Loading...
03/16/2009 - Packet 114 " City of Tigard T 1 CARD Planning Commission — Agenda MEETING DATE: March 16, 2009, 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard —Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:05 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:io p.m. 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)2008-00013/ZONE CHANGE (ZON)2008-00007/ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS)2008-00016/MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2008-00026 -JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER & DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT- REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Lot Line Adjustment, and a Minor Modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium Density Residential (R-12) zone to Industrial Park (I-P). The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces for the Jackson Business Center. LOCATION: The property is located at 7800 and 7950 SW Durham Road. The site is bounded by SW Durham Road on the north and Fanno Creek on the south; A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally; and I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential to Industrial Park. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments; 18.360 Site Development Review; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; Comprehensive Plan Goal #1, Citizen Involvement; Goal#2,Land Use Planning;and Goal#9, Economic Development. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— MARCH 16, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 2 5.2 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009-00001 8:15 pm -Tree Removal Code Update- REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code (Sections 18.790) to clarify how an applicant for development is to demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference for tree protection over removal wherever possible. The complete text of the proposed Code Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code_ amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: CBD, C-G, C-P, I-H, I-L, I-P, MUC, MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2, MUR-1, MUR-2, R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, R-7, R-12, R-25. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, and 18.790; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 2.1.2, 2.1.14, 2.1.24, 2.2.1, 2.2.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.6, 6.1.6, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5; Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 2 and 3; and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,and 6. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 9:15 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—MARCH 16, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 2 • PLEASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission TIGARD Agenda Item #S, I Page of Date of Hearing 3- I - O"A Case Number(s) C -2_0 Zdoz - VCS by 7 Case Name o.c\csc - ,neSS ` i+r d- 1 .V-(,.O-r ev ken Location 14,(D0 r k50 uc-tok If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City,State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City,State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City,State, Zip: City, State, Zip: w 4_- • PLEASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission -r I CARD Agenda Item # Page of Date of Hearing Case Number(s) Case Name Location If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: • , COMMUNITY M NEWSPAPERS 'I 0805 SE lake Road,Portland,OR 9/222•PO Boa 22109•Portland,OR 912892109 Phone:503884-0300 Fax:503-B20,3433 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: Email: legals @commaewspapers.com TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Commission on Monday March 16, 2009 at 7:00 PM at the depose and say that I am the Accounting Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Oregon. Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public general circulation, published at Beaverton, hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of in the aforesaid county and state, as defined procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or y the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The City of Tigard Council will then hold a public hearing,on the request prior to Notice of Public Hearing making.a decision. TT11261 Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon A copy of which is hereto annexed, was 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA) week in the following issue 2008-00013/ZONE CHANGE(ZON)2008-00007/LOT February 26, 2009 LINE ADJUSTMENT(MIS)2008-00016/MINOR MODIFICATION(MMD)2008-00026 OICI)( l O+k 4 LL4i-L -JACKSON BUSSS CENTER&DRHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN &ZONING MAP AMENDMENT- Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Ma ger) Subscribed and sworn to before me this February 26, 2009. OFFICIAL SEAL x� ROBIN A.BURGESS �"a NOTARY PUBU NOTARY PUBLIC FOR O6GON C-OREQON COMMISSION NO.390701 My commission expires MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,2009 Acct#10093001 Attn: Patty Lunsford City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Size: 2 x 13.5 Amount Due $225.45* 'Please remit to the address above. Pout_ 16c - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Lot Line Adjustment, and a Minor Modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium Density Residential (R-12)zone to Industrial Park(I- P). The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces for the Jackson Business Center. LOCATION: The property is located at 7800 and 7950 SW Durham Road. The site is bounded by SW Durham Road on the north and Fanno Creek on the south; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S 113BA, Tax Lots 200 and 401, respectively. ZONES: )t-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; and I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses,e.g.,restaurants,personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts,e.g., noise,glare,odor,vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated,attractively landscaped,and pedestrian-friendly. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium- ' Density Residential to Industrial Park. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments; 18.360 Site Development Review; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.765,Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; Comprehensive Plan Goal #1, Citizen Involvement;Goal#2,Land Use Planning;and Goal#9, Economic Development. j fume:Y mite la ■ vcratvrav ��p 1' ( + enummeusousriswoor leirrill4 yyII [ ■n g ` yy1I�IJ1}}'' Y.�0 / arrrnr.rroa ff}I YY is Acmes sumssast ' Ipf� e� w8r_, N � -Rfdt � 1 11,1 ■'.« . ifII 1 j-n„lrnYYm f II e 1 ? yy� � R4' Publish 02/26/2009. TT 11261 Kcitc ,(_ (9\ &-A „ : 1Sreonian EST i8.1 Practically Indispensable. 1320 S4V Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 -3499 Affidavit of Publication M. HARRIS ,duly sworn depose and say that I am the Principal Clerk Of The Publisher of The h•egonian,a newspaper of general circulation,as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020,published in the city of Portland,in lultnomah County,Oregon;that the advertisement was published without interruption in the entire and regular issue of The ►regonian or the issue on the following date(s): '2/2009 Principal Clerk of the Publisher: ) �, ! OFFICIAL SEAL 0 ( 4 ALAN B COLLINS 7 C NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON O f ?) COMMISSION NO.434394 t Subscribed,ii i ; orn to before m- hi date: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 26,2012 Notary: Ad Order Number: 0002741938 PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF TIGARD The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday March 16,2009 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited.The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Planning Commission and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E.The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division(Staff contact:John Floyd)at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-718-2429. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:DEVELOPMENT CODEAMENDMENT(DCA)2009-00001-Tree Removal Code Update-REQUEST:Amendments to the Community Development Code(Sections 18.790)to clarify how an applicant for development is to demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference for tree protection over removal wherever possible.The complete text of the proposed Code Amendment can be viewed on the City's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/code amendments LOCATION: Citywide.ZONE: CBD,C-G, C-P, I-H, I-L, I-P,MUC,MUE,MUE-1,MUE-2, MUR-1,MUR-2, R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, R-7, R-12,R-25.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390,and 18.790; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 1.1,3, 1.2.1, 1.2.6,2.1.2,2.1.14,2.1.24,2.2.1,2.2.6,2.3.1,2.3.6,6.1.6,6.2.3,6.2.4,and 6.2.5;Metro Functional Plan Title 3; and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,and 6. c Grego ita / EST I83i, Practically Indispensable. 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 -3499 Affidavit of Publication City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 972238199 Agenda Item: 5 , I Hearing Date:March 16,2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE ! PLANNING COMMISSION = ., y r FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ,'� 120 DAYS =NA SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER&DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) CPA2008-00013 Zone Change (ZOI') ZON2008-00007 Lot Line Aduustment(MIS) MIS2008-00016 Minor Modrication ) MMD2008-00026 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment,and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing_the Medium Density Residential (R-12) zone to Industrial Park (I-P). The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces and associated landscaping and screening for the Business Center. Pursuant to the Ortgon Circuit Court In Bate Possession Order(Case Na C 074583CV), the School District obtained an access easenrnt across Tax Lot 200 for a Invaaess drize to Durham Elenvntary schooL A cuss had 1 en ' from SW Shaffer Lane under an easenvnt agr nt across Clean Water Seruar (CWSJ for a period 120 3wis without an army for ronnzeul A settlement agree/writ n the School Dsstriut and Mr.Metzgr inrlu ipropase i ?quest in this application APPLICANT/ Rob Saxton OWNER: David Metzger OWNER Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J Metzger Ventures,LLC 6960 SW Sandburg Street PO Box 400 Tigard,OR 97223 Sherwood,OR 97140 APPLICANT'S WRG Design REP: 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 LOCATION: The property is located at 7800 and 7950 SW Durham Road. The site is bounded by SW Durham Road on the north and Fanno Creek on the south; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S113BA,Tax Lots 200 and 401,respectively. CURRENT ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: R 12(HD): 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. The purpose of the Historic District overlay is to facilitate the STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 1 OF 17 protection enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history. The current Comprehensive Plan Designation is Public Institution. PROPOSED ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and smal scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants,personal services and fitness centers,in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review,design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted ted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, andpedestrian-friendly. . The proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation y IS Light IndustriaL APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments; 18.360 Site Development Review, 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts; 18.530, Industrial Zoning g Districts; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation 18.740 Historic Overlay; 18.745 landscaping nd Screening; 18.765, Off-Street Partin anti Hi Loading Requirements; 18.790, T Parking _and Removal; 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement; Comprehensive Plan Goals, # 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal#2,Land Use Planning;Goal#9,Economic Development);and Goal#10,Housing. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Also recommended for APPROVAL are the Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification,subject to proposed conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND MINOR MODIFICATION AND SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover Ietter 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, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Upon approval of the proposed lot line adjustment, the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City to be incorporated into the record. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded lot fine adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any site permits on the re-configured lots. 2. The applicant shall either apply for a variance to the buffer standards, or submit a revised landscape plan that shows landscaping consistent with the standards for buffering and screening in Table 18.745.2 and Section 18.745.050.B.4,subject to review and approval by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/ZON2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 2 OF 17 3. The applicant shall adhere to the tree protection guidelines 1-7 in the project arborist report dated 11/10/08 before, during, and after construction. As each step is completed, the project arborist shall prepare a documenting report that shall be submitted to the City. 4. The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 5. The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing,determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ,and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED MINOR MODIFICATION AND SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL SITE INSPECTION: 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, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 6. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 7. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall contact the Planning Division (Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434) for a final site review to ensure consistency with this land use decision. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History Tax Lot 401 is mostly vacant land, improved with a playground and access to Tax Lot 300 to the west, which is the site of the Durham Elementary School and the historic Durham Center. Staff found the followin g land use decisions applicable to Tax Lot 401: CUP91-00001 allowed the placement and use of a 2ortable classroom structure;CUP95-00006 allowed addition of 39,135 square feet to an existing school of 3,830 square feet; SLR2001-00001 allowed the use of a 1/3-acre parcel between Fanno Creek and Durham School as an outdoor nature investigation and observation site; MMD95-00001 allowed the portable classroom relocation; MMD2000-00011 allowed an educational structure; MMD2007-00019 allowed the construction of a replacement playground. Tax Lot 200 to the east of the school site has been improved under the following permits: SDR98-00004 approved the construction of a 21,000 square foot office/warehouse/manufacturing building (Metzger Building). SDR2000-00016 approved new construction of a 10,320 square foot addition to the Metzger building (Jackson Business Center). STAFF REPORT 10 TI IF.PLANNING COMMISSION MARC!116,2009 PUBLIC I TEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 3 OF 17 Pursuant to the Oregon Circuit Court Immediate Possession Order (Case No. C074583CV), the School District obtained an access easement across Tax Lot 200 for an access drive permitted under CUP2007-00004. An agreement between the parties resulted in this application to compensate the owners of Tax Lot 200 for the loss of 11 parking spaces. Vicinity Information The subject site is bounded by Clean Water Services facilities on the south and west, R-12 residential development to the north across SW Durham Road, and commercial/industrial uses on property zoned industrial park adjacent to ODOT railroad right-of-way and Fanno Creek on the east and south. Access to the site is limited to SW Durham Road. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject site is zoned R-12 and I-P, has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Public Institution and Light Industrial, respectively, and is located south of Durham Road between SW Hall and SW 79th Avenue. The site contains the Durham Elementary School built in 1989 and the historic Durham Center. Since 1989, the access to the school was provided by SW Shaffer Lane under an easement agreement across CWS property for a period of 20 years without an opportunity for renewal. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment, and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium Density Residential (R-12) zone to Industrial Park (I-P). The zone change also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment from Public Institution to Light Industrial. The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces and associated landscaping and screening for the Business Center. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection B below. A. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Section 18.390. The proposed zone change application to change the zoning on the subject lots from R-12 to I-P also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment from Public Institution to Light Industrial (the Light Industrial designation serves both the I-P and I-L zones). Therefore, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to Council on the proposed zone change application and comprehensive plan map amendment. B. 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 amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 18.380.030. B.1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations: STAFF REPORT TO Tr 1E PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M152008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 4 OF 17 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. The applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood representatives, posted a sign on the property, and held a neighborhood meeting on October 24, 2008 in accordance with the City of Tigard's neighborhood meeting notification process. According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting,no people attended. In addition, the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site,interested citizens, and agencies, published notice of the hearing in the newspaper, and posted the site pursuant to TDC 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures. With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2.1 To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and action related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and provides goals,policies and procedures for reviewing and evaluating land use requests. The comprehensive plan amendment and zone change will be reviewed through the City's Type N process and will be reviewed in relation to the methodology and intent of the plan, its applicable goals, policies,and the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Amendment criteria. ECONOMY Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. Policy 3: The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment, and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium Density Residential (R-12) zone to Industrial Park (I-P).The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces for the Business Center. Approving the request through this comprehensive plan amendment application demonstrates the flexibility of the City's land use practices to sustain the existing economic development activity in the Jackson Business Center. HOUSING Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 5: The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square) and along transit corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the future. STAFF REPORI'"I"O TI-E PLANNING COMMISSION MARCI 1 16,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 5 OF 17 The subject site is designated medium density and is located adjacent to SW Durham Road, an arterial street on the City's Transportation System Plan. However, historically the subject site has been used for schools as a conditional use in the residential zone. Recent improvements, including the new driveway access,playground, and parking lot improvements demonstrate continued use of the subject site for school purposes. In addition, the amount of land (3,153 square feet) proposed to be rezoned from R-12 to I-P is minimal,representing an area that would support only one single-family dwelling under the R-12 zone. Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability. Policy 8: The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or more intense land uses on residential living environments,such as: A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another; B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening. The existing development on Tax Lot 200 (Jackson Business Center) provides a D-2 buffer between the parking lot and the school field to the west in excess of the required C level buffer. The applicant proposes to replace this buffer and screening to the west of the proposed parking spaces. FINDING: As demonstrated above, the proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The change in the Comprehensive Plan Designation from Public Institution to Light Industrial would ensure consistency with the amended zone. 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance: The applicant proposes to adjust the lot line between Tax Lots 200 and 401 and to improve the lot line-adjusted area with 10 parking spaces and landscaping as a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center development. The following development standards of the Tigard Development Code apply to these proposed improvements. TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT REIVEW (18.360) Minor modifications of an approved plan or existing developments, as defined in Section 18.360.060, shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.060. Section 18.360.060 of the Tigard Development Code Site Development Review chapter, states; "any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in section 18.360.050 shall be considered a minor modification." Section 18.360.050 states that the Director shall determine that a major modification(s) has resulted if one (1) or more of the changes listed below have been proposed: An increase in dwelling unit density or lot coverage for residential development. The proposed change would replace ten parking spaces to the lot line adjusted Jackson Business Center property. The change would not involve any residential uses. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. The change would not involve any residential uses.This criterion for a major modification is not met. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC III TARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 6 OF 17 The proposed change of 10 parking spaces replaces eleven parking spaces removed as a consequence of the District's condemnation proceeding. No additional on-site parking is otherwise required. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code. The proposed parking does not affect any commercial or industrial structures. This criterion for a major modification is not met. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 percent. The proposed parking does not affect any commercial or industrial structures. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected. Ten parking spaces are proposed for the western edge of the Jackson Business Center property located south of the new driveway to the Durham Elementary School. Construction of these spaces will not affect off-site traffic. This criterion for a major modification is not met. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 100 vehicles per day. The proposed parking is replacement parking. No increase in vehicular traffic is expected as a result of the parking improvement. This criterion for a major modification is not met. An increase in the floor area proposed for a non-residential use by more than ten percent excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. No floor area is proposed. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space that reduces the open space area below the minimum required by the code or reduces the open space areas by more than ten percent. The previous approval for expansion of the Jackson Business Center (SDR2000-00016) approved a reduction of the landscaping requirement from 25% to 20%. The site plan submitted for that expansion included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding the modified requirement. The subsequent modification to the Durham Elementary School access approved through CUP2007-00004 increased the landscaping by an additional 108 square feet for a final landscape percentage of approximately 24%. This Minor Modification application further increases the amount of the landscaping on the Jackson Business Center property by 593 square feet.This criterion for a major modification is not met. A reduction of project amenities (recreational facilities, screening; and/or, landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by the code or by more than ten percent where specified in the site plan. As discussed in the previous finding, no reduction in open space would occur with the proposed lot line adjustment and parking improvements. In addition, the applicant proposes to reconstruct the required parking lot landscaped buffer and screening in the lot adjusted area west of the parking lot expansion maintaining the existing landscaping improvement. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of Site Development Review approval that is not the subject of criteria B1 through 10 above. On review of the original permits (SDR98-00004 and SDR2000-00016), the proposed improvements do not modify any of the conditions of approval that are not the subject of above criteria. This criterion for a major modification is not met. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 7 OF 17 A minor modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied following the Director's review based on the finding that 1) The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title, and 2) The modification is not a major modification. FINDING: Pursuant to section 18.360.050 and the analysis above, the proposed parking improvement is a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center development. As reviewed below in this staff report the proposed development is in compliance with all the applicable requirements of this tide and may be approved. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS (18.410) The Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; The applicant is a requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 200 (Jackson Business Center property) and Tax Lot 401(School District property) on tax map 2S113BA. The area of the adjustment is 3,135 square feet. Tax Lot 200 is 2.5 acres and would be 2.57 acres after the adjustment.Tax Lot 401 is 2.79 acres and would be 2.72 acres after the adjustment. An additional parcel is not created by the proposed adjustment. The minimum lot size in the R-12 zone is 3,050 square feet. Therefore, the proposed reduction is consistent with this standard. By reducing the lot size,the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; Playground equipment is present in the vicinity of the proposed lot line adjustment on Tax Lot 401. The equipment would be approximately 28 feet from the adjusted line, consistent with the ten foot side yard setback requirement in the R-12 zone. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: a) The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; b) The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation; c) Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and d) Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. The width, area, and setbacks of the subject lots are consistent with the standards of their respective zoning districts as described below in the findings for Zoning Districts. Both lots front on SW Durham Road: Tax Lot 401 for approximately 240 lineal feet and Tax Lot 200 for approximately 380 lineal feet, consistent with this standard. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. The applicant does not propose additional access with the existing parking lot layout. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. A common drive is not proposed with this lot line adjustment. The common drive for Tax Lots 200 and 401,approved under CUP2007-00004,is consistent with this standard. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/'Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMI)2008-00026 PAGE 8 OF 17 Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705,Access, Egress, and Circulation. The common drive for Tax Lots 200 and 401, approved under CUP2007-00004, is consistent with the Access,Egress, and Circulation standards. 18.410.050 Recording Lot Line Adjustments A. Recording requirements. Upon the Director's approval of the proposed lot line adjustment,the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City, to adjustment incorporated into the record. B. Time limit. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded lot line adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on the re-configured lots. A condition of approval will ensure the applicant records the lot line adjustment with the County and provides the City with a copy of the survey map in a timely manner. FINDING: As described above, the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the applicable lot line adjustments standards, subject to the following condition of approval. CONDITION: Upon approval of the proposed lot line adjustment, the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City, to be incorporated into the record. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded lot line adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on the re-configured lots. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.510) The list of permitted, limited,conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones presented in Table 18.510.1, includes "non-accessory parking" as a conditional use when associated with transit-related facilities. The proposed use is replacement parking for the existing industrial development caused by the condemnation of a portion of Lot 40f for access to the Durham school. Non-accessory parking is not an allowed use in the R-12 zone; therefore, a lot line adjustment and zone change is sought with this application. All development must comply with: 1) all of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2, and 2) all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. This table is combined with Table 18.530.2, below to show compliance with the applicable development standards. INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.530) A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in industrial zones is presented in Table 18.530.1. Upon approval of the rezoning of the subject site from R-12 to I-P, the proposed parking lot expansion would be permitted outright in the I-P zone as an accessory use to the existing industrial development. 18.530.040 Development Standards All development must comply with: 1) all of the applicable development standards contained in the underly zoning district. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 1830.2, and 2) all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. STAFF REPORT TO TI IE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCI-I 16,2009 PUBLIC BEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 9 OF 17 STANDARD I-P R-12 PROPOSED MF/SF I-P/R-12 \linimum 1.ut size None 3,050 sq.ft. na/2.72 acres Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. None na Minimum Setbacks Front yard 35 20/15 ft na Side facing street on corner&through lots 20 20/10 ft na Side yard 0/50 10/5 ft na/28 Rear yard 0/50 20/15 ft na Maximum I Icight 45 ft. 35 ft. na Maximum Site Coverage 121 75°0151 80°o 76%/<80% Minimum I.andscape Requirement 25%161 20% 24%/>20% [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [5]Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.8 are satisfied. [6]Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. The R-12 zoned property is not currently used for multi-family or single-family housing, but includes the access drive and playground equipment for Durham Elementary School. The proposed adjustment of 3,153 feet does not alter the lot s compliance with the above criteria. The resulting parcel is adjustment acres in size. Structures on the lot consists of playground equipment,which is located approximately 28 feet from the re-located property line, in compliance with the applicable side yard setback requirement. A majority of the site is used as a field for the elementary school.'Therefore, the lot remains in compliance with the maximum lot coverage of 80%and the landscape requirements of 20%. The I-P zoned property is increasing in size with this lot line adjustment to be 2.57 acres. There is no minimum lot size requirement; therefore, this lot is in compliance with the zone. The adjustment does not modify the width of the lot at the street. Therefore the lot remains in compliance with the minimum lot width standard. The structure on the lot remains consistent with the setback requirements of the zone as the adjustment moves the western lot line away from the building increasing the side yard setback. The previous approval for expansion of the Jackson Business Center (SDR2000-00016) approved a reduction of the landscaping requirement from 25% to 20%. The site plan submitted for that expansion included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding the modified requirement. The subsequent modification to the Durham Elementary School access approved through CUP2007-00004 increased the landscaping by an additional 108 square feet for a final landscape percentage of approximately 24%. This Minor Modification application further increases the amount of the landscaping on the Jackson Business center property by 593 square feet. FINDING: As described in analysis above, the proposed project meets the applicable requirements of the respective zoning districts. Other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title are addressed further in this report. ACCESS,EGRESS AND CIRCULATION(18.705) No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant submitted a plan set (Exhibit A) and narrative that addresses the access and egress standards, consistent with this standard. 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,provided: 1) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to estabhsh the joint use; and 2) Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARC!116,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 10 OF 17 The applicant provided a joint use and maintenance agreement between the School District and Mr. Metzger for the access over the Jackson Business Center property as a condition of approval of CUP2007-00004. Therefore, this standard has been met. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.030I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The site has frontage on SW Durham Road, a ublic street. The existing access provided through the condemnation proceeding, pursuant to CUP2007 -00004, connects directly with this street at the intersection of SW 79th Avenue,consistent with this standard. FINDING: The proposed parking lot expansion and associated buffer and landscaped screening are consistent with the applicable access,egress and circulation standards. HISTORIC OVERLAY(18.740) 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions Designated areas. The historic overlay district shall apply to the following sites and areas: Historic sites and areas; Cultural sites and areas; and Landmarks A portion of the subject site, Tax Lot 401, is designated R-12 with a Historic Overlay (HD) zone. The Historic District contains the historic Durham Elementary School on an adjacent tax lot approximately 400 lineal feet from the proposed parking lot improvements. Designated activities. The provisions of this chapter apply to the demolition of structures within an historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030; and the exterior alteration or new construction within the historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030. FINDING: The proposed lot line adjustment would not affect the historic overlay zone. Upon approval of the lot line adjustment, the ovelay zone would continue to apply to the property subsequently zoned I-P. The proposed improvements to the newly zoned site include the expanded parking lot and associated buffer and landscaped screening. Due to the distance from the historic resource and the nature of the improvements,as indicated in the applicant's plan set and narrative, the proposed new construction would not affect the architectural character of the resource, consistent with the purposes and standards of this chapter. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING(18.745) Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. Pursuant to the Buffer Matrix in Table 18.745.1, the proposed parking requires C- Level buffering between parking lots and land zoned for residential use. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses;A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; The applicant's Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0) shows the proposed berm and landscape area within a 15- foot buffer, in excess of the 6 to 10 foot buffer requirement. A note on the plan states the applicant's intention to conform to the applicable landscape lanting standards. However, the applicant's narrative states that required screening trees would not be planted within the buffer because of a perceived conflict with the existing sequoias. The City's Arborist has commented that the applicant apply for a variance to the buffer standards pursuant to Section 18.745.050.F.2. In addition the City Arborist expressed concern that raising the grade behind the trees with a rock wall planter will be detrimental to the health of the already heavily impacted sequoias and suggests that the final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the project arborist and himself. STAFF REPORT'co THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARC!1 16,2009 PUBLIC I TEARING CPA2008-00013/ZON 2008-00007/M I S2008-00016/M MD2008-00026 PAGE 11 OF 17 Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features, which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planters. The applicant proposes to screen the ten additional parking spaces using a berm and raised planters by moving the existing walls and plantings 20 feet to the west of their current location. By protecting the existing sequoias per the project arbonst's recommendations (Tree Care and Landscapes Unlimited, Tree Protection Plan, dated November 10, 2008) and incorporating them into the parking lot design as shown in the Grading Plan (Sheet C4.0)and Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0),these standards are met. FINDING: The proposal does not meet all of the requirements of the landscaping and screening chapter. With the following conditions of approval these standards can be met. CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall either apply for a variance to the buffer standards, or submit a revised landscape plan that shows landscaping consistent with the standards for buffering and screening in Table 18.745.2 and Section 18.745.050.B.4. subject to review and approval by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. • The applicant shall adhere to the tree protection guidelines 1-7 in the project arborist report dated 11/10/08 before, during, and after construction. As each step is completed, the project arborist shall prepare a documenting report that shall be submitted to the City. • The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist 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. • The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING(18.765) Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant has submitted a narrative and site plan (Sheet C3.0) showing how access, egress, and circulation requirements are fulfilled, consistent with this standard. Location of vehicle parking: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCI 116,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 12 0F 17 Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users m the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces. The proposed parking is replacement parking resulting from the School District's condemnation proceeding. The parking is proposed south and adjacent to where the original eleven spaces were removed for the school driveway. Upon adjustment of the proposed lot line, the location for the replacement parking will be on the Jackson Business Center site,consistent with this standard. Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. According to the applicant's narrative, the existing parking lot includes adequate ADA spaces. Pursuant to SDR2000-00016, a minimum of 41 parking spaces are required. Two existing ADA parking spaces are provided as indicated on the site plan (Sheet C.30),consistent with this standard. DEQ indirect source construction permit: All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to: 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; or 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed parking lot will contain a total of 102 spaces. Therefore, standard is not applicable. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The parking spaces are serviced by a two-way private access drive. The proposed design allows room for vehicles to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement will be required, consistent with this standard. Parking lot landscaping: Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirement of Chapter 18.745 This standard is addressed above in the Landscaping and Screening section of this report. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off- street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The applicant's narrative states all areas and parking spaces are marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety,consistent with this standard. STAFF REPORT TO TI IF.PLANNING COMMISSION MARCI 116,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/ZON2008-00007/MI82008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 13 OF 17 Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicants site plan (Sheet C3.0) does not show any wheel stops in the proposed parking areas. According to the applicant's narrative, proposed parking spaces contain an area 3-feet deep to be landscaped beyond the curb. The plan set shows the space depth is 18.5 feet to the curb. Therefore, this standard has been met. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified fora led parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space"; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. No more than 50% of the required spaces may be compact spaces. The applicant's plans dimension the proposed parking spaces to show that 10 spaces will conform to standard sized spaces. The applicant's site plan shows a 24-foot wide isle,consistent with this standard. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. The proposal does not change the size of the floor area on which the number of bicycle spaces is determined. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. The applicant states that, pursuant to SDR2000-00016, 41 parking spaces are required with no maximum limit for light manufacturing uses. The applicant states that the site has 101 parking spaces, consistent with this standard. FINDING: As described above,the off-street parking and loading standards have been met. TREE REMOVAL (18.790) Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use 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, identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan conducted by Kay Kin on, a certified arborist. The report contains the four required components, and is therefore acceptable. The applicant identifies six sequoias in the vicinity of the proposed parking area. All six are proposed to be retained and protected under the terms set out in the applicant's arborist report. STAFF REPORT TO TI 1E PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/MIS2008-00016/MM02008-00026 PAGE 14 OF 17 Pursuant to 18.790.040, any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. FINDING: Not all of the standards of the Tree Removal Chapter have been met. However, with the following condition of approval, the standards can be met. CONDITION: Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS (18.810) Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The submitted drainage report shows that the existing drainage facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the increased impermeable surface which would result from the proposed additional parking. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities,unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The proposed additional impermeable surface is adjacent to Fanno Creek, so the storm water runoff should be permitted to discharge without detention. STAFF RI TORT'10 TI[F PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC I TEARING CP A2008-00013/ZON2008-00007/M152008-00016/MMll2008-00026 PAGI?15 OF 17 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. 07-20) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. The submitted drainage reports shows that the existing water quality facility was installed with adequate capacity to accommodate the additional impermeable surface. No additional treatment is required. FINDING: As discussed above, the applicable street and utility standards have been met As reviewed above, the proposed lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 200 and 401, 10-space parking lot expansion, and landscaping and screening as a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center development is consistent with the applicable Tigard Development Code standards, consistent with Section 18.380.030.B.2. 18.380.030.B.3 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. FINDING: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment, and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. Pursuant to the Oregon Circuit Court Immediate Possession Order (Case No. C074583CV), the School District obtained an access easement across Tax Lot 200 for a new access drive to Durham Elementary school. Access had been provided from SW Shaffer Lane under an easement agreement across CWS property for a period of 20 years without an opportunity for renewal. A settlement agreement between the District and Mr. Metzger included the proposed request in this application. The condemnation proceeding represents a change m the neighborhood, consistent with this standard. C. Conditions of approval. A quasi-judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050.A legislative decision may be approved or denied. FINDING: The land use action requested is quasi-judicial as it is limited to specific parcels and does not apply generally across the City. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation to Council may be for denial,approval, or approval with conditions. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Arborist reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been incorporated in the findings of this report. Clean Water Services reviewed the proposal and determined that the project will not significantly impact the existing or potentially existing sensitive areas found near the site. STAFF REPOR'I'TO TI IL PLANNING COMMISSION MIARCI 116,2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008-00013/ZON2008-00007/MI52008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 16 OF 17 SECTION VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing findings, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, statewide planning goals, Tigard Development Code, and provides evidence of change in the neighborhood as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application and may be approved. In addition, based on the foregoing findings, staff finds that the proposed lot line adjustment and minor modification are consistent with the applicable standards of the Tigard Development Code and may be approved, subject to recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. Also recommended for APPROVAL are the lot line adjustment and minor modification, subject to proposed conditions of approval. G� February 7 2.009 PREPARED BY: Pa nstecher DATE Associate Planner ` 12 q/ February 27.2009 APPROVED BY: Dick Bewers' ff DATE Planning Man.:er is\curpin\gary\CPA\lacksonllurham Elem(CPA2008-00013)staff report STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16,2009 PUBLIC!TEARING CPA2008-00013/Z0N2008-00007/M1S2008-00016/MMD2008-00026 PAGE 17 OF 17 ' ,1 ionion 1 VICINITY MAP LANGTREE ST r� Z 1W r I " iirnarssance Woods ,t AIN IMI 1 a- 5 _ CPA2008-00013/ZON2008 00007 ---J > > � WI _ 1111 JACKSON BUSINESS CTR. & )_icil a frF —in n J� �d= DURHAM ELEM. SCHOOL z < PLAN & MAP AMENDMENT i m 11 f I i�_ 1 Ern I W/�CHURCHILL WAY ` 1 PATTIIN < 1 ,ti,P H i� . P = 11'111 1 il J 1 °° BOND_ST II 7 z j ; -,!�,` ® SuhIP(1 511e 11111 :e ' r E oil= CAROL ANN CTI � ALDER ST_CC__ _;/ ff DURHAM RD �. ~ A`I 3J`j • 1251136AJ0230 • / tr rl 2 S 1 1 3 BAJ0401 t://///4((/ t#y' i W A, � ' SHAFFER LN 0,,,,,". n3 an: 2 �/ 2 00 +r' EP 1 1-___ _ )1(._ 4"'''. 4,,,..4"/ r '-'r Information on this map is for general location Ifll only and should be verified with the Development ' Services Division. Scale LS,I)66-1 in=422 ft �S 5i Map pooled at 28-Jan-09 1U:44 AM DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY OF TIGARD MAKES NO WARRANTY.REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT ACCURACY TAIEUNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE -xs DATA PROVIDED HEREIN THE CITE OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED �x'-+ City of Tigard s�sn r-- D 13125 SW Hall Blvd IN C6C-S r T1GAR MAPS Tigard.OR 97223 _ 503 639-4171 Ll L,ril.,r�, C,( i',rN 0 o-422ft www.Ugard-or.gov TIGARD I • d � Z x x ON F 4;)-1----\—0 DURHAM RD. • t ` al TiXISIING �— LANDSCAPE J TO REMAIN • • / EXISTING / LANDSCAPE AVM — 1 TO RE 1 I /iii/////f/2/////////////////1 :.... P jl/� / X/ METZGER PROPERTY Y • ----- TWA SW pNt1AM ROAD l +..',4 ANTICIPATED LMT 4 /� DURHAM �v.,'..:.�`; OR SA- -r ELEMENTARY ,.;:•. j OF PROPOSED . . STALLS SCHOOL - PROPERTY a . / B 1 VS::,•... TREE (TYR) . / >,::::y:?S PROTECT IREE DRIP LNIE ice:;i..::ji: DURINGCONSTRUCTM //// //////////////////////I 1f rii:t...i: ACTIVITES - PROPOSED FENCE--. I RELOCATED ROCK PLANTER.-.-- - +'' " C) EXISTING DECIDUOUS REPLACE ROCK WA 1 ` � TREE TO REMAIN(PM) LL PLANTER ANU UV KILL EXISIINO RANTS TO RYE I X'.r;:; EXISTING LANDSCAPE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE TO REMAIN(TYP) INFILL AS NECESSARY WITH USE PLANTINGS TO PROVIDE COMM EIE `•.� NOTE; SCREENING REOUIREAENTS ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN AREAS DENOTED BY HATCH AND ANY AppTgNAL AFIFAS gS1UNBED BY CONSITRICTION AC fIW 71ES SHALL BE l RANSPLANIED TO TINE REIOGTED ROCK PLANTER AREA WEST OF THE PROPOSED PATBI IG STALLS 1-*- EXISTING EXISTING FENCE SOCCER FIELD N3 1 x —X - C: i CPA2008-00013/ZON2008-00007 JACKSON BUSINESS CTR. & DURHAM ELEM. SCHOOL PLAN &MAP AMENDMENT March 11, 2009 To: Tigard Planning Commission As I am unable to attend the Public Hearing, I am submitting comments in writing. I believe the amendments presented show that a great deal of thought has been given to the Tigard community environment. It appears to me, however, the main focus is on trees for larger developments, especially those in sensitive lands. The "infill" development in existing neighborhoods is not necessarily specifically addressed, nor the clearing of trees on such parcels or on private property, whether for immediate construction or not. I am speaking mainly of properties capable of providing one to four building sites, containing multiple trees, and surrounded by existing homes. 1. The current provision under 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Section C states that "trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above." This provision has been used to avoid complying with the plan because of the relatively short time period in a property development line. I would recommend that it be increased to two years. If the purpose of tree removal is NOT to avoid complying with the tree plan, then a change will not impact a developer or resident owner. 2. There is no requirement for removal of trees that have been cut down on unoccupied property. They can stay indefinitely, and where that might not be an issue for one tree, it creates a devaluation of surrounding property and a reduction in the quality of the environment when 10 or 20 trees have been cut down. Both of these "gaps" have allowed those who are not interested in the neighborhood as a home, but only as an investment, to create eyesores waiting for development or building, untended lots subject to the collection of trash and to spoil the aesthetic quality of the environment. I worked with the real industry for years and the majority of developers have an interest in not only making a profit, but in creating an attractive setting because it increases their chances of doing so. In the meantime, particularly as developing property for building does not mean immediate construction is taking place, those who have already invested their money and time in their neighborhood----the surrounding residents----see the quality of their environment and the value of their properties decrease. Any changes will not affect what has already happened to my property, pictures of which I previously sent, but until it happens to you, you don't realize the impact of regulations. It has been personally difficult for me to speak out, but I look at the results out my window every day, and if not me, then who. I feel a sense of responsibility to all of us who have put in the effort and money to own and improve our homes and live in this community to say that, we who live here also need our investment protected. My hope is that these concerns will find root in consideration of additional amendments. Respectfully submitted, Karen Estrada 9269 SW North Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 ACKSON BUSINESS CENTER DURHAM ELEMENTARY Tigard, Oregon A Land Use Application for: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Zone Change • Property Line Adjustment • Minor Modification to Site Development Review Submitted: November 2008 Applicant: Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard,OR 97223 Prepared by: • WRG Design 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland,Oregon 97221 503-419-2500 503-419-2600 TSD6701 w • JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER DURHAM ELEMENTARY Tigard, Oregon A Land Use Application for: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Zone Change • Property Line Adjustment • Minor Modification to Site Development Review Submitted: November 2008 Applicant: Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Prepared by: WRG Design 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 503-419-2500 503-419-2600 TSD6701 This page intentionally left blank. fill /nr, o 4-7010 A7 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT TEAM 3 SUMMARY 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 4 SITE INFORMATION 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 6 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 6 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement 6 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 7 Goal 3: Agricultural Lands 7 Goal 4: Forest Lands 7 Goal 5: Open Spaces,Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources 7 Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality 8 Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards 8 Goal 8: Recreation Needs 8 Goal 9: Economy of the State 8 Goal 10: Housing 8 Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services 9 Goal12: Transportation 9 Goal 13: Energy 9 Goal14: Urbanization 9 Goal 15: Willamette Green way 9 Goal 16: Estuarine Resources 9 CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 10 GOAL 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 10 GOAL 2 LAND USE PLANNING 11 GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES,AREAS,AND OPEN SPACES 16 GOAL 9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 17 18.380.030 QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS AND PROCEDURES TO THIS TITLE AND MAP 17 18.390.060 TYPE IV PROCEDURE 18 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 20 18.420 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS 20 Request 20 18.410.020 Approval Process 21 18.410.030 Application Submission Requirements 21 18.410.040 Approval Criteria 22 18.410.050 Recording Lot Line Adjustments 23 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 24 18.510.050 Development Standards 24 18.530 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 25 18.530.040 Development Standards 25 MINOR MODIFICATION TO SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 26 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 26 18.360.060 Minor Modification(s)to Approved Plans or Existing Development 26 18.360.050 Major Modification(s)to Approved Plans or Existing Development 26 18.705 ACCESS,EGRESS AND CIRCULATION 29 18.705.030 General Provisions 29 18.740 HISTORIC OVERLAY 31 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions 31 Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J I WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 31 18.745.030 General Provisions 31 18.745.040 Street Trees 33 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 33 18.745.060 Re-vegetation 38 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 38 18.765.030 General Provisions 38 18.765.040 General Design Standards 40 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 43 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements 43 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements 45 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 46 18.810.100 Storm Drainage 46 CONCLUSION 47 EXHIBITS A. Plan Set B. Application Form C. Property Deed D. Impact Study E. Neighborhood Meeting Documentation . F. Pre-Application Conference Notes G. Site Photos H. Clean Water Services Sensitive Area Pre-Screen I. Arborist Report J. Stormwater report K. Decision for Casefile SDR 2000-00016 L. Decision for Casefile CUP 2007-00004 Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 2 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 PROJECT TEAM Applicant Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard,OR 97223 Owner Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard,OR 97223 Metzger Ventures,LLC P.O.Box 40 Sherwood,OR 97140 Planning,Civil Engineering,Landscape Architecture WRG Design,Inc. 5415 SW Westgate Dr,Suite 100 Portland,OR 97221 (503)419-2500(ph) (503)419-2600(fax) Contact:Michele Simantel Legal Counsel Kelly Hossaini Miller Nash,LLP 3400 U.S.Bancorp Tower 111 S.W.Fifth Avenue Portland,OR 97204 Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 3 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 • SUMMARY This application requests approval of applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to a Site Development Review Approval. The applications are requested in order to provide an additional ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. An application was approved by the City of Tigard in March of 2008 to relocate the access drive for Durham Elementary School from SW Shaffer Lane to SW Durham Road at SW 79th Ave.. (Casefile CUP 2007-00004) This plan routed the entrance drive into the Elementary School through the Jackson Business Center property, owned by Metzger Ventures, LLC. The placement of this access drive eliminated eleven(11)parking spaces on the Metzger property. As a part of the condemnation settlement for the new access way, the School District agreed to reconstruct ten (10) of the parking spaces that were to be removed. Following is a summary of the requested land use applications: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change: This application seeks to change the comprehensive plan designation and zone on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial Park (I'). This will allow the 3,153 square foot area to be transferred via the requested lot line adjustment from the Durham Elementary School property to the Metzger property to be used as replacement parking for the business park. Lot Line Adjustment: The requested lot line adjustment between the Residential (R-12) zoned Durham Elementary School property and the Industrial Park (IP) zoned Metzger property seeks to transfer 3,153 square feet from the Durham Elementary School property to the Metzger property. This will allow for the construction of ten (10) replacement parking spaces and associated landscaping and buffering on the Metzger property. Minor Modification to a Site Development Review: This application seeks to modify the plan approved for the Jackson Business Center addition (City Casefile SDR2000-00016) through the addition of the ten (10)replacement parking spaces. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The purpose of the proposed applications is to allow for the replacement of ten (10) of the eleven (11) parking spaces that were removed due to the relocation of the access drive to Durham Elementary School. The applicant is proposing to construct these ten (10)parking spaces between the existing Giant Sequoia trees along the western boundary of the Jackson Business Center property. An arborist report is provided with the application materials to provide details about the trees and guidance on construction techniques required for the construction of the parking spaces adjacent to the trees. The proposed parking spaces will take access off of the existing 24-foot access drive located along the western side of the building. There is currently a buffer built to the D-2 buffer standard along the western property line of the Jackson Business Center. Prior approval (Casefile SDR2000-00016) required the development of a minimum Type C buffer in this location, therefore the existing D-2 buffer exceeds that standard. The applications propose to move the existing raised landscape island and associated landscaping 20-feet to the west to the new property line. The existing raised landscape islands will be spread out to create a solid berm. The existing landscaping will also be relocated to the property line. If the plants cannot be relocated, new plants will be used. The D-2 buffer, then, will be retained under the new parking configuration. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 4 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 • Development of the parking spaces will create approximately 2,149 square feet of new impervious area. Runoff from the new proposed impervious area will be conveyed to the water quality facility on the School District's property for treatment. This facility was designed and built to provide treatment for runoff from the Durham Elementary School property, as well as the western one-third of the Metzger property, as required by Casefile 2007-00004. This facility was designed with excess capacity. An update to the storm water report prepared for this facility is included with this application demonstrating that the facility has excess capacity to handle the additional impervious area. SITE INFORMA TION .i + %•' CENLRALVNI 1 k 4:125144,- ,.4 4 LOCATION 7950 SW Durham Road(Durham Elementary Property) 7800 SW Durham Road(Metzger Property) TAX LOT 2S 113BA TL 401 (Durham Elementary Property) 2S 113BA TL 200(Metzger Property) SIZE TL 404: 2.79 Acres TL 200: 2.50 Acres Area of Comprehensive/Zone Change: 3,153 ft2 CURRENT COMP. PLAN AND Residential-12 w/Historic District Overlay(R-12(HD)) ZONING(TL 401) CURRENT COMP. PLAN AND Industrial Park(IP) ZONING(TL 200) EXISTING USE(TL 401) Durham Elementary School Campus EXISTIING USE(TL 200) Jackson Business Park 8RO `r;i a ' fit°47,r m r� l NORTH Residential Subdivision(Across SW Durham Road) EAST Office/Industrial Buildings _ SOUTH Clean Water Services Facility WEST Clean Water Services Facility Argikcerr S`. ETS <... SW DURHAM ROAD Arterial Ifritinjtal ELECTRIC Portland General Electric WATER City of Tigard GAS Northwest Natural STORM WATER/SANITARY CWS SEWER Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 5 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 0 •• .1 %.4.N. -• • -ill- - . y JM". , . • I: F Y t L 1 ,1 .�.0 4.:‘1;Z- 11":.:,!",.iat , 4 g,14 .. RL,A.Atti,A4,.. ''.v. .-1-.. . • :al. (1's'' .itig k; IIa 41 w k", ! • : ,( PL,,.n,n ,.,,,,.n, .�.,,.,may. ' Nom- __� ir .jJ and Location oILa Lbw Miustm.nr t1�lt and ProposalParUay ?4 1 j 44iiiii.OiligAln Aew,,,„ : i' ..7 E t..."..IVX i. it alP .Jackson usin Durban,Elementary Btas s _ j. i.+ , -, :1:•.,.. 4 ' ' 1 z Alai . vi •16.att.,,,\AI ... ,,,,d,' ...- ,.,, . _ ,r 4t,± it 6. b- Vicinity Map 0 „r Tigard-Tualatin Scbool District J COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process Response: A neighborhood meeting was held regarding this application on November 12, 2008. There were no neighbors in attendance at this meeting. This meeting was held in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth by the City. Attendees were invited via a mailed notice which was sent out to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. This meeting gave interested neighbors an Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 6 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 opportunity to offer comments on the plan and to be involved in the project prior to submittal to the City. After submittal of the application to the city, surrounding property owners will receive written notice of the application and will have another opportunity to submit comments to the City as well as an opportunity to provide testimony at the required public hearings. This process meets the requirements for citizen involvement in the land use planning process. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions Response: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and provides goals, policies and procedures for reviewing and evaluating land use requests. This Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change will be reviewed through the city's Type IV review process and will be reviewed in relation to the methodology and intent of the Plan, its applicable goals and policies, the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Amendment criteria and any other applicable State statute or administrative rule. GOAL 3: AGRICULTURAL LANDS To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Response: The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City of Tigard City Limits. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change only effects land currently anticipated to be used for urban uses. Therefore, this amendment will not have an effect on any Goal 3 agricultural lands; therefore this goal is not applicable. GOAL 4: FOREST LANDS To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. Response: The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City of Tigard City Limits. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change only effects land currently anticipated to be used for urban uses. Therefore, this amendment will not have an effect on any Goal 4 forest lands; therefore this goal is not applicable. GOAL 5: OPEN SPACES,SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS AND NATURAL RESOURCES To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Response: The property subject to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is currently zoned Residential R-12 with a historic district overlay. This overlay was placed on the site to recognize the historic Durham Elementary School building which is located at 8040 SW Durham Road, west of the area subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. This building was constructed in 1920 and is significant due to its association with early Oregon pioneer and businessman Albert Durham. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is located approximately 350 feet from the historic building and the minimal nature of the change will have Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 7 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 • no effect on the historic elementary school building. There are no Goal 5 designated open spaces or natural areas located on the subject property. GOAL 6: AIR,WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Response: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and provides goals, policies and procedures preserving the quality of the air, water and land resources within the City. The proposed amendment is a de minimis change in the Comprehensive Plan designation and Zone on 3,153 square feet of property and will have no effect on the air, water or land resources of the City. GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS To protect people and property from natural hazards. Response: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and provides goals, policies and procedures as it relates to protection from natural disasters and hazards such as floods and landslides. A review of City mapping shows that there are no designated hazard areas on the subject property. GOAL 8: RECREATION NEEDS To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Response: The City of Tigard has over 300 acres of parks, greenways and natural areas, providing a variety of options for recreation, while protecting the area's natural beauty and providing valuable wildlife habitat. This de minimis Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change proposal will not alter the provision of park spaces or the need for park spaces within the City. • GOAL 9: ECONOMY OF THE STATE To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare,and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change will allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces for the Jackson Business Center. These parking spaces will help ensure the continued functioning of the business center as a viable industrial park use, as they are requested in order to replace ten (10) of the eleven (11) parking spaces that were removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School entrance. The de minimis nature of the propose change will not affect the City's overall inventory of commercial and industrial lands, but will help with the business operations of the Jackson Business Center. GOAL 10: HOUSING To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change seeks to change the designation of 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial Park (IP). The change will not affect the City's provision of land for necessary housing due to the fact the residentially zoned Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 8 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 • w property is used for an elementary school campus. Additionally, the de minimis nature of the change will not affect the overall provision of residentially zoned property within the City. GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Response: The City maintains an infrastructure of public facilities and services to support urban development. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan addresses the provision of Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Community Facilities. The de minimis nature of the proposed change will not affect the provision of or need for public facilities within the City. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Response: The City's Transportation System Plan has been adopted and found to be in compliance with this goal. The de minimis nature of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not affect compliance with this goal. GOAL 13: ENERGY To conserve energy. Response: The City has adopted Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures to ensure compliance with this statewide planning goal. This de minimis change to the Comprehensive Plan designation and Zone on 3,153 square feet of property will not affect the City's compliance with this goal. GOAL 14: URBANIZATION To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,to ensure efficient use of land,and to provide for livable communities. Response: The site is located within the City of Tigard UGB. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change will not affect the size or location of the UGB. The de minimis change proposed to the Comprehensive Plan and Zone will not affect the City's compliance with this Goal. GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE GREENWAY To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. Response: The subject site is not located within the Willamette River Greenway; therefore this goal is not applicable. GOAL 16: ESTUARINE RESOURCES To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and to protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 9 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 O Response: The subject site does not include any estuarine resources; therefore this goal is not applicable. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal: 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Response: A neighborhood meeting was held regarding this application on November 12, 2008. There were no neighbors in attendance at this meeting. This meeting was held in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth by the City. Attendees were invited via a mailed notice which was sent out to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. This meeting gave interested neighbors an opportunity to offer comments on the plan and to be involved in the project prior to submittal to the City. After submittal of the application to the city, surrounding property owners will receive written notice of the application and will have another opportunity to submit comments to the City as well as an opportunity to provide testimony at the required public hearings. This process meets the requirements for citizen involvement in the land use planning process. Policies: 1. The City shall maintain a Committee for Citizen Involvement representative of a broad cross-section of the Community to: 2. The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. 3. The City shall establish special citizen advisory boards and committees to provide input to the City Council,Planning Commission,and City staff. 4. The City shall provide staff and financial support to the Committee for Citizen Involvement and any other appointed board or committee. 5. The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the community. Response: The proposal set forth by the applicant to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning on 3,153 square feet of property does not alter the City's initiatives to maintain and involve a Committee for Citizen Involvement. The proposed application has followed the City's prescribed process for citizen involvement. Goal: 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form. Response: The neighborhood meeting held on November 12`h gave citizens an opportunity to hear about the proposal and ask questions of the applicant. The City will send a notice to these same Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 10 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 neighbors who were invited to the neighborhood meeting. This notice will provide the citizens an opportunity to comment directly to the city regarding their comments on the application. Policies: 1. The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. 2. The City shall utilize such communication methods as mailings, posters, newsletters,the internet, and any other available media to promote citizen involvement and continue to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used. 3. The City shall work to maximize citizen involvement through education and accessibility. 4. The City shall ensure citizens receive a timely response from policymakers regarding recommendations made through the citizen involvement program. 5. The City shall seek citizen participation and input through collaboration with community organizations,interest groups, and individuals in addition to City sponsored boards and committees. 6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them. Response: This proposal does not alter the City's efforts to provide clear and accessible information to the citizens. This application has followed the City's established citizen involvement program including holding a neighborhood meeting, posting the site, and will be followed by mailed notice to the neighbors. The citizen involvement tools utilized with this application help to ensure clear communication with the neighbors and interested parties. GOAL 2 LAND USE PLANNING Goal: 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). This is a de minimis change and will not have an effect on the City's Comprehensive Plan as a whole, it's implementing regulations or action plans. Policies: 1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and regional requirements,and serve its citizens' own interests. 2. The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. 3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. 4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 11 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 • 5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro-designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas. 6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). This is a de minimis change that does not alter the plan's compliance with state or regional requirements. 7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A. Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C. Mixed use; D. Industrial; E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and F. Public services. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential(R-12)to Industrial (I-P). Overall,the zone change request is a de minimis revision to the zoning map and will not alter the zoning or land uses in the area in any significant way. The purpose of the zone change is simply to re-establish the parking that was present on the IP property prior to construction of the new school access. 8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed, prior to development approval and are constructed prior to, or concurrently with, development occupancy. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Charge is requested so that ten (10) replacement parking spaces can be constructed for the Jackson Business Center. A Minor Modification application is submitted concurrently for development of these parking spaces. Public facilities have been constructed providing access to the proposed parking spaces. Runoff from the new proposed impervious area will be conveyed to the water quality facility on the School District's property for treatment. This facility was designed and built to provide treatment for runoff from the Durham Elementary School property, as well as the western one-third of the Metzger property, as required by Casefile 2007-00004 . This facility was designed with excess capacity. An update to the storm water report prepared for this facility is included with this application in Exhibit J demonstrating that the facility has excess capacity to handle the additional impervious area. 9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and/or payment of impact fees and/or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the infrastructure system and public safety. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 12 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: There is no public infrastructure necessary to serve the 3,153 square foot area subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change. The subject area will be used for development of 10 replacement parking spaces for the Jackson Business Center. A development agreement will not be necessary. 10. The City shall institute fees and charges to ensure development pays for development related services and assumes the appropriate costs for impacts on the transportation and other public facility systems. Response: The applicant will pay all related fees as established by the City's fee schedule. 14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and,when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. Response: This narrative document provides findings demonstrating compliance with the applicable provisions of the City of Tigard Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and the State of Oregon Land Use Goals. 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the replacement of ten(10)parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. Overall,the zone change request is a de minimis revision to the comprehensive plan and zoning map and will have no impact on the transportation or other public facility and service needs of the area. B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the replacement of ten(10)parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. Overall,the zone change request is a de minimis revision to the comprehensive plan and zoning map and will have no impact on the transportation or other public facility and service needs of the area. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. An application was approved by the City of Tigard in March of 2008 to relocate the access drive into Durham Elementary School. This plan routed the entrance drive into the Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 13 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 w Elementary School through the Jackson Business Center property, owned by Metzger Ventures, LLC. The placement of this access drive eliminated eleven (11) parking spaces on the Metzger property. As a part of the condemnation settlement for the new access way, the School District agreed to reconstruct ten (10) of the parking spaces that were to be removed. This Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change would serve the need of the business center to have these parking spaces replaced and ensure the continued viability of the Industrial Park use of the site. D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change applies to 3,153 square feet of property. This is a de minimis change to the plan, is particular to the unique circumstances of the two involved properties, and therefore will have no effect upon the availability of residential or industrial land. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; Response:, A site plan showing the layout of the proposed parking spaces, landscaping and screening and buffering in compliance with the provisions of the development code, has been submitted with this application. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the replacement of ten(10)parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. The existing land uses will not change and have already been made compatible with the existing environmental conditions and surrounding land uses. The de minimis increase in square footage of the Industrial Park property and attendant decrease in square footage of the residential property will have no measurable affect on existing environmental conditions or surrounding land uses. , . G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change applies to 3,153 square feet of property. This is a de minimis change to the plan, therefore will have no effect upon the viability of the City's natural systems. 16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan/Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements. Response: The applicant understands that conditions of approval may be attached to the Plan/Zone map amendment decision. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 14 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 17. The City may allow concurrent applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map(s) and for development plan approval of a specific land use. Response: The application requests approval of concurrent applications for a comprehensive Plan amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to a Site Development Review, as allowed by this policy. 18. The Council may at any time, upon finding it is in the overall public interest, initiate legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive Plan text, Plan/Zoning Map(s) and/or the Community Development Code. 19. The Planning Commission may at any time recommend to the City Council that it consider initiating legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Plan/Zoning Maps, and/or Community Development Code. 20. The City shall periodically review and, if necessary, update its Comprehensive Plan and regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative rules,and regional requirements. Response: This Comprehensive Plan and Zone Amendment is initiated by the property owner. 21. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development regulations. Response: The applicant is requesting a Minor Modification to a Site Development Review application concurrent with the requested Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change application. The findings relating to this application will ensure that the parking spaces and landscaping to be built conform to the applicable site design/development regulations. 23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is requested to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P) to allow the 1, redevelopment of ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center lot. The use adjacent to the area proposed for the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change is zoned R-12 and is developed with Durham Elementary School. According to the decision for casefile SDR2000-00016 located in Exhibit K, a Type C buffer is required between residential and industrial zoned properties; however the residential zoned property is used for an institutional use. The buffer at this property line is currently built to a D-2 standard including 15 feet of landscaping and a 4.5 foot decorative rock wall and fence. The development plan included with this application shows that the applicant will relocate the current 15-foot buffer to the west of the proposed parking spaces. This will maintain the current buffer configuration. Goal: 2.2 To enlarge, improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic, ecological,and social benefits of trees. Goal : Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 15 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for future generations. Response: The 3,153 square foot area proposed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change does not include any trees. The amendment is requested so that ten (10) parking spaces can be replaced on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. The parking spaces will be placed between existing Giant Sequoia trees. An arborist report has been obtained to ensure that these trees can remain with the addition of the parking spaces. GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES,AREAS,AND OPEN SPACES Goal: 5.2 Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant resources. Policies: 1. The City shall actively promote the protection and preservation of historic and cultural resources and consider the development and implementation of new culturally significant resources,and cooperate with organizations involved in their protection. Response: The property subject to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is currently zoned Residential R-12 with a historic district overlay. This overlay was placed on the site to recognize the historic Durham Elementary School building which is located at 8040 SW Durham Road, west of the area subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. This building was constructed in 1920 and is significant due to its association with early Oregon pioneer and businessman Albert Durham. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change area is located approximately 350 feet from the historic building and the minimal nature of the change will have no effect on the historic elementary school building. GOAL 9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal : 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong,diversified,and sustainable local economy. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). This is a de minimis change and will not have an effect on the City's economy or the overall provision of Industrial or Residential zoned property. The change will allow for the replacement of ten(10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. These spaces are necessitated to replace parking spaces that had to be removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School access drive, which was aligned through the Jackson Business Center property. The re-establishment of these spaces will assist with the function of the business center, as parking is a key component to making such a use successful. Policies : 3. The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). This is a de Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 16 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 minimis change and will not have an effect on the City's economy or the overall provision of Industrial or Residential zoned property. 6. The City shall promote actions that result in greater, more efficient, utilization of its Metro-designated Employment and Industrial Areas. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change will allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. These spaces are necessitated to replace parking spaces that had to be removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School access drive, which was aligned through the Jackson Business Center property. The re-establishment of these spaces will assist with the function of the business center, as parking is a key component to making such a use successful. Goal: 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. Policies: 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well designed and attractive urban environment that supports/protects public and private sector investments. • 4. The City shall allow opportunities for home based businesses that are compatible with existing and planned residential living environments. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial (I-P). This is a de minimis change and will not have an effect on the City's economy or the overall provision of Industrial or Residential zoned property. The change will allow for the development of ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. These spaces are necessitated to replace parking spaces that had to be removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School access drive, which was aligned through the Jackson Business Center property. The re-establishment of these spaces will assist with the function of the business center,as parking is a key component to making such a use successful. CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 18.380.030 QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS AND PROCEDURES TO THIS TITLE AND MAP A. Quasi-judicial amendments. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection D below. The approval authority shall be as follows: 1. The Commission shall decide zone change applications which do not involve comprehensive plan map amendments; 2. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on an application for a comprehensive plan map amendment; and 3. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Section 18.390. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 17 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response:, The proposal includes a zone change with concurrent application for a comprehensive plan amendment, therefore the council will be the decision making body for the application. B. 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 amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; Response: The applicable policies of the comprehensive plan are addressed herein. 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and Response: The applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code are addressed herein. 3. 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. Response: There has been a change in the neighborhood due to the relocation of the elementary school's access from Shaffer Lane to Durham Road at 79th. This relocation required removing eleven (11)parking spaces from the IP property. The purpose of this Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change request is to add enough land to the Industrial property to replace ten (10) of those eleven (11) parking spaces This will ensure that the Industrial property remains viable for the established Industrial Park use. As a part of the condemnation agreement between the School District and Mr. Metzger for the access relocation, the School District is required to replace these parking spaces. The proposed location is the only viable location for replacement of these spaces, therefore this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is required. Additionally, if the lot line adjustment is approved and the comprehensive plan and zone is not changed on the 3,153 square foot area, there would be an inconsistency on the zoning map as it relates to the Jackson Business Center property in that it would be split-zoned. Overall, the zone change request is a de minimis revision to the zoning map and will not alter the zoning or land uses in the area in any significant way. The purpose of the zone change is simply to re-establish the parking that was present on the IP property prior to construction of the new school access. C. Conditions of approval. A quasi-judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050. A legislative decision may be approved or denied. Response: The applicant understands that the proposed quasi-judicial application may be denied, approved, or approved with conditions. 18.390.060 TYPE IV PROCEDURE A. Pre-Application conference. A pre-application conference is required for all Type IV actions.The requirements and procedures for a preapplication conference are described in Section 18.390.080C. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 18 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: A pre-application conference was held on October 16,2008. B. Timing of requests. The Director shall receive proposed Type IV actions twice yearly. A completed application shall be submitted not more than 75 days and not less than 45 days before the first commission meeting in April and October. The Director may waive any of the above periods. Response: In conversations with the Tigard Planning Department, it is understood that the application will go to the planning commission after staff review and notice and then to the City Council for decision. C. Application requirements. 1. Application forms. Application forms. Type IV applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director as provided by Section 18.390.080 El; Response: The appropriate application forms were submitted with this application. 2. Submittal Information. The application shall: a. Contain the information requested on the form; b. Address the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; and d. Be accompanied by 18 copies of the narrative. Response: The application package submitted included all of the required information. D. Notice of hearing. 1. Required hearings. Two hearings, one before the Commission and one before the Council, are required for all Type IV actions, except annexations where only a hearing by the City Council is required. Response: The applicant understands that a hearing before the Commission and one before the City Council is required for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone change applitation. 2. Notification requirements. Notice of the public hearings for the request shall be given by the Director in the following manner: a. At least ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date,notice shall be sent to: (1) The applicant; (2) Any affected governmental agency; (3) The individual recognized by the affected CIT as the official contact person; and (4) Any person who requests notice in writing and pays a fee established by Council resolution. b. At least ten business days prior to the scheduled public hearing date, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 19 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 c. The Director shall: (1) For each mailing of notice,cause an affidavit of mailing to be filed and made a part of the record as provided by Subsection a; and (2) For each published notice, cause an affidavit of publication to be filed and made part of the record as provided by Subsection b. 3. Content of notice. The notice given to persons entitled to mailed or published notice pursuant to this section shall include the following information: Response: The applicant understands that the Director will mail notice to the appropriate parties as required by this Code. • G. Decision-making considerations.The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Response: This narrative includes findings addressing the applicable regulations and policies listed above to assist in the decision making of the Commission and Council. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 18.420 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS REQUEST The Applicant is requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 200 and 401 on Map 2S113BA. The area of the adjustment is 3,153 feet. The following narrative demonstrates compliance with the applicable provisions within the City of Tigard Community Development code. The following table depicts the existing and proposed lot sizes of the two involved tax lots: Table 1: Existing and Adjusted Lot Sizes Existing Adjusted Tax Lot 200 109,081 ft2/2.50 Acres 112,234 ft2/ 2.57 Acres Tax Lot 401 121,786 ft2/2.79 Acres 118,633 ft2/ 2.72 Acres This lot line adjustment is requested concurrent with applications for a Minor Modification to a Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 20 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Site Development Review and is subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change submitted for the subject property. 18.410.020 APPROVAL PROCESS A. Decision-making process. Lot line adjustments shall be reviewed by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.410.040. Response: The proposed lot line adjustment has been submitted meeting the requirements for the Type I procedure. The applicable approval criteria of Section 18.410.040 are addressed below. B. Time limit on approval. The lot line adjustment approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1-1/2 years from the date of approval. Response: The applicant will record the property line adjustment with the County within one and a half years after the date of approval. C. Lapsing of approval.The lot line adjustment approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. The lot line adjustment has been improperly recorded with Washington County without the satisfactory completion of all conditions attached to the approval; or 2. The final recording is a departure from the approved plan. Response: The applicant will record the lot line adjustment with Washington County meeting all of the conditions attached to the approval. The recorded adjustment will substantially match the approved plan. D. Extension.The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: Response: If an extension is necessary, the applicant shall follow the appropriate procedure for applying for such an extension. 18.410.030 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS A. General submission requirements. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall include information required for a Type I application, as governed by Chapter 18.390. Response: The City's lot line adjustment application form has been completed and submitted with this application. This application package includes all of the information required for a Type I application. B. Specific submission requirements. All applications shall include the preliminary lot line map and necessary data or narrative, detailed information for which shall be obtained from the Director. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 21 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response:, The lot line adjustment application package includes the preliminary lot line adjustment map and the narrative, as required. 18.410.040 APPROVAL CRITERIA A. Approval criteria. The Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: 1. An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; Response: The following table depicts the existing and proposed areas of the two parcels involved with the proposed lot line adjustment application: Table 2: Existing and Adjusted Lot Sizes Existing Adjusted Tax Lot 200 109,081 ft2/2.50 Acres 112,234 ft2/ 2.57 Acres Tax Lot 401 121,786 ft2/2.79 Acres 118,633 ft2/ 2.72 Acres As shown in the table above, Tax Lot 401 is proposed to be reduced in size by 3,152 square feet, for a resulting size of 2.72 acres. The minimum lot size for the Residential R-12 zone,within which this parcel is located, is 3,050 square feet. The resulting parcel size remains well above the minimum acreage, in compliance with this standard. 2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; Response: The only structures located on Tax Lot 401, which is decreasing in size, is the playground equipment for Durham Elementary School. These structures are located over 20 feet from the proposed lot line, meeting the requirements for setbacks in the Residential R-12 zone. Compliance with the applicable standards of the R-12 zone are addressed below in Sections 18.510 and 18.530. 3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district,including: a. The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; b. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot,the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation; c. Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and d. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 22 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The resulting dimensions of the lots as proposed meet the requirements of the respective zones. Compliance with these standards is demonstrated in response to Sections 18.510 and 18.530, below. 4. With regard to flag lots: Response: There are no flag lots proposed or affected by the proposed lot line adjustment. 5. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. Response: There are no new accessways proposed with this lot line adjustment. 6. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. Response: There are no common drives proposed with this lot line adjustment application. 7. Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress,and Circulation. Response: There are no new accessways proposed with this lot line adjustment application. B. Exemptions from dedications. A lot line adjustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right-of-way dedication is required Response: There are no floodplain,greenway or right-of-way dedications required. C. Variances to development standards. An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. Response: There are no variances to development standards proposed with this lot line adjustment application. 18.410.050 RECORDING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS A. Recording requirements. Upon the Director's approval of the proposed lot line adjustment, the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City, to be incorporated into the record. Response: The applicant will record the lot line adjustment with Washington County after approval by the City of Tigard. A copy of the recorded survey will be provided to the City for incorporation into the record. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 23 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 B. Time limit. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded lot line adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on the re-configured lots. Response: The applicant will provide a copy of the recorded lot line adjustment survey to the City within 15 days of recording at Washington County. 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.510.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370; 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Response: The proposed lot line adjustment application will not alter either lot's ability to meet the development standards of the underlying zone. The development standards applicable to the R-12 and the I-P zone are addressed below. B. Development Standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. 18.510.2 Development Standards in Residential Zones R-12 STANDARD MF DU* SF DU** Minimum Lot Size 3,050 3,050 sq.ft. -Detached unit sq.ft. per unit per unit -Attached unit -Duplexes -Boarding,lodging,rooming house Average Lot Width None None Minimum Setbacks 20 ft 15 ft. -Front yard 20 ft. 10 ft. -Side facing street on corner&through lots 10 ft. 5 ft. [1] -Side yard-Rear yard 20 ft. 15 ft. -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning 30 ft. 30 ft. district 20 ft. 20 ft. -Distance between property line and garage entrance Maximum Height 35 ft. 35 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage[2] 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement 20% 20% _ [I]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. *Multiple-family dwelling unit **Single-family dwelling unit Response: The R-12 zoned property is not currently used for multi-family or single family housing, but includes the access drive and playground equipment for Durham Elementary School. The proposed adjustment of 3,153 feet does not alter the lot's compliance with the above criteria. The resulting parcel Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 24 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 is 2.72 acres in size. Structures on the lot consist of playground equipment. This equipment is placed approximately 28 feet from the re-located property line, in compliance with the setback requirements. A majority of the site is used as a field for the elementary school; therefore the lot remains in compliance with the maximum lot coverage of 80%and the landscape requirement of 20%. 18.530 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.530.040 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Compliance required. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370. Response: The applicable standards of the I-P zone are addressed below. 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Response: All applicable provisions relating to a the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to Site Development Review are contained herein. B. Development Standards. Development standards in industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: 18.530.2 Development Standards in Industrial Zones STANDARD I-P Minimum Lot Size None Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 35 ft. -Side facing street on corner&through lots[1] 20 ft. - Side yard 0/50 ft. [3] -Rear yard 0/50 ft. [3][4] -Distance between front of garage&property -- line abutting a public or private street Maximum Height 45 ft. Maximum Site Coverage[2] 75%[5] Minimum Landscape Requirement 25%[6] [1]The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must be satisfied. [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. [4]Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5]Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.6 are satisfied. [6]Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. Response: The I-P zoned property is increasing in size with this lot line adjustment to be 2.57 acres in size. There is no minimum lot size requirement; therefore this lot is in compliance with the zone. The adjustment does not modify the width of the lot at the street; therefore the lot remains in compliance with the minimum lot width standard. The structure on the lot remains consistent with the setback requirements of the zone,as the adjustment moves the western lot line away from the building, increasing the side yard setback. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 25 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 The previous approval for expansion of the Jackson Business Center, City Casefile SDR 2000-00016 decision located in Exhibit K,approved a reduction to the landscaping requirement from 25% to 20%, and an increase to the maximum site coverage requirement from 75%to 80%. The site plan submitted for that expansion included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding the modified requirement. The subsequent modification to the Durham Elementary School access approved through Casefile 2007-00004 (decision located in Exhibit L) increased the landscaping by an additional 108 square feet, for a final landscape percentage of approximately 24%. This Minor Modification application further increases the amount of landscaping on the Jackson Business center property by 593 square feet. MINOR MODIFICATION TO SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360.060 MINOR MODIFICATION(S)TO APPROVED PLANS OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT A. Minor modification defined. Any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in Section 18.360.050 shall be considered a minor modification. Response: The evaluation criteria for a major modification are addressed below. This change does not meet the threshold for a major modification, per the criteria; therefore a minor modification is requested. B. Process.An applicant may request approval of a minor modification in accordance with Section 18.360.030B and as follows: 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified site development plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the changes listed in Section 18.360.050B. Response: The application package includes copies of the proposed modified site development plan as well as this narrative which addresses the rationale for the modification and the evaluation criteria located in Section 18.360.050B. C. Approval criteria. A minor modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied following the Director's review based on the finding that: 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title; and 2. The modification is not a major modification. Response: This narrative addressed the applicable requirement of the City of Tigard Development Code as well as the evaluation criteria for a major modification. 18.360.050 MAJOR MODIFICATIONS)TO APPROVED PLANS OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT B. Evaluation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed.There will be: Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 26 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 1. An increase in dwelling unit density,or lot coverage for residential development; Response: The proposed change would replace ten (10) parking spaces to the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. The changed does not involve any residential uses. This criterion for a major modification is not met. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units; Response: The proposed modification does not include any residential dwelling units; therefore, this criterion for a major modification is not met. 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765; Response: The proposed modification seeks to add ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. These parking spaces are requested in order to replace eleven (11) spaces that were removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School access. The proposed modification itself does not require any additional on-site parking, but is the replacement of on-site parking previously removed; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code; Response: The proposed modification does not alter the existing industrial structure; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20%; Response: The proposed modification does not alter the existing structure;therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected; Response: The requested modification seeks to replace ten (10) parking spaces along the western edge of the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. The replacement area for the parking spaces is located south of the new elementary school driveway and will not interfere or alter on or off-site traffic in any way; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 100 vehicles per day; Response: The additional parking spaces are requested in order to replace parking for the existing traffic that comes to the site and will not generate any additional vehicular traffic to and from the site; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by more than 10% excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet; Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 27 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The proposed modification does not alter the existing structure; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10%; Response: Casefile 2000-00016 (decision located in Exhibit K), the Jackson Business Center Addition, reduced the landscaping requirement on the site to 20%. The findings for that application indicate that the landscaping plan for the development included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding the modified requirement. The subsequent application filed for modification of the access to Durham Elementary School, Casefile 2007-00004 (decision located in Exhibit L), increased the landscaped area on the Jackson Business Center property by 108 square feet, for a final landscape percentage of 24%. This proposal includes a concurrent application to adjust the property line between the Jackson Business Center property and the Durham Elementary School property. The total area of this adjustment is 3,153 square feet. 2,742 square feet of this adjusted area will be developed with landscaping, while 412 square feet of the adjusted area and 1,737 square feet of the current Jackson Business Center property(for a total of 2,149 square feet) will be developed with the ten (10) requested parking spaces. This results in a net gain of 593 square feet of landscaping on the Jackson Business Center property. Therefore, there is no reduction to the minimum common open space requirement for this parcel. This criterion for a Major Modification is not met. • 10. A reduction of project amenities below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10%where specified in the site plan: a. Recreational facilities; b. Screening; and/or c. Landscaping provisions. Response: There are no recreational facilities currently provided on the Jackson Business Center property, therefore there is no change to any recreational facilities. There is currently a 15-foot landscaped buffer built to the D-2 standard. This buffer will be moved to the west and will continue to be at least 15-feet in width. The relocated buffer will include all of the landscape elements that are currently provided; therefore there will be no reduction in the provided screening. Casefile 2000-00016 (decision located in Exhibit K), the Jackson Business Center additions, reduced the landscaping requirement on the site to 20%. The findings for that application indicate that the landscaping plan for the development included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding this modified requirement. The subsequent application filed for modification of the access to Durham Elementary School, Casefile 2007-00004 (decision located in Exhibit L), increased the landscaped area on the Jackson Business Center property by 108 square feet,for a final landscape percentage of 24%. This proposal includes a concurrent application to adjust the property line between the Jackson Business Center property and the Durham Elementary School property. The total area of this adjustment is 3,153 square feet. 2,742 square feet of this adjusted area will be developed with landscaping, while 412 square feet of the adjusted area and 1,737 square feet of the current Jackson Business Center property(for a total of 2,149 square feet) will be developed with the ten (10) requested parking spaces. This results in a net gain of 593 square feet of landscaping on the Jackson Business Center property. Therefore, there is no Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 28 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 reduction to the minimum common open space requirement for this parcel. This criterion for a Major Modification is not met. 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of site development review approval which are not the subject of B1 through 10 above of this subsection. Response: A review of the conditions of approval from Casefile SDR98-00004 and SDR2000- 00016, included in the pre-application meeting notes, found that the proposed modification to allow for ten (10) replacement parking spaces will not require modification to any existing conditions of approval. All conditions of approval will continue to be met. Therefore, this criterion for a major modification is not met. C. When the determination is made. Upon determining that the proposed modification to the site development plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new application in accordance with Sections 18.360.030 and 18.360.070 for site development review prior to any issuance of building permits. Response: The findings to the eleven (11) major modification evaluation criteria demonstrate that the proposal does not meet the threshold for a major modification and can therefore be processed as a minor modification. 18.705 ACCESS,EGRESS AND CIRCULATION 18.705.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the City. Response: The Applicant will continue to provide maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title on a continuing basis. B. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: A site plan is included in the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A. The ten (10) replacement parking spaces proposed along the western boundary of the adjusted lot will be accessed off of the existing 24' access drive which provides access to existing parking spaces located along the western side of the building. 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, provided: 1. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements,leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2. Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 29 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: A joint access agreement was completed between the School District and Mr. Metzger. See Casefile 2007-00004 (decision located in Exhibit L). This Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Property Line Adjustment and Minor Modification do not alter this agreement in any way. D. 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. Response: The proposed parking spaces will be accessed off of a 24-foot access drive. This access drive leads directly to Durham Road, a Public Street. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Response: There are no new curb cuts proposed with this application. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Response: The proposed parking spaces will not affect any of the existing on-site pedestrian walkways. 11. Access Management 1. 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 (depending on jurisdiction of facility.) Response: There are no new driveways or streets proposed with this application; therefore an access report is not required. The new parking spaces will take access off of an existing 24-foot access way. J. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use. 1. Vehicle access, egress and circulation for commercial and industrial use shall not be less than 21 as provided in Table 18.705.3; Response: The Industrial/Office Site is an industrial use and has two driveway access points that are a minimum 30 feet wide as prescribed by Table 18.705.3. This application does not F propose any changes to the accessways. K. One-way vehicular access points. Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one- way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. Response: The access way from which the proposed parking spaces will be accessed is a 24-foot, two-way travel lane. There are no one-way vehicular access points proposed. L. Director's authority to restrict access. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: Response: There will be no increase in traffic produced by the proposed additional parking spaces. No causes or increases to existing hazardous traffic conditions are anticipated. Adequate access for emergency vehicles exists. There are no revisions proposed to any of the existing access locations. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 30 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 18.740 HISTORIC OVERLAY 18.740.020 APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS A. Designated areas. The historic overlay district shall apply to the following sites and areas: 1. Historic sites and areas; 2. Cultural sites and areas; and 3. Landmarks. B. Designated activities.The provisions of this chapter apply to: 1. The demolition of structures within an historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030; and 2. The exterior alteration or new construction within the historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030. Response: The School Site is an elementary school campus comprised of a total of four taxlots, which includes the historic overlay on the two school campus lots zoned R-12. The historic structure on-site is not being altered or impacted by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Property Line Adjustment or parking improvements. The Historic Overlay criteria are not applicable. 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Obligation to maintain. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner,tenant and his agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening which shall be maintained in good condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, shall be replaced or repaired as necessary,and shall be kept free from refuse and debris. Response: The owner will provide for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening which will be maintained in good condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, and will be replaced or repaired as necessary, and will be kept free from refuse and debris. B. Pruning required. All plant growth in landscaped areas of developments shall be controlled by pruning,trimming or otherwise so that: 1. It will not interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; 2. It will not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access; and 3. It will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. Response: The owner understands that all plant growth in landscaped areas of the development shall be controlled by pruning, trimming or otherwise so that; it will not interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; it will not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access; and it will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. C. Installation requirements.The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures; Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 31 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 2. The plant materials shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z60, 1-1986, and any future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. Response: All landscaping will meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock, and will be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. D. Certificate of Occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the landscaping requirements have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the City such as the posting of a bond. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. E. Protection of existing vegetation. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans(e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees). Response: All precautions will be undertaken to ensure the health and survival of existing vegetation to be saved. Fencing will be installed around the areas that will be undisturbed by the addition of the parking spaces. Please refer to the Development Plans in Exhibit A. F. Care of landscaping along public rights-of-way. Appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials shall be provided by the owner of the property abutting the rights-of-way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. Response: The Owner will and has been utilizing the appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials abutting the rights-of-way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. G. Conditions of approval of existing vegetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. Response: This application is for a Minor Modification to Site Development Review. The Applicant understands that standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. H. Height restrictions abutting public rights-of-way.No trees,shrubs or plantings more than 18 inches in height shall be planted in the public right-of-way abutting roadways having no established curb and gutter. Response: There is no additional landscaping proposed adjacent to the right-of-way. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 32 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 18.745.040 STREET TREES A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.04O.C. Response: The proposed modification to replace ten (10) parking spaces along the western boundary of the adjusted Jackson Business Center property will not affect any existing street trees, nor are any additional street trees required due to the addition of the parking spaces. 18.745.050 BUFFERING AND SCREENING A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles; 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix; 3. In lieu of these standards,a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. Response: According to a review of previous approvals (specifically casefile 2000-00016, decision located in Exhibit K), a Type C buffer is required to be maintained along the western boundary of the Jackson Business Center and Durham Elementary. The current buffer is built to a D-2 standard being 15-feet in with a row of mature Giant Sequoia trees, raised landscape islands between the trees and a fence. This buffer will be reconstructed along the new property line. The concurrent Property Line Adjustment application requests adjustment of a portion of the western boundary of the Jackson Business Center property to the west 20 feet. This adjustment allows for replacement ten (10) parking spaces between the existing Giant Sequoia trees. The raised planter islands and the fence will be moved out and reconstructed between the proposed parking spaces and the property line. The raised planter beds that are currently 4 feet in height between the Sequoia trees and associated vegetation will be moved 20-feet back and reconstructed into a solid berm with landscaping. In essence, the existing buffer configuration will remain, which is greater than is otherwise required. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 33 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; Response: According to Table 18.745.2 of the Tigard Development Code, a Type C buffer provides three (3) options. The first option is a ten(10) foot wide buffer with shrubs and four(4) foot hedges. The second option requires an eight (8) foot wide buffer with shrubs and a five(5) foot fence. The third option requires a six(6) foot wide buffer with shrubs and a six (6) foot wall. All of the options require trees to be planted with minimum spacing of 15 feet and maximum spacing of 30 feet. The requested property line adjustment proposed to move the western property line of the Jackson Business Center to the west 20 feet. This would provide 15 feet of buffer width between the parking spaces and the property line. This area will be planted with shrubs and other plantings as is currently provided in raised planter beds. The existing 6 foot fence along the property line will be relocated to the new property line. There will be no additional trees planted within the 15-foot buffer, as the existing Giant Sequoia trees prevent the success of trees planted within such close proximity. The Giant Sequoia trees will continue to act as a screen,although not located directly within the 15- foot buffer area. 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; Response: The 15 foot buffer between the proposed parking spaces and school district property will include landscaping and a fence. The parking spaces are located outside of the 15 foot buffer area. 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.05O.D; Response: A chain link fence is provided around the School Site. This fence is necessary for the security of the school and the safety of the students. The chain link fence is provided in accordance with Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.05O.D. Please see the site plan in Exhibit A for the exact location of the relocated fencing. 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: (1) Small or narrow-stature trees,under 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart; (2) Medium-sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 34 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 (3) Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area; c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. Response: The buffer provided between the new parking spaces and the adjusted property line is 15 feet in width, exceeding the requirement of 6-10 feet for a Type C buffer which is required. There are existing Giant Sequoia between the proposed parking spaces. These trees are large enough as to prevent successful planting of additional trees within the new 15 foot buffer. The Giant Sequoia trees are large enough to provide screening, although they will no longer be located directly within the buffer area. 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four-foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting; or b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. Response: The existing raised planters and evergreen planting that serve as the current Type C buffer will be moved west to serve as the new buffer. This will provide an earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials,per option b above. 6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795; Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. 7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval; Response: There are no grade issues to take into consideration in measurement of the screening elements. 8. Fences and walls a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the Director; b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 35 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening. However, chain link fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. Response: A chain link fence is provided around the perimeter of the Durham Elementary School campus and will be moved to the adjusted property line. This is a 6-foot chain link fence and is not used as screening but as a necessary securing measure for the school. 9. Hedges a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in Sections 18.745.050.C.2.a and 18.745.050.C.2.b; • b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. Response: There are currently berms or raised planters between each of the Giant Sequoia trees along the western property line of the Jackson Business Center. These berms will be moved west to the new property line and will be planted with evergreen shrubs. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in Section 18.745.050.C.2 except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects; 2. Fences or walls: a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated arterial or collector street.For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building permit approval. Response: A 3-foot high chain link fence is currently located on the property line between Durham Elementary School and the Jackson Business Center. This fence will be relocated to the new property line, as it is required for security purposes for the school. D. Height restrictions. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 36 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade, except that where parking, loading, storage or similar areas are located above finished grade, the height of fences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or space shall be measured from the level of such improvements; 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening. Response: The earthen berms proposed do not exceed the six-foot height limitation. E. Screening: special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: (1) Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planters; (2) Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off-street parking areas from the public right-of-way; (3) Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees; (4) Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect; and (5) The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Response: The proposed parking spaces will be located between the existing Giant Sequoia trees. These trees and the re-located berm and plantings serve as a screening between the or- proposed parking area and the R-12 zoned school district property. 2. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Response: The existing screening for the service facilities will not be affected by this modification. 4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 37 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: Existing screening for the refuse containers will not be affected by this modification. F. Buffer Matrix. 1. The Buffer Matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts; 2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2, shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040,using approval criteria in Section 18.370.010. Response: According to Table 18.745.2 of the Tigard Development Code, a Type C buffer provides three (3) options. The first option is a ten(10) foot wide buffer with shrubs and four(4) foot hedges. The second option requires an eight (8) foot wide buffer with shrubs and a five(5) foot fence. The third option requires a six(6) foot wide buffer with shrubs and a six (6) foot wall. All of the options require trees to be planted with minimum spacing of 15 feet and maximum spacing of 30 feet. The requested property line adjustment proposed to move the western property line of the Jackson Business Center to the west 20 feet. This would provide 15 feet of buffer width between the parking spaces and the property line. This area will be planted with shrubs and other plantings as is currently provided in raised planter beds. The existing 6- foot fence along the property line will be relocated to the new property line. There are existing Giant Sequoia between the proposed parking spaces. These trees are large enough as to prevent successful planting of additional trees within the new 15 foot buffer. The Giant Sequoia trees are large enough to provide screening, although they will no longer be located directly within the buffer area. 18.745.060 RE-VEGETATION A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed... Response: No natural vegetation will be removed. This criterion is not applicable. B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction... Response: No topsoil will be removed in preparation for re-vegetation since no natural vegetation will be removed.This criterion is not applicable. C. Methods of re-vegetation.... Response: Re-vegetation is not required. This criterion is not applicable. 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Vehicle parking plan requirements.No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 38 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 2. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line with the following exceptions: a. Commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 500 feet from the primary site; b. The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2)Short-term spaces; 3)Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4)Long-term spaces. Response: The parking already exists on-site. The removal of the eleven(11) spaces left the Jackson Business Center with 91 spaces on site, which meets code requirements. However, the replacement parking must be provided on the Jackson Business Center property, owned by Mr. Metzger, through the condemnation agreement between Mr. Metzger and the School District. The proposed and existing parking is located upon the same property that it will serve.This criterion is met. C. Joint parking. Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay,subject to the following: 1. The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est)use per Section 18.765.070; 2. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds,leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change,the requirements of this titl*thereafter apply to each separately. Response: The replacement parking will serve the Jackson Business Center and will be located on the same lot.No joint parking areas are proposed.This criterion does not apply. D. Parking in mixed-use projects... Response: This is not a mixed-use project.This criterion does not apply. E. Visitor parking in multi-family residential... Response: This is not a multi-family residential project.This criterion does not apply. F. Preferential long-term carpool/vanpool parking... Response: No long-term parking is proposed.This criterion does not apply. G. Disabled-accessible parking. AU parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 39 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: Sufficient ADA Parking for this site already exists on-site, and no additional ADA spaces are requested with this application. H. DEQ indirect source construction permit. All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)to: 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators. Response: A total of 102 parking spaces will be available on this site. This criterion is not applicable. 18.765.040 GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS A. Maintenance of parking areas. All parking lots shall be kept clean and in good repair at all times. Breaks in paved surfaces shall be repaired promptly and broken or splintered wheel stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. Response: The owner will maintain the parking lot in good repair at all times. B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 1. Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; 2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 3. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; 4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795,Visual Clearance; 5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and 6. Excluding single-family and duplex residences,except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. Response: There are no modifications to accessways proposed with this application. The proposed parking spaces will take access off of an existing 24-foot drive isle. C. Loading/unloading Loading/unloading driveways. A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place... Response: This site does not include a school.Therefore this criterion is not applicable. D. On-site vehicle stacking for drive-in use... Response: No drive-in uses exist or are proposed at this time.This criterion does not apply. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030.N. Response: No new curb cuts are required as a part of this minor modification. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 40 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 F. Pedestrian access. Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Response: No drop-off grade separation exists.This criterion does not apply. G. Parking lot landscaping. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. Response: The ten (10) replacement parking stalls will be located between the existing Giant Sequoia trees. Additional landscaping will be provided in the area west of the parking spaces in the form of the buffer and screening area. This area provides 15-feet of buffering between the business park and the elementary school. All other parking lot landscaping will remain. H. Parking space surfacing. 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765.040.H.3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; 2. Off-street parking spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; 3. Parking areas to be used primarily for the storage of fleet vehicles or construction equipment may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the site development approval is given. The Director may require that the property owner enter into an agreement to pave the parking area: a) within a specified period of time after establishment of the parking area; or b) if there is a change in the types or weights of vehicles utilizing the parking area; or c) if there is evidence of adverse effects upon adjacent roadways, water courses, or properties. Such an agreement shall be executed as a condition of approval of the plan to establish the gravel parking area. Gravel-surfaced parking areas may only be permitter) consistent with the following: a. Gravel parking areas shall not be permitted within 100 feet of any residentially-zoned or residentially-developed area; b. Gravel access and/or parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any water course; c. Gravel parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any public right-of-way; and d. A driveway which connects a gravel parking area with any public street shall be paved. 4. Parking areas to be used in conjunction with a temporary use may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the permit is approved. The approval authority shall consider the following in determining whether or not the gravel-surfaced parking is warranted: Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 41 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 a. The request for consideration to allow a parking area in conjunction with the temporary use shall be made in writing concurrently with the Temporary Use application per the requirements of Section 18.385.050; b. The applicant shall provide documentation that the type of temporary use requested will not be financially viable if the parking space surface area requirement is imposed; and c. Approval of the gravel-surfaced parking area will not create adverse conditions affecting safe ingress and egress when combined with other uses of the property. Response: All parking areas are currently surfaced with asphalt, or will be surfaced with asphalt. This criterion has been met. I. Parking lot striping. 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and 2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Response: All interior drives, parking spaces, and access aisles are clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The new parking spaces will be striped. This criterion is met. J. Wheel stops. Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. Response: The proposed parking spaces are located along the boundary of the parking lot adjacent to the landscape buffer. The front three feet of the parking stall will be planted with low- lying landscaping, in accordance with this standard. K. Drainage. Off-street parking and loading areas shall be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur except for single-family and duplex residences, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be drained to avoid flow of water across public sidewalks. Response: The new off-street parking and loading areas will be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur. This criterion is met. L. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. Response: Lighting already exists on site and is arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district.No new lighting is proposed with this modification. M. Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780,Signs. Response: There is no new signage proposed with this modification. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 42 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 N. Space and aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) 1. Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: a. 8.5' x 18.5' for a standard space; b. 7.5' x 16.5' for a compact space; and c. As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; d. The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. 2. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width; 3. Minimum standards for a standard parking stall's length and width,aisle width, and maneuvering space shall be determined as noted in Figure 18.765.2. Response: The proposed parking spaces measure 8.5'wide by 18.5 feet long, per the requirements for standard parking spaces. Each space will be demarcated with striping. The aisle serving the new parking spaces allows two direction traffic and is 24 feet in width. 18.765.050 BICYCLE PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS A. Location and access.With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 1. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; 2. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; 3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; 4. Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. Response: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect bicycle parking; therefore this criterion is not applicable. 18.765.070 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS B. Choice of parking requirements. When a building or use is planned or constructed in such a manner that a choice of parking requirements could be made, the use which requires the greater number of parking spaces shall govern. Response: A total of 91 parking spaces are currently provided on the site. This is less the eleven (11) parking spaces that had to be removed due to the relocation of the driveway for Durham Elementary School. The applicant is requesting this modification to replace ten (10) of the eleven (11) parking spaces that were removed, for a total of 101 parking spaces. A total of 41 parking spaces minimum are required per the approved SDR2000- Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 43 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 00016 (decision located in Exhibit K). There exists no maximum parking requirement for the Light Industrial Zone according to Table 18.765.2. This criterion is met. C. Measurements. The following measurements shall be used in calculating the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.1: 1. Fractions. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space; 2. Employees. Where employees are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the employees counted are those who work on the premises during the largest shift at the peak season; 3. Students. When students are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the students counted are those who are on the campus during the peak period of the day during a typical school term; 4. Space. Unless otherwise specified, where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be gross floor area under the roof measured from the faces of the structure, excluding only space devoted to covered off-street parking or loading. Response: A minimum of 41 parking spaces are required per the approved SDR2000-00016 (decision located in Exhibit K). There exists no maximum parking requirement for the Light Industrial Zone according to Table 18.765.2.This criterion is met. D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The following shall not be counted towards the computation of the minimum parking spaces as required in Section 18.765.070.11: 1. On-street parking. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement except; Religious Institutions may count on-street parking around the perimeter of the use provided that the following criteria have been satisfied: a. The on-street parking is on a street that is designed and physically improved to accommodate parking within the right-of-way; b. The street where on-street parking is proposed is not located on local residential streets. Response: No exclusions to the minimum vehicle parking requirements are proposed. This criterion does not apply. 2. Fleet parking. Required vehicle parking spaces may not be used for storage of fleet vehicles... Response: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. E. Exceptions to maximum parking standards. When calculating the maximum vehicle parking allowed as regulated by Section 18.765.080.11, the following exception shall apply: 1. The following types of parking shall not be included: a. Parking contained in a parking structure either incorporated into a building or freestanding; b. Market-rate paid parking; Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 44 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 c. Designated carpool and/or vanpool spaces; d. Designated disabled-accessible parking spaces; e. Fleet parking. 2. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than six parking spaces for a development with less than 1,000 gross square feet of floor area,the development shall be allowed up to six parking spaces. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than 10 vehicle parking spaces for a development between 1,000 and 2,000 gross square feet, the development will be allowed up to 10 vehicle parking spaces. Response: There is no maximum parking standards for light industrial uses, per Table 18.765.2, therefore no exceptions are sought.This criterion does not apply. F. Reductions in minimum required vehicle parking... Response: No reductions are sought.This criterion is not applicable. G. Increases in maximum required vehicle parking. The Director may increase the total maximum number of vehicle spaces allowed in Section 18.765.070.H by means of a parking adjustment to be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in section 18.370.020.C.5.d. Response: No increases in maximum required parking have been proposed. This criterion does not apply. 18.765.080 OFF-STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS A. Off-street loading spaces. Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; 2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. Response: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. B. Off-street loading dimensions. 1. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; 2. Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site.At a minimum,the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; 3. Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; 4. Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Response: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 45 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 applicable. 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.810.100 STORM DRAINAGE A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made,and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. Response: Runoff from the new proposed impervious area will be conveyed to the water quality facility on the School District's property for treatment. This facility was designed and built to provide treatment for runoff from the Durham Elementary School property, as well as for the western one-third of the Metzger property, per Casefile 2007-00004 (decision located in Exhibit K). This facility was designed with excess capacity. An update to the storm water report prepared for this facility is included with this application in Exhibit J demonstrating that the facility has excess capacity to handle the additional impervious area. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. Response: Fanno Creek is located southeast of the site. The site is not traversed by a watercourse, drainage way,channel or stream.This criterion does not apply. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. 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,and: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Response: All accommodations for upstream drainage have already been designed and constructed. - The proposed parking spaces will not adversely affect any upstream drainage. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Tigard—Tualatin School District 231 46 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The downstream drainage capacity will not be affected. The run-off from the proposed parking spaces will be treated before outfall into Fanno Creek in the southeastern portion of the site. CONCLUSION The Applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Property Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to a Site Development Review. The above narrative and the attached exhibits set forth evidence meeting all applicable criteria and standards set forth in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Development Code as well as applicable goals set forth by the State of Oregon. The applicant respectfully requests approval of the proposed applications, as development of the proposed parking spaces will allow development of ten (10) parking spaces required to replace those removed with the access relocation for Durham Elementary School. Tigard—Tualatin School District 23J 47 WRG Design,Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 EXHIBIT A - Plan Set iou • 2 0 rd • ME TZGER PARKING RECONSTRUCTION _ - 0 1 g DURHAM ELEMENTARY . Zg 0 3 ........... Tigard, Oregon J • • I r • I ROSS RD. ` IS7 cor BRAEB RHTJ WW1 SHEET INDEX R KENTON E ' LA. 1'! •P LN • 6x30 '' FORD sT1 : a e , 'LW ,` CO.D COVER SHEET• . .. „DST. PROJECT �►' C1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS/DEMO PLAN r•':r. Y .HAM ET '' u ST... € �1 / VICINITY _--- - r C2.0 BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT Z •. C3.0 SITE PLAN Avt1NS CHIIIRCFIILL ,� DURHAM RD. C4.0 GRADING PLAN • BL:0HO ` --- L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN•.)�•.. -O bURH/111s' : k`:-ry --_• - r� _S,_ -- 0 SEWAGE F CO enno a1� _ # TREATMENT 71GARD O PLNHT c)o �� F- z 0 DrURAHHFAM I di 0 cc 4.99 Go VICINITY MAP W►► /'� / NOT TO SCALE ,• 'bp �, L.L V• i e — U t 1:11 1 1_______n Z 1_______n a_ DATUM: # ELEVATION DATUM: NGVD 1929 •# LLI 1 < 0 BENCHMARK: 2'BRASS DISK LOCATION MAP I V LLJ D CD LOCATION: Cl MON BOX DURHAM&85TH AVE. ELEVATION: 179.155 FEET ilj CITY OF TIGARD BM/6e SCALE NTS. a 0 WASHINGTON COUNTY BM/176 I CC UTILITY STATEMENT: W Ham( b THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE O W Q Q Cr SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEES THAT THE UNDERGROUND U11UTES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES N THE AREA. /R EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTIUtES BROWN �•J ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS 0 I— 1-=POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVALABLE.THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. lJ UNDERGROUND ACCURACY STATEMENT: DUE TO THE HAZARDOUS NATURE AND APPLICABLE OSHA REGUIRESIENTS REGARDING CONFINED SPACES,IT IS NAG POLICY TO NOT SEND OUR FIELD STAFF INTO UTILITY MANHOLES TO RETRIEVE DEPTH AND SIZE INFORMATION. THEREFORE, ANY ELEVATION INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS SUBJECT TO AN UNCERTAINTY IN ACCURACY OF PLUS OR MINUS 0.2'OR GREATER(DEPENDING ON DEPTH,SIZE,FLOW,AND CONSTRUCTION OF MANHOLE).PIPE SIZES ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO AN UNCERTAINTY OF SIX INCHES OR MORE(DEPENDING ON DEPTH,SIZE,FLOW,AND CONSTRUCTION OF MANHOLE).IF A HIGHER OREGON UTILITY ACCURACY IS NEEDED, THEN ADDITIONAL TIME,EQUIPMENT,AND PERSONNEL WILL BE REQUIRED TO CO INTO THE MANHOLE AND RETRIEVE THIS INFORMATION. NOTIFICATION CENTER , 1-800.3322344 BASIS OF BEARINGS: a THE BEARING OF SOUTH 88•42'31'EAST ALONG THE CENTERUNE OF SW DURHAM ROAD(COUNTY ROAD#23)AS SHOWN ON �OV RECORD OF SURVEY 26,866 AND 26,194 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. • PROJECT NO: 150870100 --- - -" DATE 1V07/06 PROJECT TEAM DESIGNED BY: CEIM -. .-- --- -i DRAWN BY: C81.1 OWNER LAND USE PLANNER/CONTACT CIVL ENGINEER SURVEYOR ARBORIST LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CHECKED BY AMR Tigard Tualatin Scholl District 23J WRG Design,Inc WRG Design,Inc WRG Design.Inc Tree Care 8 Landscapes Unlimited.Inc. WRG Design,Inc 6960 SW Sandberg Road 5415 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 100 5415 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 100 5415 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 100 PO Box 1566 5415 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 100 Tigard,Oregon 97223 Portland,Oregon 97221 Portland,Oregon 97221 Portand,Oregon 97221 Lake Oswego,Oregon 970.5 Portland,Oregon 97221 COVER (503)431-4000 (503)419-2500 (503)419-2500 (503)419.2500 ( (503)431-4047 fax (503)419-2600 fax (503)419-2600 fax (503)419-2600 fax Contac835-3165 ..Raymond Myer (503)419-2600 lax Contact:Rob Sexton Contact:Michele Slmantel Contact:Tony Roos,PE Contact:Samantha Bianco,PLS Contact Mike Andrews,RLA . coo r \ o Zoe Al 1 Tc° CONSTRUCTION NOTES - I ° E og ° • ° I Q REMOVE EXISTING STANDARO CURB LL PROTECT AC EDGE FOR FUTURE AC JOINT �2 PROTECT EXISTING STORM INLET Z m • 1$S I ° © REMOVAL LIMITS OF EXISTING FENCE,WEST OF NEW PROPERTY BOUNDARY �5 I Q RELOCATE EXISTING RAISED ROCKERY PLANTER ISLAND BEHIND PROPOSED PARKING STALLS ®' 1 TO BE DESIGN/BUILO BY OWNERS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR _ © SCALE 1'=f0' m Of__-__ PROTECT EXISTING TREES ; t\ PROTECT EXISTING GATE POST W g ��\ , 10 5 0 !0 in Io x TREE SURVEY TABLE X / ,. .f / • 1� -__ / O SPECIES DBH /,F a 4 �� 1 GIANT SEQUOIA 24• /X © F `I�(�_-______ ° 2 GIANT SEQUOIA 22• 3 GIANT SEQUOIA 22" X © r1 4 GIANT SEQUOIA 22" -X/,� �I j 1--- - a 5 GIANT SEQUOIA 22" 1 6 GIANT SEQUOIA 22" i,- ° SITE TREE PROTECTION 0 © -0.1 �_ �'-0 G'- WRAP TREE TRUNKS WITH 1/2" THICK PLYWOOD.DO NOT FASTEN PLYWOOD DIRECTLY TO TREE BY a NO • P METHODS THAT WILL PENETRATE ANY PART OF THE TREE OR OTHERN1SE DAMAGE THE TREE. THE U ° PLYWOOD WILL BE USED IN LIEU OF STANDARD WIRE TREE PROTECTION FENCING. \ }' © • IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO PRUNE AWAY ANY LOWER TREE UMBS SO AS TO PROVIDE IC OF VERTICAL D CLEARANCE ABOVE FINISH GRADE.PRUNING SHALL BE SUPERVISED BY AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST AND /� \ ' SHALL BE DONE TO ANSI STANDARDS. N �' / • ANY OTHER UMBS THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE SHALL BE TED 11 BACK IN A MANNER THAT PROVIDES ACCESS FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND PROTECTS THE LIMB FROM r n DAMAGE. (+J, 0 • EXISTING BOULDER RETAINED PLANTERS SHALL BE REMOVED TO ORIFTNAL GRADE. A CLAY SOIL HLL HAS Z Z v a ,, 1f BEEN PLACED TO CREATE THE PLANTERS AFTER THE GIANT SEQUOIAS HAD REACHED THEIR CURRENT Q O K {11 i °d / MATURITY. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN NOT TO DAMAGE ROOTS THAT EXIST Al ORIGINAL GRADE.HAND WORK < LEL WILL BE NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE EXISTING SOIL THAT IS WITHIN SIX VERTICAL INCHES OF EXISTING if*. _-_ ___ TREE ROOTS.HAND LABORERS SHALL BE INSTRUCTED TO GENTRY SCRAPE AWAY THE LAST LAYERS OF n '^SOIL ABOVE THE ROOTS WORKING IN RADIAL DIRECTION OUTWARD FROM THE TREE'S TRUNK. THIS WORK LL VJ© WILL REQUIRE ON SITE SUPERVISION BY AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST. O Q• PRUNING OF ROOTS 2"IN DIAMETER OR GREATER SHALL BE AVOIDED. rY, CC© • FINAL DESIGN OF THE PARKING LOT SYSTEM SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY AN ISA CERTIFIED O ARBORIST.^ a w f Q O j l; ° a 1 GENERAL TREE PROTECTION PLAN Z — U .� I _.___ _ /(///////// PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION O I ���\ ❑T •, • IDENTIFY AND NUMBER THE TREES TO BE PROTECTED, VERIFY BY MAPPING AND/OR TAGGING AND NOTE 7.5-0 • \ __,,,...3._ REVIEW PLANS.D.B.H. (DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT), VARIETY,HEALTH AND STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS, Z 0 fi ----_ • CHECK WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCES. Z Q ,V III I© • REMOVE ANY LOW LIMBS THAT MAY BE IN THE WAY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND PRUNE AS 0 -I Z �_ : ` ® _° NEEDED TO ADHERE NAA STANDARDS. 0 if O I� ` O _ • NOTIFY ALL OTHER CONTRACTORS THAT THESE TREES ARE TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED. "' w `J •w I'((Irr//���1 - -�- • IDENTIFY ANY INSECT OR DISEASE PROBLEMS THAT MAY REQUIRE TREATMENT 0 CD IT O Ilt • DESIGN LANDSCAPE ISLAND AND PLANTING AREAS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE TREES AT Z ^I CI O IMATURITY ' y m Q • I © •II HAVE AN EXPERIENCED ARBORIST REVIEW LANDSCAPE PLAN TO ASSURE THE RIGHT TREE IS PLANTED IN r///•'V� N LPL{ J THE RIGHT PLACE AND PROPOSED CHANGES DONUT KILL RETAINED MATURE TREES. VJ I 1 I ` CC CC / \ I airy 1 � +1 • CHECK FOR PAST AND PROPOSED GRADE AND DRAINAGE CHANGES,CONSIDER THE EFFECTS. X F C� WI f MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. w �- 1=\ © DURING CONSTRUCTION 11f �� I J 4s, CE-1 • KEEP EQUIPMENT OFF OF THE ROOT SYSTEM TO AVOID COMPACTION.S C3 \ © S • KEEP EQUIPMENT AWAY FROM STRUCTURE TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO TRUNK AND LIMBS. i11 '/:/(1,1 • DON'T ALLOW CHEMICALS TO BE DUMPED ON THE GROUND NEAR THE TREE, I.E., GASOLINE,DIESEL.PAINT,HERBICIDE, CLEANER,THINNERS, ETC.III© is PROVIDE MEAN OF TEMPORARY IRRIGATION IF THE PROCT RUNS THROUGH THE SUMMER. IF ROOTS OR LIMBS ARE CUT OR DAMAGED,HAVE THEM INSPECTED BY AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST AND 6 REPAIRED OR TREATED ACCORDING TO HIS/HER RECOMMENDATIONS• PROTECT THE TREES FROM EXCESSIVE HEAT,I.E.,EQUIPMENT PAVING AND/OR BURNINGI • AVOID TRENCHING THROUGH THE ROOT SYSTEMS,BORING UNDER THEM OR HAND DIGGING CAN SAVE�1 ROOTS. PROJECT NO: TSD6T0100 1 © --X X--W7 \ DATE II/07/68 1 'lam , \ CONTACT THE ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE PRIOR TO AND DURING ANY ACTIVITY W WITHIN THE DRIP ZONE OR TREE PROTECTION FENCING FOR CONSULTATION. DESIGNED BY: COM 0 \ , i b. Q DRAWN BY- CHECKED CBM `' ��_•� AFTER CONSTRUCTION BY: AMR © -. I • CAREFULLY LANDSCAPE THE AREA UNDER THE TREE, BEING CAREFUL OF THE ROOTS AND STRUCTURE. •� %�� ---. _ J USE PLANTING THAT WILL LIVE UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THAT OF THE TREE. (((/�// l • AVOID DIRECT IRRIGATION SPRAYING ONTO THE TRUNK. THE AMOUNT OF IRRIGATION NEEDED TO KEEP EXIST/DEMO 11) �� NEW PLANTINGS ALIVE CAN OFTEN BE ENOUGH TO KILL MATURE TREES. PLAN /�J 1 I I • DO NOT COVER EXISTING ROOT SYSTEMS WITH MORE THAN 2" OF SOIL. THE MORE SOIL YOU ADD, THE LA y GREATER THE CHANCES OF DAMAGNG THE ROOT SYSTEM. C10 I > I X ' Gg I t I1 i 1 _ _ N0115 54•E i I 498.62' 1 I 1 I 1 i I co ; I o ,C > 1 it xm 1 i i GS t1 I zi I= Ns I Di gig _ K i °'LI i Im 1I SE .1. O i r ° ; i T i 1 iti son s5J•w I I c 152.99' en 1 1 a sons•sYw :8111 ------------ ..,_ I I Iiza.a6' , \`, i I I1 I 1 1 OO ' 1 ; i i i g TSW 79TH -; I /AVE i I I 1 I 1 I 1 70 • a I■\ ° n' WI 'o 1 s BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT w R G iflm � P z ° ° ° o METZGER PARKING RECONSTRUCTION ° E ° ' ° " I " C O u%SW Westgate or.Stela) F«9ana OR 97221 o CO TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT #23J Tel 503.4192500 Fax 5034192800 ...I � a d s TIGARD, OREGON .• ,. •I i — 0 eQ . a / / e a a d e Iz O a i I / 1 j co 1 • a /a a - I ' i la -5k°°/ I o� ;a / I /--- I SCALE: 1%410' a //i / ..:1 a 10 li 5 0 10 6 FV i i ��' CONSTRUCTION NOTES / Q CONNECT TO EXISTING STANDARD CURB Q © CONSTRUCT ASPHAT VALLEY /y- 1 USE EXISTING ASPHALT EDGE AS BUTT 11111 Q CONSTRUCT CHAIN LINK CURB / R5.00' O x� 11, u I / R5.00' © I n O II ___.,..1,%Ns‘,/{.- ' , C N �, d AC PAVEMENT . 1 © R5.00' 4'DENSE U) LL 1.11 125'--a-( Z U 1111 0 CC • e y II fig II=I 11=11=1igri, " i=iru-1— CC J MI' a —0= — AO.^itEOAIE BASE /I� 8 r R5.00' a 3/4' /10 CONCRETE ACG. `,J NOM. COMP. 1HKN. 6' __ EXISTING GROUND Z O I a •, Y U .i R5.00' -' ^l _ R5.00' �` `� O II � � � `��, wWQa \\ it l R5.00' I- S c7 I— L P I I 1 ,_____r 1jJR5.00' N II lil I II, 111A RS.00' at PROJECT N0: TSD870100 I I Y:_ 1 p DATE 11107/08 DRAWNED By CBM I DRAWN Br: DEN I l 11 a CHECKED Br: AMR j I I • SITE I i PLAN J C30 n° ° a Z a/ °n / . / i CO / ' SCALE' 1'd0' 10- II I 10 5 0 10 1 g g1 .:a n �a �7S °.. x�/ T- J x" / EROSION CONTROL LEGEND i / X II #/ _ 154.66 II■ 154.14 ° ~ x II, 04______ SEDIMENT FENCE —70(—XX—XX— 4x( III RIM=153.90 /� 3X t 'X/ Ix ---v INLET PROTECTON tr$ 11 154.62 154.23 Z III _ 0 I I ° — :-° 0 -06,II 1 154.19 ° II ' ,. C a , E- 1 r154.45 (I) 1—k I 154.84 Z UI m� O �3� o II a 15 .' U (n 154.63 _ W Q III" �' - ° 154.45 _I I - a • c� g ,I0 154.96 154.57 Z = I Y c) I ,54.90 cc co 75 II / 154.51 d Z IIN 154.41 --_—.__ Z 0. II Z +s RIM=154.41 —�� III Z r G ,54.68 zN o 0/ , 3X of 155.11 I I 155.50, ill CC V CD 155.17 I 1%4 155.56 1 I 3% 156.60 Il 156.93 156 so I XX—X7(� 1. 41 - x • PROJECT P . !MOLINA, I x^—. DATE 1101108 .._ DEEMED BY CBM I DRAWN BY CM I A r-- CHECKED BY AA41 w ( \� GRADING I / I' L�75 PLAN 2 C4.0 x-_x` Z o 4. • t * k 0 0 SW DURHAM ROAD _ 0 ; m o , o V N N U .4 .. � ®0 cc ..'440 wtc rI EXISTING - • u1 LANDSCAPE - - Z ,a, TO REMAIN - F O U EXISTING D / TO MUNN N Z U y /iii/Iii iiiiiiii//7/4/7ii ii Z 0•® Uc~n G � ® ® , W loG ova PG �/X ill% Q. v Q /?'L� . : c.� z = GENERAL NOTES: LANDSCAPE PLAN ? 0 I I. LANDSCAPE PLANTING SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS ESTABUSHED UNDER CRY OF TIGARD PLANNING METZGER PROPERTY Dom' ZZ Z y - 7800 SW DURHAM ROAD 2. All PLANT BEDS SHALL HAVE A 3•DEPTH OF BARK MULCH. -. 3. LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERGROUND AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH FULL ,—I I- jq1:ri iy;'¢;• ANTICIPATED OMIT HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE. A Q DURHAM ;;j jn$:. a OP ODI1URBANCE 6L nr�.eve:: DEFINED BY AREA 4. ALL PLANT MATERIAL DELIVERED TO THIS SITE SHALL MEET THE AMERICAN NURSERYMANS ASSOCIATION J Z ELEMENTARY � kk:r::::. .Z.. OF PROPOSEDSTALLB . STMAARDS. < 0 SCHOOL i}: _:;?;y ___'PROPERTY Z 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN WRITTEN APPROVAL FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITU IONS FROM THE W• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN Q L W w APPROVAL THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS MAY BE REJECTED BY THE (/'ICJ r D y. `•• - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.THESE ITEMS MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED WITH U y I O•rc g:.:,;F•. :;' TREE TO REMAIN PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE IN COMPLUWCE WITH THE DRAWINGS. '^ I� I /0 a C'tf2;::?4; PROTECT TREE DRIP UFE (I) ,H`J Ll. 0 as DURNG CONSTRUCTION .. (Q�]•Ae} :1 ACTIVRES ////////1//L!!1///////!//!/! W �•+lF PROPOSED FENCE •_RELOCATED ROOT(PLANTER: '•'''''[%'+REPLACE ROCK WALL PLANTER Alm e T 1 EXISTING DECIDUOUS UTILIZE EXISTING PLAHTS TO THE } -ti,../ TREE TO REMAIN(TYP) ss.•44 GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE i EXISTING LANDSCAPE tT % n``1:-J� �,G1ST p„INFILL AS NECESSARY WITH UKE TO REMAIN(TYP) L 7 �F� 4' 962 '�Q�C'L�PLANTINGS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE NO7E �jf Y;A-SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN AREAS DENOTED BY HATCH AND ANY :' DISTBY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES �•v.4}:Xd: SHALL BE TRANSPLANTED TO THE RELOCATED ROCK PLANER r EM r mil+.Z.I.Xy:>; AREA WEST OF THE PROPOSED PAR KNG STALLS. `� 1 �.ON . • •'_.-_ _ _ \ WINS 08/BE/SG .� f -_ PROTECT ND TSDBTOIXI DATE tV1N/Z006 't�!1 SITE REFERENCE MAP DESIGNED BY: PEG EXISTING EXISTING PENCE - i CHECKED BY: MPA FOLD 4F, u\ ffi II1111111'I. PLANTING PLAN r" —X - IJII III.IlI.�I:.iIIiIIi L1.0 _______41 I o zo 40 8a x EXHIBIT B - Application Form lr Of LuriG 1J. 1L De) 417LbUU WKU VLb1taN 1N( PAGE 02/05 TII LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TYPE I APPLICATION City of Ytgarr!Permit Center 13125.SW I is/I 13/nd.., Tigard, OR 97223 ...1-.10,A11.0• Pbone: 503.4)9.4171 (pax:503.598.1960 S'aE31ERAL 1NFORMATIQj • Property AddreaR/Location(a): 7800 SW Durham Road Tax Map&Tax Lot 1(s): 2S113BA 2 0 0 FOR STAFF O■NLY 5itc Size: 2 . 50 Acres Case No.(?): Othci CAR No.(s): Property Owner/Decd Holder(a)•: (Attach LW if...wit thus one) Addtcss: PO Box 400 Receipt Nn.: Lit,/s,„. Sherwood, OR 711 97140 Applicatain Accepted By PrimalyConrart: David Metzger, Metzger Ventures, ►.LC Darc: Phone: Fox: Date Detcrmiucd Complete: _ 7950 SW Durham Road r1,`" 'I1��t' PeoperryAddresa/LOCnttOtl(P): ,-ugdn.mnnr: Inmla ygdr�a'i•.n.Vnrhnc.diuumu,l,p,Jm Trot Mnp&Tax Lot 11(s): 2S113BA 400 Site Size: 2 . 79 Acre e Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: (Attach lilt if more dl:w nne) ELEOUIRED SUBALITTAIS Address; 6960 SW Sandburg Street (Note: applicationnwill not be accepted C:;ry/State: Tigard, OR Gip: 97223 without the requited submittal elements) Primary Contau: Rob Saxton, Tigard Tualatin School District 1'honc: 503-431-4007 Pax: ❑ Application Fnrttt ❑ • Owner's Signann'c/\V'rtcn 4\urlmlaatrnn Applic ant4/ARcnt: ❑ Tide Transfer Tnornarncnt or Decd Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Street ❑ Prclinunary Map(2 cnpic") (%. /Starr: Tigard, OR 7.i., 9•/223 Prima.) Contact:ry Rob Saxton, Tigard Tualatin School District [7] tiirc/Plnr Plan(2 rnptcs) 503 -4 31-4 0 07 ❑ Sire/Plot Plan(ruduccd R'h"x 1.1") I'hnnc Fax ❑ Applicant's Sratemcnt(2 copies) Miler,the n vnex And the applicant.err different people, the:tpplicanr must he tqtrt,�.,t;nroin in'11)r'1$411)941) the purchaser of record or a tessce in possession with written authrnvari-,n f (rnrn the Owner in An :igror of the owner. The owner(s) must sign rho ❑ iling I'ce $478.(Ui appli.carian i1.t the space provided on the bath of this forrn or subrnir.a Written authorization wuh This appliertuoit. �OLOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the .dnhjecr rrvperry• tcqucr,t 1-nt Line Adinatmcnt permission hi adjust: 2 parcels of 2 , 50 And 2 .79 (number) (Acreage or square foutNgc) ;ore, 2 parcel:or 2 • 57 and 2 . '12 (n■mber) (ncrcagc nr rgtlare footage) dr21i112 13: 12 5034192600 WRG DESIGN INC PAGE 03/05 List nny VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE,SENSITIVE LANDS,OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: This application is requested together with applications for a Comprehensive Plan, Amendment, Zone Change and Minor Modification to Site Development Review. Separate application forms are provided for those applications . APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete,you will need to submit ALL of the RE.QUI,ItED SURMITT&LELEM,ENTS as described on the front of this application in the"Required Submittal Elements"box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement lnfimnarion ahem can.be obhtincd,upon r:equcir,for all types of Land Uae AppIicsuort$.) THE APPLICANT(S)SHALL CERTIFY THAT • The above request does not vialatr—al lit^d ce4triction!rhos maybe inacbed to or imposed upon the sj kjcct property, • If the applicadnn i•granted,the applicant will exercise nce rights grnrta:d in accordance with the renns and sublett to all the condinrtn•and limitations of the approval, • All of the abovc statcrncnts and the statements in die plot plan,ateachnx;nrs,and exhibit,rear snorted herewith,ate mu: and the applicants $o Acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this applictiiwn,may he revoked if it is found Alai Any such sr,itemenrs a,c fal•c. • The Applicant has read the conic contents of the applic:n■nn, including the policies and interia, and understand, ncc requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of die subject property. DATED this a, r day ul it ,20 v Applicant/Authorised Agent's Signature Owner's Signanrre Owner's Signature Owner's Signature J2 13: 12 5034192600 WRG DESIGN INC PAGE 04/05 MINOR MODIFICATION a TYPE I APPLICATION City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 S V Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 T I G A R D None; 503 039.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 I I. A modification to the conditions imposed at the GENERAL tJIFORMAT191v( time of Site Development Review approval that arc nni the subject of Cnicrin I through 10 ahovc Property Address/Location(s): 7800 SW Durham Road lax Map&Tax Lot #(s);251139A00200 Site Size, 2.50 Acres FOR STAFF IJ E ONLY Applicant.:Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J zip,Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Street C'it.y/State: Tigard - Cause No.(s): Ti and 97221 Other Case No.(s); Primary Contact: Rob Saxton Receipt No.: Phone:503-431-4007 fax:NA Application Accepted Ry. _ Property Owner/BeedHoldcr(s)•! (Attach list if mnrc than one) Date: Metzger Ventures,LLC Address: PO Box 400 Phone: Date Determined Complete: City/Slat • Sherwood,OR Zip:97140 Rev 7I5,C •When the owner and the applicant arc different people,the applicant must be the - purchaser of record or a lcsscc iii posscwtpn with written authnnrntinn from the owner or an agent of the owner.The uwner(s)must sign this application in the space pmvicled nut the hack of this form or submit a written authnr■raiinn with this application. RTO1J1R.b D SUBMITTAL,i 1, (Y]k N'I S (Note: applications will not he accepted PROPOSA without the required suhmitialelements) The owners of record of the subject property request permiasinn for o Minor Modification.To review n modificutinn ns a Minor Mudilicutinn, the Director must first rind that the expansion dots not invoke nnc or more of the I I criteria discussed Application Form within Section 1 A.360.050(B)of the Tigard Development Codc. lithe modification ® Owner's Signature/Written Authortzauon exceeds the maximum allowed under Any one or more of the following cti 03.a Major Modification review is required.Major Modificatinns are processed m the ® Title Transfer Instrument or Deed same manner as a new Site Development Review.In a separate letter,please address the criteria below contained in Section 111 360.050(R)including a detailed response to ® Site Development Plan(3 cupid) each criteria. Site/Plot Plan(reduced A 112"• 11") I. An Increase in dwelling unit density or lot coverage for residential development. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units, Applicant's Statement(3 copies) 3. A change that.requires additional nn-site parking in accordance with Chapter (Addressing Criteria Under Section 10.360 Ma!) 18.765. ® Filing Fee. 5(2.00 4. A change in the type of commercial or manorial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code. 5.Art increase in the height of the building(s)by more than 20%. 6. A change in the type and location of aecessways and parking areas where off-stic In addition, the i)ircclor must find that the proposed traffic would be affected change complies with the underlying standards al the 7 An tocrettvr.'in vehicular traffic to and from the site and increase can he expected applicable zoning district. t o complete this review, to exceed 100 vehicle per Joy. the Applicants proposal must include n discussion 8. An increase in the font or area proposed for a non-residential use by more than indicating how the site expansion will cnnlinuc in 10%excluding expansions under 5.000 square feet. comply with the minimum setback, building height, 4. A reduction in the area reserved fur common open space and/or ucnhle open parking land londscnping standards Other applicable space that reduces the open space area helnw the minimum required by this code requirements such as minimum Clear Vision areas or reduces the open space area by more than ten percent. near driveways and street intersections may also be 10. A reduction of project amenities(recreational facilities,screening. and/n', applicable depending on where the building landscaping provisions)below the minimum established by this code or by more expansion is proposed to be constructed on the site. than 10%where specified in the site plan UL 13:1'1 5E7i11 bl7b WRG DESIGN INC PAGE 05/05 APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete,you will need to submit ALL of the OUIRED SL�8M1TTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the"Required Submittal Elements"box, (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained,upon request,for all types of Land Use Applications) THE APPLICANT(S)SHALL CERTIFY THAT: + The above request does not violate arty deed restrictions that maybe attached to or irnroscd upon the subicct property. + If the application is granted,the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance s ith the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. f All Of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued.based on this application,and may he revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. 4 The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands die requirements fur approving or denying die application. SIGNATURES of cacti owner of the vub.jcct property. DATED this I day of .720—V1-,- ,20 6 �( do `mar Owners Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 111111 MINOR MODIFICATION o TYPE I APPLICATION City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 S V Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 TIGARL) None: 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 11.A modification to the conditions imposed at the GENERAL INFORMATION time of Site Development Review approval that are not the subject of Criteria I through 10 above. Property Address/Location(s): 7800 SW Durham Road Tax Map&Tax Lot#(s);2S113BA00200 Site Size: 2.50 Acres FOR STAFF USE ONLY Applicant*:Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Street Case No.(s): City/State: Tigard Zip: 97223 Other Case No.(s); Primary Contact: Rob Saxton Receipt No.: Phone:503-431-4007 Fax:NA Application Accepted By: Property Owner/DeedHolder(s)*: (Attach list if more than one) Date: Metzger Ventures, LLC Address: PO Box 400 Phone: Date Determined Complete: City/State: Sherwood,OR Zip:97140 Rev.7/5/06 *When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner.The owner(s)must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted PROPOSAL SUMMARY without the required submittal elements) The owners of record of the subject property request permission for a Minor Modification.To review a modification as a Minor Modification, the Director must first find that the expansion does not invoke one or more of the 11 criteria discussed ® Application Form within Section 18.360.050(B)of the Tigard Development Code.If the modification exceeds the maximum allowed under any one or more of the following criteria,a Owner's Signature/Written Authorization Major Modification review is required. Major Modifications are processed in the Title Transfer Instrument or Deed same manner as a new Site Development Review.In a separate letter,please address the criteria below contained in Section 18.360.050(B)including a detailed response to ® Site Development Plan(3 copies) each criteria. ® Site/Plot Plan(reduced 8 1/2"- 11") I. An Increase in dwelling unit density or lot coverage for residential development. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. ® Applicant's Statement(3 copies) 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter (Addressing Criteria Under Section 19.360.050(8) 18.765. ® Filing Fee $562.00 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code. 5.An increase in the height of the building(s)by more than 20%. 6.A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off-site In addition, the Director must find that the proposed traffic would be affected. change complies with the underlying standards of the 7.An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and increase can be expected applicable zoning district.To complete this review, to exceed 100 vehicles per day. the Applicant's proposal must include a discussion 8. An increase in the floor or area proposed for a non-residential use by more than indicating how the site expansion will continue to 10%excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. comply with the minimum setback,building height, 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open parking land landscaping standards.Other applicable space that reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code requirements such as minimum Clear Vision areas or reduces the open space area by more than ten percent. near driveways and street intersections may also be 10.A reduction of project amenities(recreational facilities,screening,and/or, applicable depending on where the building landscaping provisions)below the minimum established by this code or by more expansion is proposed to be constructed on the site. than 10%where specified in the site plan. .PPLICANTS: To consider an application complete,you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the"Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained,upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: + The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. + If the application is granted,the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. + All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this application,and may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. a The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands ote requirements for approving or denying the application. tit SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this Pi • day of ti0 U e►'►t hedv ,20 0 $ 1,A/ 1 A 1L.IJ • Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature III LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ■ TYPE I APPLICATION City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 T I G A R I) Phone: 503.639.4171 Fax:503.598.1960 GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address/Location(s): 7800 SW Durham Road Tax Map&Tax Lot#(s): 2 S 113 BA 200 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Site Size: 2 . 5 0 Acres Case No.(s): Other Case No.(s): Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: (Attach fiat if more than one) Address: PO BOX 400 Receipt No.: City/State: Sherwood, OR Zip: 97140 Application Accepted By: Primary Contact: David Metzger, Metzger Ventures, LLC Date: Phone: Fax: Date Determined Complete: 7 SW Durham Road Rev.7/1/07 Property Address/Location(s): is\curpin\masters\land use applications\lot line adjustment app.doc Tax Map&Tax Lot#(s): 2 S 113 BA 400 Site Size: 2 . 79 Acres ►- Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: (Attach list if more than one) REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Street (Note: applications will not be accepted City/State: Tigard, OR Zip: 97223 without the required submittal elements) Primary Contact: Rob Saxton, Tigard Tualatin School District Phone: 5 0 3 -4 31-4 0 0 7 Fax: ❑ Application Form ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization Applicant*/Agent: !❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Street ❑ Preliminary Map(2 copies) City/State: Tigard, OR Zip: 97223 Primary Contact: Rob Saxton, Tigard Tualatin School District ❑ Site/Plot Plan(2 copies) 503-431-4007 ❑ Site/Plot Plan(reduced 81/2"x 11") Phone: Fax: ❑ Applicant's Statement(2 copies) *When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be (Address Criteria in TDC 18.410.040) the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization ❑ Filing Fee $478.00 from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request Lot Line Adjustment permission to adjust: 2 parcels of 2 . 50 and 2 .79 (number) (acreage or square footage) - into 2 parcels of 2 . 57 and 2 . 72 (number) (acreage or square footage) List any VARIANCE,CONDITIONAL USE,SENSITIVE LANDS,OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: This application is requested together with applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Minor Modification to Site Development Review. Separate application forms are provided for those applications . APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete,you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the"Required Submittal Elements"box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained,upon request,for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S)SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. ♦ If the application is granted,the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this application,may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this ( 4 I ^- " day of ,20 0 & 4 t1A Applicant/Authorize J Agent's Signature Owner's Signature LI ' ...4 , eIt. Alt Owner's Signature ' Owner's Signature PRE-APP HELD BY CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION U LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR. 97223 TIGARD Phone: 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 File #1 Other Case# Date By _ Receipt# Feel I Date Complete TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR ❑Adjustment/Variance I or II) ❑Minor Land Partition (II) ®Zone Change(III) ®Comprehensive Plan Amendment(IV) LI Planned Development(III) ❑Zone Change Annexation(IV) ❑ Conditional Use(III) ❑Sensitive Lands Review(I,II or Ili) ❑Zone Ordinance Amendment(IV) ❑ Historic Overlay(II or III) ❑Site Development Review(II) ❑Home Occupation (II) ❑Subdivision(II or III) LOCATION WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR(Address if available) 7950 SW Durham Road TOTAL SI F•SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2.8 Acres R-12 HD APPLICANT* Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J r uA LThK.ADuRtSS,CI rY/S IAILJLIr 6960 SW Sandburg Street,Tigard,OR 97223 PHONE NO. EAJi_NCI 503-431-4007 NA PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. Rob Saxton 503-431-4007 lROIER I Y OWNlK U IU HOLUbN(Attach Iist 01 more than one) Ti ard-Tualatin School District 23J Mppg�] ING�A�pDRES /CITY/STATEJZIP 69 0 SW Sand�urg Tigard,Oregon 97223 PHONE NO. FAX-NU. 503-431-4007 NA *When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner.The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. fl e r/Milcan e uess acom ehensive plan amendment and zone change on 3,153 square feet of property Y from the Residential R-12 zone to the industrial I-P zone. This will allow the 3,153 square foot area to be transferred via the requested lot line adjustment from the Durham elementary school to the Metzger property to be used for parking for the business park. APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. i:lcurpin\masterslland use applications\land use permit app.doc tE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. --)/(„0 //a/0 r Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date r ( /( 1 A A pp licant/ ent/Re resentative's Signature Da t e Applicant/Agent/ Representative's Signature Date. EXHIBIT C - Property Deed Fidelity National Title Company rii-H-11 e L Prepared For: Prepared By: Nima Patel Intim-ation Services Department 1001 SW Fin Avenue Suite 400 - Portland, Oregon 97204 Phone: (503)227-LIST (5478) Fax: (503)274-5472 _E-mail: csrequestcr hfcom OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Owner : Tigard-tualatin School Ref Parcel Number : 2S113BA 00401 CoOwner : District #23J T: 02S R: 01W S: 13 Q: NW QQ: NE Site Address : 7950 SW Durham Rd Tigard 97224 Parcel Number : R1497428 Mail Address : 6960 SW Sandburg St Tigard Or 97223 Telephone County : Washington (OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION • Transferred : 10/06/2003 Loan Amount Document # : Cf1754 Lender . Sale Price Loan Type .• Deed Type Interest Rate . %Owned Vesting Type ` k PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Map Page Grid : 655 F7 Mkt Land .• Census Tract : 308.04 Block: 2 Mkt Structure - Neighborhood : DMTG Mkt Total 1 Subdivision/Plat : %Improved . School District : Tigard M50AssdTotal .• Class Code Zoning : R12 Land Use : 9202 Ins,Public School District Levy Code : 02374 Legal : ACRES 2.80, NON-ASSESSABLE 07-08Taxes . Millage Rate : 16.4706 • PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres : 2.80 Year Built . Bathrooms Lot SqFt : 121,968 EtfYearBlt . Heat Method BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Pool BsmUnfinSF: Foundation : Appliances Bldg SqFt : Roof Shape : Dishwasher IstFIrSF RoofMatl Hood Fan UpperFlSF : InteriorMat : Deck Porch SqFt : Paving Matl Garage Type Attic SqFt : Ext Finish . Garage SF Deck SqFt : Cons! Type : , This title information has been furnished,without charge,in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. III Fidelity National Title Company of Ore g on�� N nn / Map # 2S113BA 00401 W s E The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey 1 —+ +fit �t+«+��s\o+�11AtY,til�ti5ri,1V11\11 1�511411ti_ti1141�\1s�tW_ti\l\u1Cti /, .'+ _ .\ f.• ' n ttllgll llf 111 11+ .';• ',•1 b.�1.• '\.;4\ `\,.•„4, , . , , r , ��4Ill, 1`,' ,' >, • ,e .. .. , ±�• .ems^,Y; \e,• \i I ja, I s..'' ''s•r-\''''..r. '•e2.1 ., ',-- . + I I • '.�,,Y `y: +�• :' )•+\-- .�; •r•l a 401 \• I • r -,,,�,�'' d't -A ., I ,'‹�.) , 'X.• /4,�▪ .", .�'�`A ,.• a: qmt_ ,---� MME I 2 ,� �` ,' I ,s. "/'S,'.i ,\ •n,f'S\ \` .+ t +I I ,"';A'+ 'Y. .' %� ,�\ ,)" •: I ,:c\ \�; A' '>( N I I ♦ 'i` f f • >;' .$:s;:c, ,.•a:� ;'t 1I440 7' ,•i .•�4 ,.i' .. +• /�,r;'L.e Fri WAN j I 11.StAC `�, , ti, �.. \ / \ ECM III ."• ,~+• :^• f X of , \ l! ---.— I ,.Z%�,✓. .x i,• ,1 .+• +� .ca I+ ■ '�. fa ,=-., •�::M;^,�, ,, . -r I f�l '' ^. `fi 'r .;{,),+' ,• y' ,1, IMO f ` ''+. I k, / 15/ _ ,• , a ,:.c.,..:),,,,,,,,) ,t. ," 5 \''' . Ilk A• ..• ,g .... \\\ "• ‘ "' :tom▪tt, `'%▪ `k' `5ti WO P it 71COR TITLE - N TICOR TITLE INSURANCE 88;95�s ry ; _;:_. STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED ∎i't! HAROLD HAMBACH and MILDRED HAMBACll Grantor, '" `'= .1111 �`., conveys and warrant,to TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J I:NP,i- ..,,j 4' Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrancea except at specifically set forth herein iltualed in .::..-. i,i In WASHINGTON County,Oregon,to wit: ri''ie • See Attached Legal Description ySO1t THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLI• ''y wr`',.I CABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.BEFORE SIGNING ORACCEPTINO THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON ACQUIR- .r114!.•• ING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITYpl. OUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ;`ri_ TO VERIFY APPROVED USES.The sold progeny Is free from encumbrances except lytiti/�g real property taxes a ,�— ,i lien not yet payable; otatutory powers of Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington l;r;:.... County; as disclosed by tax rolls, remises herein described have been classified fo- I, ;I yi Y r P Il;•_- .fl farm use and may be subject to additional taxes or penalties and interest if I'"'.- disqualified; agricultural services liens or financing SE;E EXHIBIT 'A' ..:V. The true consideration for this conveyance is S 265,000.00 (Here comply with the requirement.of ORS 97039) t - ` ci I3 19 88 J _./ Dated 12th day of August =-- HA' OLD HAMBACH �j ;Z,__ :1 /�G.G1G.Zc-.c-/ ?�,-t!�>!✓ MILDRED IIAMDIACH =,,, !J , ,ti's,' State of Oregon.County of Washin toff Stale of Oregon.County of _. -' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this "5. 121,,h day of August 19�-by day of _ , 19__by ----- :;a Harold Hambach and Mildred Hambach President and ._— -.t.r, a . Secretary of •..c,ri,ri 1-'ti .� t t,' corporation, -a e) ' -Co( p ,r, 1 an behalf of the corporation. Notpry Pu6lie for OrsoA My corsimisfiORexpis 6/9/90 Notary Public for Oregon 'I f,, l;'':':• My commission expires: .S WARRANTY DEED This Space Reserved for Recorder's Use HAROLD HAMBACH MILDRED HAMBACH oaxwnlx TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J IUntil a change is requested,all tax statements shall be sent to the fallowing address: TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J 13157 SW PACIFIC HWY. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Escrow No. 139595 Tint No. 34-139595 After recording return to: TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J 13157 SW PACIFIC HWY. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 _-_ 'floor Form No 131 Statutory Warranty Deal 8/85 j" 1 I n -..-- ^fr' . 5-'01},,iof �r J i 1 .1 \ +ll I,f ( T ,0 jj�� /,�,,,. .. Jr 1,1c '' L }� ��.{ 3�r 0 ( ir1� , .,,:r 4Y- r s ,,,P"4:"Itr�''��(((v.t`'^:i i ,. a r �. 1rF4P s �.._ _a. I . iY1 Y� t(Y r�N 17;t JY e r ■ '._.t ti. .C•g y r.e o�Ar 1. ?:5•>•i�✓ z. p ,'yy 3I',t• l c r- .t.."I'' /IA A'I6 i s ,, w- 1`ey•`.l�A��Tlb' Y f'� i '' ''l'`' S s' r Jyrl' sS ��,} .64.'.i,-,,----- _..._ . .. --.�,iwr 55 t�✓ M' �. 4,... s.?{{•.i ;/($! I..t`e y°i. 5' i t '11 t�` sti,,� e ti 1 n'r� r A.' `'f'.t. .- ---- ,fa IA l i 7 11 1 l t ! , 'rl' -f! \ 1� 11 i{�Y.. _ i t'a {{{{1 '/ t 4ASli i��tytler,>. rr r f l '..,';':; .°,1761...."....., f r 1 t 1 h.a1y v t:44 t tr{ v- i,I -W�'41��ylh Vy . _ ". _. }'H-t ' f hid•SP,,;(1,f, r i s i- t I r ' r r N '�! 1.!.'s lsvi r`tvAttak;Pr► _ — ,� of.y1�-f���, s �, iYY111R"�f r 1 ins t I �Ii i r � i 1 i�� ,� at .�rhy V.�t --_-- -... ft ', jrl+, ,`1y t`, if`i1 �.,� ' ./ 1 , ` l i ! 'a N .0 i 1 11:Vit:g.'iatw�.n ff ! ,3if 51 K i rt <v r st �1 x .i .,sti sx }s-f f r r R ' ) R 1 t t , 1 r 1': i ,�tr!Ak�,'i,4sj*d I _ ,, 'sir„eli 3,.'.w,,";!r y','- �-'i.?zkt.rr.e:: IYG ?r'• l,t fat;.rl,-r� p?sl,'�,vtN.�Y,law iyraweh�uerw.+-_`-- 1 i,,s fink ff t h” ,11f 1. ejAI.v ;;r.k r txl irtit r s p S v,s ittlI'(i+.�f; �r�t �,ry rrs�+-iii. .�.10A�,�LL `� �1 i!Mr, r V. :, " 7 t t w sir. rl, t 1 r r•munr �91'IWMi''rtAt al"� y!'t�S ,15x7 rf 1 ry..,'11■Jfl l�` fff 4 :N1� a1tM �1'J �}f f,rM`1�J'�'66�14�11'�Lr t YV''i��4 " 41y:{t t{�f i s ,, f Vl :44 J. t',!. J 1-: ::-'•.. f c -t-;t' is',iiP� ,JYii T}s1 i, y[V.,„rsr1 .� ..._. s,,,,,,,,,;r,.„..,11 ,' ',.''..:!1'!'t,..14,' - r'1,. o, ,- .,. ri I ', ( fir!:� r +fcPT sif SE'i '�,,g�11W7atf`.A' .w: ---......---------- , , _,,,,I,,,,. ,r,. zw,w.��....... " Yt., , �:;i.y.fr'-k r7l^F�_._ Rtl"yJ1t/1 w-. 9 -� ;' l [ �_ 'i .*•- :�rmunu.4.r~:kaall: . l A^3 .t , Y, •, --r-T—•"'� ( y f., r1 4: y .r r<<.rraa _ , lt l w , ; .411 r J ; r• ,4 ; ;.•.NN roves T 1 ��V , , °," .. - ,,,, r L , r': �{1i0ty *4i1Kk: f 1.'11110+. J•S ty w -;1".... sit Q.d.:{ou.ewae'-.... t� t';'!h . ,'Sti1� 'cikv.J4 V p.41{ .4.,. ': • i _ 011.•Jf 0 i tl?tlf�� inyt�, ---7.....- 'rte S A tract of land in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 2 3, : :,:-;_;; South, Range 1 Weet of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, ^`„" Oregon and being more particularly described as follows: 4;:.- ` '- Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 13; thence •• . North 89'37'47" East along the north line of said Section a �` l yTtC distance of 1584.67 feet to the Northwest corner of that parcel of , .7 '4I land conveyed to Ralph D. Durkee et ux, by Deed recorded .. :0 September 8, 1959 in Book 422, Page 100, Washington County Deed :: Records, said point being the Point of Beginning of the tract `" '± herein to be described; thence South 0'22'13" East along the west t. `'- line of said Durkee tract, 519.50 feet to a point in the North line i. "•s_ - of that tract conveyed to Portland General Electric, an Oregon A,„ Corporation, and described as Tract II in deed Book 967, Page 562 and recorded March 22, 1974; thence South 89'37'47” West along said 1• ;'t`` ., North line of said Tract II a distance of 242.67 feet to the 4.1..ir southeast corner of that parcel of land described as Tract I in said Book 967, Page 562; thence North 0"22'13" West 519.50 feet to ,;: , the North line of said Section 13; thence along said north line a= North 89°37'47" East 242.67 feet to the Point of Beginning. ;r 7,.: Said tract is SUBJECT to the rights of the public lying within the F.»: .N. right-of-way of S.W. Durham Road. L' LW lAta ' r ' ilt-- .F }DDIIBIT A .:j.; I DEED EXCEPTIONS a, - :111 statements covering crops, if any; rights of utilities to service existing lines; - �,�51 unrecorded easement for water main $ _Yai .. 4xGi :h+: STATE OF OREGON J SS County of WashingtonC-'- i�:;�• I,Donald W.Mason.Director of Assessment r•F end Texalion and Ex-Olficlo Recorder of Con. :,y vortices IOr said county,do hereby codify that Athe within instrument of writing Wes received ikf end recorded In book of records of Bald county. :m Donald W. Mason, Director of '; Assessment and Taunton, Ex- ■i 0111cde County Clerk _ RY• . -i ;VIZ:- 'n�° 1986 AUG 15 AN 9:48 Ii 2 ;=: 1 ",rs '1'.:.011!7'' f _......7A;r r�h•• '' t rr y�'r in '° V:J lf A< s`,3kN NTAV�It.1 ,i1 i F g��i. _`-. ! 4 �'S•t\ t,At afi ♦ ,�J� •' 1 r t , y d r .y(ti,�''t1f a` 1 �-:`!3 - — i t r +. 3 ^li t'o- '11}�t .•C 1 - i V, 1 c{ 1" _.... t��,1 4G, '..1:,N'_`'W.:;1'...,',: "r��[�.t 1, , I.:..,-...:'..: , lY fr , it�i/i .?. 1, `� i'w. —_'^ �'rrr 1}, `'7' ' >• ,,4,,,..,:;� .,i t 2•. +•4./a 3 S .} t 1 r1 •4"f f t 'i t e'."In =_ _ _� � i:�► .Z.:::::;:•:;:;.....:..- l l �l tt;"r 1, V tJ � u `� , & 1 z F7 d,v,n :Li.i.�-d�•�•''J�t� f•w 1 , r.,,!a } 41%)p J Y�J01.•, n,.5^ 6< c Y . ,,• y� TF �},..lx-a 1{, ltf7filq r ,Ak r6 A}�?G _ I �, ;2 11 'M.,(f i Cl.r.l 1 i• �l r .l •'ti; J��r1 oi,,, t' t , 1,No,�1;17M t �cqr.rr1H p'. y • z II., ,..... 1....41f.•t r1.i ",yI A r,tk.e tr'� ,t S'Ay r. ,R,.:.3 '� •40,• r ,t."`.1..,7.v�i . S _.. j4 �04 c• .1:.•✓41.....1.N,!eF jz1a,� A aS(,v 1?l;•r.4 r(�Sr,.O �. t �Gf- '.,b:Allirrs s.�,,-�ti�; ,11;,!:•!4•V, f' py�..•4i0F1 F T/i-s . .,ice• A, tiV;0iF`,.i-...111;4'''i.L11-Vh:"!r ..' 'l;l , l _5t,'1 r'gi!•'' l.R '•3^I':s14•••• rare 'f .. thr.:q_ .__... rill!! Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon N I P\ ne W E \, Map # 2S113BA 00.101 s The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the prem ises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. 261 130A 1 -- 224-_.-L. ,• �- ���4 .0004{��� tk . *•ittri444.444W ;faro — � * • 10: #Nfvv� r ew• o rte ts. ♦ eiri�400�f;�..f+ T'air y ... i■ojj+��ro4'0 '*+# 0* i Fidelity National Title Company me Prepared For: Prepared By: Nima Patel Information Services Department 1001 SW Fifh Avenue Suite 400 - Portland, Oregon 97204 Phone: (503)227-LIST (5478) Fax: (503)274-5472 E-mail: csrequest«fiif:com OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Owner : Metzger Ventures LIc RefParcel Number : 2S113BA 00200 CoOwner T: 02S R: 01W S: 13 Q: NW QQ: NE Site Address : 7800 SW Durham Rd Tigard 97224 Parcel Number : R0514054 Mail Address : PO Box 400 Sherwood Or 97140 Felchhomc : County : Washington (OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 06/08/2000 Loan Amount : $1.325,000 Document # : 45176 Multi-parcel Lender : Saleco Lik Sale Price Loan Type : Blanket Deed Type : Bargain & Sale Interest Rate : Fixed Owned : 100 Vesting Type . • PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Map Page Grid : 655 G7 Mkt Land : $855,860 Census Tract : 308.04 Block: 2 Mkt Structure : $2,296,180 Neighborhood : Y15 Mkt Total : $3,152,040 Subdivision/Plat : %Improved : 73 School District : Tigard M50AssdTotal : $1,981,590 Class Code Zoning : Ip Land Use : 2312 Misc,Non-mfg,Improvement,Ind.Zone Levy Code : 02374 Legal : ACRES 2.50 07-08Taxes : $32,637.99 . Millage Rate : 16.4706 • �• - PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres : 2.50 Year Built . Bathrooms Lot SqFt : 108,900 EflYearBlt . Heat Method BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Pool BsmUninSF: Foundation : Appliances Bldg SqFt : Roof Shape : Dishwasher IstFIrSF RoofMatl . Hood Fan UpperFlSF : InteriorMat : Deck Porch SqFt : Paving Matt : Garage Type Attic SqFt : Ext Finish . Garage SF Deck SqFt : Const Type : This title information has been furnished.without charge,in conformance with the guidelines appro■ed by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Diusion cautions intermediaries that this ser.ice is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said senAces may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon Ciiiir N W E Map # 2S113BA 00200 s The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey — – .........• 1 1 11111„51,.,„, ,i I \S . S ♦^• J.:y/ lam/ ,•.;.r 1A: �� SRI 1, • J 4v ;Z.. / t / �\ J II 1 `f >' _ II ..: ♦ % ♦ , ♦ i ♦ r mil - 1� r .�, yl A• ;4 • III 1 I ♦ J u ♦r v i< Y; iX �� , \l ��1 Y/Jt t YI ,y1 / ‘V 1 . J J1 { ��i'_ f �/•/ iii . ,.. Lyre . 1 \�/ 1 I 1 J •j�. v Y ,� J •• I , JI •`/ 1 t .. ' / I I '� 1 I 4 1 200 1 7.66 AC rbez I t 401 I r BOAC I I I 1 _Jidda— —"um, 11_ Ice V,*1si I 1 11 I + I I (I 400 LIZ_ I 11.32 AC Dian _ ...1'—— p—--J J Mii 23 . i re#r ----..,...._ 604 / ,.-,,. !61 AC / / i / `` _.At __ACtew_amitt.,swateugmalt111112_11193MtnrotIvittfraillnek6_.___._____ remowenimiwenimownwmmarnelm 4110 WM OF MOON } 1111 Dav44 G. Me tRillit..f! Pi.111011...5e..KII.CROC_ CountyofWashinglon PO Box 275 mrseliTie .., htrwcp4 OR 97140 I' Jwq :-.Xk !,„. .6 - W AINN- w .-- COWWV Wa8 OmmlefliMmomMAddrom "I ..X.e. • ..01.:.X••■ti.10,• Metzler PO Sox 275 fl• . ..1' -- • . ••1.9). • ' a la Sherwood OR 97140 county •' f''i",:.- it.t,.1 ---- 1 Oroplsel NMI opol Adam* WOE RESERY11 jr,iso,I.WVIISV, 4,, 4' roe .\0 I DaMilia tailor PO Box 275 REOOFICIAll 1.* ' Ni.'",i. 44.414•J' 'ill' " °I tad. Sherwood OR 97140 r1, • 44,9, ,,. Ex_ b'f'f.0.0,m4 1 I --- 1 I'Era7171triwr' """""""' Doc : 2000015176 ger Manger Ventures, LLC Rect: 256263 27.00 0 PO Box 275 Sherwood OR 97140 06/08/2000 102747em nay. BARGAIN AND SALE DEED-STATUTORY FORM OHNVIDUAL OFLANTUR) David C. Metzger and Dianne p. Metzger ,Grantor, conveys to Mez_ger Vent_9A:118 ,,,,, an Ore11411 1_1P1ite.0 ISAbilitY.S5211171U3Y WI ,Grantee, the following real property situated in___Wtketints20 g County,Oregon.to-wit: See Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. CC 0 U r_.. ail E § cg IF SPACE INSUFFICIENT,CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE) The true consideration for this conveyance is$_1).00** .(Here,comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030.) ** AcuLathez_goad_ond vftluehle_aonoideraticm. DATED THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REG . _ --""1.-- LATIONS.BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON /Of r //'. . G .' ger ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO- -4-Antko PRIME CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES Dianne S. Metzger • • AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST • PRACTICES AS DENNIS IN ORS 30930. . • STATE OF OREGON,County of nkk_41\6Tvver-IN— )ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on unAo...a. by_.Da v-id_G.__Etr,_t zgex_and_-Dianne._E9_.Me_t is az n OFFICIAL SEAL Olt(ete( /e LORALI R.SINNEN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.307990 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN.30,2002 Notary Public for Oregon I ...)4k My c.ommission expires 01. 30 s)000-- i J TIOOR TITLE INSURANCE EXHIBIT 'A' ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land in Section 13,Township 2 South, Range I West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and Stale of Oregon, more particularly described u follows: Beginning at an iron in the center of County Road No. 23,said beginning point being 1871.4 feet • South 89°58' East and 89.14 feet South 58°48' East from the corner of Sections I I, 12, 13 and 14, Township 2 South, Range I West of the Willamette Meridian, being also the Northwest comer of a tract heretofore deeded by John Oche and Magdelane Oche to Harry and Elizabeth Hembach by Deed ,r: recorded in Book 118 page 158, Deed Records of Washington County;running thence South along the :■ West lino of said Hembach Tract 4.30 chains; thence South 84°50' West along the South line of the Mike F. Oche Tract as described in Deed recorded in Book 150 page 454, said Deed Records, 5.50 chains; thence North 5.50 chains to center of said County Road;thence Easterly following center of said road, 5.50 chains,more or less,,to the place of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT the East 10 feet as described in Deed to Robert F. Swain, et ux, recorded in Book 150 page 453,said Deed Records,and the West 120 feet as described in Deed to Ralph D. Durkee, et ux,recorded in Book 422 page 100,said Deed Records. • ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof described in Dedication Deed recorded July 5, 1995,Recorders Fee No.95-046429. • -----111II Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon N ry E ��/ Map # 2S113BA 00200 W s The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. , ..1.0-„, • ...., ..,....,, ,.„. ,..), l .7 .04 4 MG ULU I . ° 4,14 .....:4?...1. ,. . , .-s . . , . 4,..,,_ . . ,,,, , . „6,0 . -. ...,. .4/4.. . ." . .? pc.. ...,;:t:Amith43"4,4743. • d :: . A' ,,_ .__. L.... ,,,:p ., . . . ,401. . 4, N'. -...- ... -... . )›yei. 4? ': Al°t+4 ♦Jr JJ WL iH Or i V 4,41 0.4 ..� I 23 74 "+, ''. +� , '"f 0 ill.. _ ,, ,4,,. .. ,D, 4,4 mot .•' �� _.", .: •.1 WO"''.' 1 go :':?". 4;?`. .•+40 #00 x. i 10*/ . '� r „r ► ,i,i..,. J `�~ * .{� a N ��r swvw ,,� 4eP;4• , #��* � F I ,, : • .. 4,44; ,. • ...t.,„ . .....,„„,,,.__ .,..:: • ....,, .• 4." ,r. .0 404' ;�+ 1. . ,.4.,,,,..„...C* Wire -„'_--4-4'-• . -•- , . - - .....r 1, • ..• .41Pcr 41• • 4 • ' ' )00 *44 • . ./. ..,.seXis AY,k..0.1. • , •W. ..,• 44*,. ,N9. P WWII EXHIBIT D - Impact Study W G D E S I G N I N C November 24, 2008 Gary Pagenstacher City of Tigard - Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 C — RE: Impact Study—Metzger Parking Replacement U.. Dear Gary, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WRG Design has prepared an analysis of the impact the proposed development will have upon public facilities and services. As discussed in this letter, the proposed development will have little if any C _, impact on the public facilities and services in the area. The subject property is located at 7950 SW !1 Durham Road. This application requests approval of applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone LAND Change, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to a Site Development Review Approval. The PLANNING applications are requested in order to provide an additional ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. rit 111 An application was approved by the City of Tigard in March of 2008 to relocate the access drive into Durham Elementary School. This plan routed the entrance drive into the Elementary School through �' the Jackson Business Center property, owned by Metzger Ventures, LLC. The placement of this CIVIL access drive eliminated eleven (11) parking spaces on the Metzger property. As a part of the ENGINEERINC condemnation settlement for the new access way, the School District agreed to reconstruct ten (10) of the parking spaces that were to be removed. Transportation The proposed application will result in the construction of ten (10) additional parking spaces. These LAN D."iCAPC parking spaces are requested to replace ten (10) of the eleven (11) parking spaces that were ARCHITECTURE removed due to relocation of the Durham Elementary School access drive. The replacement of these parking spaces will no produce any new daily trips. There are no improvements proposed to any transportation facilities. The request will not alter any of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the area. Drainage LAND The parking spaces will create 2,515 square feet of additional impervious area.. The run-off from this SURVEY new access area will be treated to in the water quality facility located on the Durham Elementary School property. The runoff will be treated to Clean Water Services standards prior to discharge into Fanno Creek. Please refer to the site plan in Exhibit A and the Storm Water Analysis Memo in Exhibit J of the application materials for detailed information. No drainage impacts will be produced. Park The site is not adjacent to any park lands. There are no additional area residents produced due to the proposal, therefore there will be no measurable park impact. 5415 SW westgale Dr. Water Suite 100 The access relocation will not impact the water system. The water capacity necessary for the Porllanll,OH operation of the Jackson Business Center is currently available. No additional water demands will be 97221 created as part of the proposed development. PH 503/419-2500 FX 503/419-2600 www.wrgd.conl Sewer The sewer system already exists and sufficiently handles the current demand. No additional sewer capacity is necessary. No changes to the current sewer system are proposed. No sewer impacts will occur due to the access relocation proposed. Noise There will be no additional noise generated by the proposed parking spaces. The ten (10) proposed spaces are replacing eleven (11) spaces that were removed due to the relocation of the accessway for Durham Elementary school. The parking spaces will not generate any additional traffic, but will serve the patrons and employees of the Business Center that were coming previously. The parking spaces will be closer to the elementary school property than they were previously, however the 15- foot buffer between the Jackson Business Center and the elementary school will remain to buffer any noise from cars parking in the new spaces. Sincerely, WRG Design, Inc. Michele Simantel, Planner W 7 ', G D E S I G N I N C EXHIBIT E - Neighborhood Meeting Documentation AFFIU1 VIT OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223-8189 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT &COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: One I, `� e lk Malik ,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the Z C ' day of O C-0Oe.(, 20 c"u ,I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list,a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 'V\( ) 5 U\/ L��)(v-vxIv\ ‘12..(,A ,a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes ainl addr ss^ed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at vv��1 Q\4+( Q{. with postage prepaid thereon. VVU ( t\-)\:\'()\4CSirq, Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: I, 1MC\ 1. ,do affirm that I am(represent)the any initiating interest in a proposed land use application for C` Ce h�..r\S■ti k P 11kn' r y\ck -- �i� h A affecting the land located at(state the approximate location(s) IF no address(s)and all tax lot(s)currently registered) S\A1 0J(h Glyn (2 Oct.v` ,anddidonthe ZLl day of l7 c ± v`XV ,20 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a `(Y\r U- ` ' t, land use application,and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal.{ ],� n The sign was posted at C& y l 1(�G, r 1 S rl L CA(�` c l U-V t IV nil r h c't I'Yl 6` uc,d 1► - YOM- - (W `f N, Cr L(;1 (state location you posted notice on property) \A A CAW/ Si Jib Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FORA STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF Of°moo' ) County of t.kt„„ e.orna,►2) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 067 day of OCkc)c f , 20 (1 . OFFICIAL SEAL KRIST1 CRIPPEN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.409363 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV.1,2010 NOT Y PUBL OF GON My mmission Expires: /1 -j —2U 10 is\curpin\nutters\neighborhood meetings\affidavit of mailing'posting neighborhood meeting.doc Page 5 11111® ` > GEOGRAPHIC INF OR MA TI ON SYSTEM PAT i_N � I �w111111 �ai� ST /Iii _ F��;;,1�ili � 4,1" kill AREA \071FIED ',�, 1:1* -f. Uv:.,::.l, i E'°�,"'�w� ' s]i:sLrL i..i'• .. (SOO') idiktis i .iii....rp,c,T,;416. ,,.....,..„.,,,‘, , moi.....7.4 , ..... wies o DURHAM R� oe iiearr�x' 'iiirs r.r� i ,) /L .I JY ".71 rn O� � . e FOR: KRC Design As mum"°�' ��`�I� �� ��� °�� RE: �S11�BA- X00 '�O1 \�� ,� I - s�, P _ isftsm u \ tanaaewee Q� ,\b„ Ry_4'O , Property owner information is valid for 3 months from \ •S*- the date printed on this map. Q 0) attsaewe s}.. ■ o .,Q 1 1,7o/717 • I • Aiii, iii1111111i 0 200 400 600 Feet 4 i I 1.=452 feet , 0 1 111 el m SW r1NUI TIGARD Lu - 3 Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 1312 Hall Blvd Tigard,d,OR 97223 W •MIL ■ http:/Mmwci.i.tigardor.us Community Development Plot date:Oct 21,2008;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR 2S1.12CD-05000 2S112CC-05200 AITKEN KC BENNETT TONY R 7915 SW BOND ST 8070 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-11800 2S112CD-00701 ALEXANDER DANA BLACKWELL JAY M&TRACI N 7635 SW ALDER ST 15950 SW 76TH TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-12700 2S112CD-13400 ARTHUR MALIA A BONANOMI ROBIN A 7704 SW CYPRESS LN 7770 SW CYPRESS LN TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-10000 2S112CD-02600 BALDWIN SURVIVORS TRUST BOND STREET REAL ESTATE LLC 4632 SW VERMONT ST 17841 WESTVIEW RD PORTLAND,OR 97219 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 2S112C0-09700 2S112CD-04100 BALDWIN'S SURVIVOR'S TRUST BOYCE RICHARD R BY BALDWIN JAY K TR 7800 SW BOND ST 4632 SW VERMONT ST PORTLAND,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97219 2 12CD-09900 2S112C0-01300 BALI IN'S S -'q VOR'S TRUST BUCHANAN MICHAEL R&SHEILA M BY BALI ' JAY K TR 10525 SW TIGARD ST 463 : VE-k ONT ST TIGARD,OR 97223 • RTLAND,O' •7219 2S112CD-09600 2S112C0-12900 B WIN' URVIVOR'S TRUST CHAN SORITHEA BY B IN JAY K TR 7718 SW CYPRESS LN 463 RMONT ST TIGARD,OR 97224 RTLAND, R 97219 2S112CC-14500 2S112CD-04200 BARKER BRUCE D&SUSAN L CHARLES LARRY&MARILYN L 20700 COUGAR HILLS LN 7850 SW BOND ST HILLSBORO,OR 97123 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-13900 2S112CC-05900 BEARD GRETA& PHILIP E CHENEY MICHELLE A& 7864 ALDER ST SCHOLZ MARK H TIGARD,OR 97224 15954 SW 81ST CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S113BA-00400 2S112CC-05800 BEHRINGER HARVARD WESTERN CHILTON DAVE S& PORTFOLIO LP SUFFIAN-CHILTON MICHELLE BY EASLEY MCCALEB&ASSOCIATES I 15932 SW 81ST CT PO BOX 190700 TIGARD, OR 97224 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94119 2S1 13 BA-00600 2 S 112C D-14000 CLEAN WATER SERVICES DIEC TOAN P&TRAN M 2550 SW HILLSBORO HWY 7882 SW ALDER ST HILLSBORO,OR 97123 TIGARD,OR 97224 2 113B0-0061. 2S113AB-00800 CL AN •ATER SERVICES DUNCAN JOHN A&JANICE LEE 2550 -W HILLSBORO HWY 9929 NW UPTON CT LSB 6'0,OR 97123 PORTLAND,OR 97229 2S112CD-05500 2S113B0-00400 COLLIER DAVID&TERRY DURHAM I LLC 5116 NE 72ND AVE 8100 SW DURHAM RD VANCOUVER,WA 98661 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-12400 2 3B0-00500 COOK ANDREA P DUR LC 16032 SW 77TH TER 810 RHAM RD TIGARD, OR 97224 ARD,OR 97244 2S112CD-10400 112CC-1630 COOPER MARK BRANDON& D A CHOOL PARK OWNERS OF PATRICIA ELAINE LOT 0 7855 SW ALDER ST TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-10600 2S112CC-16400 COURT SUSAN G DU AM OOL PARK OWNERS OF 7817 SW ALDER ST LOT -16 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112C0-04500 2S112CC-04800 COUTURE ROBERT E&TRISH S DUSKIN GREG A&CAROL A PO BOX 3273 7998 SW BOND ARLINGTON,WA 98223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-12800 2S112CD-12300 COWLEY DANIEL&ALEXIS FASOLINO GABRIEL V& 7706 SW CYPRESS LN VANHOUTEN LUCILLE TIGARD,OR 97224 16018 SW 77TH TER TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-11400 2S112CD-10900 CRONN ANNA 2000 LIVING TRUST FAST DARRYL M& BY ANNA CRONN TR FAST STEPHANIE A& 7711 SW ALDER ST JOHNSON CHARLES M JR TIGARD,OR 97224 22691 SW 55TH TUALATIN,OR 97062 2S112CD-10700 2S112CD-14400 DAVIS LORI J FEGLES JOSHUA J& BETHANY J 7797 SW ALDER ST 13128 SE LINDEN PL#14 TIGARD,OR 97224 MILWAUKIE,OR 97222 2S112C0-04■ 00 2S112CD-11300 RACANELLI ROCKY AND DENISE SALISBURY BEN 7964 SW BOND ST 7727 SW ALDER ST TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-13000 2S112CC-06000 RAMIREZ REUBEN& SAYLER DEBORAH A CORTEZ-PEREZ ANACELINA 15976 SW 81ST AVE 3113 TEDDINGTON DR TIGARD, OR 97224 SAN JOSE,CA 95148 2S112C0-05201 2S112CD-12000 RAY MICHAEL D& SCAFIDI JOE&JOANNE P RAY DIANA L 15984 SW 77TH TER 7979 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S1 12 C D-03900 2S1 12CD-10800 RDQ PROPERTIES LLC SCHACHT GEORG E& LYA 2105 PEREGRINE CT 7791 SW ALDER ST WEST LINN,OR 97068 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-11100 2S112C0-05100 REID EILEEN M&HARRY H J SCHEFTER ANDREW R&ABBIE 7751 SW ALDER ST 7995 SW BOND ST TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S112CC-05700 2S112CC-05400 RICHARDSON ROBIN J SCHMIDT DONALD E& 15910 SW 81ST CT SCHMIDT ANGELA CLAYTON TIGARD,OR 97224 8110 SW BOND ST TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-00900 2S112CD-12500 RIVAS ROSE LIFE ESTATE& SINGER DENA RIVAS IRREVOCABLE TRUST 16050 SW 77TH TER 16060 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-10300 2S112CD-02500 ROBINSON JOHN C SJORDAL SUSAN J 7871 SW ALDER ST 7785 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C0-10500 2S112CD-04600 ROCKER ANDREW D&MARYJANE SMITH JOHN WILLIAM 7833 SW ALDER ST 7932 SW BOND ST TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-05000 2S112CD-02200 ROGERS SHAWN&GWENDOLYN SNIDER JASON B&JODI J 7996 SW BOND ST 15588 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S.112CD-03800 2S112CC-14600 GIRTMAN LOUIE F/OPAL B TRUST HO •RT FA LY BY OPAL B GIRTMAN TR PROP ' ' LLC 22 GRAVATT DR 4632 • V' ',MONT ST BERKELEY,CA 94705 P.s' LAND,O" 97219 2S 112C0.05300 2S112CC-15000 GOLDBERG LAURA D Hs FART FAMI Y 7151 PINTAIL DR PR•'ERT - : LC CARLSBAD, CA 92011 4632 "^VERMONT ST P''ILA ■,OR 97219 2S112CC-05000 2S112CC-14100 HAGAN ELIZABETH R TRUSTEE HO RT FA Y 8020 SW BOND ST PROPE LLC TIGARD,OR 97224 4632 V ONT ST P TLAND,OR 97219 112CD-1428 s 2S112CD-09400 H• :A CROSSING OWNERS H6 FART FA Y ASS• •TION PRO' R LLC 463 : ERMONT ST R•RTLAND,OR 97219 S112CD-14100 2S112CC-16100 H AC ROSSING OWNERS HO ART FA ASS TION PRO S LLC 463 / WONT ST RTLAND,OR 97219 112CD-143 0 2S112CC-16000 H BAC CROSSING OWNERS H. ART F• ILY ASS TION PRO'.: ES LLC 4632 ' RMONT ST P.'TLAND, SR 97219 25112C0-13800 2S112CC-15800 HARANATH SAI P H FART F LY 7844 SW ALDER ST PRO ES LLC TIGARD,OR 97224 463 VERMONT ST RTLAN OR 97219 2S112CD-00800 2S112CC-13900 HAVERY JOHN W MADELON HO ART F ILY 15970 SW 76TH AVE PROP ES LLC TIGARD,OR 97224 463 W MONT ST RTLAND,OR 97219 2S 112 C D-04700 2S 112 C0-10100 HEIDER RICHARD R AND HO ART FAMI LAURELEI M PRO TI LLC 7948 SW BOND ST 4632 S RMONT ST TIGARD,OR 97224 PO LAND, - 97219 2S112CC-15100 2S112,C-14000 HOFFART FAMILY HOFFART F: %ILY PROPERTIES LLC PROPE' `I S LLC 4632 SW VERMONT ST 463 V 'MONT ST PORTLAND,OR 97219 Ps-TLAND,OR 97219 2S1.12CC-15P00 2S112C0-02300 HOFFART HERBERT J HOFFMAN JUDITH A 4632 SW VERMONT ST 7865 SW BOND ST PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 12CC-16200 2S112C0-13600 HO ART BERT J HOLLAN ANGELA E 4632 ERMONT ST 15486 BRIANNE CT • TLA OR 97219 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S112CC-14700 2S112CD-04900 P ART H ERT J HORAN MARY CHRIS 4632 S ERMONT ST 7980 SW BOND ST P LAN OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 12CC-15300 2S112CC-04900 HO R ERBERT J JOHNSON BRADLEY A/PAULA C 4632 ERMONT ST 8000 SW BOND P TLAND, R 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S 12CC-15600 2S1138A-00100 HO ART BERT J JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST THE 4632 ERMONT ST BY CARL H JOHNSON TR P LA R 97219 8965 SW BURNHAM ST TIGARD, OR 97223 112CC-1520. 2S 112C D-12600 H• FA' 'ERBERTJ JONES DAWN E 463 VERMONT ST CIMINSKI JOHN A P% T • •,OR 97219 16068 SW 77TH TER TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CC-1540' 2S112CD-04400 H• FA' ERBERTJ KAESS JENNA L& 4632 VERMONT SCHNEPF ZACHARIAH Pr.'TLA • OR 97219 15880 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CC-1420 2S112CC-05100 HO R ERBERT J KIRKPATRICK DEAN L 8, 4632 VERMONT ST CHRISTINA L TLAN OR 97219 8050 SW BOND ST TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CC-1590 2S112CD-11600 HO ERBERT J KNAPP CHRISTOPHER&IOLANDA 463 ERMONT ST 7701 SW ALDER ST RTLAN , OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97224 2 112CC-14 2S112C0-03600 HO HERBERT J LEBEDA VLASTIMIL/SHARON 463 ERMONT ST 15607 SW HIGHPOINT DR P TLAND,OR 97219 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 2S,112CD-1 i500 2S112CD-12200 LUCHAU COURTNEY NGUYEN PHU THANH&THUY 7794 SW ALDER ST 16002 SW 77TH TER TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C0.09800 2S112CC-14400 MANNEH BASSI& OLSON DENNIS M& CALVIN-MANNEH CARMELLE MARILYN J 7955 SW CAROL ANN CT 18820 SW TUALATA AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S112CC-05300 2S112CC-14300 MAY GLADYS M& OLSON RONALD D& SIKORSKI MICHAEL LINDA A 8090 SW BOND ST 3297 SW LAKE GROVE AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S112CC-15500 2S112C0-05400 MCCLURE ELISE ONTHANK SONJA R 4632 SW VERMONT ST 7947 SW BOND ST PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S1 12C D-09500 2S112C D-14700 MCGREGOR SUSAN J OTIS BRIAN&LORRAINE 4632 SW VERMONT ST 12244 SW AMES LN PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S113BA-00200 2S112C0-1460 METZGER VENTURES LLC Oil &LORRAINE PO BOX 400 122 AMES LN SHERWOOD,OR 97140 ARD, 0 97224 2S 112CD-13200 2S112CD-13300 MILLER ROGER J PALACIOS ALEJANDRO 7750 SW CYPRESS LN 7764 SW CYPRESS LN TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-14800 2S112CD-11000 MIRZAALI FARHAD PEARSALL CHARLES A&SHERYL T 7952 SW CAROL ANN CT 7765 SW ALDER ST TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-02400 2S112CD-13700 MUDD MICHAEL J&WENDY W POAGE STEPHEN D&LINDA K 7845 SW BOND ST 7826 SW ALDER ST TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-11500 2S11200-04700 NEWBERRY ROBERT E&MARY A POWELL ROBERT J& 7707 SW ALDER ST POWELL ANNE C TIGARD,OR 97224 15860 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CC-14900 2S112CD-13100 SOTELO JORGE A & VANDERHEIDEN JOHN P&MARITA A VERONICA L 2167 NW TWILIGHT DR 16029 SW 80TH PL BEND,OR 97701 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-12100 2S112CD-03500 STEVENSON SARA R WAGNER ERNST J 15996 SW 77TH TER 7680 SW BOND TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-11700 2S112CD-02100 STRUCK MICHAEL&DENA WALLIS MICHAEL E& 7683 SW ALDER ST WALLIS ROBIN R TIGARD, OR 97224 7895 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S 112C D-03700 2 S 112C D-04000 TAUTFEST DONALD D WALLS CHARLOTTE 7720 SW BOND ST 7780 SW BOND ST TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2 112C0-1490. 2S112CD-11900 TI -D D OF WHEELER DOTTIE FIELDS 131 HALL BLVD 15976 SW 77TH TER ARD, •R 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-10200 25112CD-03400 TI RD OF WHITE KENDALL C& 1312 HALL BLVD BARRETO CECILIE M T R R 97223 7660 SW BOND ST TIGARD,OR 97224 2S113BA-00401 2S112C0-04300 TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL WINSTON MARK&ZSUZSANNA DISTRICT#23J 17576 LAKE HAVEN DR 6960 SW SANDBURG ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S113BA-00500 2S112CD-03300 TI RD-T TIN SCHOOL ZELL TROY A&MAEGAN M DIST #23J 15895 SW 76TH AVE 69 S SANDBURG ST TIGARD,OR 97224 GARD, 97223 2S113B0-00300 2S112C0-11200 TI t •RD-TU: •TIN SCHOOL ZIEGLER THEODORE A&MARY L LIV DIS '1 #23J BY THEODORE A&MARY L ZIEGLER TRS 6960 • SANDBURG ST 7737 SW ALDER ST ARD, .• 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S112CD-14500 TITTERINGTON PETER K&ROSE 7925 SW CAROL ANN CT TIGARD, OR 97224 Josh Thomas Susan Beilke 10395 SW Bonanza 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Gretchen Buehner David Walsh 13249 SW 136th Place 10236 SW Stuart Court Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Paul Owen 10335 SW Highland Drive Tigard, OR 97224 Tim Esau PO Box 230695 Tigard, OR 97281 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 Ross Sundberg 16382 SW 104th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Brian Wegener 9830 SW Kimberly Drive Tigard, OR 97224 Joseph Dyar 10285 SW Highland Drive Tigard, OR 97224-4668 Rex Caffall 13205 SW Village Glenn Tigard, OR 97223 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - SOUTH INTERESTED PARTIES for. I of I1 fi:lcurolnlsetunllabels\CIT South.docl UPDATED:4-Mav-07 W R ,, G D E S I G N I N C. October 24, 2008 RE: Neighborhood Review Meeting for Proposed Development Dear Neighbor: 1---- „1 WRG Design is representing Durham Elementary School, located at 7980 SW Durham Road, in their i RUMS application to change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation on 3,153 square feet of E.R1"1 property from Residential (R-12) to Industrial Park (IP). This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and DEVELOPMENT Zone change application is required so that the School District may construct ten (10) parking spaces SERVICES for the adjacent Jackson Business Center property. These parking spaces will replace spaces that had to be removed due to relocation of the access drive into Durham Elementary School. ki_r1 Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for necessary land use approvals, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: LAND PLANNING Wednesday, November 12 at 6:30 PM Fir a Of' 1 Durham Elementary School Library 7980 SW Durham Rd. Tigard, OR 97224 CIVIL ENGINEERING Please note this meeting will be an informational meeting on preliminary development plans. These IC plans may be altered prior to submittal of the application to the City. ( ' 'I We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please feel free to call me at 503-419-2500 if you have questions. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Sincerely, Aoki c tio \ � �' � LAND Michele Simantel SURVEY Planner Attachments • G.I.S. Map • Neighborhood Meeting Information Sheet • Questions to Ask Sheet • 5415 SW Westgate Dr. Suite 100 Portland,OR 97221 PH 503/419-2500 FX 503/419-2600 www.wrgd.com '• • ' •'! i':"41,1441 •!it'''••:'".'. II,''.7 .;,,,,,''''''' : ' , ,..„:•-•:,,,,,l. : • ,..-Icr,p1. ,-. ,..,._ 4,,.,-,-..; •......:.•.. •,..:; ' ,.. ,!* •,\,11,- ,'.,-''.' ,,,,, , . , .:4,•;.' '7:4.- ''ikei . .,41;...4 . , . • ,. '' -t-'- ''' -• • .'::114,;• ,. " irI* •.,, ,al. t. : -.0.,••,•:' •,• .::'-'••• ' :,•., f, ,1„...07 ii „. ••••• .: ,, . , •. : .,.... ...„.. ,..-..,1-..,., :,) r: .. j m•.,, -, .,... ... ..,4:. ', .... -• 't$A,..,..„,,. ....„,, .44 z , ,...,-:, A4 ili-11-tit it"' -=' .,...,,A:.:-.T.,:_..,m, . •,,,is, ....1, / - CHLRCOLL 1: ,/,,, : iivirity,7 71111.1,' 1 „„. -•,•:. • .:4: • . 1,":14i -- . :•;.: . : 'i.',,,4•,.: „.:.„4 -0i,s3 •!„ ,,..gv:„ (7,-. ''*„.,;',t'!,',',..-,,,,',1,:id ', •.Z.;'-'• ,:l.•:',?:',:`,.•,,'.,:•:...E111.';; ,• , ',,,--;._ ,:Li:-.-:' 4•::-. _., ,#,Tcl•••,...,.., 1 .,.„.• ,-, „:„ '4.'e: •.??"afti ... '1,:::„.,,' ' , • 11.7, i • r „,.:.•:-.,.4 .0410,.: .. .. „:::„:.,.„8:. 1.4., . .,... ,....,.t....,:.,,,.. . ,,,f,,,,: Ns? ' .,,t, • . '' i 'i _ •i,:.•••.'•,.... -''.:. •" .. .- • --- 1--.. ,- - 2 ;'-;i,--i?,': ,.,-e- „•,. . ; ,... .. . . . . . ;.,i .,„:,..,... , ,,.,..:, .... . : ..... .„.. f3c)N _ _. ......._ ....., :,.: , , .5 . .„ ,t: - ., .: : „ . , '''' 'i:ak ''' '''''''1.)',•: iiik..41.111-'' .- ''.' • '''. „ •• rh '-.'•• ' • L.-,', : J , , 4,9'../4ikt ' . ''-'01.141411111 ' ....,,,, ,•,_,,,,, t,,,,,,,i4,•,,,i,- , i '4412.''''1441- , : . - , Inr •1- . , •- 4.,,, „. ALDER nER : ...- .„5 'Gt. ::._.. 5::::,-::, -5,2-5:;::::' ..,,5•4:,q, 4'7 ..;!! , ,,.... ;: --- 1.5;ifii.:11AfilKi---- i :‘5 -.1.11 J• , .. .,. : „. .: - li., , -- • :,-- Area subject f c.._ a: to Comprehensive •----_....._•.1t7 ..--- !.••-',',4stg';-.?4,1,,•,, .::. .‘,.,,x. 410 /Zone Change' •6‘.:-,.,..,t•-°:t- ii,:t.,4::,,,,,1,1:w::•,iiii..1::,: 4::'•.„14,i ii‘,}-..,141,. T`P. ' ----;•'' : --- .. ... DURHAM --- :fll Plan ..,,..,„,.,.......:': -- ----- -- •-•'..`"-„i,1**04v:ti:7 ---..`t'''' '''--,,....;'„,,...:'::•,...,1'..5:'. .1.,,,,,, ' '' :i! 'II 1 'ir:ii-i,:inv.1-4,..=;fir.f]...,,,.!.1",`;:.' ,,c,::„4 -'",'.1;:;:'-'15-,-,: •,' . ' •';';',-•, ...• ,, '..--*- . ,T:::`:"...:...-T!:':--,.,,,,,..• ,..:: .1 E..:.. ':t •,,,..j. ,,,,,,t,,, ..i.., •••,41,-..v1„,.:'•.„-1,:,::,,,:. ','. • . :„. ::. , -, . : . :. ,,z; .-- '... . •‘:• ,..,.. .:,•-•.:"..,!..;.,, it, ••!•,,,..•. l'•'#'7.'' ''.,-•';''471.;',,,,f,,,-• . . - ...... .., . -. . . ,. ,.D...$.L r..ha n. i E lel,m.':",''.o nta ry : :1,■,.,4. l,„_ai.c•k_s ,::,::,:i-_....-,.:.7'.:-::=‘,-.-,!..1_".-::-....-...,2.;--.1;',s„":.,',:';:',,;!,-•,,.,,,,;-',,...7..._;_:„_-".J...,,...''...i,!.,.`,',,.,',',,,.-N.•,,,,., I.NI,,,l,,,,.i.f•,,'...:->.A-,.,.y•,v.,.,....,.•:'::''--.i..i iF4.'.'.S•'7t 1:,'. .:4,1.- •••.•••• i...., .. ;,', „;..,,-- 1.-7:•'•:, a rqi•,•.,::;:,-.': !,..•". ' ...,...:7,t-‘,.- '..---.:4!..,.',7r: - ,,f,'"-*::: °:* , . ,.'..1., '''•:;-. '..- -•• •......:•,'.:;,;,;-......':'!.:::•,. . ••'- • t lig ).1. _ :.......= ,..4_._ :.„.'. '-- „...........,,''.1.:tr.': :4--...,.,,,:.4.. ,....„:..,,,. '''-'.....1':.iirri-';':.,•;:',7.'1'•-...,:• ... 111.:',", •:. :::' : . •:74:••-• •::::;1 . . ''7::,---,.;!••4•. :. - • •—•• -,iv, -•,-, - • •,..,,. •,. • 101 , t....„•. ;_,,...........,.._ :: t: ..- tn.,.., .! ,.„•,,,,•• ' - - 7 •• F : - . ,,ii.,:r--- 17:1",irl''' - •• --- i. ',„,fi. -44 * '.,i,2'',-... ''''' I , 4 ' ' 'I, , '• ' - •.i '' '' `1.-','• 4, ''': a . .. . .., , 4 1 ,...,. .. ,,, :,.47, 4 .....',„ ',...!,-,-;-..'!'„•!n, .. ..., ', ' t :-.4=•;- . • . . . . -- --v. 4 ••,',' •' ••• .. ..,.....,... i •:•,',,, • :,•..=.,:::: ..,,,fil.:.:...: •,..if ..j.se4,,,,,, ,,..,---, -.4!?.. , 1 -..- - , ',' - - - • • -v - j,,.....if..vit.47'... .i.7*...-,. „.„ .-.--. -•'''',.. . ... . , ...„,....:. ... ...„... .. , •. , .., „ ........,..,......... l'..:',:';,.. ..".,'...-: •'.1.::,'.•:,,,.:',1: ,.-- . . '-•,,IF- S„... T.-.:.'•:1'.-,:::',...,?,..s4, 41-tyt.p.o.. i,..,..4.,, •NC.A" T.11. .;. ; . .,i;--::...:7.-,-,-:,,:.-.:,,:'44,'-cf•tp,,•,„-„,:e'•ii's[-z:i.,..: --igiti,,,;,:,. :4:::, = 1 f*,:...•''''''''"'''..::":!''''':''''' ...-10164'''''''' ''''''.', -• '''''W.s.'": -1.44:411t•i 'lliiiiii44:24,1"::::::::'1Ni';.;;'1'.''*''''''''''' '*V''''4"'''' t'*!:.:. ''''*;'''''''''''''''' . '1..''':'li• . ' ' --•":"4441'' 'Ai'-'4.1' 't'4%,''':' 'f• 4'1.'7'1 -;',1';'.......i4.1't,.-:`,-i'.',',il'•::,ii,', ''•:•'•'!.tei ''';',--..!:!...•`.-„;,k,...', ...,.,,:.:7:'' .."''',,t'''' 0- ' ',',i-•:. :,,,....'\'''''; 1 ..';',".4•41::fiiiisk; ',''..,4:,.. -...,',.'8-7,2; ii•4'Wi.',,"` .4.'t7i,',•.1i=1,:.', t•••4::-,'•'•,t- -'!:`, -*.4.",:?,;''. :illi'2..,,,,N. ' ,.•-• 4,'‘. .1 '.•!.t:::;' '.'",..1,.... .,,,. '1....N4,,I,ite.V"7 itr*..:7...'g'...il,k101k.: ..',...,'...•:',. ,1'. .t:- . -''''''''','-,"!'''''''''' , .' .'. i''''''',1,i,' ' '''1''' •:‘'''' ' 'i''''ff-r''''': '. '-`.6';',•.''' ''''''''' !,,,,I;;,. ..4E," !s'i,,,,...,-,:.:;-,:,-,-,-,,, ,..,:i',, :-,,:,,,,.,,, ...41e.:11rIska, c:,,, .... ..- • -...:',I,Z;;.."' .,,,,,,'• ''•'•-•,,,,,:,;-'' ' ' , ';:••;.f. ', '.:-,..i :'• •,,,• - - ', i',,•-• .,,„:, ,., Stl.' •.:`!tti! • :.7:,'.'''''' •••.• „ •• 200 Fe8I 200 100 0 . mum NEE laIIIIMIAIEIII Neighborhood Meeting Map 0 Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INFORMATION As part of the development review process for most land use applications, the City of Tigard • requires that developers hold a neighborhood meeting to notify and discuss with property owners in the area, their proposed development. Below are some frequently asked questions about the neighborhood meeting process. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the City. Sometimes it takes a while before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be several months between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application. • Once an application is submitted to the City, Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes approximately 6-8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns. Property owners within 500 feet will be notified after a complete application is submitted. They will be provided an opportunity to comment. Any appeals are decided based on the provisions of applicable laws and the development code. WJIAT IF THE PROPOSAL PRESENTED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IS NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the project is significantly different, a new neighborhood meeting would be required as determined by staff. HOW DO I KNOW WHAT ISSUES ARE VALID? A decision is reviewed based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the city s development code to familiarize yourself with what is permitted and what may not be permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library, on the City's web site at www.ci.tigard.or.us, or a copy may be purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You may also contact city planning staff and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. Be prepared, however, that you may not LIKE all the standards, but at least you know what they are. If a development meets the code standards,it can proceed. For your assistance, attached is a list compiled of helpful questions to ask that may assist you in determining your position on a particular proposal. Page 3 QUESTIONS TO ASK OF TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD q CONCERNS, TO MAKE SURE YOUR CONCERNS ARE CONSIDERED The following is a list of questions intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for proposed development in your area. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests. PROCESS / What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When do you expect to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal? / Will the decision on the application be made by City Staff, Hearings Officer, Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (timing) / At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input? / Has a pre-application conference been held with City of Tigard staff? • Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified? • What city planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the planner assigned to the land use case and the one to contact for additional information). STREETS ► Will there be a traffic study done? What is the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary? / What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are proposed? / Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths? / What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? ZONING AND DENSITY / What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning? / Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes, to what zone? / How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum number of units allowed in the zone? DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY / What is your erosion control and drainage plan? What is the natural slope of the property? What are the grading plans? / Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own and maintain the facility? TREES AND LANDSCAPING / What are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed? 1 What are the landscaping plans? What buffering or fencing is required and/or proposed? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / How do I request more information or a follow-up meeting from/with the applicant? is\cutpin\masters\neighborhood meetings\neighborhood meeting mformation_questions.doc Page 4 Durham Elementary / Jackson Business Center Parking Replacement Neighborhood Meeting SIGN-IN SHEET November 12, 2008 Name Address: Street, Zip Phone Number E-Mail Address EXHIBIT F - Pre-Application Conference Notes PRE-APPLICATION NOTES FOR TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW October 16, 2008 STAFF PRESENT: Gary Pagenstecher APPLICANT: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J PROPERTY LOCATION: 7950 SW Durham Road TAX MAP/ LOT#'s: 2S113BA-00401 and 2S113BA-00200 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of a 3,153 square foot tract from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to Industrial Park (I-P);Lot Line Adjustment between TL 2S113BA-00401 and TL 2S113BA-00200,reducing the former and enlarging the latter by 3,153 square feet;Site Development Review (potentially a Minor Modification) to TL 2S113BA-00200 for the creation of 10 additional parking spaces and landscaping. COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Medium Density Residential with Historic District Overlay; Industrial Park ZONING: R-12(HD);I-P NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is required for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map and zoning map amendment. NARRATIVE Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria. Provide background and findings of fact as to why the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment are necessary,or what public benefit is being promoted. Note:The list of specific goals and standards below is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application,and that additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application,or as other issues are raised. This is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions apply to the proposed zoning map amendment.A. recomthendation to approve,approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations (Goal#1,Citizen Involvement;Goal#2,Land Use Planning;and Goal#9, Economic Development). 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of the Tigard Development Code or other applicable implementing ordinance (including but not limited to 18.3::.:-i oi g • a- • ex ' men. ents, 18.390:050f060-Decision Making-Preeedures; 1.8410 lusttnen s; 18.360 Site Development eview: 18.70 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.740, 14it.tcert1rer-lipft 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18,.765,Off-Street Parking and Loading,$equirements). The proposed site development proposal may be a minor modification depending on how it relates to the Evaluation Criteria (9, 10, and 11,in particular) in 18.360.050. See attached Conditions of Approval for SDR98-00004 and SDR2000-00016;and 3. 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. In addition, the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3.Any applicable METRO regulations; APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes for all persons who are property owners of record as specified in Section 18.390.0500. e. Include an impact study.The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large,public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development; and f. Number of application copies to be determined upon application. PROCESS The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the application on the record as provided by Section 18.390,with a Type IV review. DECISION The decision timeline is generally about 4 months from receipt of a complete application. The 120-day rule is not applicable to legislative changes. 2 APPLICATION 1717,1:S: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: $8,886.00 Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map Amendment (3,200 x '/z): 1,600.00 Lot Line Adjustment ($478 x 1/z) 239.00 Minor Modification ($574 x 1/2)* 287.00 Total Fees: $11,012.00 *May require SDR ($4,405 x 1/2) PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner 3 CITY OF TIGARD !t 13125 SW Ilall Ithd. I t c„vt I t Tigard,011 97223 (5(13)639-4171 Conditions Associated With Case #: SDR98-00004 Project Name: METZGER BUILDING CURRENT STATUS UPDATED # DESCRIPTION STATUS* DATE BY DATE BY 1 STR. OPENING PERMIT(STRM. DRAIN) M 9/16/1998 9/16/1998 BDR Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permits, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the storm drain line tap and water line work in SW Durham Road. The applicant will need to submit five(5)copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. 2 COMP AGRMNT/$ASSURANCE INFO REQD M 9/16/1998 9/16/1998 BDR As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name,address an telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3 1-YR MAINT. FOR SAN. SEWER LINE M 8/31/1998 8/31/1998 BDR Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permits,the applicant shall take the necessary steps to place the existing public sanitary line work that was completed for this site by the applicant,onto a one(1)-year maintenance period. The applicant will need to work with the Engineering Department to clarify what steps should be taken. 4 H2O QUAL FAC INSTALLED ON SITE M 8/27/1998 8/27/1998 BDR The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards(adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department(Brian Rager)for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition,a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 5 GOETECH. SOIL ANAL. REPORT REQ'R M 8/27/1998 8/27/1998 BDR If the applicant wishes to pursue a"buried pipe trench"infiltration facility to meet the water quality requirement,shall be submitted to the Engineering Department(Brian Rager)for review,a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer which analyzes the soil on the site and whether or not the soil is suitable for an infiltration facility. 6 REV. SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN REQ'R M 7/22/1998 2/1/2000 DST Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division,Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following:A)the minimum 25%landscape area or a plan that satisfies the criteria of Section 18.68.050.A.6 to allow a reduction to this percentage;B)location of all roof mounted equipment and an elevation demonstrating screening in compliance with Section 18.120.108.4(B);C)three(3)disabled parking spaces;D)four (4)bicycle parking spaces at a location within 50 feet of primary entrances to the structure; and E)written solid waste hauler approval of facility location and equipment compatibility. 7 LIGHTING PLAN REQ'R M 9/2/1998 9/2/1998 MJR A lighting plan shall be submitted to be reviewed and approved by the Tigard Police Department. Staff Contact: Jim Wolf (639-6168 x220). 8 BLDG FINAL INSP REQ UNDERGRNDING M 2/22/2000 BDR 2/22/2000 BDR Prior to final building inspection,the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Durham Road underground as a part of this project,or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be$27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen,the amount will be$6,600. 9 SITE IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED M 2/22/2000 JPH 2/22/2000 JPH All site improvements shall be installed as approved,per the revised site plans. 10 PARKING REQUIREMENTS M 2/22/2000 JPH 2/22/2000 JPH Before the City authorizes use of the buildings on the site for any purpose or changes in the approved uses of the buildings on the site,the applicant shall show that the site contains adequate off-street parking for the proposed uses in combination with other existing uses on the site,consistent with CDC Section 18.106. The applicant shall also demonstrate that the proposed tenant is classified as a permitted use. PIng-CaseConditions.rpt 1 of 2 0/1 5,'2008 • CITY OF TIGARD 12.42 22rn1 I 13125 SW flail Ill%d. TIGARD Tigard,ON 97223 (503)639-1171 Conditions Associated With Case #: SDR2000-00016 Project Name: JACKSON BUSINESS CENTE CURRENT STA'T'US UPDATED # DESCRIPTION STATUS* DATE BY DATE BY 1 STREET TREES M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 1. Submit a plan showing street trees at a minimum 3-inch caliper and spaced 20 to 30 feet apart. 2 CROSSOVER EASEMENT M MS 1/23/2001 MAS 2. Record a crossover easement for the access and walkways for both Tax Lots. 3 PARKING LOT TREES M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 3. Submit a plan showing parking lot trees to be at least 2-inches in caliper. 4 WASTE MANAGEMENT M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 4. Submit a narrative addressing one of the four methods of waste management that will be used according to the Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling Design Standards. 5 FRANCHISE HAULER M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 5. Submit a verification letter that the franchise hauler approves the refuse container and location. 6 PARKING STALLS/WHEEL STOPS M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 6. Submit a plan showing all parking stalls to the north and west of the proposed addition that abut pedestrian walkways and the stalls that abut the boundary of the site will have wheel stops at least 4 inches high and located 3 feet back from the front of the parking stall. • 7 DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR BICYCLES M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 7. Provide directional signs for bicycle parking from the front of the building. 8 BIKE RACK M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 8. Submit a detail of the bike rack to be used. 9 STREET OPENING PERMIT/P-IMP PLANS M 6/4/2001 BDR 6/5/2001 BDR 9. Prior to issuance of a site permit,a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the old driveway closure,new driveway construction,signal modification(if necessary),and any other work in the public right-of-way. The applicant will need to submit five(5)copies of a proposed public improvement plans for review and approval. NOTE: These plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. This permit shall be obtained by the applicant prior to approval of the final plat. 10 COMP AGRMNT/$ASSURANCE INFO REQD M 6/4/2001 BDR 6/5/2001 BDR 10. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal,the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement(if one is required)and providing 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. 11 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS M 12/1/2000 BDR 12/1/2000 BDR 11. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential pubic streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application,and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 12 SUITE LAYOUT MAP M BR 1/9/2002 SS 12. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church,Engineering Department. Suite numbers will then be assigned by the City and the address fee will then be calculated,which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. 13 REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY M 5/31/2001 BDR 5/31/2001 BDR Pang-CaseConditions.rpt 1 of 2 • CURRENT STATUS UPDATED ,# . DESCRIPTION STATUS* DATE BY DATE BY 13. The applicant's constru , plans shall show that they will physically n 'e the existing driveway at the western boundary of the site and replace it with concrete curb and sidewalk to match eAisting. The plan shall also show that the applicant will install street trees along the frontage of this site. 14 ONSITE DETENTION M 1/30/2001 BDR 1/30/2001 BDR 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a plans that shows how they will provide onsite detention to meet USA's Design and Construction Standards. 15 ONSITE WATER QUALITY FACILITY M 1/30/2001 BDR 1/30/2001 BDR 15. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards(adopted by Resolution and Order No.00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department(Brian Rager)for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition,a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 16 ADDITIONAL ROW M 5/31/2001 BDR 5/31/2001 BDR 16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the frontage of SW Durham Road to increase the right-of-way to 35 feet from the centerline. The decription shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. [NOTE: Staff confirmed that existing ROW measures at least 35 feet from centerline,and as shown by Record of Survey#28,405,by Weddle&Associates,Inc.] 17 COMPLETE WORK IN PUBLIC ROW M 10/17/2001 BDR 10/17/2001 BDR 17. Prior to a final building inspection,the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way(or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. 18 PRIVATE WATER QUALITY FACILITY M 4/24/2002 HAP 4/24/2002 HAP 18. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards,the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages,and at completion of the construction. Prior to final bulding inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard(Inspection Supervisor)with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. Condition Status Index: M=Met N=Not Met Ping•CaseConditions.rpt 2 of 2 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES :,"P , y TIGARD ENGINEERING SECTION < City of Nerd,Oregon Community(Development Shaping A Better Community PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Maptsl: 2S11311A Tax lgtlsl: 401 Use Type: Residential The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet Street improvements: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: pavement feet avement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 Enllneerlen Deportment Section ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees (1 street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: LI street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. CITY OF TIGARD Pro-Application Conference Notes Page 2116 Engineering Department Section ❑ Other: Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (1.) (2.) Overhead Utility Lines: ❑ Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW . Prior to the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in- lieu described above. Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located . The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to Water Supply: The (Phone:(503) ) provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-7010] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm CITY OFTIGARID Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 Englneerin Deportment Section drainage plan for the site, I may be required to prepare a si 3sin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream r.operties when fully developed. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on- site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. Show new impervious area Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 et 6 Engineering Oenertment Section PERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE: If an PFI Permit is required,the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits. such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 Engineering Department Section GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. PREPARED BY: 1144/`'`d" Off" /6 0 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE Phone: [5031639-4171 Fax [503)624-0152 documenl2 Revised September 2,2003 CITY OFTIMID Pre-Application Conference Motes Page 6 of 6 Engineering Depertment Section EXHIBIT G - Site Photos -•....- I. .'c fi1 « 1 t - .,,: -• * � • • Y 6 •. j ~ r r ' t . f! - �. of _ . ..Y!`.'is .. r p•>r. �R . .s• .7 w•, • _L t. y • • I' h S' �. • 1 per}° 1.. ,« i* e y• C R Jk . r . . 11.7 . . . _ .. .ter... . • • lit ill : • '''' ...'. i S.,4:.- _ -litt:. .. -. 4 4,034k 0 . � „ s ti. . a+, a +S , ` 'a �..1 :1< riiieldoroBE _,It* ,l, '''......-4.14,0 ' 1,r '_-c. '+_' r yr. 1ti oi. h ' `a f _,i0a r ,. - F r • x' LT- .it t, :lit.v, - — iice. 4• o * . M EXHIBIT H - Clean Water Services Sensitive Area Pre-Screen 44/2002 11: 47 5034192600 I�y�tj PAGE 01/02 li ;--17 NOV 1 3 2008 mNOv 0 6 2008 L By— — — earrrWe.er Services File Number B C1eanWater\ Services 0 ES-0035:2-/ Sensitive Area Pre-Screenin• Site Asg�essment 1. Jurisdiction: City of Tigard � k" '"1• .• t '(\e-NwrvA ("2-0 o)ctiro 2. Property Information (example 1S234A801400) 3. Ow e Information Tax lot ID(s): 2S113BA00200 and 401 Name: • V A 1114 ' Company: Tigard-Tualatin chool District Address: 8048 SW Schaeffer Ln. Site Address: 7950 and 7800 SW Durham Road City,State,Zip: Tigard, OR 97224 City, State,Zip: Tigard, OR 97224 Phone/Fax: "S-Q3— Nearest Cross Street: 79th E-Mail; 4. Development Activity(check all that apply) 5. Applicant Information • Addition to Single Family Residence(rooms,deck,garage) Name: Michele Simantel In Lot Line Adjustment Q Minor Land Partition Company: WRG Design • Residential Condominium 0 Commercial Condominium Address: 5415 SW Westgate Dr. Suite 100 Residential Subdivision 0 Commercial Subdivision Portland, OR 97221 n Single Lot Commercial © Multi Lot Commercial City, State,Zip Other Minor Modification to Site Development Review Phone/Fax: S03-419-2500 E-mail: 503-419-2600 5. Will the project involve any off-site work? j Yes i No ©Unknown Location and description of off-site work - 7. Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project Requesting a PLA of 3,153 sf. Si minor modification to build 10 parking spaces along west property line of IL 200 This application does NOT replace Grading and Erosion Control Permits,Connection Permits,Building Permits.Site Development Permits,DEO 1200-C Permit or other permits as Issued by the Department of Environmental Quality,Department of State Lands and/or Department of the Army COE. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,state,and Federal law. By signing this form,the Owner or Owner's authorized agent or representative,acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water Services have authority to enter the project site at all reasonable times for the purpose of Inspecting project site conditions and gathering information related to the project site, I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this document and to the best of my knowledge and belief,this information is true,complete,and accurate, Print/Type NameMic eleSimantel. Print/Type Title Planner, WRG Design Signature '. � ` SSW- �L � Date 11/6/2008 •FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY O Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200'of the site, THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties,a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. [] Based on review of the submitted materials and best available Information Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200'of the site,This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas If they are subsequently discovered.This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as requ'red by Resolution and Order 07-20, Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,State.and federal law. 14,Based an review of the submitted materials and best available information the above referenced project will not significantly impact the existing or potentially sensitive area(s)found near the site.This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect eddltional water qua'lty sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered,This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20,Section 3.02.1, All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,state and Federal law, pit This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless , CWS approved site plan(s)are attached. I] The proposed activity dots not meet the definition of development or the lot was platted after 9/9/95 OISS 92.040(2). NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER L TER IS REQUIRE Reviewed by `/ Date / 0 Ok 2550 SWHillsboo)I•lighway • t lillsboro,orogon 9/122 • Phone:003)081•5100 • Fax:(503)641-4430 • wWw.cleanwatcr.ervi•es.ore CV S'S-.1. 1:- viu, -'( FIN ; ,, , CV w PROJECT ,�_ _ — ` �— lid 1 ;Rom --or AL. ..... _____DURHAM ROAD j O ... 1 Fo�o��;`` ' ..1:...:;.._t•'J.A,i �.n�k �� �������� ��_���II�iI�,��� 2 -.• TIGARD 0.W1 # ,���•y.n\eAfi .iif.`•�m�'•i /~4...i iJJRWw Ire_ I �_ �I �_ � .. 7 VICIVTY MAP wr■orAr :". I1 _ r l— Z U) Q W FXIS7ttJG �A� •' J U U /PROPERTY mo Vii. ' — a U E. Z LINE �.' •\ Q • H Z `- AI0 1. . u) ¢ co STALL co l�ff C7 Q UJ STALL REMOVED BY / .( �`� Y ACCESS DRIVE .-�_-_----__-_--__11 ,% a� Q 2 o .4 `rte r��� y a.3 PROPOSED STALLS. _10 ,,' 11,...---' �[ o'r . r O >� �'!: _: BUILDING uJ e. NJ Q NJ• PARKIptG•. = p STALLS ( ) ' i d r 1 PROP OSED 3i,,' w• , ' cn O CO PROPERTY \/LINE l/�.. r U �`AREh'TO SE ; Y I `•1 a,iRAW$fRRED r./' >U- m _ 3153.415�f 5 l M SCALE 1-40 �, t Y!/ � C E o 40 20 0 40 _ 'r :.. '.. EXISTING CURB U %y <. ( z t� i I 'Asy....� ~ °G�P '�._ PLAYGROUND a z°ri a T- r..`! 1 E o m w� t9 m (V V m EXHIBIT I - Arborist Report k l A �1•o- `%it.�� Ii''f 7800 SW DURHAM RD. PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT TREE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared For Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 Sandburg Rd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)431-4000 Residential and Commercial Spraying•Fertilizing•Pruning•Landscape Installation•Landscape Maintenance•Consultation MEMBER:Tree Care Industry Association•International Society of Arboriculture•Oregon Landscape Contractors Assoc. State Licensed Tree Service #62635•Landscape Contractor #5659•Chemical Application @000231•Insured P.O. Box 1566•Lake Oswego, OR 97035•503-635-3165•Vancouver 360-737-2646•Fax 503-635-1549 Visit our website at www.tclu.com•E-mail: info@tclu.com .w „go.I�?Ilr'56 CONTENTS Tree Protection Plan Narrative 1 Tree Protection Plan Check List 3 Tree Assessment 5 Tree Assessment Map 6 c}'tL g i- .� . Vol,r• ► -,rim_ j'., • ARBORIST REPORT Subject: Tree Protection Plan Address of the Report: 7800 SW Durham Rd. Tigard, Oregon Date of the Report: November 10, 2008 Report Submitted To: Bonita Maplethorpe Tigard-Tualatin School District 233 6960 Sandburg Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 CC: Corey McManus, EIT Senior Project Designer WRG Design, Inc. 5415 SW Westgate DR., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 corey,mcmanus @wrgdesign.com Dear Bonita, I have reviewed the Metzger Parking Site Plan and I have visited the site. My understanding is the intent of the project is to modify the existing parking lot to include 10 new parking spaces placed among the six existing Giant Sequoias on the west side of the parking lot while preserving the trees. To protect the trees the following measures should be undertaken. 1. Wrap the tree's trunks with 1" thick plywood to prevent damage from equipment which will be operating at close quarters to the trees. The plywood may not be fastened directly to the tree by methods that will penetrate any part of the tree or otherwise damage the tree. The plywood will be used in lieu of standard wire tree protection fencing. 2. It will be necessary to prune away any lower tree limbs so as to provide 10 feet of vertical clearance above finish grade. Pruning shall be supervised by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist and shall be done to A.N.S.I. standards. 3. Any other limbs that may interfere with construction equipment clearance shall be tied back in a manner that provides access for the equipment and protects the limb from damage. 4. The existing boulder retained raised planters shall be removed down to original grade. A clay soil fill has been placed to create the planters after the Giant Sequoias had reached their current maturity. Care shall be taken not to damage roots that exist at original grade. Hand work will be necessary to remove the existing soil that is within six vertical inches of existing tree roots. Hand laborers shall be instructed to gently scrape away the last layers of soil above the roots working in radial direction outward from the tree's trunk. This work will require on site supervision by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist. Residential and Commercial Spraying•Fertllizing•Pruning•Landscape Installation•Landscape Maintenance•Consultation MEMBER:Tree Care Industry Associatlon•International Society of Arboriculture•Oregon Landscape Contractors Assoc. State Licensed Tree Service #62635•Landscape Contractor #5659•Chemical Application @000231•Insured P.O. Box 1566•Lake Oswego, OR 97035•503-635-3165•Vancouver 360-737-2646•Fax 503-635-1549 Visit our website at www.tclu.com•E-mail: jnfo @tclu.com Page 1 5. Pruning of roots 2 inches in diameter or greater shall be avoided. 6. Base fill for parking spaces shall be of a gap graded crushed rock such as 3 inch to 1 inch drain rock or washed 34"x #10 concrete aggregate. The back slope of the base rock shall be left open to atmosphere or an aeration system as approved as by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist may be used. 7. Final design of the parking lot system shall be reviewed and approved by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist. In addition to these special conditions and specifications standard specifications and conditions that apply to this work have been attached. Sincerer K y Tree Care & Landscapes Unlimited, Inc. Certified Arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture, Lic #PN-0409 Page 2 Tree Protection Plan REVISED 7/27/05 SITE ADDRESS 7800 SW Durham Rd. Follow the below listed instructions in order to provide the proper protection before, during and after construction for trees#1 through#6. I. Before Construction: App. Non-App. X ❑ a. Identify and number the trees to be protected, verify by mapping and/or tagging and note their size in D.B.H. (Diameter at Breast Height), variety, health and structural conditions, review plans. X ❑ b. Check with local government agencies for tree protection ordinances. X ❑ c. Remove any low limbs that may be in the way of construction equipment, and prune as needed to adhere NAA standards. El X d. Leave a protective covering on the soil, i.e., existing groundcover or mulch. X ❑ e. Notify all other contractors that these trees are to be saved and protected. ❑ X f. Install a temporary 6' high metal no-climb fence to protect the trees and their root systems. Install tree protection sign on fence. Posts located 10' on center as a general rule. For every inch in diameter of the trunk (D.B.H.) allow up to 1 foot of radius from the trunk as the protected area. (Example: 24" D.B.H. = 24' radius of protected root system.) Ideally, we need to protect more than the drip zone. The drip zone into the trunk is the support roots that hold the tree up. The roots from that drip zone out provide nutrition, water and oxygen. Try to avoid loss of more than 30% of root on any one side. This allows some encroachment within the drip line. This should be determined on a case by case site conditions reviewed. (SEE ENCLOSED SITE PLAN) X ❑ g. Identify any insect or disease problems that may require treatment. ❑ X h. Engineer and design proposed structures and construction to avoid root loss. Bridge type foundations can save major roots. X ❑ i. Design landscape islands and planting areas large enough to accommodate trees at maturity. ❑ X j. Plant the right tree in the right place. Avoid future conflicts with buildings and utilities. X ❑ k. Have an experienced Arborist review landscape plan to assure the right tree is planted in the right place and proposed changes don't kill retained mature trees. ❑ X I. Consider tree removals adjacent to trees to be saved for wind related stability concerns. Page 3 App. Non-App. X ❑ m. Check for past and proposed grade and drainage changes, consider the effects. ❑ X n. Check trees for stability. ❑ X o. Remove all trees that would not survive the effects of change. Remove all hazardous trees. X ❑ p. Minimize environmental changes. II. During Construction: X ❑ a. Keep equipment off of the root system to avoid compaction. X ❑ b. Keep equipment away from structure to prevent damage to trunk and limbs. X ❑ c. Don't allow chemicals to be dumped on the ground near the tree, i.e., gasoline, diesel, paint, herbicide, cleaner, thinners, etc. X ❑ d. Provide means of temporary irrigation if the project runs through the summer. X ❑ e. If roots or limbs are cut or damaged, have them inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist and repaired or treated according to his/her recommendations. X ❑ f. Protect the trees from excessive heat, i.e., equipment, paving and/or burning. X ❑ g. Avoid trenching through the root systems, boring under them or hand digging can save roots. X ❑ h. Contact the ISA Certified Arborist familiar with the site prior to and during any activity within the drip zone or tree protection fencing for consultation. III. After Construction: X ❑ a. Carefully landscape the area under the tree, being careful of the roots and structure. Use plantings that will live under the same conditions as that of the tree. ❑ X b. Provide insect and disease control, fertilization and pruning as needed or adhere to long-term protection plan if provided. X ❑ c. Avoid direct irrigation spraying onto the trunk. The amount of irrigation needed to keep new plantings alive can often be enough to kill mature trees. X ❑ d. Do not cover existing root systems with more than 2" of soil. The more soil you add, the greater the chances of damaging the root system. ❑ X e. Provide irrigation and/or drainage to emulate pre-construction conditions. NOTE: This tree protection plan identifies construction protection measures to prevent unwarranted tree loss. The identified measures limit the amount of earth disturbance surrounding the trees, and limit the removal of the tree's root systems. Due to the variation of every project, it is unlikely all of the above identified measures can be practicably applied to each individual tree; nor is it likely each measure is necessary to retain each tree. Prior to the beginning of construction a meeting between a certified arborist and the necessary contractors will be held to determine the appropriate level of protection for each tree, in relation to what work needs to be completed in the tree's vicinity. On site supervision by a certified arborist will be determined and supplied as necessary. Page 4 f. .. s l:h1i1111_�t ARBORIST REPORT Subject: Tree Assessment Address of the Report: 7800 SW Durham Rd. Tigard, Oregon Date of the Report: November 10, 2008 Report Submitted To: Bonita Maplethorpe Tigard-Tualatin School District 233 6960 Sandburg Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 CC: Tony Roos WRG Design, Inc. • 5415 SW Westgate DR., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 tone.roos@lwrgdesidn.corn TREE ASSESSMENT NO. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME DBH CONDITION COMMENTS EXEMPT 1 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 24 Good No giganteum 2 Giant Sequoia Sequoladendron 22 Good No giganteum 3 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 25 Good No giganteum 4 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 23 Good No giganteum 5 Giant Sequoia Sequoladendron 24 Good No giganteum 6 Giant Sequoia Sequoladendron 19 Good No giganteum Sincerel / , a .y / on Tree 'are & Landscapes Unlimited, Inc. Certified Arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture, Lic #PN-0409 Residential and Commercial Spraying•Fertilizing•Pruning•Landscape Installation•Landscape Maintenance•Consultation MEMBER: Tree Care Industry Assoclatlon•Internatlonal Society of Arboriculture•Oregon Landscape Contractors Assoc. State Licensed Tree Service #62635•Landscape Contractor ;ti5659•Chemical Application @000231•Insured P.O. Box 1566•Lake Oswego, OR 97035.503-635-3165•Vancouver360-737-2646+Fax 503-635-1549 Visit our website at www.tclu.com•E-mail: info @tclu.com Page 5 -------- -- - p • • • ..., ,gb- _ 1 PROJECT t:: ------" ••-•".- ---,...""n --.. ... N rr-,-..- ________— - — - --.•--f---- -- -„--..-----1 - - - : I I viatirry ..._ DURHAM ROAD - '.-- - . T • - .....„ 11 4. - • : . \-- -..J. ,•_,....:._•. • • •- 1 TIGA.33 / ,.........a -I ill- s----117---="--N •• , , ....' ... •--,---,---------,-o- , 1.- —11 (31D1 WI , -— . . Z I ..., • --)\ 4 f ' . / . __---/ 5 L1.1 Li —1 VICINITY MAP ..• MT TO KALI i 'I?, ''', ,-•'`',-/ r u) al u) 0 .-ciasTING --, < 0 /PROPERTY \ • 1. --- L.u < Nr .- , e N: _, ----1.,1- - - . ' . . STALL COUNT H 41 - • c7 ......- t--,..______ i r: h tts! , W,--- 0. . , , -„ .---..1 " STALL REMOVED BY - . - : H Z , -- NT4t,'‘Ato. 1 A CCESS DRIVE .____ 11 - / / ---- 4 - PROPOSED STALLS '0 .A z-- S' , /.' 1, BuiLGINC. .....--10 CC 2 g < < F D * _ . c75 ' r itil R STALLS PA(4P) 13r4511.-- --- cf Ili PR OPOSEG :ill, CD P ROPE,R TY ---NN fy R.'LR.IN E 3 ARE TO BE 4 IIN- ll I TR AN S3.A5Rs,E D ,,,/•t?.,...,".. -.. . A , . . 5 .3 r-. o CALE. 1 ..40 ,, .., ,e,,,h, -----.›..... , co ce .„,- , 1-- ' / , %JI 4J' 5 .-. , -,.'.\ g.,.'"" ' ,;;"',cizif EXISTING CURB 0 1 -- 40 20 0 40 04,4A11-II z \IK I "// ' .7"----:-. Pi.AYGROUND r- ci 0 z r-, - I.- - 1 • .---,-,- .--tO'l: .:.: 1 1 /1, ,i : i r 2'• i E g ,',i ci Page 6 , . . EXHIBIT J - Stormwater Report E I • i I • I W 12 D E S I G N INC. MEMORANDUM To: Kim McMillan Via: Email City of Tigard From: Cindy Sundborg, EIT I Water Resources Designer !AAA. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Date: November 10, 2008 Project: Durham Elementary Access WRG#: TSD6701 Re: Revised Metzger Property—Swale Analysis • LAND PLANN1NG The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the newly constructed swale for Durham Elementary Access, located at the corner of SW Durham Road and SW 79th Ave in Tigard, Oregon. The Metzger property has been reconfigured; therefore the proposed site and Metzger property will be re-analyzed to determine whether the designed swale still has sufficient treatment and conveyance capacity to meet city code. CIVIL Water Quality ENGINEERING The impervious area required to be treated will include the proposed access road and parking lot, and impervious buildings and existing parking lot to the north.Also, due to the Durham Elementary Access -I development, water quality treatment for the adjacent Metzger property will be taken out. Therefore, approximately 31,058 sf(0.71 acres) of impervious area from the Metzger property will be collected and treated by the newly constructed swale for Durham Elementary Access site. This area includes the reconfiguration of the Metzger parking lot, which has added an additional 2,515 sf(0.06 acres) of LANDSCAPE impervious area. Pervious areas will not need to be considered in the water quality swale calculations. ARCHITECTURE The total impervious surface area is outlined in Table 1. oat:.;'; Basin ID square feet acres Basin 1 40,088 0.92 Basin 2 23,602 0.54 LAND Basin 3 23,235 0.53 SURVEY Basin 4 31,058 0.71 • Total Impervious Area 117,983 2.71 Table 1 —Impervious Area ii The total water quality volume and flow were computed according to Clean Water Service Design • Standards and are stated below: it Water Quality Volume=0.36(in)x Area (sf)=0.36(in)x 117,983(sf)= 3,540 cubic feet 5415SWWestgaleDr. 12 (in/ft) 12 (in/ft) Suile 100 Portland.OR Water Quality Flow=Water Quality Volume (cf)= 3,540(cf) =0.25 cubic feet per second 97221 14,400 (sec) 14,400 (sec) PH 503/419-2500 EX 503/419-2600 wwen.wrgd.cam Water Quality Swale The water quality swale was designed in accordance with current CWS standards as follows: • Design Flow:Water Quality Flow • Minimum Hydraulic Residence Time: 9 minutes • Maximum Water Design Depth: 0.5 feet • Minimum Slope: 0.5% • Minimum Length: 100 feet • Manning's"n"value: 0,24 • Maximum Velocity: 2,0 fps (based on 25-yr flow) Using FlowMaster 2005 Software and the CWS standards, the water quality swale was designed with the parameters listed in Table 2. Average Depth r e ocl y esi ence Wain WOW Swale Length(ft) Slope(%) Flow(cfs) (ft) (fps) Time(min) (ft) Swale 170 0.5 0.25 0.29 0.17 16.7 4.0 Table 2—Swale Parameters The newly constructed swale has the capacity to treat 0.31 cfs, while still maintaining a hydraulic residence time of 9.0 minutes. The swale is capable of handling 3.42 acres. Table 3 lists the amount of impervious area being sent to the swale from each basin, and the remaining capacity of the water quality swale. Impervious Area Used Description of Area (acres) Access Road& Parking lot(Basin 1) 0.92 Existing Parking lot&Building(Basin 2) 0.54 Existing Building(Basin 3) 0.53 Metzger lot(Basin 4) 0.71 Remaining Capacity of Swale 0.72 Table 3—Water Quality Swale Capacity This peak flow is greater than the calculated WQF of 0.25 cfs for the proposed site; therefore, the swale has sufficient capacity to provide water quality treatment for the site, including the reconfigured Metzger property. Conveyance Swale Along with the water quality swale, the conveyance system has also been re-analyzed. The total impervious area is 117,983 sf. The pervious area, including grass/landscaped area, the football field, and the playground is 165,291 sf. Using FlowMaster 2005 Software and the CWS standards, the conveyance swale parameters are: • Velocity:0.33 fps • Side Slope: 4H:1V for the first 0.5 feet, then can increase to 3H:1 V • Bottom Width: 4 feet • Conveyance Depth: 1.02 feet • Top Width (with max.water design depth at 0.5 ft and freeboard of 1 ft): 14 feet W ' D E S I G N I N C. Conclusion The reconfiguration of the Metzger property will not affect the newly constructed swale located at Durham Elementary Access. The analysis shows that there is capacity to treat and convey flows from the site and from the adjacent Metzger property. Attachments: Post Developed Basin Areas W G D E S I G N I N C. 1 T __ il_ .._._ 1._ ....,. .., _,.I_, 11:::7.- ___1 _ _. __ -- . 'S.'W. DURi-IANTRES —-- --. -I , . 1 ....._451 ----------------- 1: I ! 1 ____7 11 u 1 I 1 ....T________________ z 8 i ._ _ _ • • , . • • tiliOW/tieBNP ""-: 4',-"-r-SD • -7. — D" ——"-SO- — ---;;11 17 1:=Fe------- - •---- ---w-1 ---js-o--:-:- _ --- - - •••-- - ill I * 4071 , . , , . . . . . .. --.•_. P 1 . 4 , , 1 .r.,,.,...,"1.,, :i.i.:.,", .",.:t'•-■•■;0,,,,4 rt 2 4-- . . ,- „ - -, ,,,. „..,„„:4::,4 _______—_________ 1 1 ,,,e...•.: * itik .PilW.:-.7filA _ I) 21 • 1 : 1 I ! ...." '16,--7,--1146WI':f,t,51.?''''' C___—_--_-J °..%-.i,'''..4'X:4-.41gg liggi , ,e0i07,1-4;:-i-'r., .: kJ BASIN 3 • BASIN 2 :::: IMPACTED EXISTING \ 4 . „P!:R1.41.;tnif- • , ..• ° g 41 3 ,- METZGER PROPERTY '''r v.0-.giet!.;:1: ,...•• .., , AREA = 7,484 SF tq .,,iq•Arr ; .•,..- , ,p,.....*,,,,,•A' ; ,.• ...--.•. B A S I N 5 ffri,E,d T.' .''- '' .--;1•■•■•■■ -''''.— , . . . - • _ ... , 0 BASIN 5 _ . ---" " • .. BASIN 4 -- ---- .0 • .,AS ' C---: . ANN ..-■ ..‘, nig: . • 4 .::. CO u) . , •,,,, Iraq- : " - < (/) -, '\_.) - BASIN 1 --r .... : '. LL1 Li j co cm ...-- .— ... • I- I , , • , 11111114.11;° ---- . CC I- --. ---* Olififilli,i 1 elligl-fi-- orl i: °11111;/1::;:.;:,,...t. .01 "".; ,‘,-;..ei ,,61 _t \ ' . : , • 0 t i i t co < -i 0 0 0 . rm ' 0 iti f _.. * - -0-- -0--IP I • t . GI i 1■,,.., : - '.,. .-..... . il Z 1 0 LLJ u.1 0 . ' :_l_.. . !- -- -I -- , , ' 1 ,i 1 / li{ il I ..:tka.., ---""" .., N , ...., 4 , . , . *.., j__,,,,i1 44 r_:i. : 1 a_ rn R O Lij z 6 LLJ u j _J ‘111/ * ' _j 1 1 I i . . 4j I- i I 1 :.: , i , i i > LLJ IT 0 < 0 ct , 1 1 i I i:i!I t - ; I y 1.-- :I: : i ii: " . / t 13-1 Co CC CD .. i i 1 ILI ,.:1 1!,:: O D P SCALE: 1"=70" .1 _________...._ -.. .-- i .., , . , Er rl r I i ----- _ --- I li;i:; 1 ; f () i!; -1 / ! I 0 a_ a 1 0 5 0 1 0 BASIN 5 . :i 1 , I , \. , i \ i , . . :. , ________________(______. } PER AREA IMP AREA TOTAL AREA BASIN : 0:'■.;• 1:, ID (SF) (SF) (SF) •,.... ..._--•- , . • .,. •.., -it- q, :-:‘1't \i, * 1 0 40,088 40,088 ,9...;:' \.,, ; ,, .0_ 2 0 23,602 23,602 :, i , I ‘1 \ , B co I 1 1 11 ,1 ii 1 i ,4- ••,•,::: 11 A 1 III 4:- r- 0 CD -. 3 2,582 23,235 25,817 1 i ',.i.::11;i ,;::,)1 11)Itii,,,i; !,,,,, 0 H .1= 0 0 • .._--- ----..., _ -..., 7. i ; ki ,4( d 4 6,099 31,058 37,157 .---,...4---.... ....- wi •* Z b 5 156,610 0 156,601 I 1 I - I i !ii I 4: /./th . 3,i, I- 0 z TOTAL 165,291 117,983 283,265 L _■ ___ , 1 , ■ I it,,1:i.,:.,j,./iii'ili,",:: /7 EXHIBIT K - Decision for Casefile SDR 2000-00016 NOTICE OF TYPE 1I DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2000-000I6 '!"! ' LOT'LINE ADJUSTMENT '(MIS) 2000-00007 !CITY OFTIOARD' CotirimutntyrDevefopment JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION sG4f0—et/er[ornmuyity 120 DAYS = 1/18/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION CASE NOS.: Site Development Review(SDR) SDR2000-00016 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) MIS2000-00007 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 10,320 square foot addition to an existing 21,000 square foot building and Lot Line Adjustment approval to adjust the eastern lot line to include 8,277 square feet. OWNER: David Metzger APPLICANT: Nicoli Engineering P.O. Box 275 Jim Andrews, Project Mgr. Sherwood, OR 97140 9025 SW Center Street PO Box 23784 Tigard, OR 97281 LOCATION: 7910 SW Durham Road; WCTM 2S113BA, Tax Lot 00300 and 7800 SW Durham Road; WCTM 2S113BA, Tax Lot 00200. ZONE: I-P; Industrial Park. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g. restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.530, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigarr`Cb'meilunity Development Directorts designee,J; has APPROVED the above request subjoet to.certain conditjolis 44,approval # T u fiii:dl`fP. and:conclp$10 o, *iijoh t 009,01610 i i040d'Ori0 0.0,1fi0ctin /f NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 1 OF 20 9 y CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: u•m evi•E) ce o comp y ng wi e o ow ng con.i ons o e • ann ng P'vision. Staff contact: Mathew Scheidegger 503-639-4171, x317. 1. Submit a plan showing street trees at a minimum 3-inch caliper and spaced 20 to 30 feet apart. 2. Record a crossover easement for the access and walkways for both Tax Lots. 3. Submit a plan showing parking lot trees to be at least 2-inches in caliper. 4. Submit a narrative addressing one of the four methods of waste management that will ' be used according to the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Design Standards. 5. Submit a verification letter that the franchise hauler approves the refuse container and location. 6. Submit a plan showing all parking stalls to the north and west of the proposed addition that abut pedestrian walkways and the stalls that abut the boundary of the site will have wheel stops at least 4 inches high and located 3 feet back from the front of the parking stall. 7. Provide directional signs for bicycle parking from the front of the building. 8. Submit a detail of the bike rack to be used. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 9. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the old driveway closure, new driveway construction, signal modification (if necessary), and any other work in the public right-of-way. The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. 10. As a part of the public im rovement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if • one is required) and providing 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. 11. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City.Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 12. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church Engineering Department. Suite numbers will then be assignedythe City and the address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 2 OF 20 13. The applicant's construction plans shall show that they will physically remove the existing driveway at the western boundary of the site and replace it with concrete curb and sidewalk to match existing. The plan shall also show that the applicant will install street trees along the frontage of this site. 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a plan that shows how they will provide onsite detention to.meet USA's Design and Construction Standards. 15. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (ad-opted, by Resolution and Order Nb. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT:. u.mr o e ng nearing i epa men :ran -ager, . ' , ex . or review and approval: 16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Durham Road to increase the right-of-way to 35 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: . Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 17. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way (or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. 18. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and. construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Staff conducted a search of City records for the address (7910 SW Beveland Street). Based on this search, staff could not find any record of past land use activity. The property was previously used as residential, with a single-story home on the property. Vicinity Information: Adjacent properties to the east and south are zoned I-P (Industrial Park) and are developed with office/warehouse/manufacturing buildings. Property on the west side is zoned R-12 and developed as an elementary school. Property on the north side of SW'Durham Road is zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre) and is developed with single-family residences. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 10,320 square foot addition to an existing 21 000 square foot building and Lot Line Adjustment approval to adjust the eastern lot line to include 8,277 square feet. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 3 OF 20 SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET A letter was received from Merry Callahan who lives on SW Bond Street, near the intersection of SW Bond Street and SW 79 Avenue, Her letter listed a few concerns that can be addressed by Engineering. First, Ms. Callahan is concerned about the additional traffic impact from this development and has asked for an assessment of the number of cars that may enter and exit this development on a given day. The City did not require a formal traffic impact report for this development because the amount of traffic it will generate Is not considered significant. The City uses a similar guideline that is used by Washington County and the City of Beaverton as to when a traffic impact report should be required. For a street like Durham Road, with traffic volumes likely over 6,000 cars per day, a traffic impact report would not be required if the development were going to add less than 500 trips per day. Based on estimates derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation (Sixth Edition), the proposed office building addition will generate approximately 115 new trips per average weekday. Because of the existing traffic signal, Staff has recommended a condition that will require the applicant to modify the existing signal to accommodate the new driveway into this site. It is Staffs opinion that the applicant has sufficiently addressed the traffic impact from this development. Second, Ma. Callahan indicated that she has a concern with the amount of green time for the SW 79 Avenue leg of the signalized intersection. Staff spoke to the City Engineer about this and found that there have been no other complaints of inadequate green time. SW Durham Road is the primary leg of that intersection because it is an arterial street, and because of this and the large amount of traffic it carries, it is given the majority of the green time. The City Engineer does not intend to alter the timing of this signal. Third, the letter raises a concern that because of heavy_congestion on SW Durham Road, additional traffic from this development may use SW 79th Avenue to travel to and from the north. It is feasible that some portion of the site traffic will use SW 79 Avenue, but very likely the volume of trip will be less than 50% of the site traffic. It can be argued that the existing width of SW 79 Avenue would meet the standards of a local residential street. A local residential street can accommodate up to 1,500 vehicles per day. At present, there is approximately 800 vehicles per average weekday, baked on very recent traffic counts by ffi the City. Even if 100%•of the site traffic used SW 79 Avenue (115 cars per day), Staff would not consider this significant, and certainly would not consider the additional traffic to be overly burdensome on the existing street. In summary, this development will not have a negative impact on the transportation system, and bylhmodifying the existing traffic signal and locating the new site driveway across from SW 79 Avenue, the traffic impacts from the development will be adequately mitigated. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.410 Lot Line Adjustment) 18.530 Industrial Zoning Districts) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.775 Sensitive lands) 18.780 Signs 18.790' Tree Removal) • 18.795 Visual Clearance) 18.797 Water Resources Overlay) B. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 C. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 D. Impact Study 18.390 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 4 OF 20 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Applicable Development Code Standards The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria In this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790 18.795, and 18.810. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the following Development Code Chapters which are also listed under Section 18.360.090.A.1: 18.350 (Planned Developments), 18.715 (Density Computations), or 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations). These Chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards, and are not discussed in this decision. Lot Line Adjustments (18.410): Approval criteria. Section 18.410.040: The Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; No new lots will be created as part of this adjustment; two (2) lots exist and two (2) lots will remain after the proposed adjustment. There is no minimum lot size for the I-P zone. In any event, the lots will be 47,261 and 484,807 square feet after the adjustment. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structures on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; Reducing the size of the larger lot and increasing the size of the smaller lot will not create a violation of the City of Tigard's Development Code or zoning district regulations. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: + The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; • The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation; • Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and • Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. The width of the smaller lot at its shortest point is 149 feet wide. No flag lot will result from this application. Each lot has frontage on SW Durham Road and each lot has at least one access that is at least 15 feet wide. Both lots are zoned I-P, according to Table 18.530.2, no setbacks are required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. Tax Lot 300 does abut a residential zone to the west and has a setback of 62 feet. Therefore, this standard has been met. With Regard to Flag Lots: • + When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. • A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.745.040. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 5 OF 20 Neither lot will be a flag lot; therefore, this standard does not apply. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. According to the plans, the lengths of both lots are 322 feet 6 inches and a new accessway is associated with the concurrent Site Development Review. A new fire hydrant is proposed 56 feet from the northern property line and located within the landscaping on the west side of Tax Lot 300. Tax Lot 200 has an existing fire hydrant located in the northern parking lot. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied, Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. No common drive is proposed with this application. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress, and Circulation. Both lots have existing access to SW Durham Road. Therefore, this standard has been met. Exemptions From Dedications: A lot line adjustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right-of-way dedication is required. Plain maps show no floodplain and no greenway or right-of-way dedication is necessary with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Variances to Development Standards: An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The applicant has not requested a variance or an adjustment with this application. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment criteria have been met. Industrial Zoning Districts (18.530): 18.530.050.B. states that lot coverage may be increased from 75% to 80% as part of the site development review process, providing the following requirements are satisfied: 1 he minimum landscaping requirement shall be 20% of the site. The applicant shall meet the following performance standards with regard to the landscaping plan approved as part of the site development review process: Street trees, as required by Section 18.745.040 C1 are to be installed with a minimum caliper of three inches rather than the two inches as measured at four feet in height; the landscaping between a parking lot and street property line shall have a minimum width of, 10 feet; All applicable buffering, screening and setback requirements contained in Section 18.745.050 shall be satisfied. The applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate on-going maintenance program to ensure appropriate irrigation and maintenance of the landscape area. The applicant has requested the maximum allowable site coverage to be increased to 80%. In order to allow the increase, the landscaping requirement shall be 20% of the site, The site plan shows the landscaping to be 23% of the site. The applicant will be conditioned to provide street trees at a minimum 3-inch caliper and spaced 20 to 30 feet apart. The landscaping between the parking area and the street property line is 10 feet. Buffering, screening and setbacks are addressed later in this decision and the applicant has included an extensive care program for the landscaping associated with this project. Therefore, based on the completion of the following condition, the applicant may increase the lot coverage to 80%. FINDING: Based on the analysis above;Staff finds that the Industrial Zoning Standards have not been satisfied. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the standards will be met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SOR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 6 OF 20 CONDITION:Submit a plan showing street trees at a minimum 3-inch caliper and spaced 20 to 30 feet apart. Access Egress and Circulation (18.705): Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the around floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; Plans indicate that a walkway extends from the ground floor entrance of the existing 21,000 square foot building to the sidewalk abutting SW Durham. To insure that the walkway will be available, a crossover easement will need to be recorded. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; The existing walkway crosses a vehicle access by 24 feet. The walkway is stripped with appropriate pavement markings. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The plans show the walkway paved with a hard surface material. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with less than 100 parking spaces is one 30-foot access with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses; and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. The development will have less that 100 parking spaces and has 2 points of access into the parking lot off of SW Durham Road. Because the existing 21,000 square foot building and the 10,320 square foot addition is being reviewed as one project, a cross over easement will need to be recorded where the two tax lots abut to the north and south of the projects. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that the access and egress standards have not been satisfied. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the standards will be met. CONDITION:Record a crossover easement for the access and walkways for both Tax Lots. Landscaping and Screening (18.745): Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street or a private drive more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.0 Section 18.745.040.0 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 7 OF 20 Street trees have already been addressed. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.050 states that 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 (Table 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as a specified in the matrix. The proposed construction is for an office/manufacturing building, which is allowed outright in the I-P zone. This parcel abuts R-12 zoned land to the west side of the property, and I-P to the east and south. According to the buffer matrix for the parking area, a Type C buffer is required next to a residential zoned property (west property line). As shown on the landscape plan, the applicant has provided screening equal to a D-2 buffer which includes 15 feet of landscaping along the west side of the property, with a 4.5 foot high decorative rock wall and a 6-foot chain link fence to provide the required screening. Therefore, this standard has been met. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage.by some form of wheel guard or curb. 37 parking spaces are proposed on the west side of the property. According to the • standard, 5 parking lot trees are required. The applicant has provided 6 parking lot trees, 4, 8-inch Vine Maples and 2, Pin Oaks. The applicant has positioned 2 of the required trees on 6-foot landscaped islands and has created a larger 18-foot landscaped island with 2, 11/2-inch Royal Red Maples, 5, five-gallon Doublefile Viburnum and 6, five-gallon Vibumums. However, all trees must be planted with a 2-inch caliper or greater. Therefore, the applicant will be required to submit a plan showing all trees to be 2-inches in caliper or greater. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; All gas meters and other service facilities are located within the landscaped areas except the refuse container, which is addressed below. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial areal or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. The applicant's plans show service facilities to be located at the southwest end of the lot and screened with 6-foot concrete walls and chain link fence. The facility is separated from the proposed truck parking area with a 4-foot island with 3, two-gallon Shrub Rose. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 8 OF 20 FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: The applicant will be conditioned to submit a plan showing parking lot trees to be at least 2-inches in caliper. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage (18.755): Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant has not provided information pertaining to any one of the four methods to demonstrate compliance with this chapter. Therefore, the applicant will be required to address one the four methods mentioned above. Location standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The location of the proposed refuse container is not in a required front yard and is centrally located for all users. The proposed location is not within a parking area. The applicant has not provided a service provider letter from the franchise hauler. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to submit verification that the franchise hauler approves the container and placement. Design standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. The applicant has not submitted detail of the trash enclosure or refuse container. The applicant must submit. details addressing the design standards in order for Staff to determine that this standard has been met. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of compliance with the mixed solid waste and recyclable design standards, this standard has not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000.00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 9 OF 20 CONDITIONS: Submit narrative addressing one of the four methods of waste management that will be used according to the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Design Standards. Submit verification letter that the franchise hauler approves of the refuse container and location. Off-Street Parking_ Loading (18.765): Vehicle Parking Plan Requirements: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to • facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulations access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The access drive has been addressed previously in this decision. Loading/Unloading Driveways: A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more than 25 people at one time. This application does not include a school or a meeting facility. Therefore, this standard does not apply. On-Site Vehicle Stacking For Drive-In Use: All uses providing drive-in services as defined by this title sf„III provide on the same site a stacking lane for inbound vehicles as noted in Table 18.765.1 of the Development Code. No drive-in is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Curb Cuts: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030.N. Curb cuts will be discussed later in this decision. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall: railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. The site lan does not indicated a grade separation between the existing parking area of tax lot 200 and 300. Therefore, no preventive barriers will be required. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 10 OF 20 Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The plans submitted show the parking spaces will be clearly marked. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area can not be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant's site plan does not indicate that wheel stops will be provided for those parking stalls that abut the boundary of the development or those stalls at the front of the proposed building and on the west side that abut the pedestrian walkways. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to have wheel stops that are at least 4 inches high and located 3 feet back from the front of those parking stall mentioned. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. The plans show the parking stalls to be 9 feet by 18.5 feet without extending into landscaped areas, which meets the minimum requirement for standard parking stalls. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories withi.ii a multi-story residential building. The applicant has provided six (6) bicycle parking spaces at the southeast corner of the building. The spaces are within 50 feet of an entrance, however, the spaces can not be seen from the street. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to provide directional signs from the front of the building. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.050.C. The followin design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required Tor required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased excep where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material i.e., pavers asphalt concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 11 OF 20 II The applicant has not provided a detail of the bike rack to be used. Therefore, Staff is unable to confirm that this standard is met. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Table 18.765.2 states that for Office, 0.5 bicycle parking spaces are required for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The building has approximately 5,676 square feet of office space. Table 8.765.2 also states that bicycle parking is required for warehouse and light industrial square footage. Based on the calculations of these uses associated with this addition, no bicycle spaces are required. Therefore, only 3 bicycle parking stalls are required. The applicant has provided 7. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. According to the applicant, no tenants have been identified at this time, but assumptions have been made in order to estimate the square footage of the anticipated occupancy types, which were used to develop the required parking spaces. A break down of estimated square footages is as follows: Office = (2.7/1000), therefore, (5,676 sq. ft. = 15 spaces). Warehouse = (0.5/1000), therefore, (3,096 sq. ft. = 1.5 spaces). Light Industrial = (1.6/1000), therefore, (1,548 sq. ft. = 2.5 spaces). According to the estimated square footage of each use, this addition requires only 19 parking stalls. The applicant has provided a total of 37 parking stalls. Off-Street Loading Spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The proposed addition is 10,320 square feet. The plans provide one truck parking stall and one `truck maneuvering staging area." According to the City Engineer, the loading and maneuvering space meets City specifications. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be fully met. CONDITIONS: Submit a plan showing all parking stalls to the north and west of the proposed addition that abut pedestrian walkways and the stalls that abut the boundary of the site will have wheel stops at least 4 inches high and located 3 feet back from the front of the parking stall. Provide directional signs for bicycle parking from the front of the building. Submit a detail of the bike rack to be used. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.'780.130.0 lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-G Zoning District. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016IJACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 12 OF 20 No signs are associated with this application. However, any sign will need to be approved by future applications for sign permits. Therefore, this standard has been deferred until time of application. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that the Sign standards can be deferred until time of application. Tree Removal (18.790): Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the plating, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be rovided 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. According to the arborist report submitted, 236.5 inches of Sequoias were removed from the proposed site. The owner has replanted 114.6 inches of Sequoias along the perimeter of the project and 187 inches of trees within the landscaped areas of the project totaling 301.6 inches — 65.1 inches in excess of the combined diameters of the trees being removed. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that the Tree Removal criteria have been met. Visual Clearance Areas(18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3)? and eight (8 feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this this provided that all branches below eight,(8)) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. The applicant does not propose anything to be constructed in the visual clearance triangle. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. C. Specific Site Development Review Approval Standards Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of • the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations);); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.13 (Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (underlying zone); Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding;• located to provide adequate distance between j adoining buildings for adequate ligf , air circulation and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 13 OF 20 The applicant's plans have considered the natural environment on the site by locating the building as far away from the residential zone abutting the west side of the subject property without sacrificing the intent of the project. Out of the 12 existing trees on the property, 11 are to be relocated: 100-year floodplain Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall Include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/ bicycle plan. No landfill or development is being done within a floodplain. Crime Prevention and Safety: • Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and • Light fixtures shall be rovided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Windows are oriented towards the entrance of the building. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this project and has no objection to it. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. • Public transit is available on SW Durham Road and pedestrian access to SW Durham has been provided via walkway connections. Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Drainage will be discussed under the Street and Utility Section below. Provision for the disabled: All facilities for the disabled shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447; For this project, 2 disabled parking spaces are required and the applicant has provided 2 spaces that are 9 feet wide and 8-foot access isle. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Provisions of the Underlying Zone: All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Dimensional Requirements: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 14 OF 20 TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES • STANDARD I-P Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 47,261 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. 149 ft. Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 35 ft. 117 sq. ft. - Side facing street on corner& through lots[1] 20 ft. - - Side yard 0/50 ft. [3] 63 ft. - Rear yard • 0/50 ft. [3][4] 96 ft. - Distance between front of garage& property line abutting a public or private street -- - Maximum Height 45 ft. 27 ft. Maximum Site Coverage[2] 75%[5] 77% Maximum Landscape Requirement 25% [6] 23% [1]The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must be satisfied. [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]No setback shall be'required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. [4]Development In Industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5]Maximum site coverage may be Increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.05013 are satisfied. [6]Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Specific Site Development Review Approval Standards have been fully met. 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 Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires an arterial street to have a 60 to 90-foot right-of-way width and a 40-foot minimum paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities,street lighting,storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW Durham Road, which is classified as an arterial street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 30 to 35 feet of right-of-way (ROW) from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should ensure that there is a minimum of 35 feet of ROW as suggested by the applicant's plan. If there is less than 35 feet from centerline, the applicant must dedicate additional ROW. SW Durham Road is currently improved with curb and sidewalk in this area. The City recently completed a traffic signal at the interseotion of SW Durham Road and SW 79 Avenue, across from the proposed driveway. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should add street trees along the frontage of the site and make any necessary modifications to the traffic signal and controllers to accommodate the new driveway. The applicant will also need to close an existing driveway adjacent to thg western property boundary in order to construct the new driveway across .from SW 79 Avenue. The old driveway apron shall be removed and new curb and sidewalk shall be installed in its place. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 15 OF 20 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. There are existing sidewalks on SW Durham Road. No additional sidewalk work is needed, except for what is needed to fill in for the old driveway approach at the western property boundary. 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 the Unified Sewerage Agency 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 the new building will be served from an existing 6-inch sanitary sewer stub that was provided to this site. The applicant's contractor will need to verify the location of that lateral prior to connection. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 21000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The project plan will not negatively impact the upstream drainage basin because the upstream area is accommodated by the storm system in SW Reiling Street. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the' additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facilityi the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) 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's plan is not clear as to how onsite detention will be provided. Stormwater treatment is adequately addressed, but the 25-year detention does not appear to be addressed. There is adequate space on this site to accommodate at least below-grade detention, so Staff is confident that this standard can be met. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall demonstrate how they will meet the onsite detention requirement. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 16 OF 20 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. No bikeway is associated with this project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. No bikeway is associated with this project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. No bikeway is associated with this project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. All overhead utility lines along SW Durham Road were placed underground as a part of the recent improvement. No additional requirements are necessary. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: The applicant proposes to extend the existing onsite water system to serve the new building. If any public water line work is necessary, it must be covered by a Street Opening Permit from the Engineering Department and must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 17 OF 20 Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) 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 issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water uality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design n Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant intends to install a manufactured unit made by StormTreat Systems, Inc. This type of facility has been approved by the City on prior projects because the manufacturer information shows that these systems will achieve the total phosphorus removal required by the USA standards. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Grading and Erosion Control: USA 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 USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. A grading plan shall be submitted with the building plan submittal. 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 $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2", etc. D. Impact Study (18.390) Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. • NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000.00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 18 OF 20 In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public rijht-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication Is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan li/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. The applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $21,311 based on the 5,676 square feet of office, 3,096 square feet of warehouse and 1,548 square feet of light industrial proposed. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $66,597 ($21,311 d vided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $45,285.87. The applicant has been required by the Engineering Department to plant street trees and fill in an old driveway approach with a new curb and sidewalk. Based on the cost of these improvements, the requirements are more than roughly proportional to the unmitigated impacts. At most the applicant would be required to dedicate no more than 5 feet of right-of-way at 12 dollars per linear foot, for a value of $8,940 thus it is easily roughly proportional to the unmitigated impact of $45,285.87. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and offered the following comments: • Move new hydrant 200 feet south and 40 feet east. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Operations Department comments were received in the form of a letter concerning procedural issues related to tree removal. STAFF RESPONSE: Discussions were conducted via telephone conversations. The City of Tigard Utility Manager has reviewed this application and offered the following comments: • Since this is an addition to an existing building, we will not require a separate domestic water for the new addition. We will, however, want to make sure that the existing 1-inch meter is capable of meeting all service requirements. Applicant will need to provide the Water Division, the water usage calculations for both existing building and proposed addition. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Unified Sewerage Agency comments were received in the form of a letter. Staff Response: USA's issues have been addressed under the street and utility NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000-00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 19 OF 20 improvement section of this decision. Portland General Electric has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: The applicant and owners Owner of record within the required distance Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON NOVEMBER 13,2000,AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON NOVEMBER 30,2000 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.. Appeal: The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III Procedure) is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance,with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 5:00 PM ON'NOVEMBER 29, 2000. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at(50,?)639-4171. November 13, 2000 PRE'A" B • Mathe ' eidegger DATE As ' a t Planner 1 r x.411 - em ��, _ November 13, 2000 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Bewe ,,dorff DATE Planning Manager I:1 curpInV nathew\Sdr\SDR2000-00016.dec.doc.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000.00016/JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 20 OF 20 W I !ZL ti; SW DURHAM ROAD Sr BUM Allirdnift ,;i : a r _ — mor ; ___ — F = ilw - ... . t� 6aitlfnza9l igy�W.M.ZVINIS72ERU/pRp\OitU.' II... Y\1 MI � 5 -- � A . . ^� �I �� i caneust,issue. r Q.- A ' r%/!!/J i� e r • •__. .a. . ...- MO • \K i sl y ��ac L.....V �.. . fill it �: 70 ...IL iw." :: :, L. i,...*' MM. J. SOM.Pram. ..r 1 vw.o . ',.. Ilralijial I I r. Will 1 f _. ..11 a .7..... 11111. �. , Mir°SED EXIST R.* TT .) OF TIGARD SDR2000-000 1 6 CM a TIMM CITY �RD ,s. SITE PLAN N JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION (Map is not to scale) • � I � i � � l � � � �Ir� i I 1 I I I I Q � CITY of riGaRD ,z I / GEOORA•MIC INFORMATION SYSTEM Iil ho, Tom_ VICINITY MAP MIMI 1 C 1 _ w �M 1 �'�"� -� SDR2000-00016 I PA L .ILN �mIIHi -- iu JACKSON m 1�IIn 1 L l . I IW f BUSINESS 1 i-� ► CENTER ADDITION i---i'4, (, 6 ›. DURHAM RD Oet ,ii 9 NN. k*.V\.11 .%..1 " NN i 1/44,kkL\N\.M, .\'‘*\''''.V I SIT I s - l JQQQQ 1-z. a Too xoo 300 400 500 Feel .a City of Tigairl maen.tton on Wis map is tr goosed beaks aigy and should be welled vat a OMbpsasnt Samosa oivhion. - 13125 SW Hg vd Tiprd.OR 97223 (503)630.4171 1 1 111(4 wnw.dtlpod.orla Community Development Plot dabs:Sep 26..2000:C:magic%MAGlCA3APR EXHIBIT L - Decision for Casefile CUP 2007-00004 120 DAYS = 3/20/2008 DATE OF FILING: 2/8/2008 n DATE MAILED: 2/8/2008 FED i _ r 'J3 CITY OF TIGARD evi r, 6 . Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER Case Number: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2007-00004 Case Name: DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS Applicant's Name/Address: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard,OR 97223 Owner's Name/Address: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard,OR 97223 Address of Property 8048 SW Shaffer Lane and 7800 SW Durham Road Tigard,OR 97224 Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington Co.Tax Assessor's Map No.2S 113B0,Tax Lot 300;2S113BA,401 and 500; and 2S113BA,Tax Lot 200. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE,MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES,THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE HEARINGS OFFICER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 28, 2008 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER Request: > The applicant requests Conditional Use Approval to relocate the access drive to the Durham Elementary School, currently located along SW Shaffer Lane,to a new access to align with SW 79th Avenue. The new alignment involves an intersection with SW Durham Road that would cross the adjacent property to the east. The applicant also requests 20 additional parking spaces. At the January 28, 2008 public hearing, the Hearings Officer approved this request, subject to conditions of approval contained within this final order. Zone: R-12 (HD): Medium-Density Residential District; and I-P: Industrial Park District. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 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 © Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties © The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON FEBRUARY 8,2008 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 26,2008 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigand Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223. r- THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 25008. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. 45 a4 /v - 1?a‘ 45 3c)-(4, BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J)FINAL O R D ER for a major modification of a conditional use permit to relocate ) the access drive serving the existing Durham Elementary ) CUP2007-00004 School at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Durham Elementary) A. SUMMARY 3 1. Rob Saxton filed the application on behalf of Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J (the "applicant"). The applicant requests approval of a major modification of a conditional use permit to relocate the access drive serving the existing Durham j Elementary School at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane; also known as tax lots 2S113B0,00300; 2S113BA,00401;2S113BA,00500;and 2S113BA,00200 (the "site").Access to the Durham Elementary School is currently provided from Shaffer Lane west of the site.The applicant proposes to close the existing Shaffer Lane access and construct a new access road extending east of the school and intersection Durham Road at the existing signalized intersection with SW 79th Avenue.The applicant also proposes to provide an additional 20 parking spaces to serve the school and the adjacent Durham Center north of the school. The proposed access is to be constructed across Tax Lot 200 with a drive serving the school property involving Tax Lots 401, 500 and 300. Additional basic facts about the site and surrounding land and applicable approval standards are provided in the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated January 22, 2008 (the " Staff Report"),incorporated herein by reference. 2. Tigard Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly • noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the matter. At the public hearing City staff recommended conditional approval of the application. Representatives of the applicant testified in support of the application. The owner of Tax Lot 200 testified in opposition to the proposed access. Other than service providers,no one testified orally or in writing. Disputed issue in this case include: a. Whether changes to the existing traffic patterns will have a significant impact on the Metzger property, tax lot 200; b. Whether the hearings officer can require that the applicant utilize other alternative access locations; c. Whether the proposed access will encourage trespass onto the Metzger property and expose the Metzgers to increased liability; and d. Whether the alleged impacts to the value of the Metzgers' property are relevant to the applicable approval criteria. 3.The hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof for a conditional use permit based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. B. HEARING AND RECORD 1 1. The hearings officer held a duly noticed public hearing on January 28, 2008 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. The record includes a witness list, materials in the casefile as of the close of the record, including materials submitted after the hearing, and an audio record of the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts,bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected relevant testimony offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Gary Pagenstecher summarized the Staff Report. He requested the hearings officer modify condition 23 as set out in his Memorandum dated January 28, 2008. 3. Attorney Kelly Hoesseni, engineer Tony Roos,transportation engineer Chris Maciejewski and planner Erin Engman testified for the applicant. a. Ms. Hoesseni summarized the history of the existing school access and 1 the alternative access locations the applicant considered. The applicant concluded that the proposed access is the safest option,because it provides access at an existing signalized intersection and allows the applicant to close two existing driveways onto Durham Road. She accepted the proposed conditions of approval as modified at the hearing without objections. b. Mr.Roos testified that the applicant will provide a dedicated eastbound right turn lane on Durham Road at the 79th Street intersection,which will mitigate the impacts of increased school traffic on Durham Road. The applicant designed the 79th Street/Durham Road intersection with sufficient turning radius to allow school buses and fire trucks to utilize the new access without entering the oncoming traffic lane. The proposed 36-foot wide access road will allow for on-street parking and two-way traffic flow.The applicant will provide a sidewalk between Durham Road and the school to accommodate pedestrian traffic. The applicant will install a fence on the south side of the access road to prevent children from straying into the road from the play fields. c. Mr. Maciejewski testified that the design of the proposed access intersection is intended to enhance traffic flow on Durham Road. The eastbound right turn lane at the Durham Road/79th Street intersection will offset the increased traffic generated by the school. He noted that the school bus drop off area is separated from the parent drop off area. The applicant will install traffic calming measures on the access road, including a"speed table"at the school site to accommodate pedestrians crossing the access road. The revised parking lot design allows the school and the Durham Center to share access and parking areas. CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 2 L i. He testified that the applicant is concerned about vehicles queues at the Durham Road signal blocking access to the Metzgers' property. However such j impacts are relatively short lived and minor. The Metzgers' property generates an average of ten vehicle trips during the school peak hour. The applicant could install signs urging drivers not to block the intersection in order to maintain access to the Metzgers' property. A four-way stop at the intersection of the proposed school access and the driveway to the Metzgers' property would create traffic backups that would impact the Durham Road/976 Avenue intersection. d. Ms. Engman summarized the developments compliance with the applicable approval criteria. 4. David Metzger testified on behalf of Metzger Ventures, the owner of tax lot 200,where the applicant proposed to access Durham Road. He argued that the proposed access will impact the value of his property. He expressed concerns that his company will be held liable for accidents or injuries that occur at the proposed Durham Road intersection. He argued that buses and cars waiting for the traffic signal on Durham Road will block access to his property. Some drivers seeking a faster route may travel around the buildings on his site to exit via the entrance only driveway on the eastern portion of his property. He argued that other alternative means of providing access to the site are available and should be utilized in order to avoid impacts to his property. 5. The hearing the hearings officer closed the public record at the end of the hearing and took the matter under advisement. C.DISCUSSION 1. The Staff Report identifies the applicable approval criteria for the application and applies them to the record in the case.The hearings officer agrees that the standards identified in the Staff Report are applicable and finds that they are correctly applied to the facts of the case in the Staff Report. Substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval criteria for a major modification of a CUP, and adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will ensure final plans are submitted and implemented as approved consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the development consistent with the requirements of the TMC. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report, as modified, as his own. 2. There is no dispute that the proposed access road will cause some impacts to the Metzger property, tax lot 200,changing the existing traffic flow and increasing congestion at the existing signalized access to Durham Road. Under current conditions the Durham Road access functions as a.private driveway serving only the Metzger property. The proposed access drive will increase the volume of traffic using the access and create conflicting turning movements—traffic entering or leaving the school will conflict with traffic entering or leaving the Metzger property. However the hearings CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 3 officer finds that such impacts are not significant given the relatively short duration of the peak traffic period for the school and the low volumes of traffic accessing the school and the Metzger property during these peak periods. a. Based on Mr. Maciejewski's testimony, the Metzger property currently generates an average of 10 vehicle trips during the schools peak hours. Based on the January 17, 2008 Memorandum from Joyce Woods, the principal of Durham Elementary, to Kelly Hossaini,the majority of school traffic occurs during a thirty minute peak period between 7:50 and 8:20 in the mornings and a second 45 minute peak period between 2:00 and 2:45 in the afternoons. An average of 11 to 12 buses and 15 to 30 passenger cars arrive and depart the school during these peak periods. The school generated traffic must exit via the 79th Street/Durham Road intersection, creating a potential conflict with the • existing traffic generated by the Metzger property. This additional traffic may be • perceptible,but it will not exceed the capacity of the intersection or cause or exacerbate a 't traffic hazard based on the applicant's traffic engineer analysis. Mr.Metztger's unsubstantiated concerns about potential conflicts are not sufficient to overcome the l expert testimony of the applicant's traffic engineers. I 1 b. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required to install "Do Not Block Intersection" signs at the intersections of the access road with the driveways serving the Metzger property to ensure that drivers are aware of the driveways I. and potentially conflicting traffic movements. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. c. Mr.Metzger expressed concerns that drivers will ignore such signs. In p � g addition,he argued that some drivers may travel through his property and attempt to access Durham Road via the existing entrance only driveway on the east portion of his I property. The hearings officer finds that reasonable prudent drivers will observe 1 applicable traffic control signs and access limitations in the area. Unfortunately not all ' drivers are prudent.However there is no evidence that the development proposed in this i application will contribute a disproportionate share of imprudent drivers. 3. The hearings officer has no authority to require the applicant to utilize an alternative accessway as suggested by Mr. Metzger. The hearings officer's jurisdiction is limited to review of the access proposed by the applicant. If the proposed access complies with the applicable approval criteria it must be approved, regardless of whether other alternatives are available that would have less impact on the Metzgers' property.In addition, as outlined in the applicant's alternatives analysis,the other access points noted by Mr. Metzger would not comply with applicable approval criteria because they would increase existing congestion problems on Durham Road. 4. Mr. Metzger expressed concerns that the access easement across his property will expose him to increased liability for accidents that may occur on his property. However such liability concerns are not relevant to to the applicable approval criteria for this development. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed access will significantly increase the Metzgers' potential liability. The potential liability for the CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 4 1 t accessway is no different than for similar shared driveways and access ways in the area. - There is no substantial evidence that similar existing driveways elsewhere in the City have created an unusual hazard or exposed adjacent or underlying property owners to excessive liability. 5. Mr. Metzger argued that the proposed access will facilitate students trespassing onto his property. The proposed development will create a pedestrian pathway across the northern corner of the Metzger property, which may increase the potential for trespass and other nuisance or illegal activities. However the hearings officer finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that significant trespass problems will arise. The proposed sidewalk,which is located on the north and west sides of the access drive, away from the majority of the Metzger property,will not substantially enhance access to the Metzger property compared to existing conditions. Similar access is currently available from the existing sidewalk along the Metzger property's Durham Road frontage. There is no evidence that this existing access has generated significant trespass concerns. The Metzgers have adequate legal recourse to address any trespass problems that may arise. 6. The potential impact of the accessway on the value of the Metzgers' property is irrelevant, because it does not relate to any of the applicable approval criteria. The • School District must compensate the Metzgers' for the value of the easement over their property. In addition, the School District may be required to compensate the Metzgers to any reduction in the value of their remaining property caused by the easement. However such compensation issues are beyond the scope of the hearings officer's jurisdiction in this proceeding. Compensation issues are within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts. 4 D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed conditional use permit does or will comply with the applicable criteria of the Community Development Code,provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval • warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. E. DECISION 4 In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP2007-00004(Durham Elementary Access), subject to the following conditions of approval: CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order 1 (Durham Elementary Access) Page 5 • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: 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,EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is • found: • • 1. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan • showing the required 10-buffer(Table 18.745.1) from the revised right-of-way line along SW Durham Road, an arterial, and demonstrating compliance with the applicable landscaping and screening provisions for parking lots in TDC 18.745.050.E.1. 2. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows the clear vision areas formed by the right-of-way or property line as required in TDC 18.795.040. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles leading to the proposed new parking and at the intersection with the existing parking lot. Pedestrian crossings are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet and must include appropriate landscaping,pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows parking spaces, interior drives and access aisles clearly marked. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing street trees on Tax Lots 300 and 500 in addition to Tax Lot 401. 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised tree protection plan showing locations of trees 32-53. In addition, the plan shall show all trees that are in close proximity to construction activities protected by chain link fencing; other trees may be protected with orange construction fencing. The tree protection plan shall also include a signature of approval from the project arborist. 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings to both Planning and Engineering that include: A. The approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan; B. A construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices,clearing, grading and paving; C. A note prohibiting equipment, vehicles , machinery, grading, dumping, storage,burial of debris,or any other construction-related activities in any tree protection zone; and D. A note stating that only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter [18.790] 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: 1)Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and 2) Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 6 • damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. E. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. 8. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant shall establish tree protection fencing as directed by the project arborist and conditioned by this decision to aprotect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall call for an inspection and p allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to =s 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. 9. As an ongoing obligation during the development of the proposed property, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist submits written reports to the City • Arborist, at least once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone(TPZ) fencing installation through construction. The reports shall include the condition and location of the tree protection fencing and whether any changes occurred. 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). 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. 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows"Do Not Block Intersection" signs at the intersection of the site access • drive and the driveways to the Metzger property, tax lot 200. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,ATTN: Kim McMtilan 503-639-4171,EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 11. 6 3! 7i �xoi 1 ! �; t ( 3 i } B tr,1 L 1 l�.� :1 ��� �iJ Xls �.. "', ,;,. K46",a��t 'g%,� !'4s �#�°f IS ��.g1p:i�� �3€i61sI91g91'f 1 7Pi�.' is q d e5? "� t t.a as •i ion o any •rawings requires sy t e :ui s mg 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). CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 7 12. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone 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 Engineenng Department will delay processing of project documents. 13. 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. 14. Any necessary off-site utility 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 site permit. 15. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lots 401 and 500 to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 16. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lot 300 to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline or to increase the right-of-way to 38 feet from centerline and provide a 12 foot preserve right- of-way. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the a Engineering Department. 17. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lot 200 (as indicated in Exhibit B, Page 1 of 1 in the Order Confirming Immediate Possession) to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 18. The applicant's plans shall be revised to remove all private parking spaces from the public right-of-way or preserve right-of-way. 19. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, indicating that they will construct the following frontage improvements along SW Durham Road as a part of this project: A. eastbound right-turn lane and 8-foot concrete curbside sidewalk; B. street trees along Tax Lots 300,401 and 500, in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; C. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; and D. driveway apron removal. 20. A profile of Durham Road shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 21. Tax Lots 300, 401 and 500 shall not be permitted to access directly onto Durham • Road. CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 8 22. The applicant's plans shall indicate the restoration of bicycle striping upon completion of the right-turn lane construction. 23. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI)permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 24. The applicant shall maintain the minimum 36-inch waterline cover as the widened street section is constructed. If the street widening requires the waterline to be moved, the applicant shall replace the 12-inch cast iron main in Durham Road with a 12-inch ductile iron line and update the water valves located within the widened street section. 25. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department(Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement(PFI)permit plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan and maintenance plan. 26. During issuance of the Site permit, the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of 1 constructing an on-site water quantity(detention) facility.The fee is based on the 1 total area of new impervious surfaces in the proposed development. 27. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility(PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the"Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual,February 2003 edition." 28. °t ,' 7. • THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: 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, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 29. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6"diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arbonst. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 30. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. 31. Prior to placement of any signs on site,the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 9 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 E • NGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: Kim McMillan 503-639-4171,EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 32. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required ' public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 33. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as- . built drawings of the ublic improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in"DWG" format, if available; otherwise"DXF"will be acceptable,and 3)the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure(manholes, catch basins,water valves,hydrants and other water system features)in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 34. The applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW Durham Road 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 1 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 3 City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. 35. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City 1 standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved d by the Engineering Department prior to recording. r 4 36. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW ' Durham Road underground as a part of this project,or they shall pay the fee in- 1 lieu of undergrounding.The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be$35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be$19,530.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 37. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction 1 standards,the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform i construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance • with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard Engineering with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and i specifications. J i CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 10 FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. DATED this 86 day of February 2008. i7/0—eoofo Joe Turner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 11 I ( I I I I f I / LANGTR EE Si rlk 4I( • _��- GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM .11 aim �� �, VICINI'T'Y�� MAP . '�� �I WI milbi m Leo �t m•�..; �����••�!�iil ffli ►t V_ TURE LN ¢ L CUP2007-00004 s o _ X111111 =— ;'tiitii ir�' DURHAM &IIUJII:=o E LEMEl\TARY ',1141111 1 jJIIIIMI SCHOOL i� iJIIIaIPJr!' /�N. T =" ACCESS I. nis to i,� .��.� ■ CAROL ANN CT �� II al ain DURHAM RD amp END LEGEND: .,..,livri/zi/e/t r j --) Mr ,<, . R SUBJECT 1 SITE A IN . 6, 004,,,,,i4i ,\ts,,,i_. , ÷5t-,,,2,.._7.:,/c...ii...4 i.,,1 i ,,,,,,,/". oop / ._„:. ///;,. / ...._____1 . ... _. ., ., ,, : .. ..m,....„,..".._...,4,, .,..,..\4:.:.2 1 •r ' ,, :,; / ,i -4)\ N. _i�... -'-Ho. c• a BOMTra 9EEr RE.._ 0•D ;�,.Ur"9lyll. !R$j:ii /A. /I ([II I nQ Tigard Area Map \lam/ J` ` N 0 t00 2.0;4' 00 300 900 500 Feel —365 feel d J_: Information on wi map is for general location and illshould be verified with the Development Services s Division. I Community Development 13125 SW Mae Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 41 �` (503)6]9-�171 ndpA/www•aAgard.or.us Plot date:Nov 30 2007:C\maolclMAGIC03 APR _. t n- r -.,«--- •S,...� ..-�KP. ....•.. -n...,.,..... r, m t.saniK. « ..,n:.�� m.® . � .. -�,o-..m.e�.ewo. I $ -a --- °i. �� - F' •• Cy_ % ► ms_• Ys.W seo: sym e�•►e'�Arr.+�s,.`�a�. a•. • - .. ...ocaYa' mlrMO as.o•- lj WG '�7f`' �� _ o e• .. -- n,a nos Inl[ __warn= sre two _•za.eo ! rc csosm ,aw � r _ iSPDI )$t@I B@/BAS s1971Sf!{6;/a7F��pILiR "�=a ����_� a .ai �°' o 1.1 3 . asnY9 \ r sr 4 10,%,' — _ eime — . /wuaen • •a 6 r • — '• ..•. 1 } •"°" .':\ /': - ' lyo qYe; �. reo'osm v W. nssa 1%,..'e.. ''L ;o.. is N: fYlelf• ' / ,now N•spa'451014 -/E• • �;IR alt i .c. ' i 'nsar • ill .11,1 ,A,. / Q l 'Cr• • Q ciO . K •01 ` i. • •p �tk�• 11513)311513)3111 e ► ,c• �' nn• �� • wx •' ' . if,,1 N r .. . • - •• "- • Q a � Z 2/ •• 1 : 'O • C p O AMK-lt ]►0 . A nt.' •/ .a•O�VD T G wC G� CO y nN .v.-;,:i.,,1/I nocnon 7s -..fll: . _440 4'''_ Rso !! ., . a ►a It 4. ' P •, I. a.n:. �. ,6,.... ..4.1!-----,.).1.,..! • / v P. z.�Q ..--,,..,.• .a uYC00- 1� ,• Ilir ..i—e# . ' f ' ` 9 •q` . n.n . . rii17E s1 • IlJ ' �� � • a - LLI �%' s..7 — . —..—..—. tw.r • \ ~, �i H D. QQ_ � .. �' ton: �'+� --- /YYOUO,:molc w�// . • y� utE ►a 1 , x 1:y• it •. >«�n alar r• • e: . . . . • . . •. . ;AI. .,«a ; • SITE • . . -PLAN • L:. r 1. D20•• - • PLEASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission T I G A R D Agenda Item # S, 2. Page _L of Date of Hearing 3- CY\ Case Number(s) OC\ 2OCF\ -O©oo I Case Name TCeQ.. e r Jc \ Cc- e Location C°A- w \c .e If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: AA 5-1V-W\,- Name Address: -7) 10 61/4ret L-C1-4< I t Address: ? SW L-171-49c3 1.--1\s) City,State, Zip:`S 1&s 9, 012- 1'7D 3 City, State, Zip: -9 C7e4 - C'7 Name: Je rp Cages Name: - Address: l96 5w ht../1 Address: City,State, Zip: o g 9 7 A 1 9 City,State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City,State, Zip: City,State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City,State, Zip: City,State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City,State, Zip: PLEASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission T I G A R D Agenda Item # Page of Date of Hearing Case Number(s) Case Name Location If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City,State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Agenda Item: 5.2 Hearing Date: March 16,2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ■ FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CODE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY CONTENT REQUIREMENTS OF TREE PLANS FILE NO.: Development Code Amendment(DCA) DCA2009-00001 PROPOSAL: To amend Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) of the Tigard Development Code to clarify how an applicant for development is to demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference for tree protection over removal wherever possible. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 ZONE: All City Zoning Districts COMP PLAN: All City Comprehensive Plan Designations LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, and 18.790; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.6, 2.1.2, 2.1.14, 2.1.24, 2.2.1, 2.2.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.6, 6.1.6, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.5; Metro Functional Plan Tides 1, 2, and 3; and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,and 6. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor to amend the Tree Removal regulations as proposed by the applicant,with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. DCA2009-00001 PAGE 1 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION History Historically, applicants submitting for land use approval have been required to identify all trees on site, specify which will be removed, and propose protection methods for those to be retained. Any or all trees could be removed so long as they were appropriately mitigated. This practice does not prioritize protection over removal wherever possible, as required in Section 18.790.030 of the Tigard Community Development Code. This practice is also in conflict with the purpose statement of the Tree Removal Ordinance which recognizes the value of trees and calls for their preservation. That said, the code is not clear as to how an applicant can demonstrate compliance with the City's stated preference. This lack of clarity generated a Director's Interpretation in 2008 by the previous Community Development Director, which was intended to guide the administration of Chapter 18.790 during development application review. Shortly after issuance, the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) appealed this interpretation to the City Council. The appeal was successful and the Council overturned the interpretation on the grounds that it was more appropriately addressed through a code update. Coinciding with their ruling, Council directed staff to address this issue through updates to the development code. In response to Council direction, staff has prepared a series of text amendments that clarify and expand the submittal requirements to better enable an applicant to clearly and objectively comply with this community preference. A draft of the amendments was presented to the Tigard Tree Board for review and comment on December 4, 2008. Recommended changes and public comments received at that meeting were incorporated by staff and presented to the Planning Commission at a workshop on February 23, 2009. Following the February workshop, additional refinements to the proposed text amendments were made in response to correspondence submitted by the public and on advice from the City attorney. Proposed Changes The proposed changes to Chapter 18.790 are as follows (also found in Exhibit A), with deleted text as strikeouts and added text bolded and underlined): 18.790-Tree Removal 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees, After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion,maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation,planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees +•n .A, in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; DCA2009-00001 PAGE 2 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC 1-TEARING STAFF RIWORTTO PLANNING COMMISSION 4. Protect sensitive l:-rrtri; from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities,and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover" means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestay" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease,infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the means at hand and circumstances as they are. 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal" means the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7. "Tree" means - • . -:. - . ::. : . - , - - . :.: : •- -, -- --- - -• -- - --- . - . -: • - • any standing woody plant having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground,but below 54 inches,the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands"means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required: A tree plan for the planting, removal,and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, adjacent road right-of-way, or combination thereof of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the City's preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the project design,tThe tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location,size, condition,and species of all existing trees,including trees DCA2009-00001 PAGE 3 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC I FEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION • -• . • • • -- - - • -. within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as estimated by the -project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner); 2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D,in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping,streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75%or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction; 5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or"no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable. The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in addition to the the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. a. Does the project protect and retain existing non-hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition, ability to withstand unavoidable development related impacts,proximity to proposed land uses and structures}and susceptibility to windthrow? b. Do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines. or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts, road and driveway configurations.building locations, and building footprints that are located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and/or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees. does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or DCA2009-00001 PAGE 4 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities,no—dig pavement installation,use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species. spacing and planting specifications for the replacement trees and/or the amount of caliper inches that will compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning Director or approving authority may, at their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third-party certified arborist under contract to the City. The findings and recommendations of the third-party certified arborist shall be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C), inclu•'n t • si .t re of . c•rtif• • ,rbor': on ,11 • s um-nts att.chments and .mendments- id 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; and 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third-party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lands shall also comply with requirements set forth in 18.790.050. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives. To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1%bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20% bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25%, drainageways, or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400,lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth.To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any DCA2009-00001 PAGE 5 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION land division under Chapter 18.400,lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20%of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial,industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080,Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements,a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20%reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan,in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use,and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements, The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud,dirt,sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets,adjacent property,or into the storm and surface water system,either by direct deposit, dropping,discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils;turbid or sediment-laden flows;or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. B. Effective date of permit. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date of approval. DCA2009-00001 PAGE:6 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands,but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above,is not permitted. 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards A.Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit;or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit;or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this tide. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation,which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester,showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050.,initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the 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: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below;and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or DCA2009-00001 PAGE 7 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION damaged tree,as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City,either public property or, with the consent of the owner,private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above, a party may, with the consent of the Director,elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Proposal Discussion The City acknowledges that tree removal is sometimes necessary to accommodate the needs and aspirations of the Community. This acknowledgement is embedded in both the zoning of properties for particular types and intensities of development, as well as in the preamble to the Tree Removal Chapter (18.790.010) itself. At the same time the community has expressed a desire to save viable trees when it is reasonably possible to do so, and has embedded that value in the Tree Removal Chapter and the goals and policies of the recently updated Comprehensive Plan. The proposed changes strike a balance between these two competing demands and are expected to provide the following changes to improve tree preservation and the clarify of the development review process. 1. The purpose statement would be amended to remove any explicit references to sensitive lands. This chapter addresses, through various sections,tree removal on both sensitive and non-sensitive lands and staff wishes to make clear that it is not the intent of this section to protect Goal 5 resources. 2. The definitions section would be amended to better define split trunk trees,a source of much debate during development review. 3. The phrase"protection is preferred over removal wherever possible"would be amended to read "wherever practicable." The intent is to bring the terminology of this chapter closer in line to that of the Comprehensive Plan,which demonstrates a preference for"practicable"over"possible" as it implies situational appropriateness and reasonableness in the face of competing priorities,as opposed to an absolute concept regardless of the other circumstances. 4. The content requirements of the tree plan would require an expansive view and more detail on individual trees, the preservation strategies considered,and the reason for a tree's removal. It would also require that tree plans be signed by an arborist who would self-certify the plan. These requirements have been introduced for two reasons. First,if the plan is going to be self-certifying there must a sufficient level of detail for the strength of the determination to be readily apparent. DCA2009-00001 PAGE 8 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC I TEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Second, to answer the questions the certifying arborist will have to be in closer consultation with the remainder of the design team. 5. Approval criteria have been added to clarify how and when a tree plan may be approved. 6. Subchapter names have been changed to better communicate the structure and requirements of this chapter. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF REPORT Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions • Tigard Community Development Code (Title 18) o Chapter 18.380 o Chapter 18.390 o Chapter 18.790 • Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies o Chapters 1,2,and 6 • Applicable Metro Standards o Title 1,2, and 3 • Statewide Planning Goals o Goals 1,2,and 6. City Department and outside agency comments SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) Chapter 18.380: Zoning Map and Text Amendments Chapter 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to the Title and Map A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.309.060G Findings: The proposed text amendments to the Tigard Development Code would be applied to development throughout the City of Tigard; and therefore, the application is being processed as a Type IV procedure, Legislative Amendment,as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Chapter 18.390: Decision-Making Procedures Chapter 18.390.020. Description of Decision-Making Procedures B.4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative matters involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy. Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council. Findings: The proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code will be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed in Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this section, the amendments will initially be considered by the Planning Commission on March 16,2009 with City Council making the final decision. Chapter 18.390.060.G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable Metro regulations; 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. DCA2009-00001 PAGE 9 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Findings: As indicated pursuant to the findings and conclusions that address applicable Statewide Planning Goals,Metro Regulations,comprehensive plan policies, and other chapters of the Tigard Development Code, the amendment is consistent with this criterion. Chapter 18.790:Tree Removal Chapter 18.790.010 Purpose B. Purposes. The Purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; Findings: The proposed text amendments to 18.790.030 are consistent with the overall stated purposes of Chapter 18.790,including the encouragement of tree preservation and the provision of a tree plan. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed text amendments satisfy the applicable review criteria within the Tigard Community Development Code and recommends the Planning Commission forward these proposed amendments to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the comprehensive plan identified the following relevant policies for the proposed amendments: Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Policy 1.2.1: The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. Policy 1.2.6: The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them. Finding: Consistent with Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Development Code (Decision-Making Procedures), two public hearings will be held where public comment will be received by the Planning Commission and City Council. Public notice of these hearings will occur through a combination of direct mailings to affected agencies and interested parties, and publication on the City's website and in a newspaper of general circulation. In addition, the proposed amendments are available for viewing on the City's website or at City Hall. Policy 1.1.3: The City shall establish special citizen advisory boards and committees to provide input to the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff. Finding: The proposed amendments were presented at a regular meeting of the Tigard Tree Board on December 4, 2008 whereupon board members and attending citizens considered the changes and provided comments. The Tree Board unanimously agreed that the proposed amendment should proceed through the legislative process. Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. Finding: As demonstrated in findings above and below, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.1.14: Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and,when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. DCA2009-00001 PAGE 10 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Finding: The existing text of Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code establishes a stated preference for tree preservation over removal, but does not set forth a procedure or criteria through which an applicant can demonstrate proof that such a preference has been considered and incorporated into the project design. The proposed amendment would resolve this ambiguity by establishing clear and objective submittal requirements and approval criteria that would enable an applicant to demonstrate proof of compliance with the City's stated preference. Policy 2.1.24: The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to enhance the community's value, livability, and attractiveness. Finding: The proposed amendments to reinforce the City's preference for tree protection over removal, and replacement where removal is necessary, are consistent with this policy. The stated objectives of this chapter are to protect the contribution of existing trees in Tigard, including their contributions to the aesthetic beauty of the community, cleaning of the air,erosion control, maintenance of water quality and the provision of noise barriers. All such services contribute to the community's value,livability,and attractiveness. Policy 2.2.1: The City shall maintain and periodically update policies, regulations and standards to inventory, manage, preserve, mitigate the loss of, and enhance the community's tree and vegetation resources to promote their environmental, aesthetic and economic benefits. Finding: The proposed amendment is an update of Chapter 18.790 whose purpose is to preserve community trees. The update does not change the purpose of the chapter, but addresses known deficiencies in submittal requirements and approval criteria that do not enable an applicant to clearly and sufficiently demonstrate a preference for tree protection in land use applications. The amendments would also specify content requirements for tree mitigation plans that govern the planting of new trees to replace those removed. Policy 2.2.6: The City shall establish and enforce regulations to protect the public's investment in trees and vegetation located in parks,within right-of-ways and on other public lands and easements. Finding: The proposed amendments would require the inclusion of trees within 25 feet of the affected parcel, and not just those within the parcel boundaries. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure the preservation of off-site trees, where practicable. Such offsite trees could include, where applicable, those located in public right of ways,open spaces,and other public lands. Policy 2.3.1: The City shall develop and implement standards and procedures designed to minimize the reduction of existing tree cover,with priority going to native trees and non-native varietals that are long lived and/or provide a broad canopy spread. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy as it will clarify and strengthen the effectiveness of an existing chapter of the development code whose purpose is to minimize tree removal as a result of a development application. Policy 2.3.6: The City shall, in order to preserve existing trees and ensure new trees will thrive, allow and encourage flexibility in site design through all aspects of development review. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy in that it will require the applicant to consider and address the practicability of flexible design approaches including the use of lot size averaging and/or the reduction of lot width or depth when tree removal is a possibility. Policy 6.1.6: The City shall encourage the maintenance and improvement of open spaces, natural resources, and the City's tree canopy to sustain positive contributions to air quality. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy as it will clarify and strengthen the effectiveness of an existing chapter of the development code whose purpose is to minimize tree removal as a result of a development application. DCA2009-00001 PAGE 11 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Policy 6.2.3: The City shall encourage the use of low-impact development practices that reduce stormwater impacts from new and existing development. Finding: The text amendments would require an applicant to demonstrate in both narrative and plan form that low impact development practices had been considered and incorporated into the tree plan,where practicable. These techniques are set forth in section 18.790.030.B.5(a) through(f) of the proposed text amendments. Policy 6.2.4: The City shall protect, restore, and enhance,to the extent practical,the natural functions of stream corridors,trees,and water resources for their positive contributions to water quality. Policy 6.2.5: The City shall require measures to minimize erosion and storm run-off from development sites during and after construction. Finding; The proposed amendments will allow the City and applicant to more clearly and efficiently protect and restore the natural functions of trees, to the extent practicable. Trees perform a variety of natural functions, including the reduction of erosion and the absorption of storm water,and the proposed amendments will more effectively preserve and/or replace their natural functions to the extent practicable. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies the applicable policies contained in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS: Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Title 1— Requirements for Housing and Employment Finding: This section of the Functional Plan facilitates efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Each city and county has determined its capacity for providing housing and employment that serves as their baseline and if a city or county chooses to reduce capacity in one location, it must transfer that capacity to another location. Cities and counties must report changes in capacity annually to Metro. The amendments will not reduce the number of dwelling units or reduce employment capacity, they will only ensure that the minimum number of trees are removed during construction. Therefore, this text amendment does not reduce the City's housing and employment capacity. Title 2—Regional Parking Policy Finding: The Metro 2040 Growth Concept calls for more compact development to encourage the efficient use of land, promote a higher proportion of non-automobile trips,and protect air quality. In addition, the federally mandated air quality plan adopted by the state relies on the 2040 Growth Concept fully achieving its transportation objectives. This tide establishes regionwide parking policies that set the minimum and maximum number of parking spaces that can be required by local governments for certain types of new development. By not creating an over supply of parking, urban land can be used most efficiently. The proposed amendments will ensure that land is used for the preservation of existing trees rather than extra parking spaces, where practicable and consistent with minimum parking requirements. Title 3—Water Quality Finding: The purpose of Tide 3 is to protect the region's health and public safety by reducing flood and landslide hazards, controlling soil erosion and reducing pollution of the regions waterways. Tide 3 specifically implements the Oregon Statewide Land Use Goals 6 and 7 by protecting streams, rivers, wetlands and DCA2009-00001 PAGE 12 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION floodplains by avoiding, limiting or mitigating the impact on these areas from development. The proposed amendments are consistent with Title 3 in that it will ensure that only the minimum number of trees are removed during development, wherever they occur within City limits, and with that will occur a reduction in erosion and other water quality and stormwater management benefits whether inside the boundaries or upland of water resources. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment satisfies the applicable Metro regulations. THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197 Forty-five day advance notice was provided to DLCD on January 30, 2009, 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged by DLCD. The following are the applicable Statewide Planning Goals that are applicable to this proposal: Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. Finding: This goal has been met by complying with notice and hearing requirements set forth in the Tigard Development Code. A minimum of two public hearings will be held, first the Planning Commission followed by a final decision by the City Council. Public notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was sent to the interested parties list and published in the March 2, 2009 issue of The Oregonian (in accordance with Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.390). Notice will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing. The notices invite public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the entire draft of the text changes could be viewed. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Findings: The proposed amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan is being processed as a Type IV procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or regulations, Metro regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing ordinances, be addressed as part of the decision-making process. Notice was provided to DLCD 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. All applicable review criteria have been addressed within this staff report; therefore, the requirements of Goal 2 have been met. Statewide Planning Goal 6:Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water, and land resources of the state. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal as the proposed changes are intended to protect water quality and other natural functions of existing or replacement trees. By clarifying submittal requirements, including the use of low impact development techniques, the City will minimize impacts from future development. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. DCA2009-00001 PAGF 13 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC 1-IEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Building Division, Engineering Division, Current Planning Division, and Public Works Department has had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond. CONCLUSION: Based on no response from City staff, staff finds the proposed amendment does not interfere with the best interests of the City. SECTION VII. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: City of Durham City of Beaverton City of King City City of Lake Oswego City of Portland City of Tualatin Washington County,Department of Land Use and Transportation Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Metro Land Use and Planning Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish &Wildlife The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and had the following comments: Clean Water Services: Recommended the inclusion of any and all relevant provisions of the current intergovernmental agreement between the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services, and the relevant provisions of the current Design and Construction Standards. Findings: The proposed amendments do not conflict with the current intergovernmental agreement or the current Design and Construction standards. CONCLUSION: Staff finds the proposed amendment meets all requirements of these agencies and does not interfere with the best interests of the City. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed changes comply with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Metro regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan,and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Tree Removal Chapter Amendment to the Tigard City Council as determined through the public hearing process. DCA2009-00001 PAGI 14 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENTS: 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18.790 THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE. 2. LETTER FROM CLEAN WATER SERVICES _/� March 9.2009 MEX." D BY: John Floyd DATE Associate Planner er, , 41.41A1 March 9.2009 A PROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director DCA2009-00001 PAGE 15 OF 15 3/16/2009 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Amendments to TDC Section 18.790 (Tree Removal) Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents,the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community,help clean the air,help control erosion,maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation,planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive'mitts from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection;and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes,at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities,and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover"means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry"means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree"means a tree which by reason of disease,infestation,age,or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable"means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the means at hand and circumstances as they are. 5. "Pruning"means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized Draft Amendments 1 DCA2009-00001 March 9, 2009 tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal"means the cutting or removing of 50 percent(50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree,or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7. "Tree"means ; - . - :. . ::: . : . - , : :•: : •- -, - . .. -. - - - •- -- -- : - - - ; :: - •• - - - -- -;-• -: :. -. :-- :. -: - • any standing woody plant having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground,but below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands"means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise,words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required:A tree plan for the planting,removal,and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, adjacent road right-of-ways or combination thereof of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the Citv's preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the project design.tlhe tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size, condition,and species of all existing trees,including trees- .- • - . - . - - - •-• within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as estimated by the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner); 2. Identification of a program to save retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D,in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction; Draft Amendments 2 DCA2009-00001 March 9, 2009 5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or"no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable. The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in addition to the the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. a. Does the project protect and retain existing non-hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition, ability to withstand unavoidable development related impacts,proximity to proposed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? b. Do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities,sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts, road and driveway configurations, building locations, and building footprints that are located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and/or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees,does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no—dig pavement installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing, and planting specifications for the replacement trees and/or the amount of caliper inches that will compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. Stbsequerrt Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning Director or approving authority may, at their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third-party certified arborist under contract to the City.The findings and recommendations of the third-party certified arborist shall Draft Amendments 3 DCA2009-00001 March 9, 2009 be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions,or deny a tree plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C), including the signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments, and amendments; and 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable: and 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed,the recommendations of the third-party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lands shall also comply with requirements set forth in 18.790.050. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A.Incentives.To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees,the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1%bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20%bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain,slopes greater than 25%,drainageways,or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400,lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80%of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth.To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400,lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20%of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080,Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements,a 1%reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20%of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan,in accordance with Section 18.790.030,or Draft Amendments 4 DCA2009-00001 March 9, 2009 as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist.The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property,including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.030,using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud,dirt,sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets,adjacent property,or into the storm and surface water system,either by direct deposit, dropping,discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils;turbid or sediment-laden flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors,as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75%canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. B. Effective date of permit.A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; Draft Amendments 5 DCA2009-00001 March 9, 2009 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production,or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands,but does not stand on sensitive lands. E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above,is not permitted. 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards A.Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit;or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit;or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval,which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred,then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester,showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050.,initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the 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: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below;and 2. 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. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available,the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; Draft Amendments 6 DCA2009-00001 March 9, 2009 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or,with the consent of the owner,private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above,a party may,with the consent of the Director,elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Draft Amendments 7 DCA2009-00001 March 9, 2009 CleanWater Services ATTACHMENT 2 Our commitment is clear. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 2009 FROM: David Schweitzer, Clean Water Services TO: John Floyd, Associate Planner City of Tigard Planning Division SUBJECT: Review Comments—Tree Removal Code Update, 2009-00001 DCA GENERAL COMMENTS • We recommend following any and all relevant provisions of the current Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services and the relevant provisions of the current Design and Construction Standards (currently R&O 07-20, available on line at: http://cleanwaterservices.org/PermitCenter/DesignandConstruction/Update/default.aspx ) for all issues relating to development, vegetated corridors, erosion control, and preservation of wetlands, natural drainage ways, and enhancements thereof. 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway• Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Phone:(503)681-3600• Fax:(503)681-3603 •www.CleanWaterServices.org 1111 " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum RRI To: President Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission From: John Floyd, Associate Planner Re: Public Comment for DCA2009-00001 (Tree Removal Code Amendment) Date: March 13, 2009 Attached are written comments from the public regarding DCA2009-00001 (Tree Removal Code Amendment), scheduled for a public hearing before Planning Commission on Monday, March 16. As of Friday morning, the correspondence received includes the following: 1. Email and attached Memorandum from Jeff Caines (March 10, 2009) 2. Letter from Karen Estrada (March 11, 2009) 3. Email from John Frewing (March 11, 2009) 4. Email from John Frewing (March 12, 2009) The themes of the comments vary, and staff will address them at the hearing on Monday night. As a reminder, the proposed amendments are the result of very specific council direction to implement an overturned director's interpretation through a code amendment. The proposed language does not address other aspects of the tree code such as mitigation or incentives, which will be the subject of future code amendments. Staff urges the Planning Commission to review these comments thoroughly before the hearing to ensure efficient and productive deliberation. As always, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2429 or johnfl(c�tigard-or.gov. John Floyd From: Jeff Gaines[jeffcaines @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:16 PM To: John Floyd Subject: Tree Code Comments Attachments: Tigard_Tree_Comments[1].doc John: Here are my comments for the Tigard tree code. If you want, we can discuss my comments prior to the hearing and I could revise my comments based on our conversation. Thank you for your time. Jeff Caines, AICP 503-686-1660 - Cell � I MEMORANDUM To: City of Tigard Planning Commission From: Jeff Caines, AICP CC: Date: March 12, 2009 Re: Proposed Tree Code Amendments Below are my comments on the proposed tree code amendments that are being considered. To summarize, in order for the code to work for the benefit of all parties, it is important to take the proposed language through a"stress" test; meaning that Staff should review the proposed code language against a project that is currently being reviewed. From this"stress" test, the question of"how can this new code language be applied by the City or the Applicant?" How could the applicant/property owner complete the new requirements? What is the benefit to the City and the citizens it serves? Specific Comments: 18.790.020—Definitions: The term "Practicable" seems too broad. Who will determine what is reasonably capable of being done or accomplished? Is it staff, the developer,the property owner or the neighbors or an interest group? Just about any type of development can occur or can be accomplished "with the means at hand and circumstances as they are."At what point does a project or a condition of approval become practicable verse impracticable? This definition is left up to the changing winds of interpretation. 18.790.030— A. Tree Plan Required: "Signed": What is the intent of having a"signed"tree plan by the arborist? Is it the assumption that the City puts a liability on the arborist as they would for an engineer or landscape architect? "Adjacent ROW": The right of way belongs to the public and not to a private individual. The trees might be surveyed in to the project, but the trees in the public right of way should not be counted against the development because of the standards put on the applicant by the City. Trees in the area for dedication should be included in this group as well. B. Plan Requirements: 1: "Condition of all trees within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel"This is a requirement that Staff needs to ask itself, how can this be carried out? How can an arborist look at a tree within 25-fee and make a determination as to the condition of the tree? Without an up-close inspection of each tree, an arborist may not be able to make a proper evaluation. There may be complications to tree plans if the arborist will not sign the plan because they are singing the conditions of trees that have not been property evaluated. This plan requirement should be addressed and explained by the City's arborist as to how this requirement should be carried out using proper arborist evaluation methods? 2: "as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch". I find that measuring to the nearest 1/10"may be extreme. Tree evaluation may be considered more of an art than a science what some factors are considered; meaning that different people may measure the tree not in the exact same spot on the tree based on ground elevation. I find that keeping to the standard the City has used for many years suffices. Has the arborist community adopted new standards (e.g., American National Standards Institute(ANSI) standards or the International Society of Arborists(ISA) standards)? 5: Attempting to write a narrative at the preliminary stage of the project is a challenge. The subtopics address items that can only be determined during the construction document stage of the development or only once the project is build out completely. For example, grading and construction plans are produced after the preliminary plan has been approved. It is impossible to state if the construction plans avoid grading and soil compaction of the trees until the Engineering Department has reviewed the plan set with the required details. Also attempting to utilize other factors such as lot averaging or width/depth reduction does not appear to carry any incentives. 6: Mitigation Plan: A mitigation plan is already a condition of approval for many applications. It is near impossible to produce an accurate mitigation plan until the majority of the development has occurred. The City required that all trees that may be removed during construction be identified in the preliminary stages of the project. This policy is based in a Hearings Officer decision. Therefore,the trees that are identified on a tree removal plan may or may not be removed once the project is complete. Therefore, the number of trees or inches required for mitigation (including the fee in lieu)will ultimately change. In addition, if a mitigation plan is submitted to the City for review, the City should sign off on the mitigation plan by stamping approved with the City arborist's signature. The City should be required to review and approve a mitigation plan. All other departments i.e., Planning, Engineering, Building including all inspectors are required to sign off on plans and inspections. The City arborist should be no exception. D. Peer Review: Who will make the final decision as to whether a tree plan is adequate or not? If the "Director or deciding authority" has the ability to send the plan to a third party for a peer review, will the applicant have the same right? Will the City pay this person or will the applicant have to pay for the third party peer review? What if the number of plans being reviewed by the third party becomes common practice? What becomes of the authority of the City Arborist? E. Approval Criteria: 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; It is not purpose of the applicant to make findings that the tree plan, as submitted,preferred protection over tree removal. It is the role of the reviewing authority to make findings that the proposed tree plan meets the standards set forth in the development code. If the City wanted to protect trees, the reviewing body would allow great latitude in building design, infrastructure adjustments and lot configuration. 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third-party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s)of approval; and This is not an approval criterion. This is a statement to ensure that the recommendations of the third party peer review have been incorporated in the staff report. The staff report comes after the City has reviewed the project against the Development Code. How can one state that an action is based on a future event has taken place? Final Thought: The tree code under review is an important document that should not be taken lightly. Trees are an important part of every city. The need between trees and the build environment must be in balance for any city to thrive and be fruitful. Before the city of Tigard adopts any new development code standards,is would be wise to ask if the current planning staff has had the full opportunity to review the code and bring up different scenarios that normally arise with development applications. It is the current planners and front counter staff that have to apply the new code language. It would benefit all parties to get feedback from the staff that will implement the new code to ensure that there is a pragmatic solution to any new adopted code language. Please add me as a party of record for this Development Code Amendment. Thank you for your time. I look forward testifying in front of the Planning Commission on March 16,2009. March 11, 2009 To: Tigard Planning Commission As I am unable to attend the Public Hearing, I am submitting comments in writing. I believe the amendments presented show that a great deal of thought has been given to the Tigard community environment. It appears to me, however, the main focus is on trees for larger developments, especially those in sensitive lands. The "infill" development in existing neighborhoods is not necessarily specifically addressed, nor the clearing of trees on such parcels or on private property, whether for immediate construction or not. I am speaking mainly of properties capable of providing one to four building sites, containing multiple trees, and surrounded by existing homes. 1. The current provision under 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Section C states that "trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above." This provision has been used to avoid complying with the plan because of the relatively short time period in a property development line. I would recommend that it be increased to two years. If the purpose of tree removal is NOT to avoid complying with the tree plan, then a change will not impact a developer or resident owner. 2. There is no requirement for removal of trees that have been cut down on unoccupied property. They can stay indefinitely, and where that might not be an issue for one tree, it creates a devaluation of surrounding property and a reduction in the quality of the environment when 10 or 20 trees have been cut down. Both of these "gaps" have allowed those who are not interested in the neighborhood as a home, but only as an investment, to create eyesores waiting for development or building, untended lots subject to the collection of trash and to spoil the aesthetic quality of the environment. I worked with the real industry for years and the majority of developers have an interest in not only making a profit, but in creating an attractive setting because it increases their chances of doing so. In the meantime, particularly as developing property for building does not mean immediate construction is taking place, those who have already invested their money and time in their neighborhood----the surrounding residents----see the quality of their environment and the value of their properties decrease. Any changes will not affect what has already happened to my property, pictures of which I previously sent, but until it happens to you, you don't realize the impact of regulations. It has been personally difficult for me to speak out, but I look at the results out my window every day, and if not me, then who. I feel a sense of responsibility to all of us who have put in the effort and money to own and improve our homes and live in this community to say that, we who live here also need our investment protected. My hope is that these concerns will find root in consideration of additional amendments. Respectfully submitted, Karen Estrada 9269 SW North Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 John Floyd From: jfrewing Ufrewing@teleport.comj Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:12 PM To: John Floyd Cc: David Walsh; Tony Tycer Subject: Frewing Comments on Proposed Tree Protection Regulations John, Pasted below are the comments I have currently prepared for the Planning Commission hearing on March 16 regarding TDC 18.790 revisions. I am emailing them to you on Wednesday afternoon, in the hope that you will email them to Planning Commission members immediately,so they will have adequate time to review and consider them. I have been told by Planning Commission members that it is hard for them to consider comments provided first at the public hearing itself;while that may be true,the Planning Commission does have the alternative of deferring action until all members can review all comments. I have not yet reviewed Section V of the staff report,Applicable Criteria and Findings,and this may generate more comments for the hearing on March 16,but I will try to forward any additional comments I have on Friday afternoon,hoping to minimize the comments which may be generated over the weekend and on Monday. John Frewing John Frewing Comments on Tigard Code Amendment: Tree Plans 3/11/09 1 In the same way that some section headings have been modified to more correctly summarize the section contents, the title of Chapter 18.790 should be"Tree Protection and Removal". 2 In 18.790.0I0B.4, the word `sensitive' should be deleted and the word `land' should be reinstated (note the singular use of word land'). This is editorial comment. 3 The definition of`tree', 18.790.020A.7, refers to caliper measurement 54 inches above mean ground level. Back in 18.790.060D.3, there is again reference to trees of a certain caliper size; however this applies to replacement trees. Two practical problems arise: is the size of replacement trees to be measured 54 inches above mean ground level, and are replacement trees really `trees' (ie over six inches in caliper at 54 inches above mean ground level)? There should be added a definition of caliper measurement or the wording of the replacement tree requirement should be clarified. 3 The word dripline' should be defined. It appears as a term describing some content of the tree plan, eg 18.790.030B.5.b. Does this word refer to the dripline today or at full tree maturity. What documentation of the dripline must be part of the tree protection plan? 4 The word `crown' should be defined. It appears in the definition of`removal'and has several possible meanings—is it the measured biomass,or the areal extent of branches (coincident with the canopy cover), or height above first branches, or sum of branch diameters leaving a main stem or??? 5 The definition of`practicable' is not clear to someone seeking to comply with the rules—what is `reasonably capable'? --what are the `means at hand'? --what is meant by `circumstances as they are'? Has this word and the proposed definition been used in other regulatory documents in Oregon? What has been the experience of such use? I would hope that staff could give some clarity to these questions at the 3/16/09 hearing. In my mind, a better definition would either 1) revolve around a finding that some act is deemed `practicable' when it is shown that a similar tree protection action has been recommended by some other government agency and actually performed in land use development elsewhere in the metropolitan Portland area or 2) would conclude that a tree protection action is `practicable' if it does not increase project construction costs in excess of 20%, which is a percentage of development cost variability caused by other natural features of a site (eg slope, stream, soil conditions, etc) and is accommodated by development professionals quite regularly. Of course this latter approach would require some showing by the development proponent regarding cost impact of tree protection actions compared to cost without tree protection actions. 6 In 790.030A, I would ask that the word `adjacent' be stricken from the listing of circumstances requiring a tree plan. If a city construction project, say for only a street, involves tree protection and removal, a tree plan should be required, and the word `adjacent' is not applicable. The use of the word `adjacent' seems to limit tree protections to at least a combination of a lot AND street development. 7 Section 790.030B1 calls for identification of tree size. There are many ways to measure tree SIZE; I believe staff means to ask for caliper at 4.5 feet, but others may think this refers to height, or spread of branches or other aspect of size. I suggest saying `caliper at 4.5 feet' if that is meant. 8 Section 790.030B5 calls for `the accompanying site plan' to include the location of trees in addition to the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. Because the general rule is to consider singulars as plurals, this could be read to mean the accompanying site `plans' (plural). I think this requirement (which is good) should require the tree location to be shown on the SAME site plan drawing which includes location of proposed grading, lot lines and improvements. The current situation is such that these information items are provided, but on DIFFERENT drawings such that the interference of site development with existing trees is not readily apparent. 9 Tree plan explanatory elements a) through h) in 790.030B.5 are worded in ways that a clear `yes' or `no' answer is difficult. In most cases the answer will be `somewhat' or `partially' or `in some cases'. This problem can be resolved if each of these considerations would be preceded by the word `all', as in `does the project protect and retain all existing non-hazardous trees ...' or as in `do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within all driplines of...' or as in `are all infrastructure improvements ....', etc. The result might be more `no' answers, but the rule allows that with appropriate explanation. An alternative might be to ask if `at least one' non-hazardous tree is protected, or `at least one' dripline is protected from compaction or `at least one' infrastructure improvement, etc., but such provision would not serve the purpose of showing a general preference for tree protection over removal. 10 Reference to `construction plans' in 790.030B.5.b is not clear. The plans submitted at the development permit stage detail infrastructure construction, but building plans normally are not available at this stage. I I In 790.030B.5.d, the words `that are' immediately before the word `located' should be stricken. This is an editorial comment. 12 In 790.030B.6, the word `be' should be inserted immediately before the word `compensated'. This is an editorial comment. 13 The concept of adding `Approval Criteria' is excellent. However the standard proposed for 790.030E.2 is so vague as to be meaningless and will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary conflict. Moreover, its vagueness is such that it will result in terribly inconsistent application—something to be avoided in writing regulations. And finally, this criterion creates a circular line of rationale such that practically every plan will comply with it: Under existing practice, approval of an application requires a finding of compliance with approval criteria, and this approval criterion is simply that something in the plan support a finding of approval. If there is only one element of the plan complies with the content requirement,eg all the trees are identified on a plan, then it seems that one could find that the plan contains something that `supports' a finding of approval. This cannot possibly be the meaning of Tigard's `preference for protection over removal' regulation. The words `supports a finding' should be replaced by a more objective phrase. I would suggest that the standard might read `The required plan 2 for all the trees on the site clearly shows evidence of site development decisions where alternatives are possible and a choice has been made which favors tree protection over tree removal wherever practicable.' 3 John Floyd From: jfrewing [jfrewing @teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:29 AM To: John Floyd Subject: Code Amendment for Tree Plans, Testimony for 3/16/09 John, Pasted below are some supplemental comments on the proposed code amendment for tree plans. Please include them in whatever you send to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. These comments come from looking over the words again,and reflecting on the several applications and decisions I have participated in over the past five years,as well as LUBA decisions which in effect,give meaning to the Tigard regulations. I have still not gotten to Section V of the staff report,and will provide my comments on that area,as well as any other which arise in its review,as soon as I have a bit more time to go over them. Thanks. John Frewing SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS ON TREE PLAN REGULATIONS 3/12/09 A. Hazardous trees are defined in terms of an 'immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. This definition is circular because it uses the same word (hazard) to define the regulatory term (hazard). In effect the definition is saying that a hazardous tree means a tree which is a hazard — not too much help in clarifying the term. Is this what is called a tautology? I suggest that the definition be modified to define a hazardous tree as one which cannot be pruned, topped or otherwise managed to avoid immediate damage to persons or public or private property. This begs a definition of immediate damage; I would clarify this phrase to state that it means damage nearly certain within the next month, if the tree is not pruned,topped or otherwise managed. Such changed definition is consistent with the Tigard policy of preference for tree preservation over removal and can result in the retention of important trees (and their canopy cover) within the city. However, note that a certified arborist is not an expert on damage to persons or to public or private property; a casualty insurance- type professional should be used to make such judgment based on what part of or where an arborist might indicate a tree will likely fall. This addition should be part of the definition of a hazardous tree. B The content of a tree plan related to trees to be removed (18.790.030B.3) should require that the techniques considered to retain the tree along with their estimated costs, should be stated. C This proposal and the Tigard code itself leave out altogether any protection for trees (or whatever term should be used to describe woody stem plants less than 6 inches in caliper) of small size. It is precisely these trees which will grow most soon to perform the functions of trees in a forest. Such omission is contrary to the Tigard policy of preference for tree preservation over removal. Some requirement to preserve these smaller woody stems should be employed in the code. D Practicable means possible, according to my dictionary. Staff should provide some history of how this term has been applied in real life land use proceedings applicable to Tigard (eg LUBA opinions). 1 E How will city apply the 'means at hand' and 'circumstances as they are'terms? As written,the definition of these terms might be read to be whatever the applicant thinks they might mean. Shouldn't there be words reserving this interpretation to the city? F 18.790.030B.5.a does not allow for pruning of trees at the start of development to make them viable 'save' trees; it should. Eliminate the word 'non-hazardous' in first line, eliminate 'existing' in second line. G 18.790.030B.5.e calls for potential reduction of parking spaces, but ignores a practicable alternative in most situations—permeable pavement or permeable pavement breaks. Such alternative should be pointed out. H In 18.790.030B.5.g, the reference to code should be 18.790.040A.2 and .3. Editorial. I In 18.790.030B.6., the mitigation plan should include the size of replacement trees as well as the caliper inches to be provided. The mitigation plan, signed by the project arborist, should include a commitment and plans to monitor and maintain mitigation trees for three years to ensure establishment and probable success of the mitigation. The applicant should sign such mitigation plan as well as project arborist, since Tigard is not likely to enforce mitigation against the project arborist. The mitigation commitment should be documented as a Condition of Approval for the development; LUBA decisions have come back to the effect that a simple commitment in an application is not enforceable unless it is cited in a Condition of Approval. J 18.790.030C should be modified to specify a two year prior period for evaluation of tree removal outside development regulations. This will provide an additional incentive for persons contemplating site development to 'preserve rather then remove' trees in Tigard. K This proposal does not implement the City Council direction to preserve trees wherever 'possible', which were the words in the existing code and which were the words in the director's interpretation. Please consider reinstating this word as a standard for the preference for tree retention over removal. L Require that the certified arborist working on the tree plan must have valid Tigard Business License. Include as penalty for tree removal contrary to plan the cancellation of Tigard license for the certified arborist. M Make the penalty for illegal tree removal a minimum of$500, not `up to' $500. TDC 18.790.060C. This is a proper implementation of the Tigard policy to encourage 'tree preservation over removal.' N At 18.790.030D, the term 'adequacy' is used. It is not clear what this term means. I suggest that examples be provided (ie professional judgment on tree condition, removal, etc.) at least in staff testimony, so as to provide a legislative basis for later interpretations. O In 18.790.030 at D and E.3, there exists a MANDATORY incorporation of the third party arborist findings into the tree plan or project conditions of approval. The city may not agree with what such third party arborist reports. I suggest that these two provisions include the parenthetical phrase regarding the third party report (as may be approved by the city). P At 18.790.030E, the first sentence should not refer to 'denying a tree plan', but should refer to denying'an application with proposed tree plan'. Q At 18.790.030E.1., the tree plan should include more than the arborist's signature, since much of the implementation and responsibility for compliance rests with the applicant and other contractors on site (eg 2 grading, excavation, surveying, equipment drivers, unloading, etc). The applicant should be required to sign the tree plan. R 18.790.030E.4. doesn't appear to be an approval criterion. Perhaps what is meant is that the application for development must include a commitment by applicant to meet 18.790.050 regarding tree removal on sensitive lands. Such commitment should be documented as a Condition of approval. S Followup on comment 13 of 3/11/09. The issue of'evidence supporting' was addressed in an earlier LUBA decision regarding the Tigard tree ordinance (Miller v City of Tigard, 46 LUBA 536, LUBA 2003-133 (2/27/04). In the Miller decision, to meet the 'evidence supporting' phrase,the approval authority need only find that the record include something that a reasonable person would rely upon to adopt the land use decision. My comment is that the 'evidence supporting' phrase should apply to every tree and every tree plan requirement for a proposed development. T The Miller decision also noted shortcomings of the Tigard tree ordinance, "how the tree plan is implemented or enforced by the city', as it implements the 'preference for retention over removal' standard. LUBA found one shortcoming is that the Tigard rule 'does not provide any formal mechanism for amending a tree plan once a subdivision is approved' (Assignment of Error 1). 'The Tigard rule is silent on whether changes can be made to tree plans and how the city might go about approving such changes.' These shortcomings are an integral part of implementing the director's interpretation and should be addressed in this rule revision. U The tree plan requirements of 19.790.030 should, under the requirement to identify trees, ensure that trees on the site which are to be removed should be clearly identified in the field, by colored tape or other means acceptable to the city. Such marking will allow meaningful participation by citizens to view the prospective impacts of a tree plan. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 jfrewing @teleport.com 3 TIGARD TREE REGULATIONS —THIRD SET OF COMMENTS 3/16/09 Aa There has long been a requirement for submittal of a 'mitigation plan', but this revision adds content requirements for that plan (030B.6.) My comment is that in individual development applications and reviews, much more than the several items mentioned in this code change are regularly requested — one important item NOT mentioned in this code change is when the required mitigation is to be done. If not specified and agreed upon in the development application/review, the mitigation may NEVER be done. Please add 'timing of mitigation work' to the content requirements of a mitigation plan. Other important elements of any mitigation plan include specification of existing conditions at the mitigation site, forest functions to be restored, maintenance plans (eg watering if necessary), remedial action for unsuccessful plantings, percent ground cover to be planted, etc.). Bb In the content requirements for the tree plan, there is great reliance on the 'dripline' as the outer boundary of concern for a tree protection zone. Six of the eight content requirements reference use of the dripline. The dripline is one standard which has been used, but other standards are also appropriate for some trees in some circumstances. This code provision should provide the city arborist the ability to specify something other than the dripline for a tree protection zone(TPZ), one which comes to mind is the TPZ defined by a 1-foot radius for each one inch of tree caliper diameter at 54 inches above mean ground level. Cc The 'director's interpretation included the caution 'failure to demonstrate that a preference has been given to tree preservation over tree removal may result in findings for denial of the development application.' This code change should include such caution. Dd The applicable review criteria and staff report both omit any reference to review against the needs for fish and wildlife (Goal 5 resources)— either the provisions of the comp plan or the provisions of 18.775. I believe that the preservation of trees is an integral part of protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife resources— birds are not limited by a 'sensitive lands' map and rely almost exclusively on trees for nesting, roosting and feeding. It would be a reasonable requirement that the tree plan indicate how fish and wildlife resources are being addressed if trees are to be removed (eg don't cut down trees during nesting season). Please add such a content requirement for a tree plan as part of this code change. John Frewing III " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum l ,m To: John Floyd, Associate Planner From: Greg Berry, Project Engineer Re: DCA 2009-00001 Tree Removal Date: 3/ 7 2009 Findings: Currently, the City Engineer decides whether trees within the right-of-way are to be removed. This authority is required to ensure compliance with the City's public improvement standards. The proposed amendment to 18.790.030A would instead require tree plans for trees within the right-of-way. As part of the land use permit process, results of the tree plan would be used to determine if a tree within the right-of-way should be retained or removed. Consequently, the City Engineer would no longer have authority over trees within the right-of-way. Recommendations: The proposed amendment to 18.790.030A should not include adding "adjacent right-of- way". i\eng\kimYand use commentsaca,dca 2009-00uu•ree removal doc OM" HBA Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland • March 13, 2009 Jodie Inman, Commission President And Members of the Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Tree Code Amendments (DCA 2009-0001) Dear President Inman and Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Home Builders Assn. of Metro Portland to echo the request for continuance of this item as requested in the letter dated March 13, 2009 from Phillip Grillo. I too would hope that, if given a bit more time, we might be able to offer slight modification to the code language now being proposed that would make the referred to LUBA appeal moot and enable us to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, I respectfully request that the commission continue this item for 30 days. Sincerel , Ernie Platt Director of Local Government Affairs cc: John Floyd, Associate Planner Phillip Grillo,Miller Nash 15555 SW Bangy Road • Suite 301 • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Phone: 503.684.1880 • Fax: 503.684.0588 • www.homebuildersportland.org • Striving for Affordability.Balance and Choice • M N PORTLAND,OREGON 3400 U.S.Bancorp Tower 111 S.W.Fifth Avenue SEATTLE,WASHINGTON Portland,Oregon 97204.3699 MILLER VANCOUVER,WASHINGTON ASH LIP CENTRAL OREGON OFFICE 503.224.5858 FAX 503.224.0155 ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Phillip E.Grillo phil.grillo @millernash.com (503)205-2311 direct line March 13, 2009 Jodie Inman, Commission President and Members of the Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Tree Code Amendments (DCA 2009-00001) Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland ("HBA"). As you know, the HBA has been involved in the City's ongoing efforts regarding tree protection. The HBA has been diligently working with the City in an effort to balance the City's interest in tree protection with its responsibilities to also provide needed housing opportunities throughout the City. In that regard, HBA participated in the City's recently adopted comprehensive plan amendment process that led to the City's adoption of CPA 2008-00002 (Tigard's Urban Forest). As you know,the City's decision in CPA 2008-00002 has been appealed to LUBA(LUBA No. 2008-094). That appeal is currently on hold, while HBA and the City discuss possible revisions to the Tigard Tree Code that could make our appeal moot. As you know, the latest amendments to the Tigard Tree Code proposed by staff were recently released. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully review these revisions, or to meet with staff to discuss possible revisions. I am therefore requesting that the Planning Commission continue DCA 2009-00001 (Tree Code Amendments)for a period of at least 3o days, to allow HBA to complete our review and meet with City staff to discuss possible revisions. Hopefully,we will be able to reach an agreement with the City on reasonable amendments to the Tree Code that would allow us to dismiss our PDXDOCS:1835205.1 038340-0004 PORTLAND,OREGON SEATTLE,WASHINGTON N MILLER 1 \ASH VANCOUVER.WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON Al iOUNFVS A-r ��w WWW.MILLERNASH.COM Jodie Inman, Commission President March 13, 2009 Page 2 LUBA appeal. For all of these reasons, we ask that this matter be continued for a period of 30 days. Thank you for your continued consideration. Respectful y su mitted, Phillip . Grillo cc: Tim Ramis, City Attorney John Floyd, Associate Planner Ernie Platt, Director of Local Government Affairs, HBA of Metro Portland PDXDOCS:1835205.1 038390-0002 P • March 16, 2009 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard RE: Development Code Amendment 2009-00001 /Tree Removal Code Amendment Dear Planning Commission members: We are writing to comment on the proposed changes to the Tigard Tree Removal Code, Section 18.790. Fans of Fanno Creek is a local non-profit organization that works with many citizens to improve the health of our watershed for citizens, and the fish,wildlife and habitats that are located in Tigard. We are especially concerned with the large numbers of native trees that have been removed in Tigard in the past 10 years, especially on such sites as Dorothy Gates property on SW 81st street,this was a 3 acre fully mature, wooded forest of all native trees that was clearcut! It included a pair of nesting hawks that had nested here for years. Another clearcut was on the Senn property on SW 74th street, this was a mature western red cedar forest that was also clearcut and the developer further damaged any"trees to be retained on the tree plan"to such an extent with his bulldozer that even these had to be cut down. Tigard can no longer afford to lose native trees and every effort possible must be made to save all of our remaining native trees whether they be single trees or part of a grove or forest stand. Our comments are as follows: • Applicable Review Critieria(ARC)—Goal 5 is not listed as one of the ARC but should be as it relates to protection and conservation of natural resources which includes"trees". It is a major error to not list Goal 5 and how the proposed changes may affect trees, including trees not located in Sensitive Lands. • 18.790.010. A—Value of Trees—This section needs to have added that"trees also are crucial in providing important wildlife habitat for a diverse assemblage of species in the city of Tigard." This will help to 1) meet Goal 5 requirements and 2) this is directly related to the Director's Interpretation to save trees rather than remove them as trees provide habitat for many species of wildlife. • 18.790.020 Definitions—We recommend that trees should not be labeled "hazardous" if there is only a part of the tree that poses a threat, such as a dead limb. For example, several native trees in our neighborhood had dead tree limbs which were about to fall on property, and taking off the dead limb was sufficient in removing the "hazard"the tree posed. Age should not necessarily be a reason for a tree to be removed. Some native oaks in Tigard are over 150 years old but healthy, should someone be able to remove them just because they are old? We recommend that the"hazardous tree"definition be "a tree by which reason of disease, infestation,or other condition, whereby pruning of certain dead limbs for s y example will not remedy the perceived hazardous situation,presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property." • 18.790.010—An additional purpose needs to be added,which could read"Protect trees in order to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats." • 18.790.050—We recommend that tree removal permits should be required for the removal of"any native tree, regardless of whether it is on private or public lands,no matter where it is located in Tigard." We recommend this because many private landowners have significant numbers of native trees (Oregon white oak, Oregon ash)on their properties which provide many benefits to wildlife (e.g., nesting habitat), and for which said properties are NOT located on Sensitive Lands. Just recently someone off Tigard Street cut down on Oregon ash tree which we estimated was approximately 80-100 years old. It was the largest, tallest, ash tree remaining in our neighborhood and the owner cut it down because it"left a lot of leaves on the ground", not because it was a hazard tree. This was a terrible waste of a wonderful tree that did not need to be cut down. A permit to remove a native tree on private or public lands should be required and approved oh if the tree is deemed to be a"hazard"tree by a certified arborist. The city should provide incentives for private landowners to protect and retain native trees, especially since Tigard is one of the few local cities where many native trees such as ash and oak still remain. Our native trees are very important for wildlife and for providing numerous benefits to humans. I have spoken to several members of the Tree Board who have native oak trees on their properties and they agreed it is important to provide incentives for landowners to retain native trees. • 18.790.050.D—The proposed changes in this section state that"a tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which is land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands." This wording means that an entire forest of native trees could be cut down removing important habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians and many more species of wildlife. Just because trees are not on designated "Sensitive Lands" does not mean they are not important! Again,we recommend that regardless of where the tree(s)are located in the city, even if it is on small woodlands,a permit should be required for any native tree proposed to be removed and it should only be permitted to be removed if it is hazardous. • Uplands—The proposed changes to the tree removal code fail to address the trees located in uplands,whether on private or publicly owned lands. Trees in uplands are no less important than trees along streams or in riparian corridors, since they also provide shade,provide habitat for wildlife and many other benefits. Similar to our recommended wording above,we suggest that the another M • As it presently stands,the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Section of the Development Code fail to adequately address the need to protect and conserve native trees and forests as stated in the recently revised Tigard Comprehensive Plan,Natural Resources and Parks and Open Spaces Sections. We therefore request that the Planning Commission DENY the City of Tigard's recommended changes and work with citizens such as myself to rework this section of the Development Code to benefit native trees, forests and wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Code. Sincerely, Sue Beilke, Wildlife biologist, Board member of Fans of Fanno Creek Tigard banning Commission *oll Call Hearing/Workshop Date: 3 -4(o-- Starting Time: COMMISSIONERS: '� Jodie Inman (President) Tom Anderson Rex Caffall Margaret Doherty _ Karen Fishel Stuart Hasman Matthew Muldoon Jeremy Vermilyea David Walsh (Vice President) Timothy Gaschke (Alternate) STAFF PRESENT: Dick Bewersdorff !/ Ron Bunch t/ Gary Pagenstecher Greg Berry Cheryl Caines v John Floyd Jerree Lewis Duane Roberts Kim McMillan Sean Farrelly Gus Duenas Darren Wyss Carissa Collins Marissa Daniels LAodd Prager Doreen Laughlin CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 16, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 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, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Alternate Commissioner Gaschke Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall, and Walsh Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Todd Prager, City Arborist; John Floyd,Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS—None. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 2-23-09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motion by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Hasman to approve the 2-23-09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted: The motion to approve the minutes as submitted passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Muldoon (5) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Fishel (1) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall, and Commissioner Walsh (2) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008-00013/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008-00007/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 1 of 9 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2008-00016/MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2008-00026 -JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER& DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED President Inman read from the Quasi-Judicial Hearing Guide. There were no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex-parte contacts were reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner Muldoon reported a site visit. Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for review at the City one week prior to public hearings.] Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Also recommended for APPROVAL are the Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification, subject to proposed conditions of approval. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a question about condition number 2 which states the applicant shall apply for a variance to the buffer standards, or submit a revised landscape plan that shows landscaping consistent with the standards for buffering and screening, subject to review and approval by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Pagenstecher referred the question to the applicant. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Michelle Symant, a planner for WRG Design, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She addressed the question about condition number two. She said they had spoken with the project arborist regarding the question and he'd recommended two particular types of trees that will work within the space constraints given. She said they would submit the revised landscape plan to the City Arborist for his review. She anticipates it will work out fine and they probably won't require seeking the variance but they'd like to leave that in should the City Arborist decide those trees won't work. It would leave the option to apply for a variance in the future. She noted the area is essentially a 3000 sq ft strip that requires this Comprehensive Plan zone change/lot land adjustment/Minor Modification—a whole series of things for the replacement of 10 parking spaces. She noted some of the conditions applied to requirements to save the Sequoia trees with placement of the parking spaces. She said that will happen. QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT —None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 2 of 9 President Inman noted that no one had signed up either as a proponent or an opponent to the application. She asked if anyone present in the audience would like to speak either in favor or in opposition. There was no one present who wished to do either. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED DELIBERATIONS/MOTION After a short period of deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Vermilyea, seconded by Commissioner Fishel, as follows: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application CPA2008-00013/ZON2008-00007 as set forth in the staff report, as well as Lot Line Adjustment 2008-00016, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report; and Minor Modification 2008-00026; also subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report." The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Vermilyea (7) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2) 5.2 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009-00001 - Tree Removal Code Update- On behalf of the City,John Floyd, Associate Planner, distributed a revised copy of the Draft Amendments (Exhibit A). He said staff is proposing additional changes (indicated in green) because of the public comment they'd received. Six parties had submitted comments prior to the workshop: Jeff Caines, Karen Estrada, John Frewing, Phil Grillo/HBA, Sue Beilke, and Greg Berry of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. (Exhibit B) Copies were distributed to the commissioners for their review. As a reminder, Floyd said the scope of this amendment had been defined narrowly by Council, and, as such, staff recommends that the Commission limit its review to the submittal requirements and not other issues such as mitigation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 3 of 9 From the comments received, Floyd addressed the major concerns: HBA • Request for Continuance. On Friday the HBA submitted a request for a 30 day continuance. The basis for this request was to allow their attorney additional time to review the material and suggest additional revisions which may result in the HBA abandoning intent to appeal a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to LUBA. Staff recommends that the continuance be denied for the following reasons: o The HBA has been aware of these amendments for some time; this issue was not sprung on them. • They were present at the Tree Board meeting in December. • They submitted comments at the February 23 workshop. • They were invited by email and at the workshop to meet with staff prior to the hearing. • The language released last week was substantially the same as that considered at the workshop. o The PC is not the final hearing body. The commission can recommend these changes to Council who can consider their comments and, if they so choose, remand it back to the Planning Commission. o The LUBA appeal of our Urban Forest Comp Plan Amendment should be treated as a separate item as a Code Amendment. Staff has made tentative plans to meet with the HBA and their attorney in approximately 2 weeks, whereupon we will be discussing the Comp Plan appeal, and the Code Amendment under consideration tonight. Jeff Caines: • Concerned with the word practicable. As stated earlier, Staff proposes to change the phrasing from"wherever possible" to "wherever practicable",with the meaning of practicable defined. This term introduces a degree of reasonableness to the code rather than an absolute (i.e. anything is possible with enough engineering), as was done in the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the purpose statement which recognizes that trees may have to be removed as a result of development. What is being asked of an applicant is a reasonable attempt at preservation, which will be defined by the applicant themselves as they work with their arborist. • Concern with inventorying trees off-site. The intent of this requirement is to protect trees off-site, and not to increase mitigation obligations. To address this concern, staff recommends the following changes: o Remove references to off-site trees in section 18.790.030.A and B(1), and reinstate the 25' rule in 18.790.030.B(4). The revised language would therefore require `A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction, including those within 25 of the affected lot(as estimated by the project arbor if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owners)"; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 4 of 9 • Preliminary grading and upfront mitigation plans. Staff has introduced a revisions procedure for Major and Minor modifications,you will find it under Section 79O.O3O.F and marked in green. • Approval Criteria. Staff has prepared the approval criteria in concert with the City Attorney. That said,we do recommend a slight change in language in criteria #4 to change "shall also comply" to "complies". • Final Thoughts. Mr. Caines wants to ensure that any code changes are workable and that those charged with implementing the code are included in the crafting of it. For the record, this code was developed in concert with current planning staff and the City Attorney, in addition to the normal circulation around other city departments and external agencies. Karen Estrada • Wants the code to increase the mitigation requirement from one year to two years prior to application—and require the removal of downed trees. o The short answer is that these issues are beyond the scope of tonight's changes. o Staff is sympathetic to her concerns as we know that developers and property owners frequently clear-cut or substantially defoliate their properties to avoid mitigation fees, and continue to do so to this day, but mitigation is within the Council's scope for this amendment. John Frewing • Many of John's comments are out of scope or were addressed in responses to Jeff Caines. • Editorial Changes. Staff appreciates Mr. Frewing's attention to detail and recommends the implementation of the following grammatical errors: o [Comment 2] Reinstate the words "on...lands" in 18.79O.O10.B(2) o [Comment 11] Removed the words "that are" in 79O.03O.B.5.(d) o [Comment 12] Insert the word "be" before "compensated" in 790.O3O.B.6 • [Comment 9] Content of plans. Mr. Frewing is concerned that one sheet would show trees while another shows the proposed improvements. In response, staff recommends the following changes to 790.030.B.(5): "The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in addition relation to the location of proposed grading..." • [Comment 10] Construction Plans. This was also noticed by Mr. Gaines. Recommend the replacement of the word "construction" with "staging area" or removal of this word altogether. • [Comment 11] Goal 5 impacts. This amendment is not intended, nor will it affect, the City's Goal 5 resource protection program. It merely clarifies submittal requirements to achieve the stated purposes set forth in 79O.01O.B1-7 (i.e. water quality, erosion, aesthetic beauty, etc...). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 5 of 9 Sue Beilke / Fans of Fanno Creek • The letter makes a lot of good points about the value of trees to Goal 5 resources, but, as stated before, Goal 5 resource protection is not the subject of this amendment. • We recommend that Ms. Beilke and Fans of Fanno Creek stay interested in our code amendments, particularly the upland tree grove inventories that are planned for our 2009/10 fiscal year. Greg Berry / City of Tigard Engineering • The City of Tigard Engineering Department requests that language regarding "adjacent right of way" be removed to ensure that the City retains authority of tree removal in the public right of way to ensure public improvement standards are adhered to. • Planning Department staff finds that the engineering department would not be hindered by the proposed language. The language only obligates an applicant to save trees where practicable in the design process —not to override engineering standards or other requirements of City Code. In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt DCA2009-00001 as proposed in attachment 1, as amended through the public hearing process, and subject to the findings contained in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS The definition of practicable —is that definition consistent with the Comp Plan? Yes - word for word. PUBLIC TESTIMONY—IN FAVOR John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane,Tigard, OR 97223 signed up to speak both in favor and against. He distributed a 3rd set of comments (included in Exhibit B). He was advised by President Inman to choose a side and that if he wanted to speak on both sides, his time would be divided into two, rather than giving him twice as much time. Frewing said he was speaking both in favor and against different parts of the subject. Frewing touched on some of his comments addressed in his written testimony. He spoke about fish and wildlife. He believes it's a legitimate content requirement to ask an applicant to tell how they have managed (or addressed) fish and wildlife matters in their tree removal. He said the word "hazardous tree" makes no provision for saying"if I cut off the rotten limb, the tree is just fine." Hazardous tree should be defined as one which cannot be pruned or otherwise treated to become non-hazardous. That would result in saving another tree. He believes some arborists may be trying to get another job from the same developer and so will call a lot of trees hazardous which could be trimmed or somehow managed so that they don't become hazardous. So he doesn't like the definition of hazardous. He also noted that the standard proposed for 790.030E.2 is so vague as to be meaningless, and will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary conflict. He suggested that,instead,it read"The required plan for all the trees on the site clearly shows PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 6 of 9 evidence of site development decisions where alternatives are possible and a choice has been made which favors tree protection over tree removal wherever practicable." QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a general question about the age of trees and comments about hazardous trees. Jeff Caines, 8196 SW Hall Blvd., #232, Beaverton, OR 97219 went over his comment letter (Exhibit B). In addition, he asked what is the role and liability of the project arborist on both sides. He believes the City arborist should also have to sign off on the plans. QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS There was a general question about set-backs. PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN OPPOSITION — None. QUESTIONS OF STAFF As to the set-back question, the City Arborist,Todd Prager, answered — "25 feet is a good place to start." There was a bit of a discussion regarding set-backs. Can you speak to the third party review and how that would work? Planning Manager, Dick Bewersdorff, answered — "Basically, if our arborist and their arborist can't agree, then a third arborist is hired and that arborist makes the decision and we go with that. The applicant would pay for the arborist." Commissioner Vermilyea suggested changing the definition of practicable to Webster's definition which is "reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with available means or resources." Verrnilyea had a second comment with respect to page 4. E. Approval Criteria #2. He said he likes ohn Frewing's language change. He said it's a lot more functional than what's written. Who determines the definition of practicable? "The applicant would determine it." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 7 of 9 DELIBERATIONS President Inman summed up the revisions thus far: 1. Section 18.790.030.E.3 striking"original certified arborist" and changing it to "a certified arborist." 2. Section 18.790.020.A.4 Commissioner Vermilyea's definition of practicable to be "reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with "available means or resources" - and striking the rest. 3. Section 18.790.010.E.4 "lands" should not be stricken but "sensitive" should. 4. Section 18.790.030.E.2 "the tree plan demonstrates that the applicant has affirmably attempted to protect, as opposed to remove, trees on project site." 'Where practicable" will not be included. 5. So far as the Home Builders Association suggesting a continuation - No one thought it was a good idea to continue the meeting to another date. 6. "Hazardous Tree" definition. Consensus was to incorporate this into their mitigation discussion. MOTION Commissioner Vermilyea made a motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application DCA2009-00001 as set forth in Attachment 1 as amended tonight at this hearing, which supersedes prior versions." Commissioner Hasman seconded the motion. The motion passed on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, and Commissioner Vermilyea (6) NAYS: Commissioner Muldoon (1) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Muldoon stated his opposition due to the fact that he didn't like the age of the tree definition and he didn't like the last amendment. [This will go to the City Council on May 12, 2009.] PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 6. OTHER BUSINESS The next public hearing will take place on April 6th and will include the Hwy 99W Plan, the Sensitive Lands Permit (continued), & an Urban Forestry Master Plan update. Commissioner Vermilyea informed the commission that he will be teaching a class at PCC Rock Creek starting in a few weeks and those classes are on Mondays. He will miss about 4 meetings from the 31st of March thru the first part of June. He will let Doreen Laughlin know the exact dates. President Inman said she would have to miss the May 4th meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commii;sion Secretary ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 16,2009—Page 9 of 9 Exhibit A Draft Amendments to TDC Section 18.790 (Tree Removal) Sections: 18.790.010 Purpose 18.790.020 Definitions 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.790.050 Pte; th t-App0etbility Tree Removal on Sensitive Lands 18.790.060 T-1lefr; ! Tree Removal Violations and Replacement Standards 18.790.010 Purpose A. Value of trees. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, help control erosion,maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation,planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 5. Protect water quality; 6. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; and 7. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. Recognize need for exceptions. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities,and other needed or required improvements within the development. 18.790.020 Definitions A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to regulations governing the preservation and removal of trees contained in this chapter exclusively: 1. "Canopy cover"means the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree; 2. "Commercial forestry" means the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. Tree removal undertaken by means of an approved tree removal plan under Section 18.790.030 is not considered commercial forestry under this definition; 3. "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease,infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property; 4. "Practicable" means reasonably capable of being done or accomplished with the means at hand and circumstances as they are. 5. "Pruning" means the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized Draft Amendments 1 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 tree maintenance practices; 6. "Removal"means the cutting or removing of 50 percent(50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning; 7. "Tree"means . ;..-_ : ., , . -, - . •• - - .- - - -- : -- . - - - - - - : -. -: -- : -- .- :. - - - any standing woody plant having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 54 inches, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below grounds each trunk shall be considered one tree; 8. "Sensitive lands" means those lands described at Chapter 18.775 of the title. B. General rule. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise,words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree Plan Required:A tree plan for the planting,removal,and protection of trees prepared and signed by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel, -- ,,- or combination thereof of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever perssle practicable. B. Plan Requirements. In order to determine that the City's preference for tree protection has been incorporated into the project design, tThe tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size , condition,and species of all existing trees,including trees- designated as significant by the city within 25 feet - -- ated-by- 2. Identification of a program to sswe retain existing trees or to mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D,in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25%to 50%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50%to 75%of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75%or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed and the reason for their removal; 4 A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction including those within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel (as Draft Amendments 2 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 estimated by the project arborist if permission to enter is not granted by adjacent property owner); 5. A narrative and site plan demonstrating how the following design and construction techniques will be utilized to the extent practicable. The format of the narrative must address each technique with a "yes" or"no" answer, followed by a written explanation as to how the plans have included said techniques, or why said techniques are not practicable. The accompanying site plan shall include the location of all existing trees in addition relation to the the location of proposed grading,lot lines, and improvements. a. Does the project protect and retain existing non-hazardous trees that are not likely to become a hazard during or soon after development given their existing condition, ability to withstand unavoidable development related impacts, proximity to proposed land uses and structures, and susceptibility to windthrow? b. Do grading plans avoid soil compaction within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved, the removal of existing soil within driplines, or the placement of new soil within the driplines of existing trees to be preserved? c. Are infrastructure improvements such as stormwater facilities, utilities, sidewalks, and other improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? d. Are lot layouts, road and driveway configurations, building locations, and building footprints that-afe located outside of the driplines of existing trees? e. Are parking lot improvements located outside of the driplines of existing trees? If no, can parking spaces be reduced to a number consistent with minimum parking stall requirements? f. Does the site plan locate required open space and landscaping in areas that contain existing trees? g. Does the project utilize lot size averaging and/or the reduction of lot width and depth to preserve trees, as allowed per 18.790.040A(2) and (3); h. If the project cannot avoid disturbance within the driplines of existing trees, does the protection program identify compatible construction techniques that will be used to prevent or reduce harm to existing trees (i.e. tunneling for utilities, no — dig pavement installation, use of retaining walls to limit disturbance) to a level that the health and longevity of the trees will not be significantly impacted? 6. A mitigation plan signed by the project arborist that includes the location, species, spacing, and planting specifications for the replacement trees and/or the amount of caliper inches that will be compensated through fees in lieu of planting. C. Prior tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. D. Peer Review. In questions of adequacy, the Planning Director or approving authority may, at Draft Amendments 3 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 their discretion, subject a tree plan to peer review by a third-party certified arborist under contract to the City. The findings and recommendations of the third-party certified arborist shall be incorporated into the tree plan by revision or condition of approval. E. Approval Criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tree plan based on the following approval criteria: 1. The tree plan contains all content requirements set forth in sections 18.790.030(A) through (C), including the signature of a certified arborist on all documents, attachments, and amendments; and 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; and 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third-party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s) of approval; and 4. Tree removal on sensitive lands s1 also complies with requirements set forth in 18.790.050. F. Modifications to approved Tree Plans. Approved tree plans may be modified in the following manner. 1. Major Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans A. Determination request.An applicant max request approval of a modification to an approved tree protection plan or existing development by: 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the changes_listed in subsection B below. I3. Evaluation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s)will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: 1. The total number of trees being removed increases by 10% or more, as defined by the whole of the original project; or 2. The total number of caliper inches being removed increases by 10% or more C. When the determination is made. Upon determining that the proposed modification to the tree protection plan is a major modification,the applicant shall submit a new development application in accordance with the original project approval. 2. Minor Modification(s) to Approved Tree Protection Plans or Existing Development A. Minor modification defined. Any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in Section 18.790.030.F.1 shall be considered a minor modification. B. Process. An applicant may request approval of a minor modification as follows: Draft Amendments 4 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified tree protection plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification. C. Approval criteria.A minor modification shall be approved,approved with conditions or denied following the Community Development Director's review based on finding that: 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title; and 2. The modification is not a major modification. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention A. Incentives.To assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees,the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.790.030: 1. Density bonus. For each 2%of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1%bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.715. No more than a 20%bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. This bonus is not applicable to trees preserved in areas of floodplain, slopes greater than 25%,drainageways,or wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development; 2. Lot size averaging. To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400,lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80%of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone; 3. Lot width and depth.To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400,lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20%of that required by the underlying zone; 4. Commercial/industrial/civic use parking. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.765.080,Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements, a 1%reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development; 5. Commercial/industrial/civic use landscaping. For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan,a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20%of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan,in accordance with Section 18.790.030,or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist.The deed restriction may be removed or will be Draft Amendments 5 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. Site development modifications granted as incentives. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property,including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. Design modifications of public improvements. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with .safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.790.050 :'er t-Appliea it ty Tree Removal on Sensitive Land Areas A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.030,using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud,dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets,adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping,discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils;turbid or sediment-laden flows;or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors,as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75%canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. B. Effective date of perm it_A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date of approval. C. Extension. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. D. Removal permit not required. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.795 of the title; 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production,or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands,but does not stand on sensitive lands. Draft Amendments 6 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 E. Prohibition of commercial forestry. Commercial forestry as defined by Section 18.790.020 A.2., excluding D.4. above,is not permitted. 18.790.060 Violations and Replacement Standards A. Violations. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. Without a valid tree removal permit; or b. In noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit;or c. In noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. In noncompliance with any other section of this title. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval,which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. Remedies. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred,then he or she may do any or all of the following: 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter; 2. Pursuant to Section 18.390.050.,initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard; 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.230 of this title; 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Municipal Code; 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Fines. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the 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: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D below; and 2. 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. D. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species taking into consideration site characteristics; 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available,the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value; 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably Draft Amendments 7 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or,with the consent of the owner,private property; 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section D above,a party may,with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. F. Exclusivity. The remedies set out in this section shall not be exclusive. Draft Amendments 8 DCA2009-00001 March 16, 2009 Exhibit B _ " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: President Jodie Inman and Members of the Planning Commission From: John Floyd, Associate Planner Re: Public Comment for DCA2009-00001 (Tree Removal Code Amendment) Date: March 13, 2009 Attached are written comments from the public regarding DCA2009-00001 (Tree Removal Code Amendment), scheduled for a public hearing before Planning Commission on Monday, March 16. As of Friday morning, the correspondence received includes the following: 1. Email and attached Memorandum from Jeff Caines (March 10, 2009) 2. Letter from Karen Estrada (March 11, 2009) 3. Email from John Frewing (March 11, 2009) 4. Email from John Frewing (March 12, 2009) The themes of the comments vary, and staff will address them at the hearing on Monday night. As a reminder, the proposed amendments are the result of very specific council direction to implement an overturned director's interpretation through a code amendment. The proposed language does not address other aspects of the tree code such as mitigation or incentives, which will be the subject of future code amendments. Staff urges the Planning Commission to review these comments thoroughly before the hearing to ensure efficient and productive deliberation. As always, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2429 or johnfl @tigard-or.gov. John Floyd From: Jeff Caines[jeffcaines @hotmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:16 PM To: John Floyd Subject: Tree Code Comments Attachments: Tigard_Tree_Comments[1].doc John: Here are my comments for the Tigard tree code. If you want, we can discuss my comments prior to the hearing and I could revise my comments based on our conversation. Thank you for your time. Jeff Caines, AICP 503-686-1660 - Cell MEMORANDUM To: City of Tigard Planning Commission From: Jeff Caines, AICP CC: Date: March 12, 2009 Re: Proposed Tree Code Amendments Below are my comments on the proposed tree code amendments that are being considered. To summarize, in order for the code to work for the benefit of all parties, it is important to take the proposed language through a"stress" test; meaning that Staff should review the proposed code language against a project that is currently being reviewed. From this"stress"test, the question of"how can this new code language be applied by the City or the Applicant?"How could the applicant/property owner complete the new requirements? What is the benefit to the City and the citizens it serves? Specific Comments: 18.790.020—Definitions: The term"Practicable"seems too broad. Who will determine what is reasonably capable of being done or accomplished?Is it staff,the developer,the property owner or the neighbors or an interest group?Just about any type of development can occur or can be accomplished "with the means at hand and circumstances as they are."At what point does a project or a condition of approval become practicable verse impracticable?This definition is left up to the changing winds of interpretation. 18.790.030— A. Tree Plan Required: "Signed": What is the intent of having a"signed"tree plan by the arborist?Is it the assumption that the City puts a liability on the arborist as they would for an engineer or landscape architect? "Adjacent ROW": The right of way belongs to the public and not to a private individual. The trees might be surveyed in to the project, but the trees in the public right of way should not be counted against the development because of the standards put on the applicant by the City. Trees in the area for dedication should be included in this group as well. B. Plan Requirements: 1: "Condition of all trees within 25 feet of the affected lot or parcel"This is a requirement that Staff needs to ask itself,how can this be carried out?How can an arborist look at a tree within 25-fee and make a determination as to the condition of the tree? Without an up-close inspection of each tree, an arborist may not be able to make a proper evaluation. There may be complications to tree plans if the arborist will not sign the plan because they are singing the conditions of trees that have not been property evaluated. This plan requirement should be addressed and explained by the City's arborist as to how this requirement should be carried out using proper arborist evaluation methods? 2: "as measured to the nearest tenth of an inch". I find that measuring to the nearest 1/10"may be extreme. Tree evaluation may be considered more of an art than a science what some factors are considered; meaning that different people may measure the tree not in the exact same spot on the tree based on ground elevation. I find that keeping to the standard the City has used for many years suffices. Has the arborist community adopted new standards (e.g.,American National Standards Institute(ANSI) standards or the International Society of Arborists (ISA) standards)? 5: Attempting to write a narrative at the preliminary stage of the project is a challenge. The subtopics address items that can only be determined during the construction document stage of the development or only once the project is build out completely. For example, grading and construction plans are produced after the preliminary plan has been approved. It is impossible to state if the construction plans avoid grading and soil compaction of the trees until the Engineering Department has reviewed the plan set with the required details. Also attempting to utilize other factors such as lot averaging or width/depth reduction does not appear to carry any incentives. 6: Mitigation Plan: A mitigation plan is already a condition of approval for many applications. It is near impossible to produce an accurate mitigation plan until the majority of the development has occurred. The City required that all trees that may be removed during construction be identified in the preliminary stages of the project. This policy is based in a Hearings Officer decision. Therefore,the trees that are identified on a tree removal plan may or may not be removed once the project is complete.Therefore, the number of trees or inches required for mitigation (including the fee in lieu)will ultimately change. In addition,if a mitigation plan is submitted to the City for review,the City should sign off on the mitigation plan by stamping approved with the City arborist's signature. The City should be required to review and approve a mitigation plan. All other departments i.e., Planning, Engineering, Building including all inspectors are required to sign off on plans and inspections. The City arborist should be no exception. D. Peer Review: Who will make the final decision as to whether a tree plan is adequate or not?If the"Director or deciding authority" has the ability to send the plan to a third party for a peer review, will the applicant have the same right?Will the City pay this person or will the applicant have to pay for the third party peer review? What if the number of plans being reviewed by the third party becomes common practice? What becomes of the authority of the City Arborist? E. Approval Criteria: 2. The tree plan supports a finding that protection is preferred over removal wherever practicable; It is not purpose of the applicant to make findings that the tree plan, as submitted,preferred protection over tree removal. It is the role of the reviewing authority to make findings that the proposed tree plan meets the standards set forth in the development code. If the City wanted to protect trees, the reviewing body would allow great latitude in building design, infrastructure adjustments and lot configuration. 3. In cases where the Tree Plan has been peer reviewed, the recommendations of the third-party arborist have been incorporated into the tree plan through revisions by the original certified arborist, or condition(s)of approval; and This is not an approval criterion. This is a statement to ensure that the recommendations of the third party peer review have been incorporated in the staff report. The staff report comes after the City has reviewed the project against the Development Code. How can one state that an action is based on a future event has taken place? Final Thought: The tree code under review is an important document that should not be taken lightly. Trees are an important part of every city. The need between trees and the build environment must be in balance for any city to thrive and be fruitful. Before the city of Tigard adopts any new development code standards, is would be wise to ask if the current planning staff has had the full opportunity to review the code and bring up different scenarios that normally arise with development applications. It is the current planners and front counter staff that have to apply the new code language. It would benefit all parties to get feedback from the staff that will implement the new code to ensure that there is a pragmatic solution to any new adopted code language. Please add me as a party of record for this Development Code Amendment. Thank you for your time. I look forward testifying in front of the Planning Commission on March 16, 2009. March 11, 2009 To: Tigard Planning Commission As I am unable to attend the Public Hearing, I am submitting comments in writing. I believe the amendments presented show that a great deal of thought has been given to the Tigard community environment. It appears to me, however, the main focus is on trees for larger developments, especially those in sensitive lands. The "infill" development in existing neighborhoods is not necessarily specifically addressed, nor the clearing of trees on such parcels or on private property, whether for immediate construction or not. I am speaking mainly of properties capable of providing one to four building sites, containing multiple trees, and surrounded by existing homes. 1. The current provision under 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Section C states that"trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above." This provision has been used to avoid complying with the plan because of the relatively short time period in a property development line. I would recommend that it be increased to two years. If the purpose of tree removal is NOT to avoid complying with the tree plan, then a change will not impact a developer or resident owner. 2. There is no requirement for removal of trees that have been cut down on unoccupied property. They can stay indefinitely, and where that might not be an issue for one tree, it creates a devaluation of surrounding property and a reduction in the quality of the environment when 10 or 20 trees have been cut down. Both of these"gaps" have allowed those who are not interested in the neighborhood as a home, but only as an investment, to create eyesores waiting for development or building, untended lots subject to the collection of trash and to spoil the aesthetic quality of the environment. I worked with the real industry for years and the majority of developers have an interest in not only making a profit, but in creating an attractive setting because it increases their chances of doing so. In the meantime, particularly as developing property for building does not mean immediate construction is taking place, those who have already invested their money and time in their neighborhood----the surrounding residents----see the quality of their environment and the value of their properties decrease. Any changes will not affect what has already happened to my property, pictures of which I previously sent, but until it happens to you, you don't realize the impact of regulations. It has been personally difficult for me to speak out, but I look at the results out my window every day, and if not me, then who. I feel a sense of responsibility to all of us who have put in the effort and money to own and improve our homes and live in this community to say that, we who live here also need our investment protected. My hope is that these concerns will find root in consideration of additional amendments. Respectfully submitted, Karen Estrada 9269 SW North Dakota Tigard, OR 97223 John Floyd From: jfrewing Ufrewing @teleport.comj Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:12 PM To: John Floyd Cc: David Walsh; Tony Tycer Subject: Frewing Comments on Proposed Tree Protection Regulations John, Pasted below are the comments I have currently prepared for the Planning Commission hearing on March 16 regarding TDC 18.790 revisions. I am mailing them to you on Wednesday afternoon, in the hope that you will email them to Planning Commission members immediately,so they will have adequate time to review and consider them. I have been told by Planning Commission members that it is hard for them to consider comments provided first at the public hearing itself;while that may be true,the Planning Commission does have the alternative of deferring action until all members can review all comments. I have not yet reviewed Section V of the staff report,Applicable Criteria and Findings,and this may generate more comments for the hearing on March 16, but I will try to forward any additional comments I have on Friday afternoon,hoping to minimize the comments which may be generated over the weekend and on Monday. John Frewing John Frewing Comments on Tigard Code Amendment: Tree Plans 3/11/09 1 In the same way that some section headings have been modified to more correctly summarize the section contents, the title of Chapter 18.790 should be"Tree Protection and Removal". 2 In 18.790.0I0B.4, the word `sensitive' should be deleted and the word `land' should be reinstated (note the singular use of word land'). This is editorial comment. 3 The definition of`tree', I8.790.020A.7, refers to caliper measurement 54 inches above mean ground level. Back in 18.790.060D.3, there is again reference to trees of a certain caliper size; however this applies to replacement trees. Two practical problems arise: is the size of replacement trees to be measured 54 inches above mean ground level, and are replacement trees really `trees' (ie over six inches in caliper at 54 inches above mean ground level)? There should be added a definition of caliper measurement or the wording of the replacement tree requirement should be clarified. 3 The word `dripline' should be defined. It appears as a term describing some content of the tree plan, eg 18.790.030B.5.b. Does this word refer to the dripline today or at full tree maturity. What documentation of the dripline must be part of the tree protection plan? 4 The word `crown' should be defined. It appears in the definition of`removal'and has several possible meanings—is it the measured biomass,or the areal extent of branches (coincident with the canopy cover), or height above first branches, or sum of branch diameters leaving a main stem or??? 5 The definition of`practicable' is not clear to someone seeking to comply with the rules—what is `reasonably capable'? --what are the `means at hand'? -- what is meant by `circumstances as they are'? Has this word and the proposed definition been used in other regulatory documents in Oregon? What has been the experience of such use? I would hope that staff could give some clarity to these questions at the 3/16/09 hearing. In my mind, a better definition would either 1) revolve around a finding that some act is deemed `practicable' when it is shown that a similar tree protection action has been recommended by some other government agency and actually performed in land use development elsewhere in the metropolitan Portland area or 2) would conclude that a tree protection action is `practicable' if it does not increase project construction costs in excess of 20%, which is a percentage of development cost variability caused by other natural features of a site (eg slope, stream, soil conditions, etc) and is accommodated by development professionals quite regularly. Of course this latter approach would require some showing by the development proponent regarding cost impact of tree protection actions compared to cost without tree protection actions. 6 In 790.030A, I would ask that the word `adjacent' be stricken from the listing of circumstances requiring a tree plan. If a city construction project, say for only a street, involves tree protection and removal,a tree plan should be required,and the word `adjacent' is not applicable. The use of the word `adjacent' seems to limit tree protections to at least a combination of a lot AND street development. 7 Section 790.030B1 calls for identification of tree size. There are many ways to measure tree SIZE;I believe staff means to ask for caliper at 4.5 feet, but others may think this refers to height, or spread of branches or other aspect of size. I suggest saying`caliper at 4.5 feet' if that is meant. 8 Section 790.030B5 calls for `the accompanying site plan' to include the location of trees in addition to the location of proposed grading, lot lines, and improvements. Because the general rule is to consider singulars as plurals,this could be read to mean the accompanying site `plans' (plural). I think this requirement(which is good) should require the tree location to be shown on the SAME site plan drawing which includes location of proposed grading, lot lines and improvements. The current situation is such that these information items are provided,but on DIFFERENT drawings such that the interference of site development with existing trees is not readily apparent. 9 Tree plan explanatory elements a) through h)in 790.030B.5 are worded in ways that a clear `yes' or `no' answer is difficult. In most cases the answer will be `somewhat' or `partially' or `in some cases'. This problem can be resolved if each of these considerations would be preceded by the word `all', as in `does the project protect and retain all existing non-hazardous trees ...' or as in `do grading and construction plans avoid soil compaction within all driplines of...' or as in `are all infrastructure improvements ....', etc. The result might be more `no' answers, but the rule allows that with appropriate explanation. An alternative might be to ask if 'at least one' non-hazardous tree is protected, or `at least one' dripline is protected from compaction or `at least one' infrastructure improvement,etc.,but such provision would not serve the purpose of showing a general preference for tree protection over removal. 10 Reference to `construction plans' in 790.030B.5.b is not clear. The plans submitted at the development permit stage detail infrastructure construction,but building plans normally are not available at this stage. 11 In 790.030B.5.d, the words `that are' immediately before the word `located' should be stricken. This is an editorial comment. 12 In 790.030B.6,the word `be' should be inserted immediately before the word `compensated'. This is an editorial comment. 13 The concept of adding `Approval Criteria' is excellent. However the standard proposed for 790.030E.2 is so vague as to be meaningless and will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary conflict. Moreover, its vagueness is such that it will result in terribly inconsistent application—something to be avoided in writing regulations. And finally,this criterion creates a circular line of rationale such that practically every plan will comply with it: Under existing practice, approval of an application requires a finding of compliance with approval criteria, and this approval criterion is simply that something in the plan support a finding of approval. If there is only one element of the plan complies with the content requirement,eg all the trees are identified on a plan, then it seems that one could find that the plan contains something that `supports' a finding of approval. This cannot possibly be the meaning of Tigard's `preference for protection over removal' regulation. The words `supports a finding' should be replaced by a more objective phrase. I would suggest that the standard might read `The required plan 2 for all the trees on the site clearly shows evidence of site development decisions where alternatives are possible and a choice has been made which favors tree protection over tree removal wherever practicable.' 3 • John Floyd From: jfrewing [jfrewing©teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:29 AM To: John Floyd Subject: Code Amendment for Tree Plans, Testimony for 3/16/09 John, Pasted below are some supplemental comments on the proposed code amendment for tree plans. Please include them in whatever you send to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. These comments come from looking over the words again,and reflecting on the several applications and decisions l have participated in over the past five years, as well as LUBA decisions which in effect,give meaning to the Tigard regulations. I have still not gotten to Section V of the staff report,and will provide my comments on that area, as well as any other which arise in its review,as soon as I have a bit more time to go over them. Thanks. John Frewing SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS ON TREE PLAN REGULATIONS 3/12/09 A. Hazardous trees are defined in terms of an 'immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. This definition is circular because it uses the same word (hazard) to define the regulatory term (hazard). In effect the definition is saying that a hazardous tree means a tree which is a hazard — not too much help in clarifying the term. Is this what is called a tautology? I suggest that the definition be modified to define a hazardous tree as one which cannot be pruned, topped or otherwise managed to avoid immediate damage to persons or public or private property. This begs a definition of immediate damage; I would clarify this phrase to state that it means damage nearly certain within the next month, if the tree is not pruned, topped or otherwise managed. Such changed definition is consistent with the Tigard policy of preference for tree preservation over removal and can result in the retention of important trees (and their canopy cover) within the city. However, note that a certified arborist is not an expert on damage to persons or to public or private property; a casualty insurance- type professional should be used to make such judgment based on what part of or where an arborist might indicate a tree will likely fall. This addition should be part of the definition of a hazardous tree. B The content of a tree plan related to trees to be removed (18.790.030B.3) should require that the techniques considered to retain the tree along with their estimated costs, should be stated. C This proposal and the Tigard code itself leave out altogether any protection for trees (or whatever term should be used to describe woody stem plants less than 6 inches in caliper) of small size. It is precisely these trees which will grow most soon to perform the functions of trees in a forest. Such omission is contrary to the Tigard policy of preference for tree preservation over removal. Some requirement to preserve these smaller woody stems should be employed in the code. D Practicable means possible, according to my dictionary. Staff should provide some history of how this term has been applied in real life land use proceedings applicable to Tigard (eg LUBA opinions). • E How will city apply the 'means at hand' and 'circumstances as they are' terms? As written, the definition of these terms might be read to be whatever the applicant thinks they might mean. Shouldn't there be words reserving this interpretation to the city? F 18.790.0308.5.a does not allow for pruning of trees at the start of development to make them viable 'save' trees; it should. Eliminate the word 'non-hazardous' in first line, eliminate 'existing' in second line. G 18.790.030B.5.e calls for potential reduction of parking spaces, but ignores a practicable alternative in most situations—permeable pavement or permeable pavement breaks. Such alternative should be pointed out. H In 18.790.0308.5.g, the reference to code should be 18.790.040A.2 and .3. Editorial. I In 18.790.030B.6., the mitigation plan should include the size of replacement trees as well as the caliper inches to be provided. The mitigation plan, signed by the project arborist, should include a commitment and plans to monitor and maintain mitigation trees for three years to ensure establishment and probable success of the mitigation. The applicant should sign such mitigation plan as well as project arborist, since Tigard is not likely to enforce mitigation against the project arborist. The mitigation commitment should be documented as a Condition of Approval for the development; LUBA decisions have come back to the effect that a simple commitment in an application is not enforceable unless it is cited in a Condition of Approval. J 18.790.030C should be modified to specify a two year prior period for evaluation of tree removal outside development regulations. This will provide an additional incentive for persons contemplating site development to 'preserve rather then remove' trees in Tigard. K This proposal does not implement the City Council direction to preserve trees wherever 'possible', which were the words in the existing code and which were the words in the director's interpretation. Please consider reinstating this word as a standard for the preference for tree retention over removal. L Require that the certified arborist working on the tree plan must have valid Tigard Business License. Include as penalty for tree removal contrary to plan the cancellation of Tigard license for the certified arborist. M Make the penalty for illegal tree removal a minimum of$500, not `up to' $500. TDC 18.790.060C. This is a proper implementation of the Tigard policy to encourage `tree preservation over removal.' N At 18.790.030D, the term 'adequacy' is used. It is not clear what this term means. I suggest that examples be provided (ie professional judgment on tree condition, removal, etc.) at least in staff testimony, so as to provide a legislative basis for later interpretations. O In 18.790.030 at D and E.3, there exists a MANDATORY incorporation of the third party arborist findings into the tree plan or project conditions of approval. The city may not agree with what such third party arborist reports. I suggest that these two provisions include the parenthetical phrase regarding the third party report (as may be approved by the city). P At 18.790.030E, the first sentence should not refer to 'denying a tree plan', but should refer to denying 'an application with proposed tree plan'. Q At 18.790.030E.1.,the tree plan should include more than the arborist's signature, since much of the implementation and responsibility for compliance rests with the applicant and other contractors on site (eg 2 grading, excavation, surveying, equipment drivers, unloading, etc). The applicant should be required to sign the tree plan. R 18.790.030E.4. doesn't appear to be an approval criterion. Perhaps what is meant is that the application for development must include a commitment by applicant to meet 18.790.050 regarding tree removal on sensitive lands. Such commitment should be documented as a Condition of approval. S Followup on comment 13 of 3/11/09. The issue of'evidence supporting' was addressed in an earlier LUBA decision regarding the Tigard tree ordinance (Miller v City of Tigard, 46 LUBA 536, LUBA 2003-133 (2/27/04). In the Miller decision, to meet the 'evidence supporting' phrase, the approval authority need only find that the record include something that a reasonable person would rely upon to adopt the land use decision. My comment is that the 'evidence supporting' phrase should apply to every tree and every tree plan requirement for a proposed development. T The Miller decision also noted shortcomings of the Tigard tree ordinance, "how the tree plan is implemented or enforced by the city', as it implements the 'preference for retention over removal' standard. LUBA found one shortcoming is that the Tigard rule 'does not provide any formal mechanism for amending a tree plan once a subdivision is approved' (Assignment of Error 1). 'The Tigard rule is silent on whether changes can be made to tree plans and how the city might go about approving such changes.' These shortcomings are an integral part of implementing the director's interpretation and should be addressed in this rule revision. U The tree plan requirements of 19.790.030 should, under the requirement to identify trees, ensure that trees on the site which are to be removed should be clearly identified in the field, by colored tape or other means acceptable to the city. Such marking will allow meaningful participation by citizens to view the prospective impacts of a tree plan. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 jfrewing @teleport.com 3 TIGARD TREE REGULATIONS—THIRD SET OF COMMENTS 3/16/09 Aa There has long been a requirement for submittal of a 'mitigation plan', but this revision adds content requirements for that plan (030B.6.) My comment is that in individual development applications and reviews, much more than the several items mentioned in this code change are regularly requested—one important item NOT mentioned in this code change is when the required mitigation is to be done. If not specified and agreed upon in the development application/review, the mitigation may NEVER be done. Please add `timing of mitigation work' to the content requirements of a mitigation plan. Other important elements of any mitigation plan include specification of existing conditions at the mitigation site, forest functions to be restored, maintenance plans (eg watering if necessary), remedial action for unsuccessful plantings, percent ground cover to be planted, etc.). Bb In the content requirements for the tree plan, there is great reliance on the `dripline' as the outer boundary of concern for a tree protection zone. Six of the eight content requirements reference use of the dripline. The dripline is one standard which has been used, but other standards are also appropriate for some trees in some circumstances. This code provision should provide the city arborist the ability to specify something other than the dripline for a tree protection zone(TPZ), one which comes to mind is the TPZ defined by a 1-foot radius for each one inch of tree caliper diameter at 54 inches above mean ground level. Cc The 'director's interpretation included the caution `failure to demonstrate that a preference has been given to tree preservation over tree removal may result in findings for denial of the development application.' This code change should include such caution. Dd The applicable review criteria and staff report both omit any reference to review against the needs for fish and wildlife (Goal 5 resources)— either the provisions of the comp plan or the provisions of 18.775. I believe that the preservation of trees is an integral part of protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife resources — birds are not limited by a `sensitive lands' map and rely almost exclusively on trees for nesting, roosting and feeding. It would be a reasonable requirement that the tree plan indicate how fish and wildlife resources are being addressed if trees are to be removed (eg don't cut down trees during nesting season). Please add such a content requirement for a tree plan as part of this code change. John Frewing dra Pr" HBA Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland • March 13, 2009 Jodie Inman, Commission President And Members of the Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Tree Code Amendments (DCA 2009-0001) Dear President Inman and Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Home Builders Assn. of Metro Portland to echo the request for continuance of this item as requested in the letter dated March 13, 2009 from Phillip Grillo. I too would hope that, if given a bit more time, we might be able to offer slight modification to the code language now being proposed that would make the referred to LUBA appeal moot and enable us to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, I respectfully request that the commission continue this item for 30 days. Sincerely, je/4 Ernie Platt Director of Local Government Affairs cc: John Floyd, Associate Planner Phillip Grillo, Miller Nash 15555 SW Bangy Road • Suite 301 • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Phone: 503.684.1880 • Fax: 503.684.0588 • www.homebuildersportland.org • Striving for Affordability.Balance and Choice • 3400 U.S.Bancorp Tower 111 S.W.Fifth Avenue Portland,Oregon 97204-3699 orrICr 503.224.5858 FAX 503.224.0155 Phillip E.Grillo phil.grillo@millemash.com (503)205-2311 direct line March 13, 2009 Jodie Inman, Commission President and Members of the Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Tree Code Amendments (DCA 2009-00001) Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland ("HBA"). As you know, the HBA has been involved in the City's ongoing efforts regarding tree protection. The HBA has been diligently working with the City in an effort to balance the City's interest in tree protection with its responsibilities to also provide needed housing opportunities throughout the City. In that regard, HBA participated in the City's recently adopted comprehensive plan amendment process that led to the City's adoption of CPA 2008-00002 (Tigard's Urban Forest). As you know, the City's decision in CPA 2008-00002 has been appealed to LUBA (LUBA No. 2008-094). That appeal is currently on hold, while HBA and the City discuss possible revisions to the Tigard Tree Code that could make our appeal moot. As you know, the latest amendments to the Tigard Tree Code proposed by staff were recently released. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully review these revisions, or to meet with staff to discuss possible revisions. I am therefore requesting that the Planning Commission continue DCA 2009-00001 (Tree Code Amendments) for a period of at least 30 days, to allow HBA to complete our review and meet with City staff to discuss possible revisions. Hopefully, we will be able to reach an agreement with the City on reasonable amendments to the Tree Code that would allow us to dismiss our LUBA appeal. For all of these reasons, we ask that this PDXDOCS:1835205.1 038340-0004 Jodie Inman, Commission President March 13, 2009 Page 2 matter be continued for a period of 3o days. Thank you for your continued consideration. Respectfully submitted, Phillip E. Grillo cc: Tim Ramis, City Attorney John Floyd, Associate Planner Ernie Platt, Director of Local Government Affairs, HBA of Metro Portland PDXDOCS:1835205.1 038390-0002 March 16, 2009 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard RE: Development Code Amendment 2009-00001 /Tree Removal Code Amendment Dear Planning Commission members: We are writing to comment on the proposed changes to the Tigard Tree Removal Code, Section 18.790. Fans of Fanno Creek is a local non-profit organization that works with many citizens to improve the health of our watershed for citizens, and the fish, wildlife and habitats that are located in Tigard. We are especially concerned with the large numbers of native trees that have been removed in Tigard in the past 10 years, especially on such sites as Dorothy Gates property on SW 81s` street,this was a 3 acre fully mature, wooded forest of all native trees that was clearcut! It included a pair of nesting hawks that had nested here for years. Another clearcut was on the Senn property on SW 74th street, this was a mature western red cedar forest that was also clearcut and the developer further damaged any"trees to be retained on the tree plan"to such an extent with his bulldozer that even these had to be cut down. Tigard can no longer afford to lose native trees and every effort possible must be made to save all of our remaining native trees whether they be single trees or part of a grove or forest stand. Our comments are as follows: • Applicable Review Critieria(ARCl—Goal 5 is not listed as one of the ARC but should be as it relates to protection and conservation of natural resources which includes"trees". It is a major error to not list Goal 5 and how the proposed changes may affect trees, including trees not located in Sensitive Lands. • 18.790.010. A—Value of Trees—This section needs to have added that"trees also are crucial in providing important wildlife habitat for a diverse assemblage of species in the city of Tigard." This will help to 1) meet Goal 5 requirements and 2)this is directly related to the Director's Interpretation to save trees rather than remove them as trees provide habitat for many species of wildlife. • 18.790.020 Definitions—We recommend that trees should not be labeled "hazardous"if there is only a part of the tree that poses a threat, such as a dead limb. For example, several native trees in our neighborhood had dead tree limbs which were about to fall on property, and taking off the dead limb was sufficient in removing the"hazard"the tree posed. Age should not necessarily be a reason for a tree to be removed. Some native oaks in Tigard are over 150 years old but healthy, should someone be able to remove them just because they are old? We recommend that the "hazardous tree"definition be "a tree by which reason of disease, infestation, or other condition, whereby pruning of certain dead limbs for • example will not remedy the perceived hazardous situation,presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property." • 18.790.010—An additional purpose needs to be added, which could read "Protect trees in order to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats." • 18.790.050—We recommend that tree removal permits should be required for the removal of"any native tree, regardless of whether it is on private or public lands, no matter where it is located in Tigard." We recommend this because many private landowners have significant numbers of native trees (Oregon white oak, Oregon ash)on their properties which provide many benefits to wildlife(e.g., nesting habitat), and for which said properties are NOT located on Sensitive Lands. Just recently someone off Tigard Street cut down on Oregon ash tree which we estimated was approximately 80-100 years old. It was the largest, tallest, ash tree remaining in our neighborhood and the owner cut it down because it"left a lot of leaves on the ground",not because it was a hazard tree. This was a terrible waste of a wonderful tree that did not need to be cut down. A permit to remove a native tree on private or public lands should be required and approved oh if the tree is deemed to be a"hazard"tree by a certified arborist. The city should provide incentives for private landowners to protect and retain native trees, especially since Tigard is one of the few local cities where many native trees such as ash and oak still remain. Our native trees are very important for wildlife and for providing numerous benefits to humans. I have spoken to several members of the Tree Board who have native oak trees on their properties and they agreed it is important to provide incentives for landowners to retain native trees. • 18.790.050.D—The proposed changes in this section state that"a tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which is land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as tax-deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands." This wording means that an entire forest of native trees could be cut down removing important habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians and many more species of wildlife. Just because trees are not on designated "Sensitive Lands" does not mean they are not important! Again,we recommend that regardless of where the tree(s) are located in the city,even if it is on small woodlands,a permit should be required for any native tree proposed to be removed and it should only be permitted to be removed if it is hazardous. • Uplands—The proposed changes to the tree removal code fail to address the trees located in uplands, whether on private or publicly owned lands. Trees in uplands are no less important than trees along streams or in riparian corridors, since they also provide shade,provide habitat for wildlife and many other benefits. Similar to our recommended wording above, we suggest that the another As it presently stands,the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Section of the Development Code fail to adequately address the need to protect and conserve native trees and forests as stated in the recently revised Tigard Comprehensive Plan,Natural Resources and Parks and Open Spaces Sections. We therefore request that the Planning Commission DENY the City of Tigard's recommended changes and work with citizens such as myself to rework this section of the Development Code to benefit native trees, forests and wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Tree Removal Code. Sincerely, Sue Beilke, Wildlife biologist, Board member of Fans of Fanno Creek " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: John Floyd, Associate Planner From: Greg Berry, Project Engineer Re: DCA 2009-00001 Tree Removal Date: 3 2009 Findings: Currently, the City Engineer decides whether trees within the right-of-way are to be removed. This authority is required to ensure compliance with the City's public improvement standards. The proposed amendment to 18.790.030A would instead require tree plans for trees within the right-of-way. As part of the land use permit process, results of the tree plan would be used to determine if a tree within the right-of-way should be retained or removed. Consequently, the City Engineer would no longer have authority over trees within the right-of-way. Recommendations: The proposed amendment to 18.790.030A should not include adding "adjacent right-of- way". ,,engWmVand use commenlslticaWca 7009-00001 Dee removal Ooc