestern corner of the � e proposed development plan necess itates the following The setback variance or Site Development Review setback exce p tion requests: , . . Development a e Site Develo ment Review setback exception approval is requested to allow Proposed building #8 o have line site's southern property a 24 foot setback from the s line whereas Community Development Code Section 18.54.050.3.g requires a 30 foot side yard setback. b. Variance approval is requested to allow a 20 foot two residential s whereas separation between p w building code Section 18 96.a30 Development Co requires a Dminimum 25 foot separation between windowed walls of abutting multi-family residential buildings r I c. Variance approval is requested to allow a five foot side yard setback from the northern property line for a multi-family residential building whereas Code Section qu'ices foot "side Yawl 18.54.050.3.c requires a ten . setback The request is made to allow for the continued use of an existing building without having to make modifications to the structure to satisfy the'`setback standard. The applicant has submitted justification statements for the requested e��ce ptions and variandes. recreation building is proposed to be located near the center of the site's western border along Hall Boul.e'rard. Laund ry facilities, a community room and kitchen, and an . outdoor spa are proposed to be provided at the recreation building. two bedroom manager's apartment Would be d part of the recreation building. Additional proposed recreation fa cxlitaes a Playground area, an open ^ common plaza, and pathways connecting tC the proposed bis cle -ath within the Fanno Creek flood plain area. � r I I STAFF REPORT �• SDI; 92-0020 - SQ?.ARES Page 4 u ►tar t}aetic+c r k>ptit iti 1 ci t k i C> C frc+S c c4#FYIf+c9Y V tt I'1..rw•.i•Y•tn 1 PI Y•1PifYl a Y K c. ..v+1a, r I 1Y kN xNlin1 Y a 11 1 t AI1Y{1 Y 1t 11(YYY iMI1tRA 1 r♦•r v♦,{rN1 a fwr 1 Y r♦1.I t a i•4!IA Y I.IN+4.Or Y.i{'!.I%.44 R.4 Y•4V1 1✓.1.Y Y#I W R i wr 1 Ik•M• r-1 , r.x 1 1 ' Y t I h „ • would be 63 cover, d parking 2spacesl (combinationcof p garages and carports') , 5 designated handicapped parking spaces, and 54 other uncovered spaces. The proposed . development would be served by one 24-foot wide access driveway from a proposed local street in the southwestern corner of the site, as well as a 15 !foot wide driveway from Hall Boulevard to serve two parking spaces adjacent to the existin g p du Flex in the northwestern corner of the site. This second driveway is proposed to extend eastward from the parking spaces as a fire access driveway only connecting with the remainder of the internal driveways. No details are provided on how access on driveway to emergency this driv�..way wild. be restricted use only, An access variance is requested to allow the � I development to be served by only one full use access driveway, whereas Code Section l0 p 108.070 b D requires two driveways for a multi-family residential development with between 50 and 100 dwelling units. The development site would be bordered in its 1 southwestern corner by a new east west local street 1 I extending approximately 150 feet eastward f rom Hall i Boulevard, largely similar to the street that was approved for construction onstruction as a condition of approval for I SDR 89-14. A sketch plan has been provided that , illustrates rates how this street could be extended to connect `t* with the existing Creek Drive approximately with stub of Fanno 430 feet to the south. The alignment of this street as it extends to the east of the proposed detrelbpment'M access driveway is proposed to be curve southward onto the adjoining 'property. Consistent with the decision for that they be SDR 89w14, the applicants propose tha responsible for full street improvements for this section }' of street until the driveway to the proposed development north with the remainder of the right- ,cuts off to then , � 1 of-way to be dedicated but unimproved g f •application proposes dedication of the floodplain The r portion of the site to the City or a conservation group as g ' y p space. •eight-foot f oot° wads public b3.c, le/nedes train p pathway is proposed to 'either straddle y p p �' p p ! p boundary . apartment floodplain site within an easement to A �pathway on the • . P `-. p ��" connection between proposed buildings gs 5 and 6 would connect the sidewalks and driveways within the proposed development with the de:z e Irian/bicycle path. In 'addition, a 12 foot p hide gravel road along the southern edge of the property proposed d to extend eastward from the parking area to ��.s a:o ; ., 4 the pathway ose p . .ay to s provide e an aoces s:. road for sewer maintenance. . �� appr � the oval. ].s a . hands Review a r anGe� j requested P of the to allow de�relo went of thy. Portion ri o ST 'F Pc'w. SDR R 92-0020` - SC•A.R.ES Page 5 . . , r• ♦ I / A!f # YA t 4 t h 1 1 rah\w I r,r,", ♦ „ IVIY NYIY yr YH t II.1rAI i K t tJS 1tA r t• 1 k h M 9 n Y A A fvrlKrA K K t l t t t a x�d I Kr t Y t t 1 t ttt tt t _ Y r nr '• .. As.,......l,,:3..F ,...::,....4,.....,.:.4*....... ::.... A.r»e:::w 11.+4.....aw,.. ...i..x... 444 ri 7r a `p�des�r an/ba . cle pathway that would be located within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek. A network of four foot wide sidewalks ,would be provided along the primary roadway into the site and between ' ` parking areas and residential buildings. The preliminary landscaping ng plan shows existing trees that are proposed to be, retained as well as proposed landscaping. Red sunset maple trees are additional roused as street trees and parking area trees. Ten- proposed wide buffer plantings containing g a variety of trees and t 'bushes are proposed along both the northern and . southern ro ert boundaries of the site. split rail p p Y, fencing is proposed along all property boundaries other than along the eastern boundary with the area to be dedicated as greenway. 5. A, enc and NPO Comments The Oregon State Highway ; Division has . reviewed the proposal access permits xnust be ro osal' and has commented that obtained from °DOT for both the emergency access driveway and the new intersection of Fanno Creek Drive and `Nall Boulevard. In addition, ODOT will need to . review the • plans and financial assurances for the t, design k�:�;► . I:rprrovements to SW Hall Boulevard, including adequate -. , provisions for storm drainage south of the site. Additionally the applicant will need to pay the costs for re-striping Hall Boulevard to include a left turn into the site. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has submitted comments cluded in o the packet of information provided to conditions of approval which are the Planning Commission with the staff report. The City of Tigard Building D.x v., isi on has reviewed the p ro P asap and Provides the fallowing contents= a, A demolition permit s houl d be o btained prior to destruction or moving any of the existtng buildings on the site. The septic tanks will need to be • pumped out and either removed ith sand or . gravel. inspection show d be obtained after the g p , tank a is filled. A copy of the receipt for septic tank pumping should be provided; to the Building Division d I STAFF PEPoRT spg 92_0020 sOx � Page 6 r. .. .yr..., r r'++,.�a. Y., y.y r�.. � l +k•5, r r r i r r,.H-,i. r o t' #.5 5 " r .+r or,..r.., yr,.4"L V y y# wry v',5.�r.ixM,.t tr t�r4 # �, i+y s,VryY#4 rp h#y v,4�w♦H�5•#y�#». � ``t ( � �4 4( 4� /'�l 4�{�If''.{t(tltC;tY f{++ktt tfC�{tY,t�1t1�,/#l',t l,tlt.l'4t lt4t t 4l5hK}t,4/,Vt1,4t4Y,4YVhVl5klt4 5r4fV�VK k .•,.�.•.. l..,n tl CYri.,4�d,l K,4it k,6�. 4 ata41{wC hC�t t t,4,k. ,�� 7}t,t��t,�.t S!S}t Kkt}�}f��t,�t t { M1, k s't,� y' ., , fw 3 ,,,, r q,,° *r. � #.,�.. 9 y ' • • b. A sewer permit will be required for connection of the existing house to the sanitary sewer. c. Multi.-family dwellings are subject to the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act for disabled person accessibility. The buildings should y be designed accordingly. d. The limits of the 1 00 year floodplain should be y: marked prior to building permit issuance , and the marking shall be maintained throughout development 4 of the site. . , Tigard School District 23J has reviewed the proposal and 4 has noted that the proposed development would be projected to generate 5 new students for Phil Lewis . Elementary School, 2 students at Fowler Middle School, student Tigard The School District and 1 atud+�mt at .�igard nigh' School. notes that school capacity at the High School is already d, altho.,gh Phil Lewis and Fowler Schools are exceeded, presently below capacities. The District not that the e • core facility of the High School is insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity rna y other a provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade , level reconfiguration, rescheduled i School Y ear, boundary ,41 shifting, under-utilized adjustments, double ,� i�tzng, rbusar+ng to und.ear : .. : oconsot f acil.ar:ties, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Distr c t has review ed the proposal and has provided the following comments y� �~ ocations wil ,a. dated the Fire District and the Tigard• Hydrant l 1 need to be coordinated between he need to District. Hydr will be placed within 250 feet of all ter r Portions of of all buildin s�howevea , this distance maybe increased if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler. Hydrants should be placed at all 'intersections. b. The Fire Prefer .emergency District wciuld, refer to see an smear nc l�:�stri ` � pA g, the vehicle access be a rass Crete pad through • th development's landscaped area with appropriate • a e provi ded de d at the emergency access driveways intersections with both the internal r actray and HaleBoulevard. Final._ plans for the emergent ac • � , Cess should be approved by the Fire � �; are ..i,a�e to be a r District. STAFF' �� 92-0020�� Sa �! E� P a 7 • w ' � rr lrl ..ln.r. ,.,,.w1 Y.M. .•� ',.reYrr+YNY+Y.,9, Y Y C Y'!d 1 Y Y'rrY Y YYY•Y iYil'Y iSYY.'YY Y(6YM♦ I,1.ifrlr rrp.YN Y,!rrF S..y'. r A. ,..�` t C C C K f C t j��ptf,��.r�q�y�4��.�t��M•'a�M4V'S'`1�S;YVtrYi<�Y�4��Ir'r 114:t�%r.rr.6 ..Yy. 'X' �. I t r The State of Oregon Division of State Lands S nd has been notified of the proposal due to the floodplain portion of the site being included on the National Wetlands Inventory. The Division of State Lands has commented that a joint DSL/Ccorps of Engineers permit must be obtained if` radin g g, removal, or filling within the banks of Fanno Creek will involve more than 50 cubic yards of material. The Unified Sewerage Agency has provided the following comments: a. A water quality facility should be required to be constructed; b. Store sewers transporting drainage from public right-.of.-ways should be publicly owned and should be ..a e centered within a manimum 15 foot wide easement; C. The project should be designed in accordance with USA Rule & Order 91-47, as amended by 91-75 The Metropolitan Area Communications Commission recommends that the developers insure thr',t future ,�,'; residents of the proposed development , have franchised cable serv'i developers should notify Columbia Cable in advance as to when tre rs sh . Y nc;hes will be opened for electricity and telephone service, so that Columbia Cable can install cable most efficiently. GTE has requested that the developer contact GTE Engineering at least 30 d' .ays prior to opening trenc/les a . '. The at licant has had several meetings ;with Neighborhood Planning Or.. an .zap io �P g g - ' n. NPO #5 to rev-i e� preliminary site Plans re est P. . P Project... NP® #5 was provided with for the ro ased request for comments and a copy of the application'p�' pp_ ,. • y euAts r o submitted d axa� coianl ece awed from A letter was r Hawley, : -. � of NPO #5. That letter- is also lattached�to -this ,report y own ar .ly . Hawlle $ coirr�nents are his and are not n ecess raised by the NPO. City Tigard Park Board Operations Tigard Water District Northwest and a e° - �3 r es� Naturrdl Gas, and PGE have revi.e w ec the proposal l and have issued no comments or objections. S'PA1'F gEPORT SDr 92°002c b SOLARE Page 8 I ' r e . 1r . . to•t Ct . •i , ' •f. Ii tr,l,, IW rtrVlq f I,I1'11 r 1Nt Al 1'A i , t k r tck^Nkhe,FAtteSfitA•a r,,,.,. ,I ,r.1iN1r,A 1thk1x1tA 1iQV7k1F+Fkr/Yf,AtlRatAf•n1+,ik?V,. Iw rnM +4 4r r,w fr M Y chi,1'/iH Ai41}AY41wP vi1hY 4�i 1 i w '. t M1 o w A. letter from John Leas on,n, Sven Von n f . o and Edward. Finley s�.n�. Y subject three property owners to the south of the ubje site) has been received. The letter is dated 'r December 1, 1992. That letter is attached to the staff report. The letter raises questions with regard to transportation concerns related to the proposed development and abutting properties. The letter I' requested that the proposal be reviewed by the Planning i mi sson because proposal raises questions ns related Co i7 o f the Plan Map. A. subsequent letter from Messrs. Leason, Von He. deken, January 5, Y have°� 1993 is also attached. The dated �an� and Finley F�.y�le date letter notes that the.... have net with the applicant Y p . ...and have reached an agreement on a revised alignment for the proposed local street. The letter notes that the opposition to the proposal noted in the December 1, 1992 r withdrawn if the letter will ;be w' � ° . City makes the agreed ; ' upon road alignment a condition of approval of the , clanesubmitted with ttafsf notes that the road alignment < , plan This plan was submitted a prior to the send ng of notice of the hearing on this p is to be treated proposal and therefore g' P p 1.s eated as an amendment to the site Plan. :. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Cha ter 18 32_= uasi---iudioial Decision-.making Procedures All of the application types requested are typically reviewed by the Communit y Development Department artment without a public hearing (Community* Development ) The nt Code Section Decembe 1$ 1992 ert11e current letter from John Leason, et al, noted that the proposal is contained within a study area on Transportation Plan application P ' be reviewed �' Leason's letter ' equests d y� the PlanningeCor or Hearings officer because review of the ro ...osal requires - interpretation � P .. '� �rpretation of an imprecise directive from the Comprehensive Plan. concur that this application does involve a discretiona Interpretation of the Plana ° �, nt: Director Therefore, has been determined by the Community Develca meheref or , hit Y p 'r for that �the ! pp1�. y Planning • review of these a • cations will be referred to the P�ann�.n i Commission under the authority of Couna.t Development �evelo went Gode Section l8.32.090.D.4, due to the need to determine the pro p. sal'S consi ste nr l with Note 7 of the Comprehensive plan's s Transportation Plan Map Anal ysis of the issues related to .n the eect;ion of this report relative to Note 7 is contained ,,, Code C Chapter 18.164. RE PC t SDR 92-0020 SOLAR8S page 9 , l Jj n Chapter 18. 120 - Site Development Review Code Section 18. 120.180.A.1 (Site Development Review a- approval standards) requires that`a developmei,t proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community • Development Code Chapters. The applicable criteria in this case are City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18°92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 1.8.108, 18.114, 18. 120, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164 . The proposal's consistency with these other Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements at all related to .. ( of a. tured/Mob.ile Home Regulations) or Chapter 18.98 (Building Tian the provisions of Code Chapters 18.si.i.din Height Limitations: Exceptions) which are also listed under Code Section 18. 120.180.A.1. These Chapters are therefore found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Code Section 18.12 0.180.A.2 provides other `Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of these other Code chapters. These other standards are addressed immediately below. The proposal is found to comply with the applicable Code_ section 18.120.l80.A.2 Site Development Review approval standards for provision of private outdoor areas (balconies or patios attached to each unit) , screening of service facilities (see a details on sheet All) , multi-family residential dential building 6.44'"�.w separation (except as described below) , design offsets along building faces, and buffering and screening of the proposed development through compliance with the buffering and screening, requirements of the Code as well as careful positioning of on- site plantings to provide privacy between different unit s within the development. Code Section 18.120.180.A.7 requires multi-family developments to • . Y Provide shared recreation facilities based on unit 'sizes. The development proposes n�ent proposal ro Dees•shared recreation 'facliti.es P p p pathways recreation � center, and. athways to • including a playground, satisfy this standard (approx 13,700 sq. ft. of shared recreation pp 5 000 s . ft. facilities required; approx. 1 , q toward interior a y site area have been. provided) , Dwelling units and the playground situated wad the of the site so as to reduce s�. .g. �•, g Properties and to increase visual privacy On ne;� h�ora.n ro ernes o,��zble noise .�.m d between impacts adjacent Reasonable care . • `' p � het ad.. scent used. has been taken to preserve a number of mature trees on the site as shown n the landscaping scaping plan (sheet L1) although with the amonn of development proposed and the grading necessary, a number of trees will be removed. Code Section 18.120.180.1:9 and .10 require consideration of i crime prevention and safety in the design of a proposed develo p vent. The Tigard Police Department have requested that • STAFF REPORT - SLR 92-0020 -:SOLARES Page 10 • • 3 i ] 1 e 1 . ,.. ..I..r,. -....,.'.;r....,.u4_..:rx:�,: appropriate signage be placed at entrances to apartment complexes and that adequate addressing be, placed on unit entrances so that emergency service providers can locate units quickly. The developer should therefore be required to contact the Police Department prior to occupancy of the complex for review and approval of the signage and addressing of the complex Code Section 18.120.180.10 also requires that site lighting be provided in areas vulnerable to crime, areas of heavy pedestrian or vehicle traffic, and in potentially dangerous areas such as stairways and abrupt grade changes. Sheet SD3 of the applicant's submittal shows that adequate site lighting .. �i11 be provided in the p arkin g lot, around the playground a n d recreation buildings, and common sidewalks. Minimal li ght eifects upon adjacent properties are anticipated. Code Section 18.120.180.A.8 requires that dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway be required where development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. The applicant's statement has offered that the 100-year floodplain portion of this site either be dedicated, to the city or given to a conservation group. Since the floodplain portion of the site is identified for greenway/park use in the adopted City of Tigard Park Plan, this area should be required to be dedicated to the City. Code Section 18,120.180.A.8 also calls for construction of a pedestrian bicycle pathway "within the floodplain" in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The Tigard Area Comprehensive Pedestrian-Bicycle Plan, which is incorporated within Volume f3 ne of the Comprehensive Plan, calls for a pathway system along the length of Fanno Creek. The j proposal provides ;for development of a pathway consistent with the Plan, although the pathway would be partially outside of the floodplain. T his location is more a PP o p rr e than within the floodplain at this location, and t herefo re should be '. approved. The developer should be required to provide a public easement for the pathway where it will be located on the apartment parcel. In addition, becaukle the proposed sidewalk connections between this pathway and the proposed development would include stairways that would not be conducive to • bicyclist access, Proposed gravel sewer access road along access the ' the southern edge of the ro ert should be required to be P' p1' paved with a minimum of 8 feet of pavement to serve as a bicycle access path. . I STAFF � :� � � - ��PC�� SDI. �� b020 'SC► T�f.� P • l I, I g • • Chapter 18.54 - R-12 Zoning_ District and Chanter 18.92 Density The p roposed use, multi-family residences, is a permitted use #^ • in the R-12 zoning district- Sixty-two'' dwelling units are proposed on area that provides an opportunity for sixty-two units in the R-12 zone (utilizing the original site plan) , . • density of units that would have considering a 25% dens it transfer been permitted within the 100-year floodplain of Fanno Creek if not for the floodplain restrictions. Such a density permitted by Chapter in exchange for the transfer �s ermined b Code Cha der � �.9 2 dedication of floodplain area. The applicants' density . . calculations are noted on the cover sheet for the'proposed site Plan' The change in the OW Fanno Creek Drive alignment proposed on' 4 the map by wti pacific will affect the density calculation slightly. A condition of approval of the Site Development Review,application should require a new density calculation to indicate an opportunity for no less than 61.35 dwelling units . ' . 62 units proposed. Although the City does order to y in �rd;not � noall�he'allow rounding upward on density calculations, it should be allowed in this case to recognize that the change in proposed right-of-way dedication has been ' agreed to by the applicant to accommodate the future development interests of the neighbors and not because of needs ; related to the proposed development or typical City • also be understood that slight . requirements.:- It should. g modifications to the site plan may be necessary �- to reduce on site roadways to maintain this density opportunity. y i Proposed site improvements comply with the R-12 zoning p district requirements for building height (35 foot maximum t, allowed in R-12; 35 foot maximum height ro osed) , lot coverage (maXinmm allowed site coverage of 80 percent in the R-12 zone; proposed site coverage of less than 50 percent) , and landscaped area mnanmum landscape coverage of 20 Percent; p ro osed landscape coverage of g reater than 58 percent) . All proposed building locations satisfy minimum building setback requirements,ire men ts, exce p tbeen s ye n req requested to ' be varied or r excepted as discus e d below. �his assumes that lot . consolidation is completed pri or to. issuance of buildin g ermits. Lot consolidation has already been applied for with' the Washington County Assessor's office), � . BUILDING #8 SETBACK FXCI PTIo Site • ,• I Development Review setback exception approval is requested to allow proposed building #8 to have a 24 foot southern property line requires Community Development Code Section 18.54,050.3. setback from thy, site's sou-t �J 5T. . F R.1EPORT SD 92 .0020 SO;bAP.VS Page 12 . i 4 ' • ,.,mot: ' .1 I. .4 Code ? • et o Section �. :�2 0 �. 0.:A a �0 foot side yard setback.. � 5 -tion 8. i .� allows the decision-making body to grant an exception of a , no more than 20% of the required setback if it is found that the proposed reduced setback have no adverse 4 effects upon adjoining properties in terms of light,`; noise, or fire hazard; and will have no detrimental ' ` effects (or will have positive effects) on access, andscap-ing, or preservation landscaping of natural features. The, E • requested exception is a 20% exception; should have no effects on landscaping or natural features l of the site; and should not result in any adverse effects upon ad . . j acennt properties to the south. The subject site is north of the adjoining property and therefore the requested exception would not result in blocking sunlight ,, ;3 to the adjoining oinin roperty. In addition, if the exception � gp r .s granted, the applicant's response may ; be to ,: • � not rein ate the proposed playground area to the south of building #8 which could result in much more significant noise and privacy effects upon the property to the south ,p �' p � �' 4•• � !.• than' would result ' from placing the proposed building 6 o feet closer to this property boundary than is no :ivally required. Staff recommends granting the requested setback except. ''Dn A' 2:XISTING RESIDENCE SETBACK VARIANCE , Variance approval requested to allow a five foot side K ��.ance a roval i� r�. �;r ••� � yard setback from from the northern Property line for a '. family residential building whereas Code oection � • 134,54.050.3.c : request made to allow for the. continued use of an 3 s c, r�: c�a.�res a ten..:Foot side yard setback. The .h existing building without having to a hake modifications to the structure to satisfy the setback standard ::. Code Section provides the applicable) cable criter�a for a setback variance request Because the existing residence would continue to be utilized as one dwelling ;' ,., . . g , requested �" "dexxc� woo l •; ,, unit with no increase in height or bulk, the regueste e appear t re vult in an y adverse verse effects u upon the neighboring property to the north such as increased shading, increased noise, or other possible negative effects. In these ways, the request would not cranf l ` Plan purposes in requiring greater setbacks for multi- ply buildings than single. famil �.ct with Code an residences due to typical greater building heights or bulk or intensive usage of the multi f anvil buildings. This situation is relatively 'peculiar to this application pplicatioa and site sincsl few multi-family developments s have the opp brtunit to existin g ing le family residences as a portion of the available dwelling units, or would j .. STAFF Y .' PORT DR 92-0020 soLARES Page 13 • r i •th• .r1r. rhh • i i _ I III p•, 1 choose to do so if they had the opportunity. The ' requested variance would affect only a structure's placement and not the possible usage of the site. Because the house is existing and is set back from Hall . Boulevard, there would be no apparent effects upon etny phy3icai or natural systems, and certainly no greater effects than if the building was situated in accordance --''` with Code requirements. The hardship is not self-imposed since the house has been in this position long before the applicant's ownership of the property and long before the existence of the setback standard. In fact, the applicant should be credited with usin g resources wisely by utilizing the existing house as part of the proposed development instead of tearing it down and replacing it with a new building constructed to conform with setback standards. The request is therefore consistent with the variance approval criteria. Staff recommends approval. . Chapter 18.84 - _Sensitiv: Lands Review Code Section 18.84.015.A permits bicycle and pedestrian paths floodplains.s � lands areas, including p teAsunoted above, the proposal includes provision • < of a bicycle path that would minimally intrude into the 100- : ' year floodplain in the northern portion of the site (see sheet SDI. of the site plan package) . The grading plan (sheet SD2) indicates very minimal grading in this area to accommodate the proposed pathway. This minimal amount of grading related to 0 ; a permitted use like a pathway normally would be reviewed and approved by staff with no notice other to the applicant. In this case; since the proposed grading for the pathway is associated with a Site Development Review, the proposal as ' least needs to be described. approval of this Staff recommends a • ' of grading within the floodplain� to allow the , minimal amount o development of the pathway. Section 18.84.015.B permits installation of utilities and minimal ground disturbances within sensitive lands areas, including floodplains, as a permitted use subject to receiving j' permits: r from the Community Development Department. The landscaping plan (sheet L1. indicates a 5,450 square foot indicates P g p C ) ' riparian vegetative strip to be planted wi. northern th.�.n the ort p g• ed ., . portion of the floodplain on the original site to satisfy the USA requirements for a water quality facility. Storm drains r .. from development will � � rs facility wit hin the 100 year floodplain. Nodetailsa to provided. It is assumed. that this project may involve nInimal grading but no importation of fill. Therefore, this project is permitted rm edification within the 100 year fl.00d lain. Staff recommends g ` should not result in a landform that the P��xn Commission grant cone tua� a royal to the Plan for this water alit p .. pp p �.. STAFF REPORT 8D1 92-0020 - SOL RES Page 14 r • I > a r�. 1. w P. . • A. h '' facility and storndrainage construction, with actual permitting to occur with submittal of detailed p lans for USA and City of Tigard Engineering Department review. If the project will result in the disturbance of grater than 50 cubic yards of material within the flood lain a Division of .. ° State sands floodplain, .. Removal/Fill permit may be required. The applicant retained Scientific Resources, Inc. (SRI) to conduct a wetland identification for the site due to the . probable existence of wetlands on this site noted by the 1. National wetlands Inventory and a city-wide wetlands study prepared by SRI City in The only wetland. areas S�I for the �a.t �r� �,9 9 U T identified by S ' on the site are within the 100-year f loodplain. No development or landform modifications s are , proposed in or around the wetland areas. 18.96. Additional Yard Setback Chapter Requirements ° . p _ Code Section 18 96 U3U provides for minimum setbacks for multi- . family structures from other buildings on the ste, from sidewalks, and from driveways and parking lots. The proposal is consistent with the standards of this section, except that I a 20 foot separation is proposed between the windowed walls of proposed buildings #1 and #2. Variance approval is requested by the applicant. Staff finds that it would be difficult to make positive findings for this request relative to the ° 13 4 for the ,<,� variance approval standards of Code Section 18. � . following reasons: 1) the recreation center could either be reduced in size or redesigned by placing the manager's apartment north of the recreation center and spa area so as to eliminate the non-conformance with the building separation. 2) y p standard. - ndardp, and 2 the situation is clearly self imposed. �; 1 :,,: Nevertheless, staff finds that the requested site layout for ,. ,d buildings dim g s #1 can be permitted through application of the e � Site Development Review setback exce tier standards of Code S 170.A instead. These standards are described Section .l2Q. above. The building separation standards of Section 18.96 �: 03 ,ig. are essentially setback standards. The requested 20 foot �, building separation is within 80% of the 25 foot separation .y separation should not ose r narx�al�. required. The 2 U foot: • pote,�xt�.al for adverse effects from fire, noise or light. Access on the site would not be affected. The proposed recreation building complex makes more i , configuration of the r' ° y ° efficient use of the existing arbor vitae hedge north of as g spa p hedge� ., screening for the s a :and patio areas than.. if the �h�, g P•. a ' ' g g ' p the building was screening the �aana er s apartment if t reconfigured.. Likewise, moving the spa and patio to the south I g y could result in greater potential for noise z. impacts upon residential. side of building 2 c ` �'w p un.�-ls in building #1. �tec,�urint� • Strict conformance with Code building separation standards STAFF SPORT - SDR 92--0020 - SOT ES Page 15 SJ t 1 •. Li ... could result in a lesser quality development than what is proposed. For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the requested building separation meets the setback exception approval criteria Code Section 18.9 6.02 0.B. ..a requires a minimum 45 foot setback from the centerline; of Hall Boulevard, in addition to the standard 20 foot front yard setback of the R-12 zoning district. The existing residence in the northwestern corner of the site as well as proposed buildings #1 and #2 will all have setbacks of at least 65 feet from the centerline of Hall Boulevard. This standard is therefore satisfied. C'h.a ter 18.100' ►andscap -nq Code Section 18.100.030 requires street trees to be planted in accordance with certain detailed standards for all developments fronting on a public or private street. The landscaping plan (sheet T1) proposes minimum planting sizes for Red Sunset maple street trees of 2 and 1/2 inches caliper, other flowering accent trees at 2 inch caliper size, and retention of several existing mature trees at no more than 30 foot spacing. Code ; Section 10 •100.035.A, specifies a minimum caliper size of 2 inches at planting and 20 to 40 foot spacing. Therefore, the proposed landscaping plan provides appropriate types, sizes, - and spacing for required street trees consistent with Code standards. The landscaping plan also provides appropriate low height plantings s along r � p act.the site's frontages to reduce the impacts of ,. on-site lights on adjacent uses and upon traffic on the abutting streets, as well as trees within the parking area, at a ratio of at least one tree per seven parking spaces. the parking p' g «he area landscaping is therefore consistent with t standards of Code Section 18. 100.110 A. Refuse and recycling ", facilities are proposed to be screened from view as required by Code Section 18.100.110.$ and 1 . 1' Code Sections 18.100.80 and . 130 provide for vegetative buffering and screening between a proposed development and abutting g land uses. T,he landscaping plan prov ides for ten-foot ' yards consisting and wide buffer aids cr�ns�stin of a mixture of deciduous .g trees as well as lower shrubs along the site's evergreen tre xxorthern and southern boundaries whereas the required buffer areas ten feet in width. Proposed lane n sizes meet g Single-family planting or eltceed Code standards. The applicant proposes erecting a Split-rail fence along these site borders. The screening ' requirement y typically would require a solid fence r co ti uous� opaque hedge The proposed' STA?F REPORT W SDR 92-0020 ..- SOLARES Page 16 • • combination of fence and buffer plantings may satisfy the screening standard; howevrer, additional details on the plantings should be required as a condition of approval to ' that the screening standard be satisfied Staff assure th rd will agrees with comments that have been made by the applicant that a solid fence in this area would not blend well with its surroundings and would not be compatible with other fencing in the area. The eastern ' section of the site within the Fanno Creek • flood lainwiJ1 retain its existing vegetation, except as will need to be removed to create a water quality facility. However in the proposed r • osed development and its re mainder o f the site, the r attendant significant amount of grading will necessarily . require removal of a number of large trees. Reasonable care appears to have been taken to plan the development with respect to retaining a significant amount of the existing mature trees. As always, staff urges that, if at all possible, the applicant i staff should endeavor to retain more mature trees. Chapter 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas Chapter 18.102 specifies vision clearance triangles adjacent to intersections in which the height of plantings, signe etc are limited in height to assure proper sight distance at the intersection to reduce the hazard from vehicular turning .w movements. The landscaping lan sheet Li does not appear to ,- violate the standards of this Chapter,- as l plan (sheet � ' r long lower shrubs ; feet ♦ ng ais to ' g trees are trimmed so that no branches are lower than eight fee are kept trimmed below three feed. �n hey_ nt and deciduous t 'g feet in height. tlsed sign at the intersection of Hall ., .. g The propo g Boulevard and Fanno V„meek Drive will need to conform with these standards or else may need to be relocated. The large fir tree to the south of this intersection on adjacent property also need to be kept trimmed so that no branches below eight feet above grade interfere with sight distance requirements. Chapter 18.106 - Parkin€ , The site plan provides for an a ro riate number of ^�arkin • p' ��' �' - parking , spaces for a sixty-two Unit apartment development (101 parking spaces required d °;• require p er Code Section�o�18'w l d 60 C® 4 122 parking spaces p rovided) , covered parking sp aces (62 covered parking c ... e . spallowable ere r ; 63 covered eed spaces provided) , and d less than the , to compact to total required parking s p ace distribution, The site p lan designates 5 handicapped accessible parking spaces t hat are distributed throughout the site (a minimum of 5 designated h ndicap ed accessible spaces < are re required) It is recommended that several of these designated handicapped parking spaces be relocated under cover 8TApp RgponT SDR 92-0020 - SOLARES Page 17 , • M 1 . I • r • r � 1 I. to better serve the needs of handicapped residents of the proposed development and handicapped visitors. It is also ed accessible spaces placed in recommended that the handxcapp p p i . . ••'. front of the garages in garage building C be moved away from { the garages, be split apart in differing portions of the a` ` development, or these• spaces should be re-locatable in case ,hese ara ge units are aesi ned to residents who do not re it handicapped accessible spaces. e Al Chapter 18.108' - Access and Circulation The site plan's proposed internal street and sidewalk system largely satisfies Code Section 18. 1.08.040.A's requirement that vehicular access be provided to within 50 feet of residential q units and Section 18.108.050.B's requirement for sidewalk connections between the driveways and the entrances to the • dwelling units. However, a sidewalk connection between the existing dwelling in the northwestern corner of the site and ' the driveway serving it will need to be added Section 18.i08„0,50.11 also requires that sidewalk connections 1i be provided between all dwelling units and common open space ' ♦ i and recreation areas, The proposed sidewalk network does not provide a continuous pathway connection between all dwelling units and the recreation center, playgrounds or the public sidewalks along the streets abutting the site. The proposed network would require pedestrians to walk within vehicular accesswaysl to get to these areas, not just across the vehicular driveways. This clearly is not appropriate in a development that could include a number of children. In order to be A consistent with the Code requirement for internal walkways, the site plan will therefore need to be revised. It is recomxnended { , east-west sidewalk be provided between buildings 3 and 4 and garages B and C to provide that at a minimum, an �st g C the needed' A sidewalk between building 9 and garage' K connectiveness. would also be advisable, The proposal satisfies Code Section 18.1:08.070.D's standard for f 1 internal roadway width (minimum Width of 24 fee t) . The , proposed internal roadway system should provide good circulation for emergency vehicles through the site, despite the request to allow only one full, service access . driveway to serve the site The pro p os ed dead end legs of the Private 'b roadways o n .., the eastern portion of the site are of a short _^ enough distance to not require turnarounds other than the • circular provided of proposed building six. • irc�.la� area that has been rovided. to the west g The proposal includes a proposed emergency access driveway from sw Hall Boulevard d that would also provide access to two parallel parking spaces, apparently intended to serve the ' ' • 1.. S F 1 i PORT SDR 92-0020 Page 18 • • • • 1l existing dwelling in the northwestern corner of the site which is to be retained The access driveway is shown to be 15 feet in width. No plan is provided showing how this driveway would L be limited to emergency vehicles and this existing dwelling only. While this driveway would provide the: minimum 10 feet - , of driveway width necessary for serving one or two units within a multi-family development as specified by Code Section 10.108.070.D, it is unclear how vehicles using the parallel parking spaces could turn around without backing onto Hall Boulevard or without this driveway being a one- way driveway with no real control on access. Code Section 18.1O0.060.B.1 ; states that in no case shall the design of a driveway require , ,,, backing movements onto a roadway. Vehicles backing onto Mall ;` Boulevard clearly would present a hazardous situation that r should not be permitted. Additionally, staff is aware that this driveway in the northwes tern corner of the site has not been deducted from the ,' net site figure for purposes of determinin g an allowable density. While staff believes this should be allowed for a driveway that 11 provides emergency access only, this should not be permitted for a driveway which will serve parking spaces. Staff recommends that these two parking spaces along the emergency access driveway either be eliminated or relocated so as to potential backing movements onto Hall a..:' remove the otentaal for hazardous bac�cin m�.��em Boulevard, eliminate the need to deduct this driveway area from ue,4 a the net site area negatively affecting the allowable dwelling units on the site, and to allow the driveway to be developed i',; ' ` clearly emergency use only, so that it c1e�11 is far ever ens, vehicle u ,p p how the proposed emergency access No plan has been provided for h '� be driveway would be developed so as to limit usage and so as to clearly indicate to drivers of emergency vehicles of the driveway's existence. The Fire District and Police apparently 1 do not have a problem with this being an emergency access driveway. development it is recommended that a condition of d� ©.•• a pp roval require the a pp licant develop plan for how this emergency access driveway will be developed and signed- This ,, plan should be required to be approved by both Ron Goodpaster of the Tigard Police Department and Gene Birchill of the Tualatin valley `ire and Rescue District prior to the issuance of building permits for this development: :r , ACCESS VARIANCE REQUEST i'I,3• A ~ p•. g scale Code Section 18 m 1C�8.O Ea 0 d D .�ov�.de�s a sliding standard for number of required driveways for a 'multi ' . . family development c,5mplex based on the nu aer ;of units. i •• Using. this section, a development with 62 un,lt5 would be required to provide two access Points. The proposed • front the ddevelopment wo u�.d have one full access point . ,, proposed new east-west local street and one limited ,,, ' • 8T11,101?F REPORT - SDR 92-0020 page 19 • I i point Boulevard in the northeastern corner access o�.nt tc� Hall Bo�u�.e �. . of ,r the site. The applicant intends for the limited itd access point from Hall Bouleva rd to serve only e existing dwelling and emergency' vehicles. No details , have been provided on how the development would limit usage of this driveway. The applicant ant requests that a - variance to the number of access points standard of Section 18.108.060.D be granted to permit less than two full accesses to serve this development. ;• •I ' The code recognizes that variances from the access standards may be necessary and provides standards for an access variance that are different than for variances in general. The access variance approval standards are: 1. It is not possible to share access; 2. There are no other alte :natave access points on the street in question or from another street; 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met; 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access; 5 The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and '' 6, The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18. 102 will be met. Analysis ..Proosed Findings Oue to the single family coning applied to tax lot 600 to coning the south, it would be impractical to require the the current proposal to obtain an access developers of t with easement across tax lot 600 to connect with a future extension of Fanno Creek Drive. Because of the pattern of existing single family development on the abutting parcel to the north (tax lot 300) , it is not practical p for the proposed development to share access with that L r. . Therefore, staff finds that it is parcel at +.hs time not practical to require any shared access at this time, driveways stubbed 20 to The Site la n�. 25 feet southrofo the ecommon boundary between the subject site and tax lot 300. It may become p ossible that these internal roadways could be extended northward in the future to provide for a faint access or at least fo � r l e parcels, if tax emergency vehicle accesses between a �.1� residences, ' If lot 300 is developed with mtlti f m y the access variance request is a.pproved, it is recommended that an access easement through the proposed '• ST APP REPORT SDR 92- 0020 SOLARES Page 20 \. A I , , J , development be granted in favor of tax lot` 300 to provide for possible future joint access between these Parcels- There . arer no other practical passible access points for the proposed development. ODOT's Highway Division has stated to staff that no State Highway access permits can • be granted on Hall Boulevard other than for the 'limited f access/errmergency access driveway and for the proposed Fanno Creek Drive. Any other driveway to SW Fanno Creek Drive would need to be located too close to the proposed access driveway to do any good for accessibility. Any additional access driveways to either Hall Boulevard or SW Fanno Creek Drive are not practical because their would not be able to meet ODOT or City of Tigard access separation standards. ::: Since the proposal would only delete one required full • • ,. service drivewa y access but would still include a second drivewa y for emergency access, the degree of variance considered as the minimum variance required to provide safe and adequate access ` Because the proposed full service and emergency access driveways would be located at points where , ; . . adequate ' ade e ate sight g distance will be Provided, the Proposed access points should p rovide for adeateand safe access ' for the use qr p ed and levels of traffic anticipated 1 proposed . from these driveways p above positive findings relative to the access v Based upon approval standards of Section 18.108. 150, staff recommends approval of the access variance request subject to a conditional of approval requiring the applicant to grant access easements in favor of tax lot 300 throw h this development to SW Fanno Creek Drive. g � P Chapter 1 .114.-Sic;ns The site plan shows a sign to be .located at the proposed intersection ntersection of the proposed east-west street with Half: "` Boulevard, just to the west of the entrance to the proposed development street. Community Development Code Section 18.114.130 from the new st ;identification �. . permits housing connplex identification signs •. Sign.... at ., - .. � dlyVe.�.®p�rlen.ts ht details have not been en�tranoes to �ault�.. famx.l t® es�.�saan� height ra�r.��ded I t1 p at, , t., hi s tme No further review is nedessary at this point. A sign permit must bo ob obtained prior to er eeting any sigpci.,, Sig n size heights and location be shown, confor1� with Code - standards (including vision clearance) in order for s zgri prmits to be issued. STAFF R.LpORT - SDR 92-0020 - SiOL .g5 Page 21 • • •, I . I I i , I P� dF • }' 0 1 -J.« 1, Chapter 18.144 Accessory Structures; Code Section 18. 144 .07O.A.1 .b ermits accessory ccessor_y structures, such as the proposed garages and carports, to have no more than . , 00 square foot in size and heights of no greater than 18 l 0 feet on residentially zoned parcels larger than 2.5 acres in ' size. Proposed garage buildings B, Cr F, G, J, and K all are 1 rtrger than the maximum 1,000 square foot permitted size A • condition of approval is therefore warranted requiring that the sae buildings be redesigned or replaced to comply with the :' maximum accessory structure size ,tandard. All other proposed a, ara es and carports are consistent with the maximum accessory g g structure size standard. All proposed garages and carports are 1 consistent with the maximum accessory structure building height standard and with applicable building setback standards Chapter 18.150 - Tree Removal Chapter 18.150 will be satisfied because the applicant licant will be ' required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees in preparation for development. Permits will be granted ,,'' only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate ratructures, sidewalks, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates tltpa trees within the development that will be retained or that will need to be removed. An arborist's report outlining methods of protection. prior • .' .., -lion. of the trees to be retained must be submitted . , . to the issuance of a site grading or tree removal permit. r • ement Re irem chatter 19..16 4 -_public Improv . _: ." � tints, STREETS The site is located at the southern edge of the study area � y Comprehensive Transportation n defined b Note 7 on the com arehensive flan s �Crans ortat�co Plan Map. Note 7 calls for consideration of a future road' network connecting t o Hall vicinity of O'Mara k Connectxn Boulevard in the �ricin Street, to Bonita Road along the east side of Farm() creek, and to Hunziker Street. Staff has understood Note 7 to. be . L primarily p intended pr- v ftture collector street system access o the industrially zoned areas ,_ well 5 rov�� located north and east of this site, as connection to Hail. The development currently o edging a p ly .proposed• does; • not interfere with potential aLLgninents for the future roads suggested by Note. 7 . There does not appear to be a need to : require that this development p .; s stein requested b _ Note 7,, provide fa�� the ;�r�a��wa�r; require rev M proposed ,development plain �" qu d y N The therefore does not conflict with the objectives of Note 7. , ST APP H1POHT 4 ' SDF 92.0020 - SOLAR1S Page 22 I I I .,I 1, u.v..«w ...........+-.:+..•r..:....w......r.aN>.....—. «�: nit .. '...r,.,M.e..n+.an ..+.r,r >: •,r.a .... ...:... a...... Code Section 18,164.030.Dal.b(i) states that where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of,streets in a development shall provide for the > continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in • area. Drive r r � � the surrounding ea The plan. for Fanno Creek Drive by WH Pacific submitted by the applicant and Mr. Leason, et al, shows 1 how SW Faxino Creek Drive could be exrt,ended beyond the subject site to connect with the existing stub of SW Fanno Creek Drive within the Colony Creek subdivision, as well as providing , opportunities for redevelopment of the intervening properties . The WH Pacific plan would requireslight difications to be mo ` made to the site plans originally submitted with this " application. The proposed development site is located on the east siLdo of Hail Boulevard approximately 350 feet north of the signala.zed McDonald, Street/Hall Boulevard intersection. To the south of :, ) cDonald. Street, Colony Creek Court currently provides access to Hall. Boulevard When the Colony Creek Court access was : intended as a temporary access to serve the developed, it was intend• area until Fanno ' Creek> Drive was extended northward and Past review by City staff has , connected to Hall Boulevard. Past staff - should •connection of Fanno Creek Drive to Hall should, be in determined that the future tonne the vicinity' of the site ' currently under - ,'. consideration. Locations further to the south could create u d conflicts with the McDonald Street intersection and would ' standard for arterials,18.164.030.g's intersection separation violate Code Section unless located directly at the Mc A local street extending` d intersection. eastward from I � ;, ' ng e the :? Donald _ Street intersection could attract.too much �ra.ffic ' . . :r cDonald Stree ;, . rou g a 5 in le-family ghborhoo d on . local streets. Locations further to the north could have inadequate sight " distance due to existin g g rades on Hall. rherefore the he proposed street location shown on the application appears to be appropriate and consistent with past planning for the area. I Therefore, we conclude that. the proposed street system is _ < appropriate and consistent with other plans for the area and should be approved. Code Section i 4.O3O.A, 1.a requires that streets adjacent ;' t'ion .�.�.16 widevelopment shall be dedicated and approved in accordance th Code standards. SW Hall Boulevard is under the 1 . jurisdiction of the Oregon Dep ar tment f . of T.rax�sportation. Half street over ents and •ght-of-way' dedication to 45 feet from � P , Cori • p front are typically required for developments which fr® Sro/ Hall. The Department of Transportation 'has requested half . , street improvements and right-of-way dedication- to 45' from pp submittal, they are centerline. Based on the applicants B Prepared to � ,p provided the half street improvements with the , required right.>of-way dedication. R. r• STAFF REPORT �� g� O��Q ��LS page 23 I . "• • i T I I I fi ! A Y , • ...' The En ineering g De artmer)rt has reviewed the preliminary p lans for the proposed SW Fanno Creek Drive and has found the plans to be consistent with Code local street development standards contained in Section 18.164.030 and the City of Tigard Design . Final detailed public improvement p .. '. Standards Manual. �' a.c asn rovement `plans will . need to be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building periits for the proposed development. Due to the uncertainty rand when a further extension int of whether of SW Fanno Creek Drive to the south, will be necessary, it is not recommended that the applicant be required to extend the street past the access driveway to the apartment complex at stz this time,, However, dedication of right-of-way as illustrated p Pacific plan should be required at i�- as later noun al. this time. If unneeded,P . � ° nn� ded, the right-of-way-way mad be vacated. , • A reserve strip should be deeded to the City across the end of g o f-way. �i ht� , the I The outside curve of SW Fanno Creek Drive leading into the apartment driveway should be curbed to give the appearance of ! .. . a completed street; however, a sign should be posted indicating that the street may be extended in the future. The responsibility installing needed street improvements in the p y installing needed p � •' dedicated but unimproved` section of the street should be the I ! responsibility of any future development which seeks to connect 111•\ to this street.,,. S I DEWAL11S Code Section 18.164.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed as a condition of developient approval on both sides of local streets and arterial streets. The proposal indicates an eight--foot wide sidewalk to be provided along the , site's Ia�l Boulevard frontage. applicant's statement, , "' however requests that a five-foot sidewalk G. be permitted along SW Hall. SW Hall boulevard 4.s an arterial street. The City's ya_dewal design standards `cal,. f or ,,,,• ' ks along arterials `to be ei ht-feet wide. Therefore,� _ ore,,,.. the applicant should be required, „Y to install eight-foot wide sidewalks along the frontage of S.W. Hall Blvd. .' The site plan proposes a five-foot wide sidewalk on only the 1 :. north side n side of SW Fanno Creek Drive: Because a sidewalk on the ( . south side of SW Fanno Creek Drive would not provide any better pedestrian access to the develo menu site than is • pedestrian a sidewalk would likely damage the 40--inch''diameter fir q ttree on the abutting property, sidewalk should not be required this time. Sidewalk along this frontage should be deferred uriti�r Such time as the property to the south redevelops and the Street et .Ls extended. r.„ � ��►�RE�„ Page 24 r(, r, •"D 1 In4 n/4wrt Y Y.rw Y Y YMlr,Rn,"'.,rY i .YP niY n(G w r. . . - l^Y t. I SANITARY SEWER 1,;. Code Section 18. 164.090 requires that new developments be adequately served by sanitary sewerage collection facilities developed consistent with City of Tigard design standards , There is an existing public sanitary sewer system that is located in the southeastern corner of the development. The ; applicant is, proposing to extend a private sewer system throughout the development from this public line to serve this , , , `p , `. � development. This �r1an. is consistent with the master plan for . the sanitary sewer system. In addition the applicant is proposing to provide access for maintenance ur oses to the p p public portion of the system. The City Engineering Department has found that the proposed sanitary sewer system should i t Propose p d provide a•de late sanita sewer service�, to the p ro elo devment. p STORM SEWER Section 18.164 100.A states that development permits shall ,lly be issued where adequate provisions for storm drainage have been made. The applicant is proposing a private on-site tea' storm sewer system to serve this development. The storm drainage from Fanno Creek Drive will be transported along its curbs and then channeled along a temporary curb into g the on-site storm drainage system. long the In the. l.on term, when � � " , g i , Fanno Creek Drive is developed, the atr�rr� drainage will �,.; continue flowing southeasterly along the curbs to be picked up I( by the future drainage system. The storm drainage from Tall Boulevard will be collected in a 1 catch basin and piped to an improved ditch on the property , g �. north of the project. The land owner on which the drainage granted Oregon Department of , ditch crosses has ranted the Care on p Transportation an easement for this purpose ' The unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has � g g y -% a reed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on- y , `• f. in-lieu of their site water quality facilities or fees i.n 1 construction. The applicant i5 proposing to an on-- site water cons t�:�ic't p quality facility.ate;r alit .� site Based the Preliminary ,�a.ns �.�� the storm water from the s ite wil l be piped into a Private • system It will then be transported to the northeast corner of the development and pass through a water quality facility prior to being discharged into ranno Creek. Portion Property. . 1�'anno Creek runs:, along the eastern tti eastern or��onofthe ranno Creek is classified as a sensitive area under Ret oltxtion and Order Mo. 91-47. 1 n undisturbed cote dor is rec u:ire' n .c feet wide measured horizontally from the d. w is a mi;nr�'�m: of 25 � ..� ;b 444 ..+ ,r r•• STAFF _ P(.�k�`1� SDP, 92-0020 °°r, SS7►ltES Page 25 •. , 1 I • ' Yl� \/ •1 defined boundaries of the sensitive area. The applicant has I defined the sensitive area and has appropriately provided for r.. the 25 foot undisturbed buffer area on either side of the 1 creek. BIKEWAYS Code Section 18.164 . 110.A. requires that developments adjoining of . planned bikeways provide dedication of land or dedication " easements for the development of bikeways. Code Section 18.164.110.B requires that approval of developments adjoining proposed bikeways be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. The proposal appropriately includes provisions for a bicycle/pedestrian '' pathway `roughly paralleling Fanno Creek and either dedication of floodplain area or easements, as necessary, to contain the pathway. Code Section 18.164.110.D requires a minimum bikeway width of six feet. The proposal would provide for an eight- w ,• foot wide pathway which is the preferred pathway width that has previously been specified by the City of Tigard Park Division. ' The proposal therefore adequately satisfies the requirements of Code Section 18. 164.110. OTHER UTILITIEc " .•� . Code Section l8.164.120.A requires new' developments to p rovide ' . a for the underground placement of utility services such as electric, telephone, cable television, and natural gas service. ,, The City Council has established a fee-in-lieu-of underground placement of utilities where it is found to be impractical to �4•.: o place these facilities underground due to utility provider concerns, limited frontage, affected, or other reasons. The i1, lace '!.. r � ' `; Engineering Department g p t recommends that the developer of this .. site be responsible for underground placement of utilities on the site and along SW Fanno Creek Drive, hut that a fee-in- • lieu-of underground placement of utilities may be found to be neceCsary for the Hall Boulevard frontage of the site. The recommended conditions of approval provide for such revirements C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division re P commnends APPROVAL of Site De•velo mend. R 92-0020 for the proposed Fanno Creek Village Review SD apartments Site Development review exceptions relative to building setbacks and building separation Variances VAR 92�- 0020 variance setback . requested in the northwestern variance for the existing access vara��ce and corner a ,. of the site; and Sensitive Lands Review SLR 92-0005 for .,. STAFF REPORT - SDR 92-0020 - SOL ..i.RE„ Page 26 1' • • bikepath and stormdrainage installation within the 100-year floodplain' of Fanno Creek. It is recommended that approval be ' granted subject to the following conditions: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OP w BUILDING PERMITS. UNLESS 'STATED OTHERWISE, STAFF CONTACT IS CHRIS DAVIES OF THE ENGINEERING DIVISION: I ' 1. Lot consolidation nr 1.1 be com A leted prior to issuance of building permits. .. Evidence of the consolidation shall be provided to the Planning Division. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 2. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to P P destruction or moving any of the existing buildings on the si.t r Septic tanks shall be pumped out and either removed or filled with sand or gravel. An 'inspection shall be obtained after the tank is filled. A copy of the receipt for t peptic tank pumping shall be provided to the Building Division. STAFF CONTACT Jim Jaqua, Building Division. ` 3. The site plan shall be revised to eliminate the parking spaces along the proposed emergency vehicle access drivewa in the northwestern corner of the site. The t Y .I applicant shall develop a the proposed emergency �ces� driveway will be developed. This driveway developed, signed, maintained for emergency vehicle use only. A minimum 2 0 foot wide fire lane shall be provided. The emergency vehicle driveway access plan shall bt ,. approved by the Tigard Pol ice Departme nt and Engineering Department, Orsg on St a -e {, . . . Hi awa Dx visaon, end t' he Iualatxn Valle y F ir e and Re..s cu e District rior to the issuance of buildin J P ermits Evidence of approval shall be provided to the Planning • : rY , ng Division D�.visa.on 4 S�AF�" CO�T.AGT. Jer Uf fox Planni 4 . A.dditional details on the plantings along the northern and southern borders of the site shall be provided to assure that the screening standard will be satisfied. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 5. The site plan shall be revised to reduce the size; of all ro used accesses structures to no lar er than l 000 . . TACT: p P m 8��e. STAFF[" CC3N rlr , I s are feet i . � 9' Jrer Qf der Planning Division. ,a 6. The site lan shah. be revised to rov•de a s e .:gal ,P �� d .`�` k . existin dwelling in the conne�ta.on bet�►aeen the r y and/or north��estern corner of the s Ate and the. dx�.vcwa STA10� 1EPORT CDR 9 2-. 0020 �- SO� S Par �� ., I I I • 1h II • ICI I I p . i . f I I11, V' I � . SSS rr parking spaces serving this unit. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer Planning Division. 'a1: 7. The site plan shall be revised to provide continuous walkway connections between all units,ts, the playground, the' recreation building,' and the public sidewalk along SW Fanno Creek Drive. It is recommended that at a minimum, an east-west sidewalk be provided between buildings 3 and 4 and garages 13 and C to provide the and needed conectiveness . A sidewalk between building g g P bua.ldn 9 an garage K is also advisable. STAFF CONTACT: ' Jerry, Offer, ,. Planning Division. 8. Final fire hydrant locations will need to be coordinated between the Fire District and the Tigard Water District Hydrants will need to be placed within 250 feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; however, this distance may be increased. if buildings are equipped with • , dis equipped sprinklers. Hydrants should be placed at all l intersections. CONTACT: Gene Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (526-2502) P ODOT for both the 9 . the new An access permit shall e enc access driveway obtained from 0 ntersecticr of Fanno Creek Drive and Hall Boulevard. In addition, ODOT will need to review and approve the design plans and financial M. , s for the improvements to SW Haut , g Boulevard including provisions' for storm drainage south of the site. CONTACT: Bob Doran, ODOT (229-5002) . Nc Ya 10 ., appl is nt shall. iayy the costa for re-^stcr1pi, g` Hall ,_Bulevard to rinc 1ud a turn��:to° he to. CONTACT: Bob Doran, 0 D T,,,,,(2'29a 5002) h., .. °' 11. A joint DSL/Corps of Engineers permit must be obtained if grading, removal, or filling within the banks of Vanno yards of material. Creek will involve more tha n 50 cubic �' CONTACT: Division of State Lands Wetland Program (378- 3805) ) through the Site of the proposed 1 evelo� development shall be access easement p granted in favor of tax lot 300 to provide for possible future joint access between these parcels. l3. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be removed or retained, an arborist's recommendation for methods of protecting retained trees during construction of the p apartments menus as well as g - he pro Posed a �.xt for the long term health of these trees. This tree protection plan shall include at a arniri.mtm all trees STAFF REPORT - SD k 92-0020 - SOLA .ES Page 28 i G i ..y1.Wc rr lN.k+l.r kl+ii.rrnPl yr rr,h r rr♦Ir+Yrr.•"+I,H;«I re kK.n,r. .,. designated for retention on 4 g the preliminary landscaping plan and should endeavor to add additional mature trees as practicable. The trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or similar means approved! by the Planning Division. No site grading, clearing or ' tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this condition. 14 . The applicant shall dedicate to the City as greenway all • portions of the site that fall within the existing 100-' year floodplain of Fanno Creek (i.e. , all portions of the property below elevation 140.0) - • _1 15. The applicant shall construct a minimum eight foot wide f asphalt bicycle/pedestrian pathway within or adjacent to the Fanno Creek floodplain as indicated on the site plan. Where the pathway will be located on the development site a minimum ni.mt • � xnut ten-foot wide public la.c easement shall be provided. In addition, the proposed gravel sewer access drive on the southern boundary of the site shal1 rinclude a minimum eight-foot wide asphalt or concrete pathway connecting 1 the development's Parking lot with t he public pathway. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer Planning Division. P 16. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division to perform work within the right- of-way of SW Hall Boulevard. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a City of Tigard public improvement perms t �.s .�c �.rrt ' I 17. Additional right-cif-way shall be conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through its Department of Transportation Highway bivision, along the SW' Hall Blvd. frontage of the . centerline. The description to 45 feet from sub ect•site to increase the•right-of-way'1 be toed ription shat to the existing right-of-way centerline. 'erifioation that the. •�' City Engineering . be conveyance has been submitted to the State, shall • provided ddl�.t�onaltoinformation,• �' Department. (For • contact Nivr�on elick; Oregon ` Department of Transportation, Bight of Way Section, 7165 i STS'! Fir Loop, Tigard, 684-1510) . L • . ' 18 r Standard ndar d half -st r eet improvements,pr ovements, i ncl u.d ng an eight Stan wide concrete sidewalk driveway apron curb s asphaltic concrete Pavement, sanata� sewer r, storm drainage, an d Streetlights shall be installed along the site's Blvd.• e a g • p � shall be designed and ornstruotd to Oregon Department of Transpbrtatio n street standards and shall conform to the aliqnment of existing adjacent improvements or to an STArr I PORT SIDR 92 -0020 SOLA • -� '� ' � Page 29 W Yr r,Nrw v ♦t r r r t if+c+t Sr rf lft•4 Y r Y S 4}l1 Y ff Ytf• +rYit4trtl r Y rl ti _4A )k I/r 1,r .a 1 w.r.r r1,/1 M'Ya♦ •r1 r•+,• ••r.f+..+ 4 r t t l t t S tt t k t t 1 4 cr\ ttl ttt it t 1 r+.i w r♦ yr rrvr..+ r . ,, A • • x i alignment approved by the Engineering Department. A copy t of the approved plans, and any associated permits, shall be submitted to the City. k 19 Typically, he Cite will 'also re uire that all utilities eydunder round along the `Hall Boulevard frontage. . . . , be placed g g However if this is found to be impractical in the _. of the Engineering Department in ;the review of g judgement �' p detailed improvement plans, the applicant may instead, be z, required to pay a fee in-lieu of underground,.ng utilities along this frontage. bI 20. Full width street Improvements, including traffic control . devices, concrete sidewalk on the north side of the , driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete street, aavement 'd dsanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights,: Y Y • 4 and underground utilities r shall be, installed within S r7 Fanno Creek Drive. The improvements will be required from the intersection with SW Hall Boulevard for a minimum distance of 17 0 feet. Improvements shall be N designed and constructed to local street standards. 21. Right_of'�-way shall be dedicated to the, public along the SW Fanno Creek Drive frontage- The specific right-of-way ,i,, to be dedicated shall be determined by the City Engineer. In general the right-of-way shall be a full 50 feet i ."` width along the southern property line of the site g.: g the state right-of-way for a distance of approximately 95 feet. Additional right-of-way shall be beginning at t the so dedicated along southern property which pp alignment oofeSWoFanno Creek Drive as f of laws the a. roved a, illustrated in 5 llustrated n the January 5, 1993 map prepared by WH Pacific. 22. A profile of SW ranno Creek Drive s hall be required, ng 300 feet to the `south from the subject site showing the` existing grade and proposed ,future grade. 23. The applicant Phall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways Without sign-ticant .y impacting properties downstream. •, icant shall qu p . an on-site 24 water pp quality facility�e asre established Under under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency y Resolution and Y Order No,, 91-47. 25. The applicant shall: provide at a minimum a 25 foot buffer p of Fanno Creek which meets the requirements of Section 6.08.3, of Resolution and Order No. 91-47. STArF REPORT - SDR 92-0,020 W- SOLAR8S Page 30 r r . 1. e 26 - Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. 27 . Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering g Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement has ,.• been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of colrmitrnent, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/ a streetlight fee- are required. • L "Joint shall e re .fired to fain a. Joint The applicant b 2 8. T e required Permit" from the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. 29, Street centerline .monumentation shall be provided as follows: I I a) nu�nentatx.on , { a Centerline Ito 1) In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2) , the centerline of all street and roadway rights_of_way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. • 2) The following centerline monuments s shall be set: 2) All centerline-centerline intersection points b monument Boxes Required.. 1) Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline , intersection amts p and cul-de- sac Center pints 2) tops to s of all nncsnuMent boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade STAPP' REPORT -- SDR 92--OO2O SOLARES Page 31 s , PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THIS SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR A. SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MAY EE POSTED GUARANTEEING' COMPLETION OF THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN NO MORE THAN SIX . MONTHS OP THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT 30. Appropriate signage shall be placed at entrances to the apartment complex and adequate addressing shall be placed on unit entrances so that emergency service providers can locate units quickly. The developer shall contact the Police Department prior to occupancy of the complex for review and approval of the signage and addressing of the complex. 31. All ca land � ping:: . mater_ials and other Proposed site Improvements shall be installed lled as per the revised landscaping and site plans. S TAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639--4171) sign from the Planning 32. A sin ermit Dive. . shall be obtained Division prior to the. erection of an identification sign. ... Sign, location and size must be in accordance with the provisions of Section �' 18.114 of the Community Development Code. Sign locations and/or height shall not conflict with required vision clearance at intersections, 34. A.degu.ate vision clearance at intersections shall be provided in the ; installation of all site improvements. It shall he the responsibility of the owners of this development to assure that vision clearance is maintained throughout usage of the site through maintenance of all structures signs,s and Vegetation both on site and • g' the s within the public right-of-ways abutting the site. THIS®fiI'�"�i�CFO"IRE �'��.�.L� APPROVAL DATE EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) oite 'gEP D b m - ry offer, Development Review Planner r r. APPRO ' BY= nick B-R-rsdorf f; Senior Planner . STAFF REPORT 4- SDR 92-0020 -- sotA s Page 3 • • e 7u' tw l T_ TIGAR 1 co . � f, CENTER > . \ . • s ^ b J"� `'�'� Lp • INS Pry magi NI 111 cS L mill ail IIIIII 2 . i STR8ET' ,,,:,... ,...., I� ., si' ilik if 11111111. w J \ , Rom S P',/ -, . 1 .,. ,/ . , . I i , EDGEWOOC) Milli! �Iy sire- ■ _.......,_____ e. N/ ' t yyr ._ ,. . , . ,_____ 1 is.-ar. 1 1 _ i ....,,,,,,,, i . r Tr". '".1 1 ri iii cr,.., i_L....,..\ a II III Z. $.W. 1 FIAN1."14) '. . a , -N, .iiivir - 4 0 NTAI N VIEW I,.NI . NUI 114,4 A1111111 ,**6fi': ili' i !' . 4 o. .......,.0 e.Y—»..-.....,.x,_:..._,,.. ., .. ..,......:....J ....,rc.....w. wu..ti.�«:..............a1.-...-.....—n,-,w,..-.+.1:,......i:.I:ti....Jt4Lw...i..ar:Ji1;'. '. '- I , ...t.r.a w.. .-... wi...Ji:M..wl+ir•.:1.1M'Y+IVY,.a,«J44+rN»..-.—.,..++a.+fw .1.Fa.+r,.. , • STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENTS 1 Engineering Department Memorandum of January 14, i993 2. Letter from William Hawley dated December 15, 1992 • 3. Letter from John Ileason., Sven Von Heideken, Edward Finley dated December 1, 1992 rehensive Plan� m Cop Transportation Plan Map 5 Letter from John Leason, Sven Von Heideken, Edward Finley dated January 5, 1993 Map of Proposed Road Alignment for SW Fanno Creek Drive by WH Pacific dated January 5, 1993 (Attached only with Planning Commission member and official record packets only,. Others may contact the Planning Department t o review this map. ) . I J/ R • • • r , '• r, ,..%...v.+....,..✓(n..............«r_i-...«.n.w,.;:.:_.rn. ,.,.:,.kru.,,.. ......I,...._. ,«'.,.,xI .... ..._.. ... ..1.. e. ,.. ...,. _.Ia,w ..-,N . .:+•...,..:...C..I.:. w J+.{.AM .4»nA-..._.W1..4t,.M«.....-a.».M.,I.w,...w-.d w. A+z '-+I..+r✓ Y �A 1 HEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGAR1D, OREGON i TO: Jerry Offer January 14, 1993 FROM Chris Davies, Development Review Bngineer(, • r • RE: SDR 92-0020 I ,,� I Description. The applicant proposes 62 unit apartment complex . to a new s t witn related site improvements . Findincxs • 1 . STREETS : ,• The site is located approximately 700 feet north of the McDonald Blvd. intersection on the east side of Hall Blvd. south of McDonald Street, Col Creek Court currently the on When To Cre provides access to Hall Boulevard. the Colony Creek { I access was developed, it was intended as a temporary access to serve the area until Fanno Creek Drive is extended northward and connected to Hall Boulevard. 'Past review by City staff has • i Creek Drive to Hall connection of Fanno anno' Cree the future connect o,_ determined that t e. ld be in the vicinity of the site currently under conside ons further to the south would create anon. Locations conflicts with the McDonald Street intersection. Locations further to the north would have inadequate sight distance due to existing grades on Hall . So, the proposed street location shown on a the application appears to be appropriate + and ' consistent with past planning for the area. The adjoining 1 property owner has agreed to the proposed alignment, The site is located at the south edge of the study area defined ined • y Note 7 on the Comprehensive Plan Transpo rt at ion Map.. Note , 7 provides for a future collector street system to provide , � : located north and east ria�.:l ' � I � access to the induct zoned areas to y of this site. Note 7 calls for consideration of a future connection to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of O'Mara Street and a future connection to Bonita Road along the east side of Fanno Creek. The development currently proposed does not interfere with potential alignments for the future roads suggested by Note 7 . I • ,, I ` ENGINEERING COMMENTS:. CDR 92-20 S0/., .ES • • II Therefore, we conclude that the proposed street system is appropriate and consistent with other plans for the area and ' ' should be approved S .W. Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation. Half street improvements and ,I right-of-way dedication to 45 feet from centerline are "° , typically required for developments which front S .W. Hall. As of this report, the Dept. of Transportation has not submitted its comments to the City. Based on several pre-application ., meetings with the city, state, and applicant the state will be . requesting half street improvements and right-of-way dedication . to 45 from centerline. Based on the applicants submittal they are prepared to provided the half street improvements with the required right-of-way' dedication ' It should be noted there is some discrepancy with the , applicants submittal with respect to the sidewalk width on S .W. Hall Blvd. In the applicants narrative to the planning Department he is requesting the sidewalk be reduced from 8 feet to 5 feet; whereas , on the plans submitted he is showing the installation of a 8 foot sidewalk along S .W. Hall Blvd. Under ; the city' s classification, S .W. Hall Blvd. is classified as a arterial which would requi re the sidewalks to be 8 f eet wide. Therefore, the applicant should be required to install 8 foot f' wide sidewalks along the frontage of S .W. Hall Blvd: The applicant is requesting an access variance. Section 18 . 108 .0°70 (d) requires two driveways for vehicular access and egress for multiple family residential uses of 50 * 100 units . Under the applicants proposal only one access will be provided which will be from the extension of S.W, Fanno' Creek Dr. The Engineering Department has no objection to this variance. We are concerned with the applicants request to use an existing o access • point on S .W. Hs,ll Blvd," to serve as a v'ire Lane and as a driveway for the existing residence. Based on the proposal this access would have direct access to the apar tm ,ntcomp plan provided r or how the prop osed emergency access driveway would be developed to limit usage to emergency vehicles and the existing residence It is our opinion the , I• access should acid b e used exclusivel y for emergency vehicles and . that plan be submitted by the applicant which would show how this would be accomplished. The final approval of the plan l" i should be coordinated with the Tualatin valley Fire District, • Oregon Department of f Tran sportatio n. , and the City of Tigard , ' • police and Engineering Departments . • I , //ryry t , M V r ,uG..-.F-..:i w,.n..,....a;-..i...u+*u1..:.. ....twx..:..«....lu.,_..:.trw........ .n.....w...... _ y NR 2 . SANITARY SEWER: ttt / There is an existing public sanitary sewer system that is located in the southeast corner of the development . The applicant is proposing to extend a private sewer system to ! , serve this development . This plan is consistent with the master plan for the sanitary sewer system. In addition the applicant p y y � is proposing to provided access, for maintenance purposes, to the public portion of the system. 3 . STORM SEWER: The applicant is proposing a private on-site storm sewer system to serve this development. ' The storm drainage from Fanno Creek Drive will be transported along its curbs and then channeled along a temporary curb into the on-site storm drainage system, In the long term, when Fanno Creek Drive is developed, the storm drainage will continue flowing southeasterly along the curbs to be picked . up the future drainage system. 5 •i The applicant is proposing to collect the storm drainage from S .W. Hall o a catch basin at the north end of the project and piped to an improved ditch on the property north of the project . The land owner, ; on which the drainage ditch h, s granted the Oregon Department of Transportation an easement, which has been recorded, for This purpose As this report was being prepared, Bob Doran, Oregon Department of Transportation, had some concerns about the future storm water flows; S .W. Hall Blvd. would slopes from S .W. McDonald to this project . His major concern, was that as the property to the south developed along Hall Blvd. the storm water would n r to flow down S. W Fanno Creek Dr. , and, he wanted to be directed city of Tigard was willing to accept this storm water, After a review of the plans with Greg Berry, Utilities Engineer for, the city; it became apparent this was not what ' ' I would be typically required.aired. While the cit y is not directly 1 opposed to the a pp licants proposal, it is unclear from the ' preliminary p lans if it would Meet the city standards. l ; , . Therefore the applicant should be required to install a storm s sewer system along the frontage of S. W. Hall Blvd. Alternatively, if the applicant Wishes to pursue this storm k '" sewer proposal, or any other alternate, he should be required to submit more detailed plans, prior to the initial review of • the public improvements plans, which Show the proposal will meet city standards • I • I , I l I y • Y ppr.Y 'hT 1 , ... ..... .. ..,:... ...,,., ... .... -: ... ... ..... ..u..:..._l..,i.e.l:rte. ' r • The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No, 91-47) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on site water quality facilities or fees in-lieu of their construction. pp proposing to construct an on-� onstruction. The applicant is site water quality facility. Based on the preliminary plans,' ' , II the storm water from the site will be piped into a private system. It will then be transported to the northeast corner" • " of the development and pass through a water quality facility prior to being discharged into Fanno Creek. S .W. Fanno Creek runs along the !eastern portion of the property and is classified as a sensitive area under Resolution and Order No. 91-47 . Being classified as a sensitive area requires that a undisturbed corridor be' providedlwhich is a minimum of 25 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined' boundaries of the sensitive area. The applicant has defined s ' pr the 25 foot buffer. the sensitive area and provided for t 11 Recommendations : TO_THECA A BUILDING PERMIT THE FOLLOWING'CONDITIONS � PRIOR ISSUANCE OF TTIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR'IFINANCIALLY SECURED: 1 .' The applicant shall obtain a permit from the StE4tc of Oregon ti Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of S . 7. Hall Blvd. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit . • 2 . Additional right-of-way shall be conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through its Department of Transportation, ,, Highway Division/ along the S .W. Hall Blvd. frontage to increase the right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing riht-of--wa centerline. Verification g n centerline. ion that the econveyance has been submitted to the State, shall be provided to the City Engineering Department. (FOr additional information, Contact M Myron Melick; Oregon Department of Transportation, Right-of-Gay Section, 7165 SW Fir Loop, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 684-1510) , 1r 3 . SI tandard half-street improvements�nts including clxdsng a 8' concrete rete sidewalk r driveway apron, curb/ asp haltic co ncrete pave m ent, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, sttreetligYts, and underground utilities shall., be installed along the SSW. Hall Blvd. fronta .e: I t �rovenents shall be desi ned and. c g' p .. Ig onstructedl to Oregon Department of Transportation street standards and shall conform to the alignment,' of existing adjacent improvements or , • to and ali g nment approved b y the Engineering Department. A copy y of the approved, plans, and any associated permits, shall be submitted to the city. ENGIINEER I 'G COMMENTS : SDR 92-20 SOLAR S , 4 • I I • • • °nw 4 . The applicant ma y pay a fee in-lieu of undergounding utilities along the S .W. Hall Blvd. frontage. 5 . The applicant shall pay all costs associated with the restriping of S .W. Hall Blvd. to include a left turn into the site as required by the q y e Oregon Department of Transportation. 6. Full width street improvements, including traffic control • a devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, gr nd utilities shall be installed • and underground within Drive. The improvements will he tha.� S.W.S.W b Fanno Creek ' required from the intersection of S .W. Hall Blvd. and Fanno Creek Drive for a minimum distance of 170 feet Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 7 . Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the S .W. Fanno The _ o Creek:..Drive frontage. T�i� specific right-of-way to be dedicated shall be determined by the City Engineer. In general the right-of-way shall be a full 50 feet along the south property line, beginning at the state right-of-way ht-of-way for a distance of approximately 95 feet. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated along the southern border of the property which follows the approved alignment of S .W. Fanno Creek Drive, r _ 8 , A profile of S .W. anno Creek Drive shall be p required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 9 . The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. The applicant shall be required to provide an on-site water quality f� �ilxt y as established under the guidelines o f Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47 . 11 . The applicant shall provide, as a minimum, a 25 foot buffer • which meets the requirements of , ' , w ' re uirements of Section 6 . 08 .3 of Resolution and Order No. 91-47 . 12 . The applicant� 't sha,ll provide a copy of the storm drainage easement for the ''property to the north which was granted to the Oregon Department of Transportation. 13 . The applicant shall be required to provide a storm sewer system . along the frontage of S W, Hall Blvd. , or an alternative, system pp by City g the Oregon Department that i s approved b the Cit En •�.neer and of 'Transportation NFE z G - �. � cc7�r�ENTr� SDR 92 zo s 0Ls 5 ..f....J.a,.,aW,«.0 .,.4-.4r1.1...i. ..Mw1, ....w.uJ-�-1, u-.J..:-.,ta a.._. a a..♦ .w 14. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile • construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved k drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements . 15 . Building permits will not Building � � of be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Depa._L-ment has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer- engineer agreement, the payment nf a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 16 . The applicant shall be required to obtain a "Joint Permit" from . City of Tigard. This... permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. . � 17 Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows : a) Centerline Monumentation 1) In accordance with Oregon Revis • Revised Statutes - g 92 . 060, subsection (2) , the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street Improvement. 2) The following centerline monuments shall be set : A) All centerline-centerline intersection d points . B) All cul-de-sac center p oints . b) Monument Boxes Required {; 1) Monument boxes conforming to City standards _ II required be :uired around all centerline II q e intersection points and cul-de-sac center . points : r k 2) The tops of all monument boxes shall be set pavement grade. et to g p � a ENGINEERING COMMENTS : SpR. 92-20 'SbLARES 6 ;; • • ' .«., _..,f, ..,.. .ar......«.„ .. ,w'i.. _......., ,v.,,,,...,.«.,..u... u„x... «.u,,.:...,+a.c ««.,•x:-+,.,..s _.._r..i ,w. ......,..,..-,,...,.w.,_.:;id.-.,.=..M.,._ wy4.,ala«ra.w.wu:..t'w:,::a,..w.±,' • IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST. 1 . SECTION 18 .120 . 060 BONDING AND ASSURANCES A. On all projects where >public improvements are required the Director shall: 1 . Require a bond in an amount not greater than 100 percent of other adequate assurances as a condition of approval of the site development plan in order to ensure the completed project is in conformance with the 'approved plan; and 2 . Approve arid release such bonds B. Tle r' and shall be released when the` Director finds the { completed project conforms to the approved site development plan and all conditions of approval are satisfied , 2 . SECTION 18 . 164 ' STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS • A. 18 . 164 .180 Notice to City Required 1 . Work shall not, begin until the City has been ` . notified in advance. an reason it shall riot 2 . If work.•;.is discontinued fox' , ' Y b e r esumed until the City is notified. } 4 , va • wrr R � City Engineer • APPROVED: Randall o e �. C sdr9 2 .CD rt ENGr�VEERSNG COMMENTS: SLUR 92-20 SOI,ARES 7 �` x .A. kutp • ; • • Respondence to: ,y SDR 92-0020/VAR 92-0020 In general I have no reason to oppose the development of this property, butt z do have several concerns as to how it is accomplished. To start with, the a pp l i.can t i s aski ng for se vera 1 I.1 . variances and has not stated a reason or hardship that this property or adjacent property imposes upon the development other than a preexisting flood plain. r can ably without reviewing the site plan) that a fewer number of . units could fit or the property and comply with the current codes. I feel the p roof should be the responsibility i t y of the applicant to show how these va riances won 't effect other d. developable land and cause a reduced level of safety to the . community. The development of turn lanes, sidewalks, bike paths, ect. on HALL BLVD. is very positive due to the lack of shoulder. Other .foot/bike ,paths accessing the adjacent neighborhood and future greenspace/wetlands is also a i positive. l' I am concerned about a couple of other things, With 1' only s, how will a fire truck or a school bus i. Onl one acres � (w'hich represents 8 stops daily) deal with the limited l) . . 'rni ted {•. traffic flow? Is a traffic signal being considered to t, .. handle the additional trips' to and from this neighborhood? i' ify last concern has to do with the storm water runoff, It seems that some control system should be developed to keep L1'10 O.t 2 Ci Ut1l EJCt V+c*tu [1 G at lit .t o 4-Euy 11 vlti iu'i vi't�aa yr . + directly into F'anno Creek. .I' don 't think it should have to 1; deal with flood Water or be but bu t some e ff ort to {Z maintain water quality 57 be zrnp osel! x i' Saving e� s t n g trees at the price of curving a sidewalk or street is to be applauded. In conclusion. i f staff i s satisfied that the i s for side-yard requirements, won 't impose variances hardship on adjacent future development, x won 't oppose them. 1 do oppose al lowing only one access with concerns for traffic and safety. oitlfsooim ill •� ' ,� : W'.illiam bawle r NPO5 • ,tom*"• �al ...,J7G...........J-„:...u..ww4.fl.n.::l.,-w.J.._W.......:I ...wi.—.,.:...._.....a.w.,.+w!w.......w....:...:.....,.n«.,_...e,.;.:..W. .,..«.. e.w.,..�lww. . .. • RECEIVED PLANNING SEC07199 December 1, 1992 • Mr. Jerry Offer City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 u Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: CASE IF3L E �?It S 92-0020 Dear Mr. Offer: I am writing you to express our concern about the proposed 62 unit apartment complex proposed on Tax Lots 400 and 500. I have made several attempts (both myself and n• y land use/engineering consultant WeelI Pacific) to it's impacts to me and my neighbors ptoperty to the south My g discuss focus primarily development on the and proposal's lack of planning as it relates to the City of Tigard p plan, transportation plan, s transportation g � ortaton nde and,its impact on the efficient use comprehensive tan, trans rtat�on Lan, ®I�C�7C of adjacent residential lands. 1. First, it appears that the proposal violates the City of TigardVs comprehensive and transportation plan as adopted. 4 The comprehensive rnpr�hensive plan clearly states that the City shall. "Plan for a safe and efficient street and system d Y i h, d roadway,_ystem that meets current needs a►'�,� anticipated future growth and development." "Develop, adopt implement plan p way _ master street Lan that anticipates all needed traffic way improvements so as�om an for the maste P p necessary resources to develop these streets when they are needed.►► y The trans oxtaixon plan map and 1 P � p P 7) ' need for street.connections between narratav�, (note 7 indicate the k, Htrnzike'•Street, Hall Botdevard at O'Mara and Bonita. Road (see enclosed e&hibit) Based should aced on the above we feel,that several planning issues should be examnned• 1, If the m sed development ment po l p ,changes alters or prohibits theconnprellensive plan from being� ' g mplerxented as adopted, a Comprehensive('Dan Amendment needs to,be applied fort I , 3. 4 .., e 2. The efficient use of currently zoned residential land needs to be examined. Does this proposal limit density on adjacent parcels based on the on-site circulation shown? We contend that it does. The land parcels in all's area are narrow and deep: This proposal sandwiches three undeveloped properties between two developed ones and does not show how these parcels can efficiently be developed using City standards: 3. Will this proposal satisfy the transportation } needs of the immediate,area,a.e._outside street connections? ,;. Each time we met with the applicant we told him that we had concerns about how the agnment of Fann li o Creek Drive impeded the efficient use arid development of the three properties to the south. Mr. Solares it declined to work out a more efficient street alignment regardless of the impacts to our property. Secondly, the proposal is requesting four variances to the development code. `' . I oppose his request for a access variance. The applicant contends that the request is not_self ' imposed. In actuality,the request is self imposed, in that the code does not dictate that the two 1 access points have to be off of Hall Boulevard" The second access could easily be planned into future street connections if such planning or analysis was ever performed by the applicant. ' I believe that this variance request: • 1. Is in conflict with the comprehensive plan,ODOT's transportation rule and limits access to adjacent properties. 2. Does not have special circumstances. The',applicant has not indicated other • alternatives that show hardship or unique features. ", 3, Adversely affects traffic man ag ement an d ad op ted tr ansportatio n plans. , • I oppose the applicant's request for exception to standards for the required sdeyard setback. The applicant's s re oast does not meet the standards of Chapter 18.54.050(e)and will adversely impact my property. c. A It appears that Mr.Solares,the applicant,is proposing a development that is based on changing significant and adopted City Standards Because of this I formally request that this development proposal be heard by a hearing's offic er or Planning Commission to facilitate public input and remove the Cir.,y`s liability with regard to discretionary decision making authority. Thank you. Sincerel , y� r b John season Sven Von Heideken Edward Finley CG.: Ed Mu ii)h y Chris Davies 2' � E ff I " t . 1` i 1 o• i • . _1 t see OTYS on ,,'_ ° } tact � f page . i �-. } _ o �prehelsive 1 � ' \� ..Y Q 1. - 1 i 4 N!,‘,.; '.N,*_,: t , _stil___ -, __..• , l'- • �r . . r l, , _ ansport � . - - -- ~C c„„c„Tx `ti.• \ J }1:, ,4-,E to t - ` \ �— ti� a ;: �� _� . i ;:- SEE N O r l Y - � L� gh i .- DR CR \ t A, is r 4-. �, sue:•' mi :..• q 1 G3TTId0T rea alp ,k,r s t - - .' \ � t x4..•,s.4 V/%/jam Study 0 -F - / ' ,t'-.gt q'- ■\ f�%,I�,.,;,'�ewS. tL Y�" t� 3 :, <: f, -- te' Area — - � ter;:`-:�7._. .N. VA t ,,-0.,. f �. jp�,j� tis,,:h, ��. �4f t .•?f f.,131 ;- Y i f..•;.i., E it 1 E E Li A t t e r a I.ff[ 0TE ,.r,, 4 S�E M , ra 0 � �� .��-�� actor • ` __ _ v >,......s.E r . „' 'wif.. ep ` its . F r e e w a } t i i , , s''''1, k .�N Interchange /,� r . i \' ,.,'e �_ dye.- /i 1Q n 0 •,_1 ;y i � D'gi tst data 8 map raprean- 1, r " � � � !N •• \„..,....:\\...,..,. tatica cenpilc� by khn iiY t_ D�rz�r+a s� sf Tigard ti;iza� Geita- l ti f ri -% -• phis afer�uaanSrzten� �_s� � � \`� GtS� sa{tsate. (afar i �, r� i r {p� 3' ian pertte�ed lore ,` T ti �\ tea h tntts3a3 to 4a . ��.� e i f - ;Y ,,•"!t-�-_-'ti i edditiasal } t ese3 e th se c i• ( ., techaicul aG"diar } z _ - C H Q F. 1 g ;ct•t}tttaki1a deka Ordinance �Io. - �a.�. sc-za i as dezermiaed 5j �f ? (! ►� vo�,�r.. the Cit al 7igar6_ Hp ROTE j ad-op b d See ek for ehe o . - d i. - is 's • I f: r COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP NOTES a f _ - r c llpRi s.i.vi&pi.At7 il 1.. Schols Ferry Road to be realigned to connectwitt/Davies Road. r sPOt .TZOxi t 2. Study area to determine a:future connection between the Watnuti132nd F° siOlr se t` intersection and the Gaarde/l21st intersection.: A maar collector extension of = _ Gaarde Street figs beenamrneried by the Northeast Bull Mountain ORDINANCE DATE Transportation Study Report. An indirect connection of minor collectors has i been recommended by NPO#3. _. 91-22 August 13, 1991• F • 92-0007 March 24, 1992 3. Approximate alignments are shown for the extensions of 132nd Avenue south of Benchv"iew Terrace,135th Areriue south of Wa�wt Street,and Benchview Terrace west of 132nd Avenue. These streets are to be designed as minor collectors with a design speed of 25 rn.p.h.. 4_ Study area to determine the configuration of a new connection between southbound-Paci dtlighrway and Main Street ',. r - . 5. Study area to determine the alignment of a minor collector street connecting r 68th Parkway near Red Rock Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension;and i. with Hampton Street at 72nd Avenue with the Dartmouth Street extension within the westerly portion of the Tigard Triangle. 6_ Study area to determine the argument of connections between Highway 217, • Kruse Way,1-5 and the Tigard Triangle_ 7_ Connections between Hunziker Street,Hall Boulevard at O'Mara Street (generally)and Bonita Road. 8. Study area to consider extension of Hall Boulevard southward to connect with • Boones Ferry Road in Tualatin for either pedestrian or vehicular access. 9_ A local street connection from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue intersecting 100th t ° Avenue either at Settler Street or at a point at least 100 feet from the existing r Settler Sheet intersection 10_ An extension and realignment of 109th Avenue soutth of the Saltier Street extension,to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway. The realigned , 109th Avenue shall intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately 250 feet to ;" 450 feet east of Pacific Highway.` 4 _ mptms.per 1 • mw n•F..nl,15n ..N,•„Fl.•,:I.i.H.re—,.F.•1.-Y:i..n a i:_.:x...,.1—..n.i...,...wn. r...,w'?:.,LL:i..........fr.:.i'.f.... , ........nr,.u...a..,n-4u+M1W'i.h'u:v.11M n.._4+.-.w.,f+.i....LaFw.k..r•.V,r.....F:mw:.,....l.Y-...,,:+w1,a.:.Itaw=» ' .,. '.•.•»a•.w..YYwxiiw wwn.+.:1..Fa lY.•..Ir.Ww.l+.,..i«v ,....w...:lw::1M..Jdrw.A'+a..Mi�r+.+rr+^WN+..` . • • • • SOLACES HOMES 13556 Twin Creeks Lane Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503) 624-9601 g , January 5, 1993 Re: Resolution of objections to Fanno Creek Village project r Hal 1<eever W&H Pacific 8405 SW nimbus Beaverton, OR Dear Hal: , Based on out conversations, and your statements that yoyou are representing Mr. Leason and Mr. Von Heidekenin this matter, and that you will obtain Mr. Finley's signature, I agree to change the proposed the alignment of Fanno Creek Drive as shown the e w n in t exhibit to �rour January 5, 1993 letter, however, this agreement is ir contingent on the understanding that Mr. Leason, Mr. Von Heideken' and Mr. Finley are all withdrawing all of their objections stated i in the December 1, 1992 letter and they have or will promptly sign your january 5, 1993 letter to this implement this understanding. r Sincerel y r Allan Solares • ' t . RECEIVED PLANNING JAN 0 5 1993 January 5, 1993 'r Mr. Jerry Offer City of Tigard . P.0, Box 2339'7 • Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: CASE FILE SDI"(92-0020 • a u: Dear MMr. Offer: After writing you last month about my neighbors and my concerns about the Fanno Creek Village Project, gY Y g � � Project, Mr. Solaces responded and was more sympathetic to our concerns about the street alignment of Fanno Creek Drive: and how it affected the future development of our property. We have met with Mr. Solares again and he has agreed to a compromised alignment of Fanno Creek Drive (see Cxhibit attached) Our primary concern with this project was the alignment of the future street connection to Fanino Creek Drives ,Based on Mr, Solares' willingness to modify the alignment nment as indicated on the attached exhibit • g Y g and build the road to the property line at his cost, the undersigned feel that we have a better opportunity to develop our property more efficiently. Should the City of Tigard accept this agreement between Mr.Solares and the urndersigned,we request that you make the attached road alignment part of the Conditions of Approval. We have indicated to Mr, Solaces that should the City incorporate this condition into the approval, we will withdraw our letter of opposition dated December 1, 1992. Should you have any questions about the future road aligntnerzt,please call Hal Keever at W&ti-I Pacific at r526-0455.' h S' ccrely, Ku' ire,, Johrt Leason Sven V on�leleken Edward Finley / n . . ..... ... wr..,x_:_w..-...«. ..•.. .....:........ ................_.:.,...- .w:.:.»...f1.,...r.:i.0....1 s• .»..n.....s.4.: ,-:,' +...,.. .x ,... 4 ...r .». .1,':. . 1_ ...... .. _.. ten. , • • SOLARES HOMES 13556 Twin Creeks Lane Lake Oswego, OR 97035 , . (503) 624-9601 January 12, 1993 Re: Civil plans for Fanno Creek Village Chris Davies Engineering Department City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Chris: As req uested, am submitting the plans for Fanno Creek Village. These include plans for Hall Blvd street improvements, . drive alignment (revised) , and storm drainage, and sanitary sewer as Prepared by Gilbertson Engineering. A copy of Fanno Cr plans for Hall Blvd has been recentl provided to Bob Doran ' the 1' recently p ran of n on several aspects of these plans, which need p . the ODOT Discussion clarification, is provided below. 4•' Hall Blvd Hall Blvd will be widened as shown on the attached plan, including an 8 ' sidewalk as requested. Per prior discussions regarding storm w i Proposing collect the runoff from Hall Blvd. drainage, we are to with a standard curb which drops to no less than 1" height for the second access driveway cut. At the north end of our property storm drainage would be ; collected in a catch basin and 'piped to an improved ditch on the property north of the project. The neighbor bo r to the north has granted ODOT an easement, which has been recorded, purpose. proposed basin will drain the area for this ux. ose The o t' e centerline north of h n line of Farina Creek Drive, east of the existing pavement crown (at approximately the legal oenLerline) and west of the proposed back of sidewalk. That area is about .23 acres. A design storm of 1. 2 in hr and 100% impermeability yields a design flow of .3 cfS. The catch basin's outfall of 8" PVC at 2% will flow about 1.6 ofs:. The proposed a 2 foot wide rectangular ditch with 2 .4 slope will carry the design flow at a depth of . 5 feet. Fire Lane/Dr ivewa�r I , We are also Proposing an access onto Hall Blvd. at the location of . • an existing driveway. This driveway will not serve the project as a whole. Rather it will continue to serve the existing house at the northwest corner of the project and also serve as a fire e lane. Ge he Birtchell of the Tualatin Vai1e y: Fire District has s tated that a fire y � that bane will be rewired and that this drivewa will .Meet ,I • . I II bpi :.A .;..w..al.....-,(4::a4e.w...+:1--..'a ...«. ...,..r»:zr.d4-+'ar.,.1.W...».+-:C.x.ui...J.w;M. a., ...r.I.trw.+:,A/:,J«,k:.a..a4.:iw.i-..+..aa._!J.v..r•-,w.a:,uu:c::n....a.ut.:.a..GUo-.•?:•«....N»3::A:.u..uaw; .txa...e.,.. «,»..+-,.Ix. .xa..a.,....x..:-...,...,+w ..t,.sw x..xr:x ;n:;r-•a..,•....r..,r+a_ .•. ...,.0 • requirement provided it is not used for other on-site traffic (except the existing house) , The fire lane will be separated from 4' ; the apartment project by a gate at the east end of the driveway. In the enclosed plan showing the Hall Blvd improvements, the width of the fire lane has been corrected from 15 feet to 20 feet as required. Also the parking spaces have been increased to 4 and . they they are perpendicular to the driveway the been reoriented so t (Q rather than parallel o Cr Fann creek' Drive As you will recall, Fanno Creek Drive will serve as the access, i.e. , driveway, for the project until such time as the off site' b properties to the south are developed and it becomes a fully functional street. In accordance with the City's request, we are proposing a full street improvement. It will have a 3-lane entry from Hall Blvd. and a 30 foot radius curb return. We are requesting an access permit for this purpose. For the time being, whiff Fanno Creek Drive is limited to use as the project driveway, storm drainage from Fanno Creek Drive will be transported along its curbs and then channeled along a temporary curb into the on- ' Sit;e storm drainage system. In the long term, when Fanno Creek l developed, storm drainage will flowing southeasterly along g = Fanno Creek Drives curbs to be icked up by the future drainage . p° p' y y� system. After the owners of the properties to the south of the project raised objections to the proposed alignment, I met with them and hammered out an agreement on a slightly revised plan. I have moved the P p oint at which the road exits my property eastward by a short J, distance. also, they preferred the road to have a gentle curve properties as they • °consiStent with More w .Felt it was c,on efficient edevelopment of their ro erties. With the adoption of ° alignment, the nei g hlbors °have withdrawn alp. of their ' this al�.gnmen , g° objections to the project (including to the variances) Please call me if you have any questions, or if there are any further submittal requirements. sincerely, Allan Solares • • • • • .44.,.■ ..« P.1 I" DEC 18 r 92 �5 3� REGION HW� D P est-!t rN brand faX transmittal mom�7 67i � pages s , RE VEST FOR c( From }"..� Co. ' Co. -7°` r << Dept, Phane M l 4 Ape 1 PRO*: Cigard to*artwent F k�' Fix O 41 . A. SITE � V'�L PME T 'REVIEW SDR ` -b0 0 V. - 0 � • � � � R� `1d D 32 2 �• AR 92_.f7 2f3 84I.A�S (U10 #s) _ request, for approval of the following development aPPlicationOt , 1) Site a,ewel, caent ReAe rra approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site tmpr'ov'ementa. A new ptib3Lic street heading eastward from Hall ' Boulevard Would be created, A portion of the original site is within the t00 Year floo plain of Fanno Creek and is °Proposed to be dedicated to the, City of Tigard; 2) variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential at ru ct4res whereas Code 8ectio "1 .86.030 (A)(1) requires a 25 multi ple family buildings with windowed walls ' facing each of 3) Var aa c approval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval to allow' . an exiSta,Tng structure on the site to maintain its current _six to eight foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 ( ,) (3)(c) requires a 1.0 foot side Yard setback; 5 S t,9 bevelo tient Review setback exce2tic�n approval too a11ow' a+. ■ 24 foot side yard setbac1c whereas Code Section 18 54.05© (3) (e) requires a 30 foot setback for the side 'yard of alt attached multiple faintly dwelling abutting a more restrictive zorling dtstri,ct4 A.PPLICA13LE REVXEW CRITERIA: Community , Development Oode Chapters 18..54, 18.84, 18.92 18.96, 18 100 18.102„ 18.106, . 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 13750 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S2 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE; X-12 • (Residential,, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple fatily residential units, residential care facilities, mob3..le home parks and subdivisions: public sxpport ' services, family daycare, home QccLi atons, and accessory structures ati Onq other . uses. Attached is the site Plan ar,d applivartt,0 statement for your review. From ■ information supplied by various departments and agencies and from op t e r information available to our staff, a report and recommendation wi ll be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. 11 you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Dec.t4, 1997. You may lase the space rovic)ed below or attach a separate letter to return your cs5 amente.. P p P 7f you ar_e unai2,1e to rash ,c,nd!_ lit the,' daFe please phone the staff contact` noted *below with your comments and corwfirm your coanments in writing as`soon as possible_ if you have any questions regarding this. matt talantlirig Depaerxtent, PO Bo* 23397, 1.3125 SW Fat Blvd., xi . OR,' - p 639-41171. 11,11.r. • s1AFP c NTAcT erxyr Cff s ' PLEASE OKECK THE FOLLOWING IT$8S THAT APPLY; 1992 w,•�yl w ll We have reviewed the prapc sal and have no ob j ecti 0 to it Please.i��p�y �y/ry'�/�{�.yp o out •� '{/a/�y ., � Please con■Mact _ s..�•,,,ws ”'f our6 office � ..a,� L rr. - Please refer to the 1 enc osed letter. t . 1 ;•�z 7 Written Oommentu; • c--e--4t-'55 -4} "t1-- ,f.e( , tc,w.�-----�=:�k' /`✓�S 11 .i ,:_ 4 ih�'-mod ,, '"lr'-..!rr:...u+: 1A.ywd+ 1ro Via.,..-. .. �.. 4. _., _ .+dt,6r �'„J�,+�: t'" ro 1 " Name of �erscn Coctentirig: � t�t'a'"'�,•lr-�;,� �"�" s�`" Phone Number" 4,.,--•;C1 J�."S ,j\//�I+'r�-�'"' tom'-�"f, Y�� '�...•'� '�`� � 1� • RE TJBST FOR COMMENTS TO: r l,,k k ° DATE: November 24, 1992 PROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES (NPO #5) A request for approval of,the following development applications. r� 1) Site Deveiopment_Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site -improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall 1. . Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site is within the 100 year floodplain of Fanno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard; 2) variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030 (A) (1) requires a minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls 3) `Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070 (D) requires facing each other; ) ( ) clu° s two driveways.,. for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50.100 units; 4) Variance; approval to allow an existing structure on the site to maintain its current six to eight foot side . Y y c) requires, a 10 foot side yard setback; 5) Site Development Review setback«e3ceotion approval to allow a 18.54.050 A 3 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (3) (e) requires a 30 foot setback for the side yard of an attached multi p le family dwelling abutting a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18 84,' 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18»120, 18»134, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 & 13750 SW Ball Blvd. (WCTM 2S2 200, tax lots 500 and 400) BONE: R_12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R- 12 zone allows single family attached./detached residential units, multiple family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support service, family da y care, home occupations, and accessory structures am ong other uses, Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. from inforraatior supplied by various departments and agencies and from other , p recommendation p 1 �.nforalation available to our staff, are report and recomcn�.ndat�.on will be ,reared and a decision will;be rendered on the'proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Dec. I4, 1992. Yoga May use the space provided below or,attach a separate letter to return your comments- / If ou are unable to res and b the above date: please phone the staff contact noted w with your comments and confirm your connnenta in writing as Boon as noted belo • possible. If you have any questions regarding this Matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 91223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Cerny Offer _ r PLEASE CREOIC THE rOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact ' of our office. %' Please refer to the enclosed letter• 1' Written Comments: ii7v/4k, t12. 6 7v . r i i Name of_Person Comment/ng: 'es Phone Number: , , G r , . , ...i.i,.+««........MC.,:ia...r.:u.a.l..:itv;�.a.._.. .-+:.N,w-:... ......... .. . .,t, ..,At. ,.,... .._...u....11..:,. a M.. L , .y RECEIVED PLANNN1n,r, ; fjEC O4 199 . December 1, 1992 c , F,' i rM 1. • Mr. JY Jerry Offer • • City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 . Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: CASE FILE SDR 92-0020 Dear Mr. Offer: • I am writing o g y u to express our concern about the proposed 62 unit apartment complex proposed on Tax Lots 400 and 500. I have made several attempts (both myself and my land us e/engineering consultant W&H Pacific) to `" discuss the proposed development and it's impacts to me and my neighbors property to the south, My concerns focus primarily on the p ro po sal's lack of planning as it relates to the City of Ti and comprehensive �`. plan, transportation plan, ODOT's transportation rule and its impact on the efficient use - • of adjacent residential lands. • First, it appears that the proposal violates the City of Tigard's comprehensive and transportation plan as y T ' adopted. The comprehensive plan clearly states that the City shall: • "Plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development" ►`Develop, adopt and implement a piaster street plan that anticipates all needed traffic way improvements so as to plan for the necessary resources to develop these streets when they are ti needed. The transportation (note 7) indicate the need for street connections p � tion plan map and narrative (n. between Hunziicer Street,Hall Boulevard at O'Mara and Bonita Road (see See enclosed exhibit). Based on the above we feel that several planning issues should be examined 1 If the proposed develo meet changes, alters or prohibits the comprehensive plait froni being implemented as adopted,a Comprehensive Plan Atnendmertt needs 10 be applied for„ L . \ , ,... , .a.. ... _.........,I..,.., ... .. .....I..`:M.. ,..+,..«;i...,w.a.__....,-....,..a,..=rim, _. ..-,.x...,,, .... ....... ....... .,.,.w ..,... .a. ..._. ._,. ... . .......w--w.l't ' ( '''''''. ' w..w 2. The efficient use of currently zoned residential land needs to be examined. Does this proposal limit density on adjacent parcels based on the on-site circulation shown? We . contend that it does. The land parcels in this area are narrow and deep, This proposal sandwiches three undeveloped properties between two developed ones and does not show } how these parcels can efficiently be developed using City standards. 3. will this proposal satisfy the transportation needs of the immediate area,i.e.outside street connections? Each time we met with the applicant we told him that we had concerns about how the alignment of Fanno ' Creek Drive impeded the efficient use and development of the three properties to the south. Mr.Solares , declined to work out a more efficient street alignment regardless of the impacts to our property. I . . Secondly, the proposal is requesting four variances to the development node. • I oppose his request for a access variance. The applicant contends that the request is not self imposed. In actuality, the request is self imposed, in that the code does not dictate that the two ` access points have to be off of Hall Boulevard. The second access could easily be planned into future street connections if such planning or analysis was ever performed by the applicant. I believe that this variance request: 1. Is in conflict with the comprehensive plan,ODOT"s transportation rule and limits access to adjacent properties. 2. Does not have special .circumstances The applicant h as not t indicated other alternatives that show hardship or unique features. 3. Adversely affects traffic management and adopted transportation plans. ' I' I oppose the applicant's request for exception to standards for the requi red sideyard setback. The applicant's request does not meet the standards of Chapter 18,54.050(e)and will adversely p PP q ill adversel impact m Y property. It appears that Mr.Solares,the app proposing p based on changing significant tt applicant,is a development that is and adopted City Standards, Because of this I formally re q uest that this devel1 .tnent`.:proposal be heard ' with a . •, e the City's liability , by a hearing's officer or Planning Commission to facilitate public input and ri�mov i re and to discretionary_ decision makui authority. , � g y Thank you. Si cc-;rely, 15/' y John Leason Sven Von Heideken ttidward Finle y cc: Ed Murphy 1 i Chris Davies 4 G 2 , a a kf K a i i:1 ti d' A ` • 'See N O T E � 'o r I N'k' 1.\,,,,,p., ' back of page . ‘••w: I ti •g E N aTE r , \ { v .��. • ,� • �r 1 a r } i r.4. a�ww.crrA • • of \`h,RD - k , , , . , 4 �• N" 11 F rr.. . . , E E I ;, /vim h� Q a� Q y� 4' • is ".. 3, N • : eu P L Z Jg Y / rr.•.mw•r.+.w'ems% ^'•..�^ ,yea+ ve►.✓ww 9n.� •- ♦.., 16,• SEE NOTE ' D f ......mss;rn" 1`1 .a d r no o a - i , -ae ' 3 1 - . add e d : I a p � � a, NOTE S , ,,, , 1, , . .• , , .„ , r G ' ' . , . .se" r' V � S10,7 SG ,(�lk �p, . ,, , . i 4J I , 4,..________ ., .., r ., , ,....._, ___________. --.....--N_,..,...._..,,—_,,,.. — -- --- -- ---- ,. .., ... ... ,,,...,. , , , , „ 1.. ,qty, .. 4 •• . . ,f, . . . . . . . , • a . , • • ...I • � -,-1, �,• The Ci ty of . I ,, .,,li. .- .,,.- 2 ., , N..-i 1 ' • r P e Comprehensive ... .- ,,,,. - .;At,, ,,,,,,,1.1,,, lioe ,,T ' OD. ' „ 1,1'''. i‘-+ \ \ ""'"" -*--,..•‘, I, Sr..., 'I p 1 • , ) ri , 6j ILJL \\ I r a fl S p 0 t Transportation , . � , ..'1;04.'N .„ ' ' ', .' . M . . c J/ , N ••I41 �\ ? ,,..,„,k, , < .....r.:4,,.. 1 q,�*,1~ ,'��.� P / ,.." I Figure� 9 0 T E ,-‹. '�. FY ®. \ \ .t e? y 1 .1 ''„,,,,.. \ ,.'`'. \\\N"'...':...'‘`.s.-.'-,..•.,''''*-...,citi.-..igilt:1*,:i ' :.:...'-',//1”. ''''' ,..--s-i- i ;, i \'' C o r.r i d o r '' . , \ r„..:!..,.,, . , . 1,,,„*&..:,::::ii:41,.,:.•-,,,.- .\\,; ''A' s /0 kri i 1.41-14-11 •.I; ,' �',i. �..$, '',�l`,,, c,L. :i::eiT.:ii.•, /,,, , LA Y L 1 L. a (�7 4 , ..0„..,.;:,..t.,...:::;:::$1:4,„,.,;:....0 , , ,�� S �1 r• ,4, .i�.• •,T1 1•,i,•j•Mif'�/ ,S�I�� ii:f.VIViO•,•1•.� 4°' ,�. � � Ie•.111iif•i••y°.4•♦ •iii".vi•t�, �7 ,e):4:;',!''4fa0.O ••'e•4e••e$0 i A"o �.^ e+e'a'•'O•••ei•11 +A •Oi`:ib4 1I//,,Y r • ,� q�� • i ,F;,,,..,ey �. ir' ` „ -,4::,...),3,::.4,;;;:..t,..:::::r•.. ..}. A r t e r i a l L. 6 n� � et.•. 1. • J if i • ` •d , S E � V t • siA p°.rP/ '%�'.„.„,.1,'•*i.4,. r',:$?,, ,ro0,..�dr if, `� d • 4 sr r� 1f'a o r w� 1,),,,:,„‘,,A Q i ��^ . �, �Ii;.wy • � a- . ate, .� \� . . o r ruTE 9 Collects 1 1 � I''%//,,, j/�, A. a<i • ST "r I .I IC li e e �1 a 1 P i r SEE NOTE bR .� •. g 1 ' k�,. bilildl data di map repr.staa• . ,. ,��..�. kalean complied by (ht colt; . �,` o( lig�lrd rllilizini Cecgre .4 p is le(ariaMlian S�,alem r t , rr,l GIS) a(QYare. ar— r; , 6et a d/' ) i i . .,�.��ti,ry�,{j� y rncllain parlreyed ire . �,• ti ` ;':F.” :•:: 1'le.,�:1:`r may b e i t C f Used lilt h eddllloial pleaded to be C. i .• 1 i N lathb[caI arld/ar inkbrprefatiye iota N 0 T E \ /I ' ' / 1, f il I � � �� +.•,•a,.±.•.�1..r •.i�.�.,.ai.+.+,1. ��1 b C 1 �� 0�' T I��>f�. .�/' � 'e•Dei••Sri•*••': x.•l.y{,9 p�p� ja ' 5600 (03ft9/91) 1 • r/1 A ' y) • •LD11PNt ; E PLAN 1. , •,. 2. • • 3 ORD]CNANCE • • DATA" r r 1'11 tit 1i 91-22 August 13 1991• • 2-UOO7 March 24, 1992 3. • • { ul ' P f J { x o If P 0 • ♦ 'j jr 1• t r 1 t r • 7 tf 1 1 r Ja i Y r• 1 1• Yi • a , • I t, ;, �il 'll � ;' r r 'ti 11• • .Y • +.i I 4. '� ,�.1 1 �.. S 1 '� a 1. 1. 4 ' 1 Y • i I 1 r ' y r .+ � "i al • , , I 1.; i I ( • 1 t ` •• i t 1 M y 'I 1 . I,, 9• � , .I , ' Ik I ,` 1 4 j • • w Da r f 1• it{ `'. .. .. �• � � ,j k }• 1 r r v't `- i • 4 1 ,may (s • Ir ; r , • r t t. ;i t ,t 4 4� ( '' I c „j , 1$' /tl IJ e ee • •t r , r • I' • • • .I, riA.NAw.nY.,n..,W.l,r -tt..m wti .+..1.x., ..,..M wrtt...v N11Ar i...1.;W.+o.µ+..♦m4a,.:+,nr.t..♦4.rN++4..:ry...,».Ynn..n tw..♦.vl...+..,wn!k.k..A..'.r. u.w,s.+-%M♦L.ix.'.t • • I _ h.n ^^• v. ,. AU it a..! " COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP NOTES • - {r • 1. Scholls Ferry Road to be realigned to connect with Davies Road+ i r 2. Study area to determine a future connection between the Walnut/132nd intersection and the Garde/121st intersection. A major collector extensionf;' Oaarde Street has been'recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain tarn . Transportation Study Report. An indirect connection of minor collectors has been recommended by NPO #3. , r®` w . 3• Approximate g for the extensions of 132nd Avenue south I; . l ali nnnents are shown mate of B€,rrchview°l errace1 135th Av nue south of Walnut Street, r roan • !� eet, and t3enchvie� a Terrace west of 1 32nd Avenue. These streets are to be designed as minor c collectors with a design speed of 25 rrawpwh.w �` ,• ar + t: '° a to deterrrrine the configuraticon of a new connection between ,at i ,, •, ,r ; southbound Pacifidilighway and Main Street. ,, i Stucdy.area to determine the alignment of a minor collector}street connecting 68th Par#cway near Red RoC Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension; anal: ' r riti7 Ham •ton.Street.at 72nd'Avenue with the Dartmouth Street••extension w th lt the westerly portion of the Tigard Triangle. . 1 + S$u Cy+ r ar e a to d e ter rip 1 net the alignment C corneCYions between Highway 2 t ,Kruse Wa yr1-5•and rthe Ti and 1'nian gle. Ir 7. ' onnections between.Hunziker.Streei l=lal! Boulevard at O'Mara Street (generally) and Bonita Road....,„...,. ��. 1 a • ,•13. Study area oemn consider extension of Hall Boulevard soathwa rd to connect with ill, rt 800nes =e+� Road in Tual atin for eaAl�er pedestrnan or vel�ic�.lar ass . ,. '1 'r j, 9 A local street conniection from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue irntersectin g 1 00th avenue either at Settler Street or at • + a point at least 100 feet from the existing Settler'Street intersection. I, Y ii I t, 1®. An extension"and ereali0.rimient cif,t oath Avenuc, sotitil of the Sadler Street ill { :y� ec;tensi0n, to intersect Pacific Higt way at Royalty F- arkway The realigned i;i . . 109th Avenue shall interregt lNlaeve Street at a point approximately 250 feet try sr '� 450 teet east of Pacific Highway. �° 1`1 r" ,1 ! 7 � i a , « h !I I 11 I r �,, r 11 �• i +..I mptrns.per 411 r , , i » r' d • ti „ I ,r :1 � i ; r � , i , •1 i 1 I i F "�`. ,.... .. - .,... ..,.. ., .„....... ... .. ....... ., . ., .,. . ...... ... .N .. .,4f3 e! ,,,.. .r., _,vii✓ ., .'u'.. • , .. ».._y.+.x».tl•.a,..,.a..:.::.w4•.1....,w:..F....,1.,„CY.<..,•„«.,t!,.M..k•'aw.r...l-++..,,.«r•-J....:a>'i.:.,.,+..r,- ,:.....,W...1J.-l:.r,.lw.,+h...-r+.`.i... ....n..:w..+.........a.;M•-14fF.i=...n..—M..:nIH..JLk..IM!"... .w,.1.M+vi....l..c+uNt., «t'.Arr.iW..i-.4:l aKwi.K.Ara-.#'.v,F4.u,-»M.... hxi.l.A4r':W...ravL.-= w.-M ri 4:..+.fAh1,:i,3YY:. RECEIVED PLANNING ) 1992 December 1, 1992 Mr. Jerry Offer City g of Tigard • p.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: CASE FILE STD. 92-0020 Dear Mr. Offer: I am writing you to express our concern about the proposed 62 unit apartment complex proposed on,Tax , Lots 400 arid 500. I have made several attempts (both myself and my land us%ngineering consultant W&I-I Pacific) to discuss the proposed development is impacts to me and my neighbors property to the south. My p conoeims focus primarily on the proposal's p • posal's lack of planning as it relates to the City of Tigard . comprehensive plan, transportation plan, ODOT's transportation rule and its impact on the efficient use of adjacent residential lands. First, it appears pp Drs that the proposal violates the City of Tigard's comprehensive and transportation plan as adopted. The comprehensive plan clearly states that the City shall: 'Plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated @ future growth and development" "Develop, adopt and implement a master street plan that anticipates all needed traffi'} way improvements so as to plan for the necessary resources to develop these streets when they are needed. nee I , indicate the need for street connections between The tron plan ma. and. narrative (note 7) e transports p map � ) • H'unziker Street, Hall Boulevard at O'Mara and Bonita Road (see enclosed ebit). Lased on the above we feel that several planning issues should be examined. • l, ,lf the p proposed de : p p development changes, alters or prohibits the comprehensive plan from being implemented as adopted, a Coin ,rehensive 'tan Amendment needs to b applied m lamented p p for, I I 1 . I O f W ''''-eY. 1. 2. The efficient use of currently zoned residential land needs to be examined. Does this proposal limit density on adjacent parcels based on the on-site circulation shown? We contend that it does. The land parcels in this area are narrow and deep. This proposal sandwiches three undeveloped properties between two developed ones and does not show , how these parcels can et lciently be developed using City standards. 3. Will this proposal satisfy the transportation needs of the immediate area,i.e.outside street connections? Each time we met with the applicant we told him that we had concerns about how the alignment of Fanno Creek Drive impeded the efficient use and development of the three properties to the south. Mr. Solaces declined to work out a more efficient street alignment regardless of the impacts to our property. Secondly, the proposal is requesting four variances to the development code. 1' • I oppose his request for a access variance. The applicant contends that the request is not self . imposed. In actuality, the request is self imposed, in that the code does not di.tate that the two access points have to be off of Hall Boulevard. The second access could easily be planried into future street connections if such planning or analysis was ever performed by the applicants A . I believe that this variance request: 1. Is in conflict with the comprehensive plan,OIDOT's transportation rule and limits ' access to adjacent ro' rtes• P I 2. Does not have special circumstanc;es,- The applicant has not indicated other alternatives that show hardship or unique features: 3. Adversely affects traffic management and adopted transportation plans. • I o pp ose thh e a pplicant's request for exception to standards for ar tle e q ul re d sideyard setback. The . applicant's request does not meet the stan d ards of Chap ter 1 8.54,050(e) .r . and awl ill adversely impact ; my property• applicant,is ro., c�sin a development It appears that Mr. Salamis,the is : •this� changing significant t that�ca request that this dev r' and adopted City Standards. Because of this.I formally re p t based proposal be heard by. b a hearing's officei or Planning Commission to facilitate public input and remove the �ty's liability with regard to discretionary decision making authority. g � i Thank you. Sincerely, ., / John Leason Sven Von l'•Teideken Edward wa Finley � � .. r1 c r''''? ''''''' c Ed Mu h' r.�W��`x Chris Davies ,., ,,,_!,„,,t,i, . q 2 • 1 . n a w ua •Ax,.,_.,_.:„1.,u,. ,...r_.L..1 a.-u.:..., , ..: .,,,.4,._..._... 4—.« . �. . .. >..... I.+... .,,.. ».,.i,M..� . p • . , ECEWVED PLLNNIN r,,,.• 9{11 \t4..HETLAND LAND USE NOTIFICATION F ,::dW DIVISION OF STATE LANDS WETLANDS PROGRAM ? t VI'S?;''"r :4),,.... i • . DEC 41 0 199 ' 775 Summer Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 :w: 1�, , :„ ,t ,- �, { ` 503/378-3805 ,� .) No. e • 1 . Count y htJ � Local Case F� !� . ��. � 0 �� City: A .� DSL File No. : Wit-J w �^ ea446s` 2. APPLICANT: f .LAi L Ot..i4 eEE LANDOWNER: � f,i T1-I Job te A . P ' name n e stree treet / 1d I MOoB _I `02fLi1 ' '1`lL 1 ' city , zip city state zip (Sc)?) (va '-` �f c i (Sic) 5 o 548"7_ ' phone phone ptI 3. LOCATION: , _ T ,�? R J . S ,.2 1 /4 D t) Tax Lot(s) ' W '4 NW'di quad map name 9671t)5 n.,-ro r.‘ 4 o-c (attach copy With dicated) d' Attached: - NWI map Parcel map k Site e plan ,,< Other opo 5 ' ' Y Erg 4, SITE INFORMATION: Pa.c-atcr,(5Ly NWI Wetland Classification Code Soil Series Name (optional ) (i f any) {�a�,,A .kr ,, '�_ `"__ R Y Adjacent Waterway •��. I Flood lain a Current Land Use 6';,, 1 . A : v`c Lc', c:.,-r/ 4`uI 1• ,e` Zoni hg C;-i -, pL.t k -+c1,.r l 1a uN; ', u.ev-z I 5, PROPOSED ACTIVITY: }. site plan approval subdivision 1, , ✓grading permit plahned unit development /j, f »!' • * conditional use permit public works ,pccify);A,:KP rc !L Wi '1r`t f / (%'bu rig l di ripermit other h Zone Change, to Project Description: f-,bopei d.(0v4)0% M) c 51'21C, i M u 0I. eMe14fs / u `,ii s �� s t jPeetir1,t.)ct Q e4 A ( , g-----1 �`'ve k V u enf C Ity o 7 . ►� Co m le te d b �C n to c� c ��:" �1 1� 3 , �'�v�� au v ate � 7 i Address I3I,1� -5GtJ i-� oL 4„.....Q.1) //6'e ° q 7 a.a. Phone �� ` (`zh1.1 form is c.' b6 comp2e0d only by Planning department staff for mapped we61ands) DSL, RESPONSE I 0 A removal--fill permit is required from the bivision of State Lands ,A re mnv 71�fr11 pe�' �t -W �1 be required whe n the deteloptnt project proceeds. L. 1 0 A removal-fi l l permit may be required Infor{mation needed includes : 1. . 0 A wetland detertimination/del iiieation report. Q • 0 State permit 0 was issued 0 has been applied for, 0 No removal-fill permit is required for the described ' , project if/because: a ermi t 'ma be e �p may r qu1 red by the Corps of Engineers s (325-6995) �: K . Comments: C.'Y,;',,,( s'± , �.v.,,,,,■/ G'a'. /// d?”" ,;4,4,,,;, "' ''N��'` •t*,,,,N 4.• 0( '''�~,WT- ,i.,,y I ,�/r,,e' .tc, 6„,...i.,;,'...,- Response ..Completed by i•.,,-� bate �.�� ' ''' If the `project i s changed to i f i l l or removal from the wetlands r 3 a state removal-fill permit will be requi red, ,e,r,�. 0 ~)- rJ ' ).e.a { ,-.es e; ,,r. �.�,>'. 'S w RE UEST FOR COMMENTS h TO: Y - \ DATE: November 24 r 1992 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 92-0020 VARRIANCE 1AR 92-0020 SOLARES (NPO #5) A request for approval of the following development applications: 1) approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site is within the 100 year floodpla n of Fenno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard; 2) Variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030 (A) (1) requires a minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval to allow i an existing structure on the site to maintain its current six to eight foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (A) (3) (c) requires a 10 foot a;°,,de yard setback; 5) Site Development Review setback exception approval to allow a 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (3) (e) requires a 30 ' foot setback for the side yard of an attached multiple family dwelling abutting a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 & 1315.0 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S2 2DD, :I tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single family attached/deta.ched residential units, multiple family reEidential units, r esidenti al care fadi li ti es, mobile home parks an v etons public support port services, da y care, home occupations, Besot y structures among other uses- Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Dec. X14, 1992. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comnler is o , If.,you_ are unable to resAg by the above d' ate._ c phone the staff contact noted below with y our comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon ae matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box questions possible. g p If :you have any ec�t�♦one regarding this., Tigard, OR 97223. PHf32�1E: 23397, 13125, SW Hal 1. Slvd 639-4171. r STAFF CONTACT: der_r Offer y ry. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have rev proposal and have no o the prnposa objections to lit. have b''e reviewed t iewP Please contact of our office. ._.�.. enclosed letter. Please refer to the Brit Written Comments: our • ♦ Name of Person dom enting • Ph! I , one Nuknber. • j.. ry rr t 7 RJ lt. �•, :., w y • ,1 ,w „dJ.. w.n.rwWu w. aiaavA« li Area 7‘'CornrnunicatiJo'ns Ccsittirylission Cable TV Franchise Regulation ' Tualatin Valley Community Access (TVCA) Public Communications Network (PCN) J; rr December 9, 1992 Mr. Jerry Offer Rhtl Planning Department City of Tigard P® Box 23397 comt,IllNl1'1'DEVELOPMENT Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Comments of Metropolitan Area Communications Commission on the ro sed. p � Fanno Creek Village development Dear Mr. Offer, The Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC) is a cooperative agency made • up of local city and county governments - including the City ot•Tigard for the purpose of authorizing and monitoring cable television service throughout the Tualatin Valley. MACC g g _ g y works to ensure that the best cable TV services are made available to the 16 communities it represents. In addition to franchise regulation, MACC provides locally produced cable programming p g Tualatin Valley Community (TVCA), promotes the use of the Public through Tualatin V'allc Cominuni� Access T'�'CA.1 and ro� Communications Network (PCN). . , In review of this project, we have two major concerns... ... ., that the developers insure that the 1. MACC recommends t . _ residents of the Fanno . g Ij have j • Creek Villa a develo meet have, franchised cable service available to them. t Franchised cable service is regulated by MACC on behalf of the City,of Tigard. Standards are established for Customer Service, Technical Performance, and repair service. MACC's • job is to assure compliance with these`Istar,,idards ' Franchised cable service is more than entertainment; it includes communit y oriented programming, local government progr.a.mining, and local educational programming, This r i , programming is an important informational link to the community, and is not available ■ through other television service providers.' The franchised cable television provider for the project area is Columbia Cable of Oregon. 2. The developers should notify Columbia Cable in advance as to when trenches will developers y be opened for electrr kity and telephone services so that Coluinbia can install cable most efficiently. Providiri3O service sine 1980 1815 NW 159th Place,'Suite 5020 • Beaverton, Oregon 9706.4555 • 629.8534 * FAX: (503) 545-5551 + Representing the communities of Banks,Beaverton,Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove,Gaton,Hillsboro, KKing City, Lake Oswego,North Plains, fRivergrove,Sherwood,Tigard,yard,•Tualatin,Washington County,and Wflsanvilie. • a~ «u. .� Ga=a iw Mre Jerry Offer December, 9, 1992 Page This will save the company money, and reduce costs for all of Columbia's subscribers. Thank you for your consideration of these comrrients. Sincerely, Josh Silverman Consumer Relations Coordinator cc Bruce Crest, MACC Administrator FANCRK'V'LLTR I i • n , � I . ,...........-«,s.,: ... ._...;;+,.,..:u...,u..,._..»+...,»..,..•..„a w.=:...c.w.«.... .:...w,..,.a_,.a.,...:w....:.w..,,u..,,.w....._...-.a-w,w.,...a«+-. ,.;,_.w,....._--«,J.s.1-.,,.. :..w..H.•...:,..•.....w:.:w«.......,.ti=«w+.,k.. w.,.,i..i... • • `4L REQUEST FOR COMMENTS �0E I;� PLANNING E. 0 9 1992 TO: k DATE. November 2.:42__L1.22... r FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR_92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES [, Nee #5) A request for approval of the following development applications: 1) Site Development Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site is within the 100 year floodplain of Fenno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of , Tigard; 2) Variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family whereas Code Section 18.96.030 (A) (1) requires a • minimum rcf 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval to allow an existing structure on the site to maintain its current six to eight foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (A) (3)(c) requires a 10 foot side yard 5) ea mt Review setback exception approval to allow a ' 24 foot side and setback whereas Code Section 18.54 050 (3) (e) requires a 30 y foot setback for the side yard of are attached multiple family dwelling abutting a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18..102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 & 13750 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S2 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single family attached/detached residential family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, I Public support services, family day care, home occupations, and accessory structures among other uses. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared decision will be proposal in the near future. If you wish and a rendered on the'.. eats by Dec. 14, 195' You may , to comment on this application, we need our coma► Use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. Ifeigu are unable_ to res.ond b the above date please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as � . possible. if you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard ? Department, 13125 SGT Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: Planning. ]fie artment, PO Box 23.397, �13 .2 639-4171. • 414 STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer .. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: +* We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please Please contact' of our office. I refer to the encica�ed letter. � • Written Comments: -r T)i2L ) r r } n Name of Person Cornrnenteng: e r jA^W 2a rte ... ' Phone Number: �� .�� • r _ fECEIVED PLANNING 'BEQUEST FO R COMMENTS 5 r., TO e J' • C DATE: November 24, 1992 199 g Planning p FROM: Tigard Plannan Department RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT .REVI..W,. S DR 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES :A (NPO #5)I A request for approval of the following development applications: t 1) Site Development Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with, related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site is within the 100 • year floodplain of Fenno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of , Tigard; 2) Variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple • family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030 (A)(1) requires a p minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two deivewayss for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval to allow an existing structure on the site to maintain its current six to eight foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (A)(3) (c) requires a 10 foot side ' yard setback; 5) Site Development Code Section 18 54 050 n(approval (e)yr to red allow a 24 foot side and setback and of an 30 . foot Y multiple y dwelling abutting y n attached. multi le fam�.l dw setback �zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community a more restrictive Develo p ment Code Chapter 8.54, 18 84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 08, 18. 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 13840 & WCTM 232 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400 ZONE: R-12 18 l 114, 1,8 12C! 18 13 144 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: w Hall Blvd. ( , . (Residential,13750 SW M 12 -units/acre) The R-12 zone ` allows ^ .single family • attached/detached residential '�n�-ts• multiple subd�ivisions,��public support �' , attached/det r services, family day , home mobile home p P residential care facilities,p p sory structures among other , Care hGltXle OCCLl ations, arid. accessory uE3e9. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From , information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other a report and p recommendation will. be prepared • information available t,o'cur`staff, ... ff, and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish ,.` to comment on this apelication, we need your comments by Dec. 14, 1992 You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. • P' p If y„gu arse txna ale to resipond by the above _date, please phone the staff contact ,. I noted below have any questions regarding this matter,in.writing as Soon as with your coittitiex7ts and confirm your comments✓ Tigard Possible,' If you hay y qu g 9 �r, contact the • Blvd., Tigard, 3. PHONE: 11 B 9722 9 Department, 13125 SW Hall OR Planxain De artment, Pb PO Box 23397 lvd. 639 41`71. . STAFF CONTACT: �crry Offer PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: XX s _ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. X? Written comments: has no objections, the District Although h the Water District , . • will enforce fire hydrant placement per Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue • _ Nam' Michael Nailer g' neering' Tech. III Name of".Pe:."eori Corntiieriting: �;ri 5. tlin : 639`-1554 • Pht�phone Nbef' I I , R . C RE UEST FOR COMMENTS " � TO: DATE: November 24, .1992 .�x t i fa FROM: Tigard Planning Department ',;r W RE:, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES (I PO #5) A request for approval of the following deee1opment applications: 1) Site Develo,pment kev eew approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site .improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall Boulevard would be created.. A portion of the original site is within the 100 �r year f1 ooaPi a i+n of Fannc creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard;, 2 variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple a family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96,030 (A) (1) requires a minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed wal ls ; facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code o Section 18.108.070 ' (D)` requires two driveways for vehicular access and for :. ' multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance, approval to allow an existing structure on the site to maintain its current six to eight foot side -'. g s Code Section 18.54.050 (A) (3) (c) requires a 10 foot side yard setback wh�.,rea.. .�. exception approval to allow a yard setback; 5) Site Development Review setback axes tion a ravel 24 foot side y ard setback, whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (3) (e) requires a 30 y foot setback for the side yard of an attached multiple family dwelling abutting a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.150, and`18.164. LOCATIONI: 13840 & 13750 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 282 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support y day occupations, y e g other • ' care, home occu at ions and acce��sor structures �myj� services, family da •. use£3 Attached i_ss the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information, va supplied lable to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared 1 ied by various departments and agencies and from �, '"� information available spar.ed • to comment on this application, we need your comments by Dec.' 4, 1992If You wish be , proposal in the near future. �� „« Yon may and a decision will be rendered on the use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are "unable to respond :Iy the!above datee„ please phone the staff contact ' osedbbel zw'-with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as noted below w�.t y 0 regarding matter, Contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 2339`7, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Qt fer .PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the Proposal and have no objections ections to it d Please contact of our, Office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comtents t , Name of Person Comzrie ntIng. , Phone Number a-; • • , •.a.:.. ,. ..:,....•,4a...........::.. ,,,..... ...«w....w:......,.,.:.«,.:...j.... •,..„,.«.+...:iw�,.. .:.-:: ,.._,+I..iw:. ,.F...«.,.H.i:.., 7.•......M,..ti..t.. «..,,..Gl;.c.. _:r»..,„.�— .mow. •...s::«—..... _s..•.A..+-,r.w:x-.......,....•...e..::k»..t.'.:.:. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ( , RECEIVED PLANNING � L.. e TO: �!� 1 DATE, November 24 1992 FROM: Tigard Planning Department DEC U 2 1992 REI SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR. 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES (NPO #5) A request for approval of the following development applications: 1) Site Development Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall . Boulevard would be created.'" ew bted. A portion of the original site is within the 100 year fleedptain eao Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard• ') Vara .nce approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple . family residential structures whereas Code Section 18,96.030 (A) (1) requires a p family 9• walls minimum of 25 feet between two multiple Tamil bui3.di.m o with windowed wall facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance• approval to allow an existing structure on the site to maintain its current foot side six to eight �•°•' yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (A) (3) (c) requires a 10 foot side yard setback; 5) Site Development keview setback exception approval to allow a ' 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code 1Section '18.54.050 (3) (e) requires a 30 setback for the side and of an attached multiple family dwelling abutting foot � yard p y � � a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84,' 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, -,18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 & 13750 SW Hall ' Blvd. (WC:Th 252 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple family residential units, es, mobile home parks and subdivisx,ons, public support residential care facilities, services, family day care, home occupations, and accessory structures among other urea. • Attached is the Site Plan and app].icant's ' statement for your review., From information supplied various departments and "recommendation wl.dl from other informations'' report be prepared • available • • • be rendered pn: ..,`I ,!••• •� t vo '.If and a decision wli], �_ rLU-..�n�t.,� `pro ..� u .' ..:1 ��^.L +�+�^..��.".' u�a•s,•... �.,�, �u�1.1 wi.u:7� I 'il • 1 92 to comment on this application, we need your comments by Dec. 14, 1992 s �' l lca•i•. � �^ � � . ,,.may L use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. lido axe unable to respond by the above date please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as ° possible. ^y any questions SW Hall Blvd., C)Ft 972:the PHONE: �.. regarding matter, Planning Department, PO 13125 ossa.ble If you have an� Planning Bo•� 23357, ► g r 639--4171 STAFF PB CCNTACT. J r y Cffa r' PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWINO ITEMS THAT APPLY: .n_y.. We have reviewed the Proposal and have no objections to it. . Please contact of our office. q Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: • Name of Person domMenting: � "' �. • Phone Number. • t't ,ti• L s .. ...r ...,....,'..., .. ,.....,..•_ ....».•.•-.-«... r...r..,i.i.•_..:_w,..A.•xw.wn>.,.A.:!M',.IA.1r+.W-'i(r'p:.,..... • u...,.,,.„ .. s M.-.r..l. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ,T v- ,,,,,,, i?ECEIVED piiiNN• � �� ,r'4 C�- �- DATE. ... No ernber 2 • , . , , ---------TO: �� 4, 1992 FROM: Tigard Planning Department Zi RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES (NPO #5) A request for approval of the following development applications: „,,,, 1) Site Dev22cmment Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall • Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site is within the 100 year fl hodni a tn; of Fanno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Tigard 2) Variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030 (A) (1) requires a minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for ' multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval to allow j an existing structure on the site to maintain its current, six to eight foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 ' (A) (3) (c) requires a 10 foot side yard setback; 5) Bite Development Review setback exception approval to allow a 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (3) (e) requires a 30 foot setback for the''side yard of an attached multiple family dwelling abutting 1 a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 38106, Development ' 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 13750 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S2 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single family residential care facilities, mobile home parks and family residential units, `•' attached detached residential units, multiple d subdivisions, public suppox't / cervices, family day care, hone octcupatiorna, and accessory structures among other Attached is the Site Plan and uses. information supplied by variouapplicant's dearments statement and a agenci es u and from From rr ation avaable t by staff, r p recommendation will fe prepared pared info 0 our staff are oat and r 11 be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish .,. , use the,rs ace provided below or attach a separate rnments by 129_9..:./.4.,./ 1992. Yoe} may ,. to comment on this application, p p n, we need your a letter to return your comments. ' Tf y oi l ar e unable 1 •. _res and b._ y ie abovE date,E please phone the i staff contact , noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning De g ,partment, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard,' OR '97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAF'F CONTACT: Jerry offer PLEASE CHECK TB2 FOLLOWING ITEMS_ THAT APPLY: . We have reviewed the proposal; and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. * Pl ra Comments: the enclosed letter. nts wr�r..nY' .Mrs.. .. ,. ,�• I Name of Person Con m nting: ' Phone umber '` , ` ,•'µ I . I I , I .R I , I �-•.. .•....,... ., .n„'..,., ..,•.;:,..... ,.,w,'.. .,.... •.,....• .. .. .,I.. ..,... • .... . •V m.e.,:l u..„. •x..v I. n . r f•, . v.i., r.µ.rn a•..... ,.u..,..,a 1,.,.... .. ., w • 9 J ` nl • 0 r"1NH—A w..a. » .,..4,,441+-,,,,,,:-,w.4,,U∎••.w... • 4,4•....-414 44.,..4...+:..... .4. .1444..1=4,„a.,. ,IE.a-,a.,. .eta.4,4..t:,t,,.. .:ti.s .'u:w..14i,•..w,x.. ...It.,LaanL.L.i-..wi- :.ua.,w.4J.;f4»i.:saw..Wr.<v..w:•:r:,,i....e.1.....dd:77.,.Y..w_1..s,.w.,,u.u:.c:1.u1.s14aI a .>.:tti ; ' I i t i fTigar6. -Tuc.tti�, ,t,1.,1, School Dzstrzct 23J {f Larry Hibbard Administration Center l! 13137 S.W Pacific Highway +t Tigard,Oregon 97223 Tel (503)620-.1620 Fax (503)684-2296 f l' `• P November 25, 1992 i' 4. r _ r tr i b ' • City of Tigard 1, Ferry Offe+r/Pl.anning Department P.O. Box 23397 �: Tigard, OR 97223 • Ir Dear Mr. Offer: • In response to your request for comments on the apartment i development called; Fanno Creek Village, located East of Hall across • ,dgewood the attached is submitted as a Statement of Impact. m �ro�. � as P Sincerely, s 4......_. Director of Operations • r • , a • - . _ _ TI5HHD .:-T LFHTIN SCHOOL DISTRICT lid i CITY DJUNTY RESHIENTIHE IMPHET STHTEMEN i i s Develo men t 11/25/92 anno Greek pillage Date , Number of Units: Single-Family 0 ', Multi-Family 6.2 f - [11 [21 [3I [4] [5J [61 1 - School Currnt Imat f I f A t- _ , t - - Design Actual Available Prior Approved this Capacity Requirement 1- 1 Capacity Enrollment Capacity Developments Developnien, (Sum of colurmins 2,4 &5) t EI mentary 500 414 o 6 10 5 429 Rhif Le,ANis Elementary � i i Intermediate 900 76 3 137 76 2 841 _ (Fowl r r` ltll�d. Soh_} k j {- High School - 146.5 1.574 -109 67 1642 F (Tigard Sr. Hight v For explanation of columns 1 through 6, see code on back sheet. Status. of School Impact i - "A`t School(s) capacity not exceeded (column 6 less than column 1) "B"B" School(s) capacity exceeded--core facilities are sufficient to consider`portable additions I Sufficiency determined by requirements of Uniform Building Code and/or City County codes. �---t. -} G School(s) capacity exceeded--core facilities insufficient to consider portable additions. Additional k - "G" capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District which include: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing r to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to new construction, and other housing options. I, ' These options and statements have been prepared by Tigard-Tualatin School District Administration Staff and approved by the Board of Directors. This school impact statement is for the above indicated development, and is valid for 120 days. i } Signed F Bud Hiilrrman t Director of Operations and Transportation (684-2221)} _ _ _ . j IMPACT STATEMENT CODE Column 1 School capacity reflects the number of classrooms, portables on site and Special Education program I - accornodations at an individual school. li: . Column Actual current school enrollment-kindergarten has been computed at one-half. Column 3 Current available capacity-difference of column 1 and column 2, { Column 4 impact of previously approved ':vel`opments - determined by School District housing formula (see School District Housing For:-iula shown below) _ Column 5 Impact of requested development - Determined. by School District housing formula. 1 1 �- Column 6 Adjusted school capacity requirement - determined by the sum of columns 2,4 and 5 - and places developmental 1 request in A, B or C category. ' SCHOOL DISTRICT HOUSING FORMULA SCHOOL DESIGN CAPACITY CURRENT ENROLLMENT" AS OF 1116192 1 f. Single Family Dwellings Tigard High School 1465 1574 Tualatin High School 1465 986 I 0.46 Pre-first grade children per dwelling Fowler Middle School 900 76 0.37 Elementary students per dwelling Hazeibrook Middle Sch. 800 7 0 9 i _ T c 900 763 — 1 0:��t 3 Intermediate s�udent.� per dwelling T uv�iity Middle School �.Y--s, 0.08 High school students per dwelling CFI-Elem. 570 492 { '. 0.57 Total school age students per dwelling Mary Woodward Elem. 600 648 li Durham Eleni. 425 380 I Multiple-Family Dwellings Templeton Elem. 550 552 E Metzger Elena. 550 48 fi 0.80 Elementary students per dwelling Phil Lewis Elem. 500 4-14 = 0.03 intermediate students per dwelling Byrom Elem. 600 595 t 0.02 High school students per dwelling Tualatin Elem. 600 559 0 13 Total school age students per dwelling Bridgeport Elem. 600 613 l TOTAL 10525 9540 i_ F RECEIVED PLANNING '; REQUEST FOR :COMMENTS .. TO: `-�u\4 d\, 9W ex. / 4 DATE: November 24 1992 w nn }p�•y��•/•J�� lk M�1' F Y69 1 • FROM. Tigard g rd Planning Department , RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 92--0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES , .. (NPO #5) A request for approval of the following development applications: 1) Site Development Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward from Hall •. . . Boulevard would be created'. A portion of ` ' site is within the 100 B f the year floodplain of 'anno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of , � : Tigard; 2) Variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030 (A) (1) requires a minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing other;each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code j Section 18.108.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for " multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval to allow ,., an existing structure on the site to maintain its current six to eight foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (A) (3)(c) requires a 10 foot side yard setback; 5) Site Development Review setback exception approval to allow a 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (3) (e). requires a 30 l foot setback for the side yard of an attached multiple family dwelling abutting a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA.: Community p Chapters 18.96, 18.100, 18 102 18. Development Code Cha tern ].8.54, 18.�4, 1.8,92, 18. , , 18.106, • 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 & 13750 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S2 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R--12 , (Residential, 12 units/acre) The It p) units, multiple z.zone fami ly allows single family attached/detached residentia l sly residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public. support ' services, family day Care, home occupations, and accessory structures among other uses. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other fr information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared , • ' and a incision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future.` If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by bec.14, 1992. you may LL use the space provided d below or attach a separate letter to return your comments I you are unable to respond sliande�.a fie date, pleaseitshonewthe staff contact noted below with our comment w writing as soon as • Ppossible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard lanning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639 4171. , °. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it r • Please contact co of our office. Please refer ctoithe enclosed letter. ...._:›e Written Consent s4: }I ' ..1. .,. ., ' Ur b Y S A has no objections to the requested variances f project. for the above named Site Develpment Should include the following; a I 1, designed in � as amended by g��5ect should ��. c�e��. riled �.n accordance with R&O 91-47 2 A water quality facility should by installed , :. <. 3,. public nv ha ~ i ng runoff from multiple tote� and/or ` • 3; Sto��n �onve �irices trarispor4-,� g 1a -of should be and centered within a min: 'a p " i easement �� Unified �even temporarily) . any � ' P j ,.:ied Agenc Would be pleased to assist in an. m y caner necessary to achieve the above goals I I �I r, P ✓ { r } y V4 TY , My I ,' I i .I J I • I • 1 • • ... µ.: RECEIVED PLANNING D�.`. ra, {�'' 0 2 1992 � 1 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNT • MEMORANDUM DATE: November 30, 1992 TO: ery0fe y g J fer, city of Tigard FROM ""';. alker, Unified Sewerage Agency ccr�ri L-� SU.GJ4 : 1 e Request for c Creek Village, � w Fanno,,� � comments for � • Sb 92-0020/VAR 92-0020 } USA has . no �� objections to the requested variances for the above named project. Site development should include the following: 1. Project should he designed in accordance with th R&( 91-47 as amended by 91-75. i. • 2. A Water quality facility Should by installed. conveyances transporting from • 3. Storm conveyances multiple lots and/or from public tin runoff f minimum �.5 ° easement (even temporarily) .ub�.ic anal centered within a rights Should be public � 4. Unified Sewerage Agency would be pleased to assist ini any manner necessary y tC� achieve the above goals. � Attachment /etp • • uua 158 North Fit'stAvetiue,Suite 270 Phoiiet 503/848-8621 Nillsboeo,Or•egoh 9712 . FAX'503/(340 3525 • • • • rM1•: R_,gQL7EST FOR COMMENTS f � • KECEIVED PIANIVING TO: ! ��A C DATE: November 24, 1992 • o FROM: Tigard Planning Department NO V 3 () f DEVELOP • RE: SITE MENT_1RF :IEWaDN, 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES (NPO #5) A request for approval of the following development applications: with related cite improvements. new public apartment complex Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site ire within the 100 L ' year floodplain of Fenno Creek and is proposed to be dedicated to the City of , Tigard; 2) Variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96.030 (A) (1) requires a . . . minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code . . Section 18.188.070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval to allow an existing structure on the site to maintain its current six to eight foot side { yard setback whereas Code Section 1 .54.050 (A) (3) (c) requires a 10 foot side yard setback; 5) Site Development Review setback exception approval to allow a + ,.. 24 foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.055 (3) (e) requires a 30 ' • � foot setback for the side yard of an attached multiple family dwelling abutting a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters ters 18.54 18.84, 18.92,p p 18.54, � 18.100, 18.ZOfa, ,,. .Z00 18.102, 8, 18.114, 18.120, 38.134, 180144, 18.150, and 13.164. LOCATION: 13840 & A LOCATION: '' 13750 SW Hall Blvd a r'nICTM 2S2 2DD tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple family residential units G• , mobile home parks and subdivisions, public st.pport residential care facilities m services, family day care, home occupations, and accessory structures among other • uses. a. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant review.statement for your - 'ew. From . pp by various departments and agencies and from other information supplied information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared will be Wondered an the Proposal i n l the `near future. .If you wish and a decision r p p©sal ry. by Dec. i4, . y may „ use the space provided below or attach a your letter to return your commen a to comment on this application, we need our comments b Dec l4 1392 You is d .f« /you are unable ores t2nq_hoy_the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any estions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning p , , Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: . I I 839-4171.De artment PO Box 23397, I 397,; 13125 5W Hall J�lvd. Ti and : STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer er � I • I I PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: F We have eviewed the proposal ;and have no objections e r p p to it • t , Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. 1 Written Comments: • i G. SCOTT' P �ThcYte of Person doormen �� I ting 721-2449 phone Number: 00 ' I b I I , i I I I I , _ I f REQUEST FOR COMMENTS To: DATE: November 24, 1992 ' FROM: Tigard Planning Department }, ' SDR 92-0020 VARIANCE VAR 92-0020 SOLARES . RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW � . (NPO #5) A request for approval of the following development applications: 1) Site,Development Review approval to construct a new 62 unit apartment complex with related site improvements. A new public street heading eastward froze Hall . Boulevard would be created. A portion of the original site is within the 100 year P and proposed dedicated to the City of e�r f loo, lain of Fapnpno Creek and is ro owed t p be .�p Tigard; 2) variance approval to allow a 20 foot separation between two multiple family residential structures whereas Code Section 18.96»030 (A) (i) requires a minimum of 25 feet between two multiple family buildings with windowed walls r facing each other; 3) Variance approval to allow one driveway whereas Code Section 18.108,070 (D) requires two driveways for vehicular access and for multiple family residential uses of 50-100 units; 4) Variance approval to allow ,, an existing structure on the site to maintain its current six to eight foot side yard setback whereas Code Section 18.54.050 (A.) (.3) (c) requires a 10 foot side yard setback; 5) Site Development t Review setback exception approval to allow a yard side yard of an attached multiple family dwell.requires a ng foot setback for the a ( ) ( ) 24 foot side • and set.bac3� whereas Code Section dwelling abutting yard ctian '�� 54�, � a more restrictive zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18..100,' 18.'102,' 18.106, 18.108, 18.1140 18.120, 18.134, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13840 & 13750 SW Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S2 2DD, tax lots 500 and 400) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units acre) The R-12 zone allows single family . attached/detached b p family • units, 't• a•�ta�ched/'det-ached residential. units multiple famil residential residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions public blic support services, family day care, home occupations, and accessory s tructure s among other uses, , ! your review.A,-,cached is the Site Pl an and applicant's statement for information supplied b various departments and agencies and from other information pP Y various P g other information commendation. will be prepared and a on available`#:o our edaon�the report o al in P p re the near' future. If you wish to comment on decision will be rendered , �f space provided p return your comments. M �.hise application, we need Yse separate letter�!-o�. 19 on�anents. d oi�r oomments b Dec 4 If�y ue are unable to d 2_ epond ry attach ove date lease p phone the staff co b the ab ....�. please P contact noted below with your . comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as �� ' w . possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard�.om�n Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: , 639--4171. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer E CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT ( ..., PLEASE APPLY: � , the proposal and have no objections We have reviewed t j ns 'to it Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. • Written comments: • II • Name of Person comznentirig Phone Number: .N., •.. .... .,.,...„.. ,,a.M _..- _J..«n.».h:...-V 4,...i..F.-. ...A.,.., .F,u« .,.u.1,.—.«..,..u..«..-...«..J;:.r:.1..:.:h:.n,A:.«. w.a.u_:.,...w.,.-.. .,.W..,..,.-.v n ate. ,.n>,..•.,..'....]:=a i.•5,,. , r;l SDR92-0020, V'AR92-0020 any the existing buildings are to be removed a demolition o If a of �. permit will be required, The septic tank shall be pumped out and filled in or completely removed. An inspection shall be obtained after the tank is faller. or removed. • A. copy of the r�e+�eipt, from the {{" pumping lom pan y s all be provided. If the Building is connected to t public , the line shall be properly capped-off, and •inspected by the city. a o A sewer ermit shall be obtained d pxior to the connection of the NI the sanitary sewer.' existing house to �' o The property owner must note that multi-family dwellings are subject the "Pair Housing Act' and- "Americans with Disabilities it,ies Act� ADA) for handicap accessibility, and should design the building according)yN • o The 100 year floodplain shall be clearly marked prior to the issuance of any bus.)ding permits. liuiiding Division Of • 14 57 • { fir • pl 0 . .,.�..1.... _..-..,.0 ..-.:..w...,..,...,.'...n.l ..._..�:.....,.... :_.. : ..i... A1. .Aa , r. ,wt•.a n • MACKENZIE/SAITO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING,;INTERIOR DESIGN t' 0690 SW.BANCROFT ST. • P.O.BOX 69039 •. PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 • (5503)224.9570 • FAX(503)228-1285 Y fl . November 16,, 1992 I r City of Tigard I , . Attention, Mr. Jerry Offer P. 0, Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 e Ill Re: Fanny village Creek llag I' I I I � Solares Homes, Inc, ^ A Iicant c Statement 3' I ISA Project Number 292210 Dear Jerry: • I Pursuant to the requirements of the Application for Design n Review the following 5 ummar izes • the proposed project Solares Homes ro oses to construct a 52-unit apartment complex, located on a site f;. p p A . abutting Hall Blvd., approximately one mile south of Highway 99W. The site consists of two tax These two lots comprise 1 lots (#400 and ; ( I d #5aa zoned R-12. approximately 6,42 acres bounded on the west by Hall Blvd., on the east by F,arlr.lo Creek, and on the north and south by residentially developed and`vacant la rid. �. u rren tl y, the site is developed with existing residences and several outbui d in s located on the western portion of the loci All of these buildings will be demolished, with t he r exception of the residence at the northwest i This i be level ooed in a i is residence . will west canner of the site The eastern portion of the,site compatible incorporated into the overall project, p m is open pasture land, sparsely scattered, ornamental; and fruit trees extending to the p � � p Y floodplain of Fanno Creek. The title sheet of the drawing submittal provides a densit.. calculation; based upon the p Densities are within'the re qui ements requirements of the Community'Development Code, dens " � i 1 of the Code. A number of public im P rover tints; dedications, an easerriPt",ts are being p rovided in assoclation with development of the project: 1, A dedication (of 45 ft, from centerline) arid partial street improvement of Hall Blvd. r li P I III Ft\02-11\0221 0\06Li.ko •I , I. .. .. .v ........ ..:..,:�, Ir a ., r. ...,. ....,,.,. r....r..,.. w. .. .u. r' ., r ...:......i .r....:_ r. ..I:,., • e 1"' t • /7 r 4 , i t t.r:.. , ..i..:.e., %,a.-•,a 4i.,sip.+.. .. r.::....1..-..r....r—....v...l...... .°.....,., .I..•..,,. .ni.., ..x.-1,.r•,.Im..4USn,+..... .:+.' ....u.- ,.sF.:..:i ..rw . -- .1... ......;rSHI..I,!!I :,JII,rV., .. ,u•. ,.r Mr. Jerry Offer Fanno Creek Village MISA;Project Number 292210 November 16, 1992 Page Number 2. Dedication and construction of a full-width street improvement for approximately 150 • ft. of Fanno Creek Drive a't the southwest corner of the property: 3. Construction of an 8-ft.-wide bike path paralleling the floodplain at the east end of the project, along with associated access easements. 4. Construction of public sanitary sanita sewer and w p ry a �d dedication of appropriate easement along the south boundary of the property, extending east and then south, connecting to an existing sewer. 5. Dedication of the area within the'floodlain to the City of Tigard or consery;;okfio g"rc)Ra°, h' y g ,�l � The ,..proposed a artment ro ect consists of ei ht new a apartment buildings p p p j 9 p ngs� a new community center/manager's g unit, an existing'residence, three new carports, and 10 new garage e g buildings, . A, n•t mix of �gone- one-bedroom units„ 29 two-bedroom m I ni t s, arid 12 three-bedroom units has been provided ap buildings consist of 3 four-plex buildings,'The a arl:ment buildin s c • • � , . stories high; eight plex two ' building, two stories high; and 4 10•plex buildings, two stories high, with basement units. • A detailed breakdown of buildings and unit mixes is provided on the title sheet of the drawing submittal. �• The community center is a single-story buildin g, which incorporates orates the manager's unit and manager's offie e: The community center ortao n consists of a large conirriunity room with 01' adjacent kitchens laundry facility, public restrooms, outdoor spa area with indoor and outdoor shower facilities, and exterior patio areas. Constructed in conjunction with the community Is a two bedroom drQam narager's unit. amenities include screened areas,Site a ed garba e g y eas, a recycling area, a formal play area wttl play structure, an adjacent paved plaza area,which is a corrrmon-arse 'area, access to the sidewalk and bike path 5long Parino Creek, and covered parking distributed throughout the . site in convenient locations: I t 4 p .,, a l ■,...:;- «,.;.•:.,. « y.,,:,. s...a.eN«,, i J - Mr. Jerry Offer Fanno Creek Village MSA 292210 2 �A Project Number ; November 16, 1992 f Page Number 3 l All ground floor units are designed to be handicap accessible, with access via ramps or walks. ifriterior amenities include larger doors (a minimum of 2 �1O"to all accessible areas), larger bathrooms for future conversion, larger�er it hens for future conversion version (outlets at 15 inches above finish floor; switches and ep tacles no higher than 44 inches). Rlockin g and backing have been installed bathroom areas for future g rab bar s, etc., as well as lever handle door hardware, and mixing valves in the showers and bathtubs .. Landsca p in g is designe d to comply with code requirements,rnents, providing adequate buffering ' screening and street trees along appropriate ri hts of-wa . In addition, a number of ke } and screening g � � - Y Y existing trees and groves of trees are being retained and incorporated into the project. • Parking has been provided at a rate of two spaces per unit. This ratio exceeds the minimum code required for �a rk�n g� Covered spaces have provided at a rate required ed b Y the code standard han dicap ..spaces are provided to meet or exceed the , minimum um b©de i requirement. A complete parking analysis is p ro vided on the title sheet of th e drawing submittal, ' Solares Hon'mes is requesting four variances as part of this Design Review 1 1. Decrease of face••to-face distance of window wall to window wall of 30 ft. to 25 4 • ft between the manager's unit and Building #1. 2. Request for a single project access from Fanno Creek Drive. North driveway to be used for private drive serving the existing residence, and emergency vehicle V access only, 3. Side-yard setback on the north property line for the existing residence, decreasing the requirement from 10 ft. to 5 ft. . 4. Side.yard setback along the south ro ert line, reducing required setback from g p p � g q a4t 30 ft. to 24 ft. 6 Additional discussion regarding these variances is cantalneci in Attachment A. Gilbertson Engineering has received permits for the public sanitary sewer. These pe;°rrmits have processed a d separately from the Design Review documents. ro 1,. • • • Mr. Jerry Offer • Fanno Creek Village LISA Project Number 292210 :» November 16, 1992 r Page Number _ • . Solares Homes retained Scientific Resources, determination for the site. The sources, Inc. (SRI), to accomplish a wetland '� � to project survey identifies these wetland areas as'a result of f • SRI's report. Currently, no development is proposed within these areas. ti. The Fanno Creek flood lain exists along eastern portion of the r �fi. vor c within • .. the consists on, and development of floodp aen consista of storm water outfalls, bike path construction,a water quality facility. Three previous pre-application conferences were held for the proposed project. These pre- application provided notes are also :�rovided as Attachment R. We believe that this proje ct is in compliance ance wst�the cu rrent Tigard Community Development Code Standards, with the exception of the variances noted above, regarding Please do not hesitate contact either me or Allan Solares, o olares Homes, g rdin state to con of S any i estions or concerns. Sin rely, 4' 1. Gregory A. rahc, Architect 6AH/kc 'Attachments: 1 Attachment A ' 2. Pre_a pp i`cati on Conf erence Notes cc: Allan Solares Allan Solares .I Ken Solaces Doug Gilbertson Gilbertson ngireering Dave Williams / Paul Chapel Mackenie/Saito 8 Associates F:\o2..i \92.21 o\o6L1.kE3 ' ,.,N., • '1 1 { Mr. Jerry Offer Fanno Creek Village November 12, 1992 , Page Number 5 Below are a number of items not otherwise addressed in this application/narrative: Nei'g hborho od Neet: g, met with Craig Hopkins an d members of the Neighborhood Planning Organization #5 on August 19, 1992 to describe the project and answer g11'.estions. Feel Construction Cast Estimate'. The construction costs exceed the $1 million maximum for the design review fee resulting in a fee of $2000 plus $8 Design Administrative Variance for applications. or the vesa. n Re�riew- and .A Lot`consolidation. A lot consolidation of Tax Lots 400 and 500 has } been applied for to the Washington county a s sesSor. Outdoor Recreation Area. Pursuant to Section 18. 120. 180.A.7 the requirement for shared outdoor recreation area, is calculated at 13,700 square feet. This project provides well over 15,000 square feet of such area. 4 Storm Water . In accordance with the USA Technical Guidance, we have designed a riparian vegetative strip to treat storm water runoff from buildings and driveways that conforms with USA requirements. Storm drainage details and calculations have been prepared by Gilbertson Engineering and will be Provided with the x p ublic improvement p ans Modification to finished floor grades for building icon �.o Cra,d�.ng� The f�.n • ay and garages of it, will be raised a proximatel 3 fee and the drive feet to allow storm water to flow north.. to the � y vegetative strip for storm water treatment. Fanno Creek. Drive. A diagram showing A` for +, a justification~ wing � potential alignment Fanno Creek Drive and a for this alignment are , attached. Hall Boulevard. We will obtain an access permit from the O i Oregon • g I i i A d street •intersection � � i , the prapr�se , ? State �i k�wa Division for � local �. A required 45 foot front with Hall Blvd. which will provide the r right of Way and will meet '!standard. half street improvements according to Oregon State Highway street standards p g ' ewalk. Pursuant to discussion with the Oregon Department sidewalk.. � g request t � t T � which does r�ot ...seek an 8 foot sidewalk we mere o that �ata,ori. wha.c y stated s rer uirement for 8 foot sidewalk be previously sidewalk._ q A A A h several reduced to a 5 afoot t ,' This is consistent wit sev'eral 1 other sidewalks the area. A map of nearby sidewalks � � p nearby provided at our request. ) . ,: p y q ) can + , d j. Q1 !! '' �� ( k N , - ,•fir�' ,1 ` .•.-+'.F .�.. I,.m--..,-•f'i� �...� ��w ..,wu+ _ _.. I.,.1,... .., ,•.!m...1-....HM �4.—.,,,�...,..Yt». ,. u...x., _, � ..,, . u,l�.n., _. 4 wv. I, ♦ n I l Mr. Jerry Offer ,. Fanno Creek Village • November 12, 1992 Page Number 6 ! , Easement. An easement will be provided to the City for the portions of the bike path and sewer accessway on the site. :44 P Si h. Te will apply for a sign permit prior to submitting building Permits. I Sincerely, 1 an Solares AS/as Attachments: Attachment C Fanno Creek Drive alignment .. cc: Doug Gilbertson - Gilbertson Engineering Dave Williams / Paul Chapel Mackenzie/Saito & Associates , I •„1 1 I , d I +I 1 •'1 jair ;” � � �•._ ' �� i r w�, _..,. x.,.. � �-.,., 9 a" 0. • EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE REQUEST We are requesting a variance for the distance between two ' ' buildings, two exceptions to the side yard setbacks, and a variance ' for the second driveway requirement. These requests are shown on - •,w • the Site Plan as numbered below. 1. Pursuant to Section 18.134.050 I am requesting a variance to Section 18.96.030 regarding the distance between' multiple) family y residential Tha.s section requires 25 feet . . I h' between two buildings with windowed walls facing each other. 'I The south side of Building #2 is the manager's unit which has Building �..� a kitchen window ing #1 a two story 4-plex f j `, ad scent to ,�.t» The manac er s unit is only a one story building window invokes the requirement I ng so only th:�.� one wx,nd A . requesting that h distance between Building #1 and Building #2 be allowed to be 20 feet. This request •. •: re uest reduces the required separation �y 20%. Buildin g #1 cannot be moved f south as it is already up against the required 20 foot setback from Fanno Creek Drive. To the north, there is not sufficient room without . either seriously impinging on the size and layout -r ' of the manager's unit or community center. More importantly, 9 f these buildings are moved, the rain east-West length of the driveway would be misaligned with the Community Center and . L driveway g y severely distort the site layout. The current requirement �.n. minimum�� d ca variance severe hardship, and Ith requested is the . would cause hMr7 i�r 1 1 v riance that would alleviate it. �• the variance re ties ed 2. Pursuant to Section 18. 108. 150, aM requesting an access , variance. Section 18. 108.070(D) q. eways for vehicular access and egress i vehicular access requires two driveways g � e fami�. resident al ' uses of 50-100 units. The Oregon De multiple of Transportation has stated that it would oppose ose a Second egress ee. s onto Hall Blvd. Thus am requesting that one 24 ' driveway � . serve the I, project. The se access will be modified to limit its use . to serving as a Fire Lane and as a driveway for the existing I residence. Jean ' _ Valley Fire District has stated that hell, of the TualatRin va an Bzrtc he will require equ�re Go. Fire Lane and that I. the existing driveway for' the existing residence is the ,,, preferred ation for it e � It would be 20 feet wide as � , required for a A4'ire Lane. Since it onl y the e iatin g residence would Use this drivewa y wauld exceed the 10 I foot width I ,' L ; required for an egress for 61- g ., � dwelling units wider section 18.108.070(D) y DOT has This This re quest is no t self imposed. A single egre8S will have leers . :m a � traffic. This is the minimum variance t hat would alleviate the • hardship. , I n„F... 3 e Pursuant to Section 18.120.a70 (or Section 18. 134.050 if a variance is necessary) I am requesting an exception to the side yard setback along the northern property line for an cxexisting ng residence. Section 1$.54.05®�3� �c) requires q uires a 10 • foot setback for the side yard. The north face of the existing residence sits at a slight angle to the northern pr.apety line resulting in an existing setback of front '.' approximately 8 feet at the ront of the residence to about 6 residence. ardship is not self • feet mosed the as the residence asn built Prior to the current ! • imposed project. It does not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. This is the minimum xction that wou ld alleviate the hardship. 4. pursuant to Section 18.120. 070, I am requesting an "Exception to Standards" for the required side. yard setback requirements along a short portion of the south property line. section ( ) ( requires 30 foot setback for the side yard of San 0 attached multiple dwelling abutting a more _ p restrictive zoning district. The abutting district is R -7 I am requesting that Building #8, a twe --story four-plex, be allowed to be located 6 feet closer, i.e. , 24 feet north of 9. the ,sout l property, ( j to Tax Lot 600) . The '° rn line (adjacent ' , a recreation area for children near the purpose p � to provide which is the only adequate ltIcation on center of the project y q the site. If the setback is not allowed, the play area would not be feasible as the only remaining location would be exposed to Fanno Creek Drive and th e adjacent nt property. This '.• could present a safety hazard to children in terms of both traffic and security. The requested exception is not greater than 20% of the ; o e required Setback. The exception affects only one two-- i story building. It will have no adverse effect on • is north , adjoining properties. It will not block light as it i� r • of the adjacent property and will be properly landscaped. • o MACKENZIE/SAITO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, INTERIOR DESIGN i • 0690 SW;BANCROFT ST, • PO,BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 • (503)224.9570 • FAX(503)2281285 4 June 29 1992 • City of Tigard Attention: Mr. Jerry Offer P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Village . ., ek . Fanno Gre . , Pre-Application Meeting Notes Solares Homes • MSA Project Number 292210 l Dear Jerry: ) This letter summarizes some key issues discussed during our pre-application meeting with , you on June 23, 1992, regarding the subject project. Present at the meeting were: Chris Davies (City of Tigard), Doug Gilbertson (Gilbertson , En g i"I eerin g I nc.), Allan S olares (Solares Homes), Jer ry Offer (City o g and), and Greg ( , n Hranac (Mackenzie/Saito & Associates). M provided brief description project '^ Align Solares rovlded a brief descrl tics of the ro�ect whlc,h currently consists of 64 one-, , • two-, and three-bedroom apartment units, located on Tax Lots 400 and 500. The unit mix ' of 24 three bedroom 24 two-bedroom, and 16 one-bedroom units divided up into nine y p buildings. The buildings i ' . � , g , g basically , W p g �p p units, with the kiu s are bastcall either four-. lex, eI ht lex, or 10- lex I n �. uilaln • 19 lex units generally fronting on Fanno Creek. In addition to the bulldln s, a recreation P � ,g ,. y , g g . • and managers facility will be developed, along with parking at approximately tvvo spaces per unit. • , Gllbertson Engineering, Inc., is accarn p Ilshln g the civil engineering n work for the Hall Blvd. ., improvement. the Fanno Creek Drive public , a:s well as associated public ., p my is irriprovement sewers along the south property line, and then generally southeasterly from the southeast corner of the property tying into existing public sewers, Gilbet.tsoen Engineering proposes to accomplish th e pu b lla improvement portions of the project o n a'separate track from the 1 •• develo pment of overall project on Eng ineering has prepared drawings for these • Improvementf6 a nd provided them to Chris Davies for his review, .., rt\02-06\92210\ 01-1,kc • , J I . Mr. Jerry Offer ' Project Number 292210 r, June 29, 199 Page Number 2 A proposed alignment for Fanno Creek Drive was reviewed. This proposed alignment is acceptable as long as it meets the City design criteria and allows for logical developm%nt the . • adjacent properties. The City's requirement will be for a full-street improvement from Hall 4 Blvd. to approximately the east line of the access driveway into the apartment project. This f. • should be equivalent to a two-thirds street improvement along the entire right-of-wG.iy being , dedicated. • Currently shown is a meandering sidewalk on the north side of Fanno Creek Dri\Ye, to save the existing fir tree. Any sidewalk beyond the right-of-way will require an easement dedicated't the i e to he �ty for access to the sidewalk. trees Street required. tr s Chris Davies believes that an eight-foot sidevvalk on Hall Blvd. will be re q : ,,. would typically be , typ y planted behind the sidewalk. Doug Gilbertson will review the sidewalk ' • requirement on Hall Blvd, with the State Highway Department. Currently, the State has indicated they would like the drive access from, Hall Blvd, to be a • curb cut, This is contrary to the City policy w hich will require road access and curb returns for the improvement. Chris Davies believes the City will prevail in their requirement for a full ,. street development, plan overriding traditional o��errtdtn i • trees develo ment as the traditional crite�is has been that the local Ian his ;i • authority to the State plan. Acceptance of drainage from Hall Blvd. onto Fanno Creek Drive is not a problem with the City. On a temporary basis, however, this drainage would actually be accepted on private , property p he ° � private drainage system for the Fanno Creek Village,project. as part of t • With the acceptance of the minor amount of storm drainage from Hall Blvd. onto Fanno Creek Drive, the State should not require storm drainage along Hall Blvd. and will allow water along single s' to drain north g the curb. Only a sin le catch basin or curb inlet located at the north • end of the property, piped and daylighted to the ditch at the north, would be acceptable. This is the preferred configuration for Solares Homes. Allan Solares has had some discussions with the ODOT regarding a median lane and related bike path, It would appear preferable with the Hall Blvd{ improvement to extend the median , , lane past the subject project to allow for safe left-turn access into the project. Allan Solares will continue to have discussions with the State and, hopefu.!ll ', the City of Tigard can coordinate with the State so that the best option . • c , pion fear all parties can be accomplished F: o2�O6 o2 o 29L 1.ko • •n i i • • Mr. Jerry Offer • Project Number 292210 • .,• June 29, 1992 ; Page Number 3 Hall Blvd. is eligible impact fee (TIF) credits. TIF credits must be requested within • g able for traffic 90 days of acceptance of the Hall Blvd. improvement by the State and City. Further investigation by the Design Team should occur regarding what can be included as part of • TIF credits. However, Chris Davies believes that engineering tine and the cost of construction for work beyond the 14-ft. centerline could be claimed for credits. Current TIF fee, as of July 1, 1992, will be $146.00 x 6.2 trips per day x the number of units. • This appears to be approximately $58,000.00, and should be clarified prior to final j calculation. • The question arose as to whether or not a water quality facility should be provided (Le., • • grassland swale). Currently, the Unfiied Sewerage Agency (USA) requires projects of this f' ' size to have water quality facWlit►es, In the past, the City has accepted a fee, based upon r $280:00 per 2,640 sq, ft. of impervious surface, in development of the water pious surface in lieu of the develo quality facility, The City would typically rather have the fee, and USA desires to have a water • quality facility in place. Currently, the City would accept the fee in lieu of the water quality ' facility. If a water quality facility were to be placed could any sensitive • q ty ty p don the site, it could not occur in lands areas. The reviewing agency for the water quality facility would be the City of Tigard. USA, however, would provide comments. . quality � r I .: The Design Team. will further evaluate whether or not to provide a water quait facility for this project and will have further discussions with the City. In general, the bike path (shown at the east end of the property) is above the floodplain and stream bank. Both t 3t least 30 ft. from the top any str the Tigard Community Development Code � Y 1 . ` r arcl Go . . and the USA Code allow for construction of bike paths and grading within the floodplain to accommodate the bike path. However, minimal surface grading only should occur without significant change in grade or land form, Should the bike path occur out of the floodplain, an easement will need to be provided to • area. the City of Tigard for this, p parking�_ The site shows arrangements, Jerry Offer believes that the tandem ' � we tenders arkln arrangemen an 70 parking arrangement Is contrary to the Community [Development Code Requirements and will Investigate further and contact me as to his findings, At least one space per unit is required to be covered, Currently, the proposed site plan is deficient for covered spaces P\g2- \9210\2aL .k • • ,. A r f 's Mr. Jerry Offer ` Project Number 292210 • c June 29, 1992 Page Number • I � . r i The density calculation reviewed and will re care that all ublic right-of-way be deduct was g p g �° s parking , from the gross land area. in?addition, a 24-ft.-wide aisle (private street) that serve pa 9 • also (and any turnaround areas) should be deducted from the gross land area. The current r�. i requirement, . ` ty therefc�rey is en will need to be reviled. , • density calculation � d I. � e proposal for fire lane only for the ac ce s s does need to be deducted uc to d as a private street. IVISA will discuss construction of the proposed fire lane with Gene Birchill to • • • further define the parameters prior to submittal for Design Review. It appears that three variances,/exceptions will be needed through the Design Review . process to accomplish the project. The variances are as follows: • -,.: t An exception for the side-yard setback of the existing house. •• '24 2. A potential variance for the side-yard setback, adjacent to Building #8, so that this ' building could be moved six feet farther to the south. • 3. A variance for the second access ...onto the site from the north. • • . A lot consolidation will be required to create a single lot from the current two-lot .r configuration. south side, Buffer :• � addition the side-yard setbacks, a �l 0Mft. buffer is required on the ' ' Buffering In additron to requirements are•specified in Community Development Code. Currently,the Community • am Development Code appears to be in error regarding buffering on the north side, Jeri Offer, 9 9 g Jerry however, ,. that we perform 1 , requests p m a reasonable job of buffering and screening on the north - side of the property , • Jerry Offer suggests we submit the project early enough, so that we may notify and :,� f local NPO neighborhood group. This will expedite the overall review process. f schedule the loco, 1 , , Jerry provide Jerry p the Jer will rav�de the contact in meantime to me. Jer recommends a presentation to group regarding project during •Design Review. neighborhood rcau re ardin the ro ect durin the course of De�rgn Revs Jerry indicated that the Design Revi,w process is taking four to six weeks, and we discussed 1 , possible means to expedite. Jerry said a full, complete application and submittal will be the • best expeditor of the entire project • • • Currently, site storm water i s s et t o discharge directly Into Pa n r�Q reeky wi with no c •si t e , reterrtion. • Ft 92.06 92.21q 291.i.kc I I II 1„4 , ,� ,; � ' n• t • . 1 a + /. • 1 .1 'M Mr. Jerry Offer Project Number 29221 0 I ,', June 29, 1992 . Page Number 5 ; r , Based upon review of the USA Code, it appears that the requirement for settaok from sensitive land areas is defined as 25 ft. from top of sensitilmc areas, or, in this case, based � sensitive, upon USA's requirement from top of the stream bank, the Design Team will proceed, based ' upon this interpretation. Garage J (indicated on th . . : g c° the site' � plan) extends to within 20 ft° of the south property line. The r Community Development Code indicates that garages could occur within 20 ft. of this side- yard setback. We, therefore, extended the parking and;paving to access the garage. In . addition, this paving will be extended to accomplish the paved connection frcirri the parking lot to the bike path, providing the required maintenance roadway for the public sewer along the south properly line, The Community Development Code allows utility lines and paths that access roads within '. ;. 'j. `• the required side-yard setback. Jerry indicated that, at some point in `time, an easement along the entire south property line ■ would be required from both properties,to ensure access to the bike path and Fauna Creek. We trust this covers the key issues as we discussed, If you find any inconsistencies or • rec-li any additions you wish'to indicate, please do not hesitate'to give me a call. . , Si carer y l egor 1 a a ,, A.chitect . cc. Doug it ertsan - Gilbertson Engineeringp Inc',, , Chris r• les - City of Tigard • Allan Solares - Solares Homes Ken Solares , Dave Williams - Mackenzie/Saito & Associates F:\01-03\9221 Q\29r_i,ktz i , ..• 1 ,• !I . I+ rV r w ATTACHMENT ii JUSTIFICATION 'OR PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF FANNO CREEK DRIVE { The proposed location for the future Fanno Creek Drive (extension) will serve Vanno creek Village effectively while still linking the existing end of Fanno Drive to Hall Boulevard in a short and r ex straightforward,, alignment. The Drive will serve as the driveway . for Fanno Creek Village until such time as (i.e. , if) the adjacent properties to the south are developed. The centerline of the right fir;, of way extends about, 170 feet onto the site. The drive then begins 1 . r ,r • r property which exits about 300 Feet a 165 foot curve radius off the • fr cam the centerline of Hall Bcul..vard. is suited 1- " The ro�c� i better suit. g tours than a more easterl�' alignment since it stays existing Con ys ; ' I away from the unnecessarily low 160 contour of Tai Lot 600. There { ' are no right-angled changes of direction. Also, an "S" curve could introduced part way along the Drive if. deemed desirable. uld Y � I ' I , , I Y I . i I I • I r Ir I ! •O .. ' _ I�� I n ' TQ C P • A r.l C HALO_' Sui3 014 l • • • 55 • •, , � I e' r , ii 1, ��. bi • ' ~ , CIVIL 0 STRUCTURAL Go TRANSPORTATION —.- .., JAN 1 . Please find aftached: _shop drawings ".' i "', .- ' hange order A. L ' . . ,.. detail,- i o'if ' • , . *' ' ... _calculations i. f i ' , ; Number of copies: Description: C .' • • • N♦ y, fi , M l a bike path and stormdrai na e installation within the 100-year •' •• floodplain of Fanno Creek, It is recommended that approval - , } granted subject to the following conditions: C Ci � E14) ,e,...--..,..........__ ,., `•- SHALL BE T RIGR TO THE 'ISSUANCE O �3L73��1�I�1G FOLLOWING CONDITIONS S S UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE,..; PERMITS. � IS T CHRIS DAVIES OF THE APF CONTACT I H ENGINEERING DIVISION: ~' 1, Lot consolidation -'� shall be completed prior to issuance of . .• building permits. Evidence of the consolidation shall be provided to the Planning Division. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer Planning D' vision • 2. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to ' destruction or moving any of the existing buildings on the site- Septic tanks shall be pumped out and either removed or filled with _sand or gravel. An inspection shall be obtained after the tank is filled. A copy of the receipt for septic tank pumping shall be provided to . the Building Division. STAFF CONTACT: Jim Jatlua,l . Building Division. 3. The F ite plan sh all be revised to eliminate the parking space along the proposed emergency vehicle access ,. y the northwestern the site. The driveway in t� � corner of � . applicant shall develop a plan for how the proposed j '' a emergency access driveway will be developed, This driveway 'shall be developed, signed, and maintained,-fog emergency vehicle use only. A minimum 20 foot wide lire , . ,, j_ane shall be provided. The emergency vehicle driveway access plan shall be approved by the • • , T .g and Police Department and Engineering Department, Oregon Slate Highway Division, and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue .; �istrict prior to the ssuande of khualding permits. vience of approval sha ll be provided to the Planning Division. STAFF CONTACT: Jerxy Offer, Planning Division. . ... 4. Additional details on the plantings along the northern and" southern, borders of the site shall be provided to assures that the screening standard 'Will be satisfied. • STAFF CONTACT: Jerry O f fern Planning DiviSion. 5. The site plan shall be revised to reduCe the size of all r proposed accessory structures ger than aefe tin size. STAFF� CONTACT: Jerry Offerr Planning Division I , 6. The site plan shall be revised to provide a sidewalk connection between the existing dwelling in the • - c the the driveway and/or nc,rt�.western corner o� the s3.te and th e 2 7 STSTAFF REPORT REPORT �- SDR 9 page • • • parking spaces serving this unit. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 7, `,•' - 1 1'tke plan shall be revised to provide continuous rrr lkwcx :c; 'nne .on.s between all units, the playground, the recreation buu 4.ding and the public sidewalk along S I Fan:no Creek Drive. It is reconunended that at a mininunu, an east-west sidewalk be provided between buildings 3 and 4 and garages es B. and C to ` needed J 9' to provide the ne conectiveness. A sidewalk between building 9 and garage :K is also advisable. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry offer, ` Planning Division. 8. Final fire hydrant locations will need to be coordinated between the Fire District and the Tigard Water District. Hydrants w:i.].l need to be placed within 250 feet-, of all , exterior portions all buildings; however, this ' distance may increased ' .• if buildings are equipped with fire sprinklers. Hydrants should be placed' at all '.�. intersections. CONTACT: Gene Birchill, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (526-2502) M„ ti 9. An access permit shall be obtained from ODOT for both the emergency access driveway and the new intersection of Fanno Creek Drive and Hall Boulevard. In addition, ODOT will need to review and approve the design plans and , financial assurances for the improvements to SW Hall , • ,. ulevard, inc Provisions r storm draina ge a e s®uth of the site. CONTAC�. Bob Cora I ODOT (229-5002) . 1,19-3.o. .• - • w� hal]. a for stripn• . s•ulev.l. • to x.' e .': n �. a 4,• C Bob •*.ira ) `"'vim n, t7DLDT 2.� �.5 0 ti� i r , • }' �.1. A joint. DST.,/Corps of Engineers Permit must be obtained i grading/ removal, or filling within the banks of Fanno ' . � w�.t I . • Creek will involve more than 50 cubic yards of material. . Division Lands <Wetland Program (3 7 8-- 380q(5(pryy� y p� COl`d:I.tl�..r.l.s of �01..�,ta,�. �..�a 12 An access easement through the site of t proposed �{f shall be granted �n favor of t lr�t� 300 to � • ' development �� provide for possible future - e joint access, between, t�'le5 parcels. , 13. detailed tree protection ` I • ;, A P plan shah. be sub�n�.ttedt tor types to and planning Division approval who. and which tai or re. includes locations a,n; es of gees. to be removed retained, an arborist o s recommendation for methods of protecting retained gees during cd:.onstxu ion the Pra p c ed' apartments en t s as well ell as for the long-term health of these trees. This tree protection plan shall include at a minimum all trees - SDR 92-0020 S�A,.�'F' REPORT - SC3IARES ' Wage 20 ! ,• • • I I r I r .. , designated for retention on the preli ina _ landscaping plan and should endeavor to add additional mature trees r ' as practicable. The trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or similar means approved by the Planning Division. No site grading., clearing, or l tree removal shall occur prior. to satisfaction of this , condition. 14, The applicant shall dedicate to the City as gieenway all portions of the site that fall within the existing '100- "' Year f loodplain of Fanno Creek (i.e. , all portions of T / the property below elevation 140.0) . 15. The applicant shall construct a minimum eight-foot wide asphalt bicycle/pedestrian pathway within or adjacent to the Fanno Creek flood P lain as in di c t ed on the site plan. Where the pathway will be loc ated on the development , site, a minimum ten-foot wide public easement shall be provided' In addition, the propose#S gravn.1 sewer access drive on the southern boundary of tie si t shalx 'include a minimum eig ht-foot w�do� �s p halt or 04: retepathway connecting ; the development's parking lot . th the public pathway. ` STAFF CCIT.ICT. Jerry Offer, Plannin g Division. 16 The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of • Oregon Highway Division to perform work within the right ; of--gray of SW Hall Boulevard. A copy. of the permit shall , / �. b.e Provided to th e City Engi neeran g Department prior to issuance of a City of Tigard public improvement permit. r ' ,. 17. Additional right-of-war shall be conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through its Oeparbment of Transportation, Highway site ton, along the SW Hall Blvd. frontage of the , 1 . � g Away Division, g y centerline. The description the right to 45 feet from , � increase existing scription shall be tied to the dente ing' right-of-way' centerline n that the conveyance has been submitted to the State, shall be ' provided to the City Engineering Department. (For additional information, contact Myron elick, Oregon Department of Transportation, Right-of-Way Section, 1165 SW Fir Loops Tigard, 684-1510) 18 Standard half-street improvements, including an eight , ' foot vIde concrete sidewalk, a •ron, curb, t asphaltic concrete pavement, . , storm ., a Aled drainage� and streetlights shall. along the site's SW Hall Blvd. frontage. Improvements shall be ,,• .�. designed npe constructed and `..... ' Oregon T �p arta exit of , Transportation str eet standards and shall conform to' the alignment of existin g adjacent improvements or to an STAFF REPORT PO� - SDR� 92�-0 a2Q 5OLARES Page 29 • • '� i 1.kl A Y 5 M V V•wV x r r•• • .. +rr•rr rir r r.+r r,r+ .r6 • ,nrr/r. .+ .r rVY .. . l/filF 1 i•tYi Ft t t Y 1. r r / •rs. ♦.rr r r.r rr . w +r.+ r n o , a 1. 7r alignment: approved by the Engineering Department A copy of the approved Plans, and any associated permits, shall be submitted to the City. 19. Typically, the City will also require that all utilities be placed underground along the Hall Boulevard frontage. However. if this is found to be impractical ii the judgement of the Engineering Department in the review of detailed improvement plans, the applicant may instead be required to pay a fee in-lieu o s � p �- of undergrounding utilities along this frontage. 20. Full width street i.(npro ements, including traffic control devices, concrete sidewalk on the north side of the street, `v aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete Pavement, sanity eet.. dry.,�eway p" . ry sewers, storm drainage, streetlights,. and underground utilities shall be installed within SW be l from the intersection improvements will b� required Promo Creek tersection wi h SW Hall Boulevard for a • minimum distance of i' . feet. Improvements shall be designed and constructed cal street standards. 21. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW Fanno Creek Drive 'frontage. The specific right-of-way to be dedicated shall be determined by the City Engineer. In general the right-of-way shall be a full 50 feet in width along the southern Property line of the site, 1 p p ' beginning at the state right-of-way for a distance of approximately 95 feet. Additional right-of-way shall be �., dedicated along the louthern border of the propexty which follows the approved alignment of SW Fanno Creek Drive as illustrated in the January 5, 1993 map prepared by WH Pacific. 22. A profile of SW Fanno Creek Drive shall be required, extending 300 foet to the south from the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 23. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage _nst runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways g . • y impacting p 'thQut si� nif:�F..a<ntl� � awn, a�cting properties downstream. . , wi �„ 24. The a licant shall provide p � - d31 be required to .• i an on-site water p alit. facilit as established under the guidelines� �" y� of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and ' Ordex Vo 4 91-47 25. shall, at a minint�.�m a 25 the a.pplx� ant provide, � foot buffer on either side of Vann() Creek 'Which meets the. 3 o f Resolution and Order requirements of �Section `6.(�8. v esol�.tio No. 91.47. STAFF IR.t P O T SDR 92-0020 sOLs Page 30 1 r , ? - :TA S. $ 26. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawing.? shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven ik . (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final i review and approval (NOTE= these plans are in addition to ar;. ° drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. , q 27. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering.. Department reviewed app roved the public improvement plans a street 1' . opening permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance, or letter of coirirrtitillerkt, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign irist liat3.on/ r streetlight fee are required. 28. The applicant shall be 4 required to obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of Tigard. This ,permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. 1, 29. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as i' follows: I Ia) Centerline Monumenta,tacrn . 1) In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes f 92.060 subsection (2) , the centerline of all N street and roadway ri ghts_ofa way shall be before the monumented b t City accepts i is a street I improvement. e w 2) following shall be 3 The fol�.owin centerline monuments she sets A.) All centerline--centerline intersection points. I' b) monument Boxes Required 1) Monument boxes conforming fo x � n g 'to City standards t� ( will be + required' around all centerline L { ,arse ti �• u�. de sac center intersection points and c Points. I' of 2) The tops s of ail monument boxes shall�. be set to P 1 finished d pa�rement grade, STAFF REPORT - D R 92- 0020 -- SO +�S Page 31 . •, i1µ ', C :641 V'. 0. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE .ACE GF' AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR AIRY BUILDINGS ON THIS SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR A !' SATISFACTORY ERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MAY BE POSTED GUARANTEEING COMPLETION OF THE NECESS2 Y INPROVENENTS W►3'ITHIN NO MORE THAN SIX • MONTHS OF TI ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT. 30. Appropriate signage shall. be placed at entrances to the a.partzt ent complex and adequate addressing shall be placed t entrances 5o on n.n, � that emergency service providers can locate units quickly. The developer shall contact the Police Department prior to occupancy of the complex for review and approval of the si'gnage and addressing of the comp1et. T 31. All landscaping materials and other proposed site f improvements shall be installed as per the revised landscaping and site plans. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639-4171) 32. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning !Division prior to the erection of an identification sign. Sign location and size must be in accordance with the . of Sec . y pnion_t 1,; provisions Section l8 11,4 of the Con3munit Develo Code. Sign locations and/or height shall not <conflict with regi.irec l vision n clearance at intersections. 34. Adequate vision clearance at intersections shall be provided in the installation of all site . nprovements. It be the responsibility of the owners of this P rnt to assure that vision clearance is maintained throughout usage of the site _ zaintenance of all g g through , structures, signs, and vegetation both on the site and . within�n th e public right-of-ways abutting the e site. ; � I :4, THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID IF EZE 2CIS;PrD WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS OF THE FINAL 1 I PROVAI,' DATE. r i f w I PIMP D , . - ry Offere Development Review Planner lii T B Dick, 53=?fersdorf Senior APPR0�1' C► EkX o f, Senior planxzer I I 4 STAFF REPORT OR•T' SDH 92-0420 SOT.,iiit8S Pane 32 I J d ti r J . i . • ., ,,,..:. ,,.....0 a,,4, aia. .,+u:ru.i'. u w>_,,.»s:- ,i-,mr ss,.:,=-w xn•rnr,r;�.aa7..nbri+a..:a.u•xir.u.r,., 4,:tc,�. MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED - - 7 LR J- -( UL- U n1 � CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • TRANSPORTATION -_- -1 - - — MACKENZIE/SAITO & ASSOCIATES, P.C, �- -- ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIOR DESIGN ARC RECEIVED PLANNING 4 0690 SW,BANCROFT STREET • P.O,BOX 69039 PORTLAND,OREGON 97201-0039 u ' (503)224.9560 (503)224.9570 FAX(503)226.1285 JAN 1 1c19'.. J Date: January 13, 1993 Project Nur .ber 292210 To: City._of T%..gaIt'd • Atterl!:ion: Jw ;>" ter Project Name: 1= rk • Please find attached: shop drawings Xx plans samples specifications copy of letter —change order details . calculations Number of copies: Description: 9) S-i e --- o.g-i-ii;ev.,-r1-a.g-- a l'1 aria. _ • ,, For our 1,/,;lie Xr---rot r..�r review e N For approve! _.,_,. .As requested REMARkS: Copy to: i, Signed: C1^ecl Nranacf sy , Mailed , XX belivered ' ,. • To be picked up , It onolo$Ures&1'e not am fnotodr k!h Iy notify U8 at oned, ' • k, i < J , I , m _:WAF'9NG T ON COUNTY OREGON f- ' SCALE 1 — 100 3 .. ..i.'..-431-,_4.,v 1 4 ? f i;1!7,4.- .f r.,li.Y,c,•,/N/•v Y/e*,`,,♦Y,•W,SLY!♦Ys1.YAKGv//iill1,1/J////!J/!/1/////J/Y/J//'L1/J/ , . /egn. //� /U// /)�/ /!J//if/ lJ/ l�/� / ! %//I�////M.,///>//'!/f/.O,`/Y" �}`l//i rlYf / �s'/Y//iH 13'//YiY///y/isf//////�////'t4t�>.d�Y t } •- j 143. I0 ' t 1-300 4 :TAc- t f .. 7/Ac i 1 _- _ 3 :.'ss i t i - 3:37A€_ - - . — �n I -1 8 , l t 569°40 W ae j t-2 0 EAST I3 Z4 CH_ 8735 -_ - WEST S SO CH. 640.8' gi TAX—LOTTED ZS-I—I g=' i E 2.6 6 CH: f - W T— r '* k 3`00 f64c : ; sir 1 i 0 ' 2 t W Z65.ZS t k 1 6 \ c.... , _ Z L'- ._ „_-=,., - . . ,_ _, _ tu: _ : 4,_:_,_, - . , _ •--,Y; y5,3 G f .- .- --_. —... rte..r, _ _ �. _ .s_+.-' ...,arts-. s ._.\ x, r, n r--.) k t.. I:_;. - ...._,...,) j a-..- : —., -. ,...•?,,„ ,g...,.,_-_ C( - JI�,Q�CH I, Qe • r � • • I'wR1rn Y� 4.H':wimk.. ...rrl..Urwx...w .r+t.j.M�•...a,Jxl tne.w-;n4 .a. .:r. rlr '4r!..fE%1'...Jrnu.- 1.1.7'=1y-,�,:r-ry tn..M4N i..J.ww, r Mn.r.r, ,..;-1r ....w....:1,.-w..,,.. u.wrytiu...l.i:-'�...hmkww.•;:-:L..w..1nt.Jf �� y "' w J .+w Iw,....1...r:K'2L't..;..«.a•..Lt...kvJL•w..,.-4fkHr.L'�i-V..tu::Jl.1->•.rr+adt I f 6'£ 31.0 �,y . .r.,•,i„...r� ....doe. ir. VNYdGb� 3N11 1 + 4 f r` � r I v I error r,`r 0 • r r I � C 1.. � t I ti D o r _ I a; w 1 L 44 i M /..� i ai , { at."bpi• L A N� �Li1rY 6B { t nl di 1. bbl Ot"aS�1 Ii M �a. .10 S i'C�!I CD , i-2iiot,Oi 010 fr1 - - -A-. _ - 3 � r „.„,:•-,,,z. . [ r - S , . ;,„, c'/J:�f,y,., - /i/..f/. L ll a� i.. . _ „• , �G r•� �.: -. .r .r i Li•L: a <._„,, +„,„„„..,„//,%/f.,...,/... Il,..„/!1iffYlH_ 100_ roo a ii® r4 J: �d� SEE MAP - 1501 _ 15 1400 1300 40 ' - \� .64Ac. .47Ac ,54Ac 71 Ac. S 0 • r ey 3.3TAc• . - 1.,.....- I-55.80 --- ,_ 1 60 O 49AC_ a 238 c++ - °' Cr' 1 200 ' > I .92A_ c_ .. i ` 255.&0 1603 - - = 300 if siA i - 1604 zSi'S '_ -1 {: 0 4c�.dC si 4 - • z- - a .T5AC i 160 r °: 44Ac i ZaS $ 31%.- a o5.23 O SEE MAP - z , 2S 1. aD C 1600 1000 , - 69 Ac., .62Ac:. -- t o °t!!.W NO9 40 E 270.9 f Zoo :. 4®0 ” 1 -F' z' 900 :.4® c 9,02 - 9031 N. — _ • _ , • k ZOO y - - .40Ac , .. I• _`' t t zoo iu € i - I 9°1 . 6 ° ' 0 � I - ., 3: _ . 415.73 H r - X . � 1ST 33 31 30�'E . I 81 !. 1- .— 810 • Q:. n a _ o .3�aiIG s ' ti .m - � 75! a , ps` .�: � /. 120 °� Lam.��/4 - A • 53 , a QED.NO. 2309 3 �G°� - ' Z 144/26 a9 . 80 R - 8!c �® _1.26 ,.?•, 8› 80 . . -813 s . b 3t�, a,11 6'96`>i�Yi�i t. - .0.." �/e r/////i!////!////J/lli1 /.,/./ liiii./../ eV./. h-i Zpt ..�r 369.1 - - f � 100 - - 1 10 80 805 _ ` - s y = - 800 0 14 .. 4 fie: .34 Ac. , . etc. _ ,40 Ac ,NrC s` ..3 t.'r. .3 Ii f Q .w_ A 6 c WIT1AL P01iiT 100 riipci� 1:9'v 1 0 ,, Q - ... 275.04 [ 7i!/l/J/, �'Y///'////l////// J'�!/Q'/."'/iJf/f///4f.''./. - / ' / !//. /.• ///f/_! ///,,/ /,,,,,//i. ,. ..°1..,,i �i,,,,,Ji. ,t.4it✓..�i.�.iw..N�e,;v._. ,. .. en _ 1111TIAL L EN1A� ' S 1 !IAA I { , -20 f - fl. t • .a..a...;.: .r ;�di, U.,•:• •„.v,:•„ ,...,,..�,..0,a.....:.:::;»..c�.,_..w;.P,:4„ .w. ,.,� .... +'...._ ��.r G.. ;.�...» „c,:,:;,..r u«,,._ ;.wu.+�..wst:z„. • it yy • X011. c,,j .•i � � � i I it J /J/ / / r r�,'TJrl)772.7 ;)/rl�r'l,W.yJ'r .J iI/ /. ii.K'aa✓//� r ///i'/ii%/!/ +/ / /A r�r"i';q'', r �, � � �S..•,J�i / �• rii/iiFi/// /1//ir/ii/J///r////✓ os 17:1 Nv 1 1 I Pia i I 0 N I 111 f I 1� t it AI/ r I Y. • n" te;__ _ _ _ _- _ y - i N{ _ 12.64C14.. c ii 4+ _ a .fi�/ _- k ' - _ _ ''''''. : - - 11'.' " as 0` Ng - V:' -7, (. Y � _ \ O . - .....,„-4->,.-,..:T. _ 'o ti .o , i✓•lI,.l��irlt../.>1ili,'f{eg 3tl��iJ-, �y—/!/!/!.%!!/////!//llta>�!////r��l�/!!!!/!//�!ltl,"s!/�//r/ 3 yw•Mw�it> r - T �R�S[ S TV i . T.;G A R D� • SEE MAP _ 2 a zee s 1 2 D D _ } .. :T�� 6b9,_ "` —'-'+ate-w.,... .- ,. • ,..,�,-_„..• -- - - ' 4 Ir; • „' ..,.„..... ins • • 1 L • OVERSIZED , . i,,,•. 1 l, '' F L . .. • . •, . . , , , .. , , . . . . . . .. . „ . • , , . . . . , , . . • , . . . . . r . , • , .... .. . , , , , , , • . , 1 , , , . , , ., . . . . . • , ,, , • , a • . . . . . . , . .. . , . . :, 1 , , , , ,. , . . , , , , . . . .. . . . . . . . , , . .. • . . . . . , 1 , , . . , , . hf . . • . , . . .. . . , ..., , . , . , , . , , ,. ,• . . . . . . . . • a,. 1 S` I ■ �9. 4