MLP2005-00011 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION
. °
MINOR IIAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-00011� .
HELLWEGE PARTITION • � .
120 DAYS = 5/24/200G
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY �
FILE NAME: HELLWEGE PARTITION
CASE NOS: Minor Land Partition (MLP) MLP2005-00011
Street Improvement Adjustment VAR2005-00081
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Minor I,and Partition to partition one (1) existing
.41-acre lot into two (2) parcels for detached single-family residences. In addition the applicant
is requesting an adjustment to street improvement standards for SW North Dakota Street and
SW 92°d Avenue.
APPLICAN'T: Mark Seaman OWNER: Same
8407 SW 58�'Avenue
Portland, OR 97219
ZONING -
DESIGNATION: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential Disttict. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate
detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size
of 7,500 square feet Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally.
Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
LOCATION: The subject site is located at the southwest corner of SW North Dakota and SW 92rd Avenue;
Washington County Tax Map 1S135DB,Tax Lot 4301 (no site address).
PROPOSED PARCEL 1: 8,480 Square Feet.
PROPOSED PARCEL 2: 8,387 Square Feet.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW �
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments); 18.390
(Decision-Making Procedures); 18.420 (Land Partitions); 18.510 (Residenrial Zoning Districts);
18.705 (Access Egress and Circularion); 18.715 (Density Computarions); 18.745 (Landscaping
and Screenin�; 18.765 (Off-Street parking and Loading Requirements); 18.790 (Tree
Removal); 18.795 (Visual Clearance tlreas); and 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement
Standards). �
SECTION II. DECISION
Notice is hereby gi`�en that the Cit�- of Tigard Communin� Development Director's designee has APPROVED the
abo�-e request subject to certain condirions. The findings and conclusions on u-hich the decision is based are noted in
Secrion V.
NOTICE OF DECISION :�II,P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTIT'ION PAGE 1 OF 25
_ '
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING DEMOLITION, GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR
FILL ACTIVITIES:
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, alo gwith any supporting documents and/or plans
that address the followu' �g requirements to the CURRENT nPI.A.NNING DIVISION, ATTN: Chery1 Caines
503-639-4171,EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the�required information
is found:
1. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance,bond, or other means of
ensurin�compliance with the required mitigation in thc valuc of$32,250.00 (258 caliper inches x $125 per
caliper uich). Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance a�ith 18.790.060.D will be credited
agauist the assurance for tvvo years following final plat approval. Aftet such time, the applicant shall pay the
remaining value of the assurance as a fee in lieu of planting.
2. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved
Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shaIl also include a construction sequence including
installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing,grading,and�aving. Only those trees identified on
the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision.
3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to
protect the uees to be retauied. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purp ose of
monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protectton measures are perfo�tnuig
adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be
grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site unnl remediarion measures and/or civil citarions can be
proccssed.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED �
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT:
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, alo gv�-ith any supporting documents and/or plans
that address the follow�ng requirements to the CURRENT IPLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Chery1 Caines
503-639-4171,EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information
is found:
4. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat that shows the visual clearance
area accurately,in accordance with (TCDC) Section 18.795.040.
5. The applicant shall record a restricrive covenant with proposed Parcels #1 and #2 that will include a
reqwrement for planting street trees as part of any future street unprovement.
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, alon.�with any suppo ng documents and/or plans
that address the follo n� requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM
MCMILLAN 503-639-4171wi, EXT 2G42. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the
required information is found:
6. A Public Facility Improvement (I'F� pernut is required for this project to cover sanitary sewer taps, the new
driveway approach,public sidewalk, storm culvert and any other work in the public ri�ht-of-wap. Three (3) sets
of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineenng�Department. NOTE:
these plans are in additton to any drawings required by the Buil� Division and should only include sheets
relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PF� permit plans shall conform to City of
Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, wluch are available at City I�all and the City's web page
(www.tlgard-or.gov).
7. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the
individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Perinittee", and who wi�l provide the financial
assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the enrity is a corporarion, limited parmership,
LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and pro�nde the name of the corporate
contact person. Failure to provide accurate informauon to the Engineering Department will delay processing
of project documents.
8. The applicant shall construct a public sidewalk at its ultimate horizontal and vertical location, based on the
Ciry's TSP, along the site frontage of North Dakota Street. The sidewalk shall also connect back to the paved
NOTICE OF DECISION MI.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTTTTON PAGE 2 OF 25
8. The applicant shall construct a public sidewalk at its ultimate horizontal and �-errical �locarion, based on the
City's TSP, along the site frontage of North Dakota Street. The sidewalk shall also connect back to the paved
portron of North Dakota Street at each end of the frontage.
�
Any proposed alternarive to the sidewalk locarion, ui ordet to save trees, must be submitted to the City
En�nneer and City Arborist for review and approval. The alternarive submittal shall include, at a nunimum, the
honzontallayout,grading plan,easements and the project arborist's report. ,`
9. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay the addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart,
Engineerin�.
10. The applicant shaIl execute a Restricrive Covenant whereby theyagree to complete or participate in the future
impro�ements of SW North Dakota Street and SW 92°d Avenue adjacent to the subject property,when any of
the following events occur:
A. when the improvements are part of a largex project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a
Loca1 Improvement District,
B. when the unprovements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the
City or other public agency,
C. when the impro�-ements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and in�ol�res the
sharing of design and/or construcrion expenses by the third party owner(s) of pxoperty in addition to
the subject property,or -
D. when construcnon of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in
conjunction with construction of unprovements by others adjacent to the subject site.
11. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the pxoposed shared
driveway will be joindy owned and mauitauied by the private property owners who abut and take access from
it.
12. Priox to final plat a proval, the applicant shall pay �1242.50 to the City for the striping of the bike lane along
the frontage of Norh Dakota Street.
13. The applicant's design engineer shall submit documentarion, for review by the City (Kiin McMillan), of the
proposed discharge of stormwater runoff from the two parcels to an approved public drai.nage system.
14. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW North Dakota underground as a part
of thts projec� ot they shall pay the fee in-lieu of under ounding. The fee sha11 be calculated by the frontage
of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be �35.00 per lineal foot If the fee option is chosen, the
amount will be $ 6895.00 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval.
15. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water Dishict for the proposed water connection
prior to issuance of the City's Public Faality Improvement permit
16. The applicant's final lat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global
posinorung system �GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same lule and
shall be of the same precision as required for the su��division plat boundary. Along with the cooxdinates, the
plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from
north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by:
♦ GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey.
♦ By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
17. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to
practice in Ore�on,and necessary data or narrarive.
B. Attach a check ui the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Plannuig/Engineering Permit
Technicians, at (503) 639-4171,ext. 2421).
C. The final plat and data ox narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05),Washington County,and by the Ciry of Tigard.
D. The right-of-way dedication for North Dakota Street to 27 feet from centerline and for SW 92"a
Avenue to 27 feet from centerline shall be made on the final plat.
NOTTCE OF DECISION :vII.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTTTION � PAGE 3 OF 25
E. NOTE: Washington Counry will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from
the Engineering 1�epartment indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted
comments to the applicant's surveyor.
F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for
City Engineer s�n ature (for partitions), or City Enguieer and Community Development Director
signatures (for subdi��isions).
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF SITE OR BUILDING PERMITS:
The applicant shall prepare a co�-er letter and submit it, along «-ith any supporting documents and/or plans
that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION,ATTN: Cheryl Caines
503-G39-4171,EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required iriformation
is found:
18. Prior to building pemut issuance the applicant must submit a site plan that meets the setback requirements for
the R-4.5 zone,mcluding a 15 foot street side yard setback for parcel#2.
19. The applicant shall include the requirement to plant street trees as part of any future street improvement in the
restricnve covenant for proposed Parcels #1 and#2 identified in Condition#9 above.
20. The applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least,
once every two weeks, from uurial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through home construcrion,
as he monttors the construction acnvittes and progress. These reports should include any changes that
occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of
TI'Z was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the
construcrion acri�rities to the trees did not adversely unpact the overall, long-term health and stability of the
tree(s). If the re�orts are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it
appears the TPZ s or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work
on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist This inspection
will be to evaluate the tree protection fencmg, determuie if the fencing was moved at any pomt during
construcrion,and determine if any part of the Tree Protecrion Plan has been violated.
21. Prior to issuance of buildi.ng permits, the a�plicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the
trees that were preserved on the lo� locat�on of tree protecrion fencing, and a signature of ap roval from the
project arhoxist regarding the placement and construcnon techniques to be employed in b�ding the house.
All proposed pxotecnon fencing shall be installed and inspected pnor to commencuzg construction, and shall
remain in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree
protection measures may be removed.
22. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction for each
lot to the effect that any tree larger than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous
according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree
preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree.
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supportin� documents and/or plans
that address the follo requirements to the ENGIIVEERIIVG DEPAI�TMENT, ATTN: KIM
MCMILLAN 503-639-4171�T 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the
required information is found: �
23. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a
"photomylar"copy of the recorded final plat.
24. During issuance of the building permit for Parcels 1 & 2, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality and
water quantity fees per lot(fee amounts will be the latest approved by CWS). _
25. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant's engineer shall pro�-ide final sight distance certificarion.
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS OF THE
EFFECTNE DATE OF THIS DECISION NOTED UNDER THE PROCESS AND APPEAL SECTION
�F THIS DECISION.
NOTTCE OF DECISIO'�i �fI,P2005-00011/HELL��EGE PAIZT'ITION P.�GE 4 OF 25
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Pro�er�Hi_st�
The sub)ect lot is located within the City of Tigard. The property is designated L,ow-Density Residential on the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Map. The subject lot origuially platted as lot 1 of Dogw ood Ridge in 1951. A lot line adjustment
between the site and the properry to the south was approved in 2005 (MIS2005-00012).
Site Information and Pro�osal Descri�tions
The subject properry is appro�cirnately .41 acres in sizc. The site has approximately 197 feet of frontage on SW North
Dakota Street and approximately 92 feet along the right-of-way for SW 92°d A�enue. The ptoperty slopes gently doum
towards t11e north. The adjacent properties are developed with single-family homes.
The owner is proposing to partition the vacant site into two new lots that share an access onto SW North Dakota
Street. Proposed parcel#1 is 8,480 square feet and proposed parcel#2 is 8,387 square feet.
SECTION N. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site providing tliem an opportuniry to
comment. T'he City received comments from Richard Mobley, Ryan Truair, Karen Estrada,Jesse Emory, and Jeffrey
Kleuunan for Kevin and Stephanie Viaene.
Richard Mobley opposes the street impro�-ement adjustrnent requested by the applicant due to safety concems. He has
e�erienced many close calls due to the narrow roadway and absence of sidewalks fox walkers. Street unprovements,
including sidewalks, would make the street safer for those that use the street and the surrounding property owners.
Other developments in the area have made street improvements. �
Ryan Truair is also concerned about public safery on this strip of SW North Dakota. He states that street
improvements are required by code and that the improvements an11 remedy public safety issues along this stretch of
street. Thcse issues include a dark, narrow roadway and open ditches. In this case public safety is l�eing i�mored in
favor of saving trees on the site. Improvements already extst on the south side of SW North Dakota to the east and
west of the site. It is only logical to complete the link between the two sections. For similar reasons Mr. Truair states
that SW 92°d Avenue should not be extended to SW North Dakota. This creates an additional link between Greenburg
Road and North Dakota Street SW 92'� Street is not designed to handle increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Future street improvements are not likely due to the street being already developed with single-family homes.
Karen Estrada has no objection to the two new homes being built but believes a sidewalk should be constructed by the
developer along the SW North Dakota street frontage. Her reasons include public safery and consistenry with other
developments in the area. Due to more development in the area, traffic is increasing. Thete are near rrusses all the time
due to the lack of visibility and people walking in the street because there is no continuous sidewalk to utilize.
Sidewalks ha�e already been started from each end of the block. The development next door to the site was required to
make street improvements. These requixements should be the same fox all developments.
Jeffrey K1Pinman represents Kevin and Stephanie Viaene. He wrote to concur with the applican'ts statement that any
unprovement of SW 92°d Avenue to connect with SW North Dakota would violate the prereqwsites of the Dolan vr City
of T'igard decision. The proposed partirion would not create any addirional traf�c on SW 92nd and requiruig
unprovements is dispropomonate to the im�act of the proposal. SW 92°d is not likely to be improved in the foreseeable
future and the improvements associated with this development alone would not significantly unprove street safety or
capacity. In addit�on Mr. & Mrs. Viaene would suffer diminished property value from increased cut-through traffic
caused by making the connection to SW North Dakota Street
NOTICE OF DECISION '��,P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTITIOI� PAGE 5 OF 25
RESPONSE: The adjustment is not necessary because street unprovements are not required in this case. Tigard
Development Code 18.810.020 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards—General Pro�risions) states:
When standards anulv. Unless otherwise pro�-ided, construction, reconstruction or repair of
streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public unprovements shall occur in accordance v�nth the
standards of this tide. No de�relopment may occur and no land use application may be
approved unless the public facilities related to de�elopment com�ly with the public facility
requirements established in this section and adequate pubhc facilities are available.
Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build reqLUred public improvements only
when the required exaction is direcdy related to and roughly proportional to the impact of
the development.
In this case the impact of two new single-family homes is not roughly proportionate to the full cost of street
improvements along either SW North Dakota or SW 92nd Avenue; therefore all of the improvements cannot be
required at this time. However the applicant vvill be required to install a five foot sidewalk along SW North Dakota for
the following reasons: a sidewalk improvement (1) is still proportionate to the impact of the development, (2) is logical
considering a sidewalk already exists to the west of the site, and (3) will alleviate some of tl�e safery concems related to
increased txaffic along SW North Dakota. A calcularion under the Impact Study portion of this report shows the
proportionality of impacts to mitigation required. The applicant will pay Traffic Impact Fees for each dwelling unit
These fees assessed by the county are collected for all new development dunng the bLUlding permit process. In addition
the applicant is dedicaung right-of-way along both street frontages of SW North Dakota and SW 92nd for future street
improvements. The applicant has agreed and is conditioned to provide the City with a future improvement guarantee
in the foxrn of a Resmcnve Covenant whereby they agree to complete or paracipate in the future improvements.
The letter received from Jesse Emory includes similar comments regarding the public safety and street improvements.
In addition Mr. Emory ratsed the issue of recent tree removal from the site, development not in character with the
neighboxhood,vision problems with the driveway accessing onto North Dakota Street,and erosion control problems.
RESPONSE Staff conducted a site visit during the most recent tree removal. The trees were removed by Mr.
Hellwege, former owner of the development site, on his parcel to the south. None of the trees
remo�ed were within the development site. Tigard Development Code only requires a tree removal
pertnit for trees located on or in a sensirive land area (defined as floodplain, wetlands, slopesgr eater
than 25%and natural drainageways). No sensirive lands are found on Mr. Hellwege's parcel and his site
is not part of the development applicarion.
The applicant has proposed two sin�le-family residences which are permitted by right. The zoning designation for the
axea is R-4.5 (Low Density Residential). Minimum lot size for t11e zone is 7,500 square feet. Many of the parcels in the
atea are above the mimmum lot size and can be partirioned, thus leading to in-fill projects like the proposed
development Multi-family units (apartments and condominiums) are not perniitted in the zone. Duplexes are a
condittonal use and attached single-family is only permitted through a Plannedl7evelopment. Both of these application
processes include public hearin�.
In regard to the vision problem for the access drive, the applicant has provided a preliminary site distance certification
prepared by an engineer. A final certification is rec�uired after improvements are made to the site. In addition the
applicant must show on the plat visual clearance mangles that meet the code requirements of Tigard Development
Code 18.795. No structures over three feet in height are allowed in the visual clearance areas. Trees must be limbed to
eight feet in these areas.
Finally, to address Mr. Emory's etosion control concerns. Erosion control fencin�is required for this development and
is shown on the applicant's plans. Location is reviewed prior to issuance of permtts for the site. This topic is addressed
by the City's Des�gn Review Engineer,Kim McMilla.n,later in this report.
NOTICE OF DECISION ;vII.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PAR'I'ITION PAGE 6 OF 25
SECTION V. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Variances and Adjustments (18.370) .
Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for
an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following cnterion is
satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing
development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, stee� slopes or
existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the
potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards.
The ap�licant has requested an adjustrnent to the street improeement standards for SW North Dakota Street and
SW 92 Avenue. These include but are not litnited to curbs, pavement and street lights. As discussed above in
response to public comments, most of these street improvements cannot be required due to the rough
proportionality of impact caused by the development. One exception to this is the requirement of a five foot
sidewalk.
The applicant will be required to construct a sidewalk along North Dakota Street and guarantee for the remaining
half street improvements. A guarantee for these impro�Tements is conditioned for under the streets and utilities
section of the decision. Therefore the adjustment request is denied in part.
In this case requirement of the sidewalk will enhance the neighborhood by pro��ding a haven for pedestrians along
this stretch of North Dakota. Several e�sting mature trees may be unpacted. Most of the trees along North
Dakota may need to be removed for the sidewalk. Although this is not ideal, these trees would most likely be
removed fox future street improvements and the applicant's narrative states that no tree within the subject properry
is specifically identified for conservation. At the same time the ap�licant has attempted to idenrify trees that may be
saved in the development and constnzction process. T'hese trees mclude those alon� SW North Dakota Street. To
avoid removal of the trees, the City may allow the applicant to construct a meandertng sidewalk. Any design must
be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Arborist. This is discussed further in the Streets and
Utilities section of this decision. -
Land Partitions (18.420�
The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations;
The proposed partition complies or can be made to comply with all statutory and ardinance requirements and
regulattons as demonstrated by the analysis contained within this administrative decision and through the imposirion of
condirions of development approvaL Provided all necessary conditions are satisfied as part of the development and
building process,this cnterion is met
There are adequate public facilities available to serve the proposal;
Public facilities are discussed in detail later in this decision under Chapter 18.810 (Steeet & Utility Improvement
Standards). Based on the anal�sis provided therein, Staff finds that adequate public facilities are available to serve the
proposal. Therefore, this critenon is met.
All proposed improvements meet Ciry and applicable agency standards;and
The public faciliries and proposed improvements are discussed and conditioned later in this decision under Chapter
18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards). Improvements will be reviewed as paxt of the permit process and
during construcrion, at which time the appropnate review authority will ensure that City and applicable agenry
standards are met. Based on the analysis in this decision,Staff finds that this criterion is met.
All proposed lots conform to the specific requirements below:
The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning
district. �
The minimum lot width rec�uired for the R-4.5 zoning district is 50 feet. Parcel#1 is 98 feet in width; parcel #2 is also
98 feet wide. Therefore,tlus criterion has been met.
NOTICE OF DECISION MLP2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTITION PAGE 7 OF 25
The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may
not be included in the lot area.
The minimum lot area requirement in the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet for detached
single-family units. The proposed partition creates two (2) lots that are 8,480 and 8,387 square feet respectivel��.
Therefore,this criterion has been met.
Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a
legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement.
Both parcels will front the right-of-way along SW North Dakota by 98 feet. In addirion parcel #2 also has 92 feet of
ftontage along the right-of-way for SW 92"d Avenue.Therefore,this criterion is met.
Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district.
Setbacks for the R-4.5 zoning district are as follows: front = 20 feet; side = 5 feet; and rear =1 S feet The narrative
states that future homes will comply with provisions of the underlying zone. Setbacks are shown on the Prelunulary
Plat included with the application. The street side setback of parcel #2 is shown as 5 feet rather than the required 1 S
feet Setbacks for the future homes will be re��iewed at the rime of building permit submittal.
FINDING: The street side�ard setback shown on parcel#2 does not comply with the standards.
CONDIT'ION:Prior to building permit issuance the applicant must submit a site plan that meets the setback
requirements for the R-4.5 zone,including a 15 foot street side yard setback for parcel#2.
When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard,provided that
no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from
existing structures.
Neither of the parcels created through this partition process will be flag lots. Therefore,this criterion is not applicable.
A screen shall be provided alon� the properry line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is
located within ten feet of an abuttuig lot in accordance with Sections 18.745.040. Screening may also be
required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed
development.
The pxoposed shared access dri�e is not located a�ithin ten feet of an abutting lot.This criterion is not applicable.
The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a
detrimental effect on fire-fighti.ng capabilities.
The fire district (TVFR) has reviewed the proposal and has not required an additional fire hydrant; there is akeady a
hydrant at the corner of SW North Dakota and SW 94 .
Where a commo��drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure
access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map.
Both parcels will be accessed by a shared drive onto SW North Dakota. The applicant's narrative states that a
reciprocal easement w�ll be executed as part of the final plat process. This criterion can be met condirionally.
FINDING: Access and maintenance must be insured for the common driveway.
CONDITION:A reciprocal easement ensuring access and maintenance rights shall be recorded to cover the shared
access drive. This easement shall be shown on the final plat.
Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705,Access,Egress and Circulation.
This standard is addressed under Chapter 18.705 (Access,Egress and Circulation) later in this decision.
NOT'ICE OF DECISION MLP2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTITION PAGE 8 OF 25
Where landfill and/or developmcnt is allowcd within or adjacent to the one-hundred year floodplain, the city
shall require consideration of the dedication of suf6cient open land area for greenway adjoining and within
the floodplain. This area shall include �ortions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a
pedestrian/bicycle patha�ay with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway
plan.
The partitioned lots are not within nor adjacent to a one-hundred-year floodplain. Therefore, this standard does not
apply. �
An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with
Chapter 18.370,Variances and Adjustments. The applications for the partition and variance(s)/adjustment(s)
will be processed concurrently.
An applicarion for an adjustment to the street improvement standards for SW North Dakota and SW 92"d Avenue is
requested as part of this application. As discussed earlier in this report,this adjustment is partially denied.
FINDINGS: The proposed minor land parririon meets,or can meet,all of the relevant standards of the land partirion
secrion as mdicated in the above findings and following secrions of this decision.
Residential Zoning Districts �18.510�
Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below:
TABLE 18.510.2-DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
STANDARD R-4S Parcell Parcel2
'��tinimum L,ot�ize
-Detached unit 7,500 sq.ft 8,480 sq.fr. 8,387 sq.ft.
-Duplexes 10,000 sq.ft
-Attached unit
Average:�nimum Lot Width
-Detached unit lots 50£t. 98 ft. 98 fr.
-Duplex lots 90 ft.
-Attached unit lots
Maxunum Lot Cover e - NA NA
Minimum Setbacks
-Front yard 20 ft. Can be met Can be met
-Side facing street on comer&through lots 15 ft. N/A Can be met
-Side pard 5 ft. Can be met Can be met
-Reaz yazd 15 ft. Can be met Can be met
-Side or reaz yard abutting more restrictive zoning district -- N/r� N/A
-Distance between property line and front of garage 20 ft. Can be met Can be met
-Side Yazd Setbacks for Fla Lots C 18.420.050 A 4 e 10 ft. N/A • N/A
Maximum He� ht 35 ft. Can be met Can be met
'.vlinimum Landscape Kequirement - NA NA
A minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet is required for each lot. The proposed lot sizes meet this standard. Future
development will be reviewed through the building permit process to ensure compliance with the R-4.5
development standards. Setback standards, required by T'able 18.510.2 will apply to all future development of the
proposed lots.
Access,Egress and Circulation�18.705� .
Chapter 18.705 establishes standards and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site
and for general circulation within the site. Table 18.705.1 states that the rninim� vehicular access and
e�ress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one, 10-foot paved driveway within a 15-foot-
wide accessway. The minimum access width for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement.
The ap licant has indicated that both parcels will share a 26-foot access. The site plan shows a pavement width of 16
feet. �erefore,this criterion has been satisfied.
NOTTCE OF DECISION ;vII.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTTTTON � PAGE 9 OF 25
Continuing obligation of properry owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in
this title are conanuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real properry in the City.
The standards of this chapter will be a continuing obligation on the owners of these parcels.
Access plan requirements.
No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this
chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfiilled. The a�plicant shall
submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission
requirement.
Scaled site plans that show the access and egress have been provided with this application. Therefore,this criterion has
been satisfied.
Joint access.
Owners of two or rnore uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and
egress when the combined access and e�ress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the
combined requirements as designated in tlus tide, provided: Satisfactor�y legal evidence shall be presented in
the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the �ouit use; and Copies of the deeds,
easements,leases or conuacts are placed on permanent file with the City.
The applicant has�roposed joint access between Parcels 1 and 2. Therefore, satisfactory le�evidence will be required
to establish the joult access. A condition of appro�al requiring a reciprocal easement has een im �sed above, under
18.420 (Land Partitions). This easement for access and maintenance shall be shown on the final p�t. Therefore, this
standard has been sarisfied.
Public street access.
All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.030I shall connect direcdy with
a public or private street approved by the Ciry for public use and shall be maintained at the required
standards on a continuous basis.
The proposed partirion has a proposed 16-foot wide shared access drive that connects to SW North Dakota Street, a
pubhc street This standard is met
Curb Cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N.
Rec�uired walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards:
V�alkways shall extend from the ground floor enuances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or
elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access
and egress.Wallcways shall provide convenient connections between build.ings in multi-building commercial,
institudonal, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and
existi.ng developments and neighboring developments;
Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential
dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and
recreation facilities;
Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossing�s shall be designed
and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic
and parldng by either a minunum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal
separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 3G feet
if appro�riate landscapuig, pavement marku�s, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkwa�s shall
be a minunum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes,
benches,bicycle racks,and sign posts,and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; �
Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc.
Walkways may be required to be li�hted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public
use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways.
This proposal is for a detached single-family development,this standard does not apply.
NOTICE OF DECISION :��.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTITION PAGE 10 OF 25
Inadcquate or hazardous access.
A�plications for building pernuts shall be referred to the Commission for review v��hen, in the opinion of the
Director, the access proposed would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or would provide
inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or a�ould in any other v��ay cause hazardous conditions to exist
which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health,safery and general welfare.
The lots within this partition will be providing direct access to a public street. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and
Tigard Police ha�e been norified and have not indicated a hazard. The Directox has not deternuned that Planning
Commission re�riew is necessary for building permits. With regard to streets and street intersections, these issues are
addressed under TllC Chapter 18.810 (Street and L'tility Itnprovement Standards). Therefore, this standard is sarisfied.
Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be
discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical
alternative way to access the site.
The proposed parcels will take access from SW North Dakota Street,which is not a collector or an arterial. Therefore,
this standard does not apply.
In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backwatd movement or other
maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt
from this requirement.
This criterion does not apply to the proposed single-family dwellings.
Access Man ement Section 18.705.030.
Section 18.705.030.H. states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposaLs
which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stackin� needs, sight distance
and deceleration standards as set by ODOT,Washington County,the Ciry and AASH'�`O.
The applicant's engineer has submitted preliminary sight distance certification for the proposed shared access. For local
streets anth a posted speed of 25 mph the mimmum Yequ.ired sight distance is 250 feet. The eng��ieer states that
available s�ht distance exceeds 1000 feet to the west and 550 feet to the east. The engineer also noted that the e�sting
"Neighborhood Watch"sign should be relocated west of the proposed driveway. .
Prior to issuance of building pennits the applicant's engineer shall provide final sight distance certification upon
completion of the public improvements.
Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be �ermitted to be placed in the influence area of
collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic
commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from�a col�ector or arterial
street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intetsecting street to the throat
of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined
from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case
whete a �royect has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared
access w�th the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as
far from the intersection as possible.
North Dakota Street is designated a Neighborhood Route,therefore this criterion does not apply.
Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and sueets along a collector shall
be 200 feet. The rninimum spacing of driveways and streets along an artenal shall be 600 feet. The minimum
spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet.
North Dakota Street is designated a Neighborhood Route, therefore this criterion does not apply.
Minimum access requirements for residential use.
Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual
lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2;
The applicant has indicated that both of the proposed parcels will share a 26-foot access easement. The applicant
indicated a pavement width of 16 feet. The nunirnum requirement for 1-2 dwellings is a 15 foot access with 10 feet of
pavement. Therefore,this standard is satisfied.
NOTICE OF DECISION �ff.P2005-00011/HEI.LWEGE PARTITTON PAGE 11 OF 2�
Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or
the ground floor landing of a stain��ay,ramp,or elevator leading to the dwelling units;
I�To mulri-family structures are proposed with this applicarion. Therefore,this standard does not applj�.
Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
Uniform fire Code;
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue did not indicate in thei�comments that the proposed access drive would not meet their
requirements. .
Section 18.705.030.H.4 states that Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved
provisions for the tuming around of fire apparatus by one of the follow�ng: a circular, paved surface having a
minimum turn radius measuted from center point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configure3,
paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of
20 feet. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%.
The pxoposed access drive will be less than 150 feet in length as shown by the site plan. Therefore, this standard does
not apply.
FINDING: Based on the analysis abo�=e,the Access,Egress and Circularion standasds have been met.
Density Com�utations (18.715):
A. Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by
subuactin� the following land area(s) &om the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the
legal descnpt�on of the properry to be developed:
1. All sensitive land areas
2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes;
3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. �
4. All land proposed for private sueets;and
5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling
is to remain on the site.
B. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the ma�umum number of residential
units per net acre,divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square
feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district �
C. Calculatu'� minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum
number o�residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of
units determined in Subsectron B above by 80% (0.8).
The subject .41-acrc parccl totals 17,860 square feet. There are no sensitive land axeas or private streets within the
subject proposal. To determuie the net developable area the right of way dedication for North Dakota Street (2 feet
x 92.34 feet = 185 square feet) and 92°d Avenue (4 feet x 197 feet = 788 square feet) are deducted (17,860 square
feet gross — 973 square feet deductions = 16,887 net developable square feet). As the minimum lot size for the R-
4.5 zone is 7,500 sc�uare feet, the maximum number of lots for this �arcel is two. The minimuxn number is one.
The proposed parttt�on creates two (2) separate lots in conformance v�nth the density requirements.
The calculations provided by the applicant show the right-of-way dedication for SW North Dakota is appro�matel��
985 square feet rather than 788 square feet as calculated above. The applicant's figure of 985 square feet was calculated
by using a five foot right-of-way dedication instead of a four foot dedication. Only a four foot dedication is required.
Both calculations indicate the same density of two (2)lots,which is what the applicant has proposed.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the Density Computation Standards have been met
NOTTCE OF DECISION MI,P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PART'ITION PAGE 12 OF 25
Landscaping and Screening (18.7451:
Street trees: Section 18.745.040
Section 18.745.040.A.:All development projects fronting on a public street, rivate street�or a private driveway
more than 100 feet in le� approved after the adopt�on of ttus title shall�e required to plant street trees in
accordance with the stan ards in Section 18.745.040C
This proposed project includes frontage on SW North Dakota Street and undeveloped SW 92"d Avenue, both public
streets. �'he proposed shared access dri�e does not cxcccd 100 feet in len�. Therefore, street trees are only required
alon� the public street but not the shared access. The required trees shall be �lanted in accordance with the standards
for size and spacin�in this title,under Section 18.745.040.C. Neither street is unpro�ed with curbs and side��alks along
the frontages. A sidewalk along SW North Dakota is required and both streets u-il1 undergo further impro�-ements in
the future. The a�plicant's narrauve states that final construcrion documents�crill include a street tree plan;but since the
street improvement has not y�et been fully desi�ned, planting of street trees will be deferred until the full street
improvements occur. Planting of street trees at tlus ttme would possibly mean the removal of those trees ui the future.
Buffering and Screening Rec�uirements: Section 18.745.050.5 .
Where screening is tequ�red the following standards shall apply:
a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which v��ill form a four foot
continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of plantin�;or
b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided wluch will form a
continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of
the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or
c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous
sight obscuring screen.
Pursuant to 18.420, a screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of xecord where the paved drive in an
accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot. The proposed shared access is located between the parcel #1
and parcel#2 and is more than 10 feet from any abuttin�lot. Therefore this criterion is not applicable.
FINDING: The landscape standards have not been met. However, with condirions of approval requiring street
trees along North Dakota Street and 92�Avenue,the landscaping standards can be met.
CONDITION:The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant with proposed Parcels #1 and #2 that will include a
requirement for planting street trees as part of any future street unprovement
Tree Removal(18.790� .
A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of ttees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided
for any lot„ parcel or combmation of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision,
partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred
over removal wherever possible.
The applicant has submitted a txee protecrion lan that has been reviewed and accepted by the City Forester. The
a�plicant has indicated that there are thirteen (1�) viable trees greater than 12-inch diameter on the property. At this
time the applicant is not proposing to conserve any of these trees,but could feasibly retain eleven of the thirteen viable
trees as noted in the narrarive and arborist report. Based on the proposed retention schedule, the a plicant is required
to miti�ate for 100% of the inches lost The total for the thirteen trees is 258 inches. Mitigation at�125.00 per cali�er
inch wi]1 be $32,250.00. If trees greater than 12-inch diameter can be saved and protected during the construct�on
process, a comprehensive arbonst report/protecrion plan will be required to be submitted and mirigarion u°ill be
recalculated.
Section 18.790.040 states that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be
removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of
approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter.
The properry owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit
affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous
according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction ma� be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree
preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of
this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director.
NOTICE OF DECISION ?�iI.P2005-00011/HET�.WEGE P°,RTITION PAGE 13 OF 25
The applicant will be required as a condirion of approval to record a deed restriction limiting tlle removal of trees that
are retained on the project site greater than 12 inches in diameter,in accordance with this standard.
FINDING: Based on the analysis abo�e, the Tree Removal Standards ha�re not been met. In order to meet the
standard,the applicant shall satisfy the following conditions:
CONDITIONS:
♦ Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for�the equivalent�-alue of
mirigation required. If additional txees are preserved through the subdivision unprovements and
construction of houses,and are pxoperly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded
to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced.
Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) w-ill be credited aga.inst the
cash assurance, for two y�ears following final plat approval. After such t7me, the applicant shall pay the
remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee ni lieu of planting.
♦ Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupanc�, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction
to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12' diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is
hazardous according to a cernfied arborist. The deed restriction m�y be removed or will be considered
invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a
hazardous tree.
♦ Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include
the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. T'he plans shall also include a
construction sec�uence including installation and removal of tree protecrion devices, clearing,
g�ading, and pav�ng. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized
for removal by this decision.
♦ Prior to commencing any site work, the ap licant shall establish fencing as directed by the project
arborist to protect the trees to be retained. �e applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the
purpose of monitoring and inspecrion of the tree protecrion to verify that the tree protecrion measures
are perfornung adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintatn tree protecnon fencing in the
designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation
measures and/or civil citations can be processed.
♦ Prior to any Certificates of Occupanry, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has
submitted written re orts to the CitY Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from inirial tree
protection zone (TP2�fencing installat�on,through site work,as he monitors the construction activities
and�rogress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any
Cemficates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as
the condition and locanon of the tree protecrion fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the
Project Arborist shall jusrify why the fencing was moved,and shall certi�y that the construction activities
to the trees did not advetsely un�act the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the
reports are not submitted or recei�ed by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears
the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not beuig followed by the contractor, the City can stop work
on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist This
inspection w�ll be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, deternune if the fencing was moved at any
point during construction,and detennine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated.
♦ Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the
locarion of the trees that were preserved on the lot,location of tree protection fencing, and a signature
of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be
empIoyed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior
to commencing construction, and shall remain ui place through the duration of home building. After
approval from the City Forester,the uee protecrion measures may be removed.
NOTICE OF DECISION R�,P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTTTION P?�GE 14 OF 25
Visual Clearance Areas (18.795�: �
This Chapter requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to
intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area
shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction
exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall
be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height. Trees may be�laced v��ithin this area provided
that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by
measurin� from the corner, 30-feet along the right of way and along the driveway and connecting these two
points wi't�a straight line.
The applicant's site plan does not show the vision clearance triangles for the proposed lots. The �rision clearance areas
will need to be shown on a re�rised prelunuiary plat.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above,Staff finds that the Vision Clearance Standaxds are not presendy met.
CONDITION:Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a plat that shows the visual clearance area
accurately,in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Section 18.795.040.
Im�act Stud 18.390)
Section 18.3 0.090 states? "The Director shall make a finding with res�ect to each of the following criteria
when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: '
Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of
development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the
study shall propose improvements necessary to meet Ciry standard, and to minimize the impact of the
developrnent on the public at large,public facilities systems, and affected private properry users.
In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real properry interests, the
applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way d.edication, or provide
evidence that supports that the real properry dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts
of the development. Section 18.390.I140 states that when a condition of a pproval requires t1�e uansfer to the
public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings whicfi support the conclusion
that the interest in real properry to be transferred is rouglily proportional to the impact the proposed
development will have on t�e public.
The applicant has submitted an impact study. The applicant will not be required to physically improve SW North
Dakota Street nor SW 92"d Avenue due to the rough proportionality to the projected impacts of the development.
However, the applicant will be required to submit a waivex of remonstrance for future participation in a Local
Im�rovement Distnct (LID) fox street improvements on both SW North Dakota Street and SW 92nd A��enue to
mttigate for the additional 20 daily vehicle m s from the site. These future improvements will exclude a sidewalk along
ga
SW I�TOrth Dakota. That unprovement is eing rec�uired as part of this approvaL In adciition the applicant shaIl
dedicate the necessary �g ht-of-way for these future unprovements (four feet along SW North Dakota and two feet
along SW 92°d Avenue). 'The apphcant will be extending storm drainage connections to the two parcels to account for
the additional impervious area beuig added to the site. Sewer is already available and has sufficient capacity to serve the
development. Othex impacts to public faciliries are �ffset by the collecrion of Systems Development Charges (SDC's)
collected at the time of buildin� pernlit issuance. Therefore, this standard can be satisfied through meeung the
condirions of approval in this decision.
The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF� is a mirigarion measure that is required at the time of development
Based on a transportarion impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy E�ansion/Dolan II/Resolution
95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and
Arterial Street system. The applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately$2,850 per new dwelling unit.
Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee
that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $17,813 ($2,850 times two un.tts divided by .32). The
difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the urunitigated impact on the street system. The
uxuYUtigated impact of this project on the rransportarion system is $12,113 ($17,813 - $5,700). The applicant will be
required to dedicate an addirional two feet of right-of-way along SW North Dakota Street and SW 92°d Avenue
(appro�mately 579 square feet) foz future road unprovements. The approxiinate value of unimproved residenrially
zoned property is $3.00 per squaxe foot, for a total value of$1,734. In addition,the applicant is xequtred to construct a
five foot sidewalk along SW North Dakota in its ultimate locarion. At a cost of�3.00 a square foot, the sidewalk value
is estimated at $2,995 (197 x 5 x $3.00). Since the unmitigated impact remainuig is �7,384 ($12,113-$1,734- $2,995) the
required exaction is proportionate.
NOTICE OF DECISION MLP2005-00011/HEI..LWEGE PARTITTON PAGE 15 OF 25
PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS
Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810�
Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and
utilities such as sueets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below:
Streets•
Improvements:
Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets w�ithin a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in
accordance with the TDC standards.
Secti�n 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing
street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a Neighborhood Route with bike
lanes to have a 58 foot right-of-way width and 36-foot paved section. Other unprovements required may
include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, undergtound utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and
street uees. .
This site lies adjacent to SW North Dakota Street,which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the Cit�of
Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerhne,
according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate the additional2 feet of ROW
to provide 27 feet from centerline.
SW North Dakota is paved but not fully improved to City standards. At a minimum the applicant shall construct the
public sidewalk at its ultimate locarion. For the remainder of the half-street improvements, the TI�7C 18.810.030(A)�1)
states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be im�roved in accordance with City standar s.
However, 18.810.030(A)(5)states that the City may accept a future unprovement guarantee in lieu of street
improvements if the improvement associated with the project does not, by itself,provide a significant improvement to
the street safety or capacxty. Althou�h this development will incrementally increase the amount of traffic on the
roadway, the increase will not substant�ally degrade the level of service on the street A street improvement adjacent to
this site, therefore, will not si�nificantly improve the safety or capacity of the street. In addition, 18.810.030(A)(5)(e)
states that a guarantee in lieu of street improvements is acceptable if the proposal is a land partirion on ptoperty zoned
residential and the partition does not create any new streets. This partition anll not create a new street Based on these
code provisions, Staff therefore recommends that the ap�licant be required to enter into an agreement with the City
whereby the owner agrees to participate in any future andening project for the street carried out by the City, a third
partp, or through a local improvement district. This agreement must be executed priar to final plat approval.
This site lies adjacent to SW 92"d Avenue,which is classified as a Local Street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan
Map. At present, there is appro�mately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, accoxding to the most recent tax assessor's
map. The applicant should dedicate the addirional2 feet of ROW required to provide 27 feet from centexline.
SW 92nd is cutrendy uni.mproved. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should enter
into a guatantee in lieu of street unprovements.
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future sueet plan shall be filed
which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets &om the boundaries of the proposed land
division. This sechon also states that where rt is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future
division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a
barricade shall be constructed at the end of the st�eet. These street stubs to adjoini a properties are not
considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the
adjoining properry is developed. A barricade shall be constxucted at the end of the sueet by the �roperty
� ovvners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included
in the street construction cost. Temporaty hammerhead turnouts or ternporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be
constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length.
Ther�ht-of-way for 92°d Avenue was established in 1951. The street will eventually be constructed connecting it to
North Dakota Street. A minor land partition is not required to construct the street improvements,but will be required
to enter into a guarantee in lieu of street unprovements,thereby meeting this criterion.
I�OTICE OF DECISION MLP2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTITION PAGE 16 OF 25
Street Alignment and Connections:
Section 1$.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between
connections is required except where prevented by bamers such as topography, railroads, &eeways, pre-
existin� developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrict�ons existing priot to May 1,
1995 which preclude street connections. A fiill street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated
water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a
development site shall be extended w�ithin the site to pro��ide through circulation a�hen not precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existin� development pattems or strict adherence to other
standards in this code. A sueet connection or extension is precluded�°hen it is not possible to redesign, or
reconfigure the street pattern to�rovide rec�uired extensions. Land is considered topographically consuained
if the slope is greater than 15/o for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or
topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection
is not possible. The applicant must show a�hy the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
The applicant has shown the additional ROW dedicarion for 92nd A�-enue, thereby pro��ding adequate ROW for the
future construcrion of 92"d Avenue.
Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length,width and shape of blocks shall be designed a-ith
due re�ard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for
convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and
opportunities of topography.
Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800
feet measured alon�the right-of-way line except: -
♦ Where sueet location is precluded by natural topography, wedands or other bodies of water or, pre-
existing development or;
♦ For blocks adjacent to arterial streets,limited access higha�ays, major collectors or railroads.
• For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access.
No new streets are being created with this partirion.Therefore, this standard is not applicable.
Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and �edestrian connections on public easernents orng ht-of-
ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no
more than 330 feet, except where precluded by envu�onmental or topographical constraints, existing
development patterns,or strict adherence to other standards in the code.
Siinila.rly,since no streets are being proposed, and no connections are required,this standard is not applicable.
Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average
lot width,unless the parcel is less than 1.5 hmes the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district
The lot width for both parcels is 98.52 feet and the lot depth for both parcels is approximately 91 feet. The lot depths
are.93 times the lot widths,consistent with this standard.
Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private
streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land�artition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies,wtuch requires a parcel to
either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a rnimmum L5-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases
where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit,the frontage shall be at least 15 feet.
The proposed development is a minor land partition.Parcel#1 has 98 feet of frontage on SW North Dakota. Parcel#2
also has 98 feet of frontage on SW North Dakota and an additional 92 feet along SW 92°d Avenue. Therefore, this
criterion is met
Sidewallcs: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet Ciry design standards and be
located on both sides of arterial, collectot and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial sueets
shall have sidewalks on at least one side.
NOTICE OF DECISION MLP2005-00011/HEI.LWEGE PARTTTION PAGE 17 OF 25
The applicant shall construct a public sidewalk at its ultimate horizontal and vertical locarion, based on the City's TSP,
along the site frontage of North Dakota Street. The sidewalk shall also connect back to the paved portion of North
Dakota Street at each end of the frontage.
Any proposed alternarive to the sidewalk locarion, in order to saee trees, must be submitted to the City Engineer and
City Arborist for review and approval. The alternarive submittal shall include, at a minimum, the horizontal layout,
grading plan,easements and the project arborist's report.
Sanitary Se�vers:
Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed. to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance a�ith the provisions set forth in
Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water
Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the
comprehensive plan.
Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional
development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. �
There is an e�sting sewet main in North Dakota Street. The applicant's plans indicate the installation of separate
laterals to each proposed parcel. The laterals shall be shown on the PFI plan submittal.
Stortn Drainage:
General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm R�ater and
flood water runoff.
Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility
shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upsueam drainage area,whether inside
or outside the developmen� The Ciry Engineer shall ap�rove the necessary size of the facility, based on the
provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by
Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). -
There are no defined upstceam drainage ways that unpact this development
Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer
that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an exishng drainage �acility, the
D'uector and En��neer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for
improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of add.itional runoff
caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and
Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or
amendments).
In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek
Watershed Management Plan. Secnon V of that plan includes a recommendation that local �overnments institute a
stormwater detenaon/effective impervious area reducrion program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up
to the 25-year event. The City w�11 require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces
provide onsite detention facilines, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments
ad�acent to Fanno Creek,the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detenrion.
The CWS standaxds include a provision that would exclude small projects such as residential land partitions. It would
be impracrical to require an on-site detention faciliry to accommodate storm water runoff from Parcels 1 & 2. Rather,
the CWS standards provide that applicants should pay a fee in-lieu of constructing a facility if deemed appropriate.
Staff recommends payrnent of the fee in-lieu on this application.
The stormwater runoff from the two proposed developments shall be conveyed to an approved public drainage system.
This must be included on the PFI plan submittal.
Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathway s:
Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on
the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways
throu�h the dedicat�on of easements or n�ht-of-way.
NOT'ICE aF DECISION MLP2�05-00011/HEI�.WEGE PART'ITION PAGE 18 OF 25
North Dakota Street is not a designated bicycle facility.
Utilities:
Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not lirnited to those required for electric, communication,
lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface
mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above
ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000
volts or above, and: �
♦ The developer shall make all necessary arrangements R�ith the serving utility to provide the
underground setvices;
♦ The City reserves the ri�ht to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
♦ All underground utilit�es, incluciing sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the
deveioper,shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and
♦ Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid d.isturbing the street improvements when
seroice connections are made.
Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-
lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing
utilities a=hich are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the
cost and technical difficulry of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in
conjunction with the development. The determmation shall be on a case-by-case basis: The most common,
but not the only, such situahon is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in
the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for
a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public
right-of-way&om the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding.
There are exist�overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW North Dakota Street If the fee in-lieu is�roposed,it
is equal to $35.06 per lineal foot of street ftontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 197
lineal feet;therefore the fee would be�6,895.00.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS:
Public Water System:
The Tualatin Valle�Water District (I'VWD) provides service in this area. The applicant shall submit plans for review,
approval and perrrutting to TVWD pnor to issuance of the PFI pexmit.
Storm Water Qualit�
The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water
Services (CWS) Desi�n and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which
requ.ire the construcuon of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65
�ercent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated &om newly created
unpervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and
method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year.
The CWS standards include a provision that would exclude small projects such as residential land partitions. It would
be impractical to require an on-site water quality facility to accommodate treatment of the storm water from Parcel 2.
Rather, the CWS standards provide that applicants should �ay a fee in-lieu of constructing a facility if deemed
appropriate. Staff recommends payment of the fee in-lieu on this applicarion.
Grading and Erosion Conuol:
CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion conttol to reduce the amount of sediment and
other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulring from development,
construction, gradin�, excavatin�, clearing, and any other activity wluch accelerates erosion. Per CWS
regulations, the apphcant is required to submit an erosion control plan for Ciry review and approval prior to
issuance of City permits.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
erosion conuol pernut be issued for any development that a�ill disturb one or more acre of land.
NOTICE OF DECISION ;��.P2005-00011/HELL�Y%EGE PARTTTION PAGE 19 OF 25
Address Assi�nments: �
The Ciry of T�ard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the Ciry of Tigard and witivn the LTrban
Ser�nce $oundary (USB). An addressing fee ui the amount of$50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be
paid to the City prior to final plat approval.
Surv�Rec�uirements•
The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91)] on two monuments with a rie to tlie
City's global posirioning system (GPS) geoderic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line
and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat
shall contain the scale factor to convert�round measurements to gnd measurements and the angle from north to grid
north. These coordinates can be established by:
♦ GPS rie networked to tlie City's GPS survey.
♦ By random traverse using conventional survey-ing methods.
In addirion, the applicant's as-built draurings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's engu�eer shall pro�-ide
the City with an electronic file�rith points for each structure (manholes, catch basins,water�ral�-es,���drants and other
watex system features) in the development, and their respective� and Y State Plane Cooxdinates, referenced to NAD
83 (91).
SECTION VI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS �
City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it.
City of Tigard Forestet has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments and conditions:
1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREEIVING .
18.745.030.C,Installation Rec�uirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows:
1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures.
2. The plant matenal shall be of high grade, and shal�rneet the size and grading standards of the
Amencan Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions);
and .
3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this tide.
• The accepted planting procedures are theg�udelines descxibed in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines
follow those set forth by the Intemational Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree �lanting guidelin�es as well as the
standards set forth in the Amexican Institute of Architects Architectural Grapluc Standards, 10 edition. In the
Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planung trees based on the soil volume
and size at maturitv. Additionally,there are direcrions for soil amendments and modifications.
• In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed:
o No more than 30%of any one family be planted onsite.
o No more than 20%of any one genus be planted onsite.
o No more than 10%of any one species be planted onsite.
18.745.030.E,Protection of Existing Landscapin� Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as
possible:
1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to rernain during
the construction process; and �
2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.�., areas not to be disturbed
can be fenced,as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees).
See comments undex"Tree Removal".
NOTICE OF DECISION ?vII.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTTT'ION PAGE 20 OF 25
18.745.030.G, Conditions of Approval of Existing Vegetation. The review procedures and standards for
required landsca�ing and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval c�uring development
review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. �
See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandutn.
18.745.040, Street Trees
A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public stteet,�rivate street or
a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of t.Yus title shall be
required to plant sueet trees in accordance w�ith the standards in Section 18.745.040.C.
• The accepted planting procedures are thegutdelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines
follow those set forth by the Internarional Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree�lanting guidelin�es as well as the
standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects Architectural Grapluc Standards, 10 edition. In the
rlrchitectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and plan� trees based on the soil volume
and size at maturitv. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications.
• In order to de�-elop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed:
o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite.
o No rnore than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite.
o No more than 10%of any one species be planted onsite.
2. TREE REMOVAL
18.790.030,Tree Plan Reyuirement
A. Tree �lan rec�uired. A tree plan for the planting, removal and �rotection of trees prepared by a
certi5ed arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combinahon of lots or parce�s for which a
developme�t application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development
or conditional use is 51ed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible.
B. Plan re uirements. The uee plan shall include the following:
1. dentification of the location,size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as
significant by the ciry;
2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mit�ate tree removal over 12 inches in
caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement gw'delines of Section 18.790.060D, in
accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other
development code provisions for landscaping,sueets and parking lots:
a. Retention of less than 25% of existing uees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation
program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of uees;
b. Retention of from 25%to 50%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds
of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
c. Retention of from 50%to 75% of existin�trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent
of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section f8.790.660D;
d. Retention of 75%or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation.
3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed;
4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to
protect trees during and after construction.
• As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by a certified arborist, Stephen Goetz.
The report contains the four required components,and is therefoxe acceptable.
• I suggest planting narive species of trees as street trees such as bigleaf maple, cascara or Oregon white oak.
Properly sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm&Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745. The species
of street trees used in this development are not listed. The species must be approved before the trees can
be planted.
NOTTCE OF DECISION '��II,P2005-00011/HEI.LWEGE P.�RTTTION PAGE 21 OF 25
• I have to admit, I am baffled by the tree mitigarion plans that Mr. Goetz outlined. I suggest requiring a cash
assurance foY the 11 trees that they"might"be able to preserve.
Below are my suggesrions for the applicant to follow fox tree protecrion guidelines:
• Prior to construction, a Tree Protecrion Plan shall be included �rith the pro�osed construcrion drawings
conforming to the International Sociery of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the Ciry
Forester. All tree protecrion devices, along with their details and specificarions, shall be shown on the Tree
Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being
presen�ed. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must
be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have
more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected.
• A note shall be placeci on the final set of plans indicating that equi�ment, vehicles, machinery, grading,
dumping, storage,burial of debris, ox any other construcrion-related activiries shall not be located inside of any
tree protectton zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected.
• All tree protection devices shall be:
■ Visible.
■ Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post
shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to
a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no furthex apart than
four feet.
■ Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area
behind the fencing is protected and no construction acrivity, including material storage, may occur
behind the fencing.
■ Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading,
or the beguuiing of construction.
■ Remain in place and maintained until all construcrion is completed and a final inspecrion is conducted.
To determule the size of the tree protection zone (TPZ) the project atborist should follow the guidelines listed below:
■ For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diatneter at breast he�ght
(DBI-�, or 4 '/z feet above the ound, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For
example, a tree that is 15" at D�H must have at least 15' of tree protection zone around the entire
canopy of the tree.
■ For group s of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on the edge of
the stand if thexe are conifers with natcow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter
method or the drip line method,whichever is greater.
■ Calculate and follow the O�rimal Tree Protecrion Zone calcularion as shown in `Ti�e,r and Development.•
A Technical Guide to Przservatzon of Tree.r During Land Development"by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark.
■ The project arborist may propose an alternate method for the establishment of the TPZ, provided the
effort is coordinated w-ith the City Forestex.
� If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project
arborist and City Forester must be norified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arbonst
and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection
measures.
• Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupanry, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating
the elements of the Txee Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable
and viable in their modified growing environmenL
NOTICE OF DECISION n�.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PART'ITTON PAGE 22 OF 25
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of
mitigation required. If addirional trees are presen ed through the subdi�rision unpro�-ements and consrruction
of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded t� other protected ,
trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site
or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following
final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the rema;ning value of the cash assurance as a fee in
lieu of plant7ng.
2. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the
effect that any e�sting tree greater than 12" diameter may be xemoved only if the tree dies or is hazardous
according to a certified arbonst. The deed restricrion may be remo�ed or w�ill be considered inzTalid if a tree
preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree.
3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construcrion drawings that include the approved
Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including
installation and removal of tree protecnon de�-ices,clearing,grading,and�aving. Only those trees identified on
the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision.
4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to
protect the trees to be retained. The apphcant shall allo�v access by the City Forester for the purp ose of
monitoring and inspecrion of the tree protecrion to verify that the tree protection measures are perforining
adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree �rotecrion fencing in the desi�mated locations shall be
grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be
processed.
5. Prior to any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted
written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from uutial tree protection zone (I'PZ)
fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports
must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Cerrificates of Occupancy. The
reports shall include any changes that occw-red to the TI'Z as well as the condirion and location of the tree
protecrion fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why t]se fencin
was moved, and shall certify tllat the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overal�
long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at
the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the
contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspecrion can be done by the City Forester and the
Project Arborist This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determuie if the fencing was
moved at any point dunng construction, and detemline if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been
violated.
6. Priox to issuance of building pernuts,the a�plicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the
trees that were preserved on the lot, locauon of tree protection fencing, and a signature of appxoval from t11e
project arbonst re�arding the placement and construcnon techniques to be employed in building the house. All
proposed protechon fencvig shall be installed and inspected pnor to commencuig construchon, and shall
remun in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree
protection measures may be removed.
SECTION VII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments:
1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access
roads shall have an unobstructed w-idth of not less than 20 feet (12 feet for up to two dwelling units and
accessory buildings), and an unobstructed aertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire
apparatus roadways are less than 26 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the
roadway and in tumarounds as needed. Whexe fire ap asatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than
32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be ins�ed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as
needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more,parking is not restricted.
NOTTCE OF DECISION I��.P2005-00011/HEL.LDUEGE PARTTTTON PAGE 23 OF 25
2) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is
easil��distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point
load (wheel load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentanon
from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of suppornng such loading.
3) TURIVING R.ADIUS: The inside t�unuig radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 feet and
48 feet respectively,measured from the same center point.
4) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The nuiur�ium a�railable fire flow for
single family d�rellings and duplexes served by a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If
the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larget, the required fire flow shall be deterniuied according to IFC
Appendix B.
5) FIRE HYDRANTS — ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS & ACCESS�RY STRUCTURES:
Where a �ortion of a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be
provided.
6) FIRE HI'DRANT NiJMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The m;,,;f„um number and distribution of fire
h�•drants available to a builciing shall not be less than that listed in Appenclix C,Table C 105.1.
Considerations for placing fire hydrants may be as folloR�s:
• E�sting hy�drants ui the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved.
Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with
fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants.
• H�drants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the
required number of hydrants unless approved by the fire code official.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not
contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets only as approved by
the fire code official.
• Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of
hydrants only if approved by the fire code official.
� FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more
than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway.
8) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT M�IRKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of
reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of
the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assutne a
centerline,and place the reflectors accordingly
9) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire
apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any
combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site.
NOT'ICE OF DECISION 1��.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE PARTTTION PAGE 24 OF 25
SECTION VIII. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Norice: Norice was mailed to:
�i The applicant and owners
X Ovvner of record within the required distance
X Affected go�rernment agencies
Final Decision:
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 20,2006 AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 4,2006 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
A�eal:
The D�irector's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons enritled to notice or who are otherwise
adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Secuon 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in
accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which pro��des that a written
appeal together with the required fee shall be filed wrth the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Norice
of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Di��ision of Tigard Ciry
Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,'I'igard, Oregon 97223.
linless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the
specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional
e�ndence concerning issues properly raised in the Norice of Appeal may be subriutted by any party during the appeal
hearing, subject to any addiuonal rules of procedure that may l�e adopted from time to tune by the appeliate body.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 3,2006.
uestions:
If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Plannuig Division,Tigard Ciry Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,
Tigard, Oregon at(503) 639-4171.
�`'�'�'�-�J March 20,2006
PREPARE BY: Cheryl Caines DATE
Assistant Planner
March 20,2006
APPROVED BY: Richard Bewe do f DATE
Plannuig Ma er
i:\curpin\cheryl\mlp\m1p2005-00011(Hellwege)\m1p2005-00011 decision.doc
NOTICE OF DECISION �II.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE Pt1RTTTTON PAGE 25 OF 25
' i i _ \ � �
• SHADY LN
� - GEOGRqPHiC INFORMATION SVSTEM
�C.�L
YIQNITY MAP
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Q
MLP�005-0001 I
VAR�005-00081
_
� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
� � HELLWEGE PARTITIO
�
�
�
w
>
Q
ti�
�
�>>
DAKOTA ST RS�
RO —
fE0.R
�6 F<
F
y° c�
,r —
W \&
� � '�B ,`– QP �QpNITA D
� .
� gE'F B�� W HD
� a Tigard Area Mep
Q
�
W -
N
i �
rn
0 100 200 300 400 Fael
, G��� �
�e�R ,--329�ee�
G
� City of"1'igard
� LEWIS LN � o,`�'� OMITA
Infortnalion on Ihis map is for general localion ony anA
should be ve�ed wilh tha Oevelopment Services Division.
13725 SW Hall Blvd
TigaM,OR 97223
(503)639�4171
�IHAS ST httpJlwwa+.ci.ligard.w.us
Community Development Plot date:Jan 31,2006;C:�magiclMAGIC03.APR
�
� IMN I AV �E
�.�.�r� t �.-___ ..�._'_ p p .
• 1 �� aw ..ur�.w
, n�uuY
_-__'_'____'__ , .-_' —"' ____—__._
.x� �'�T-'
..� :• \ � I .C.6
� �4 � rUM�.1 q""""...1_.._._..�....�_�__' ___"""_'
XD1R�"_.,.."'.'""'__'___"::D�I/y."_"""'__"'"'"___""_'__..
� � .L__.� _� ._N DAKOTA STH4EET _ _ _ _ _
r — — -'� �— — H U�MOTA,^�iRfEi
___ ._ .I - _ .� ._ _ . . ..__._ _ _� �.�. __` �_ .__ ' _
r
_..�,.�� p-r-__�. _...
a. _ _ _ _
_. ._°- -.. ._
...--- ° ---
..— .� 4 6 _. _._... 9'� �- ' I
4 ♦ _J_
� w� ����
_"__ .�____"_. __�ry-._� —r--'-� - �-J�'�Y_-- �Y ___ � .
I — - .— �rwv�i[ow��uxmr �
/ I I y g I I �
1— $ fl k � ' I _ �n,.n.4:,..« �
� I Mtl MC
H I
I }I PARCEL 1 I i`I PARMEyL 2 I � -
>�r ...o.. �I �
I �Tp a"• o.m.ae. e.ae � I I I � �.ov Q a�:v
� �m:n.w I � _ _ — -�n� � _ _ _ _ � � w� �I
I ���Y��P�_ �I_ � _��Y�Y �� I ��L�L._ __.r_
'Ww �� T �
I � qI IR
na wrw m�iosa± . . R , . I �� �- ---
- I./N! . --.-
mu�� �f� II /... // . I , I -
I� . � TMO M011/ � . .
EIOSIMO PMCFL � I
XOT MMT A�110.[Cf � � �
-_.__"-__-__---_'_ �� Jj/ / % I ___
I j � �SVN/�li I
� -:I�. '11MAY4
�^�i /
;`rt..; �
i � � ..� I � ' �
� �...,�, ,.,_�. i '� � -�` ,.,.s
� �is.���y---��- �`— ————
� � �'— " I �
� �.�-T---�---•---r•---�r�t_-___•__��-"=��_`�"`�-
� -------- � � A-—- ———
� �, v,.. .�,.�,.o. ., .. �� ;� ; ! _ ----
� ;� I,:------------
n '�
I � r~— i ------_--
� j r
� . I . � J
� (ITY oF T�GARD T MLP2005-0001I/VAR2005-00081
CITY Of TIGARD
SITE PLAN N
HELLWEGE PARTITION
Ma is not to scale
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION
,,
MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-00011 =
HELLWEGE PARTITION ' ' '
120 DAYS = 5/24/2006
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: HELLWEGE PARTITION
CASE NOS: Minor Land Partition(MLP) MLP2005-00011
Street Improvement Adjustment VAR2005-00081
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Minor Land Partition to partition one (1) e�sting .41-acre lot into
two (2) parcels for detached single-family residences. In addition the applicant is requesting an
adjustment to street improvement standards for SW North Dakota Street and SW 92nd
Avenue.
APPLICANT: Mark Seaman OWNER Same
8407 SW 58`E'Avenue
Portland, OR 97219
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R 4.5: Low Density Residential District. The R 4.5 zoning district is designed to
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a
ininunum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Du�lexes and attached single-family units are
permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also perniitted conditionally.
LOC.ATION: The subject site is located at the southwest corner of SW North Dakota and SW 92°d Avenue;
Washington CounryTax Map 1S135DB,TaY Lot 4301 (no site address).
PROPOSED PARCEL 1: 8,480 Square Feet.
PROPOSED PARCIEL 2: 8,387 Square Feet.
APPLICABLE
RE VIE W
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments�; 18390
(Decision-Nlakuig Procedures�; 18.420 (Land Partitions); 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts);
18.705 (Access Egress and Cu-culation); 18.715 (Density Computations); 18.745 (Landscaping
and Screening); 18.765 (Off-Street parking and Loading Requirements); 18.790 (Tree
Removal); 18J95 (Visual Clearance Areas); and 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement
Standards).
SE CTION II. DE CISION
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Commuruty Development Director's designee has APPROVED the
above request. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at
City Hall.
7C�II� r'1I'I'ROV�[, SHALL 3E VALID FOR 18 iYIONTHS
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for ixispection at no cost or copies can be
obtained for twenty-five cents (25�) per page,or the current rate charged for copies at the tune of the request.
SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Notice:
Notice mailed to:
X The applicant and owners
X Owner of record within the required distance
X Affected government agencies
Final Decision: �
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 20, 2006 AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 4, 2006 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
pA- De�al-:
The llirector's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise
adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as�provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1 may appeal this decision in
accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a
written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten �10) busu�ess day_s of the
date the Notice of Decision was ma�led. The appeal fee schedule and fornls are ava able from the 1'lanning
Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223.
Unless the applicant is the appellant,the hear.ing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the
specific issues ident�fied in the written comments subrrutted by the parties during the comment period. Additional
evidence concer�ung issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be subrrutted by any party duruz_g the appeal
hearing,subject to any addrtional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to tune bythe appellate body.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 3, 2006.
�es,tion�s:
Fo- r further infornzation�please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Cheryl Caines at (503) 639-4171, Tigard
City Hall, 13125 SW HaII Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. '
naNrrr naP
� ________
MLP2005-0001 I
s VAR2005-00081
°' HELLWEGE PARTITIO
ti�
Y
2�j
OAK
� � I
m ��„
C .
n.1w..w
♦
N
GR �...�
eFNeUR �.
c �
2,o ciry otiig..a
LE S LN ' oi`l' A p .w...�rw�.�..��w
iw`�.w�:i��
a��a..m
ras s` _ - - -—� -�- r.a:w.�..a+w+..W
I
I
911�,�• !M1T �- .. bTLT 1• tl'l4 � .
1•
��1�
�L� ,1 ^�
e �� � �...� _'_"��""'_"...�._..."_"____
N DAKOTA '....""""'....._"'_'"..
-- }– --1 -�-�..,�---- ---r�—
� -d�e- - ......__..............._...__�----_�L===.:
T__._,- ---------------.
____"1"""'__ ' . ' � _C=Jl—"' LTi Ja ___i �.
I I --_.— --�.� � .
I I._J"�'^��� ..-f-.. .
II . 4MY 'qT I P�PCEL I I i'I P1quE�] I� �� �
f F ��� �
I i• � .L'—"���—"-i---J.� �I� an-.
� c�j� . .. i i �} --- .
I�
� �. .1 �� ,�
� , �
..... �nr . ___ �•' .I _ i-Y4__
�'f•��--r—�..._..._'� . ... __
� 1
YKV �YV '!MT '�
. . _ f I�__ -________
; � �fi_ _____�
�
,�, (ITY oF T�GARD � MLP2p05-0001 I/VAR2005-00081
srre Puu� N
HELLWEGE PARTITION
Ma Is not to ccaie
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER:
THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION CITYOFTIGARD
MINOR LAND PARTITION ShapingA�t�Communiry
DATE OF NOTICE: January 31, 2006
Fi�E NunnBERS: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-0001 I
ADJUSTMENT (YAR) Z005-00081
FILE NAME: HELLWEGE PARTITION
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to partition an approximately 16,867 square foot site
into two smaller parcels of 8,387 and 8,480 square feet. To avoid removing several large
trees from the site, the applicant is requesting an adjustment from street improvement
requirements. These include pavement width, bicycle lane, planter strip and sidewalk
improvements along SW North Dakota Street.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of SW North Dakota and SW g2"d
Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 1 S135D6, Tax Lot 4301 (No site address).
ZONE: R-4.5: The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes
with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.
Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and
institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.420, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745,
18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to
submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT
5:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 14. 2006. All comments should be directed to Chervl Caines. Assistant Planner in the
Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of
Tigard by telephone at 503-639-4171 or by email to Chervlc(a�tiqard-or.qov.
ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE
SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL
BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS
TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 21, 2006. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A
COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED.
WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
. Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria
believed to be applicable to this proposal;
. Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to
provide a response;
. Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant
approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue.
Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude
subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings
directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence.
AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE
DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN
500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE
ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED
UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION.
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS:
. The application is accepted by the City
. Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a
14-day written comment period.
. The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies.
. City Staff issues a written decision.
. Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all
owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax
assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any
governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the
City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice.
INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW:
The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are
contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development
Department. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this
service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of
this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments."
YItIMI*Y MAP
� —_______
MLP200i-00411
VAR2005-00081
_ ________
HEILWEGE PARTITIO
�Y
���
oaK
,�� r���
I � a:.-
' ;__�,� - .::t
.-�''' ,.
�,;,�'
a
�eFNe ..,.,. �
v'4G
O �
�iry nf-i'�p!
A
�nM �u d ma.ISi .. . '4
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITYOFTIGARD
Conrnuurity,[7ei�elc�prnertt
SfiapingA�etterCommunity
OATE: lanuary 31,2006
T0: lim Wolf,Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Di�ision
STAFF CONTACT: Cheryl Caines,Assistant Planner[x24371
Phone: [5031639-4111/Fax: (5031684-7297
➢ HELLWEGE PARTITION Q
MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-0001 I/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00081
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to partition an approximately 16,867 square foot site
into two smaller parcels of 8,387 and 8,480 square feet. To avoid removing several large trees from
the site, the applicant is requesting an adjustment from street improvement requirements. These
include pavement width, bicycle lane, planter strip and sidewalk improvements along SW North
Dakota Street. LO�ATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of SW North
Dakota and SW 92" Avenue; Washin ton County Tax Map 1 S135DB, Tax Lot 4301 (No site address).
ZONE: R-4.5: The R-4.5 zoning dis�rict is desi�ned to accommodate detached sin le-family homes
with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square fee�. Duplexes and
attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also
permitted conditionalfy. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters
18.390, 18.420, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and ApplicanYs Information 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 BACK BY: FEBRUARY 14, 2006. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your
comments. If you are unable to respond bv the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments
and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125
SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
PL ASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING 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.
_ Written comments provided below:
Name 8 Number of Person Commenting: � ,�1� jo3. 1\Qj •Z5(o l
. -,
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITVOFTIGARD
Comnuutity�17ezcCopment
S(apingA�Better�'ommunity
DATE: lanuary 31,2006
T0: PER ATTACNED
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Diuision
STAFF CONTACT: Cheryl Caines,Assistant Planner[x24371
Phone: [5031639-4171/Fax: [5031684-1297
� HELLWEGE PARTITION �
MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-0001 IIADjUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00081
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to partition an approximately 16,867 square foot site
into two smaller parcels of 8,387 and 8,480 square feet. To avoid removing several large trees from
the site, the applicant is requesting an adjustment from street improvement requirements. These
include pavement width, bicycle lane, planter strip and sidewalk improvements along SW North
Dakota Street. LO�ATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of SW North
Dakota and SW 92� Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 1 S135DB, Tax Lot 4301 (No site address).
ZONE: R-4.5: The R-4.5 zoning district is desi�ned to accommodate detached sin le-family homes
with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square fee�. Duplexes and
attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also
permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters
18.390, 18.420, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Information 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 BACK BY: FEBRUARY 14, 2006. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your
comments. If vou are unable to respond bv the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments
and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125
SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING 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.
_ Written comments provided below:
Name 8 Number of Person Commenting:
, � '�TY OF TIGARD REQUEST FC ';OMMENTS
NOTIFICA,.�N LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY D�.ELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
FILE NOS.: l.t� � U��-'0� � 1 FILE NAME: II+.-3Pi� � �ct.r-� ' v,-�
CITIIEN INVOLYEMENT TFAMS
14-DAY PENDING APPLICATION NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES OF AREA: ❑Central �ast ❑South ❑West
�^\� rr�����riEaS
CN�
LONG RANGE PLANNINGIBarbara Shields,Planning Mgr. COMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPT./Planning-Engineering Techs. ✓POLICE DEPT./Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer
BUILDING DIVISION/Gary Lampella,Building Official �ENGINEERING DEPT.1Kim McMillan,Dvlpmnt.Review Engineer,L PUBLIC WORKS/Matt Stine,Urban Forester
��CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder ✓PUBLIC WORKS/Rob Murchison,Projed Engineer
�PLANNER—POST PROJECT SITE IF A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-10 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING!
SPECIALDISTRICTS
TUAL.HILLS PARK 8 REC.DIST.+R�TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE 8 RESCUE� TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT+► �CLEANWATER SERVICES+�
Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Lee WalkedSWM Program
15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N.First Avenue
Beaverton,OR 97006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro,OR 97124
LOCAL AND STATE IURISDICTIONS
CITY OF BEAVERTON a1F _ CITY OF TUALATIN � OR.DEPT.OF FISH 8 WILDLIFE OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS
Planning Manager Planning Manager 3406 Cherry Avenue NE M2IIfldB WOOd(WLUN Fortn R�quind)
_ Steven Sparks,oe�.s�a.Ma��e� 18880 SW Martinaai Avenue Salem,OR 97303 775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100
PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 Salem,OR 97301-1279
Beaverton,OR 97076
_ OR.PUB.UTILITIES COMM.
METRO-LAND USE&PLANNING � _OR.DEPT.OF GEO.&MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street NE
_ CITY OF DURHAM � 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 5 Salem,OR 97310-1380
City Manager Portland.OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232
PO Box 23483 Bob Knight,oatatteso���ca�t��zcn> US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG.
Durham,OR 97281-3483 Paulette Allen,c��+nMa���nc�.a��ero. OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.B DVLP Kathryn Harris�r.P.acws�.n..o�iy�
_ Mel Huie,GreenspacesCoordinalor(CPA20A) La�ry Ffe�1Ch�comp v�annmendmentson�y� Routing CENWP-OP-G
CITY OF KING CITY� _ Jennifer Budhabhatti,Reqional Planner(Wetlands) 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150 PO Box 2946
City Manager _ C.D.Manager,GrowthManagement5ervices Salem,OR 97301-2540 Portland,OR 97208-2946
15300 SW 116th Avenue
King City,OR 97224 WASHINGTON COUNTY�
OR.DEPT.OF ENERGY�Po�r�i�io nrea) _OR.DEPT OF AVIATION(Moaopao rowars� Dept.of Land Use 8 Transp.
Bonneville Power Administration Tom Highland,Planning 155 N.First Avenue
_CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO� Routing TTRC—Attn: Renae Ferrera 3040 25th Street,SE Suite 350,MS 13
Planning Director PO Box 3621 Salem,OR 97310 Hillsboro.OR 97124
PO Box 369 Portland,OR 97208-3621 Steve Conway�c�.sia�.�
Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Gregg Leion�caA�
_ OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY(DEQ) ODOT,REGION 1 � Brent Curtis IcanJ
CITY OF PORTLAND (NOtify for Wetiands and Potentiai Environmental Impacts) _GfBflt RObIf1SOf1,Devebpmeot Review Coordinator poria Mateja czcn�n,s,a
Planning Bureau Director Regional Administrator Carl Torland, Right-of-Way Section�va�cro�� _Sr.Cartographer��NZ��MS,.
1900 SW 4�h Avenue,Suite 4100 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _Jim Nims,s�rvay«�zc��MS,s
Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037
WA.CO.CONSOL.COMM.AGNCY ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A� _ODOT,RAIL OIVISION STATE HISTORIC
DaveAustin�wccca>°e�r���.,o.«.� SamHunaidi,AsvslaniDis[ndManager (Notifyl(ODOTR/R•Hwy.CrossingisOnlyAcc�ssbLand) PRESERVATIONOFFICE
PO Box 6375 6000 SW Raab Road Dave Lanning,s�c��;,�sarery s,��a���+ (Notify it Proparty Has HD OwAay)
Beaverton,OR 97007-0375 Portland,OR 97221 555-13'"Street,NE,Suite 3 1115 Commercial Street,NE
Salem,OR 97301-4179 Salem,OR 97301-1012
UTILITY PROYIDERS AND SPECIAL A6ENCIES
PORTLAND WESTERN R/R,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Bur�ington Northernlsanta Fe R�R Predecessor)
Robert I.Melbo,President&General Manager
1200 Howard Drive SE
Albany,OR 97322-3336
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.R/R METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS �[COMCAST CABLE CORP. ,�TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT.
Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer�n��ax��o�so�iy> Randy Bice ,s..�.,.o��,.,..�,�n QfPmjetlisWithmY.Mileo(aTransitRoWe)
5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Twin Oaks Technology Center 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Ben Baldwin,Project Planner
Portland,OR 97232 1815 NW 169th Place,S-6020 Beaverton,OR 97005 710 NE Holladay Street
Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 Portiand,OR 97232
�PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC ,1 NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY y��VERIZON �WEST COMMUNICATIONS
Ken Gutierrez,Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. David Bryant,Engineering Florence Mott,Eng. ROW Mgr.
9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue OR 030533/P0 Box 1100 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110
Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97075-1100 Portland,OR 97219
:� TIGARDITUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 COMCAST CABLE CORP. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNIC.
Teri Brady,Administrative Offices Jan Youngquist,Demographics Alex Silantiev,5„M.,�aA�..c«��.�n Diana Carpenter,A,,.eaH.�a�W,
6960 SW Sandburg Street 16550 SW Merlo Road 9605 SW Nimbus Avenue,Bidg. 12 10831 SW Cascade Avenue
Tigard,OR 97223-8039 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Beaverton,OR 97008 Tigard,OR 97223-42D3
ilt INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500'Of THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY/ALL
CITY PROJECTS (Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify�. h:lpatty\masters\Request For Comments Notification List.doc (UPDATED: 18-Nov-OS)
(Also uodate:i:\curolnlsetuo\labels\anneaation utilities and franchises.doc when uodatino this documenfl
, ._ ,
MEMORANDUM
�. ;
TO: Cheryl Caines
FROM: Matt Stine, City Forester
RE: Hellwege Partition
DATE: February 15, 2006
As you requested I have provided some comments on the "Hellwege Partition" project.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments please contact me
anytime.
1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
18.745.030.C, Installation Requirements The installation of all landscaping shall
be as follows:
1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting
procedures.
2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and
grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock
(ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and
3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of
this title.
• The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard
Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society
of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in
the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition.
In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and
planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there
are directions for soil amendments and modifications.
• In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the
following guidelines be followed:
o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite.
o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite.
o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite.
18.745.030.E, Protection of Existinq Landscapinq. Existing vegetation on a site
shall be protected as much as possible:
1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing
vegetation to remain during the construction process; and
2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g.,
areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which
can be placed around the individual trees).
See comments under "Tree Removal".
18.745.030.G, Conditions of Approval of Existinq Veqetation. The review
procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be
specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no
instance shall be less than that required for conventional development.
See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum.
18.745.040, Street Trees
A. Protection of existinq veqetation. All development projects fronting on a
public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in
length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant
street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C.
• The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard
Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society
of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in
the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition.
In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and
planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturitv. Additionally, there
are directions for soil amendments and modifications.
• In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the
following guidelines be followed:
o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite.
o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite.
o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite.
2. TREE REMOVAL
18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement
A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of
trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or
combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a
subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or
conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever
possible.
B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following:
1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees
including trees designated as significant by the city;
2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree
removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the
replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the
following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other
development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots:
a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper
requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section
18.790.060D of no net loss of trees;
b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in
caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be
mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in
caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be
mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper
requires no mitigation.
3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed;
4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used
by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction.
• As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by a
certified arborist, Stephen Goetz. The report contains the four required
components, and is therefore acceptable.
�
• I suggest planting native species of trees as street trees such as bigleaf
maple, cascara or Oregon white oak. Properly sized oaks can be found at
River Oak Farm & Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745. The species of
street trees used in this development are not listed. The species must be
approved before the trees can be planted.
• I have to admit, I am baffled by the tree mitigation plans that Mr. Goetz
outlined. I suggest requiring a cash assurance for the 11 trees that they
"mighY' be able to preserve.
Below are my suggestions for the applicant to follow for tree protection guidelines:
• Prior to construction, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed
construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection
devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree
Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in
relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite
that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree
that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will
have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities
shall also be protected.
• A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment,
vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other
construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection
zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected.
• All tree protection devices shall be:
■ Visible.
■ Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2"
O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top
of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than
two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart
than four feet.
■ Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a
sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no
construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the
fencing.
■ Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester
prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction.
■ Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final
inspection is conducted.
To determine the size of the tree protection zone (TPZ) the project arborist should follow
the guidelines listed below:
■ For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of
diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4 '/z feet above the ground, allow 12
inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at
DBH must have at least 15' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy
of the tree.
■ For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of
the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns
on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line
method, whichever is greater.
■ Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown
in "Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees
During Land DevelopmenY'by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark.
■ The project arborist may propose an alternate method for the establishment
of the TPZ, provided the effort is coordinated with the City Forester.
• If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks,
bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any
entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall
determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree
protection measures.
• Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Arborist shall submit
a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed
and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their
modified growing environment.
RECOMMENDED CONDtTIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for
the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved
through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are
properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other
protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be
correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance
with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years
following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the
remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in lieu of planting.
2. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicanUowner shall
record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12"
diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a
certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered
invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be
removed as a hazardous tree.
.
. . .
3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction
drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape
Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation
and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those
trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal
by this decision.
4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as
directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant
shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and
inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are
performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection
fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of
work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be
processed.
5. Prior to any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project
Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every
two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through
site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports
must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any
Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred
to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If
the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the
fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees
did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s).
If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled
intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being
followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an
inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This
inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing
was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree
Protection Plan has been violated.
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings
indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree
protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding
the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house.
All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to
commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of
home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection
measures may be removed.
If you have any questions please call me anytime. Thank you for requesting my
comments on this project.
J r
� 'ALATIN VALLEY FIRE 8� RESC • SOUTH DIVISION
' COMMUNITY SERVICES • OPERATIONS • FIRE PREVENTION
Tualatin Valley
Fire & Rescue
February 16, 2006
Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Hellwege Partition
Dear Cheryl,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named
development project. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following
criteria and conditions of approval:
1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus
access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet(12 feet for up to two dwelling
units and accessory buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6
inches. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 26 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be
installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus
roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be
installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways
are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted.
2) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather
surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less
than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You
may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of
supporting such loading.
3) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28
feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point.
4) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS -REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for
single family dwellings and duplexes served by a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 gallons per
minute. If the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be
determined according to IFC Appendix B.
5) FIRE HYDRANTS—ONE-AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS 8�ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
Where a portion of a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road,
as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and
mains shall be provided.
6) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants
available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Appendix C, Table C 105.1.
Considerations for placinq fire hvdrants may be as follows:
• Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as
approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building
that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to
the required number of hydrants unless approved by the fire code official.
7401 SW Washo Court,Suite 101 •Tualatin,Oregon 97062•Tel.(503)612-7000•Fax(503)612-7003•www.tvfr.com
� .
• Hydrants that a� �parated from the subject building by div highways or freeways shall
not contribute to ..,a required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets only as
approved by the fire code official.
• Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required
number of hydrants only if approved by the fire code official.
7) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more
than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway.
8) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of
reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the
centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center
line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly
9) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire
apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to
any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site.
Please contact me at(503) 612-7010 with any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Eric T . McMullen
Eric T. McMullen
Deputy Fire Marshal
Page 2 of 2
I Chery al C ines - Re: TIFS Page 1 '
From: Susan Ross
To: Cheryl Caines
Date: 2/21/2006 10:59:40 AM
Subject: Re: TIFS
It does! TIF on a partition is based on the single family rate....when they actually take a permit out to build
a house, they will be charged (current rate) $2,850.00. If there was a house that was demolished on the
site, they would receive the same as a credit toward the new house.
»> Cheryl Caines 02/21 10:55 AM »>
Sounds like a sneeze or something!! Anyway, what do you need to calculate TIFS on a 2 lot partition?
Cheryl
�
.-n..�
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITYOFTIGARD
Community��creCopnrent
S�aping,��t3etter�ommunity
DATE: lanuary 31,2006 �Y
�
T0: Rob Murchison,Public Works Proiect Engineer '�,��
- �,
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division �� ° C�j
STAff CONTACT: er I Caines Assistant Planner[x2 �
Phone: [5031639-41T1/fax: [5031684-
:� HELLWEGE PARTITION �
MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-0001 IIADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00081
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to partition an approximately 16,867 square foot site
into two smaller parcels of 8,387 and 8,480 square feet. To avoid removing several large trees from
the site, the applicant is requesting an adjustment from street improvement requirements. These
include pavement width, bicycle lane, planter strip and sidewalk improvements along SW North
Dakota Street. LO�ATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of SW North
Dakota and SW 92n Avenue; Washin ton County Tax Map 1 S135DB, Tax Lot 4301 (No site address).
ZONE: R-4.5: The R-4.5 zoning dis�rict is desi�ned to accommodate detached single-family homes
with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and
attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also
permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters
18.390, 18.420, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Information 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 BACK BY: FEBRUARY 14,2006. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your
comments. If you are unable to respond bv the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments
and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125
. SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING 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. j'h
� Written comments provided below:
7
� ,� ',C f/
�
�
r � - r -� ��
� �1r� �,cSL,�°�� r4�-F cJz!. ..��j.,r�.�f-- vyt i /,71J1��� ���"'��
/�� �
. C./ t ` � �-
Name & Number of Person Commenting: ;
� ,
�
- o
� �m
� r p
� N
_ A , , �
1 �'�� � �
, �T� _
�� ,�� � x�
TAX LOT 8700 Q`— `' -1AX LOT 8500
1 S 1 35 DB — _ � TAX LCT 1240U 1 S 1 35 DB ` T J. � �
1 S 1 35 DB
---------- � � — _ �_---- — T Q — �
— - EOGE OF
T� � ASPHAL7 ZE Al
DR� CURB
('� � �°'I
�_ , � p I-� DN1Y �I � o- - `� � , � �'� 12+00 12+42.31 �� SS / �s -�`--� ss ----!
�s�-- _ _ - -- --
� 10+50 - ' ! 11+00 S ss 255.80 1 Q=.Q082 S�� -� ss -� ss � a - ss , � , �
s��+00 --- s� - � ss � � —.. � � �
s I ` �� EDGE OF
SS � i ' OVA (N) ----��i � j�9 O !�� cp P.SPHALT� �p
�'— (CRUSHED} � � ' N �
� M M M M _M h� M— M M �� ; � �
M M 12" CMP \ _.__.�.`` - " _
SIGN 12" C C PIPE Cw) � � � ^ - -
elcHeo�HOOO �E=,a4.a• STORM PIPE - - - � �" � - - � '� - -- _ � �
r WATCN" N ' — . .<_. -:-1. _ - _ � _.- — r ' FC07v�iN€--�� /
Y _�,.� O � , J � � _ � _ _ :s;• _ -� „_ � - _ -- - - .... ....- � � I � �
- -- � ���::�:�:::: � - _.._ � � T ..�. � � _ j� ,
-- — —k3i' T—� — = — — -- -- " �=L � " i :. — - � ��.�.�. ... . �' r_f� �
lCRETE SI� WALK I � ^ l .Y mx•,:•�.•. 5.52 _ �. � � � 0 '.:�:. •�.� �y �V� �
� . .. .� J f
\ o g T , ` J o 6t� ..:',.�+,.:>�' �:t�" __ --� -' ....--- ` , � '' .. :':. .J��j�� �'r�� /' �-
� i � ! ��, � � � '� ! I `-'�� / � /'/ .. . f.'.:. �, ' i r ��,
� i ✓ -��f1�� . ..... / r
' � . . f � .:.�..�. INSTALL 2 � ����- � ^ ' • ' �• _•••.:- , -
6` —,'- , � :;ti�F-- r' _ � ... . ... I -
o �� � ••:::. ...:.. , - �.
SANI �� r � ' � � ... ~PER TVYYD DETA,...� 7 _, - - - - � _- -1 ' � .•:..:•: .�:.:�-� �i�
� , 1 � � J � .::::::::.: .� ` � . I � ,,,,.�. .�s7:.':. � �i
� � LATE – '� � SH ED� ..... �.��'�. I � � -� I - ��' ..•. :�:.:.:.•. / �
� --- � �� i � � ...... � / i
�--�(.�'� , – r�RIVATE ACCESS - s�- _ � � . – � r- • .... ' .0' �'
J � CiTY OF TIGARD � EASEMENT '' � � � ~ ` -� – `~ J ! "" a'• ' /
-S7CRY � � �- -` � , ,- � � — � � -- � �� 25. '�y:.:` ...;r. � �
HOUSE —Z6l'�" � � � ZG O� ' ^ � � � - � `��-r � �:.... .'1;;l.: � I /
i� OLD WIRE fENCE -� 4� � .i :.'::.' ',',•,•,•....
� 1' EAST Of LtP�E � r- � _ � / �` ':'.'. •::..., / /
� _ - - , - ' " - . _ - ' PAQ��L 2 r �. � �:��::, . ��: , ► ,� -�
-�6 P A R CE L _1- � �- , � _ _ : :r�... , �
-` � � �J r _ _ - �,°�. � � 6 �8,387 SF._ � - _- N--' - .:'.':�. ::.••.-. ,.._. -� --� , �
�� -8,zF80 SF.~ � � , ^ ` ! , - 1 ':.•.�'. -.� .:1:' / �,. �
� I� .�96ti � �^ ` � .�.; •�:.%�:. f. /
� ��6�' � r '" J �� � l.-� �T� — � _. �-. � � � � I � •�'';•;t!:._:.': �
T OF LINE � � J � -- � / �-L�O� �r "� i � ' � y � :.�_:;. '..:.I-�. �
� � i � / / � �Aa�' / � I � . .''.�:�.�. � l
� ,_ —S 61,`— .� � — � — /� �� �' � �'i4:":�'J'.... ,
/ � —
- 10+04 - 12+42.31 N. DAK4TA STREET
PLAN VIEW, STA.
HORIZ�NTAL SCALE: 1 "=20'
UTI ITY STA NT
THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SH�
SURVEY INFOR!lATION AND EXlST
NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDEI
SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EI'
Sl1RVEY0R FURTHER DOES NOT '
UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN_ THE Ex
R
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
DATE: 3-7-06
TO: Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner
FROM: Kim McMillan, Development Review Engine ��'� ' 1
RE: MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition
Access Manaqement (Section 18.705.030.H)
Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with
all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and
streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and
deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and
AASHTO.
The applicant's engineer has submitted preliminary sight distance certification for
the proposed shared access. For local streets with a posted speed of 25 mph
the minimum required sight distance is 250 feet. The engineer states that
available sight distance exceeds 1000 feet to the west and 550 feet to the east.
The engineer also noted that the existing "Neighborhood Watch" sign should be
relocated west of the proposed driveway.
Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant's engineer shall provide final
sight distance certification upon completion of the public improvements.
Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be
placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections.
Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic
commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway
setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet,
measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat
of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the
influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact
report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a
project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore
any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is
not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the
intersection as possible.
North Dakota Street is designated a Neighborhood Route, therefore this criterion
does not apply.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 1
Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways
and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of
driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum
spacing of locat streets along a local street shall be 125 feet.
North Dakota Street is designated a Neighborhood Route, therefore this criterion
does not apply.
Street And Utilitv Improvements Standards (Section 18.810):
Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of
public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and
drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below:
Streets:
Improvements:
Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets
adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards.
Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width
planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved
in accordance with the TDC.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a
Neighborhood Route with bike lanes to have a 58 foot right-of-way width and
36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street
parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm
drainage, and street trees.
This site lies adjacent to SW North Dakota Street, which is classified as a
Neighborhood Route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present,
there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most
recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate the additional 4 feet of
ROW to provide 29 feet from centerline.
SW North Dakota is paved but not fully improved to City standards. At a
minimum the applicant shall construct the public sidewalk at its ultimate location.
For the remainder of the half-street improvements, the TMC
18.810.030(A)(1) states that streets within a development and streets adjacent
shall be improved in accordance with City standards. However, 18.810.030(A)(5)
states that the City may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street
improvements if the improvement associated with the project does not, by itself,
provide a significant improvement to the street safety or capacity. Although this
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 2
development will incrementally increase the amount of traffic on the roadway, the
increase will not substantially degrade the level of service on the street. A street
improvement adjacent to this site, therefore, will not significantly improve the
safety or capacity of the street. In addition, 18.810.030(A)(5)(e) states that a
guarantee in lieu of street improvements is acceptable if the proposal is a land
partition on property zoned residential and the partition does not create any new
streets. This partition will not create a new street. Based on these code
provisions, Staff therefore recommends that the applicant be required to enter
into an agreement with the City whereby the owner agrees to participate in any
future widening project for the street carried out by the City, a third party, or
through a local improvement district. This agreement must be executed prior to
final plat approval.
This site lies adjacent to SW 92"d Avenue, which is classified as a Local Street
on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately
25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's
map. The applicant should dedicate the additional 2 feet of R�W required to
provide 27 feet from centerline.
SW 92nd is currently unimproved. In order to mitigate the impact from this
development, the applicant should enter into a guarantee in lieu of street
improvements.
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states
that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and
proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division.
This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a
satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the
boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be
constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining
properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to
continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is
developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the
property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City
Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost.
Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be
constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length.
The right-of-way for 92"d Avenue was established in 1951. The street will
eventually be constructed connecting it to North Dakota Avenue. A minor land
partition is not required to construct the street improvements, but will be required to
enter into a guarantee in lieu of street improvements, thereby meeting this criterion.
Street Alignment and Connections:
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 3
Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of
no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where
prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing
developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other
restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street
connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a
regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and
collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within
the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns
or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or
extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure
the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered
topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance
of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental ar topographical
constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that
a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the
constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
The applicant has shown the additional ROW dedication for 92"d Avenue, thereby
providing adequate ROW for the future construction of 92"d Avenue.
Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape
of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building
sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient
access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of
limitations and opportunities of topography.
Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks
formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-
way line except:
• Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or
other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or;
• For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major
collectors or railroads.
• For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides
equivalent access.
PLANNING
Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections
on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street
connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no
more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 4
topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict
adherence to other standards in the code.
PLANNING
Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being
more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5
times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district.
PLANNING
Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of
frontage on public or rivate streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land
partition, 18.420.050.�4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a
minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access
easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling
unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet.
PLANNING
Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to
meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial,
collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets
shall have sidewalks on at least one side.
The applicant shall construct a public sidewalk at its ultimate horizontal and
vertical location, based on the City's TSP, along the site frontage of North Dakota
Street. The sidewalk shall also connect back to the paved portion of North
Dakota Street at each end of the frontage.
Any proposed alternative to the sidewalk location, in order to save trees, must be
submitted to the City Engineer and City Arborist for review and approval. The
alternative submittal shall include, at a minimum, the horizontal layout, grading
plan, easements and the project arborist's report.
Sanitary Sewers:
Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be
installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to
existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and
Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as
adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future
revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive
plan.
Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems
shall include consideration of additional development within the area as
projected by the Comprehensive Plan.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 5
There is an existing sewer main in North Dakota Street. The applicant's plans
indicate the installation of separate laterals to each proposed parcel. The laterals
shall be shown on the PFI plan submittal.
Storm Drainage:
General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make
adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff.
Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a
culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate
potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or
outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary
size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction
Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by
Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or
amendments).
There are no defined upstream drainage ways that impact this development.
Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it
is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from
the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and
Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have
been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions
have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the
development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards
for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water
Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments).
In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS} completed a basin study of Fanno Creek
and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that
plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater
detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net
increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that
all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide
onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno
Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff
will be permitted to discharge without detention.
The CWS standards include a provision that would exclude small projects such
as residential land partitions. It would be impractical to require an on-site
detention facility to accommodate storm water runoff from Parcels 1 & 2.
Rather, the CWS standards provide that applicants should pay a fee in-
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 6
lieu of constructing a facility if deemed appropriate. Staff recommends
payment of the fee in-lieu on this application.
The stormwater runoff from the two proposed developments shall be conveyed to
an approved public drainage system. This must be included on the PFI plan
submittal.
Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways:
Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments
adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted
pedestrianlbikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of
such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way.
North Dakota Street is a designated bicycle facility.
Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development
permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits,
subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from
such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of
bikeway improvements.
The amount of the striping would be as follows:
• 197 feet of 8-inch white stripe, at $2.50/lf $492.50
• 5 Mono-directional reflective markers @ $4.00/ea $200.00
• 2 Bike lane legends @ $175/ea $350.00
• 2 Directional mini-arrows @ $100/ea $200.00
$1242.50
Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for
bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum
width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet.
Utilities:
Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those
required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services
and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface
mounted transformers, surtace mounted connection boxes and meter
cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service
facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at
50,000 volts or above, and:
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 7
• The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving
utility to provide the underground services;
• The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted
facilities;
• All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains
installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the
surfacing of the streets; and
• Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing
the street improvements when service connections are made.
Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states
that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the
development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities
which are not underground will serve the development and the approval
authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-
grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in
conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-
by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a
short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the
placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground
utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by
utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public
right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-
grounding.
There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW North Dakota
Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street
frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 197
lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 6895.00.
ADDITIONAL CITY ANDIOR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS:
Public Water Svstem:
The Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) provides service in this area. The
applicant shall submit plans for review, approval and permitting to TVWD prior to
issuance of the PFI permit.
Storm Water Quality:
The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM)
regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 8
Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which
require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities
shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100
percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious
surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the
frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained
through the year.
The CWS standards include a provision that would exclude small projects such
as residential land partitions. It would be impractical to require an on-site
water quality facility to accommodate treatment of the storm water from
Parcel 2. Rather, the CWS standards provide that applicants should pay a
fee in-lieu of constructing a facility if deemed appropriate. Staff
recommends payment of the fee in-lieu on this application.
�PUT CASE NOTE IN P*P/NDICATING IF WE NEED TO CHARGE QUALITY
OR QUANTITY SDC'S (FOR PERMIT TECHS & PLANS EXAMINER)]
Gradinq and Erosion Control:
CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to
reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public
storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction,
grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates
erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an
erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City
permits.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any
development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is
over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit
from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with
the site and/or building permit.
Address Assiqnments:
The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the
City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee
in the amount of$ 50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to
the City prior to final plat approval.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 9
Survey Requirements
The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91)] on
two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic
control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be
of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the
coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements
to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates
can be established by:
• GPS tie nefinrorked to the City's GPS survey.
• By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network.
The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points
for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other
water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State
Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91).
(ADD FINAL PLAT CHECK FEE IN P*P— FOR SUBDIVISIONS ONLY)
Recommendations:
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT:
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642)
for review and approval:
. A Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to
cover the sanitary sewer taps, the new driveway approach, public sidewalk,
storm culvert and any other work in the public right-of-way. Three (3) sets of
detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the
Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any
drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets
relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit
plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,
which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ti arq d_or.gov).
. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address
and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be
designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance
for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a
corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 10
the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact
person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering
Department will delay processing of project documents.
. The applicant's PFI plans shall be revised to show the construction of a
public sidewalk at its ultimate horizontal and vertical location, based on the
City's TSP, along the site frontage of North Dakota Street. The sidewalk
shall connect to the existing sidewalk at the west end of their frontage and
back to the paved portion of North Dakota Street at the east end.
Any proposed alternative to the sidewalk location, in order to save trees,
must be submitted to the City Engineer and City Arborist for review and
approval. The alternative submittal shall include, at a minimum, the
horizontal layout, grading plan, easements and the project arborisYs
report. If the alternative is approved by the City, the PFI plans shall be
revised accordingly.
. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay the addressing fee.
(STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart, Engineering).
. The applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby they agree to
complete or participate in the future improvements of SW North Dakota
Street and SW 92"d Avenue adjacent to the subject property, when any of
the following events occur:
A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or
paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District,
B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or
paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency,
C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed
by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction
expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the
subject property, or
D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate
by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements
by others adjacent to the subject site.
. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to
indicate that the proposed shared driveway will be jointly owned and
maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it.
. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay $1242.50 to the City for
the striping of the bike lane along the frontage of North Dakota Street.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 11
. The applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation, for review by
the City (Kim McMillan), of the proposed discharge of stormwater runoff from
the two parcels to an approved public drainage system.
. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW
North Dakota underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee
in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the
site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 35.00 per lineal foot. If the
fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 6895.00 and it shall be paid prior
to final plat approval.
. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for
the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility
Improvement permit.
. The applicanYs final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two
monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic
control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and
shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary.
Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert
ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to
grid north. These coordinates can be established by:
• GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey.
• By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared
by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or
narrative.
B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee
(Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext.
2421).
C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum
standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05),
Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.
D. The right-of-wa�r dedication for North Dakota Street to 29 feet from
centerline and for 92" Avenue to 27 feet from centerline shall be made on
the final plat.
E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat
until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 12
City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicanYs
surveyor.
F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two
mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or
City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for
subdivisions).
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642)
for review and approval:
. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the
Engineering Department with a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat.
. During issuance of the building permit for Parcels 1 & 2, the applicant shall
pay the standard water quality and water quantity fees per lot (fee amounts
will be the latest approved by CWS).
. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant's engineer shall provide
final sight distance certification.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS MLP2005-00011 Hellwege Partition PAGE 13
Feb 2 , 2006 ��,�1r���D
VC
Cheryl Caines
Asst . Planner `�F� 0 b' 7006
City of Tigard
RE: Minorland Fetition - 2005 -OOOIl
�t� °�0'�`Tp�u
Bdjustment 2005 - 00081
I am opposing this Adjustment for the follocYing reasons :
1 . THE TREES ARE NOT THAT LARGE.
2 . MANY PEOPLE WALK THEIR DOGS ALONG THIS STRETCH OF
NORTH DAKOTA AND WITHOUT SIDEWALKS IT CREATES A
TRAFFIC HAZARD.
3. THE OTHER DEVELOPERS ALONG NOR�EH DAKOTA STREET HAVE
PUT IN WIDER STl�E�T�B`r. �URBS AND SIDEWALKS.
9 . WE NEED THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STREET FOR THE
SAFETX OF THOSE WHO USE THIS STREET AIVD THE OWNERS
�F''�T�:_ SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
I have lived at 9385 SW North Dakota since Feb. of 1977 and
have seen many close-calis on this section of road��ay. Because �
of the road being so narrow and no sidewalks.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
RIChard L. Mobley
9385 SW North Dakota
Tiyard, Oregon
503-639-7346
✓
RECEIVED PLqIVNING
FEB 1 3 2006
CITY OF T�GqR�
February 10, 2006
Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner
Planning Division
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Minor Land Partition (MLP) 2005-00011
With respect to the above partition, I have no objection to the building of the
homes, nor to having no bicycle lane; however, I believe that the sidewalk that is
started on the property adjacent to that site, should be continued along the front
of the property with the same improvements that have been required on that side
of the street.
We are going to have increasing traffic coming through our areas, not onl�
because of this improvement, but the addition of 45 condominiums on 95t
Avenue, which increases the travel from Greenburg Road down 91 St to North
Dakota and then to g5tn
�t �s already dr{�rcu�t errough as to satety w�th both ch��dren and adu�ts walkrr�g �r�
the street because there are no continuous sidewalks, not to mention that
sic�ewatiks have atireaciy been starteti from each en� of the street on that sicie.
fn the dark, ti�ere are near misses aff of tf�e time because of fack of visibifity. f
feel that the requirements that were made on the property next to this should be
the same for any development occurring in the future, including this one.
, Tha k you
��
Karen Estrada
9269 SW North Dakota
Tigard, OR 97223
✓
�
Attn: Cheryl Caines l�Q
Assistant Planner 1 3 1006
City of Tigard - Planning Division ,��-y�r�
13125 SW Hall Bivd. �'�_�`�n��;��
Tigard, OR 97223 �Q��IVG
�I
� RE: HELLWEGE PARTITION - Minor Land Partition (MLP) 2005-00011
I would like to express my concerns regarding the request by the applicant for an
, "adjustment from street improvement requirements".
II Omission of street improvements at the time of development will only defer the responsibility ,
for the improvements to future property owners and/or the City of Tigard. �
There are existing half street improvements on the south side of SW North Dakota Street to
the east and west of this proposed partition. The frontage improvements required by the ,
Tigard Municipal Code are a logical link to the existing improvements on the south side of SW
North Dakota between 915t and 94`" Avenue. '
Not only are street improvements required by code, but the existing unimproved roadway is
�� narrow, void of sidewalks, and lacks adequate street lighting. The resulting dark, narrow,
I roadway with open ditches poses a genuine public safety issue that will be remedied by the
construction of street improvements along SW North Dakota.
Yes, the street improvements required by City Code may result in the removal of some �
existing trees, but that is the nature of development. If the City decides to grant the
adjustment and waive the required street improvements for this project it will be ignoring the ,
issue of public safety in favor of saving some trees along SW North Dakota Street.
I would also like to add that public safety is one consideration as to why 92"d Avenue should
, not be extended north to SW North Dakota. Creating an additional extension between
I Greenburg Road and SW North Dakota is unnecessary and unsafe for two reasons. First, the
' existing portion of 92nd Avenue is not designed to handle both through traffic and
pedestrians; future improvements to 92"dAvenue are unlikely because the properties fronting �i
92nd Avenue are fully developed. Second, allowing an additional (unnecessary) access point
onto Greenburg Road from SW North Dakota will only impeded the flow of traffic on an
already overburdened roadway.
Thank you for your time and consideration, �I
Ryan Truair I�
11260 SW 94"'Ave.
Tigard, OR 97223
503-624-4831
. . . : ✓
February 13, 2006
�.... -��1 VE
.,
��� D
Cheryl Caines �� 13 �006
Assistant Planner ��T1'0�r�
��.i7h..!FN'i�� � .
City of Tigard Planning Division ' � ._:�.�•�
13125 SW Hall Boulevord,Tigard, Oregon 97223 �`��!'
Dear Cheryl,
This letter is to formally protest any changes or variances in zoning and the actual sub-division to
the property described on the attached brochure and known as "Tax Lot 4301".
We firmly believe the applicant is lying to the city in his general request for adjustmenis to
improvement standards made to the properties. This person has fallen (2) trees in the month of
December large enough to rock our house. We made phone inquiries into the city of Tigard and
did not hear back officiatly other than, "We'll look into it". And just today,this morning he has
fallen two large birch trees in excess of 1 foot in diameter. I've just been informed that he is
cutting down 2 fir trees of about 2 foot in diameter-and he is telling us the neighbors that he
does not need the city's permission to cut these trees down. This person cares nothing for trees
and nothing for his neighbors. He has cursed several of us out when asked what he was doing
cutting down such large trees.
Additionally,we're not even sure he has had a permit to do the work he has done recently on
his house-there looks to be some structural issues where the lateral resisting capacity of his
house are in question due to an excessive amount of windows on the west face of his house.
Adding houses or driveways along SW North Dakota Street without all of the improvements
required of a typica!development presents a safety hazard and a nuisance to those people
buying/renting these houses and people living and using the streets in this area.
First,for existing residents there is no "safe" buffer from traffic along this porfion of the street.
People wolking along here must keep a constant eye on traffic and kids and people walking
dogs face a serious hazard as is. It is also very dark along this porfion of SW North Dakota and
any additional development without major improvements would only make this even more
dangerous.
Secondly, anyone attempting to back out of a driveway along this street is limited in view by the
large grade change and cannot see the often "speeding" traffic or walking pedestrians and
cyclists along SW North Dakota.
Third, the grades here are significant enough to warrant erosion protection and landscape
buffering to keep soil flnd water from draining out onto the street.
Fourth, a lot of site grade work will have to be performed to get driveways and access into these
site locations and again a car exiting a driveway will be limited in vision of cars and pedestrians.
Fifth, and the basis for his arguments of not having to do city required street, sidewalk, and
landscape improvements, this person has demonstrated no concern for trees and animal
habitat and using the argument that he is trying to save trees is a lie to the city and the
�
neighborhood he is offecting negatively-as has been demonstrated in the past and by his
actions the very day of this letter.
Sixth, given this person's lack of aesthetic cap�acity or concern in his own home,we feel very
strongly that this person will not give much thought or care for what get's built there as long as
he can make a quick buck.
Seventh,we as neighbors absolutely oppose this development. We bought into this
neighborhood because of the lot sizes, the trees, and the fact that we were not staring into
another house in close proximity to our own (privacy). We feel that the existing lot size should be
maintained as is and that we should, as a neighborhood, have a say in what is developed
adjacent to our homes. We do not want what is a single family neighborhood to be broken up
into rental properties, smaller lots or condos, town homes or duplexes. Every neighbor I've talked
to does not want uses inconsistent with the character and existing development patterns of our
neighborhood.
We ask that the lot size be maintained as is and that no future development or parfitioning of this
site be approved or considered. If the development is not stoppable we ask that street
improvements,sidewalks, landscape strips,street lighting,covered ditches, setbacks, etc... and
(3) speed bumps along the length of this stretch of SW North Dakota Street be implemented at
the developers expense. We do not want to be stuck with a bill indirectly through our taxes that
pays for this person's development when we strongly oppose it. We also ask that any trees
currently removed,or removed in ihe areas of these developments be replaced on his own site
or on these properties.
We further request that the city launch an investigation into the size and quantity of trees
recently cut down and that the owner of this properfy be required to replace these trees with a
city approved landscape plan-and thai the owner be required to request city approval (and
wriften neighbor notification) prior to cutting any additional trees. There are/were several
nesting hawks on this property and we the immediate neighbors fear for the retribution of other
trees being cut down by this person.
We especially oppose (for safety and traffic reasons the extension of SW 92^d avenue through to
SW North Dakota street. This will make SW North Dakota even more unsafe for everyone and
introduce more traffic into our quiet neighborhood.
Sincerely,
�� i//��
Jesse Emory Architect, AIA
503.224.9656 Work Phone
11280 SW 94�h Avenue,Tigard Oregon 97223
(Our property is directly to ihe west of the property in question)
Cc Matt Stein, City of Tigard Forester
Fax:5032284529 Feb 14 2006 16:42 P. 01
V
J��z�a� L. Kr.�irrrs� ��CEI
�. �ED
AYTO$liSY AT LAW
T�� AMHABBADO� �-� 1
1207 S.W. SixTa Avs:res 4 100C
� PoarzexD, 4a�c�ox 97204 �
; "�wO�T��a�D
' T�i,sPHOxE (503) Q4$-p808 � --
F� (so3) aae-��2e �
r
, ����
February 14, 2006
Via F�a(,SQ3) 548-1960
C�eryl Catne�
Assistant Planner �
Planning Division
City of Tigard
13125 SW�all Blvd.
TigSrd, OR 97223 ;
Re: I-i II P 2005 O1
Dear Ms, Caines:
I represent Kevin at,d Stephanie V'�aene, who own the property locat�d at 11420 SW 92'�
Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223. On behalf of lbtr. and Mrs. Viaene, I am writing to concur in the
applicant'a statement that �ny improvement of SW 92nd Avernte�o con:iect it to SW North
Dakota Street would violate the prer�yuisites of the Dolan dec'ssian. The prqposed partition and
subsequent development wiould not create�ny additiot�l trat�c on SW 92'�, and requiring said
improvement would ther�#bre be disproportionate to th�impact of the proposal.
In addition, as pro�ided in CDC I8:81U.030(A} S c ,th�nature of existin dev�lo ment
� )� ) � p
on adjacent properties alor}g SW 92'�is auch that it is highly unlik�ly that street improvementa
�vould be extended in the foreseeable future, and the improvement associated witb.the applicant's
proposed project does not�n itself provide a significant unprovement to street safety or capacity.
A9 property owner� along the affected portion of SW 92nd Avanue, the Viaenes would
su�er practical effects frartt the above imprnvement in the form of cut-through traffic on SW 92"�,
which would appreciably d�minish the value of thair property.
Pl�ase place this le�ter 'tn the casefile in this matter. Tharilc you for your courtesies.
Ve tculy yours,
, ,
, nrri
JLK�cme ,
Original not mail�d �
cc; Kevin and Stephanie Viaene
�
- .
-'i
f �RE� NOT��1m
(500')
-- - � �� � ___________
�
,
_ _ w ' ' FOR: Kristy Kelly
> `°'°° �
, �.
\, � RE: I S I 35DB, 430 I
�� � f9�MMM iq�MOM� f � . I
I ���' ' `�'""' \ � (MLP2005-0001 I)
fOR��iM - I YA7�IMIM ...— _ _ . sOAMlNI � I �����������
i9�MM � I
•��n ��� *I�E� 607NMlN i17lr�7�N
—'__ _
—"_-..___ _ ___ —. - I R715�W�N .-- . _ ._ i
fp�1=p AON�Aitl ���,
"70C"'b1" — � _ � �"sp �„�,,, �� �— �, Property owner information
� ��� is valid for 3 months from
i I i s�M �� ----� the date printed on this map. '
sww.r� � �� I
�ww j sus�mw s�
sos�uwr
- - DAKOTA - ST -- -
� , ,i - -
, .,�..,..,� �,�, �
� ��
,
-
�
, __ �
- ,�..,.. i
� 1t1ifM/NM
Y1�WWAN I 917�N7N RifMM�N ItflIN�NM �.._.._.-_ -_. -. _ . __ .
- - - _—'.__- R175WN700 ADH�IIM fOw11W
-- ~p�� EqiqMHO 6ASOI��Y00 6AON�7JN R171NMw1 '_
� � . � -_._ —.-'_ . __ �� 19�tIM
%I11N//!�/
i177�MN 4q�N�N�1
' i {li6WIM�,��/� . _.__ . .'_. i97�MM� I
'___ y/ IiWM�TM — -� �'. 1N�fiNM1M �� � 7AIRN
_
�� �I RY6MKM1 �-�- ili�iNN �� � �
�asH �� ry
� _ -- - -- W
�
-- - -- - '�""'" -- �
.�,..�,. �
' �� ��� �� ' �. 0 100 200 300 Feel �
�� sw�rp�» � .
: wsMatM --- I �y�sw -- — ——- _ '� I �
I =mw�t _—_ — _-- — —.� � 1..=209 feet
� — _--- ftilM�1�M —
—� 4175UE/N0 �_
I �O(�q7�0 --- __- I i17W�iM I I
,�.� __ � ,�..,� �
' _ � � � 61�""" �- � City of Tigard
'I�a.� i � �- �� I Information on this map is tor general locatlon only and
\ � �V should be venfied with the Development Services Division.
� I I� �-- -- - � �_ . I - — 13t25SWHaII81vd
� . ��. Tigard,OR 97223
(/�� (503}639-4171
� i-� �-!R�^_ __�__ I � I _ � http//www.ci.tigard.or.us I
Community Development Plot date:Jan 13,2006;C:lmagicWIAGIC03.APR
� . .
1S135AC-00100 1S135DB-10800
ABRAMS DAVID CHONG BENTON L
PO BOX 19087 11250 SW 91ST CT
PORTLAND,OR 97280 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AC-01700 1S135DB-06500
ANDERSEN VIRGINIA S CHRISTOPHER BASIL R AND
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST BELINDA L
10970 SW 95TH AVE 9460 SW NORTH DAKOTA
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D8-12200 1S135D6-08700
ARCE JUAN P& ROSA M CLUNIE PAUL G&KARLA Y
11369 SW 91ST CT 9325 SW NORTH DAKOTA
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-03200 1S135D6-04101
ARENDES CARINE E 8 COOPER KIMBERLEY A
ARENDES SHARON L 11300 SW 92ND AVE
9524 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S135DB-05400 1 S135DB-07000
BALES MARY ELIZABETH& DALTON DANNY E&SHIRLEY J
TERRY VERN 11305 SW 94TH AVE
11390 SW 94TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DA-04400 1S135D8-10000
BARNETT DONALD R&NINA DAVIS BARBARA J
9055 SW NORTH DAKOTA 9405 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
15135DB-11500 1S135DB-10400
BECK NATHAN A& DAWNA R DE SANCHEZ JEAN DAUM 8
11315 SW 91ST CT SANCHEZ FABIAN H
TIGARD, OR 97223 11100 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135D6-07800 1 S135CA-00102
BRYAN TROY R 8 BRENDA D DEAN JOHN W&LUAUNA M
9115 SW NORTH DAKOTA 9507 ANGELINE RD E
TIGARD,OR 97223 BONNEY LAKE,WA 98391
1S735D6-04100 1S135D8-05602
BUI JOSEPH H DICKSON DONALD K 8 CAROL A
11330 SW 92ND PO BOX 219028
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97225
1S135CA-00100 1S135D6-O8500
BYRUM ALBERT G III EBBERT NANCY M&
11165 SW 95TH AVE EBBERT ERNEST E
PORTLAND,OR 97223 9205 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223
. � . .
1S135D6-07300 1S135DB-07900
EMORY JESSE B& GRAHAM JASON ALAN 8 JOYCE M
LEIGH A 9125 SW NORTH DAKOTA
11280 5W 94TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND, OR 97223
1S135DB-06300 15135CA-00101
ENDICOTT MICHAEL R& GRAY DEAN P
MELISSA J 11145 SW 95TH AVE
11270 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-10700 1S135DB-10300
ERDMAN LEE A& DARCY D GRIMES DEBRA E
11070 SW 95TH AVE 11094 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-04000 1 S135DB-09700
ERVIN ROBERT&KIM GUTIERREZ JOEL PENA
11360 SW 92ND AVE 11125 SW 93RD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135D8-06600 1 S135DB-10200
ESTES ALICE L HAHN DAVID GERALD
9430 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11140 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-12500 1S135D8-044DD
ESTRADA KAREN GAY HANSON PAUL C
9269 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11315 SW 92ND AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
135CA-04?AO 7S135D6-05300
F G ELOPMENT INC HARDT FREDERICK W III AND
GLORIA J
11420 5W 94TH
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-04700 1S135DB-02604
GAVETT WESTON C 8�KERRY L HEITZ NANCY P AND RONALD L
11435 SW 92ND AVE 11401 SW 90TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-04600 1S135DB-04300
GLAUBKE JOHN A&MARY MARTHA HELLWEGE GARY A&PATRICIA J
CO TRUSTEES 11285 SW 92ND AVE
11405 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
15135DA-02603 135D8-04301
GOULARTE JEAN E HEL G ARY A&PATRICIA J
9095 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 112 AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 ARD,OR 97
1S135D8-07600 1S135DB-04200
HERGERT AARON 8 AMY KILLION JACK T JR&
9330 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST BEVERLY
TIGARD,OR 97223 11270 SW 92ND AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135D6-05601 1S135DB-07100
HERNANDEZ ABRAHAM VERDE& KING DOUGLAS A
HERNANDEZ OSCAR VERDE 11320 SW 94TH AVE
11385 SW 94TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-03400 1S135DB-05504
HERNANDEZ JOSE R 8 KREISBERG LOUIS&ELIZABETH J
JURADO MARIA S 8 11350 SW 95TH AVE
HERNANDEZ-J MAURILIO TIGARD,OR 97223
11253 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-08300 1S135DB-09500
HOFFMAN DIANNA C LACAN MANUEL
9165 5W NORTH DAKOTA ST 11175 SW 93RD AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S735D6-06200 1S135DB-06800
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF LACY JON R AND JANELLE A
WASHINGTON COUNTY 11265 SW 94TH
111 NE LINCOLN ST#200-L TIGARD,OR 97223
HILLSBORO,OR 97124
t 135D6-06100 1S135DB-06900
HO ING AUTHO Y OF LE JONATHAN H&
WASHI T COUNTY NGUYEN THERESA T
111 N N N ST#200-L 11285 SW 94TH AVE
SBORO,OR 24 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135D6-08900 1 S135D6-08000
HUNTER NORMAN G JR LEO VICTOR 8�EILEEN AND
6785 SW 175TH AVE LEO JOHNSON&ELLA
BEAVERTON, OR 97007 1325 SE 9TH AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97214
1 S135D8-03900 1 S135DB-06400
JOHNSON CHARLEY F AND LEWIS MARY R
D.J. STRAUSBAUGH 11250 SW 95TH
11390 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-10500 1S135D6-07500
JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER W LUND CHERI A
11090 SW 95TH AVE 11240 SW 94TH CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-05800 1S135DA-04500
KELLY DENIS M 8 SHELLEY R MADRIGAL MIGUEL T&
11445 5W 94TH AVE MAGANA LUCINDA A
TIGARD, OR 97223 9075 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-11200 15135DB-12600
MAHON SUSAN M ODAM CAMERON 8 KRISTIN
11310 SW 91ST CT 9237 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-04100 1S135DB-11000
MANDERA ZACHARIAH& PALLAS DIANE E
DETWEILER JEANIFFER 11280 SW 91ST CT
11355 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-08200 35D8-127
MCFADDEN GEORGIA J PAR PLAT 1995-084 OWNERS
9155 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST OF L S 1-
TIGARD,OR 97223 ,
1 S135D8-11900 1 S135D6-04500
MCFARLAND DAVID L& PAULSON KEVIN J&ANDREA M
ZHOU SU 11345 SW 92ND AVE
11263 SW 91ST CT PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-11700 1 S135DB-11100
MEZENTSEV ALEKSANDR M 8 PETERSON MICHAEL B&
OTROKHOVA MIRA M LOUIE TINA L
11285 SW 91ST CT 11292 SW 91ST CT
PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S'135DB-10600 1S135DB-04601
MICHAELIS CLAYTON W SR AND PFAFFLE GRETCHEN
ARLENE L 11375 SW 92ND AVE
11076 SW 95TH TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-09900 1 S135D8-06700
MOBLEY RICHARD L BERTHA PRICE JURREL L&SHERRY M
9385 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11245 SW 94TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S135DB-08100 1 S135DB-10900
MONCHEK PETER&KARIN& RENFRO-GREENFIELD RENEE
STERN RONALD&KATHRYN KILPATRICK 11266 SW 91ST CT
STERN CASEY K 8 TERESA K TIGARD,OR 97223
20 WARMWOOD WAY
HILLSBOROUGH,CA 94010
1S135DA-02600 1S135D6-OB800
NADARAJAH DEVAYANI ROAKE MARIE E 8
8623 SW HAMLET ST ROAKE JEFF S
TIGARD,OR 97223 11160 SW 93RD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-11800 1S135D6-07200
NELSON LINDSAY R RUSSELL BRENT A/SHANNON R
11301 SW 91ST CT 11300 SW 94TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S135DB-10100 1 S135DB-11300
SALQUENETTII BONNIE 8 JEREMY TENLY PROPERTIES CORP
11160 SW 95TH AVE PO BOX 927
TIGARD,OR 97223 HILLSBORO,OR 97123
1 S135DB-11 S00 1 135DB-11400
SCHENDEL WILLIAM M JR TE PRO RTIES CORP
11277 SW 91ST AVE PO B
TIGARD,OR 97223 SBORO, 97123
1 S135DB-08400 1 S135DB-07400
SCHENK DANIEL LIVING TRUST TRUAIR RYAN R 8 TONYA G
BY SCHENK DANIEL J TR 11260 SW 94TH AVE
7115 SW VIRGINIA TIGARD,OR 97224
PORTLAND,OR 97219
1 S 135DB-05510 1 S135D6-09600
SCOFIELD DOUGLAS J 8 EVELYN J VASQUEZ SERGIO MARTINEZ
11340 SW 94TH 11155 SW 93RD CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 135DB-02700 1 S135DB-03800
SIMONSEN RORY L& VIAENE STEPHANIE L 8 KEVIN
ADAMS CINDY L 11420 SW 92ND AVE
11435 SW 91ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
t S 135CA-04000 1 S 135D6-09400
SKAGERBERG BRET F&KATIE WASHINGTON COUNTY
11345 SW 95TH AVE LUT CPM DIV R/W SECTION
TIGARD,OR 97223 1400 SW WALNUT ST MS18
HILLSBORO,OR 97123
1 S 135 D B-09000 1 S 135 D B-12400
SPRINGSTEAD WADE A AND WHIPP CHAD J
LINDA S 9293 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
11100 SW 93RD COURT TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
7 S 135 DB-09300 1 S 135CA-03300
STONEKING RAYMOND D AND WHITE HEIDI A&
GERALDINE J KENNETH A
1040 CEDAR ST 11231 SW 95TH AVE
LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S 135DB-09800 1 S135DB-O5600
SULLIVAN SHELLEY WINTHER STEPHEN&TERESA
11095 SW 93RD AVE 11400 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 135 D B-12300
TARHUNIJAMAL
11347 5W 91ST CT
TIGARD,OR 97223
Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group
PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren
Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Bevelantl Street, Suite 120
Tigard, OR 97223
Sue Rorman Diane Baldwin
11250 SW 82nd Avenue 3706 Kinsale Lane SE
Tigard, OR 97223 Olympia, WA 98501
Naomi Gallucci
11285 SW 78�Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Michael Trigoboff
7072 SW Barbara Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Brad Spring
7555 SW Spruce Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Alexander Craghead
12205 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223-6210
Gretchen Buehner
13249 SW 136�h Place
Tigard, OR 97224
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
CPO 4B
16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242
Tigard, OR 97224
CPO 4M
Pat Whiting
8122 SW Spruce
Tigard, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:lcurpinlsetupllabelslClT East.doc) UPDATED: 21-Oct-05
CITY OF TIGARD
COMMUNIT� DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIYISION cmr�oFrio�aa
13 I 25h 5W HALL BOUL�YARD co�+��y���t
T���1/r OREC�ON 972Z3 s'�Fix�J�BatiarCammu�tity
PHONE: 5u3-b39-4111 FAK: 5a3-S48,19b0{Attn: Patl�lPlanning�
� D 4 � O O O 0 � D � D o p � �l�uilU �
Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request
INDICATE ALL PROJEC'� MAP &7AX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. 1 S134A6, Tax Lot 00100) 4R THE
ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BEL01N:
Tax Map �S� 35DB, Tax Lot 4309
PLEASE BE qWARE THAT ONLY 1 SET OF I,ABELS ,VyIL� BE PI�OVI�EQ ,AT, THIS TIME FOR
HOLDING Y UR NEIGHB4RHOOD MEETlNG. After subm tt�ng your lana use appli� tion to the City, and
�he pro ect pQanner has r viewetl your applicat�an for comp�eteness, you w�ll be notit�ied by means af an
incomp�eteness letter to o�ta�n your 2 final sets of labels.
The 2 final sets of labels need to be placed on envelopes with first clasg letter-rate postage on the
envelopes in the form of �postage stamps �no metered envelopes and no r�turn address� and
res pmitted to t�e Ci ,for the pur_pose of provid�ng nofice to ro erty owners of the pra .osed land use
pp��catiQn and the d�1 sion. The 1 sets of envelopes must be �Cep�t separate. The person �isted below will
�e called to p�ck up and pay for the labels when they are ready.
NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: Krrst Kel! PHONE: 5Q3-684-0652
FAX: �03-fi24-09 57'
is reguest may e mai,e , axe or an e�vere ta e ity o igar . ease a ow a
2-�ay minimum for processing reques�s. Upon completion of your request, the contact person will be
called to pick up the�r request that w�ll be placed in "Will CaIP' by the�r last name, at the Community
Development Reception Desk.
The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be
pre-determined.
PLEASE N�TE: B�THE C�VS RE-TYPED MAI�NG LABELS WILL�BE ACCEPTED.PROVIDED
Cost Description_.
$11 to generate the mailing list,plus$2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels(20 addresses per sheet).
Then, multi I the cost to rint one set of labels b the number of sets re uested.
�pMp�� COST �OR TMIS R�QUEST
4 Sheets of labelS x 321sheet=,�x�sets� $16.00 '`sheet(s)of labels x$2lsheet=�„��'x °�- seis° �°��������
2 sheets of labels x$?lsheet for interested parUes x�sets= S 4.00 L sheeu$)of labels x 321sheet for intsrested parties=��x'Z sets= �.es��
' GENERATE US7 � L�LQ GENERATE LISt = '
7�TAL = 531.00 TOTAL �.
��
Z0/Z0 3Jtid S1Nt/1�f1SN0� 371a�1S3f� L5T0—bZ9—�09 60 �LZ 900Z/ZZ/T0
1
�ECEIVED
�lle stl a ke �AN � 2 2006
�ansultants,inc ���Y oF�i�qpp Tf�ANSMITTAL
�UILDIN� ��,�--
ENGlN�ER/NG � SIJRVEY/NG � PIANN/NG Phone:503 684-0652
Fax.�5lJ3 624-0157
Date: January 11,2006 Projec�No.: 0733-09/Q
Tn: Patty Lunsford Project Name: 92"/Dakata
Planning Qlvision
C1TM OF TIGAXtD
13125 S1N Ha�l Baulevard
Tigard,OR 97223�1 B9
Fax:50�-598�1960
Frvm: Kristy Kelly ��
Land IJse Planner
Re: Nearby Neighbors Labels-Casefile#M1.P2005-0001'1
No.of Co ies Dated Descri don
� " City of Tigerd-Request fo�6Dfl Foot Propet'ty�++rners Mailing List
Comrnents:
Patty, We ere nsady to abbin Ztre fins/two sets of labels for casefile#MLP20�5-OOQ'9�, 92"'�Dskota
minor/and partition. P/ease qiva me a cafl when tfiey ar�resdy to be prcked up.
Thenks,
Kristy
Fax � Na.of Pages[including coverj Z Fax No. As Above
Mail ❑ Messenger❑ Overnight ❑ Hand D�livery �
Pacific Corporete Center, 15115 S.W.Sequoia Parkway,Suite 7 5D,7lgard,Dregon 9722Q
Z0/t0 3Jtid S1Ndl�f1SN0� 3Nt1�1S3M L9 Z0-bZ9-E09 60�L T 900Z/T ti/T0
CITY Qr TIGARD RECEIPT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RECEIPT DATE: k�j_3 0�
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Ti ard, OR 97223 JURISDICTION.:
g ►t..s�.c,.�t'�.__....__._
503-639-4171 www.ci.tigard.or.us CASHIER DATE: i� � �j .,,
CASHIER RECEIPT#: _ �.�.._l.._�:..�.._..______
LINE ITEMS:
Case No. ; Fee Description Revenue Acct. No. Amount Due
- _ __ ___ -- _- :��tsc�-( jc f,_�.�,:.s r�_�c--�.:,.�4��,_tua--- --�� ...-t._�c ��_ __ S_.__�._ __._
_ .�.. 3
; --- . ._.._.__._ ___ __ .._ . _..__.._. _-- ---._�_._......_. ..
k E
I
—�------.._..-----------__....____._�..---_._.._...._._..___..__....---——--_.._._..---.....---....._.........__.�_..------._......__...----...__....._______.._..._._._�..._y_._._.._.__--...-----_._._.
_._....._..._.._--..__........_......_..._._......._._.__._...._._..._.....�_.._. � � ._.._.......__............._..----------...._._
._..........._._.._..-----------...__.._.._..._._....._......_...._..__._._._.__..__..._—_;___._.___............__.
....._..........____.._.........._._..._.....__..__..__....
i 1 I
s I
....._._._ ,..._._..._..._...._..__.__.,......�..___.._._._.4-.._...'_"_-______'
. ..._....__...^____._..�"__"""__'__""_._...__.�w._.__.._..__...__....___..._�_._.._."_'"_'._.�___.' _.�"'__"_._'_"..._
_"
' ; �"_-"'_'_
� t
i �
_.,.�......�......_..._.__""._._'�_-"'.._..._'___.._...._.._.....__..�..._._"__""'_"_'..__.............__..___.._.._"""'_..._-..%-_._"'........_._._..__.�.._,.._..._..._.,_.........'_"'.__.
. f �._..__..._.._..._....__.._.�'__'___._..
_"'_____.'_.._..____..__._.."'_..____""' ! � (
'"�" ' _"'_'__'_'.................__�._�_�_
'___""'._�.-...__._____..._._...._.."""_'_""'_'___-,.
_.�_.�.
i3 �_.____..."__'__'___'_,__._._
. .. .... . . ...... . ... I ' I
_'._._................_..._........'__"......._._._........_..........�..._..__._._._._._""_'�..____..._.._._..�.........�............._.........__._._..._..'j""'........._._"_"'_'�"""'_.__.._....._...__..�.._........_.._�._._..,�_._._...""'.�._......_....._.._..___.__
_�._....._....._.._......"_"'""""'....._._............_.._.....__._.._......._i._..___......�_.'_'�._...._.....____�........____,_�.___._..._.._.._.._.._..."'.i._.__..._.....,..._.._._...__.._.._..�._....____.�........_..�..._._....�."......_.__.._.__.�.__...._'_"'_'""".._..
s
------._._.._._____.---..---_�_._1_.__.__._._...---....___.____.._._-- '
---.---_..____ _.---------------___.—_..._._--------. ._..__._.____.._._
; � �
._.._-------�--_.._...._..._...._..._.___._._._. ,
� �-�----------._._.......__..______------------_.-_.__----_______.__..--..__.._._._.i..--�-------....----------.....
�
._..------ _.-L------ '
._.__._..___.._. . ---------�---____.-------._.._---_---- -----.._____--...__ ___.--- ------------_
, ;
;
_ _ .
-------._._.______.__.__-- ,---._�___.__.._._.__._........._.._.._.____....._.__--------------___.. ....__.._.______.____. -----.------l-----._.._.___._..-------___..._�
, �
-----------.___._._----__.__.f__.._.__-------_- ,
� ___...�---------------�__._..__--_.__._..------------�-;---------�-------
----_._.___.---_..__._____-----
, ; :
�__..._.________.__-----------------__.----. � ---.__._..
'Y_''''''_...'_'"_'_''_''''''_''__''''_'�__._�..'''''''''.._..._.
' � I
� 'f i
.__......�___._-___"__'__�___'-i-_._.___._...._......_.__.__. ...�5."�-_"' i
.._'__".___..�."_'�.."....._..__. i
� ...�.__"____'__"'__''_'_..___.._......_..........�.__...._�._._..'_
� '
. i
.. �...__.._........__.�.__..___._...._.__._"'"-__'_""""'__' ' ' ___""�'_'._...__...__'..._._�_.....__.__.
....�...._._.._.."_"'..__..."_'___"-_-_"_'_'
' ' __.�._"__'___"'_'___-"_
, � I
_._.....__..........._..._...""""""'.�_'__'____'_'._...._.....�..._"".....__�.,_.._..____._....."'.____._...._..._.._._..,_.�__._.__._
._._.___.._"'_"'_'__'.._____._.__......""".......'__'
!
'_'__�.__._._._..__._...'_"'_._..........._1_.__"'-__""__""_"�._..._.........___._..._. _..._.___.__, i
..__ _�"___'_._^._.__.._.._.......__._.._._........_'..""'...."_"""_""___""___'
i
i i
__.._.__......_...---------------------._....._: L
r--.__.._..__.....�...�.._............._..----------------
"--'—'—°—'---'---'----------"----'—'---.......---�--____._._._.._._...�...._.__ __�.f .........__......_.._....._._...-------I._._._._......---.__......_______..�_
P---"------'—
; . . . .__..._ .___.__..... .___.__..... ..._._..._ _ ._____ . ..._ .._. ..._.. . ._......_._.._.._.._i.. .... _..._...
_-___. .. .__.._....._ .._...__.... _......___... ........ .._....__.
Total Due: $ 3 ���
❑ SEE ATTACHED FEE SCHEDULE.
PAYMENTS:
Payer: !,
Method Initials Check No. Confirm No. Amount Paid
�J�--�-�` __ _ ___ __��P_- ___ r�?-3 `�_ , � 3 5`-`' ___ __
___ _ ___ __ _____ _ ____
_.__ __ _ ...__ ...___.._
___ _. ___ ..._....._._. ___._. .--...._._._.. _ .._._.._...__..._...............__.....__-- -- - ------._.. ... _.
,
�
_. __......--
--- __......................_._...._... �
t.. :.
� �
____ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ _ _
____
____ ___ _ ____.__... _________.__.. ..
Total Paid: $ ,3S�w
Tidemark-Manual5ystemuvlanualReceip[.doc 10/3/2005
,
1S135DB-04301
HELLWEGE GARY A&PATRICIA J
11285 SW 92ND AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
. . -
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF A LAND USE PROPOSAL
IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS AFFIDAVIT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY OF THE
NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE SITE.
In the Matter of the Proposed Land Use Applications for:
Land Use File Nos.: MLP2005-00011NAR2005-00081
Land Use File Name: HELLWEGE PARTITION
I, Chervl Caines, Assistant Planner for the City of Ti�, do affirm that I posted notice of the land use
proposal affecting the land located^at (state the approximate location(s) IF no address(s) and/or tax
�r;x i��:, r� �; ;�t L � }
lot(s) currently registered) �5 1 �`� �� �, — D�-+� �� i
and did personally post notice of the proposed land use application(s) by means of weatherproof
posting in the general vicinity of the affected territory, a copy of said notice being hereto attached
and by reference made a part hereof, on the �i c1 day of I E ����u�� < < ; 2006
C'f�� < <,(� �t <<,. � . ,< -,
Signatu're of Person Who Performed Posting
h:\login\patty\masters\affidavit of posting tor staff to post a site.doc
.
MINOR LAND PARTITI4N (MLP) Z005-0001 I /ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00081
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to partition an
approximately 16,867 square foot site into two smaller parcels of 8,387 and
8,480 square feet. To avoid removing several large trees from the site, the
applicant is requesting an adjustment from street improvement requirement�
These include pavement width, bicycle lane, planter strip and sidewalk
improvements along SW North Dakota Street. LOCATION : The subject
property is located at the southwest corner of SW North Dakota and SW 92nd
Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 1 S135DB, Tax Lot 4301 (No site
address). ZONE: R-4.5: The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory
residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and
attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic an�'
institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEI►�
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.420, 18.510,
18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Cheryl
Caines at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-639-4171 , or by email
to CherylcCa�tiqard-or.gov. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence
submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection
at no cost and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost.
NFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITYOFTIGARD
�onrmunity,Decclaprrieru
,Shapingt7 BetterCommunity
I, �PatriciaG.Lunsforcf, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a SenivrAdministrativeSpeciaC�stfor the
City of 7'igard, `Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following:
(cn�,o�ropr��e su■�s�e�w,}
❑X NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE DECISION FOR: MLP2005-0001 I/VAR2005-00081 — HELLWEGE PARTITION
� AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference)
� City of Tigard Planning Director
A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhlbit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked ENhlblt"B", and by reference made a part
hereof, on lanuar�31,2006,and deposited in the United States Mail on lanuar1131,2006, postage prepaid.
' ../!� ' L�� ���
.��
(Person tha repa otice)
,S`�'A2rE OF D�EGON )
County of 4Nasjrngton )s�
City of�I�cgard ) .r,,
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the o� r da of � , 2006.
� Y
�;Y � o� -��w�s�
- �`�� S13�R05°
j NCTAPY PUBLIC-(7f ;-i..:."
COMI�;�SION N0.37575�
YIII��,S�"�,ll?,!:�cS!On1.`��°I!�Fc t��n i ��
My Com " ion Expires: �Z`��r� �
� � EXHIBIT�
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER:
THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATIOH CITYOFTIGARD
MINOR LAND PARTITION S�apngA�t�r�`°„pmuz7ty
DATE OF NOTICE: January 31, 2006
Fi�E rvunnBERS: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-0001 I
ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00081
Fi�E NAnnE: HELLWEGE PARTITION
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to partition an approximately 16,867 square foot site
into two smaller parcels of 8,387 and 8,480 square feet. To avoid removing several large
trees from the site, the applicant is requesting an adjustment from street improvement
requirements. These include pavement width, bicycle lane, planter strip and sidewalk
improvements along SW North Dakota Street.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of SW North Dakota and SW 92nd
Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 1 S135DB, Tax Lot 4301 (No site address).
ZONE: R-4.5: The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes
with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.
Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and
institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.420, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745,
18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to
submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT
5:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 14, 2006. All comments should be directed to Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner in the
Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of
Tigard by telephone at 503-639-4171 or by email to Cherylc(a)tiqard-or.qov.
ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE
SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL
BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS
TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 21, 2006. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A
COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED.
WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
. Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria
believed to be applicable to this proposal;
. Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to
provide a response;
. Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant
approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue.
Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude
subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings
directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence.
AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE
DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN
5OO FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE
ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED
UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION.
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS:
. The application is accepted by the City
. Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a
14-day written comment period.
. The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies.
. City Staff issues a written decision.
. Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all
owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax
assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any
governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the
City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice.
INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW:
The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are
contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development
Department. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this
service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of
this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments."
-�-- – -– I ��—
A 'l . �� ........ ...... . ....
Fy�l
� YICINI*Y MAP
� �_- :-MLP2005-00011
��`"VAR2005-00081 �
HELLWEGE PARTITIU
'hiy
2��
DA �, � i�
.,�)�IC j 1❑. ��
� — I I I �_�� ,,. �.
1 � _YP''
J v 1,.�-
� ._ N
�fN -_ _..,�... ^
Bf�qG.
,�2� C:n n�
A
�.,,,°��n i a a .. . �M;��<"':
�� � EXHIBIT.�,_.
1S135AC-00100 1S135D6-1080D
ABRAMS DAVID CHONG BENTON L
PO BOX 19087 11250 SW 91ST CT
PORTLAND,OR 97280 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135AC-01700 1S135DB-O6500
ANDERSEN VIRGINIA S CHRISTOPHER BASIL R AND
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST BELINDA L
1097D SW 95TH AVE 9460 5W NORTH DAKOTA
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 135 DB-12200 1 S 135 D B-D8700
ARCE JUAN P 8�ROSA M CLUNIE PAUL G 8 KARLA Y
11369 SW 91 ST CT 9325 SW NORTH DAKOTA
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
15135CA-03200 1S135D8-04101
ARENDES CARINE E 8 COOPER KIMBERLEY A
ARENDES SHARON L 11300 SW 92ND AVE
9524 5W NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135DB-05400 1S135D6-D7000
BALES MARY ELIZABETH 8 DALTON DANNY E&SHIRLEY J
TERRY VERN 11305 SW 94TH AVE
11390 SW 94TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DA-04400 1S135D6-10000
BARNETT DONALD R&NINA DAVIS BARBARA J
9055 SW NORTH DAKOTA 9405 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-11500 1S135D6-10400
BECK NATHAN A 8 DAWNA R DE SANCHEZ JEAN DAUM&
11315 SW 91ST CT SANCHEZ FABIAN H
TIGARD,OR 97223 11100 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-07600 1S135CA-00102
BRYAN TROY R&BRENDA D DEAN JOHN W&LUAUNA M
9115 SW NORTH DAKOTA 9507 ANGELINE RD E
TIGARD,OR 97223 BONNEY LAKE,WA 98391
1S135D6-041D0 iS135D8-05602
BUI J05EPH H DICKSON DONALD K&CAROL A
11330 SW 92ND PO BOX 219028
TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97225
1S135CA-00100 15135DB-08500
BYRUM ALBERT G III EBBERT NANCY M 8
11165 SW 95TH AVE EBBERT ERNEST E
PORTLAND, OR 97223 9205 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-07300 1 S135DB-07900
EMORY JESSE B 8 GRAHAM JASON ALAN&JOYCE M
LEIGH A 9125 SW NORTH DAKOTA
11280 SW 94TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135D8-06300 1S135CA-00101
ENDICOTT MICHAEL R 8 GRAY DEAN P
MELISSA J 11145 SW 95TH AVE
11270 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S735D6-10700 1S135DB-10300
ERDMAN LEE A&DARCY D GRIMES DEBRA E
11070 SW 95TH AVE 11094 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-04000 1 S135D&09700
ERVIN ROBERT&KIM GUTIERREZ JOEL PENA
11360 SW 92ND AVE 11125 SW 93RD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 135DB-06600 1 S135D8-10200
ESTES ALICE L HAHN DAVID GERALD
9430 SW NORTH DAKOTA 1114�SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-12500 1S135D6-04400
ESTRADA KAREN GAY HANSON PAUL C
9269 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11315 SW 92ND AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
135CA-04 1 S135D6-05300
F G ELOPMENT INC HARDT FREDERICK W III AND
GLORIA J
11420 SW 94TH
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D8-04700 1S135D8-02604
GAVETT WESTON C&KERRY L HEITZ NANCY P AND RONALD L
11435 SW 92ND AVE 11401 SW 90TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-04600 1 S135D&04300
GLAUBKE JOHN A&MARY MARTHA HELLWEGE GARY A&PATRICIA J
CO TRUSTEES 11285 SW 92ND AVE
11405 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
7S135DA-02603 135D8-04301
GOULARTE JEAN E HEL G ARY A&PATRICIA J
9095 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 112 AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 ARD,OR 972
1S135DB-07600 1S135DB-04200
HERGERT AARON&AMY KILLION JACK T JR&
9330 5W NORTH DAKOTA ST BEVERLY
TIGARD,OR 97223 11270 SW 92ND AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S 135 D 6-05601 1 S 7 35D B-07100
HERNANDEZ ABRAHAM VERDE& KING DOUGLAS A
HERNANDEZ OSCAR VERDE 11320 SW 94TH AVE
11385 SW 94TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 135CA-03400 1 S 135D B-05504
HERNANDEZ JOSE R& KREISBERG LOUIS&ELIZABETH J
JURADO MARIA S& 11350 SW 95TH AVE
HERNANDEZ-J MAURILIO TIGARD,OR 97223
11253 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135D8-08300 1 S135D6-D9500
HOFFMAN DIANNA C LACAN MANUEL
9165 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 11175 SW 93RD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-06200 1S135D8-O6800
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF LACY JON R AND JANELLE A
WASHINGTON COUNTY 11265 SW 94TH
111 NE LINCOLN ST#200-L TIGARD,OR 97223
HILLSBORO,OR 97124
135D6-06100 1 S135D6-06900
HO ING AUTHO Y OF LE JONATHAN H&
WASHI T COUNTY NGUYEN THERESA T
111 N N N ST#2Q0-L 11285 SW 94TH AVE
560R0,OR 24 TIGARD,OR 97223
15135DB-08900 1 S135D8-08000
HUNTER NORMAN G JR LEO VICTOR 8 EILEEN AND
6785 SW 175TH AVE LEO JOHNSON 8 ELLA
BEAVERTON, OR 97007 1325 SE 9TH AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97214
1 S135D8-03900 15135DB-06400
JOHNSON CHARLEY F AND LEWIS MARY R
D.J. STRAUSBAUGH 11250 SW 95TH
11390 5W 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S735D6-10500 1S135DB-07500
JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER W LUND CHERI A
11090 SW 95TH AVE 11240 SW 94TH CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D8-05800 1S135DA-D4500
KELLY DENIS M&SHELLEY R MADRIGAL MIGUEL T&
11445 SW 94TH AVE MAGANA LUCINDA A
TIGARD,OR 97223 9075 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-11200 1S135D6-12600
MAHON SUSAN M ODAM CAMERON&KRISTIN
11310 SW 91ST CT 9237 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-04100 1S135D6-11000
MANDERA ZACHARIAH 8� PALLAS DIANE E
DETWEILER JEANIFFER 11280 SW 91ST CT
11355 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-08200 35D&127
MCFADDEN GEORGIA J PAR PLAT 1995-084 OWNERS
9155 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST OF L S 1-
TIGARD,OR 97223 ,
1S135DB-11900 1S135D&04500
MCFARLAND DAVID L& PAULSON KEVIN J 8�ANDREA M
ZHOU SU 11345 SW 92ND AVE
11263 SW 91ST CT PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-11700 1 S135DB-11100
MEZENTSEV ALEKSANDR M 8 PETERSON MICHAEL B 8
OTROKHOVA MIRA M LOUIE TINA L
11285 SW 91ST CT 11292 SW 91ST CT
PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-10600 1S135D8-046D1
MICHAELIS CLAYTON W SR AND PFAFFLE GRETCHEN
ARLENE L 11375 SW 92ND AVE
11076 SW 95TH TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-09900 1S135D6-06700
MOBLEY RICHARD L BERTHA PRICE JURREL L&SHERRY M
9385 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11245 SW 94TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S135DB-087 00 1 S135DB-10900
MONCHEK PETER&KARIN& RENFRO-GREENFIELD RENEE
STERN RONALD 8 KATHRYN KILPATRICK 11266 SW 91ST CT
STERN CASEY K 8 TERESA K TIGARD,OR 97223
20 WARMWOOD WAY
HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010
7S135DA-02600 1S135D6-08800
NADARAJAH DEVAYANI ROAKE MARIE E&
8623 SW HAMLET ST ROAKE JEFF S
TIGARD,OR 97223 11160 SW 93RD AVE
TIGAR�,OR 97223
1S135DB-11600 1S135D6-07200
NELSON LINDSAY R RUSSELL BRENT A/SHANNON R
11301 SW 91ST CT 11300 SW 94TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
7 S135D8-10100' 1 S135D8-11300
SALQUENETTII BONNIE&JEREMY TENLY PROPERTIES CORP
11160 SW 95TH AVE PO BOX 927
TIGARD,OR 97223 HILLSBORO,OR 97123
1S135DB-11800 135D8-11400
SCHENDEL WILLIAM M JR TE PRO RTIES CORP
11277 SW 91ST AVE PO B
TIGARD,OR 97223 SBORO, 97123
1S135DB-08400 1S135D6-07400
SCHENK DANIEL LIVING TRUST TRUAIR RYAN R&TONYA G
BY SCHENK DANIEL J TR 11260 SW 94TH AVE
7115 SW VIRGINIA TIGARD,OR 97224
PORTLAND,OR 97219
1S135D6-05510 1S135D8-09600
SCOFIELD DOUGLAS J 8 EVELYN J VASQUEZ SERGIO MARTINEZ
11340 SW 94TH 11155 SW 93RD CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-02700 1S135D6-03800
SIMONSEN RORY L& VIAENE STEPHANIE L 8 KEVIN
ADAMS CINDY L 11420 SW 92ND AVE
11435 SW 91ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
iS135CA-04000 1S135D6-09400
SKAGERBERG BRET F 8 KATIE WASHINGTON COUNTY
11345 SW 95TH AVE LUT CPM DIV R/W SECTION
TIGARD,OR 97223 1400 SW WALNUT ST MS18
HILLSBORO,OR 97123
1 S135D6-09000 1 S135DB-12400
SPRINGSTEAD WADE A AND WHIPP CHAD J
LINDA S 9293 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
11100 SW 93RD COURT TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-09300 1S135CA-03300
STONEKING RAYMOND D AND WHITE HEIDI A&
GERALDINE J KENNETH A
1040 CEDAR ST 11231 SW 95TH AVE
LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S135D6-09800 1 S135D&05600
SULLIVAN SHELLEY WINTHER STEPHEN&TERESA
11095 SW 93RD AVE 11400 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-12300
TARHUNIJAMAL
11347 SW 91 ST CT
TIGARD, OR 97223
. r
Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group
PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren
Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120
Tigard, OR 97223
Sue Rorman Diane Baldwin
11250 SW 82�d Avenue 3706 Kinsale Lane SE
Tigard, OR 97223 Olympia,WA 98501
Naomi Gallucci
11285 SW 78�Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Michael Trigoboff
7072 SW Barbara Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Brad Spring
7555 SW Spruce Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Alexander Craghead
12205 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223-6210
Gretchen Buehner
13249 SW 136th Place
Tigard, OR 97224
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
CPO 4B
16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242
Tigard, OR 97224
CPO 4M
Pat Whiting
8122 SW Spruce
Tigard, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES �i:lcurpinlsetupllabels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 21-Oct-05
Mark Seaman MLP2005-00011NAR2005-00081
8407 SW 58 Avenue HELLWEGE PARTITION
Portland, OR 97219
Gary and Patricia Hellwege
11285 SW 92"d Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Westlake Consultants
Attn: Lee Leighton
15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy., Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
� AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
CITV OF TIGARD
(imrmtniit v�Ucrrlopnrcrrt
� 5(aping;A�BetterCommurrity
I, �PatnciaL. tunsforcC, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a SeniorArfministrativeSpeciaCutfor the
�'ity of�I'�gar��lNashington County, Oregon and that I served the following:
{Check,y propnate Box�s)Beiow)
X❑ NOTICEOF DECISION FOR: MLP2005-00011/VAR2005-00081 — HELLWEGE PARTITION
❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference)
� City of Tigard Planning Director
A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Ellhlblt"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhlblt"B", and by reference made a part
hereof, on March 20,2006,and deposited in the United States Mail on March 20,2006, postage prepaid.
i
_ �
� � � � ���
(Person that epa�ed oti V )
,57,A7E O�F O�E('jON )
County of`Washington )s.�
City of�Irgard ) �
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the � day of , 2006.
OFFICIRL SEAL �V
�-� '"�:� SUE ROSS
�' NOTARY PUBUGORE(`�QN
COMMISSION N0.375152
MYCOMMISSION E(PIRES DEC.1,2007
___- - ----�--------�
My Co is 'on Expires: /01- �""d �
.. EXHIBIT!4_.
- NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION
„
MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-00011 :
HELLWEGE PARTITION � � .
120 DAYS = 5/2-�/2006
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: HELLWEGE PARTITION
CASE NOS: Minor Land Partition (MLP) MLP2005-00011
Street Improvement:�djustment VI�R2005-00081
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Minor Land Parririon to parririon one (1) existing
.41-acre lot into two (2) parcels for detached single-family residences. In addirion the applicant
is requesting an adjustment to street improvement standards for SW North Dakota Street and
SW 92"`'Avenue.
APPLICANT: Mark Seaman OWNER: Same
8407 SW 58`h r,venue
Portland, OR 97219
'LQNING
DESIGNATION: R-4.5: Low-Densin•Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate
detached single-famil�� homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size
of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-famil�- units are permitted condirionall��.
Some civic and insriturional uses are also permitted condirionall�-.
LOCATION: The subject site is located at the southwest corner of SW North Dakota and SW 92"`' �lvenue;
Washington Counn-Ta� �1ap 1 S135DB,Tax Lot 4301 (no site address).
PROPOSED PARCEL 1: 8,480 Square Feet.
PROPOSED PARCEL 2: 8,387 Square Feet.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Communin� De��elopment Code Chapters 18.370 �'ariances and ��djustments); 18.390
(Decision-�laking Procedures); 18.420 (I.and Parririons); 18.510 (Residenrial Zoning Districts);
18.705 (l�ccess Egress and Circularion); 18.715 (Densin� Computarions); 18.745 (Landscaping
and Screenin�; 18.7G5 (Off-Street parking and Loading Requirements); 18.790 (Tree
Removal); 18.795 (Visual Clearance rlreas); and 18.810 (Street and L tilit�� Improvement
Standards).
SECTION II. DECISION
Norice is hereby gi�-en that the City of Tigard Community Deeelopment Director's designee has APPROVED the
abo��e request subject to certain condirions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in
Section V.
NOTICE OF DECISIO\ �ILP2005-00011/HELL,��,GE P_�RTIT'IOV P�1GE 1 OF 25
_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY
ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING DEMOLITION, GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR
FILL ACTIVITIES:
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along�vith any supporting documents and/or plans
that address the follow�'ng requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DNISION, ATTN: Chery1 Caines
503-G39-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information
is found:
1. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance, bond, or other means of
ensurin�compliance with the required mitigation in the value of�32,250.00 (258 caliper inches x �125 per
caliper inch). riny trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.OGO.D will be credited
agamst the assurance for two years followin final plat approval. rlfter such time, the applicant shall pay the
remaining value of the assurance as a fee in�eu of plantuig.
2. Prior to commencing an�� site work, the ap licant shall submit construcrion dra�vings that include the appro�-ed
Tree Remo�-a1, Protection and Landscape �lan. The plans shall also include a construcrion sequence inclucling
installarion and remo��al of tree protecrion de��ices, clearing,grading, and paaing. Onl�� those trees idenrified on
the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal bp this decision.
3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to
protect the trees to be retained. 11ie apphcant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of
monitoring and inspecrion of the tree protecrion to verif�� that the tree protecrion measures are performing
adequatel y-. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protecrion fencin�in the designated locarions shall be
grounds for irrunediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or ci�-i1 citations can be
prc>ccssed.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT:
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along��ith any supporting documents and/or plans
that address the follow�ng requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Chery1 Caines
503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information
is found:
4. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit a ret-ised prelunuiar5- plat that shows the visual clearance
area accuratelp,in accordance with (TCDC) Secrion 18.795.040.
5. The applicant shall rec�rd a restricrive covenant with proposed Parcels #1 and #2 that will include a
requirement for planting street trees as part of any future street impro�-ement.
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans
that address the followin� requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM
MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the
required information is found:
6. 1� Public Facilit�� Improvement (I'FI) permit is required for this project to co�-er sanitan- sewer taps, the new
drivewav approach,public sidewalk, storm cuh�ert and any� other work in the public ri�ht-of-wa�-. Three (3) sets
of detai�ed public improvement plans shall be submitted for re�-iew to the Engineerulg Department. NOTE:
these plans are in addiuon to any drawings required by the Building Di��ision and should onlv include sheets
relevant to public improaements. Public Facility Improvement (PF� permit plans shall conEorm to Cit�- of
Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at Cin� Hall and thc Ciry's web page
(www.rigard-or.gov).
7. 777e PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the
individual or corporate enrity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who wi�l provide the financial
assurance for the public unprovements. For example, specif�� if the enutt-is a corporation, limited parmership,
I.LC, etc. Also specify the state within which the enrity is incorporated and procide the name of the corporate
contact person. Failure to provide accurate informarion to the Engineering Department will delay processing
of project documents.
8. The applicant shall construct a public side�valk at its ultimate horizontal and �rertical locarion, based on the
City's TSP, along the site frontage of North Dakota Street. The side�valk shall also connect back to the pa��ed
NOTICE OF DECISION �ILP2005-00011/HELL��'EGE P:1R"I'ITIO� P:�GE 2 OF 25
8. The applicant shall construct a public sidewalk at its ultimate horizontal and ��ertical locarion, based �n the
' Cin-'s TSP, along the site frontage of North Dakota Street. The sidewalk shall also connect back to the paved
porrion of North Dakota Street at each end of the frontage.
,�n5� proposed alternati�-e to the sidewalk locarion, in order to save trees, must be submitted to the Cin-
En�neer and City 1-�rborist for re�-iew and approval. The altemariee submittal shall include, at a miniinum, the
honzontal layout,grading plan,easements and the project arborist's report.
9. Prior to final plat approeal, the applicant shall pa�- the addressing fee. (STI�FF CONTI-�CT: Betl-iany Stewart,
Engineering�.
10. The applicant shall execute a Restricrive Covenant whereby� thej- agree to complete or parricipate in the future
improvements of SW North Dakota Street and SW 92"`' l��renue adjacent to the subject propertt-, when an�� of
the followuig events occur: �
r1. when the impro��ements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formarion of a
Loca1 Improvement District,
B. when the improeements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part b}� the
Ciri� or other public agency,
C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third partt- and invol�Tes the
sharing of design and/or construcrion expenses by the third party owner(s) of properry in addirion to
the subject property,or
D. when construcrion of the unprovements is deemed to be appropriate by the Cin� Engineer in
conjunetion with construction of unprovements by others adjacent to the subject site.
11. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed shared
driveway will be j�uitly ownecl and maintained by the private propert�� owners who abut and take access from
it.
12. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay �1242.50 to the Ciry for the striping of the bike lane along
the frontage of North Dakota Street.
13. The applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation, for review bv the Cin� (Ium �1ci�lillan), of the
proposed discharge of stormwater runoff from the two parcels to an approved public drainage s��stem.
14. The applicant shall either place tlie escisting overhead utilin�lines along SW North Dakota underground as a part
of this project, ar they shall pay the fee in-lieu of under ounding. The fee shall be calculated b�• the frontage
of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be �35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee oprion is chosen, the
amount will be � 6895.00 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval.
15. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valle��Water District for the proposed water connecrion
prior to issuance of the Cit�•'s Public Facilin� Impro�-ement pernut.
16. The applicant's final lat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the Cin's global
posittotvng svstem �GPS) geoderic control nenvork (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and
shall be of the same precision as required for the subdi�Tision plat boundan-. ��long with the coordinates, the
plat shall contain the scale factor to con�-ert ground measurements to grid�measurements and the angle from
north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by:
♦ GPS rie networked to the Cin's GPS sune��.
♦ By random tra��erse using convenrional surveying methods.
17. I-inal Plat:�pplication Subinission Requirements:
r�. Submit for Cit}� re�7ew four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared bj- a land sunre��or licensed to
pracrice in Ore�on,and necessary data or narrati�-e.
B. Attach a check in the amounr af the current final plat re�new fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit
Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2421).
C. The final plat and data or narrati��e shall be drawn to the nuniinum standards set forth by the Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05),Washington Counn�,and b�•the Cit�-of Tigard.
D. The ri�ht-of-way dedication for North Dakota Street to 27 feet from centerline and for SW 92"`'
Aeenue to 27 feet from centerline shall be made on the final plat.
NOTICE OF DECISIO� \iLP2005-00011/HELLWEGE P.�RT'ITIO\ P.1GE 3 OF 25
E. NOTE: Washington County �vill not bcgin thcir rcvicw of thc final plat until tl�ev recei�e notice from
- the F.ngineering Department indicating that the City has re�7ewed the final�plat and submitted
comments to the apphcant's sunre��or.
F. �fter the Cit�� and Count�� have reviewed the final plat, submit ttvo m��lar copies of the final plat for
City Engineer s�m ature (for partirions), or Ciry Engineer and Communiry De��elopment Director
si�natures (for subdi��isions).
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHAI.L BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF SITE OR BUILDING PERMITS:
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and subrnit it, alo gwith any supporting documents and/or plans
that address the following requirernents to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Chery1 Caines
503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information
is found:
18. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant must submit a site plan that meets the setback requirements for
the R-4.5 zone,ulcluding a 15 foot street side yard setback for parcel#2.
19. The applicant shall include the requirement to plant street trces as part of an�- future street improvement in the
restricu�•e co�•enant for proposed Parcels #1 and #2 idenrified in Condirion#9 aboee.
20. The applicant shall ensure that the Project rlrborist has submitted written reports to the Cin� Forester, at least,
once e��ery two weeks, fr�m uurial tree protection zone (I'PZ) fencing installation, through h�me c�n�tructi�n,
as he monitors the construcrion acri�-ines and progress. These reports should include any changes that
occurred to the TPZ as well as the condirion and location of the tree protecrion fencing. If the amount of
TPZ �vas reduced then the Project�rborist shall jusrifi' wh�� the fencing�vas mo�-ed, and shall cerrifi- that the
construcrion acrivities to the trees did not ad�-ersely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the
tree(s). If the re�orts are not submitted or received bv the Cin� Forester at the scheduled inter�-als, and if it
appears the TP7 s or the Tree Protecrion Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the Ciry can stop work
on the project until an inspecrion can be done by the City� Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspecrion
will be to evaluate the tree protecrion fencing, deterinine if the fencin� was moved at any point during
construcrion,and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated.
21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the a�plicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the locarion of the
trees that were preserved on the lot, locanon of tree protecrion fencing, and a signature of a� roval from the
project arbarist regarcluig the placement anci c�nstrucn�n techniyues t� be empl�}�ecl ul b�cluig the huuse.
r1ll proposed protecrion fenculg shall be installed and inspected prior to commencmg construcrion, and shall
remain in place through the durarion of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree
protecrion measures may be removed.
22. Priar to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancv, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restricrion for each
lot to the effect that any tree larger than 12" diameter may� be removed onl�- if the tree dies or is hazardous
according to a cerrified arborist. The deed restricrion may be removed or will be considered inaalid if a tree
presenred in accordance with this section should either die or be remo�-ed as a hazardous tree.
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans
that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM
MCMILI.AN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the
required information is found:
23. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall proiride the Engineering Department with a
"photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat.
24. During issuance of the building permit for Parcels 1 & 2, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality and
water quanrity fees per lot (fee amounts will be the latest approved by CWS).
25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant's en�ineer shall pro�-ide final sight distance certificarion.
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS OF THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION NOTED UNDER THE PROCESS AND APPEAL SECTION
OF THIS DECISION.
?�O'I'ICE OF D�;CISIU� \I1,P2005-00011/FIELL��'�:GE P.�RTITIOi� P_�C��:-1 OF 25
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Pro�ert�- Hi�
The subject lot is located within the City of Tigard. The property is designated Low-Densiry Residenrial on the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Map. Thc subjcct lot origulally platted as lot 1 of Dogw ood Ridge in 1951.. A lot line adjustment
between the site and the properry to the south was approved in 2005 (MIS2005-00012).
Site Informarion and Pro�osal Descri�rions
The subject property is appro�mately .41 acres in size. The site has appro�mately 197 feet of frontage on SW North
Dakota Street and appro�nately 92 feet along the right-of-way for SW 92°`'Avenue. The property slopes gendy down
towards the north. The adjacent properries are developed with single-family homes.
The owner is proposing to parririon the vacant site into two new lots that share an access onto SW North Dakota
Street. Proposed parcel#1 is 8,480 square feet and proposed parcel#2 is 8,387 square feet.
SECTION IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City mailed norice to property owners witivn 500 feet of the subject site providing them an opportunity to
comment. The City received comments from Richard Mobley, Ry�an Truair, Iiaren Estrada,Jesse Emory, and Jeffrey
Kleinman for Kevin and Stephanie Viaene.
Richard Mobley opposes the street improvement adjustment requested by the applicant due to safety concerns. He has
experienced many close calls due to the narrow roadway and absence of sidewalks for ��alkers. Street unprovements,
including sidewalks, would make the street safer for those that use the street and the surrounding property owners.
Other developments in the area have made street impro�Tements.
Ryan Truair is also concerned about public safety on this strip of SW North Dakota. He states that street
unprovements are required by code and that the improvements will remedy public safety issues along this stretch of
street. These issues include a dark, narrow roadway and open ditches. In this case public safery is being ignored in
favor of saving trees on the site. Improvements already e�st on the south side of SW North Dakota to the east and
west of the site. It is only logical to complete the link between the two secrions. For similar reasons Mr. Truair states
that SW 92"`�Avenue should not be extended to SW North Dakota. This creates an addirional link between Greenburg
Road and North Dakota Street. SW 92"`� Street is not designed to handle increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Future street improvements are not likely due to the street being already developed with single-family homes.
Karen Estrada has no objecrion to the two new homes being built but believes a sidewalk should be constructed by the
developer along the SW North Dakota street frontage. Her reasons include public safety and consistency with other
developments in the area. Due to more development in the area, traffic is increasing. There are near misses all the time
due to the lack of visibiliry and people walking in the street because there is no continuous sidewalk to utilize.
Sidewalks have already been started from each end of the block. The development next door to the site was required to
make street improvements. These requirements should be the same for all developments.
Jeffrey Iileinman represents Kevin and Stephanie Viaene. He wrote to concur with the applican'ts statement that any
unprovement of SW 92"`�Avenue to connect with SW North Dakota would violate the prerequisites of the Dolan v�-. City
of Tigard decision. The proposed parririon would not create any addirional traffic on S.W 92"`� and requiring
improvements is dispropornonate to the im�act of the proposal. SW 92°`'is not likely to be improved in the foreseeable
future and the improvements associated with this development alone would not significandy unprove street safery or
capacity. In addinon Mr. & Mrs. Viaene would suffer diminished property value from increased cut-through traffic
caused by making the connecrion to SW North Dakota Street.
NOTICE OF DECISION �fI.P2005-00011/HELLWEGE P.IRTITIOI� P.1GE 5 OF 25
RESPUNSE: '1`he adjustment is not necessary because street unprovements are not required in this case. Tigard
- Development Code 18.810.020 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards—General Provisions) states:
When standards applv. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of
streets, sidewall�s, curbs and other public unprovements shall occur in accordance with d�e
standards of this tide. No development may occur and no land use application may be
approved unless the public facilities related to development com�ly with the public facility
requirements established in this section and adequate pubhc facilities are available.
rlpplicants may� be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only
when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly� proportional to the impact of
the development.
In this case the impact of two new single-family homes is not rou�hly proporrionate to the full cost of street
unprovements along either SW North Dakota or SW 92°`' Avenue; therefore all of the improvements cannot be
reqwred at this time. However the applicant will be rec�uired to install a five foot sidewalk along SW North Dakota for
the following reasons: a sidewalk improvement (1) is still proportionate to the impact of the development, (2) is logical
considering a sidewalk already e�sts to the west of the site, and (3) �vill alle`nate some of the safet�� concerns related to
increased traffic along SW North Dakota. A calculation under the Impact Studv poruon of this report shows the
proporrionality of impacts to mitigarion required. The applicant will pa�� Traffic Impact Fees for each dwelling unit.
These fees assessed by the county�are collected for all new de�Telopment during the building permit process. In addirion
the applicant is dedicating right-of-way� along both street frontages of SW Nortll Dakota and SW 92"`' for future street
im�rovements. The ap�licant has agreed and is condirioned to provide the City with a fut��e improvement guarantee
in the form of a Restricnve Covenant whereby they agree to complete or parricipate in the future improvements.
The letter received from Jesse Emory includes similar comments regarding the public safery and street improvements.
In addirion Mr. Emory raised the issue of recent tree removal from the site, development not in character with the
neighborhood,vision problems with the driveway accessing onto North Dakota Street, and erosion control problems.
RESPONSE Staff conducted a site visit during the most recent tree removal. The trees were removed by Mr.
Hellwege, former owner of the development site, on his parcel to the south. None of the trees
removed were within the de�relopment site. Tigard Deeelopment Code only requires a tree removal
permit for trees located on or in a sensirive land area (defined as floodplain, wedands, slopes �r eater
than 25% and natural drainageways). No sensirive lands are found on Mr. Hellwege's parcel and his site
is not part of the development application.
The applicant has pYOposed two sin�le-family residences which are permitted by right. The zoning designarion for the
area is R-4.5 (Low Densiry Residenttal). Muuinum lot size for the zone is 7,500 square feet. Many of the parcels in the
area are above the mimmum lot size and can be parritioned, thus leading to in-fill projects like the proposed
development. Mulri-family units (apartments and condonuniums) are not ernutted in the zone. Duplexes are a
condittonal use and attached single-family is only permitted through a Planned�evelopment. Both of these applicarion
processes include public hearings.
In regard to the vision problem for the access drive, the applicant has provided a preliminary site distance cerrificarion
prepared by an engineer. r1 final certification is rec�uired after unprovements are made to the site. In addition the
applicant must show on the plat visual clearance mangles that meet the code requirements of Tigard Development
Code 18.795. No structures over three feet in height are allowed in the visual clearance areas. Trees must be limbed to
eight feet in these areas.
Finally, to address i�Ir. Emory's erosion control concerns. Erosion control fencin�is required for this development and
is shown on the applicant's plans. Location is reviewed prior to issuance of pernitts for the site. This topic is addressed
by the City's Design Revlew Engineer, Kim Mcl�tillan,later in this report.
NOTICE OF DECISION `fLP2005-00011/HELLWEGE P.-1RTITION P_�GE 6 OF 25
SECTION V. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Variances and Adjustments (18.370)
Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for
an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is
satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing
development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or
existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall deterrnine that the
potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards.
The a��licant has requested an adjustment to the street impro�-ement standards for SW North Dakota Street and
SW 9 `' rlvenue. These include but are not luiuted to curbs, pavement and street lights. ��s discussed above in
response to public comments, most of these street unprovements cannot be required due to the rough
proportionality of impact caused by the development. One exception to this is the requirement of a fi��e foot
sidewalk.
The applicant will be required to construct a sidewalk along North Dakota Street and guarantee for the remauung
half street unpro�rements. �� guarantee for these unproeements is condirioned for under the streets and utiliues
section of the decision. Therefore the adjustment request is denied in part.
In this case requirement of the sidewalk will enhance the neighborhood by pro�riding a ha�-en for pedestrians along
this stretch of North Dakota. Several e�sting mature trees may� be impacted. Most of the trees along North
Dakota may need to be removed for the sidewalk. Although this is not ideal, these trees would most likely be
removed for future street unprovements and the applicant's narrative states that no tree within the subject properry
is specifically identified for conservation. At the same ume the applicant has attempted t� identifv trees that may be
saved in the development and construcuon process. These trees include those alon� SW North Dakota Street. "I'o
avoid removal of the trees, the City may allow the applicant to construct a meanderulg sidewalk. r�ny design must
be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Arborist. This is discussed further in the Streets and
Utiliries section of this decision.
Land Partitions (18.420�
The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations;
The proposed partirion complies or can be made to comply with all staturor�- and ordinance requirements and
regulanons as demonstrated by the anal��sis contained within this adininistrarive decision and through the imposition of
conditions of development appro�-a1. Provided all necessary condirions are sarisfied as part of the de�relopment and
building process,this criterion is met.
There are adequate public facilities available to serve the proposal;
Public faciliries are discussed in detail later in this decision under Chapter 18.810 (Street & �'tilin' Impro�-ement
Standards). Based on the analysis �ro�•ided therein, Staff finds that adequate public faciliries are a�-ailable to ser�-e the
proposal. Therefore,this criterion is met.
All proposed improvements meet Ciry and applicable agency standards;and
The public faciliries and proposed unprovements are discussed and condirioned later in this decision under Chapter
18.810 (Street & L�tilin� Improvement Standards). Improvements will be re�rie�ved as part of the permit process and
during construcrion, at which time the appropnate re�-iew authority will ensure that Cin- and applicable agency
standards are met. Based on the anal��sis in this decision, Staff finds that this criterion is met.
All proposed lots conform to the specific requirements below:
The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning
district.
The ininiinum lot width required for the R-4.5 zonin�district is 50 feet. Parcel #1 is 98 feet in�vidth;parcel #2 is also
98 feet wide. Therefore,this criterion has been met.
NOTICE OF DECISION \II,P2005-00011/HELLWEGE P�IRTITTON P_�GE 7 OF 25
� The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may
not be included in the lot area.
The minimum lot area requirement in the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet for detached
single-family units. The proposed partition creates two (2) lots that are 8,480 and 8,387 square feet respecrivel��.
Therefore, this criterion has bcen met.
Each lot created throu�h the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a
legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement.
Both parcels will front the right-of-way along SW North Dakota b�� 98 feet. In addition parcel #2 also has 92 feet of
frontage along the ri�ht-of-way for SW 92 rlvenue.Therefore, this criterion is met.
Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district.
Setbacks for the R-4.5 zoning district are as follows: front = 20 feet; side = 5 feet; and rear =15 feet. '1'he narrauve
states that future homes will comply with provisions of the underly�in�g zone. Setbacks are shown on the Preliminarv
Plat included with the applicarion. The street side setback of parcel #2 is shown as 5 feet rather than the required 15
feet. Setbacks for the future homes will be reviewed at the time of building permit submittal.
FINDING: "The street side yard setback shown on parcel#2 does not comply with the standards.
CONDITION:Prior to building permit issuance the applicant must submit a site plan that meets the setback
requirements for the R-4.5 zone,including a 15 foot street side��ard setback for parcel #2.
When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard,provided that
no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from
existing structures.
Neither of the parcels created through this parrition process will be flag lots. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
A screen shall be provided along the properry line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is
located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.745.040. Screening may also be
required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed
development.
The proposed shared access dri��e is not located within ten feet of an abutting lot. This criterion is not applicable.
The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a
detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities.
The fire district (Iti'FR) has re��ewed the proposal and has not required an addirional fire h�-drant; there is already a
h`-drant at the corner of SW North Dakota and SW 94`h
Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure
access and maintenance rights sf�all be recorded with the approved partition map.
Both parcels will be accessed by a shared drive onto SW North Dakota. The applicant's narrative states that a
reciprocal easement will be executed as part of the final plat process. This criterion can be met condirionally.
FINDING: rlccess and maintenance must be insured for the common drivewav.
CONDI'1'ION:�� reciprocal easement ensuring access and maintenance rights shall be recorded to cover the shared
access drive. This easement shall be sho�vn on the final plat.
Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705,Access, Egress and Circulation.
`I1iis standard is addressed under Chapter 18.705 (rlccess,Egress and Circularion) later in this decision.
NOTICE OF DECISIO\ :III.P2005-00011/HELL`�'EGE P.�KTTTIO\ P_�GE 8 OF 25
Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred year floodplain, the city
_ shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within
the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway
plan.
The partirioned lots are not within nor adjacent to a one-hundred-year floodplain. Therefore, this standard does not
applv.
An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with
Chapter 18.370,Variances and Adjustments. The applications for the partition and variance(s)/adjustment(s)
will be processed concunently.
�n application for an adjustment to the street improvement standards for SW North Dakota and SW 92"`' �eenue is
requested as part of this application. r1s discussed earlier in this report,this adjustment is partiall5� denied.
FINDINGS: The proposed minor land parririon meets,or can meet,all of the relevant standards of the land parrition
secrion as mdicated in the abo�-e findings and following secrions of this decision.
Residential Zoning Districts (18.510�
Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below:
TABLE 18.510.2 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
STANDARD R-4.5 Parcell Parcel2
�finimum I,ot Size
-Detached unit i,500 sy.ft. 8,-�80 sy.ft. 8,387 sq. fr.
-Duplexes 10,000 sq.ft.
-_�ttached unit
_��-erage�Iinunum I.ot Width
-Detached unit lots 50 ft. 98 ft. 98 ft.
-Duplex lots 90 ft.
-�ttached unit lots
�Iaximum Lot Covera - \_1 N.�
�Iiiumum Setbacks
-Front�•ard 20 ft. Can be met Can be met
-Side facing street on corner&through lots 15 ft. \/_� Can be met
-Side�•ard 5 ft. Can be met Can be met
-Rear��ard 1�ft. Can be met Can be met
-Side or rear yard abutting more restricrive zoning district -- l�/.� N/.�
-Distance between propert5�line and front of garage 20 ft. Can be met Can be met
-Side I'ard Setbacks far Fla Lots C 18.420.050� 4 e 10 ft. N/.1 ti/,1
\Saximum Hei ht 35 ft. Can be met Can be met
\Sininium I_anciscape Requirem�nt - Iv.� \_1
.� minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet is reguired for each lot The proposed lot sizes meet this standard. l�uturc
de�-elopment �vill be re�-ie�ved through the building permit process to ensure compliance with the R-4.5
development standards. Setback stanclards, rec�uireci by Table 18.510.2 will appl}� to all future development oF the
proposed lots.
Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705�
Chapter 18.705 establishes standards and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site
and fot general circulation within the site. Table 18.705.1 states that the minimum vehicular access and
egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one, 10-foot paved driveway within a 15-foot-
wide accessway. The minimum access width for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement.
The applicant has indicated that both parcels will share a 26-foot access. The site plan shows a pavement width of 16
feet. Therefore,this criterion has been satisfied.
tiOTTCE OF DECISION �fI.P2005-00011/HF.Id,WEGE P:�RTITIOti P_�GE 9 OI�?7
Continuing obligation of properry owner. Thc provisions and maintcnancc of acccss and egress stipulated in
- this title are cont�nuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the Ciry.
The standards of this chapter will be a continuing obligarion on thc owners of thesc parccls.
Access plan requirements.
No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this
chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The a�plicant shall
submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission
requirement.
Scaled site plans that show the access and egress haee been provided�vith this applicarion. Therefore, this criterion has
been satisfied.
Joint access.
Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and
egress when the cornbined access and e�ress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the
combined requirements as designated in this tide, provided: Satisfactor� legal evidence shall be presented in
the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the �oint use; and Copies of the deeds,
easements, leases or conttacts are placed on permanent file with the Ciry.
The applicant has�roposed joint access between Parcels 1 and 2. `Therefore, sarisfactor�-leg�1 e�-idence�vill be required
to establish the joint access. 1� condirion of approval requiring a reciprocal easement has been unposed abo�re, under
18.420 (Land Partirions). This easement for access and maintenance shall be shown on the final plat. Therefore, this
standard has been satisfied.
Public street access.
All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.030I shall connect directly with
a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required
standards on a continuous basis.
The proposed partirion has a proposed 16-foot wide shared access dri�e that connects to SW North Dakota Street, a
pubhc street. `I'his standard is met.
Curb Cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N.
Rec�uired walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards:
Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or
elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access
and egress. Wallcways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial,
institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and
existing developments and neighboring developments;
Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential
dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parlang area, and common open space and
recreat�on facilities;
Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed
and located for pedestrian safery. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic
and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal
separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 3G feet
if appro�riate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavcmcnt matcrials arc used. Walkways shall
be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes,
benches,bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards;
Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc.
Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public
use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways.
This proposal is for a detached single-famil�-development, this standard docs n<�t appl�-.
NOTICE OF DECISIO\ \II.P2005-00011/HELLVG'EGE P.IRTITION P_�GE 10 OF 25
Inadequate or hazardous access.
A�plications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the
Director, the access proposed would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or would provide
inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist
which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health,safery and general welfare.
The lots within this parririon will be providing direct access to a public street. 'I'ualatin Valleti� Fire and Rescue and
Tigard Police ha�-e been notified and have not indicated a hazard. The Director has not determined that Planning
Commission re�riew is necessarv for building permits. With regard to streets and street intersecrions, these issues are
addressed under TDC Chapter 18.810 (Street and lJ'tilin• Impro�-ement Standards). Therefore, this standard is sarisfied.
Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be
discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical
alternative way to access the site.
"I'he proposed parcels will take acccss from SW North Dakota Street,which is not a collector or an arterial. '1'herefore,
this standard does not apply.
In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backwatd movement or other
maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt
from this requirement.
"I'his criterion does not appl�� to the proposed single-family�d��ellings.
Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H�
Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposaLs
which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance
and deceleration standards as set by ODOT,Washington County,the Ciry and AASHTO.
'I'he applicant's engineer has submitted prelimuiary sight distance certificarion for the proposed shared access. For local
streets with a posted speed of 25 mph the min.tmum required sight distance is 250 feet. 7'he engineer states rhat
available s�ht distance e�ceeds 1000 feet to the west and 550 feet to the east. The engineer also noted that the etisting
"Neighborhood Watch" sign should be relocated west of the proposed driveway.
Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant's engineer shall provide fmal sight distanee certificarion upon
complerion of the public improvements.
Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be �ermitted to be placed in the influence area of
collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic
commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial
street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat
of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined
from City Engineer review of a traffic im act report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case
where a �ro�ect has less than 150 feet o�street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared
access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as
far from the intersection as possible.
North Dakota Street is designated a Neighborhood Route, therefore this criterion does not appl��.
Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall
be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and sueets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum
spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet.
North Dakota Street is designated a Neighborhood Route, therefore this criterion does not appl��.
Minimurn access requirements for residential use.
Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual
lots and multi-family tesidential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2;
The applicant has indicated that both of the proposed parcels will share a 26-foot access easement. 'I'he applicant
indicated a pavement width of 1G feet. The ininimum requirement for 1-2 dwellings is a 15 foot access �vith 10 feet of
avement. Therefore, this standard is sarisfied.
'.�OTTCE OF DECISIO:� �II,P2005-00011/HELL�t'EGE P.�R"1'I"IT<)\ P.�GE 11 01�2�
Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or
the ground�loor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevatot leading to the dwelling units;
No mulri-family structures are proposed with this applicarion. Therefore, this standard does not appl��.
Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
Uniform 5re Code;
Tualatin Valle�� Fire and Rescue did not indicate in their comments that the proposed access dri�•e would not meet their
requirements.
Section 18.705.030.H.4 states that Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved
provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a circular, paved surfacc having a
minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configured,
paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of
20 feet. The ma7cimum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%.
The proposed access drive��ill be less than 150 feet in length as shown by� the site plan. Therefore, this standard does
not appl��.
TINDING: Based on the analysis above, the rlccess, Egress and Circularion standards have been met.
Dens� Computations (18.715�
A. Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by
subtracting the following land area(s) from thc gross acres, which is all of thc land included in thc
legal description of the property to be developed:
1. All sensitive land areas
2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes;
3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way.
4. All land proposed for private streets;and
5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling
is to remain on the site.
B. Calculating maacimum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum number of residential
units per net acre,divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square
feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district.
C. Calculatin� minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum
number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of
units determined in Subsect�on B above by 80% (0.8).
The subject .41-acre parcel totals 17,860 square feet. There are no sensiuve land areas or pri�-ate streets within the
subject proposal. To deterinine the net de�-elopable area the right of way dedication for North llakota Street (2 feet
x 92.34 feet = 185 square feet) and 92"`' rlvenue (4 feet x 197 feet = 788 square feet) are deducted (17,860 square
feet gross — 973 square feet deductions = 1G,887 net developable square feet). r1s the minimum lot size for the R-
4.5 zone is 7,500 sc�uare feet, the ma�mum number of lots for this �arcel is two. The minimum number is one.
The proposed part�t�on creates two (2) separate lots in conformance with the densiry requirements.
The calcularions pro�rided bj� the applicant show the right-of-wa}� dedicarion for SW North Dakota is approximately
985 square feet rather than 788 square feet as calculated aboae. The applicant's figure of 985 square feet�vas calculated
by using a five foot right-of-way dedication instead of a four foot dedication. Only a four foot dedication is required.
Both calcularions indicate the same density of two (2) lots,which is what the applicant has proposed.
FINDING: Based on the analysis abo�-e, the Densin�Computarion Standards ha�re been met.
�OTICE OF DECISION ��,P2005-00011/HELL��'EGE P_1RTITIO:� P_AGE 12 OF 25
Landscaping and Screening (18�745�
Street trees: Section 18.745.040
Section 18.745.040.A.: All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway
more than 100 fect in lc� approved after the adopt�on of this tide shall be required to plant street trees in
accordance with the stan ards in Section 18.745.040C.
This proposed project includes frontage on SW North Dakota Street and undet-eloped SW 92°`' �1�-enue, both public
streets. The proposed shared access drive does not exceed 100 feet in length. Therefore, street trees are onl�• required
alon� the public street but not the shared access. The required trees shall be �lanted in accordance with the�standards
for size and spacin�in this ritle, under Secrion 18.745.040.C. Neither street is unproved with curbs and sidewalks along
the frontages. 1-� sidewalk along SW North Dakota is required and both streets will undergo further improvements in
the future. The applicant's narrauve states that final construcrion documents will include a street tree plan;but since the
street impro�-ement has not y�et been fizll�- desi�ned, planting of street trees will be deferred until the full street
improvements occur. Planting of street trees at tlus ttme�vould possibl��mean the remo��al of those trees in the future.
Buffering and Screening Requirements: Section 18.745.050.5
Where screening is required the following standards shall apply:
a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four foot
continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of plantin�;or
b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a
continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of
the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or
c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous
sight obscuring screen.
Pursuant to 18.420, a screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record �vhere the pa�-ed dri�-e in an
accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot. The proposed shared access is located between the parcel #1
and parcel#2 and is more than 10 feet from any abutting lot. �Therefore this criterion is not applicable.
FINDING: The landscape standards have not been met. However, with condirions of appro�-a1 requiring street
trees along North Dakota Street and 92"`�rlvenue, the landscaping standards can be met.
CnNDI'I'I(�N:The applicant shall record a restricrive c�venanr with �roposed Parcels #1 and #2 thar will indude a
requirement for planting street trees as part of any future street unprovement.
Tree Removal (18.790�
A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided
for any lot„ parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision,
partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred
over removal wherever possible.
The applicant has submitted a tree protection plan that has been reviewed and accepted by the City Forester. The
a�plicant has indicated that there are thirteen (13) �-iable trees greater than 12-inch diameter on the property. r1t this
tune the applicant is not proposing to conserve any of these trees, but could feasibly retain eleven of the thirteen��iable
trees as noted in the narrari�-e and arborist report. Based on the proposed retenrion schedule, the a plicant is required
to miti�ate for 100% of the inches lost. The total for the thirteen trees is 258 inches. Miriganon at�125.00 per cali�er
inch will be �32,250.00. If trees greater than 12-inch diameter can be saved and protected during the construcuon
process, a comprehensi��e arborist report/protecuon plan will be required to be submitted and mitigarion will be
recalculated.
Section 18.790.040 states that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be
removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of
approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter.
'The properry owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit
affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous
according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction ma� be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree
preserved in accordance with this section should either cLe or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of
this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director.
tiOTICE OF DECISION :�ILP2005-00011/H�LL��'EGE P_�RTI'I'ION P_�C�E 13 OF 2�
The applicant will be required as a condirion of approval to record a deed restriction limiting the remo��al of trees that
� are retatned on the project site greater than 12 inches in diameter,in accordance with this standard.
FINDING: Based on the analvsis above, the Tree Removal Standards have not been met. In order to meet the
standard, the applicant shall sarisf�- rhe following conditions:
CONDITIONS:
♦ Prior to cotnmencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equi�-alent ralue of
mitigarion required. If addirional trees are presen-ed through the subdii-ision unprovements and
construction of houses,and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded
to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance mav be corresponciingly reduced.
l�ny� trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.0G0 (D) will be credited a�ainst the
cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such tune, the applicant shall pay the
remauiuig value of the cash assurance as a fee in lieu of planting.
♦ Prior to issuance of an�- Certificates of Occupanc�, the applicant/o�uner shall record a deed resrriction
to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12' diameter may be remo�ed onlv if the tree dies or is
hazardous according to a cerufied arborist. The deed restricrion may� be removed�or will be considered
invalid if a tree preseraed in accordance with this decision shou7d either die or be removed as a
hazardous tree.
♦ Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction dra��ings that include
the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a
construcrion sequence incluciing installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing,
grading, and pavmg. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized
for removal by this decision.
♦ Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by tlze project
arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the
purpose of monitoring and inspecrion of the tree protecrion to�-erify. that the tree protecrion measures
are performing adequatelv. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protecuon fencing in the
designated locarions shall�be grounds for iminediate suspension of work on the site until remediarion
measures and/or cieil citarions can be processed.
♦ Prior to any� Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project l�rborist has
submitted �vritten re orts to the Cit�� Forester, at least, once every- two weeks, from uutial tree
protecrion zone (i"P�fencing installanon, through site work, as he monitors the construcuon acuviries
and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Porester until the time of the issuance of an�-
Cernficates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the T`I'Z as well as
the condirion and locauon of the tree protecrion fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the
Project��rborist shall justify why the fencing was moved,and shall certi��that the construcrion acriviries
to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health an stabiliry of the rree(s). if the
reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears
the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not beuig followed by the contractor, the Cit�� can stop work
on the project until an inspecrion can be done bv the City� Forester and the Project I�rborist. This
inspecrion will be to e��aluate the tree protecrion fencing, determine if the fencing �vas mo�red at an��
pomt during construcrion,and determuie if an�-part of the Tree Yrotecrion Ylan has been�-iolated.
♦ Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the
locarion of the trees that were preser�-ed on the lot, locarion of tree protecrion fencing, and a signature
of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construcrion techniques to be
employed in building the house. All proposed prorecrion fencing shall be installed and inspected rior
to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of home building. 1�fter
approval from the City Forester,the tree protecrion measures may be removed.
NOTTCE OF DECISIO\ �II.P2005-00011/HELL��UEGE P_�RTITIO\ P.�GE 14 OF 25
Visual Clearance Areas (18.795�
� This Chapter requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to
intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area
shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction
exceedin� three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall
be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height. Trees may be placed within this area provided
that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by
measuring from the corner, 30-feet along the right of way and along the driveway and connecting these two
points vvith a straight line.
The applicant's site plan does not show the vision clearance triangles for the proposed lots. The �-ision clearance areas
will need to be shown on a revised preliininar`-plat.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above,Staff finds that the Vision Clearance Standards are not presendy met.
CONDITION:Prior to final plat appro�-a1, the applicant shall submit a plat that shows the �-isual clearance area
accuratel�-,in accordance with Tigard Communim De�-elopment Code (TCDC) Secrion 18.795.040.
Impact Stud 1y ( 8�390�
Section 18.3G0.090 states? "The Director shall make a finding with res�ect to each of the following criteria
when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application: '
Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of
development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the
study shall propose improvements necessary to meet Ciry standard, and to minimize the impact of the
development on the puFlic at large,public facilities systems, and affected private properry users.
In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the
applicant shall either speci�cally concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedicat�on, or �rov�de
evidence that supports that the real properry dedication is not ronghly proportional to the projected impacts
of the development. Section 18.390.D40 states that when a condition of a pproval requires 1ie transfer to the
public of an interest in real property,the approval authority shall adopt findings whicfi support the conclusion
that the interest in real properry to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed
development will have on 1ie pubhc.
'I'he applicant has submitted an unpact study. The applicant will not be required to phvsically unprove SW North
Dakota Street nor SW 92"`� ��-enue due to the rough proportionalin� to the projected impacts of the development.
However, the applicant will be required to submit a waiver of remonstrance for future parriciparion in a Local
Im�rovement Dismct (LID) for street improvements on both SW North Dakota Street and SW 92 r�venue to
rrungate for the addiriona120 daily vehicle trips from the site. These future improvements will exclude a sidewalk along
SW North Dakota. That unprovement is being rec�uired as part of this approval. In addirion the applicant shall
dedicate the necessaryr�ght-of-way for these future unprovements (four feet along SW North Dakota and two feet
along SW 92"`' <�venue). The apphcant will be extending storm drainage connecrions to the two parcels to account for
the addirional impen�ious area being added to the site. Sewer is already available and has sufficient capacin� to ser�-e the
development. Other im acts to public facilities are offset bv tlze collecrion of SS�stems Development Charges (SDC's)
collected at the time o�buildin� pernut issuance. Therefore, this standard can be satisfied through meet7ng the
condirions of approval in this decision.
The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF� is a mirigation measure that is required at the time of development.
Based on a transportarion unpact study� prepared by 1�1r. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolurion
95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and
Arterial Street system. The applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approaimately$2,850 per new dwelling unit.
Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements cin�wide, a fee
that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is �17,$13 (�2,850 times two uruts di�-ided by .32). The
difference Uetween the TIF' paid, and the full impact, is considered the umnitigated unpact on the street svstem. "I'he
unmirigated unpact of this project on the transportatton system is $12,113 (�17,813 - �5,700). The applicant will be
required to dedicate an addirional two feet of right-of-way along SW North Dakota Street and SW 92"`' A�renue
(approxirriatcly 579 square feet) for future road improvements. The approxirriate `ralue of unimproved residentially
zoned property is $3.00 per square foot, for a total value of�1,734. In addirion, the applicant is required to construct a
five foot sidewalk along SW North Dakota in its ultimate locarion. At a cost of$3.00 a square foot, the sidewalk value
is estunated at �2,995 (197 x 5 x �3.00). Since the unmitigated impact remauiing is $7,384 ($12,113-$1,734 - �2,995) the
required esacrion is proportionate.
NOTTCE OF DECISION �ff�P2005-00011/HELLVG'EGL P.�RTITION P�GE 1�OF 25
. PUBLIC FACILIT'Y CONCERNS
Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810�
Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and
utilit�es such as streets,sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below:
Streets•
Improvements:
Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in
accordance with the TDC standards.
Section 18.810.030.A.2 statcs that any ncw strcct or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing
street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a Neighborhood Route with bike
lanes to have a 58 foot right-of-way width and 36-foot paved section. Other improvernents required may
include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and
street trees.
This site lies adjacent to SW North Dakota Street,which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of
Tigard Trans ortation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline,
according to t�e most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate the add.itional 2 feet of ROW
to provide 27 feet from centerline.
SW North Dakota is pa�-ed but not fully unpro�-ed to Cit�- standards. 11t a minimum the applicant shall construct the
public sidewalk at its ulnmate locarion. For the remainder of the half-street unproi-ements, the `I�1C 18.810.030(.-�)(1)
states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance �uith Cin- standards.
However, 18.810.030(A)(5)states that the City ma}� accept a future unpro�•ement guarantee in lieu of street
improvements if the itnprovement associated with the project does not, bj� itself, pro�-ide a significant impro�-emenr r�
the street safet�- or capacity. ?�lthou�h this development will incrementall�� increase the amount of traffic on the
roadway, the increase will not substantiall�- degrade the level of senrice on the street. � street unprovement adjacent to
this site, therefore, will not significantly improve the safety or capaciri� of the street. In addirion, 18.810.030(<�)(5)(e)
states that a guarantee in lieu of street impro��ements is acceptable if the proposal is a land partirion on property zoned
residential and the partition does not create an�- new streets. "1'his partirion will not create a new street. Based on these
code provisions, Staff therefore recommends that the ap�licant be required to enter into an agreement with the Cin•
whereby the owner agrees to participate in any future widening project for the street carried out by the Cin�, a third
party, or through a local improvement district. This agreement must be executed prior to final plat appro�ral.
This site lies adjacent to SW 92"`' Avenue,which is classified as a Local Street on the City of Tigard Transportarion Plan
�1ap. l�t present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's
map. The applicant should dedicate the addirional2 feet of ROW required to pro�-ide 27 feet from centerline.
SW 92nd is currendv unimproeed. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should enter
into a guarantee in lieu of street impro�-ements.
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future street plan shall be filed
which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future sueets from the boundaries of the proposed land
division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future
division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a
barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not
considered to be cul-de-sacs since thcy arc intended to continue as through streets at such time as the
adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the properry
owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the Ciry Engineer, the cost of which shall be included
in the street construction cost. Tem orary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be
consttucted for stub streets in excess o�150 feet in length.
'I'he right-of-wa�� for 92"`' ��venue was established in 1951. The street will e�-entuall�� be constructed connecting it to
North Dakota Street. A minor land partirion is not required to construct the street impro�-ements, but will be required
to enter into a guarantee in lieu of street improvements, thereby meeting this criterion.
NOTICE OF DECISIOti \ILP2005-00011/HELL�YiEGE P.�R1T'1'IO\ P_1GE 16 OF 25
Street Alignm ent and Connections:
. Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between
connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-
existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrict�ons existing prior to May 1,
1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated
water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a
development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by
environmental or topographical consuaints, e�cisting development patterns or strict adherence to other
standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or
reconfigure the street pattern to�rovide rec�uired extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained
if the slope is greater than 15/o for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or
topographical constraints, the mere presence of a consttaint is not sufficient to show that a street connection
is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
The applicant has shown the addirional ROW dedicarion for 92"`' .leenue, thereb}' providing adequate ROVG' for the
future construcrion of 92°`�11�-enue.
Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length,width and shape of blocks shall be designed with
due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for
convement access, circuladon, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and
opportunities of topography.
Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800
feet measuted along the right-of-way line except:
♦ Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wedands or other bodies of water or, pre-
existing development or;
♦ For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways,major collectors or railroads.
♦ For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access.
No ne�y streets are being created with this partition. Therefore, this standard is not applicable.
Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and �edestrian connections on public easements or ri ht-of-
ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections sha�be no
more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing
development patterns,or stnct adherence to other standards in the code.
Suiularl�-, since no streets are being proposed, and no connections are required,this standard is not applicable.
Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average
lot width,unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district.
The lot width for both parcels is 98.52 feet and the lot depth for both parcels is approzimately 91 feet. The lot depths
are .93 times the lot��idths, consistent with this standard.
Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private
streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land�artition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies,which requires a parcel to
either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases
where the lot is fot an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet.
The proposed development is a minor land partirion. Parcel#1 has 98 feet of frontage on SW North Dakota. Parcel#?
also has 98 feet of frontage on SW North Dakota and an addirional 92 feet along SW 92"`' rlvenue. Therefore, this
criterion is met.
Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be
located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential sueets. Private streets and industrial streets
shall have sidewalks on at least one side.
NOTICE OF DECISION \iL,P2005-00011/HFI1.�Y/EGE P_�R'I'ITIO\ P.�GE 1?OF 2�
�
The a plicant shall construct a public sidewalk at its ultimate horizontal and vcrtical locauon, bascd on thc Cin's 'I'SP,
. alongpthe site frontage of North Dakota Street. The sidewalk shall also connect back to the paved porrion of North
Dakota Street at each end of tl�e frontage.
Any proposed alternauve to the sidewalk locarion, in order to save trees, must be submitted to the Cin� Engineer and
Cit�� Arborist for reaiew and approval. The alternari�-e submittal shall include, at a ininimum, the horizontal la�•out,
grachng plan, easements and the project arborist's report.
Sanitary Sewers:
Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in
Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water
Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amcndments) and the adopted policies of the
comprehensive plan.
Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional
development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan.
There is an e�isting sewer main in I�'orth Dakota Street. 'I�he applicant's plans indicate the installation of separate
laterals to each proposed parcel. The laterals shall be shown on the PFI plan submittal.
Storm Dtainage:
General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and
�ood water runoff.
Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility
shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside
or outside the development. The City Engineer shall ap�rove the necessary size of the faciliry, based on the
provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sarutary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by
Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments).
There are no defined upstream drainage ways that impact this de�-elopment.
Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer
that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage faciliry, the
Director and En�i eer shall withhold apptoval of the development until provisions have been made for
improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff
caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and
Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or
amendments).
In 1997, Clean Water Sen-ices (CWS) completed a basin stud�� of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek
Watershed i�lanagement Plan. Secrion V of that plan includes a recommendarion that local �overnments insritute a
stormwater detention/effecri�-e impenrious area reducrion program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up
to the 25-year event. The Citv will require that all new developments resulhng in an increase of impen�ious surfaces
provide onsite detenrion faciliries, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments
ad�acent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff wiIl be permitted to discharge without detenrion.
The CWS standards include a provision that would exclude small projects such as residenrial land partirions. It would
be impracrical to require an on-site detenrion facilitv to accommodate storm water runoff from Parcels 1 & 2. Rather,
the CWS standards provide that applicants should pa}� a fec in-lieu of constructing a facility if deemed appropriate.
Staff recommends payment of the fee in-lieu on this applicarion.
The stormwater runoff from the two proposed developments shall be conveyed to an approved public drainage s��stem.
This must be included on the PFI plan submittal.
Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways:
Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on
the City's adopted pedesttian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways
through the dedicauon of easements or n�ht-of-way.
:�OTTCE Of�DECISIO\ �II,P2005-00011/HELL��'EGE P_1RTTTT01� P_�GE 18 OF 25
� North Dakota Street is not a designated bic�•cle facilitt-.
Utilities:
Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication,
lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface
mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above
ground, temporary utiliry service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000
volts or above, and:
♦ The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the
underground services;
♦ The City reserves the ri�ht to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
♦ All undetground utilities, inclucLng sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the
develo er, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and
♦ Stubs �or service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when
service connections are made.
Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-
lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing
utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the
cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in
conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common,
but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in
the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for
a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public
right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding.
There are existin overhead utiliry lines along the frontage of SW North Dakota Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it
is equal to $35.0�per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 197
lineal feet;therefore the fee would be�6,895.00.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS:
Public Water System:
The 'i"ualarin �'alle��Water District (TVWD) provides ser�-ice in this area. The applicant shall submit plans for re�-iew,
appro�-a1 and permitting to�'WD pnor to issuance of the PFI pexrnit.
Storrn Water Oualit�
The Ciry has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water
Services (CWS) Desi�n and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which
require the construct�on of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65
percent of the phosphotus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created
impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and
method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year.
The CWS standards include a pro�-ision that would exclude small projects such as residential land partirions. It �vould
be impracrical to require an on-site water qualin- faciliry to accommodate treannent of the storm water from Parcel 2.
Rather, the CWS standards pro�ride that app�icants should pay a fee in-lieu of constructing a faciliri- if deemed
appropriate. Staff recommends payment of rhe fee in-lieu on this application.
Grading and Erosion Conuol:
CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and
other pollutants reacliing the public storm and surface water system resulting from development,
construction, grading, excavatin�, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS
regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to
issuance of City permits.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land.
\OTICE OF DECISIO\ �II.P200�-00011/F�E1.T,�C�GE P.�RTITIO\ P_�GE 19 OF 25
' Address Assi�nments:
The Cin- of T�ard is responsible for assi��g addresses for parcels within the Cin� of'Tigard and within the L'rban
Ser�rice Boundam (L�SB). 11n addressing fee �in the amount of 550.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be
paid to the City prior to final plat appro�-al.
Survey Requirements:
The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coorciinates [N!-�D 83 (91)] on two monuments with a rie to the
City's global posirioning system (GPS) geoderic control network (GC 22). 'Iliese monuments shall be on the same line
an d shall be of the same precision as required for the subdi��ision plat boundan�. rllong with the coordinates, the plat
shall contain the scale factor to convert �round measurements to gnd measurements and the angle from north to grid
north. These coordinates can be established by:
♦ GPS tie networked to the Cit��'s GPS survey.
♦ I3�� random traverse using convenrional surveying methods.
In addirion, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's en�n eer shall pro�-ide
the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water�-a1�-es,-hydrants and other
water system features) in the development, and their respecrive Z and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to Nr1D
83 (91).
SECTION VI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objecrion to it.
City of Tigard Forester has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments and condirions:
1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
18.745.030.C, Installation Rec�uirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows:
1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedutes.
2. The plant matenal shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the
Amencan Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions);
and
3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this tide.
• 'I'he accepted planting procedures are the �u delines described in the Tigard Tree �lanual. These guidelines
follow those set forth by the Internarional Societ�� of rlrboriculture (ISI�) tree �lanting guidelines as well as the
standards set forth in the r�merican Insritute of rlrchitects'Architectural Grapluc Standards, 10`h ediuon. In the
rlrchitectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planung trees based on the soil �rolume
and size at maturin•. Addirionally, there are direcrions for soil amendments and modifications.
• In order to de�-elop tree species dii•ersitt-onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed:
o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite.
o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite.
o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite.
18.745.030.E, Protection of Existing Landscapin� Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as
possible:
1. The developet shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during
the construct�on process; and
2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.�., areas not to be distutbed
can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees).
See comments under"Tree Removal".
tiOTICE OF DECISIO\ :�II.P200�-00011/I-IELLWEGE P.1R'I'I'1'IC)\ P_�GE 20 OF 2�
• 18.745.030.G, Condidons of Approval of Existing Vegetation. The review procedures and standards for
required landsca�ing and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development
review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development.
See recommended condirions of approval at the end of this memorandum.
18.745.040, Sueet Trees
A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street,private street or
a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this tide shall be
required to plant street uees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C.
� 'I11e accepted planting procedures are the �uidelines described in the "1'igard 'I'ree �lanual. These guidelines
follow those set forth by the Internarional 5ociety of Arboriculture (ISI�) tree planting guidelines as �uell as the
standards set forth in the rlmerican Insritute of Architects'r�rchitectural Urapluc Standards, 10`�' edirion. In the
rlrchitectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planttng trees based on the soil ��olume
and size at maturitv. l�dditionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications.
• In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed:
o No more than 30%of any one family be planted onsite.
o No more than 20%of any one genus be planted onsite.
o No more than 10%of any one species be planted onsite.
2. TREE REMOVAL
18.790.030,Tree Plan Rec�uirement
A. Tree plan rec�uired. A tree plan for the planting, removal and �totection of trees prepared by a
certified arborist shall be provided for any Iot, parcel or combinat�on of lots or parcels for which a
development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development
or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible.
B. Plan re uirements. The tree plan shall include the following:
1. dentification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including uees designated as
significant by the city;
2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in
caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in
accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other
development code provisions for landscaping, sueets and parking lots:
a. Retention of less than 25% of existing uees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation
program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees;
b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing uees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds
of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
c. Retention of from 50%to 75% of existin�trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent
of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation.
3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed;
4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to
protect uees during and after construction.
• �s required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted bt- a cerrified arborist, Stephen Goetz.
The report contauis the four required components,and is therefore acceptable.
• I suggest planting narive species of trees as street trees such as bigleaf maple, cascara or Oregon white oak.
Properly sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm &Nurser��. Call Diane at 503-357-2745. The species
of street trees used in this development are not listed. The species must be approved before the trees can
be planted.
'�iOTICE OF DECISION '�ILP2005-00011/f�F�LLVL'�;GE P_1RT'ITION P_1GE 21 Of�25
• I have to admit, I am baffled by�the tree mirigarion plans that Mr. Goetz outlined. I suggest reqLUring a cash
assurance for the 11 trees that the}' "�ght" be able to presen=e.
I3elow are my su�estions for the applicant to follow for tree protecrion guidelines:
• Prior to construcrion, a Tree Protecrion Plan shall be included with the proposed construcrion drawings
conforming to the Internarional Socien' of rlrboriculture (IS.�) guidelines for re�=iew and appro�-a1 b� the Cin�
Forester. ��ll tree prorecrion de�-ices, along with their details and specificarions, shall be shown on the Tree
Protecrion Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints sho�vn in relarion to the trees being
preser�-ed. �1n5• tree that�vill not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must
be protected. Any tree that is located on properry adjacent to the construction project that will have
more than 15%of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected,
• .1 note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, �-ehicles, machinen-, graciing,
dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construcrion-related acn�-�nes shall not be located inside of ant�
tree protecrion zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being prorected.
• .111 tree rotecrion devices shall be:
■ ��isible.
■ Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post
shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to
a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than
four feet.
■ Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area
behind the fencing is protected and no construcrion acri�-ity, including material storage, ma5� occur
behind the fencing.
■ Inspected and appro��ed in the field by the project arborist and Cit�- Forester prior to clearing, grading,
or the beginning of construcrion.
■ Remain in place and maintained until all construcrion is completed and a final inspecrion is conducted.
"1'o derermine the size of the tree protecrion zone (TPZ) the project arborist should follow the guidelines listed belo�v:
■ For indi��idual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height
(DBH), or 4 '/2 feet above the �r ound, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For
etample, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 15' of tree protecrion zone around the entire
canopy of the tree.
■ For group s of trees the tree protecrion zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on tlie edge of
the stand. If there are coni�ers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter
method or the drip line method,whichever is greater.
■ Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protecrion 7_one calcularion as shown in `Tr�e�and De��elo�ment.•
.� Technic•a!Guide to Preservation o�f�Ti�es During L�rnd Development"b��Nelda�latheny and James R. Clark.
■ The project arborist ma`- propose an alternate method for the establishment of the TPZ, pro��ded the
effort is coordinated wit� the Ciry Forester.
• If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project
arborist and Cit�� Forester must be norified before an�� entty occurs. Before entering the TP7., the project arbonst
and Cit�� Forester shall detennine the method by which entry can occur, along with any addirional tree protecrion
measures.
• Prior to issuance of any Cerrificates of Occupane}�, the Project .lrborist shall submit a final certificarion indicating
the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable
and viable in their modified growing environment.
NOTICE OF DECISIO\ �ILP2005-00011/f�ELL�r(�EGE P�RTTTIOI� P_�GF:22 OF 27
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
' 1. Prior to commencin T site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of
mirigarion required. �f addirional trees are preser�red through the subdivision unpro�-ements and construcrion
of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected
trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance ma�• be correspondingly reduced. l�ny trees planted on the site
or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for ttvo�-ears following
final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pa�� the remaining��alue of the cash assurance as a fee in
lieu of planting.
2. Prior to issuance of any Cerrificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restricrion to the
effect that any e�sting tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only� if the tree dics or is hazardous
accordin to a certified arbonst. The deed restricrion may be removed or ��ill be considered im-alid if a tree
presen-e�in accordance with this decision should either die or be remo��ed as a hazardous tree.
3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construcrion drawings that include the approved
Tree Remo�-a1, Protecrion and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence incluciing
installarion and removal of tree protecrion devices, clearing,�rading, and paving. Only those trees idenufied on
the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for remoeal b��this decision.
4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to
protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the Cin• Forester for the purpose of
monitoring and inspecrion of the tree protecrion to verif�� that the tree protecrion measures are per�onning
adequatelp. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protecrion fencing in the designated locarions shall be
grounds for itnmediate suspension of work on the site unul remediation measures and/or civil citarions can be
processed.
5. Prior to an�- Cerrificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project �lrborist has submitted
written reports to the Cit�� Forester, at least, once everv tt�vo weeks, from inirial tree protecrion zone (TPZ)
fencing installauon, through site work, as he monitors tlie construcrion acri�-ities and progress. These reports
must be pro�-ided to the Ciry Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupanry. The
reports shall include an}� changes that occurred to the TPL as well as the condirion and locarion of the tree
protecrion fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project l�rborist shall jusrify� whv the fencin
�vas moved, and shall certifv that the construcrion acri�-iries to the trees did not ad�-ersel�� unpact the overal�
long-term health and stabilit�T of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or recei�•ed b}• the City- Forester at
the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protecrion Plan is not being followed b}� the
contractor, the Ciry can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done b�� the City Forester and the
Project Arborist. `This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, dctennuie if the fencing was
moved at any point during construcrion, and determine if any part of the Tree Protecrion Plan has been
violated.
6. Prior to issuance of building pertnits, the a�plicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the locauon of the
tr�es that were preser�-ed on the lot, locauon of tree protecrion fencing, and a signature of appro��al from the
project arborist re�arding the placement and construcuon techniques to be employed in building the house. ?�ll
proposed protecuon fencmg shall be installed and inspected pnor to commencmg constructton, and shall
remaui in place through the durarion of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree
protection measures may be removed.
SECTIDN VII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has re�riewed the proposal and offered the following comments:
1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: �ire apparatus access
roads shall have an unobstructed �vidth of not less than 20 feet (12 feet for up to two dwelling units and
accesson' buildings), and an unobstructed �-ertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire
apparatus roadways are less than 26 feet wide, "NO P�IRILING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the
road��ay and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet�vide but less than
32 feet wide, "NO PARI�ING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadwa}� and in turnarounds as
needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more,parking is not restricted.
NOTICE OF DECISIOl� �ILP2005-00011/HEI.LWEGE P_�RTITION P_�GE 23 OF 2�
, 2) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: f�irc apparatus access roads shall be of an all-�veather surface that is
easilv distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point
load�(�vheel load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross velucle weight).You may need to provide documentanon
from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supportin�such loading.
3) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turnuig radius shall be not less than 28 feet and
48 feet respecri�-e1�-,measured from the same center point.
4) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REC?UIRED FIRE FLOW: 'I'he minimum a�-ailable fire flow for
single famil�- d�yellings and dupletes ser�-ed b�- a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 �allons per minute. If
the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flo�v shall be determuied according to IFC
.-�ppendia B.
5) FIRE HYDRANTS — ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS & ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
Where a �orrion of a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured ui an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be
pro�-ided.
6) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: "111e minnnum number and clistribution of fire
h�-drants a�-ailable to a builciing shall not Ue less than that listed in�lppendix C,'I'able C 105.1.
Considerations for lac' fire h drants ma be as follows:
• E�sting hv ants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved.
H�-drants t�at are up to C00 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with
fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the
required number of hydrants unless approvcd by thc firc codc official.
• H��drants that are separated from the subject building by di��ded highways or freeways shall not
contribute to the reqiured number of h�•drants. Heavily traveled collector streets on1�- as appro�-ed by
the fire code official.
• Hydrants that are accessible onlj�b��a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of
hvdrants only if appro�-ed b�- the fire code official.
7) FIRE HI'DRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more
d�an 1 S feet from an appro�-ed fire apparatus access roadwa�.
8) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MA�KERS: Fire hydrant locauons shall be idenrified b�� the installarion of
reflecri�-e markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of
the access road wa�� that the fire h�-drant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a
centerline,and place the reflectors accordingly
9) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: �ppro�ed fire
apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operarional prior to any�
combusrible construction or storage of c�mbusrible materials on the site.
NOTICE OF DECISI01�i :�TLP2005-00011/HELLWEGE P.1R"IT"1'IO\ P.�GE 2-3 OF 2�
SECTION VIII. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
' Norice: Norice was mailed to:
� The applicant and owners
Z O�uner of record within the required distance
1 �ffected govemment agencies
Final Decision:
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 20,2006 AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 4,2006 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
�,� ��eal:
The D�irector's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. ��ll persons enrided to norice or who are otherwise
adversely affected or ag,g�ie�-ed by� the decision as provided in Secnon 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in
accordance with Secrion 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written
appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice
of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City
Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223.
L:nless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the
specific issues identified in tlie written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. l�dditional
evidence concerning issues properly� raised in the Notice of Appeal may be subrrutted b�� any parn� during the appeal
hearing, subject to any addiuonal rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to tune b�� the appellate bodv.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 3,200G.
uestions:
If you have an��quesrions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division,Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,
"I'igard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171.
�i , ' �
,� ,��;i_�,, ��K-c', u'�-' March 20,2006
PREPriRE BY: Cheryl Caines Dr�TE
rlssistant Planner
March 20,2006
APPROVED BY: Richard Bewe do f DATE
Planning Ma ger
i:AcurPln\ehcry�l\mlp\m1p21N15-(1fN111(I Icll�ccge)\m1p21N15-O(Mlll dcci,i�m.doe
NOTICE OF DECISION \II.P2005-00011/HELLa�GE P_�RTTTIOti P.�GE 25 OF 25
� -i -- \
SHADY LN ' �
' � _I C:E:�GRaPr�iG iN�ORMATiON SVSTFM
��_f
nc�N��r � ,
Q ---- � _ _ _ __ _ _ _ �
�--- � MLP2005-0001 I '�
T" s`�y' VAR2005-00081 '
� - -1 = _ _ __ _ _ _
� � HELLWEGE PARTITION
�
�
W �
>
Q -- �— �
- - - -� - - ti
- - - �y
- -_ - �,,
- -- -
DAKOTA ST / SFERR
� — —� _ ,��> ti y-� -
_._ _ —_ — " - � ��K,
.
W �„ �� � •,j���� _
� _ / __ _ ._ I �i�i�,,� .ti: u,r90NIT/ 0
� - I _� ��yP � . �I ;
_ _ - ...`.���j r u�e�iaM 1..RP '�
- - - - - - �1i� ,.i,�
J �
a Tigard Area Map
� __ ___. _ __
(Q IW
— . . '
N i
_ — �
— v
, rn —
GR��N J -- _ 0 700 2a0 300 400 Feet
e/,�^ ___ , I __ _ 1"=329 feet
V
V
� -- �
O � ._ ''�. I�
— � _ � – — �_- _ Cit��of'I'igard
LEWIS LN o�`�' LOMITA
� Iniortnation on this map ia tor generel lowtion only and
s�ouW ba verified with the Deveiopment Services Division.
f3125 SW Hall Blvd
, TigeM,OR 97223
� (503)63Y4177
�IH�ST � — r-- ' hnp:�n�w.ci.tiyard.or.us
Commun�ty Development Plot date:Jan 31,2006;C:lmagicWIAGIC03.APR
i
i � i
j I i �
� ,
�--n.a�n.a—.y . ... I I �c � . .
I
i -
„, � •,a° t
. � �.��
z" I
- � 1 .r 1 � ,,..
______ �
-- ___ , r-
�___.._.--- . ;�" . _._.___ �.. .
p . � ��,� n - i _._,��—LL.. -
q , ` q N DAKOTA STREET � �~
_ --- ___- f— _-- - - --- -T 1.. _ __--l . ._ - ._ j -
1 r 4K:�A P T ___ -_
�
g :,i;,,"� .�.g r , _ _ _ _ - _ - _-_ - _-_- :_
�_
,,�..-----1 7 -r ���_� \ ;.'
_ . -
� -��
---- - �--�- ---•------ - - ----- -- -------- I . �
� � - ---"�-- -�-----
�j' I � i � � : ���.�.��.,,u,�,a. l
y g� , �9�:-. � � !
. � �---� � � d R � ":,z- I n�xn.w zn.« I -
L —1 I �
i I ��I � I ua-�-x�.o-�
� I';;�n» + I x �':I P aReosL 1 I ��I PAd�Ey 2 INIi W�
r I.... � _ "I > �
�o�mo �0°n��-- e.aa I I I '°°' a �W��,��„I�- �
' � ,M„ ,- .� f- I I i
1 �_ � �I
i J a.�n wre j � — _ — —r-„� � — _ — _ � I ��.�.:m•, I � �il
L.—_I .
� ' � �� __�71-➢P__'w�w�i.w_ITn.�'_�_o]�P. '_ ' � i_'_ .' "'__'___
� I.___ i-- . _._.. ...J� � i ; i t, � ' .:
�_ ...� e h � ��
' �
� I ma wrii m�i.m i�� � I I � — . -�---- ,
' i.va�� '' ._ __
, m.�� *� �i ;��'l/,%� '�1 � � � � --
. � �,�; oost�c nuKa ��cpsmo Na�"t � , ,I � , �.,
� MOT NMt P r110.[Ci (/i. �� � .,
------- --,a `f�� >; � �_;-�
. I� /� :1 � l : � I .O.Y. ti ..
� �.���2�� � 5 •� %�'� _� __-_"��/ I I 4I tu ..
�..�, ,,,,.,, � ���;;�'' � , . , :�I I � . .�.
�,. � � ' _ :�: ` _� I •-- -----
, ,� � ,
..��,. _.-- �. ' � �_ _ _ . �� � ? -I- �
.—�_ r:{ _,._.._.._ . —.,.._r..-.—�tlFS.�_..�_..L,.,.,� i- � �
� ' �V
...�_ .'_ �—
.. . ...._. ......_ -.� , , .
.I. , � . � L—_.._�_. .__ _.
� � �9 '
'
� �, �..�e...,c ��.. e� ' '.
. ,..:•,m i ,..,u � ' 1
, ..,.,a .a�w.o'.r� � :1 `_.
, � �„ � � , --
� 7
�$ 't � � �
i
' -1 -
� � �_ _ - -
� ; �
I .
�„YO�p CITY oF Ti�ARD � MLP2005-0001 I/VAR2005-00081
SITE PLAN N
HELLWEGE PARTITION
Map is not to scale
:�
EXHIBIT�
; Mark Seaman
' 8407 SW 58`h Avenue MLP2005-00011NAR2005-00081
` Portland, OR 97219 HELLWEGE PARTITION
Gary and Patricia Hellwege
11285 SW 92�d Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Westlake Consultants
Attn: Lee Leighton
15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy., Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
Jesse Emory Architect, AIA
11280 SW 94th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Ryan Truair
11260 SW 94th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Karen Estrada
9269 SW North Dakota
Tigard, OR 97223
Jeffrey L. Kleinman, Attorney at Law
The Ambassador
1207 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Richard L. Mobley
9385 SW North Dakota
Tigard, OR 97223
` .
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILIHG CITYOFTIGARD
(onnnu�iuy Ucrelopment
Sfaping�Better(;'onvnunity
I, �PatriciaL. Gunsfor� being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a SeniorA�ministrativeSpeciaC�stfor the
�'ity of7'rgard, 'Was(zington County, Oregon and that I served the following:
(Ch�k App�q>ne:e Box(s?6elp�,v;
� NOTICE OF DECISION fOR: MIS2006-00007/0'GORMAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
� AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reterence)
� City of Tigard Planning Director
A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Ellhlblt"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked EIIhlhlt"B", and by reference made a part
hereof, on March 17,2006,and deposited in the United States Mail on March 17,2006, postage prepaid.
;�
1 l��.�� . ��_ � C��
(Person that Pr red Notice)
_ �
,57,A2rE O�F'O�GON )
County of�lNaslrngton �s.�
City of 7:garcf ) �
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the � day of , 2006.
�_ � �
,: OFFICIAi.SEAL :: .-,
SUE ROSS
NO��.�Y�U
CQ,►d�M'�G'(�[V yQ.
�NY���Da�..�:�5�C.i,
�.J_ .+.� My Com is ion Expires: �o� —� ^v 7
� . � . EXHIBIT �
NOTICE OF TYPE I DECISION
,�
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2006-00007 '
O'GORMAN LOT LINE AD USTMENT
120 DAYS =6/17/2006
SECTION I. APPLICATION SLJMMARY
FILE NAME: O'GORMAN LOT LINE ADTUSTMENT
CASE NO.: Lot Line Adjustrnent(MIS) IS2006-00007
PROPOSAL: The�plicant is proposin� to adjust two (2� lot lines, which will reconfigure two
(2 erent lots.TI�he two ots are located within the Ci of T'igard's Inco orated
Boundary. Lot # 1 of approximately 120?943 square�eet wi11 become�20,361
square feet;Lot#2 of 14,758 square feet will become 15,340 square feet.
APPLICANT/
OWNE R
LOT 1: Michael O'Gonnan
PO Box 1574
Hood River,OR 97301
APPLICANT/
OWNER
LOT 2: Mary Ann Hulquist
8355 SW La Mancha Cx.
Tigard, OR 97224
LOCATIONS: LOT 1: WCITVI 2S112BD,Tax Lot 00700, 14655 SW 76�'Avenue
(120,943 square feet)
LOT 2: WC,�TM 2S112BD,Tax Lot 00800, 7700 SW Bonita Road
(14,758 square feet)
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
DESIGNATION: R 12;Single-Farrvly,Medium-DensityKesidential.
ZONING: R 12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R 12 zoning district is designed
to accommodate a fuIl range of housing types at a muiunum lot size of 31050
square feet. A wide range of civic and u�sntutional uses are also pernutted
conditionally.
APPLICABLE
RE VIE W
CRITERIA: CommunityDevelopment Code Chapters 18350, 18390, 18.410,and 18.520.
SECI'ION II. DECISION
Notice is hereby �iven that the City of Ti�ard Community Development Director's desi�nee has
APPROVED the above request subject to certa.in conditions of approval. The find'u�s and conclusions
on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV.
NOTIC�OF TYPE I DEQSION PAGE 1 OF 4
MIS200�00007-O'GORMAN LOT LINE ADJUS"I2vIENT
CONDITION OF APPROVAI.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED WITHIN 18 MONSTHS OF
THIS DECISION:
Un ess o erwise note , t e sta contact s a e C�ary Pagenstec er in t e p amm�g ivision at
503-639-4171.
1. Following recording, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the lot line adjustment
survey map was recorded wrthin 18 months of this decision.
THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Information:
Lots # 1 and #2 are located within Tigard's Incorporated Boundary. An apartment complex e�sts on
Lot # 1. A single-family dwelling e�sts on Lot #2. The ap�plicants wish to settle an adverse possession
situation where an e�.stulg fence line will become the new rot luze between the subject Lots.
Pro�osal Description:
The applicant.�s proposing to adjust two (2) lot lines, which will reconfigure two (2) different Lots. Lot
# 1 ot appro�mately 120,943 square feet w�ll become 120,361 square feet; Lot #2 of 14,758 square feet
will become 15,340 square feet.
SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIAAND FINDINGS
COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS:
LOT LINE AD USTMENT - APPROVAL STANDARDS: Section 18.410.040 contains the
ollowing standards or approval o a Lot Line Adjustment request
Section 18.410.040 - Approval Criteria states that the Director shall approve or deny a request
for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following cnteria are satisfied:
An additional parcel is not created by the lot line ad'ustment, and the existing parcel reduced
in size by the adjustments is not reduced below �e minimum lot size established by the
zoning district;
No new lots will be created as part of this adjustment; two (2) Lots e�st and two (2) Lots will remain
after the proposed adjustment. The r7ununum lot size in the R 12 zoning designation is 3,050 square
feet. Lot # 1 (Tax Lot 700) will be reduced to 120,361 square feet, which �s greater than the minirnum
lot size in the R 12 zone.
By reducing the lot siZe the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site
development or zoning c�istrict regulations for that district;
A single-family dwelling e�sts on Lot #2. The east lot line of Lot#2 will be moved east approximately
3 feet to anthui 12.24 to 11.88 feet of the existing apartment building. The apartment building is one of
eleven apartment buildings on the Lot # 1. The building is oriented to the parking lot on the south
making the yard to the west, toward Lot # 1, the sideyard. In the R 12 zone, the side yard setback is
10 feet. Therefore, the apartment buildin on Lot #2 will not be in violation of site development or
zoning regulations. This standard �s satisfie�.
The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district,
including:
• The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the
applicable zoning district;
NOTIC�OF TYPE I DEQSION PAGE 2 OF 4
MIS2006-00007-O'GORMAN LOT LINE ADJUS'I'MENT
• The lot area shall be a� rec�uired by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot,
the access way may not be included in the Iot area calculation;
• Each lot created through t�ie partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15
feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and
• Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district.
The size of proposed Lot #2 will increase by appro�nately 582 feet to 15,340 square feet increasin�g
the side yard setback of the eXisting house from 29 feet to 32 feet. The size of proposed Lot # 1 will
decrease from 120,943 to 120,361, while the applicable setbacks on Lot # 1 have been addressed above.
The resulting Lots are in conformance with the dimensional standards of the R 12 zoning district.
With regard to flag lots:
• When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front
yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so
as to maximize separation from existing structures.
• A screen shall be provided alon� the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in
an access way is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Section
18.745.040. Screening may also be required to maintain pnvacy for abutting lots and to
provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development.
There are no flag lots associated with this application. Therefore,this standard does not apply.
The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an access way
would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities.
There is no new access associated with this Lot Line Adjustment. Therefore, this standard does not
apply.
Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement
which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition
map.
A common driveway is not associated with this application. Therefore,this standard does not apply.
Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705: Access, Egress,
and Circulation.
The e�sting access ways for Lots # 1 and#2 are unaffected bythis application.
Exemptions from dedications:
A lot line ad'ustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining
whether floo�plain, greenway, or right-of-way dedication is required.
Floodplain, greenway or right-of-way dedication is not required as part of this application because the
�roposed lot luie �s not considered a development action. The proposed lot line adjustment is exempt
rom any dedication requirements.
Variances to development standards:
An app lication for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in
accordance with Chapter 18.370,Variances and Adjustments.
The applicant has not requested a variance or an adjustment with this application.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment criteria have been
met f or lots # 1 and #2.
NOTIC� OF TYPE I DEQSION PAGE 3 OF 4
MIS2006-00007-O'GORMAN LOT LINE ADJL]STMENT
SECTION V. . �OCEDURE AND APPEAL INNvRMATION
Notice was mailed to the applicant and owners
Final Decision:
A Lot Line Adjustment is a Type I procedure. As such, the Director's decision is final on the date it is
mailed or otherwise provided to the a�plicant,whichever occurs first. The Director's decision may not
be appealed locallyand is the final dec�sion of the City.
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 17, 2006,
AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 18, 2006.
I yo�estions:
any questions, please call the Ciry of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW
Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171.
/"
� �
,� /��
�� t./ � March 17,2006
PREPARED . aryPagenstecher DATE
Associate Planner
NOTTCE OF TYPE I DEQSION PAGE 4 OF 4
MIS200�00007-O'GORMAN LOT LINE ADJLJS7MENT
` —� '— . \Uj. �/i!_ ,`�
\z� - � C� `f �2 t�` \ . - .
O� - - � � O,p �Q,L � �. �, .. � �
I j
���- - �;%;' % �� �ti �� � �'ICINI'I`Y MAP !
F
- �� _ ._ � � �_�!i.�� 2� .�A `
- r �qNNa� � �' � � � ��
� < < �� \
\
-- a _ ' � � <� ____________
� ° MIS2006-00007
� �� O'GORMnN I,C)T
, � � wEavE ]�] � LINI�: AD�USi'MI�N'1'
� ,
_ � KR E E LP
� ' ��
� .
BONITA RD -- --- -- I
� � � � � —� BONI �
�-� � �
MA _ , I -- . _ -
�
� � �
I, ?j�ORS FEft
zD � N y �►
1�
� . , � T — a�+r ` •��� �.
I ' 'f.^ - _ ._ — _ f_ _. . O ' ��r . i�' .D
� v' w - O ' ..� / •
\ � I
� _ J� � � _ � ')�Ini��M T F.CI ` /
��LE CT _ �i I V� ,�'�.
� Tigard Area Map
�
1
'I I —'—_ .. . �
� � ' N
i SW VIOLA S ' ' -
;
0 100 200 300 400 Feet '�
.. —��� . . . . 1..=326 feet
C I
�$T�__ I � �
�� �
�
� � City of"1'igard 'i
�I
j I Infortnation on thls map Is for general location only and
. shoWd be venfied with the Development Services Division.
t3125 SW Hall Blvd
-- � -. _I Tigard,OR 97223
.. � - �,' (503)639-4171
�_I I I _ _ _ ____.___ I � http�!/w�w.ci.tigard.or.us
Community Development Plot date: Mar 17,2006;C:lmagiclMAGIC03.APR
w rFa sH naaen Fourn yr won noo wirH
S.W.BONITAHOAD :�uowNVSnccnvs���ureocmo.rr,�o. WASHINGTONCOUNTYSURVEYOR'SOFFICE
LIl f OF C[NtE19Ft FER 9N 1 W9�.ND
sassravw�ee.e�•MEnsireeszsr�zwnt�ee.uTSwz�.azi r�iicoworoHVUSrcc�v. ACCEPTEDFORFILING
izw• axize�svncr runl9ao.6Y srv sseo� _- — — �� — .--_ �1lo.zr�m.9e rui�_ — —. � . c.��c�
a.e�a�vEnsnzwez r8 vo.ie�sn.srsr�euen ronnoosrr g� ;�.svsHZee�e�
wuHO sm�r+on roo �* an uu us�
vmHreuawrusnc �- a�oa.�fs�lo.ezsNw5�1 � � sas.ea � ��m��m zm n.on
CnM�TM1PE0'CRYOf ��3 31021' A0.0�• IRONROOSET 90OOIISE �Vy.y.���
r�incucuuiEOrosnonronE.w. - I I onirrtsan 1 w
icioroncFrcrEnrE rcnsr�s.�si.NC�oxs.es•rnousrw �ov � siee
nr
ra aECOra Foa I x.so�w svmov wcnr���o.ee ro �_ vueuc unm 9a I I
UIQRAlEPOSRqNOF1?111011 PiqPERTVIYE�DJUSfED ��••
ftA5i1CGAP. PPE.CALCU1AlF0PONfASOBB 3 TOfRFENLELOLATqN F'���. C �$ I tWNOSIB'HONHW
SOIRM OF RI011T OF WAY. �a on usi�no sourH�s uocu�rrt ra. '�§� wnn rEUrnv vusrc cnc
OF BWI(�BD.PAGE 520. NISGFBl�MHitl PLS i89G
k'fi Iw vaoccss�.cm a R9 I rEn swxevze ia«n�
.� I� NEin�s racHr o�w�r
�"""�'T`��"� ��' I'' g ��y RECORD OF SURVEY
� SEE DFtM•n• y�, � I�'tl
o�. �E'�°���B � I I�� ALL OF LOT 63 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 54
� ��y���� AND 66, `DURHAM ACRES"IN THE NW 1/4 OF
R � $ ooau�O 6smras�o ,�� ��i.�oovmo�s�� eoac1eo,r�€uo I R �
f�� G - �E��R��.P�� ev�r�y I I�� SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH,RANGE 1
w�IF fENCE CORNER 6 3 FOOT HIGH CYCLONE fFNCE NELD PEN ��p 1•IRON PIPE.
��n �:yco H°N 's"°" �+.a� UNA/WNEO.PERSN8i00 I��I WEST,W.M.,CITY OF TIGARD,WASHINGTON
� `�n � �wariiassrve�ooi - �oo.za•�o�o�s�nsroo)___ I�esn.oarNO.z
"�`DPEfl80O14B0`"`�'�° COUNTY,OREGON
�<
roura��•inoHVwE. � H�szaa�im.or - � saasarorE�m.»�-
r'q � un.ua�o.vEasnemo io.ml ucrxueeNZa.zo�
� F�9s11.NB8"s?a9E.i 1T � 5e9°a�n�w � I
O RONPHOPEFiYCIMNEP. n yr �
O nEw r,owrnsouiH. }.
� �, � `1
¢ }� LOT 88 'a I � 1
Q I LEGEND:
� � oa;iwgnrHO.zoos�sisei �OO� I
w r�ea.z,e4 m� ' — — _ — — — — -
-- z�pap F0�1�•��. 3�0.00 EA519t0.�55N 6FIAi) �ro�?��. .� - - - 5� I 4 O SETS/d%30'IRONROOWYELLOWPIA$'ICCMSTRMPED'BLUEDOI'
W UMw�cEO.PEPPUt UMUwtED.c�ASNE690�+WB�. Sao- } I I I a � FOUNDMONUMENTASSHOWN
Q Oip1RNN1�CRE5119��) 1ElD�5NECOW1EXOiLOT82 g I I I j �
HEID�5 Nw COr+rcR 0�Loi az yS (/� I '1,m a <�� �— w000 FENCE
.S rn � ��' I I i � ��� z— WIRE FENCE
� 3 / � �r I 3 _ MFAS�MEASURED DIMENSION
��M�,p y����� R 1 G C�LC=GLCULATED DIMENSION
Q N � SEE OEiKB A R Z I�I I N y� PLAT=PIATfED DIMENSION
a g � s�cers als � I C- ��I ffi I I� SN=SURVEY NUMHEP,WASNINGiON COUNiY$IJNVEV IiECORDS
�
�
n g� �
� R cEpcEEws ` � L0763 �Z� �I I n� I aa
�,�' � N�i'�eww,aoaor uoc�nr r�o.xmsis�5ei �t I�I I __.___._...._ _.._ ... _....'-'
S.W.LEISER �? � . _._ rraaemvcoan�e ` 5� _ _' '_".,--_.__'"..'_' '
� �HranaKFO v°u sr»sm i to xi souu�e Feer [ �) gf�,. a
21�I F:,
IANE � � F onz.re�cr�sr.aaEOa�ESS I I I �� r��A���J�"",}";�../ `f-:l- �
i�sa;i.Hno �
� ° � �oTSZ C� I � � �� ��I�fY E�f T1GAl.� F'!_�+�i'J��� Lll.�'SK;�'J �
� � ` ���,��,�� P � �II � �g
w I � 't` � I � �- �] � /J7 �
� ` m 9EEOEIKC 10.00� I�
h
— OJ f SIIEET20Fi SOO -r�000 SAWIMISFNFRF�SEMEM I O� �IJ 1 /I
fcwr+u3ie•�roHnat. rouroaa•worvvxti. 1 - -n�-na�w zm.ea- - -
.� ��' 171�YC
W �'...AKFO�a��A, �_S�« -- $ —_--.��� -- — - - ...
��HK���.�r«ou, — — -- — I
01 WwMM.�CFESlt9��1 OfWHUJAnCaES -}—M14 � ' sJ�.MIINEOFLOtmr ��. .��-a�.�� .aa�r....��� �� .•�••^•
J NEIllNOHIN.SOUIH 1�9��)-NEL�RS 1}� 500 N(Mir��pFlOiS� tO.W
O S�VTJ]W Bf.NiS504]9S9EG.YS NWCORNEROfL01`A _yi0.0O 1�.5951128lTl11�9.RSNR9281 OfpIfLMM�f1E5 _ '.-I p00P __--
309.�3 f�A PIAn_399.51'IMF�51
_ �C _-- . - - � E%C aEMFAPEH N09'S91Yt1V YHS! .
915� 1bV-JB`.�B'E VB.t?I��y1f�XMT � �3TY �OCUMQ(�ND.]0060BWTt 589 ti.]S �y.� pNDYSPOHIqD
� za.m�mov mw.msaasmn � _ _____ _. . __ wirnrEUO.vnwsnc
���� �o,,,�,z�,,,R GRAPHlC SCALE
OO � �rauanco.PCnsnemi u+easurmrv�H „ seEceuvio uaracneen�mei _
rFncF Ero�s •ro vercE� as�eae vcn srs-aeeae aooz� 5O
wllMVel�UVftwSIIL (198J).BEUi55W'ONew �NB9'J�OBVi.2.�90F SNBBS)IissM1InND S�IffT20F2 1EtO�SSwGOMEnOFLOi�
� GMInISCfiBFD'iEt51MA li)9fAOMSVCqiNlF pqppEHiVCAqNEq SNt�2]01�9i't)�ND �!N �IC Tf
�5�.��R�'� OF LDi 6t.MO Vh$LEPLV BOIMD�NY�fdREMEM
OF lESEa P�wn 3_90FLENGEOOPNEII. LNE.vEP DOCUMENt
Y �fIXllA5IB'PCNflCO
N0.]0040WYt1. `;l�PI I._]•• Sf1�
F WI�HYELLOWMSiC
(;nFIHSCn19EO�rEiSU�u y� � � ,^,�,
'� � RSSUC.INC PER IIEM 1 pe �� �.'�
f I� OFIMERqPMONUMEM�TIUN 6; lu�o �
.� .� �FFlO�VR,DOCUMEM = Y
- M�q��� gg � _� 9 SURVEYED FOR:
� � srrnwcror�nonrwr. �r _� �ry LOT53
�orss �� �orsa �� � roe�ox;o;oRnura
• • oocur.�nr no.ssi�eeio �u '� aoCUr.e�rnD.saixe�o py�+ � HOOD RNEF.OfiEGON 9703t
� $ i� �� Mtl DOCIMEM H0.10000�BBBI Si F �
� 2
�� �� � � R��'S'EH�° bluedot
PROFESSiorvn�
I I LAND SURVEYOR
. - - fa,��.�.� group
FO1110 Y�•�i0�1 PPE. WItX YELLOW VlA51C
urwn�o.vEa cu. uv e�scr�o w.e lend wrveyin9 8^'aPW�9
oFOUwiw�s�isi�l WELL56�SSOL..IG'PER OREGON �g5��p�s�.wMetOt
SN1991]. JULY 1�, 1918
� zoou mm �oes.' HEin __ az)sTlcxcl C�•��cun THOMAS J BROWN Ugard.a Bl?73
• . . - _—_N8438'ii•E 92a.a•I�ws�l���vun - __ _ �- —- sv�aa4w5��srlc�uq C�*�.nvEnsuN.'Frerwa.wEUSl2mq) - MorIlIMENiwseEEr� 1675 v.503.82�.otOB
+ z FOUrOyPqONRPE. Fa+�q�R'fq��vPE. qgiURBED.LIE50.5SN.
r UMI�PotEO.PEPMi U1MNq(ED.PENSHBG6] OJ�WOFIEPORIEOPo61ipN �NEW�L: tI-31-0] }.50].@0.7/]1
�OF q1wNr/�CHES(1911) (19&91.��A9 sOBSOl+W
I 10.05'FPOM 9W CORNEP
OF lOT 5�.
SNEET 1 OG 2
RECORD OF SURVEY
NARRATIVE: ALL OF LOT 63 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 54 . �, _�, ,,,_, �_••. -� - - -' ' � ` " ' ��
PURPOSE OF SURVEY: AND F)B, "DURHAM ACRES"IN THE NW 1/4 OF � � �,�� � � '�� y � ;
SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH,RANGE 1 J �1`?�'• �'• � � ��'�"' '
TOOEFMETHEBOUNDPAVOFTMATLANDDESCRIBEDINDOCUMENTNUMBEHPOW059222.ANDPREPAFiEA WEST�W.M.�CITYOFTIGARD,WASHINGTON f �.0 ^�C�,��� �%,!+�HVi,�"� ��� ��� �
RECORD OF SURVEV FOR THE BOUNDARIES OF A PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM CONVEf1510N PLAT. � ��'��� ,
COUNTY,OREGON }
BASIS OF BFARING: oEC�MdtR 2�.�oo�'
` \ i
BEING THE TWO NONVMENTS FOUND AND T1ED IN THE CENTERLINE OF S.W.BOM�A ROAD M1D THE 1{ ��� ^\ h � �J�/�y n i
CENTERUNE BEMING SHOWN ON THE%AT OF WRHAM ACRES,NOTED�S S89'S5'45Y✓. f ` � v a ���
� �T�� _'".'"� -. _ _ :.i'1r.~. . . . . � .. -..s
NARRATNE: �.� ._ _. _ .. . .
S.W.BONITA ROAD
THE SOIf�YI RIGHT OF WAV LINE OF S.W.BONRA ROAD WAS ESTABLISHEO BY HOIDMlG THE TWO CT'OF s��'d�w
TK'aPRD MONUMENTS ON THE CENTERLINE AS NOTED ANO OFFSETfiNG 30.00 FEEf TO THE SOU7N. �
S.N'.�6TM AVENUE WAS DE7ERMMED HOLpNG THE FW ND S/B'PON ROD NTfll VELLOW%AS71C CPP SET IN
$N-28920 A1 THE SOUTIIN/E5T CORNEF OF lOT 64.�URHAM ACHES.AND TNE FOUND y8'pON ROO WITH � R �pt 5p s.ar ��
YELLOW VLASTIC CA7 SET IN SAID SN-28928 TO THE NORTM.AS TNE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE.THE SP1D
EAST RIGHT OF WAV LINE WAS 7HEN OFFSET 2U.00 FEET TO THE WEST TO ESTABIJSH TME CENTER LNJE.PN LOT 67 LOT fi6 s*ocwwES a ��y,t.ira��'.����9�t��
ADDITpNAL P5.00 FEET W0.S OFFSET TO THE WEST TO ESTABLISH TME WEST RIGMT OF WAV LINE. wE
SW"55'�5•w iv�P�EM�OYE� �$ � .
TNE FRAET Ai iliE NORTIEAST CORNEfl OF iHIS PROJECT WAS DEFMED BV CREATNG A TpNGEM GUiVE RonPW SEi �'� R�F- L,o Vy
AND HOI�ING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AS IMPLIED IN DOCUMEM NUMBER 91037372.SI1D DOCUMENT STATES ��91� ��;o sWiH Fp����� Fawq J/a•walvsf. �
THIS CUFVE TO BE NON-TANGENT.MOWEVER.ALL DISTM/CES MEN7IONE0IN THE DOCUMEM ARE GNEN AS urannRrcco.vEn Sr�sseo i�wq. ������A�T
MORE OR LESS AND THE LENGTH IS 39.3 FEET. ���'� HEID AS'E CaaEr+lOTel a a���+ES LOT 63
IDJUSTED i0 f R �te1 t I���O AS
THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 6�WAS SEi BV HOLDING THE AiOREMENTIONED MONUMEM AT THE SN� �����ON �� Mv GoprEH aF�of sa � �,
SOUTH WEST COfiNER OF LOT Ba ANO THE FOUND 3/0 INCH IRON V�E N07ED/S THE NORTHWEST CORNER ������ES �o a__ . --
OF LOT 56 ON TMIS SURVEV ANO MENTKKJED IN SN-5580. ��K�P�� \
g LOT 55 0�' LOT$4
THE WEST LINE OF TME SUBJECT PROFERTV WAS DEFINED BV FqtDING THE TNO FOUND 1/2 WCH IRON PIPES ��u i--- �K Fa�+rz'�+� �m
TOGETNER WfTH THE SAIO NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 54 A$NOTED ABOVE.THESE 7W0 PON%VES ME �� �����A���
ALSONOTEDINSN-55B0. - 13sealf��sswror� 2.�9
.Q� Ot lOi BJ.�Np wESiEAV ��
THE&LLMlCE OF iHE WESi LME WNS CREATED BV CALCULATING THE TIE TO AN IRON PIPE IN TME ROAO � � d g� . os rENCE CaRNER vwararv iwt
SURVEV SN�24151 AT STATION 29�6a.%,30.%FEET LEFf.A LINE WAS ORAWN FROM THIS CPLWLATED $ ,� f O ��s� �,e
POINT TO 7HE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 62 AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY.fT SHWLD BE NOTED TIIAT 7HE
REMNANTS OF SIX CONCFETE POSTS E%IST FLONG 7ME APPRO%IMATE DIVISION LINE OF LOT 62 AS SURVEYFD R (� $� - oez DETAIL'C'
IN SN-556011ND ARE SHOWN MERE(SEE DEfA1L'�AS SU7POfiTING EVIDENCE. I F S i� / ��_�
THE EXCEPTION,MENTIONED IN SND DOCUMENT 2W5-069222,WAS ESTABUSHED BY F10LDING TNE TiREE a �$�
I Q ose
IRON PIPES MENtqNED N SN-6�00 FOR THE NORTHSOU7H POSffION.THE SOUT/iEAST CORNER OF TME I 32.�z y 4
E%CEPTqN WAS DEFINED BY HOLOING THE 1 MlCH IAON PIPE SEi IN SN-8]00 AND FURTHER CALLED FOR N - ----29.gg I ¢
BOOK a60.PAGE 520 SAI�COUNTV RECORDS. HOLDING TNE RECORD ANGLE AT THE SWTHEAST CORNER AS Q �
SHONM PEA SN�6�00 AND INTERSECTING iMAT CALGULATED BEPAING WITH iHE SOUTH RIGM OF WAV UNE. � � i F' N �6°
A BEAHING-BEARING INTERSECTION WAS CALCULATED TO FORM THE MOST WE57ERLY NORTHWEST CORNER � � ` �
OF THIS BWNDARV. J I N 8�
m 10T62 W a� lOTfi3 I
THAT PORTION OF THE BOUNDMV E%TENDING INTO LOT 54 WAS POSIM7NED AND MONUMENTED PER I o � I
DOCUMENT NUMBERS 2f105-069221 AND ZOOS069222.7HE WEST UNE OF lOT Sa WAS DEFINEO BY 7HE 3/4 MKH -----�e.sr� � I` s o u�yoccu�;EnSEMEHt� I
IRON PIPES,NOTED AS HELO,AT TNE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS,AS SHOWN.TI1E EAST LINE OF I 32.82' i5 z�,� �� o.ar wcum�Hi Ho. �'�
SAID LOT Sa WAS OETERMINED BY HOLDING THE 20 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE RESOIVED CENTEFLINE OF SW � � W
76THAYENUE. � �"�� ��" $ I Q
PPACEL2 PAfiCELt
BOOK 680, � � REMAINDER �'� o2e s.m I� �
SURVEYOR�S NOTES: PAGE520 �orse „e r �
� LOT 13
HISTORY: $ °�°g �I �II vi
19&3-l0T 54IS SURVEVED BV LESTEfl B.KROFT,Pl5 AND FlIfD AS SK8957.1/l IRON PIPES WEHE SET. ���' p�� �� � -- -' -
E%ISTING PLAT MONUMENTS WERE APPPAENTLV NOT FOUNO OR THEY WERE IGNOREO. - r�ounu i• �marn ' �� -
ar�ns'� wuruwt. I LOTSt .rr
19�2-LOT 63 IS SURVEYED BV RONALD STRGER,PLS AN�FILED A$SN-10270.TMIS$URVEV RELIES HEAVILV �EID rea UNUnnn�u. J peg <��'
SN-QI00 PERSN6)Wi�Y511. FpMDI?POHPVE. -%- iOlN10�1'YVOpPIPE.
ON MONUMENrS SET 8Y SURVEVOR KROFf IN 1983.
oowwo� irwwuaarEnsw,sco fEr'� �sr� urMem�eo.�n
2002-LOi 8115 SUHVEVED BY ALBERT MERiEL,PLS AND FILEDAS SN-28928.THIS SURVEV RESTORES THE SW �+�'sz+� ' � ���°�'�D raxo mr nw aoo. �������
CORNER OF LOT N�WFIICH IS PLSO 7HE NW CARNER OF LOT 51)AND ACCEPTS THE 3!4'IRON PIPE FWND AT ��, Q urNra�o aca ���
THE SW CORNER OF LOT 83, b poH iqos sc i ���21°���� I
ou tr��r ser�zovw.i�rnw
2f104-l0T 59 IS SVRVEVED BV TNOMIAS BBNHAVER.PLS OF W.B.WELLS 8 ASSOCIATES.TMIS SURYEV,AS SN �.��F�� P�E�C�p
299�2.ACCEPTS THE RES?O(iED CORNEN AT TME SW CORNEP OF LOT 84 AND THE 3!0'IRON PIPE FOUND AT
THE SW CORNER OF LOT 63.
DETAIL'A' DETAIL'B• DETAIL'D'
1'=20' 1•=2p` 1'=20'
REFERENCES:
WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDS:
DEED DOCUMENTS: �I���O y
REGISTERED `
BOOK 908,PAGE 832:BOOK 080,PAGE 520:9D33625;910373372;91037375;92038814;9CO25210;410252211; P RO F ES51 ONAL
• 9913887(h 200&207877:2 0 0 5-069221:20Qr151587
L4ND SURVEYOR group
SURVEVS AND PLATS: SURVEYED FOR: IarW wrveying 8 rrieppiig
6665 namp�on st.suMe tot
SURVEV NUMBERS SSfiO,8700,8957.1e201,2<151,2�28,2993e,29872 MICMAEL O'OORIMN OREGON tlgeftl,a 9Tt23
• PLqTS:DURHAM ACRES.BOON 5.PAGE 76: JULV t�.t 9le
PO BO%1574 V.SOJ.82�.OtOB
� LEISER PARK.200eW63% HOOU WVER.OREGON 97031 iHOMA5675 BROWN }.503.fi202n1
aEr+Ew���.i2-3i-o�
SnEE�2 0�1
� • �
EXHIBIT�
Michael O'Gorman
PO Box 1574
Hood River, OR 97301
Mary Ann Hulquist
8355 SW La Mancha Cx.
Tigard, OR 97224
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITYOFTIGARD
Cornmu»ity-0�'i�'(�p+rrcrrt
,SFiapin9A Better�'ommunity
I, �PatriciaL. Gunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a SeniorAcfministrativeSpeciaCstfor the
�'ity of7'�gard, `GUasFiingtan County, Oregon and that I served the following:
{Check Appropriate Bo*[s)Below}
0 NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: MLP2005-0001 I/VAR2005-00081 — HELLWEGE PARTITION
❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File NoJName Reference)
� City of Tigard Planning Director
A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Elchlblt"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part
hereof, on March 20,2006,and deposited in the United States Mail on March 20,2006, postage prepaid.
'� L t l CC ,' ' -
�
(Person that Pr red Notice)
c_
,57,A2tE O�F O�GON )
County of`Wasjmgton )ss �
C'ity of 7'igard )
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the � day of , 2006.
�-._ __ �-__ .
�_:_;';'�,;,��F�L
a ;:;�� • :;:"�ROSS
� ��" NOTAi,Y PUeL1GOREGON
COMP�;,SSIO'�N0.375152
MYCOMMlSS��,,�-';�''��S DEC.1,2007
Y My Com " ion Expires: �a`"� '� �
� � �xHiBiT a
NOTICE OF TYPE II DE CISION
,,
MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-00011 =
HE LLWE GE PARTITI ON ' ' '
120 DAYS = 5/24/2006
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: HELLWEGE PARTITION
CASE NOS: Minor Land Partition(MLP) MLP2005-00011
Street Improvement Adjustment VAR2005-00081
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Minor Land Partition to partition one (1) existing .41-acre lot into
two (2) parcels for detached single-familyresidences. In addition the applicant is requesting an
adjustment to street improvement standards for SW North Dakota Street and SW 92°d
Avenue.
APPLICANT: Mark Seaman OWNER Same
8407 SW 58`�Avenue
Portland, OR 97219
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R 4.5: Low Density Residential District. The R 4.5 zoning district is designed to
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a
nunimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Du�lexes and attached single-family uruts are
permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
LOCATION: The subject site is located at the southwest corner of SW North Dakota and SW 92°�Avenue;
Washington CountyT�Map 1S135DB,Tax Lot 4301 (no site address).
PROPOSED PARCEL 1: 8,480 Square Feet.
PROPOSED PARCEL 2: 8,387 Square Feet.
APPLICABLE
RE VIE W
CRITERIA: Commuruty Development Code Chapters 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments); 18390
(Decision-Making Procedures�; 18.420 (Land Partitions); 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts);
18J05 (Access Egress and Circulation); 18J15 (Density Computations); 18J45 (Landscaping
and Screening); 18.765 (Off-Street parking and Loading Requirements); 18.790 (Tree
Removal�; 18.795 (Visual Clearance Areas�; and 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement
Standards).
SECTION II. DECISION
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the
above request. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at
City Hall.
THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS
FROM THE F FFECTIVE DA'�E OF '�HIS DE CISI(JN.
All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be
obtained for twenty-five cents (25�) per page,or the current rate charged for copies at the tune of the request.
SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Notice:
Notice mailed to:
X The applicant and owners
X Owner of record within the required distance
X Affected government agencies
Final Decision:
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 20, 2006 AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 4, 2006 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
�A_ �-�eal-:
The llirector's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise
adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as� provided in Section 18390.040.G.1 may appeal this decision in
accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Commuruty Development Code wluch provides that a
written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director anthin ten �10) busuless davs of the
date the Notice of Dec�sion was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are ava able from the �'lanning
Division of Tigard CityHall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223.
Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the
specific issues identified in the wntten comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional
evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be subrrutted by any party durin.g the appeal
hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that maybe adopted from tune to tune by the appellate body.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 3, 2006.
esuons:
Fo- r further information�please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Che , Caines at (503) 639-4171, Tigard
City Hall, 13125 SW HaII Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223.
— --�
-- _.. ..........................
��I
na�rr ww
W
> ________
MLP2005-0001 I
,VAR2005-00081
� ________
HELLWEGE PARTITIO
>
ti�
Y
�>>
onK
� � —i — ` d
�< _m.��
� �
.
n
GRfFNe �..,... �
�RG �
r0 C�ty olTigerd
LE S LN a`l.�1-/�/�` J � A ` +�'.�....._
����
�
..t.. � �.
� _ ,:
�::=�� ��� i1T
_—_� ��
—_._—__.— R—•
C '� l� ` . � � .. __..
_
�_� _� __� N DAKOTA 91�i
. - -'r1vn.��Irt- _T�—
- �—- �1 F�--7-_"�---� _._ _ ..___ _ ._ LI .._
_ . _. _ _ -'-__'._
..__.�___-_ ._ -'� -C=ic—'- c�.,w..�.-__� �
I ' __ ' .,�.-.,
i i _�W�i
i
I P:i[:L I I�I AR�E:9 I� �
I 1N.T YL L � lyl :1
�� S� 1 �I I
- L_ J� l�
-- --- , �°
� ---°—��--"T-- F- --
� � I�-
�r� _._ ' I , --
-; � ��� � �±
-- .�r �; ,��-
-----r--�� � -���, ,�_ -----
1r.Y iL T2i
qEl�__ _________
II I i�-'--�__
� C�TY OF TIGARD 1 MLP2005-0001 I/VAR2005-00081
�� N HELLWEGE PARTITION
Ma is not fo acale
1S135AC-00100 1S135DB-10800 EXH I B IT�.�_._
ABRAMS DAVID CHONG BENTON L
PO BOX 19087 11250 5W 91ST CT
PORTLAND,OR 97280 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135AC-01700 1 S135D6-O6500
ANDERSEN VIRGINIA S CHRISTOPHER BASIL R AND
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST BELINDA L
10970 5W 95TH AVE 9460 SW NORTH DAKOTA
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-12200 1 S135D&08700
ARCE JUAN P 8 ROSA M CLUNIE PAUL G 8 KARLA Y
11369 SW 91ST CT 9325 SW NORTH DAKOTA
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-03200 1S135D8-04101
ARENDES CARINE E& COOPER KIMBERLEY A
ARENDES SHARON L 11300 SW 92ND AVE
9524 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S135D6-05400 1 S135DB-07000
BALES MARY ELIZABETH 8 DALTON DANNY E&SHIRLEY J
TERRY VERN 11305 SW 94TH AVE
11390 SW 94TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DA-04400 1 S135D&10000
BARNETT DONALD R&NINA DAVIS BARBARA J
9055 SW NORTH DAKOTA 9405 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-17500 1 S135DB-10400
BECK NATHAN A&DAWNA R DE SANCHEZ JEAN DAUM&
11315 SW 91 ST CT SANCHEZ FABIAN H
TIGARD,OR 97223 11100 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135D8-07800 1 S135CA-00102
BRYAN TROY R 8�BRENDA D DEAN JOHN W 8 LUAUNA M
9115 SW NORTH DAKOTA 9507 ANGELINE RD E
TIGARD,OR 97223 BONNEY LAKE,WA 98391
1 S135DB-04100 1 S1350B-05602
BUI JOSEPH H DICKSON DONALD K&CAROL A
11330 SW 92ND PO BOX 219028
TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97225
1S135CA-00100 1S135DB-08500
BYRUM ALBERT G III EBBERT NANCY M 8
11165 SW 95TH AVE EBBERT ERNEST E
PORTLAND,OR 97223 9205 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D8-07300 1S135D6-07900
EMORY JESSE B 8 GRAHAM JASON ALAN&JOYCE M
LEIGH A 9125 SW NORTH DAKOTA
11280 SW 94TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1 S135DB-06300 1 S135CA-00101
ENDICOTT MICHAEL R& GRAY DEAN P
MELISSA J 11145 5W 95TH AVE
11270 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D8-10700 1S135D6-10300
ERDMAN LEE A&DARCY D GRIMES DEBRA E
11070 SW 95TH AVE 11094 5W 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARO,OR 97223
15135D6-04000 1S135DB-09700
ERVIN ROBERT�KIM GUTIERREZ JOEL PENA
11360 SW 92ND AVE 11125 SW 93RD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-06600 1S135DB-10200
ESTES ALICE L HAHN DAVID GERALD
9430 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11140 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-12500 1S135D8-04400
ESTRADA KAREN GAY HANSON PAUL C
9269 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11315 SW 92ND AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
135CA-04 1S135DB-05300
F G ELOPMENT INC HARDT FREDERICK W III AND
GLORIA J
11420 SW 94TH
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S735D6-04700 1S135D6-02604
GAVETT WESTON C 8 KERRY L HEITZ NANCY P AND RONALD L
11435 SW 92ND AVE 11401 SW 90TH
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-04600 1 S135D6-04300
GLAUBKE JOHN A 8 MARY MARTHA HELLWEGE GARY A 8 PATRICIA J
CO TRUSTEES 11285 SW 92ND AVE
11405 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223
PORTLAND,OR 97223
15135DA-02603 135D6-04301
GOULARTE JEAN E HEL G ARY A&PATRICIA J
9095 SW NORTH DAKOTA 5T 112 AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 ARD,OR 97
1S135D6-07600 1S135D6-04200
HERGERT AARON 8 AMY KILLION JACK T JR 8
9330 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST BEVERLY
TIGARD,OR 97223 11270 SW 92ND AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135D6-05601 1S135DB-07100
HERNANDEZ ABRAHAM VERDE& KING DOUGLAS A
HERNANDEZ OSCAR VERDE 11320 SW 94TH AVE
11385 SW 94TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-03400 1S135D6-05504
HERNANDEZ JOSE R& KREISBERG LOUIS&ELIZABETH J
JURADO MARIA S 8 11350 SW 95TH AVE
HERNANDEZ-J MAURILIO TIGARD,OR 97223
11253 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135D8-08300 1 S1350B-095D0
HOFFMAN DIANNA C LACAN MANUEL
9165 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST 11175 SW 93RD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-06200 1S135D6-06800
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF LACY JON R AND JANELLE A
WASHINGTON COUNTY 11265 SW 94TH
111 NE LINCOLN ST#200-L TIGARD,OR 97223
HILLSBORO,OR 97124
135D6-06100 15135DB-06900
HO ING AUTHO Y OF LE JONATHAN H&
WASHI T OUNTY NGUYEN THERESA T
111 N N N ST#200-L 11285 SW 94TH AVE
SBORO,OR 24 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-08900 1S135D6-08000
HUNTER NORMAN G JR LEO VICTOR 8�EILEEN AND
6785 SW 175TH AVE LEO JOHNSON&ELLA
BEAVERTON,OR 97007 1325 SE 9TH AVE
PORTLAND,OR 97214
1S135D6-03900 1S135DB-06400
JOHNSON CHARLEY F AND LEWIS MARY R
D.J.STRAUSBAUGH 11250 SW 95TH
11390 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D8-10500 1S135D&07500
JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER W LUND CHERI A
11090 SW 95TH AVE 11240 SW 94TH CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-05800 1S135DA-04500
KELLY DENIS M&SHELLEY R MADRIGAL MIGUEL T 8�
11445 SW 94TH AVE MAGANA LUCINDA A
TIGARD,OR 97223 9075 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-11200 1S735D8-12600
MAHON SUSAN M ODAM CAMERON 8 KRISTIN
11310 SW 91 ST CT 9237 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-04700 1S135D8-11000
MANDERA ZACHARIAH& PALLAS DIANE E
DETWEILER JEANIFFER 11280 SW 91ST CT
11355 SW 95TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 135D6-08200 35D&127
MCFADDEN GEORGIA J PAR PLAT 1995-084 OWNERS
9155 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST OF L S 1-
TIGARD,OR 97223 ,
1S135D6-71900 1S135D&04500
MCFARLAND DAVID L 8 PAULSON KEVIN J&ANDREA M
ZHOU SU 11345 SW 92ND AVE
11263 SW 91ST CT PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-11700 1S135DB-11100
MEZENTSEV ALEKSANDR M 8 PETERSON MICHAEL B�
OTROKHOVA MIRA M LOUIE TINA L
11285 SW 91ST CT 11292 SW 91ST CT
PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S135DB-106U0 1 S135D8-04601
MICHAELIS CLAYTON W SR AND PFAFFLE GRETCHEN
ARLENE L 11375 SW 92ND AVE
11076 SW 95TH TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 7 35 D8-09900 1 S 135D B-06700
MOBLEY RICHARD L BERTHA PRICE JURREL L 8 SHERRY M
9385 SW NORTH DAKOTA 11245 SW 94TH AVE
TIGARO,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135DB-08100 1S135D6-10900
MONCHEK PETER&KARIN& RENFRO-GREENFIELD RENEE
STERN RONALD&KATHRYN KILPATRICK 11266 SW 91 ST CT
STERN CASEY K&TERESA K TIGARD,OR 97223
20 WARMWOOD WAY
HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010
1S135DA-02600 1S135DB-08800
NADARAJAH DEVAYANI ROAKE MARIE E 8
8623 SW HAMLET ST ROAKE JEFF S
TIGARD,OR 97223 11160 SW 93RD AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D6-11600 1S135D8-07200
NELSON LINDSAY R RUSSELL BRENT A/SHANNON R
11301 SW 91ST CT 11300 SW 94TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135D6-10100 1S135D6-11300
SALQUENETTII BONNIE&JEREMY TENLY PROPERTIES CORP
11160 SW 95TH AVE PO BOX 927
TIGARD,OR 97223 HILLSBORO,OR 97123
1S135�8-11800 135DB-11400
SCHENDEL WILLIAM M JR TE PRO RTIES CORP
11277 SW 91ST AVE PO B
TIGARD,OR 97223 SBORO, 97123
7S135DB-08400 1S135D8-07400
SCHENK DANIEL LIVING TRUST TRUAIR RYAN R&TONYA G
BY SCHENK DANIEL J TR 11260 SW 94TH AVE
7115 SW VIRGINIA TIGARD,OR 97224
PORTLAND,OR 97219
1 S135D6-05510 1 S135DB-09604
SCOFIELD DOUGLAS J&EVELYN J VASQUEZ SERGIO MARTINEZ
11340 SW 94TH 11155 SW 93RD CT
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1 S 7 35 D8-02700 1 S 135 D&03800
SIMONSEN RORY L 8 VIAENE STEPHANIE L 8�KEVIN
ADAMS CINDY L 11420 SW 92ND AVE
11435 SW 91ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135CA-04000 1S135D6-09400
SKAGERBERG BRET F&KATIE WASHINGTON COUNTY
11345 SW 95TH AVE LUT CPM DIV R/W SECTION
TIGARD,OR 97223 1400 SW WALNUT ST MS18
HILLSBORO,OR 97123
1 S135D6-09000 1 S135D6-12400
SPRINGSTEAD WADE A AND WHIPP CHAD J
LINDA S 9293 SW NORTH DAKOTA ST
11100 SW 93RD COURT TIGARD,OR 97223
TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135DB-09300 1S135CA-03300
STONEKING RAYMOND D AND WHITE HEIDI A&
GERALDINE J KENNETH A
1040 CEDAR ST 11231 SW 95TH AVE
LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 PORTLAND,OR 97223
1S135D8-09800 1S135D8-05600
SULLIVAN SHELLEY WINTHER STEPHEN 8�TERESA
11095 SW 93RD AVE 11400 SW 95TH AVE
TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223
1S135D8-12300
TARHUNI JAMAL
11347 SW 91ST CT
TIGARD,OR 97223
, � , �
Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group
PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren
Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120
Tigard, OR 97223
Sue Rorman Diane Baldwin
11250 SW 82�d Avenue 3706 Kinsale Lane SE
Tigard, OR 97223 Olympia,WA 98501
Naomi Gallucci
11285 SW 78�Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Michael Trigoboff
7072 SW Barbara Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Brad Spring
7555 SW Spruce Street
Tigartl, OR 97223
Alexander Craghead
12205 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223-6210
Gretchen Buehner
13249 SW 136� Place
Tigard, OR 97224
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
CPO 46
16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242
Tigard, OR 97224
CPO 4M
Pat Whiting
8122 SW Spruce
Tigard, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES �i:\curpinlsetupllabelslClT East.doc) UPDATED: 21-Oct-05
PRE,APP.HELD BY: M/��
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223-8189
503.639.4171/503.684.7297 -r � �; 2�;;
CITY OF TIGARD
o��oN LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION
File# MI.P� oi5 oc�c.� I Other Case#
Date ;(� ' �� By Q Receipt# ��L'-`� 'S�1`l f3 City 0 Urb ❑ Date Complete�
TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR
�AdjustmenWariance (I or II) � Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Zone Change (III)
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) ❑ Planned Development(III) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV)
❑ Conditional Use (III) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review(I, II or III) ❑ Zone Ordinance Amendment(IV)
❑ Historic Overlay(II or III) ❑ Site Development Review(II)
❑ Home Occupation (II) ❑ Subdivision (II or III)
ress i avai a e
11285 SW 92"d Ave.
1 S135DB04301
.45 Acres R-4.5
Mark Seaman
8407 SW 58th, Portland, OR 97219
503 246-9890 503 245-8507
Lee Leighton, AICP—Westlake Consultants, Inc. (503) 684-0652
ac is i more an one
Ga A. 8� Patricia J. Hellwe e
11285 SW 92"d Avenue, Ti ard, OR 97223
�C :� ���� % �I �� �`
`When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be �purchaser of record or a lessee in
possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The ners must sign this application in the
s ace rovided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this a lication.
ease e speG ic
2-Parcel Partition of Tax Ma 1 S135DB04301. Prima access to both parcels will be from SW
Dakota Street.
i
APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS
DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET.
r �
a, .
THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT:
♦ If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the
terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval.
♦ All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits
transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based
on this application, map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false.
♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria,
and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s).
SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED.
, „
� , `� � c-, ��,---
��-- �. ���� `�- z��----� i 7 � -�
Owner's Signat�re ary A. Hellwege Date
�\ /�r�.y/ � � �
/l����(•l' t'/ � � '�J 1 f. �I��� -l�l /
Owner's Signature Patricia Jf H Iwege ' Date
/ _.
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
�>1�
Applicant/A nt/Representative's Signature Date
Mark Seaman
ApplicanUAgent/Representative's Signature Date
Lee Leighton, AICP —Westlake Consultants, Inc.
� 1
�
____._ ___„
�
� �' \
1 �
CITY OF TIOARD
Community�UeveCopntent
Sliaping/'�BetterCommunity
LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
120 DAYS = 5/24/2006
FILE NOS.: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2005-00011
ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00081
FILE TITLE: HELLWEGE PARTITION
APPLICANT: Mark Seaman OWNER: Gary and Patricia Hellwege
8407 SW 58th Avenue 11285 SW 92"d Avenue
Portland, OR 97219 Tigard, OR 97223
APPLICANT'S Westlake Consultants
REP.: Attn: Lee Leighton
15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy., Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to partition an approximately 16,867 square foot
site into two smaller parcels of 8,387 and 8,480 square feet. To avoid removing
several large trees from the site, the applicant is requesting an adJ'ustment from street
improvement requirements. These include pavement width, bicycle lane, planter strip
and sidewalk improvements along SW North Dakota Street.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of SW North Dakota and SW
92�d Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 1 S135DB, Tax Lot 4301 (No site address).
ZONE: R-4.5: The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family
homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square
feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic
and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.420, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715,
18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
� DECISION MAKING BODY: ❑ TYPE I O TYPE II ❑TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV
DATE COMMENTS WERE SENT: JANUARY 31, 2006 DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: FEBRUARY 14, 2006
❑ HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM
❑ CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM
❑ STAFF DECISION (TENTATIVE) DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 21 2006
COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION
�VICINITY MAP ❑ LANDSCAPING PLAN � IMPACT STUDY
�SITE PLAN � GRADING PLANS � EXISTING CONDITIONS
�NARRATIVE ❑ STORMWATER REPORT � TREE PLAN
STAFF CONTACT: Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner (v�3) 639-4171, x2437
. . __ _.� � �
i
Westlake
consultants,inc TRANSMITTAL
ENGINEEfaING ♦ SURI/E)'lNG ♦ PLANNING Phone.•503 684-0652
Fax.•503 624-0957
Date: October 26,2005 Project No.: 0733-09/0
To: Matt Scheidegger Project Name: 92"°/Dakota
Planning Division
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard,OR 97223-8189
Copy. Mark Seaman Gary A.&Patricia J. Hellwege Steve Goetz
8407 5W 58th 11285 SW 92"'Avenue Pacific Resources Group
Portland,Oregon 97219 Tigard,OR 97223 13331 5W Broadway,Suite 10D
Portland,Or 97201
Ph: [503)246-9890 ,
Fax:(503)245-8507 Ph&Fax: [503] 222-4320
From: Kristy Kelly �[�,�;C_/
Land Use Planne
Re: Partition Application
No. of
Co ies Dated Descri tion
1 � City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application for a Minor Land Partition
� and Special Adjustment(Original)
1 � Application Fee,Check#7840($3,205)
3 "' Narrative
3 Site Plan(24"x 36"J
Comments:
For your review
Fax O No.of Pages(including cover] Fax No.
Mail ❑ Messenger❑ Overnight ❑ Hand Delivery ■
Pacific Corporate Center, 15115 S.W.Sequoia Parkway,Suite 150,Tigard,Oregon 97224
{
�� G,
CITY OF TIGARD
November 23, 2005 OREGON
Mark Seaman
8407 SW 58th Ave.
Portland, OR 97219
Mr. Seaman:
RE: Notice of Incomnlete Application Submittal MLP2005-00011
The City has not received the information necessary to begin the review of your Minor
Land Partition application. Staff has, therefore, deemed your application submittal as
incomplete. In order for staff to proceed, the following materials will need to be
submitted:
. Provide ownership information.
. The items in the enclosed public facility completeness checklist must be
addressed. Any questions pertaining to public facilities can be directed to
Kim McMillan in the Engineering Department at (503)639-4171 ext.2642.
I am available to answer questions and otherwise assist you as may be required at
503-639-4171, extension #2437. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. If I am not available, please leave your name and phone number so
that I can call you as soon as possible.
Sincerely, -
. , ����
M thew Scheidegger
Associate Planner
i:lcurpinlmathewlmlp2005-00011.acc
c: MLP2005-00011 Land Use File
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
PUBLIC FACILlTY PLAN Project: 92"d/North Dakota MLP
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: 11/16/05
GRADING
� Existin and ro osed contours shown.
❑ Are there radin im acts on ad'acent arcels?
❑ Ad�acent arcel rades shown.
❑ Geotech stud submitted?
STREETISSUES
� Ri ht-of-wa clearl shown.
� Centerline of street s clearl shown.
� Street name s shown.
� Existin / ro osed curb or ed e of avement shown.
� Street rofiles shown.
❑ Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo Show profile for future 92" Avenue
on ad'acent arcel s , etc. connection
❑ Traffic Impact and/or Access Report Provide preliminary sight distance
certificafion for com lefeness
❑ Street rades com liant?
❑ Street/ROW widths dimensioned and appropriate? Plans show 27 foof ROW after dedication
along 92"dAvenue and narrative says 25 feet.
Tota!ROW from centerline should be 27 feef
for 92"d. Plans and harrative show 30 foot
from centerline for ROW along North Dakota.
Neighborhood Route w/bike/anes only
re uires 29 feef.
❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width
a ro riate?
❑ Other: Restrictive Covenant For a partition an adjustmenf to half-streef
improvements is not required. The applicanf
is required to request they be al/owed to
enfer into a restrictive covenant for future
street im rovemenfs.
SANITARY SEWER ISSUES
� Existin / ro osed lines shown. Cit rovides service inside Cit limits
❑ Stubs to ad'acent arcels re uired/shown?
WATER ISSUES
❑ Existin / ro osed lines w/sizes noted? Waterservice is rovided b NWD nof Cit
� Existin / ro osed fire h drants shown?
� Pro osed meter location and size shown?
❑ Pro osed fire rotection s stem shown? �
STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES
❑ Existing/proposed lines shown? Show how runoff from new lots will be
directed to an a roved ublic s sfem.
❑ Prelimina sizin calcs for water ualit /detention
REVISED: 11/16/05
_ : _ T�
rovided?
❑ Water ualit /detention facilit shown on lans?
❑ Area for facilit match re uirements from calcs?
❑ Facilit shown outside an wetland buffer?
❑ Storm stubs to ad�acent arcels re uired/shown?
The submi al is hereby deemed ❑ COMPLETE � INCOMPLETE
BY� Date: 11/16/05
REVISED: 11/16/05
- l -. . � 5 � � 51� �300
PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: ,,2"d/North Dakofa MLP
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: 11/16/05
GRADING
� Existin and ro osed contours shown.
❑ Are there radin im acts on ad�acent arcels?
❑ Ad�acent arcel rades shown.
❑ Geotech stud submitted?
STREETISSUES
� Ri ht-of-wa clearl shown.
� Centerline of street s clearl shown.
� Street name s shown.
� Existin / ro osed curb or ed e of avement shown.
Street rofiles shown.
Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo Show profile for future 92" Avenue
on ad�acent arcel s , etc. connection
Traffic Impact and/or Access Report Provide preliminary sight distance
certification for com /efeness
❑ Street rades com liant?
StreeUROW widths dimensioned and appropriate? Plans show 27 foof ROW after dedication
� along 92"d Avenue and narrafive says 25 feet.
Total ROW from centerline should be 27 feet
for 92"d. Plans and harrative show 30 foot
from centerline for ROW along North Dakota.
Neighborhood Route w/bike/anes only
re uires 29 feet.
❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width
a ro riate?
Other: Restrictive Covenant For a partition an adjustmenf to half-street
improvemenfs is not required. The applicant
is required to request they be allowed to
enter into a restrictive covenant for future
street im rovements.
SANITARY SEWER ISSUES
� Existin / ro osed lines shown. Cit rovides service inside Cit limits
❑ Stubs to ad�acent arcels re uired/shown?
WATER ISSUES
❑ Existin / ro osed lines w/ sizes noted? Water service is rovided d TVWD not Cif
� Existin / ro osed fire h drants shown?
� Pro osed meter location and size shown?
❑ Pro osed fire rotection s stem shown?
ORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES
Existing/proposed lines shown? Show how runoff from new/ots will be
�rec e to an a roved ublic s sfem.
❑ Prelimina sizin calcs for water ualit /detention
REVISED: 11/16/05
, _ _ .��
. , � . . .
rovided?
❑ Water ualit /detention facilit shown on lans?
❑ Area for facilit match re uirements from calcs?
❑ Facilit shown outside an wetland buffer?
❑ Storm stubs to ad�acent arcels re uired/shown?
The submittal is hereby deemed �1 COMPLETE � INCOMPLETE
��"
By: Date: 11/16/05
12- 2l - OS
REVISED: 11/16/05
t
�
UVestlake
� con5ultants inc TRANSMl7TAL
,
ENG/NEER/NG t SUfll/EY/NG ♦ PLANN/NG Phone:503 684-0652
Fax,•5�3 6�4-D95'7
Dste: Januaty 6, 2006 Project No.: 0733-09/0
To: Cheryl Caines Projec�Nam�: 92"°/Dak�te
Planning Division
C!T'Y OF TICARD
13125 SW Hall RECEIVED PLAN�JII�I(�
Baulevard
Tigard,OR 97223-8189 .��� � 9 2006
Ph: [503) 639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD
Fax:(503] 6847297
Capy: .
From: Kristy Kelly
Land Use Planner
RB: NotiCe of Ineomplete AppliceCion SubmitCel MLP20�5-QOQ11
Na, of
Co ies Deted Descri tion
'1 '!2/OB/0� Transmittal to Ma�C Scheidegger,City of Tigard
'! � Warranty Deed
1 " Preliminary 5ighe Distsnce Certificecion
CommEnCs:
Cheryl,
Pursuant co Che voicemail I left you rodey,attsched is a copy of che transmittal outlining items submitted to
the City�f Tigard on December 8, 20�5_ I am assuming that somehow the icems have become separated
from the transmit�al. We elsti included revised preliminary plans. Please IeC ms know if you seem to be
missing the plans as well. Call me at 503-684-0652 with questions,
Thanks!
"KriSty
Fax ■ N�.of Pages(including cover] �ax No. As Above
Mail ❑ Messenger O Overnight ❑ Hand Delivery ❑
i
Pecific Carporate CenCer,15115 S,W.5equoie Parkway,Suite 15Q,Tigerd,Oregon 97224
80/Z0. �J17d S1N171�f1SN0� �71d�1S3M L9T0-bZ9-�95 b5 �LT 999Z/99/Ta
. �
.
� West�ake
consultants inc TRANSM
.
/7TAL
ENL�JNEER/NG ♦ SUf�I/EYl'NG t PLANN/NG Phone.•5�3 684-0652
Faz�5�3 624��57
Dete: Decembar B,2005 Projecti No.: 0733-09/0
T�: MatC Schefdagger Pro{ecr N�me: 92"/Dakota
Planning Divieion
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 5V1/Hell Boulevard
7igard,�R 97223-8189
Copy: Mark Sesmen
6A�07 SW 58th
Portlend,Oregon 97219
from: KrisC�!Kelly �-��(�.�
L.end Use Planner
Re: IVooce of Incomplete Applicstian Subrnival NlLP2005�OOD11
No. of
Co ies Datad Descri 'on
1 "' Notice of Incomplets Application Submittsl MLP2005-0Oa11
1 " Warrenty�eed
1 "' Revised Preliminary Plans(11'x17")
'1 "' Revised Preliminary Plens(FuIE Size�
1 '" Preliminery 5ight Oistance Cerdflcatian
Comments:
Matt,
Pursusnt m the Notice of Incnmplete Applicetinn Submitral for MLP20D5-0OD11 you wiEl find a re�ised preliminary plen
set which addresses the Publlc Fadlity Plsn Completeness Checklist, more specifically rightrof�ay dedication end
profiles for the fvCure 92"Avenue cannection, As requested we heve al6o supplied e preliminery sight distance
certificeoon for your review.
Please be advised thet the narr�tive refers to�25-ftiot dedication along SVV 92'°Avenue, upon epplicacion
complet�ness end your request Eor edditiona!copies this clericel error will be corr�ecbed Cv reed,°27�aot dedication",
es wlll tha referent;e ta City provided sanitary sewer service end wecer service provided by Tualetin Velley Water
District(TVNVD}.
In�rms of storm dreinags end watsr quality issuss,stormwater runoff tr�m roof drains will be direct�d rA e road side
ditch afong 5W North bakote Street where it will continue west to an existirtg system. ft Is vur understanding that�
prnject nf this size is eligible for payment vf fea-in-lieu of detendon and wster quality chrough CI6en Water 5ervices.
In terms of a res�fctive covenant the appiicent will enter into a rasG�icxive cavenent for fuWre street improvements.
This cen be guar'anteed through an eppropriete c�ndition of approvel.
Should you heve questions or requir+e edditional informat�on,please do not hesita�te to contact me.
Thanksl
"ICristy
Fa�c � No.of Pages(including coverJ Fax No.
Mail ❑ Messenger❑ Overnight ❑ Hand Delivery ■
Pacific CorporaCe Cencar, 15715 S.W.Sequoia Parkway.Suite 150,Tigerd,Oregon 97224
8e/Z0 3�tid S1Nb'l�f1SN0� 37117�153M L5Z0-bZ9-E0S b5 �LT 900z/90/T0 �
,
r �
. � D73 � - �qf p
A���rv��
N 0 Y 2 8 z005 '°
�Y��o�.��«,�N�. CITY OF TIGARD
November 23, 2005 QREGON
Mark Seama�
8407 SW 58 Ave.
Portland, OR 9721 g
Mr. Seaman:
R�: Notice of Incom lete A lication Submittaf MLP2005-0Q011
The City has not recei�ed the information necessary to begin the review of your Minor
Land Partition application. Staff has, therefore, deemed your application submittal as
incomplete. ln order for staff to proceed, the following materiafs wiil need to be
submittEd:
� Provide ownership.information_
. The items in ths encfosed public facil�ty completeness checklist must be
addressed. Any questions pertaining to public facilities can be dir�cted to
Kim McMiltan in the Engin��ring Department at (503)639�.4171 ��ct,2642.
I am available to answer guestions and otherwise assist you as may be requirEd at
503-�fi39-4171, extension #2437. (Jffce hours are from 8:04 a.m. to 5:0� p.m. Monday
through Friday. If l am not available, piease leave your name and phone number so
that I can call you as soon as possible.
Sincerely, � .
. �_..—
M thew Scheidegger
Associate Planner
i:lcurpinlmathewlmlp2005-OOOt 1.acc
c: MLP2005-OOQ11 Land Use File
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
15115 SW Seq uoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)634-417'� TDD (503)684�2772
80/E0 3J17d 51Ndl�f1SN0� 371d�1S3M L5i0-bZ9-E9S b5 �LL 900Z/90/LB
� '
PUBLIC FACILITYPLAN' Pro/ect: 92"d/North Dakota INLP
GONIPLFTENESS CHFCKLlST Date; 1 t/16/05
GRADING
Existin and ro osed contours shown.
Are therE radin im acts on ad'acent arcels?
Ad'acent arcei rades shown. �
Geotech 5tud submitted? �
STREETtSSUES
Rf ht-of-wa clearl shown.
Centeriine of street s cEearl shcwn.
Street name s shown.
Existin / ro ased curb or ed e of avement shown.
Straet rofiles shown.
Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo Show profile far fature 82" Avenue
on ad'acent arcel s etc. cvnr�ection
Traffic Impact and/or Access Report Provlde preliminary siqht distance
certification for com leteness
5treet rades com liant?
StreetlROW widths dimensioned and appropriate? Plans show 27 foot ROW a�ter dedicafion
� a/ong 92nd Avenue and narrat�ve says ZS feet.
Tota/RO W from centerline should be Z7 feet
for 92"d. PJa�s and harrative show 30 faot
t'rom ceRferlirte for ROW a�oRg North Dakota.
Neighborhood Roate w/bike lanas only
re uires 29 feef.
❑ �'rivate Streets? Less than 6 lots and width
a ro riate? �
❑ Other: Restrictive Cavenant For a partitlon art aa(jusfinent to half-street
lrnprovaments is nof requlred. 7'he applicanf
ls required to request they be allowed to
enter inta a restriclive covenant for future
street im rovements.
SANtTARY SEWER ISSUE3
Existin / ro osed lines shown. Ci rovTdes servlce inside Cit limits
Stubs to ad'acent arcels re uiredlshown?
war�R � uEs
❑ Existin / ro osed lines wl sizes notad'? Water service is rovided b 7YWD not Ci
� Existin / ro osed fire h drants shnwn7 �
Pro ased meter location and size shown7
Pro osed fire rotection s stem shawn? �
STORM DRAINAGE AN WATER UALITY ISSUES
Existing/proposed lines shown? Show horv rernc�ff from new/ots wlll be
dlrected to an a roved ubllc s stem.
Prelimina sizin calcs for water uali ldetentifln
REVIS ED: 11l16I05
80/b0 ��JGd S1Nal�f1SN0� 3�iC�1S3M L5Z0-bZ9-E0S b9�LZ 900Z/90/Z0
. �
rovided?
Water ualit /detention facili shown on lans?
Area for facili match re uirernents from calcs?
Facili shown outside an wEtfancf buffer?
Storm stubs to ad'aceht arcels re uired/shown?
The submi al is hereby deemed ❑COMPLET� � INCOMIPLETE
By: Date: �1l9 6/45
REVIS ED: 11/1 Bl05
80/50 �J17d S1NCl�f1SN0� 3�id�1S3M L5Z0-bZ9-E09 b5 �Li 900Z/99/Z0
i
���`, v w.�lnpn ow,a�or.�w,
�a � ' � �on�oo6���u:o�,ur 2005-134848
�'Ty'�1'ISIlB'�Qil :
u�a a saa�t�w itisa�.00�row�.t�u ao
'��"°°� IIRIII � 1 I II IIf il �liilll�
A.ftar &ecotding, ReCUrn to: . �I���Iltl�l ���{��,
Mark Sea�6n • OOIb Oasss� �I 2
H407 SW SBCh AVC11Y6 , I,JrryYYn��rydnrr�as.w.eti.�..�,m.�
�V��r�V Chr�M WnMn�n Cwr;r,
Poitaona, oR 9�a19 • �'"'�.�"�+''�+�'m'`;«iin�.�w"" ',.i
. nca�i�wu+wa��i17w.w*
Until a Change fe reque�ted, tdx etatemanta . ,iryRwr,.,nei,,.., r..,.,�.,qn,,.u.,�
uhall be eent to tha following addraee: .
wartl�e�a�
eame ru ttbove .
STATUTORY WAiiRANTY DEED .
(Indi�+idual) . . .. . .. ,. _. .. . , . . .
(Abovn Spaee Reaerved�Por Recordar�o U�n)
PatsiCld J. Aellvege aaB ansy A. HCllwege
WASHINGTON CO�JNN
oonv�Ya �ad sr■sranbr Co .� ✓': RFJ1l PP9PERTY TRA►f6FE►i 14�
t4ark Scnman = 11.a 00 �� ps
FEE PIUD OATE
khe lellrn►inq d�rCrib� rul yroyarCy iq C� 9tat� at orsyon wd Co�ty of Nnshington
lr�� o! �aevabraac�r, �acC�yt L �eilicslly' IwE tosth h�i'�ia�
711[�DID� LiO1�L �BCftIP'�'IQ�1�
A tr�ob o! 1wriA ia Ch• 8watb�s�r oss�-Quartss of B�atioa 35. To►�nahiQ l 8wth, �aag� x
��sC. ot th� Mil1�CC• �rid3sa, iA CA� CiEy o! 71��rd. Couaty ot xa�hinqton wad Bt�ta. ot
Or�qoa, D�1a4 • portiati oi LoE 1, DOa1100D RIDOf, 800k 1�, PaBp �9, Na�LiAQtos Couaty ?lAt
8rcorda, aad b.sa� mor� ��rel.eularly a.scrl.b�d aa tvllo�ra.
H�yi�ibq at • �ound Z iaab irosti pLp� markibg ths initisl paine of 0'Ni1L 7►C'i�8, Sook 54,
Dag• 1, wa�binQto� CouACy Flat liscoYdll, b�1AQ th� Lfortl�a�t cvrnsr o! Lot 16 i,3�r�of, also
(Continued)
Tax ACCOUnt �umber(e): 15135AB643D0001
�hi• prop�rty ir !�e'�� ot sac�brsuo��. �C�re
Cov�y�ante, conditiosta, reaerictious, righta of wsy, easamente aqd 7Ceservatione aow of
rocorC-
`rha true considerotioo Yor thia canveyanc� ie $i2o,000.00
a�x8 xN8TR91m�'r wiLL �t0'! xi,L011 IIBS ai � PRO?� �8CRI9� r.�T TSSB i3iAZ�n�17 iaT vTOrr►-
TIOM D� 7►Y➢LYC1I�I,S J,111ID DBS L�MB NfA �LATIt�B. 8�*01R� BYGWI�O ek �CC[alI11Q TSY� IIfBTAD-
1�tT� TSa P�so�T 11CQQIAING �i= TITG�L ?0 18S FROPiRT! 8��7 11IT$ T� 19YROPAS7�'P! CY�PY'
OP COU11'TY4�,PL�O ai?AkTi�! TO {f��TlY 11�+9RONm UB�B �1�D =T�LY�Ti 71M LS1aY`8 ODT LAM-
BIITTB AG�ms3' �1Tt�[SK3 00t t0le�sa' PRICSICSB �9 Dsr�TJ1D IIi 0.990.
t
DATSD th$e Z � nf OcCCber, �005,
�
PatrieiA J. e2 � e Gary . Hellwsge �
�
ST7►T8 OY DR�C30N, COVNTY ON Nrdhiagton?ae.
1'he foregoing in�trumerit wda aclmoxledged befor�c me Chie�ddy of october, �OO5, by
P�tricla J. Nellwsge and asry A. xellwoge,,
�
Notdry Public !or Oz�egon /
rry Cvrnmiesion �xpirda:���/ oFPICi�Ie��L
M�HENYAN
NOT�py p�g��FOAEGON
YY COMAIrgg p M�piREB F A S,�pe
order No. � Zzyoo�3035w
80f90 3Jtid S1NCl�f1SN0� 371d�1S3M L5Z0-bZ9-E05 bS�LT 900Z/90/Z0 ��
� - �
+ . ` � , �R�� n� �lIIIII��llni�. �I
L6GT�L DE9CRZPTTOli (Coetiaued) order Dlo.= aayooa3o35
b�i�aQ tb� 1�orChw��a aora�s of �sid LoE 1. Doawoo� sYDOli tlsaao�, �io� tb� �orCh liw o!
s.id Loe 1, .i.o b�ibp th� 9ouCA r1�ht-ol-wy lia� e! 81f nakot� BES�s (fos's�rly riw
Btrs�t�, bsiay ZS.DO f��t lrao o! tb� C�otsrlia� Cb��f. wh�a a�asu�d ae rigLt aagls�,
�10=tk► •9' �0' $i� �st, 197.OS tNt to ea. 1�ortA�a�ro eos'n�r o! ��id LoC li Eb��. �loae
cL� sa�t lia� v! �sid Y,oC 1, �lro b�37� Ell� MMR ri�ht-ol-�rsy lin� O! Yx 91ad ]►v�os
{losa�rly stobiaiou 1►�tu�), b.i.aa �s.o0 t■•t lraa ths a�at�a1ia� �.rrol, nL�a a�uursd .0
ripht �nQl�s. 6outh 00' 06' 00• M�st, 11.51 lNLr th�ae�, al� ■ 11� 11.60 =�•t
9onth�riy oi taQ parrYl�1 riEh EA� 1TorE3► 11a� o! uid LoC 1, 8os1tA i9• 39� 36• 1f��tr
197.02 !Nn to Eh� N��t 1l,a� of ■•id Lot i� tb.no�. }loaq eh� N��t lina o! •�►!�d t+ot l.
al�o 1�airiQ tpr =aat 111u D! •aid LOt 16� O'1�R�i. AC'�=8� Ifo1CtD 00• 0{• �A� �ut� 91.50 ls�t
Eo Ch� tsv� painC o3� aaginainQ.
60/L0 3J17d S1Ndl�flSNO� 371d�1S3M L9Z0-bZ9-E05 bS �LZ 900ZI90/ZB �
. • . .
WE S TLAK.E
CONSULTANTS�
1VIEMORANDUM
ENG1NlEBRiNG � SURV�YING � PLANNING PxoN� 503.684.0652
DaT�: Novembcr 34, 2005
To: WCI Project�'ile for 92°d&SW N. Dakota Street(733-09 b)
�'ROM: Bernard R. Smith,PE, PLS�
RE: Preliminary Sight Distance Certification
CC: Kristy E. T�elly,Planner, Westlake Consultants
32'snd SW M Dekat�SbteeC
Pneliminary u�'ight Oistertce Cerb�cstion
This project is a proposed 2 lot minor lend partitiort located on the southerly sideline of SW N
Dakota Street, abvut 200' easterly from tr�e intersection of SW 94"Avenue. A future ext�ension
of 5W 92"°Avenue to the east is propused ta conn�ct with N Dakota Street�
I observed Che existing sight distence from the proposed driveway enG�an�e ant4 N Dakota Street
and f�und there to be more then 1000' of clear sight to the west and more th�h 550' of sight
distance to the eas� (when me�sured to e point 4.25'above Che road surface from a point 3.6'
above the proposed driveway entrance, 10'from the pavement edge.] There mey be the need ta
relocate e nsighborhoad watch sign spprvximately 1 DO'westerly of the proposed drivsway.
The intErsecting �eets, SW 92"Ave, SV1/93'°AvB end SW 94`Ave all have stop conCrol prior ta
entering N Dakotia Stree� All local streets are expected to have speed limits of 25 mph, and
therefore ou�target stopping sight distence of 250'will be met with the proposed driveway
entrance.
. �1?` �
���EO pRO,c�� ,
�5 G�N F� ���
�a `�a 15759 '�
e� 2� N �
���fi'���''�' 2�, �� ' .
qRf�R ,,tvh��`
�,:PiR�S e a
H:lrlDMlM�73309.05192nd dE N.!]akoJalF.rt�inl�igh�disiance carttficakon MEMD 11-30�OS.doc
S9/80 3Jbd S1Ndl�f1SN0� 3�id�1S3M L9T0-bZ9-£e5 b5 �LT 900Z/90/ZB '�
,
�
i�,i�:,
CITY OF Tl�GARD
OREGON
January 10, 2006
Kristy Kelly
Wes�lake Consultants
15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
Dear Ms. Kelly:
RE: Notice of Incomalete Application Submittal —MLP2005-00011
The City has not received the information necessary to begin the review of your Minor
Land Partition application. The development site is located at 1 S135DB, tax lot 04301.
This letter is to inform you that additional materials will be needed in order to deem your
application complete. The necessary materials are as follows:
. Submit 15 copies of complete application packet.
. Submit two sets of pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes.
Property owner list must be produced by Pariy Lunsford in the Planning Department.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at 503-639-4171, x2437.
Sincerely,
���� ��
Cheryl Caines
Assistant Planner
c: Mark Seaman—applicant
MLP2005-00011 Land Use File
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
_ _ M1�
� RECEIVEp
V V L S��a{Ce JAN 12 2006
�ansultants,inc Cli"Y pF�-�GAaD 7 R A N S N 1 1�i AL
BUILDfN �n11 ��+�++�•
ENGINEERING ♦ SLJRVEYING ♦ PLAlVNIN�' Phone:503 6$4-0652
Fax.•5D3 624-0 9.57
bate: Jenuary 11,20[76 Prnjec�No.: Q733-❑9/0
To: Patty Lunsford Project Name: 92^"/oakot�
Planning Qlu�sion
C1TY OF TIGAI�D
13125 SW Hsi!Boulevard
Tigard,OR 97223�1 B9
Fax:50�-598�1960
From: Kristy Kelly CC:
Land Llse Planner
Re. Nearhy Neighbors Labeis-Casefife#M1.P2005-0001'1
No.of Co ies Dated Descri tion
� " City of Tlgal`d-Requast fa�5�� Foot Propet'ty Owners f+�lailing Lis�
Comrnents:
Patt}r, VI/e ere ready to abtaiR the fr'rra/two sets oflabels Far casefi/e#MLP2OD�OOQ 9 9, 92'��Dakota
minor/and partitiQn. P/ease grv�me a cafl wherr tfrey are resdy�o be prcked up.
ThanJcs
Kristy
Fax � Na.of Pages[including coverj Z Fax No. As Above
Mail ❑ Messenger❑ Overnight ❑ Hand D�livery 0 ,
��
Pacific Corporote Center, 15115 S,W.Sequoia Parkway,Suite 150,Tigard,Dre9on 97�24 i
Z0/TB �Jbd S1Nt�l��SNO� 3�ib�1S�h1 L9T0-bZ9-�e9 60 �LT 909Z,tZl;'Z9 �
1
�FCEI' "'D
�1Uestlake AN 1 � �ooF
consultants inc `��T��'
' t�.ac, TRANSMITTAL
ENGINEEF�ING ♦ SUf�I/EYING ♦ PLANNING Phone:503 684-0652
Fax.•503 624-0957
Date: January 17, 2006 Project No.: 0733-09/0
To: Cheryl Caines Project Name: 92"°/Dakota
Planning Division
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall
Boulevard
Tigard,OR 97223-8189
Copy: Mark Seaman
8407 SW 58th
Portland,Oregon 97219
From: Kristy Kelly '
Land Use Plan er �
Re: Notice of Incomplete Application Submittal MLP2005-00011
No. of
Co ies Dated Descri tion
1 � Notice of Incomplete Application Submittal MLP2005-00011
15 � Narrative Document
15 � Preliminary Plans [24"x36"J
2 � Pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes
Comments:
Cheryl,
Pursuant to the Notice of Incomplete Application Submittal for MLP2005-00011 you will find 15 copies of
the complete application packet, including full size plan sets. Also enclosed are two sets of pre-stamped,
pre-addressed envelopes. This should fulfill all the items required for application completeness. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 503-6840652.
Thanks!
�Kristy
Fax ❑ No. of Pages(including coverJ Fax No.
Mail O Messenger� Overnight ❑ Hand Delivery ■
Pacific Corporate Center, 15115 S.W.5equoia Parkway,Suite 150,Tigard,Oregon 97224
- �
1
,
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
January 26, 2006
Mr. Lee Leighton
Westiake Consultants, Inc.
15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
RE: Hellwege Partition MLP2005-00011NAR2005-00081
Dear Mr. Leighton:
The City of Tigard received your original application submittal for a Minor Land
Partition on October 26, 2005, and the final revised application on January 17,
2006. The development site is located at 1 S135DB, Tax Lot 04301. This letter is
to inform you that your application has been deemed complete as of January 24tn
and is scheduled for review.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (503) 639�171, x2437.
Sincerely,
C��i,w,�„ �.�.c.ruR..I
O
Cheryl Caines
Assistant Planner
cc: MLP2005-00011 Land Use File
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tiga�d, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772
�
4
� UUe stl a ke , ,
consultants,inc I
_
9ZND/N. DAKOTA
2-Parcel Partition
January 12, 2006
Pacific Corporate Center ` .=.w sequoia pa�-
0, tigard, orec 97224
www. �stlakeconsult�,. � I PH I Fx
�ECEIVED
JAN 17 2006
O�TY Of TK�,4AD
����N8INEERIMG
92ND/N. DAKOTA
Prepared for:
Mark Seaman
8407 SW 58th
Portland, Oregon 97219
Phone: 503.246.9890
Faac: 503.245.8507
Prepared by:
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Phone: 503.684.0652
Fax: 503.624.0157
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DATASHEET.............................................................................................................................................................1
PROJECTOVERVIEW.............................................................................................................................................2
PROJECTDESCRIP"CION...................................................................................................................................................2
SUBJECT SITE AND ABUTTING PROPERTY INFORMATION......................................................................3
SUBJECTSITE..........................................................................................................••.....................................................3
SERVICESAND FACILITIES..................................................................................................................................3
PARTI'I'ION APPLICATION REQUEST................................................................................................................5
TIGARD COMMUNIT'I'DEVELOPMENT CODE...............................................................................................5
CHAPTER 18.370-VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS......................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 18.390-DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY............................................................................6
CHAPT'ER 18.420-LAND PARTITIONS............................................................................................................................7
CHAPT'ER 18.51 O-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS...................................................................................................1 1
CHAPTER l 8.705-ACCESS/EGRESS/CIRCULATION......................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 18.7 I S-DENSITY COMPUTATIONS..............................................................................................................18
CHAPTER 18.725-ENVIItONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..............................................................................20
CHAPTER 18.745-LANDSCAPING&SCREENQVG STANDARDS.....................................................................................21
CHAP'TER 18.755-MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE.................................................................................27
CHAPT'ER 18.765-OFF-STREET PARKING/LOADING REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................28
CHA�R 18.780-SIGNS.............................................................................................................................................29
CHAPTER18.790-TREE REMOVAL.............................................................................................................................30
CHAPTER 18.795-VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS..........................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 18.81 O-STREET&UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS............................................................................34
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................................52
92%N.Dt�taTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESn�a�No.0733-09 1 JANUARY 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Contents
A Preliminary Plans
• Sheet P100—Cover Sheet
• Sheet P101 —Existing Conditions
• Sheet P200—Preliminary Plat
• Sheet P300—Tree Preservation & Street Tree Plan
• Sheet P400—N. Dakota Utility &Street Plan/Profile Sheet
• Sheet P500—92"d Utility&Street Plan/Profile Sheet (Existing Conditions)
B City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application
C Tax Map
D Pre-application Conference Notes
E Impact Study
F Parcel Size and Yield Calculations
G Tree Assessment &Letter dated October 12, 2005 from Stephen Goetz of The Pacific
Resources Group
H Clean Water Services Stormwater Management Service Provider Letter
I City of Tigard Transportation System Plan —Figure 8-3 Proposed Functional
Classification System
J Preliminary Sight Distance Certification
K Warranty Deed
92%N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTtp,KE No.0733-09 ii �ANUARY 1 2,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
DATA SHEET
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Westlake Consultants,Inc.
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Contact: L,en Schelsky, PLS
Phone: 503.684.0652
Fax: 503.624.0157
APPLICANT: Mark Seaman
8407 SW 58th
Portland, Oregon 97219
Phone: 503.246.9890
Fax: 503.245.8507
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Tax Map 1 S 1 35DB, Tax Lot 4301
PROPERTY OWNERS: Gary A. & Patricia J. Hellwege
11285 SW 92"d Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
SITE SIZE: Approximately .41 Acres
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5
PROPOSAL: 2 Parcel Partition
92%N.DaKOTA PARTITION APPLJCATION
WEST�a,�No.0733-09 1 J,4tvuARV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant,Mark Seaman, is proposing a partition consisting of 2 single-family residential
lots. The subject property is located at 11285 SW 92"a Avenue. This application addresses the
applicable requirements far approva] of a subdivision in the Tigard Community Development
Code.
The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject site R-4.5 (Low Density
Residential). Proposed lot sizes range between approximately 8,387 square feet and 8,480 square
feet. Each lot will feature one sin�le-family detached unit. All utilities are available to service t1�e
proposed subdivision.
� The proposal includes a 30-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along SW North Dakota
Street and a 27-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along SW 92"d Avenue. Access to
i the site and to each individual ]ot will be by a shared driveway from SW North Dakota Street.
A City of Tigard application form has been prepared and included as part of this approval request
(See Exhibit B —City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application). A complete list of drawings and
exhibits follows the Table of Contents.
92/N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WE51ta�No.0733-09 2 JANUARV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
SUBJEGT SITE AND ABUTTING_PROPERTY INFORMATION
SUBJECT SITE
The subject property contains approximately .4l acres located on the corner of the SW North
Dakota Street and SW 92°d Avenue, in the R-4.5 (Low-Density Residential) zone. Tax records
identify it as tax lot 4300, tax map 1 S 1 35DB, Washington County (See Exhibit C—Tax Map).
The subject property is vacant.
ABUTTING PROPERTIES
The subject site has residential uses in close proximity. The abutting properties to the east,
across SW 92°d Avenue, are comprised of parcels with single-family residences, ranging in size
from 38 to .51 acres. Property to the north and south of the site is comprised of parcels with
single-family residences, ranging in size from .17 to .43 acres. Property to the west of the site is
comprised of parcels with single-family residences, ranging in size from .12 to .14 acres.
SERVICES AND FACILITIES
SANITARY SEWER
City of Tigard provides public sanitary sewer through a gravity system to the north in SW North
Dakota Street; this is the preferred route for making a connection. Sanitary sewer stubs will
extend from the existing line in SW North Dakota Street. Alternatively,public sanitary sewer is
also available to the east of the subject property at the intersection of SW 92°d Avenue and SW
North Dakota Street.
WATER SUPPLY AND FIRE PROTECTION
The site will be served by Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There is an existing public
water line to the north of the subject property in SW North Dakota Street. The proposed water
system improvements will consist of one-inch service lines to each of the proposed lots.The
proposed water system is shown on Sheet P400—Utility & Street Plan/Profile Sheet.
STORM DRAINAGE
Storm water runoff from the development will be limited to runoff from future dwellings, e.g.
roof drains as well as the shared driveway. Stormwater runoff from roof drains will be directed
to a road side ditch along SW North Dakota Street where it will continue west to an existing
system. Due to the nominal impact on the greater system,the applicant proposes a fee-in-lieu of
a stormwater management facility consistent with Clean Water Services guidelines.
92%N.D,4KOrA PARTITION APPLICATION
WESn aKE No.0733-09 3 JANUARY�2,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
OTHER UTILITIES: POWER -TELEPHONE—GAS—CABLE TELEVISION
Portland General Electric and Verizon provide electrical power and telephone services,
respectively. Northwest Natural Gas and Comcast provide natural gas and cable television,
respectively. All of these utilitie�s will be provided to the site and cooi•dinated with the
appropriate utility.
92%N.D,4KOTa PARTITION APPLJCATION
WEST�KE ND.0733-09 4 JANUARY�2,2006
Westlake Consuttants, Inc.
PARTiTiON APPLICATION REQUEST
The following sections of this narrative address the approval criteria that apply to this proposed
partition. Quoted provisions appear in italics, followed by findings of fact and proposed
conclusions of law.
TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 18.370—VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS
SECTION 18.370.020 ADJUSTMENTS
C. Special adjustments.
11. Adjustments for street i�npravement requirements(Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type
II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement
requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application
of the standards will result in an unacceptabl_y adverse impact on existing development,
on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetic�nds, steep slopes or
existing mature trees. In approving an adjustnient to the standards, the Director shall
determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict
applicatiorz of the standards.
Response: The Applicant explored several options for access to the site. The applicant looked at
a design with access from the eastern most lot from SW 92"d Avenue,however, this involved
significant cost to the applicant due to the required vertical profile and the subsequent relocation
of existing utilities and the re-construction of a residential driveway, including the potential
construction of a five to six foot retaining wall for an adjacent property. With respect to the
"rough proportionality" test established by the Dolan case precedent, the impact of the proposed
partition is]imited to the addition of two single-family residences. Due to the "rough
pr-oportionality"of the improvements and the effect on adjacent properties, City Staff agreed that
this was not the appropriate alternative for required improvements, and moreover access. Access
will therefore be provided along SW North Dakota Street by means of a shared driveway.
Access to the subject property will be from SW North Dakota Street. SW North Dakota Street is
identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a Neighborhood Route;
furthermore a neighborhood route with bike lanes (See Exhibit I—City of Tigard Transportation
System Plan—Figure 8-3 Proposed Functional Classification System). As indicated on Sheet
P101 —Existing Conditions of the preliminary plan set, there are several large mature trees along
the north property line. In order to meet the existing grade of SW North Dakota Street to provide
a half street improvement, including increased paved width for both vehicular and bicycle traffic
as well as a sidewalk, the imposition of a half street improvement would require the removal of
ten, or more, mature trees. Preservation of several of the trees along the north property line aids
92%N.D,4KOTa PARTIIIDN APPUCATION
WES��No.0733-09 S JANUARY 1 2,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
in the applicant meeting the mitigation requirements of Section l 8.790.030.B.2.d, "Rete�ition ��f
75% or-greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation." The current
proposal includes 84% retention. The imposition of street improvement requirements would not
only require the removal of mature trees but would also reduce the overall tree retention to below
the 75% threshold requiring that the Applicant provide mitigation through tree plantings or a fee-
in-lieu. The Applicant is therefore, requesting an adjustment from street improvement
requirements including the paved width, bicycle lane, planter strip and sidewalk alony SW North
Dakota Street.
CHAPTER 18.390— DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY
SECTION 18.390.040—TYPE II PROCEDURE
Response:The proposal is for a two parcel pai-tition. Per Table 18.39Q.I, partitions are re��ie��ed as a
Type II action; therefore, Section 18.390.040 applies.
A. Preapplication conference. A preapplication conference is requir�d,for T���e II�ictio��.s.
Preapplication confere�zce requirements and procedures are set fc�rt{7 in section
18.390.080C.
Response: A preapplication conference was held on April 21, �005 ���ith the City of Ti�ard
staff. A copy of the city's notes is attached as Exhibit D. This standard is satisfied.
B. Application requiremenxs.
l. Applieation Forms. Type 11 applieatiofts shall l�e mude o�t forri7.s pr��i�idc�d(��'the Direct��r
as provided by Section 18.390.080 El;
2. Submittal Information. The application shall:
a. Include the information requested on the a1�>>licution,form;
b. Address the relevant criteria in su�cient detail for review and action;
c. Be accompanied by the required fee;
d. Include two sets of pre-stamped and pre-addressed envelopes for all pro��ert�-o�vnc rs
of record as specified in Section 18.390.040C. The records of the Washington Cou�zn�
Department of Assessment and Taxation are the o�cial records for determining
ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate that the rraost current assessment rc�cnrds
have been used to produce the notice list;
e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development
on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the
transportation system, including bikeways, the drai�zage s_ystem, the parks system, thc�
water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For euch
public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements
necessary to meet Ciry standards and to minimize the impact of tlze development on
the public at large,public facilities systems, and affected private properry users. In
situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real
properry interests, the applicant shall either speci�cally concur with the dedication
requirernents, or provide evidence, which supports the conclirsion t11ut tl�e i-�ul
92%N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WEST�.KE No.0733-09 6 JArvunRV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
property dedication requirement is not roug/zly proportional to the projected impacts
of the development.
Response: This application includes the required forms for a Type II application for a two
parcel partition (See Exhibit B —City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application). This application
addresses the applicable requirements for approval of a partition and special adjustment to access
and egress standards, in the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The required fee for
partition review and special adjustment to access and egress standards is submitted with this
application. This narrative and the Impact Study in Exhibit E provide relevant facts addressing
the effect of the development on public facilities and services. Furthermore, the design of the
proposed partition includes all required dedications and meets all public facilities construction
requirements. lfiis standard is satisfied.
CHAPTER 18.420—LAND PARTITIONS
SECTION 1 H.42O.030 APPROVAL PROCESS
A. Decision-making process. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
an application partition, which shall be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as
governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.420.050...
Response: The proposal is for a two-parcel partition. By the provision of this Section, the
appropriate review process is a Type II procedure. This application addresses the relevant
review criteria for a Type II partition application.
SECTION 18.420.040 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REOUIREMENTS
A. General submission requirements. All applications slzall be made on forms provided by
the Director and shall include information required for a Type II application, as
governed by Chapter 18.390.
Response: A City of Tigard application form has been prepared and included as part of this
approval request (See Exhibit B—City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application). A complete list
of drawings and exhibits follows the Table of Contents. This standard is satisfied.
B. Specific submission requirements. All applications shall include the preliminary lot line
map and necessary information rn graphic and/or written form. The Director slzall
provide the applicant with detailed information abou�t these submission requirements.
Response: As discussed above, al] requirements for a Type II application have been submitted
with this application. This standard is satisfied.
SECTION 18.420.050 APPROVAL CRITERIA
A. Approval criteria. A request to partition land shall meet all of the follow•ing criteria:
92%N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICAT�ON
WESnA�No.0733-09 7 JANUARY 1 2,2006
Jestlake Consultants, Inc.
1. The proposed partitron complies �i�ith all statrrtor��ar�d nrdinance requirements
and regulations;
Response: The proposed partition complies with all applicable ordinances within the City of
Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot
standards of the R-4.5 zone. Public services will be provided to each lot. Due to the nominal
impact of the partition, a fee-in-lieu of stormwater quality ��il] be paid in accordance with Clean
Water Services (CWS) standards. 'This standard is satisfied.
2. There are adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal;
Response: Sanitary sewer and water are available in both SW 92"a Avenue and SW North
Dakota Street. Both parcels fi�ont on SW North Dukota Street; therefore, this is the preferred
connection.
3. All proposed irnproven�.ents meet City arid applicable agertcy standards; ar�d
Response: The proposal includes a full compliment of utility extensions. Proposed utility
extensions have been desi�ned to meet both City of Ti�ard and Clean Water Services
requirements.
4. All proposed lots confo�m to the specific requirernents below:
a. The minimum width of tlze building envelope area shall meet the lot
requirement of the applicable zoning district.
Response: The subject property is located in the R-4.5 zone. Minimum lot width for the R-4.5
zone is 50 feet. The proposed lots are at]east 98.52 feet wide. This exceeds the required
minimum; therefore, this provision is satisfied. For a detailed discussion regarding the
dimensional standards of the R-4.5 zone, please refer to Section 18.510 of this narrative.
b. The lot area shall be a,s required by the applica.ble zoning district. In the
case af a flug lut, tlze acces.ctiti�u��rna�•not be r�tcli�ded in t)ze lot crrc a
calculation.
Response: The proposal is for a two parcel partition comprised of traditional rectangular parcels
with frontage along SW North Dakota Street; neither of which is classified as a "flag lot." The
subject property is located in the R-4.5 zone district. The required minimum lot area for the R-
4.5 zone is 7,500 sq. ft. for detached dwellings. The proposed parcels are at least 8,387 sq. ft.
which exceeds the prescribed minimum. For a detailed discussion regarding the dimensional
standards of the R-4.5 zone, please refer to Section 18.510 of this narrative.
c. Each lot created through the partition process shall fr•ont a public riglzt-
of-way by at least I S feet nr ha��e a legall_y reco�-ded minimum 15 foot
wide nccess easen�ent.
92"/N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WEST�aKE No.0733-D9 g �ANUARY �2,2006
Westiake Consultants,Inc.
Response: The proposal is for a two parcel partition comprised of traditional rectangular parcels
with frontage along SW North Dakota Street. Proposed]ots front the public right-of-way by at
least 98.52 feet; therefore this provision is satisfied.
d. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district.
Response: The proposal does not include plans for home construction. Future construction of
single-family dwellings will be required to comply with the provisions of the underlying zone.
This proposal does not include a request for variances or adjustments which would preclude
future compliance with these regulations. To demonstrate feasibility, required building setbacks
can be found on Sheet P200—Preliminary Plat (See Exhibit A—Preliminary Plans, Sheet P200—
Preliminary Plat).
e. When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the
location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet.
Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from
existing structures.
Response: The proposal does not include flag lots; therefore, this provision is not applicable.
f. A screen shall be proi�ided along the property line of a lot of record
where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an
_ abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.745.050. Screening rrcay also
be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable
outdoor recreation areas for proposed development.
Response: Access to the subject property will be by a shared access along the shared property
line between proposed]ots 1 and 2. The proposed accessway is not located within ten feet of an
abutting lot; therefore, per Section 18.745.050 screening is not required.
g. The fire districr may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the
length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect an frre-frghting
capabilities.
Response: The proposal is for a two-parcel partition. Both parcels front SW North Dakota
Street and have direct access to SW North Dakota Street. The nearest fire hydrant is located at
the intersection of SW 94`h Avenue and SW North Dakota Street, approximately 110 feet west of
the subject property. The existing hydrant meets Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue standards for
serving residential dwellings. The proposal does not necessitate an additional hydrant.
h. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a
reciprocal easement wlzich will ensure access and maintenance rights
shall be recorded with the approved partition map.
Response: Access to the subject property will be from SW North Dakota Street. SW North
Dakota Street is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a
92/N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WESna�No.0733-09 9 JANUARY 1 2,2006
,Jestlake Consultants, Inc.
Neibhborhood Route. According to the TSP, "Neighborhood routes are usr.rally long relatn�c to
local streets and provide connectiviry to collectors or arterials...Because tr-a�c�ieeds are
greater tlzan a local street, certain measures should be considered to retain the neiglzborhoorl
character and livability of these routes." The proposa] is for a two parce] partition with no new
streets. In order to mitigate impacts on SW North Dakota Street, the Applicant is proposing a
shared access. A reciprocal easement agreement for the benefit of proposed parcel 1 and 2 ��ill
be executed as a part of the final plat process. This provision can be guaranteed through an
appropriate condition of approval.
5. Any accessway shall comply with the staridards set for-th in Chapter 18.705,
Access, Egress, and Circulation.
Response: The proposa] is for a two-parcel partition. Access to the subject property will be by
SW North Dakota Street. Access to the subject property will be from SW North Dakota Street.
SW North Dakota Street is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) as
a Neighborhood Route. Chapter 18.705 is silent with respect to neighborhood routes.
According to the TSP, "Neighborhood routes are usually long relatrve to local streets and
provide connectiviry to collectors or arterials." With respect to local streets, Chapter 18.705
requires that the minimum spacing of local streets along a]ocal street shall be 125 feet. The
proposal does not include the introduction of a new local street. In terms of minimum access
requirements for residential use, the proposed shared access complies with the requirement of
Table 18.705.1. Pursuant to Section 18.705.03�.0 of the Tigard Development Code, a reciprocal
easement agreement for the benefit of proposed parcel 1 and 2 will be executed as a part of the
fina] plat process. This provision can be guaranteed through an appropriate condition of
approval.
6. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-
hundred-year floadplain, the City shall require consideratian of the dedication of
su�cient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This
area shall incli�de portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway with tlze_floodplarn in accordance wrth the a�lopted
pedestrian/bicycle pathway pluri.
Response: The subject property is not located ��ithin or- adjacent to the one-hund�-ed-}ear
floodplain; therefore, this provision is not applicable.
7. An application for a varianee to the sta�idards prescribecl in t/zis clzapter shall t�e
made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The
applrcations for the partition and variance(s)/adjust���ent(s) will be processed
concurrently.
Response: The proposal includes a request for an adjustment to thc street impro��ement
standards. A detailed discussion can be found in Chapter 18.370 of this document. According to
the provisions of this section these applications will be processed concurrently.
92%N.Dn,KOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESrt1�KE No.0733-09 10 JANUARY�2,2006
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
CHAPTER 18.510—RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION 18.510.020-LIST OF ZONING DISTRICTS
D. R-4.5: Low-Density Residential Distrrct. The R-4.5 zoning district is desi�gned to
accommoclate detached single fam.ily hornes with or without accessory residential units at a
minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single fa�nily uiiits are
perniitted conditionally. So�ne civic and r�nstitutional uses are also permitted conditr�onally.
Response: The subject site for the proposed partition is in the City of Tigard's R-4.5 zoning
district. Each lot is at least 8,387 square feet, with an average lot size of 8,433 square feet. A
detailed discussion regarding the dimensional standards can be found in Section 18.510.050 of
this document. This criterion is therefore satisfied.
SECTION 18.510.030—USES
B. Use table. A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in residefztial zones is
presented in Table 18.510.1.
Response: Single-family residential homes are allowed by this Section of the City of Tigard
Community Development Code. The applicant intends to utilize the partition lots for single-
family detached dwellings as of right; therefore this criterion is met.
SECTION 18.510.040-MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DENSITIES
A. Purpose. Tl�e purpose of this section is to establish minimurn and mc�imum densities in each
residential zoning district. To ensure the qualiry and density of development envisioned, tlie
maximurn density establishes the ceiling for development in each zonirig district based on
minimum. lot size. To ensure that propeYty develops c�t or near the density envisioned for tlie
zone, the minimurr�density for each zoning district has been established at 80°Io of maximurn
densiry.
B. Calculating minimum and maximum densities. The calculation of rniraimum and maximums
densities is governed by the formulas in Chapter 18.715, Density Computations.
C. Adjustments. Applicants may request an adjustnient when, because of the size of the site or
other constraint, it is not possible to acconimodate the proportional minim.t�m density as
r-equired by Section 18.715.020.C and still comply with all of the development standards in
� the underlying zoning di�strict, as contained in Table 18.510.2 below. Such an adjustment
may be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using
approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.2.
Response: The gross area for the proposed development is .41 acres. Based on this area, the
maximum density allowed is 2.4 units, or 2 units, and the minimum is 1.9, or 2 units. The
development proposes 2 lots. (This calculation has been performed in accordance with Section
l 8.715; the detailed calculation is provided in Exhibit F, Parcel Size and Yield Calculations.)
The applicant requests no adjustments for this application and thus this standard is satisfied.
92%N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WEST�.�No.0733-09 11 JANUARY 1 2,2006
JVestlake Cansultants, Inc.
SECTION 18.510.050—DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Compliance reqaiired. All development must comply r��rtla:
1. All of the applicable development standards contai�ied in tlie underlyr�ng zonirzg district,
exc•ept wliere the applrcant lias obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with
Chapters 18.370;
2. All other applicable standards and reqc�irements contained in this title.
B. Development Standards. Development standards in resrde�atial<,onin� dr,stricts are
coiatained in Table 18.510.2.
TABLE 18.510.2
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDEN'TIAL ZONES
STANDARD R-4.5(Single-Family Dwelling Unit)
Minimum Lot Size
-Detached unit 7.500 sq. ft.
Average Lot Width
-Detached unit lots 50 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage -
Minimum Setbacks
-Front yard 20 ft.
- Side facing street on
corner&through lots 15 ft.
- Side yard 5 ft.
-Rear yard 15 ft.
- Side or rear yard abutting more
restrictive zoning district 20 ft.
- Distance between propeRy line
and front of gara��e -
Maximum He�ight 30 1t.
Minimum Landscape Requirement -
Response: Future construction of single-family dwellings will comply with these standards.
The applicant requests no variances or adjustments to these standards. This criterion is met.
SECTION 18.510.060—ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A. Per►nitted uses. Aceessor��structures arc���c rmrttc�d b�� riglit in a11 re.crdc r�tiul�.��t�.s .carhjc c�l tn �
the following:
1. Dimensional requirements:
a. On.sites containing less tha�� 2.5 acres, an uccesso��� sn-uc•r�n-c� i�ia�•nc�t c�.a-r�ecd 5?8
square feet. On sites 2.5 acres or larger, an accessory structin-c mu�� n��t c.���c�c�d
1,000 square feet;
b. An accessory structure may not exceed 15 feet in height;
e. In no case shall the primary structure and accessory structa�i-e(s) e_�cc�c�d tl�e
mcrximum lot coverage allowed in the base zone;
c�. Ar� cr�•eessor��structirre nia�� rlot l�e Incatc>�l�rithin the fi-ont �•ur�l sc thnc�;
92%N.DaKO7a PARTITION APPLJCATION
WESrv�KE No.0733-09 12 JarvuaRV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
e. An accessory structure must maintain a minimum side and rear yard setback of five
feet;
2. Non-dimensional requirements:
a. No accessory structure shall encroach upon or interfere with the use of any adjoining
properry or public right-of-way including but not limited to streets, alleys and public
and private easements;
b. An accessory structure shall cornply with all of the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code. All accessory structures except those less than 120 square feet in size
require a building permit;
c. An accessory structure which is non-canforming is subject to the provisions of
Chapter 18.760, Non-Conforming Situations, wlaen an alternation, expansion or
reconstruction is requested;
d. The erection of television receiving dishes on the roof of a structure is not permitted
in any residential zone.
3. All freestanding and detached towers, antennas, wind-generating devices and 7'V
receiving dishes, except as otherwise regulated by Wireless Communication Facilities
(Chapter 18.798), shall have setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the proposed
structure. Suitable protective anti-climb fencing and a landscaped planting screen, in
accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall be provided and
maintained around these structures afzd accessory attachrrcents.
Response: At the time of construction, any accessory structures will be required to meet the
above requirements. This standard is satisfied.
CHAPTER 18.705 — ACCESS/EGRESS/CIRCULATION
SECTION 18.705.020—APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS
A. W/ien provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development
including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see
Section 18.360.050), and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading
requirements or which changes the access requirements.
B. Change or enlargement of use. Should t/ze owner or occupant of a lot or building change or
enlarge the use to which the lot or building is put, thereby increasing access and egress
requirements, it is unlawful and is a violation of this title to begin or maintain such altered
use until the provisions of this chapter have been met if required or until the appropriate
approval authority has approved the change.
C. When site design review is not required. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site
Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve witlz conditions, or
deny an access plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter in conjunction with
another permit or land use action.
D. Conflict with subdivision requirements. The requirem.ents and standards of this chapter shall
not apply where they conflict with the subdivision rules and standards of this title.
92%N.D,4KO7a PARTIIION APPLICATION
WESn.a�No.0733-09 13 JANUARY 1 2,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
Response: The proposed partition will comply with the rules and standards of this chapter. The
proposed two parcel partition is for construction of new sin�le-family detached homes.
Therefore,the provisions of this chapter apply. y
SECTION 18.705.030—GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions a�2d maintenance of access ar�d
egress stipulated in this title are continuing reqirirements for tlTe use of any structure o�-
parcel of real property in the Cih�.
Response: Access to the site will be from SW North Dakota Street. The proposal includes a 30-
foot (to centerline} right-of-way dedication for SW North Dakota Street and a 27-foot (to
centerline) right-of-way dedication for SW 92°d Avenue. Vo private streets are bein� proposed.
This criterion is met.
B. Access plan requirem�ents. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are
presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and
circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The
Director shall provide the applicant with detailed infvrmation about this submi�ssion
reguirem.ent.
Response: Scaled preliminary development plans are included with this application. Included
are a preliminary plat map of lots, as well as and preliminary design of infrastructure
improvements (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans). This criterion is met.
C. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land�nn�•agree to utili,-,e
jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses,
structures, or parcels of lartd sutisfes t{��e comhirzed requirements as designated in this title,
provided:
Response: Access to the subject property will be from SW North Dakota Street. SW North
Dakota Street is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a
Neighborhood Route. According to the TSP, "Neighborhood routes are usually long relatirc to
local streets and provide connectivity to collectors or arterials...Because traffrc needs are
greater than a local street, certain measures should be considered to retain tlze nerghborhood
character and livability of these routes." A reciprocal easement agreement for the benefit of
proposed parcel 1 and 2 will be executed as a part of the final plat process. This provision can be
guaranteed through an appropriate condition of approval.
D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H
and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the Ciry
for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis.
Response: All vehicular access and egress points will connect directly to the proposed public
streets. The applicant proposes no private streets within the development. This standard is
satisfied.
92�N.�AKOTA PARTfiION APPLICATION
WESiuKE N0.0733-09 14 JANUARY 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N.
Response: Due to access spacing restrictions along SW North Bakota Street, the applicant is
proposing a shared access. The curb cut will meet the standards in Section 18.810.030.N, as
discussed below. This standard is satisfied.
F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following
standa�-ds:
1. Walk-ways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landi�ig
of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all comnzercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the
streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenieiit
connections between buildings in multi-building conimercial, institutional, and iridustrial
complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing
developrrcents and neighboring developments;
2. Within all attached housing (except two family dwellings) and multi family developments,
each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area,
and common open space and recreation facilities;
3. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such
c��ossings shall ve designed and located far pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall
be physically separated from�notor vehicle traffic and parking l�y either a minimum 6-
inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimurn 3 foot horizontal separation, except that
pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are perinitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if
appropriate landscaping, pavement inarkings, o��contrasting pavement materials are
used. Walkways shall be a rninimum of foui-feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs
and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be
in compliance with ADA standards;
4. Required walkways shall be paved with lzard surfaced materials such as concrete,
asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as
needed for safery purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may l�e provided onl_y if
such pc�thways are provided in addition to required pathways.
Response: The proposal is for a two parcel partition. This section does not pertain to single-
family detached dwellings. This provision is therefore not applicable.
G. Inadequate or hazardous access.
I. Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Comnzission for review when, in
the opinion of the Director, tlze access proposed:
a. Would cause or increase existing hazardous tra�c conditions; or
b. Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or
c. Would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a
clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfar-e.
2. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single family dwellings and
duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to collector or arterial streets shall be
considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. If direct access
is permitted by the Ciry, the applicant will be required to rni�tigate for any safery or
neighborhood traffic rnanagement(NTM) impacts deemed applicable by the City
92%N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLJCATION
WES��No.0733-09 15 JArvuaRV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
Engineer. Tlzis mati' inclirde, Inrt �rill nnt be lrr»ited to, the co�lstructioj� of a ��ehicle
turnaround on the site to eliminate the need for a vehicle to back out onto the roadti��av.
3. In no case shall the design of the service drive or dril�es require or facilitate the
backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an
alle_y. Single family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this require�nent.
Response: Access to the subject property will be from SW North Dakota Street. SW North
Dakota Street is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a
Neighborhood Route. According to the TSP, "Neighborhood routes are usually long relati��e ro
local streets and provide connectivity to collectors or arterials...Because traff c needs are
greater than a local street, certain measures should be considered to retain the neighborhood
clzaracter and livability of these routes." The proposal is for a two parcel partition with no new
streets. In order to mitigate impacts on SW North Dakota Street, the Applicant is proposing a
shared access. A reciprocal easement agreement for the benefit of proposed parce] 1 and 2 wi]]
be executed as a part of the final plat process. This provisian can be guaranteed through an
appropriate condition of approval.
The applicant looked at a design with access from the eastern most lot from SW 92"d Avenue,
however, this involved significant cost to the applicant due to the required vertical profile and the
subsequent relocation of existing utilities and the re-construction of a residential driveway,
including the potential construction of a five to six foot retaining wal] for an adjacent property.
With respect to the "rough proportionality" test established by the Dolan case precedent, the
impact of the proposed partition is limited to the addition of two single-family residences. Due
to the"rough proportionality" of the improvements and the effect on adjacent properties, City
Staff agreed that this was not the appropriate alternative for required improvements, and
moreover access.
K Access Managenzent
1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies
design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adeguate stacking needs, sight
distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington Count��, tlie City and
AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility.)
2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or
arterial str-eet intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where quea�es of
tra�c corninonly form on approach to an intersection. The nzinimum driveway setback
from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-
of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed drrveway. The setback
may be greater deperzding upon the influence area, as determined from Ciry Engineer
review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's tra�c engineer. In a case
where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore an}�
option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or
practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible.
3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. Tlie
rninirnum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall I�e 600 feet.
4. The �ninima�m spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet.
92%N.DAKDTA PARTfTION APPLICATIDN
WES�KE No.0733-09 I 6 JANUARY 1 2,20D6
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
Response: Access to the subject property will be from SW North Dakota Street. SW North
Dakota Street is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plans (TSP) as a
Neighborhood Route. According to the TSP, "Neiglaborizood routes are usually long relative
to local streets and provide connectivity to collectors or arterials...Because tra�c rieeds are
greater tlian a local street, certain fneasures should be considered to retain the fieighborhood
character and livabiliry of these routes." The proposal is for a two parcel partition with no new
streets. In order to mitigate impacts on SW North Dakota Street, the Applicant is proposing a
shared access. This provision is therefore satisfied.
L Minimum access requirements for residential use.
1. Vehicular access ar2d egress for single family, duplex or attached single family dwelling
units on individual lots and multi family residential uses shall not be less tlzan as
provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table I8.705.2;
Response: Pursuant to Table l 8.705.1 (below), one to two single-family detached dwellings are
required to have one driveway with 15 feet of access and a 10-foot paved width (minimum). The
proposal includes a 26-foot wide share access with a 16-foot paved width. This requirement is
met.
2. Vehicular access to multi fa�nily structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the
ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ranip, or elevator
leading to the dwelling units;
Response: The proposal is for a two parcel partition intended for single-family detached
dwellings; therefore this provision does not apply.
3. Private ��esidential access drives shnll be provided and mai.ntained i� accordance witli
the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code;
4. Access drives in excess of I50 feet i�i length shall be provided with approved provisions
for tlie turning around of fire apparatu,s by one of the followi�g:
a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius r�easured fron2 ceriter point
to outside edge of 35 feet;
1�. A I�aminerhead-configarred,paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead lzaving a
mini»ium depth of 40 feet and a minim.um width of 20 feet;.
c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%.
5. Vehicle turnouts, (prol�iding a�ninimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of
at least 30 feet), rnay be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing
motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on
driveways in excess of 200 feet in length;
6. Where perniitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector
streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from zhe str-eet having to
wait for traffic exiting the site.
Response: The proposal is for a two parcel partition. Access will be provided by a shared
driveway with direct access to SW North Dakota Street, which is identified in the TSP as a
neighborhood route. The proposed access does not exceed 150 feet in length therefore a
92%N.DaKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTi.a�No.0733-09 17 JaNUARV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
turnaround is not required. SW North Dakota is not a collector, however, according to the TSP,
"Neighborhood routes are usually long relative to local streets and prol�ide connectivity to
collectors or arterials...Because tra�c needs are greater than a local street, certain measa�res
should be considered to retain the neighborhood character and livability of these routes." In
order to mitigate impacts on SW North Dakota Street, the Applicant is proposing a shared
access. The mouth of the proposed access is approximately 65 feet wide to avoid traffic turnin�
from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. This provision is therefore satisfied.
T.�BLE 18.?05.1
�"EHICiZ.�R�CCE5S EGRESS REQL-IRE�IEtiTS:
RESIDE�TL�I.L'SE(6 OR FE���R L';�TI'S)
\uunLer DSti�elliug ifiuimnin;�uinber of �Iiui�ntun access�'�idt� lliuimE�tn Pati eineut
� , ;,
5_� � �ty- ?il'
CHAPTER 18.715 — DENSITY COMPUTATIONS
SECTION 1 H.715.020—DENSITY CALCULATION
A. Definition of net development area. Net develupme�at area, in ucres, shall be deternzincd by
subtracting the following land area(s)from the gross acres, x�luch is all of tlie land included
in the legal description of the property to be del�eloped:
I. All sensitive land areas:
a. Land within the 100-year floodplarii;
b. Land or slnpes exceedi��g 25�Ic;
c. Drainage wa�ys; a��d
d. Wetlands.
2. All land dedi�cated to the ptablic for��cark purposes;
3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When acn�al i�r formatian is �lot ai�ailable, tJ2e
following formulas may be used:
a. Srngle family development: allocate 20%of gross acreage;
b. Multi-family development: allocate I S%of gross acreage.
4. All land proposed for private streets; and
5. A lot of at least the siZe required h�• t1�e a��pliruble l�ase�o��i��g district, if�in existin,�
dwelling is to remain on the sirc�.
Response: Pursuant to the above standards, subtractions from the subject property's gross
area consist of:
■ Public right-of-way dedications of approximately 985 square feet for SW
North Dakota Street and 185 square feet for SW 92"d Avenue for total ri�ht-
of-way dedication of approximately 1,170 square feet.
With these adjustments, the net development area is approximately 16,554 square feet, or .39
acres (See Exhihit F—Pai�cel Size aild �'ield Calculations).
92%N.DnKOT,4 PARTITION APPLICATION
WES�aKE No.0733-09 18 JarvuaRV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
B. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum nunzber of
residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the
minimum nunzber of square feet required for each lot in the applical�le zoning district.
Response: The net area of 16,854 square feet (calculated above) divided by the 7,500 square
foot minimum lot size equals a maximum density of 2.2, or 2 units. The proposal for 2 lots
equals the maximum allowed number and is in compliance with the density standard.
C. Calculating minimurn number of residential units. As required by Section 18.SI0.040, the
minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multipl}>ing the
maximum number of units determined in Subsection B above by 80% (0.8).
Response: The maximum density of 2.4 units multiplied by 80°Io equals 1.8 units, or 2 units
(minimum). The proposal is for 21ots; this number meets the minimum allowed and is in
compliance with the density standard.
SECTION 15.715.030—RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSFER
A. Rules gove��ning residential densiry transfer. The units per acre calculated by subtracting
land areas listed in Section 18.715.020 A. 1 a - c from the gross acres may be transferred to
the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations:
I. The nurnber of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which
would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these
regulations; and
2. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of
units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation.
B. Additional rules governing residential densit�� transfer. Units per acre calculated by
subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.030 A. 1 d.from the gross acres rnay be
transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40
subject to the following limitations:
1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which
would have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations;
2. The total number of units per site does not exceed the mcrcimum number of units per
grass acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation.
C. Underlying development standards. All densiry transfer development proposals shall comply
with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed
under the provisions of Chapter 18.440, Planned Development.
Response: The applicant proposes no density transfer for this development. These standards are
not applicable.
92%N.DAKOra PAR1lTION APPLICAIION
WESN��No.0733-09 19 JANUnFtv 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
CHAPTER 18.725 — ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
�ECTION 18.725.OZO—GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations
adopted in this chapter, each use, activiry or operation within the City of Tigard slzall conrply
x�ith the applicnble stute and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of
matter into the atmasphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by tlie
State Environmental Qualit�� Commission pertaining to non-point source pollution control
and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules shall by this reference be made a part of
this chapter.
B. Evidence of compliance. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director may require
submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with state,federal and local
environmental regulations and receipt of necessary permits; tlzese include Air Contaminant
Discharge Permits (ACDP)or Indirect Source Construction Permrts (ISCP).
C. Cofitinuing obligation. Compliance with state,federal and local �m°ironn�ental regulatio�zs is
tlre continuin�� oblrgution of tl�e�r��pern� owner a��d oper-utor.
Response: The proposed parti�ion will meet the applicab3e state and federal environmental
regulations at the time of construction. Compliance will be assured through the review/approval
process for site construction plans and building permits for each lot. All property owners will be
obligated to continue compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations. This
standard is satisfied.
SECTION 18.7Z5.O3O—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through
7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall appl��.
Response: The proposed partition will meet the applicable standards in Sections 7.40.130
through 7.40.210 at the time of construction. This standard is satisfied.
B. Visible emissions. Within the co►nmercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zonin,�
drstrict, there shall be no use, operatron or activity which results in a stack or other point-
source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or tlze emission of pure
uncombined water(steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visrble emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070)
apply.
Response: The subject site is zoned R-4.5; therefore, this standard is not applicable.
C. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway velzicles, trains and aircraft i.c
permitted in any given zoning district, wl�rcli is discernible without instruments at the
propef-t�� line of the use cor�ce�-ned.
�12"/N.DAKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESna�No.0733-09 20 JANUARY 1 2,2D06
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
Response: 1fie proposed partition will meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses
are proposed on-site that would cause vibration. This standard is satisfied.
D. Odors. The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily
detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited.
DEQ rules for odors(340-028-090)apply.
Response: No uses are proposed on-site that would emit odors. The construction of this
proposed partition will also meet this standard. This standard is satisfied.
E. Glare and heat. No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodliglzts ar from high
temperature processes such as cambustion or welding, which is vzsible at the lot line shall be
permitted, and;
1. There shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at
the lot line of the source; and
2. These regulatr'ons shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction
equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this
title.
Response: The proposed partition will meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses
are proposed on-site that would cause glare and heat issues. This standard is satisfied.
F. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be
maintained in a manner, which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents
or create a health hazard.
Response: The proposed partition will meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses
are proposed on-site that would attract insects or rodents, or create a health hazard. This
standard is satisfied.
CHAPTER 18.745— LANDSCAPING & SCREENING STANDARDS
SECTION 18.745.020—APPLICABILITY
A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to a.11 developmeiat including tlze
construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures where the landscaping is
nonconforrning (Section 18.760.040.C), and to a change of use which results in the need for
increased on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access
requirements.
B. When site development review does not apply. Where the provisions of Claapter 18.360, Site
Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter by means of a Type I procedure,
as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the applicable standards in this chapter.
C. Site plan requi�rem�ents. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the
applicant with detailed information al�out this subrrcissron requirement.
92%N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICAIION
WESna�No.0733-09 21 JatvuaRV 12,2006
_Jestlake Consultants, Inc.
Response: The proposal is for a two parcel partition intended for new residential construction,
specifically detached single-family dwellings. Per Section 18.360A20.A, single family detached
dwellings are not subject to Site Development Review. Individua] lots will be]andscaped by the
future builder/owner of each parcel. Taken together, the Existing Conditions (see Exhibit A -
Preliminary Plans, Sheet P101) and the Tree Table (see Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet
P300)specify which of the existing trees wil] be retained or removed. Additionally, the Tree
Inventory &Protection Plan identifies existing trees to be retained and the]ocations and species
of trees to be planted. These submitted plans demonstrate that compliance with this requirement
can be assured through a condition of appro��al.
SECTION 15.74$.040—STREET TREES
A. Protectron of existing vegetation. All development projects fi-onting a� a publre street, prrvate
street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approi�ed after the adoption nf rl2is
title shall be required to plar�t.ctrc�e� trees i» accorda�ice x�ith the startdards irt S�ction
18.745.040.C.
B. Street tree planting list. Certnr�l trees cnn sevei-el�� dufnage irtilities, streets and sidc��i•ulks or
can cause personal injury. A��pro��ul nf un��p/mitir���� list s/zall be subject to rc��ie�ti� bv the
Director.
C. Size and spacing of street tree.s.
1. Landscaping in the front and exterror side ��ards shcill ii�clude tr-ees i�•ith a minim�nr�
caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified if� the reguiremc��ts sratc�d in
Section 18J45.040.C.2 below;
2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of rree shall be us follotit�s:
a. Small or narrow-stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branchiiig
at maturrty shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart;
b. Mediuni-sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at
maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart;
c. Large trees over 40 feet tall and more thafz 35 feet wide branching at maturity sf�aU
be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart;
d. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.H, trees slzall
not be planted closer than 20 feet from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet
from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk),fire hydrants or
utility poles to marntain visual clearance;
e. No new utiliry pole location shall be established eloser than_fire fc�c�t ro uri�� c�.ri.��ti�1g
street tree;
f. Tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities (e.g., tit�ut��r u�id gcr.s �netc�r.$) i�l
the tree well;
g. On-premises utilities (e.g., water and gas meters)shall not be installed within
existing tree well areas;
h. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards;
i. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to exisring sn-ect rr-e cs
except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer thun 10
feet;
j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a
_rype which, at full maturiry, will not interfere with the lines;
k. Trees shall not be planted witlzin two feet frorn the face of the curb; and
92%N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATIDN
WESTLAKE NO.0733-09 22 JArvuaRV 1 2,2006
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
l. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or
walkway:
(1) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent
hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand,paver blocks and cobblestones; and
(2) Sidewalk cuts in cancrete for tree planting shall be at least four by four feet to
allow for air and water into the root area.
D. Pruning requirements. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of
clearance above sidewalks and 13 feet above local street, IS feet above collector street, and
18 feet above arterial street roadway surfaces.
E. Cut and f ll around existing trees. Existing trees may be used as street trees if no cutting or
f lling takes place within the drip-line of the tree unless an adjustment is approved by the
Director by means of a Type 1 procedure, as gol�erned by Section 18.390.030, using approval
criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.a.
F. Replacement of street trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects or other
construction shall be replaced by the developer with those types of trees approved by the
Director. The replacement trees shall be of a size and species similar to the trees that are
being removed unless lesser sized alternatives are approved by the Director.
G. Granting of adjustments.Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granted by the
Director by means of a Type 1 procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval
criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.b.
H. Location of trees near signalized intersections. The Director may allow trees closer to
specified intersections which are signalized,provided the provisions of Chapter 18.795,
Visual Clearance, are sati�sfied.
Response: Access to the subject property is by SW North Dakota Street. SW North Dakota
Street is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan as a neighborhood route
with bicycle lanes. The proposal includes plans for right-of-way dedication of 30 feet to
centerline. This meets city standards for a neighborhood route. The applicant is, however,
requesting an adjustment to the street improvement requirements based on the preservation of
existing mature trees. Given the location of retained trees,typical street tree locations are
included to demonstrate feasibility of planting (See Exhibit A—Preliminary Plans, Sheet P300—
Tree Preservation & Street Tree Plan). Final construction documents will include a street tree
plan. The plan, which must be coordinated with the placement of driveways, utilities and signing,
will specify the species and locations of trees to be planted. This standard is therefore satisfied.
SECTION 18.745.050—BUFFERING AND SCREENING
A. General provisions.
1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and pratection an-d
reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of i�isual or noise pollution at a development
srte, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing
the safety of pedestrians and vehicles;
2. Buffering a►zd screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of
a different type i.n accordance with the matrices in this cl�capter(Tables 18.745.1 and
18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation
and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be
92%N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WESn�4KE No.0733-09 23 JANUARY 12,2006
Jestlake Consultants, Inc.
abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not
screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix;
3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening pla�� �na��be
sc�bmitted for the Director's approval as an alternatrve to the buffer area landscaping
and screening standards, >>ro��ided it affords tlie san�e degrc�e af bi�ffe�-ing arld screerzi�ig
as required by this code.
B. Buffering and screening reqiriren�enrs.
1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and
having a depth eqz�al to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix a��d
containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses;
2. A buffer area ma��only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, a�id
landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area
except where an accessway has been approved by the City;
3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in anv
yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.OSO.B.8 and
18.745.050.D;
4. The minimum i�nprovements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations fo�°
landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18J45J. bi addition, improvenients
shall meet the following specifications:
a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall have a minimum caliper of two
inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of
frve feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as
follows:
(1) Small or narrow-stature trees, u�nder 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at
maturiry shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart;
(2) Medium-sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide
branching at maturiry shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart;
(3) I.�rge trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at
maturity, shall be spaced no greater tlzan 30 feet apart.
b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted
for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area;
c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover.
5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to tliose
required for buffering:
a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will forfn a
four foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 withrn two years
of planting; or
b. An earthen 6erm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will
form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within t►vo years.
The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living grou��d
cover; or
c. A fence or wall of the/ieight specified in Table ]8.745.2 shall be constructed to
provide a continuous sight obscuring screen.
6. Buffering and screening prol�isions shall be superseded b�� the l�isior� clearcmce
recjuir-c�rnents us set fo�-th in Cha��tc�r 1c�.795; -
92"/N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESnAKE No.0733-09 2� JANUARY �2,20�6
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed
heights of required fences, walls, or landscape scree�aing shall be measured from the
actual grade of the adjoining properry. In this case,fences and walls may exceed the
permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval.
When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation af walls,fences or
landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall
be submitted for approval;
8. Fences and walls
a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the
construction of fences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise
acceptable by the Director;
b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other Ciry regulations;
c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and
d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening. However, chain link fences
without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be
considered screening.
9. Hedges
a. An evergreen hedge or ot{ier dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement
for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the heiglzt requirement in
Sections 18.745.OSO.C.2.a and 18.745.OSO.C.2.b;
b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping slzall be properly maintained and shall be
replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it
ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and
c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by
these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter
18.795.
C. Setbacks for fences or walls.
1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in Section
18.745.OSO.C.2 except when the approval authoritv, as a condition of approval, ullows
that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to
mitigate against potential adverse effects;
2. Fences or walls:
a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or
eight feet in all otlzer locations and, in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance
area requirements in Chapter 18J95;
b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated
arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required
front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of
the fence or wall.
3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795;
4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to buidding permit
approval.
D. Herght restrictions.
1. The prescribed herghrs of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from
the actual adjoining level of f located above finished grade, the height of fences, walls or
92%N.DaKOTA PARTITION APPLJCATION
WES�tcE No.0733-09 25 JANUARY 12,2D06
dVestlake Consultants,Inc.
la�id.scuping rc�qurred to screen such areas or,space shall be �neasured fi-om the level of
such improvements;
2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six foot height
li�nitation for screening.
F. Buffer Matrix.
1. The Buffer Matrr�ces contained in Tables 18.745J ar��d ]8.745.2 shall be used in
calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed
between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts;
2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2,
shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040, using
approval criteria in Section ]8.370.010. (Ord. 02-33)
Response: The applicant proposes a two parcel partition intended for construction of new
single-family detached homes. All uses on adjoining parcels are similar to the proposed
development. Residential zoning surrounds the parcel on all sides and thus there is no conflict
with adjoining uses. The subject site has residential uses in close proximity. The abutting
properties to the east, across SW 92"d Avenue, are comprised of parcels with single-family
residences, ranging in size from .38 to .51 acres. Property to the north and south of the site is
comprised of parcels with single-family residences, ranging in size from .17 to .43 acres.
Property to the west of the site is comprised of parcels with single-family residences,ranging in
size from .12 to .14 acres. According to Table 18.745.1, Buffer Matrix, specific
buffering/screening standards are not applicable to residential areas. Residential lots require a
rear yard setback that will provide spacing between homes and a buffer between structures.
Future homes on the proposed lots will be reyuired to comply with City standards, includin�
heiRht and huildin� sethack requirements.
'i�LT_13'J`I
BL'FTEk\UIFLC
- SE
�+:.1:•.::::. r.a_hseSUga .'vxFrC }iti:U ' - `�ap;.�a+�ow{ .'.L�.e�i Lf�� ueLo��:
De:a:6zd �i+s sal ;:�cF1et_'na E{ea� isr.c fC:, :oa.x+cial S;u latinttul :un:�•rrl '.' -
�;<s:�r�:� �l:itlfxnnie�. PsYs CO CT. :.�f i�-v^, En,p;m.-- s7.=.: , n
�:u[c ,. ::131111L�'S. t'9Dl � ',�G.b,� {77:�
�sn�-c..3arrrc�ctsa ��..: —_�
r.n<�:s�i+LSCC.nra-�wwr�:, a c c � t c _ . c c
w,vcS�dc•�•�+Ltmmdh5�7of�F.�. . - B C D C C E F C D
7-i L:r.ks.D�isvt
elme3tl.S:nFkim!sardh6�lefmi�� .4 A - C D C C . F C D
5-:Di>
\�mb0e F�x.�cYa i A B - D [ C E F C D
Ccvmer.ul:awc iCC.CG.CP,CB� C C C � - A A D D - -
�;d�n�,xa-:r�.zca:zm.�,� c c c . a - a n n - -
S�'_'w F�,-alaac�Zao��ttE.?1 C C C C A A - D 6 - ..
L�ie�:�sa:?mes;v�II.'� � D � D A A A - D - -
Hm•=;si:,.^vl�.su rIH) D D D D D C D D -- - -�
➢ads�:.aa G C. C c _. " _ ' ' _ ..
.U-�r.ia:Sa�en t A .a L
..CN ,ee I�;..1 e'�!=fc[s:twna:.^.4 i:�tnaa:xt 3i�nae�:'l'�c�xiee::nE�sc-rn::c:',
SECTION 18.745.060—RE-VEGETATION
A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetatiaz has been remoi�ed through gradi��,�
in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by
92�N.DAKOTA PARTIl10N APPIJCATION
WESnaKE No.0733-09 ZE) JANUARY�2,2006
Westlake Cansultants, Inc.
structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after
construction activities are completed.
B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading
and construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from erosion while
grading operations are underway; and
l. Such storage may nat be located where it would cause suffocation of root systems of trees
intended to be preserved; and
2. After completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill
embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting.
C. Methods of re-vegetation.
1. Acceptable methods of re-vegetation incla�de hydro-rnulching or the planting of rye grass,
barley, or other seed with equivalent germination rates, and:
a. Where lawn or turf grass is to be established, lawn grass seed or other appropriate
landscape cover is to be sown at not less than four pounds to each 1,000 square feet
of land area;
b. Other re-vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be approved b>> tJ�e
approval authoriry;
c. Plant materials are to be watered at intervals suffrcient to ensure survival and
growth; and
d. The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance
demands.
Response: The applicant will re-plant or cover areas disturbed during construction per
standards as established by Clean Water Services (CWS). Appropriate control measures will
reduce erosion of surface materials until homes and fina] landscaping are in place. This
standard can be satisfied through compliance with appropriate condition(s) of approval.
CHAPTER 18.755— MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE
SECTION 18.755.01 O—PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that certain new construction incorporates
functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid
waste and source-separated recyclable materials prior to pick-up and rernoi�al by haulers.
B. Applicabiliry. The mixed solid waste and soa�rce separated recyclable storage standards shall
apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non-
residential construction that are subject to fu�ll site plan or design review; and are located
within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition,for such uses.
Response: The proposed partition is for single-family detached units, not for multi-family units
or non-residential construction. Therefore this Chapter is not applicable.
92%N.DaKOra PARTITION APPLICATION
WES7t1�icE No.0733-09 27 JANUARY 12,2006
JVestlake Consultants, Inc.
CHAPTER 18.765 — OFF-STREET PARKING/LOADING REC�UIREMEO�TS
SECTION 18.765.020—APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS
A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any�oning �listrict,
off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070.
Response: A detailed discussion and findings are located under the Section l 8.765.070 heading
below.
E. Building permit conditiarzs. The provision and maintenance of off-street vehicle parkii�g ur�d
loading spaces are the continuing obligation of the property owner:
1. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans are presented to the Di�-ector to
show that property is and will remain available for exclusive use as off=.srreet vc lzic�lc�
parking and loading space; and
2. The subsequent use of property for which the building permit is issued shull be
conditional upon the unqualifed continuance aiid avcrilnbilin�of thP an�oi���t nf vehrcle
parking and loading space required by this title;
3. Required vehicle parking shall:
a. Be available for the parking of operable passenger ��el�icles of residents, patron nnd
employees only;
b. Not be used for storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of truc�ks used rr�
conduct of the business or use; and
c. Not be rented, leased or assigned to any other person or organization.
Response: The road and]ot plan has been designed to accommodate the driveway width and off-
street parking standards. Compliance with residential driveway width and length standards will
be confirmed for each parcel at the time each ]ot applies for building permit. This standard is
satisfied.
SECTION 18.765.030—GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Vehicle parking plan requirerrients. No building or otlier permit shall be issued until scaled
plans are presented and approved as provided by thrs chapter that show how access, egress
and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The
Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this .ci�bmis.rron
requirement.
B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be us f��llcn��.s:
1. Off-street parking spaces for single family and duplex dwellings and single fcrr��rly�
attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s);
Response: The lot]ayout has been designed to accommodate the driveway width and off-street
parking standards. Compliance with residential driveway width and length standards will be
confirmed for each parcel at the time each lot applies for huilding permit. This standard is
satisfied.
92%N.DnKOT,4 PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTta�No.0733-09 28 JAnuARV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
SECTION 18.765.070—MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REGIUIREMENTS
Table 18.765.2 Mininu�m and Marimurn Required Off-street Vehicle and Brcycle Parking
Requirements
Single family detatched I.0/D.U.
Response: Each residence will include at least a single-car garage as well as a residential
driveway. According to Table 18.765.2 (see below), the minimum off-street parkinb standard
for single-family detached dwellings is one off-street parking space per dwelling unit. At least
two off-street parking spaces will be provided on each of the proposed lots as well as designated
on-street parking. This standard is satisfied.
YsDlt 18.'6E.'_l:iaimam ud]lax�mam Rtqured Off-acrtet�'�kide and$icrtk Pulvt Reqavemtats
ASAC
3lL�T3lL3i ZO�"E A IA�E B BICl'CLE��
s2-'_SID:�T_�L
:r
"�"c"1:.::.•.z ;:_2:: :�.:',tiL:.`._^::':.. J.E �i�'� �t4E'� R.�L2
LJ:P �I�: �CTF'.!�': II.�C°
.�::Pi:O.'`_�Gti '.�i C.�'s �CIl2 tWG2
�'d7�. .B Il17CF
'.:cl.1�.::r_:�:, L: � .";V; raiar t'�fj �sxe;'.�t; 1 _�ti s rsc!,�c r.ftrir.
:'�i�c<o�::-`D. ,?S, a:i;h u I.�'��`s
beimax:l��C:V.}
�b�ira�x::-:v��'4f�
^._encf�.:-�xil'_a�s G��:?�:: to�e'FI: �one:ti: na;_e
:c` =axe"zrks �LL"�'; ce�e��5��: �cc ;Vt no�r
�rovF L:;iy� � C rwm r_aur :c�ne I<�.=he1°
s cfis -.�_,,�> >��t
'Irxn:itienat 3cu.�o• 5 t•.i> La• �cce 1 t°te:s
kaa�O:ro �csoa �ona nT't �g�! �r
E i57 C
9astc�ti�;ies :ru^P r.rr �er�:t xac+
C aliret; -;�vi=1±s ef�ff;'.�_', >r.u:_cn;c�'lfi .i�>>:-cie-t..�s�'.v7 1:_ '�i?z s sr..if
CammoaitrRrtrtaisoa :I.:.,r� 'i��.`; :.r�l.:- ' :'�U
C¢ltnzal:nstrtanon. - I v)C+ 1:_ 1:_ ;+.�
D�cCare �ove ene r e � r a � ��-.� ��_
:a�.n;erc•ai '3:Izssrom� .1. ct.ue-_:a� ] .s:ocn:
fmrrseacs Sr.nirri :�1:9�i `1.;'•'; .`���
�SedtnlCeaters I i°�,; ��i
2:A ::a!�,•.d,�r;�r3 '' 7u br ir:r�a�:br tise�i;c of:�_ard bas�d�m�irva��.�ttn.
DU Dwrt3liat�`ac r3j gequir�,i��etile�rk:ag;a1 bt tr,wrtc per�=maiva beioa aac�t m mo cs:e.na:l iyeze:e.an•tt�ac t�ro:Fs�a iara+,:aeoi
(bl,t Ye*.m Ra�si:es�t �'�F,titst ro:.nCQ sc�.ft of 9oar a�aa��a,s vt�fsa:st cc::d.
�'t ESoe=�at incinde aFtpatirn:c;mx�a nedutJ oHicr,:see 6ix,^_cal�ensl CfSti�e>.
CHAPTER 18.780 — SIGNS
SECTION 18.780.020—PERMITS RE�UIRED
A. Compliance with regulations. No sign or sign structure shall hereafter be erected, re-
erected, constructed, structurally altered or relocated within the City limits except as
provided by this ti.tle, and a permit for the same sign or sign structure has l�een issued by the
Di recta r.
92%N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESr�a�No.0733-09 29 JANUARY�2,2006
dVestlake Consultants, Inc.
B. Separate pe�-mits for each sig�z. A separate permit shall be required for each sign or srgns
for each business entiry and a separate permit shall be required for each group of signs ori a
single supporting structure.
C. Compliance with UBC. Separate structural permits under the Uniform Building Code shall
also apply.
D. Electrical permit required. An electrical permit shall be obtained for all illuminated sr,�ns,
from the enforcing agency subject to the provisions of the State Electrical Code.
E. Retroactive sign permits. The Director may require application for sign permits for crll
signage at a given address if no existing permits previously had been approved or
documented.
Response: The applicant proposes no project signs are proposed as a part of this partition
application. Any signs needed for the development wil] meet the standards of this Chapter at the
time of construction. This standard is satisfied.
CHAPTER 18.790 — TREE REMOVAL
SECTION 1 H.790.030—TREE PLAN RE�UIREMENT
A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared
by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcc Is
for which a development application for a subdivision,partition, site develnpment rei�ic�i+�,
planned development or conditional u�se is filed. Protection is�referred nl�c�r rc�ir7n��crl
wherever possible.
B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following:
I. Identification of the location, size and species of all existi��,�� rrec s inclucling trc�c�s
designated as significant by the city;
2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches
in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in
accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required b�� orlic�r
development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots:
a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requi��es
mitigation program in accordance with Section 18J90.060D of no net loss nf U-c�c�.s;
b. Retention of frorn 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper reyarires �hc�t
two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section
18.790.060D;
c. Retention of from 50°Io to 75% of existing trees over 12 rnches in caliper requrrc�s thut
SO percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Sec�inn
]8.790.060D;
d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 i�zches in culipc�r requirc�s nn
initigation.
3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed;
4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used b�� tlie crppliccr�zt
to protect trees during and after construction.
C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a
development application listed above will be inventnried a.c pcn-t ��f tlle tree pinri c�bol�e u��d
will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D.
92%N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESriAKE Na.0733-09 3� �ANUARY 1 2,2��6
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
Response: All trees over 6" in diameter within the project limits were located. A survey of the
]ocation, identification, and conservation potential of each tree is noted on Sheet P300 of the
preliminary development plans. Specifically with respect to Sheet P300:
■ Trees marked with a bold"X" have clearly been identified for remova] because their
conservation is inconsistent with the installation of needed streets, utilities, and
associated grading work.
■ Trees not marked with a bold"X"have some potential to be conserved in the
development process, but their viability cannot be determined until actual field
construction occurs.
■ Because of the uncertainties inherent in the construction process, the Applicant does not
represent that any particular tree will be saved in the course of development.
Although the Applicant has attempted to identify trees that may potentially be saved in the
development and construction process, the fact is that final determinations with respect to each
tree must be made in the field on the basis of an arborist's observations as construction proceeds.
This is the case because accepted "best management practices," such as erecting fencing around
the dripline of a tree prior to construction, are guidelines that cannot in fact guarantee the ]ong-
term survivability of a particular tree. As consulting arborist Steve Goetz observes in his letter
of October 12, 2005 (See Exhibit G):
"The City may require mitigation for trees removed that are larger than 12" in diameter.
There are 13 non-hazard trees that are larger than 12" on the partition property that total
244 diameter inches. My preliminary review indicates that 2 of these trees are within or
very near to areas to be excavated and it appears that they will have to be removed. The 2
trees to be removed include 20& 27 and represent 46 diameter inches or 15% of the total
(retaining 84.6%). As mentioned earlier, there is some flexibility in siting the buildings
that may allow preservation of another ]0 non-hazard trees. A determination as to the
actual trees to be removed will have to wait until improvements are staked and
excavation is underway."
Therefore, the proposed tree plan for this development is as follows:
1. Mitigation pursuant to Section 18.790.030.B.2 for the removal of up to 100 percent of the
trees on the subject property. The basis (i.e., 100%) for calculating mitigation consists of
13 trees larger than 12" in diameter and subject to mitigation,with combined diameter
inches of 244.
2. All of the mitigation is expected to be in the form of payment of a fee in lieu of tree
conservation.
3. No tree within the subject property is specifically identi�ed for conservation.
4. No specific area within the subject property is specifically identified for mitigation
replanting.
92�N.�AKOTA PARTI110N APPLICATION
WEST�,�No.0733-09 31 JANUARY 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
This approach is in compliance with the tree miti�ation requirements of Section 18.790. More
particularly, the mitigation requirement in Subsection 18.790.030.B.2.a provides for"Retention
of less than 25°Io of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires mitigation program in
accordance with Section 19.790.060D of no net loss of trees."
Without guaranteeing the conservation of any particular tree, however, the Applicant may
attempt to conserve certain specimens within the subject property, consistent with the following
preliminary analysis findings:
■ There are 33 trees on-site (2 off site) that are 6" in diameter or larger. Of these, it may be
possible to preserve 23, 13 of which are 12" in diameter or larger and represent 200
diameter inches.
• There are 13 trees that are 12" in diameter or larger. Of these trees, it may be possible to
save eleven specimens, representing 198 diameter inches and 85% retention. The
remaining 2 trees wil] be removed in the construction of the shared access and home
construction. These trees will be removed prior to general construction; they represent 46
diameter inches and 1 S�Io, for which the City will require no mitigation based on 85%
retention.
These findings indicate that the proposed development will be required to comply with the
mitigation provisions of Subsection 18.790.030.B.2.a. This requirement can be met through
planting of replacement trees within the subject property or at a remote location, or by payment
of a fee in lieu of planting, pursuant to Subsection 18.790.060.D. However, there is some chance
that the Applicant will be able to achieve tree conservation sufficient to qualify the development
for mitigation pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 18.790.030.B.2.d. Note that, because the
progressive structure of the mitigation requirements creates a strong incentive to achieve tree
conservation, the Applicant has a substantial motivation to conserve 25°Io or more of the trees
12" and larger. The Applicant therefore proposes to submit a final report of tree conservation at
the end of the construction process, which will be used as the basis for determining the
appropriate mitigation, including payments of a fee in lieu of replanting. Using this approach,
the design of tree conservation measures for use in the field can be undertaken as part of the
construction document preparation process.
These findings demonstrate that the Applicant will be able to comply with the requirements of
Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, pursuant to a condition of approval. Specific determination of
the applicable mitigation requirements should be performed at the time of construction, when a
factual determination of trees actually retained or removed can be made. Mitigation combining
some tree replacement with payment of a fee in lieu of planting can be determined by staff with
specific reference to the clear and objective standards in Section 18.790.030.B.2 at that time.
SECTION 18.790.050—PERMIT APPLICABILITY
A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of arty
tree, which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18J75. Tlie
permit far removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I proceclicre, as governed by
Section 18.390.030, usir�g t{1e following appi-ovc�l criteria:
92�N.DAKOTA PARTI110N APPLICATION
WEST�.4KE No.0733-D9 32 JANUARY 1 2,2006
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
1. Rernoval of the tree must not have a rneasurable negative impact on erosiori, soil
stability,flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan
which precludes:
a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in
volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface
water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action
of erosion;
b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden
flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the
flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter S of
the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and
Erosion Control rules.
2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the
stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75°Io canopy cover or no
less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%.
Response: None of the proposed tree removal falls within a wetland/sensitive land area. This
standard is not applicable..
CHAPTER 18.795 — VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS
SECTION 1 H.795.020—APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS
A. When provisions apply. The provisioris of this chapter shall apply to all development
including the construction of new stru�ctures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a
change of use which increases the on-site parkir2g or loading requirements or which changes
the access requirements.
B. When site development review is not required. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.330, Site
Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter through a Type 1 procedLCre, as
governed by Section 18.390.030, using the standards in this chapter as approval criteria.
Response: Clear vision areas will be maintained by respective property owners of the proposed
lots on the corners of all street intersections within the proposed subdivision. This standard is
satisfied.
SECTION 1 H.795.030—VISUAL CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be
maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of trvo streets, a street
and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a publr�c or private street.
B. Obstructions prohibited.A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting,fe�zce,
wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utiliry pole
or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb
exists,from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be
located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed.
C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions
contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection,
92%N.DAKOTA PARTIIION APPLICATION
WE57�a�No.0733-09 33 JANUARY 12,2006
I
Westlake Consultants, Inc. �
hedges, plantings,fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or permanent obstructions
shall be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent of tlze required �
clear vision area.
Response: No plantings are proposed that would conflict with visual clearance requirements at '
the intersection of SW North Dakota Street and SW 92°a Avenue. Following construction, �
property owners of proposed parcel 2 will maintain clear vision areas. This standard is satis�ed.
$
ECTION 18.795.040—COMPUTATIONS �
A. Arterial streets. On all designated arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less
than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. '
Response: The subject property does not abut any arterial streets. This provision is therefore not
applicable.
B. Non-arterial streets.
1. Non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width. At all intersections of two non-arterial
streets, a nonarterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and
railroad where at least one of the streets or driveways is 24 feet or rnore in width, a
visual clearance area shall be a triangle forrned by the right-of-way or property lines
along such lots and a straight line joiriing the right-of-way or property line at points
which are 30 feet distance,frorn. the interseczion of the right-of-way line and measured
along such lines. See Figure 18J95.1:
2. Non-arterial streets less than 24 feet in widtlz. At all i�zte�-sections of two non-arterial
streets, a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-a��terial street or driveway and
railroad where both streets a�zd/or driveways are less tlZan 24 feet in wi.dth, a visual �
clearance area shall be a triarigle whose base extends 30 feet along the street right-of-
way line in both directions from the centerline of the accessway at the front setback line
of a single family and two fmnily resi�dence, and 30 feet back from the property line on all
other rypes of uses. �
Response: The proposal includes plans for a 27-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) for �
SW 92°d Avenue. Should the City decide to improve this portion of SW 92°d Avenue, SW 92°a
Avenue will meet SW North Dakota Street in a "T" intersection. Future property owners of
proposed parcel 2 will maintain vision clearance areas that meet these requirements. This
provision is met.
CHAPTER 18.810— STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
;
SECTION 1 H.S10.030—STREETS �
A. Improvements. �
1. No development shall occur unless the development lias fi•ontage or approved access to a
public str-eet.
92%N.DAtcoTA PARTITION APPLJCATION
WE57uaKE No.0733-09 34 JANUARY 1 2,20D6
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
Res�onse: The subject property fronts both SW North Dakota Street and SW 92°d Avenue. SW
92° Avenue is platted but currently unimproved. Proposed access will be from SW North
Dakota. SW North Dakota Street is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan
as a neighborhood route. According to the TSP, "Neighborhood routes are usually long relative
to local streets and provide connectivity to collectors or a��terials...Because traffic needs are
greater than a local street, certain measures should be considered to retain the nerghborhood
character and livabiliry of these routes." In order to mitigate impacts on SW North Dakota
Street, the Applicant is proposing a shared access. The proposed access is designed to meet the
standards of this Chapter
2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of
this chapter.
Response: The proposal does not include new streets; therefore, this provision is not applicable.
3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the
standards of this chapter,provided, however, that a development may be approved if the
adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeti�2g the
standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development.
Response: The Applicant explored several options for access to the site. The applicant looked at
a design with access from the eastern most lot from SW 92"d Avenue,however, this involved
significant cost to the applicant due to the required vertical profile and the subsequent relocation
of existing utilities and the re-construction of a residential driveway, including the potential
construction of a five to six foot retaining wall for an adjacent property. With respect to the
"rough proportionality" test established by the Dolan case precedent, the impact of the proposed
partition is limited to the addition of two single-family residences. Due to the "rough
proportionality" of the improvements and the effect on adjacent properties, City Staff agreed that
this was not the appropriate alternative for required improvements, and moreover access.
Access to the subject property will be by SW North Dakota Street. The north property line abuts
SW North Dakota Street. SW North Dakota Street is identi�ed in the City of Tigard
Transportation System Plan as a neighborhood route with bicycle lanes. The proposal includes a
30-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along SW North Dakota Street and a 27-foot
right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along SW 92"d Avenue. Access to the site and to each
individual lot will be by a shared driveway from SW North Dakota Street.
The imposition of street improvement requirements however, would require the removal of
mature trees and would also reduce the overall tree retention to below the 75% threshold
requiring that the Applicant provide mitigation through tree plantings or a fee-in-lieu. The
Applicant is therefore, requesting an adjustment from street improvement requirements including
the paved width, bicycle lane, planter strip and sidewalk along SW North Dakota Street.
4 Any new street or additional street widtl�planned as a portion of an existing street shall
meet the standards of this chapter;
92%N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTtA.�No.0733-09 35 JarvuaRV 12,2006
�
JVestlake Consultants, Inc.
Response: The subject property is adjacent to both SW North Dakota Street and SW 92nd
Avenue, identi�ed in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan as a neighborhood route and
local street, respectively. The proposal includes plans for right-of-way dedication of 30 feet to
centerline along SW North Dakota Street and 27 feet to centerline along SW 92°d Avenue. This
meets city standards for the appropriate width for a neighborhood and local street. The applicant
is, however, requesting an adjustment to the built configuration of SW North Dakota street, i.e.
half street improvements based on retention of existing mature trees. For a detailed discussion,
please see Section 18.370 of this document.
5. If the City could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street
improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of
street improvements if one or more of the following conditrons exist:
a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design
standards;
b. A partial improvement may create a potential safery hazard to motorists or
pedestrians;
c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that
street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement
associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a signifcant
improvement to street safety or capacity;
d. The improvement wou�ld be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan;
e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on propert��zoned
residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or
Response: Improvements related to SW North Dakota Street are associated with the proposed
land partition of an R-4.5 residential zoned property. This criterion is satisfied, therefore, the
Applicant is willing to sign a non-remonstrance for future improvements in lieu of street
improvements. This can be guaranteed through an appropriate condition of approval.
f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for
tlze street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor
portion of the anticipated future tra�c on the street.
Response: The Applicant is requesting an adjustment to street improvement standards on the
basis of preservation of mature trees. A detailed discussion can be found in Section 18.370 of
this document. The Applicant is willing to sign a non-remonstrance for future improvements in
lieu of street improvements. This can be guaranteed through an appropriate condition of
approvaL
6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the Ciry
Engineer pursuant to Section 18.810.020.B.
7. The approval authoriry may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if
compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features
such as wetlands, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authoriry may also
approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards
92%N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPIJCAIION
WESna,�No.0733-09 36 Jarvuaav 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude
development on the properry where the development is proposed. In approving an
adjustment to the stasidards, the approval autho��iry slzall balance the benefit of the
adjustment with the impact on the pul�lic interest represented by the standards. In
evaluating the irnpact on tl2e public interest, the approval authoriZy shall consider tlze
criteria listed in Section 18.810.030 E1. An adjustment to the standards may not be
granted if the adjustment would risk public safety.
Response: The Applicant is requesting an adjustment to street improvement standards on the
basis of preservation of existing mature trees. A detailed discussion can be found in Section
18.370 of this document. The Applicant is willing to sign a non-remonstrance for future
improvements in lieu of street improvements. This can be guaranteed through an appropriate
condition of approval.
B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created
through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the Council
niay approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided tlzat such street is
deemed essential by the Council for the purpose of general tra�c circulation:
1. Tlze Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full
co�npliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one
or more of the following co�2ditions are found by the Council to be present:
a. Establishinent of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be essential for
the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has
an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road
or street for public use; o�-
b. The tract in whi.ch the road or street is to be dedi�cated is an isolated ownership of
one acre or less and such dedication is recomniended by the Comniission to the
Council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt zo evade the provisions
of this title gove�°riing the control of subdivisions or major partitions.
2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in fi�ll compliance
with the regulations applicable to tlze standards, the proposed dedication shall be inade a
condition of subdivision and major partition approval:
a. The applicant sliall submit such addi�tional information and justification as may be
necessary to enable the Commission in its review to determine whether or not a
recomrrcendation for approval by the Council shall be made;
b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the p��oposal is not in
conflict wi�th the purpose of this title;
c. The Commission in submitting the proposal with a recornfnendation to the Council
may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title; and
3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a forni prescribed by the City and shall name "the
public," as grantee.
Response: The proposal includes plans for right-of-way dedication that will be dedicated to the
public through the partition platting process.
92%N.DAKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESnA�No.0733-09 37 JANUARY 12,2006
JVestlake Consultants, Inc.
C. Creation of access easements. The approval authoriry rn.ay approve an access easerrcent
established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easernent is the
only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created:
1. Access easements shall be provided ar�.d maintained in accordance with the Llnifor�n Fire
Code Section 10.207;
2. Access shall be in accordance with Sectioris 18.705.030.H and 18.705.030.I.
Response: Access to the subject property will be from SW North Dakota Street. SW North
Dakota Street is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a
Neighborhood Route. According to the TSP, "Neighborhood routes are usually long relative to
local streets and provide connectiviry to collectors or arterials...Because traffic needs are
greater than a local street, certain m.easures should be considered to retain the neighborhood
character and livability of these routes." In order to mitigate impacts on SW North Dakota
Street, the Applicant is proposing a shared access. The shared access is designed in accordance
with Sections 18.705.030.H and 18.705.030.I. A reciprocal easement agreement for the benefit
of proposed parcel 1 and 2 will be executed as a part of the final plat process. This provision can
be guaranteed through an appropriate condition of approval.
D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all
streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to
existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety,
and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets:
1. Street grades sluzll be approved by the City Engineer in nccordance with� Subsection M
below; and
2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an appraved street plan, the arrangement
of streets in a development shall either:
a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in tla.e
sur-rounding areas, or
b. Conform. to a plan adopted by tl�e Commission, if it is i�npractical to confonn to
existing street patterns because of particular topograplzical or other existing
conditions of the land. Such a.plan shall be based on the type of land use to be
served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoinin� streets and the need for public
convenience and safetv.
Response: The subject property is adjacent to both SW North Dakota Street and SW 92°`�
Avenue. City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) identifies SW North Dakota Street as
a Neighborhood Route and SW 92°d Avenue as a local street. The proposal includes a 30-foot
right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along SW North Dakota Street and a 27-foot right-of-way
dedication (to centerline) along SW 92°d Avenue consistent with the requirements of this code.
Due to existing conditions, i.e. mature trees along SW North Dakota Street and the required
vertical profile of SW 92°d Avenue and the subsequent relocation of existing utilities and the re-
construction of a residential driveway, and rough proportionality of the impact of the proposed
partition, the Applicant is requesting to sign a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street
improvements. This provision is therefore not applicable.
92"�N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTU��No.0733-09 38 JArvuaRV 12,2D06
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
E. Minimum riglzts-of-way and str-eet widths. Unless otherwi�se indicated on an approved street
plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street, street right-of-way and roadway
widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is
indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-niaking authority based zipon
anticipated average daily traffic(ADT)on the new street segment. (The City Council rnay
adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements.
The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements
within the specified ranges.) These are presented in Table 18.810.1.
1. The decision-making body shall make its decision about desired right-of-way widtl� and
pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after
consideration of the following:
a. The type of road as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter-
Functional Street Classification;
b. Anticipated traffic generation;
c. On-street parking needs;
d. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements;
e. Requirements for placernent of utilities;
f. Street lighting;
g. Drainage and slope impacts;
Iz. Street tree location;
i. Planting and landscape areas;
j. Safet��ar2d cornfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians;
k. Access needs for emergency vehicles.
Response: The proposal is for a two-�arcel partition. The subject property is adjacent to both
SW North Dakota Street and SW 92° Avenue, identified in the City of Tigard Transportation
System Plan as a neighborhood route and local street, respectively. According to the provisions
of the Tigard Development Code, neighborhood routes with bike lanes shall be 58 feet wide.
Local streets range in width from 50 to 54 feet. The proposal includes plans for right-of-way
dedication of 30 feet to centerline alonb SW North Dakota Street and 27 feet to centerline along
SW 92°d Avenue. This is consistent with the code requirements far a half street dedication to
centerline; therefore, this provision is satisfied.
F. Future street plan and extension of streets.
1. A future street plan shall:
a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an appli�cation for a subdivision or
partition. T1ie plan sliall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets
from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels
within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land divisi.on. At the
applicant's request, the City ra2ay prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the City
preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved.A street
proposal may be rnodified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted.
b. Identify existi�ng or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bi�cycle
routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site.
2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land,
streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and
92%N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTUa�N0.0733-09 39 JarvuaRV 12,2D06
JVestlake Consultants, inc.
a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining�roperties are not considered to be
cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as throa�gh streets at such time as the
adjoining property is developed.
b. A barricade shall be constructed at tlie end of the street by the property owners which
shall not be removed until authorized by the Ciry Engineer, the cost of whi.ch shall be
included in the street construction cost.
c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs sl�all be constructed
for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length.
Response: The City's Transportation System Plan identifies SW 92nd Avenue as a through
connection, however, due to existing development adjacent to the subject property, the street
extension is not feasible, moreover, roughly proportionate the impact of the proposed partition.
A detailed discussion regarding SW 92°d Avenue can be found at the beginning of this Section.
K Street alignment and connectiofis.
1. Full street connections with spacing of izo inore than 530 feet between conr2ectioris is
required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads,freeways,
pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions
existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection
may also be exeYnpted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not pernzit
construction.
2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector st�•eets which abut a development site shall
be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by
environmental or topograplzical constraints, existing development patterns or strict
adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered
precluded when. it i�s not possi�ile to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provic�e
required extensions. I,and is considered to�ographically constrained if tl�e slope is
greater than I S%for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environn2ental or
topograpliical constraints, tlie mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that
a street connection is not possi�ble. Tlze applicant must show why the constraint precludes
some reasonable street connection.
3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to p��ovide dir-ect access to existing
or planned transit stops, commercial services, and otlzer neighborhood facilities, such as
schools, sliopping areas and parks.
4. All developments should p��ovide an internal network of connecting streets tliat provide
short, direct travel routes and mr�niniize travel distances within t/ze development.
Response: The applicant looked at a design with access from the eastern most lot from SW 92°a
Avenue, however, this involved significant cost to the applicant due to the required vertical
profile and the subsequent relocation of existing utilities and the re-construction of a residential
driveway, including the potential construction of a five to six foot retaining wall [please refer to
Sheet P500—SW 92°d Ave Public Street Plan/Profile (Existing Conditions)]. With respect to the
"rough proportionality" test established by the Dolan case precedent, the impact of the proposed
partition is limited to the addition of two single-family residences. Due to the "rough
proportionality" of the improvements and the effect on adjacent properties, City Staff agreed that
this was not the appropriate alternative for required improvements, and moreover access. The
92%N.DAKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WEST�.oKE No.0733-09 40 JANUARV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
Applicant is therefore requesting a special adjustment to the access and egress standards of this
chapter. A detailed discussion can be found in Chapter 18.370 of this document.
I. hztersection a�igles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right
angle as practicable, except where topog�•aplTy requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall
the angle be less than 75° unless there is special intersection design, and:
I. Str-eets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection
unless topography requires a lesser distance;
2. Intersections which are not at right angles slzall Izave a minimum corner radius of 20 feet
along tlze right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and
3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial str-eets shall have a corr2er radius of not
less than 20 feet.
Response: The proposal does not include new street intersections; therefore, this provision is not Y
applicable.
J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of
less than standard width, additional ri�ghts-of-way shall be provi�ded at the time of
subdivision or development.
Response: The proposal includes a 30-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along SW
North Dakota Street and a 27-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along SW 92°d Avenue
consistent with City of Tigard requirements, but not a half street improvement. With respect to
the "rough proportionality" test established by the Dolan case precedent, the impact of the
proposed partition is ]imited to the addition of two single-family residences whose access will be
located on SW North Dakota Street, rather than on SW 92°d Avenue. On the basis of these facts,
the Applicant does not believe a finding that the impact of the proposed development is roughly
proportional to the exaction of improvement of SW 92"d Avenue is supportable. The applicant
will dedicate rights-of-way consistent with City standards at the time of plat recording and
construction. This standard is satisfied.
K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of
less than 20 feet; while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to
reasonable development when in conforrnity with the other require�nents of these regulations,
and wlzen it will be p�-actical to require the improvenient of the other izalf when the adjoining
property developed.
Response: The applicant proposes no partial street improvements and fw-thermore is requesting
an adjustment to the street improvement standards. A detailed discussion can be found in
Section 18.370 of this document. It should be noted that in its current condition SW North
Dakota exceeds a 20-foot paved width (See Exhibit A—Preliminary Plans, Sheet P101 —
Existing Conditions).
L. Cul-de-sacs.A cul-de-sac shall ve no more than 200 feet long shall not provide access to
greater tlian 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when� environmental or topographical
92%N.DAKO7A PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTw�No.0733-09 41 JaNUARV 12,2006
1
JVestlake Consultants, Inc.
coristraints, existing development pattern, or strict adlierence to otlzer standards in tlzis code
preclude street extension and through circulation: 1
l. All ctill-de-sac shall terminate witl2 a turnaround. Use of turnal-ound coiifigurations other �
than circular, shall be a�proved by the Ciry Engineer; and
2. The length of tlie cul-de-sac slzall be measured from the centerline intersection point of i
the two streets to the radius point of the bulb.
3. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street
,
may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. j
Response: No cul-de-sac streets are proposed. This provision is therefore not applicable.
M. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or Ue confused with the �
names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets.
Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in tlie surrounding area ��
and as approved by the City Engineer. ��
Response: The proposal does not include new streets. The subject property is located at the i
intersection of two existing rights-of-way named through previous actions. The streets have
been named in accordance with established patterns as governed by Washington County and
conform to City standards. This provision is therefore not applicable.
N. Grades and curves.
1. Grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any
other street(except tlzat local or residential access streets nzay have segments witlz
grades up to I S°Io for distances of no greater than 250 feet), and
2. Centerline radii of curves slzall be as determined by the Ciry Engineer.
Response: The proposal does not include new streets. This provision is therefore not
applicable.
O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair,
bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards
specified in tl2is chapter and Section 15.04.080; and:
1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except ��
2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asplialt approach may be constructed with City
Engineer approval; and
3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the properry line shall be built to City
configui-ation standards.
Response: The proposal does not include street improvements. This provision is therefore not
applicable.
P. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way.
Response: There are no proposed or existing streets adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. This
standard is not applicable. �
92%N.DAKOrA PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTta�No.0733-09 42 JarvunRY 12,2006
�
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a developmei2t abuts or is traversed by an existing
or proposed arterial or collector st��eet, the development desigli shall provide adequate
protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through
tra�c, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minirnize the traffic conflicts. The
design shall include any of the following:
1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector;
2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering
with frontage along another street;
3. Screen planting at the rear or side properry line to be contained in a nonaccess
reser-vation along tl�e arterial or collector; or
4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this sul�section;
S. If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications,primary access should be
from the lower classification street.
Response: The subject property does not abut nor is it adjacent to an arterial or collector;
therefore this provision is not applicable.
R. Alleys,public or private.
Response: No alleys or private streets are proposed. This standard is not applicable.
S. Survey monuments. Upon conipletion of a street imp��ovement and prior to acceptance b�� the
Ciry, it shall be the responsibility of the developer's registered professional land surveyor to
provide certification to the Ciry that all boundary and interior moni�ments shall be
reestablished and protected.
Response: As part of the platting process, all survey monuments will be placed for lot corners
and street centerlines. The county surveyor will review and confirm that these corners have been
placed.
T. Private streets.
Response: The applicant proposes no private streets. This standard is not applicable.
U. Railroad crossings.
Response: There are no railroad crossings within or abutting the site. This standard is not
applicable.
V. Street signs. The Ciry slzall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names,
as specified by the Ciry Engineer fo.r any development. The cost of signs shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
Response: The applicant proposes no street improvements; therefore, street signs are not
applicable to this proposal.
92%N.D,4KOTA PARTITION APPLICAIION
WEST�a�No.0733-09 43 �ANUARY 1 2,2006
f
JVestlake Consultants, Inc.
W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developnients, with ,
each joint mailbox serving at least two dwelling units.
1. Joint mailbox structures slzall be placed adjacent to roadway cur-bs;
2. P�-oposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on a copy of the preliminary i
plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the Ciry Enginee�/US Post Office �
prior to final plan approval; and
3. Plans for the joint mailbox structuYes to be used sha.11 be submitted for approval by the �
City Engineer/US Post O�ce prior to final approval.
Response: Joint mailboxes are proposed for this partition. Design and location of mailboxes
will be determined in the construction document design and review process. This standard is
satisfied.
X. Tra�c srgnals. The location of t�-affic signals shall be noted on approved street plans. Where ,
a proposed street intersection will result in an imrnediate need for a traffic signal, a signal
meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a co�2dition �
of development. �
Response: The applicant proposes no traffic signals for this development. This standard is not
applicable.
Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with regulations adopted
by the City's direction.
Response: No street lights are proposed.
Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs
and other signs rnay be required.
Response: The applicant proposes no street improvements; therefore, street signs are not '
applicable to this proposal.
AA. Street cross-sections. The fir2al lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new
constru�cted public roadways prior to fi�zal City acceptance of the roadway and within one
year of the conditional acceptance of the i-oadway unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. The final lift shall also l�e placed no later than when 90°Io of the structures in the
new development are completed or three years from tlze conimencement of initial
construction of the development, whiclTever is less.
1. Sub-base and levelir2g course shall be of select crushed rock;
2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete;
3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to Ciry final '
acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90% of the structures in the new
development are completed unless tlzree years have elapsed since initiation of
construction in the development;
4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standard
specifications; and
92%N.D,4KOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WEST�KE No.0733-09 44 JANUARY 1 2,2006
�
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
5. No lift shall be less than 1-1/2 inches in thickness. (Ord. 99-22)
Response: The applicant proposes no street improvements; therefore, this provision is not
applicable.
AB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the Ciry Engineer, tlze proposed development will
create a negative tra�c condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive
speeding, the developer may be required to provide tra�c calming measures. These
measures may be reguired wr�thin the develop�nent and/or offsite as deefned appropriate. As
an alternative, the developer nzay be required to deposit funds with the City to help pay for
tra�c calming measures that becorrze necessary once the development is occupied and the
Ciry Engineer determines that the additional tra�c from the development has triggered the
need far traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the amount of funds
required, and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds
will be held by the City for a period of five (5)years from the date of issuance of certificate of
occupancy> or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used
by the City witlzin the five-year time period will be refunded to the developer.
Response: The proposed development creates no street connections that would potentially
create a negative traffic condition on any existing neighborhood street. Accordingly, the
subdivision requires no traffic calming.
AG Tra�c study.
I. A tra�c study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any
of the following circumstances:
a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing tra�c to high collision
intersections identifred by Washington County.
b. Trip generations from development onto the Ciry street at the point of access and the
existing ADT fall within the following ranges:
Existing ADT ADT to be added by development
0-3,000 vpd 2,000 vpd
3,001-6,000 vpd 1,OODvpd
>6,000 vpd 500 vpd or rnore
c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City engineer:
(1) High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadwati' that may affect►novement into or
out of the site
(2) Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the proposed access
drive(s)
(3) Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points
(4) The proximity of the proposed access to otl2er existing drives or intersections is a
potential liazard
(5) The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive-through
operation
92%N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WEST�.a�No.0733-09 45 JANUARY 12,2006
1
Nestlake Consultants, Inc.
�
(6) The proposed development ntay result in excessii�e tra�c volumes on adjacent I
local streets. ���
2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments
under any of the following circumstances:
a. When the site is within S00 feet of an ODOT facility and/or
b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an �
ODOT facility and/or
c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT
facility. (Ord. 02-33)
Response: Based on an average of 10 trips per day per household, the development will create
approximately 20 additional vehicle trips per day. This ]ow level of impact does not require an
impact study per this section of the development code. The project is not in close proximity to
an ODOT facility.
i
SECTION 18.810.�40—BLOCKS
A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to �
providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for
convenient access, circulation, control and safery of street tra�c and recognition of
limitations and opportunities of topography.
B. Si�es.
1. Tlze perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the
centerline of the streets except:
a. Where street location is preciccded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of
water, or pre-existing development; or
b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, Iimited access highways, collectors or
railroads.
c. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation pr•ovides equivalent
access.
2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways sJzall be
provided when full street connection is exempted by B.1 above. Spacing between
connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or
topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other
standards in the code. (Ord. 02-33)
Response: The subject property is located at the corner of SW 92"d Avenue and SW North
Dakota Street rights-of-way. These streets are identified in the City of Tigard Transportation
System Plan as a local street and a neighborhood route, respectively. It should be noted that SW
92°a Avenue is currently unimproved. The applicant looked at a design for improvement of and
access from SW 92°d Avenue, however, this involved significant cost to the applicant due to the
required vertical profile and the subsequent relocation of existing utilities and the re-construction
of a residential driveway, including the potential construction of a five to six foot retaining wall
for an adjacent property. With respect to the "rough proportionality" test established by the
Dolan case precedent, the impact of the proposed partition is limited to the addition of two
single-family residences. Due to the "rough proportionality" of the improvements and the effect
on adjacent properties, City Staff agreed that this was not the appropriate alternative for required
92'°/N.DaKOT,4 PARTI1lON APPLICATION
WESna�No.0733-09 46 JAnluaRV 12,2006
1
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
improvements, and moreover access. This includes pedestrian access which would also require
significant grading. Furthermore, the subject property is one]ot of a larger urban block which is
not in a suitable location for a pedestrian access and is not in a position where it would make a
significant difference in travel time or distance.
SECTION 1 H.810.050—EASEMENTS
A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public
utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a
development traversed by a watercourse, or drainageway, there shall be provided a stor�n
water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substafitially with the lines of the
watercourse.
B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with
the City, the applicable district and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of
utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The Ciry's standard
width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the
utiliry cornpany, applicable district, or Ciry Engineer.
Response: An eight-foot wide easement for utilities is proposed along the frontage of proposed
lots. The applicant will transfer ownership of this easement to the appropriate jurisdiction to
provide full services to the development. These standards are satisfied.
SECTION 18.810.060-LOTS
A. Size and shape. Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for tlze location of
the development and for the rype of use contemplated, and:
1. No lot shall contain part of an existing or proposed public rrght-of-way within its
dimensions;
2. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the average width, unless the parcel is
less than 1-1/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district;
3. Depth and width of properties zoned for commercial and indacstrial purposes shall be
adequate to provide for the off-street parking and se�vice facili�ties required by the type of
use proposed.
Response: Al] lots within the proposed development plan meet the standards of the R-4.5 zone.
Please refer to Chapter 18.510 of this document for a detailed discussion regarding the size and
shape of lots.
B. Lot frontage. Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley,for a
width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition in which case
Subsection 18.162.050(C)applies, or unless the lot is for an attached single family dwelling
unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet.
Response: All lots wil] abut a public road and meet the frontage requirements of the code (See
Exhibit A—Preliminary Plans, P200—Preliminary Plat). This provision is therefore satis�ed.
PARTITION APPLICAIION
92%N.DaKO�ra
WES7�a�No.0733-09 47 JANUARY�2,2006
Nestlake Consultants, Inc.
C. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where they are essential to provicle
separation of residential development from major traffic arterials or to overcome specifrc
disadvantages of topography and orientation, and:
1. A planting buffer at least ten feet wide is required abutting the arterial right.c-��f���u��; uncl
2. All through lots shall provide the requrred front yard setback on each street.
Response: The proposal does not include any throu�h lots; therefore, this provision is not
applicable.
D. Lot side lines. The side linc�s ��f l�ts, as far us prarticuhle, shcill l�e at rlght u�rgles lo the str�et
upon which the lots,fi-c»rt.
Response: The proposed lots have been designed such that all side lines of lots, as far as
practicable, are at right angles to the street. This provision is therefore satisfied.
E. Large lots. In dividing tracts into large lots or parcels which�at some future trme ure likely to
be redivided, the Commission may require that the lots be of such size and,shape, and be so
divided into building sites, and contain such site restrictions as will provide for the extension
and opening of streets at intervals which will permit a subsequent division of any tract irttn
lots or parcels of smaller size. T/ze land division shall be denied if the proposed large
development lot doe.s nnt pro��rde for the_firtu��e division of t1�e lots at�d future exter�sion of
public facilities•.
Response: The proposal does not include large lots suitable for re-division; therefore, this
standard does not apply.
SECTION 18.810.070—SIDEWALKS
A. Side►valks. All industrial streets a�id priti�ate streets sl�ull have .ti�rdc�ti��alks rnc E�tii�; Cin�
standards along at least one side of the street.All other streets shall have sidewalks mc�c�trizg
City standards along both sides of the street. A development rnay be approved if an adjoinirig
street has sidewalks on the si�le adjoinin,� the de��elopmer�t, even if no side��alk exists on the
other side of the street
B. Requirement of developer.t
1. As part of any development��raposcrl, or change i�t trse resulting irt un additiunal I,UUO
vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.2�
x the straight line distance)pedestrian routes within 1/2 mile of their site to all transit
facilities and Neighborhood Activiry Centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition,
the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestriu��
system off-site if justified by the developfnent.
2. If there is an existing sidewalk, on the same side of the street as the development, within
300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the
site to rneet the existing sidewalk, subject to roir�jz pr��portio�lalit�� (ei�en if the srdei,�alk
does not s�rve a neighborhood activiry centerj.
C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip sepai•ation of at least five feet between the cin�b
and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following
J2"/N.DaKOTa PARTITION APPLICATION
WESTt�.KE No.0733-09 48 JnrvuARV 12,2006
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on
predorninant portions of t12e street; it would conflict with the utilities, there are significant
natural features(large trees, water features, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk
were located as required, or where there are existing structures in close proximit��to the
street(IS feet or less)Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement
may be given on a case by case basis if a property abL�ts more tlzan one street frontage.
Response: The proposal is for a two parcel partition which is expected to generate an additional
20 vehicle trips per day; a minimal impact. The Applicant is requesting an adjustment to the
street improvement standards. Sidewalks and planter strips are an aspect of this adjustment and
subordinate to the adjustment request. A detailed discussion regarding this adjustment can be
found in Section 18.370 of this document.
SECTION 1 H.810.090—SANITARY SEWERS
A. Sewers requi��ed. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve eac1�new development and to
connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design
and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by the
Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future �-evisions or amendments) and
the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan.
B. Sewer plan approval. The Ciry Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed
systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service.
C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systenzs shall include consideration of additional development
within the area as projected by the Compreliensive Plan.
Response: The City of Tigard provides public sanitary sewer service through a gravity system
to the north of the project in SW North Dakota Street; this is the preferred route for making a
connection. Laterals will be extended to the proposed lots (See Exhibit A—Preliminary Plans,
Sheet P400—N. Dakota Utility &Street Plan/Profile Sheet). This provision is therefore satisfied.
SECTION 18.810.100—STORM DRAINAGE
A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a develop��ient perr�iit only
where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff lzave been made, and:
1. The storrn water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary
sewerage system;
2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any
intersection or allowed to flood any street; and
3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan.
B. Easen2ents. Where a development is traversed by a watercouNSe, drainageway, channel or
stream, there sliall be provided a storm water easem.ent or drainage right-of-way conforming
substantially with the lines of such watercoatirse and such fu��ther width as will be adequate
for conveyance and maintenance.
C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility sl�all be large
enough to accommodate potential runoff frorre its entire upstream drainage area, whether
inside or outside the development, and:
92%N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WES�KE No.0733-09 49 JANUARY 1 2,2006
.Jestlake Consultants, Inc.
L The Ciry Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions
of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as
adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and inclacding any future revisions or
arrcendments).
D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it i�s antrcipated by the City Engineer that the
additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facilih�,
the Director and Engineer shall withliold approval of the development until provisions have
been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for
storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and �
Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by the
Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including an_y future revisions or amend►nents). �
Response: Storm water runoff from the development will be limited to runoff from future
dwellings, e.g. roof drains as well as the shared driveway. Due to the nominal impact on the
greater system, the applicant proposes a fee-in-lieu of a stormwater management facility
consistent with Clean Water Services guidelines.
SECTION 18.H10.11 O—BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS
A. Bikeway extension.
1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all Arterial a�zd Collector routes arid
where identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan in the Tr-ansportation System� Plar2
(TSP).
2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on tlze City's adopted
pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of scrcl�
bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedzcation
is directly related to and roughly proportional to the irnpact of the developn7.ent.
3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in tlzis
document and on the adopted bicycle plar2.
B. Cost of construction. Development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditiorial
use permits, subdivisions and otlzer developments which will princi�pally benefit from such
bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improve�nents in
an amoa�nt roughly pr-opoYtional to the impact of the developrnerat.
� C. Minimum width.
1. Minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lan.e.
2. Minirnum width niulti-use patlzs separated from the road is ten (10)feet. TI�.e widtll r��-ay
be reduced to eight(8)feet if there are environmental or other constraints.
3. The minimum width for pedestrian only off-street paths is five (5)feet.
4. Design standards for bike and pedest��ian-wa_ys shall be determined by t12e Ci.ty Engineer.
(Ord. 02-33, Ord. 99-22)
Response: SW North Dakota Street is identified in the Tigard Transportation System Plan as a
neighborhood route and furthermore a neighborhood route with bike lanes. The proposal
includes a 30-foot (to centerline)right-of-way dedication for SW North Dakota, which is of
sufficient width to accommodate a future bike lane. The proposal is for a two parcel partition
92"/N.DAKOTA PARTITION APPLICATION
WEST�,�No.�733-09 50 JANUARY 1 2,2006
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
which will not contribute a significant impact on SW North Dakota Street. A bike or pedestrian
way would serve passersby more than the proposed partition. However, the greater issue with
regard to bike and pedestrian ways is timing. Until the City determines that SW North Dakota
and, furthermore SW 92"d Avenue, are ripe for improvement projects the Applicant is proposing
to save existing mature trees along SW North Dakota Street and not construct a bike lane. The
applicant is requesting an adjustment to the street improvement standards (see detailed
discussion in Section 18.370 of this document)
SECTION 18.810.120—UTILITIES
A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric,
communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed
underground, except for scrrface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes
and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utiliry service facilities
during construction, Izigh capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and:
1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide
tlie underground services;
2. The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
3. All underground utilities, including sanrtary sewers and storm drains installed in .streets
by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and
4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbi�ng tJze street
improvements when service connections are made.
B. Information on development plans. The applicant far a development shall show on the
development plan or in the explanatory inforniation, easements for all underground utiliry
facilities, and:
1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilrties as described herein shall be
submitted to the Ciry Engineer for review and approval; and
2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct
vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic.
C. Exception to under-grounding requirement.
1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is
proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will
serve the development and the approval authoriry determines that the cost and technical
di�culry of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in
conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis.
The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for
which undergrounding would result in tlae placement of additional poles, ratlier than the
removal of above-ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground
and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's properry shQll
pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the requirements for
undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in Subsectrons 1 through 3 of this section shall apply only to existing
utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground.
D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
92%N.DAKOTa PARTIl10N APPIJCATION
WES�+KE No.0733-09 51 JANUARY 1 2,2006
Jestlake Consultants, Inc.
1. The Ciry Engineer shall establish utiliry service areas in the City. All development which
occurs within a utility sen�ice area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities
if th.e development does not proi�ide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utiliry service area which shall be determined
based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The torul
estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front foot
basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer sliall be
calculated based on a front foot basis.
3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The Ciry Engineer s)iall deterini��e tlze
amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with tlie
request for credit.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within
the City at large. The Ciry Engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed
undergrounding projects whicl� may be funded with the fees collected by the City. The li.s�r
shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. TJ�e list shall he sul�mittc�d to
the City Council for their review and approval annuall�•.
Response: Plans will be forwarded to the local utility companies foi- their use in the planning,
design and construction of utilities related to this project. Utility easements along the right of
way line of each street will accommodate al] necessary underground utility facilities provided in
the final plat and construction phases of the project. The project wil] comply with the standards
set forth in this section by meeting appropriate condition(s} of approval.
CONCLUSION
The proposed partition will provide additional housing opportunities within the City of Tigard,
consistent with the City's land use designation and zoning of the subject property. This
application addresses the applicable sections of the City of Tigard Community Development
Code, and in particular demonstrates how the proposal satisfies all applicable approval criteria
for the requested partition. The applicant and property owners respectfully request that the
Director approve the proposed partition.
J2"/N.DaKaTA PARTITIDN APPLICATION
WEST�4KE No.0733-09 52 JArvunRV 12,2006
� C�
S
Exhibit A
Preliminary Plans
� � �
�.
PRELINiINARY PLANS FO�R ' �
o =
��
� �
92nd AND SVlJ NaRTH D�KOTA ST. � . �
w� m
��� �� ������9 O���O� �� � r
� � �
L.1._
�
� ,_. , ,�
L
�:: -�, S!-IEEf WDEX
`"`.-�.�,'' •
e ;�., PROJECT LOCA�fON s..e�.x ': � N AM : 1�. Q
. �, �Z
.. � ; P100 � ' ' O � W
�"�+ � � a.n.�,a 1� COVER SHEET �
%�. e.��, ' �.. � u3, �— -- -
ri ,� _._ n nucafiA�Reer __ _ ___.____. W W
,` ` 4�' 1: �i. EXISTING CONDITIONS P101 --. _..._ W • .
�r - � __ =f,- � (_
�C PRELJMINARY PLAT P2� O
cY� < � � ssirr rrarnrc'� �
t ' e 3 � �
< .; � Q �
�`� � � e»iw�n odw e� _ � ` �V TREE PRESERVATION dt STREET 1REE PUN P300 � : ' ! O.m i a�wov��aoa�! � ,z � j
� •. ' � _ �.._: . . L�_—._ . _ J � �
. .. _.. ` Q
c.9
C N. D A K O T A U T t U T Y d c S T R E E T P L A N / P R O Fl L E S H E E T P 4 0 0 � ; �,t -- _ U
�o � , a .
�:; s._._.,.�_.�. �'1 I � H—
��.,.., c.a�a4 n ._ �
� ;
,�A`� � 4 , 92ND UTiLITY dc STREET PLAN / PROFlLE SHEET P500 , ����� y
d
� H a . Z
� �.'_.._...._.. .._ .
C'e; �,�.` [ a .._ . ....._
. . ._4wly.o � i .. f� ,�.....� . ._..... �
i �;n�.�w - � ���__ F � � � � � . � ' � '�. ....
� � A �
�'�,a s.�«,�.. ,,.�..�.� � ., a t'<
�
'8r w�s:t 6►?ww 81 . 6"�°'a••H . . r ix . . . .. _ Z
. � ��aln . . , ' 3 /��
pv Tr`�G .. ' S p����. �V
, ' . _.� LOCATION MAP �
VK�NITY MAP
� �•_.ar �� ,•.,�•
TAX LOT 430i,TAX MAP 15'135DB
GTY OF�1CAF•iD
.
������������
e
a wrr r�x�osn v
a�r w�c��i�e
rr�osr TM x w�
w��a o
L
`^ m
3 �
� • O
� I
n
PROPB4TY OWNER BVC�VE�i/SURVEYOR 89JChMARK O
� CARY I.t PATRIqA J. HELLNECE ME57LAKE CONSULTANTS,INC. VER7ICAL CONTROL BASFD ON QTY OF
11285 SW 97ND AMENUE PApFlC CORPORAIE �iTER 71CAR�BENqI MARK N0.41, ALSO �
� 11CARD,OR 97^.23 iS115 SW. SEWOIA PARKWAY, BEINC WASHINCTDN WUNTY B�JdCH r
CONTACT: AAARIC SEA4AN SUITE 150 71CARD. OREGON 97224 MARK N0.187,A BRASS MSC SET IN �
N PHONE: (503)246-%90 PMONE: (S03)684-0632 MONUMENT 80%VI NORTH�IUCOTA w a �
ATTENTION: OREGON UW REOUIRES YOU 10 Fp10W RUlES (9p3)p«�p7 FAIC (501)824-0157 57REET, t0 FEET MfEST OF RNIROAD `I #
� ADOP7ED BY 7HE OREGON UTIUTY NOTIFlCATION CENTQL 7HOSE RULES CONTACT: LFN SCH0.SKY, PLS CROS9H0. ElEVATdi�17G.]E FEET.
ARE SET FOR7M IN OAR 932-001-0010 7NROUCH OAR 952-001-0090. � � � W
YOU MA1'OBTAIN COPi6 OF THESE RULES BY CALUNC THE CEN7ER.
� (NOIE: THE 7ELEPHONE NUNBER FOR THE ORECON U7NTY NOTlFlCA710N ��� �A�,� AC�IVCY�V�MNG 4 N
� CENIER IS(SOJ) 232-19E7Z
� Z
TAX MAP: 15 1 SSDB N/A- dTY Of 71GAR0 D J
F UTIIJTY STA7EMENT: n�uno�c�wr+o ununes sHawri� TAX LOT: 4301
g PER FlELD MMKINGS AND RECOFO ORANiNGS FRONOED BY 7HE 7HE AJBJECT PROPERTY IS IN iHE g Q�
� RESPECIIVE Ut1LlTY ACENpES.LOCATON 0�NON-OBSc'72VABLE ANO/OR R-4.5: LOW-DENSITY RE9DENTIAL �
UNOERGROUND UTUTIES ARE SNOM'N fOft�NFOitYAiION ONLY AND ARE AREA�19,787.31 SF. (.454 ACRES) GkAPHIC SCALE �
� ° c` }
NOT q1AfiANTEm TO BE COMPIETE OR ACCURAlE � ^ Q
g ��T1LTY VERIFlCATION: coHrn�crat sr+r�u aoniotF ro+�w�' ¢
u LOCAl10N OF ALL UNDERGRWND U1IUTIES PRIOft i0 WMMENQNG {'N�' ^ �
CONSTRUCTION AND 9iALL PRONDE �1Lit CON80LTLM8� INC. i iN- xo rr SHFET �
� 72-HWRS NOTCE Oi ANY P07EN11Al CDNFlJC1S �oo W
� ,ae No. 733-09 a
o-m:v Me,�.�c�lwvlrmV.ttaa�ioi.e.y u.e o�, Joas-irsym - u�
I I
I
���p����� _ — i I
r
� �� ��� �
��=��1 sw e�ni �vauE i
����g=��€ � � \ _ _ � g! ��
� �y �; \ `\ \ � � '
�S���o� ��� \\\� \ \ � � ` —�\\\ i � ��' �� �e
��'� � �S" � �� � � ��.� � � �� �
����'���� �\ � \� � �� �� 1 �
�����:��> �� 1 � � �� �� o ���' ,
���>��f�� � i 1 ; ; ; �; "6 1, '�g1 I I �
:� F�y : � � i � �� � �� � �
����3��� ` � i �V �� i � o•sz ' A�sa
°��Z �� � � � �---- i i I �
�������� 1�� I r I , r � I I� � ��
��8��, s � s � � � '-__-' � 1 I 3 r�
� � ra� �- � �� � l ,� ,� ) ; � � u
�� ��pg �w \ � �= ; , � , � o
1 I �� i / � I I SW�93R0 AVENUE 1
\�� 1 1 I \ � � / �'� i � I s — —{T— _
'w� »i ,� � `� uG� � ` �� ge /� i/ � � ss I
J� � ks \ ` \ -o� � 1 8� � �__— _ � ro
� 1, � �.I � � �� ' I w_Y
s� 9� �� ` �� �� F� ,I � g ll �� ` ' °
r �N r+ >� {�?-? fiR �1 �, �` � � i � �j � �'J � � � � �
� � ��� �� �1 _ �N00'0�1'49'fi < < / '198.8 ` \ �-1' �� � �
I
� � �� �� Fn 96.00�I `�_ � a", ` � _� � 1 � / o "i��
T g�j � � — , � , , '� � � �= p
v� % � � d \�# \ 1
c�i AI �� €�! � � � i � 9'� � � ' � J� �� � \ �� � � ` ,� � �5
� � 9 � � .o'ca r3 y
a o' �� a ��� 1 i 9��% i �1 � �1 I v�� �E« jy� �; �i 1 i �,rR�
� � �� v � M1 � i �� A�' 1 II
� s� � � �l� � � 1� 1� '� � � � od� � � ���� � 4 .0'OC
�... N C
R T� a� � � � 1 I i + 1 � V �p 1 1�� :�� ' s
� � ei�� �� +�� \\1 � �� ,� � � 11 ,1 1� I�i �' �� �` 1`�{1 ii� 'r� M ��
, � � , � �
� � ��R :� � � i �� � � � � Y � � 1 � � t � t ii —��3 T
� o � I � � � 1 II � 1 1 I � I 1 1 1. .Ilj�� \ o
gf� �€ o i � � � � � � � i i � � i i � i '�q� �� . I�� �
' L
'P �4 m _ � � �� i �� �1 � �� j � � � u���-i� i
o �� � n � � ' � � ��+— � � . i��,t �
y��gy � 1 1 � 1 � 1 1 1 1 � \ r � I
� y �� �O-;TF 1 � � 1� � , � � � ( � 1 5 � 1 \ I���� ; �1
� s= - , � � � , �, �, �� �, � � � �� � � J: ��I�� ,
� �� %�s �Y � I a� �� 11 � ll � b9 1 II 1 1��r5� `1 \\ 1� �` . ���� � I p 1
� �o VY �o o� � 'S � 1 � l 1 I I V� \ 1 � ff 11�1 � 1
' � �� i ~ � 1 �� 1 � � 1 I � � � ��� � � p�,
�� Q t �i � � 1 � 1 1 1 \ � i s_ �
�" � 2f ��� \ � 1 I I 1 � 1 \ �� PC� � i
� ��' \ �1 1 �1 �\I�°�1 I I,�('l�\�` 1 �� I I ��� y� a�.q`a � i
> � \ � 1 I �J� 1 ��I I^�1 °. � �
� � � \ � � I ��I I I/ � \ � /I v I .���'� �
a \ � � I I I � � �` � \ � i o I °III ; I ��-1
� � I � � � 1 ♦ 1 a � I I-�I I I� �
• � :� , ,� � � � , a � � , �+ �,�I�E z � ; �
� �� � -� � . � � ,, � � � ; � � � � ��, � ,
� � 8 m . • _ ` " i �� i 1 b, �' �> > � i � � ' �� � � � i� ��
� � � � , 4p�:�'t: � � f`��'�� � �� �}�i i �� �� � i i II i; ;° � �§
� �� p \ •�+.`^' � ` t `� � � � � � � � � � r -�'�; 'I BN
� r� " � � �., � \.e\i.e � �i i ���i � � �` � �� . 1 i�i i; �
f �r i � i � � i�i, � a
I � o �)1r\ \` oa�wnrtiorv.� � \�\��1����� � �� �� 1� `\ `� \\ �� I i a ��
� \ M.mo r�xaa I �.�Y /� � Y y ��/ � 1 \ \ � \ I �.I ����I 1
�.,.-�.: i H�i `��� �� �\ �� � � � �\ � �i � I�i��;.p°" � �
� , � � � i � � �}� �i��t � i
� I • g �"a � i 'i i � `„I�� ` � � �j v°`I' � �'' '' w �
• p'� 1 1 � � I ,� •II h s ,
_ _�g R , �, ; �y,, �� � �� i i � i � i ��i�4 1� �
n i8 I a� J I 11 � � I I I I � ,{ - I�I.� I I�� rw�c�oT inro
� ? �il . �'' , g'� d e � �1 ��1 \ 1 � � � � I�� . I�I 4 I \� �siasoa
I � . Y�! il� I �14 � �. � � � t \ � � I 1 \I�.�'� I�I��i I �i
I � � , �4� � � � ��� � � 1 �i i� ` a I�I'-'� s � �
� 1 � � �y� 1 i � ���� � � r � i � � �� n ��i��� �
I 1 96.0 �i �� � � �1 9 � � '� � � � l I� � �
� ( uY soun�m rnc Nmn�wT .• ' ��•w 1 \ � \ I 1 I � I N5
��g��aT z �• ��: � � , ai�r , � � � � ���i , � ��
�_ �• . „ ..✓ •r F 1 � �` �s� 1L_ ; lL� 1 � 1 \ � 1 1 I,lil � � " � g�
� ��-�---�--�---�----�,���-- -�—�---;—��-�--a a p .
� � F ri_*_�—R " G` ;
i � I I I I_ I � �s 4`—�ss-�I--.J�—� f � _�.�S �4+ Y+ ' � � ' T �% `` \ 1 I 1��I I�� \i
'1"'J""L__J"_'1_"'L"�..SmUL'�_ "'1' IAmQ`l� ' �__ ' 1__' 1 �i U' I J� ` \ \\ \ � V 1 1 �
f � -r t -�-- -�---- --- /---- � F*'--r�� � �� � � � � � � � i ��ii�d
w w r w w—�--�rv-7�-- —T-T: 1 �r—�-w w— � M� �w 1.� � �, y,� ��F—\ } � �I�II� �i„�=!
I cn I � I � : ?— � ��� ��C \"l " '�:: �j
I c=i � I c�ii j \� ��s�m �92N6�VENUE� =�1 1 �` 1 �` �\ �` �\ �\°`\\�` � 11�1��' q �338a�
o \ � al I 1 � � �11 i .�� pq?!�i��
�I �I i
j � � �:�� � � ��� ��`. ��� ,� �l � � � � '� � '� � �'' I i� i
� i Q3 f � � � i�f i i a� � � � � ` � Y
i ` i �;` i ` i �`�rs' �� �� �� � � i �i u \ ��
� ` \\ 9 �1 �1 ��� ;
I � � � I ( �o � \ I � I � �B� \ \ � � � ' NI i
1 � I I `� \� \ � �� � � �� 1 ��-�e�' �l i
I � I 1 � \ \ � � � 1 � i4Z �
I � 1 � � � � i � � � � h—'1 �'��
� � I 1 �� �� � I �� �l \ �i � � i
� � � ` ��� �vJ �
ii �\ 1 `.11�ya�� \� i
� � � 1 ��� � i
I I \ �I �+1�� � i
i � 1�, I�'J�� te�� i
I `�1' �. ,
� j �� �i A 7;
� j � I`�i- � �
�---' � 1
I
� D I I I I -� �
_ � �
� �t " � � � � � � � ( � � � � ■ O e
� i � � g:� T � � � �
�
� � � a � � � � � E � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � I
�� - �
�; _ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� � a� � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � Z
g
� � � m $ � � � �
►
a •
� � �"��'S ����f � 9 2 N D A N D D A K 0 TA M.L.P. WESTLAKE
W � °! �II � T I GARD, OREGON III copsu�aurrs.d
cl O ���x# � ovouvm�a • auxvsrnra • ruwxnro
0 �i 1 12 07 05 qTY IF TICARD_15T RENEW KKN LJS ��°9 �� ��.�riR��T�One lN [OWt
t° a� � EX I ST I NG C�ND I T I ONS "" .0 n°, i�'
o�� orsanPna� r
PRELIMINARY PLAN SET — 12-07-05
. � � �
�
. y
o a
, � �
� i � �r
: i ; �,� . �
�zs.r—t--zs.a•�.j ; ± �� W� °
�. '� . i v^ . BU �
, ', l u>.�e�•o , .
��. s.. �,.,. . ; ; :s�so r . .A• cr� ..:n . ti- � �
. �n �.. �,�,.�
."' ; " { -----._. .—� —_.__.__--'---.,..-' . .. a...a ,� . . �
.. .. � .._ ..
o- ._ . . __..... ._. ._._. _...
> '__ — _'_ __..'_ .. _'__._....
• ♦ _ "_"' ....,�'"_'__.�—
..__.__. .._.__.____'-- __'..._ ..._ `
�
�
� ��/ � '� '~' : ,
.
.,�:��.�,e, ..,,..,.w' ��l���.y...a.....�� ._.,,.,���..a�......_.�.. xe. .���.�
� �r i��M.v �?. .. .. .__ F _.. .—...�-� . _ . _ ...__. ..._.____ _"..._._._..._..._
- -
Q .... o o 'N^ ..�"_"__"__' .
- ✓�'.' . .. ::��_.
._� _ � _N DAKOTA STREET �
_ _ -__
--- � _ ._ �A\ -� __ . ._ --- __ _ ___ _ �, . - .
_
-------__ _ _----- �;� , 1 .�a
� � � � ,, _ -- ._ -:.-.--. . _.... �_____ — --- - Q_ _.� _ ..�.
�-
xy ,�. . _
' ..w.�.. �L.___ __�_T_ � , 4 g _ __ _ _ _. .
L' c.�
�� � � �. a�a�P¢ -. �� �� �W �� �� �� . A......_. . ........ ......."_—'_"___
.Y S
.._��_—�._.... .__�-�,..�'��...' .___..^y__..�.�.�..... _��__ — � .,.
_ .. ....... ..... 3 , J �YIr �ey��, ., � L
�j�'' � � � — ' — — —— — .--PPoVATE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT � ., ' �
,;7 � I
�, � I -�<�r..� I � �
� ,. � ----'— � $ 8 R ��r= ein�c sere�ac � ' � Z Q
i —� 1 — — — — I - I — _1 — �I O � d
i. I I_ J � � asa�I---zs.o'---I C7
' I 1 , � _ � � �
' ; ze w �
I � � I� PARCEL 1 i PARCEL 2 � . Q o
� � ' ;ox i^?�sao � „}z i.e-:sK: -,_.�e I QaEO sF. I �+,I a.JE7 SF. �I ' : Z
j r—� �s:�» , s,:� �g is ol 1 wj j p _
,
�� � ----- :
' � ; � ! S.ao� �oa Q I � Q �
� �1 � � � I I I �ar � � <_,n� Q � J
'" �� N x� W
, i �—% c�it.�o+ts ��. ��'�, . .` .-. f I — — — — . ' — — — — �� � � � ~ �
� I � L� ° ''� � � �� O> ' , z 4.
� � � ' �
� 1 �
_ �
7 � u r
i I g �
1 1
. L—'—_'_J ' ♦ �� �P� �� �� • �� ��SS. . ` � .
! '...... .... � _. ._..!
� _..
� 9BD'SV$➢1N 1WOP � � � . �---� .
�
....___ —�_ ..__...._. ._.. � . � . .
i 3' �
� —--------� . / b �., . � - — — -- Z
� m �_
� AR£A 7RANSFER.� � _
�, FROY LAT 1 i0 lAT 2 , ' .
. ' 1.75Y SF ° . . ..._......_.........._....
: .:4` ( -..� rr.�,. J .T. .
' ...• .a� ..,y:. �. /,, ,,
� �
�. � _". � � • '. //,�//'ii��i: i � .. �..._.._. _ _.......... T
� V�
� ....�.F.-i'.S ' � �. +W. � � � ,
' � ----- �oasnNC Ha�
i I oasnNC a�rtca j � ' ,;
,,,. �
I ' .���. NOT MMT OF PR0.ECT � � . ' . ._.. ......___.
� /✓/, �
� ., I
�
_..._..—_.
' _ __ d ' � %/ .`d, , IC.s' ;
� i" � ,,,, �_� ..y. qcvr,F T:
. . ?7f R.`i: !
-_..�1 . ; ; , ��������
�_ , � , ������ ,
;; _ __.... k „� � ���.�� � �
;�:t> tA::O' I i„ _ ' , "�^ � .,,t a�,
n,F�.,�s • ; _
. _ ._ , j. ,�' _ �:� ,a.�,�,.�.�..
�.a..a...��»
' . .�.�n.� ..
; � °. � /, ; _ ^ _ � ...�,�,..�.�
: // ///� �.-— - —
! ..���.. � �%.�--t/�[L • ` 5�' �
•
•
_—•.
.. � .._���_ ..v—
� .� L-- S :` 3 � .
�.�..��...�,....�..�... :..'�. _
� ,_..---r•-..._�_o-.._ _.._�--�.._._._.�a.�.1Y6.YT_--s��-at.�_s,�. _ _ .�.�[''L..+'.1=v��� .
._._...._ ` .._ r. ._.' .
v. �
<
.. —'""_�. . ..._..._....... .... �....._...... .._ _._......""""._..._..__. �_, .. y : .
_ � U�I
, � .f:- --- -- — --- — -- -- .. O
T4 ' . . ..�� ��� Ya ' : ^
�
�_.r . ....� .
., , ....,: „ .:�,;; -. � �t :r 0
i .� ' ._ r � _._..__.--_�---- �
�, :�. N
' -� T_. .....- --!-- -- ......_. ..._. _...- -- --
-- '— ` GRAPHIC SCALE � �
:a Z
� ��� � �
_ ; � � � n
, r , ��---I�I-----i I
� ! - -- = - -- - -- - -- -- -- �w�� � H
� _....___...___.__ �w. :o n W
�
� ' Z
� a
� � o r
�
� � a
� ��T Z
� P200 W
$ '�oe No. 733-09 a
&
. �
�_ _ _.._._ _-----------___.._.._ _...------�---------- ----- —--___�___ ---__ _____ --- _ --
�
' � 92ndlDakota MLP ' :
Tree Invento and Dis oskfon � s
uo'�--as.a �
Tn�No. Sp�tM� DBH IncMS Diapotltlon
. - . ..:. �'^ � 1 Oo Fr 20 HZ
�� ,�x� .- � •.0�.r a-,.at ��. 2 W'estem Red Cedar 24 pR
..� ... _ ..._ '...._.............._.._.__._.__ �5. , �� 1. +a �.
. . ......____. . ..._....__ .
..._........... -_�. _.._._.�--'-.._. . _. ..�_� 3 CortrmnFlav,�}om 6 R pe
..... ........._..... .._.._.. _-"_-----._.._..........._ ....�.
..... _.._._..__ _ _.. C �
�� 4 O nWheeOak 16 R F`j
� � 5 P Lsi+el 6 R W�
: -'_. � '� _. . _.,. . . ._..- - -- ...-
- _ ,s�- - � �' - - .- ---- ._ --- -.. _..._.._ _.� ._ 6 O WhrteOak 6 R °°
4 � ..Q" ... . . y '^, .
, . .. -- - -` ° � 4N DAKOTA_STRE . _ _ ._ . _�'_, ---- �. __.- 8 B��-►�,�m m �o R �° �
��.-�._.�--__ --- _ _ _- - - - _____
� ._
---- -- __
� y_ .
_.._�_.. ___ __ ; ;� :� �
_,.� ;
_ _ � $
_ - _ -. ��� �� � 9 S ca�rore M k l4 R �
�
� ���\\ r�' 10 Common Hawthom 8 R
�. : ..., �+ .� o ._.. _ � - ... .. ., �\ . _. ' � .,-_ 5 ' t1-; -_' - 11 F � Pk+n 6 R
.....� 4 ......._ - •��� -�. .O �'` . �tD -f�_ _ -.. g . �'._ -.� �' .ct�r - t2 PorderosaPme 16 R
_...__ .__ �: ,�-�..T y ., .. ... .. .-�� - - .- .. '��+ - - ' �
i.. = /^ � z �� ';' _ _
'.--_ ��
----�`. .�... ... ��.._. . . _._A _.,_... ��. � � f�- �� � , ...���� � . �. 3 P 16 R
. ..:_----.. i-•_ � • -�- � � -,. �_ �� 1 Po�dero� •
...."'-- . . -. � !4 Do Fr 12 R (1
� / f! y - - _ . �.
� % r _._ - : -..,,.�.` ',. ..,' �\ _,r. �,1.. '7 . ..o`I 3- p �\ � ��/26��I q�- .��� `� .../t` / IS CoMnwood� t4 R �.i� Z
..•-"" . _ . " R -..
,. : : . . , ,.... : � ]6
6`
; / ...-- ; �\ : / . � x;��l �I .,._.� � . _. ; ,! . ,_ � . �i.Y. �;��-�� ,�,.,,: I � !..� f/ _.. CoKOnwood 14 R
' , f � � ���, �- a 3T � L� � �� .,. / � J
; ..--- _ -
, . ; , .�- -�.,.. . ....... __.. �-� t i> <� - �..�. ,....._, n c�.s �. zo x
� -� .�Y.h4 � � ' -
, '
; _.,-
� - ' '' � ..�, r � � �. �T -� L_ _ _ }_ ..� � � �' si,: 19 Conomwod I2 CR
. : i .__�__....__.._. \ , . - �..
� ?. : : � ��. '�: �,`,a, -.... � \\ /� .. 1� .. I .. \ � -/ ._.� I i 23.0'-"�"-23.6'�+1 19 Coaomwod t0 CR
� .
....
„ � . i i•� �- ., �-`.-.�� SETBACK ..\ " ,�_...�� / ��� 1.. �'.- � „ , 20 Cottom�+ood 16 CR �
1 !
� . t � � � -� ....r i � � / .� �l_ _�{� S00 � . ; .
: ;- ♦ .,... � - � � / " .�� �/ f 21 Cottomvood 10 CR �
f , ra,:_o�ay,� "; ix .�-�nr,t� ......_ . ����f� 1 .. ......__�,s80-SF - _. - _.}� i�.l�..SF. . .. � ' � �� a.....� 22 Conomvood 10 CR �
. ,,.
. .__.. q �. _ . �� .
; t . i�i:s ns .. . ._... . t ,� ....- f- ' ... . _..._ -' � ��_. - - '. :3 ttomvood 14 R Z
. ,...� .. ` ,.,
. , � ---..... .._ ..
, : ,. , ,,
, .
--=i � �,. , � � -5�.-� '..y� _ �'�.. � .,... � Co t--- W
,: . .` -.. .., . / -. �.`. .. - _.._..._. �. ,���_�...:.-. �._...- - , ,•' ��. 24 Conornwod 10 R � W
� ' _...._i ,i f � �� :'� -.�-°��� i ....� - � ( � . _ � '.�Q•.., '� Cottomvood 8 R C.7
.._
; : . �.� _: ..._.. ,. _ .
; Ei ' wr�5 'i ! i:� e c. .__., ,.�.:.�.r. �..�....- � A�._.- ` 5.00'i' � . .�'�Z.. �5 �. . . 26 Cottamvood 6 R �
,...-. ''.` � .
' •� .-� o?fEa�tR:i �.� . r�urr ;�k. �,,,e._-... 1..�. , � �♦ .� ... E 0 R O
.
.__..__. ...
: ; ; ;;__' , . _ _ .. , x i � _. .-- � _�._ , --- N _r. .- z� no FQ s c
, ; , , _.,_ _ (n
' ,. , ..- i', , �.,.._T-�. _.. Z �,� j _ , �-� _ ; �s F io tt Q � '�3
; • ; � ; ' - .. _
: ' ` .'� 1 a ����� � Y _.`� �\' y�j�� J �� I �.�\.. _ ! / 28B Do Fr 6 R Q � Z
, _._._ . - .. _ �
� - ,..�,. .� , � �- 'f,_ F � � � - - t � \ 1._ � � . • �
� ..
. ,. , . _�._ �.. ' ,. . . g_. ,1_�,�� l�... i\:(.... � � � �� /' 9 Dowl�s Fc S PF¢ Q �
� � ..--'_�' '
' : ��'' : _ - - - � ' ; �.' � �� . ...}�T'���.��. �� .�`.. � � .�1` � � ��.1"'.3 . - -- -�� 30 Do Fv 26 R Q V, Q
: i �..� ------- �* -=—------ - �' � � i � _' \ - { �, �� '� � 31 Do Fc 24 R _
..._ - � , � i - - -
: - ' � � S\� - �
. � '- —T._Y.__ �- , � . �� .
� . �.`� �i__` '` __.-' : ., ;� .' .. 7,--���'.. ._ .. � _ _- _' ...' '- "-.. ._._ f"
'" \� � .� � } _. 1.-: ;1 4
�� _ �'d �� ,� i �/ �;� ;y� ' ' 32 Doudas F"v 10 PHZ �
, / �,� ' . �<. � _... ._ ..
, .. � �...._.. �;�++<` I ".� k �� � -�... 33 B� M fe 6 CR W
, . , ;,. . , . .
� . � �' ., ��� ' � .. � l . _ - � '�� y� \ �.,... i� �� ��' � 34 Cononwood 26 OS
' • ..__.--- ... , .y.: �--' .,...- _ .._.. . ... Z�
" � ' ,... ; . ._.. rti � � ..... ._ . .% � A�... �� �c'� 35 G�rt S uoFe OS
��
i' ' k . �
---.,._ , I
, .� , -- � ��. �a W
...._......__ . . � _.
� �
....
� .� .
,,: ,�_��'4 , .�.:, ��_ . ,.__...__. _ �_._�\.. / i ��` + `� 1�' r,:.'� a
------..__.: ...-
,--
� .-• 'I -: �/ '--. �,, �
.. ..,,.„„ •��.-
�
__ _ .J-•'" _._•- _.. ��� ___.. _ _ -
1', �/ _
. : ,,,_.._._ . .. .s . �� >� ... \\���
.... ....._..
_,._.. - I I � ,�/// _�__ /Y' � W
� r � �
J ..._ � --- � ---- a _,
L--�--. -- ----:•- '._ Y-. .��..., � % ;/� N �
"� ' • �
, �exisnr,c ru+ca:" `
-------=-----__.
..\ ... ...<,.'__" . .. ,, , N01t APART�4F PRO.ECT 4 J` y::: 1 T
_ /
I ;
� I � :�_ � / � � �I �l,
; _--' _ .. \ �
� / �., -- /
t,� � i� _�
��a. � I i�
�;,;. ��,..�� i i /'�
� I ■� �� �„ �
. ..�:y. � ���_�'� •51 . .
- ._ . . . , .... � . I ^'k — /
..
_ _......�._ ���
� ..._ / �����a _
_ �
...;
� �� �
� �._,_ _... _--. _....._
�— -- -- -- — _.�.
����
�..._._. �_..____..._.____ . .___..___...�.�----......_....._ ._ .,,,. ;.. , »
; , _ . .........._......._...._......................_____ .
� . � �eww�K nosn s
, '' .•�',�'i:'� �: '...• .._r OOw(��rlA1O IRO M
_r �,� , ,, �, � i TREE PROTECTION NOTES �
� � .,;.:y �. aca�r,-x�ti x.� ' . i !.___.-...._._._. is�s o
:. . � � � . �••9�. -...� � tO INSTALL 8'FNQH PROTECTIVE
! : •. � ' ' . ....._. FEMCING PitlOR TO DEMOLfT10N OR �
�. � .. ., ..� . : ..-...._._...._.....__..."_._.._._.._.._. .._<.. MOU9E CONS7RUC710N.(iYP) �i
J '^
� � � , OZ ROOTPROTEC710NZOIE �
:M . t.V RAdVS PEfi t'OBM(TYP) _ � �
, � �
� : i
. .�. i : ....P°�'� : . Y � '
�. � : . . .--'--"'""'""""_-'_. O7 EROSION CANTROL FENLE(1YP) ][ ^
. . , -1 . �. . O IN5TIILL 81O9�fi(TYPj O
� � _.x;z _ W N
.{L= n � � �
� ;-:ar : . LEGEND �� & �
- __ _ ; ' ° F
� .-_;.a ' X rnce ro ee rm�o�o � � w
' ' GRA?HiC 5CALE F �
� • _-cz:--_., O m¢ro r+o�NN LL
� . . b . .. � Z
� unurr sTnr�MOar �� ,,, _ ' c �� �„�.��..,,� a
- -: . . . . { ....� .. 1 IHM� Ip R O
•:: ::�:. .,x � .' �..i: .� .. .J:..,.. . r� : ......:� ... 5.' . .�.., .. .. o <
,
.:: : . }.::: Sv-��Ar i ;.�::. . ..,. . . . N �"
� . ,.. .... .44 �.a.'(' s( ....:. ' �..!. 2 ��::::.:.� ."_.:iA`��i.:k.. :i1 ..a .._�:.:'i.� YL K 4�%. .�.:C�i^-1� Y�..�.!.h4�.i u. , �'�, � �
.. .., _..... . .. ....... ... .. ... .... . • C
� .• � •. �.�t � f1' 1 � ^l Y P .i R. .... .5 .c4i♦ J'.w 4 �.'vlU�� ...... .�r h'_. ..;.K.`�>:KC1�,ifi=�. 4r5�C�/. . IS.�
� . :.;�5 �!'. > .'N ��< A�T J.. � - .
' .���: R6._R.:4 ^R"'' ti .�n !a. '...�,.�21 � a
� y - "
� . '. . !:". F "1:�: . ... �. . ' � �
� s.. �:. E .�"r. .I..k t5 rt r a7:.�.E.T .S. Y:Y,f 4A ... etri��E<. . +t(:...R^N^•'�.+'J•Y.nCitF.:w. :Fi'+G�. J..'RP�!s:.M,v 4•�•l,E
' Q
u �. , �.....,�,.'v�u.�....�._ . �.�....6. 7F�Cwx.. ', ' ._.
j �: SFIEET Z
�
, _:. � P3oo W
_ ; ��,� : ,.:;
� __. .... .......... _ __ _ _.. _ _. _ .IOB N0. _
__ ___ _ _ �a3 os a
. . � �
.
�
� r_ �
�23.0'-�►-23.0'--�
O �
i �. ".:'.�;
� .... "..' .
.ir �..., . ... ,_ Fs�4+•��p �
� r , o
, . ,a i s� —._.._ __ _-- — ---....___ '__.. ._ ...— -- — --- _., ._ _ _ _ _ .. ..
____. f
_ -�... ... _. .___ ;.� an � ___.._. ._. _�X -� .
�
, � � �"_ � , :
....,..�-'' �... ..w....,. ..� l_ . .,, �,�..,.. ..... � ��,w., �,� �
r
-.. I .- ,,,. . _._.._.._.__..__._ _���..�...,�. --- _ _ -- ---. _ ...__ _. _
.. _..__.___��.___�__,.._�...-.�.o-...,.....__..� . _ ..y._._.� ..p�....�_ .__;'.� . �i �.: �� �, xw w ' :;'�"� .. . ..% . . . .. , . �N �
e ...- � . .n ? 'Z - s�___.. . .. „�'�.. /. o
,.., y , �D+00 .,. 70+50 _ .. _. 1 fl+Ob 2s��.N�1i�S0-.. 9� � �,. _ „ �L .y;s . ..S .... r.._�.
. ,.-.r_':...__gS.._.. 6_.`-.,-. . .___ .... - � Z+ _ _ ... ._.._..
.,s.� � : � _ - -- r -- - ._. . R
1 __- +00
._+.._.-.._ r� � . -....- � -...-_. +_ . � ��"..a- .::.�~ * x:.'. .. �'L:- . .I _ 12�F- `G ' _'g� _�� a.� -- r
_ ---_ — _---�--- _.. ----__-�_ __�— � 31 , -
_ _ _ � �
__. �_
_- � _ ,. K �
�,,,_...�=<. «.._ _...K ._ u._ .. ,w
s,r�t u. a.,- _ . .. _ ._ . - - ---. .-.._�-�
_
. ... —�-
=__—�-_ _ ----- �_-_ ___ _
� ... ' .9�.:- ..wu�x..� � '.., � _. 12 dAP �,. . _ .. . ':' 4). ... F'��i
T STORY PIPE � ... ___ �sJ.-„�-- � ��____'""_ ' — �
�, p �..'..-.._.ar-'__ � . u.�; .., u '; __�. - _ _..
^ _ '__
- ;.�[; , w . ...._ ¢ _... . - � „_�a:,rsts..R_..._._. - ...__ _._
'�� ' `-- ,te• .'..: ''t" ° _�;:,.�`' : ��P�O�SEII lAEES r�� -
,...' ' -
!'e� _ - - _ _-
_..__ _ ;
."�
_' H�_�.�__.' j� .. . . _ _ . - r _ - _ . y�._ �..�.._�.._.
I 4. at ��
.
� '�:- .-J'^'�'__-.J _ .._...-r_ "" ... _.-....r�..��._�:�.r. � �� s ����'}� j �, _ __ �� 4�.a.�..._ �M _. .
� . �
_ , .. ..»
... �.:. .. - ,LM����..
_�
; � _
� .
. . ......._._��,__ . �s;9�• , � 1 l�.- .
� .
_„
. _ � �
-- . : � �.•� � ��
,.,' _:�" h _ - - ._ . —,�, .:� .' '��' � . � - �
_ /i � •�,..- "„' . ' 1 '
f • ,i r w...r�c-:nr_._.. ..., : ,.- :aFt ' Y,3 ���
_ v
r` i� .. „� • . :_ - IHS� z�a�a-'� �' � __
, .. � :. �`- t_,,,'
�.� � � w� �sc,t � �' - ~ • � H
f i ; ,
. .� � �,; - uNhrt�Y rvt ivwo oeryL'� - - ��> -- � W
..---____-_.,� �: -
- �. _. '.
, � sHU�n - y . a
, • �' � � (' q�r1oF ncu�u - - rarv�h� 'i� ��i_�,. �`�;... - * ' � W
' ' ; �_— ; ` `.: ��,�� � " _... . �o+r L _#_� - , __ sso'�k-�zs o'--�I • N
� f�' ,
,, r . ; f � - _-- - " " ze , '' .�=' .,
� ' .°'� '
1 � I ; �J � " PARCEL..1. PARCfL 2 __.. _.______- c A e �
. , .
; � ,
7, ; •.
:! ! v,z,.cr-snc � � -j•.�;n;�" :. ..e�o� ,_ �e��EO SF. �9.3e7 sP. - _ - _ � -
�.c.S " i RAPHIC SC L
, ,. , _ � �
,- �.� �s��:n ' -- '"s+ix; � - �.. _ . . __,
I�.. �� .. .
�
. r:- --- Is �1 y .
r ;� .-_.� : t,�,..f�... __...__. , ; ____ _ +, _
- --�
, . .
� _.: >.��.:., ,' _ .._._ _.._ . � , � ��
, _ _.
-
-
_.
. . ,. _,._.. �.,_ � ' � IIO
,
,� ..'
..
� I �
: ' .
�' .:-'�
� . J ...- ^, � N � 0 W a
I,� �
. . � ,. . _.. ��- F�
_ �,� __ __ _ _ 1
__ . I_ ,
PLAN VIEW, STA: 10+00- 12+42.31 N.DAKOTA STREET � � ��
� HORIZONTAL SCALE:1"=20' Y p � Z
Q Qa
� J
�TiLITY STATEMENT Q � O a
�r��nai uo6ous�oR�wwa�svrt��� � Q W
ra cuu+,v+�n{hT n[u+oa+ar+wNO ununES�ovM caMVwg�u
wa unu�s M n+e�oniQ+a s�nHCe on�a�onm. n� Q � �
smverat Funn�a ooes xat w,vuiutr tN�r n+e�o�xcROU+a
ununES sHOwN u�a�n+e oucT�oc�na+iMac�hn u.n�oua+r+e � Z N
oocs c�nFr nur nier,wc�oc��o tis�ccueuhtr tis rossmE
FRp!MfFORYATION AVNLABIE 7}/E SURVEYOR HAS NOT PMY9CALL7 �
lOCA7ED TME UNDERCRWNO U7rilTiES �
�
� ~
J
����� � N �
DidVEWAY p � � �JJ
Vl �; � C � 1 � 6lAKm0E 147fT
� � o� � o � I � � � ��T TYPICAI SECTION
_'--- a..----- ----- -'--°..__._^�_Z ...._____---�p._.._�. _ ..__-._YO �..__.__..__._.---------.__ ._.��___.- .--___._---. n� ' i AC. DRIVEWAY
�p� �� � ��nvi - �na ' ow � io 1 �
�O �.. ; f�=OW �. �=21�� ' +ZI�� . � �� I i �
+n, O O qq}}
�� PROPOSFD SIDEWALK �n'� �. �r����y �n�� .� �r � ' f a�i Miiw� �4Y�-o' ' � �i'���
1 22.5'R�arr oF w�tx 1�>� 1 . t�{<. __��'�y " _ � � m�
�
t90 N -��MATCH Tb E1C511NG` -_...__ y��y� ..._.���C�� _._. w�Gl� ..__... _..._.. . _..� .....:;,2567i .�-�93% i i� � ����.,
Gl
� � � 0.035 GRADE 9REAK yZ�..a. . . .._ I '� �
..p 0 t1.T, 0 7<x ._ - . i � i ��
__ � � - . . _. ._. __ . -_ ._ _..... I txwa � nm�.o
� �.J. .�snwv'�'m..��c,wa.s
, sue-B�sEf- �� srti n+x.oe � � ;� � ���r
� _..__....STA:...IBt8LQ8�,._.^_. ...... . ___ y8•COVER__ ._.. .. . ._ .16.16 R .._... E.7�SiMC GRWND �u acuyfa ..�o.m.�.m�«...
. . I ELEV:tsB.!{ ....Y GQilFALINE_ _ ._..._..... i i �>..o�m,�...�s
�1e�� sr�: �wee. 0—sr�: n+io.00 I I TYPICAL SECTION
s.�e'R: e•io'a oanNC � GRAVEL DRIVEWAY �
. WAIER FJNE CONNECTION '� WAIER UNE CONNEC710N . �WNp '�. �
. . �, � 17 PopiT � �
��. O CUI��ERT
1e0.... .. ._ _.._ . ._ . . .... .._. .._ ...
..., ,t � '' :.:t .._ _ .._. ._-_ .._ � ��m �
. ._.. : �. �� ' _ "_ "' ... _ _.. __... _ .
__� �,,,, - TYPICAL PLAN
_ . ... � �,tTC' .4 �d�-• + �� aR�S
- ' � -� ••' .,r.� . A.C. OR GRAVEL DRIVEWAY ��'� O
f `:.: ^ �!' � . . ,_..... ... .._ . ........ _ _ wsr�u,s�wr,vtr_ �.,y � ` ....__ N
�
:'� r.��: INSTALL SANITARY �. . UTERAL . . . ...,. ` a�lwti � � r
' ! ��.;-. U�u '� STA: 71+85.00 LT: 4' I
g � � 1 �' �• STA; 10+40.00 LT: 4.0' � � N. DAKOTA STREET��. - TYPICAL SEC710N
a c n° e r N.DucoT�srn�r, iE-ti7au ALTERNATE � �
iE�t77.42
� �� DRI VEWAY DETAILS FOR �g � �
. m 8 -� '<� � - NON-CURBED AREAS �
�.;�0 _::m ..�p V�� ��:m ��Q YIIVO M iMr R
10
x CITY OF TIGARD W`m"�� '� � Z
b ' ' ' ' ��QI Ril U J
a ,o�oo ,o+so „+oo ,�+so ,z+oo ,z+so
� � a
� � >-
� PROFILE VIEW,STA: 10+00- 12+42.31 N.DAKOTA STREET � a
Z
� VETICAL SCALE: 1"=5� SHE P400 �
� _
� �os r+o. 733-09 �a
i
-- _..
. . I ' ;
i oosn+c ' j �
� + . �
r .wz..tn; , 1 �, ; i � __ .. _._ 1 ...._._ ____
WgE ' �
I; y ` ' ' , _ ._ .
t _,_._� ._ ...�_. �
i � , •.,1 `,t ; ��C `` j , ' ..._....._.... �W� �
; ♦
'\� ', z5.0'--� . :..._.__._. i� 5��
, �
,
.
,
` '. •. � � '�` �� o i
. __._ : �:
. . �, . � •.. .� � ( � �� �IVEYVA
. ..��... �. .
. -- E . ` _. _..__.... ( , � � ' .
€ • i c�, � .A t � � _ ' __..._ ....._..:
, � � �
' ` � j 4 i EJO$TN6! k �- � �
NATG1 E7tl5TINC � '' it� t,� •�`- ` .` ; `D�PoYE�} � � , f ��'OWVEIMAY� a,�, -� i �
PAVEFIQIT � I. I � i �. . -. � n, � ! •
_ '. ; �, ,. , �
� ~ � r
'.. , . .� .; t:.:. .. .... ... .._. .... .� �.,_......... : .__..._ ... r. .__ __.u�-..c_ i ... ... ��..._...... .. . .,^ ' _ " (- ---- - .... ______... _. _ _"--- - -- '-- -. _._ _.__ ...._ .._ _. _.___... _...... ---._..._.. � ��
i' ! �
T\ . +\ ' h�b a � .- ��
, � ,
,. .
� n . � , , � �SW 92ND AVENUE ; 8 „
�, :o � a � .��
. . ,`. : _.. _ _..__ _____
� ,:
, _ _ a _ ._ , ._ _ - ----.F.-- , - ---�---_� _ �
--�-� n -
H10 00 . ' 10+5 . � . . . 1f*OQ� ._'- �_...... =: 11+50 -'-_ '.;..., '- -' -��4 12+50_:.�.�_ _ y._.. � _._..._- � � 13+50 11+00 14t14.5... =
oasn+c ^ , '— '--� + -- 8 -- .___��r,.:� ___.--a---- --� --_�_._--�_ is+tou ��� _ � � —� _ —�� �
��':.- _. . . . ... _
�. . . F N -. ., .. .-.... ; � . _ � ,
. � - .�. y�...
SANITARY ���., '� . , �$#� � . n .-�: , ��� ' 1 .�. . ::,� . _......
1 _ � o� _ � � � .
MAHHOLE �_ � ..._r., _ . �....: `'. ,,.�_;.�, '�; �.� ��. �� �,..,r,. �:.._.�.-�--. �
:Y :: , :; . �. �.�.
._ :.. _ ,.. _. .w. - �
. ��.,, +.r� rS �J.�
.. :�,' �' ... _..
� , `
.
._ �_' :�<. ...� _ � � ' ' ._ _ .__... ... . ___. _. .__ ..... .__ .. ........._._ Rp
.. '.� .„ ..._ . .. ...._., _........_ ............. ...�_......... ... Y!.a. __ �in. ___.. _..1. �.. ' '
.... i � � ���
; r-- -- -- ��
,_ . , ,
- �— ; , �
8 . , �,. , • ``s � x
� � N
.
,e�4r
: . r '. u.� �. : . . .ti � �;. . �,.� :;� . . Ew57NC !� J
... ._ .,.. ... ._._. „ .._.. .....i..
�
� . ` . • � i3 ! DPoVEWAY� � —
. . - i .: � I . . . � � . . � , . .. Y . ..- . . , � , � �
PLAN V►EW, STA: 10+00- 13+00 SW 82ND AVE. �
HORIZONTAL SCP,LE: 1"=20' Q �
z
O � �
PVI STA� 12+26.94 �
PVI ELEV- 21<.40 v �
/�D.� -4.58 i f-
K- xo.�s Q 0 W
W
95.0' VC
x � Q v`—i
Y n
r p �
+ r
n V
_. _ _ _
_ _. .._. _ _ ..... ___ - .. _ _ _ ... —
� � r z ~ m
�.-
' ' .--'� - Q a
z2o ----._.__'i�.___-.____.:_.----.----. !_ ....__ :_.._. ;._-.---..__ _ - -- : _____...-- __ __:_^,..__._.___-__ zza
�
' .
,0;2� �'f r'„ 0 Q
. m : w,�l"
�
� ���„
� �. ......__ ._....__._. .... ... . .... . .�... ._. ...._..;� .K , ___.__...._.. . �.__ �—_......._. ........�.... -:--�� ��. Z 0
.......'_`__"»._. _ . _.. ... . ��.
.._.... . . ` ry ,.- ,
�... LOW POINT ELEV� 189.14 . ��C N � '`i... . ` '�r~ � N
� � LOW PpNT STA� /0+21A5 ��. �� - - �
m -`_. r
�� PN STA� iW56.fl5 � �TERLI.NE__. � . ,..r_'..< ... _.y.r,,� "__.__ .. _.._.._....��_ '--_.-.�210 �
210.-_..__'____.___.—_._.PVI ELEV��788:90 _._-._...._ " __.__�-...... ___' ' ' _ - .. .1,.,� __ �-:--- �
. A.D. � 15.62 � "�'� � �El(ISi1NG SANTARY MH � (/)
�r . STA: 12+45J8
�, K � 4.99 . � �g„���� " ' : 1.8' R SW 92N0 AVE -
. . . � ^ .•f '� RIM'f,4 2 6 44HOLE
. 7&0'�C ��,V� ,r. • OsZ�b��,-•"� � 1
.__.........._ ........_ .._.. ._.._._._ .. _..._...... n ._._.._. _. y- ._. ..._ ¢r. -.._. .. __._.... . .. ._ ..,. _..__. . __._.....__..
�_�����,,�'� ....,� ..... �
� � �,,,. r �_,/,. 0 IE IN (E) 210.J �
� ,� f �'' �i6 IE OUT(M)270.2' .c�gj
� � + �f✓�^ � `_' � 'i� �c , . ... ��'���'*�'n�i" .
' � <' .'N►��� 5.�5 . � �,'�,a�
200 ____. � ........�...._.. .J....___ .... _...._.JP� .�,_..__._�al...-__ ......._ _ . ._..... _ ----`_..__ _...__... .__...... ._.. .......... .._ . ..........._. P00
� � .
f�:..,.
,.:/ � „ .
�n � '��S � �.�,.v
� � �'. ;!'` W r/ : K��Yo
.. ..� : � � �'' - ..__.._.r______� _�...._.�..._ ��._`___�� �.._"_..' _.__ __._.___.._ __________
f� . ^�
i m .`..� �, I � ,' �wns
r
O ^ �� �' - .'� � .
. .__ � ..__ ; ._'"_ . _"_'_ - = WS
U > � .- � ' � I� . . ��m
m m�f tx CRAOE�?EAI ~.~/ � �.. ��� ' z�� O
;
�
,.'. ,,
190 =Lfi2X. r _ ._. ._� !. ,�,..�.:. �,_.._..... ___ .._...._. ._,.. ._....____... -.._�...._....._.... ' _._"_'.___'_._'._.� ___ _.�..._....___ ______..'__ 190 ^
� ��
. �0.6 FUIURE I . �
� �,,r: �. � FlNISHED CRADE� . .. . , I
^r � - O CEN7ERLJNE
� �"_��„ " ' I � �
� . ____ _--...__.._ __-.--- _�_. _,_ _._�.._----.— ---.._ __..__ _.___.
E _...----- _ .. , � � �
$ .�INSTALL���75'CLILVERT PIPE I � � � � I
, O.-;, . , . �qqi
g =I z� , _.__ _._ .......-- - ...__ gm � W
R180.• �._.. 7�....._ ... .._.. . ..__. ....._... �F . .... .......... ._._..._._.._ ._......__T_. ..-__._.__._.... .__..... . .» _....�.. �..'�� F V�
� � . � �i�e ' a Q
� ��,► g � a
� ,r oo � �
.:iY ...�N ..�m � N ��Ib � � � �
tV ;'(O
l �.m .'m Go : O .��-N
r � ! � Z
� ,0+00 ,�+5� ,,,00 ,,,50 ,2.00 ,2.5� �3+00 SHEET �. ..�
� _ PROFILE VIEW,STA: 10+00- 13+00 SW 92ND AVE.(EXISTING CONDITIONS) PSO� �
�' VETICAL SCALE:1"=5� ���� 733-09 �
�
I _
Exhibit B
City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application
PRE,APP.HELD B�:
CiTY 4F TIGARD PLANNING DIViSiON
I I 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223-8189
503.639.4171/503.684.7297 � �t
CITY OF TIGARD ~
'if�`
� o��°" LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATI�N
File# Other Case#
I Date By� Receipt# City ❑ Urb ❑ Date Complete�
I TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR
�AdjustmenWariance (I or II) � Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Zone Change (III)
I �] Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) ❑ Planned Development(Iil) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV)
�] Conditional Use(III) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review(f, II or III) ❑Zone Ordinance Amendment (IV)
] Historic Overlay(II or III) ❑ Site Development Review(II)
I �] Home Occupation (II) ❑ Subdivision (II or III)
ress i avai ae e
11285 SW 92"d Ave.
IS135DB04301
� �
45 Acres R-4.5
� Mark Seaman
s407 SW 58th, Portland, OR 97219
503 246-9890 503 245-8507
I '.ee Leighton, AICP—Westlake Consultants, Inc. 503 684-0652
� c is i more an one
� Ga A. & Patricia J. Hellwe e
1285 SW 92"d Avenue, Ti ard, OR 97223
.�0 3- �7. 43 t�
When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be purchaser of record or a fessee in
I possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The�ners must sign this application in the
ace rovided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this a lication.
ease e spea ic
2-Parcel Partition of Tax Ma 1 S135DB04301. Prima access to both arcels will be from SW
)akota Street.
�PPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMiTTAL ELEMENTS AS
1ESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATfON SHEET.
THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTtFY THAT:
♦ If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the
terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval.
♦ All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits
transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based
on this application, map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false.
♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria,
and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s).
�
SIGNATURES OF EAC�1i OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED.
i
�� `
.
' - ; q � 7� G�
Owner's Sign ary A. Hellwege Date
� - ��,� ��--� -o�
Owner's Signature Patricia J H Iwege Date
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
�
Applicant/A nt/Representative's Signature Date
Mark Seam�n
Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date
Lee Leighton, AICP —Westlake Consultants, Inc.
Exhibit C
Tax Map
'� ~
s..� � C7� I f���e`s '� 4 'R � �. W ..,.•. .'�.• . . . . � o � � io tA i�
�! 06 ��`w �r}.4 r �., ` � '.�.;,, ''�,�'� � � :�Q � gd �r "��� � �y4Z0 gt QL�
���..�� .��, � ,..� � . � '!'� �F7Y � `�
w n n, �,.�,.. , k'�6r � �K� �� � � �Q �N � �. ro j�y e�j ��
� •;� T� zdg �` • `'�s �. ' � -a v S �i�� �' f:� �4���pA� ~�
.� � „ ,; '' > . � � � .� 2 8 •� � �-g � "° � �
,� -: o Z� a ,+. ,.� ti� ,,7. �« ^ -0 : . �s��� n- � sx °zo=E� �
� �� v°� ;,' , �� K ..� �.; � 'd� ��� � � � a'�xti�f�� �
. � z� , � � , � �, ����a � � W�oo �
' Dwc� .�, � ,„, .,� � E7 c� ,.$ ' g � ryo�;�
' � �- � • �•° �,"' � �' r���� a e� ! ... 4 0�' B$��� � � cw � �a
rn>
r g �
z� p b �. ��'�r �7�� =� � � t � � � �q � �az a
- . a �•_ �' 'Ys � �. $ $ p
s a� .�� . �S��a .b'�.,l�'v f ./al��.�;� �_' .,l �_�;.`�, �S�-,8 � �� ���
#�' �;� � � � � �
; � _. , . .
� ..�`,;:�
�
-- � �, •' �r...,���`�������....�.�.�., � ,`��o.: 4 Y. � Y �r ��� � .' , . 5 � m
k ,� 'Q,Q // �y,�1 r �O� ����e `�j�� le • � �`� '� � ' 0
R �� Y �f� /� � � '��! �t~ �+ R� "� �,�F.R i�� �
�. �6.��� �`\,��, 0 � i ,.. ::" (h
. I � 4^�% �� � � � .�-., � .""'"�'. . ' �efe� � �
� J ���►�Q. t � o ��y • t . "' N
' I � 0 i �. ��Y k, 1� � y g � . > x =A� :, '" f_�
',��•:,::I�:.;�: �� �C� a� „1( � ��� �8 f =� �� a �.k �' '�� .,:�„{� �i � Y`, %'� Y' ��. $ Y
�,� � J ��� � � ' �, � .�1 i9 ��+� 4^` �. =iA
� . C i �` , �
•t ,..,�<,�;,�, ,,,�P <.�.+. .' � ` •. r ``=: ';- ;
-i:' -- --y�`�_ � ,.,., .,.fi.,..,,f99l�b�Ha'31,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,�diN-3J1b.. ,,,�� � „�E _.� .,,,,, .,,... �..,., „
r � , , �,,,....,�I�Fl�6„o .,•.� .,.1VlS .,.�98�...
` _`+.w�-- �-�- k
� �j.;-"�..-"..'�.,'�..`�!� sl I — � �, �r o
� � f/. .��':"'�w�� y l�; �� b6 � „ .,� s -E'
� �___ � � �� 3 _ �� gA ��6��s �q �. � $Ai g� $p� �.6� � �
� _ . . � 9 N �.�_�, d �,:
�,�'� /l:,,4` �,�� s�.�v.,,L � "` '� I '.n� 8� '� $Y �t;.r""-`� `,�!�:
�,�� � :,y`. �' p ,' �' � • I 9p uv �� dTi
z
�» .
� \"�� � G �oi..� s-.�,: $ tl�, ,,.y � � 5f .y r.j I .�� � 4.^ `..
' I �/"� '�'.� - �r „�'e� �I'' �'� �^ 4^s �•1 �r� �+ Xw 6 �� I �/ �w Od, � .'•
� L�• < ,�y � L��� F a ���, i /1� .r,..... �w
� �IRY . .. ::-�= -��-�� 4 ..�. . � "'^'r^','0�
� � .s� ^ �,
� � ' ...-..� , •�:�•
/ �. -J ,. a � � =:lklfl0� 1SL6 +G, S � 0 � c� $- !I?4 �" �,Ir N il S 3•.���,� E�..
�..�•
� � ,,,t �,�� . .�.. .�..; '•- :- : � �1 1--=�,-�— ��+�
�.. .r. 1 „�,,�.: o\`+► �y ... 3(1N3M> fr 1S16 usmw M
�.•''.:"�',:�`:.,';'.' � _M '
'� �' ga � �_ � ���� $�� �s .$-� .��"� .y'�+�,,z „ .�. �..
I ..�. ,.....
`;'.''*'' -��.�:-, -° � �R ¢'� �� _ - _ $^ �•�� s� s pa !I g � /'
I ✓ � P Y ry �� � g
Y 8Y � ,- I � .,..�, 'I R' tq. �g.,1 �;.; 'E,_
, _ _ _ j� g a :� "'.---+";�� `�t;a � I .'� ' '�I.,'.
�R y ,,, .,,
�'�•"�' �=^. � I , � :..,..,. •',{� Y .
9':"••:_ �. -- ' gy � �`t" „Y I i � 1a°��. ��'.� �'F` '.�
�,�;r,T ---- �-}R�� , s� I�i §_� a� ��� � �� �; �� � $� � Q s��� .�_:
L—� - 1,.� � � �' `� x(�. �tw �,. �
� =.� �R ��_� I� I c I � `�Ft` -�' �'!� �
n5^ � � 1�� � �`� �� �;� Y ��� �`
ai
� R sY d��a � nrv3ne � aNZS � " I� ��� �'�
�� ..,. �� �, � �- .,. !_ ^^s� '* � ��o
�$..e�8 K� 3� � ^I T � �� � Y .� � _�� �/�
,.,'. ; �i' r�@ 9' �- � Y y � � � I r , ��- f: ��0=
� ,,� ��� �"s I �" T;. �- i i, �- i �. � s,. �� �_ �� �� �' �-• ,���
$ /�y� • 7b•4
iY R �R � y � 5' `�♦ � l '�w�i�� ,ua
�',_�� � 6 �� � gq I y � �
� � ..�1.,,�..�,. � �R �� r ��,,.
������� �' ���nr�a�:. �, � �� �' �
N. �va,,,,aae�,,,,, .,nns..,, z �e � ° �,� �
-- »,. «�.�, ..,. \,.� ;-"�_�'�"�� g�� �=� :^� �- t �„ E �.., g. �/ %��. �',...
t � I . . % ,� , ' k'i.
g Z ti�
Y'��"� �� R-� - 8 Y i,� f,j�-" 'O�,� ''�N�.�::._....j ..�=-- � '� ' /�..=:,,;a,:'�.�D x� �
L.t"i;' .� t .R .l� --+---=--�Jf / .' '
� � 6 ^° ,.,�;,��s� �3f1N3n� � � = Hlti6 ti,.� M5 e ~ �f�::�;.:,;.,.�.` �_ ' ";
� ,,,, .�� � �_ 4
.��� � :i �� �i s" I`+�-�;, ` �.•• - fL �"` -
'..1 �R I � R^ Cb ,.., g $e��l� I p� �d j, §� gZ ��1$ t� �$ K ..f y� A.Y,�,1��
� ._. Z� �r � ! :��'-�f .
.N, w 6 S` ��' � 's �Y 7 —.�.�..•'. ..
..:�1, w� uu I� �` 1�� -- � �� � R /' "_ � � . :.y�'-"Z . .: -.
o— , ��— '� . / �I�.�:.�'..
„. s
y �_ $" �L� 6,j � /" ��R� i _ e�i.�
�:� ¢� ���i I� �� � x 6 t I / 4 � �"�"^i a"� �` -0,4 $Y I� g� '�3 �' �� ��Tif��• ,:��`j-�fi�.: . .
�,*--�.L.-�.- ,� =-�--.�+�,k' ;\es� i� �� ��.,-E.1 , :ti,�::
�RM '4 � ^"' . � ¢.
A'. :.
� 3nN3n�t � ��....,.,,,.�...... ,,,,.,. ,�, �__ � ;
,,,,,,,,,,,,,�,.,,,.,.,,.. .,•,. ,.:••.,.,.,,.....,,,:.. H156 , ,�-,"��,�,�,., ....� '-.. .
� , :. —�--; .� .. ,,, rs�o�a�� .' ,.�S i .-: . ;. •..-
..� .� ,, � ,, ,..�f�N3l.1X..,.,.. ,g
.�Y , ,� �`.�.'�.,� '.'. ,�,,.�,,.,�,,.,,,...,..v 9���'..
. .� � � �'�j R :�� -t . -. � / t ��
� , •' ��a ��� ,��! 9�ij.�� t�� *'" �\��; e�t�. s Y' Y:: .'$ Y, "' �
'+� � X '�,� � �. w�� :,�• �.�� '� . �. �..� � ��`�'k, Ec34'.� 'ri y.• i: �.
''� �. ��.';,'.t��t�,:��,�.� ;� �;e; x� �`! . ,:;; , < � � Z
� - '� .�-�
� �'a: � � ,'�ii�R;'�' y � ,�:Y:� ��:.., -�� p. ,X ,� g
� a z � ' K�.�,, 1 "— ei* a� '.'' �Y �"° �R�
+ F ��� :�_ �� � � I '�,��.._�� � , �I t1�::;-:��:,.,a�-a� >cn ::
� ��� � "_�, �, •=�'.Y+,�-��. � I ; ,•v"�• � / .��...' .�r .���$ y},� ,. �
� � �j�� � � � ,:�� � ; .::. ,. KF � � -
_ . .� r � «i. i ''.:" # �
-a'� L�� t.,�:" �
�r
Exhibit D
Pre-application Conference Notes
PRE-APPLICATION
`� CONFERENCE REQUEST
CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297
GENERAL INFORMATION
�� � FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Applicant: �
Address: �J��J ���V�Ll��f)(�,I1' one:S���•121��� Case No.: ���.��5�vv ."33
Cit : Zi Receipt No.: �-�''�S " 'J
y �t��►/?'1� P�
T���� /� Application Accep d By:
Contact Person: �(� 0; � Phone: � — �l0
Date: � �`�
Property Owner/Deed Holder(s): v/',c YU H �.� l W ��
� DATE OF PRE-APP.: � Z b.�
TIME OF PRE-APP.: �� �. �-� �J
Address:I�7_S� S� �2Y�d�1P Phone:
- r, PRE-APP. HELD WITH:
� �
City:���� Y� Z�p� ��� �' Rev.1/3/05 i:\curpin\masters\revisedlPre-AppRequest.doc
Property AddresslLocation(s): � I��S J w �21�� J'��L- .
�iC.iL�Jt�� RE4UIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS
(Note: applications will not be accepted
without the required submittal elements)
Tax Map &Tax Lot#(s): ���� ��� ,�� �W��
Zoning: p— � � � � Pre-Application Conf. Request Form
Site Size: - ��1 �C , 4 COPIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING:
[1� Brief Description of the Proposal and
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE INFORMATION any site-specific questions/issues that
you would like to have staff research
prior to the meeting.
All of the information identified on this form are required to be
submitted by the applicant and received by the Planning Division a � Site Plan. The site p�an must show the
minimum of one (1) week prior to officiallv schedulinq a proposed lots and/or building layouts
pre-application conference date/time to allow staff ample time to drawn to scale. Also, show the location
prepare for the meeting. of the subject property in relation to the
nearest streets; and the locations of
A pre-application conference can usually be scheduled within 1-2 driveways on the subject property and
weeks of the Planning Division's receipt of the request for either across the street.
Tuesdav or Thursdav morninqs. Pre-application conferences are � The Proposed Uses.
one (1) hour lonq and are typically held between the hours of � Topographic Information. Include
9:00-11:00 AM. Contour Lines if Possible.
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCES MUST BE SCHEDULED IN ❑ If the Pre-Application Conference is for
PERSON AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER FROM a MONOPOLE project, the applicant
8:00-4:OO/MONDAY-FRIDAY. must attach a copy of the letter and
proof in the form of an affidavit of
IF MORE THAN 4 PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND THE mailing, that the collocation protocol
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IN YOUR GROUP, PLEASE Was completed (see Section 18.798.080
INFORM THE CITY IN ADVANCE SO THAT ALTERNATE ROOM of the Tigard Community Development
ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE Code).
GROUP. 0 Filing Fee $340.00
Pre-Apps (CD Meetings) _ Apr��2005 ,
S M T W T F S
, 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,
24 25 26 27 28 29 30'�
Thursday, April 21, 2005
s:oo
8:30
9:00 Pre-app Mike VanLoo 503-452-8003
9:30 , �
10:00 Pre-App John Hartwell 503-617-9766 11355 NW Blackhawk 3
vs.4-lot
10:30
11:00 Pre-app
11:30
12:00
12:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30
5:00
5:30
6:00
8:51AM Friday,April 08,2005
Proposed Partition: 11285 SW 92ND AVE
Legal: DOGWOOD RIDGE, LOT 1 -2, ACRES .89
Submitted to the City of Tigard Date: April 7, 2005
From: Hartwell Homes, LLC
We propose to partition the existing tax lot (04300) into three lots. The existing
home on the property will remain and two additional home sites will be added.
Areas of concern include:
1 . Possible necessity of connecting SW 92nd Ave to SW Dakota Street.
2. Requirements for site improvements on SW Dakota Street.
3. Required differences for three lot partition versus a four lot subdiv�ision.
.�,.,,:. ,�,,
�d:t '_t'.t ?:�: TY.y4 '-ii�A::t ti!�il
� � � . � i4 � �3',ea�:: i a°1 _ Q __.
'°� _�J� t��:: •,:�1 �l �. d► g . .l �-� �r
}�.� �/ a'.
N,, aoor555 �. M SOUTH LINE bAV10 C,G RAHAM DLC�i2 � �W�
. �YY R �.w
A �1\�1/"'� ��
v"rr�i+. ...�:.���.+i�+�� �` , .
,. v.,,. ,�•,._;--�+� .... N NQRTH LINE JOHN C NICKLIN DLC 64
58.80 . 5600 �F�.33 1 Q� M 9 �077��.,.:5750 �...m.. ....... 1;i8,9 .._ _J
� . ..... _.
1 ,. S8&3kOOW,� 183.9 m � —__
� ' `F� :�c° R:; ��j �
6500 ° $S00$� �700 Eo' I 7500$� 760Q 8+
6 g' 6 fl 7 � �n 15 W: i6 ��:� � o� so� � 420fl ,
. - �' �� �. ^ N G .
I � �V �
58.80 59.fi0 ,� 1 i w 578Q 57gp x� '��.
�..__.... �._.__..wi._� _ �..._..... ,�_.......... � tse.9 .S1 AC
f .. {'� j3 �,A fl5.00 y.._._._ ........ . � �,f .
. . ..._..__... .�
� �a��� S..'� � � � �.�d{�._._ . ,_ �#
...�, a,' � "ro 74�0 Wr
�I� �d?0�... 4 0 '4 �� .88AC � � '
� R t
�, :,, , y_ __. __._ __ _
J ' �° �—.__ »a oo � �,"'� iae.a {^
__� --.. _... ._
�.,�_____ __. . _� � `!� o � l�'
� g �69t0�0 A xs� Q�4;.fPv�� 713p m� y � � � �
a� J �b,t��' 6�d �y, io� : :Q �
� m� �i.�.,�.1 109.68_ �__.._.._____.. 198.9 Q ; . Cl �1�� �
r...__._9480 ..._�d Y� � ( �..! y __._.._._.._.___ ___ � ;� �� ��j t
� ,r �,w 720o � ; as ac
(� /� A � ' �
O. 7VQV� ���1�� � ��6 :O �2 �' i �� . , . . ..._..._....
� �Q � �a � 10417 �S• , �..___ _187,� _,... ..,_..__.
A
f ,� .... __ m.AO �QQ �
113,84 123 88 � '4 ���Q �� �
m
:��. vi��,�,.�. �,,.� ��,�.,,�.,. .;��� � 3 �
� , � �y � `� I �o a�oa ��.
d� p 188.9 �ui e,:
.� ^ �I� „s...;:�7t5o4 t T� � �........_. _..._.4, '°' 50AC �..:
_... . ......... ����' .____�_. _.�'� ��
. ...:_ ____.._. _ A,'.
._. _ .........._ .. .,_. .__......._,.., _.. _ _._. ,.,_ . ,_�....,_.... _.......�... :_m...
C< �.:a,e._:�u*
�
- . „" �
\ , .
'-:±�W...�.�r �`� �`�
13� „f�+�wM�rrJ� . ' '"""�i„Ny�=
y�M��r��,��,����� .'�.,� . . . . . , . . � . . . . . . � ���+� .
���� '
,. ' .. �.. _:, .; ',. - ��. - .-.-..... ....... ._... ....._. ,. ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,_...,,.,,_ ,..,.. ..._._....,....,...,__.....,,��^ . _.,.__. .,... . .._...... .._...__ . _...............
�'' � . . . . �� ;��-:�:��. l� M�7,�� ';� �„_�'�_I,_ _.i.. /� ���.�
�� �� �,; ,,�;� €'�.���-��4-��'�.: _____._...___—
;� �; �__.._
;;. �- �,�t � �l
- ��' ���� � : ���� �J��c "�'r��o�4 G ' �'��c.*���� d '
� �
t'� s i� �� ��� �� �j�= ' �UI�QI1�� �u,l`J�li'l�� � ���
� : :r� �, �''; ; c��C '� , ��;f , � ' .�,� ����
i'�i : : �' : � � I
: �;� : ;�,;
� � ,,.. __... _�_._._.�___. .------- ---- '��r
� Ja,� / ' r .�� �i.�
.
' ��'.�� ; 'S�
� ��
�� r.�......_....................._.. ....�,,......_..... _ �� �,�J
���,�D� : �l�,G � ��.�i �
.� ' ; "
.
� ���� �
. .
. �� _.
. :
� .�� �� ____.�
. . � .
� � __...____ . . .... . ........ .... ....__...
� � �
:� �� �, ;
^ ..... �9�.�
�; � : �X I��"1 I`l G� = � ,^:�._.... ......... . ......... ... _._......._.
: � ���-,� �
<�
, �,. ..._. ...... �
, ��._.__._.......................... ......... ......... ..�,��. {—;C>r"1`I t'.
� .............._. .
-,� _�` '� ' �
_ ,.: ;�., �,; �"� ��i \ --�__` �
_.��-�, ��, �.-�.. '���� ���- .c. ��{v r �l a�c�?i"l l
����,� � �-'':'�'' '�'; _ �
r-�'�-� �' `�,� �a� ,� Y6_ � � � �►���
_ . ., .
� , T��,r ��a �� _ .. . .�.................................................. . . _..���'•� ... . _....__...__ ...._.....___. ....... - ��
, . ... . _ . _ __ ...�,
�.r:
..... ........ ......_. ...
�
�Y
�""; �� � � �� ._....�. .� _.. _.., .'_ ___... ...,...
�� ��
� ,"" '"
...�.� :�� -�,��� �:. �� �
� ..� �.. ..._� ..._. ............ ...... .._
�� :�, �� T ......._ ........ . ���.�
� .�� �; �.- �;.
��r '� , �:� � �
�` ��.�� ,.;:
;"...................___.....,._........_._................._..�............__. ;
� . �� �` � � -
�� � � �
r �
�
�,,,- _.., -.t. ��.��` ���� �', _ � ` �-���
.;:� ,�� � , � � 5�
�� ��
°��,� �r� ���.� +�►� ��
. :
. ,.
: . ............. ........._____.__ ...�_ ___.___.._.... _.___..�_�..._.__............._... ...........�...... ,�y r�� C
-'j,� 9��.i�� '`y - ����� �✓ Fi °
J ��� �ig� . . .�4�hM�Y . . ' . . 4-v.h� � - .. . . ..
�G6�1�..��
' ��r�� ��� � �� �
� � � 5Q
` a:�-��}� .
�On t�tiek Zoom In Zoom Q>>* Pan Identify Taxlots
Refresh Map I - __
� � _ ..�
U_1'axluTs
�Srrr�t� _ - - _
U�[I'CCE NitI11�5 ♦ � _ _- ��
�J l�l�ltl llC�l� �
I�.J�_ll_c'�15[11l'I �
LJ 5�t100��1St1"1C[ ------ I - I
------- - —I
-�.--�-.
-- --
U Urbaii Gro�ti�tti_I3uund_ary � -
❑5ireanis I
❑ -- --- � _
Citir�
l)SGS u tds - '
�----�—` �
�] 1999 Aerial Pl�otos '`�
------------ - - .
L]Vutrr 1?rz�iu�t� � ( ' � :
�5.�
❑�itizen Yarl._()r� '
. I
�l:oritottr,(20 It� "`,_ :
.
:�i.�p�v�.ia,� i-���_�rz��
counry View
PRE-APPLICATION C�NFERENCE HOTES �.�,
➢ ENGINEERING SECTION Q �o"�'n ty�°�„'°nt
ShapingA BettesCommunity
PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Map[sl: 1S135DB
Tax Loasl: 04300
Use i�pe: MLP
The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant
will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be
no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned
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 improvement related requirements
that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project.
Right-of-way dedication:
The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public:
(1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification
right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or
(2.) For the creation of new streets.
Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for:
� SW North Dakota to 29 feet from centerline (Neighborhood Route with Bike lanes - appears that
existing ROW on south is currently 25 feet from centerline)
� SW 92"d Avenue to 27 feet from centerline (Local Street)
❑ SW to feet
❑ SW to feet
Street improvements:
� Half street improvements will be necessary along SW North Dakota, to include:
� 18 feet of pavement from centerline
� concrete curb
� storm sewers and other underground utilities
� 5-foot concrete sidewalk with 5 foot planter
� street trees sized and spaced per TDC
� street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
❑ Other:
C1n OF T16ARD Pro-A�icatl�e C��eronce Netes Page 1�f 6
���.adn�n�ro.•.ca•cu..
� 3/4 street improvements will be necessary along SW 92"d Avenue, to include:
� 16 feet of pavement from centerline to curb, plus 8 feet of pavement section on the
opposite side of centerline to allow for two-way tra�c.
� concrete curb
� storm sewers and other underground utilities
� 5-foot concrete sidewalk with planter strip
� street trees sized and spaced per TDC
� street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
� Other: As lonq as access is needed to support this development, the developer must show
how they will meet the minimum street standard (lots must have access to an improved street).
_The_plan shows access to both North Dakota Street and to 92" Avenue. In that case, the
developer would have to propose improvement to both streets in order for Staff to make a
positive findinq with reqard to the street improvement requirement. The Citv will not likelv be
able to iustifv a condition to improve both streets, so unless the developer proposed to
construct both streets, Staff would not be able to make that positive findinq.
❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include:
❑ feet of pavement
❑ concrete curb
❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities
❑ -foot concrete sidewalk
❑ street trees
❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
❑ Other:
❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include:
❑ feet of pavement
❑ concrete curb
❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities
❑ -foot concrete sidewalk
❑ street trees
❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
❑ Other:
❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include:
❑ feet of pavement
CITY OF TI6ARD Pre-Appltcatl�n C�Meronce N�tes P�e 2 N 6
EIIlI���h�!����1UN��t E�Ctl��
' � ❑ concrete curb
❑ storm sewers anu .,ther underground utilities
❑ -foot concrete sidewalk
❑ street trees
❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee.
❑ Other:
Agreement for Future Street Improvements:
In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently
practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval
may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee.
The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may
be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee:
(1.)
�2•)
Overhead Utilitv Lines:
� Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines
adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a
fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines
are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to
$ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines.
There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW North
Dakota Street and 92"d Avenue. Prior to issuance of buildinq permits, the applicant shall
either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above.
Sanitary Sewers:
The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located in both North
Dakota and 92"d Avenue. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer.
It is the developer's responsibility to provide separate connections for each lot to the public sewer.
Water Supply:
The Tualatin Valley Water District (Phone:(503) 642-1511) provides public water service in the area of
this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your
proposed development.
Fire Protection:
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-7010]
provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for
cm oF nsaRO Pre-nnuncen�o C�meronce N�tes �a�s a n s
Eallu�rl�!�nub���t E�etln
��
. mformation regardmg the equacy of circulation systems, tf�eed for fire hydrants, or other
questions related to fire prc .ion.
Storm Sewer Improvements:
All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed
to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm
drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure
that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed.
Detention is required for subdivisions. A fee-in-lieu of detenfion is available for partifions.
Storm Water Qualitv:
The City has agreed to enforce SurFace Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the
Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction of
on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus
contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from impervious surfaces. The
resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-
site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not
the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious
surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary
sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development
application. It is anticipated that this project will require:
❑ Construction of an on-site water quality facility.
� Payment of the fee in-lieu.
The fee-in-lieu is available for partitions, but not subdivisions.
Other Comments:
All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City
maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance
access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily
accessible.
1)Provide preliminary sight distance certification with Land Use application.
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic
Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected
impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon
the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of
the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee
category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of buildinq permit issuance. In limited
circumstances, payment of the TIF inay be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy
CITY 9F T16ARD Pro-Appllcatl�n C�Meronce N�tet Page 4 d 6
�,.�.••n.�ur.rn...cs•en•.
, �permit. Deferral of the pa��^�ent until occupancy is permissiblF �� when the TIF is greater than
$5,000.00.
Pay the TIF.
PERMITS
Public Facilitv Improvement (PFI) Permit:
Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering
Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall.
For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or
subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for
review and approval.
The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A
deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the
permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases
where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for
any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI
permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit.
The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security.
Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer
Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public
improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows:
NOTE: If an PFI Permit is required,the applicant must obtain that
permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Diuision.
Building Division Permits:
The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more
detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at
503-639-4171, ext. 304.
Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial,
industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot
grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading
and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in
cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation
excavation material is not to be hauled from the site.
Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued
after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit.
Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all
work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This
CITY OF TI6ARD Pre-Applicatl�n Comeronce Notes Page 5 ef 6
E�ole••d�e�.o�rtnat s•cue�
� � � permit can not be ����aed in a subdivision until the p��' improvements are substantially
. .
complete and a myl, �py of the recorded plat has been .arned by the applicant to the City.
For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a
mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit.
Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing
that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information.
GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS
All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The
engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as
well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in
determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer
will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each
homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall
include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the co�ners of the lot. The builder shall
also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building.
PREPARED BY: � ` Z-I `C7 S
ENGINEERING D PARTMENT STAFF DATE
Phone: [5031639�4171
Fax: [5031624-0752
document2
Revised: September 2,2003
CIi11 OF TI6ARD Pro-AppNcatl�n C�Meronce N�tes Page i�f 6
E�e�■••dq unrn.•.t a•cna
f
CITY OF TIGARD
� PRE-APPLICATION CONfERENCE NOTES �om,�un1�y;De�,��p;�nt
S�urping A;Beuer C�mmunity
(Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months)
PRE-APP.MTG.DATE: ��I Z I /v 5 {�
STAFF AT PRE-APP.: !'� f �K M
_F_ _ __ _ ,_ RESIDENTIAL
APPLICANT: ��� w��'w�,�� Il'l���7L�+M a�, AGENT:
Phone: � ) Sv3--Z y 6--`7 9U Phone: � )
PROPERTY LOCATION: A� ,,
ADDRESS/GENERAL LOfATION: �( Z�S S�/ �Z� /rVCi
TAIf MAP(S)/LOT #(S): � ��+ 35���I�� �,•,3;w
NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: M�}�
, n
�vT3 �
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: � �t � (c�" �y„� Ijfls�u/l�
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP DESIGNATION: R " � -� L�w ��►s�� �g�
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: � " �- S
i0NIN6 DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Sectlon 18. S I v 1
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 7S� sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: � ft. Max. building height:��ft.
Setbacks: Front ZD ft. Side�ft. Rear � ft. Corner / 5 ft. from street.
MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: — % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: � %
GARAGES: 7.� ft.
� MEI6NBORNOOD MEETIN6 [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Nandoutl
THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED
PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two
(2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use
Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to
submitting your application or the application will not be accepted.
* NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans
Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application.
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9
Residential Applicafion;Plann ng Division Section
[� NARRATIVE [Refer to Code Chapter 18.3901
The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable
approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to
consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review
the code for applicable criteria.
�'IMPACT STUDY [Refer to Code Sectlons 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501
As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE
AN IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the
development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the
transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system,
the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type
of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize
the impact of the development on the public at larg e, public facilities systems, and affected private
property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real
property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or
provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not
roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development.
� ACCESS [Refer to Chapters 18.105 and 18.1651
Minimum number of accesses: �X 15' w�� �la� inimum access width:
Minimum pavement width: �� !'Z � vw�k� �i ;,,,,� (�,� �u,�}
❑ WALKWAY REQUIREMEMTS [Refer te Code Chapter 18.7051 ��3- 4 �, y�,
Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each
residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING
AREA, COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES.
[� RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CAICUlATIOM [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151-SEE EI�AAMPLE BELOW.
The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net
area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as
specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting
the following land area(s)from the gross site area:
All sensitive lands areas includinca: ?J Ub77 ��"�5
➢ Land within the 100-yearfloodplain; _ �,�,�� „� ���Rp�,✓ �,v���m ��ufs
➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; � � � ��s
➢ Drainageways; and � u(s� ��
➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. �j6$�7
Public riqht-of-way dedication: � -7 S�D
➢ Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or �—�—� I' � ���
� Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or �� � E�'' S �y
➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. 3 �,, ��
FXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS:
EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE(3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE)WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS
Single-Family Multi-Family
43,560 sq.ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area
8,712 sq.ft. (20%)for public riqht-of-wav 6,534 sq. ft. (15%)for public riqht-of-wav
iIET: 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet
- .050(minimum lot areal - 3,050 (minimum lot area)
= 11A Units Per Acre = 12.1 Units Per Acre
�ihe Developmem C�de reqnirea that the net tite aroa e�dst for the nett whole dwelung unit NO ROUNOIN6 tlP IS PERMITTEG.
�F Minimum rro)ect Density is BOX of the maximum allowed density.TO DETERMINE TNIS STANDARD,MULTIPLII TNE MA1(IMUM NUMBER OF UNITS BY.1.
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 9
Residential ApplicaOOniPlanning�ivision SecOOn
❑ SPECIAL SETBACKS [Ref�r to��ae Sectlon 18.7301
> STREETS: feet from the centerline of
� FLAG LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures.
,� ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained
between each dwelling unit or garage.
� MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multiple-family
residential developments.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less
than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size.
[See applicable zoning district for the primary structures'setbacK requiremems.l
� ❑ FlA6 LOT BUILDIN6 NEI6HT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7301
' MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1'/2 STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2'/2 stories, or 35
feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are
satisfied.
❑ BUFFERIN6 AND SCREENIN6 [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7451
In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER 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 and must also achieve a balance between vertical and
horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often
advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may o� be occupied by
vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area matenals
and sizes may be found in the Development Code.
The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is:
Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary.
Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary.
IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG:
� LANDSCAPIN6 [Refer to Code Chaqters 18.745,18.765 and 18.7051
STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR
PRIVA �-as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must
be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of-
way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured
four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the
branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations
affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division.
A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED
in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking
areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view.
❑ RECYCLIN6 [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551
Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE
SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such
as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within
Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503)
625-6177.
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9
Residential ApplicationlPlanning Division Secbon
� PARKIN6 [Refer to Code Chap«rs 18.765 g 18.7051
ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED.
➢ Single-family............ Requires: One 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and
One �1� space per unit less than 500 square feet.
➢ Multiple-family.........Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom;
1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and
1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms.
Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall provide parking for the use of
guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking.
NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED
AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows:
➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches.
➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches.
➢ Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned
disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to
be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space
symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be
posted.
❑ BICYCLE RACKS [Refer to Code Sectlon 18.7651
BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in
convenient locations.
❑ SENSIIIYE LANDS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151
The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR
DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL
DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON
UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-
application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely
identify sensitive land areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas
meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the
development application.
Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands
areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS.
❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.715.070.C1
When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be
submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code
Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall
include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C.
� CLEANWATER SERVICES[CWSI BUFFER STANDARDS [Refer to R a 0 96-44/USA Regulations-Chapter 3l
LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a
vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive
area.
Design Criteria:
The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table
identifies the required widths:
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 9
Residential Application/Planning Division Section
�ABLE 3.1 YEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTNa
SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION a ORDER 96-44
SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT� WIDTH OF VEGETATED
TO SENSITNE AREA CORRIDOR PER SIDE
♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining: �25�
� 10 to <50 acres 15 feet
� >50 to <100 acres 25 feet
♦ Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet
♦ Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet
• Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow
• Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres
♦ Natural lakes and onds
• Streams with intermittent flow draining: �25�
� 10 to <50 acres 30 feet
� >50 to <100 acres 50 feet
• Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure
♦ Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting
♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres point to the top of ravine(break in
• Natural lakes and ponds <25%slope), add 35 feet past the top
of ravine3
Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring
boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds,whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15
feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor,shall not serve as a starting point for measurement.
ZVegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition.
3The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to
15 feet,if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine.
Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor:
NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals,
dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract
from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the
USA Design and Construction Standards.
Location of Vegetated Corridor:
IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended
for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a
separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit.
CWS Service Provider Letter:
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service
� Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive
area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS
Service Provider Letter is not required.
❑ SI6NS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801
SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of
Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or
height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a
development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for
Director's review.
� TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.190.030.C.1
A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a
certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a
development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development,
or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible.
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 9
Residential ApplicationlPlanning Division Section
THE TREE PLAN SHALL ,.�CLUDE the following:
➢ Identification of the location, size, species, and condition of all existing trees greater than 6-
inch caliper.
➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in
caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according
to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code
provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots:
. Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a
mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees;
. Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that
two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.;
. Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that
50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.;
. Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no
mitigation;
➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and
➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to
protect trees during and after construction.
TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be
replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D.
[.� MITI6ATION [Refer to Code Section 18.790.060.EJ
REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines:
➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics.
➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably
available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural
resource value.
➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would
not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance
with the following formula:
. The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the
estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the
largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be
viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more
replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property
or, with the consent of the owner, private property.
➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to
allow growth to maturity.
IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the
consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in perForming such tree
replacement.
� CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 18.1951
The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND
EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size
of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any
existing obstructions within the clear vision area. The applicant shall show the clear vision areas on
the site plan, and identify any obstructions in these areas.
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9
Residential ApplicationlPlanning Division Section
I
� FUTURE STREET PLAN AND IXTEh��ON OF STREETS [Refer to Code Sectlon �...�10.030.FJ
A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall:
➢ Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The
plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the
proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall
include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division.
� Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and
pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site.
Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall
be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed.
� ADDI110NAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Ref�r to Code Sectlon 18.810.0601
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process.
Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum
15-foot wide access easement.
The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'/z TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the
parcel is less than 1'/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district.
� BLOCKS [Refer to Code Sectlen 18.810.0901
The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured
along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography,
wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development.
When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided
through the block.
CODE CNAPTERS
_ 1 B.33O(Conditional Use) 'I H.F)ZO(Tigard Tnangle Desgn Standards) v 18.7F>5(Off-Street ParkinglLoading Requirements)
_ 1 S.34O(Director's Interpretation) 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) _ 18.775(Sensitive�ands Review)
_ 1 S.35O(Planned Deve�opment) ��8.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) — �$.7HO(Signs)
1 S.36O(Site Development Review) �H.T�O(Accessory Residential UniTS) �8.7H5(Temporary Use Pertnits)
R
= 18.370(variances/,4djustrnents) ✓ 18.715(Density Computations) — 18.790(Tree Remova�)
�S.38O(Zoning Map(Text Amendments) 1 H.72O(Design Compatibility Standards) _ �$.7J5(Visual Clearance Areas)
`� 15.385(Miscellaneous Permits) ✓18.725(Environmental Pertortnance Standards) �8.798(Wireless Communication Faa�i�es)
� �B.39O(Decisbn Making Procedu2sllmpad Study) �8.730(Exceptions To Devebpment Standa�ds) 18.81 O(Street 8 Utility Improvement Standards)
�S.4�O(Lot Line Adjustrnents) 18.740(Historic Over�ay) —
� �H.4ZO(Land PartiGOns) 18,742(Home Occupation Perm�ts)
✓18.430(SubdNaions) .�L 'I H.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards)
� 18.51 O(Residential Zoning oistricts) �S.75O(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulatlons)
— �S.�JZO(Commercial Zoning Districts) 'I H.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage)
_ 18,530(�ndustrial Zoning Districts) 18,760(Noncontorming Situa6ons)
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 9
Residential Application/Planning Division Section
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENi�:
v� vw�.�i,or �un a., t,�t� �G U1 �.iC � ,z, "1z�t� Ov"
i r � � ✓` wi
Q � y'� /t/I '�t� �2 � �D
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 making a
recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be
held by the City Council.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS
All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the
Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications
submitted bv mail or dropped off at the counter without Planninq ivision acceptance mav be
returned. The Planninq counter closes at 5:00 PM.
Ma s submitted with an a lication shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8'/2" x 11". One 8'/z" x 11"
map o a proposed proiect sha also e submitte or attac ment to t e sta report or
administrative decision. Applications with unfolded maps shall not be accepted.
The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the
application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter
submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted
materials are required.
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 9
Residential ApplicationlPlanning Division Section
The administrative decisio�, or public hearing will typically occur G,_,,roximately 45 to 60 days after an
application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or
protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review.
Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public
hearing A 10-day public appeal period foll�yvs all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter
would be heard by the Tigard �leWtn�y DK���r . A basic flow chart
which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request.
Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the
applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing.
This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE
INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code
requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City s�aff
and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the
site.
SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERYATION [County Surveyor's Office: 503-648-88841
PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard,
applicants are re uired to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington
County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name.
Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of
approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation.
BUILDING PERMITS
PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR
REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by
the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of
development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the
Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is
recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are
building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed.
Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be
demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that
structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to applv those system
development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE
DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED).
e con erence an notes cannot cover a o e requirements an aspects re ate to
site planning that should ap ply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide
information required by the Gode shall not cons�itute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements,
It is recommended that a prospectiye applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or
ask any questions of Cit staff relative to Code requirements prior to submittin an application.
AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN
APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A
PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as
unnecessary by the Planning Division).
�
PREPARED BY: o r � � ru
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVI ON - STAFf PERSON HOIDING PRE-APP. MEETING
PHONE: 503-639-4111 FAX: 503-684-1291
EMAIL: (suff's irsc name)p�ci.tigard.or.us
TITLE 18(CITY Of TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE)INTERNET ADDRESS: INWW.CI.tigard.01'.IIS
H:lpattylmasterslPre-App Notes Residential.doc Updated: 15-Dec-04
(Engineering section: preapp.eng)
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9
Residential ApplicatioNPlanning Division Section
�� o�c
o� �
��
�
Exhibit E
Impact Study
f
� Nestlake Consultants, Inc.
-- 1
IMPACT STUDY(pursuant to Section 18.390.040.B.2.e.) l
I
(Application requirementsJ(iJnclude an impact study. The impact study shatl quantify
the effect of the developrnent on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at
a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the
parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the
development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose
improvements necessary to meet Cr.ty standards and to minimize the impact of the
development an the public at large,public facilities systems, and affected private
property users. In situations where the Community Developmertt Code requires the
dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with
the dedication requirements, or provide evidence, which supports the conclusion that the
real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportianal to the projected
impacts of the development.
Discussion of Effects of the Development
1. General Statement
The subject property is located within the R-4.5 Low Density Residential zone of
the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The subject site has residential uses in �
close proximity. The abutting properties to the east, across SW 92°d Aveneue,
are comprised of parcels with single-family residences, ranging in size from .38 �
to .51 acres. Property to the north and south of the site is comprised of parcels �
with single-family residences,ranging in size from .17 to .43 acres. Property to
the west of the site is comprised of parcels with single-family residences, ranging ;
in size from .12 to .14 acres. The subject property is an infill development parcel '
constrained by surrounding development.
No development is without impacts in relation to surrounding conditions.
Importantly in this context, development in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan must be considered to have a positive impact because it is implementing the
policies and residential use densities prescribed for the propeRy by that Plan. �
The Comprehensive Plan contains policy calling for urban residential character in
this area, and other applicable zoning and development regulations contain the �
standards for pubtic facilities improvements deemed appropriate and necessary to �
support that policy.
2. Transportation System,including Bikeways
a. Effect on public facilities and services
The proposed development will result in a net increase of 2 detached single-
family homes within the subject property. At 10 vehicle trips per day per �
residence, this will add an estimated 20 additional vehicle trips per day,
which will be distributed to SW North Dakota Street. �
i
92"/N.Datco7,4 IMPACT S�UDY
WESna�No.0733-09 1 OcTOeEa 25,2DD5
1
f
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
b. Improvements to meet City standards
The proposal includes a 30-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along
SW North Dakota Street and a 25-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline)
along SW 92nd Avenue.
At the time of the pre-application meeting the AppIicant initially proposed
that SW 92°d Avenue be improved thereby providing access to proposed
parcel2. Upon engineering the improvements however, the Applicant
determined that this would involve significant cost due to the required vertical
profile and the subsequent relocation of existing utilities and the re-
construction of a residential driveway, including the potential construction of
a five to six foot retaining wall for an adjacent property. With respect to the
"rough proportionality" test established by the Dolan case precedent, the
impact of the proposed partition is limited to the addition of two single-family
residences. Due to the"rough proportionality" of the improvements and the
effect on adjacent properties, It was at the advice of City Staff agreed that this
improvement not be explored, and moreover provide access.
c. Impact minimization
The Tigard Transportation System Plan identifies SW North Dakota Street as
a neighborhood route. According to the TSP, "Neighborhood routes are
usually long relative to local streets and provide connectivity to collectors or
arterials...Because traffic needs are greater than a local street, certain
measures should be considered to retain the neighborhood character and
livabiliry of these routes." In order to mitigate impacts on SW North Dakota
Street, the Applicant is proposing a shared access.
3. Drainage System
a. Effect on public facilities and services
b. Improvements to meet City standards
c. Impact minimization
Due to the nominal impact of the partition, a fee-in-]ieu of stormwater quality
will be paid in accordance with Clean Water Services (CWS) standards.
4. Parks System
a. Effect on public facilities and services
T'he proposed net increase of 2 homes can be anticipated to produce a
corresponding increase in utilization of park facilities and services, based on
utilization rates characteristic of the local area. Some of this impact may be
positive, such as higher participation rates in activities supported by user fees.
b. Improvements to meet City standards
No specific park improvement to meet a City or County standard is called for
within the subject property by the BMCP or any applicable regulation. The
site is not suitable for use as a park facility because of its limited size and the
presence of existing homes.
92%N.�aKarA IMPACT STUDY
WESr�a�Na.0733-09 2 OcroeER 25,2D05
�
Nestlake Consultants,Inc.
—�
c. Impact minimization �
As future homes are constructed, all applicable Systems Development Charge
(SDC) fees will be collected as building permits are issued. Consistent with
the adopted SDC ordinance authorizing such fees, funds will be expended by l
the City to provide appropriate public facilities, including parks. This will I
minimize potential negative impacts on the public at large, and on the public
parks system. �
5. Water System
a. Effect on public facilities and services ,
The proposed development will produce additional demand for water, ,
consistent with projected service demands for the area.
b. Improvements to meet City standards
The site will be served by the City of Tigard Water Department. There is an
existing public water line north of the subject property in SW North Dakota
Street. T'he proposed water system improvements will consist of one-inch
service lines to each of the proposed lots. The proposed water system is '
shown on Sheet P400—Utility& Street Plan/Profile Sheet.
i
c. Impact minimization
With the addition of two single family residences, the proposed
improvements will have a minimal effect on the greater system. I
I
6. Sewer System
a. Effect on public facilities and services �
The proposed development will produce additional demand for sanitary sewer
service, consistent with projected service demands for the area.
b. Improvements to meet City standards �
Clean Water Services provides public sanitary sewer through a gravity system
to the north of the project; this is the preferred route for making a connection. �
Sanitary sewer laterals will be extended from an existing line in SW North
Dakota Street.
�
Alternatively,public sanitary sewer is also available to the east of the site at
the intersection of SW North Dakota Street and SW 92°d Avenue. The
nearest manhole is approximately 25 feet east of the subject property making I
this a less desirable connection.
Proposed sanitary sewer improvements are illustrated on Sheet P400—Utility I
• & Street Plan/Profile Sheet(See Exhibit A—Sheet P400—Utility& Street
Plan/Profile Sheet).
92�N.DAKOTA IMPACT STUDY
WESr�,4�No.0733-09 3 OCTOBER 25,2005
Westlake Consultants,Inc.
c. �mpact minimization
With the addition of two single family residences, the proposed
improvements will have a mini:nal effect on the greater system.
7. Noise Impacts
a. Effect on public facilities and services
Single-family residential use does not typically produce significant noise
impacts. Rather, it is typically the object of noise protection measures
applicable to commercial and industrial users of land. The proposed
development cannot reasonably be expected to have any significant noise
impact on the neighboring area.
b. Improvements to meet City standards
As no noise impacts are anticipated, no noise-related improvements are
warranted.
c. Impact minimization
As no noise impacts are anticipated, no noise-related strategies are warranted.
8. Dedication of Real Property Interests
a. SW North Dakota Street
The proposal includes a 30-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along
SW North Dakota Street, where the street abuts the north side of the subject
property. This meets City requirements for a neighborhood route with a total
right-of-way of 58-feet including bike lanes.
b. SW 92"d Avenue
The pro�osal includes a 25-foot right-of-way dedication (to centerline) along
SW 92n Avenue, where the street abuts the east side of the subject property.
This meets City requirements for a local street with a total right-of-way of 50-
feet.
Summary
This Impact Study demonstrates that the impacts associated with the proposed
development will be either positive - e.g. by furthering implementation of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan - or will be satisfactorily minimized—e.g. through compliance with
applicable City or County standards or payment of SDC fees. Therefore, the proposed
development will not cause any significant negative impacts on the public at large,
public facilities systems or affected private property owners.
92%N.DAKOTA IMPACT S�UDY
WEST�a�Na.0733-D9 4 Oc'roBER 25,2005
Exhibit F
Parcel Size and Yield Calculations
92nd & Dakota Partition 0733-09
Parcel Size and Yield Calculations 10/25/05
LOT SQ. FT. Code Reference Land Area S . Ft. Acres
1 8480 Total Deed Area 18,028 0.41
2 8387 Pro e Gross Area 18,028 0.41
Subdivision Gross Area 18,028 0.41
18.715.020.A. Calculation of Net Develo ment Area
18.715.020.A.1. Sensitive land areas
18.715.020.A.1.a. 100- ear flood lain 0 0.00
18.715.020.A.1.b. Slo es exceedin 25% 0 0.00
18.715.020.A.1.c. Draina e wa s 0 0.00
18.715.020.A.1.d. Wetlands ;��� ���,
18.715.020.A.2. Parks land dedications 0 0.00
18.715.020.A.3. Public ri ht-of-wa dedications �,, ����s,�,.�:� t.�� � ���� �.���F��
ROW-roads -1,'!61 0.03 �
18.715.020.A.4. Private streets 0 0.00
Net Develo ment Area 16,86T 0.�9
Minimum Lot Size Re uirement S . Ft. Acres
Minimum Avera e Lot Size MALS 7500 0.17
Residential Densi 1Lot Yield Count % Potential
Maximum Potential Lots 2.00 100°/a
Minimum Re uired Lots 80%of max. 1.60 80%
Pro osed Lots 2 100%
18.715.020.B. Densi Calculations DU/Unit Area
18.715.020.C. Net Densi 5.17
Gross Densi 4.83
Lot Size Statistics S . Ft.
Avera e 8,434
Minimum g,387
Maximum 8,480
t
� o
� � S
�
Exhibit G
Tree Assessment & Letter dated October 12, 2005 from
Stephen Goetz
� of
The Pacific Resources Group
�
�
�
�
T H E P A C I F I C R E S O U R C E S G R O U P
LAND MANAGERS •URBAN FORESTERS • NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
October 12, 2005
Mr. Mazk Seaman
8407 SW 58th
Portland,Oregon 97219
Reference: Tree Assessment for SW 92"d&North Dakota Street Partition, Tigazd, Oregon
Deaz Mr. Seaman,
At your request, I visited 11285 SW 92& SW North Dakota Street,the site of the proposed ,
partition. The purpose of my visit was to verify the size, species and condition of trees on site
with the intent to preserve as many as is reasonable. The site is undeveloped and is within a
single family residential neighborhood. The site is to be divided into 21ots. Each new lot will
accommodate the construction of a single family home. On this site I assessed, 35 trees that were
shown on the tree survey. Two of the trees aze on property adjacent to the partition, but are
located close enough to construction that they may be affected. It appears that in order to
construct homes on these lots,most of the area in the center of each lot will be disturbed and this
will necessitate the removal of some of the trees.
The tree survey document identifies the locations of the 35 trees included on the tree assessment
chart that accompanies this report. The survey also includes trees on the adjacent properties to the
east and south. I found 3 trees that I consider hazardous due to disease or serious structural
defects. These include trees 1, 29 & 32. These trees should be removed whether development
proceeds or not. I recommend that they be removed prior to new home construction.
There are 7 non-hazazd trees that appear to be inside the building envelopes or near the
excavations for utility connections. While it is early in the planning process, the preliminary
plans indicate that these trees may have to be removed to make way for proposed improvements.
The trees included are 18, 19,20, 21, 22, 27& 33 on the accompanying tree chart. The remaining
trees have a very good chance of being preserved. The maximum building envelope is rather
large and provides a fair amount of flexibility in locating the actual building footprint. It is
possible that the trees listed for removal or retention may change in the process of adjusting the
house locations. This cannot be determined until the proposed improvements are staked and
construction is underway. Those trees that are furthest from areas that will be disturbed,have the
best chance of being retained. However,their preservation will depend on how extensive the
excavation and grade changes near them wili be. It will n�t be possible to determine if the trees
closest to the proposed improvements can be left in a reasonably stable and healthy condition
until excavation is underway and the extent of any root loss or filling over the roots is apparent.
If any trees suffer significant loss of major structural roots, I will recommend their removal.
1331 SW BROADWAY SIJI'fE 100 POR'II.AND,OREGON 97201 (503)222-4320 BELLEVIJE,WASHINGTON (425)451-0620
1
If utility lines must be placed within the root protection zone of these trees it would be desirable I
to place them as far from the trees as possible. If water lines from the homes to the meters must
cross the tree protection zones,the trenches can be hand or machine dug, leaving the larger roots j
(over 2" diameter) intact. The trenches for other utilities (sanitary, storm, gas, cable,telephone
and electric) will require a deeper trench and the portion of the trench that passes through the root
protection zone can be dug with a combination of hand and machine digging to preserve larger ,
roots. I recommend that I be called once the location of the utility trenches is determined and
excavation is underway. I can then determine if the affected trees can be preserved, assess the 1
amount of root loss and recommend any post construction care that would improve the trees' ,
chances of survival.
Trees that have some possibility of being preserved should be protected from inadvertent damage
during construction. For those that will have any excavation within the root protection zone
(defined as a circle around the tree with a radius equal to 1'for each inch of diameter at DBI-�, I
recommend that you consider exploratory excavation for any improvements within 10'to 12' of
the trunk. This will help in locating their structural roots and in the installation of tree protection �
, fencing, intended to protect them from inadver�ent damage. The improvements nearest the trees , �
(utilities or foundation walls} should be located as precisely as possible by staking the edge of !,
excavation closest to the trees. If needed,the exploratory excavation can be done either by hand
or using an AirSpadeTM to expose any roots that are in or under the proposed improvements. If
the roots are under the excavation or not present at all,the trees can be left standing. However, if
a large portion of the lazger structural roots cannot be preserved, the trees may have to be
removed. I recommend that you contact me as soon as the improvements are staked so I can
suggest a course of action regarding these trees. �
In addition to protecting the trees from inadvertent physical injury, the tree protection fencing i
should serve to minimize any soil compaction that might occur within the trees' root protection
zone. This will require keeping construction materials, soil, foot traf�ic and equipment out of the
area within the tree protection zone to the extent practical. In cases where excavation must take
place within the root protection zone,the tree protection fencing should be installed no closer
than 4' to 5'off the base of the tree. It should protect as much of the root protection zone as
possible,without including the excavation for the utilities, foundation walls, etc. If it is necessary
to work closer to the tree than this or to work inside the tree protection fencing, you should notify
me. Either chain link or orange plastic construction fencing, staked every 8'to 10',will meet the
functional requirement for tree protection, however the City may require chain link fencing, so I
suggest checking with the appropriate City official as to the current standazd.
The City may require mitigation for trees removed that are larger than 12" in diameter. There are
13 non-hazard trees that are larger than 12" on the partition property that total 244 diameter
inches. My preliminary review indicates that 2 of these trees are within or very near to areas to be
excavated and it appears that they will have to be removed. The 2 trees to be removed include 20
& 27 and represent 46 diameter inches or 15.4%of the total (retaining 84.6%). As mentioned
eazlier,there is some flexibility in siting the buildings that may allow preserving most of the
other 11 non-hazard trees.. A determination as to the actual trees to be removed will have to wait
until improvements are staked and excavation is underway. 1
Any trees that are retained will benefit greatly from a fertilization program that will help promote
root growth following construction. For any newly planted trees the fertilization can be delayed
SW 92od&Notth Dakota PaRition,Tree Assessment,10/12/O5,�2005 Thc Paci6c Resources Crtoup 2
until the next growing season. To accomplish this I recommend that the landscape contractor or
new home owner fertilize the entire area beneath the preserved trees using a highly soluble high
nitrogen fertilizer applied at a time when surface vegetation is dormant and tree roots are still
growing. The best time to do this is in late October or eazly November andlor in mid to late
Febniary. The fertilizer is best applied just prior to or during a rain, othenvise it should be
watered into the soil. I recommend using Ammonium Sulfate (21-0-0 or 23-0-0) at a rate of 2 Ibs.
of Nitrogen per 1000 square feet of area treated. This equates to applying 91bs. of the fertilizer to
each 1000 square feet of area within the drip line of each tree or woody plant. The annual amount
of Nitrogen that should be applied is between 2 to 41bs. per 1000 square feet,the first yeaz,and
half that amount in subsequent yeazs. If a single application is made, it should be done in late
November,otherwise two applications of nitrogen can be made, one each in late fall and eazly
spring. The fertilizer can be applied to the surface of the ground with a cyclone or "whirly" type
spreader. The fertilization should be done within the drip line and to an area a few feet outside
the drip line. To determine the azea to be treated for trees such as this, with the tree at the center,
the area to be treated is within the circle that has a radius equal to one foot for every inch of the
tree's diameter. After the first application I recommend that you take soil samples to determine
, existing nutrient levels and get a recommendation on the composition of fertilizer or other soil ,
amendments that aze needed by the plants on site. Contact A& L Western Agricultural Lab at
503-968-9225 for soil analysis instructions and assistance. Once the partition is completed and
Iots are offered for sale, this information should be passed on to the new homeowners of those
lots containing any of the preserved trees.
This completes my report. If any additional information, which would effect my observations or
recommendations becomes available I would welcome the opportunity to consider it and revise
this report accordingly. If I omitted any information or if you have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully yours, ,
.
Steph n F. Goetz,Principal
American Sociery of Consulting Arborists,Reg fi�'L60
American Society of Landscape Architects, Oregon lic. #80
Society of American Foresters
SG:ma%i�
A ttachment
DiSCL,4IIviER:I am not an attomry,engineaing or insurance expert.Therc is no substimte for any of these in assessing or evaluating constructian or li�bility mattets.I
consult and tatify only in rcgard to some arboriculuuual,horacultural and landscape architectural mattas.'Ibis pubGcation is not intended ag,�nd doa mt iep�eesmt,
legal,eagioeering or�����a edvia and s6ould not be rolied upon ro teke the place of suc6 advia.Although every effort has been mede to assu+e the acc�ascy of tbe
infocmatioo included in this publicadon u of the date on wlilch observatioas were made and a the date it waz iuued,conditions in these situations ue all subjax w
frequrnt change and therefore its appGcabiliry is strictly lunited to that time.The contmt of this report is my own work and is baxd upon my professionel expe�irnce
and judgemrnt My fees that I feceive are not contiogrnt upon nor rclated to the conclasiom a tecommendations included.I have oo personal or Exofessional mtasst m
tbe subjcet properry(s).
O All Righu Rexrved.T6e possessioo or use of this report(a ib oae exact copy)does not carry with it the right of rcpublicatia�in total or m part,or otha use,
without the writteu consent of the author.l'he fee for this investigarion and report doa not proride any compensadon for additlonal writtrn or oral coasulUtion,phone
end personal confercnces and/or testimony or attendance in deposidon,court or erbitration with reference to the subject incidmt
SW 92ed�North Dakota Partitioq Tm Asussment,10/12/OS,02005 The PaciSc Resources Group 3
TREE ASSESSMENT FOR SW 92ND & SW NORTH DAKOTA M.L.P.
TIGARD, OREGON
Tree Size in S ies Ht/Crn Heaith Condition Comments
1 20 Douglas Fir 100'/30- Poor Dead,Dying,Hazard Tree dying,decay at base of stump of previously
50' removed trunk.Potential hazard, Remove
2 24 at 2' Western Red Cedar 50-75'/ Good Moderate & non- 6 stem tree at DBH,Check stem connections at stem
15-30' correctable defects union
3 5, 6,8 Common Hawthorn 35-50' Fair Few & minor or Multi-stem tree,stems join at ground
/15-30' correctable defects
4 16 Oregon White Oak 50-75' Fair— Few & minor or Has a lot of inedium to fine deadwood in crown,
/15-30' Poor conectable defects showing signs of decline,may recover with caze
5 6 Portuguese Laurel 35-50' Fair Few & minor or Overgrown evergreen shrub.
/15-30' correctable defects
6 6 Oregon White Oak 20-35' Fair— Few & minor or Subdominant tree in below average condition,
!15' Poor conectable defects showing signs of decline. May improve with care.
7 12 Common Hawthorn 35-50' Fair Moderate &non- Leans to the west,over property line,reduce weight to
/15-30' correctable defects west if preserving
8 10 Black Hawthorn 35-50' Fair Few & minor or
/15-30' correctable defects
9 14, 14 Sycamore Maple SO-75' Good Few &minor or 2 stems joined at ground,medium deadwood in crown
/30-50' correctable defects
10 8 Common Hawthom 35-50' Fair Moderate & non- 4ff balance&leaning to the east,some pruning
/15-30' correctable defects needed to repair defects
11 6 Fruiting Plum 50-75' Fair Moderate &non- Crown off balance,neeris corrective pruning
/15-30' correctable defects
12 16 Ponderosa Pine 50-75' Good Few &minor or
/15-30' cvrrectable defects
13 16 Ponderosa Pine 50-75' Fair Moderate &non- Large amount of deadwood in lower crown, signs of
/15-30' correctable defects dectine,may improve with caze.
14 12 Douglas Fir 75-100' Fair Few &minor or
/15-30' correctable defects
Tree Assessment,S�V 92°`'&SW North Dakota Sveet,Tigard Oregon,�i2005 The PacifiModerate&Non�orrectabie DefectsResources Group l0il0%0_5 1
TREE ASSESSMENT FOR SW 92ND & SW NORTH DAKOTA M.L.P.
TIGARD,OREGON
Tree Size in S ies Nt/Crn. Health Condition Comments
15 14 Cottonwood 100' /30- Good Moderate & non- So�ne deadwood in crown, structural defect in upper
50' correctable defects trunk
16 14 Cottonwood 100' l30- Good Few & minor or
50' correctable defects
17 20 Giant Sequoia 50-75' Fair Few & minor or
/15-30' correctable defects
18 12 Cottonwood 50-75' Good Few & minor or Leans to north over street
/15-30' correctable defects
19 10, 6 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair Moderate &non- Leans to west, 2 stems join at ground.Remove smaller
/15' correctable defects subdominant stem
20 16 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair Moderate& non- Leans to north,Poor anchoring on north side,massive
/15-30' conectable defects anchoring root mass on south side should be left intact
21 10 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair— Moderate &non- I.eans to north,may not be stable when adjacent stump
/15' Poor correctable defects is removed.Re-examine if preserving.
22 10 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair Few & minor or Leans to north
/15' conectable defects
23 14 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair Few & minor or Leans to north
/15-30' conectable defects
24 10 Cottonwood 50-75' Good Few &minor or Leans to north
/15' conectable defects
25 8 Cottonwood 35-50' Fair Moderate & non- Leans to north
/15' correctable defects
26 6 Cottonwood 35-50' Fair Moderate & non- Large wound with good callus tissue,has exposed
/15' conectable defects internal decay
27 30 Douglas Fir 100' /15- Poor Moderate & non- Large amount of dead wood in crown,has large root
30' correctable defects flair,signs of decline,may improve with care.
28 10 Douglas Fir 75-100' Poor Moderate & non- Partial crown has lazge amount of deadwood,has
/15-30' correctable defects signs of decline.May improve with care.
Tree Assessment,SW 92°d&SW North Dako[a Street,Tigard Oregon,�2005 The Pacifil�toderate&Non-Correctable DefectsResources Group 10/10i0S 2
TREE ASSESSMENT FOR SW 92''`� & SW NORTH DAKOTA M.L.P.
TIGARD, 4REGON
Tree Size in S ecies Ht/Crn. Health Condition Comments
28B $ Douglas Fir 50-75' Poor Moderate & non- Declining subdominant tree
/15' correctable defects
29 8 Douglas Fir 50-75' Poor Dead,Dying, Hazard In poor health,major trunk defect at 4',Tree is
/15' potential hazard,remove tree
30 26 Douglas Fir lOQ' Fair Moderate & non- Large amount of dead wood in crown,2 stumps next
/15-30' correctable defects to tree may indicate possible root.Monitor tree if
reservin .
31 24 � Douglas Fir 100' Fair Moderate &non- Moderate amount of dead wood in crown, signs of
/15-30' correctable defects decline,may improve with care
32 10 Douglas Fir 20-35' Fair Dead, Dying,Hazard Top broken out at 18',additional defects cause
/15' potential hazard condition,Remove tree
33 6 Bigleaf Maple 20-35' Fair Moderate & non-
/15' correctable defects
34 26 Cottonwood 75-100' Fair Moderate & non- OFF SITE- Stem has a corrected lean to east, sits on
/30-50' correctable defects top of bank with poor anchoring to north,some
undermining of root flair, has visible internal decay,
stabilit ma be an issue if eservin .Monitor
35 22 Giant Sequoia 35-50' Fair Few & minor or OFF STI'E-Tree off site,but close to prope�ty line.
/15-30' correctable defects Protect from damage.
Note—The Cottonwood trees located next to ditch along SW North Dal:ota had their roots pruned off repeatedly as the sides of the ditch were maintained.The trees began to
lean toward the street and the continuing loss of noots caused the remaining roots on the south side of the trees to grow very•large to take over stabilizing the tree.Root loss due
to excavation on the south side of the trees will cause them to become unstable and force their removal as hazard trees
BQtanical Names of Listed Trees:
Bigleaf Maple—Acer macrophyllum Common Hawthorn—Gataegus monogyna Giant Sequoia—Sequoia gigantea
Black Cotton���ood—Populus trichocarpa Fruiting Plum- Prunus species Sycamore Maple—Acer pseudoptatanus
Western Red Cedar—Thuja plicata Portuguese Laurel—Prunus laurocerasus Douglas Fir—Pseudotsuga menziesii
Black Ha«�thorn—Crataegus douglasi Oregon White Oak—Quercus ganyana Ponderosa Pine—Finus ponderosa
Tree Assessment,S�V 92°°&SW North Dakota SUcet,Tigard Oregon,�2005 The Paci(iModerate&Non-Correctable DefectsResources Group 10/10/OS 3
92nd/Dakota MLP
Tree Inventory and Disposition
Summary: Trees> 12"(Subject to Mitigation Requirements)
Disaosition Count %Count DBH Inches
HZ Hazard 0 0.0% 0
PHZ Potential Hazard 1 100.0% 20
PR Poor Specimen Remove 0 0.0% 0
Total Non-Viable 1 100.0% 20
Count % Count DBH inches
CR Construction Remove 2 15.4% 46
CU Construction Undetermined 0 0.0% 0
R Retain 11 84.6% 198
Total Viable 13 100.0% 244
Total On-Site Trees 14 264
OS Off-Site Retain 2 48
Exhibit H
�:lean Water Services Stormwater Management Service Provider Letter
l Oct 11 05 l0: lla Lynn Seaman 503-245-8507 p. l
Oct • J• ZUUS 4�19NM CLtA� WAIEk SEKVICES 503 6814439 No�9407 R. I
_.._......_. .
� Q C� C� [� aI� L
� SEP 2 7 20D5
�
y Fi1e Number ^_O Q '
C�leanWatc� Services � ���
U��r cnmmitnie++t�.�i�,�. Sensitivs Area Pre-5creening 5ite Assessment
Ju�isdiction Ciry ot Tigard D9te September 2fi,2005
ARap 3 Tax Lot Tex Meo fS1350B04301 Owner Garv 8 Petricia Hellwea� _, ,
•........ ..:•-----J.., . ApPlicant Mark Saaman(oonhad a,rchaserl
.. _.--• ----
Stte AddtCSS No sltus address-Comer of SW 92nd Ave Company _
and SW North Oakofa tLot 1 Doawood Ridae SuDdivisionl AddfC55 8407 SW 58th ___
Pmposad Aetivlty Z�arcet partHion City State Zip Portland,Oregon 97219
--------- ---- Phone (503)246�9890
F� 15�3)245-8507
By submitfing this form the Owner,or Owner's authorizsd agsnt or rep�sentativo,acknowledges
and agr�es that employees of Ciean Water 5ervicas hava authority to enter tlie project site at au
reasonable times ior the purpose of iospecting projed site conditiona and gatherin8 information
relsted to the project site.
O(f1eW ua only Delowth4lMs
011ic41 Ysr e��y DMOw mlf Ilne OHlclal uf e aAr bele�►U�k Ibx
Y N NA Y N NA
� Sensiltve roa Com oslte Map Stonnwater)rtfrastructure maps
a o M�A� �� �� ❑ ❑ �[ as# ti��
� ❑� Locally adopted sEudies or maps Other
spe��ty ❑ D �. sr��fi►
Based on a revlew of tha above information a�d the requirements of Clean Water S�rvices
Design and Construction Standards Resofution and Order Ne.049:
� Sensitive areas potenlialty oxlst on slte or withln 200'Of the 3lt0• THE APPLICAMT MUST
PERFORM A S17E CERT�FICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERviCE PROYIDER. If
SensltNe Areas exist on the site or w'ithin 200 feet on adjac�nt properttes,a Natural
Reso�rces Assessment Report may also be required.
� Sensitiva areas do not appear to exist on sile or within 200'of tho sito. ThiE pre-screening
» site aseessmont docs NOT ellmtnate lhe need to evaluate and protect water quality
sensifive arsas if they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your
ServEce Pravlder letter as requfred by Resoltrtion and Order 04-8,Section 3,02.1. All
required permits and approvals must 6e obtair►ed and completed under applicable tocal,
state,and fodcral law.
❑ The propoaed aCttvtty doea not meet the definition of development. ND SRE ASSESSMENT
OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQI1tRED.
Fteviewer Comments:
Reviewed 9y: Date:
p..nn�onrc oen.oce.,� ...•v.:..�.,�..��.. � ..,.e��_., �ner "_
Pdst-M"Fax Noce 7671 o•wt p�j �"nq`�ee► � 224 O�ciai use o�ly
f� Returncd to Appl' an!
ro ' �- Mcttl I'nx �Cuunt r
co.�+n►. �0� (�,J Dute�'��E?��Y�
Pnmex ��. �OL3 ��y�ccw
s
Exhibit I
City of Tigard Transportation System Plan — Figure 8-3
Proposed Functional Classification System .
DKS Associates
N
A �__� ;�� , � ��
NOT � � '��' - I � � CITY OF TiGARD
1 O SCALF 7 y-.
t_�/
s � OREOON
?
�,� E-T - Transportation
' ~- Systems Plan
T _
. -�: _l � - ---- -_ ---_--
� �� i.. �._= Legend
' `- � awa cww�e
-�` -�-�-.
- - � , ' • - ' — Functional ClassiTication
_ „ .- 7 �. _ �
� - � . �
Proposed Freeway
I f}- � --� Praposed Merial
� ?.• - ���-L.... �1 � N Prapoced CoMecta
���� � f� ��� �
,�.I Proposad NNghboAwod Routs
I � � � `:w r ,. ��� %arv�ed Arlerial
� � — � �• -- — ° Plar.,ea cunsa«
�� �«.
�
- , _� . , ' .� i-��_.� ���r� Plamed Neighborlqod Roule
�
� , _
_.__. Regia�al Center,7own Cent¢r,a Sub Nea
3
N -� wnu+ur '� , � '-TransportaGon facilities in the Tigard Triangle
� � + ',1e I and Washington Square pianning areas have
'+'�-•• ''� specific design regulations and dass�cations
- �' > that may slightly differ from those in the TSP for
-_ � L,� 1 � wnsistency purposes. In these overiay areas,
-� � ' • l ' \ there are specific planning overlay documents
� _� — � 11+_ f o r t r a n s p o rt a t i o n d e s i g n r e g u l a t i o n s.
L_
- T - Note: The exact alignmenf of dashed lines to
-- address physical,access control,righl-o(-w.
S'" e�'LL - � and environmental constraints in alignment
developement.
_ ( � �
l
� � -
_� � _
� � � � � �
' _ r- s��F.cr pR�P�'a�`r
:u
� _ - _
_ -1 �
~ '� �-r� '�-' Figure 8-3
:.. _
, .� ". ' � � m Proposed Functional
. '` � — � �
, �: , , t � _��' ,� Classification System
Exhibit J
Preliminary Sight Distance Certification
WE S TLAKE
CONSULTANTS z
MEMORANDUM
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING PxoNE 503.684.0652
DATE: November 30, 2005
To: WCI Project File for 92°d & SW N. Dakota Street(733-09 D)
FROm: Bernard R. Smith, PE, PLS�
RE; Preliminary Sight Distance Certification
CC: Kristy E. Kelly, Planner, Westlake Consultants
92"and SW N Dakots 57,neet
Preliminary Sight Distance Certrficatron
This project is a proposed 2 lot minor land partition located on the southerly sideline of SW N
Dakota Street, about 200' easterly from the intersection of SW 94"Avenue. A future extension
of SW 92"° Avenue to the east is proposed to connect with N Dakota Street.
I observed the existing sight distance frorn the proposed driveway entrance onto N Dakota Street
and found there to be more than 1000' of clear sight to the west and more than 550' of sight
distance to the east. [when measured to a point 4.25' above the road surface from a point 3.5'
above the proposed driveway entrance, 10'from the pavement edge.j There may be the need to
relocate a neighborhood watch sign approximately 100'westerly of the proposed driveway.
The intersecting streets, SW 92"°Ave, 5W 93"Ave and SW 94°'Ave all have stop control prior to
entering N Dakota Street. AIf local streets are expected to have speed limits of 25 mph, and
therefore our target stopping sight distance of 250'will be met with the proposed driveway
entrance.
�PEp PROFFss. .
�g'� Cy,1NC` %2
�� V� ��7�� � �
1.��
� ;<=� N �y >?
e
c
�'/'�1��'`,' t�� �' •�`•
�
vq�p R �J;�,��
�i;Fir��S o b
H.•UDMIM073309.OSI92nd&N.DakotalEnginLsrght distance cer�ifrcation MEMO 11-30-OS.doc
Exhibit K
Warranty Deed
� � w.rr�e�r,a.� --15-134948
�,� �a � • : ,���,,:,.:o�,�
. c�ow c�s•� w�•a i,
����iransnation : �,��,�,,,.w�,��.T�. .,.,.�
��d°�°� Illllllu�lllll Illlllnllllllllllllllllliil
After Recording, Return to: •
Mark Seaman ' �s�� ���u
I,Jrry IWy�n,pnebrNAu�w��ti rM T�MMn
8407 SW SBth Avenua • .w�+�Y�d��*�w`�^�^�^�w"e'�
POZt laad, OR S7 Z 19 . a'�NR N�wMy sMtlfy 1lrt tM wVin Mtr1InwR 0�
v�l/ry wnaNrN�n� �In�/�rtN
, neM�d Wd ewntY• ��pw�rOw
Until a change ie requeeted, tax statementa . �«yR�w..a���p��MTWtlen
shall be aent to the following addreae: •
eame ae above '
' STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED •
(Individual) ' '�p�ye 5pace Reaerved for Recorder's Use)
IPatricia J. Hellwege and oary A. Hellwege yyq$HINGTONCOUNTY
+�'" REAL PROPER?1'TRANSFER 14�L
I coav�y■ �ad nsrranta to � �'; a 12.a 00 le 45
Mark Seaman �'' ' FEE PAID DATE
the lollowing d��crib�d r�al prop�rty ia th� Stat• of Oreyoa and County o! Washington
!re• o! �acumbranc��, �xc�pt a� specilically a�t fozth h�r�iae
IA�NDSD LBGAL D83CRIPTSONt
A traat of laad ia th� South�aot oas-quart�r oi e�ctioa 35, To+ra�hip 1 South, Rang� 1
L N��t, of th� Nillamett• lteridian, ia th� City of Tigard, Couaty o! �va�hiagtoa and etat• of
I Or�qoa, beiny a portion of Lot 1, DOf771PDOD A=DCi=• Book l�, Pag� 19, liashiagtoa County Plat
R�cords, aad baiaq moz� particularly d�scrib�d as fo11oM�=
S�giaaing �t a fouad 2 iach iroa pipe marking the initial point of O'NS=L ACRHB. Book 54,
� Pag� 1, �Pashinqton County Plet R�cord�, b�iag ths Nortbea�t coraer of Lot 16 th�r�of, also
(Continued)
Tax Account Number(s) : 15135DB04300001
� Th1■ property is frs� of �ac�branc�s, aCSPT�
Covenante, conditione, restrictione, rights of way, easemente and reservations now of
record.
� 'I'he true coneideration for thie conveyance ie $120,000.00
` THI3 INSTRII1�iT NILL NOT A3�L011 II8s O! T� PROPZRTY D=SCRISm IN THIS IHST&III�iT IN v=��►'
I TZON OT I�PPLZCABLS LAND II83 LAiPB 11ND RSQUl.1►TIONS. SSlORE SIW7IN0 OR ]1CC3FTING TSIS INSTRII-
D�iT. TSE PSRSON AC4II=�� TsB TITLS TO TSS PAOP3RTY S80IILD � �� � ��TBRON I.A9P �
OR COIINTY''PLAlINlNQ DSPARTMSNT TO VExIlY I�PaROVm II868 AND ��
SIIITS I►fiAINST !1►R�[ZNG OR rORSBT PRACTZCES AS DElIN3D IN G 0.930.
' DATED this � �� a of October, 2005.
Patricia J. el e e Gary . Hellwege 1
� '
� STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF Waehington)sa.
The foregoin9 iastrument wae acknowledged before me thie�day of October, 2005, by
Patricia J. Hellwege and Gary A. Hellwege,
�
I �
Notary �lic for Oregon � !� / OFFICIALSEAL
My Commieaion Facpirea: �� �O
M L HENMAN
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREOON
' COMMISSION N0.3538�8
MY COMMISSION EJ(PIRES FEB 5,2008
Order No.: 22y0043035w
�
' , • • STA�RY W� DE� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII����il�
� ' (CONTZNUfiD) 2006-ia�wa
i' �
I LBGAL DBSCRIPTION (Continued) Order No.: 22ywa3035
� b�inq th� Northr��t eora�r ot said Lot 1, DOQiPOOD RIDOS� thenc�, aloag th� North lfna oi
•aid Lot 1, al�o b�iay th� Bouth riqht-of-�►ay lia� o! Stf Dakota Str��t (form�rly Y�w
Str��t), b�iaq 25.00 f��t lrom o! th� csntsrlia� ther�of, Mhaa m�aaur�d at right aagla�,
Nozth 89• 30' 76• zast, 197.05 f�et to th� North�a�t cornsr o! said Lot ir th�nc•, along
th� ls�t lin� o! said Lot 2, al�o b�iag th� Naat right-oi-�ray lian o! S1P 92ad �vsnu�
' (formsrly &obin�on ]►v�aus), b�1aQ 25.00 fs�t from th� caaterliae th�r�ol. Mhen m�a�ured at
riqLt anQl�t, 8outh 00• 06' 00• 1P��t, 91.51 ls�t� th�aca, aloay a lin� 91.50 l�at
Southarly o! and parallal aith the Nozth lia� o! ■aid Lot 1. South 89° 30' 26• 1P�ot,
197.02 i��t to th� M��t lin• of said Lot it th�ac�, alonq th� lieat liaa oi aaid Lot 1,
I �lao b�inq th� laat lin� of •aid Lot 16, O't7iiL 1►CRSB, North 00• 04' 49' Ea�t, 91.50 f�et
to th� tru� point of b�QlaalaQ.
I
�
'
I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
I
I
�
Bond No. 737721s
�fter Recording Return To:
Ciry of Tig�rd
�trn: Cheryl Caines
13125 S`�/ Hall Blvd. .
Tigard,OR 97223 ;,t; r� ��'-"� i�;�y,,
. ' �,.. ���. W_,.!�l,.�:,
File No.: I�iLP2005-00011
TREE MITIGATION BOIVD
DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY
MARK H SEAMAN JR , as principal ("Principal"} , and COMPANY � a
corporation authorized to conduct a general surety business in tlie State of Oregon, as surety
("Surety"),are joindy and several bound to the Ciry of Tigard,an Oregon municipal corporation as
obligee ("City"),in the sum of$29,750.00 to assure compliance with the ?'ree mitigation�qui�ment for
23�culit.e�irchef re�roved from.cite of the Hellewege Partitiort (ML,P2005-00011).
Principal is constructing site improvements in the ' the City and is
obligated to take certain actions to protect existing uees as set out in the conditions of approval
(Case File MLP2005-00011) and apptoved construction plans.
If Principal fails to comply with all terms and conditions of the;�n approval, Principal shall
pay the mirigation equivalent assessed at$125.00 per 2-inch caliper t�ee. In the event Principal fails
to complete required tree mitigation,Surety shall pay the mitigauon fee-in-lieu on written demand by
the City,up to the full amount of this bond. Surety's total obligation shall not exceed$29,750.Od.
On full and sarisfactory completion of PrincipaPs obligauons under the subdivision approval, City
shall release this bond. T'he City shall have 90 days from notice from Principal that the wo=k has
been completed to verif��complia.nce with the subdivision approval and release the bond. The Cit�
shall have no obligation to release the bond if the subdivision approval has not been fully complied
with.
In the e�ent that an action is filed relating to this bond,the City,if it is the pre�ailing party,shall be
entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees,wimess costs,and expert wimess costs,in addition to all
other rights and remedies.
DATED this 3� day of JANUARY ,��j�$,2007.
MARK H SEAMAN JR
(Principal)
By: (Seal} (Seal)
By: (Seal} (Seai)
A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AU RI NG E ' CUTION OF���',�-&IS,,,,��r
BOND ON BEHALF OF SURE11'SHr1LL BE ATTA E �,�•(°�����,{�-�:- °�-;
.��','~` '�✓ �•�����a�• �� '.yJ
DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY � �,•.'���';�.�°:d�,-r,
o;�-
{Surery) �Att ey in Fa GERI M BU � • « •. :,,_ : �
FI CENTERPOINTE SUITE��3(�+'y � ;�`���; t� '
� Address �= ���a �.�;-,,�. ��
.-.=
LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 ` � `•�ff �'� `
. . I�r, �y�'b�. ,....�'�A,�
�
. � � !,%JS�P�trr�Q�`���?,:v``
PO��'ER OFAT"TORNEI" FOR
DE�'ELONERS SURE"1"Y.4NU INUL:NINI'I'Y'CO�IPAN1'
INDE�INITY'C0111PANY OF C:�LIFORNIA
PO E30\ 19725.IR\%INF:.C.A 92(,23 (949)26;-310D
KN01�':�LL MEN [3Y TH[SL PRESENTS,that excep[as espressly limiced, DEVLLOP6RS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMN;INY and IND�M19NITY
COVIPANI'OF CALIFORNIA,do exh,hercby make,cuns�i�ute and:�ppoin�:
***Blaine D. Williamson, Geri M. Burnett, Morag A. Corey, Lori D. Ct,ir�iir!�ha�����tfin, Eric Englund,
jointly or severally***
as thcir truc and la�vful Auorney(s)-in-Fact,to make,esccute.deliver and acknowledge,for and on behalf of said coiporation;,as surcties.bonds,undcrtnkings
and cun�racts of suretyship giving and gr�nling unto said Attocney(s)-in-Faci full po�+�er and authority�u du and to perform e�ery act necessarv.reyuisite or pruper
to be done in connection therewith as each of said corporxtions could cb,but resen•in��o each of said coipoi�alions hill power of subuitution anJ revocation,and
all of�he acis of said.4ltcmiey(s1-in-Fact,pursuam ro these presents,ere hereby ralified and contirmed.
This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed by facsimile under and by authoiity of[he fnllowing resolueions adopted by the respective[3oxrd of Direciors of
DFVfLOPFRS SIiRETY AND INDL.A9NI'�Y CUM11PANY and INDGMNITY COM11PANY OF CALIFORNI.4,effec�ive as of Novembrr 1,20O0:
RESOLVED,that thz Chainnan of the 6oard,the President and any Vice President of the coi7wntion be,and Ihat each of them hereby is.awhorized to
exccute Powers of Attomey,yualifying the aUOrncy(s)n�meJ in the Powers of Anomey tu execute,c�n behalf uf�he corporatio�s,6onds,undertakin�s and contracts
of sureryship;and that tht Secretary or any Assistant Secretary uf the corporations be,and each of them hereby is,auchorized to auest the execution of any sucli
Puwer of Attorncy;
RESOLVED,FURI�HER,that the sienatures of such utTicers may be afTixed to any such Power of Attorney or to any certific�te rela�ing theret�by
tacsimile,and any such Power ofAttorney or certiticate braring such facsimile signatures shall be valid and binding upon the corporatiun when so atfiixed and in
rhe future�vith respect to any bond,undertaking or contract of suretyship to which it is attached.
IN W'ITNC:S3 WHERFOF,DEVFLOPI:RS SURETYAND INDfMNITY COMPANY and INDGMNITY COMPA�V'OF CALIFOR�IA have scverally caused
rhese presenls to bc;signed by thcir respective Executi�e Vice President and attested by their respective Secretary this]st day of December, 200�.
_—�
gy' - , ��..ANp'...,. �,PAN
Y
David H.Rhodes,Executive Vice-President �,� "'••..��'
:'�JP4p�PORq�F�y;, �� OPP�R��
C/� ?�? OCT. ':<_ z ? OCT.5 ° �,
:a': 10 en: w 7967 a
13y: 5°,�; 1936 ;',Zr o o Q. ?
WalterA.Crowell.Secretary %,`'�7�0,,/pWP,.:*�dD•- 2� q<rFpP�� a
.*.� *
S'T'ATE OF C.ALIFOR�IA �
COUNTY OF ORANGE
On December I,Z(�5 before me,Gina L.Gamer, Noiaiy Public(here insert name and tide of the oHicerl, personally�ppeared Da�id H.Rhodes anJ
Walter A.Crowell,pers�n�lly known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be[hz person(s)whusz name(s7 israre subscribed to[he within
instnuneni and acknowleJ�ed to me tha[he%she/they executed the same in hisflterhheir authorized tapacity(ies),and that by his-'hedtheir signature(s)un the inshtimcnt
the person(s),or the entity u�n bchalf of which the persai(s)acted,esecutcd the instnimen[.
W I'fNESS my hand and o�cial seal.
GINA L.GARNER
N COMM.# 1569561
Signa[ure � (SEAL) 3 NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORI�IA �
aRANGE COUNTY
My comm.expires May 13,2009
CERTIFICATF.
The undersigned,as Assist�nt Secretary,uf DGVELOPGRS SUREI�Y A�D INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEti1NITY"COMPANI'OF GILIFORNIA,
dixs hereby certify that the ti�regoin�Power of Attomey ren�aiiu in full tixce and has not been revoked,and furthermore,tha[the provisions of thc resolutiuns of
rhe respective l3oards of Directors of said curporations set furth in the f'o�a•er ofAtrorney,are in force as of the date of this Certificate.
This Certificate is exccuted in the City of Irvine,Califurnia,Ihe 3� day of JANUARY . 2007
�y
✓�����L
Alben Hillebrand, Assistant Secretary
I D-I 3RU(Rev. 1�'OS)
� {�
IIUe s tl a k e TRANSMI TTAL
consultants,inc
ENGINEERING ♦ SURVEYING ♦ PLANNING Phone: 503 684-0652
Fax: 503 624-0157
Date: March 20, 2008 Project No.: 733-09-H
To: Mike White Project Name: 92"d & Dakota
City of Tigard (MLP 2005-00011
13125 SW Hall Bivd. VAR 2005-00081)
Tigard, OR 97223
From: Andy Newbury, P.E. CC:
Project Engineer
Re: Sight Distance
No. of Copies Dated Description
1 3/17/08 Final Sight Distance Certification
Comments:
Mike,
Here is the final sight distance certification.
Thanks,
Andy
Fax ❑ No. of Pages (including cover) Fax No.
Mail ❑ Messenger ❑ Overnight ❑ Hand Delivery �
Pacific Corporate Center, 15115 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150,Tigard, Oregon 97224
w �
1�e�tlake , ,
consultants,inc I
-�
�,
3�:
1 FINAL Intersection
S�ght Distance Certification
�:;
March 17, 2008
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
�::
,
RE: Hellwege Partition
Sight Distance Certification
The proposed access for this partition is located on SW Dakota St. The speed limit
along SW Dakota St. is 25 M.P.H., based upon the posted speed limit requiring 250 feet
of sight distance in both directions in accord with Washington County Code Section 501-
8.5.F(4), as adopted as a guideline for the City of Tigard.
As required by code Sections 501-8.5-F(3)(a) and 501-8.5-F(3)(b), sight distance from
the access to SW Dakota St. was measured to be 350 feet to the east of the access in
e.�
- one direction and more than 1000 feet to the west in the other direction. These Code
sections respectively requires that measurements be based on an eye height of 3.5 feet
and an object height of 4.25 feet above the road; and assumed to be 10 feet from the
near edge of pavement to the front of a stopped vehicle. (actual measurement is taken
15 feet from the pavement edge).
� In conclusion, I hereby certify that the intersection sight distance is available at the
proposed access for Hellwege Partition. Sight distance conforms to the requirements as
set forth in the Washington County Community Development Code as adopted as a
` guideline for the City of Tigard.
- Andrew Newbury, P.E.
����p PROFFS
�c� �`'G�ruEF�s�o
cr b3213biE
�
;� y z
�_� t:�:_:GON �
'; .r• Qos �
(J ^'-,, ]4,'t J
���pAUL N�
K Renewal Date:i��s�/UR�
H:�.4DMIN\073309.05\92nd&N.Dakota\Engin\73309FinalSightDistance.doc
" Pa�ific Corporate Center 151 i5 sw sequaea parkway,
:�
C _:i::t� i5�1, tigard, oreg�i�� 97224
� www.��,estlakeconsutt = . ., I PH `u3.684.i� �s;:- I Fx
. 1(1!12/2006
. CITY OF' TIGARD x:;o:�9AM
13125 SN'Hall Blvd. ,
� Tigard,OR 97223 (S03)639-J171
Conditions Associated With Case #: MLP2005-00011
Project Name: HELLWF,GE I'ARTITION
CURRENT STATUS UPDATED
# DESCRIPTION STATUS* DATF. BY DATE BY
I K1-:SIRICTIVF COVENAN"I� � LO�fS 1 K ? N CAC �l�?�4'?006 L�RI.
�. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant with proposed Parcels w 1 and#2 that will include a requirement for
planting street trees as part of any future street improvement.
2 TREE BOND/CASH ASSUR. N CAC 4/24/2006 DLH
1. Prior to commencing site work,the applicant shall submit a cash assurance, bond, or other means of ensuring compliance
with the required mitigation in the value of$32,250.00(258 caliper inches x$125 per caliper inch). Any trees planted on the
site or off site in accordance with 18J90.060.D will be credited against the assurance for two years following final plat
approval. After such time,the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the assurance as a fee in lieu of planting.
3 TREE REMOVAL/PROTEC�I'[ON M 10/12/2006 CAC 10/12/2006 CAC
2. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree
Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and
removal of tree protection devices,clearing,grading,and paving. nnly those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal
plan are authorized for removal by this decision.
4 ESTABLISH FENCING/TREES TO RETAIN N CAC 4/24/2006 DRL
3. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the
trees to be retained. 'The applicant shall allow access by the Ciry Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the
tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan,or maintain
tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until
remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed.
� V[SUAL CLEARANCE N CAC 4/24/2006 DRL
4. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat that shows the visual clearance area
accurately, in accordance with(TCDC)Section 18.795.040.
6 PFI PERMIT REQUIRED N KSM 4/24/2006 DRL
6. A Public Facility Improvement(PFI)permit is required for this project to cover sanitary sewer taps,the new driveway
approach, public sidewalk,storm culvert and any other work in the public right-of-way. Three(�)sets of detailed public
improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any
drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility
Improvement(PFI)permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available
at City Hall and the City's web page(www.tigard-or.gov).
7 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE N KSM 4/24/2006 DRL
7. The PFl permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name,address and telephone number of the individual or
corporate entiry who will be designated as the "Permittee",and who will provide the financial assurance for the public
improvements. For example,specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership. LLC,etc. Also specify the state within
which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate
information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents.
8 PUBLIC S[DEWALK N KSM 4/24/2006 DRL
8. The applicant shall construct a public sidewalk at its ultimate horizontal and vertical location, based on the Ciry's TSP,
along the site frontage of North Dakota Street. The sidewalk shall also connect back to the paved portion of North Dakota
Street at each end of the frontage.
Any proposed alternative to the sidewalk location, in order to save trees, must be submitted to the City Engineer and City
Arborist for review and approvaL The alternative submittal shall include,at a minimum,the horizontal layout,grading plan,
easements and the project arborist's report.
9 ADDRESSING FEE N KSM 4/24/2006 DRL
V 9. Prior to final plat approval,the applicant shall pay the addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart,
r Engineering).
Ping-CaseConditions.rpt Page 1 Of�
i
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
RESPONSES TO CONDI'1'IONS OF APPROVAL:
Item Condition: Response:
#:
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING DENIOLITION, GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES:
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the
following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Cheryl Caines 503-639-4171 EXT 2437. The cove�sµ�,o,,n�'
letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the-required information is found: � }�¢, �f ,�,�r �.
___ __
I. Prior to contrne�zciiig site work, the applicant shall submit Applicant will post a� ublic improvement bon prior to ��'1 ,��,
a cnsh assur-ance, bond, or other naeans of ensuring receiving a Public Faci ity Improvemen ermit. � �^��`�
compliance with the r-equired�nitigntion in the value of �r+ �►,,,�t^
�
$32,250.00(258 caliper inches x$125 per caliper inch). �b�o�,d'
Any trees planted ori t/ze site or off site in accordance with
18.790.060.D will be credited against the assurance for
two years following final plat approval. After such tirne, � j�
the crpplicant s/2all pny t{ie rerriaining value of tlze ;�
a.rsurance as a fee in� lieu of planting.
2. Prior to co�n►nencing any site work, the applicant shall See Sheets C 102, C200, and C300 of the approved
submit construction drawi�2gs tliat include the approved construction documents. (See Exhibit B attached.) r._,-_� , ��
K Tr•ee Re�noval, Protection and Larrdscape Plan. The plans � � `��� 6y
� shnll also incli�c�e a construction sequence including '''`'�.
�����'� i�2stallation nnd removal of tree protection dei�ices, � �� �
clearing, grading, and pnving. Only those trees identified �
on tlze approved Tr•ee Re�noval plan are authorized f'or �f
removnl by this decision. !;
Final Plat—Hellwege Partition Page l
City of Tigard,Case File No. MLP2005-0001 1/VAR2005-00081
September 29, 2006
WCI#0733-009
� I
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
3. Prior to corrtrriencing any site work, the applicant shall See Sheets C300 and C301 of the approved construction
establish fencing as clirected by the project arhorist to documents for tree protection details to be installed prior to �t�p �
protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow begin of construction. (See Exhibit B attached.) -Yyw,,� �
access hy tl�e City Forester for the pur•pose of monitoring �5����� �
and inspection of the tree protection to verify that tlze tree � �„� ,
protection rneasures are perforfrii�zg. Failure to follow the ��P� �-�
'l�
plan, or rnnintain tree protection ferzcing in tlze designated 1 .
locations shall be grounds or im�nediate suspension of� �'� �
,���
work on the site crrrtil rerriediation measures and/or civil � �
citatrorTS cmz be j�rocessed �
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS 5HALL BE SATI5FIEll PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: ��
The applicant shall prepare a saver letter and submit it along with supporting documents and/or plans that address the following
requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DNISION, ATTN: Cheryl Caines, 503-639-4171 EXT. 2437. The cover letter shall
clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found:
4. Prior to firial plat approvc�l, the applicant slzall submit a Shown on Final Plat.
revised prelinainary plat that shows the visual clearance See Sheet 1 of 2 and Note 5, Sheet 2 of 2.
area accurately, in accordance with (TCDC) Section ;,�-
I8.795.040. 1�� =A ,l -
5. The applicant shczll record a restrictive covenant with Shown on Final Plat. See Note 2 Sheet 2 of 2.
proposed Parcels#1 and#2 that will include a
requireinent for planting street trees as part of�any futuf•e I��
street improver�tent. '��
_
Final Plat—Hellwege Partition Page 2
City of Tigard,Case File No. MLP2005-0001 1/VAR2005-00081
September 29, 2006
WC[#0733-009
0
i � � � � 8-
33
-- -- ` ��
----------- -
----------
. --------
------- ------ ---- l -- -- --
_ --------------- - - ----I--- - - ----- ----- ^
_ � � �r
$ � w � �
pp 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 a12 x � ,.
-� � �- -� N KOTA STREET � � �-I fII o GRAPHIC SCALE �� . ��
U �F ��
2 � � ` w�
�
, Z
'_'__""____ _....__ — —. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ___"'_' ' ______""."'__"" ________'_" "'___' ___'" ____________'___'__ ___-______ t N!. 10 FT
__'"'__'_"___'_ "___ __ �U
____'__"_' $»
,. �- - �-�—=__= �� ' _ — — — �' _ _ = w =
w�r
' � -- � " �
�— —___ ————--—�——� �. .
_-. --. _ . _. ..
- p � .._ .... .— C'°—.- —.. __..
.�o
..; . . �UJ .""_".'_ ...... ._.,_ __ . � ..
� .. _.._. ..-- . "_._. _...... �' � �—
�� � 9 .... .. �.. � ��. � �� �. � �� �� �� �� � �� :�� � - �
— ���.._ .... � � � ( ... � 'i. . ♦
_ .. .
f I
- - - -- - - - - - - - - I � - - - - - - -- - - _ J
�— - - - Z
��� � �19Q �� �- _,. �, I I q i ( � J
� � � � �, \� n.
I � I
— — — — — — — — 19 � — _ J _ � � �g ' "; , __. + V` �
� � � \
H
I I I � \K ' `` � .._'__" � I`I� ' _f I � V V
y ' O O O O
� ' � � 'g Y � Z
l..
0 0
3 � Q
- —
� � _:;,. - W � - �
��. � � . � o 0
� m� .,,._�alm PARCEL 2 }�I��F � /��`� Q �
I�$ PARCEL 1 '1 /
� � 8.77b SF .....,..._. .,._..._,. ..._.. g 8�677 SF. I= — . `� V � W
I _ .,. _..,. ........ ... ( _ I I.. . � � ��� � F— �
- _ _ , � g C � � z
_ __ _ . __._ , � , � �( Q z
, � �
� � � �� f :__ � � o o �
-� � � ,;-� -___ _ I -� .� `� z �
I �- - - - - - - --� �- - - - - -- - - - - -� f'
- o � N
��� �� � � � � ° ° °�
� , � � ,� _
� �
;
. ' --_ _ �: __ _ _ � , ------ --;
� -_ , N ,
�� NB959'29�E . NB9'S9�29�E .... _.. ....- 1 . . _�.
I '_'_
�
_ _._ __ __ __ .�_ �� __ _�
ae.so' _ ------ — -- --�g ' � - � C
� _ _ �, — I � ��
, _.._ _.�._ 1 �' y ���'i
� _�_ � ,
�
_ __ ;
; �
� � . �
. ..-. . , � �a
. • I . ���� k' � � N
�y n 3
�— . . � � _ � T�W.": _� '. � �rs, � a
�.
�
; '�� &
, �
i S89°59'29"W � 197.00' ?��� '� - , , ° .
_ - ��,� � ��.��,�.�
_ ,
� � ~ ��:°;.�°
� ��OI�f M wllp
� -� IB�W.l16E
g � ,`c�_' "
—• ��_ � � . i z z z
_.__.... I � _._ .
. � . . /�./ I _ �-,I I < <
� �
� �W
� � (a
CAN31RUCilON NOTES O� < < N �
k C o
� s
O1 INSTALL CONSiRUCT10N ENIRANCE - SEE SHEET C301 � � �
2 INSTALL SEpMENT FENCE- SEE SHEET C301 N I
O � S O
OS INSTALL TREE PR01ECilON FENCE-SEE 9iEET C301 e
�g � �
� �� o
� B o H
s W
� �
SHEET
C300 ��
JOB N0. i�
733-09�a
»_�e.,
L _
�
� �
�
. y
GRADING AND PAVING NOTES: EROSION CONTROL NOTES CONTINUED: � g�
1. PROJECT CRADINC LIYITS SHALL BE N.L PROVERTY LINES AND STREET RI(ifT-OF-WAY,UIlC55 OIt7,LOOSE,WEED-fAEE S7FAW USEO A$MLICH SHN.L�APPL�[p AT WISLE 1HE � - r, � C
OtHERWISE 910WN ON THE GRADINC PLAN. T/1E BOUqDM1E5 OF CIEARING LIYI75 SNALL BE d.EARLY Hroaouua�aviic�riar�auir��T(�000�e./,�[).,wp�on srn�w ar �� F��:. ��r k
f'LAGGFD IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSiRUCTIdi. NO OISiIFBANGE BEYOND TNE fLAGCEU CLEMINC Wpil(INC IN BY HAND OR NITH EOUIPYENT(ROUEqS,CLEAT TRAfXS,ETC.).Ml+lp7 ��z"�� 6
IIMITS SHAIL BE PERMITTED. RAGGING SHALI BE YAINTAINED BY TNE CONTRALTOR FOR TME $HµL gE SpREAp{M�FORYLY IYY[DIATELY Fd10WINC SEEDING. °��� '�r � � �
pl.NATION OF CONSTRUCTION. p� �
2. A SOILS ENGINEFR$NALL BE RETAINED BY TVIE CITY AT 7HE BEGINNINC OF THE PROJECT 70 MONITOR B. SOIL PREPMATION-TOPSOIL SHOU.0 BE PREPMED ACCOR�ING TO LN/DSCAPE � >" /�`r!�
PLANS. IF AVAILABLE,OR NECOMMENO�TIONS OF GRA$$$EEp$lp%,IER. IT IS / \ E� ' �
ALL GRADINO AND 7AVING ACTIVITIES MD�OR ALL COMPACTIp/TESTINC IN iHE RIGHT-Oi-WAY. ��
RECOMMENDED TMA1 AOPES BE RWCHENm BEFORE�EDING BY'TRACK-WA�KINC', t ' s� �'
3. STRAICMT tltA0E5 SHALL BE RUN BEfYIEEN ALL FINISH GRADE FLEVATIWS AMD/OR FINISH CONTOIR �����NC A CAAWLING TRACTOR ID AND DOWN SLOP6 TO LEAVE A PATTERN pi �t;.' '��-,� ���k . � ��� CJ��"' V �
LINES SNONRI.UNLESS OTMERW�SE NOTED. CLEAT IMPRINTS VMALLEL TO S10PE CONTWRS)OR OTMER MEiH00 TO PROVIpE \ . ! /� W�
MORE STABLE SITES FOR SEmS TO REST. � anf S Z � G�
t. AlL PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SMOWN SMALL BE CONSIOEREU TO BE FINISN SI,RFACE ELEVATIp15, �N° �� R�r� �o �+ S:
INpAI�IHG REPLACFIAENT OF 57RIPPINGS,I1NLE55 OTHERWISE NOTEO. C. SEEOING-RECOMMENOED EROSId/CONTR0.GRA55 SEm MIXES ME AS FOLLOWS.
SIMILAR MI%ES DESIGNEO TO ACXIEVE EROSION CONTROL MAY BE 511BSTITUTW IF �.�. � � �y�
5. WST ABATEAIENT SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY ADEW�TE WATERINC 0�THE SITE. APPROVEO BY THE�CENCY HAVINC JURISDICTION. ,'d"' ,�,,r{;. 2 �
1.) 10 DWMF d1A59 41%(LOM'HEIp1T.LOW YAINTElI�NC�: r�� >"� s�� -_ � �
6. ALL MEAS OF CONSTRUCTION MtE TO BE SiRIPPm OF ALL TOPSOIL N!D diGANIL MATERIALS.M!D pwARi PERENqI�L RvE 4xnss,e0x BY wEICMT R *,x�.!�` G�,
REPLACED AFTER COMPLETION OF SiRULTURAL CRADING AS DIRECTED. cREEpINO PED RsaL mf[Bv wElo1T. 4 - �•'-ir
�PPLIGT101 RATC IOp Pq►Ip5 MINIML PFX�1CRE ':��" F...
7. CONTRACTOR 9fALl ROIOVE ALL tl/SUITMLE YAiERIAL.DEBR1�AND ORGANIC YATERIN.S MITHIN �`�' {:-:•.
GRADINC ND FILL LIYIiS PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT.BElIp1 NEW fILL YATERIAL IMO EIfISTING STANUMU NEIfi/T CRASS MI% f f
Z.) ANNUAL Itl'E OIASS,IOfi BY'MEIp1T
(Xt0U10 ti5 OIRECTEO BY THE ENCINEER. .tGx. .
71Ri-TYPE FESWf,E07 BY W[IqIT �
E. TNE itEAIOVAL AND OI�OSAL Of LNSUITF6lE YATERI�L SNALL BE DONE IN Cp1SLLTAT10N WIM iNE �VP�IChTION RATL I00 POU1D YININU/Vflt AtliE 0 �.
SOILS ENCIlIE�tt. ��..�.
E ,c�
9. TIE CONTRACTOR 91ALL UTILI2E SUITABLE ABGRAOE MATERIAL fOR ALL FILLS ALL fILLS IN FIN14i D. FERTILIZATION FOR GQASS SEED-AS PER SUPPLIER'S RECOIYIEIqAT10NS � �--����.: �
PAVED MGS AI�TO�PUCm IN E'LIFTS.ME CONTRACTOfi 9/ALL COMPALT EACN LIR TO A ���T��WI7MIN SO iEET OF WATER 8�IE5 AW WETlAWS YUST USF A -
NW-RWSR10RU5fERi�L�IIR. PLAN VIEIN (n
DENSITY NOT LE55 TMAN 911[OF AA91T0 T-I80. COHPACT�ADE TO A LINE ONE�00T BEYOND �
EDGE OF PAVING,GLRBS,SIDEWKKS,NIU SIDEWALK E%iEN510N5. SUIiABLE WTERIAL 91ALL BE AS NTS �J
DEFINED BY 7}1E 501�5 ENGINEER.FILL TO BE"PROOiED ROLIED'AS DIRECTEO BY TlIE CITY. E. WATERING-SEmINC SHALL BE SIPPLIED WITH ADEOUATE MOISTI.RE TO ESiABLl91 _
GRASS.SIPPLY WATER AS NEmm,ESPECIALLV IN ABNORYKLV HOi pR p11Y
WEATHER OR ON nDVERSE SITES.MATER APPLICATION RATES SiOLLD BE 6•�VER��p Q
10. ANY FILL PLACED IN BUILDIMG PAD MEAS SHALL BE COIWACTED.THE FILL SHALL BE CERTIFIm TO PT.'A� �
CONTRqlm TO PROVIDE ADEWATE NOISTUff WITHdIT CM/51NC RIRJOFF'.
YEET TME STRUCTUtAL fILL REp11REMENTS 0�THE WIFORM BUILDING COOE.CdIPACTION SiANDARDS TYPICAL
SHALL BE AS INDICAiEO�Oft FILL WIIHIN FINISH PAVED MEAS ABOVE. pT B W
F. RE-SEEDING-AREAS WHlpl fAIL TO ESTABLISM CRAA COVER ADEOWTE TO ,� ��
I I. ALL CUf OR FILL SLOPES 41ALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT NO STFFPEA 7HAN TWO(2)MOR120NTAl�O p/E �NT EROSIp!SHKL BE FE-SEEDm AS SOON AS SUCH ARFaS ARE IOENTIFIm, ��°�- Q 0
AND ALL APPROPRIA7E 1AEAA1RE5 TAIfEN TO EST/�BL141 ADEOUATE COVEA.
i
(1)VEA7ICAL WLESS AUTMONI2ED BY THE SOILS ENGINEQt. �- '. ' "
;n, -.
NOTE: ��-�� � °�
��. CONTRACTOR TO HAVE SUTICIENT NUIBER OF COMPACTIpJ hSTS PERFONIIFD TO 11EET TNE CITY OF �_' ��TRACTOR 5/1ALL PROVIDE SITE WATERING AS NELESSARV TO REDUCE IIIND EROSION 0�$pIL pT. A'IAUST BE 6"` � � Z
71CAND REW�REMENTS AT TME DEVELOPERS E�ENSE.iE51S SHAIL BE PERFORIIED BY A OUALIFIED F��� MIN.HIq1ER THAN���� B-B � (n
TESTING�CENCY AND MTtITTEN RESLLTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO BO7M THE ENCINEER�ND THE CITV OF 13 (NOVEMBER 1 TO AVRIL 70): SI.PPLEMFHTARY wE7 IYEATHER EROSION CONTROL NEASIRES SHALL BE PT. 'B' -� O C7 �yJ
TICARD.SNOILD ClNPAC710N REWII�1[NTS NOT BE ME7.CONTRAC70it SIALL RE-Cd1PAC7 TIIE fILL �gp.��TNEp EROSION COHTROL 1ffAS�1tE5 StALL BE PER CI7Y OF TICMD. Y � O
AW PAY ALL AOOITIONAL TE571NC L06T5.
11. STORAI DRAIN INLETS,BASINS,AND AREA pRAINS SHALL BE PROIECiED U1iIL PAVENENi A�tF�C[5
I3. THE CONTRACTOR SNALL BE HESPdiSIBLE FOR AD�RISTINC ALL CA�GI BASINS,CI.EAN0Uf5,VAULTS,ETC., �COAIPLETED AND/OR VECE7ATION IS RE-6TABL191ED. � O Z
THAT ARE IFFECTED BY CONSTIiUCT10N AND/OR FILL TO FINISH CRAUE.STORM DRAIN INLET
STRUCTlBtES SMALL BE ADJUSTED SO NATER iLOWS INTO TME STRUCTUtE WITMWT PONDING WATER. IS. gEDING 5lIALL BE PERFIXtMED NO LATER THAN SEPTEYBER �. D i TGHES AND SWALES PROTECT I ON fILTER f�pltlC M�TERIA� ���TOKO`od�s- J
NTS OVFR Ya]'POS'S FILTEII Q Q O
�6'wIUE ROL15
1�. AI.L DIRT SP01�5 FRO4 STREET,VIBLIC UTILI7Y,FdHDAT10N,M�D DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION SHALL 16 ���g�kL BE RENOVED BY TF�DEVELOPER ONL1/WHEN VEGE7ATION IS fLILY ����� � �
BE OISPO£.fED OF,HANOLEU,OR STOIIED OUTSIDE TIiE ORIV LIIffS OF i7E RFl1AINING TREES Q
�S. ALL MET WEAIHER CONSTRUCTION/IEA91RE5 97f11 8E IMPLEl1ENTED AS OIRECTED BY TME SOILS , ~
ENGINEER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF TIGARO STANOARDS. BIOFILTER BAGS � a Q � Z
18. ASPHALT CONCREfE PAVEAIENT WIX SHALL BE DESICNED tROM A MIX FORAHILA APPROVW BY 7liE CITY I. BIOFILTER BACS SHALL BE CLEAN 100 PERCENT RECYCIED W000 PRODUC7 WASTE. � •" •i � ~ O
FOR YATERIAL USEO.WNTRACTOR 91ALL PROVIDE ENGINEER ANU CITY WITN CEATIFICATE 0� SIZE OF BAG$HALL BE 18X8%30 INCHES AND WEIp1 APPROXIMATELY 4S POUJDS, "� -- �
COMPLIANCE iR0A1 ASPHALT PAVENENT WlESS 07HERWISE INDICATW. AND AIAUE OF 1/7 INCH PLASTIC MESH. � �` � �-- � \
17. THE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEAIENT MI%SHQL BE CO�.�PACTEI)PER 7ME CITY pF TIGARD`PUBLIC y, STAKES SHALL BE 2 - 2")C2'X3' WOOD PECS DRIVEN THROUGH BAGS AND INTO + •I o 6 spec��uc-11 Q O
WORKS COOE'REWIREMENTS.CONTMCTOR SHN.L ABMIT TEST RE511T5 TO THE ENCINEER ANO CITY.
CROUND TO A MINIMW DEPTH OF i2'. FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW (n
I& WET �TNER CON� �"TIdJ• ALL PROPOSm ROADWAYS SMALL�DD AN AODITIONAL li'OF
COMPACiED CRUSHm ROCI(BASE OVER A NON-NroVEN CEOTD(TiLE FABRIC UnLESS OiHERWISE 3. AT NO TIA1E SHALL MORE THAN A ONE HALF FOOT DEPTH OF SEUTAIENT bE NTS NTS Q �
RECdnAENDED BY iHE SOILS ENOINEER u1D�vaftovED BY TNE CiTY. ALLOWED TO ALCUAULA7E BEHIND SEDIMENT FENCES AND/OR BIOFILTER BACS. uuxE eorH cerDS av rnhn v�enic
SEDIAIENT SHALL BE REMOVED OR RECRADED INTO THE SLOPE,OR NEW LINES OF �rtrce io�saw[soi�is rn�vxv\ � W
EROSION CONTROL NOTES: eu�ieRS INSTALLED UPMILL OF SEDIMENT-LADEN BARRIERS.
� '` � �s
i. �aoreoveo cnosia+caNrna MEAAR6 SHALL BE TAKEH iH ACCOF2�ANCE WITH CITY OF TIGARD SEp I MENT FENCES: .'�"4°p` i,au+r aonw or viucx v�ertic e• �
STANDARDS.THE CON7NACTOR 91ALL PRO�IDE ALL MATERIAL.EOUIP4ENT,ANO PERSONNEL NECESSAR7 S`NGP�GQ`" INTfAlOC1I VERTICALLY B0.0W fIN191ED ORADE - T
TO MAINTAIN SUCH EROSION PROTECTION ME�SUtES.ANY DAGACE CAUSm BY EROSION 91ALL BE I. FILTER iABRIC SHALL 6E PlRtC11A5ED IN A CONTINUDl15 ROLL CUT TO TXE LENCTH OF T!� �S t Jp• Z��7�P06i5 2 3'a!'FIR,PINE OR SiEEL tJ/
E
CORREC7ED BY 7NE CON7RACTOR AT HISMER OWN E)�ENSE. BARRIER TO AVOID l6E Of JOINiS.WNEN JDINTS ARE NEC65ARY,�tLiER CLOTH SHALL BE � ��t��,-.� V�N. ��tT� TOP V IEW ��'�
SPLICED TOGETHER ONLY AT�APPqtT POST.wliX A YINIYW 6-INCH OVE�M.ANO BOTM �. oo�" ���Y:`y, J.nlio�L0�5 TO E IMSTU�m
2. TME IMPLEMENTAiIpI OF EAOSidI/SEDIIENTATIp!CONIROL(E�,%.ANS AIID TIff CONSiRIICTIpl, ENDS SEpJREL1'fASTENm TO 7HE POST. �r�-r.r=- ' Ni$ IPMILL SIDE Oi SDPE
MAINTENANCE,REPLACEYENT.A/A IACRhDING OF 6C FACILI�IES IS 1HE RE�ONSIBILITY OF THE �O°" J"� " ♦earvacr�u,�AS a�nroe r�eaie
�'`'�a°e'a°s��;, SED I MENT FENCE
CONTRACTOR UNTIL ALL COMSfRUCT10N IS COMVLETED AND APPROVED AHD VEGETATION/LNDSG�PING 2 THE FILTER FABRIC iENLE SHIW.BE INSTAILED TO Fq10W TNE CONTOURS WNE1�FEA5IBLE. � '�cr--`p ?^�� � �NFNGL �
EST/1BLIS/IED. 1 A TF�NCH 91ALL BE E%CAVATm.RdM�ILY 0'WIDE BY 12�DEEP.A0.UCElIT TO TIE W000 POST pbIUS�25'YIN./ �`����9 yl��¢ �
]. �plITRACiOR SHALL VERIfY THAT ALL iRUCKS ARE WELL SEALED WXEN 7RANFiPORTING SATlAA7ED TO ALLOW TME FIL7ER FA�IIC TO BE BIRIEO. �'-T OIIMRT�ALlS OvF11 / � ^ - �'�,64' � �
SOILS FROM THE SITE WATFR DRIVGACE FFtpA TRUIXS TRANSPORTING SATUiATID SOILS YUSi BE STABIIIUTIdI G/�BRIC, J �. ;,
�NON-WOVFM iA9NIC.0.o-QL / � p1��� � � •� ry
REDUCED TO LE55 TNAN ONE CAILON PER HOUR BEFOftE LEAVING iHE SITE 4. SEDIMENT iENCE SHALL HAVE MAMFACII/tED STITCF£D 100P5 FOR Y'%2'POST IN$iM1ATI0N. ��ppp�ym E��� / � � p0.� � ��ry � s �
STITp1ED 100P5 SHALL BE INSTALLED ON TME{�LL SI�E OF 1NE SLOPm AREI� d' -
R90NADE REIMiORCEYENT J e�ui
�, TNE ESC�ACIIIilES SHOWN ON THESE PLNIS MUST BE CONSTR�CTED IN CONJlMCT10N WITH ALL CEOTEXiIi.L�5 REW�rRD pEp7M ��.�"O �� '^
0.EMING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES,AND IN SUCH A YAMiER AS TO INSUIE THE SEDIIIENT LAOEN 3. gDIMENi FENCES SHALL BE RENOVED WHEN TIEY MAVE SERVEU iXEIR USEFU.PUIlPOSE,BUi NpT �S� �
WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE ORAINAGE SYSTEY OR VIOLATE APPLILABLE WA7FR STANDAROS. gffpp[��QpPE ARE�NAS BEEN PENIIANENTLY 57AB�L12ED. •20'YIN.FOR SINfiE FAYILY ^ -
AND pPIEX�SIOENTIK
S. TNE ESC FACIIITIES SVWII�N d1 T/Eg PLANS ARE iHE MINIYUI REWIREMENIS FOft ANTICIPAiED 6. SmIMENT FENCES SMALL BE IN�ECTED BY CONTRACTOR INYEDIAiELY AiTER EACH RAINFA�L ANp
SITE CONUI710N5.DIf2ING TNE CONSTRUCTIpI PERIOD,TNESE ESC FACILI71E5 SHALL 8E UPCRADEO AT LEAST DAILY DUiING PROLpICED RAINFAIL.ANY REOUIRFD REPAIRS 9/ALL FIE YAOE �vu�
AS NEEOED FOR UNE7�ECTm STORM EVENTS AND i0 ENSLRE TXAT SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER DOES NOT IYIIEDIATELY. ��E����
��v�TME sitE 7. FILTER FABRIC SHALI BE WOVEN CEOTEXTILE Y�TEit1AL WITM iHE Fq10WINC PaOPERTIES RAV ONSTR TION NTRAN . �°�e"�
6. 711E E9C FACIl�T1E5$HALL BE INSPEC7ED DAIIY BY THE CONiRACTOR A1O YAINTAIIED hS (,RAB TENSILE STRENCTM: 20 bf NI$
lIE�ESSARY TO EN9RiE 7HEIR CONTIMED MlCTIONINQ TEAR STRENGTH: 75 6( g �W�
PUNCTLRE NESISTANLE: YO b!
7. THE[$C FACIIITIES ON INACTIVE SIlES S/IALL BE IN�ECTED AND NAINtA1NEp�MINIAIUA OF W�TER FLOW RATE: 4 ppm per�f GTCH BASIN GRAlE
ONCE A Yp17H OR WITHIN T/IE 7�HOIR$fOILOWINC A$TORY EVD!(. /�pPARENT$IZE OPDIINC: Na]0
2 2 >
8. AT NO TINE SHILL MORE THAN MKF TIIE OEiTM OF A TRAPPm CATpI BASIN BE ALLOWED TO �pP p� ,�����:'"\� 1'REB�R fOR � �
�CCUAU��TE SmIMENT. OEPM SMALL BE MEAARED FROM TME WTLfT PIPE INVEAT TO TNE BOTTOAI $�pPE p�. GTCH BtiSIN �YG RE110VAL
Oi'THE CATCM BASIN. ALL CATpI B�SINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHAl1 BE CLEMIED PRIOR TO
P�VING. THE CLEANING OPQiAT10N SXAll NOT iLlJ91 SEDI4ENT LADEN WATER INTO TI$DOWNSTREMI M/5 BUT 2 P'f.YNYUY AND GTCH
SYSTEM. AND 10fT.YALWM I
BISIN SUSPENS�ON CORDS/RODS
9. TME BIXINDARIES OF TME CLEMINC LIMITS SHALL 8E CLEARLY MC(.'ED IN THE FIE1D BY 1HE , pyQt{'�p�y � 2�r2�+J/4�RUBBER BLOCKS
ENGINEER PRIIXi TO PLACING ESC MEASURES. NO OISTURBANCE BEYOND THE RAGLEO QEMING I �-�;� Z
LIAIITS SNALL BE PERYITT£�. THE�IACCINC 91ALL BE YAINTAINED BY ME CONTRACTOR�OR 7ME STORM EXPANSION RE57RAIM p
OURATION OF CON57RUCTION. NANRAL OR P�PE F1l.7ER SACK � a �D
10. STABILlZEO CANSTRUCTION ENTFANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT TNE BEGINNING OF CONSiRUCT10N CUT OR FlLL �1N�SMED GRAOE �
AND MAINTAII$D FOR TME DUtATION pF TME PRO.ECT.AOOITIONK MEAAA2ES MAY BE REW�RED TO ��E FlLTER SACK j j � O
INSUtE TNAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN FOR TNE OURATION OF TME PROJECT. ' C � Q I
I I. RE-ESiABLISM CROIND COVER PRIOR TO RENOVAI OF EROSION CONTROI MEASUtES.CROUNO AitFA(.ES P�• �� � � � � �� m m M
E%POSEO DU21NG Cp15TRUCiION AltE TO BE SFE�ED AS FOLLONS: = INSERT SACK INSERT SACK � � �
A. NYDROYILCH SNALI BE AP7LIm WITH RiA55 SEED AT A RATE O�2000 L8./ACRE. M/7 BVT 2 R.YINYW FRONT VIEW a � O
� p! �OVES STEEPER THAN IOR HYDRDSEED iWD YLLCH Sl1ALL BE APPLIm WITM A AND�f.MA%M1G SIDE VIEW
BONDING AGENT(TACNI�IER).APPLICATION RATE ANO/dEfHODOLOGY TO BE PEN I �TE
gEED SLPPLIER RECOMUENDATIONi RECESSED CURB MLET IAUST BE BLOCKED WMEN USING FlLTER F/iBWC MlLET S�CKS. N g\ � I
at SIZE OG FlL76t FABRIC INl£T 5�1CN TO BE DE7ERYINED BY IMMIFACNRER. � \8 Q
INLET PROTECTION S o o �-
rirs W H _ W
MAIUTAL OR � P�IT AftEA BWNDARY � (�I
��� RGURE A-33-1 NB.C� SHEET �_
C301 �
J08 N0. $�
733-09�a
nwo-caa�.a.o
I
�1 L� �� ��(�`� �.'-(i� � I -, - -----;--- �� — -- ---- --- --
, � �
. �
CONSTRUC"�iON PL�►�VS FOR • -
c+ S
� �
� �Y
92nd AND SW N �RTH �AK�TA ST. .
��
C��� �� ��C���D o��C��� �� � �
, o = � �
_ � 6�
�
�
•
���� �
� .gHEET�NDEX
��,�«.�n _ �� — Q
rr
��,�,m � N�L � _-J N � --
LLDAKOYA STREET I--�
� � COVER SHEET C100 z
� � � � ROJECT �{-� � �T-, I O � W
� P� LOCATION GENERAL NOTES C101
< n saUeer uravr•i,v. W W
i
S L, y - 1�.�wa..�7�f.? � w � Y � _
G n ou�m�rr d EXISIING CONDITIONS C102 + LJ � ' � O V)
� � °' —l. _, ',�
�,oTM�, s � PLAN dc STREET SECTIONS C200 � � N Q � ;
� GRADING dc ER05�ON PLAN C300
� � � a Q O
` '"wr,q�b a � � EROSION CONTROL NOTES �c DETAILS C301 --�--� �^ Q � O
' ��� � � � � p � N. DAKOTA STREET - STRL'ET dc STORM C400 � ~
I
+►,,�c 6 R PLAN dc PROFILE ! 1 �
1 r ar ure u� �
� �' N. DAKOTA STREET - WAT:R dc SANITARY C500 Q
""'"'I" � PLAN Qc PROFlLE
ar nnoa�T G '
DETAILS C600 0
v�n�,P � Z
LOCAl10N MAP � N/�
NOT TO SC�LE �
� NOT TO SC/�lE � V�
LEQEI� � �
exisndsi -
,�y, �
- R011'CEN7ERLJNE � QEC7PoC RISER � MAIL BOX � "+�, �
PROPERTY UNE �II, POMER POLE T g� ��� �� H
. - -- - - LASEMENT � CAS 4ElER � �CTRICAL BO% c u9 Q uf
CURB CAS RISER .j�. 57REET L1CHT �i� �
__ _ m4E OF PAVEMENT � IELEPHONE RISER �
c.e- ar,wa�on � m¢
wu r.;a s
- +—N� DITCM CEHTERUNE � FlRE HWRANT �u'ae•=au�C�JinMO
YYIO Q�1 R... wfpl
�9rfiPl a O
—100 CpNTIX1R-5'INIERYAL � M,����� HW� STRUCTI�RE „
—101 CONTWR-t'IN7ERVAL m
r'�-�-• BMRICADE � WA7ER NE7ER R
—. — CAS LINE OO W1�TMY SEWER MANHOLE
n' UNDERCRWND CABLE � SANITARY SENER MANMOLE ��°�,
E UNDERCROUND PONER � CATd1 BASIN � FOUNO ALUMINUM CAP A$NDiED
55 SANITARY SENIIt X FOUND IRON PIPE AS NOIED
SD STORM SEWER • FOUN�IRON R00 AS NOiED �
* UN�ERCRWND TELEPHONE Q
ATTENTION: ORECON LAW REOUIRES YOU TD FOLLOW RULES PROPERIY OWNER ENCINEER/SURVEYOR BENCHMARK w wA� F �O
ADOP7ED BY THE OREGON UTUTY NO71FlCA110N CEN7ER. 1NOSE RULES MARK SEAMAN WESTUKE CDNSULiANTS,tNC. VERiICAL CONiROL BASED dJ CITY OF c� �
ARE SET FORTH IN OAR 952-001-0010 1HRWGH OAR 952-007-0090. g{07$W 59?N A�E. PAGFIC CORFOfiATc CET�TER TICARD BENCH MARK N0. 11, ALSO
YOU AIAY OBTAIN COPIES OF THESE RUIE$BY CALLING THE CENiER. E60P95@
(NOTE: TTiE TfLEPHOME NUMBER FOR THE ORECON UTILJTY NOnFlCA710N P�R1lAND, OR 87218 15115 S.W. SEO'�JqA PARIiWAY, BEJNG WASHINCtpN COUN?Y 9ENCH _ __ I�
CENTER IS(503)252-1987). PHONE: (503) 2a8-9890 SU�lE 150 i1GARD.OREGON 97224 MARK N0. 167, A BRASS DISC SET IN — ROW/PROPERTY UNE Q SANITARY SEwER uaNHOIE 1 0
►ti� (503) 245-8507 PMONE: (503)68�-0652 MONUMENl BO%IN NOR7H �AKOTA - - — - - pUBIJC unun usoaar L STREET LIGNT
FAX: (503)824-0157 57REET, 19 FEET WEST OF RAILROAO - ��UNE Q STORM SEM£R MANMOLE Fi �
. UT�LITY STATEIYIENT: TME UNDERGROUNO UTILITIES SMOWN ARE CONTACT: lPN SCMEL;atY, PLS CROSSINC. ELEVATON�178.38 FEET.
� PER FlELD MARKINCS AN�RECORD DRAVANCS PROVIDED BY 1HE WRB e CA7CH BASN COHSTRUCl10N EN7R�NCE
RESPECTIVE U71UiY AGENpES.LOCATION OF NON-OBSERVABLE ANO/OR �� CONTWR L1NE-S'IN7EIiVAL � WA7ER CA7E VAL�E J
UNDERCRWND UTIU71E5 ARE SHOMM FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE 10'I CONTWR L1NE-1'INIERVAL v� Q
� NOT GUARANTEED TO BE COMPL£7E OR ACCURA7E PROPERIY DESCRIPTION STREET ADL7RCSS AGENCY REVIEWING 0-0 DWBLE M'ATER METER- i'(TYP) � z < �
SANITARY SEWfR �DEWAU( o 0
TA% MAP: �S 7 SSDB N/A-- dTY OF TIGARD ��� S�M g,� � FlRE NTDRANT , S
UT�LITY VERIFlCAT�ON: CONIRACTOR SMALL P07MOLE TO VERIFY r�x �oT: .��i �
LOCAiION OF AlL UNDERCRWND UTIl111ES PRIOR TO COMNENGNC TME SUBJECT PROPERT'r i5 iN :HE -�-���--- 'MATFR 11NE � RIP RAP SS wN SAHITAR'f SENER MANNOLE � m
CONS7RUCTION AN� SHALL PRONDE IIE9TlJQ CONSULTANTS, INC. R-4.3: LOW-DENStt RESIDENTAL O O SEDIwEN7 FENCE � INLET PROIECTION sTU uN STORM MANHOt,E SHEET �
72-HWRS NOTICE Of ANY VOiEN71AL CONNC75. AREA� 19,787.31 SF. (.�54 ACRES) O 8 TREE PROTECTION FENCE � R i1Q,p iNLET ��oo �U�
SIREET TREE �B C�TCH BASIN ��
,ae No. 733-09�U
]3J09-Ci00qwQ
• �d
� � �
�
.r r �8 � � �
r�x�oi s�ao �N �
75 1]S UB TA1f LOT 1 �
TAX LOT iJOD � 2�pp �` iA%L0T�
15 t Jy pg IS 7 1!p! 15 1 J�G�0
i ��ww�qc
� I � [N 'fltf ______ '��T -_ WE'laff y
K wr ns.r f mro� ■w��w.r ■
p� ��..� ! --1________ `""'""A :�'7.i� GRAPHIC SCALE E� ♦ �
r --y � r _ _ .
� T l L01— � / i b �� �
� 55 V, 55 55 55 . 3, ' S5 5�5 55 SS 55.`— n 55� U --SS — SS— '�--A� (�
y9� _� 1+�1
� �cs�� (�,,,�� N DAKOTA STREET � M M IN��1D Ff B
l µ m M M M M M M � r a
M- �r ewc rec( - qp
�4 � M --:n.r 3 -- --�•M_-�--- --- ------ ---- -- _ --- _
-�W�.- �7
a �------ .z-_----�- �y_ _ ---�---�_;,� — — -�;, �
� � w� ' ma a � ——'���-—1�y— --�— �_�—-�����-�e� — m�/� � � r~F
� ` ce--
H�a_ _ — .— � � <wasa —ea� =�I=_— .�.2 --_av�— — — — �— ` —
'__'_-J - / i 'c'� .`--i61�'� �o� '__ — _ � / / �6�� _ "
� p bY.�1�MyMyy�'y��y 60\ �. Cpl � - -
/ S Qii y' �^r C V I � ..Uv , e / � •
�`� —'z01- / � � ._ ,K 6L� �
� � - - - ���� — � � , , ` -- - i �� — � _ _
/ / i — „ � — •�ZM � ��� / � — N3I�/ � .
I / \ pt1K*PiMV / ' � — i / � _ —l'61— / 2 I�/ J
¢'N AN[N41R � .e _- i / _' —�W' 11� •
/ 1�GS�p I�I1! I
� � �LOT 1,DOGWD00 PoDGE ,e�� � 2 aat" /
/ \ � � — ♦� � AREA.,l,02i� "� / ` � � / �
� ruc ior�soo T z�ot�eoo ..�E _ -- ` ' f � � / � � �- ��6�� /� /
� IS 1.13 OB S 1 3S OB �bl- .� � �od�� -- _ � ��/- n F
i f' �7 ;-� �
� r I � \ ar asr o ua '� 2 f � � �� f a��'' �.we J\ ' �i �� o h ch /s �� \ � 1t � �\�� ll�.1�(-�'�, �
� ' — — — e �— �— O
W LOT 1b I L 16� � �O � — -� � �..'� 2� TN(lAT 4300 � �^ � O r^ —
� / 0'NEEL ACRES OtIFII=DRS— — � ' 186�� �- r f — — � ' ^ Oe � —18=J0 D! W� F! . o �.� �- � �
' < < f � �m�°� � �� � ' � /� v
/ —bt � _ p ,/� Q� v � Y W �
I // I• °� ' 2 B6L� r � _ _ _ Z � 'j ��wu� L / � W ��V ��V�� � O O
_ � — — I Li'4I O UE —_ / !♦
// — I / �� —66t� Z ! �— _. _ / ~ _ /! 4oL � O 1—� �� � V V � Q Q V
/ / �� � � � / y � NT ` i t � / ��( V
y / �' � � ��Q ����ti�W � � i .O ��� — `Ot � \ � /�lI� Z
/ � �i I Y fAfT Ip[ ���� — � M"�_ � �- \ }/ �\ W CJ� M � a� v �
� �\ (�
/ / \ � ��� — � '°�1 � �� — I- NI 1 ' �•� � cn
� / in,,. ra�ar� _1— �i--- � _ � — — —I ., s � G_
� o'NCC�w�[s is;3s/ ' w�'_' / � ! � i35. � �'� �\� � X
/ � — �� ."' � - — — �°� �' Q w
� �
� -- _ _ _ — , ,� �,�— � � � .
I . . ��� A,a,� ' i
i Z{� TA1f lAT 4J00 f � �y�F 1°'� L �
� � l O �� 15 1 36DB i / ��'( ,: q! : j o w �
� � gg �
' � �_ _ _ � / /, SY� � sn�. :� ` `I
� /� �� � ��� � � �� 1'�r C�c��� ��Y�� ��,;;� �
' i I �•��� � I / %//, ' ��<.��:. `L � / �
�� ��or u tax�or�aoo „�• ��, ! x • /r�x�oT s� � `M 0 ��
o,�„� ,5,�s� , , ,: . • : � „� vl d 1� h Gt -�vl. ,; (
I �(; �- �e.y�,;.: ,�: =,L � � � �.
f�'\� ' 0.uJ� s — r�J ,,,; �; c��, 1,�� , �
�M�M I l��e'o[w • • � � � SIZ / \ N
lK •• •✓ �
.� , ��-
58s39 2s w 198.97 ' •, ��� �"N� ; � S �"( ���L i rC � � 3 r
�M�M � �y
�ry` Q
nr .w�auw� �.v a u� �° wrrwn wwni �� li.l��- C'C C i.;U�✓ r"� p
TA%LOT R00 LOT 3 TAI(LOT{400 �� t F(p naJ S� x
14 1!S DB OOG�1000�IDOE IS 1]�DB � t drt M t�nr _ w
y1t 44 ��p s
�� S �io�rH�;iORPWY�W�'MO
I y� L`L ��,Olm^.�Ix M wlil
a �
�
T�e
�
C
CANSTFiUCTION NOTE3 �� � C
O1 E%ISi1NC 7REE(S) TO BE REMOVED �
O2 EXISTNC TREE(5) TO BE SAVED � r
PROVIDE 7AEE PROlECT10N fENCINC C
� O3 EXISIINC CULVERi TO REMAIN I
' O4 EX1571NG WIRE FENCE 10 BE REMOVEU
t'�
� EXISTING DRAINACE PATIi � o
A
S �
w
� �+
SHEET
C1�2 a`�
�oe No. �33-09 �U
�swc-c�o2.a.o
. . D�c�l,,,,�,�� �1,� ;
� L
� M P
� ��5-Uo�!!
�
- ---- ----- -- - - -- ---- - - - ------ - --
T H E P A C I F 1 C R E S O U R C E S G R O U P
LAND MANAGERS •URBAN FORESTERS •PLANTAPPRAISERS•NATURAL RESOURCE CONSUL7ANT5
August 25, 2010
Mr. Mark Seaman
8407 SW 58th
Portland,Oregon 97219
Reference: Tree Assessment for 2 lots at SW 92°d&North Dakota Street, Tigard, Oregon
Dear Mr. Seaman,
At your request,I visited 1 l 285 S W 92 & S W North Dakota Street,the site of your two lots. The purpose
of my visit was to meet with you and determine which trees remain on the two lots and which trees could
be retained with the building footprints that you are proposing to build on each lot. For the original2-lot
partition I assessed 35 trees that were shown on the tree survey.Two of the trees(tree 34&35)are
located on the adjacent property and remain in place. As part of the partition street improvements,
sidewalk, driveway and utilities were installed in the North Dakota right of way. This necessitated the
removal of trees including trees 15, 16, 18, 19, 20,21,22, 23, 24,25,26, 27, 28, 29 & 33. These trees
were either directly in the way of proposed improvements or suffered severe root loss during grading and
installation of the required improvements. The root loss left some of the trees unstable and unsafe to
leave standing. I recommended their removal.
When I inventoried the trees back in 2005, I identified 3 hazard trees(trees l, 29& 32)that were dead or
dying and had other serious defects. I recommended they be removed whether development proceeded or
not. Tree 29 was removed because it suffered root loss during installation of utilities and became an even
greater hazard. Tree 1 was toppled in a windstorm in November 2008 and was subsequently removed.
Fortunatcly it fell into the unoccupied part of the lot and caused no damage. Tree 32 remains,but is still a
hazard and should be removed.
When we met on site this week, I looked at the building footprints that you had staked out. It looks like
you can retain those trees that are at least 12'or more from the homes.Assuming that root loss is as
expected,the trees that will be preserved after construction of the two homes include trees 2,3,4, 5, 6, 7,
8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 31. It will not be possible to determine if the trees closest to the proposed
homes can be left in a reasonably stable and healthy condition until excavation is underway and the
extent of any root loss or filling over the roots is apparent. If any trees suffer significant loss of major
structural roots, I will recommend their removal.
Most of the original tree protection fencing remains in place. When we met I suggested tree protection
fencing locations that would allow you to excavate for the home foundations without intruding on the
tree protection zone. When I returned to the site today all the tree protection fencing had been installed.
When the foundations have been excavated you should call me so I can assess any root loss that might
occur. I should also be notified if it becomes necessary to move any of the tree protection fencing or to
work within the tree protection areas. I will also plan to make periodic inspections when construction is
active and provide you with field reports to meet the City's requirements.
As mentioned in my 2005 report, in addition to protecting the trees from inadvertent physical injury,the
tree protection fencing should serve to minimize any soil compaction that might occur within the trees'
root protection zone. This will require keeping construction materials, soil, foot traffic and equipment out
of the area within the tree protection zone to the extent practical. The fencing should protect as much of
the root protection zone as possible, without including the eacavation for the utilities, foundation walls,
etc. If it is necessary to work closer to the tree than this or to work inside the tree protection fencing,you
should notify me
I still recommend that any trees which are retained, be provided a fertilization program that will help
promote root growth following construction. For any newly planted trees the fertilization can be delayed
until the next growing season. To accomplish this I recommend that the landscape contractor or new
home owner fertilize the entire area beneath the preserved trees using a highly soluble high nitrogen
fertilizer applied at a time when surface vegetation is dormant and tree roots are still growing. The best
time to do this is in late October or early November and/or in mid to late February. The fertilizer is best
applied just prior to or during a rain, otherwise it should be watered into the soil. I recommend using
Ammonium Sulfate(21-0-0 or 23-0-0)at a rate of 2 lbs. of Nitrogen per 1000 square feet of area treated.
This equates to applying 9 lbs. of the fertilizer to each 1000 square feet of area within the drip line of
each tree or woody plant. The annual amount of Nitrogen that should be applied is between 2 to 4 Ibs. per
1000 square feet,the first year, and half that amount in subsequent years. If a single application is made,
it should be done in late November, otherwise two applications of nitrogen can be made, one each in late
fall and early sprin�. The fertilizer can be applied to the surface of the ground with a cyclone or "whirly"
type spreader.The fertilization should be done within the drip line and to an area a few feet outside the
drip line. To determine the area to be treated for trees such as this,with the tree at the center,the area to
be treated is within the circle that has a radius equal to one foot for every inch of the tree's diameter.
After the first application I recoinmend tliat you take soil samples to determine exisling nutrient levels
and get a recommendation on the composition of fertilizer or other soil amendments that are needed by
the plants on site. Contact A&L Western Agricultural Lab at 503-968-9225 for soil analysis instructions
and assistance. Once the partition is completed and lots are offered for sale,this information should be
passed on to the new homeowners of those lots containing any of the preserved trees.
This completes my report. If any additional information, which would effect my observations or
recommendations becomes available I would welcome the opportunity to consider it and revise this
report accordingly. If I omitted any information or if you have any questions please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Respectfully yours,
Stephen F. Goetz,Principal
American Society of Consulting Arborists, Reg#260
American Society of Landscape Architects, Oregon Lic. #80
Society of American Foresters
SG:mac
Attachment
�
� —
� �
� � "�� ���� GY�O //
T H E P A C I F I C R E S O U R C E 5 G R O U P
LAND MANAGERS• URBAN FORESTERS• PLANTAPPRAISERS•NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 17, 2010
To: Mark Seaman, Builder
From: Steve Goetz, Consulting Arborist
Subject: Field Inspection Of Tree Protection At 92"d&N. Dakota, Tigard, Oregon
I visited the two lots on North Dakota on 9/17/10 to observe tree protection and home
construction progressing on the two lots created by partition. Tree protection remains in place
and trees that had conflicted with home construction had been removed. The excavation for the
foundations had been completed and there was no significant root loss to the trees being
preserved nearby. Foundation forms were being installed at the time of my site visit. All the trees
proposed to remain appear to be undisturbed and the tree protection fencing near them remains in
place in all locations. I understand that the City wishes to have inspections made approximately
every two weeks, even it there are no changes in conditions.This is my first report and with your
help I plan to inspect every two weeks and when any excavation or disturbance is planned to take
place near the trees proposed for preservation. Please notify me when you would like to schedule
inspections.
Please let me know if I omitted any information or if you have any questions. Thank you.
�
� �
� � � �
/ /�'� �-!�5 �Ol/
T H E P A C I F I C R E S O U R C E S G R O U P �
LAND MANAGERS • URBAN PORESTERS • PLAtiTAPPRAISERS• NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTAKTS
MEMORANDUM ��Gl�tl�
�
Date: November 19, 2410
To: Mark Seaman, Builder
From: Steve Goetz, Consulting Arborist
Subject: Field Inspection Of Tree Protection At 92°d &N. Dakota, Tigard, Oregon
Since my last report on 10/15/10, I have visited the two lots on North Dakota twice. On both
occasions, 11/1/10 and again on 11/17/10, I found little change other than significant progress in
the construction of the two homes. There have been no significant changes related to the trees
that are being preserved. Tree protection remains in place as construction progresses. Some
construction activity or deterioration in the fencing attachments to the stakes has caused the tree
protection fencing to slump or fall in one location, but this was remedied within a day. There has
been no work within tree protection areas that I have not observed. As I stated previously, I
would not expect any work within tree protection areas until the homes are nearly completed and
final �radin� and lanclscape installation is scheduled. This is my fourth and fifth report and with
your help 1 plan to continue to inspect approximately every two weeks and when any excavation
or disturbance is planned to take place near the trees proposed for preservation. Please notify me
when you would like to schedule the next inspection.
Please let me know if I omitted any information or if you have any questions. Thank you.
4800 SW MEADOWS RD SUfCE 300 LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97035 (503)222-4320 DELLEVUE,WASIIINGTON (425)451-OG20
1
# DESCRIPTION STATUS STATUS DATE SEVERITY APPLIED BY ACTION BY
17. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements A. Submit for City review four(4)paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice
in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee(Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians,
at(503)639-4171,ext. 2421).C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS
92.05),Washington County, and by the City of Tigard.D. The right-of-way dedication for North Dakota Street to 27 feet from centerline and for SW 92nd Avenue to
27 feet from centerline shall be made on the final plat.E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the
Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicanY's surveyor.F.After the City and County have
reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature(for partitions),or City Engineer and Community Development Director
signatures(for subdivisions).
SETBACK REQMTS FOR R-4.5 ZONE Met 2/23/11 Cheryl Caines Albert 5hields
18. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant must submit a site plan that meets the setback requirements for the R�.5 zone, including a 15 foot street side
yard setback for parcel#2.
STREET TREES REQUIREMENT Met 2/23/11 Cheryl Caines Albert Shieids
19. The applicant shall include the requirement to plant street trees as part of any future street improvement in the restrictive covenant for proposed Parcels#1 and
#2 identified in Condition#9 above.
TPZ FENCING REPORTS Met 2/23/11 Todd Prager Albert Shields
20. The appiicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection
zone(TPZ)fencing installation,through home construction, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that
occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why
the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If
the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intenials, and if it appears the TPZ"s or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed
by the contractor,the City can stop woric on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to
evaluate the tree protection fencing,determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has
been violated.
TREE PROTECTION FENCING Met 2/23/11 Todd Prager Albert Shields
21. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of
tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the
house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected priorto commencing construction,and shall remain in place through the duration of home
building. After approval from the Ciry Forester,the tree protection measures may be removed. �
r
DEED RESTRICTION/LRG TREES Met 3/15/11�° Cheryl Caines Cheryl Caines �
22. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy,the applicanUowner shall record a deed restriction for each lot to the effect that any tree larger than 12" ,a
diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a � C
tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. ro �1
� �
"PHOTOMYLAR"COPY OF FINAL PLA Met 1/30/07 KSM BRS � cr
23. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a"photomylar"copy of the recorded final plat. C
C
AJ �
WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY FEES Met 2/23/11 Gus Duenas Albert Shields � �
t
24. During issuance of the building permit for Parcels 1 &2,the applicant shall pay the standard water quality and water quantity fees per lot(fee amounts will be the �--
latest approved by CWS). c
FINAL SITE DISTANCE CERTIFICAT Met 5/23/08 KSM MSB �
25. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant"s engineer shall provide final sight distance ce�tification.
Page 3 of 3
'' 'nqton County,Orepon Zp 11-020934
• • 1011 02:68;06 PM
� .� Cnt■1 stn■�1 RECORDSI
After Recordingthe Chvner/����licant Shall Send a Co�}' �I��� f�o.00te.00it�.00:�e,00-rota�■�t�.00
Ciry of Tigard
r�ttn: Cheryl Caincs
13125 SW Hall Blvd. o�as�a�ezo��oozo�a400soo�s
I,Rlehertl Nob�rnleht,Dlr�etor of A�s���m�nt end
Tigard, OR 97223 Texatlon and Ex-Oficlo County Cl�rk for Wuhinpton �
County,Onpon,do h�nby c�rtly that th�wRhln y
Instrum�nt ot wrltlnp v�ns ne�W�d s d ord�d In ths,,i '�'�'
book oi ncords of�atd cou � ,:`.F✓
File No.: MLP2005-00011 � ���.�t'"�;
Rlcherd Hob�rnleht,Dlnctor of A��asm�nt�nd �:�
T�x�tlon,HxARlclo Counry Cl�rk
TREE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
DEED RESTRICTION
lleclarant is the owner of property described as Parcels 1 &2 of Partition Plat
No. 2007-005 recorded as Document No. 2007008762 ,Washington County Book of Records.
Declarant has preserved or retained trees over and across portions of said property in
accordance with the Conditions of Approval of said plat. Any such preserved or retained tree
greater than 12-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) shown on the Tree Preservarion Plan (Exhibit
A), may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. This deed
restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this
section should either die or be removed as hazardous.
THIS AGREEMENT shall be deemed a Covenant running with the land and is binding
upon the owners of properry described as Parcels 1 & 2 of Partition Plat No. 2007-0005
Washington County, Oregon and their successors and assigns.
IN WITNF..SS THEREOF, the Declarant has executed this agreement on that date and year
set forth below. -
DECLARANT:
� �
STA1'E OF OREUON, COUNTI' OF WASHINGTON
This instrument was acknowledged before me by ���- �7�a'�- -.7�M��✓ J� -
+ G�I21Zvr �
�
NOTARY PUBI.IC —�N� _J� Date�1v Commission Expires
rr�v
CHERI L. MILLEH
Commission� 1889529
`� Notary Public-California
Riw�side County �
M Comm.Ex ire:Jun 12,201�
� _——— " N D�►KO�� S�RE�, —'� —L '� —
., _ — —-� � � �
� � — � �e � �.
-�9t- - y i
� �q
/� ` �\ ,(// 1 \� \
/ �{ _U�------------ �.�.��� •�c=- -r.:� - _� `--------�'-�___�_188-..._ -------�___���_---����_
P O� /" -1B6--- �`�. - - �- ---"__-'' _v-]�'_--��--6B1- - --�r---� _- �-
/' "$Bl -`� - _ L�r85r __� - --' �_--�- _ _ 1-�'��*c--l6l-O6l___ - ��f'
cacae� �,u� %- --s=- -=�-_-�''�'- - - - r.o =- � '" a.- ' 6, � ,-`�
� ` - '� ` _��'� s � � \ �3461_--{--V� �
� �F y 14' �� � 6 '�� :ik�c�.F ,_� \ • _� �L�iDN � �
�- \ � �
6
' �; »� __—r =�.: �:r_;� � , , ?� i— -3; � � _ it
�6 ` l� �,� ' ���' O � 3 � r-�' ,.:-;'; \� /�/� `� - s�'rw I I��v6� / \
i O� � ==�:�� ?�f � i \ � �� ��� � ' /� /� '
, � �, — .��:��:�:: ,— . � � _�-� r _ ,, � —
� � � ����� �j _ — � �-�:�_ _,� �.r 2e-,� ' i _� �,�- ��
� �---{ __ � ' — `
, 1
y._`� �\` ���!�� 1 �� �� � / --�I � 25`06 ,I 25:0' �
� BUtLDING �-� , �! � � �-_� '� �.i �
-� SETHAC� \ v6�� `-� �� � �
P � ! � �� � 5.00' /
/.� 1/' I _£61 i"_ -'� _' 'S6`'l\I�i �\ ��i I � � _L ` /�//// /�
' I ��,��� J !� - $,�86 SF� �`r' �. _ �'8387 SF,`�J i��` ' � i
_be� , ' � �.�96ti'� -"''`� /`'� � J i i~ i
� -,,,�� � �� I _g - � i
/g / � `� - -' J �Lb�r�s_M�a�e ��' � �-� �� / '
��a�k � �� �� 2 �- � �76�i �� ��� / //
/�s�� � !/� � \ � � � I// I � � ��- -gfl_.�/ /
� � t2'N+�wm � �� \ S.00� b`�--�� i � i TAX LOT
,9 �� s.nrt�" J' � � � �0�_ �� / 1 S 1 3:
Q_� � _J ji.�.�i- \ � -_� -i A 1 � � -
-- - - � � '_ � � �i� ��-- i l � ' �\I / -
` �x 16 0 � � 2' �C l0T 4�101�� t �/ �. J �� / r _�-�-iUl�� �� /�-�
� — � �_ — —�-- �.�c.. , v,- �
� �-� � �gb�\`�" � �� , �� b � �,��„(g,� �\ 1i� �i �� I ��\ tpl��--, �,
��� �'+ � ��� _-f---/� ' � -- _- zo i��_��� �\���'_y/� \�� 4�L_- I \ �
�� � o .�.���� m�. � � \� � �-�-��� + __ k i
- �� / � -'- - -- -�---dP�'� �' 7; -�=-� �-- ��v,�"j �y 1 '� _ �
1�� ��� \�S \>'p0�' !y�/__-- --�r/ � __\�-��oz�� �� ( f I�r R �` �--- -�'�°a---�-f �'
`-� `� � - �- J...ti I�� � � � � I i
� r' �� �LOZ l� ._y� _%�'` �f'aZ G � �'� �r�/
\) I � �\ ` __ --- �"� i �� � � / ��/�^ P1NE �,('c,02---� �
� i� � ,, � J �r>aZ_ti 1� y— � � � r i
__ __x �, , _ � �_-- � . �, , �, , ;--- ---�r �
� \ _1r • c � � _ i �
� oo � � -�..._-��, �`- - � �/ �� ��--�. �\ �) �i �� �oz_I�� /
e '/� --� - --- �_.. � - � / � ��_ i! -r' i �� �
� � � \ �� / i � `-� �
r "� i � / / � -- � i
�wrH` � 1�K/ \ � /j -� I _ .�� �� �V LOZ`- --i
�'���- ��\ � // �}}},,,_���K /��-- -t\_'' / � i �
�� I _�i � � ` � ' i �._ // �
'_ � �- � � ���_,� � ��Z� '�---__.�
_ i
`� ewc�ausrea �XISTING PAR�E�� � � � �
� � �
��—� x- � `� _
Ii � �` ^- --- -NO�A�ijT� PROJECT � � �oZ�-'--+ / �
� � ' � � �
\ / }o�z`� -� � .
, �
� , ` i �
7�'DECID d.�y� / I
.._.` /// I ��.—llZ~'—�
� _i
� 1S 1
�30o L '--� i � �
�
i D8 � � rv:�, L1Z-L � � I
"��
I � /�/-T-� ��il�.�/���/� I I � I I I
M.LP aao5- ona ! I
- _ �
�
'1' H � P A C I F I C R � S O U R C E S G R O U P
LATJ� MATAGERS•URBAN FORESTERS•PLANT APPRAtSERS-NATURAL RESOURCE COI:SULTANTS
February 18, 2011
Mr. Mark Seaman
8407 S W 58th
Portland,Oregon 97219
Reference: Tree Assessment for 2 lots at SW 92"d&North Dakota Street,Tigard,Oregon
Dear Mr. Seaman,
Prior to the commencement of construction I identified and inspected trees on the two lots that
were to be preserved. Tree protection fencing was installed and grading commenced, including
excavation for the foundations of the two homes. As the City required I have made periodic
inspections of the site to see that proper procedures were being followed to insure the
preservation of those trees within the tree protection fencing. As I noted in all my previous
reports,the tree protection fencing remained intact and no construction activities took place
within the tree protecrion areas. The excavation for the foundations was conducted in a way that
resulted in very little root loss to those trees being preserved. I revisited the site for a final
inspection now that both of the homes have been completed. All the trees that you committed to
preserve remain intact with out significant damage. These trees are healthy and show no signs of
any adverse effects of construction. They should continue to be significant assets to the
landscape of the two homes for years to come.
Since construction can affect the vigor of trees and since these symptoms may not appear for
several years, I recommend that the new homeowners begin a fertilization program that can
mitigate possible adverse effects of construction. Fertilization will encourage the replacement of
parts of the root system that may have been injured during construction. For both preserved trees
and any newly planted trees the fertilization can begin prior to the next growing season. To
accomplish this I recommend that the landscape contractor or new home owner fertilize the
entire area beneath the preserved trees using a highly soluble high nitrogen fertilizer applied at a
time when surface vegetation is dormant and tree roots are still growing. The best time to do this
is in late October or early November and/or in mid to late February. The fertilizer is best applied
just prior to or during a rain, otherwise it should be watered into the soil. I recommend using
Ammonium Sulfate (21-0-0 or 23-0-0)at a rate of 2 lbs. of Nitrogen per 1000 square feet of area
treated. This equates to applying 91bs. of the fertilizer to each 1000 square feet of area within the
drip line of each tree or woody plant. The annual amount of Nitrogen that should be applied is
between 2 to 41bs. per 1000 square feet, the first year, and half that amount in subsequent years.
If a single application is made, it should be done in late November, otherwise two applications of
nitrogen can be made, one each in late fa11 and early spring. The fertilizer can be applied to the
surface of the ground with a cyclone or"whirly" type spreader. The fertilization should be done
within the drip line and to an area a few feet outside the drip line. To determine the area to be
4BOOSWMEApOWSRD SlTI7E300 LAIC�OSWF.GO,OR�GON97035 (503)222�320 BELLEVU$WASHINGTON (425)451-0620
treated for trees such as this, with the tree at the center, the area to be treated is within the circle
that has a radius equal to one foot for every inch of the tree's diameter. After the first application
I recommend that the homeowner take soil samples to determine existing nutrient levels and get
a recommendation on the composition of fertilizer or other soil amendments that are needed by
the plants on site. Contact A&L Western Agricultural Lab at 503-968-9225 for soil analysis
instructions and assistance. Once the partition is completed and lots are offered for sale, this
information should be passed on to the new homeowners of those lots containing any of the
preserved trees.
This completes my report. If any additional information, which would effect my observations or
recommendations becomes available I would welcome the opportunity to consider it and revise
this report accordingly. If I ornitted any information or if you have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully yours,
n
.y
Stephe F. Goetz, Principal
American Society of Consulting Arborists,Reg#260
American Society of Landscape Architects, Oregon Lic.#80
Society of American Foresters
SG:mac
AR80RIST DI.SCLOSURE SfATEMEVT:Arbonsts are trce specialists who use tkidr educstioq lmowiedge trairing ud atperience�o o�a�ne ryces,rcea�nend m�a�o a�F�ncc Wev
health and bcnuty ard to atrempt ro re�re the rtsk of tiving rcar aea.qirnts may choose to ecccpt a msrcgatd ih reconenmdatipu of the arbuist or to seck addipc�nal advice.Trces a�d
dhtt plant li[c ere living.char�gi�g crganianx afleded by itmumrnble fectors beyo�d a¢control-Trees fail in ways and because dcm&tiwe we do rot Cully imderstand Atborists camot
detect rn ar�ticipate evay cotditim or event that coWd possbly lead W fh strucMa!fail�ae oCa trea Conditioett arc oNrn hiddrn wiWin the Rar ard bdow�omtd ArbrnisLt eamaq gtrra�rtee
that a tree will be Ircalthy a sa&wder all ciraans�,fa any spe�ific penod Q whrn a tree or iu parts mey Cail.FLrtMr.remediat fishne�.s,as with any trea�e�or tl�eraPY.can�wt be
guaranteed Treahrert,pnuting,6ra�ng ond removal of trees may involve�an,ndenlionc beyrnd�he xape of tl�e slboriAS sld➢a and�aual services sich as me prnydaria of pfopaGe�property
owne=ship,site Gn�s,ncighbor dispmes ard agremie�ds and other itma.7'haefoie,uborisit cannot can.9da�ch isues�ml�ss c�plele and acaaa[e info'aretion u disclosed in u�mely
fa hion'fhrn,tt�e arborirs can be expected,rensiamdy,m rely upon the completeress and accieary of the inCo`ma0on�rovided Trxs can be managed but rot caurolled To live�r trees,
regardlesc of thar c��tioq is to accep[some degree of risk.TM mly way tn eliatinum ell risk avadated with hees is to elirtrinate ell trees. �
HAZARDlHAZARD POTEVI'IAL Por the p�upcacs of tltis evaluaGOn anNtepat,a trce or trx part tk�at prrsaGS a thrwt to hmna�,livatock,vchicla,structures,laridscape feaha�c ur dher
entity of civiliaeem 6ixn uproort�g,falting,break'vig a gcw�th devdopmeta�e.g_,roots).While all la�e landsrepe trees in proximiry W such targets praeN sane dega of hazard regazdlcss
oC thrir cmdilioq such inheratl hazard is nut intaded as withit�tlus dc5nition vd ils ieage in tlus evaluetiw ud repat.
INSPECI'ION 1.1 M_ITATIONS:The inspecGOn of tl�ese trea canauted sde(y of a visual utspection 6om the gramd.Wtule more Waagh tech�cques are availude fot impectia�and
evalwum,tLey were reirher requested n�n wrsidered necnsary ar eppropnate at this time.Aa rte�s and dMr plaN life are liw�g,changing o sms effeMed
�wu crn�trd,The Pari6c Reso�¢ces Group and iCS persamel offer ro gunlantea,s�ted v iapficd,u to trx,p(ant a gercrnl Is�ca ref � �W°IItt��MOrs bryo�
specific�lly suled in wnting in accepted contracts. P� �'. tl'.wnditim m imprwemen;beyo�d that
O All Rights Reserved.TM pnsscsvon or tue of this report(rn its orc aeacc copy)does not wry with it ihe right oCrepubticatim in totel a in paA,or Wlcr�se,with�iII the cvrittrn coment of
[he authur.The Cce for Utis investigaom and report does nd prwide any compawtion for ad�Rqre1 writtrn a aal caudtatim,phone ard pasonal cun[erenc�s and/R}�y��y a attrndarce
in depacibnn,co�u[a azbitration with refermce to the subject incidart.
Mark Swman North Dakota F'ina!Tree Itupection L18/11,O The Pacific Iiesources Group 2
I� ���� � -�� �I ���
' -.�, �
� _ ,J�� , �,..,_ .1.,� ,'`�-�' a !a5- ,
w '�G C� G ��
�i�D'�� — •�J" -`"� "-�.., al � .�� L� ° /�. . .r..
7 - ��' �n,�.�,.�= �
/
T H E P A C I F I C R E S O U R C E S G R O U P
LAND MANAGERS•URBAN FORESTERS•PLANT APPRAISERS•NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
February 26,2011
Mr. Mark Seaman
8407 S W 58th
Portland,Oregon 97219
Reference: Final Tree Assessment for 21ots at SW 92nd&North Dakota Street,Tigard,Oregon
Dear Mr. Seaman,
At your request, we met today at 11285 SW 92& SW North Dakota Street,the site of your two lots. The
purpose of my visit was to meet with you and deternune which trees remain on the two Iots now that
home construction is complete. For the original2-lot partition I assessed 35 trees that were shown on the
tree survey. Two of the Uees (tree 34&35)are located on the adjacent property and remain in place. As
part of the partition, street improvements,a sidewalk,driveway and utilities were installed in the North
Dakota right of way. This necessitated the removal of a number of trees. With the construction of the two
homes, several additional trees were removed. When we met on site today,I identified those trees that
remain on the two lots. The attached chart shows the 17 trees that remain. Two of the remaining trees
(trees 34&35)are located on adjacent properties.The other fifteen trees remain on the two lots and
include trees 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17,31 and 32. The trees that remain are shown high
lighted in yellow on the attached chart. I have also attached a site plan that shows the locations of the
numbered trees. Those trees that have been preserved are also highlighted in yellow on the site plan. As I
recommended at our last meeting and previously described,all the trees that you have retained would
benefit from a fertilization program that will help promote root growth following construction. If you
have any questions or concerns as to the disposition of the trees please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully yours,
.
Stephen F. Goetz, Princ al
American Society of Consulting Arborists, Reg#260
American Society of L.andscape Architects, Oregon Lic.�180
5ociety of American Foresters
SG:mac
ARBORIST DISCLOSi1RE STATEMENC:Arbotists are tree specialists who uae thdr educatioq lmowledge training srrl expaieroe to examine trees,recommend mea.wtes ro w�attce their
health and beaury end to attempt to reduce the risk of living neaz hees.Clients may ahoose to accept w diuegard tLe raotomendationa of the arbotist or to seek addiConai advice.1}ees and
otha plent life are living,changing organisms affected by imi�erabk factors bryond o�a canhol.Tr«s fail in ways and because of canditio�we do not fiilly underatend Arbo�ists carmo[
detect�anticipate every conditlon er evetrt that codd possibly lesd to the structurel failiue of a trce. Conditions ate oRen Iriddrn within the trees e�d below groimd pcbo�jsis cattnoi guarantee
tt�at a tree will�healthy a safe unda all circiunstances,for any specific pe[iod a when a tree or its perts mey fail.Furtk�er,remedial trenhnerds�as with any treahixn[or tlierepy,cannot yo
guerenteed.Treatrnent,pauning,brscing and removal of treu may involve ca�n.tideratlo�beyond the scope of tho azbonsb sidlla and�aual aervices such as tlx boundaries of properties,Fsoperry
oameeship,ate]v�es,neighbor disputes end agreements and oUia issues.Therefare,arbousts cazuwt cauider such iaues unleu complete and acciaak infwmation is diaciosed in a timely
fast�ioa Then,the arbo[ist can be expected reasonably,W rely upon dte completemu and acciascy of tF�e info�matia�{�ovided Treas can be managed but not controlled To live t�esr Kees,
regazdless of their conditioq is to accept some degree of ci�c.The only way ta eliminate all risk associeted with heu is to eluninate al!tcees_
HAZARD/HAZARD P07'EN7'tAL: For the piaposes of this evaluntion andhe}w�rt,a ta or tree paR that�esads a tlueat to htanaM,(ivestock,vehicles,ahuctures,lendscape[eatiyea a atha
entity of civilizatia�Gom uprooting.fallvig,brealdng�gravTh developanW(e.g.,roofs).While aR large landtcape trees in pro�dmity to such ta[geta ja'sent ypme degree of haaard ttgardlesa
of their condirton,such inherent ha�ard is mt intended as withitt this de6nition and its usage in this eveluation ard report.
INSPECTION LIMITATIONS:The inspection of tt�ese trces consisted soldy of a visual inapection&om the growd.Whi1e more Utorough hchniq�es are availeWe fa inspecEwt erid
evaluation,thry were neitha requested nor considered neasaary a ap{sopriate at this time.As hees and Mher plant life are living,cF�an�ng orgariisms effected hy icuiwneiayk facto[s peyond
our control,The Pacific Reso�cces Grerup and iYs penormd olla ro gi�anaes,sleud a implied,az to hx,plent or general landscape aefery,lkalth,candition or improvanen;beyond that
specifically smkd in writiig in accepted contacts.
O All Rights Reserved.The possesson or�e of this report(or its o�x acact copy)does rot cairy with it the right of republicatian in Wdl or in part,or oflmr use,without�e wtitten consent of
the author.The fee fot this imestigation and repoft does not provide any compensation for ad�tional written ax asl consuitation,pMm and pe�smal�onfermces and/or testimony�attendan��
in deposition,co�at o[azbitration with refQrnrnce to the subject incidem.
4800 SW MEADOWS RD SUITE 300 LAK.E OSWEGO,OREGON 97035 (503)222�320 BELLEV[TE,WpSHINGTON (425)451-0620
TREE ASSESSMENT FOR SW 92'�D & SW NORTH DAKOTA M.L.P. .
TIGARD, OREGON
Tree Size Species Hd Crn Health Condition Comments
in
- 1 20 Douglas Fir 100'/30- Poor Dead, Dying, Hazard Tree dying, decay at base of stump of previously
50' removed trunk. Potential hazard,Remove. Note—
this tree top led over in a 2008 winter storm.
— ? ?4 at ?' Western Red Cedar 50-75'/ Goc�c3 Mc�e�erate & non- b stem tree at 1)}3f I, ('heck stem ecmneclicros at stcm
15-3n' cc�rrcctablc c�cic�ts unic�n
3 5, F�, K Commcm Ha«thc�rn 35-5�' Fair Fc�t� & minc�r��r \lulti-�tcm trcc, stcros j��in at grc�un�i
/15-3O' cormctablc cict�ccts
— 4 lh Oregon White Oak SU-75' Fair— Pcx�r Fe«• & min<�r c�r !Ias a ]c,t c,f ineelium t�� fine�e�ici�ti�n��in cr�»��n,
/15-30' c;c�rrcctablc deiccts shc���ing si�ns��f�icclinc, ma� rccc»cr��ith carc
5 6 Pc�rtugucsc Laurcl j 35-50' Fair Fc��� & minc�r c�r O��crgrc��+�n c�crrrccn shruh.
/15-30' cc�rrcctablc cicl�ccts
fi fi Oregc�n Whilc Oak ?(1-35' Fair— Pcx�r Fc��� & minc�r c�r �uhc3c�n�inant trcc in hcl���� a�crarc cc�nclitic�n,
/15' cc�rrcctablc ciciccts sh���+ing signs c�t�cicrlinc. \la� impr�n c �cith rarc.
— 7 1? Ce�mmcm Ha��the�r-n 35-5(1' Fair Me�cierate & ncm- I.c.��is t��the +��est, �»�er propert� line, re�luce �ceighi t��
/I S-3O' cc�rrcclablc cicicrts ��'cst if prescr��ing
R 1O Blark Ha«�thorn , 35-5�' Fair F'c�+� & tnin��r or
/15-3O' c��t-rcctablc dcfects
— y 14, 14 S}�camc�rc Maplc SO-75' Gc�c��1 Fc�� & minc�r��r 2 stcros j�,inc�] at gr�,unJ, tncciium �ica�i���x�cl in crc�u�n
�3(1-5O' c��►-rcct�iblc c�cfccls
10 8 Commcm Ha���thc�rn 35-5O' Fair - Mc�c3cratc & n��n- (�1�1�halancc & lcanin�� t��thc catit. sc�►nc ��runing
/15-30' cc�rrcc[ablc �icl�ccts ncc�ic�i tu rcpair�Icl�crt�
1 1 C� Fruiting Plum 5O-75' Fair Mc�c�cratc & n�m- <'n��cn��I�t'h.ilancc, ncc�ls c��rrrcti��c pruninr
/I S-3O' cc�rrcctablc cicf ccts
� 12 16 Ponderosa Pine 50-75' Good Few & minor or
/15-30' correctable defects
13 lfi Pc�ncicrc�sa Pine 5O-75' Fair Mc�c�cratc & ncm- I.ar`�c antcxtnt ��f�ica�i���,�,�i ��� i�,,,�r����,�.,,. si�=tts c,1'
/15-3O' �_ cc�rrcctablc cicl�ccts �lcclinc, m�i� im��rc��c ��ith carc.
- 14-- 1? -. Dc�uglas Fir 75-1(1(1' � Fair - Fc�� & minc►r c�r -
I 15-3O' u�rrcct�iblc cicic�ts
15 14 Cottonwood 100' /30- Good Moderate & non- Some deadwood in crown, structural defect in upper
50' correctable defects trunk
16 14 Cottonwood 100' /30- Good Few & minor or
50' correctable defects
Tree Assessment,SW 92""&SVJ North Dakota Street,Tigard Oregon, �02005 The PacifiModerate&Non-Correctable DefectsResources Group 10/10105,REVISED 8l25110 ]
TREE ASSESSMENT FOR SW 92ND & SW NORTH DAKOTA M.L.P. .
TIGARD, �REGON
Tree Size Species HU Crn Health Condition Comments
in
- 17 ?0 Giant Seyuoia 50-75' Fair Fc�� & minor c�r
/15-3U' corrcctablc clelccts
- 18 12 Cottonwood 50-75' Good Few& minor or Leans to north over street
/15-30' correctable defects
19 10, 6 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair Moderate & non- Leans to west, 2 stems join at ground. Remove smaller
/15' correctable defects subdominant stem
- 20 16 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair Moderate & non- Leans to north, Poor anchoring on north side, massive
/15-30' conectable defects anchoring root mass on south side should be left intact
21 10 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair- Moderate & non- Leans to north,may not be stable when adjacent stump
/15' Poor correctable defects is removed. Re-examine if preserving.
22 10 Cottonwood SO-75' Fair Few & minor or Leans to north
/15' correctable defects
23 14 Cottonwood 50-75' Fair Few & minor or Leans to north
/15-30' correctable defects
24 10 Cottonwood 50-75' Good Few & minor or Leans to north
/15' correctable defects
25 8 Cottonwood 35-50' Fair Moderate & non- Leans to north
/15' correctable defects
26 6 Cottonwood 35-50' Fair Moderate & non- Large wound with good callus tissue, has exposcd
/15' correctable defects internal decay
� 27 30 Douglas Fir 100' /15- Poor Moderate & non- Large amount of dead wood in crown, has large root
30' correetable defects flair, signs of decline, may improve with care.
28 10 Douglas Fir 75-100' Poor Moderate & non- Partial crown has large amount of deadwood, has
/15-30' correctable defects signs of decline. May improve with care.
28B 8 Douglas Fir 50-75' Poor Dead, Dying, Hazard Top broken out at 18',additional defects cause
/15' potential hazard condition,Remove tree
29 8 Douglas Fir 50-75' Poor Dead, Dying, Hazard In poor health, major trunk defect at 4',1'ree is
/15' potential hazard,remove tree
30 26 Douglas Fir 100' Fair Moderate & non- I..arge amount of dead wood in crown, 2 stumps next
/15-30' correctable defects to tree may indicate possible root. Monitor tree if
preserving.
Tree Assessment,SW 92°d&SW NoRh Dakota Street,Tigard Oregon,�2005 The Pacifii�4oderate&Non-Correctable DefectsResources Group 10!]0/o5,REVISED 8l25I10 '�
TREE ASSESSMENT FOR SW 92ND & SW NORTH DAKOTA M.L.P. .
TIGARD, OREGON
Tree Size Species HU Crn Health Condition Comments
in
— 31 ?4 Douglas Fir 1OO' Fair Mc��Jcratc & ncm- �I��cratc anu,unt �,I��c.�� ti��x�c1 in cr����n, signs�,f
/15-3O' cc�rrc�tablc�icfccls cicr(inc, ma� im��ru��c ��ith rarc
3? 10 Dc�uglas Fir ?0-35' Fair Mcuicralc & ncm- l�cclining suh�lc,minant lrcc, may imprcn�c �+�ith carc
/IS' cc�rrcclablc cicl�ccls
33 6 Bigleaf Maple 20-35' Fair Moderate & non-
/15' correctable defects
, 34 ?h Cc�tlon���cx�ci 75-1OO' Fair Mcxlcratc & ncm- OFl�til'I'1: - �tcm has a c��rrcrtc�i Ican to cast, sits c,n
/3O-5(Y a�rrcclablc dcicc[s t������1�hank ���ith �����,r anrhurin�t�, n��rth, s�mu
un�lcrminin� ui�r��ut Ilair. has �i�ihlc intcrnal cicri�,
stahilit� ma� hc an issuc it ��rescn in�_. �Ic,nit��r
^35 ?? Giant Scyuc�ia 35-5O' Fair Fc��� & minor or c)1�1�SI"I�I: - "I�rcc ��t1�sitc, hut cl<nc t��pr����crt� linc.
/15-3(1' corrcclablc dciccts Nr�xcct fn�m �iamagc.
'ote—The Cottonwood trees located next to ditch along SW North Dakota had iheir roots ptuned off repeatedly as[he sides of the ditch were maintained.The trees began to
lean towazd the street and the continuing loss of roots caused the remaining roots on the south side of the trees to grow very large to take over stabilizing the trec. Root loss due
to excavation on the south side of the trees will cause �hem to become unstable and force their removal as hazard trees.
REVISED on 8/25/10—The original chart had erroneously reversed the condition and description of 29B &32.Tree 29B is the potential hazard and 32 is the subdominant tree.
Botanical Names of Listed Trees•
Bigleaf Maple—Acer macrophyllum Common Hawthorn—Crataegus monogyna Giant Sequoia—Sequoia gigantea
Black Cottonwood—Populus trichocarpa Fruiting Plum- Prunus species Sycamore Maple—Acer pseudoplatanus
Westem Red Cedar—Thuja plicata Portuguese Laurel—Prunus laurocerasus Douglas Fir—Pseudotsuga menziesii
Black Hawthorn—Crataegus douglasi Oregon White Oak—Quercus garryana Ponderosa Pine—Pinus ponderosa
Tree Assessment,SW 92ad&SW Nonh Dakota Street,Tigard Oregon,�J2005The PacifiModerate&tion-Correctable DefecuResources Group 10/10�05,REVISED 8�25110 3
� Tree Invento and Db 'tlon �, g
� zs.o• zs.o� go
_ Tm No. Spsdea DBN IneMs tlon � � �
�n 1 Dou�asFc 20 PHZ �
T�x�ar e7oo � �
r��or 930o is i 35 oe Tax�pr isaoo � rnx�or asoo 2 WestemRed Cedar 24 R �
� 15 1 35 DB
75 1 3'DB IS 1 35 DB
� 3 CommonHewl6om 8 R � �
� 4 Oce n Whfe Oek 16 R H
J � i 5 Po Lsuel G R �
��
—� u � ,� u--------------- -
. -- �a�--- -------- ------------- ----
o ' • � W
---- ----
- 4 Q—ca�--------� '- �� �7 --� 6 nWhteOek 6 R
_�� - N DAKOTA STRE� - ,' ,� � ��o�,�m �Z R �s �
���_ - ' �`_ _�9�- _��—'� — — � — �rt L�-1---; — 8 Black Hewthom 10 RR = � �
l � , /i� �� �♦ '� 9 Sycxtnone le 14 � �
a � J ,.w----------T_..._�_-.._ ------\'�-------- --1�-\ -� --L�
After Recordin� the Owner/A�licant Shall Send a Co�}�To:
City of Tigard
Atm: Cheryl Caines
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
File No.: MLP2005-00011
TREE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
DEED RESTRICTION
Declarant is the owner of property described as Parcels 1 &2 of Partition Plat
No. 2007-005 recorded as Document No. 2007008762 ,Washington County Book of Records.
Declarant has preserved or retained trees over and across portions of said property in
accordance with the Conditions of Approval of said plat. Any such pxeserved or retained tree
greater than 12-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) shown on the Tree Preservation Plan (Exhibit
A), may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. This deed
restriction ma3� be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preser�Ted in accordance with this
section should either die or be removed as hazardous.
THIS �GREEMENT shall be deemed a Covenant running with the land and is binding
— - - �-�c.sE�e�-�s '��s€�s 1 � � �f �'���z� Plat Nn 20�7 Q(1(15 _ __
Washington County, Oregon and their successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Declarant has executed this agreement on that date and year
set forth below.
DECLAR.ANT:
�"; `��(�`_'., ,l �� � d--
"� f, S. ' �«"_'`%`a+P,i(`• ,m�.�"t°_a_ tl l� � t, 1 4,_1 i�..=-�/�LM'r L�'�I, q � �_
-a_a+,a �
� 4.
�` ',. �
STr,TE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
This instrument was acknowledged before me by ��'�- ���- ���� � `�� •
��
�.` �
�, �
\ `r�"i`°". " �
� �� r �f
` '�' � '� ,�� ! �L 12.�?U' �
.;.�.._-. ,_..- "
NOTARI' PUBLIC — C�R�f�N Date�1y Commission Expires
/�A-�r .aT G�.►21V -�..�1.
CHERI L.MILLER
Commission� 1889529
� `� Notary Public-Caltfornla �
Riverside County ..
M Comm.Ex ires Jun 12,2014
_ _ --
Cheryl Caines - RE: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0) Page 1
. � M�.PaoBs- voo r �
From: Dick Bewersdorff
To: Cheryl Caines; Kristy Kelly
Date: 3/15/2006 3:13:21 PM
Subject: RE: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0)
Yes, written as an option that will be subject to approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist
Dick Bewersdorff dick@tigard-or.gov
»> "Kristy Kelly" <kkelly@westlakeconsultants.com> 03/15 11:48 AM »>
Dick,
If you are saying you will give us a condition to meander the sidewalk,
that is exactly what we are asking for.
Thanks!
�Kristy
Kristy Kelly Land Use Planner
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
Phone: 503-684-0652 Fax: 503-624-0157 kkellyCa�westlakeconsultants.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Bewersdorff fmailto:DICK(c�tigard-or.qovl
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:46 AM
To: Cheryl Caines; Kristy Kelly
Cc: IseamanCc�hevanet.com; Gary Pagenstecher; Kim Mcmillan; Matt Stine;
Tom Coffee; File; Lee Leighton; Len Schelsky; Shad L. Haney
Subject: RE: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0)
Thanks Kristie: We would have conditioned the option to meander the
sidewalk. Our arborist, however, will have to review whether the trees
will actually be able to survive. He has visited the site and thought
it would be difficult but then again he did not know the exact location
of the sidewalk. We know he would prefer to save trees.
Dick Bewersdorff dick(c�tiqard-or.gov
»> "Kristy Kelly" <kkelly(c�westlakeconsultants.com> 03/15 11:34 AM »>
Cheryl,
As I stated in my voicemail, our client is not adverse to installation
of the sidewalk, but rather the tree mitigation that is necessitated by
the exaction. Attached you will find a proposal for a meandering
sidewalk, which will eliminate the need for tree mitigation. This would
require placing the sidewalk in a public pedestrian access easement, but
would allow for preservation of existing mature trees. This approach to
Cheryl_Caines,RE: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0) Page 2�
. �
sidewalks is not uncommon and to my recollection has been utilized in
other parts of Tigard.
We would really appreciate it if you would review the attached site plan
and send me a reply on whether or not you think this is a good solution.
I think we can both agree that we would rather work these items out
prior to issuance of the decision as opposed to dealing with this post
facto as an appeal.
Thank you for your time and consideration, Kristy
Kristy Kelly Land Use Planner
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
Phone: 503-684-0652 Fax: 503-624-0157 kkellv(c�westlakeconsultants.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Bewersdorff fmailto:DICK(a�tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:47 AM
To: Lee Leighton
Cc: Iseaman(a�hevanet.com; Cheryl Caines; Gary Pagenstecher; Kim Mcmillan;
Tom Coffee; File; Kristy Kelly; Len Schelsky; Shad L. Haney
Subject: RE: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0)
Lee: Unfortunately, no matter what the completeness letter indicated,
it is not the final decision. If it were, there would be no need to
write a decision, request comments and analyze the project relative what
the code provides. Your estimates appear to be inflated according to
what our engineers would estimate. Regardless, the key is rough
proportionality and it not required to be exact nor is it limited to
being less than the costs. There is certainly a reason for the
sidewalks, and there will be less dedication because the original
figures in the draft staff report included r-o-w for a bikepath which
isn't called for on North Dakota. Right of way figures will be adjusted.
I admit to being a bit amazed that you would not want to put in a
sidewalk because of the value to the properties to sell. Consider a
ditch versus a sidewalk in the sale of the lots. The latter isn't
really relevant but still I still find it difficult to believe that you
wouldn't want it.
In regard, to tree mitigation, it is not related to the Dolan test.
Our attorneys have been very clear on that. They, of course, have dealt
with Dolan from day one and have a very good understanding of what is
called for. Development must mitigate for trees removed. The code is
clear that trees as a result of development to must be considered in the
tree plan. Your plan, if I am not mistaken, does not propose to save
any specific trees.
_ _ ---
Cheryl Caines - RE: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0) Page 31
Previously, your development proposals have attempted to come to a
resolution with neighbor comments. In this case, for what ever reason,
you have chosen to ignore them. While their comments did draw our
attention to the sidewalk, it is not totally the reason for our
requiring them. The requirement is the result of the of the existing
sidewalk on adjacent property, safety, continuity and the fact there is
no reason it can not be put in.
Dick
Dick Bewersdorff dick(c�tigard-or.gov
»> "Lee Leighton" <IleiQhton(a�westlakeconsultants.com> 03/14 5:49 PM
»>
Dick, thanks for writing back. I am sure you are very busy these days
with all the permit requests and staff changes going on there.
We try not to ask for meetings unless we think we have something
meritorious to discuss. So let me try to clarify our view a bit
further.
The draft staff report says (on p.16):
"Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the
impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100
percent of this projects traffic impact is $17,813 ($2,850 times two
units divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the
full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system.
The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is
$12,113 ($17,813 -$5,700). The applicant will be required to dedicate
additional right-of-way along SW North Dakota Street and SW 92nd Avenue
(approximately 973 square feet) for future road improvements. The
approximate value of unimproved residentially zoned property is$3.00
per square foot, for a total value of$2,919. Since the unmitigated
impact remaining is $9,194. ($12,113-$2,919)the required exaction is
proportionate.°
Extending that analysis to include sidewalk construction involves the
sidewalk as well as earthwork to set it at the appropriate line&grade.
Here is our estimate of construction cost:
Construction Cost for ROW Improvements
Sidewalk 5'wide x 175 lineal feet @
$3.75 = $3281.25
Sidewalk at Driveway 5'wide x 20 lineal Feet @ $6.50 =
650.00
Total 3931.25
Earthwork
3500.00
Contingency
1114.69
�Cheryl Caines- RE: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0) � Page 4 �
'�- __
-__._- ._..�.,u.,.�,.".�.�.__y_..�:.__
. , . __-
Sidewalk Total
$8545.94
Considered alone, this cost is only about$650 below the "unmitigated
impact remaining" of$9,194, from the draft staff report. However, the
earthwork necessary to construct that sidewalk will necessitate removal
of several trees in the right-of-way corridor, which we have proposed to
leave in place. At issue is your determination with respect to five of
those trees that exceed 12" dbh, with 84" total caliper inches. If
those trees are deemed to be subject to mitigation requirements,
imposing the condition to construct the sidewalk will cause the
projecYs tree mitigation cost to rise from zero (based on the proposal
to remove two out of 14 trees with 46 total dbh inches, which is 85%
conservation of trees greater than 12")to $8,125.00 (for removal of
seven out of 14 trees with 130 total dbh inches, requiring 50%
mitigation, that is, 0.5 x 130 x$125.00 = $8125.
The submitted proposal is consistent with direction we received from the
City in the Notice of Incomplete Application Submittal MLP2005-00011
dated November 23, 2005. Westlake initially requested an adjustment
with respect to street improvement requirements in light of the small
scale of the project. The first page of the Public Facility Plan
Completeness Checklist dated 11/16/05, prepared by"KSM" (which I
believe is Kim McMillan), states, "For a partition an adjustment to
half-street improvements is not required. The applicant is required to
request they be allowed to enter into a restrictive covenant for future
street improvements." A Westlake transmittal memo from Krisry Kelly to
Matt Scheidegger, dated December 8, 2005, indicated that the applicant
would agree to such a covenant, to be guaranteed through an appropriate
condition of approval. Until yesterday's change on your part, we have
been doing exactly what City staff has consistently directed us to do.
If the City will treat tree removal within the right-of-way, to the
extent necessary to provide the sidewalk, as a cost of making public
right-of-way improvements and therefore will not demand mitigation by
the applicant, your proportionality argument is at least easier to
swallow(although surely our client will find it a bitter pill at this
late point in the process). But, accepting for argumenYs sake the
City's own calculation quoted above, the City oversteps proportionality
by over$8,000 if it imposes the sidewalk condition and then piles on
that it becomes the applicant's responsibility to mitigate for tree
removal that he did not ever propose and prefers not to do.
We are hoping you will discuss this with us rather than proceed to issue
a decision in a heavy-handed manner, forcing us into an appeal posture
hence the request for a meeting for that purpose. So now I will
reiterate the request, and ask for a more satisfactory reply than the
rather terse and dismissive one you sent to my colleague Kristy this
afternoon.
�Lee
Lee D. Leighton, AICP
�� Cheryl Caines- RE 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0) _ __ __i __ __ _ Page 5 '
Director of Planning
Associate
Westlake Consultants, Inc.
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
503 684-0652
503 624-0157 fax
503 515-5890 mobile
Ileighton westlakeconsultants.com
To learn more about the services Westlake offers, please visit our
Website: www.westlakeconsultants.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Bewersdorff fmailto:DICK(c�tigard-or.govl
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:15 PM
To: Kristy Kelly
Cc: Cheryl Caines; Gary Pagenstecher; Kim Mcmillan; File; Lee
Leighton;
Len Schelsky
Subject: Re: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0)
Kristy:
There is no need to meet. The tree mitigation is unrelated to the
Dolan test. Remember Tigard was the Dolan test. Tigard went back to
court and provided a system to determine rough proportionality. This
test has been used in every case of public facility exactions. We are
requiring the sidewalk on N. Dakota because it easily meets the test
and
in fact we could actually require sidewalk on 92nd with room to spare.
There is nothing that says a property has to develop. If it develops
it
has to meet the code standards. The fact there is an adjacent
sidewalk
and the implication of safety issues as well as neighborhood comments
makes the case even further.
Dick Bewersdorff
Dick Bewersdorff dick(a�tiqard-or.qov
»> "Kristy Kelly" <kkelly(c�westlakeconsultants.com> 03/14 12:57 PM »>
Cheryl,
Thank you for sharing the staff report and proposed conditions for the
Hellwege Partition. We do not, however, agree that the imposed
exaction
of a 5-foot sidewalk, together with the tree removal/mitigation
requirement, meets the Dolan test. Given our position we would ask
that
you not issue the decision. We would like the opportunity to meet
_ _ ___ ______ -
Cheryl Caines - RE: 92nd & Dakota - Hellwege Partition (0733-09/0) Page 6
with
you and/or Dick to discuss this. Please let me know what day/time
would
work for you.
Thanks!
�Kristy
Kristy Kelly Land Use Planner
15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150
Tigard, OR 97224
Phone: 503-684-0652 Fax: 503-624-0157 kkellvCa?westlakeconsultants.com
<mailto:kkelly(c(c�westlakeconsultants.com>
<http://www.westlakeconsultants.com/>
CC: File; Gary Pagenstecher; Kim Mcmillan; Lee Leighton; Len Schelsky;
Iseaman@hevanet.com; Matt Stine; Shad L. Haney; Tom Coffee
iI ' •
Date/Time Stamp
7ILE COPY May 21,2007
• 11:52 AM
kT IGIAR
0,14-.4, N New Records Transmittal Form
Department: Community Development Account: 2230 Date: 5/21/07
Current Planning Division
Prepared by: Patty Lunsford, Planning Secretary Extension: 2438
Description: Date: Retention Retention Record Series
Planning-Land Use From Code: Period: Title:
-Performance Bond To
KEYWORDS: 1/3/2007 166-200-0140(3) Until Satisfied
• Minor Land Partition'free Mitigation Bond
• Tree Mitigation Bond for 238 inches
• Developers Surety and Indemnity Company
• Mark I-I.Seaman Jr
• City of Tigard,Oregon
• S29,750.00 Bond Dated 1/3/2007
• Bond#737721S
• M1,P 2005-00011
• 1-lellewege Partition
•
TO BE COMPLETED BY RECORDS DIVISION STAFF
Received by: Date Medium:
Received:
Clerk's Index: Clerk's Index Record Identification
Yes 0 No 0 Date of Entry: Code:
(rev.2-13-06)
City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
111 88
- Request for Permit Action
T I G A R I) 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-718-2439 • www.tigard-or.gov
TO: CITY OF TIGARD
Building Division
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223
Phone: 503-718-2439 Fax: 503-598-1960 TigardBuildingPermits@tigard-or.gov
FROM: ❑ Owner ❑ Applicant ❑ Contractor City Staff
Check(1)one
REFUND OR Name:
INVOICE TO: (Business or Individual) Ni/ P
Mailing Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone No.:
PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR THE ITEM(S) CHECKED (1):
❑ CANCEL/VOID PERMIT APPLICATION.
❑ REFUND PERMIT FEES (attach copy of original receipt and provide explanation below).
❑ INVOICE FOR FEES DUE (attach case fee schedule and provide explanation below).
❑ REMOVE/REPLACE CONTRACTOR ON PERMIT (do not cancel permit).
Permit#: LP. OO S -000 1
Site Address or Parcel#: S l 35 D 0'4 3 o ,
Project Name: t--CrI(VJe e e. P -- °'i
Subdivision Name: Lot #:
EXPLANATION: r e l e as L leo-fr. pie cis s e 4.,
?tau- t a n d-e/ d i (i afx a "0 c.t.c W.t n-T— i n (t .
Signature: ( ` �cvY� Date:
Print Name: (fiery( Cc; .1es
Refund Policy
1. The city's Community Development Director,Building Official or City Engineer may authorize the refund of:
• Any fee which was erroneously paid or collected.
• Not more than 80%of the application or plan review fee when an application is withdrawn or canceled before review effort
has been expended.
• Not more than 80%of the application or permit fee for issued permits prior to any inspection requests.
2. All refunds will be returned to the original payer in the form of a check via US postal service.
3. Please allow 3-4 weeks for processing refund requests.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Route to Sys Admin: Date By Route to Records: Date By
Refund Processed: Date By Invoice Processed: Date By
Permit Canceled: Date By Parcel Tag Added: Date By
I:\Building\Forms\RcgPermitAction_092314.doc
11111 '
TIGARD
City of Tigard
September 15,2016
AmTrust Surety
17771 Cowan,Suite 100
Irvine,CA 92614
RE: Hellewege Partition (MLP2005-00011) Performance Bond#737721S Release
This letter serves as written acknowledgment that the City of Tigard has no further interest in the Tree
Mitigation Bond in the sum of($29,750.00) Bond#737721S between Mark H. Seaman,Jr. and
Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. and the City of Tigard, Oregon. All work under this assurance is
satisfactorily complete.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact me at(503) 718-2437.
Sincerely,
0./A.W/....." efitA-1-....g—,—.)
Cheryl Caines
Associate Planner
c. MLP2005-00011 land use file
Mark H. Seaman,Jr. (8407 SW 58th Ave.,Portland,OR 97219)
13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171
TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov