Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04/16/2007 - Packet
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TIGARD CIVIC CENTER 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD T I GARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 April 16, 2007 — 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION— Continuation of April 2, 2007 hearing REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 27-lot subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed with attached (duet) single-family homes. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 1,926 square feet. Two pocket parks and a pedestrian tract/open space are proposed totaling approximately 54,681 square feet. LOCATION: The project is located north of Pacific Hwy. at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving three (3) parcels at 11625 and 11645 SW Pacific Hwy. and 11030 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM 1S136DB, Tax Lots 01000 and 02300 and 1S136CA, Tax Lot 01700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT . • Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call Hearing Date: 0-7 Starting Time: (KA . COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President) Tom Anderson Rex Caffall Margaret Doherty Karen Fishel Stuart Hasman Matthew Muldoon Jeremy Vermilyea ✓ David Walsh STAFF PRESENT: Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee 1 Gary Pagenstecher `� Ron Bunch Cheryl Gaines John Floyd • Emily Eng Duane Roberts Kim McMillan Sean Fancily Gus Duenas • Darren Wyss Phil Nachbar • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 16, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty,Fishel, Hasman, Muldoon, and Walsh Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Vermilyea Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Long Range Planning Manager; Darren Wyss,Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer;Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Ron Bunch talked about the Tree Board (Exhibit A) and reorganization of the work program duties in Long Range Planning. Darren Wyss discussed the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update open houses (Exhibit B). 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the April 2, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Commissioners Inman and Hasman abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-00010/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2006-00003/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION—Continuation of April 2, 2007 hearing REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 27-lot subdivision and planned development on a 2.38 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed with attached (duet) single-family homes. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 1,926 square feet. Two pocket parks and a pedestrian tract/open space are proposed totaling approximately 54,681 square feet. LOCATION: The project is located north of Pacific Hwy. at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving three (3) parcels at 11625 and 11645 SW Pacific Hwy. and 11030 SW 74th Avenue;WCTM 1S136DB, Tax Lots 01000 and 02300 and 1S136CA,Tax Lot 01700. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 16,2007—Page 1 • • PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential District. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. President Inman recused herself for conflict of interest. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Steven Dalton and Len Dalton, 7955 SW Hall Blvd., Beaverton, OR 97008, presented a revised site plan of the development (Exhibit C). They discussed the memo submitted to the Planning Commission (Exhibit D) regarding density, the public street and parking, architectural density bonus, and street side yard setbacks. Gary Pagenstecher advised that, with the exception of a few minor issues, staff recommends the density as proposed by the applicant. He briefly responded to points brought up in the applicant's memo and advised that staff now supports a higher number of units. Staff explained how density calculations are computed. Pagenstecher advised that, since 2000, there have only been 2 cases where applicants have asked for a density bonus. In one instance, the bonus was denied; the other was granted a 7% bonus (1%was for building clustering/siting). In this application, staff agrees with a 6% density bonus (3% for focal point and 3% for open space). Concerns were expressed about safety and vagrancy in the park because of the seclusion of Tract C. It is not seen as an easily-accessible open space behind units #26 and #27. The Commissioners discussed leaving unit #26 where it is as a solo unit and moving unit #27 over to Tract B. The applicant advised that this would eliminate some of the extra parking, but they already exceed the required number of parking spaces for the development. It was suggested that the applicant provide a pathway of some type leading into the park. Sideyard setbacks were discussed. Staff noted that with the Annand Hill Planned Development, the Commission decided to include street side yard setbacks within the simple side yard setback standard. For this application, staff said the Planning Commission has the discretion to grant a variance to reduce the street side yard setbacks from 10' to 8' for lots #15, #16, #23, and #8. For fire safety, staff noted that TVF&R needs to be able to get their equipment within 150' of a building and there are building code standards for fire-rating of walls. The applicant advised that if a building is closer than 3' to a property line, there must be 1-hour wall construction. They are proposing to be 8' away from the property line. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 16,2007—Page 2 • • • The Commission reviewed Section 18.350.070 of the Development Code and concluded that it was within their authority to grant a variance for reduction of the street side yard setbacks. PUBLIC TESTIMONY None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Commission discussed the street side yard setback issue. Vice-President Walsh said he was not sold on allowing the reduction and was concerned about setting a precedent. The Commission also discussed the issue of the park (Tract C). It was decided to move unit #27 to Tract D,which would make the park larger and more accessible. Commissioner Muldoon moved for approval of Subdivision (SUB) 2006-00010/Planned Development Review (PDR) 2006-00003/Zone Change (ZON) 2007-00001 White Oak Village Subdivision, 1. granting 27 units with the provision that unit #27 be moved to the east-side duplexes by Tract D, thus increasing access to Tract C; 2. allowing for 8' street side yard setbacks; 3. agreeing that it is within the Commission's authority to decide street side yard setbacks on a case-by-case basis where safety is not an issue. Commissioner Caffall seconded the motion. Vice-President Walsh said he could support every aspect of the motion except for the 8' side yard setback. The motion passed with a vote of 5-1. Commissioners Anderson, Caffall,Doherty, Fishel, and Muldoon voted for the motion. Commissioner Walsh voted against the motion and Commissioner Hasman abstained. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. / Lf j Ai-(/)) Jerree wis,Planning ommission Secretary A ice-President David Walsh PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 16,2007—Page 3 • • TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the City Council FROM: Janet Gillis, Tree Board Chair DATE: April 10, 2007 RE: Tree Board Charge Statement - Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Project The following conveys the Tree Board's recommendations regarding a proposed charge statement to allow it to engage in the Comprehensive Plan effort to develop ways to better a steward Tigard's tree resources. Staff told the Board that due to Council packet deadlines a draft charge statement was previously sent to Council. Since then the Board has had an opportunity to refine its proposal. Please note that the charge statement uses the words "steward and stewardship" when referring to trees instead of the words "protect/preserve". This is intentional on part of the Tree Board. The reason is that the Board is very aware of the controversy that tree regulations can cause, especially when individual property owners may be affected. To address this concern, the Board feels it is important to emphasize that there are ways to better"manage" the City's tree resources for the benefit of the whole community, including individual property owners. We wish to dispel any concerns that the Board's intent is to forego good management in favor of a wholly protectionist viewpoint. Preserving trees, especially the very large ones is important, but preservation is one of many tools in the tree management tool box that includes policy, regulations, community education, incentives, tree planting and good arboriculture practices. The Tree Board believes that"balance" is important. The Board realizes that it is necessary to efficiently utilize land inside the Urban Growth Boundary for urban purposes, but at the same time there are ways to be a good steward to the urban forest enhance the City's quality of life. A good tree stewardship program should also consider the needs of the private property owner. Most of the city's signature trees and other tree resources are on private property. In this context a balanced stewardship approach is also important. Again, preservation is an important tool but is also one of many that can be used to manage the urban forest resource on private property. Public and stakeholder involvement will be essential to this effort. On page 3 of the proposed charge, Section g states, "The Tree Board in consultation with the Planning Commission shall develop and implement a public information and involvement program to hear public concerns and suggestions regarding tree stewardship and urban forest enhancement in Tigard." Please note that the proposed charge statement has within it other elements discussed at a previous work session. Most importantly the Tree Board will work directly with the Planning Commission to ensure there is consistent communication between the bodies. • • Also, the Board wishes to emphasize the need for interim protection measures (regulations). It is intended that these measures will be in effect until the new regulatory portion of the tree stewardship program is adopted. Finally, I wish to draw Council's attention to Section j of the proposed Charge Statement. The Tree Board believes that if given a greater role, it can better advise Council and serve the broader community. Therefore, the charge statement proposes that, "upon adoption of the Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Program, the Tree Board's charge statement shall be reevaluated to address public issues associated with the urban forest and other natural resources as seen fit by the City Council." Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Janet Gillis, Chair Attachment A: Proposed Tree Board Charge Statement: Tree Stewardship and Urban Forest Enhancement Project Copy: Chair Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission Members of the Tigard Tree Board ToCounc i t from]anetgi l l i s2.doc • • PROPOSE D Tree Board Charge Statement TREE STEWARDSHIP AND URBAN FOREST ENHANCEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS,the current charge of the Tree Board (Council resolution 01-02) requires it to, "develop and administer a comprehensive tree management program for the maintenance, removal, replacement and protection of trees on public property, and; WHEREAS, the Board's current charge does not provide the latitude for it to undertake other important community tasks related to stewardship of Tigard's tree resources and enhancement of the City's Tree Resources,and; WHEREAS,the City is engaged in update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Board's services are needed to address the important matters of tree stewardship and enhancement of the City's urban forest,and; WHEREAS,it is necessary to address issues of tree stewardship and urban forest enhancement now because: a. Urban development has resulted in loss of trees. b. Trees and other natural resources contribute to Tigard's quality of life and environmental quality. c. Trees enhance quality of built environment; however, it is recognized that urban density,unless well designed, causes loss of trees and private open space. d. An attractive community is a component of an economically prosperous community. e. Balance- The program needs to balance the unreasonable and unnecessary removal of trees,with the need for efficient use of valuable urban lands. f. Solid technical base is important for workable codes and standards. g. Tree protection and urban forestry provides civic engagement opportunities for citizens. h. A healthy urban forest and its associated benefits require active management. Proposed Interim Mission Statement Principles to be incorporated into an interim mission statement to address the above may include the following: For the purposes of developing a comprehensive city tree protection and urban forest enhancement program,the Tree Board shall have the following responsibilities in addition to those spelled out in its existing mission statement: a. Work with the Planning Commission to update the City's Comprehensive Plan by • • developing Comprehensive Plan background information (findings) and goals, policies and action measures pertaining to protection of trees and vegetation and their associated contribution to the Community's quality of life etivicefiffie b. The Tree Board shall recommend updated goals, policies, action measures, and background information to the Planning Commission. The Board shall participate in the Commission's joint work sessions to review/discuss the same. These amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are subject to Planning Commission public hearings and recommendation to the City Council c. Propose a tree protection program which may consist of municipal code and land use regulations to implement the above "Trees and Vegetation" Comprehensive Plan goals policies and action measures. d. All proposed municipal and Municipal Development Code amendments shall be subject to review by the City Attorney. Proposed land-use code changes shall be subject to public hearings and recommendation to Council by the Planning Commission. The Tree Board shall participate with the Commission in work sessions to review/discuss the same. e. The Tree Board shall review recommendations from staff to develop specific interim tree code standards intended to prevent egregious tree removal during the period it takes to develop the City's tree protection standards. f. The Tree Board shall participate in work sessions with the Planning Commission prior to the Commission's holding public hearings to recommend the interim standards to Council. g. The Tree Board, in consultation with the Planning Commission, shall develop and implement a public information and involvement program to hear public concerns and suggestions regarding tree protection and urban forestry enhancement in Tigard. h. In addition to the primary task, the Tree Board shall prepare a citizen involvement report as part of the record of its proceedings. i. The Tree Board shall keep minutes and audio recording of all meetings. j. Upon adoption of the Tree Protection Program the -. - -- •• = •• • • be-repealed Tree Board's charge statement shall be reevaluated to address public issues associated with the urban forest and other natural resources as seen fit by the City Council k This charge shall be in effect for one year from approval by Council. Thereafter it will sunset,unless extended. 1. Every three months the Tree Board shall forward a report of its progress to the City Council and Planning Commission. Initially, the Tree Board shall prepare a schedule and scope of work as the first step to implement this mission. Staff Commentary: Following adoption of a new tree protection program,it may be appropriate for the Tree Board and Council to discuss whether the Tree Board should have an expanded role in helping the City manage trees and other natural resources. • • MEMORANDUM li I r` To: Comp Plan Update Steering Committee TIGARD 2'027 From: Darren Wyss RE: Open House Overview Date: April 16, 2007 Open House Dates/Times Wed April 18th from 6-8pm Set-up at 4:30pm Sat April 215` from 1-4pm Set-up at 11:30am Open House Layout Please see attached graphic Main Objectives 1. Get the community familiar with the process • Tigard 2007 completed last year and forms factual basis for the Comp Plan Update • Tigard Beyond Tomorrow and 11 community surveys over the past 5 years have identified the issues/values of the community • Draft Goals are based on statewide planning goals, key findings, and issues/values • Draft Policies/Action Measures will be formulated over the next several months with the input of Interest Teams and Department Review Teams • Planning Commission Workshops/Hearings for recommendation to City Council • City Council Hearings for adoption 2. Feedback on Topics We are here to capture their comments.... Do you agree with the issues/values and key findings? Does the goal cover community sentiment? How do you wish to see the City meet the topic goals in the future? 3. Casting Call • Get participants to sign-up for the Comp Plan Newslist (monthly updates) • Get participants to sign-up for an Interest Team on the appropriate topic • Interest Teams will meet to review/refine Draft Policies/Action Measures • If unable to attend Interest Team meetings, the opportunity to comment will be available thru the Newslist and website • Can also participate at Planning Commission and City Council Key Messages • The City is looking for citizens to get involved in formulating policies/action measures • Trying to build upon work done by Tigard Beyond Tomorrow • Comp Plan is a citizen-driven blueprint that guides City decisions on community livability and land use and sets the policy framework for future land use decisions and implementing documents, such as the Community Development Code • The Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the 19 statewide planning goals that are the foundation of the land use planning system • • Materials • Participants will sign-in and receive a welcome packet from Doreen and volunteers when they arrive at the Open House. Contained in the packet: • Layout of the Open House • Draft Goals for every topic • Overview of why we are having the Open House • Comment Cards • Topic Stations will contain: • Topic display • Comment Cards • Interest Team sign-up sheets • Comp Plan Info pamphlet • Handouts of the Topic displays Volunteers • Will assist Doreen at the Welcome Station and roam around conversing with participants • • City of Tigard 0011411 Comprehensive Plan Update Open Houses TIGARD 2027 April 18 & 21, 2007 Environmental Quality a `� RPSO4t`"d/ ds y�r 4r y„, n Cei m „,4 101 11) 447 ~ CC -"4'�w r� .......,. �c A\c side>oP 009 to- Library Community Room Entrance V 'w k., °"µ #hr jci' 'A �.�'' 4 , i. , }.:. tn, , .wood f°^ct ya° .-y Chi" Nov M ' Q II +�•"' Porn• t• �,.WY �,'` `�ytJ� r r �� lY ni' yt woe'°"'" .. `" T :r- -"�, ' „..,1 ��(*t� t r • e.� v' a `� k ;`1. ,�,_ R+ ' .,<i, „s ,...-r+.+ ' J;r ,+ _ .,„y 1`s a .yapfy + 3ti" !r ° ,,-. .�: --'•�� A' r .t•-;#r;*{ J; i —� t 1 � :,^`,', .` 9t{ �C . µ hbQo.��"2.,,,�k 7 i, ss R 1 7 t3a � , 4 ,• . C. , . , ? . ' L �� r q ham p't r \ • r " !,,4:i,, i � a'1 4') tit i..' lt P4 $,t•5', ' '''t, d �l`S ti��.< -/�1 y � ^:�� • \' F •I'r,Ct". , ", u * ` MVtr �J� ? n' '+h , , ..� Y � a \\ � 'lN�r 't a. tt --i `x-' b "" `! " pp P '{ , :. ', i `N. ' i' 4 F + � .d . r """ ,.110•_r „ . Yi 4 _ p,,,. ti: i.e��\ " r" . i✓' .�'1, .} Ir I 1�a :. + ;-t• a h,r rd ` l ' ..� ( B. `*'!r ;l 1. •w t , ✓'�3'9 ,„ , if •..- _ ,k ,{ ,4•44 ry i y .�, 1 41, nf S _4 e'5 T r ( .a. :+ y ' +1 E k � R `a , �#\"1;"a�i X tt2 t �!t ._�-�'` .:.w j`A i � j ';h - ,> x� ,,, - : ' A ■ T i' � \'tt ' ' ' V ' '.d yg . v 4 0 . t 4 t Vi, fit yY+ ' ' km"a dS: « t .yt � a .41‘....y , ,, .• • t\,,,„; l + y r , ti . `! wR VgU2.re' r , „ -Ir.! w�. " YA_ }� r t ?,I, : , ., '� ",-',_"N' 14,. ! � '-a?c { w ,' t '",..�_� _ .1 r*' awe : :,14t.r`� i, r, t. Ai- . w . %4 _ .<'K>4r., t• itrtiA-114-ji''''.4 — • ,-,- \ � ,�,. Z R 4 m a q„1, c V �,? A L1 "f,rt Y " :'t/ Y " ±L'' i r+.+ S 1 =fir^'' s.44-.'"F it '' _■:41 1 h '� . , • — , • . • I , ' ii „ .— .. i..••••:•:.,i! I .f... •• • ' ,., ....\.......' .....:::!..... ............, .,.".N :•„.. .....„.j,111;. .....,•••••!......i....;;.:;.„1:!„,.. . ....--..... . ........., :' I ' ii i ... •••,„•• .......;.},........!.... # .! i ... ..... ••••,......1;:;...;:iii ••, .1r ,.. • .1••••• r -I r 1 : I .........:•"..",......"" t•-, ' ' ' ' ' '`• • I. .....",..: ...,-.• ),..1, ,......,...—„,..,,„„,,„„:„ •••••.‘„.... , — i i„ ... — „._.........._ ...,..._.___— ........4 1 ; f "":, , ...".4...„—"'"" ••••••••••- ....---- •••••••• •$'; •.. •—•• •••......... .. i/ ....i ..iii ' I ! '..‹...........1:*r ''—•,•••::::•/•• ''•••••• •••4••'••)•• •'•••''..4`...`•`.••••e •'' ' •4••-4'..4.1i1 ' ....' ., . . ,.... ..... ..... ,. . . • '••• ...lar.NO14; ,•••' ••••• '''.•'fi i ' •'....71 • „.•—, ,••••••••••• „ '........ii: 'X••••4'...., . .... . .: . —i ej —.....,...4 ....... : ! ; ...I.,. : i • 4.4.44 ! li It.? • • •. t . • I..:\ 14 ......t....... ; : .. ,• .....• , i . t....., • I. • F:.4 ...f : :..——--. . : . • ...... i .. ...1 :...,; :•ri ..,•.,.. 11 i : •..f.....!•— i . : •' s.1....;:. ' ..! J ..,,.... • ti. P---....... • ! •.• , .... • , ••••••••• •••i ,,•1 L.._ .......A il......... .• ••.• ••,,•• "t• I " • ••• .......k••••••.,..". 1 '— --....." ?..1 1,.. .1 ,••••••••••: . .... . ..:1". i .. • .., • .I. • ! 1 1 1k ... I . . k""1 ; • V.4 i •• •••• — : : ." 1 : i -• .. '..., '.4,1,:. . ,. . .. .. : (.11 trn.I.: .. ' ': '''I'''' -I. ••••!!!:•!-I.I ...! . -T.: ... . t. :. : •Oil '..! : i ' : :.J ; .• i•••••, ?•4 :: : ........ !!........, '. I II"III) I ...." I...........I.....: In". ItlI ! :: t, •-■•••-■.. -....,..I. I I....•/ t.t. .....w....., . I I. ',......................„.....................„ .. . . .. ' •IIIII: I tip'.. .4,4„I I 1.'"'I • I ..:::,....* I I. I'.....I\....!: ....YII.I.III.:... .1 4741 .4.11 ..I ...........4III:3-... ...............:4..0.'1'1;144 ...I. I f I.....I. PIII... I• I ''''. ':....., •,..te........... t.,......t". ... ..............: , . ••-• ... .... -!--- ! itt.'.... t. I ...• : . ; .....) t ... 4 .,. •,?„........,:•.: ..• . ... ..... ., •• .............40 ... i'.474.. ....,•••:......i...,;,..1,. •,•• ........ ........,...___ . .H.,„ . ., •,,e,„,,,,,, .• .1.1.. ••• ........•••••••••1;..-7-- - .., ,.... - --- • .4.-N,-...4:::.: i-......4-.:•••••••••,.....1;.....,. . ..,... .....!i..I..........:::..':;,•,1...'40•-•• •...,,.• i I ' •.: i .i. -- . •.„ i ••••. 1 .... i •• •••• 1 ••;.,,,,, !,:..,......1........ . 1 i i . ..: , •••,.• • -,.... •• .1 .i . . • ) • .i;•, .il& .......!t 1„.............„____4. ..., .. kf, - .....i1„...„.,c. ,,......... ...„.„... ,....... 1. t..... .......•...;•:;-:.............]:,,.. ••••••••,•,-. .....:•••••• , ,..,.,..,.. i '•,....,1 1 ...,A .....r..i?...: ?.4. .' ). •''''1 l••,t' Ail. (.1.) • .1.1..• .),...,' 4. ti! ' ...•; ; • ' .;• ; :.,•••... ....,:...,.... .....1•••••• ; . . !'•.14'. 1 . I 4 I. ..I. I. : .. 0 ir.,,i 1 f 4• ! a) . .... a AWN.* V,..... max . ::.. ...... a .....*....,:l. .1... ,. 1 .....,I .. ..... . ...... ..... .. ,......:::‘. .................... • • �J` TO: City of Tigard Planning Commission FROM: Len and Steven Dalton White Oak Village, LLC RE: Proposed White Oak Village Subdivision SUB 2006-00010 DATE: April 13, 2007 The purpose of this memo is to clarify and respond to some of the issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing held on Monday, April 2, 2007. We are concerned if our application has been understood to be requesting special treatment or seeking permission for things not allowed by the Tigard City Code. We do not feel that this is the case, and would like to add further clarification to the issues brought up at the hearing. I. DENSITY A. Deduction of the Flagpole Portion of a Flag Lot in Calculating Density In the original staff report, our density calculations numbers were changed and reduced by staff by subtracting that portion of our site that formerly served as access to the former house on one of the parcels. Staff originally concluded that the access portion of that parcel met the definition of the flagpole portion of a flag lot, and that the "flagpole"portion of the lot should be deducted from the gross acreage when computing density. While we understand the reasons staff concludes that one of our lots is a flag lot, we feel that we have shown previously that to deduct the flagpole portion in calculating density is an erroneous interpretation of the code. However, we further believe that deducting the flagpole portion of our lot would be an inconsistent application of the code as well. We have taken the time to review staff reports and planning commission decisions on other recent projects in the city. This has led us to conclude that with respect to flagpole lots and density calculations, staff has not been consistent in applying the code to evaluate our project. Thus far, we have discovered at least two projects wherein the flagpole portion of flag lots were not deducted for the purpose of density calculation. For example, in both Kramer's Meadow and Arlington Heights (see Exhibits #1 and #2), both approved within the past twelve months), the application included flag lots as part of their proposed development. In those applications, the flag lots were combined with the other adjoining lots, exactly as we have proposed for our project. Further,just as in our application, upon development the flagpole was no longer going to serve as the primary access when development occurred. As part of the subdivision approval in those projects, the lots were combined and the property was no longer defined as a flag lot. Staff did not subtract the flagpole from the density calculations in either of those instances. Our proposal is similar to the projects cited. The flagpole portion of our parcel should not be deducted when calculating density in our application. • • B. Deduction of Areas Dedicated as Water Quality Facilities The White Oak Village application proposes to utilize the former access strip, (referred to above as the "flagpole") as an open space area with a water quality facility combined with a pedestrian path. At the public hearing, staff took the position that even if the flagpole wouldn't be deducted because it met the definition of a flagpole, it would still have to be deducted from the density calculations because Clean Water Services (CWS) would require a public easement over the area. CWS usually requires projects to have a water quality facility, and these water quality facilities are treated as any other public utility. In other words, they must have a public easement over them similar to all sewer and storm easements. Historically,public utility easements have not been subtracted for density calculations in the city of Tigard. In reviewing past projects approved by the city of Tigard, we could not find any occasions where a water quality facility was subtracted out of the density calculations. In fact, we found one project approved just last year on April 17, 2006 (Kramers Meadow, see Exhibit#3) where the applicant proposed to subtract the water quality facility out of the density calculations. Staff noticed the error in their application and actually corrected the numbers in the application by adding the water quality facility itself back into the calculations. In Kramers Meadow, the developer had proposed placing the water quality facility within the same tract as a private drive, and then subtracting out the entire tract. In the staff report, staff said, "water quality facilities are not subtracted per 18.705". Section 18.705 governs "Access, Egress, and Circulation", and from this decision, it appears that even when there is access on a water quality tract, the tract should not be subtracted from density calculations. C. Deduction of Areas Serving as Pedestrian Access At the public hearing for White Oak Village, staff took the position that since the applicant proposed to place a pedestrian path on the water quality facility easement that therefore, the flagpole area should be deducted from density calculations. However, as already stated by staff above, water quality facilities are not deducted simply because there is public access across them. Additionally, we have reviewed other past decisions to see how this situation has been addressed in other applications. Just two months ago,the planning commission heard and approved the Annand Hill subdivision. This project had issues similar to White Oak Village. Although Annand Hill had frontage on Pacific Highway, it could not be accessed by Pacific Highway. The applicant proposed an "all in one"tract to serve as "open space/water quality/pedestrian access" alongside Pacific Highway. This is how our access strip/flagpole is also being proposed for use. The pedestrian path in Annand Hill was located on the water quality tract and was to be used for pedestrian access to both Pacific Highway and an adjacent cemetery. (See • • • Exhibit#4) Their pedestrian connection was a condition of approval for connectivity,just as has been required of us. Their path was for public access, yet no portion of the tract was subtracted out of their density calculations. As part of double checking the density calculation numbers for that project, we spoke with Ben Altman of SFA Design Group (the applicants engineer), who verified with us that their tract was not subtracted out of the density calculations. D. Summary of Arguments regarding Density During the two-week continuance, the applicant reviewed recent City of Tigard land use decisions which demonstrate how the city has routinely interpreted TDC 18.715.020 (A)(3) (right-of-way dedications) and TDC 18.730.050(E)(flag pole area) in determining the net development area for purposes of density. The applicant has researched recent subdivision applications to see how the city staff has treated flag poles, water quality facilities, and pedestrian pathways in calculating the net development area. As we have shown, there are recent applications where the city has not subtracted the flagpole, water quality tracts or pedestrian pathways from the net development area. We are not seeking special treatment, nor are we asking for anything not already allowed by the code. We simply request that our application be given fair and equitable consideration, on equal footing with other applications reviewed by the Planning Commission. We believe a fair and correct application of the code would permit 28 units (see Exhibit#5) on this site, but we are proposing 27 units as the best use of the property. IL PUBLIC STREET AND PARKING A. Street Width After considering the comments from staff and the Planning Commission at the public hearing, we have had our engineers revise the street design to reflect a full 54 foot wide right of way for the proposed public street. B. Parking We have eliminated the head-in parking on the public right of way as requested by staff However, we are now showing some parallel parking spaces on the public street where the width allows (See Exhibit#6, revised site plan). Additionally, we were able to create some additional parking spaces in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The code requires our project to have a total of 47 parking spaces. Our project now has a total of 67 parking spaces, which is 142% of the number required by code. III. ARCHITECTURAL DENSITY BONUS As discussed in the public hearing, code section 18.715 states that one of the considerations for allowing a density bonus is "innovative building orientation or building grouping". White Oak Village proposes a design style for special grouping of buildings that satisfies the standard for an additional 3% density bonus. This type of grouping is a still unique and somewhat rare product. • • • Most townhouse projects in the metropolitan area consist of multiple units in a row, giving rise to the term"rowhouse." The style of townhouse we are proposing is still new enough in the market that it has yet to settle in on a specific name. It has been referred to as "paired townhomes", "duplex-style townhomes", and even"duettes". People in the sales and marketing industry say that the first units to sell in any townhouse project are the end units. The end units seem to be the most desirable units and usually command the highest price. This is true for the following reasons: 1. The end unit is only attached to one other home, thereby providing more privacy and less noise from neighbors. 2. The end unit feels and lives more like a single family detached home. 3. There are more windows letting in natural light because there are three exterior walls instead of only two. 4. The rear yard becomes more accessible and usable to the homeowner. Equipment can be moved around the house, rather than through the house, so the outdoors becomes more enjoyable. An article in the real estate section of The Oregonian stated the following: "Newly built paired town homes are relatively rare in the Portland market, with just 104 units receiving permits in 2006 through August 15, according to Construction Monitor. In 2005, 3,269 residential units received building permits in the city of Portland. Of those, 7.7 percent were paired units" ("Joined at the Hip",The Oregonian, August 20, 2006) In searching through the RMLS listings of townhomes built and sold in Tigard over the last four years, we found only three projects that featured this style of townhouse. Two of those three were actually large-scale projects that only offered a handful of duettes as part of the overall subdivision. There has been only one project built in Tigard in the last four years that offered exclusively duet townhomes. White Oak Village will be offering 27 units of this style product. This special grouping of the buildings at White Oak Village should qualify our project for a 3% density bonus as allowed by the code. - IV. STREET TO SIDE YARD SETBACKS The code requires a 10' side yard setback to a street. Our application proposed an adjustment to that requirement on four of our lots. The application proposed that these four lots should be permitted to have a 20%reduction to the standard, resulting in an 8' side yard to a street setback. Staff told us that the 10-foot setback requirement could not be adjusted, and required us to change the size of those four buildings to meet the setback requirement. While reviewing the Annand Hill decision, (See Exhibit#7,we noted that their application also included a proposal for an 8-foot side yard setback to a street,just as ours • • did. In the notes from the planning commission hearing for Annand Hill just two months ago on February 5, 2007, it reads, "Staff advised that the Planning Commission...could indicate that there is flexibility in the code to allow for street side yard setbacks to be adjusted." (See Exhibit#8) Two months ago, the Planning Commission agreed that there was such flexibility in the code, and allowed Annand Hill to be approved with the 8-foot side yard setbacks without requiring a variance. We do not know why staff has not allowed such flexibility in our proposal. Consequently, we request that our proposal be granted the same opportunity for code flexibility and that the planning commission allow us to have an 8' side yard setback on four of our 27 lots as we have proposed. V. SUMMARY The Tigard City Code requires the applicant to raise all pertinent issues before the Planning Commission, or else be barred from raising them in an appeal. We hope that the Planning Commission appreciates that this requirement necessitates our referring to any legal arguments we deem relevant. In our previous memo to the Planning Commission, the Dolan case was mentioned. This apparently upset some, and was viewed as combative strong-arm tactic. Again, we apologize for that perception. We hope that the applications and decisions we have referred to herein, (applications that have been approved recently), explain why we have been concerned about consistent application of the code to all applications. We request that the Planning Commission members approve our application as shown on Exhibit#9, the final exhibit). / Q _' ciry of 1IGARr) L OEOOaAPNIC INFOFNAl1ON BDOINN VICINITY MAP 4 7--_, SUNRISE 1• SUB2005-00020 &2 • VAR2006-00010 Rb sygf VAR2006-00011 lib / . * sgg:ggg ON Y PL 013 - VAR2006-00014 • VAR2006-00015 R2 - s Q �` z VAR2006-00011 �ti �� x o KRAMER'S MEADOW SUBDIVISION-NA m \ �� 4!*Ij1 ,o.... ) millim th 0 * pL, Z I -A , 11114111Alt A, X D g Ng , . il 7.11 ,, k5—) Z —F(%)' ttm=u t<q, ---..t.+:4-'MOUNTAIN FD �iI i• :!.L.;, i • Q- N4 m El p N ; 11115V./.; in rA ' t < q 0 0 100 200 300 400 Foot MI C94•.I © ® Iti 328 M 'tlig ille lit III :8 Willilll if, ; 4' al v n n City of Tigurd �1 `� U ln/anuWn m Olb ma b fa 9onmf ba0an ony a1C BU/?GU', r-- G 1NQY ST t "".�` - l� � l"� � luJ Fnaaa..Inaera,u,e� n+srnt�o:a�tNon. naam,oR 07223 iI to (503)030.1171 ,1 ht�lANww.tl.i{ptld.Of.u3 Community Development Plot dare:Feb 8,2006;C.\maglc MAGIC03.APR ___________ - 1 m-ri i 1 rII I RD � P CITY of TIGAII ,.-JI l �' OCOONAPNIC INFORMATION BYB-HM ----1 NTERVIEW 1 C i T 1 ,..k_,T+ VICINITY MAP____L .... I-1•, —- t`?>� Ala d ' '000 DR a�.%` .°111111 i SUB2006-00001 SLR2006-00002& 3 (� wm�•Øp , DR VAR2006-00003, 4 5,6 - , r I VAR2006-00024-48■ ■ X. l D _ 0* r O. SUBDIVISION HEIGHTS al O I 1- DR IL ° ' N A\t\m M 0 0 LI 2 \ . JJJ . Fr: Q� - _�� _ 'Mir:!_ IN 0 ° w t4, ' d't . .. g 0 J Ill , , . &`\ — :MIRO . ,..I. a = ., 4 . -... . .,:.b.,,z4 , .• ,. _ , �`\\ 1, _ _ ,►-- ecc-j)- : le'll Ij1. _ii ' d 1 MA 'J a�I \\ B f>�. �, 1 tlOero Alva uco• • 4" t < w 0 %VII I MOM s '< 0 )=. r 0111 • -41.' r., • .- • N (#A1 Jnr, 0 * , 6.4 % N 01 N a- (14 z v$ 497fpnow 40 4 0 200 100 OCO Feat 14 ° c7. < 41 < 041" ilk I #48.9%, . E ,il < P:u ov ,,,,,,f K # 411111 G -•/ LIP ;`�I EDWARJ .CT – al . 1 1TIpaIQOR erne A 3125 y/L1-----7-- -1 t) — p"1,• ntNlrwwN o�l0ard ar.w Community Development Plot date:Mar 20,2006;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR • • Based on the ON THE, SUBDIVISION 1-HE A PLDGAN INCORRECTLY S U T4 T R A D THE NATER been satisfied, GUA DTY FAC111, 17Y FROM THE VENSI Y GA. G U • A T DO N O STAFF CO R R E C '. E D DT *Unary sight tear own speed ANP APP EP THE AREA BACK INTO -HE based on the NET IDEVE,... ° PA:3LE AREA. the plan. shall ..... roved-location of 153 Avenue. Density Cumppigtati ns and Linutatiurrs 08.715); Chapter 18.715 implements the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining,pancel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of dwelling units that may be developed on a site. Based on the formulas in Chapter 18.715 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code,the maximum and minimum number of units.permitted on the site is based on the net developable area. The net developable area is the gross site area,subtracting sensitive land areas,land dedicated for public parks and public rights-of-way,land for private streets,and if an existing dwelling unit is to remain,the area of the lot on which that unit is situated. Of the total gross site area (2.83 acres or 123,275 square feet), the applicant subtracted 22,990 square feet is for public right-ol-way dedications and 13,509 square feet is for the private street and water quality The applicant's calculations are incorrect. Water quality facilities are not subtracted by 18.705. Rather than 86,776 square feet of net developable area, the net developable area is 93,839 square feet (subtracting the private street and parking surface). There are no public parks or sensitive areas within the project. The net area divided by the minimum lot size in the R-7 zone (5,000 s.f. for she family detached units) therefore yields the maximum number of units, in this case 18.76. The minimum number of lots is based on 80% of the maximum,or 15. The applicant has proposed 17 lots in this subdivision,within the density requirements. Therefore, this section is satisfied. • FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the density standards have been satisfied. Landscaping and Screeningj18.745): Chapter 18.745 contains landscaping provisions for new development. Section 18.745.100 requires that street trees be planted in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet long. A proposed planting list must be submitted for review by the Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury. The applicant proposes street trees for the public streets, but has not shown any on the private street. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to submit a plan for the_private street, showing street trees according to the size and sparing standards of Section 18.745.040 of the Tigard Development Code. Section 18.745.030(C) contains landscaping.installation requirements 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. NI:1110E OF DECISION PAGE 16 OF 32 SUB2005-00020-KRAMER'S MEADOW SUBDIVISION AND HILL IMPI , t! 0 .A•40—LOT SUBDIVISION OF TAX MAPS 2S1 1 OAC AND 281 1 GAD,TAX LO Al ii ti 1 nnn s APPLICANT/OWNER: / �vu — _n :xd;, J u ANNAND PROPERTIES IV•PJ,C'C, ./' . . LT �l!} '.00,;., . SUSAN IG?f.ER TRUST AND MARY JANE VINELLA / . 1 _' ',� . 8260 SW IIUNZINKJIR ST,RJJTE ISO / • a 4 TIGARD,OR 97227 GRAPHS scu.s' �J / } r r I T Z PHONE(503)520.8668 . 1 CONTACT:JOHN ANNANC rw}r �C\\ PLANNING/ENGINFERING/SURVEYING: / .e. /% • oc 9020 !:A r DESIGN GROUP,LLC 7 < g 9020 WASHI NGTGN SQUAIE RD,SUITE 150 c PORTLAND,OR 97223 0,/ PHONE(303)6MATT1/W (503)663-790: �i• ` ` I„4O`. " _ �8 � pp pp / CONTACTS:MATTHEW SPRAGUE 4 �3r-- " lS2) 0 0 p !)1� BRENT FUCK .�♦♦♦ ,�� vKCt 1 1 1 ° 11 JOHN WADS , says, 1 1 1 1 a, /7 �,� ! �mrn 4-1,- ..4.,_.z,.'9 9r(7.97E 9 1.709 S p d.50]9 b T. 1:.� fi �IQ 1 5-° . . i . Q moo :^ ,.•`''.-. �`` La Nil 0 t- Cr of i •sturiAlge j ♦•♦ ��`` 3830 S s`* ....\_•`~'1 - a .,)-1. ! ` I�I�r'r,` • '•1Rai 0 I�e {yZ�{'y • SA, 4.• •.. ._.-�.r�.[i....i.•,.. .;�` 10.10 5. l�J� �\ V� ,, �'/ Lv S ' i 1 r r G - �Y 11 11 .. I 1 V& ' ♦♦♦: m�ci x 1 1 me Si y n' - Lezo SF _1 ZI i 42 i 2S 1 eb s ♦ __ _"r__ 1.93.sR 3.954W 3,075 2A RA 2s L p 1 ovo+saner. 7_ r WS AI S.m3 4 x �, 1'w--'J ' ♦•�• '' 7.733 SF 9 See A rrx:'r1•j 18 • I i ■ / c 1 / , ozi 0 ° ,..9i 4 ai.1 111 ! SHEET INDEX - BENCHMARK: ( M nt m a i s�t'I i 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT . I 489 1.- �j l 2 EJOSIING CONDITIONS • DATUM: WASIHNG70N COUNTY S . �l 0 u_g 0 mn z G I 11 I DESCRIF•I;ON: 3'BRASS DISK SET IN THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE 3 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION/ SECOND STEP OF TEE TIGARD GRANGE HALL (({{ �p � GRADING/EROSION CONTROL?LAN NORTHWEST ENTRANCE I MILE SOUTHWEST OF TIGARD. 5.- 1}�-O 4 PRELIMINARY STEEBT/UTILITY PLAN 1:LEVATION: 269.31' ' luut 0 m 5 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN • 6 AERIAL PHOTO I CIRCULATION PLAN 'VERTICAL.INFORMATION GATHERED IS A COMBINATION OF DATA COLLEC -. BY GB:L LAND SURVEYING AND KUtAHASHI AND ASSOCIATE&INC. ; 0 • • v- 1,1 PEN5Orr CALGULATtQN The following square footages were provided by DL Design, the civil engineer for White Oak Village. They were calculated by AutoGad as shown in Exhibit # 6 103,971.'12 Gross area of site (11,515.00) New Public R.O.W. - Extension of 51^1 -14th Ave. (12,161.00) New Private Drive 80,497.12 Net Developable Area 26.39 Number of allowable lots at 3,050 sf 21.98 Number of Lots w/ 6 % density bonus 25.11 Number of Lots w/ 9 % density bonus . , .. ez_,... ..... ....... \ 1 i DL ...• .C.. I ■..■ 0345 SW Datur Md. igt ..., ....._, Odle 101 Pertan0.OR 97210 . .•. , . (503)225.1570 4t.0.136,. . SITE PLAN s -2-7— • • 1 . .. _ .. . . • • ...:•;•-,---- AmAccesvp ., •A8 TRACT 'A' WA7ER QUALITY/ "' -- ------ —k,—.-—-— i I ' LOT 26 JAM SF i 4 .,.....,, / . . . . • . . .. . .: 11.,02. I ' • • ' A 1 .''''' ':\TA .• _ —___..d. LOT 27 1 / i I I i Z070 SF I. I I I I @ 1 ' LOT 231 LOT 22 LOT 2,1 LOT LOT 201 LOT 19 1 LOT 1 LOT 16 : . .2 Ai '1 t..9 4900 7 '. I ' i I 1 I 1 TRACT C 1 1 1 I /2.202 V -1 ct LOT 25 • 55 0 ■ 1 CI EL, 0 (9 -- 4.LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 121 LOT 13' LOT 14 LOT 15 .. a 11 , 2:F1 SF r 071 V 1,•71 SF 7.971. 3.11 71. 1 Ian v 1 r.57:sr 0.21.7.S, JP.' I I 1 0 ' ,_ k \ \ le i co , • : . i.1'.',e74,Of MAO 1 I 1 I I r 1 1 • • •‘. I' ' ' -— — - • • .'•-• ' ' 1 1 . , .. < ; 07 I7 0 X' '----- _ :3 I I I ••••••• I Sent,l•-SO' '' 111 TRACT El.....,.7,- -I _____, .. i 13. _ .,-- 7.7-4- , i g I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, : I i I I RoV OA. WI g+T5 Ol 1.,29.r,B 1 LOTS 1 co.If I,. Lot 3 1LOT 2 1 :i'f-J.Il IRgry_p e 1 R Z 1 ! z ! z ! -,!! —- , ,ss sr z P.834 Si I ZI . I I I i I I 1 1 1 1 1 i , . , , /,.:; , L 1 1 1.1 ___I 1_ L 1 I... ,„... L I KI__I ___F x.., u=1.1 , , 1 , -___r 1 I a L. ,...._.4,.../.;,..._: SW 7471i A VE . \.,......,, ' ..... r____L.1_____r PROJECI .1/1119I OALOOr O. W.. .. 1,61 ... I. 0.... ur a.m. ow Et I I I . • 4 Cin SITE PLAN 1 /2 • • 120 DAYS =4/3/2007 : G-. ---a 4 DATE OF FILIN('x 2/12!2007 -•.:-4 X 1 "-J k n DATE MAILED: 2/13/2007 CITY OF TIGARll frelidArs; Washington County,Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION NO. 2007-01PC Case Numbers: SUBDIVISION(SUB)2006-00008 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RE VIEW(PDR) 2006-00001 ZONE CHANGE (ZON)2006-00001 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW(SLR) 2006-00010 ADJUSTMENT(VAR)2006-00080 ADJUSTMENT(VAR)2007-00001 Case Name: ANNAND HILL SUBDIVISION Applicant's Name/Address: Anand Properties IV PLLG et al 8260 SW Hu nziker Street,Suite 150 Tigard,OR 97223 Owner's Names/Addresses: Armand Properties IV-PLLG et al 8260 SW Hunzllcer Street,Suite 150 Tigard,OR 97223 Address of Property: 14600 SW Pacific Highway Tigard,OR 97223 Tax May/Lot Nos.: Washington Co.'lax Assessor's Map No 2S 110AC,'l'ax Lot 200 and 2S110AU,'l'ax Lot 8800. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW, AND TWO ADJUSTMENTS. THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANTS PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, AND COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2007 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WIT!1IN TI IIS FINAL ORDER Request: Approval of a 40-lot Subdivision and Planned Development(PD)on 4.53 acres. The lots are going to be develo•-• with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are between 2,788 and 5,377 square feet. A Zone Ali.••e is required to apply the PD overlay on Tax Lot 8800 and Sensitive Lands Review is required for slopes greater than 25%. •- applicant also received approval for a street improvement Adjustment for the proposed cul-de-sac from the maximum 20 homes served to 34 and for an Adjustment to the minirmnn residential density requirement of 43 units to 40. During the Planning Commission Hearing, the Commission interpreted the "street side yard" to he included in the "side yard" setback provisions under the Applicability of The Base Zone Development Standards in the Planned Development Chapter, 18.350.070.A.4.b. The discussion resulted in the Commission allowing the proposed 8-foot side yards setbacks. However,the discussion did not resolve in a motion. Zones: R-12, Medium Density Residential; and R-12 (PD), Medium Density Residential with Planned Development Overlay. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters: 18350,18.360, 18370, 18390,18310,18705,18.715,18.720, 18725,18.745,18.765,18.775,18.780, 18.790,18.795 and 18.810. Action: > ❑ Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: © Owners of Record within the Required Distance B Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties El The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON FEISItUAKY 13,2007 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 29,2007 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for urposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18390.040.G2. of the Tigard Community Develo•ment Code which rovrdes that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten 10)business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the P .' ••: Division of Tigard City Hall,13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 28,2007. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at(503)639-4171. • • rent � •, ; <' jet the tthey PLANNING M M DS` SOON MONUTES plan FOR ANNAND KILL PNBLDC EARS S lnot FEBRUAgY 50 2001 John Annand, one of the property owners involved, testified that he's not sure what the prices will be for the homes, but envisions 2-story homes about 2400 square feet in size. The applicant noted that some lots will be larger to allow for play and some lots will have limited yard area. The open space tracts will primarily be planted with native vegetation. President Inman would like to see a soft pathway and benches in the open space tracts. PUBLIC TESTIMONY None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED With regard to the request for reduced side yard setbacks, staff advised that the Planned Development Code doesn't address street side yard setbacks specifically. The applicant is requesting 8' setbacks,which is 2'less than what is required. The Variance chapter of the Development Code allows up to a 20% reduction on certain setbacks, but not for street side yard setbacks. The applicant could have requested a variance,but they didn't. The Commission could add a condition that would require that, prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant provide a site plan that shows the street side yard as met at 10'. The applicant disagreed, saying that the intent of the code isn't to limit the side yard to an interior yard between 2 walls. The intent is to allow flexibility to the setbacks for the base zoning district for which they are applying the planned unit development. The intent is to allow the flexibility to permit, through the PD process, an 8' street side yard setback. A street side yard setback is still a side yard setback. They believe the Planning Commission has the authority to approve it without a variance. Commissioner. Walsh noted that under the new code, the intent is to provide flexibility for the Planning Commission. Staff advised that the Planning Commission could require the applicant to come back for street side yard variances or they could indicate that there is flexibility in the code to allow for street side yard setbacks to be adjusted. President Inman moved to approve Subdivision (SUB) 2006-00008/Planned Development Review(PDR) 2006-00001/Zone Change (ZON) 2006-00001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 5,2007—Page 8 •.;:fff.;,-;t1--)7:-fef,:z,..,,,f....„...„ ,..if........,c1,,ii,f,... ffilx.fo.ff7.f5ff:•...4".... 1,,,,f...,ff 3.• _444.„...„. .....,....4.0„..„„,,, -..„ ,. ..1, ,:,,.„. ,.. .u...., ...;44).„.......,444,44.4,444.47.„.„......44,444,444.. ....,...,...4444..4....4.,„,......4„..,44„4.4,444..„..,.4...4444.4.1 ...........77,4,,,,44.477x.n14,..7 _ 4_44, 4 44) 44.4. 4 4.4- . lei ..,- •••..et........•••.., ....v i .. . IIIW...P. ..... ........, ,...,,,.-4..........L.:.:.;..,...,1.j 4:'',,.) .''''..ti,• .",":".A...),'..-.,...•s,>:".;.• ., • '''s. •••• • • ... : • ,t i.;:....i.. .r. \ '..) .:• . • • • ...., • •4444.44: 4 44: .4444)1 .„..,40 . t .i..—•—• • '—j/ . ' ..... : .I.: 1 .: H .: : _ i ' j : ' ! t: ' ' • "i'• r .1 . . . . . . i ) • ..• ,. • .. .: .). i• I 1 : .. 4: , ., . ,4,....!...) . . . . • • : : , .44 i • • 4 4,4 . . . , ,....4„, . , • . • :.y •44 / 4 ..• • 4 1 ! . :: • i ...II) 4,4) 1 '.. . i .H. 1 : • • 1.) : 1 4 4. . 4 i • 4:4 4444444144,4441•44V4444 4 . [ 4 4 f.. i. . . •4.4444:'44•4:444444•44'•• 44 4 • r44.1,:** 4 44_I '. ' 4 1 4 ,4• •., 4. , .. •.4 *4 ; . il...- ''''')• .4;4? ••■••4 • .4 44... • •• •I 4'4. . ...r I. ..... . .,,..? • . ..... ... . . '• .. . . .. • 1.. ... • ••.. , , •• ' . . • ..1.)...,.........,...........k!1•1). • . . . . : • '•'• • ' • * I 44 I 4 . 44 4 ...' •-•• t.) 44 4•' . i . I 4 4•4,./: . 4 . . . 11 .. I ..• i . . . . . • • .. •. t•Fi:•444.1,4444444'.....•:'4'.... .4,b,...1 4:-.J.4..,.)...4..i...Z2:k....41....? .1.;::::::A. . 1... ,..... •. . . '..N1.,.•i'.,..., •:::I...:...1 i< .,...,i i k..1::/,':.. • • NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2007-02 PC �I BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON A FINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW, AND TWO ADJUSTMENTS. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON APRIL 2ND AND 16TH, 2007. 120 DAYS = 6/4/2007 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: Subdivision(SUB) SUB2006-00010 Planned Development Review(PDR) PDR2006-00001 Zone Change (ZON) ZON2007-00001 APPLICANT/ Len Dalton APPLICANT'S Kasten Van Loo OWNER: White Oak Village,LLC REP: Alpha Community Development 7955 SW Hall Blvd 9200 SW Nimbus Avenue Beaverton,OR 97008 Beaverton,OR 97008 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a 27-lot subdivision and planned development on a 2.82 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed with detached and attached (duet) single-family homes. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 1,926 square feet. Two pocket parks and a pedestrian tract/open space are proposed totaling approximately 23,189 square feet (18%). Note: This application was submitted on November 16, 2007,prior to the November 23, 2006 effective date of the revised Planned Development chapter. Therefore, the original PD code applies. The main PD development issues are summarized on page 10. ZONE/ COMP.PLAN DESIGNATIONS: R-12,Medium Density Residential. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide ran e of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.[Applies to majority of the site j GG: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to sin le-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage mini-warehouses, utilities heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. [Applies to the flag pole connection to Highway 99W] LOCATION: The project is located north of Pacific Hwy at the southern terminus of SW 74th Avenue involving three (3) parcels at 11645 and 11625 SW Pacific Hwy and 11030 SW 74th Avenue; Tax Lots WM1S136CA01700, WM1S136DB01000,and WM1S136DB02300,respectively. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Planned Development will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the approval standards as outlined in this Final Order. Therefore,the Commission APPROVES the proposed Subdivision2 Planned Development, and Zone Change, subject to the following Conditions of Approval and Findings within this Final Order. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 1 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS,INCLUDING GRADING,EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: e app cant s . I prepare a cover etter an. su.mit it, . ong wit any sup orting •ocuments ans or p ans at address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503- 639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to site work, the Planning Commission determined that the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows maximum of 27 units with the provision that unit#27-be moved to the east-side duplexes by Tract D, thus increasing access to Tract C and allowing the proposed 8-foot street side yard setbacks on lots 8, 15, 16 and 23. 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. 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. 3. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. The following note shall be placed on the final construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 o the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code;and B. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. 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 Planning Staff for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performin 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 issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the Planning Staff, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (1PZ) fencing installation, through building construction, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Arborist 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 Planning Staff 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 Planning Staff and the Project Arbonst. 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. 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 ENGINEERINGyDEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 6. Prior to commencing onsite improvements a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover the construction of the pulic street and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006.00010) PAGE 2 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • 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. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designates 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. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. 9. Any necessary off-site right-of-way and construction easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a PFI permit. This ertains to the construction of the eyebrow corner,as shown on the applicant's plans,on Tax Lot 1S136DB0-1100. 10. The applicant's plans shall be revised, removing the rolled curb notation for the public improvements and replacing it with City Standard Drawing 126. 11. The PFI permit shall include the 24 foot wide minimum pavement improvement on SW 74th Avenue from the development to Spruce Street meeting the minimum public street section standard. 12. The applicant's plans shall be revised to provide 5 foot wide, not including curb, sidewalks along the private streets. These sidewalks may be placed in an easement rather than a tract. 13. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit,which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of Tax Lot 1S136DB01100. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a local street from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet plus 8 feet from centerline to the north; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; G concrete curb,or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a 5 foot planter strip on the south side; F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; FL streetlight layout by applicant's engineer,to be approved by City Engineer; I. underground utilities; street signs (if applicable); driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 74th Avenue extension in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 14. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements per Figure 18.810.4.A, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphalt concrete pavement sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards west of Tax Lot 1S136DB01100 to the west property line of the development. 15. The applicant's plans shall be revised to remove the head-in parking along the public street. Parallel parking only will be allowed where width requirements are satisfied. 16. A profile of the 74th Avenue extension shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 3 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • 17. The applicant's plans shall be revised to provide manholes at the terminus points of the public sewer. An 8" stub shall also be provided from the manhole at the southwest corner to the west. 18. Prior to issuance of the PFI permit, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division,to perform utility and street improvement work within the right-of-way of Highway 99. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department. 19. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 20. Prior to issuance of the PFI permit,the applicant shall obtain an ODOT Drainage Permit for connection to the drainage facility in Highway 99. 21. 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. 22. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality/detention facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the_plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period,the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level,the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 23. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and have a structural section capable of accommodating a 50,000-pound vehicle. The paved width shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and there shall be two-foot rock shoulders rovided on each side. If the maintenance roadway is over 150 feet in length, a turnaround shall be provided-. 24. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 25. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 26. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: 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: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EX T 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 27. Prior to final plat, the applicant shall provide the city with a copy of the restrictions and covenants for the development project. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 4 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • 28. Prior to final plat approval,the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the Planning Staff, 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 should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree fprotection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the encing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overraallll, 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 Planning Staff 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. 29. Prior to final plat, visual clearance areas for the proposed intersections of private and public streets shall be shown on a revised plat. 30. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a revised plat identifying a public access easement over the proposed Tracts "A" and `B" extending from the proposed public street to Highway 99W 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: 31. Prior to final plat approval,the applicant shall pay the addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart, Engineering). 32. Prior to final plat approval,additional right-of-way shall be conveyed to the State of Oregon,by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division, along the frontage of Highwa 99 to increase the right-of- way to 64 feet from centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing ring-ht-of-way centerline. Verification that the conveyance has been submitted to the State shall be rovided to the City Engineering Department. (For additional information, contact Martin Abero, Oregon Department of Transportation, Right-of-Way Section, 123 NW Flanders,Portland, OR 97209-4037;Phone: 731-8425). 33. The applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW Highway 99 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. 34. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private streets will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from them. 35. Prior to approval of the final plat,the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project,to be recorded with the final plat,that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed pnvate street(s). The CC&R's shall obligate the pnvate property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 36. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 5 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • 37. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system(GPS) geodetic control network(GC 22) as recorded in Washington County survey records. 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. 38. 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. The right-of-way dedication for the east-west extension of SW 74th Avenue shall be made on the final plat. E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineeringeppartment 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 qty 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: The applicant shall pre are a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the followin requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 39. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that the dwellings with reduced 3-foot side yard setbacks meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls. 40. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 41. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a letter from TVF&R stating that the proposed development is consistent with TVF&R standards. 42. Prior to issuance of building permits,visual clearance areas for driveways intersecting the proposed private and public streets shall be shown on construction drawings. 43. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised Signing and Lighting Plan that specifies lighting sufficient to meet the performance standards provided by the Tigard Police Department. 44. Prior to issuance of building permits, 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. 45. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the adjacent lots 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 houses. 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 Planning Staff,the tree protection measures may be removed. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 6 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting_documents and/or plans that address the tollowin 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: 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat. 47. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public rovements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar,2) a diskette of the as-builts in`DWG" format,if available;otherwise C4 " will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates,referenced to NAD 83 (91). 48. The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. 49. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant's engineer shall submit final sight distance certification for the three private street intersections along the east-west extension of SW 74th Avenue. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE;THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified,the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required by Section 18.430.080,the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company.autholized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it maybe terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer,to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the Qty. 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval,the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County,the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 7 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05),Washington County,and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of- way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points,beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points,and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street&Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 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 surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be laced above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction,high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such_guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City,permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin untL the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason,it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDMSION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 8 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The proposed development involves three parcels. Tax Lot 2300, zoned R-12, is a developed .44-acre parcel over which the extension of SW 74th Avenue is proposed. Tax Lot 1000, zoned R-12, is a 1.052-acre undeveloped parcel. Tax Lot 1700, a 1.335-acre parcel, zoned primarily R-12 with a 16 x 430-foot segment zoned GG that provides frontage onto SW Pacific Highway, is developed with a dwelling built in 1937 and with outbuildings, which are proposed to be removed. The residential development surrounding the site was built from the mid-1940s through the 1950s. More recent multi-family housing borders the site to the north. Vicinity Information: The site is located within a massive block bounded by Highway 99W, SW 78th Avenue, SW Spruce Street, and SW 71St Avenue and, specifically, at the terminus of SW 74`11 Avenue south of Spruce Street. The subject site is bordered by developed land zoned R-25 and R-4.5 to the north and GG to the south. SUMMARY OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: Proposal: The applicant requests approval of a 27-lot subdivision and planned development on a 2.82 acre site. The lots are proposed to be developed- eveloped with detached and attached (duet) single-family homes. The average size of the pro osed lots is approximately 1,926 square feet. Two pocket parks (Tracts C and D) and a pedestrian tract/open space (Tract A) are proposed totain aapproximately 23 189 s q uare feet (18%). The northern open space tract includes a e, approximately 45-inch diameter,white oak tree. Planning Objectives: The planned Objectives: process is required to accommodate the proposed private street that serves more than six dwellings and the sub-standard lot sizes averaging 1,926 square feet, when the R-12 zone requires 3,050 square feet. In exchange for flexibility of the applicable stan dards under the PD process, the applicant proposes public benefits which include two opens space pocket parks, a landscaped pedestrian pathway connection to Hwy 99W, and retention of a significant oak tree. Density Computations: The proposed 27-lot density does not meet the density established for the underlying zoning district (max=22/min 1 as shown later in this report in the Density Computations section on page 15. However the applicant has requested a density bonus as allowed. The applicant's Narrative (page 13) is contradictory in that it claaims three bonus criteria are met, yet specifically requests only a 6% density bonus. Staff finds that the applicant's proposal meets bonus criteria #2 for the provision of developed open spaces, pedestrian pathways, and retention of existing vegetation (3%), and#3 for the creation of a visual focal point and the use of an existing physical amenity with the retention of the oak tree (3%). The applicant's proposal does not include undeveloped open space or architectural quality and style to earn any additional bonus. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission may further authorize a density bonus of 6%, or one additional unit (.06 x 22 = 1.32 lot). Landscaping and Screening: The existing commercial uses to the west, south and east are likely to have the most impact on proposed lots 7, 17 through 23, 24 and 25. Proposed lots 7, 24 and 25 border commercial parking lots, where the applicant has proposed 6-foot walls/fences, buffering, and landscaping to mitigate for these impacts. However, the greatest impact to the proposed development and to proposed lots 17 through 23 in particular will be the Raz Transportation service yard to the west. The applicant proposes a 4-foot high masonry wall and a 4-foot landscaping bed in addition to the buffer provided by the proposed private street.Dust and noise will be the main impacts to the development. Even though the landscaping and screening standards have otherwise been met, the Commission may consider increasing the screening to further mitigate for the bus noise and dust. [Page 16] Street Improvements: This site will have access from SW 74th Avenue, which is classified as a local street on the Qty of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. The development will extend SW 74th Avenue to the west to serve this development, requiring a 54 foot ROW dedication. The applicant's narrative states they are proposing.to construct 2/3 of a public street. However, it appears they are proposing to construct 2/3 of a skinny street that is only appropriate when the vehicle trips per day are expected to be less than 500. The applicant provided no data to support this request and did not address the skinny street option criteria. This development will generate approximately 270 trips and with future development to the west and any through trips, the skinny street cntenon will be exceeded. Thereore, the applicant will be required to provide the standard local street as shown in figure 18.810.4.A.[Page 28] WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 9 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • SECTION V. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE USE CLASSIFICATION: SECTION 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is seeking approval of a 27-lot subdivision on 2.83 acres. The lots are to be developed with attached and detached single-family homes. The existing single-family home on site is to be removed. The site is located within the R-12 zone, Medium Density Residential District. Planned Developments are permitted in all zoning districts. Household living includes detached and attached single-family housing types,which is a permitted use in this zone. SUMMARY OF LAND USE PERMITS: CHAPTER 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. This is a Subdivision/Planned Development,which is defined as a Type III-PC Application. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES: CHAPTER 18.390 Describes the decision-making procedures. Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly_ discretionary approval n crtea. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. Staff received one written comment from an interested party and one phone call from a neighbor about this application. One neighbor, Nathan Murdock, called regarding added traffic that will adversely impact the already deteriorated condition of SW Spruce Street. RESPONSE: The applicant's plans and narrative indicate they will be providing a minimum of a 24-foot wide paved section along SW 74th Avenue from the site to SW Spruce Street. This off-site improvement is the responsibility of the applicant because of the increased traffic associated with the development. In addition, the applicant must pay Transportation Impact Fees to offset impacts to the citywide transportation system. John Frewing submitted written comment with concern for pedestrian access through the site to connect Hwy 99W with SW Spruce Street. RESPONSE: The applicant has proposed a 5-foot pedestrian path through Tract A to connect the proposed private street with Highway 99W. However, the applicant's narrative does not address the connectivity standard and its requirement for public easements forpublic use of connecting pathways. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant has been rec iiired to revise the plat identifying a public access easement over the proposed Tracts "A" and "B extending from the proposed public street to Highway 99W. SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicable review criteria are addressed in this report in the following order: 18.350 Planned Developments) 18.430 ions) 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts) 18.705* Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.7153: Density Computations) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745' Landscaping and Screening) 18.765" Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.780' Signs) WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 10 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795* Vision Clearance) 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements) 18.390 Decision Making Procedures, Impact Study) *A cmrz/rg to Section 18.350.100 f the Planned Dezdginent Chapter, these chapters are utilizal as guidelines,and strict corrpliance is not necessary Tibor a dezdq..'nnent prudes alte v.tize designs and nethais that promote the purpose f the PD Chapter. The proposal contains no elements related to the following provisions of these Specific Development Standard Code Chapters. These chapters are,therefore,found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.710 (A c ss Residential Units) 18.720 (Design CDnoatibil' Standards) 18.730 (Exceptions to Derl pnent Standards) 18.740 (Historic aerlay) 18.742 (Hornr Oxipattorts) 18.750 (Man factured/Mobil Hone R ) 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste& R Storage) 18.760 (Nomm�f ing Situations) 18.775 (S ens itizeLands Re-cieu) 18.785 (Terrpora Use) 18.798 (unless n ramication Faalities) 18.350 - (PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS) - -J The applicant has requested a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject property. The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development design and allows deviation from certain standards of thebase zone. The following standards address compliance with the process and applicable base zone standards. Note: This application was submitted on November 16, 2007,prior to the November 23, 2006 effective date of the revised Planned Development chapter. The Planned Development Process: Section 18.350.020 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: • The approval of the planned development overlay zone; • The approval of the planned development concept plan; and • The approval of the detailed development plan. This application is for all three elements of the planned development process including an overlay zone, concept plan, and detailed plan. The applicant has applied for concurrent review of the overlay zone, conceptual plan, and subdivision of the subject property,consistent with the planned development process in TDC 18.350.020. Allowed Uses Section 18.350.060 allows single-family attached residential units in residential zones, subject to the density provisions of the underlying zone. Attached single-family housing is proposed for the subject property, which is zoned R-12. As described in the Density Computations section later in this report, the proposal is not consistent with the density provisions of the base zone. Therefore, although the proposed use is allowed,the density has been conditioned to not exceed 23 lots. Applicability Of The Base Zone Development Standards: Section 18.350.070 requires compliance to specific development standards: The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computation under Chapter 18.715; WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 11 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • In the R-12 zoning district the minimum lot size is 3,050 square feet, with no average lot width. The zone has no minimum lot depth. The lots are proposed to be developed with attached single-family homes,with lot sizes between 1,836 and 2 748 square feet (averaging 1,926 square-feet/lot). The proposed number of lots (27) is more than the maximum (22) density requirement, for which the applicant has requested a density bonus as provided for in Section 18. 50.100 and addressed later in this report. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-12 zone is 80%. The applicant has proposed several building floor plans (A, B,D, and E) with this application. Building envelopes are shown on sheet C6.1. The proposed floor plans including atios, porches, and driveways total approximately 1,266 square feet, or 65% coverage on the average lot size of 1,926 square feet,consistent with the R-12 zone coverage standard. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; and The base development standard height limit in the R-12 zone is 35 feet, but does not apply to this planned development application. The applicant has proposed specific buildings with this application, which are approximately 3-0 feet tall to the peak of roof,consistent with the base zone height development standard. Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; The applicant submitted supplemental Sheet C2.1 (Received March 16, 2007) which shows building envelopes on each Lot within the development consistent with this standard. The applicant's narrative states that the proper perimeter front and rear yard setbacks of 15 feet on all dwellings in this zone will be met, consistent with this standard. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for fire walls; The applicant's narrative states that 3-foot side yard setbacks will be used on all internal side yards, subject to compliance to firewall standards. Provided dwellings associated with these reduced side yard setbacks meet the UBC requirements for fire walls, the proposed setbacks are consistent with this standard. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate that this requirement is met during the building permit process. In addition, at the April 16th hearing of the Planning Commission, the PC found that it is within the Commission's authority to decide street side yard setbacks on a case- by-case basis where safety is not an issue. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided The applicant's architectural plan (C6.1) and narrative (pages 10 andll) describe interior front and rear yard setbacks of 10 to 14 feet and a 20-foot minimum garage setback for all lots,consistent with these standards. Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. The proposed street side yard setbacks shown in the architectural plans (Sheet C6.1) as being three (3) feet for all units may not comply with the 10-foot base zone standard for street side yard setbacks. However, the applicant submitted a supplemental site plan((12.1 that shows building envelopes and 10-foot street side yard setbacks for corner lots 8, 15, 16,and 23. The supplemental site plan also shows building envelopes of approximately 20 feet in width for the corner lots.However, the architectural plans only show plans for 24-foot wide units. A telephone call on March 21, 2007, the applicant's representative confirmed that the applicant intends to build within the twenty-foot envelope shown on the supplemental site plan.Therefore,the proposed street sideyard setbacks are consistent with the base zone standard. FINDING: The base zone standards related to the previously discussed criteria have not been met, but can be met with the following conditions. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 12 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2037-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • CONDITION: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that the dwellings with reduced 3-foot side yard setbacks meet the UBC requirements for fire walls. PD Conceptual Plan Requirements: 18.350.090 The applicant shall submit the following: A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include a descnption of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The applicant's narrative includes a Project Description. The planned development process is required to accommodate the proposed private street that serves more than six dwellings and the sub-standard lot sizes averaging 1,926 square feet,where the R-12 zone requires 3,050 square feet. In exchange for flexibility of the applicable standards under the PD process, the applicant proposes resident benefits including the two pocket parks of 3,917 and 10,000 square feet, a landscaped pedestrian path/open space of 11,665 square feet, and retention of a significant oak tree. A development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed. According to the applicant's supplemental narrative (March 13,2007),the applicant proposes an unphased construction schedule to be initiated as soon as building permits can be obtained from the City The schedule anticipates building 6-8 units at a time.Depending on the market,the construction phase will last from 18 to 24 months. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of the planned development. According to the applicant's supplemental narrative, the applicant proposes to put all the units up for sale. This however,does not preclude leasing or rental of the units,as is the case with any residential home. A narrative statement presenting information,a detailed description of which is available from the Director. The narrative statement for the proposal was included with the application materials. A supplemental narrative was submitted on March 13,2007. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the conceptual development plan,data,and narrative shall include the following information,the detailed content of which can be obtained from the Director. Existing site conditions, A site concept, A grading concept, A landscape concept,A sign concept and A copy of all existing or proposed restrictions or covenants. The applicant has submitted all of the required information except for proposed restrictions and covenants. The applicant states that these will be.provided at a latter time upon establishment of the Home Owners Association. A condition of approval shall require the applicant to provide the City with a copy of any proposed restrictions or covenants. FINDING: The planned development conceptual plan criteria have not been fully met, but can be met with the following condition. CONDITION: Prior to final plat,the applicant shall provide the city with a copy of the restrictions and covenants for the development project. PD Approval Criteria: 18.350.100 Specific planned development approval criteria. The Commission shall make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with conditions, the concept plan. The Commission shall make findings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430, shall be met; WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 13 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • The applicant has applied to subdivide the property concurrently with the planned development approval;therefore, all subdivision cntena must be satisfied. Compliance with the subdivision approval cntena is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 18.430. The application has met or can be conditioned such that the subdivision provisions are satisfied. Therefore,this criterion is satisfied. • Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this section. In each case,the applicant must provide findings to justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed in Subsection 3 below. The developer may choose to provide or the Commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below, density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district. The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10% as an incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/or site variation incorporated into the development. These factors must make a substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which the Commission may approve according to the following: • A maximum of 3% is allowed for the provision of undeveloped common space; • A maximum of 3% is allowed for landscaping; streetscape development; developed open spaces, plazas and pedestrian pathways and rerated amenities; recreation area development; and/or retention of existing vegetation; • A maximum of 3% is allowed for creation of visual focal points; use of existing physical amenities such as topography, view, and sun/wind orientation; • A maximum of 3% quality of architectural quality and style; harmonious use of materials; innovative building orientation or building grouping; and/or vaned use of housing types. The proposed 27-lot density does not meet the density established for the underlying zoning district (max=22/min 17) as shown later in this report in the Density Computations section (page 23). However, the applicant has requested a density bonus as allowed above. The applicant's Narrative (page 3) is contradictory in that it claims three bonus critena are met, yet specifically,requests only a 6% density bonus. Staff finds that the applicant's proposal meets bonus criteria#2 for the provision of developed open spaces,_pedestrian pathways, and retention of existing vegetation (3%), and #3 for the creation of a visual-focal point and the use of an existing physical amenity with the retention of the oak tree (3%). The applicant's ppr_oposal does not include undeveloped open space or architectural quality and style to earn any additional bonus.-Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission may further authonze a density bonus of 6%,or one additional unit (.06 x 22 = 1.32 lot). Chapter 18.730,Exceptions to Development Standards; No exceptions are requested with this application Chapter 18.795,Visual Clearance Areas; Visual clearance areas must be shown on revised plat. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; Meets standards, but Commission may wish to augment. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements; Meets standards Chapter 18.705,Access, Egress and Circulation; and Sight Distance and TVF&R approval required for access. Chapter 18.780, Signs. Application for detailed sign is required for proposed monuments. Sign compliance agreement required. Complete findings for each of the above guideline chapters can be found below under their respective chapter headings. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: Relationship to the natural and physical environment: The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 14 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • The subject site slopes gentl from the northeast to the southwest. The single non-hazardous tree, a large 46-inch DBH white oak, is identified for preservation within an 8,558 square foot open space. In general, the applicant has sited the proposed streets and building locations to preserve the natural features of the site, consistent with this standard. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; The slopes on the subject site are gentle and would not give concern for slumping or sliding. There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; The proposed subdivision in the R-12 zone is subject to the setback provision of the zone. As allowed by the applicable setback standards, adequate distance between on-site and off-site buildings for light and air circulation and for fire protection will be ensured. The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions,where possible; and The site is located on a southwest facing gentle slope. The density of the proposed dwellings limits the opportunity for orientation to the sun and wind directions. Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790,Tree Removal The applicant has submitted a Tree Plan prepared by David Halstead, a certified arborist. The report includes an inventory and identification of all trees on site over 6" in diameter. Tracts C is proposed to protect the significant 45-inch DBH white oak, the single tree proposed to be retained. The report also includes tree protection measures. Staff concludes that, with the Planned Development design and implementation of the prescribed protection measures,the white oak will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, e.g., between single-family and multi- family residential, and residential and commercial uses; Adjacent uses to the subject site include multi-family dwelling units to the north, single family to the north and south, and commercial uses to the south, west and east. The applicant's proposed buffering and screening as indicated on the Landscape Plan (Sheet L1) and in the narrative, is consistent with this standard. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: • The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier, • The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; • The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; • The required density of the buffering; and • Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. The existing commercial uses to the west, south and east are likely to have the most impact on proposed lots 7, 17 through 23 24 and 25. Proposed lots 7, 24 and 25 border commercial parking lots. The applicant has proposed 6- foot walls/fences,buffering, and landscaping to mitigate for these impacts. However,the greatest impact to the proposed development and to proposed lots 17 through 23 in particular will be the Raz Transportation service yard to the west. The applicant proposes a 4-foot high masonry wall and a 4-foot landscaping bed in addition to the buffer provided by the proposed private street. Dust and noise will be the main impacts to the development. Even though the landscaping and screening standards have otherwise been met, the Commission may consider increasing the screening to further mitigate for the bus noise and dust. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas storage areas, parking lots and-mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following _factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a) What needs to be screened; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c) Whether the screening needs to be year- round. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006.00010) PAGE 15 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • There are no specific service areas storage areas, parking lots or mechanical devices proposed with this development. Therefore,this standard does not apply. Privacy and noise: Non-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; Private outdoor area -- multi -family use: Shared outdoor recreation areas - - multi-family use: These criteria relate to non-residential or multi-family structures and are not applicable to the proposed single- family development. Therefore,these standards do not apply. Access and circulation: The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; The proposed private streets (Tracts B and G) are paved 20 to 24 feet wide, respectively, with occasional bulb-outs for street parking. The plan shows a 5-foot wide walkway on one side of tracts B and G in easements on adjoining lots,consistent with the City Engineer's standards for private streets serving more than six units. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue commented on the subject proposal. The comments are included in their entirety at the end of this report. The applicant is conditioned later in this report to revise the preliminary plat to meet any applicable TVF&R standards. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. The Transportation Plan shows a bike and pedestrian way adjacent to the site on Highway 99W, improvement of which have been conditioned in the Streets and Utilities section of this report. Landscaping and open space: Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (4) and (5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development will preserve approximately 25% of the subject site in open space in proposed Tracts A, C, D, and E. However, based on the information submitted, staff calculates that a more accurate figure would be 18%. In addition, each lot will be required to maintain a minimum of 20% of the lot in landscaping.Staff's calculation, based on the information submitted shows that each lot will be approximately 35% landscaped. Therefore, the applicant's proposal accounts for greater than 20% of the total site area to be landscaped,consistent with this standard. Public transit: Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: • The location of other transit facilities in the area; and • The size and type of the proposed development The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: • Awaiting shelter, • A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and • Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area This site abuts Hwy 99W, a public transit route. The proposed development includes a 5-foot concrete sidewalk connection from the internal private street to the public sidewalk on Hwy 99W. Bus stops for westbound travel are located 400 feet east and 600 feet west of the sidewalk access connection y on Hwy 99W. Bus stops eastbound are located 600 feet east and 400 feet west. The proposal is consistent with this standard. Si ns: A sign concept is proposed with this application. However, no specific sign design is proposed. Any future signage will require a sign permit in compliance with the sign code. Therefore, standards for signs do not apply to this application. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 16 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Par All kin : ngg and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18-.765; Up to 50% of required off-street_parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking rots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. According to the applicant's narrative, parking for the proposed single-family attached and detached dwellings will be in a single space in garages and a second space in dnveways in front of garages. Additionally, nine parking spaces are proposed in three locations within the planned development off of the pnvate streets. Athough the applicant has shown an additional 5 spaces off of the public street, these will not be allowed in the proposed configuration but will be made up as parallel spaces along the public street, consistent with this standard. Drainage: All drainageprovisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.775, and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Storm drainage complies, or will be conditioned to comply with applicable City of Tigard and Clean Water Services (CWS) requirements. For a more detailed discussion of storm drainage, see the discussion of compliance with the requirement of Chapter 18.810 later in this report. Floodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The subject site is between 250-feet and 240-feet elevation. The nearest floodplain is approximately 1/4 mile south of the subject site at elevation 170.Therefore,this standard does not apply. Shared Open Space: Requirements or shared open space: Where the open space is designated on the plan as common open space the following applies: • The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded with the Director, and • The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods: By dedication to the City as publicly-owned and maintained as open space. Open space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable to it with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and maintenance limitations; By leasing or conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation, home association or other legal entity, with the City retaining the development rights to the property. The terms of such lease or other instrument of conveyance must include provisions suitable to the City Attorney for guaranteeing the following: • The continued use of such land for the intended purposes; • Continuity of property maintenance; • When appropriate,the availability of funds required for such maintenance; • Adequate insurance protection; and • Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise. By any method which achieves the objectives set forth in Subsection 2 above of this section. The applicant proposes that the open space tracts indicated on the,preliminary plat, be conveyed to the proposed homeowner's association. The use and maintenance of these areas is generally addressed in CC&R's. The applicant has not submitted CC&R's but has been conditioned to do so earlier in this report. FINDING: The planned development approval criteria have all been met. However, the Commission may wish exercise its discretion to authorize a density bonus to allow an additional lot and/or require additional screening and/buffering from neighboring commercial impacts. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 17 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • 18.380 - (ZONE CHANGES): Standards for Making Quasi-Judicial Decisions: A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi- judicial zoning map amendment shallbe based on all of the following standards: Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; The Development Code implements the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Planned developments (PD overlay designations) are permitted in all districts when they meet the applicable criteria of the Development Code. This criterion is satisfied. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and According to the analysis in this report, all applicable standards in the code are met or can be conditioned to be met. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. There is no change in circumstances or inconsistencies to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map that warrants a zone change from the underlying zone. The underlying zoning remains in effect for allowable uses, density, and other general requirements. Specific deviations are requested and authorized within the planned development overlay, as set forth in this staff report. A zone change application is necessary to place the PD overlay designation on the subject site. This criterion, as related to a mistake,inconsistency or change,is inapplicable. FINDING: The proposal satisfies the criteria for a zone change to place the Planned Development Overlay zoning onto the subject property. 18.430 - (SUBDIVISIONS): Approval criteria: The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; It is feasible that with appropriate conditions, the proposed plat can be made to comply with the zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; The applicant has provided documentation of a plat name reservation (White Oak Village) with Washington County, approved May 31,2006. Therefore,this standard is met. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and SW 74th Avenue is the only street adjacent to the subject site. The applicant's proposed public and private street design is consistent with the alignment of SW 74th Avenue and with the general direction of the future streets plan that will eventually connect the proposed 74`h extension to SW 78`1 Avenue. The proposed public street extension includes a 46-foot right-of-way, which is less that the standard local street width of 54 feet. Therefore, as a condition of approval,the applicant has been required to submit a revised site plan showing the improvement of the full 54-foot right-of-way along the western extent of the proposed street. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant's plan set and narrative provide an explanation for all common improvements. Therefore, this standard has been met. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 18 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • FINDING: Staff finds that the subject proposal satisfies the applicable criteria for subdivisions. 18.510 - (RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Single-family attached and detached residential units are permitted in the R-12 zone. Planned Developments are permitted in all districts. The proposed average lot size of 1,926 square feet can be permitted under the PD standards. Development Standards: Section 18.510.050.B states that Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below: The subject site is predominantly designated R-12, Medium Density Residential, with a long access strip leading to Hwy 99W zoned C-G. In this application, the applicant has applied for a planned development overlay over the subject site. TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-12 PD STANDARD Proposed SF DU** Minimum Lot Size NA/ - Detached unit 1,926 sq.ft. 3,050 sq.ft. Consistent - Attached unit avg/unit per unit with density - Duplexes in 18.715 - Boarding,lodging,rooming house Average Lot Width Approx. 28 ft. None NA/18.715 Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 10/14/15 ft 15 ft. NA/Base Zone (P) - Side facing street on corner&through lots 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. - Side yard 3 ft. 5 ft. [1] NA/UBC - Rear yard 13/15 ft*. 15 ft. NA/Base Zone (P) - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district NA 30 ft. 30 ft. - Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 20 ft. 20/8 ft.[3] Maximum Height 30 ft. (to peak) 35 ft. NA Maximum Lot Coverage[2] 80% 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement 20% 20% 20% [1]Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. • [2]Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]Minimum setback for garages/minimum setback for garages for attached sfd facing a private street with required off-street parking met. * Housing types A,D/B,E/Perimeter;A,B,D,E/Perimeter ** Single-family dwelling unit (P)Perimeter FINDINGS: Since the proposed development is a Planned Development some of the base zone standards can be altered to fit a specific design (see discussion in the Planned Development section, above). Lot size, width and depth are governed only by the density computations chapter in TDC 18.715. As reviewed in that section,the proposed 27-unit development is inconsistent and has been conditioned to a maximum 23 units. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan that specifies the general building envelopes and associated setbacks for each lot. The setback requirements are consistent with the planned development and base zone standard, where applicable. Height standard of the base zone does not apply under the planned development criteria. However the-30-foot (to peak) proposed height is less than the maximum base zone development standard height. The maximum lot coverage and minimum landscape requirements have been met as proposed. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 19 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Therefore, the applicant's proposed development, as conditioned for density, otherwise meets the development standards for the R-12 residential zone as allowed under the planned development provisions. 18.705 - (ACCESS AND EGRESS): *PD Guideline Chapter 18.705.030 (C)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 combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title. No joint access is proposed. Individual access from private streets will be utilized. This criterion is inapplicable. 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. All lots within the development have direct access to private streets,consistent with this standard. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following 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 wily if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant's.proposal includes sidewalks along the new public street and along the proposed interior private streets. In addition, the applicant proposes a 5-foot wide concrete pedestrian path the length of Tract A from the Tract B private street to the Highway 99W right-of-way. This path would be otherwise required to meet the City's connectivity standards as reviewed in the Streets and Utilities section of this report. A light pole is proposed for the private street access to the path in addition to and two low-level lights that are proposed along the approximately 500 foot length of the path. The Tigard Police Department reviewed the proposal and raised concerns that the proposed lights do `not appear adequate to support efforts of crime revention. Tigard Police would support further emphasis on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design OPTED) elements. It is therefore suggested the developer revisit the lighting plan to include better enhancement of ghting along the approximate 500 path. The revised lighting plan should be adequate enough to maintain consistent levels of illumination from end to end. Lighting levels should be similar to what is typically available today in most public areas such as parking lots in busy commercial areas. It appears the pedestnan path does not border any light sensitive residential areas. To that end, illumination levels can be increased to support better visibility and safety to the users without any negative impact to neighboring areas." According, as a condition of approval,the applicant shall submit a revised Signing and Lighting Plan that specifies lighting sufficient to meet the performance standards provided by the Tigard Police Department. Inadequate or hazardous access. Applications 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 provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue submitted a comment letter describing one issue with the proposal wherein the fire district does not endorse the design concept if twenty feet of unobstructed roadway width is not provided. As the proposed private street is 20-foot paved, it is consistent with this standard provided it is properly signed to prevent parking on the street. 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 City, the applicant will be required to mitigate for any safety or neighborhood traffic management (NTM) impacts deemed applicable by the City-Engineer. This may include, but will not be limited to, the construction of a vehicle turnaround on the site to eliminate the need for a vehicle to back out onto the roadway. Access for each of the proposed lots will be from the proposed private streets. Neither of these streets are an arterial or collector. Therefore,this standard does not apply. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 20 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Access Management 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. Lancaster Engineerin submitted a preliminary sight distance certification for the intersection of 74th Avenue and Spruce Street, dated J i une 16, 2006. The posted speed on Spruce Street is 25 mph, requiring a minimum sight distance of 280 feet in each direction. The measured sight distance is 361 feet to the east and 393 feet to the west. The sight distance at this intersection is adequate. The project has three intersections of private streets with the proposed east-west public street. The applicant's engineer shall provide final sight distance certification for these three private street intersections upon completion of the street improvements and prior to issuance of building permits. 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 be 150 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. This standard does not apply because the proposal does not access to either a collector or an arterial. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The proposed private streets are 166 feet apart, measured centerline to centerline,thereby meeting this criterion. 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 8.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; The proposed private street, Tracts "B" and "G" are 25 to 28 feet wide with 5-foot wide sidewalks on one side, consistent with the City Engineer's standards for private streets. According to the applicant's narrative, each detached single-family dwelling unit will be served by a 15-foot access with 10 feet of paving, consistent with this standard. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code; This will be ensured during the construction document review period. The individual homeowners through the homeowner's association and its CC&R's will maintain the access drives once the property is developed and sold. 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, aved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; • A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet;. • The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. The applicant proposes a private loop road. Otherwise, no access drives are proposed in excess of 150 feet. Therefore,this standard does not apply. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 21 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.20N-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • No driveways are proposed in excess of 200 feet in length. Therefore,this standard does not apply. Where permitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. The site is not adjacent to a collector or arterial. Therefore,this standard does not apply. Director's authority to restrict access. To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible,between neighboring developments or land uses; The applicant has provided a 5-foot wide pedestrian path within Tract "A" which connects the Tract "B" private street to the sidewalk on Highway 99W. However, the applicant's narrative did not address the connectivity standard in the Streets and Utilities chapter (see page 29, below),which requires connecting pathways to be in public easements for public use. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit a revised plat identifying a public access easement over the proposed Tracts "A" and "B extending from the proposed public street to Highway 99W, consistent with this standard. FINDING: All of the Access and Egress standards have not been met. However,with the following conditions of approval,the standards can be met. CONDITIONS: • Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall submit a letter from TVF&R stating that the proposed development is consistent with TVF&R standards. • Prior to issuance of building permits, and upon completion of the street improvements, the applicant's engineer shall provide final sight distance certification for the three private street intersections • Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised Signing and Lighting Plan that specifies lighting sufficient to meet the performance standards provided by the Tigard Police-DDepartment. 18.715 (DENSITY COMPUTATIONS): Density Calculation: 18.715.020 Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property to be developed: • All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; c. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. • All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; • All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available,the following formulas may be used: Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; Multi-family development: allocate 15% of gross acreage. • All land proposed for private streets; and • A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. Calculating maximum number of residential units. 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. Calculating minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in Subsection B above by 80% (0.8). WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 22 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • The net development area is determined by subtracting from the gross area the land needed for public and private streets as well as areas for sensitive lands. In this case, as a planned unit develop in the R 12 zone, the minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet is used to calculate density. No portion of the property is identified as sensitive lands. Therefore,the net is determined by subtracting the land needed for public and private streets. However,pursuant to TDC 18.120.030.89.c, Tax Lot 1700 is defined as a flag lot. Pursuant to TDC 18.730.050.E.2, the pole of a flag lot is not included in the net buildable area for the purposes of determining density since the pole can only be used for access and is not functionally proximate to the buildable area. Therefore in addition to the public and private street dedications,the approximately 6,784 square foot (16 feet x 424 feet) pole area must also be subtracted from the gross lot area. The applicant provided the following density computation: 1 Project Acreage =2.387 Acres (please refer to the existing conditions plan C1.1) 2 Project Sq.Ft. = 103,977.72 s.f. 3 Minus ROW =28,585 s.f. 4 Net Dev.Area = 75,392.72 5 Max:Div. 3,050 s.f. =24.72 6 Min: (24.72 x.8) = 19.776 Lots As the narrative states on page 12 &13,this PUD is taking advantage of the density bonuses. As noted,we meet 3 of the 3% bonus criteria. Meaning that there is a total of 9% availability for bonus density. Meaning we are allowed to take 100% of our density plus an additional 9% (or a 1.09 multiplier). 1.09 x 24.72 lots =26.945 lots Staff's computation is as follows: GROSS LOT AREA 103,977 square feet (2.387 acres x 43,560 square feet/acre) Flag Pole -6,784 Public/Private Streets - 28,585 square feet NET DEVELOPABLE AREA 68,608 square feet NUMBER OF LOTS: 68,608 square feet/3,050 square feet/lot =22.49 lots Maximum density 22.49 lots Minimum density(22.49 x.80 =17.99 lots) Density Bonus 1.32 Total lots 23.81 (round down to 23 lots) FINDING: In the R-12 zone, as shown above, the maximum number of residential lots is 22. The minimum, at 80% is 17 lots. In addition, as allowed in the PD standards and reviewed above, a 6% density bonus can be granted (.06 x 22 lots = 1.32 lots) adding one additional lot totaling 23. The applicant has proposed a 27-lot subdivision, four more lots than the maximum allowed. Therefore, the proposed 27-rot development must be conditioned to not exceed 23 lots. CONDITION: Prior to site work,the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows a maximum of 23 lots. 18.725- (ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS) These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. • Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340 28-070) apply. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 23 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090 apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. This is a detached and attached single-family residential project,which is permitted within planned developments in the R-12 zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be met. However,ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the Qty of Tigard's' Code Enforcement Officer. FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. 18.745- (LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING): *PD Guideline Chapter Establishes standards for landscaping, buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. The R-12 zoning district has a minimum requirement of 20% of the site to be landscaped. Section 18.745.040. states that all development projects fronting on a public street, private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length after the adoption oT this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040C. The applicant has provided a Landscape plan (Sheet L1) that includes the planting of street trees which are included on the City of Tigard Street Tree List along the proposed public and private streets,consistent with this standard. Buffering and Screening- Section 18.745.050 Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter(Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). Adjacent uses to the subject site include multi-family dwelling units to the north, single family to the north and south, and commercial uses to the south, west and east. The applicant's proposed buffering and screening as indicated on the Landscape Plan (Sheet L1) and in the narrative,is consistent with this standard. FINDING: The applicable requirements of the Landscaping and Screening chapter have been met. 18.765- (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS): *PD Guideline Chapter This Chapter is applicable for development projects when there is new construction, expansion of existing use, or change of use in accordance with Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements. FINDING: The proposed project will create 23 lots for single-family attached and detached dwellings. Table 18.765.2 requires that each single-family detached unit have one off-street arking space and that each attached dwelling have 1.75 spaces for a three bedroom unit. The pro osalpanticipates development of single-family attached and detached housing, all of which would include garages and garage aprons with a 20-foot setback for off-street parking,consistent with this standard. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 24 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • 18.780- (SIGNS): PD Guideline Chapter Chapter 18.780 regulates the placement, number and design criteria for signage. The applicant's narrative and plan set show a conceptual plan for monument entry signs for the proposed development located within a pocket park at the beginning of the development: Any future signage will be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780.In addition,there has been a proliferation of sign violations from new subdivisions. In accordance with policy adopted by the Director's Designee, all new subdivisions must enter into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. FINDING: To expedite enforcement of sign violations,a sign compliance agreement will be required. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 18.790- (TREE REMOVAL): A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper,which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has submitted a Tree Plan for the proposed White Oak Village planned development and an arborist report prepared by David Halstead, a certified arborist. Staff has reviewed-the applicant's tree plan and finds that the plan contains all four of the required items, and, is therefore, acceptable. The report includes a survey (Sheet C1.2) with a summary describing 43 total trees on site over 6" in diameter. Thirty-one (31) trees are less than 12 inches DBH. Eleven_(11) trees greater than 12 inches DBH are deemed hazardous. One tree greater than 12 inches DBH is preservable. The roposal is to remove all trees except for the white oak. Pursuant to li)C 18.790.030.B.2, no mitigation is required.proposal arborist report includes preservation measure for the white oak. FINDING: The tree removal standards are met and compliance will be ensured through the following applicable conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: • 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. A note shall be placed on the final set of lans 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. • Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. The following note shall be placed on the final construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to,the following: Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code;and Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. • 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 b 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. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 25 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • . Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arbonst has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through building construction, 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, lon -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. 18.795- (VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS): PD Guideline Chapter Clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height, measured from m om the top of the curb, or where no curb exists from the street center grade, except the trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided ail branches below eight feet are removed. For arterial streets the visual clearance shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. FINDING: The applicant's narrative states that the visual clearance is met as proposed on the Site Plan (Sheet 2.10). However, the Site Plan does not show the visual clearance areas at the intersection of the proposed private street and the proposed public street. Visual clearance for the proposed intersections of private and public streets shall be shown on a revised plat. Visual clearance for driveways intersecting the proposed private and public streets shall be shown on construction drawings for approvaf during building permitting. CONDITIONS: Prior to final plat, visual clearance areas for the proposed intersections of private and public streets shall be shown on a revised plat. Prior to issuance of building permits, visual clearance areas for driveways intersecting the proposed private and public streets shall be shown on construction drawings. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS: CHAPTER 18.810 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 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 an arterial street to have a 128-foot right-of-way width and a variable width paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking,sidewalks and bikeways,underground utilities,street lighting,storm drainage,and street trees. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 26 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • This site lies adjacent to SW Highway,99, which is classified as a 7-lane Arterial on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present,there is approximately 100 feet of ROW according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The standard- section is 128 feet. Therefore, the applicant should dedicate additional ROW to provide 64 feet from centerline to account for remaining right-of-way required north of the centerline adjacent to the subject property. SW Highway 99 is currently improved to the 5-lane section. In order to mitigate the impact from this development,the applicant should enter into a restrictive covenant for future street improvements. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a local street to have a 54 right-of- way width and 32-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 will have access from SW 74th Avenue, which is classified as a local street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. The development will extend SW 74th Avenue to the west to serve this development, requiring a 54 foot ROW dedication. The applicant's narrative states they are proposing to construct 2/3 of a public street. However, it appears they are proposing to construct 2/3 of a skinny street that is only appropriate when the vehicle trips per day are expected to be less than 500. The applicant provided no data to support this request and did not address the skinny street option criteria. This development will generate approximately 270 trips and with future development to the west and any through trips, the skinny street criterion will be exceeded. There-fore, the applicant will be required to provide the standard local street as shown in figure 18.810.4.A. Along the portion of the SW 74th Avenue extension that abuts Tax Lot 1S136DB01100 the applicant will be required to construct the half-street section to the south of centerline plus a minimum of 8 feet of additional paved width north of centerline. This provides a minimum of 24 feet of paved width and 35 feet of ROW. The applicant shall construct the full street improvement,as shown in Figure 18.810.4.A,to the west of Tax Lot 1S136DB01100,providing 54 feet of ROW,32 feet paved with,sidewalks and planter strips. The head in parking off of a public street will not be allowed as it presents a safety hazard on backing into the street.Parallel parking is allowed along public streets on both sides where the paved width is 32 feet. The applicant's plans indicate the construction of a Washington County eyebrow corner where 74th Avenue will transition from a north-south street to an east-west street. A portion of the proposed improvements are on the adjacent property, which is owned by the applicant, who will have to dedicate ROW before the PH permit will be issued. The applicant's plans also indicate the construction of rolled curb in the public ROW. This will not be allowed as the City's engineering design standards only provide for a rolled curb in cases where a cul-de-sac design must allow trucks to mount the curb. The applicant shall revise the construction plans to meet the City Design Standard Drawing 126 for Curb and Gutter. The applicant's plans and narrative also indicate they will be providing a minimum of a 24-foot wide paved section along SW 74th Avenue from the site to SW Spruce Street. Two-way access requires a 24-foot paved section,pursuant to Table 18.705.2. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer,the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant has provided a future street plan that shows the extension of the proposed east-west public street from the site to SW 78th Avenue. The submittal included a proposed profile of the extension,thereby meeting this criterion. Street Alignment 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 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. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 27 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • 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 or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The applicant has proposed the extension of SW 74th Avenue to the west through their development along with a future street plan that will allow for a future connection to SW 78th Avenue. The full street connection spacing between Spruce Street and the proposed east-west street is approximately 575 feet. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street(except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The proposed public street grade is less than 3%,thereby meeting this criterion. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.T states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments,mobile home parks,and multi-family residential developments. The applicant has proposed a private street loop and a private street to serve two residential lots and a tree lot. The streets are required to be placed in private tracts. The sidewalks, which must be 5 foot in width, not counting curb width,can be placed in a private easement. The applicant shall revise the private street detail to show a full 5 foot wide sidewalk in addition to the curb. The applicant may choose to revise the plans to place the sidewalk in an easement,rather than a tract. The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by.it/them. In addition, the applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) alo with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street(s). These CX_8&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Qty prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with th due regard to providing adequate building sites for e 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. The applicant proposes to continue SW 74th through the subject site to the property line as an east/west extension. Future development on adjacent parcels may continue the street through to SW 78t reducing the size of the existing block The proposed private streets are precluded from continuing south to wa 99W, an arterial, or north to SW Spruce Street because of limited access, and existing development constraints�erefore,the proposed development is consistent with this standard. 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 notpossible. 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. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 28 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • The applicant has proposed a 5-foot pedestrian path through Tract A to connect the proposed private street with Highway 99W. However, the applicant's narrative does not address this connectivity standard and its requirement for public easements for.public use of connecting pathways. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised plat identifying a public access easement over the proposed Tracts "A" and "B" extending from the proposed public street to High-way 99W, consistent with this standard. 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. All of the proposed lots are less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of 3,020 square feet. Therefore,this standard does not apply. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit,the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. All proposed lots have a minimum of 27 feet of frontage,consistent with this standard. 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's plans indicate they will be constructing sidewalk and planter strip along the south side of the public street. Miey must also construct sidewalk and planter strip.along the north side of the public street west of Tax Lot 1S136DB01100,where the full street improvements are required,pursuant to TDC Table 18.810.1 The applicant's plans indicate they will be constructing sidewalk on one side of the private streets. The sidewalk must be a full five feet in width,not including the curb,pursuant to TDC Table 18.810.1 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. The applicant's plans indicate they will be extending the ublic sewer from the existing sewer at the south end of their property. The plans shall be revised to provide a manhole at each terminus point of the sewer line. The applicant shall also provide a stub to the west at the manhole at the southwest corner of the site for future development to the west. 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 Qrovisions 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 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 dras a facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold in old 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). WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 29 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING OOMMISSION • • 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 applicant has proposed on-site detention. Because the applicant is proposing to discharge the stormwater into MOTs s stormwater system in Highway 99 they will need to obtain an ODOT Drainage Permit prior to issuance of any City of Tigard permits. An ODOT Miscellaneous Permit will also be required for all work in the highway ROW. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for theluture extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. Highway. 99W is identified as a bicycle facility. The arterial is already improved with a striped bicycle lane along the subject site's frontage. 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. The arterial is already improved with a 5-foot striped bicycle lane along the subject site's frontage. 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 utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above,and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer,shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the 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 no existing overhead utility lines along the project frontages. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) provides service in this area. The applicant is required to obtain permits from TVWD for the water line extension prior to the issuance of the City of Tigard PFI permit. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 30 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management(SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 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. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition,the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. Because the applicant is proposing to discharge the stormwater into ODOT's stormwater system in Highway 99 they will need to obtain an ODOT Drainage Permit prior to issuance of any City of Tigard permits. An ODOT Miscellaneous Permit will also be required for all work in the highway ROW. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed to ensure that it is operationally sound that the landscaping components are properly maintained. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed the City will inspect the facility and make note of any roblems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at anytime during the maintenance period,the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Grading 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. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the al grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. An NPDES 1200-C permit will be required prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PH permit. Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to approval of the final plat. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 31 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Address Assignments: 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 pnor to final plat approval. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. Survey Requirements The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates -NAD 83 (911] on two monuments with a tie to the City's global ositioning system (GPS) geodetic control networc(GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by. • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's 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 NAIL 83 (91). 18.390-(DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY): SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. As shown in the applicant's Tentative Plat ("Tract A" Water Quality/Access/Park) and Narrative (Impact Statement, Parks System), the applicant specifically provides for dedicated open space and pedestrian connection to transit on Hwy 99W. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Effective July 1,2006 the TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $3,020. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's totaling approximately $69,460 ($3,020 x 23 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total-TIF fees cover 32 percent of-the impact on major street improvements cit w1ide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $217,062 ($69,460 divided by.32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact,is considered as unmitigated impact. The public and private streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the need for these streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for the internal streets is created by the development, the impact of the development is directly proportional to the cost of dedication and construction of the internal streets and is not considered as mitigation for the development impact. Mitigation Value Assessment: Off site .improvements to SW 74th Avenue include 24 feet of paved surface between SW Spruce Street and the subject site, a distance of approximately 575 feet. The applicant will be required to dedicate approximately 224 square feet (16 feet x 14 feet) of public street right-of- way for Hwy 99W valued at$3,360 (224 s.f.x$15.00/s.}.). WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 32 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • Full I act ($81,540-0.32 $217,062 Less 11 'Assessment ( 3 lots x$3,02 -$69,460 Public street right-of-way for Hwy 99W (approx.224 s.f.x$15.00/s.f. . -$3,360 Less mitigated values for 74th Street Improvements (approx. 500 l.f.x$100/1.f. -$50,000 Estimate of Unmitigated Impacts $94,242 FINDING: The applicant's proposed on-site right-of-way dedications and street improvements are required to address the standards of Chapter 18.810 and to allow the subdivision to function properly. The project requires minor off-site dedication of real property on Hwy 99W and includes improvements to SW 74th Avenue which is mitigation for the resulting transportation impacts. The value of these improvements is substantially less than the value of the hull--impact,thus justified. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Engineering Department provided comments and recommendations which have been incorporated into this report and recommended conditions of approval. The Tigard Police Department reviewed the proposal and had the following comments: Concerns are directed towards the "pedestrian path' that leads from the development to 99W. The plans noted only two "low level" lighting elements. That does not appear adequate to support efforts of crime prevention. Tigard Police would support further emphasis on CITED elements. It is therefore suggested the developer revisit the lighting plan to include better enhancement of lighting along the approximate 500'path. The revised lighting plan should be adequate enough to maintain consistent levels of illumination from end to end. Lighting levels should be similar to what is typically available today in most public areas such as parking_lots in busy commercial areas. It appears the pedestrian path does not border any light sensitive residential areas.To that end, illumination levels can be increased to support better visibility and safety to the users without any negative impact to neighboring areas. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation commented that they had reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. The Tualatin Valley Water District Administrative Offices commented that they had reviewed the proposal and have no objection to it. Oregon Department of Transportation did not submit comment. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the applicant's proposal based on the submitted PDF attachments and offered the following comments with regard to the final design of the proposal insofar as fire apparatus access and firefighting water supplies are concerned: 1) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS - ONE-OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more than 30 one- or two-family dwelling units, not less than two separate approved means of access shall be provided. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units and all are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems,a single access will be allowed. (IFC D107) While your_proposal meets this requirement, future development proposals will be required to provide additional fire apparatus access. 2) 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. ere 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 26 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. (IFC 503.2.1) The fire district does not endorse the design concept wherein twenty feet of unobstructed roadway width is not provided. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 33 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION • • • 3) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road,the minimum road width shall be 26 feet. (IFC D103.1) 4) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (IFC D103.6) 5) 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 60,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weighty.You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. (IFC D102.1) 6) 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. (IFC 503.2.4 &D103.3) 7) 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. (IFC B 105.1) 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. (IFC 508.5.4) 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. (IFC 1410.1 &1412.1) SECTION IX. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED Subdivision (SUB) 2006-00010/Planned Development Review (PDR) 2006-00003/Zone Change (ZON) 2007-00001 for White Oak Village Subdivision with the staff report as presented, the contions of approval, and three additional conditions incorporated above in the Conditions of Approval. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER PASSED: THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL,2007 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. 4/7■ David Walsh,Planning Co sion Vice President Dated this 2-7 day of April,2007. WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION(SUB2006-00010) PAGE 34 OF 34 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO.2007-02 BY THE PLANNING CX)MMISSION - PINE 1 1 I - I CITY of TIGARD _ I I - ST GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP SUB2006-00010 u) PDR2006-00003 ZON2007-00001 ,=SPRUCE ST WHITE OAK WINN VILLAGE I ) 0 0 o Q SUBDIVISION e. o w o 0 = Q o LEG END: = = 0 O = = = = ° - o sUB�r�cr Nr MI N SITE — MI W 6., isfl•RSILNN I__ IiO i 4/ 1r-- -- 1(F ` •., I F -- .�Q .. aONIIA D I MI i C'F r,„0 R0 • DURHAM IT i • :.I 1 Tigard Area Map • — N- IIIIIII• IIIIIIII • IIIIII / 0 80 160 240 320 400 Feet ST 1"-31 fee i 0 . 1114 TIGARD Information on this map is for general location only and .___/ should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 / I I (503)639.4171 http://vwvw.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Mar 7,2007;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR 3 sive Indi.oG/M l./Ie /o1 /8,3 rd.070. 9,�/S /, p Conn ytn.j /h¢p,,,„ /0lG'h l>ye79 c Y d //6/7 �C:' /r2/J..,,,y .'IL �/..,:e c9,4 l'Aase Sire ZeDG-boo,6 • :.r 4J ':,.....1.,..,:.,-;.).-.. rt;a-x:r.::.5r t4 ^d►.r,. +. . �,.Y_..i�$yti ^''i- ': r_�.�. ,r..-.�.'�. '�-. .` ',r�£a'gJt^�''``'�'t° ,r t-.,,:l'- - �'K"�n?.i • T • f t�R ,.,.1?- .z •.t : '7 :f.. .:\.: .r" .t .f.. i..., •1..�q r.y: y)t"�1i. t�" rl .i^ e •CIF• i 1 53..::. 1', J I' 1!i it '. t. C I t1" - r Y r . ' . . a. ;h: ,,�,;, ;s:•-r +:�� 4`a-t:':'"):,''� 'k• A. �i' .�';�' . ". 4.r, ,• t' yy��.. ,,,may u•+,�M, '` i • ! -.-,' T+T �,.^, ± ,r,", . .'M I S 1GI.,4 .i'.i._. '•., .rf "'L <�..; "'�' ifx-� >.s i b.11t•: _....`T1Q3!':Y {• i �� i;t Yr L: :4 .� a �_ 90-'4- :a {:•, r n a4..w.,,l•J;:fR 7y,l.t .... •ry'. F';';'-•171'42,". nc_.... ,r "',,'1:,. , J' _ z'r,,`--,� ,17∎'; S a -"3 ]. ".1. ✓ •'-�� `� J .. R _ .v-:4:.∎:8.'-'. .." a1, ',` ` ,\� ,,.n + n\.�V 4}° �l � yL �— ,� it_�t Y, m•>�l� a n, ;'''. ,�„;.'0' �� 1I sh 1', 1'j ! \, I 4.�, ti 4 {' PWm `Poift ti.� r' f ,. + .I ��, ` t:; : :! \1,It 1t ;a1 f f• / {• + a �t:� ” rJ '^WJ:` , S'a\ � �� - ` ,1 y ;t1 �'f,1a(�1/ • zMl�wF' Y999 Y . 1 -. ,.1✓ t tf . y�.a � \ tlh� � �l:' f. t' + f ` • '� •,�i,�'-'�p,� +,� ,:�4 b '" 5't .1�4 t t T" V{ i�,i�.:l� l • _tiCt)3 lcILY�fl \1\t �., a-' \ a,, i f n �"tt .IP i it 4t�?..5."}' gtWi I'U`A, TCyih('.1`t'.d ir. •?Q,1 •0`•Vi t , • S -. t 4. ‘...,:A- t ,: y ■ --,----14.--•; 4, .` i, xt.'S, `j, .,'_ .tJ . ,q A;. ,, ,f' 1.' 1 u• tI. • �. Yy. � _. .. .,. ;a+.•.� ...v...a:. ,�j,� .( _iT::ma 1`z.,s � •,�� tl;:t,�n "-���tt. .�• „I_, t �, {��,4t', � � ,�c� :/ C .�:' `_ "aA.•E.'4, ,r, +!.f r a\'... ..'f"',.`'a •'S'i ��"T,..• j) r --,., !" '•,t.\L' �,i. .. - %+ _ �. 0..3i _ '3:._a^1 �''A: 4.I `-, 'y. a} s1J Jf . 4.. h t:e•I.i`, �'` V d`l�Eed{� t� :'1•°tt�lt'a �'t :ir'r. f `'� \ 1jyt _t• ,• ♦ �. rrf i y�,` `b \l `. t 11,,,E \ `I V'it \,+,;Y \{!nt i ' j,,,:. } ry: .!•} .'', l'.§ %l t` 1,'r.' -�1. :.-l.e- l as ! :1i` ! t`�. F'1. tii_-. 1 }'•\•.•11.:,l 'd tr (•r;' ( ,'. r,• 1•, ,�1 ;,14T.,. �41•'� .1. 'Mo .!• 7N '1..,_ ..f l4 f(i+ 1'' 4' II M,.,4e:,A. :� f`-t, t... :A }•5,;,14 ,:'::.;,',:,i4, } Nit,. f lw• ".?-. p' i_, } t M •r a � {`t`'1RI1��' •�y ' V•mow 1'r.:-`, . i •(V.ect.M yo w,'.4 R �,t .1■. ! ;" ,r}. T' 'P ' . �,,.e• � 'ht... p ii .D, �,. 4 \ t .JIS .•'r' 1 •., �. .�a. -in-J'+t `I•\ yt \,,. ,S,: t•"\ -.V., y.f a',('\+r•♦.4", '•`':t•` t ? II '7' • � .v•.i�t\� 't,y', l' ywl ry Ay�, �1t -07l." tw�+:f t2�. t �" bu J.c, p."" '! .1,• c�"'''.'y •i ;..', i\.:' •,,, .4 -=-3.� �,t �.•••..,5"wyl }},, ,( A L4 7 4 �\4 �t' y�� , . Id�1'1f 3" tP� r j' s ,:771.1,.. , � 'I�� r: „.„■ 1111 I1 , ";� N �t .Y A ? ' �, fig.: .. ^�' a p_ �''' 4, �.j w k, 'el , `, ' a r�-`�♦ Fir r rr`, .'a..e. ..try I i .,1: .I i 1ti t^ :'- 1'^ ° } " t. r \4�a '� :"'kt�,�'. yi. 'ft. t."'"'L{ i.';''' t CS.� :r:'�'∎�'1.� •'...;:l. % .• \,; i;t( ,•;'1!1''.,1.',..,'•.ry1p 1'�� '.‘‘;'.4)i,ri.l •, w" ,i, rt •. ,,.7 L . '4..''''' �(rl'i�t $�'�. +1.. �., i.�*tQ+'f .., d� •t'�i'`., t,"�"a', �n ¢ I tt: �� ?ii})I, ��,.ld!� { ll r,k' \ m I•1 na•. ty.. ri4FJ� s� • ;{',r,, r ;: l�;t} 14 ''''••,\ .1W4t\.•t4.'alit` le- k ..I ': , f I a, N 9 '` ".1'.• t' fJ',y• �.> ti 4 ±„.. 4451 1�! d "°"r{ t s 1,:: ...• .i'yv + ':�. \�Z���t r,....41,,,,,^. Y`�. F.t _ '�r, ,*,! ? 7. . - n •,.-..'� ':u'• r., 2\r, ♦. ..;., t .. 'rw ..` • t` { t\ • f J .,, '; 44,,,! '4.!l6.r: ,J'a fr •*. + '�, ..-*�,,. '^ `. ..ter` �' i'`.'r. t. 1f L,' '� ..4:. kyt 7' - ( LLT..: ^"a ” w !■ � y' ..1. t r ct ''4'': >Y� �ry tW4 O F :t I t r!i�!+. A"7 a4' ,.lr; { '4:‘,.... +r.-:.i a' , +,. t•G•i j1;i ',MI enie� - • fi � � � Y! ti • 3t y t . -v.. �} i$q 4jY •;,i:• tip a '4t: �. 1� ' �: t \.. 1,;.. •>,• 1"Y;' i"` 1, �r, 'yi,iy h Ivy t tJ tJ t ry• \_ w,, . flu' rJ a iy k 4 ,4. '1 ,t• '■.r ,fy * \�.,t, t',�'+ tti...la' t ,•-+1,'r.47.,.."r .a., • ;y, 4 }t\ .. t"ir. II�N. � .YrY �'`. R. ,,'I' ''+,1--';'',.?,,' 1�i� I•, ,,i{a a .1 roa 3" 1R' r Y • s 1 .a \ !■ ' WFiite:0ar•Village ■y!t ,, �t� r„c . 4 �` ■ ..'Jo,...i.+`"',.•...vr,.. {.m..v.....; •4','�' ":'.'.l.:.l.:.Alirl�lPti . Y.. .;iC.,.�.J"._4<....r. .P. "A ."'A� . ,i ... i. .• • • ATTACHMENT TO SUB2006-00010/PDR2006-00001/ZON2007-00001 WHITE OAK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION "SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS" These supplemental findings are adopted as part of Final Order No. 2007-02 by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. 1. Condition of Approval no. 1 requires the applicant to submit a revised site plan that shows a maximum of 27 units. These supplemental findings and conclusions will explain why the planning commission has determined the net developable density to be 27 units in contrast to the recommendation of 23 units in the staff report dated April 2,2007. The staff report at page 24,subtracted the flag pole area (6,784 square feet,) containing a public pedestrian easement and water giinlity area from the net developable area. 2. At the continued hearing on April 16,2007,the applicant submitted evidence into the record regarding recent planning commission subdivision decisions which demonstrated how the city has routinely interpreted TDC 18.715.020 (A)(3) (right-of-way dedications) and TDC 18.730.050(E)(flag pole area) in determining the net development area. 3. At the continued hearing, staff provided evidence that there are two types of flagpoles: The type in Kramer Meadows is part of the rectangular-shaped lot. The other type of flagpole extends from a rectangular-shaped lot,forming a panhandle. Staff explained the City subtracts the net developable area from the latter but does not subtract the flagpole from the former because when the flagpole is part of the lot it can be used for development purposes unlike an extended flag that only can be used for access. In the case of White Oak Village, the flag is an access pole and is usually subtracted from the net developable density. However,staff provided testimony that the flagpole provision is a specific regulation that only affects pan handle lots. The City's density calculation ordinance is a general regulation, applicable to all types of subdivision lots,regardless of their configuration. Staff concluded that there is no rule or City interpretation on whether the density regulation takes precedence over the more specific flag pole regulation. Therefore,it is ambiguous on whether the flag pole ordinance controls and the pole must be subtracted from the net developable area or whether the density calculation ordinance controls where only dedicated right-of-way is subtracted from net developable density. Staff testified there is enough ambiguity between these two provisions that the more general density calculation regulation should control, rather than the more limited flag pole regulation. . 4. The planning commission is persuaded there is ambiguity between the flag pole density provision and the PD density calculation regulation. The planning commission is persuaded that because the density calculation regulation is the more general one that applies in more instances than the specific flag pole regulation (which only applies in those instances where there is a panhandle),it is reasonable to apply the more general density calculation regulation to resolve the ambiguity. Page 1 of 2 • • 5. In regards to the density calculation ordinance,staff provided testimony that in the other subdivision decisions submitted into the record,it subtracted dedicated right-of-way. In the case of the pedestrian pathway requirement for White Oak Village, it is an easement and not a dedicated right-of-way. Staff provided evidence that in other subdivision decisions,the City did not subtract the pedestrian pathway easement because it was not a right-of-way under TDC 18.715.020 (A)(3). The planning commission finds this evidence persuasive because TDC 18.715.020 (A)(3) refers to "right-of-way" which involves a dedication and does not refer to a public access easement in which the underlying ownership remains with the developer. 6. The engineering department testified that the pedestrian pathway easement is similar to a sidewalk easement on a subdivision lot which is never subtracted from the net developable density calculation. Staff testified if the sidewalks are part of the street right-of-way,they are subtracted and if the sidewalks are part of the lot with public access allowed through an easement,the area is included in the net developable area. 7. Based on all the evidence in the record on how the City routinely applies its density calculation regulation,the Planning Commission is persuaded that a pedestrian easement is included in the net developable area because it is still part of the subdivision useable area. The Planning Commission adopts Applicant's Exhibit# 5, attached hereto and made a part hereof,submitted into the record on April 13,2007,which shows the net developable area for White Oak Village is 80,497.72 when Tract B containing the water quality easement and pedestrian pathway are included as net developable area. 8. The Planning Commission finds that the number of allowable lots at 3,050 square feet is 26.73. With the density bonus of 6%,the allowable density for White Oak Village is 27.98 units.1 Rounding down which is the City's practice,the allowable number of units for White Oak Village is 27 units. Based on the findings and conclusions above,the Planning Commission strikes from its Final Order any reference to 23 units which is found on pages 14, 15, 18, 19,24,29 and 31. 1 The density bonus findings and conclusions are found on page 19 of the Final Order. Page 2 of 2 • VISIT # s. D>+N3ITY GALGULATIONS The following square footages were provided by DL Design, the civil engineer for White Oak Village. They were calculated by Auto .ad as shown in Exhibit * 6 103,977.72 Gross area of site (11,313.00) New Public. R.O.W. - Extension of 51"1 14th Ave. (12,161.00) New Private Drive 80,497.72 Net Developable Area 26.39 Number of allowable lots at 3,050 sf 27.98 Number of Lots w/ 6 % density bonus 28.77 Number of Lots w/ q % density bonus • Tigard Planning Commission 0 O LMU5) Agenda Item # S. 1 Page I of I Date of Hearing 1- 8o-o1 Case Number(s) S u cSD(,— g 0 v 10 /Pple Case Name //),4, Oa-i Location , (off II (o�/� �-C.�� /�Gc C44- 1 l 1 03 0 ) If you would like to speak on this item, please PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (for the proposal): Opponent (against the proposal): Name: 00.011,,,e_66,./.44 Name: Address: 12'1'ic W t�6 14, /1 I �"�' Address: 5 , 3oa `1 J� City, State, Zip: p ow\ c --1 Dv City, State, Zip: Name:4-e Lys Name: Address:1665 L 1LV�� Address: City, State, Zip:a .02-1-0, S (0 2 ON00& City, State, Zip: Name: Le-0 —Ok L10 Name: Address: 1 q55 S1 1410-L 8 LVb Address: City, State, Zip: ac_„ -mt,I, 09. (1-160% City, State, Zip: Name:'� yt , � Name: Address: GI 20 0 ,Stil) ..tin - -e___, Address: City, State, Zip:�3ecor\ette.\-.71(\ y 1 Orb vV City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: