Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
LUBA1992-140 - Marge Davenport - 92-140
OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW JEFF H. BACHRAC 1 BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L. BUSCH 1727 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* Portland, Hoyt Street Canby, Oregon 13 STEPHEN F CREW , Oregon 97209 (503) 266-1149 CHARLES M. GREEFF TELEPHONE: (503) 222-W2 WILIJAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (503) 243-2944 NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. O'DONNELL PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETH M. ELLIOTT TIMOTHY V. RAMS Special Counsel SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* MICHAEL C. ROBINSON** WILLIAM J. STALNAKER August 27, 1992 •A= ADWr= TO MAC. M IN SrAn OF WASHAIGMN "ALSO ADbDIM M MACIICB IN WISMNSNI Mr. Patrick J. Reilly City Administrator City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97281 Re: Davenport v. LUBA, LUBA No. 92-140 Dear Pat: I wanted to report to you on the status of Marge Davenport's challenge to the site approval for Triad. As you know, Triad has filed a motion for evidentiary hearing. Until LUBA rules on that motion, the Board will not set a date for oral argument. We expect a ruling from LUBA any day now on the motion. When LUBA rules on the motion, it will also set a new oral argument date, which I would expect to be within a couple of weeks of ruling on the motion. I will keep you informed on this matter. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN Michael C. Robinson MCR/dd cc: Mr. Ed Murphy Mr. Jerry Offer m=tigpmd W4&3VtWy.111 j AUG 3 11992 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON MARGE DAVENPORT, ) Petitioner, ) LUBA NO. 92-104 Vs. ) • ) Index and Record CITY OF TIGARD, ) Respondent. ) .y Certified to be a True Copy of Original on file By: ~2- Lij Ci Recorder - City eard qlate: V/ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii - iv Exhibit No. 1 Affidavit of Mailing (Final Order mailed April 30, 1992 - Resolution No. 92-19) 1 - 51 2 Council Minutes - April 28, 1992 52 - 59 3 Agenda - April 28, 1992 60 - 62 4 Council Agenda Summaries from the April 28, 1992 • Council Meeting, Items 5 and 5(a) 63 - 69 5 Affidavit of Publication (April 28, 1992 Council Agenda Synopsis) 70 6 Council Minutes - April 14, 1992 71 - 94 7 Testimony Sign-In Sheets - April 14, 1992 95 - 97 8 Agenda - April 14, 1992 98 - 100 9 Council Agenda Summary and Attachments from the April 14, 1992 Meeting 101 -102 • Staff recommended condition for wetland delineation 103 • Submittal by Richard Whitman of Ball, Janik & Novack 104 - 124 • Letter from the Pecks 125 - 126 • Petitions 127 - 182 • Comp. Plan provisions regarding special areas and natural areas 183 - 187 • Written testimony of Paul Whitney 188-191 ii Exhibit No. Pa e • Letter from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to Jerry Offer 192 - 193 • Memo from Ed Murphy to Pat Reilly regarding Response to Issues on Triad Continuance 194 - 197 • Wildlife Habitat Survey 198 - 209 • Road Improvement Agreement 210 - 214 • Geotechnical Report 215 - 242 10 Affidavit of Publication (April 14, 1992 Council Agenda Synopsis) 243 11 Council Minutes - March 10, 1992 244 - 261 12 Testimony Sign-In Sheet - March 10, 1992 262 13 Agenda - March 10, 1992 263 - 265 14 Council Agenda Summary and Attachments from the March 10, 1992 Meeting 266 - 267 • Vicinity Map 268 • Transportation Plan Map 269 • Appeal Forms 270 - NPO #6 Appeal 271 - Marge Davenport's Appeal 272 -273 • Analysis 274 - Engineering Department Response (12/10/91) 275 -276 - Planning Division Response (12/10/91) 277 -278 • Marge Davenport's Testimony Submitted (12/10/91) 279 -290 • Staff Response (3/2/92) 291 -297 • Planning Commission Minutes (10/7/91) 298 -306 • Letters submitted at Planning Commission Hearing (10/7/91) ...............................307 - 312 • Minutes of September 18 NPO #6 Meeting and Letters Submitted Prior to October 7, 1991 Planning Commission 313 -317 • Applicant's Letter Dated August 27, 1991 and Development Plan 318 -344 15 Affidavit of Publication (March 10, 1992 Council Agenda Synopsis) 345 16 Council Minutes - February 25, 1992 346 -349 • iii Exhibit No. Page 17 Agenda - February 25, 1992 350 - 352 18 Affidavits of Publication (February 25, 1992 Council Agenda Synopsis) 353 - 354 19 Council Minutes - December 10, 1991 355 - 358 20 Testimony Sign-In Sheet - December 10, 1991 359 21 Written Testimony - December 10, 1991 360 • Draft Road Improvement Agreement 361 -365 • December 10, 1991 Written Testimony from Marge Davenport 366 - 376 • December 10, 1991 Memorandum from Gerry McReynolds, City of King City 377 • December 9, 1991 Letter from James Bean, Attorney for Robert Luton 378 22 Agenda - December 10, 1991 379 - 381 23 Council Agenda Summary from December 10, 1991 Meeting 382 - 383 NOTE: attachments to this summary sheet were all re-submitted with the Council's March 10, 1992 meeting packet, except for the following: - Applicant's Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis 384 - 392 - Applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis 393 - 431 24 Affidavits of Publication (December 10, 1991 Council Agenda Synopsis) 432 - 433 25 Affidavit of Mailing (Notice of December 10, 1991 City Council Public Hearing) 434 - 446 iv SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION SDR 91-0013/PDR 91-0006 RESOLUTION NO. 92-19 APPLICANT: TRIAD TIGARD, LTD. PARTNERSHIP CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING RECORD IN RESPONSE TO REMAND FROM THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS I, Elizabeth Newton, Deputy City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. uI/Ija R' w Elizabeth Ne on, D puty City Recorder Date i AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING TATE OF OREGON ) ounty of Washington ) ss. 40ity of Tigard ) I, hereby certify: (Please Print) That I am a., for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council VAE,' - ~~-L~ of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the 36f day of 19 by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the day of 19 postage prepaid. Prep ice Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of YY1 , 1911 0 OFF;Cl-: -AL M - 41~~ M.JOANNHAYES Notary P lic of Orego NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSIONNO.006513 My Commission Expires: YY~ -SL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 Mailed dot' a/Delivered to Post Office Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 199--. 0 JFIC1NH M. JOANN NAYE AYES Notary P blic of Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commi Sion Expires: YV\CI-4 5. 149Z COMMI661ON NO.006513 MY COMM1401ON EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 \lo9in\cathy\afofmait Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I_ Page No. _I CITY OF TIGARD . Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 91-0014/PDR 91-0006 2. Name of Owner: Tigard Triad Limited Partnership Name of Applicant: Same 3. Address 320 Andover Park E. #235 City Seattle State OR Zip 98188 4. Address of Property: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 IOAC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 IODB, tax lots 100, 200, and 300 5. Request: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 8ar a'sr C KZ , AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON A62r % ( Q&- 1 Q9a The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. 9. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. ;k- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGPN RESOLUTION NO. 92-~L- i IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (SDR 91- 0013/PDR 91-0006) PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting of October 7, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to certain conditions of approval (Planning Commission Final Order 91-11 PC); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by separate appeals filed by Marge Davenport and NPO #6; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the City. Council at its meetings of December 10, 1991; February 25, 1992; March 10, 1992; and April 14, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the applicants' appeals; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council upholds the Planning • Commission's decision approving Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application (SDR 91-0013/PDR 91-0006) with some additional conditions of approval and modification of some of the Commission's conditions of approval. This resolution is based upon the facts, findings, conclusions and, conditions of approval noted in the attached Exhibit "A". The City Council further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of this resolution and final order to the applicant and appellants as a notice of the final decision in this matter. PASSED: This day of April, 1992. APPROVED: This ~ day of April, 1992. Mayor`= City of Tigard ATTEST: AC1JV,1Z4A_f l 'Lity Recorder - City of T and • RESOLUTION NO. 92- Page 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER NO. A FINAL ORDER, INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WHICH AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION ORDER NO. 91-11 PC, WHICH APPROVED AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL, AND ACCESS VARIANCE APPROVAL REQUESTED BY TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Following an appeal from Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-11 PC, the Tigard City Council reviewed the above application at public hearings on December 10, 1991; February 25, 1992; March 10, 1992; and April 14, 1992, at which the Council received additional evidence. The Council bases its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Appeals by NPO #6 and Marge E. Davenport from Planning Commission Final Order 91-11 PC, which • approved with conditions the application in: Planned Development Review PDR 91-0006 Site Development Review SDR 91-0013 REQUEST: Planned Development Review/Site Development Review of a plan for development of a 348 unit, 17 building multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre property. APPLICANT/OWNER: Triad Tigard, Ltd. Partnership 320 Andover Park East Seattle, WA 98138 ENGINEER: Kampe Associates, Inc. 3681 SW Carmen Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97035 ARCHITECT: Driscoll Architects 2121 First Avenue, Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98121 LOCATION: 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of SW 109th Avenue, south of the Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 1ODB, Tax Lots 100 and 200 [also Tax Lot 300 for public road FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. + realignment purposes only); WCTM 2S1 LOAD, Tax Lot 9300; WCTM 2S1 10AC, Tax Lots 600, 700, 800, 900). PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (23 acres) Medium-High Density Residential (4.2 acres) ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (PD) (12 units/acre-Planned Development overlay) (23 acres) R-25 (PD) (25 units/acre-Planned Development) (4.2 acres) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164 and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5..1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. DECISION: Affirm Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-11 with modified conditions. 2. Background Information The subject parcels have been involved in a number of City of Tigard land use and development applications since annexation in 1981. Prior to annexation, the parcels were designated by Washington County with a zoning designation of RU-4 (Residential, 4 units/acre). City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 1-81 approved redesignation of the parcels from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a zone change to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre). The Planned Development (PD) overlay zone was added to the requested R-12 designation so that all development proposals for the properties would be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In December, 1986, the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment for changing the Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This approval redesignated these properties from High Density Residential to General Commercial. A result of this decision was the removal of the opportunity for approximately 400 potential multi-family housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant, buildable FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. l Page No. 5' 1 I • land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660,.D vigaon 7) requires that Tigard provide a housing opportunity for at least 50 percent multi-family units and a net minimum housing density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant buildable land within the City's Urban Planning Area. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of redesignation of sufficient residential land to higher densities to make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the decision. Several sites throughout the City, including Tax Lot 200, were considered for increased residential densities to make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the Albertson's decision. The western half of Tax Lot 200 and the parcel to the west were proposed for Plan/Zone redesignation'from Medium Density Residential/R-12 (PD) to Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 (PD) (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 87-07(G)/Zone Change ZC 87-02 (G)). No change in designation was proposed for the eastern half of Tax Lot 200 or the other parcels that are the subject of the current application. Redesignation of the western half of Tax Lot 200 and the adjacent parcel was approved by the City Council in April 1987. • In April, 1989, the owners of Tax Lot 200 requested a Plan Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, and a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development) to R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) for the eastern 4.27 acres of that parcel (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 89-02/Zone Change ZC 89-02). After review by the staff and Planning Commission, the City Council denied the proposed Plan Amendment/Zone Change on April 24, 1989. Tax Lot 100, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue, was the subject of a Subdivision/Planned Development review by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1989 (Subdivision S 89-07/Planned Development PD 89-01). That application requested Planned Development conceptual plan approval and subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide the approximately 10.3 acre parcel into 60 lots intended for single- family residential development. The proposed subdivision would have included a north-south street running through the approximate center of the parcel with connections to SW 109th Avenue as well as to the • property to the west. SW 109th Avenue was proposed FINAL ORDER PDR 91 0006/SDR.91-0013 TRIAD 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. to terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb at the northern end of the subdivision. SW 109th was to be improved to local street standards and have a number of single- family lots fronting on it. The proposed subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission but the approval has since expired'. Also on June 6, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal for Planned Development/Site Development Review approval of a request to construct a 72 unit apartment complex on Tax Lots 900 and 9300 north of the previously described proposed subdivision (Planned Development PD 89-02, site Development Review SDR 89-06, Variance V 89-20). These tax lots are also part of the current application. The Commission approved the proposed development plan which included a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of the northern segment of SW 109th Avenue, approximately 250 feet north of the cul-de-sac bulb approved for the single-family subdivision. The proposed dual cul-de-saccing of SW 109th Avenue was intended to provide a separation between the predominately multi-family residential character on the top half of Little Bull Mountain from the proposed primarily single-family residential character of the neighborhood along.the south slope of Little Bull Mountain and the properties to the south. The Planning Commission's final orders for both the subdivision and apartment proposals, however,.noted that if either of the proposed developments did not occur as proposed, it would be necessary to re-evaluate the road patterns in this area. In September, 1989, the Planning Commission was presented with a request to reconsider the application for the proposed 72 unit apartment complex because a significant number of neighboring property owners that were entitled to notice of the public hearing on the matter did not receive notice and did not have the opportunity to testify before the Commission. The City Attorney's office reviewed this request and advised staff that the request be placed on the Commission's November 7, 1990 meeting agenda. The applicant, Terry Cook, requested that the hearing for reconsideration be indefinitely postponed until the applicant determined whether to pursue the application further. No further action was taken by that applicant. The current applicant, Triad Tigard Limited Partnership, filed a Site Development Review/Planned • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. • Development Review application for development of a 364 unit apartment complex for the entire subject site in early 1990 (SDR 90-0004/PDR 90-0002). -The proposal was fairly similar to the current proposal except that there was no public roadway proposed to cut through the site as is currently proposed. The development site was to be bounded by SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue. The Commission approved this prior application subject to conditions on May 11, 1990, including a condition that the two segments of. SW 109th Avenue abutting the site be permanently separated as well as closing SW 109th south of Naeve Street (Commission Final Order 90-11). The Planning Commission's decision was reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 1990. The City Council remanded the application back to the Commission for further review regarding the proposed development's potential traffic impacts on nearby streets. Included in the Council's discussions was a possible extension of SW Beef Bend Road from the west through the site to connect with SW 109th. On September 4, 1990, the Commission on remand approved an amended Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application including a variance to the maximum local street grade standard for SW • 109th Avenue (Commission Final Order 90-22). The approval also required development of an emergency vehicle access connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue in Summerfield, but no public street connection. This decision was appealed to the Council by NPO #6. On appeal, the Council reversed the Planning Commission's approval thereby denying the application (Resolution No. 90-71). The Council's findings in support of this decision indicate that the Council did not feel that the public street connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue in Summerfield was acceptable because it would not provide for an efficient neighborhood circulation system and needed connections between residential neighborhoods with Pacific Highway. The Council also was opposed to the development plan's proposal to direct a significant amount of traffic onto an over-steep local street (SW 109th). In addition, the Council was not convinced that a public road or private driveway connection to SW Pacific Highway at the Beef Bend Road intersection was not possible to serve the proposed development. In December of 1990 the City Council authorized NPO #6 to initiate consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment focused on transportation issues in the FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 5 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. l Page No. area of S.W. 109th Avenue and Naeve Street. After review of various alternatives, the NPO recommended; specific amendments to the Transportation Map. The amendment changed the designation of Naeve Street from a minor collector to a local street; designated 109th Avenue as a minor collector; indicated that 109th Avenue is to be realigned to curve across the south slope of Little Bull Mountain, crossing Naeve Street at a point west of the Fountains development and continuing south of Naeve Street to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway; and indicated a minor collector street connection between 109th and 100th Avenue to intersect 100th in the vicinity of Sattler Street. The City Council approved this map change on August 13, 1991, (Ordinance 91-22). The Council's decision was final on September 12, 1991. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded the decision on January 28, 1992. On remand, the City Council approved a modified plan amendment that designated the connection between 109th and 100th Avenue as a local street rather than a minor collector, but the amendment left unchanged the proposed alignment of a minor collector street across the site now proposed for an apartment development (Ordinance 92-07). . On October 14, 1991,.the Planning Commission approved with conditions the current Planned Development Review/Site Development Review application submitted by the. applicant (Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-11 PC). This application incorporates the realignment of 109th Avenue approved by the City Council in the current site plan for a 348 unit apartment complex. NPO #6 and Marge E. Davenport separately appealed the Planning Commission's Decision to the Council. NPO #61s sole concern was that the completion of site development not occur before construction of 109th Avenue through to Pacific Highway was completed. Ms. Davenport's appeal raised a number of issues, including environmental effects, soil stability, and traffic effects. The Council held a public hearing on the appeal on December 10, 1991. The hearing was continued to February 25, 1992; March 10, 1992; and April 14, 1992. At the March 14th hearing, the applicant submitted a modified preliminary site plan that contained additional open space on the northern boundary of the property in order to further minimize any adverse effects the development might have on vegetation and wildlife. • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 6 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. • 3. Vicinity Information The development pattern in the area of the subject site consists of existing duplexes and the 130-unit Timberline Apartments development to the north; the Canterbury Woods condominium development to the northeast; single family residences and a nursery on large lots to the east; an undeveloped parcel covered with tall fir trees to the west (t.l. 300); Pacific Highway and Ring City further west; and the Summerfield planned community to the south. The Fountains at Summerfield condominium complex is immediately south of the site. As previously noted, the City's Transportation Plan Map now calls for a minor collector extension of S.W. 109th to be constructed.through the subject property. The subject property has approximately 890 feet of frontage on SW Naeve Street which is now functionally classified as a.local street. SW Naeve Street is generally substandard in width and state of improvements, witY} the exception of the frontage of the Fountains at , mmerfield development to the south. Half-stret-_L improvements, including approximately 30 feet of pavement, curbs, a sidewalk, • and streetlights have been installed along the Fountain's frontage. The subject.parcels have approximately 1500 feet of total frontage along the alignment of SW 109th Avenue: SW 109th Avenue, north of the intersection with SW Naeve Street, is a steep gravel road extending approximately 1200 feet to a dead end. Approximately 200 feet further north beyond this dead end, the northern segment of SW 109th Avenue continues. This northern section of SW 109th Avenue extends northward to Canterbury Lane. The subject properties have approximately 100 feet of frontage along this :rthern section of SW 109th Avenue. SW 109th Avenue is functionally classified as a minor collector street. Tax lots 600, 700 and 800 have approximately 360 feet of frontage on SW Pacific Highway. Pacific Highway is a 4-lane divided arterial under the jurisdiction of the Oregon State Highway Division. The southwestern corner of the subject site along SW Naeve is located approximately 500 feet east of the Naeve/Pacific Highway intersection. A left-turn lane is provided on Pacific Highway for southbound traffic FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0n?3 TRIAD 7 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. l Page No. to onto SW Naeve Street. The intersection of SW Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is not signalized. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject 26.2 acre property previously contained houses on Tax Lots 200, 700, 800, and 9300. All have been removed except for the house on tax lot 9300. The remainder of the property is vacant, covered with a combination of tall fir trees, lower height deciduous trees, and brush. The property slopes predominantly to the south and southwest at varying grades. Approximately 0.8 acres on tax lots 600, 700, and 800 has a slope of greater than 25 percent. The applicants propose to develop a 348 unit apartment complex on this site. The development would include 101 one-bedroom, 151 two-bedroom, and 96 three bedroom units for a total of 348 units. The development site would be split by a curved collector street connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue intended to conform with the recently adopted Transportation Map amendment for this area. The alignment of SW Naeve Street to the west is proposed to be shifted somewhat northward in order to provide for a 90 degree intersection with this • proposed new street. A minor reconstruction of Naeve Street is also proposed at 109th to from a 90 degree intersection. Also proposed would be a recreation building located near the center of the site. A gymnasium, indoor pool, outdoor_ pool, and lounge within the recreation building are proposed. In addition, a jogging path is also proposed to provide recreational facilities for the proposed development. The areas of tax lots 600, 700 and 800 would not include any new improvements. Parking would be provided by 661 total parking spaces consisting of 360 covered parking spaces (combination of garages and under apartment buildings), 14 designated handicapped parking spaces, and 287 other uncovered spaces. The southern section of the proposed development which contains 60 units would be served by one 24- foot wide access driveway from the proposed connecting street. No other access would be provided to this section of the development from either SW Naeve Street, SW 109th Avenue, or from the proposed connecting street. The existing section of SW 109th • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 8 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. i 1 } Avenue, north of Naeve Street, is proposed to terminate in a hammerhead-ostyde turnaround short of connecting with the proposed connector street. - The northern portion of the proposed development is proposed to be served by a 24 foot wide main access driveway from the proposed connector street extending northward through the site to a connection with SW 109th Avenue in the northeastern section of the site. The northern section would also be served an additional 24-foot wide access driveway onto SW 109th Avenue that would extend westward to connect with the main internal roadway as well as one dead end access driveway which would stop short of SW 109th. A network of five foot wide sidewalks would be provided along the primary roadway and between parking areas and residential buildings. The north-south soft surfaced jogging path provided through landscaped and tree covered area on the eastern portion of the site would provide pedestrian access between the northern- most units and the recreation building. The preliminary landscaping plan shows existing trees that are proposed to be retained. The area along SW Pacific Highway on tax lots 600, 700 and 800 is to be left with existing vegetation. The landscaping plan . calls for removing underbrush and planting lawn and a variety of bushes and trees throughout the portion of the site to be developed in order to create a park- like appearance on the site. The landscaping plan shows cross sections of proposed perimeter buffer material arrangements and lists plant materials. The applicant's revised site plan (included within the Wildlife Resources Habitat Survey report prepared by Fishman Environmental Services) modifies the site plan approved by the Planning Commission by moving the northernmost row of apartments and parking spaces to the south. This revision allows additional conifer trees and vegetation to be preserved and creates more open space on the site. The revision also enlarges the buffer area on the northern boundary of the site. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The City Planning Division received comments on the application from the City of Tigard Engineering Division, the Oregon State Highway Division, the City of Tigard Building Division, Neighborhood Planning Organization 6, the Summerfield Civic Association, the Tigard Water District, Tigard School District FINAL ORDER PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013- TRIAD 9 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. l Page No. t.L • 23J, and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. These comments were relayed to the Planning Commission and City Council through incorporation within the Planning Division staff report on the proposal. Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation and PGE have also reviewed Lt►e proposal but have issued no comments or objections. King City, GTE, Northwest Natural Gas, and the , Metropolitan Area Communications Commission were provided with plans and an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No comments were received from those agencies. B. ANALYSIS Resubmittal Within One Year of Denial The applicant submitted a new application less than 12 months after the Council's November 26, 1990, denial of the applicant's prior development application affecting this site. Code Section 18.32.280 contains the following language regarding resubmittal of an application that has been denied: • "An application which has been denied or an application which was denied and which on appeal or review has not been reversed by a higher authority, may not be resubmitted for the same or a substantially similar action for a period of a- -t least 12 months from the date the final City action is made denying the application unless there is a substantial change in the facts or a change in City policy which would change the outcome." The applicant has submitted a letter dated August 27, 1991, which addresses the criteria for resubmittal. The Council agrees with the applicant that the current site plan with a public road through the development eliminating the need for variances to public road improvement standards is a substantial change from the previously denied site plan thereby constituting a substantial change in facts from the previously denied application. In addition, the recently approved amendment to the Transportation Plan constitutes a change in City policy that may affect the outcome of the application. Therefore, review of the current application is consistent with Section 18.32.280. . FINAL ORDER - PDR 9170006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 10 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 13 • i R-25 and R-12 Zoning Districts Multi-family residential use of the site is a permitted use in both the R-25 and R-12 Zoning Districts. Eighty-eight dwelling units are proposed on area that provides an opportunity for approximately 88 units in the area of the site designated with the R-25 zone. Two hundred and sixty dwelling units are proposed on area that provides a , maximum opportunity for 271 dwelling units on the portion of this site that is designated with the R-12 zone. The applicant's density calculations are noted on sheet A001 of the proposed site plan. Proposed site improvements comply with both the R-12 and R-25 district requirements for building height (45 foot maximum allowed in R-25, 35 feet in R-12; 35 foot maximum height proposed), lot coverage (maximum allowed site coverage of 80 percent in both zones; proposed site coverage of less than 50 percent), and landscaped area (minimum landscape coverage of 20 percent in both zones; proposed landscape coverage of greater than 50 percent). All proposed building locations satisfy minimum building setback requirements. Site Development Review The-proposal.complies with Community Development Code Chapter 18.120.180.A Site Development Review approval standards for provision of private outdoor areas (balconies), shared recreation facilities, (swimming pool, recreation---center, pathways), screening of service facilities, multi-family residential building separation, and design offsets along building faces. Dwelling units and the recreation center have been situated toward the interior of the site and appropriately screened or buffered so as to reduce possible noise and lighting impacts on the site and on neighboring properties and to increase visual privacy between adjacent uses. Reasonable care has been taken to preserve existing topography, natural drainage, and mature trees on the site as shown on the site plans and landscaping plan (sheet L-100) although with the amount of development proposed and the grading necessary, a number of trees will be removed. As demonstrated by the applicant's geotechnical engineering study, the site is not subject to ground slumping or sliding and is otherwise suitable for the proposed apartment complex. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 11 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. If . Before the Planning Commission, NPO #6 and the staff ✓ recommended that the applicants be required to z provide a pedestrian pathway between the northern portion of the development and the existing bus stop on SW Pacific Highway at the Beef Bend Road intersection. The applicants' representative argued that although such a pathway would be beneficial in promoting use of mass transit by the development's residents, a pathway in this area could be unsafe due to its necessary steepness, inability to be seen from_ the development or public streets, and isolation. The Council concurs with the applicants and the Planning Commission that the questionable safety of such a path outweighs the benefits that would be gained. The Council chooses not to require such a pathway. Other Site Development Review standards (Section 18.120.180.A.1) related to other Community Development Code standards are reviewed below. Access and Circulation The proposal satisfies Community Development Code Chapter 18.108 standards for internal roadway widths (minimum width of 24 feet) and provision of adequate pedestrian circulation through the use of a soft surfaced pathway through the northern section of the development as well as hard surfaced sidewalks adjacent to both the public streets adjacent to the site and adjacent to the internal roadways. The proposed roadway system will provide good circulation for emergency vehicles through the site despite the site's steep grade. The two dead end private roadways within the site would be provided with hammerhead turnarounds. The Council agrees with the Commission's decision not to require an emergency vehicle access to the southern portion of the site from SW 109th Avenue in order to avoid creating a situation that could encourage foot or bicycle traffic from the development towards Summerfield. The southern section of the development would be surrounded by public roads and both the internal road and the southern section of SW 109th would be provided with appropriate turnaround areas for emergency vehicles. The Council finds that the public and private roadway system that is proposed will provide adequate access to the southern section of the development for emergency service purposes. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006ISDR 91-0013 TRIAD 12 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. i Page No. 15 • Code Section 18.108.070.D provides a sliding scale standard for number of required driveways for a multi-family development complex based on both the number of units and the number of parking spaces. At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, staff described a portion of this Code Section's access standards for a development of this size as being a probable typographical error since the access standard switches from being based on number of dwelling units (if a development of 100 or less units is being proposed) to a standard based on number of total parking spaces (if more than 100 parking spaces is proposed). Reading the requirement literally, the proposed 348 unit development would be required to provide two access points for the first 100 units and the 150 spaces required to serve those units, and one more access point for each of the 100 additional spaces provided (six more spaces for the 511 additional spaces proposed beyond the first 150 required spaces). Therefore, a development with 348 units and 661 parking spaces would be required to provide eight access points. Staff believes the standard was probably intended to refer to number of units throughout the sliding scale calculation. Staff will propose a change in this standard in the future to clarify this section. However, until such • a change is made, the standard must be read literally. The proposed development would have four access points; three to the northern portion of the development and one for the southern portion. The applicants intended to limit access points to the northern section of SW 109th Avenue and'the new street to be constructed through the site in order to discourage traffic from the development from travelling through Summerfield. The Code recognizes that variances from the access standards may be necessary and provides standards for an access variance that are different than for variances in general. The access variance approval standards are: 1. It is not possible to share access; 2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met; 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access; FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 13 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. (G • `'5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and 6. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. Because of the pattern of surrounding development on abutting lots to the north, it is not practical for the proposed development to share access with the Timberline Apartments. The steepness of slopes and the uncertainty regarding future development type make sharing access with the church property to the west impractical as well. The only other possible access points for the proposed development would either be dangerous due to being located on the downhill curve of the new street or else would direct traffic towards SW 109th through the Summerfield development. It is clear from the previous hearings regarding this site that the City and residents of the area would prefer to discourage traffic from this site from being directed through Summerfield. Any additional access driveways to the new collector street should be discouraged because of limited sight • distance along the road's curve and inadequate separation of access points along a collector street. Any other access points would either create a potential unsafe situation on the collector street or else would encourage traffic through Summerfield; therefore, the degree of variance considered is the minimum variance required to provide safe and adequate access. Because the proposed access points are located at points where adequate sight distance will be provided and because signs and landscaping will make the access driveways very noticeable from the street, the proposed access points will provide for adequate and safe access for the use proposed. Parking The site plan provides for an appropriate number of parking spaces for a 348 unit apartment development (661 parking spaces required per Code Section 18.106.030.A.4; 661 parking spaces provided), covered parking spaces (348 covered parking spaces required; 360 covered spaces provided), and allowable 1 to 4 compact to total required parking space distribution. • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 14 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. .-1 • The site plan designates 14 handicapped accessible parking spaces that are distributed throughout the site (a minimum of 14 designated handicapped accessible spaces are required). It is recommended that several of these designated handicapped parking spaces be relocated under cover to better serve the needs of handicapped residents of the proposed development and handicapped visitors. Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan provides appropriate locations, types, and spacing for required street trees. However, the landscaping plan proposes minimum planting sizes for the street tress of 1 and 3/4 inch to 2 inch caliper whereas Code Section 18.100.035.A specifies a minimum caliper size of 2 inches at planting. The landscaping plan will need to be revised accordingly. The plan also provides appropriate understory plantings along the site's frontages to reduce the effects of on-site lights on adjacent uses and upon traffic on the abutting streets. The revised site plan submitted to the Council with the Wildlife Resources Habitat Survey provides for retaining a substantial strip of existing large coniferous trees along the site's northern boundary to provide a wide buffer area that is well in excess of the required 10-foot buffer area between this site and the adjacent existing apartment complex(Section 18.100.090). Proposed internal site landscaping will provide appropriate numbers of parking area trees, provide buffering and screening between the proposed buildings, and should supplement the trees and other existing vegetation that is to be retained to make an attractive development. The western section of the site above Pacific Highway will retain its existing vegetation. However in the remainder of the site, the proposed development and its attendant significant amount of grading will necessarily require removal of a number of large trees. The development nonetheless has been planned to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the removal of existing trees and vegetation, particularly the large, mature coniferous trees on the northern and northwestern portions of the property. A tree removal permit pursuant to chapter 18.150 of the Code will be required before trees with a diameter of six inches or greater can be removed. An arborist's report will be required prescribing FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 15 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 1$ measures to be followed for protection of existing trees to be retained. Signs The site plan shows signs to be located at three entrances to the proposed development. Community Development Code Section 18.114.130 permits housing complex identification signs to be located at all entrances to multi-family developments. Sign size and height details have not been provided at this time. Sign permits pursuant to chapter 18.114 of Code must be obtained prior to erecting any sign. Sign sizes and heights must be shown to conform with Code standards in order for sign permits to be issued. C. CONCLUSIONS The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. 1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because NPO #6, the Summerfield Civic Association, Ring City, and affected service providing agencies have been notified of this proposal directly by the applicant in advance of the actual application. These groups have been given ' an opportunity to cofiment~ to the applicant and the City of Tigard with regard to their concerns with the development plan. Direct notice of the hearing on this proposal has been sent to property owners within 250 feet of the site. In addition, all required hearing notices were provided. 2. Policy 3.1.1, which is implemented through chapter 18.84 of the Code, is met because the northwestern portion of the property, which has slopes over 25 percent, and which therefore is significantly constrained for development purposes, is proposed to remain in its natural state. As shown by the applicant's geotechnical engineering study, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., the remainder of the site has few, if any significant development constraints. • The proposed apartment buildings and associated FINAL ORDER PDR 91 0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 16 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. % Page No. development can be constructed without difficulty through the use of the established and proven engineering techniques described in the study. Appellant Marge E. Davenport argued at the hearings and in letters to the City that development of the site was inappropriate because of unstable soils and other potential adverse geologic conditions. These issues were not raised in her notice of review, and therefore the issues are not properly before the Council. (Code Sections 18.32.320.B.2, 18.32.340.A.3.) Even were the Council required to consider appellant's arguments with respect to these issues, the Council does not find the arguments persuasive. The arguments are based on very general information described in the background Volume I resource document of the Comprehensive Plan, which in turn is based on the U.S. Soil Conservation Survey for Washington County. The Terra Associates, Inc., geotechnical survey submitted by the applicant is much more detailed than the information referred to in the Comprehensive Plan. The Terra Associates report is based in part on data obtained from test pits dug at 28 locations throughout the site and . subsequent laboratory testing of soil samples. Furthermore, the Terra Associates report is specifically directed to the suitability of the site for the apartment complex proposed by the applicant. The general information referred to in Comprehensive Plan Volume I is not addressed to any specific type of development. The types of soils reported by Terra Associates at the site are nonetheless consistent with the general soils description in the Comprehensive Plan. Based on their study, Terra Associates described the specific weight-bearing limits of the soils, their stability, and the design and construction methods that should be employed to assure soil stability. The design and construction methods recommended are not unusual in the Tigard area. The Council finds no credible evidence of geologic problems that would preclude approval of the proposed development or otherwise make it infeasible. The Terra Associates recommendations will be considered when detailed construction and grading plans are prepared for the development. 3. Policy 3.4.2 applies to designated tree areas and to habitat values delineated on the City's "Fish and FINAL ORDER PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 17 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. Q o } Wildlife Habitat Map." The policy does not directly apply to development proposals; it is implemented through the development standards imposed by the Planned Development and Site Development Review processes, which, for example, incorporate the Code's tree removal standards in order to minimize tree removal. Policy 3.4.2 and its implementing measures apply directly only to the mature coniferous forest on the, northern portion of the site, which is identified as "Area A" in figure 3 of the March 1992 Fishman Environmental Services report. Area A is the portion of the site within the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, the only significant natural resource that the Comprehensive Plan's Goal 5 analysis designates for the site. No significant wildlife habitat areas are designated on the site by the Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5, the City of Tigard inventoried Goal 5 resources and designated in its Comprehensive Plan those Goal 5 resources that it has determined to be significant. (Comprehensive Plan Vol. I, pp. 94- 109). For these designated Goal 5 resources, the Comprehensive Plan identifies potential conflicts; • performs an economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences analysis of the conflicts; and adopts a program to resolve the conflicts. (See id.) The City's Comprehensive Plan, including its Goal 5 provisions, were acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission on October 11, 1984. The "summit of Little Bull Mountain" is mentioned as a "special area" and an area of scenic value in the City's Natural Features and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Report. (See Comprehensive Plan Vol. I, pp. 42- 42). The summit area of Little Bull Mountain, however, was not inventoried as a significant Goal 5 resource, with the exception of those resources included within the designation of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Little Bull Mountain natural forest as an area of mature coniferous trees on the west side of Little Bull Mountain. (Comprehensive Plan, Vol. I, P. 96.) The forest was designated as a Goal 5 resource because it was determined to be "an outstanding scenic site." (Id.) The Comprehensive Plan explains that the scenic value of the site stems from the visual FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 18 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. % Page No. at 1 landmark provided by the large stand of mature coniferous trees at an elevate4 location within the City. In contrast, the Comprehensive Plan notes that "wildlife within [the forest) . . . is limited to small birds and animals." The Comprehensive Plan anticipated and resolved conflicts between the scenic values of the Little Bull Mountain natural forest and other land uses, in accordance with Statewide Goal 5. All of the areas included in the Little Bull Mountain natural forest are designated by the Comprehensive Plan for future residential development. Although the Plan's background document noted that the area was zoned for low-density residential development, the City, as noted above, approved Plan amendments that increased the residential density of the area. These amendments are an acknowledged part of the Plan. The Plan's Goal 5 analysis, which applies equally to any density of residential development, notes that future development may create conflicts with the designated Goal 5 resources of the Little Bull Mountain natural forest (see Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 1, pp. 96-97, 106-107) and resolves the conflict as follows: "The significant wooded areas are • identified and mapped. The policy of the City's comprehensive plan is that these areas will be preserved in a natural state as much as possible or integrated into the design of any development, i.e. parking lot island, building setbacks, street rights-of- way and landscaping areas whenever possible. If it is necessary to remove a portion or all of the trees, the replacement landscape features shall be subject to approval by the applicable approval authority." (Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 1, p. 95.) The Plan expressly requires that "development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed." (Plan Policy 3.4.2.b.) The Plan thus expressly anticipates that future residential development may destroy some or all of the designated resource, provided that the development complies with the implementing provisions of the Code. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 19 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. )L>-- l • The Code also requires all new developments and major modifications of existing developments, even those not in designated timber or tree areas, to undergo site development review. Code Section 18.120.020. The Code defines "development" broadly to include not only buildings but also any material change in the use or appearance of land. Code Section 18.26.030. Approval criteria for site review include the tree removal provisions of Code Chapter 18.150. See Code Section 18.120.180.A.1.1. These provisions require, among other things, that the tree removal be necessary and that the tree removal will not adversely affect the aesthetic character of the area. See Code Section 18.150.030.A. The City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan thus expressly anticipates that development, and in particular residential development and associated roadways, may create conflicts with the designated Goal 5 resources in the Little Bull Mountain natural forest. Following the required Goal 5 analysis, however, the Plan chose not to absolutely protect these resources but to conditionally protect them by requiring scrutiny of development proposals to ensure that the number of trees lost through development was minimized. . The proposed development complies with the Code provisions that implement Policy 3.4.2. The development minimizes to the greatest extent possible the number of trees to be removed, particularly the mature coniferous trees that lie within the Little Bull Mountain natural forest in the northwestern and northern portons--'of the site. The northwestern portion of the site is left entirely undisturbed, and a large buffer of coniferous trees is left along the northern boundary of the site, as recommended by the Fishman Environmental Services report. In addition, the site plan incorporates several groves of existing mature trees within the landscaped areas of the developed portion of the site and provides substantial replacement landscaping in areas that will be disturbed. Furthermore, the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit in accordance with the provisions of Code Chapter 18.150 before removing any trees. Permits may be granted only if the City finds that the removal of the tree is necessary to accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the development that will be • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 20 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 3 .1 retained and demonstrates compliance with Policy 3.4'.2 and its implementing provisions. In order to ensure that the actual development of the apartments remains consistent with these provisions, a detailed tree survey and an arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to issuance of a site grading permit or a tree removal permit. Appellant Davenport suggests that the proposed development will adversely affect the Kallstrom fir grove, a small linear grove of trees that lies several hundred feet east of the site. Like the Little Bull Mountain natural forest, the Kallstrom fir grove is a Goal 5 resource that the City designated solely for its scenic values. The development of the site will not require any disturbance of the Kallstrom fir grove. Appellant does not specify in what respect she believes the grove or its scenic values would be harmed by the development, nor does she identify how any approval criterion would be violated with respect to the grove. Appellant Davenport also contends that the proposed development will violate Policy 3.4.2 or Plan . provisions because it will adversely affect wildlife. The Council disagrees. Policy 3.4.2 applies only to stream corridors and other habitats designated on the City's "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map." No fish or wildlife habitats are designated on the site or in the vicinity of the site by the Comprehensive Plan's map of "areas with important values for wildlife (Diagram V at-page I-41 of Volume I of-the Plan). Accordingly, Policy 3.4.2 and other-Plan provisions related to wildlife do not apply. The Comprehensive Plan Resource Document at pages I-36 through I-43 discusses wildlife and notes wildlife habitat values associated with the "Summit of Little Bull Mountain." The City's ESEE analysis of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, however, described the wildlife within the forest as "limited," and chose not to protect this wildlife against conflicting uses, as is further evidenced by the failure to include this area on Diagram V of Volume I of the Plan). Moreover, even if the City were obliged to consider the proposed development's effects on wildlife, Policy 3.4.2 and its implementing Code provisions would not require the City to deny development FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 21 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. % Page No. Q4- . approval because of adverse effects on wildlife. Policy 3.4.2 requires only that any adverse effects be minimized through cluster development and other measures. The proposed development minimizes any adverse effects on wildlife by leaving much of the coniferous forest in the northern portion of the site undisturbed, by leaving mature trees standing within the developed area, and through planting replacement vegetation. These minimization efforts are consistent with the recommendations for open space contained in the Fishman Environmental Services Report, which concluded that the northern portions of the site had the greatest importance for both wildlife and scenic values. The Fishman Environmental Services Report described wildlife habitat values throughout the site as low to moderate. Appellant Davenport submitted reports by a wildlife biologist, Mr. Paul Whitney, who concluded that the site areas outside the coniferous.forest were more important as wildlife habitat. This opinion was seconded by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Urban Wildlife Biologist Doug Cottam in a letter to staff dated April 6, 1992. Staff had contacted Mr. Cottam for review and comments on the Fishman study. . The Council finds that these reports are generally consistent with the Fishman Environmental Services Report. The Council, however, disagrees with the report's conclusions that additional open space should be provided in the southern portions of the site. First, as discussed above, the Council does not believe that protection of wildlife habitat is an approval criterion for this site.-__-Second;-'the Council agrees with the Fishman Environmental Services Report that the site's habitat values are limited by the site's isolation from other wildlife habitats and by the absence of water on the site. The site is adjacent to a major four-lane state highway (Highway 99W) and is surrounded by extensive commercial and residential development in an area that is designated by the Comprehensive Plan for substantial additional development in the future. Third, the Fishman Environmental Services Report evaluated the site's wildlife habitat in conjunction with the site's scenic resources, which are the only resources deemed significant by the Comprehensive Plan. Given the need to protect these scenic resources, the effects on both wildlife and scenic resources could only be minimized through placing the bulk of the site's open space in the northern portion of the site, as the revised site plan does. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91 0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 22 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. Q5 Providing additional open space in the southern portion of the site would adversely affect the site's scenic values. Finally, appellant Davenport suggests that the site plan is deficient because it does not show "what may be wetlands" on the site. This issue was not raised before the Planning Commission or in appellant's notice of review. The issue is therefore not properly before the Council. (Code Sections 18.32.320.B.2 and 18.32.340.A.3)./ Even were the Council required to consider appellant's arguments concerning the asserted wetland, the Council finds no basis in the arguments for denying the application. Appellant's arguments are based on Mr. Cottam's observation that a small area of standing water on the site should be evaluated to determine whether it is a wetland and on Mr. Whitney's reference in his report to a "small wetland." Neither Mr. Cottam nor Mr. Whitney evaluated the area to determine whether it qualified as a wetland; and indeed, Mr. Cottam did not actually assert that the area is a wetland.. Jerry Offer of the City's planning staff noted, however, that the area observed by Mr. Cottam may not qualify as a wetland as it is apparently only a small area of wet season water accumulated in old vehicle tire tracks as reported by Mr. Cottam's letter and verified in the field by Mr. Offer. In addition, the subject site does not appear as a potential wetland site in the National Wetlands Inventory or a city-wide wetlands inventory conducted by Scientific Resources, Inc. (SRI), and is not indicated as an*area of hydric soils on maps in the SRI inventory. Furthermore, Mr. Offer noted that, even if the area is a wetland, it may be sufficiently small that it could be filled with less than 50 cubic yards of fill and therefore be exempted from state and federal wetland regulations. There is further testimony in the record that the asserted wetland could in fact be filled with less than 50 cubic yards and would qualify for a general nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Council finds that there is no conclusive evidence that there is a wetland on the site. Nonetheless, in order to resolve any wetland issue that may be present, the Council agrees with the applicant's suggestion to add a condition of approval to require the applicant to have the site evaluated by a qualified wetland biologist to determine whether FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 23 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. .-Ak • a wetland exists on the site. Further, if a wetland exists on the site, the applicant would be required to satisfy the requirements of Code Chapter 18.84 related to wetlands including satisfaction of any applicable state or federal wetland regulations prior to the issuance of permits for the proposed development. The Council concludes that, if a wetland is present, the wetland likely could be filled with less than 50 cubic yards and under a nationwide permit from the Corps of Engineers. Accordingly, the wetland likely would not pose any constraints on the property. No evidence was presented that there are wildlife or other resource values associated with this wet area. 4. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to require the prospective developer to prepare an erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River basin as part of the grading.-permit application. The Council finds that the erosion control standards can be satisfied at the site. 5. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the City is obligated to provide for a variety of housing types and rent levels. This proposed multi-family project would add to that diversity in a community that is predominantly developed with single family residences at lower densities. The site has been designated for multi-family development by the Comprehensive Plan for some time. 6. The landscaping plan satisfies Policy 6.6.1 by providing suitable building setbacks-acid-'landscaping between this project and the properties designated for single family development on the east side of SW 109th Avenue. All other properties in the immediate vicinity are designated for multi-family use. 7. Policy 7.1.2 is met because adequate public water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer facilities are available to serve the proposed development. Extension of these facilities to or through the site will be required to be constructed to City and Tigard Water District standards. 8. In order to satisfy Policy 7.2.1, the applicant will, as a condition of approval, provide an appropriately engineered plan for disposing of storm water runoff from the site in a manner that will not adversely affect any downstream property owners or jurisdictions. Based upon the geotechnical evidence FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 24 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. i Page No. a'1 } and agency comments, the Council finds that it is feasible for the applicant to satisfy this condition. 9. Policy 7.4.4 is met because the entire apartment complex would be connected to the public sanitary sewer system. 10. Policies 7.5.2 and 7.6.1 have been satisfied because the Tigard Police Department and the Tualatin Valley Fire District have been involved in the review of this application and have offered comments that have been incorporated into this report. 11. Policy 8.1.1 calls for the provision of a safe and efficient street system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. This policy is satisfied because: a. The main driveway entrance to the development is proposed to be on the new 109th Ave., a minor collector street, which is intended to accommodate the approximately 2000 vehicles per day that this development is calculated to generate. Secondary access is provided onto SW 109th Avenue, which will in turn direct traffic from the development south onto the new street • or north to SW Canterbury Lane, also a minor collector. As indicated in the applicant's traffic report, some traffic will travel south of.SW Naeve Street on SW 109th Avenue if the street is left open. The proposed segmenting of both SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue will largely discourage southbound traffic on SW 109th Avenue through Summerfield. b. The applicant will be responsible for the construction of street improvements along the frontages of the development to City standards. C. Based upon traffic studies in the record, the Council concludes that the traffic generated by the development will be within the capacity of the adjacent street system. This conclusion holds true even if 109th Avenue is not constructed between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway (Highway 99W). Naeve Street will have sufficient capacity to handle safely and efficiently traffic generated by the development and any additional traffic from north of the development that might choose to make use of the opening of 109th Avenue. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 25 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. g d. Nonetheless, to allay the concerns of area residents with respect to the timing of the construction of the southern portion of the extension of 109th Avenue, the applicant has proposed to enter into an agreement with the City whereby the applicant will contribute $300,000 to the construction of this portion of 109th Avenue south of Naeve in exchange for a $300,000 traffic impact fee credit. Appellant Davenport objected that 109th Avenue has not been added to Washington County's "base facility list," to which traffic impact fee credits may be applied. 109th Avenue, however, has in fact been added to the list of facilities eligible for credits (City of Tigard Resolution 91-68, adopted October 28, 1991). 12. Policy 8.1.2 is satisfied because the State Highway Division, the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, and other agencies and jurisdictions noted above have been involved in the review of the transportation issues pertaining to this application. 13. The conditions of approval for this project will ensure that Policy 8.1.3 is satisfied because: . a. The development abuts three public streets. The proposed driveways should provide adequate and safe access to the proposed development. b. Sufficient street right-of-way shall be dedicated_ as a condition of approval along the existing SW-Naeve Street. as well --asf ull right- of-way dedication being required for the new collector street through the project. C. The applicant will be responsible for the improvement of the new street, SW 109th Avenue, SW Naeve Street, and SW Pacific Highway abutting the site in a manner that is consistent with city and state standards. d. Due to the location of the project on a street not served by public transit, a bus turnout is not necessary. e. Parking spaces for disabled persons will be provided as required by city and state standards. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 26 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 9 f. The property is not affected by the adopted bicycle/pedestrian plan for the city. % The Council concludes that the proposal, with minor modifications that are required to be made prior to building permit issuance, is consistent with applicable portions of the Community Development Code based upon the following findings: 1. Chapter 18.32 (Procedures for Decision Making: Quasi- Judicial) is satisfied because the criteria for resubmittal of a previously denied application are satisfied as described above and because notice and decision making standards applicable to this type of review that are included in this chapter have been followed. 2. Chapter 18.54 (R-12 Zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms with use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-12 zone. 3. Chapter 18.56 (R-25 Zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms with use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-25 zone applied to the western portion of Tax Lot 200. . 4. Chapter 18.80 (Planned Development) is satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed as required by the provisions of the Planned Development overlay zone. 5. Chapter 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) is satisfied because the development plan avoids development of areas of the site with slopes in excess of 25 percent, therefore not triggering the Sensitive Lands Review process for steep slopes. In addition, the site does not contain any designated drainageways, 100 year floodplain areas, or wetlands regulated by this Code chapter. The National Wetlands Inventory maps and the City of Tigard Wetlands Inventory and Assessment conducted by Scientific Resources, Inc. do not indicate the presence of any wetlands on the site. However, two commenters on the development plan have identified a small area of surface water that existed on the site in early April of 1992. City staff have verified the presence of this wet area. For the reasons stated above under Policy 3.4.2, the Council concludes that the issue of whether a wetland present on the site is not properly before it. Nonetheless, in order to resolve any wetlands issues that may be present, the Council agrees with the applicant's suggestion that to add a condition of development FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 27 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. t Page No. 30 approval to require the applicant to have this area evaluated as to whether it is a wetland and to satisfy any provisions of Code Chapter 18.84 related to wetlands. Based on the evidence in the record, the Council concludes that if a wetland is present, the wetland likely could be filled with less than 50 cubic yards and under a nationwide permit from the Corps of Engineers. Accordingly, the wetland likely would not pose any constraints on the property, and the applicant could satisfy the requirements of Code, Chapter 18.84. 6. Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations) is satisfied because the site plan provides an appropriate calculation of the permitted number of housing units for the site and the proposed development would provide fewer than the allowed number of dwelling units. 7. Chapter 18.96 (Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions) is satisfied because the site plan provides for appropriate distances as required by this chapter between the proposed multi-family residential buildings so as to assure privacy to residents and to also provide adequate light to all units. 8. Chapter 28.100 (Landscaping and Screening) is satisfied because plans for tree retention and added landscaping satisfy Code requirements for minimum site area landscaping, street trees, perimeter buffering, and vision clearance at intersections. 9. Chapter 18.102 (Vision Clearance Areas) is satisfied because proposed improvements at driveway/road intersections are located or sized with respect to maintaining clear vision for motorists and pedestrians. 10. Chapter 18.106 (Off-Street Parking) is satisfied because the site plan satisfies Code requirements for number of total parking spaces provided, covered parking spaces, compact/total parking space ratio, designated handicapped parking spaces, and parking area lighting. 11. Chapter 18.108 (Access, Egress, and Circulation) is satisfied because the site plan provides for safe and efficient access and egress for the proposed use and for general circulation on the site. The plan also provides for adequate and safe pedestrian sidewalks through the site. The proposed access and internal • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 28 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. i Page No. 3l roadway plan provides for adequate emergency vehicle access and maneuverability through the site. The proposed development will be provided with an adequate number of driveway accesses to serve the proposed development, despite not meeting the required number of access driveway standard of 18.108.070.D. The road situation affecting this site dictates a reduction in possible access points on the streets abutting the site in order to direct traffic, onto higher order roads and in order to avoid driveways onto the proposed curve of SW 109th Avenue. The approval criteria for an access variance are addressed above. 12. Chapter 18.114 (Signs) is satisfied with regard to permitted sign locations. Sign permits must be obtained prior to the erection of any sign on the site. 13. Chapter 18.120 (Site Development Review) is satisfied because the site plan generally provides for the proposed buildings and other site improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees and to minimize alterations to the site's topography and drainage systems. The site plan also situates the • buildings so as to provide for privacy and light for the proposed dwelling units and to assure compatibility between the proposed development and adjacent uses. The proposed recreation center, pool, and walking trail will provide appropriate recreational facilities for the development's residents. 14. Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied for the reasons discussed above and because the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees in preparation for development. Permits will be granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the development that will be retained. A detailed tree survey and an arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading permit or a tree removal permit. 15. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of the recommended improvements to the proposed new Naeve/109th connecting street, SW i FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 29 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. k Page. No. 33- Naeve Street, SW 109th Avenue, and SW Pacific Highway. Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed development. Although the proposed development will contribute a substantial amount of traffic to nearby streets, the additional traffic will not result in the design capacity of these roads being exceeded or require additional traffic control measures. The creation of the 109th-Naeve connecting street will discourage traffic from travelling through the Summerfield area, especially when this street is extended through to the SW Royalty Parkway/Pacific Highway intersection. The proposed storm drainage system will collect stormwater from the portion of the site to be developed and direct this water to the storm sewer at the intersection of SW 109th and Naeve. The public improvement plans will include an analysis of the anticipated stormwater flow from this area. Drainage pipes can be and shall be sized accordingly. Total stormwater flow from this site to the west will be reduced because the on-site storm drainage system • will capture some overland flow that would drain westward if the site remained undeveloped. D. DECISION The Council affirms the Planning Commission's approval of Planned Development_Review PDR 91-0006/Site Development Review SDR'91-0013 and the associated access variance subject to the following conditions, as modified by the Council: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED BEFORE ANY TREE REMOVAL, GRADING OR SITE-WORK ON THE SITE. 1. The site plan and landscaping plan shall be revised to be consistent with Figure 3 of the Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey report prepared by Fishman Environmental Services for the proposed site prior to any tree removal, grading, or site work. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division. 2. During all construction of the on-site and off-site improvements, all construction traffic shall travel to and from the site via the intersection of Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. Construction vehicles, FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 30 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 33 • including employee vehicles, shall not be allowed to park on Naeve Street, 1000th Avenue or within the public right-of-way. 3. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be removed or retained, an arborist's recommendation for methods of protecting retained trees during construction of the proposed apartments as well as for the long-term health of these trees. This tree protection plan shall include at a minimum all trees designated for retention on the preliminary landscaping plan and should endeavor to add additional mature trees as practicable. The trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or similar means approved by the Planning Division. No site grading, clearing or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this condition. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division, (639-4171). 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide for a minimum caliper of 2 inches at planting for all street trees along public streets abutting the site. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639- 4171). • 5. A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to destruction or moving any of the existing buildings on the site. If the buildings are on septic tanks, the tanks shall be pumped out and either removed or filled with sand or gravel. If the buildings are connected to sanitary sewers, the lines shall be capped off _zn'an approved manner. An-inspection shall be obtained after the tank is filled or the sewer capped. A copy of the receipt for septic tank pumping shall be provided to the Building Division. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639- 4171). 6. The finished grade of cuts or fills shall have a maximum slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer shall certify the stability of any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report from a registered engineer shall be submitted. The report shall indicate the location of any fill placed on building sites, suitability of the soil for building construction, and soil bearing capacity. In addition, a grading plan shall be submitted (To the Engineering Department) showing the existing and proposed contours. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 31 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 31 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE • SATISFIED AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED, OR ELSE COMPLETION SHALL BE FINANCIALLY ASSURED, PRIOR TO RECEIVING BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS CHRIS DAVIES OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Division. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements). 8. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, curb, storm drainage, and streetlights shall be installed along the Pacific Highway frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to State Highway Division standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Oregon State Highway Division. A copy of the approved plans shall be provided to the City Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Public • Improvement Permit. 9. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division; to perform work within the right-of-way of Pacific Highway. A copy of the permit shall beprovided to the City Engineering Division prior-to issuance of a Publid Improvement Permit. 10. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 11. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 32 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. l Page No. 35 12. The proposed privately-operated and maintained parki=ng lot and/or roadway plan-profile and cross section details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. 13. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989." 14. Prior to the receipt of building permits, a ` delineation of wetland boundaries, if any, on the site shall be completed by the applicant, and, if necessary, applicable provisions of Section 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) shall be met prior to issuance of such permits. 15. At all parking lot entrances, a minimum of 20 feet between the public sidewalk and the first parking stall shall be maintained. 16. There shall be no vehicle connection between Old 109th and New 109th. A turnaround, i.e. hammerhead meeting the city's and fire department's approval shall be provided at the end of Old 109th. No other improvements shall be required north of the intersection of old 109th and Naeve Street. 17. Naeve Street shall be realigned at old 109th to intersect Old 109th at approximately a 90-degree angle, and shall conform to the alignment shown on the submitted preliminary plans. The existing south curb shall be reconstructed to match the new alignment. NOTE: Old 109th shall be considered from the existing intersection of SW Naeve/109th; New 109th Shall be considered from the new intersection of S.W. Naeve to where it intersects with the existing 109th in the northeast corner of the development 18. S.W. Naeve Street shall be improved in the following manner (NOTE: All stationing is taken from the preliminary submitted plans): A. Full street improvements, meeting local street standards, shall be provided from STA. 2+37 to STA. 7+00. Full width street improvements shall include traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 33 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. t Page No. 94 • B. Two-thirds street improvements, meeting local street standardsr shall be provided from STA. 7+00 to STA. 14+59. Two-thirds street improvements shall include concrete sidewalk, driveway aprons, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, underground utilities, and interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the eastbound lane. 19. S.W. 109th Avenue shall be improved in the following manner (NOTE: All stationing is taken from the preliminary submitted plans): A. Full street improvements, meeting minor collector street standards, shall be provided from STA. 10+00 to STA. 19+20. Full width street improvements shall include traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities. B. Two-thirds street improvements, meeting • minor collector street standards, shall be provided from STA. 19+20 to STA. 27+80. Two-thirds street improvements shall include concrete sidewalk, driveway aprons, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, underground utilities, and interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the northbound lane. C. The City Engineer may approve reduced lane widths within that portion of New 109th; between STA. 10+00 to STA. 28+00. 20. The applicant shall be required to do the following with respect to the storm sewer system: A. The existing pipe to be connected to in 109th Avenue should be evaluated to determine if it has adequate capacity to handle ultimate development of the entire drainage basin; B. That the on-site water quality facility shall meet current Unified Sewerage Agency design standards and that it shall be the i FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 34 Luba No. -22 Exhibit No. I Page No. 3,7 responsibility of the owners of the site to • maintain such facilities; and C. Design-the system(s) so that there is a clear delineation between the private and public systems. 21. The applicant shall be required to dedicate the following right-of-way (NOTE: Stationing is based on preliminary plans as submitted to the Planning Department): A. S.W. Naeve Street: (1) From STA. 2+00 to STA. 7+00 - 50 feet of R.O.W., i.e.,25 feet either side of the new center line alignment; (2) From STA. 7+00 to 14+58 - 25 feet of R.O.W., 25 feet from centerline; B. Old S.W. 109th Avenue: (1) Provide R.O.W. for the hammerhead turnaround. • C. New S.W. 109th Avenue: (1) From STA. 10+00 to STA. 19+20 60 feet of R.O.W.; 30 feet either side of the new centerline; (2) From STA. 19+20 to STA. 27+28 - 30 feet of R.O.W.;-30" feet either side o the new center line alignment. 22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer and the City shall enter into an agreement substantially similar to the draft agreement proposed by Triad and attached to this approval. Final wording of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. STAFF CONTACT: Randy Wooley, City Engineer. • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 35 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 39 _ PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THIStSITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR A SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MAY BE POSTED GUARANTEEING COMPLETION OF THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT. 23. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed as per the revised landscaping and site plans. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639-4171) 24. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Division prior to the erection of an identification sign. Sign location and size must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 36 Luba No. -92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 39 I~lv- C1 cF l~~O d 4~- ~~-'t[ t•1 i._ ffW . Q ( f WO u" a'L L(~aS/c ~'C (~c~j a4 Sy • ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 19 by and between TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Triad" and the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter referred to as the "City. WHEREAS Ordinance No. 91-22 of the Tigard City Council approved an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map providing for the realignment and extension of SW 109th Avenue to intersect Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway and designating SW 109th Avenue as a minor collector street. WHEREAS Ordinance No. 91-22-has been appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. WHEREAS Resolution No. 91-68 of the Tigard City Council found that the purpose of the-proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is to ' mitigate traffic impacts of future development on the surrounding street system, including Pacific Highway and that the portion of the proposed-extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway should be designated .as an eligible facility and an eligible project under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance and requested that Appendix "D" (Base Report) of the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance No. 379 be amended to include the portion of SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway as an eligible facility in Table 2 of the Base Report and as an eligible project in Table 4 of the Base Report. WHEREAS the City of Tigard desires to commence construction of the extension of the SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway during the spring of 1992. WHEREAS the City Engineer for the City of Tigard estimates the cost of construction of the portion of the SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway to be approximately $900,000. WHEREAS the Tigard City Council, on October 28, 1991, approved a budget authorizing the expenditure of $300,000 in fiscal year 1991-92 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS it is anticipated that the City of Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee will recommend a budget authorizing the expenditure of an additional $300,000 in fiscal Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. % T-r?l ILO Page No. _Lf 6 . year 1992-93 for the improve-ment~of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway- WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, an application for Planned Development Review Detailed Development Plan Approval, Site Development Review Approval, and Access Variance Approval requested by Triad for the development of a 348-unit, 17 building multi-family residential complex on 26.2 acres of property located at 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission has been appealed to the Tigard City Council and the Tigard City Council has affirmed. Final Order No. 91-11 PC and eliminated the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to provide interim improvements on-Naeve Street from the realignment of Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact fee Ordinance (TIF) imposes atax of approximately $292,960 on Triad's development. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF) entitles a developer.to a credit against the . tax for constructing eligible capital improvement. WHEREAS.the City,-Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is within the impact area of Triad's development. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the timing, location, design and scope of the extension of SW 109th Avenue.between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the capital improvements program of the city of Tigard. WHEREAS Triad desires to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to receive a credit against the TIF tax for such construction. WHEREAS City desires for Triad to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the parties desire to-resolve the terms of Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to otherwise set forth their respective requirements and obligations thereto. Luba No. 92-104 2 Exhibit No. I --PT11t0 Page No. If I • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and stipulations set forth herein, it is agreed between the parties as follows: 1. Construction of Road Improvements. Triad agrees to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 2. Participation. Triad agrees to pay $300,000 of the cost of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. 3. Preconditions to Participation. Triad's obligation to participate is conditioned upon (i) the expiration of all periods for further appeal of the affirmance of Final Order No_ 91-11. PC, by the Tigard City council; (ii) the expiration of all periods for.appeal of the elimination by the Tigard.City Council of the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to.provide interim improvements on Naeve Street from-.the realignment of Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway,`-.and (iii) the ultimate affirmance of Ordinance No. 91-22 and the expiration of all periods for further appeal of such affirmance. lf-"the foregoing conditions are not satisfied, this Agreement shall terminate and all obligations of the parties under.this Agreement will thereafter cease. 4. Deposit in Escrow.. Triad shall deposit a pro rata portion of the $300,000 in escrow upon receipt of all required permits for each building in Triad's development to be held in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The.pro rata portion shall be based on the ratio that the value of such building (as set forth in the permit application) bears to the value of all buildings constructed and to be constructed in the development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Triad shall deposit the entire $300,000 in escrow prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Triad's development. 5. Escrow. Triad shall deposit the $300,000 in escrow with Title Insurance Company (the "Escrow") at its offices in Oregon or at such other place as the parties may Luba No. 92-104 - 3 Exhibit No. Page No. _4.1- . mutually select. Escrow shall deposit the $300,000 in an interest-bearing account with interest accruing to Triad. The parties shall execute joint instructions to escrow directing it to disburse the funds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Triad shall pay the escrow fee. 6. Participation. The City of Tigard shall use the $300,000 solely for, the purpose of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. The City shall spend such funds only on improvements which are eligible for credit under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). Escrow shall disburse the $300,000 to City upon presentation of invoices by the City, certified by the City Engineer as accurate, for the cost of constructing credit-eligible improvements to the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve - Street and Pacific Highway. Credit-eligible improvements may include right of way acquisition costs and survey.,. engineering and inspection costs as provided in the Washington County Traffic'Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). 7. Credit. The City shall grant Triad a credit against the tax due on Triad's development under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance in the amount of-$300,000 for Triad's participation in the construction of.the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific.Highway pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall direct the City Engineer to grant Triad such credit in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 8. Default. If either party defaults under this agreement the other party shall be entitled to such remedies for breach of contract that may be available under applicable law-including without-limitation the remedy of specific performance. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. 9.1 Attorneys' Fees_ In the event suit or action is instituted to interpret or enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial or on any appeal, and on any petition for review, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 9.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement- Luba No. 92-104 4 Exhibit No. Page No. _ 4.2 i • 9.3 Notices. Notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered, or if mailed, upon deposit as certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party at the address shown below. Either party may change its address for notices by written notice to the other. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership City: city of Tigard 9.4 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties.and their respective successors and assigns.. 9.5 Changes in Writing. This Agreement and any of its terms may only be changed, waived, discharged or terminated by a written instrument signed by the party against whom -enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought. - 9.6 Authority. The persons who have executed this Agreement have been duly authorized to do so.by the party. The party has a good and legal right to enter.into this Agreement and to perform all covenants of the party.contained in this Agreement in accordance with its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate as of the day and year first above written. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership a Washington limited partnership By Title: General Partner City: City of Tigard By Title I Luba No. 92-104 ?~„~o S Exhibit No. Page No. 4y ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of 19 by and between TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Triad" and the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter referred to as the "City." WHEREAS Ordinance No. 92-07 of the Tigard City Council approved an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map providing for the realignment and extension of SW 109th Avenue to intersect Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway and designating SW 109th Avenue as a minor collector street. WHEREAS Resolution No. 91-68 of the Tigard City Council found that the purpose of the proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is to mitigate traffic impacts of future development on the surrounding street system, including Pacific Highway and that the portion of the proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway should be designated as an eligible facility and an eligible project under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee ordinance and requested that Appendix "D" (Base Report)-of the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance No. 379 be amended to include the portion of SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway as an eligible facility in Table 2 of the Base Report and as an eligible project in Table 4 of the Base Report. WHEREAS the City of Tigard desires to commence construction of the extension of the SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific'Highway during the spring of 1992. WHEREAS the City Engineer for the City of Tigard estimates the cost of construction of the portion of the SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway to be approximately $800,000. WHEREAS the Tigard City Council, on October 28, 1991, approved a budget authorizing the expenditure of $300,000 in fiscal year 1991-92 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS it is anticipated that.the City of Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee will recommend a budget authorizing the expenditure of an additional $200,000 in fiscal year 1992-93 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. Luba No. 92-104 I-PP1340 Exhibit No. Page No. yS WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission approved, sczbject to conditions, an application for Planned Development Review Detailed Development Plan Approval, Site Development Review Approval, and Access Variance Approval requested by Triad for the development of a 348-unit, 17 building multi-family residential complex on 26.2 acres of property located at 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission has been appealed to the Tigard City. Council and the Tigard City Council has affirmed Final Order No. 91-11 PC and eliminated the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to provide interim improvements on Naeve Street from the realignment of Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact fee Ordinance (TIF) imposes a tax of approximately $292,960 on Triad's development. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF) entitles a developer to a credit against the tax for constructing eligible capital improvement. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the extension of SW 109th Avenue between.Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is within the impact area of Triad's development. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the timing, location, design and scope of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the capital improvements program of the City of Tigard. WHEREAS Triad desires to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to receive a credit against the TIF tax for such construction. WHEREAS City desires for Triad to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the parties desire to resolve the terms of Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to otherwise set forth their respective requirements and obligations thereto. • Luba No. 92-104 T-PP1340 2 Exhibit No. Page No. 46 • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual piomises and stipulations set forth herein, it is agreed between the parties as follows: 1. Construction of Road Improvements. Triad agrees to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.' 2. Participation. Triad agrees to pay $300,000 of the cost of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. 3. Preconditions to Participation. Triad's obligation to participate is conditioned upon (i) the expiration of all periods for further appeal of the affirmance of Final Order No. 91-11 PC by the Tigard City Council; (ii) the expiration of all periods for appeal of the elimination by the Tigard City Council of the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to provide interim improvements on Naeve Street from the realignment of • Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway; and (iii) the ultimate affirmance of Ordinance No. 92-07 and the expiration of all periods for further-appeal of such affirmance. If the foregoing conditions are not satisfied, this Agreement shall terminate and all obligations of the parties under this Agreement will thereafter cease. 4. Deposit in Escrow. Triad shall deposit a pro rata portion of the $300,000 in escrow upon receipt of all required permits for each building in Triad's development to be held in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The pro rata portion shall be based on the ratio that the value of such building (as set forth in the permit application) bears to the value of all buildings constructed and to be constructed in the development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Triad shall deposit the entire $300,000 in escrow prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Triad's development. 5. Escrow. Triad shall deposit the $300,000 in escrow with Ticor Title Insurance Company (the "Escrow") at its offices in Tigard, Oregon or at such other place as the parties may • mutually select. Escrow shall deposit the $300,000 in an Luba No. 92-104 T-PP1340 3 Exhibit No. i Page No. *7 • interest-bearing account with interest accruing to Triad. The parties shall execute joint instructions to escrow directing it to disburse the funds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Triad shall pay the escrow fee. 6. Participation. The City of Tigard shall use the $300,000.solely for the purpose of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. The City shall spend, such funds only on improvements which are eligible for credit under the Washington County Traffic.Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). Escrow shall disburse the $300,000 to City upon presentation of invoices by the City, certified by the City Engineer as accurate, for the cost of constructing credit-eligible improvements to the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. Credit-eligible improvements may include right of way acquisition costs and survey, engineering and inspection costs as provided in the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). 7. Credit. The City shall grant Triad a credit against the tax due on Triad's development under-the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance in the amount of $300,000 for Triad's participation in the construction of the extension-of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall direct the City Engineer to grant Triad such credit in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 8. Default. If either party defaults under this agreement the other party shall be entitled to such remedies for breach of contract that may be available under applicable law including without limitation the remedy of specific performance. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. 9.1 Attorneys' Fees. In the event suit or action is instituted to interpret or enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial or on any appeal,- and on any petition for review, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 9.2. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement. 9.3 Notices. Notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered, or Luba No. 92-104 T-PP1340 4 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. `tK • if mailed, upon deposit as certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party atzr:the•address shown below. Either party may change its address for notices by written notice to the other. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership City: City of Tigard 9.4 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 9.5 Changes in Writina. This Agreement and any of its terms may only be changed, waived, discharged or terminated by a written instrument signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought. 9.6 Authority. The persons who have executed this Agreement have been duly authorized to do so by the party. The • party has a good and legal right to enter into this Agreement and-to perform all covenants of the party contained in this Agreement in accordance with its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this. Agreement to be executed in duplicate as of the day and year first above written. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership a Washington limited partnership By Title: General Partner City: City of Tigard By Title Luba No. 92-104 T-PP1340 5 Exhibit No. 1_ Page No. A. &I+ Maxine Cranston Jack Polans ~25 SW Murdock, # 11 16000 SW Queen Victoria rd, OR 97224 King City, OR 97224 John Slaughter John Stanley 15055 SW 100th 15510 SW 109th Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Marian Schendel William Lindsay 9856 SW Kable 15565 SW 109th Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Howard Graham Richard Barten 9410 SW Lakeside Dr. 14915 SW 100th Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Marge Davenport Sam Gotter 15100 SW 109th 9855 SW Peppertree Lane Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 • Beverly Swink Mike Quayle 15875 Sw Greensway 14945 SW 91st Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Richard Whitman, Attorney Ann Hartman 101 SW Main, Suite 1100 9867 SW Kable Portland, OR 97204 Tigard, OR 97224 Steve and Ann Davison Evelyn Kallstrom 15040 SW 100th 15025 SW 100th Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Martin and Roseanne Cude Dave Anderson 15105 SW 100th 15240 SW 100th Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Ses H. Bean, Attorney 222 SW Columbia Portland, OR 97201-6616 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. i Page No. 50 f2MIT sroI•r LENORE SCHu,,PER 15605 Slwl 11 4z'll Cr 14962 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 • L3C7IUJ ..O TrLif3053 ROBERT C_ LITTON i . . IF08 X05 09 PO BOX 8041 e2«e AO . Homm mw xDA_ia BLACK BL) TE RANCH, OR 97759 GREGG WESTON DOUGLAS J- COLEMAN KAMPE ASSOCIATES, INC. 15100 SW CROWN DR. 96 3681 SW CARMAN DR - KING CITY, OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 ROSS WOODS PHILLIP A. PASTERIS 320 ANDOVER PARK E. 8935 SW PINEBROOK ST SEATTLE, WA 98138 TIGARD, OR 97224 WAYNE KITTLESCN SUE CARVER 610 SW ALDER SUITE 700 10155 SW HOODVIEW DR PORTLAND, OR 97204 TIGARD, OR 97224 *BEVERLY FROUDE 12200 SW BULL MT. RD TIGARD, OR 97223 RICHARD WATSON 10290 SW HIGHLAND DR STEVEN L. PFEIFFER TIGARD, OR 97224 9~ SW FIFTH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97204-1268 AL ERICKSON JOHN BUOL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR 15200 SW 10011i CITY OF KING CITY TIGARD, OR 97224 15300 SW 116TH KING CITY, OR 97224 JACK ORCHARD SUMMERFIELD/CIVIC ASSOCIATION 1100 ONE MAIN PLACE 10650 SW SUMNMERFIELD DR 101 SW MAIN TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97204 Om FELLER 9875 SW VIEW CT TIGARD, OR 97224 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. SI • Council Agenda Item TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 BOARD AND COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS (5:30 p.m.) Mayor Edwards & Councilor Kasten STUDY SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:40 p.m. Under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (D), (E), (F) and (H) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. The regular study session reconvened at 7:17 p.m. Solid Waste Rates: Staff will bring to Council a proposal for solid waste rates in May. Rate proposal will be based on the following: • Rate will be 'revenue neutral' to hauler. • Commercial rate payers now subsidize service provided to residential rate payers; new rate proposal should not increase the subsidized amount. • Endeavor to propose rate structure to encourage recycling. Meeting Format: Mayor Edwards proposed that times, noting length of items, on future agendas be estimated. He advised he would like to experiment with a yellow and red light for timing testimony. He said he has seen this work well at other meetings. (Note: Community Development Director Ed Murphy arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Agenda Review: It was noted that Agenda Item #7 would be set over to June 23, 1992 and the Agenda Item #11 would be set over to May 26, 1992. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 - PAGE 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. BUSINESS MEETING 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Loreen Edin, Administrative Services/Risk Manager; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Bill Monahan, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Larry Westerman reported that the Seiyu developer (on Bull Mountain) has stopped all work. He advised of concerns of night-time vandalism and drug activity on the vacant property. City Engineer noted efforts to determine ownership. The bank may be installing a fence around the property. Legal Counsel Monahan advised the City would have no ability to force completion of the subdivision; however, nuisance laws and code enforcement would remedy the problems Mr. Westerman cited. City staff will meet with the neighborhoods, determine the extent of their concerns . and advise residents of the status of development requirements. A report on this effort will be submitted to Council on May 12. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Appointments to Board and Committees: a. Appoint Jo Sorell to NPO 1/2 - Resolution No. 92-16 b. Appoint Jack Schwab to Planning Commission - Resolution No. 92- 17 3.2 Approve Increased Limit Amount to the Local Government Investment Pool - Resolution No. 92-18 The Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -A Page No. . 4. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - PARKING PROHIBITION ON S.W. 108TH AVENUE. a. City Engineer Wooley summarized the Staff Report on this agenda item. The neighbors were requesting the prohibition of parking on a portion of SW 108th Avenue because of the diminished enjoyment of their property with the backside of the property line abutting parking places. Another concern was safety. A third concern was the fact that school busses are prevented from picking up children because of the parked cars. Council discussed the issues with City Engineer including school bus regulations, safety, and status of this street. Of concern to some of the Council was the kind of precedent that this may be setting if "No Parking" was established as requested. Council then discussed the feasibility of putting a time limit on the no- parking. City Engineer advised that this would be possible and a new ordinance could be drafted. After further discussion, Council agreed that since the street was not yet fully developed, additional wording would be placed in the ordinance as follows: "...until such time as 108th Avenue is improved in this location to full minor collector standards. At the time that the street is improved, • the effect of this ordinance shall cease." b. ORDINANCE NO. 92-11; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130 TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW 108TH AVENUE. C. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approved the ordinance as amended. The motion passed by a majority vote of Council present (Councilor Fessler voted "no"). 5. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION (FINAL ORDER) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT a. Staff Report: Community Development Director noted past action on this item. (Note: Staff report is on file with the Council packet material.) There was no discussion. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a Page No. b. RESOLUTION NO. 92-19; IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A • FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (SDR 91-0013/PDR91-0006) PROPOSED BYTRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 92-19. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present 3-2 (Mayor Edwards and Councilor Fessler voted "no.") 5.A AGREEMENT WITH TRIAD ON 109TH EXTENSION. a. Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. (Note: staff report is on file with the Council packet material.) b. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to authorize the City Administrator to sign the agreement with Triad/Tigard Limited Partnership concerning the terms of Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. The Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present. (The vote was 3-2; Mayor Edwards and Councilor Fessler voted "no.") 6. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - EXTEND EXPIRATION DATE FOR THREE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. a. Finance Director Lowry reviewed the staff report concerning the franchise agreements. b. ORDINANCE NO.92-12; AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERMINATION DATE OF ORDINANCE NO. 72-55 WHICH GRANTED A NON-EXCLUSIVE ELECTRIC UTILITY FRANCHISE TO PORTLAND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. C. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-12. The Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 - PAGE 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -X _ Page No. 55 • d. ORDINANCE NO. 92-13; AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERMINATION DATE OF ORDINANCE 82-12 WHICH GRANTED A NON-EXCLUSIVE TELEPHONE UTIUTY FRANCHISE TO GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF THE NORTHWEST AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve Ordinance No. 92-13. The Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. e. ORDINANCE NO. 92-14; AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERMINATION DATE OF ORDINANCE 82-22 WHICH GRANTED A NON-EXCLUSIVE GAS UTILITY FRANCHISE TO NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-14. The Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Note: Councilor Johnson left the meeting at 8:02 p.m.) • 7. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91- 0005/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION/C-C ZONING DISTRICT. The City Council will consider amending Volume 11 of the Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies) to add a purpose statement and locational criteria for a new Plan designation (Community Commercial) intended to provide opportunities for commercial development serving the regular needs of surrounding residential areas. The locational criteria would limit the establishment of these districts to 1) areas between two and eight acres in size; 2) at limited locations, and 3) locations separated from other commercially zoned properties. In addition, the Council will consider amending the Community Development Code to create a new zoning district (C-C) intended to implement the new Plan designation. Some of the permitted uses in the zone would be limited size grocery stores, retail establishments, restaurants, and offices. The Council also will consider Community Development Code amendments related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses within the proposed new zone. Hearing was set over to June 23, 1992. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 - PAGE 5 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. Sb . 8. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0002 APPLICANT: KOREAN BAPTIST CHURCH. A request to amend Community Development Code Section 18.64.040 to list religious assemblies (churches) as a conditional use in the C-P (Professional Commercial) zoning district. a. The public hearing was open. b. Councilor Fessler advised that she had heard this issue when she was serving on the Planning Commission. She advised that she felt she would be able to review the issue with an open mind. C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report as submitted in the Council packet. d. Public testimony: none. e. Public hearing was closed. f. ORDINANCE NO. 92-15; AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C-P ZONE, SECTION 18.64.040 A. • g. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-15. The Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 9. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PARKING - ZOA 92- 0003. A staff initiated amendment to Community Development Code Chapter 18.106 to: 1) amend standards for disabled person parking spaces to require consistency with state and federal laws; and 2) to allow gravel surfaced parking lots for fleet storage and construction equipment storage. The Community Development Code currently requires all parking lots to be paved. a. The public hearing was open. b. Councilor Fessler advised that she was advised in this public hearing when she was on the Planning Commission. She said that she felt she open to additional testimony and ideas. C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report as submitted in the Council packet. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 - PAGE 6 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a Page No. 5Z • d. Public testimony: none. e. Senior Planner Bewersdorff clarified issues for Council concerning the necessity for businesses to provide parking for employees and customers. Also, auto sales would be allowable; however, the sales would be centralized and away from the perimeter of the property. f. The public hearing was closed. g. ORDINANCE NO. 92-16; AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REQUIRE CONSISTENCY WITH STATEAND FEDERAL DISABILITY PARKING STANDARDS, SECTION 18.106.020 AND TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR GRAVEL PARKING LOTS FOR FLEET AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE, SECTION 18.106.050. h. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve Ordinance No. 92-16. The Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - SALE OF HOUSE AT 8640 S.W. MCDONALD STREET a. The public hearing was open. • b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Finance Director Lowry reviewed the staff report as submitted in the Council packet. d. Public testimony: none. e. There was a small amount of discussion on how the sale would be accomplished and the minimum bid. f. The public hearing was closed. g. RESOLUTION NO. 92-20; A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8640 SW MCDONALD STREET AND SETTING A MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE SELLING PRICE. h. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to adopt Resolution No. 92-20. The Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 - PAGE 7 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. s 11. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0004 A proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code pertaining to Temporary Signs (Ch. 18.114.100); Balloons (Ch. 18.114.090); Sign Exemptions (Ch. 18.114.060); and Definitions (Ch. 18.114.015). The proposal amendments will limit the number of temporary signs per business to one with a maximum of 24 square feet of area; require a permit for all temporary signs; limit temporary sign permits to be issued for periods no longer than 30 days and for a maximum of three periods per calendar year and include all temporary signs (banners, rigid, wall) to be within the same classification. Provide for real estate signs not classified as a lawn sign; exempt temporary real estate signs from the 10 day removal period and specify that temporary political signs shall be removed ten days after the election to which they pertain. Hearing was set over to May 26, 1992. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 8:19 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder • Mayor, City of Tigard Date: word\ctyrec\ccm0428.92 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - April 28, 1992 - PAGE 8 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -2- Page No. 61 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON RD CITY OCNi AGENDA +}iii•::.:v.:i} ::...........iL4:•r•iiiiiii::4+;ti i. •'f.; : i.. i ii:C:i:%i:Ctii%:%r'r,:i::%if%ri: irr:%i:%i:%iii:%i) >r PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an Y• . A agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheets . If no sheet is available ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. TIMES ARE ESTIMATED.... 5:30 • BOARD AND COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS (5:30 p.m.) Mayor Edwards & Councilor Schwartz 6:30 • STUDY SESSION (6:30 p.m.) 7:30 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.)) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Appointments to Board and Committees: a. Appoint Jo Sorell to NPO 1/2 - Resolution No. 92- b. Appoint Jack Schwab to Planning Commission - Resolution No. 92- 3.2 Approve Increased Limit Amount to the Local Government Investment Pool - Resolution No. 92- 7:50 4. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - PARKING PROHIBITION ON S.W. 108TH AVENUE. • Staff Report - Engineering Department • Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 92- COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 28, 1992 - PAGE 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. 1,0 8:05 5.' ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION (FINAL ORDER) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91- 0013, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT • Staff Report - Community Development Department 0 • Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 92-- :20 6. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - EXTEND EXPIRATION DATE FOR THREE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS • Staff Report - Finance Department • Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 92- 8:30 - 7. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0005/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION/C-C ZONING DISTRICT. The City Council will consider amending Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies) to add a purpose statement and locational criteria for a new Plan designation (Community Commercial) intended to provide opportunities for commercial development serving the regular needs of surrounding residential areas. The locational criteria would limit the establishment of these districts to 1) areas between two and eight acres in size; 2) at limited locations, and 3) locations separated from other commercially zoned properties. In addition, the Council will consider amending the Community Development Code to create a new zoning district (C-C) intended to implement the new Plan designation. Some of the permitted uses in the zone would be - limited size grocery stores, retail establishments, restaurants, and offices. The Council also will consider Community Development Code amendments related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses within the proposed new zone. a. Public Hearing Opened b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: Proponents (in favor of amendment) • Opponents (oppose amendment) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Public Hearing Closed g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92-- 9:00 8. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-0002 APPLICANT: KOREAN BAPTIST CHURCH. A request to amend Community Development Code Section 18.64.040 to list religious assemblies (churches) as a conditional use in the C-P (Professional Commercial) zoning district. a. Public Hearing Opened b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: Proponents (in favor of amendment) • Opponents (oppose amendment) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Public Hearing Closed g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92-- COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 28, 1992 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. 41 9:10 9. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PARKING - ZOA 92-0003. A staff initiated amendment to Community Development Code Chapter 18.106 to: 1) amend standards for disabled person parking spaces to require consistency with state and federal laws; and 2) • to allow gravel surfaced parking lots for fleet storage and construction equipment storage. The Community Development Code currently requires all parking lots to be paved. a. Public Hearing Opened b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: Proponents (in favor of amendment) • Opponents (oppose amendment) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Public Hearing Closed g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92- 9:20 10. PUBLIC HEARING - SALE OF HOUSE AT 8640 S.W. MCDONALD STREET a. Public Hearing Opened b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - Finance Department d. Public Testimony: Proponents (in favor of proposed sale) • Opponents (opposed to proposed sale) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Public Hearing Closed g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 92- 9:30 11. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0004 A proposal to consider is amending the Community Development Code pertaining to Temporary Signs (Ch. 18.114.100); Balloons (Ch. 18.114.090); Sign Exemptions (Ch. 18.114.060); and Definitions (Ch. 18.114.015). The proposal amendments will limit the number of temporary signs per business to one with a maximum of 24 square feet of area; require a permit for all temporary signs; limit temporary sign permits to be issued for periods no longer than 30 days and for a maximum of three periods per calendar year and include all temporary signs (banners, rigid, wall) to be within the same classification. Provide for real estate signs not classified as a lawn sign; exempt temporary real estate signs from the 10 day removal period and specify that temporary political signs shall be removed ten days after the election to which they pertain. a. Staff Recommends this Public Hearing be continued to a date certain. 9:35 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9:45 13. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/UPDATE • City Administrator 10:00 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10:15 15. ADJOURNMENT 1*:\recorder\cca\cca0428.92 COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 28, 1992 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. 6-.)- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 28, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: April 23, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Planning PREVIOUS ACTION: On 4/14, Council _Commission's approval of SDR 91-0013/ voted 3-2 to uphold PC approval PDR 91-0006 (Twiad-Ti_gard Ltd. PREPARED BY: O Jerry Offer, Ping. DEPT HEAD OKOOMM, CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:'-' Ed Murphy, CDD ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council adopt the attached final order in support of the Council's April 14, 1992 decision upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application for a 348 unit apartment complex? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and final order. INFORMATION SUMMARY AWn April 14, 1992, the City Council voted 3-2 to uphold the Planning mmission's approval of.the Triad-Tigard Limited Partnership application for development of a. 348 unit apartment complex. The Council's decision added conditions of approval requiring the prospective developer to 1) deposit $300,000 with the City prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. This sum is to be utilized for construction of SW 109th Avenue south of SW Naeve Street and is to be compensated by a traffic impact fee credit; 2) revise the site and landscaping plans consistent with the recommendations of the applicant's submitted wildlife habitat report; and 3) to comply with the wetland requirements of Community Development Code Chapter 18.84 and State of Oregon wetland regulations for a possible small wetland on the site. In addition, the Council decided to delete paragraph A of condition of approval #15 of the Planning Commission's Final Order requiring the developer to construct interim street improvements on SW Naeve Street between the site and SW Pacific Highway. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached resolution and final order. 2. Send the proposed final order back to staff and the City attorney's office with directions for additional findings and/or corrections. FISCAL NOTES ~o direct impacts. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. (y 3 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CCU CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 28, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: April 24th, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Agreement wit PREVIOUS ACTION: draft reviewed on Triad on 109 extension December 10, 1991 and April 14, 1992_ PREPARED BY: Ed Murphy DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Randy Wooley i~ 144 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council authorize the City Administrator to sign an agreement with TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP concerning the terms of Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council authorize the City Administrator to sign the attached agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY. In Resolution Number 92-19, the City Council adopted the final order for the development of an apartment complex proposed by Triad. A condition of approval was adopted which required Triad to enter into an agreement with the • City of Tigard assuring Triad's participation in the construction of SW 109th between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. The agreement was to be "substantially similar to the draft agreement proposed by Triad and attached to this approval". The City Council first received the draft agreement at its' December 10, 1991 meeting, and have reviewed it since that time, most recently at, its' April 14, 1992 public hearing on the appeal of the Triad application for development. The agreement attached is virtually identical to the one attached the Council reviewed on April 14th, with no significant changes. The city attorney's office has reviewed this agreement. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES None. Not authorizing the agreement would be inconsistent with the condition of approval. FISCAL NOTES The agreement specifies how Triad will financially participate in the extension of 109th from Naeve to Pacific Highway. Basically, they will deposit $300,000 in escrow before getting their first occupancy permit, and the City will use those funds, along with City funds, to construct the road. Triad will receive a credit against their TIF (Transportation Impact Fee) • requirements in the amount of $300,000. The total project cost is estimated to be $800,000. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. "t Page No. A _ • ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of 19_, by and between TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Triad" and the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter referred to as the "City." WHEREAS Ordinance No. 92-07 of the Tigard City Council approved an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map providing for the realignment and extension of SW 109th Avenue to intersect Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway and designating SW 109th Avenue as a minor collector street. WHEREAS Resolution No. 91-68 of the Tigard City Council found that the purpose of the proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is to mitigate traffic impacts of future development on the surrounding street system, including Pacific Highway and that the portion of the proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway should be designated as an eligible facility and an eligible project under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance and requested that Appendix "D" (Base Report) of the Washington County • Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance No. 379 be amended to include the portion of SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway as an eligible facility in Table 2 of the Base Report and as an eligible project in Table 4 of the Base Report. WHEREAS the City of Tigard desires to commence construction of the extension of the SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway during the spring of 1992. WHEREAS the City Engineer for the City of Tigard estimates the cost of construction of the portion of the SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway to be approximately $800,000. WHEREAS the Tigard City Council, on October 28, 1991, approved a budget authorizing the expenditure of $300,000 in fiscal year 1991-92 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS it is anticipated that the City of Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee will recommend a budget authorizing the expenditure of an additional $200,000 in fiscal year 1992-93 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. i Luba No. 92-104 T-PP1340 Exhibit No. `t Page No. 61 • WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, an application for Planned Development Review Detailed Development Plan Approval, Site Development Review Approval, and Access Variance Approval requested by Triad for the development of a 348-unit, 17 building multi-family residential complex on 26.2 acres of property located at 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission has been appealed to the Tigard City Council and the Tigard City Council has affirmed Final Order No. 91-11 PC and eliminated the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to provide interim improvements on Naeve Street from the realignment of Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact fee Ordinance (TIF) imposes a tax of approximately $292,960 on Triad's development. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF) entitles a developer to a credit against the tax for constructing eligible capital improvement. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve • Street and Pacific Highway is within the impact area of Triad's development. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the timing, location, design and scope of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the capital improvements program of the City of Tigard. WHEREAS Triad desires to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to receive a credit against the TIF tax for such construction. WHEREAS City desires for Triad to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the parties desire to resolve the terms of Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to otherwise set-forth their respective requirements and obligations thereto. • T-PP17~0 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. e4 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and stipulations set forth herein, it is agreed between the parties as follows: 1. Construction of Road Improvements. Triad agrees to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 2. Participation. Triad agrees to pay $300,000 of the cost of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. 3._ Preconditions to Participation. Triad's obligation to participate is conditioned upon (i) the expiration of all periods for further appeal of the affirmance of Final Order No. 91-11 PC by the Tigard City Council; (ii) the expiration of all periods for appeal of the elimination by the Tigard City Council of the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to provide interim improvements on Naeve Street from the realignment of • Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway; and (iii) the ultimate affirmance of Ordinance No. 92-07 and the expiration of all periods for further appeal of such affirmance. If the foregoing conditions are not satisfied, this Agreement shall terminate and all obligations of the parties under this Agreement will thereafter cease. 4. Deposit in Escrow. Triad shall deposit a pro rata portion of the $300,000 in escrow upon receipt of all required permits for each building in Triad's development to be held in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The pro rata portion shall be based on the ratio that the value of such building (as set forth in the permit application) bears to the value of all buildings constructed and to be constructed in the development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Triad shall deposit the entire $300,000 in escrow prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Triad's development. 5. Escrow. Triad shall deposit the $300,000 in escrow with Ticor Title Insurance Company (the "Escrow") at its offices in Tigard, Oregon or at such other place as the parties may • mutually select. Escrow shall deposit the $300,000 in an T-PP 1340 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. V7 interest-bearing account with interest accruing to Triad. The parties shall execute joint instructions to escrow directing it to disburse the funds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Triad shall pay the escrow fee. 6. Participation. The City of Tigard shall use the $300,000 solely for the purpose of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. The City shall spend such funds only on improvements which are eligible for credit under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). Escrow shall disburse the $300,000 to City upon presentation of invoices by the City, certified by the City Engineer as accurate, for the cost of constructing credit-eligible improvements to the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. Credit-eligible improvements may include right of way acquisition costs and survey, engineering and inspection costs as provided in the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). 7. Credit. The City shall grant Triad a credit against the tax due on Triad's development under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance in the amount of $300,000 for Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall direct the City Engineer to grant Triad such credit in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 8. Default. If either party defaults under this agreement the other party shall be entitled to such remedies for breach of contract that may be available under applicable law including without limitation the remedy of specific performance. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. 9.1 Attorneys' Fees. In the event suit or action is instituted to interpret or enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial or on any appeal, and on any petition for review, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 9.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement. 9.3 Notices. Notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered, or T-PP1340 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. _6'? if mailed, upon deposit as certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party at the address shown below. Either party may change its address for notices by written notice to the other. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership City: City of Tigard 9.4 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 9.5 Changes in Writing. This Agreement and any of its terms may only be changed, waived, discharged or terminated by a written instrument signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought. 9.6 Authority. The persons who have executed this Agreement have been duly authorized to do so by the party. The party has a good and legal right to enter into this Agreement and to perform all covenants of the party contained in this Agreement in accordance with its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate as of the day and year first above written. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership a Washington limited partnership By Title: General Partner City: City of Tigard By Title • T-PP1340 5 Luba No. 92.104 Exhibit No. It Page No. (#9 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT7242 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • O Tearsheet I The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full P.O. Box 23397 agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall • Tigard, OR 97223 • 13 Duplicate P Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. REG>,JLAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING • • APRIL 28.19Q2 TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD. TIGARD OREGON 5:30 P.M. Board and Committee Interviews 6:30 P.M. Study Session AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 7:30 P.M. Business Meeting STATE OF OREGON, Ordinances: COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' • Final Order - Triad Development I. Judith Koehler • No Parking -.S.W. 108th being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Public Hearings Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard TimPS . Community Commercial Zone - CPA 91-005/ZOA a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 91-006 and 193.020; published at Ti gArd In the . Korean Baptist Church (churches in GP Zone) - ZOA aforesaid county and state; that the 92-0002 RP2111 ar City Cam -,1 MPOti ng • Parking Standards - Chapter 18.106 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the • Sale of House at 8640 S.W. McDonald Street entire Issue of said newspaper for one successive and consecutive in the following Issues: Executive Session: The Tigard City Council will go into Ex- ecutive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), April 23, 1992 (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transac- tions, current and pending litigation issues. =r Local Contract Review Board rD CD tT z z o z 0 TT7242 - Publish April 23, 1992. 0 (D pIN1 tv Subscribed and sworn to before me this-23, day of April, 1992 OFFICIAL SEAL BEVERLY e. THOMAS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON U Notary Public for Oregon 0 cowlssm, 11!0 pry):r'2 My Commission Expires: MYCOrnMlsslta~. AFFIDAVIT _ Council Agenda Item 14. T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 • Meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler (Note: Councilor Fessler took "Oath of office" at the beginning of the business meeting), Valerie Johnson (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Joe Kasten, Jack Schwab (remained on Council until Councilor Fessler took "Oath of Office), and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Irene Ertell, Library Director (present for Study Session only); Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Jerry Offer, Associate Planner; Michael Robinson, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Workshop with Library Board Library Board Members Present: Amo De Bernardis, Chairperson; Board Members Yvonne Burgess, Jeri Cundiff, Marilyn Hartzell, and Carl Kostof. Council toured Library with Board members. The tour included demonstration on recently acquired computer software. Council and board discussed the growth the Library has experienced and continues to experience. Sunday hours are well received; in fact, Sunday is the busiest day of the week for the Library. Other items discussed included: • Scenarios on what the Library of the future could look like, especially when speculating about new technology availability and cost effectiveness. • Growing cooperation between schools-and local libraries. • All aspects of relations among community, staff and board represent a teamwork approach and continues to work very well. Councilor Schwartz arrived at 6:25 p.m. Council meeting recessed at 6:30 p.m. . Council meeting reconvened at 6:40 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. (b Page No. 1 5tudv Session Notes: Mayor Edwards appointed Councilor Fessler to the Historic Sites and Preservation Committee. • Council agreed that it was appropriate for City Administrator to discuss a joint venture with the Chamber Commerce, on a preliminary basis, concerning the future of the Community Center (on Commercial Street) now owned by the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. (Note: Councilor Schwartz advised he would not comment or participate in any discussion due to his employment with the Fire District.) • City Administrator advised that Mr. Larry Bissett requested that Council initiate review and study of what was previously known as Note 9 on the Transportation Map. This issue deals with an overpass option to the transportation configuration in the Tigard Triangle locale. After brief discussion, Council decided to delay a decision on whether or not to initiate study as requested until after consultation with legal counsel because of unresolved legal issues in the subject area. Council advised Mr. Bissett they would discuss this with legal counsel at their April 21, 1992 meeting. • Council will meet May 21, Town Hall Conference Room, 8:30 a.m., reference Goal Setting. City Administrator will be • meeting with Councilors individually for input for agenda for the day. Councilor Schwab arrived at 6:55 p.m. • City Administrator distributed a synopsis of the Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting on developing leadership in the community. Councilor Schwab reemphasized that the "Cityscape" represented a good tool to inform people of items of interest to them and items for which they could become involved. Legal Counsel, Michael Robinson, arrived at 7:02 p.m. • Council reviewed the business agenda. - Triad Public Hearing: Community Development Director Murphy advised that the schools have reviewed this development with regard to growth concerns. He advised that the public hearing issue before Council was whether this development met the development criteria. The public hearing was not about zoning or transportation issues. Despite the fact that there may be an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the transportation issue at 109th and Naeve, the Community Development Director advised that chances of LUBA remanding this issue to City Council was small. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 6 Page No. 'l y" There was brief discussion on the public hearing format. Legal Counsel would advise those present as to the appropriateness of testimony for this hearing. Councilor-elect Fessler advised that she would make a declaration at the beginning of the hearing to note that she had reviewed this information with regard to this public hearing item. She advised that she had viewed the video tapes of the previous meeting, during which the hearing was held and that she could hear the matter with an open mind. Consent Agenda - Hearings Officer Contract: Councilor- elect Fessler noted the hourly salary for the hearings officer; she suggested if the number of items concerning signs or sensitive lands were increasing, perhaps, if there were budgetary constraints, the Planning Commission could be utilized in these instances. City Administrator Reilly advised that this issue would be addressed by Council during their goal setting session in May. At this time, the Council will review the roles of the Boards and Committees. In the interim, staff will monitor costs to provide Council information needed to make this decision • Council meeting recessed at 7:12 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING 2. OLD BUSINESS 2.1 Approve Council Minutes - March 17 and 24, 1992 Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve the Council minutes from the March 17 and 24, 1992 meetings. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mayor Edwards presented Resolution of Appreciation and an engraved desk clock to Jack Schwab for his service on Council (October 191 - April 192). . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 6 Page No. Z- 3. OATH OF OFFICE - COUNCILOR JUDY FESSLER Mayor Edwards administered Oath of Office for Council Position No. 3 to Judy Fessler. Councilor Fessler was elected on March 24, 1992. Councilor Johnson arrived at 7:36 p.m. 4. PROCLAMATIONS (Mayor Edwards): 4.1 1992 Year of Clean Water (Presentation and Song to City Council) 4.2 Fair Housing Month 5. VISITOR'S AGENDA - No visitors. Mayor Edwards asked if anyone was present for the "Anderson Annexation" proposal which had been originally scheduled for this evening, but was now postponed until a later date. There was no indication that anyone was present for this hearing item. 6. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 6.1 Receive and File: - a. Council Calendar b. Certified Election Results March 24, 1992 6.2 Approve Appointment to Park and Recreation Board - Resolution No. 92-14 6.3 Approve Hearings Officer Contract Renewal The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12~(PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 10DB, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 11 The public hearing was opened and testimony was received on March 10, 1992. Triad Development representatives submitted two documents: 1) Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey 2) Geotechnical Report The hearing was set over to April 14 to allow an opportunity for all parties to review the new material. a. Public Hearing Continued from March 10, 1992. b. Legal counsel advised the following: "The applicable substantive criteria are those listed on the agenda under Item No. 7. Testimony and evidence must be directed towards these criteria or other criteria in the Plan or Land Use Regulations which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Board based on that issue." C. Community Development Director reviewed the staff report. (The City Staff Report has been filed with the Council packet material.) He reminded all those present that this was not a hearing on the transportation issue, which had been heard at an earlier date by Council. He advised that the purpose of this hearing was not to talk about the zoning or Comprehensive Plan designations of this area. These designations, he advised, were actually set years ago (May 1987). This occurred when the Albertson's development was approved; there was a transfer of density. Community Development Director referred to some maps on an overhead projector. The maps depicted where the property was located. He also reviewed how the new transportation configuration would appear in the surrounding area. The issue before Council was, "Should the City Council uphold the Planning commission's approval of a 348-unit multi-family residential development plan for the southern slope of Little Bull Mountain?" Both NPO 6 and Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development site have appealed the approval on different grounds. The grounds for the NPO 6 appeal and Ms. Davenport's appeal can be found with the packet meeting material; said grounds are summarized on the Information Summary of the Staff Report. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 5 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. G Page No. "15 • Two reports were received at the March 10, 1992, meeting from the Triad Development representatives. These reports included a Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey and a Geotechnical Report. An April 6, 1992, letter was received from Doug Cottam, Urban Wildlife Biologist from the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. The letter states, in summary, that as far as the plan for Arbor Heights, he recommended that the outlay of the complex save more open space than the current design, the non- native plants species to planted around the complex be replaced by native species and, if possible, a common area or play area for children be created so that the "kids will not heavily impact the remaining open area." A petition, signed by approximately 700 people, was referenced as being part of the City Council's meeting packet material. The heading of the petition stated: We, the undersigned residents of greater Tigard, petition the Tigard City Council to reject the Triad application to build 348 new apartments on "Little Bull Mountain" at this time for the following reasons: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (Highway Department figures) to Tigard's already grid-locked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on a proposed site would destroy and desecrate Little Bull Mountain natural forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove, and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Comprehensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in Plan will support roads and three-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family.apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 6 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. G Page No. 14 • Community Development Director advised that the schools had had an opportunity to comment on the development and have responded. Along with the 20 conditions of the Planning Commission, Staff was recommending that Council add a condition of approval requiring the developer to deposit $300,000 with the City of Tigard prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. This sum is to be utilized for construction of S.W. 109th Avenue, south of SW Naeve Street and is to be compensated by a traf f is impact fee credit. It was also recommended that Paragraph A be deleted of Condition of Approval No. 15 of the Planning Commission's Final Order, requiring the developer to construct street improvements on S.W. Naeve Street between the site and S.W. Pacific Highway. It was also recommended that a Condition of Approval be added requiring minor revisions to the site landscaping plans consistent with the recommendations of the submitted Wildlife Habitat Report. d. Councilor Fessler declared that she was a member of the Planning Commission when Triad came before that body. Because new evidence has been provided to the City on this level, she said that she felt it would not be any different than if new evidence had been proposed to the Planning Commission. She advised that she would be objective to the new evidence presented in the packet and that she was well aware of all the previous packet material. Mayor Edwards advised that Councilor Fessler had also indicated earlier that she had reviewed all documents and video tapes available of prior meetings regarding this issue. e. Public testimony: • Steve Pfeiffer, representing Triad Development, 900 S.W. 5th, Portland, OR 97204, noted that because this was an appeal hearing, their testimony would stand as what had been said at the previous hearing. He reserved the right for rebuttal. • NPO 6 testimony - Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6. NPO 6 members were concerned that the Planning Commission's approval did not adequately address the 109th Street extension so, therefore, they appealed the approval on the grounds that the development and the road extension should occur at approximately the same time. The major issue was funding. The NPO wanted assurances that the funds would be available for this specific project. At the NPO's January meeting, Ross Woods of Triad • presented the Board with a copy of the Triad Road CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 7 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. b Page No. -17 Improvement Agreement. This Agreement basically stated that they would agree to deposit $300,000 with the City prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for any building in the development. The NPO members then passed a motion to drop their appeal once this Agreement had been accepted by the council. In response to a question by Ms. Carver, the Community Development Director advised that this draft agreement was before the Council in their packet. One of the conditions of approval was that Triad would be required to sign an agreement substantially the same as the one submitted. He noted the Agreement was not completely finished at this time, but it would be substantially the same. Ms. Carver reiterated that NPO 6 would formally drop their appeal once the Agreement had been accepted by both parties. • Jack Polans, 16000 S.W. Queen Victoria Place, King City, Oregon testified concerning information he had put together on auto exhaust and air quality. Mayor Edwards advised that the Council was concerned about air pollution and he would welcome a report to City Council. • John Slaughter, 15055 S.W. 100th, Tigard, Oregon 97224, testified that he was against the proposed Sattler extension. Mayor Edwards, in response to Mr. Slaughter's questions, reviewed the past transportation map decisions. There is no actual layout of where the Sattler extension would be constructed. • John Stanley, 15510 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon 97224, advised that Marge Davenport was not the only one opposed to this development. Mr. Stanley referenced the petition (noted above). He said that he did not believe the LUBA remand had been adequately addressed; a new appeal to the transportation map final order was being filed. He noted that the NPO 6's condition that the Agreement for the $300,000 from Triad for the 109th Extension was not valid. He said that Triad would have to pay this money regardless. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 8 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. G Page No. i~Y The Sattler Extension being proposed in the Transportation Plan did not resolve any immediate problems. Mr. Stanley recommended that the Triad development be rejected. • William Lindsay, 15505 S.W. 109th Street, Tigard, Oregon, questioned the prior Council action to increase the density in this area. Discussion followed; the density for this area had been changed at the time the Albertson's property was rezoned. In response to Mr. Lindsay, there was discussion on when rezoning would be possible for this property. Councilor Johnson summarized that it had been her understanding that a property owner has the right, once a site development review has been filed, to expect the property to remain as it was designated at the time of filing. • Howard Graham, 9410 S.W. Lakeside Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97224, reviewed that Summerfield had been closely involved in the process concerning this development. He advised of safety concerns. He said he believed that Council had made a mistake when they approved the high density development on Little Bull Mountain. Mr. Graham proposed a special traffic arrangement exiting the development to help mitigate some of the traffic concerns which would affect the Summerfield neighborhood. • Richard Barton, 14915 S.W. 100th, Tigard, Oregon 97224, advised he was not against the development but had special concerns. He asked about the traffic configuration, and about future plans for Kable Street. Mayor advised that Kable and Hoodview were not proposed, in the current transportation plan, to be extended. Mr. Barton advised of inadequate improvements and safety concerns for pedestrians on Sattler and 100th streets if this additional traffic is added because of this high-density development. • Steve Davidson, 15040 S.W. 100th, Tigard, Oregon 97224, said he agrees with the statements made previously. He referred to earlier testimony requesting special consideration to not impact a • certain neighborhood, then he should also be able CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 9 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a Page No. '71 to make a request for traffic configuration to lessen the impact to his area. Mr. Davidson referred to past density transfers and the effect that the Boundary Commission decisions had on work done in the community. Mr. Davidson asked for clarification on the emergency clause for the transportation map ordinance adopted by Council on March 24. Community Development Director reviewed that action which was done because of a LUBA remand. In response to Mr. Davidson, Council could review this action if it is appealed to LUBA and LUBA requires a review. For policy issues, the Council would have to be convinced to call it up for review. • Ann Davidson, 15040 S.W. 100th, Tigard, Oregon 97224, noted her disagreement with staff that this project and the density was necessary. She noted her concerns with the proposed development and the appropriateness of. it because of the topography. Additional concerns cited were traffic speed and water drainage. Councilor Johnson explained some of the State Land Use laws with which local governments must comply. Ms. Davidson disagreed with the State law requirements. • Evelyn Rallstrom, 15025 S.W. 100th, Tigard, Oregon 97224, said she recognized things must change; however, she registered her concerns with traffic impacts. • Martin Cude, 15105 S.W. 98th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97224, advised he had witnessed at least five accidents at the corner of 98th and Sattler in the last year. He referred to his concerns for traffic safety. • Dave Anderson, 15240 S.W. 100th, Tigard, Oregon, 97224 said he has lived at this address for three years and traffic is of concern to him. He commented that he did not understand how traffic would flow with the addition of 348 apartment units. Mayor Edwards noted continuing concerns for traffic and efforts needed to resolve. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 10 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. V'd • Ann Hartman, 9867 S.W. Kable Street, Tigard, Oregon 97224, relayed her concerns with contributions to the improvement of Sattler, school bussing and safety issues. • Norman Hartman, 9867 S.W. Kable, Tigard, Oregon, 97224 advised of his concerns with the traffic configuration in the area, development, and future problems. • Sam Gotter, 9855 S.W. Peppertree Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97224, commented on the concerns expressed by previous testimony about the Sattler Extension. He noted the effect this development will have on the neighborhoods and the need to look at the future and determine what should be done for Sattler. • Richard Whitman, attorney for Marge Davenport, 101 S.W. Main, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97224 noted there were three major shortcomings to the staff report: 1) Little Bull Mountain natural forest area had not been adequately addressed. (Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan and Goal 5 Resources • were noted.) He disagreed with staff in that he believes this is a significant natural resource area. 2) Concerns with regard to the geotechnical report; i.e., adequately addressing concerns with topography and soils. There was some discussion as to whether the Canterbury Square apartments were built on the same soil type. Mayor Edwards noted there had been no problems with these buildings. 3) He noted some issues with regard to the proposed road agreement with Triad and whether or not TIF dollars could be used. City Engineer noted that the 109th project was placed on the TIF project eligibility list last fall. Mr. Whitman said that the Council may want to add additional language regarding the road improvement. He said he was concerned as to what would happen if there was a further remand of the transportation plan map amendment. He said Council should provide for CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 11 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. (o Page No. contingencies; i.e., how would the transportation for this area be handled if there was no extension of S.W. 109th Street. Mr. Whitman said this application must be judged under the existing standards (i.e., density, zoning), and based on the decisions made by the City. This does not mean, however, the City cannot change its mind. The City could change the Sattler Street extension, 109th Street extension and the zoning density appropriate for the site Section 18.32.020 the City Council can apply for a zoning change on the property. The consent of the property owner is not needed for that to occur; the Council could deny this application and decide to reduce the density of the property. Councilor Johnson advised she would be asking the Legal Counsel later in the hearing about the City ordinance just cited that would allow the Council to make a zone change in the middle of an application (18.32.020) • Marge Davenport, 15100 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, advised she has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission on Triad because she and others think it is not appropriate to build 348 apartments on Little Bull • Mountain. Ms. Davenport referenced the concerns outlined in the petition submitted (referred to above). She submitted several pages from the Comprehensive Plan (filed with the packet material) on "Special Areas" and "Natural Areas." She also submitted written testimony from Paul Whitney (dated April 6, 1992), She reiterated her concerns with the preservation of the old forest. Also submitted by Ms. Davenport was a letter from Bette and Charles Peck (dated April 14, 1992) who were opposed to the Triad Development. Ms. Davenport noted her disagreement with the City relying on reports (wildlife, geotechnical, traffic) which had been submitted by the developer. She believed the reports contained erroneous information. Ms. Davenport referred to a meeting with Triad people earlier. She said she had advised them she would have no objections to single family residences on this area. The Council, she advised, should consider the Comprehensive Plan and work with the Nature Conservancy. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 12 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 6 Page No. 9..)- There were too many problems and unanswered questions; the development should be denied at this time. She also recommended that the decision on this issue be put on hold until the decision has been made by LUBA with regard to the transportation map amendment. Paul Whitney, 12035 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, summarized the contents of his written testimony which reviews impacts to the forest eco system. (This material has been filed with the Council packet material.) • Steve Pfeiffer requested a brief recess to give them an opportunity to review the material submitted by Marge Davenport. Meeting recessed at 9:40 p.m. Meeting was reconvened. Mayor Edwards announced that Agenda Item No. 9 would be set over to April 28, 1992. Rebuttal • Steve Pfeiffer, attorney for Triad Development, advised that they agreed with the staff recommendation and all of . the recommended conditions including those in addition to the Planning Commission. The condition offered by Mr. Graham on behalf of Summerf ield with regard to traf f is conf iguration (no lef t turn on Naeve coming southbound on 109th) would not be of concern. Triad would agree to this condition. Much of the testimony, noted Mr. Pfeiffer, was general in nature. Most of the testimony related to legislative decision on the transportation plan amendment made in March. The Sattler Street extension when and how developed is not part of this project. There is extensive traffic analysis in the record from Mr. Kittelson, Traffic Engineer, as to the impact on those local streets. With regard to the issue of density, the land use designation, the change, how it came about, is it necessary, should the density be shifted to another part of the City, etc. This was a decision which was made earlier and is not a site plan approval issue. He said that there is some logic to putting high density on this site: It is adjacent to Highway 99, adjacent to good access, can be served by the new 109th collector. This property has ample access and proximity to retail • services at Durham. Goal 10 mandates density CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 13 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. 8 • requirements and it may be difficult to find a better site than this one. However, this really was not the issue before Council at this hearing. Mr. Pfeiffer noted Triad's work with NPO 6 and King City. With regard to testimony that Triad would have to improve 109th regardless of NPO's requirement for the Road Improvement Agreement, Mr. Pfeiffer advised this was not the case. The Planning Commission did not impose construction to the south of Naeve it was not a condition of the Planning Commission. The traffic study showed that the traffic from this development could be accommodated by the full improvements to Naeve. What is being offered by Triad goes beyond anything which is required to do. Mr. Pfeiffer reviewed the financing and traffic solutions for the area and the participation by Triad to resolve the concerns. Mr. Pfeiffer commented on Mr. Whitman and Ms. Davenport's testimony. He referred council to the staff response written about two months ago to the appeal when it was originally filed. This report responded to each of the points in the testimony, including the Goal 5 analysis. "If there is wildlife habitat in the area, the site plan shall be reviewed to minimize impacts upon such habitat values to the extent practical." The preceding statement, advised Mr. Pfeiffer, was thrust of the Fishman report and the reason why it was suggested that buildings be moved and plant native vegetation. This has been done. The site plan has been modified. This site is not unique in Tigard. He suggested, with regard to the geotechnical report, that the "more specific should control." The Plan contains broad, general data. The City's ordinances call for, usually at the time of building permits, specific geotech analysis for each site. This was submitted, in this case, in advance because of concerns that people had. This is a far more specific analysis than offered in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pfeiffer said with regard to the rezone of the property, he said that what he thought Mr. Whitman was saying that if this application was denied and there was a decision to entertain a rezoning to resolve the earlier decision of years ago with the Albertson's site, then perhaps the Council could forward with that. He said he did not believe the Council was free to initiate a rezoning during the course of review of this application (State statute). • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 14 Luba No. 2-104 Exhibit No. Page No. _$f • In summary, Mr. Pfeiffer, said he did not think the City would find any merit in rezoning; this site is one of the most appropriate high density around. If another site was chosen, these same concerns would be raised at any site. The existing inventory (state and federal), with regard to the wetlands, do not show any such area on the property. In reviewing the site, there is doubt as to whether there is any jurisdictional wetland requiring State/Federal permits to fill. Section 18.84.15 c. of the Tigard Community Development, says that Sensitive Lands does not apply if someone meets the permit requirements or otherwise is not regulated in a wetland at a State and Federal level. Triad would have no problem with a condition which would state: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, they would complete a wetland delineation of a more formal nature on the site and, if necessary, comply with the Sensitive Lands chapter." Councilor Fessler and Mr. Pfeiffer discussed the traffic analysis. It was Mr. Pfeiffer's recollection that the traffic analysis, even when before the Planning commission, did contain a trip-distribution impact to the Sattler area. Councilor Fessler noted the geotechnical report was • completed on 1/31/90; the Planning Commission heard this issue on 10/7/91. This issue might not have become so confused if this report had been shared with the Planning Commission. Mr. Pfeiffer responded that the geotech analysis is typically required at the time of building permit. information. This report has been in Triad's possession since they acquired the property. The geotech report surfaced in the Council proceedings in March, when a policy in the Plan was raised which said that prior to development there shall be assurances that development occurs on land that is capable of supporting it in a geotechnical sense. Triad submitted the report in response to that concern. • Fred Grimm, one of the three principals of Triad, testified that much of the testimony has not been relevant to the proposal before the Council. The Sattler extension was not a Triad proposal nor is it a part of their plan. At the time the plan amendment was made for S.W. 109th, engineering staff felt it was a good time to overhaul the entire network of streets. Much of the testimony could have valid input at a later date when actual modifications are made to Sattler. He recapped the process followed by Triad. The zoning had been in place for over 10 years. In addition, there • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 15 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. S5 • had been subsequent discussion on the zoning 4 years ago when the Albertson's development was proposed. There has been plenty of opportunity for the zoning to be change. Triad felt as long as they met the standards that the City set in creating that zoning, that their development would be welcomed. In es ^R^R *Triad feels that the City of Tigard has given them their word that as long as they do the right things, they can go ahead and build multi-family. None of the discussion has been against the Triad development; it has been against the zoning. Mr. Grimm advised he had met with Ms. Davenport and she did not have any objection to their proposal; her concerns were with the zoning. He said he thought the concerns with the zoning were being expressed too late. He advised they purchased the property over two years ago and have been in the process of working the City, NPO's and various community groups. He advised it was time to make a decision. Mr Grimm noted the need for and the City's obligation to provide for affordable housing. Rebuttal • Marge Davenport - reminded Council of the 700 people who signed the petitions who said they did not want the Triad development. • Richard Whitman - 1. The main substantive issue to deny the application is that it is clear that the City's Comprehensive Plan inventories, at least a portion of this site, as a significant natural resource. It is also clear that the Comprehensive Plan says that development on this site will be limited to a density of one to five dwelling units per acre in order to protect the natural resource. Until this previous decision as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan is changed, this project cannot be approved. Regarding wetlands: Council has received testimony that there is a possibility that there are wetlands on this site. Mr. Pfeiffer has suggested that you condition an approval on an inventory of the wetland area and the obtaining of appropriate permits from State and Federal government. It is true that the section cited by Mr. Pfeiffer does require a permit from the State and Federal government for wetland fill; however, the City code (Section 18.80.130) requires that wetland areas be CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 16 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 8'~ inventoried as part of the site planning for the PUD. One of the findings the Council has to make in order to approve the project, is that it is feasible to build this project. Until the Council knows where the wetland area is, whether there is one, how extensive, how it interacts with the proposed site plan, he did not see how the City could decide that this particular proposal is feasible to build. 2. Regarding the Geotech Report: Extensive testing was done on this site as part of the purchase of the property by Triad in 1990. It was not clear to him that the Report that was done anticipated this particular site plan. 3. Mr. Whitman said he appreciated the extensive amount of time the Council has spent reviewing this proposal as well as the staff and applicant. Testimony tonight represented overwhelming sentiment that the density on the site is inappropriate that there will be serious impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as a result. The density issue was decided by the City Council four years ago, but the density is still relevant to • this particular application in terms of the impact this proposal will have on the surrounding neighborhood. He referred to the petition signed by the residents. Mr. Whitman summarized that the Council, because of the Goal 5, geotechnical, and traffic issues, has substantial evidence before it upon which it can deny this application. The City Council can deny this application and then review the decision as to what is the appropriate density of this particular site. He urged Council to deny the application and then consider reducing the density in such a way that the Goal 5 issues are resolved, traffic concerns are addressed, and so the owner of the property can have clear direction as to what is and what is not appropriate for the site. f. Staff recommendation: Community Development Director advised Transportation issues were addressed in the traffic report (dated February 19, 1990), from Wayne Kittleson. A supplemental report was completed in June 1991 which refers to impact on Sattler and other streets. Those streets have the capacity to take more traffic. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 17 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. G Page No. S? - No evidence has been presented that the traffic impact would be greater than what those streets could bear. Mr. Graham brought up an interesting idea of no left turn on Naeve. Of concern is that there has been a great reliance on Pacific Highway placing traffic on the Highway because people do not want traffic on local streets. Pacific Highway cannot handle the traffic either. Streets need to connect to each other more so the traffic can be spread out and a single arterial is not relied upon to handle all of the traffic needs. - No contingency is needed if the LUBA appeal is remanded again. If this does happen, the transportation map is the law now and people have a right to develop within the constraints of that law. If LUBA remands, Triad and the Council would have to take appropriate action at that time. Staff has a basic disagreement with the opponents in terms of what the Comprehensive Plan says with regard to Goal 5. Staff agrees that the Comprehensive Plan lists the area as a potential resource and it was inventoried as a resource. It was not chosen as significant resource to be protected by the City Council. The staff, at that time, recommended some of the ways to protect it could be to have lower density or use other techniques or even purchase the property. The Council chose not to protect it or identify it as a significant resource to be protected. The Council attached a Planned Development Overlay to it so the developer would have more flexibility to develop and protect the resources that are there. There are no restrictions in the Development Code against developing that particular piece of property. Staff suggests that the more specific soils tests should outweigh the generalized soils survey done previously. The survey completed suggests there would not be any particularly unusual restrictions on development. Staff does not believe there is a wetlands on this site. A staff member (Jerry Offer) walked this area earlier in the day. Additional language was drafted which could be used by Council and is recommended by staff is as follows: . "No. 12. Prior to the receipt of building permits, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 18 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. • "No. 12. Prior to the receipt of building permits, a delineation of wetland boundaries on the site shall be completed by the applicant and, if necessary, applicable provisions of Section 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) shall be met prior to the issuance of such permits." The area is relatively small and probably does not qualify as a wetlands nor is listed on the City's inventory. - Council, if they decided to reduce the density or deny the application, would have to make findings of fact based on the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan as to why that decision was being made. This is to protect everybody from arbitrary decisions. Not much evidence appears to have been presented as to why any change in the density would change the impact on the forest or wildlife or soils. In fact, single family housing is often more destructive of those resources than multi-family housing. Jerry Offer, Associate Planner reviewed his findings with regard to walking the area to specifically note possible wetlands. The only wet areas are as described in Mr. . Cottam's letter. The area is fairly small and could be filled with less than 50 cubic yards of fill. He noted he agreed with the condition of approval as noted by the Community Development. Director to determine the extent of the possible wetland area. At the time Triad came in for a preapplication review, the staff looked at the Soil Conservation Service Map of Hydric Soils, the National Wetlands Inventory, and an assessment the City had prepared by Scientific Resources, Inc. None of these documents show any wetlands on the site. The City's decision was to plan and zone this area at medium residential development (1982-83). Community Development Director summarized the staff recommendation was to uphold the Planning Commission's decision with their 20 conditions of approval. Also, staff recommends Council add three conditions as outlined in the staff report with one of the Planning Commission's decisions deleted. (See staff report filed with the packet material for this meeting.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 19 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. • Mr. Richard Whitman said new evidence with regard to the size of the wetland area had been introduced and under State law, they had the right to request a continuance. Mr. Edwards denied the request for continuance. g. Council comments/questions: • Councilor Johnson referred to previous questions with regard to Chapter 18.32.020, that there was an option of changing the zoning after an application had come into the City. Legal Counsel Robinson advised that he disagreed with Attorney Whitman's analysis. ORS 227.178 (3) provides that the Council must judge an application by the standards that are in place at the time the application is deemed complete. What the Legislature has said, and what this City Council has said in the past even without such legislation is that an applicant is entitled to "stationary goal posts." Once an application is complete, the Council will judge that application by the standards that are in effect at that time. Mr. Robinson said, therefore, that he did not agree that the Council has the option to change the Comprehensive Plan designation before they have acted on this application. He advised Council to act on the application based on the criteria, the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning designation, that are in effect now. The fact that the Council has the power to initiate a Comprehensive Plan change does not give the Council the power to do so during the middle of an application. Councilor Johnson asked what the change in density was on the subject property from the time the 1981 Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Associate Planner offer responded that in 1987 the western half was redesignated from medium density to medium high density residential with an upzoning of 12 units per acres to 25 units per acre (4 acres of the subject site were affected). The remainder of the approximately 28-30 acre Triad site was kept at 12 units per acre. In 1989 there was request to rezone the eastern half of that same property to 25 units per acre; this request was denied by council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 20 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. _ oo • Legal Counsel Robinson responded to the request by Attorney Whitman's request for a continuance of the hearing. ORS 197.763 applies only if additional documents or evidence are presented in support of the application. None of the comments were in support of the application; they were simply a comment. • Councilor Fessler asked Legal Counsel about legal liabilities if a development were approved and damages resulted from earthquake, rain, etc. If the findings of the geotech report were found not to be good enough, what would the City's liability be? Mr. Robinson responded that he did not believe the City would have much liability, if any. The council is acting on a discretionary matter. The council has no reason to know or believe that the information submitted is incorrect or false. Correcting any situation which might occur would be a matter between the landowners. Councilor Fessler asked several questions on the Geotech report. Mr. Ross Woods of Triad responded to Councilor Fessler's questions noting that specifics would be answered once the development had progressed into the final design stages. Councilor Fessler also expressed concerned about native landscaping and fill replacement. h. Public hearing was closed. i. Council consideration: Councilor Johnson commended those who participated throughout this process and their carefully considered concerns. She advised she supported the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilor Fessler reviewed the options before Council and the ramifications of the decisions with regard to trade-offs which needed to be made. She advised she felt more study with regard to the reports submitted was needed. Councilor Schwartz noted the comments that people would not object to single-family development. He advised this was a Planned Development area zoned R-12. In addition, the concerns expressed with regard to Sattler Road were not valid with regard to this development. He referred to Council's • attempt through inclusion of Note 9 on the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 21 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 71 Transportation map to move traffic through the area without burdening one area over another. tie reviewed issues including the geotech report, zoning (1983), and the density transfer. He advised he supported the staff's recommendation to approve as outlined. Councilor Kasten noted the rights of a developer to develop property given the regulations at a given point in time. He said he supported the staff's recommendation to approve as outlined. Mayor Edwards advised he had voted, from the outset, "No" on this proposal. He cited his concerns with the traffic configuration. He disagreed with the amount of impact to the wildlife habitat as presented by the opponents to the development. He also disagreed with concerns about the geotech report noting that there was existing development on the hillside. The traffic issues are of concern and work should continue to try to mitigate these issues as much as possible. He advised he would be voting "No" because of the • - transportation issues he cited previously. City Engineer responded to questions concerning the suggestion that no left turn be designated on Naeve Street. He. suggested this be reviewed separately from any decision on the Triad development. j. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to direct staff to prepare a final order with findings upholding the Planning Commission's decision with addition of the three conditions proposed by staff and the deletion of the condition (as referenced by staff) of the Planning commission; in addition the wording proposed on the wetlands shall be incorporated into the findings. The motion was approved by a majority vote; 3-2 (Mayor Edwards and Councilor Fessler voted "No.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 22 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. G Page No. 4~-- • 8. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-0003 SWEENEY A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.92 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.31 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.2; Community Development Code Chapters 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, 18.138.020 (A) (B) LOCATION: 11455 SW Walnut Street (WCTM 2S1 3AB, tax lot 600) ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) The R-4.5 zoning allows single family residential, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tanks, and accessory structures among other uses. a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director presented the Staff Report as presented in the Council packet. d. Public Testimony: None e. Community Development Staff recommended approval as outlined in the Staff Report. f. Public hearing was closed. g. RESOLUTION NO. 92-15 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (ZCA 92-03) (SWEENEY) Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to adopt Resolution No. 92-15. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. h. ORDINANCE NO. 92-10 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 92-03) (SWEENEY) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-10. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 23 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. G Page No. 43 . 9. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - PARKING PROHIBITION ON S.W. 108TH AVENUE. Discussion continued from Council meeting of March 24, 1992. a. This item was set over to April 28, 1992. 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None 11. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/UPDATE - Canceled 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) ( d) , (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Canceled. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 p.m. ea;1~Q'L-yu LoAtA_ At es Catherine Wheatley, City Re order ay or; City of Tigard Date: can0414. 92 M CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 24 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 6 Page No. '__J T-, c~ a Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 '.7'~, DATE: A061:14,.1992.-t PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking.ln: Favor: of;:Triad; OpPortent'.(Agrees .with;: one: or more.`elements Development Proposal), Hof: appeal(s) Name NameTACK / 6; f✓~ roLl~+ f ~ Address ✓ G(/ .//G1 ~r~ Adpress /~ti1 Y br`IU ► i~r r r~ i Name ame Address Address -7 ! U Name Na e ale, Address Addre IV, S.S/0 - IG v Name Name Address Address 1,y S~ S- U,, Name Name J 114 a -P Address Addirdst C & p Name ` Name ~//~~t Address Address /S-S ~ S - SlU - CGS ~c~ ~ Name Name r G!1 Y ~1'l! 41''J Address Address 111 14,<_ Name J Na IP/ Address Address Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. '1 Page No. 15 • PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking in Favor of Triad Opponent (Agrees with one or more elements Development Proposal) of appeal(s) Name Name W ) r ~S Address % I O y C , 1 / -C Q Address ~i v Name Name 1 ,W Address Addre s U LI 0 U O 'k T Ir r Name Name 16, L 722-0 M Address Address Name Nam I r`h~L J ~-v, c Address Address Name Name Address Address 5. ~J. Name e V Z fV rab n/ Address Address rt 1 a S_ J 00 Tc ; L7~112 i C12 Name Name Axe- Qtllm~LE-- / Address Addr ss S! ST j Name Names R-PfIL'fPi►~!'►~I r Address Address n 7 ~ r s~v s~ IJ Name Name Address dr ss Name Address Address q ~G 7 jte/ l~Ylle r'f - Ty 1 Name e G~ L Address Address _ Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. No • PLEASE PRINT 'Proponent (Speaking In Favor of.T6d Opponent-(Agrees=with°onWor-more elements DevelopmentProposal) }ofpPear~s)- Name Name J Address Address Name Name Address Address e Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name . Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name • Address Address Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. • F TI CITY O GAR D OREGON ;nTRR>YI AGENDA «~<>~I><~~~<>r>><`<>`~<~ Anyone NOTICE. PUBLIC wishing t speak on an )M"'''`1~3E agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up 4 sheet(s). If n no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. • WORKSHOP SESSION - LIBRARY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL (5:30 PM) • • STUDY SESSION (6:30 PM) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. OLD BUSINESS 2.1 Approve Council Minutes - March 17 and 24, 1992 3. OATH OF OFFICE - COUNCILOR JUDY FESSLER • Mayor Edwards 4. PROCLAMATIONS (Mayor Edwards): 4.1 1992 Year of Clean Water (Presentation and Song to City Council) 4.2 Fair Housing Month COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 1 Luba No. 2-1 Exhibit No. 4' Page No. 5. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) .6. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 6.1 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Certified Election Results - March 24, 1992 6.2 Approve Appointment to Park and Recreation Board - Resolution No. 92-- 6.3 Approve Hearings Officer Contract Renewal 6.4 Approve Recommendation for No Rate Adjustment to Solid Waste Adjustment 7. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 10AD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 10DB, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,18.150,18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. • The public hearing was was opened and testimony was received on March 10, 1992. Triad Development representatives submitted two documents: 1) Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey 2) Geotechnical Report The hearing was set over to April 14 to allow an opportunity for all parties to review the new material. • Public Hearing Continued from March 10, 1992 • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony NPO 6 Proponents (Speaking in Favor of the CPA) Opponents (Speaking Against the CPA) • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 92-_ • COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. g Page No. 5~_ 8. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-0003 SWEENEY A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.92 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 • units/acre). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3,10.2.1,10.2.2,10.2.3,10.3.1,10.3.2; Community Development Code Chapters 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, 18.138.020 (A)(B) LOCATION: 11455 SW Walnut Street (WCTM 2S1 3AB, tax lot 600) ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) The R-4.5 zoning allows single family residential, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tanks, and accessory structures among other uses. • Public hearing opened. • Declarations or challenges. • Staff Report/Recommendation - Community Development Staff • Public Testimony: Proponents (in favor of annexation) - Opponents (opposed to annexation) • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Rebuttal to Testimony • Council Questions • Public hearing closed. • Council comments • Council consideration: Resolution No. 92-_; Ordinance No. 92- 9. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - PARKING PROHIBITION ON S.W. 108TH AVENUE. Discussion continued from Council meeting of March 24, 1992. a. Staff Report - City Engineer b. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 92- 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 11. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/UPDATE • City Administrator 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 13. ADJOURNMENT • COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 14, 1992 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 8' Page No. ► o t) • COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 14, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: April 2, 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Planning PREVIOUS ACTION: Hearing continued Commission Approval of SDR 91-0013.' d from March 10, 1992 PDR 91-0006 T a,d-Triad Ltd. PREPARED BY: Jerry Offer, Planner DEPT HEAD OK A (CITY ADMIN OK / REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, C.D. Dir. ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This item is continued from the Council's March 10, 1992 meeting. Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a 348 unit multi- family residential development plan for the southern slope of Little Bull Mountain? Both NPO 6 and Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development site, have appealed the approval on different grounds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application subject to the conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC. Add a condition of approval requiring the developer to deposit $300,000 with the City prior to the • issuance of occupancy permits. This sum is to be utilized for construction of SW 109th Avenue south of SW Naeve Street and is to be compensated by a traffic impact fee credit. Delete paragraph A of condition of approval #15 of the Planning Commission's Final Order requiring the developer to construct interim street improvements on SW Naeve Street between the site and SW Pacific Highway. Add a condition of approval requiring minor revisions to the site and landscaping plans consistent with the recommendations of the submitted wildlife habitat report. Adopt the March 2, 1992 and April 2, 1992 staff memoranda as appendices to the final order. Direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the above for the Council's April 28, 1992 meeting. INFORMATION SUMMARY NPO #6 has appealed the Planning Commission's decision on Triad-Tigard's proposal for a 348 unit apartment complex on the southern slope of Little Bull Mountain. The NPO's appeal form states that the NPO members feel that the proposed development should not proceed without concurrent construction of the road connection between SW Naeve Street and SW Pacific Highway at the Royalty Parkway intersection. At the March 10th meeting, NPO #6 offered to drop their appeal of the Commission's decision if the City and the developer formalize the draft agreement proposed by Triad which would require the developer to contribute $300,000 towards the cost of developing the proposed section of SW 109th Avenue south of Naeve Street to Pacific Highway. • Marge Davenport has filed a separate appeal of the Commission's decision. Ms. Davenport's appeal requests denial of the application based on concerns Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 10 .related primarily to traffic impacts, effects on the existing neighborhood, and lack of analysis of various potential environmental impacts related to the proposed development. The Council's hearing on this matter is continued from March 10, 1992 due to the applicants submittal of a geotechnical study of the site and a wildlife habitat resources survey in response to concerns raised by Ms. Davenport. Attached are Ms. Davenport's December 10, 1991 written testimony detailing her concerns; a March 2, 1992 memorandum responding to those concerns; an April 2, 1992 memo responding to the recently submitted geotechnical study and wildlife habitat survey and the draft agreement proposed by Triad related to a proposed contribution by the developer towards the cost of acquiring right-of-way and improving SW 109th Avenue between SW Naeve Street and SW Pacific Highway. In addition, Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09 PC which approved the development plan is also attached. The applicant's plans, traffic study, and other supporting documents along with written comments on the proposal have been included in the packets prepared for the prior Council meetings on this matter. Please contact the Planning Division if you need a copy of any of those materials. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the Planning commission's approval of the Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application subject to the conditions of • approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC. Add a condition of approval requiring the developer to deposit $300,000 with the City prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. This sum is to be utilized for construction of SW 109th Avenue south of SW Naeve Street and is to be compensated by a traffic impact fee credit. Delete paragraph A of condition of approval #15 of the Planning Commission's Final Order requiring the developer to construct interim street improvements on SW Naeve Street between the site and SW Pacific Highway. Add a condition of approval requiring minor revisions to the site and landscaping plans consistent with the recommendations of the submitted wildlife habitat report. Adopt the March 2, 1992 and April 2, 1992 staff memoranda as appendices to the final order. Direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the above for the Council's April 28, 1992 meeting. 2. Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the site development review/planned development application with a modification to the conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC to require the developer to construct a southwestern extension of SW 109th Avenue from SW Naeve Street to SW Pacific Highway at its intersection with Royalty Parkway. Direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the above for the Council's April 28, 1992 meeting. 3. Deny the request on appeal, thereby overturning the Commission's decision. FISCAL NOTES • None. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. 10 -1 04/i4/yZ 1b:14 pbUS ZZO 2460 JIUL'L, KI VLJ NUA Li l l Ur I IL,.i(CU b d Mw~ ~ • No. 12. Prior to the receipt of building permits, a delineation of wetland boundaries on the site shall be completed by the applicant and, if necessary, applicable provisions of Section 18.84 (Sensitive Lands) shall be met prior to the issuance of such permits. a dd CA,-') Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. 103 LSCS~ ~"~~r BALL,JANIK & NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 S.W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 10- iLOOR,1101 PENNSTLV.Nl• .vt PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3274 WASHINGTON. D.C.2000. TELEPHONE (503) 228-2525 TELEPNONE 1zo21 eye-)3o7 RICHARD M. WHITMAN TELECOPY (503) 295-1058 TELECOFT IZOZI 7e31-e0.7 April 14, 1992 BY HAND DELIVERY Honorable Gerald R. Edward, Mayor City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: SDR 91 0013/PDR 91-0006 (Triad/Appeal of Marge Davenport) Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I am submitting the following written testimony on behalf of Marge Davenport. There are three main issues in this appeal: protection of significant natural resources, geotechnical suitability of the site, and the proposed agreement for the construction of the SW 109th extension. 1. Protection of Significant Natural Resources. The facts are that the "Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest" is inventoried in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a significant natural resource, that the.Comprehensive Plan requires that this area be protected from conflicting uses, and that the Triad project would eliminate this resource, which is one of the few remaining significant forest areas in the City. The value of this natural area is confirmed by the analysis prepared by Mr. Douglas Cottam, Urban Wildlife Biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Exhibit 1), and by an analysis performed for Ms. Davenport by Mr. Paul Whitney (Exhibit 2). A. Is this Site Inventoried as a Significant Natural Resource Area Requiring Protection Under Goal 5 and the City's Comprehensive Plan? The memorandum from Ed Murphy, dated April 2, 1992, states that-the Comprehensive Plan does not "designate this area as an area with important value for wildlife (Comprehensive Plan Volume I, Diagram V, page I-41)." The memorandum also states that modification of the Triad proposal is "not required by Plan Policy 3.4.2 or Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan. " Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. °I y Page No. 10 i BALL..JANIK & NOVACK . This reading of the Comprehensive Plan is without any support. The following Plan provisions make it clear that this area is inventoried as a significant natural resource area under Goal 5, and that it must be protected from conflicting uses: a. Inventory. The Goal 5 ESEE analysis done by the City as part of its adoption of its Comprehensive Plan begins at page 94 of Volume I. Section II of the ESEE analysis is entitled "Identified Resources." The first identified resource listed and described is the "Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest." Plan at I-96. This area is described as a 24.9-acre area, north of Naeve Road, and as "the largest stand of mature coniferous trees within the Tigard active urban planning area. . Plan at I-96. Looking at the Plan map at page I-39, which shows existing vegetation, it is clear that the only coniferous area north of Naeve Road is the Triad site. This area has been inventoried as a significant natural resource area, and for staff to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Staffs' sole basis for avoiding these requirements is their assertion that the only natural resources inventoried as significant by the Comprehensive Plan are those on the map at page I-41. This map is labeled as a map of areas having . • important values for wildlife, according to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Staff have overlooked the map at page I- 109, which is labeled as the City's map of Gbal 5 Resources. This-map clearly shows the Little Bull Mountain Natural Area, and shows it as being on the Triad site. b. Goal 5 Decision to Limit Conflicting Uses. The ESEE analysis for the Little Bull Mountain Natural Area states that "the staff recommendation for this site is to limit conflicting uses. The limited conflicting uses allowed will be single family detached residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development process. . . Plan at I-96 to 97. To our knowledge, no further ESEE analysis has been prepared to account for the fact that multi-family residential use, at a much higher density, is now allowed on this site. In order to comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Goal 5, a new ESEE analysis must be prepared for this site. Until this is done, the existing text of the Comprehensive Plan limits conflicting uses to single family residential at a density of 1 to 5 units per acre. Plan at I-96. C. Applicability of Plan Policy 3.4.2. Finally, regarding Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.2., as noted above, the staff memorandum appears to indicate that this is not an approval criterion for this application. In contrast, the staff report for the Planning Commission lists Policy 3.4.2. as an approval criterion. Furthermore, two of the Implementing Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. °t Page No. #65 BALL,.JANIK & NOVAGK Honorable Gerald R. Edward, Mayor April 14, 1992 Page 3 Strategies for this Policy have not been complied with in the review of the Triad application. The first of these is Implementing Strategy 3 (Plan at II-17), which states that "[t]he City shall review all development proposals adjacent to wildlife habitat areas to ensure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be, request that other federal, state, and local agencies review the development proposals." Plan at II-17. The City has requested ODF&W comment on this proposal, and the ODF&W recommendation is that "the outlay of the complex save more open space than the current design, [and that] the non-native plant species to be planted around the complexes be replaced by native species. Exhibit 1, at page 2. The second applicable Implementing Strategy is Strategy 4, which provides. that "[w]here there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation area within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the • vegetation areas. . . The extent to which the Triad site is covered by an inventoried major vegetation area is shown on the map enclosed as Exhibit 3. According to the City's own inventory, over half this site is in a major vegetation area. There has been no showing of how this development can proceed without "substantially altering the character" of this vegetation area. Finally, both ODF&W and Mr. Whitney have identified what may be wetlands on the Triad site. Section 18.80.130 of the Tigard Code requires that wetland areas be inventoried -in the site plan. No such inventory has been prepared, and the City has not analyzed whether the proposed site plan would require filling of this possible wetland area. 2. reotechnical Suitability. According to the staff memorandum, the geotechnical engineering report prepared by Terra Associates is "far more detailed than the Comprehensive Plan information regarding the Little Bull Mountain area." Memorandum at 2. At the same time, according to the memorandum, "[t]he types of soils reported by Terra Associates are consistent with the general soils description of the Comprehensive Plan." Id. The Plan describes the Little Bull Mountain area as containing soils in the Helvetia and Upland Silt categories. Plan at I-72. The Plan characterizes Upland Silt in the following manner: Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. ,o6 • BALL,.JANIK 6. NOVACK Honorable Gerald R. Edward, Mayor April 14, 199.2. Page 4 "Although stable when dry, Upland Silt is unconsolidated and is unstable when moist. It also has low permeability. Some settling is to be expected even for light loads supported by spread footings, and hem loadings cannot be supported. . . . Mud flows and slumps are often observed on surface slopes of 15% or more." Plan at I-72. The Plan descriptions of soils are based on the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Washington County. Plan at I-76. A copy of the Soil Survey map for this area is attached as Exhibit 4. This map shows that much of the site is over the 15% level where mud flows and slumps are often observed. In addition, the Soil Survey describes the soil types mapped for the Triad site as severely constrained for building development (the applicable narrative portions of the Soil Survey are included as Exhibit 5). According to the Soil Survey, "a severe limitation indicates one or more soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or difficult to overcome that a major increase in construction effort, special design, or intensive maintenance is required. For some soils rated severe, such costly measures may not be feasible." Soil Survey at 92. The soils and geologic conditions on the Triad site are hardly typical of the rest of the Tigard area as suggested in the staff memorandum. A geotechnical report that responds to the specific concerns regarding feasibility listed in the Soil Survey needs to be prepared before the City can determine that this project is feasible. 3. Agreement to Reimburse Triad for its Contribution Towards the Cost of the 109th Extension. Triad has proposed, and staff have recommended, that the City enter into an agreement with Triad to reimburse the developer for the contribution of $300,000 towards the cost of completing SW 109th. The TIF credit that would be given to Triad is dependent on SW 109th qualifying for addition to Washington County's listing of "base facilities" in the TIF ordinance. To our knowledge, no action has been taken to add.the SW 109th extension to the County's TIF base facility list, and until such action is taken it is not clear that the City has the authority to make the commitments proposed in the agreement. • For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the Triad applications. In the alternative, these applications should be sent back to the Planning Commission so that the Goal 5 and geotechnical issues Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. t v I BALL..JANIK 6 NOVACK Honorable Gerald R. Edward, Mayor April 14, 1992 Page 5 raised in this appeal can be fully and adequately addressed before development on this site is allowed to proceed. Re ctfully submitted, Richard Whitman Attorney for Marge Davenport • • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. to $ or • April 6, 1992. EPARTMENT OF OREGON FISH AND Jerry Offer WILDLIFE City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Jerry: I have visited the Arbor heights apartment project and have reviewed the wildlife habitat resources survey (Fishman Environmental Serv.) and the project design blueprints. The wildlife report does not- accurately portray the existing wildlife and their habitats at the site. The site is an overgrown farm/orchard/coniferous woodlot with excellent wildlife habitat because of the variety of plant species that provide food and cover. While at the site, I viewed several • species of birds, 2 coyotes, squirrels, many deer tracks, raccoon tracks, tree frogs, and a racer (snake). The area that provided the greatest diversity of plant species and cover was the northern halves of lots 7 and 8 (B and C in the Fishman report) not the coniferous forest lot (A in the Fishman report). The coniferous forest lot has poor understory plant species composition and % cover (it is dominated by English ivy and holly). The combination of habitat types contributes to the overall value of the site to wildlife. Therefore, I disagree with the Fishman report on area B and C and their conclusions. Lot A is not the most valuable Goal 5 resource on the site and as a site on its own it provides little diversity and would probably be used primarily by birds (on this I agree with the Fishman report). Even if the other 2 lots are dominated by non-native and cultivated (orchard) trees they provide more food and cover for many more species of wildlife than birds. The blueprints do not indicate wetlands on the site. However, there is an area directly to the east of the cement pond (cistern? that has been fenced off) that had sedges growing in it and standing water. It is my guess there is a spring on the hillside that has been impacted by 2501 SW Fast Avenue tractors or heavy equipment in the past and the PO Box 59 Portland, OR 9-_07 Luba No. 92-104 503) 229-500 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. o 1water spreads out quite a bit. The area should have its soil profile examined for hydric soils to determine if the area would qualify as a wetland. If so, a DSL permit will have to be obtained for the project. As far as the plan for Arbor heights, I recommend that the outlay of the complex save more open space than the current design, the non-native plant species to be planted around the complex be replaced by native species, and, if possible, a common area. or play area for children be created so that the kids will not heavily impact the remaining open area. Sincerely, Doug Cottam Urban Wildlife Biologist cc: Herb McEwen Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. LLa Littlc Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area/Triad Development Testimony presented by Paul Whitney . April 6, 1492 I am Paul Whitney. I live at 12035 S.W. Bull Mountain Road about a half mile from the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area. I am a professional wildlife ecologist / biologist, I hold a PhD in Zoophysiology. I have worked as a wildlife ecologist in Portland for 16 years. I first learned about the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area about three weeks ago during a Tigard City Council Meeting. While I was waiting to talk about a proposed subdivision across the street from my house, I heard about three hours of discussion about the proposed Triad development which includes part of the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area. As I listened to the testimony, I decided to learn more about the Natural Area, The Natural Features & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Report, and The Triad Development. Since then -I have visited the Natural Area, the extensive open spaces adjacent to the Natural Area, and the area- proposed for development by Triad. I have also read the portion of the Natural Features Report that addresses the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area and the Arbor Heights Apartments Project Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey that was prepared for Triad. This evening I would like to share some of my findings. Natural Features & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Report I found two references to wildlife in the Natural Area. One reference on page I-96 stated: 'The wildlife within the site is limited to small birds and animals" and another reference on page 142 stated: 'This area has a heavily-wooded with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of gals including deer, raccoon, and pheasant.' I believe these two references are contradictory. e first reference implies there are no medium- and large-sized animals and this is the reason for not preserving wildlife resources of the Natural Area. The second reference states medium-sized (raccoon and pheasant) and large-sized (deer) animals are present. When Ivisited the site on April 2, 3, and 4,1 found deer tracks in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area as well as on the Triad property. The deer tracks were most noticeable in the exposed mud in the wetland area of the Triad property. The wetland area is covered by hydrophytic vegetation and there is evidence of standing water (surface water was not present during my visits). Based on my observation of deer tracks and other medium-sized animals, I believe the decision not to preserve the little Bull Mountain Forest is not based on good data. Furthermore I do not believe this criteria is adequate for judging the value of an area for wildlife. More suitable criteria should include the presence of rare„ threatened, or endangered species; the diversity of wildlife habitats; the structure (e.g., layers of cover such as ground, shrub, and tree) and function (e.& forage, cover, reproduction) of habitats present ; as well as the amount of similar type of habitat in the city. Arbor Heights Apartments Project Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey I reviewed the wildlife survey prepared by Triad. This survey is based on a site visit on March 5, 1992. Below, I discuss the summary statements presented in the Triad report. 1 Luba No. 92 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. 0 Area A: Coniferous Forest. • MY visit in early April, 1942, left me with a slightly different impression than presented in the Triad report For example, the mature Douglas fir trees in Area A and the adjacent Natural Area are very old. I counted the rings of a 27 inch diameter fir tree that had been cut with a chain saw. The tree was at least 175 years old. The forest is very old and is just starting to take on characteristics of old growth. Figure 4-1 from Ancient Forests of the Pacific Northwest (Raven, 1990 p. 93) indicates that as this forest continues to .age, there will be more and more forage that will provide high quality habitat As an old forest continues to mature new openings in the forest canopy will let in more sunlight and will likely result in more layers in the canopy. Dead and downed trees, snags, forest openings, and increased forage will result in better wildlife habitat than is now present. To summarize, medium-and large- sized animals are present in the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area and this and adjacent stands may be the only opportunity for preserving an old forest in the Tigard City Limits. Area B: Orchard and Deciduous Forest The wildlife assessment for this area of the Triad property appears to be based on the presence of an abandoned/senescent orchard and the lack of deer sign. I own an old (approximately 60 year old trees) apple orchard on Bull Mountain and the trees have rotten heartwood (cavities) that provides nesting habitat for birds. My trees are not maintained but none the less they produce a lot of fruit every year there is a good fruit set. Last year the weather was bad when the apple trees blossomed and the flowers were • apparently not fertilized. There was hardly a bushel of apples produced per acre. The year before, a good fruit set year, the same acre of apple trees produced hundreds of bushels. It is not surprising that apples were not found on the Triad property after a. poor fruit set year. I am interested that the Triad report identified this area as a senescent orchard. Wht7e I observed a lot of irregularly spaced fruit trees in bloom I would not call this area an orchard and the trees I observed did not show sign of heart rot, snags, or cavities that one would expect in an old orchard. Had the trees on this area been senescent they would have been even better for wildlife. Area C: Deciduous Forest and Scattered Conifers. The Triad report judged this area as moderate to low habitat value due to the relatively low abundance of fruit and seed-bearing species in the understory. I find this to be a most unusual statement for every plant on the site with the exception of the ferns, mosses, and algae produce fruits and or seeds. When I was on the site, I observed a variety of fruit and berry producing species such as strawberry, thimbleberry, huckleberry, dogwood, blackberry, snowberry, elderberry, rose, holly, Oregon grape, and salal. I'm not too sure its appropriate to place so much emphasis on fruit and seeds because a lot of wildlife depend more on other parts of plants such as leaves or don't even eat plants at all. SUMMARY 2 Luba No. 9.2-104 Exhibit No. _q__ page No. -04- The Triad report examines function of the wildlife habitat in this summary section. I S agree that, save the small wetland, there is not much water on the site. However, the site is an upland site with a southern exposure and southern exposures are typically dry. The lack of a stream or lake should not be used as a criteria to rate an upland southern exposure as low quality habitat. This site is judged by the Triad report as having moderate food present. While the mature forest portion to the north may not have optimal forage in the understory, this certainly is not a concern as one proceeds down slope. I would judge the non coniferous portions of the site- as very productive (see Figurfl). The mixed forest portions of the site have a dense ground cover, abundant shrub cover and an open tree canopy. All of this productivity is in close proximity to the dense thermal cover of the mature forest The entire site is interspersed with small pockets of open wet areas and blackberry thickets. The Triad site is closely linked to the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area, the stand of mature conifers to the west of the Natural Area, other woodlands, and a large open manicured forest and tree farm to the south and east. I would not be surprised to hear that wildlife moved from this area across the golf course to the Tualatin River. The summary statement that: "The wildlife species which use or probably use the site most are small birds and rodents.' is open to alternative interpretation. The Triad report does not take into account that there are medium- and large-sized birds on the site. For example, I observed crows on the site, extensive woodpecker excavations that were similar to the excavations made by pileated woodpeckers, and the Natural Features Report sites pheasant as being present. I live a half mile away on a somewhat manicured parcel and I regularly observe a variety of raptors including red-tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk and great horned owl. While on the Triad site I observed sign of several non-rodent species. For example, mole sign was abundant, I heard frogs (probably treefrogs) calling, and I observed coyote scat. I am very confident that there are weasels eating rodents and that bats forage over the site. As I mentioned above, I observed deer tracks on the Triad site and raccoons have been reported on the site. To conclude, there is apparently no rare, threatened, or endangered plants or wildlife on the Triad site. The site is not pristine, but if this were really a criteria for preserving a site for wildlife in the City, I'm afraid no site would be preserved. Since the site is not pristine and not by a stream or lake it has been judged as having moderate and low wildlife value. I do not agree with this assessment for the reasons present above. I could argue that the value of the wildlife on the Triad site and in the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area ranges from low to excellent but I feel its more important to examine the value of the wildlife habitat within the context of the other upland wildlife habitat within the City of Tigard. 1 believe the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area and the adjacent conifer stand is the best example of old forest in the City and the value of the habitat is going to improve every year. I believe the City Council should take a second look at the little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area and the criteria used to recommend areas for preservation. I also believe the Triad site has a lot more than small birds and rodents. The northern portion of the Triad site is just starting to display signs of excellent old/mature habitat (see FgurA), snags and rotting logs are common. The likelihood that the wildlife habitat in Idttle Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area will increase in value will be greatly enhanced if the northern portion of the Triad site (Area A) is managed as a buffer for the summit. This type of management includes preserving not only trees but also the shrubs and ground cover. 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 11 The Biological Values of Ancient Forests, Part 1 93 r.: Herb ' Grass - Shrub Young Mature Ancient Closed Closed Ancient Forest Forest Forest Forest . w w ~v a~ w K G: - C - 3- u 00 n O w 0 • 0 0 E I ~I 11 i ~ • 0 30 60 90 1201501602M 300 4W sm 600 700 Years After Clearcutting or Major Fare Figure 4-1. Deer forage during succession in Westside forests. Food becomes plentiful a few years after clearcutting or a major fire because much light reaches the ground Then. after the forest canopy close, food plants decline to a very low level. They remain sauce for several hundred years, until old trees begin to &A creating sunny spots on the forest floor where forage plantsprosper for centuries. In managed forestlands, the old-growth stage is eliminatedd, and most of the landscape is covered with dosed-canopy young forest, the stage with the lowest forage levels. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. q Page No. l gyp,, Pd ? » 14 hu I I - &Z9 + ~ fK I~t IOMIt1 Ot N/rMtA►IK/ f^ IP &P ~ c ) v • O Z O { IN + w 1 1 RSA ` < ~ ~ f n • V~ Cj) 41" A lpt J 1 `5 1fl}! l ` 6 ~ x;11' ' ~ 9. ~+1 ~11'. h 1• '~~jt 'r 1 i , 1 t a e° 1 SOIL SURVEY OF Wash ington.Cou nty, Oregon j _ • y.--''sr i • United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Luba No. 92-104 In cooperation with Exhibit No. 9 Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station Page No. iii us scs NUMBER 47 (Joins sneer 44) 7D y \ v .~-3 ~ r. 1 • J v. s. t t ~ I W-f 6- • fit' ~ . w • t ~ l Luba No.- E~ffiibit No. page NO- 91C ^ $2 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 6.-Recreational development-Continued • Soil name and Camp areas Picnic areas Playgrounds Paths and trails map symbol Xerocbrepts : '46F: Xerocbrepts part Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. Haploxerolls partSevere: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. '47D: Xerocbrepts part Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: depth to Moderate: slope. Rock outcrop part rock, slope. ' This mapping unit is made up of two or more dominant ki ds of soil. See mapping unit description for the composi on and behavior of the whole mapping unit. water table, depth to bedldk, and susceptibili to risk of polluting ground water, and traffica lity affect flooding. Stones, boulders, and 'a shallow depth to d- the suitability of a soil for this purpose. T e best soils rock interfere with installation. Excessive slo may have a loamy or silty texture, have mod ate or slow cause lateral seepage and snrt~acing of _ the efll ent in permeability, are deep to bedrock and a asonal water downslope areas. Also, soil erosion „and soil ippage table, are free of large stones and bo ders, and are are hazards where absorption-- fields are i fled in not subject to flooding. In areas wh a the seasonal sloping soils. water table is high, water seeps into he trenches and Some soils are underlain by loose sand d gravel causes problems in excavating and ing the trenches. or fractured bedrock at a depth less than feet below Also, seepage into the refuse in eases the risk of the tile lines. In these soils the absorpt' n field does pollution of ground water. Clayey oils are likely to be not adequately filter the effluent, and as result ground sticky and difficult to spread. Sa dy or gravelly soils water supplies in the area may be co inated. generally have rapid permeabi ty that might allow Percolation tests are performed determine the noxious liquids to contaminate I ground water. absorptive capacity of the soil and suitability for Unless otherwise stated, the tings in table 7 apply septic tank absorption fields. Th tests should be only to soil properties and f tures within a depth of • rformed during the season whe the water table is about 6 feet. If the trench i deeper, ratings of slight highest and the soil is at minitnu absorptive capacity. or moderate may not be slid. Site investigation is In many of the soils that ha moderate or severe needed before a site is sele ed. limitations for septic tank abso tion fields, it may be In the area type of san' ry landfill, refuse is placed possible to install special sys ms that lower the sea- on the surface of the it in successive layers. The sonal water table or to inc a the size of the absorp- limitations caused by it texture, depth to bedrock, tion field so that satisfacto performance is achieved. and stone content do t apply to this type of landfill. Sewage lagoon areas a shallow ponds constructed Soil wetness, howeve , may be a limitation because of to hold sewage while bac 'a decompose the solid and difficulty in operatin equipment. liquid wastes. Lagoons ve a nearly level flow area Daily cover for fill should be soil that is easy to surrounded by cut slo or embankments of com- excavate and sprea over the compacted fill during both pacted, nearly impervi soil material. They generally wet and dry weat er. Soils that are loamy or silty and are designed so that pth of the sewage is 2 to 5 feet. free of stones or ulders are better than other soils. Impervious soil at 1 t 4 feet thick for the lagoon Clayey soils in be sticky and difficult to spread; floor and sides is r uired.to minimize seepage and sandy soils ma be subject to soil blowing. contamination of 1 al ground water. Soils that are In addition these features, the soils selected for very high in orgy c matter and those that have stones final cover o landfills should be suitable for growing and boulders are ndesirable. Unless the soil has very plants. In c parison with other horizons, the A hor- slow permeabil' y, contamination of local ground izon in mo soils has the best workability, more or- water is a h rd in areas where the seasonal high ganic matt r, and the best potential for growing plants. water table is above the level of the lagoon floor. In Thus, for ither the area- or trench-type landfill, stock- soils where water table is seasonally high, seepage piling in terial from the A horizon for use as the of ground tv ter into the lagoon can seriously reduce surface ayer of the final cover is desirable. its capacity or liquid waste..Slope, depth to bedrock, Whe it is necessary to bring in soil material for and susce ibility to flooding also affect the location daily final cover, thickness of suitable soil material of sites f sewage lagoons or the cost of construction. avail le and depth to a seasonal high water table in Shear s ength and permeability of compacted soils soils urrounding the sites should be evaluated. Other affect t e performance of embankments. fac to be evaluated are those that affect reclama- Sani ry landfill is a method of disposing of solid do of the borrow areas, such as slope, erodibility, waste, either in excavated trenches or on the surface an potential for plant growth. of th soil. The waste is spread, compacted in layers, and c vered with thin layers of soil. Landfill areas are Building site development subject to heavy vehicular traffic. Ease of excavation,` The degree and kind of soil limitations that affect V Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. 1 88 SOIL SURVEY 0 TABLE 8.-Building site development ["Depth to rock" and some of the other terms that describe restrictive soil features are defined in the Glossary. See text for defini- tions of "slight." "moderate," and "severe." Absence of an entry means soil was not rated] Soil ma and Shallow Dwellings Dwellings Small map symbol excavations without with commercial Local roads basements basements buildings and streets Aloha: Severe: wetness Moderate: Severe: wetness Moderate: Moderate: wetness, low wetness, low wetness, strength. strength. low strength. Amity: 2 Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Moderate: wetness. Astoria: 3E. 3F Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. Briedwell: 48. 58 Severe: small Slight Slight Slight Slight stones. SC Severe: small Moderate: slope Moderate: slope Severe: slope Moderate: stones. slope. 5D Severe: small Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. stones, slope. Carlton: 68 Severe: wetness Moderate: low Severe: wetness Moderate: low Moderate: strength, strength, low strength, • wetness, wetness, shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. 6C Severe: wetness Moderate: slope, Severe: wetness Severe: slope Moderate: low strength, slope, low shrink-swell. strength, shrink-swell. Cascade: 78 Severe: wetness Moderate: Severe: wetness Moderate: slope, Moderate: wetness, low wetness, low low strength, strength. strength. wetness. 7C Severe: wetness Moderate: slope, Severe: wetness Severe: slope Moderate: wetness, low slope, low strength. strength, wetness. 7D. 7E. 7F Severe: slope, Severe: slope Severe: slope, Severe: slope Severe: slope. wetness. wetness. Chehalem: BC Severe: wetness, Severe: Severe: wetness, Severe: low Severe: low too clayey. shrink-swell, shrink-swell, strength, strength, low strength low strength. shrink-swell. shrink-swelL Chehalis: 9, 10 Severe: floods Severe: floods Severe. floods Severe. floods Severe: floods. Cornelius: 114: Cornelius part Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: slope, Moderate: wetness. shrink-swell, wetness, low shrink-swell, low strength, low strength. strength. low strength. shrink-swe1L Klnton Part M_ Moderate: Moderate: low Moderate: Moderate: slope, Moderate: wetness strength, wetness, low low strength. low strength. strength. ~'IIC: Cornelius part Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Severe: slope Moderate: wetness. shrink-swell. wetness, low slope, low low strength. strength. strength, shrink-swell. 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. °I Page No. 1.10 WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 89 TABLE 8.-Building site development--Continued soil map and Shallow Dwellings Dwellings Small Local roads snap symbol excavations without with commercial and streets basements basements buildings $inton part Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Severe: slope Moderate: wetness. low strength. wetness, low slope, low strength. strength. 11D. 3 1IE.' 11F: Cornelius part Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. $3nton part Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. r3la s Variant: -12A 126 Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Moderate: wetness, low strength. x Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Moderate: slope, wetness, low strength. `13.•14 Severe: floods, Severe: floods, Severe: floods, Severe: floods, Severe: floods, wetness, too wetness, wetness, wetness, wetness, low clayey. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell- - strength. :x -~yton. Severe: wetness, Severe: wetness, Severe: wetness, Seven: wetness, Severe: .'±s.~IS too clayey. shrink-swell, shrink-swell, shrink-swell, shrink-swell, low strength. low strength. low strength. wetness, low strength. Delena: 16C Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness Severe: wetness - Severe: wetness, low strength. Goble: 178 _ Moderate: Moderate: low Moderate: Moderate: slope - Moderate: wetness. strength. wetness, low low strength. strength. 17C Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Severe: slope Moderate: wetness. low strength. wetness, low slope, low strength. strength. 17D. 17E. 18E. 18F Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Seven: slope. Helvetia : 19B r _ Severe: too Severe: low Severe: low Severe: low Severe: low clayey, strength. strength. strength. strength. 19C Severe: too Severe: low Severe: low Severe: slope, Severe: low clayey, strength. strength. low strength. strength. 19D. 19E ________r Severe: slope, Severe: slope, Severe: slope, Severe: slope, Severe: slope, too clayey, low strength. low strength. low strength. low strength. Hembre: 20E. 20F. 20G Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. Hillsboro: 21ASlight Moderate:. low Moderate: low Moderate: low Moderate: low strength. strength. strength. strength. 21B Slight _ Moderate: low Moderate: low Moderate: slope, Moderate: low strength. strength. low strength. strength. 21C - Moderate: slope Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Severe: slope Moderate: low strength. low strength. slope, low strength. ~ID Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I t Page No. 1Q. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OFDGON 91 TABLE 8. Building site development-Continued Dwellings Dwellings Small Soil map and Shallow without with commercial I Deal roads mapafrnbol excavations basements basements buildings and streets 321). 321; 33E, 33F. 33G Severe: slope, Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. too clayey. - 01~ Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Severe: slope Moderate: depth to rode, low strength. depth to rock, slope, low too clayey, low strength. strength. 341), 34E, 35E 35f, 35G Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. z;.L pervina: _ 36C Severe: too Severe: low Severe: low Severe: slope, Severe: low clayey. _ strength, strength, low strength, strength, s swell. shrink swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. 36D, 36E 36F Severe: -slope,. Severe:.. slope, low Severe: slope, Severe: slope, Severe: slope, clayey: strength, low strength, low strength, low strength, shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. Quatama: 37A Severe: wetness - Moderate: low Severe: wetness Moderate: low Moderate: strength, strength, wetness. low strength. wetness. 37B Severe: wetness Moderate: low Severe: wetness Moderate: slope, Moderate: r strength, low strength, low strength. wetness. wetness. 37C Severe: wetness Moderate: slope, Severe: wetness Severe: slope Moderate: low strength, slope, low wetness. strength. 371) Severe: slope, Severe: slope Severe: slope, Severe: slope Severe: slope. wetness. wetness. Saum: 388 Moderate: depth Moderate: depth Moderate: depth Moderate: slope, Moderate: to rock, too to rock, low to rock, low depth to rock, low strength, clayey. strength, strength, low strength. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink swell. 38C Moderate: depth Moderate: slope, Moderate: depth Severe: slope Moderate: to rock, too depth to rock, to rock, slope, slope, low clayey, slope. low strength. low strength. strength, shrink swell. 38D. 38E 38F Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. Tolke: 39L 39F Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope _ Severe: slope. Udifluvents: 40 Severe: floods, Severe: floods, Severe: floods, Severe: floods, Severe: floods, wetnec. wetness. wetness. wetness. wetness. Verboort: 42 Severe: wetness, Severe: floods, Severe: floods, Severe: floods, Severe: too clayey, wetness, wetness, wetness, floods, wetness. floods. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell shrink-swell. Wapato: 43 Severe: wetness, Severe: floods, Severe: floods. Severe: floods, Severe: floods. floods. wetness. wetness. wetness. wetness. Willamette : 44A Slight Moderate: low Moderate: low Moderate: low Severe: low strength, strength, strength. strength. • shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. 448 Slight Moderate: low Moderate: low Moderate: slope, Severe: strength, strength, low strength, low strength. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. Luba No. -92-104 Exhibit No. q Page No. t a.I- •92 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 8. Building site development-Continued Soil map and Shallow Dwellings Dwellings Small Local roads map symbol excavations without with commercial and stree basements basements buildings 44C. 44D Moderate: slope Moderate: slope, Moderate: slope, Severe: slope vere: low low strength, low strength, strength. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. Woodburn: 4SA Severe: wetness Moderate: Severe: wetness Mode Moderate: ode : Moderate: w wetness, low ess, low strength, strength, ow strength, shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. 4SB Severe: wetness Moderate: Severe: wetn Moderate: slope, Moderate: low wetness, low wetness, low strength, strength, strength. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. 45C Severe: wetness Moderate: slope, S ere: wetness Severe: slope Moderate: wetness, low slope, low strength. strength, shrink-swell. 4SD Severe: slope, Severe: s Severe: slope, Severe: slope Severe: slope. wetness. wetness. Xerochrepts": '46F: Xerochrepts part Severe: slope _ Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. Haploxerolls part Severe: s Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope Severe: slope. '471): Reroehrepts---- part vere: depth to Severe: depth to Severe: depth to Severe: depth to Severe: depth rock, slope. rock, slope. rock, slope. rock, slope. to rock, slope. Rock outc part 'This mapping unit is made up of two or more dominant kinds of soil. See mapping unit description for the composition and be- havior of the whole mapping unit. shallow excavations, dwellings with and without base- by slope of the soil and the probability of flooding. ments, small commercial buildings, and local roads and Ratings do not apply to soil horizons below a depth of streets are indicated in table 8. A slight limitation 6 feet unless otherwise noted. indicates that soil properties are favorable for the In the soil series descriptions, the consistence of specified use; any limitation is minor and easily over- each soil horizon is defined and the presence of very come. A moderate limitation indicates that soil proper- firm or extremely firm horizons, usually difficult to ties and site features are unfavorable for the specified excavate, is indicated. use, but the limitations can be overcome or minimized Dwellings and small commercial buildings referred by special planning and design. A severe limitation in- to in table 8 are built on undisturbed soil and have dicates one or more soil properties or site features are foundation loads of a dwelling no more than three )~__so unfavorable or difficult to overcome that a major in- stories high. Separate ratings are made for small com- crease in construction effort, special design, or intensive mercial buildings without basements and for dwellings maintenance is required. For some soils rated severe, with and without basements. For such structures, such costly measures may not be feasible. (fig. 14) soils should be sufficiently stable that cracking or sub- sidence from settling or shear failure of the foundation do not occur. These ratings were determined from lines. telephone and power transmission lines, base- estimates of the shear strength, compressibility, and ments, open ditches, and cemeteries. Such digging or shrink-swell potential of the soil. Soil texture, plastic- trenching is influenced by the soil wetness of a high ity and in-place density, potential frost action, soil seasonal water table, the texture and consistence of wetness, and depth to a seasonal high water table were soils, the tendency of soils to cave in or slough, and also considered. Soil wetness and depth to a seasonal e presence of very firm, dense soil layers, bedrock, high water table indicate potential difficulty in pro- large stones. In addition, excavations are affected viding adequate drainage for basements, lawns, and Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. )A3- a. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 93 w- y J Figure 14.-Homesites on Laurelwood silt loam soils. gardens. Depth to bedrock, slope, and the large stones ratings of good, fair, or poor. The texture, thickness, in or on the soil are also important considerations in and organic-matter content of each soil horizon are the choice of sites for these structures and were con- important factors in rating soils for use as construction sidered in determining the ratings. Susceptibility to materials. Each soil is evaluated to the depth observed flooding is a serious limitation. and described as the survey is made, generally about Local roads and streets referred to in table 8 have 6 feet. an all-weather surface that can carry light to medium Roadfill is soil material used in embankments for traffic all year. They consist of subgrade of the under- roads. The ratings reflect the ease of excavating and lying soil material; a base of gravel, crushed rock working the material and the expected performance of fragments, or soil material stabilized with lime or the material after it has been compacted and adequ- cement; and a flexible or rigid surface, commonly of ately drained. The performance of soil after it is stab- asphalt or concrete. The roads are graded with soil ilized with lime or cement is not considered in the material at hand, and most cuts and fills are less than ratings, but information about soil properties that 6 feet deep. determine such performance is given in the descrip- The load-supporting capacity and the stability of tions of soil series. the soil as well as the quantity and workability of fill The ratings apply to the soil profile between the A material available are important in design and con- horizon and a depth of 5 to 6 feet. It is assumed that struction of roads and streets. The AASHTO and soil horizons will be mixed during excavation and Unified classifications of the soil and the soil texture, spreading. Many soils have horizons of contrasting density, shrink-swell potential, and potential frost ac- suitability within the profile. The estimated engineer- tion indicate the traffic-supporting capacity used in ing properties in table 11 provide more specific in- making the ratings. Soil wetness, flooding, slope, depth formation about the nature of each horizon that can to hard rock or very compact layers, and content of help determine its suitability for roadfill. large stones, all of which affect stability and ease of Soils rated good have low shrink-swell potential, excavation, were also considered. low potential frost action, and few cobbles and stones. Construction materials They are at least moderately well drained and have slopes of 15 percent or less. Soils rated fair have a The suitability of each soil as a source of roadfill, plasticity index of less than 15 and have other limiting sand, gravel, and topsoil is indicated in table 9 by features, such as high shrink-swell potential, high Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. W L111 (~C 2 ~l 1~22f-/`~iN CJ~ tn~ ~c~ LGY~ilc ~o ~c cJ / G u 17 I • ~a~ ~`ce,~;~ C-U ~ ~ ..tom-z ~ - ~~c,-e1 - 12 ~'✓-~'v j ~C%cc Z, - c7ozC,yz lxf- G7 ~CL~G /C~ ~%iY -P.~~j ~~x'~U✓lc ~G.~~% GC'~~ ~/.~~-t -Ale . /.i?C-t~/i.G..t~ ,G~•c-s~l~-~-.•- ~i-1SL. ,C~,•,-Z, ./~-L'..~/7~ iCyL'~--ifL~.GG- - Luba No. 92-1 o4 Exhibit No. `i Page No. _-25 i j Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. °I Page No. W 6 -J- op 'j, 4 ~ ck- Sa x City Council Members Tigard City Hall Tigard, OR _ Enclosed please find petitions with.364 voter signatures opposing approval of Triad's propo.sed.development of 348 apartments on Little Bull Mountain. (Additional petitions are out). We hope that you will listen to the concerns of concerned citizens, and delay any decision on Triad until further consideration is given to the impact of such a development on this area. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. _-r_. Page No. 1Q7 Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGi,ED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITIO:; THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO EUILD 348NEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING RLASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jamr.ed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desia--rate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independen.t.studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in plan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family • apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. 2 i ADDR,_. S:S A 976' i~~: r~. :/,r.7.° .S•~tJ•'~7;2GtiC/ ~'1/~9`i ~y~2O ZZ/ 00, Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page 1. Page No. 118' Petition to Tigard City Council 'ADDRESS I-A A, / J •/v ct.ti G l~7LL ~t cr rZd G/ c~%, i!/ ri /iec-Ze: (<c~? Jfi ` --S 40 11 f~ "a", lis ✓ ~3~~ S' W Cegl ot~- 1033- • Luba No. 92-104 - Exhibit No. Page No. 9 Petition to Tigard City Council E ADDRESS 1 UI • •f I, ~ ~~J - .-J~`/" / I ~ ~ -•~~y'~ ~'.i ~..t.!~y f f :-.in-~x ! tu, X; 4- 7 6" . ✓ . i' C.. c'L f ~ , ~ v;' U~ yr G`U. , _ ~_.._i'_. / S IZ2 ~j / LJ G[ / / .Jrf'•'.1 ; l':f~,r ^ `r' .r_? T ✓1 / 4cid - ~•.J f i -~C'-^.- I t . i. JJ j ~ . ~`l. ~ 1 ~r / . i ..f ~ J- ,~'fi 1,-.~~. T 1 - 1. cJ ;IA V j ,mil ~ ~ [ ~ ✓ y I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 - Page No. 13 d Page 1 • Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COU14CIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENT UNITS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIRE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips (highway dept figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction would destroy and des crate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas.at summit, all areas that Council is charged with.protecting under Comprehensive plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done on unstable soils (that will not support heavy loading) as called for in Comprehen- sive plan. 4.Tigard schools are already overcrowded. Family apartments will be unacceptable increase.of students. 5. Putting estimated 3,000 cars per day onto unsignaled Naeve Road is unacceptable. Extension to Royalty Parkway must be completed before consideration is given to Triad development. Name ......'Address C) 14 7 2 j oS ~5ki J 14 i s .7zz . Ql. - /L zz. f r✓ 0 9 2 2 0722 ' Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. 1j► Name Address -27 ~o ~.i 41~- 17 i Luba No. 2-1 Exhibit No. Page No. iA Petition to Tigard City Council `I J THE Z' THE VE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREAm SEO.. TIGARD, PETITIO*_1. THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348_dEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THEFOLLOWIIIG REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and des crate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged wita protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in nlan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. I-TAME* . ADDRL S S .2;26~ If CV - X5 &~Q q(r L/ CT- 2 i Al S 5 ,,,z Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page 1. Page No. 131 Petition to Tigard City Council SAME 'ADDRES'S -7 2a- 3 c a - 97ZZ ~9 7. ~.G.. a o . S S Gi Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. q - - - - _ Page No. ill Petition to Tigard City Council C~ - [dE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITIO:: THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO R JECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348_JEW APARITENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT TINS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept, figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jamt*:ed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desecrate Little Bull.Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in nlan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family . apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. ,AME.. AD IKE S'S F-4 j 7 -7 ;ricer . :~G% S ~ , a ~ •u1: p u • , ~ - a... vq Zf, i_ Luba No. k-104 Page 1, Exhibt No. `l Pam No. 135 Petition to Tigard City Council TIAAiE ADDRESS r LA_ L_ /0395' r ~ "ijl ✓ ' i L~ J / G Y 1, Gr .J J / ti% l ~c I U O G W ~~✓~C r~ 2' -6tl 44 /61.; J7 v v /vt 2zza~, ~,z_ J A,1~~ 1) s- Vt) Xj a A.- is / li c'y ~ .c • r l' R - . ~ c ~ ~--Li~ , _ Luba No. 92-lo4 Exhibit No. 9 Paqe No. t 3(o Petition to Tigard City COL. i1 , rlAt`fE ADDRESS ell J ✓ 1 ' « L ~~.,c~~ 7 i~' ~ ~ , C ~-CAL-yc~~ ~U~-~-- A ice.--~z ;.r - ~ / "7 .r c % Y • ~ ~.J ~ ,,_r'.. t 1; J. Z4-. -szd 41, -~tj ~L) Luba No. 92-104 - - Exhibit No. 9 Page No. 131 Petition to Tigard City Council • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITIO'.: THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 dEW APAKMENTS ON "LITTLE HULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jarmned streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desiEbrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in plan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family • apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. J-.AME 9'Y1 Ie jr 2/'n , Sh) AAie A, ~e -4 .C c CL :~I%i` . -Ae z° Z d ct; - j S • "B~Le~,~ L0C i '~~?C~i/?rte 76S- S.LubalNo. 92-104 - Exhibit No. I Page 1, Page No. ► B Petition to Tigard City Council NAME ADDRESS 1 =t 9 1 1 77- 9 0 SLO /-J~ (--7/,-7t A?L- LI All Al - t{ Kt.. j~ji f1~ t` ly f?!4~ Luba No v 92-104 i ~ - 3Z _ - Exhibit No. 01 45 Page No. 131 Petition to Tigard City Council . THE UNDERSIG: ED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PE TI i IO'_: THE T IGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348NEW APARiT1!ENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jami:ed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and des2crate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged wita protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for ir_ Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in plan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family • apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. ADDR--SS • -rl ~ •-LL ~ ~ ~ ~ 5~ 'r 'I .~/LAY it/-~7Y.L''C s G. .j . 5 I~ 0l 1 icj' f~~a~~ l~ ` L ~j u-: ~Z C-4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Q Page 1. Page No. 14d Petition to Tigard City Council N.A." E - ADDRE S S L/ ji , ~'l~"~Cl1Li ll~' IJU~J ) IE%../^~~( l v i :L • _ i:,+y, . %C' /~y: GI / ~I i c' ~J'L-%y .C IC, 4 ~c?.i i~~• C~ Lai 5' Loa s i6 &z f, " S 77- k -Olt -7 J~ l yt4, /J 172 Z . . . . . . . G 5 W '14. '14 - 7 2:T . ~~"--h C•. ~i i~"~ S ~ r Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 01 Page No. Ittl Petition to Tit,:.~:ci City CoLncil r1AA1E ADDRESS V/ '(J ~ ~ /Oci S-CJ C o FJ/' 10 . -ol 1-124 Luba No. 92-104 j Exhibit No. Page No. 4-1 Petition to Tigard City Counc.LI • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATEn TIGARD, PETI:IO:: T~?, TIGA RD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 3:4: =U APAR:?.'ENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWIN1G RZASO`S : 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-ja=-.ed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desBcrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged wita protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent-studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in plan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family • apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. TiAME.... ADDREEZS.S. . X1. A Sc,I Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. q Page 1. Page No. Petition to Tigard City Council NA 1, it ADDRESS :s 6 1(f4 re n 1 • S5: 5..~~. / 1 icY2~ - WAtu- l 73 "L Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. R Page No.'ItY Petition to Tigard City Council NAME ADDRES-S 01 22 :5--W /0 -3 0 d/~ f 9 / (V , L~(~~N /~•~G-G~G C.X./ ~v V !t^~-G~ /C~ ~ ~ . Cy I S l0 " L5,tAJ % /c%i o c l rc . 1141v,'f _ Luba No. 92-104 r-' Exhibit No. 9 Page No. ) +3 ~~.s3~ SCE tuba No• 92-JO4 Exhibit No' page No' Page 1 Petition to Tigard City Council • I.TE, THE UNDERSIGNED kESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGi1RD, PI TI"<IO:. TEIE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BLIL.D 3118 NE14 APARTMENT UNITS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUN'T'AIN" AT THIS TINE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips (highway dept figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction would destroy and des&crate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas.at summit, all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Comprehensive plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done on unstable soils (that will not support heavy loading) as called for in Comprehen- sive plan. 4.Tigard schools are already.:.overcrowded. Family apartments will • be unacceptable increase.of students. 5. Putting estimated 3,000 cars per day onto unsignaled Naeve Road is unacceptable. Extension to Royalty Parkway must be completed before cons-ideration is given to Triad development. Name ........Address 4~ k ~ x icy e, of Ij T4 q 4 Luba No. 92-104 /.1 Q2 'Cr Exhibit No. Of Page No. _141 Name Address Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. Page 1 Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FZ.ESIDEr;TS OF GREATER TTGAPD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENT UNITS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips (.highway dept figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction would destroy and desicra.te Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir- Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas.at summit, all, areas that Council is charged with protecting under Comprehensive plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done on unstable soils (that will not support heavy loading) as called for in Comprehen- sive plan. 4.Tigard schools are already overcrowded. Family apartments will be unacceptable increase-of students. 5. Putting estimated 3,000 cars per day onto unsignaled Naeve Road is unacceptable. Extension to Royalty Parkway must be completed before consideration is given to Triad development. Name Address i A. i 14 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. 14Q Page 1 Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATIpN TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENT UNITS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips (highway dept figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction would destroy and desicra.te Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas.at summit, all areas that Council is charged with protecting; under Comprehensive plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done on unstable soils (that will not support heavy loading) as called for in Comprehen- sive plan. 4.Tigard schools are already overcrowded. Family apartments will be unacceptable increase.of students. 5. Putting estimated 3,000 cars per day onto unsignaled Naeve Road is unacceptable. Extension to Royalty Parkway must be completed before consideration is given to Triad development. Name Address P do 912 z ~ 't, 61 Y-7 ZZ~y ~9,z A- 1CL v~ L' vt...) ~ ~.0 S ~Yri 1t V~~1 Pnclo,,) L, ` 7zZq Luba No. 8.2 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. 66 Nape Address ?li.l'.L 712 ? i 'VL.' (.'Cry "l V G" :i ~(i L-; 1 _ ~•lj` .1 / ~i/yJ/~''/~~~j/~ Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 451 Petition to Tigard City Council , WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITIO'_: THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348NEW APARiT'ENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING RLASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept, figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-ja=..ed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and deskcrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent-studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined'in ulan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family • apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. r . ; . TiAMEv ;Y;!'% -V "K-41" t/~. ADDRF. S S S 5J5y 111/1 r i ✓~lcJ ~2c < G~G~L v 'e -1 . G~~-i" / Vii- - / / ~(i`~~ ,~Z~GL/.... ' .l' • ' }/1~•(~4i~t~.~~ Yi G S sYf . ^ . fi.-~ 'f ~<`'-z - `c r Luba No. 92-104 - Exhibit No. I Page 1, Page No. 15-L Petition to Tigard City Council NAME ADDRESS , i r ~ i G` ~ rte- ~lG ~ ~~1 y~/G ~/.~1 / _ ! y v / mac. ,i 14, Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. t s 3 Page 1 Petition to Tigard City Council . WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF GREATER F GREATER IG~D PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENT UNITS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips (.highway dept figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction would destroy and desecrate Litt.le.Bull Mountain. Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir- Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas.at summit, all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Comprehensive plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done on. unstable soils (that will not support heavy loading) as called for in Comprehen- sive plan. 4.Tigard schools are already:.overcrowded. Family apartments will . be unacceptable increase.of students. 5. Putting estimated 3,000 cars per day onto unsignaled Naeve Road is unacceptable. Extension to Royalty Parkway must be completed before consideration is given to Triad development. Name Address.. 27- 'i ~ •i L ~ Lt ~l 'f j' v~liL'r 4.1 LQ~ - - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ r ' / l,. i .✓~✓...Il':.•~ ~i J rte /6 7- Luba No. 92-104 { s i C`C~-t i~ ~l 7 C ► Exhibit No. GI,LL~~I~/ eiS'~ Page No. 15-1 Aaaxess 1,5 31 1,00 ) , ~4 4G' f , 1 , iv ~ f..►ti ~ 7y , ,ham. I ( ~ ~ V v ' t~.^ too' J page (4 ^r Z~/1~Il~i • l cU~PG~fie~ "~,C City Council Members-- These additional petitions bringing the total number of Tigard signers asking, you to deny Triad's application for 348 apartments on Little Bull Mountain to almost 700. Volunteers who circulated the petitions report only two persons among the many contacted who believed it should be allowed at this time. Main concerns reported were lack of valid, independent studies; failure to uphold comprehensive plan which designates summit and Little Bull Mountain forest as "special area"; ignoring previous staff recommendation in plan which says only single family residential should be allowed; traffic conce?s putting more cars on already congested streets; unacceptable overcrowding of schools. • • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. 154 Petition to Tigard Cite Council 1,TE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITIO", T-IE' TIGt,RD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348NEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE-FOLLOWI14G REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in nlan will support roads and 3-stc--y apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family . apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. NA ADDRL iS . ,ME ,e-7 . . 7 1~~i 17 q 7, -P -14 3C~ 73 , - / iLo, 6~~, 1Z 11, aU ::.....v. 44., :_S4 17 0L Cr ?:7 0V y Z 0 7 U 'Say c~h r J ~ rat r ?_-7 ~1/ mi,,Q L ✓I, , d /1 G) 7 Z/ Luba No. 92-104 - Exhibit No. Q 4y Page 1. Page No. iS1 Petition to Tigard City Council NAIME 'ADDRESS C) f Ztl) - Q . cz 9TZZ X71 z ti`Ut I ~~go 10 U?' f . u ~l 922 z Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No, q Page No. I :r8' Petition to Tigard City Council ADDRESS . . ~l C 1• I C, C ( ) 1 `l C /s J l L i lo, u A L r b/i T-tq-a'd Ohq s 2-3 i~v ~zz A-, - e1c, ~ r rte; - ~ ,lL,~ , n~~r-rte -~-•~T' ~ i ...d Z 2 LZ)-.> Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. - - - - Page No. i s Petition to Tigard City Council r.-, THE UNDERSIG::ED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITIO'_; THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348_dEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL ZIOUINTAIN" AT TPIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING RLASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged witii protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in plan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student* increases. ADDRSS 'St4 /Sz~/14V . ..OW.F7 U / 1, /r-~ 61 14 Q-?4~ Z) T164R4> OR 7Z7~4 L~2 dcL~ . ~~'G Z --SW ( - Of, 9 7.72 ~,&V d/X4 ad- 5" 76W Cur: z. Aj- 9.7 art _ it Jn_ 2L~ r _ Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 11 Page 1. Page No. i foo WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348_JEW APARiM~ENTS • ON "LITTLE HULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING RLASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged wit►i protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in plan will support roads and.-3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. • Petition to Tigard City Council . . ADDRESS NAME G~ / 6z~C l8 ju~ ~ n / Luba No. 92-104 R q~ Exhibit No. 9 _ Page No. t i l lJ N;Al,IE . . . HU:J CLJJ Zal l / 77( 14 i Ste. °7P7~; f v7"~~^~( :1 - , i'~r~ c ``7~~ -1 SLR. •l I ! ! G l i~. i,-C J t~ i ~~i J f.. . . . . cfio 7. 411 ck~ Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 01 Page No. I < Y tzu, • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Q Page No. (16 AllJKE S tS ~-.~G~ - SLR X71/ 77 Ict r 98, ftC(:.UU0C A ./4.790 s e,J `7' y4 l ~9 5 .~~j.. . S/0 n PY. r A-w ..SPA Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 14 of Petition to Til~erd City Council Nk',IE ADDRESS S S.1w cr-v Jt~ ~C~~. (SU ~-C) i ► 1 ~~c~~ ~ ~ ~ ,.S ~ r . ~ cf ~7 Z..2 y . . T76 1147~ SO (O-D 72Z Z5-~~,Z S 5, (0 6 N,~64,,J 7 lee, Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -5- _ Page No. t 5 Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIG +ED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETIiIO'_: THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO EUILD 348-NEW APAR171ENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jamm=ed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged wit:z protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in Ulan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family • apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increases. LAME ADDRESS ~ n ~s 171 - ,i is v iA Q~ Jr, S _ ~i f _ 6✓I.t.a /iii ✓ Q/►~`J 1616d Luba No. 92-104 Page 1. Exhibit No. 9 Page No. I (P to Petition to Tigard City Council NAME ADDRESG ~ Z-1-1 751"~~'Z/I/ro r2td r Luba No. 92-104 T %f d Exhibit No. C Page No. 141 Petition to Tigard City Council i NAME ADDRESS J " ✓ ll.~ 7'L C'%f i' l ~ prh ~~3',""`iyLL{.Yll~i':~ ! J ~K ~.J (iJ ~L K Y.(`•: /~G•' i r , lJ UAL yam. -2 . . 1 . 40 r ` Luba No. 92-104 . - Exhibit No. All, - - Page No. 169 ~ ✓.)~i.. J~,~-/ /i'L` j/aLPi-vt~ / < c,'t G`~ `-"-T[.a<..l -j Page 1 Petition to Tigard City Council , THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGAR D CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 Ni:•I APARTi•IENT UNITS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1. Adding 2,088 car trips (highway dept figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction would destroy and desicra.te Little Bull Mountain. Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas.at summit, all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Comprehensive plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done on unstable soils (that will not support heavy loading) as called foz in Comprehen- sive plan. 4.Tigard schools are already :overcrowded. Family apartments will • bEc ur,aciaptaviE: J.icrease of stu%de.-1 5. Putting estimated 3,000 cars per day onto unsignaled Naeve Road is unacceptable. Extension to Royalty Parkway must be completed befo-re consideration is given to Triad development. Name Addtess NJ . 'e.. . ii . # G ~i ..ems . , Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 01 i Page No. t (6 F•ddress ~10a ,r Name 153 ' ' ~ <f i J /J I CJ- vc, J~~ 6a 5-Aj IN ~j r 47 a3 114Z 7/5, 92 No. t~4" Luba E)~lhibW No. a c page No Address Name /3``1 S• 11 Lf F3 s, ~ _ jt~th Gfi 0 ^I Co ft lJ Luba No. 92-i( ExKibit No. 1 Page No. _1= fate 1. Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, f'ETlT 0:: TIfE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO i:t; I LD 348 NEW APARTMENT UNITS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TI'lE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips (highway dept figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction would destroy and desiccate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas.at summit, all areas that Council is charged with protecting under Comprehensive plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done on unstable soils (that will not support heavy loading) as called for in Comprehen- sive plan. 4.Tigard schools are already overcrowded. Family apartments will be unacceptable increase.of students. 5. Putting estimated 3,000 cars per day onto unsignaled Naeve Road is unacceptable. Extension to Royalty Parkway must be completed before consideration is given to Triad development. Name Address V c .ri tf G{S.. d... LA rl> 134,1 a~ G124 ` CZ--1 64 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 pane No. " Name Address CJ swr aa; r 1 v r _ j 7ov 2,C- SGT/ l sue' s s u/ ~z T ti y? y r - %7z z ~ ~&92 G2 10 ~j l so~ Sc~ I,t2 CIO- 711,J 4, ~z 7-Z2 4' C/ 7 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. q Paoe No. 1 Name Address L z d a_ ~r(} if _ ~ j y ~ Q `J • ~ ~ d J J - / r~~~Z~v ' 7aQ q _ c~3 U . jUl~ 1'C ► Y1 lje c L° dJ C a or, o~ C-7 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -I- Paae No. 1 Address Name 2- 2- ~dt t. ~ 1 Luba No. 9~_10_4 Exhibit No. - Page No. 1 f\ Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on the proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, im- pact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at the summit--all areas that Council is char- ged with protecting under Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Com- prehensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in the plan wil support roads and 3-story apartments. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apart- ments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increaseses. . Name Address CC, u%-A w T4-I /,S (.1 -/J1.~22._S_-= 11 JJ_LZ __P- -----------s~_2z_ r r~= -------f - 15 ~Q~G ~A) 3 3 - - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I-- Page No. Of. 1 i i Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on the proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, im- pact the character of Kallst.rom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at the summit--all areas that Council is char-- ged with protecting under Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Com- prehensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in the plan wil support roads and 3-story apartments. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apart- ments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increaseses. Name Address S-~~--y _-f 5---_-- A.Z i L~~//-------n _1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Q Page No. 171 Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT -THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on the proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest,-im- pact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at the summit--all areas that Council is char- ged with protecting under Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Com- prehensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in the plan wil support roads and 3-story apartments. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apart- ments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increaseses. • Name Address / X77 7_;,v-41c / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 01? • Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on the proposed site would destroy and desecrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, im- pact the-character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at the summit--all areas that Council is char- ged with protecting under Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Com- prehensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in the plan wil support roads and 3-story apartments. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apart- ments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increaseses. Name Address - -----fir - - s~' - - i ~ -------------------------I---------------------------------------- • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. i1q, • Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF GREATER TIGARD, PETITION THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348 NEW APARTMENTS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (highway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jammed streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on the proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, im- pact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at the summit--all areas that Council is char- ged with protecting under Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Com- prehensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in the plan wi.l support roads and 3-story apartments. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apart- ments added at this time would result in unacceptable student increaseses. Name Address __S W_ Ir --`'-J----------- - • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. i tri Petition to Tigard City Council WE, THE UNDERSIGidED, RESIDENTS OF GREATE TIGARD, PLTITIO:: THE' TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE TRIAD APPLICATION TO BUILD 348_dEI-I APAR'=M.Et'TS ON "LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN" AT THIS TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING RLASONS: 1. Adding 2,088 car trips a day (higiway dept. figures) to Tigard's already gridlocked and traffic-jamned streets is unacceptable. 2. Construction of 348 apartment units on proposed site would destroy and desicrate Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, impact the character of Kallstrom Fir Grove and destroy wildlife and natural areas at summit--all areas that Council is charged wita protecting under Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 3. Independent studies have not been done as called for in Compre- hensive Plan to determine if unstable soils defined in plan will support roads and 3-story apartment buildings. 4. Tigard schools are already seriously overcrowded. Family apartments added at this time would result in unacceptable student • increases. 1 1:-. ME ' ADDRESS / /W 140-Z-1L/ roes 5~~=~%~~ . 17 7 72- 1 ~ Luba No. 2-~ Exhibit No. Page No. Page 1. Effective Approaches Much, if not_most, ~of the,lema►ini~q~atural areaa.._ in Tigard could completely disappear _as _the..-community._.approaches -full development. However, .,~,~}mss plisible to _preserve sictnificant~port 9P5-of f"Jie -.natural life found here despite this general trend. To do so the community will need to: 1. Protect existing natural veget~a~t~',~a (ta^ees, shrubs, and grasses) wherever posse a e.g. in par s) especii)-.1.~..~ along watercourses. 2. Use native plants in landscaping. 3. Leave wetlands and riparian areas in their natural state (e.g. discourage filling, channelization, dra.in:,.cse, etc.). 4: Control runoff and erosion to protect aqu&.tic habitat and wetlands. 5. Provide corridors for wildlife movement (e.g. as through the Greenway System). 6. Leave non-hazardous snags along streams and in.wetlands. Many of these measures to provide future natural areas and values also accomplish another useful functions as outlinuO elsewhere (e.g. see sections on Runoff and Erosion, Scenery, Ground Instability, etc.). r C. Special Areas In addition to the general policies to help protect natural vegetation and wildlife, specific areas have been suggested by specialists for preservation, through fee purchase if necessary. These arc-z,. (•+c•re singled out for priority attention because of: 1) their particular vcif(-I:ation and wildlife values, and/or 2) their relative uniqueness. Other fz;ctors such as the cost of preservation will, of course, also have to be c.on--idered. The six areas which were identified are the: 1. Summer Creek marsh (east of 130th anc, :ov th of Scholls Ferry Road). This unique 12 acre marsh-pond comple.r: t suggested for preservation by both the district field biologist for t=he state Department of Fish and Wildlife and a field biologist with tite Nature Conservancy. 2. Forested Northeast s)~pes~o~BulLt1ol1~1~•:if~. The heavily--wooded steep slopes contain some large Douglas Fir- t-M ch are up to 100 feet tall and three feet in diameter. The sit(- connects with other similar sites outside the plan area. It was ,:-:_.ctmm for- reservation by the Nature Conservation Biologist 3. Summit of Little Bull mountain. This area has a heavily_-Wh u ergrowt prove ing cover for a va1.~! o'°animars°`°nc~uding deer, raccoon, 6 pheasant. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. q 1 -42 Page No. 183 2- Historic structures and cultural sites are placed within the Historic Overlay District (110) which prescribes standards and procedures for development within each (HD) area. The purpose of the standards and procedures are to preserve the structure on site, whenever possible, and ensure that any development within the district is compatible with the character of the district; both architecturally and through the overall site plan. 3. Areas designated for residential and within the Fanno Creek 100-year floodplain are protected from development encroachment is and will be preserved for greenway, open space and recreational uses. These safeguards are specifically addressed within policy language of the comprehensive plan and within the Sensitive Lands Overlay -chapter of the- Tigard Community Development Code. Some of the area designated for commercial or industrial use within Y the Fanno Creek 100-year floodplain will accommodate development provided that they meet the applicable planning policies and the ` requirements set forth in the Sensitive Lands chapter of the Tigard Community Development Code. !f 4. The provisions of these policies and ordinances will be implemented administratively by the City staff. and through the Hearings Officer, Planning Commission and City Council. eIII-7 Identified Resources e Bull Mountain Natural Fores The Little Bull Mountain natural - a a located on the-west side of Little Bu un ain was determined to be a .2ignificant Goal #5 resource as an outstanding scenic site. The size'of the treed area includes approximately 24.9 acres-. The wildlife within the site is limited to small birds and animals. The major significance of this area is its visual impact viewed from many vantage points within Tigard. This area is the largest stand of nature coniferous trees within the Tigard active urban planning area, and, therefore,, serves as a City visual landmark. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area north of Naeve Road, a Low Density Residential (1-5 units to the acre) with a Planned Development overlay zone required of any type of residential { development. - E f If the resource is~p>;eSerXed, it will be necessary to situate any structures in a manner that minimizes the loss of the trees. The land also has economic value. Given its proximity to Pacific Highway and adjacent residential areas and its topography, the land does lend itself to a low density residential use. The staff recommendation for this site is to it_contJiqJt_jD_q uses. The l immi ted conflicting M.IU ,wj„1J,_ig singe family detached residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development process, J t Y -96 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. tgH Wind - Commercial scale wind power generators .have also not yet been developed. Potential sites include wind-prone areas such as the coast, rather than the relatively calm Tualatin Valley. i Thermal Power Plants - No conventional or nuclear power plants are currently planned in the Tigard area, nor will any conceivably be suggested in the future, according to officials of Portland General Electric and Pacific Power and Light. IV NATURAL AREAS ithin the past several a wildlifp. and natural vegetation has been -recognized by an increasing proportion of -tbe public, especially Mh rega to their place in the urban environment. Large numbers of people enjoy the overall presence of binds, the color of- w%IdfIDwers, or th-e sounds of animals, while other more actively engage in nature hotograp y, y xcKi , or bird wa thing. Urban natural areas are also a part-or the outdoor classrooms for teaching children about- the- living world ijgrnUn The ready accessibility of natural areas to city dwellers red uces the necessityl'~Tm i - ivi ua s or families to travel many miles by car in order to appreciate the wonders of wild life. Natural areas, especially vegetation, also provide • visual amenities to a community by softe ct of the man-made env' ►t. All of these contribution; of natural areas font ion oge -"to j help blur the distinction between the City and the country, to bring into the City some of the most attractive features of the country. Vegetation and Wildlife Wildlife is dependent upon natural vPnptat;nn for nd shelter, and in some cases- for orotect'on. Since each animal species s special requirements, the greater the variety of habitats (and natural vegetation,) the more different kinds of animal life can be found in an area. There are four general kinds of habitat which are particularly important for a diversity of wildlife: 1. Word (which provide cover for deer, for example). 2. Brush (an often mistakenl ued Jildlife resource of great importance as cover or many animals). 3. Riverside areas (known as iparian 4. Wetlands (lands seasonally wet or with water close to the surface). The riverside areas and wetlands are the most critical for a wide diversity of animal life because they are places where extremely different- kinds of environments (aquatic and terrestrial) interface. Non-living components of the habitat can also be of great significance for some animals. Dead standing trees, or snags, are particularly valuable. In the Tigard area there are at least two mammals and nine birds (e.g. wood duck, screech owl), which are totally or heavily dependent on snags. Luba No. 92-104 -36 Exhibit No. I Page No. tit 5 DIAGRAM III - = i ' Yr~F~~;11~V ^ -+Ff ~~i~-i1► _ i~:--Irl•-;_ _Ji.IL_ , . 1 1 ~ II ITLIE 1 1 ~ + Adlbk 1 1 r TOPOGRAPHY O 12-257. SLOPE s - ISM ~ - = v . 257- • SLOPE 1 r~ i - U! R O E Luba No. 92-104 "•tl - - Exhibit No. I Page No. 194, t1 . I 1, e 1 -33 DIAGRAM IV u, I I S it 181 :II.~_.:'I'•' •:Ir~ ~ ~ I . \ I I I(~,;;II;~i" III' I A IL _ - r - _llllP l i,. _ I N'11 " li : _ i .L _ J i~l!I hl!i,l!ll!sl,i'!,i(t~`1Jl`} f~ Fit[ HN or wrrm 000, 31 §4 t., 4 I EXISTING VEGETATION - I = ae - H oEaDUOUS - - . F ' ? H wCXEO-CONIFEROUS/DECIDUOUS 0 BRUSH 171 D MEADOW - - MARSH T-Pu K.tE ~.ow I _ _ Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1~ Page No. 181 /9/n.ftt~ Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area/Triad Development Testimony presented by Paul Whitney April 6, 1992 I am Paul Whitney. I live at 12035 S.W. Bull Mountain Road about a half mile from the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area. I am a professional wildlife ecologist / biologist, I hold a PhD in Zoophysiology. I have worked as a wildlife ecologist in Portland for 16 years. I first learned about the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area about three weeks ago during a Tigard City Council Meeting. While I was waiting to talk about a proposed subdivision across the street from my house, I heard about three hours of discussion about the proposed Triad development which includes part of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area. As I listened to the testimony, I decided to learn more about the Natural Area, The Natural Features & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Report, and The Triad Development. Since then I have visited the Natural Area, the extensive open spaces adjacent to the Natural Area, and the area proposed for development by Triad. I have also read the portion of the Natural Features Report that addresses the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area and the Arbor Heights Apartments Project Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey that was prepared for Triad. This evening I would like to share some of my findings. Natural Features & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Report I found two references to wildlife in the Natural Area. One reference on page I-96 stated: "The wildlife within the site is limited to-small birds and animals." and another reference on page I42 stated: "This area has a heavily-wooded with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of . animals including deer, raccoon, and pheasant." I believe these two references are contradictory. The first reference implies there are no medium- and large-sized animals and this is the reason for not preserving wildlife resources of the Natural Area. The second reference states medium-sized (raccoon and pheasant) and large-sized (deer) animals are present. When I visited the site on April 2, 3, and 4, I found deer tracks in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area as well as on the Triad property. The deer tracks were most noticeable in the expose mud in the wetland area of - - - - - - - - - -r- - - _property. The wetland area is covered by hydrophyticvegetation and there is evidence of the Triad standing water (surface water was not present dun`rig my visits). Based on my obse-rvati_ori of deer tracks and other medium-sized animals, I believe the decision-ii ot to-preserve the Little-Bull Mountain Forest is not based on good data`.- F_ufthermore I_do not believe this criteria is adequate for judging the value of an area for wildlife. More suitable criteria should include the presence of rare; threatened, or endangered species; the diversity of wildlife habitats; the structure (e.g., layers of cover such as ground, shrub, and tree) and function (e.g. forage, cover, reproduction) of habitats present ; as well as the amount of similar type of habitat in the city. Arbor Heights Apartments Project Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey I reviewed the wildlife survey prepared by Triad. This survey is based on a site visit on March 5, 1992. Below, I discuss the summary statements presented in the Triad report. 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. V2V Area A: Coniferous Forest. My visit in early April. 1992, left me with a slightly different impression than presented in the Triad report. For example, the mature Doug1M_-fir_trees in Area A and the adjacent Natural Area are very old. I counted the rings of a 27 inch diameter fir tree that had been cut with a chain saw. The tree was at least 175 years old. The forest is very old and is just starting to take on characteristics of old growth. Figure 4-1 from Ancient Forests of the Pacific Northwest (Raven, 1990 p. 93) indicates that as this forest continues to age, there will be more and more forage that will provide high quality habitat. As an old forest continues to mature new openings in the forest canopy will let in more sunlight and will likely result in more layers in the canopy. Dead and downed trees, snags, forest openings, and increased forage will result in better wildlife habitat than is now present. To summarize, medium-and large- sized animals are present in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area and tht-'s ana adjacent sfands maybe the only opportunity for preserving an old forest in the Tigard City Limits. Area B: Orchard and Deciduous Forest. The wildlife assessment for this area of the Triad property appears to be based on the presence of an abandoned/senescent orchard and the lack of deer sign. I own an old (approximately 60 year old trees) apple orchard on Bull Mountain and the trees have rotten heartwood (cavities) that provides nesting habitat for birds. My trees are not maintained but none the less they produce a lot of fruit every year there is a good fruit set. Last year the weather was bad when the apple trees blossomed and the flowers were apparently not fertilized. There was hardly a bushel of apples produced per acre. The year before, a good fruit set year, the same acre of apple trees produced hundreds of bushels. It is not surprising that apples were not found on the Triad property after a. poor fruit set year. I am interested that the Triad report identified this area as a senescent orchard. While I observed a lot of irregularly spaced fruit trees in bloom I would not call this area an orchard and the trees I observed did not show sign of heart rot, snags, or cavities that one would expect in an old orchard. Had the trees on this area been senescent they would have been even better for wildlife. Area C: Deciduous Forest and Scattered Conifers. The Triad report judged this area as moderate to low habitat value due to the relatively low abundance of fruit and seed-bearing species in the understory. I find this to be a most unusual statement for every plant on the site with the exception of the ferns, mosses, and algae produce fruits and or seeds. When I was on the site, I observed a varietyof fruit and berry producing species such as strawberry, thimbleberry, huckleberry, dogwood, blackberry, snowberry, elderberry, rose, holly, Oregon grape, and salal. I'm not too sure its appropriate to place so much emphasis on fruit and seeds because a lot of wildlife depend more on other parts of plants such as leaves or don't even eat plants at all. SUMMARY 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. t ` _ The Triad report examines function of the wildlife habitat in this summary section. I . agree that, save the small wetland, there is not much water on the site. However, the site is an upland site with a southern exposure and southern exposures are typically dry. The lack of a stream or lake should not be used as a criteria to rate an upland southern exposure as low quality habitat. This site is judged by the Triad report as having moderate food present. While the mature forest portion to the north may not have optimal forage in the understory, this certainly is not a concern as one proceeds down slope. I would judge the non coniferous portions of the site: as very productive (see Figurg 1). The mixed forest portions of the site have a dense ground cover, abundant shrub cover and an open tree canopy. All of this productivity is in close proximity to the dense thermal cover of the mature forest. The entire site is interspersed with small pockets of open wet areas and blackberry thickets. The Triad site is closely linked to the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area, the stand of mature conifers to the west of the Natural Area, other woodlands, and a large open manicured forest and tree farm to the south and east. I would not be surprised to hear that wildlife moved from this area across the golf course to the Tualatin River. The summary statement that: "The wildlife species which use or probably use the site most are small birds and rodents." is open to alternative interpretation. The Triad report does not take into account that there are medium- and large-sized birds on the site. For example, I observed crows on the site, extensive woodpecker excavations that were similar to the excavations made by pileated woodpeckers, and the Natural Features Report sites pheasant as being present. I live a half mile away on a somewhat manicured parcel and I regularly observe a variety of raptors including red-tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk and great horned owl. While on the Triad site I observed sign of several non-rodent species. For example, mole sign was abundant, I heard frogs (probably treefrogs) calling, and I observed coyote scat. I am very confident that there are weasels eating rodents and that bats forage over the site. As I mentioned above, I observed deer tracks on the Triad site and raccoons have been reported on the site. To conclude, there is apparently no rare, threatened, or endangered plants or wildlife on the Triad site. The site is not pristine, but if this were really a criteria for preserving a site for wildlife in the City, I'm afraid no site would be preserved. Since the site is not pristine and not by a stream or lake it has been judged as having moderate and low wildlife value. I do not agree with this assessment for the reasons present above. I could argue that the value of the wildlife on the Triad site and in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area ranges from low to excellent but I feel its more important to examine the value of the wildlife habitat within the context of the other upland wildlife habitat within the City of Tigard. I believe the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area and the adjacent conifer stand is the best example of old forest in the City and the value of the habitat is going to improve every year. I believe the City Council should take a second look at the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area and the criteria used to recommend areas for preservation. I also believe the Triad site has a lot more than small birds and rodents. The northern portion of the Triad site is just starting to display signs of excellent old/mature habitat (see Figure 1), snags and rotting logs are common. The likelihood that the wildlife habitat in Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest Area will increase in value will be greatly enhanced if the northern portion of the Triad site (Area A) is managed as a buffer for the summit. This type of management includes preserving not only trees but also the shrubs and ground cover. • 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. lio The Biological Values of Ancient Forests, Part 1 93 - Herb Grass Shrub Young Mature Ancient I Closed Closed Ancient Forest Forest Forest Forest 14 Mf 1~1 NI M ea n O O C 7 1 f 0 30 60 90 120150190 200 300 a00 500 600 700 Years After Clearcutting or Major Fire Figure 4-1. Deer forage during succession in Westside forests. Food becomes plentiful a few years after clearcutting or a major fire because much light reaches the ground. Then, after the forest canopy closes, food plants decline to a very low level. They remain scarce for several hundred years, until old trees begin to die, creating sunny spots on the forest floor where forage plants prosper for centuries. In managed forestlands, the old-growth stage is eliminated, and most of the landscape is covered with closed-canopy young forest, the stage with the lowest forage levels. • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. t4 t Send i Court c;l N(l twc (~t#~.+• ,414 Iq 2 on April 6, 1992 RECEIVED PLANNING APR O B DEPARTMENT OF 1992 ONEGOe FISH AND Jerry Offer WILDLIFE City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Jerry: I have visited the Arbor heights apartment project and have reviewed the wildlife habitat resources survey (Fishman Environmental Serv.) and the project design blueprints. The wildlife report does not accurately portray the existing wildlife and their habitats at the site. The site is an overgrown farm/orchard/coniferous woodlot with excellent wildlife habitat because of the variety of plant species that provide food and cover. While at the site,. I viewed. several species of birds, 2 coyotes, squirrels, many deer tracks, raccoon tracks, tree frogs, and a racer (snake). The area that provided the greatest diversity of plant species and cover was the northern halves of lots 7 and 8 (B and C in the Fishman report) not the coniferous forest lot (A in the Fishman report). The coniferous forest lot has poor understory plant species composition and % cover (it is dominated by English ivy and holly). The combination of habitat types contributes to the overall value of the site to wildlife. Therefore, I-disagree with the Fishman report on area B and C and their conclusions. Lot A is not the most valuable Goal 5 resource on the site and as a site on its own it provides little diversity and would probably be used primarily by birds (on this I agree with the Fishman report). Even if the other 2 lots are dominated by non-native and cultivated (orchard) trees they provide more food and cover for many more species of wildlife than birds. The blueprints do not indicate wetlands on the site. However, there is an area directly to the w... east of the cement pond (cistern? that has been fenced off) that had sedges growing in it and 1? standing water. It is my guess there is a spring on the hillside that has been impacted by 2501 SIB' Fist Avenue tractors or heavy equipment in the past and the 1'0130.59 Vo-land. OS 97207 2 5400 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. r,___ 00,. , c t' { water spreads out quite a bit. The area should have its soil profile examined for hydric soils to determine if the area would qualify as a .wetland:-....If so, a DSL permit will have to be obtained'for the project. As far as-the plan for Arbor heights, I recommend that the outlay. of the complex save more open space than the current design, the non-native plant species to be planted around the complex be replaced by native species, and, if possible, a .common. area:.or play area for children be created so- that:;:_the kids- will not heavily impact the remaining°, open, . area - . Sincerely;,. Doug Cottam Urban Wildlife Biologist \'Y cc: Herb McEwen Luba No. 2-1 Exhibit No. page No. 11.3_ • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director DATE: April 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Response to Issues on Triad Continuance Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey City staff has reviewed the Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey report prepared by Fishman Environmental Services for the proposed Triad development site. A copy of the study has also been forwarded to Doug Cottam, Urban Habitat Specialist with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, for comments. We are awaiting written comments from Mr. Cottam. His comments will either be included with this memo if received prior to copying, or else will be hand carried to the Council meeting. • The Fishman report concludes that the proposed development site has low to moderate wildlife habitat value due primarily to prior human disturbance to the site and surrounding properties as well as its location not being near a stream or water body, nor is the site connected to any other extensive undisturbed site. This determination is consistent with the prior decision within the Comprehensive Plan not to designate this area as an area with important value for wildlife (Comprehensive Plan Volume I, Diagram V, page I-41) despite text in the Plan generally identifying the Little Bull Mountain area as having some wildlife habitat area value. As previously stated in my March 2, 1992 memorandum to the Council, this decision is an Oregon Administrative Rules Division 16 Statewide Planning Goal #5 1-A decision not to protect this area as a significant wildlife habitat area; therefore, no special limitations upon development of this area were required by the City's Plan and implementing measures. Nevertheless, the Fishman report recommends modifications to the approved Triad site plan with regard to minimizing effects upon habitat and scenic values of the proposed development site. The Fishman report concludes that the northern and northwestern areas of the proposed development site have the greatest importance as both wildlife habitat and as a scenic value due to its mature native vegetative species composition, as compared to the remainder of the site. The Fishman report recommends revisions to the approved site plan to shift the northern-most row of buildings to • the south in order to retain additional mature coniferous trees and to reduce the amount of grading that would be necessary. The Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ck Page No. lq'f report concludes that this revision should reduce impacts upon scenic and habitat values of the proposed development. We concur. Though not required by Plan Policy 3.4.2 or Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as Ms. Davenport asserts, we believe this proposed modification would be consistent with the Planned Development approval standards of community Development Code Section 18.80.120.. A. 3. a which states that site improvements shall be designed and located to preserve existing trees and topography to the greatest extent possible. Staff therefore recommends that the Council add the following condition of development approval if the Council upholds the Planning Commission's approval of Triad's site plan: The site plan and landscaping plan shall be revised consistent with Figure 3 of the Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey report prepared by Fishman Environmental Services for the proposed Triad development site prior to any tree removal, grading, or site work. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division Soils/Geologic Concerns The City's Engineering Department has reviewed the geotechnical report submitted by Triad at the March 10, 1992 hearing and the concerns related to soils and geology of the Little Bull Mountain area raised by Marge Davenport in her letter of December 10, 1991 and orally at the March 10, 1992 hearing. Ms. Davenport refers to information found in the Volume I resource document of the Comprehensive Plan. The material in Volume I is a general description of the geology and soils of the Tigard area. It notes soils in the Little Bull Mountain area that may cause construction problems and also notes a possible inactive fault line to the east of Little Bull Mountain. Triad has submitted a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Terra Associates Inc. dated January 30, 1990. This report is far more detailed than the Comprehensive Plan information regarding the Little Bull Mountain area. The Terra report is based on test pits dug at 28 locations on the Triad property and subsequent laboratory testing of soils samples. The types of soils reported by Terra Associates are consistent with the general soils description of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on their testing, Terra Associates have described the specific weight- bearing limitations of the soils and the methods that should be used during construction to assure soil stability. The design and construction restrictions recommended by Terra Associates are not unusual in the Tigard area. We find no evidence of geologic problems which should preclude approval of the proposed development. We see no problems in incorporating the • recommendations of Terra Associates when the detailed construction and grading plans are prepared for the proposed Triad development. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. 195 • SW 109th Avenue Construction At the March 10th City Council hearing, NPO #6 chairperson Sue Carver stated that NPO #6 was willing to drop their appeal of the Commission's decision if the City and the developer formalize the preliminary draft agreement requiring the developer to contribute $300,000 towards the cost of developing the proposed section of SW 109th Avenue south of Naeve Street to Pacific Highway. The draft agreement was proposed to the Council by Triad in early December, 1991, and has been discussed at several Council meetings since that time. A copy of the draft agreement is attached. The draft agreement states that the City will provide the developer with a $300,000 credit towards required traffic impact fees in exchange for the contribution towards the cost of right-of-way acquisition and road improvements for this section of SW 109th Avenue. In addition, the draft agreement requires that the Council delete paragraph A of condition of approval 15 of the Planning commission's final order which requires the developer to construct interim road improvements to SW Naeve Street from the western edge of the Triad site to SW Pacific Highway. As you know, the Engineering Department and outside engineers have already begun preliminary design analysis for this section of SW 109th Avenue. Staff believes that acceptance of this offer from • Triad will assure that the NPO's and others' concerns related to the concurrence of road construction with development of the proposed apartments will be satisfied. Staff therefore recommends that the Council add the following condition of development approval if the Council upholds the Planning Commission's approval of the site plan: - Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer and the City shall enter into an agreement largely similar to the draft agreement proposed by Triad. Final wording of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. STAFF CONTACT: Randy Wooley, City Engineer. In addition, staff recommends that the Council delete paragraph A of condition of approval 15 of Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires the developer to construct interim road improvements to SW Naeve Street from the western edge of the Triad site to SW Pacific Highway. Summary of Recommendations Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Review SDR 91-0013 and Planned Development Review PDR 91-006 subject to the conditions of • approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC, except as recommended to be modified below. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 01 Page No. t 9 L • Staff recommends that the Council add a condition of approval requiring the developer to deposit $300,000 with the City prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the development, as described in the draft agreement. This sum is to be utilized for construction of SW 109th Avenue south of SW Naeve Street. The Council should also delete paragraph A of condition of approval 15 of Planning Commission Final order No. 91-11 PC which requires the developer to construct interim road improvements to SW Naeve Street from the western edge of the Triad site to SW Pacific Highway. In addition, the Council should add a condition requiring that the site and landscaping plans for the project be revised to correspond with Figure 3 of the Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey submitted by the applicant. In addition, the Council should adopt the March 2, 1992 and April 2, 1992 staff memoranda as appendices to the Planning Commission's final order. It is recommended that the Council direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the above for the Council's April 28, 1992 meeting. • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. v 41_ ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PROJECT WILDLIFE HABITAT RESOURCES SURVEY Submitted to: Triad/Tigard Ltd. Partnership P.O. Box 88070 i Seattle, Washington 98138 Prepared by: Fishman Environmental Services March 1992 FES Protect 441 l Fishman Environmental Services • 434 NW Sixth Avenue • Sure 34: • Pori Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. `k Page No. lqg TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE 1 III. SUMMARY OF SITE WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUES 2 IV. CONCLUSIONS 3 Table 1. Existing Vegetation and Wildlife Observed on the Arbor Heights Apartments Site 4 Figure 1. Single Family Residential Site Plan following page 4 i Figure 2. Preliminary Apartment Development Site Plan following page 4 Figure 3. Final Apartment Development Site Plan following page 4 l 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. ~q9 1. INTRODUCTION The proposed Arbor Heights Apartments development project is located in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest area identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Tigard (1983, pg. 1-96). The Comprehensive Plan Resource Document (pgs. I-36 through 1-42) makes general references to the wildlife habitat resources of the Little Bull Mountain area. The City of Tigard does not consider the Little Bull Mountain resource site.an important resource to be protected for wildlife values. Under Comprehensive Plan implementation strategy 3, following Plan Policy 3.4.2, the City is required to review proposed development adjacent to wildlife habitat areas "to ensure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized." This report discusses the existing wildlife habitat on the proposed development site and the minimization of impacts to wildlife habitat. II. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE The project site was surveyed on March 5, 1992, by Fishman Environmental Services to briefly evaluate the vegetation and wildlife habitat values. Three different habitat units, corresponding with different historical land use practices, were observed on the site. Table 1 is a list of the vegetation and bird species observed during the field survey for each area. Photographs showing typical vegetation for each habitat area are also included at the end of this report. AREA A: CONIFEROUS FOREST The area identified as the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest area is a second growth coniferous forest at the top of the slope on the north end of the property. This forested unit is not pristine, and appears to have been managed as a woodlot, leaving trees at fairly regularly spaced intervals. These trees are 50+ years old and average 18"-26" dbh (diameter at breast height). The closed canopy shades out the understory giving the appearance of an open, almost park-like effect under the trees. Diverse native species make up the scattered shrubs and groundcover layer. This area was determined to be the most visually aesthetic portion of the site, from off-site view points, by the Comprehensive Plan. The coniferous tree area is relatively small and not closely linked to a wildlife travel corridor or other large, undisturbed forest. The tree canopy is used by several bird species (Table 1) and said to be used by squirrels. The understory is too open to offer much cover for wildlife. Fruit and seed-bearing plants used by wildlife are not abundant. Wildlife Habitat Value: The wildlife habitat value is moderate to low. Our survey concurs I with the Goal 5 determination that the coniferous forest is used mostly by small bird species. AREA B: ORCHARD AND DECIDUOUS FOREST I Southward, along the west side of the property, an old, senescent orchard is located. Apple, eI1BO8 HEIG{fTS WILDIJFE NARfTAT Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. aao • pear, and/or other fruit tree varieties were grown that now appear to be nun-fruit bearing and declining in health. Other native deciduous trees have also colonized the orchard. The understory consists of dense suckers and sapling fruit trees that have reverted to an earlier stock variety and dense himalayan blackberries vines. Downslope of the orchard site, the land appears to have been kept more open and trees are widely scattered and consist mostly of larger, non- native, ornamental coniferous trees. The understory is very dense himalayan blackberries and some open areas of grass. Wildlife Habitat Value: The wildlife habitat value is moderate to low. The tree canopy is probably used by migrating insectivorous warblers and some year-round bird species. Deer sign, common in abandoned orchards that still produce fruit, was not found. This observation and the lack of rotting fruit on the ground led to the assumption that the trees are no longer producing fruit. AREA C: DECIDUOUS FOREST AND SCATTERED CONIFERS Downslope of the coniferous area along the east side of the property, deciduous trees are also dominant, but this area appears to have been managed as a woodlot also. Fewer coniferous trees were left and they are slightly smaller (younger) than those at the top of the slope. The r understory is composed of mostly native species, but is brushier, and more himalayan blackberries have become established because of the open canopy. Wildlife Habitat Value: The wildlife habitat value is moderate to low due to the relatively low abundance of fruit and seed-bearing species in the understory. Ill. SUMMARY OF SITE WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUES The components of wildlife habitat that were evaluated and rated by professional judgment were: Water Quantity & Seasonality Low Quality Low Proximity to Cover Low Food Variety Moderate Quantity & Seasonality Moderate Proximity to Cover Moderate Cover Structural Diversity Moderate Variety Moderate Seasonality Low Escape density Moderate I'hc site is not located near a stream or large open-water body nor connected to extensive undisturbed sites which would provide greater habitat value for wildlife. Recent development ARMW IWIGIMS WILDLIIT HABITAT Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. Za t has already removed much forest cover on the north side of the Little Bull Mountain. The historical disturbance of the site to various degrees has altered the natural conditions of the forest. The wildlife species which use or probably use the site most are small birds and rodents. The overall assessment of wildlife habitat value on the site is moderate to low. IV_ CONCLUSIONS Our review of the site and Tigard Comprehensive Plan documents lead us to the conclusion that Habitat Unit A, the coniferous forest unit, has more value as a Goa15 resource due to its native species composition and its scenic values. This unit is not in pristine condition, but retains some characteristics of second growth Pacific, Northwest Douglas fir forest. The other habitat units on the site are much more disturbed by human activity, and are dominated by non-native and orchard species of trees. Under Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.2, Implementation Strategy 3, the City must review development proposals to ensure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized. An early site design by the developer was for single family residential use, as shown in Figure 1. It is likely that the single family development design, utilizing 7,000 square foot lots, would have resulted in more trees removed, and fewer tree/habitat groupings remaining after clearing and grading for home site development. The site design approved by the City for apartment development is shown in Figure 2. Discussions held between Fishman Environmental Services staff, Triad Tigard Ltd. and the project engineer resulted in additional changes to the site plan for the purpose of minimizing impacts to Habitat Unit A, the coniferous forest. As shown in Figure 3, the northern-most i groupings of buildings and facilities have been moved south, leaving a larger unit of coniferous forest intact than in Figure 2. This change will result in fewer trees removed, and, according to the engineer, less grading on the northern portion of the property. I ' Impacts to wildlife habitat have been minimized by (1) changing the development plan from i single family residential to apartments, and (2) working with the site plan to minimize impacts J to the coniferous forest habitat unit. Open spaces of existing vegetation will be left between groups of buildings, and additional plantings of trees and shrubs are planned. The proposed development will leave a block of Douglas fir trees in the NW corner of the property, which, combined with trees left along the northern site boundary, will preserve some of the scenic values of the site when viewed from Highway 99 and other points to the north and west. _l 1 ARBOR HEIGHTS WILDLIFE HABITAT Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. 1oa • TABLE 1_ EXISTING VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE OBSERVED ON THE ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS SITE, LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN, TIGARD MARCH 5, 1992 AREA A: Coniferous Forest TREES WILDLIFE OBSERVED • Douglas fir kinglets western red cedar house finch big-leaf maple robin scrub jay SHRUBS crow red huckleberry squirrel vine maple snowberry elderberry Oregon grape salal Indian plum hazel i * laurel GROUNDCOVER inside-out flower sword fern bracken fern trailing blackberry * Himalayan blackberry toothwort * geranium * English ivy AREA B: ORCHARD AND DECIDUOUS FOREST TREES WILDLIFE OBSERVED apple winter wren pear robin other fruit species chickadee alder junco cottonwood scrub jay • big-leaf maple Douglas fir SHRUBS Himalayan blackberry I fruit tree suckers hazel salal GROUNDCOVER grass mullein sword fern bracken fern trailing blackberry * Queen Ann's lace ARBOR HEIGHTS WR.DLIFE HABITAT Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. q Page No. .40 3 TABLE 1 (continued) AREA C: DECIDUOUS FOREST AND SCATTERED CONIFERS TREES WILDLIFE OBSERVED alder robin big-leaf maple chickadee Douglas fir junco cottonwood mourning dove scrub jay SHRUBS * Himalayan blackberry * fruit tree suckers hazel ' GROUNDCOVER sword fern bracken fern trailing blackberry salal * grass - = dominant species * = non-native species i i _I I I I ARBOR IMI(MI75 WILDIJFF HARITAT Luba No. 92-104 J Exhibit No. 9 Page No. Qo 1 to- l - •I 10 f-- 10 , '9 96, 2G2 !94 9S 96~ ~i ST .$7 8~;. g~• _ ez 79. ' .Bq 1 ,o 32, i. 33 ca . 34. , ' 4o ate ~2' 63 % I t 4l f TRIAD~TIG/~R~ REVJ;.{_OPiQEfyT^ - - 49 _ Preliminary Lot Lcty0t 98 Lots - 7500 sF MINIMUM SI'- - KlfJLPE ASSOCIATES' - - f . . ARBOR' HEICrTS APARTMENT'S:. . I Triad/Tigard: Iad:. I Figure l: Single Fam ly- Resident al Sitc Plan Luba No. 92-104 I Exhibit No. 9 J Page No. -10 ------JIITTTN1TTl1U~(`-~_ ' h I IlL, ~ 11j~ I-Z J i B C - 1G~Z ~ I ` E s I li L,~ I I 1 I it I \ ii \ ~I ' sY 6y. ~ ~ I 11 I~ ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS Triad/Tigard Ltd. Figure I Preliminary Apartment Ih;velopment Site Plan Luba No. 92-104 1 Exhibit No. S Page No. ao 6 sj7j i t tt {LUJ fu AN 1 \ ` ARB~ N`TS ' ~ARTrKE Tria~~~atd Lia. Site Plan rt~JIM 3: nca~lo mCnt 1 Luba o- 92 N Page N° i. r PEA A: coniferous forest AREA B: orchard v and deciduous forest MM3 Luba No. 92q_ Exhibit No. Page No. at dr ~ ' I ~ x < T ' y f:: x a- -e~3.;a' '.c..-S::t,_~h`-,'~~+::~~.-~,;~c.-~' .tom , •.t -•'~'ia~~~~~ cif • t ~ _ ,y { •9 ~ssy~ .431.: g }•~4'! 1 ,:.~4-~-'~ = ~ r ^t 4 ~ y y i , • k r I AREA C: deciduous forest with uttered conifers . •'~Y err, 'r_ ~ . - Y. I • 1 I AREA SOUTH OF-- ORCHARD: clc:+rcd and orn.micnt:fl Luba NO. 92-104 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. J v q ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 19 by and between TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Triad" and the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter referred to as the "City." WHEREAS Ordinance No. 91-22 of the Tigard City Council approved an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map providing for the realignment and extension of SW 109th Avenue to intersect Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway and designating SW 109th Avenue as a minor collector street. WHEREAS Ordinance No. 91-22-has been appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. WHEREAS Resolution No. 91-68 of the Tigard City Council found that the purpose of the proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is to mitigate traffic impacts of future development on the surrounding street system, including Pacific Highway and that the portion of the proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway should be designated as an eligible facility and an eligible project under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance and requested that Appendix "D" (Base Report) of the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance No. 379 be amended to include the portion of SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway as an eligible facility in Table 2 of the Base Report and as an eligible project in Table 4 of the Base Report. WHEREAS the City of Tigard desires to commence construction of the extension of the SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway during the spring of 1992. WHEREAS the City Engineer for the City of Tigard estimates the cost of construction of the portion of the SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway to be approximately $900,000. WHEREAS the Tigard City Council, on October 28, 1991, approved a budget authorizing the expenditure of $300,000 in fiscal year 1991-92 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS it is anticipated that the City of Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee will recommend a budget authorizing the expenditure of an additional $300,000 in fiscal 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. c? T-PP13&0 Page No.Jia year 1992-93 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, an application for Planned Development Review Detailed Development Plan Approval, Site Development Review Approval, and Access Variance Approval requested by Triad for the development of a 348-unit, 17 building multi-family residential complex on 26.2 acres of property located at 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission has been appealed to the Tigard City Council and the Tigard City Council has affirmed Final Order No. 91-11 PC and eliminated the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to provide interim improvements on-Naeve Street from the realignment of Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact fee Ordinance (TIF) imposes a tax of approximately $292,960 on Triad's development. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF) entitles a developer to a credit against the tax for constructing eligible capital improvement. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is within the impact area of Triad's development. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the timing, location, design and scope of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the capital improvements program of the City of Tigard. WHEREAS Triad desires to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to receive a credit against the TIF tax for such construction. WHEREAS City desires for Triad to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the parties desire to resolve the terms of Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to otherwise set forth their respective requirements and obligations thereto. Luba No. 92-104 T-PP13&0 2 Exhibit No. I Page No. -Ott • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and stipulations set forth herein, it is agreed between the parties as follows: 1. Construction of Road Improvements. Triad agrees to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th-Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 2. Participation. Triad agrees to pay $300,000 of the cost of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. - 3. Preconditions to Participation. Triad's obligation to participate is conditioned upon (i) the expiration of all periods for further appeal of the affirmance of Final Order No_ 91-11 PC by the Tigard City Council; (ii) the expiration of all periods for appeal of the elimination by the Tigard City Council of the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires'Triad to provide interim improvements on Naeve Street from the realignment of Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway; and (iii) the ultimate affirmance of Ordinance No. 91-22 and the expiration of all periods for further appeal of such affirmance. If the foregoing conditions are not satisfied, this Agreement shall terminate and all obligations of the parties under this Agreement will thereafter cease- 4. Deposit in Escrow. Triad shall deposit a pro rata portion of the $300,000 in escrow upon receipt of all required permits for each building in Triad's development to be held in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The pro rata portion shall be based on the ratio that the value of such building (as set forth in the permit application) bears to the value of all buildings constructed and to be constructed in the development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Triad shall deposit the entire $300,000 in escrow prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Triad's development. 5. Escrow. Triad shall deposit the $300,000 in escrow with Title Insurance Company (the "Escrow") at its offices in Oregon or at such other place as the parties may Luba No. 92-104 T-?? 13-'0 3 Exhibit No. Page No. aiJ.- . mutually select. Escrow shall deposit the $300,000 in an interest-bearing account with interest accruing to Triad. The parties shall execute joint instructions to escrow directing it to disburse the funds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Triad shall pay the escrow fee. 6. Participation. The City of Tigard shall use the $300,000 solely for the purpose of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. The City shall spend such funds only on improvements which are eligible for credit under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). Escrow shall disburse the $300,000 to City upon presentation of invoices by the City, certified by the City Engineer as accurate, for the cost of constructing credit-eligible improvements to the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve - Street and Pacific Highway. Credit-eligible improvements may include right of way acquisition costs and survey, engineering and inspection costs as provided in the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). 7. Credit. The City shall grant Triad a credit against the tax due on Triad's development under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance in the amount of $300,000 for Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall direct the City Engineer to grant Triad such credit in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 8. Default. If either party defaults under this agreement the other party shall be entitled to such remedies for breach of contract that may be available under applicable law including without limitation the remedy of specific performance. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. 9.1 Attorneys' Fees. In the event suit or action is instituted to interpret or enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial or on any appeal, and on any petition for review, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 9.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each • and every provision of this Agreement. Luba No. 92-104 T-??13L0 4 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. Q 13 • 9.3 Notices. Notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered, or if mailed, upon deposit as certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party at the address shown below. Either party may change its address for notices by written notice to the other. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership City: City of Tigard 9.4 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the-'benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 9.5 Changes in Writing. 'This Agreement and any of its terms may only be changed, waived, discharged or terminated by a written instrument signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought. '9.6 Authority. The persons who have executed this Agreement have been duly authorized to do so by the party. The party has a good and legal right to enter into this Agreement and to perform all covenants of,the party contained in this Agreement in accordance with its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate as of the day and year. first above written. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership a Washington limited partnership By Title: General Partner City: City of Tigard By Title Luba No. 92-104 t-P?1340 5 Exhibit No. I_ Page No. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. • Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences January 31, 1990 Project No. T-1252 Ms. Suzette Fontana Triad Development, Inc. P.O. Box 88070 Seattle, Washington 98138 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Casa Verde Vista Apartments Naeve Street and Highway 99 Tigard, Oregon • Dear Ms. Fontana: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Casa Verde Vista Apartments in Tigard, Oregon. The location of the project is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to explore subsurface and groundwater conditions at the site in order to provide geotechnical information on the feasibility of this site for the proposed development and recommendations for site preparation, foundations for the proposed structures and site drainage. The scope of our study included site reconnaissance, excavation of several test pits across the site, laboratory testing of representative soil samples, engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. This report presents the results of our observations and studies along with supporting field and laboratory test data. SUMMARY Our study indicates that the site is underlain at a shallow depth primarily by stiff to very stiff clayey, sandy silts, which overlie weathered, basalt bedrock. Conventional spread footings may be used as foundation support for the proposed apartments. These footings may bear on the undisturbed competent native soils existing at the site or on compacted fills placed above the competent native soils. Minor thicknesses of old fill soils are expected in the vicinity of existing structures. These fills should be removed from building • areas. Luba No. 92-104 15301 N.E. 90th Street - Redmond, Washington 98052 - Phone (20t Exhibit No. mailing Address: P.O. Box 3338 - Redmond, Was Page No. X15 Ms. Suzette Fontana January 31, 1990 • Light groundwater seepage was noted in many of our test pits throughout the site. Onsite soils are quite moisture sensitive and were noted to be moist near the ground surface. The soil moisture contents generally decreased with depth until bedrock was approached. To minimize difficulties in working with the native soils, we suggest that grading be performed during the dry season and when soil moistures are reduced. This will improve the chances for using the native materials as fill material. If grading is to be performed in wet weather, you should plan on importing considerable amounts of clean granular soils for use as structural fill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the site is planned to be developed as a multi-family apartment complex. Details of the planned buildings were not available at the time of our field study. The structures will probably be two and three story, wood-frame buildings with slab-on-grade floors. At the time of our study, only a topographic survey of the site was available to us. Subsequent to our field investigation, a preliminary architectural plan became available, showing tentative building and roadway locations. No grading plans or building details are available to us at this time. However, we expect significant cuts and fills will be required to provide building pads and prepare pavement areas on the moderately sloping • site. Considering the existing topography on the site, the cuts and fills may have magnitudes on the order of ten feet or so. Basement walls are likely to be needed for many buildings. When project plans are finalized, Terra Associates should be notified so that we can prepare supplementary recommendations, if necessary. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING The subsurface exploration for this study was conducted on January 10 and 11, 1990. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored by excavating 28 test pits using a backhoe provided by Loren Ricks of Gresham, Oregon. --A dozer was used to provide access for the backhoe. The test pits were excavated at the approximate locations shown on the Test Pit Location Map, Figure 2. The locations of these test pits were approximately determined by pacing from property comers and surveyed lines. Elevations at test pit locations were determined by interpolation between contours shown on the topographic survey provided to us. The field exploration was monitored continuously by our geologist who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test.pit, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are • attached to this report as Figures 4 through 17. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. Ms. Suzette Fontana January 31, 1990 The soil classifications shown on these togs represent our interpretation of the field logs and reflect the results of visual examinations as well as laboratory tests performed on samples obtained from the test pits. Representative soil samples collected from the test pits were returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The results of our laboratory testing are shown on the test pit logs. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The project area occupies approximately 26 acres of moderately sloping terrain in the 10900 to 11100 block north of SW Naeve Street in Tigard, Oregon. The topographic relief across the southwestward sloping site is approximately 180 feet, rising from Elev. 230 feet in the southeast corner to Elev. 410 feet in the northeast corner. Slope inclinations average about 20 percent across the site, but steeper slopes up to about 30 percent are present in the northwest corner. The site slopes flatten to less than 15 percent in the northeast corner. Some cuts and fills are present around the four residences and several outbuildings that occupy the perimeter of the site. • Much of Tax Lot (TL) #200 is covered with dense brush and thick berry vine patches. TL #100 is densely vegetated with underbrush and alder, maple, and cottonwood trees. TL Nos. 600, 700, 800, 900, and 9300 are vegetated with middle-age fir, cedar and sparse underbrush. The yard areas surrounding the existing residences are landscaped with ornamental shrubbery and trees. At least two wells and possibly more exist on the site. The site is bounded on the south by SW Naeve Street. The southern 800 feet of west property boundary adjoins an undeveloped, forested lot. The remainder of the west boundary borders Highway 99. The north boundary adjoins undeveloped, forested land in the west and a newly developed plat in the east. The east boundary is formed by SW 109th Avenue. A small concrete pond fed by a drainage ditch contains the only surface water noted on the site. Subsurface Soil conditions across the site are quite consistent. In each test pit, an average of about eight inches of duff and topsoil were found to overlie about three feet of stiff to very stiff reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy silt. Below this surficial unit is reddish tan, sandy silt with clay and silty, fine sand with clay. Reddish brown, clayey silt with highly weathered, angular, volcanic cobbles grades into fractured, weathered, basaltic bedrock, which was encountered in many test pits at depths between four to twelve feet. The depth • to bedrock appears to become shallower towards the southeast and deepens towards the southwest. However, this depth is not consistent in any area of the site. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 41 Page No. .211 Ms. Suzette Fontana January 31, 1990 Minor fills were encountered in the vicinity of the house at 11165 SW Naeve Street. Fills are also expected to be present surrounding the other houses on the site. Groundwater was encountered in about half of the test pits excavated on the site. Light, spotty seepage usually occurred from the upper three feet in the test pits where roots provided passageways for groundwater. In general, the moisture content of the soils decreased below three feet until the clayey deposit overlying the weathered basalt was encountered, where moistures again increased. A possible groundwater channelway along the bedrock surface produced moderate seepage at a depth of 8.5 feet in Test Pit TP-26. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our subsurface exploration and field observations, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed apartment complex. Buildings may be founded on conventional spread footings bearing on firm native soils or on compacted structural fill. Roadways may be built on recompacted native soils after removal of fills and organic rich soils or on structural fill. Due to the moisture sensitivity and relatively low permeability of the site soils, we suggest you plan to conduct the earthwork during the dry season and when surficial soils are not excessively moist. In wet weather, it will be virtually impossible to compact the onsite soils. In dry weather, the likelihood of using the onsite soils for fill will improve substantially. If grading work must be performed in wet weather, you should allow for import of substantial qualities of clean granular soil for use as fill. We anticipate that significant cuts and fills will be required for roads and building pads. Permanent cut slopes should be graded to 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Temporary cuts up to ten feet high may be made at 1:1. Fills should be constructed in accordance with recommendations in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report and should be made at inclinations of 2:1. If cuts encounter seepage during the initiation of earthwork, interceptor drains should be constructed on the uphill side of roadways and building pads to prevent the working area from becoming wet. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. It is the property of Terra Associates and is intended for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Triad Development, Incorporated. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We do not guarantee project performance in any respect, only that our work meets normal standards of professional care. The following sections of this report describe our recommendations in greater detail. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. q Page No. •21 V Ms. Suzette Fontana January 31, 1990 Foundations Apartment buildings to be constructed on the project site may be supported on continuous and/or isolated spread footings bearing on the competent, native soils present below the topsoil and organic-rich layers or on compacted, structural fill placed above competent, native soils. The near surface soils below the topsoil are loose. Hence, depending on the depth of the excavation required to reach design footing grade, the native soils may need to be recompacted in place. Footings should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest, adjacent, outside finish-grade. Continuous and individual spread footings may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. A minimum width of 12 inches should be used for continuous footings and individual spread footings should have a minimum size of 18 inches. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. All footings should be provided with steel reinforcement in accordance with structural requirements. Old fills may be present in the vicinity of the existing buildings. For any structures to be constructed in these areas, foundations and slabs should bear on native soils beneath the existing fills. Alternatively, the fills may be removed and replaced by structural fill. Any holes left by the removal of foundations of existing structures and septic tanks should be backfilled with structural fill in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation and Grading Section of this report. Settlements We anticipate that the total settlements for the apartment buildings supported on the competent, native soils or on compacted, structural fill will be less than one-half inch. Long-term differential settlement of buildings should be less than one-quarter inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction. Slabs-On-Grade Concrete floor slabs, if used, may be constructed as slabs on grade supported either on the competent, native soils or on structural fill. We recommend that four inches of a free- draining gravel, such as 1/4 to 3/8 inch pea gravel, be placed below the slab to act as a capillary break. In addition, a plastic membrane with a thickness of ten to twelve mils should be placed above the gravel to act as a vapor barrier for additional moisture protection. Basement and Retaining Walls If lower level basements are planned, or if retaining walls are needed at grade changes on the site, the walls should be designed to resist the lateral pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid weighing 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. Q to( Ms. Suzette Fontana January 31, 1990 • If walls are restrained from free movement at the top, they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot. These pressures assume a maximum height of ten feet and that no surcharge loads will occur. Please contact us for supplementary recommendations if conditions are expected to be different. The basement walls and retaining walls should be provided with a continuous blanket of free-draining material at least twelve inches wide. A perforated pipe should be placed at the footing level to collect water and discharge it to the street. A generalized, representative drawing of retaining wall backfill and drainage is shown on Figure 19. Horizontal Loads Horizontal structural loads carried to the foundations may be resisted by both friction forces on the base of foundations and passive resistance on the sides of foundations. A coefficient of 0.3 may be used between concrete and soil. Resistance to lateral loads may also be computed as passive earth pressures exerted by the soils adjacent to the foundations. We recommend using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot where the foundations are poured neat against undisturbed soil, or where the backfill is compacted in accordance with the requirements for structural fill. Site Drainage • Surface gradients across the site should be created to direct runoff away from the apartment buildings and towards suitable discharge facilities. If cuts encounter seepage during the initiation of earthwork, provisions should be made to install interceptor drains or ditches along the uphill side of road alignments and building cuts. These drains will prevent shallow subsurface drainage from reaching the work area and creating unfavorable soil conditions. Once detailed grading plans have been prepared, we would be pleased to review them and provide our input for additional drainage requirements, if needed. Perimeter foundation drains should be installed and tightlined away from the apartment buildings. Roof gutter drains should be separately tightlined away from the buildings. All drains should be discharged into the storm drain system. Site Preparation and Grading The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of vegetation and topsoil. The stripped topsoils may be used as berms or in nonstructural areas. Old fill should also be removed from building and roadway areas. Following stripping, any loose areas noted should be over excavated and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock to a depth that will provide a stable base. If the over- excavated area remains soft and wet, a stable subgrade may be constructed by placing a geotextile in the bottom of the excavation and placing clean, crushed rock over it. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Of Page No. -X3c Ms. Suzette Fontana January 31, 1990 • Cuts deeper than four feet may encounter bedrock in some areas of the site. The bedrock is weathered and fractured near the surface, but most likely grades into more competent bedrock with depth, which may be difficult to rip with heavy machinery. In addition, seepage may be expected near the bedrock. Surface and subsurface, drainage should be controlled to protect the existing soil conditions in the.work area. Permanent cut slopes should be made at stable inclinations of 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). Fill slopes should also be made at inclinations of 2:1. Temporary cuts upto ten feet high may be made at inclinations of 1:1. Slope areas should be properly prepared prior to placing fills. A keyed toe and horizontal benches should be cut into native soils and the 511 placed in horizontal lifts, as shown on the Slope Fill Diagram, Figure 18. Structural fill should be placed in shallow lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). All on-site soils are high in fines content making them difficult to compact in moist conditions, during rainy weather or when placed over existing wet conditions. Import fills, if needed for use in wet weather construction, should be predominantly granular with a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. To avoid excessive earthwork costs, we recommend conducting grading operations after the site soils achieve workable moisture levels during the dry season. • Any existing wells on the site should be abandoned in conformance with State or local regulations, if they are not to be used. Pavement Areas Roadways may be constructed on the recompacted, native soils after stripping the surface of vegetation, topsoil, and fill or on compacted structural fill depending on the depth of cuts or fills required to reach design grades. Where structural fill is placed, the upper twelve inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Below the top foot, a compactive effort of 90% is adequate. All subgrade areas should be in a stable, non-yielding condition prior to paving. Utilities Where utility lines are to be excavated and installed in paved areas, we recommend that all bedding and backfill be placed in accordance with APWA specifications. Fill placement and compaction should be in accordance with the recommendations given earlier in this report under Site Preparation and Grading. Significant seepage may be encountered in any of the excavations, particularly if the excavation encounters bedrock. The onsite silty soils will be difficult to adequately compact if they become very moist. In addition, deep utility trenches will be difficult to • excavate once bedrock is encountered. The contractor should be prepared to deal with this likelihood. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. q Page No. Zal Ms. Suzette Fontana January 31, 1990 • Additional Services It is recommended that we be provided the opportunity for a review of the site layout, final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and construction. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits excavated on the site. The nature and extent of variations in the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, we should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. It is also recommended that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. provide the following services during construction: 1. Examine all stripped subgrade areas and the proofrolling operations prior to the start of fill placement or earthwork. • 2. Examine all foundation and slab areas prior to forming and concrete placement to evaluate that adequate foundation support is available. 3. Observe conditions exposed in excavations, particularly to assess the need and provide recommendations for drainage. 4. Perform field density testing of structural fill as needed during placement and observe the grading and earthwork operation. We request that a minimum of two working days notice be given to schedule our services during construction. The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Test Pit Location Map Figure 3 Soil Classification Chart Figure 4 through 17 Test Pit Logs Figure 18 Slope Fill Diagram Figure 19 Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill Diagram Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. g _ Page No. Ms. Suzette Fontana January 31, 1990 • We trust the information presented herein is adequate for your requirements. If you need additional information or clarification, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. ~c~YtD 30FEs 1 cb~~ ~G i f~! FF flOys Q' 'v 11394 l Anil ButP.E. President %111vilE JJ/AB:tc U I • • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. > 1 a;l SW 4ERCSTON( \ v~p ~ QI ~ a - ° HILL" OR SyJ A1F4t CON H E.~.a ` I - ^r Sw 4 • - 0O'+v ST > r E S`T 1. IS _ ; P Slv DR ' J `l z' N 1 ~ a C q+,NCr S-41 r30f[n~ 'ar > v p4. n orf on ~i~y~ n.c r. a S sw -cry" 9"- ~Sr T - - -JR- SII' •j l: CT ST L HS ` > .JACK 3Fr- _ S 1 T S > 12000 N ^ a ur SW ERROI ST v =Ir- 4AA;L El 11000 S•ll r`'F < St SkAjj I_ watrau > r m . " .£1 t a°~ .2~ Sy x S J 4 1 Q 17100 3 ¢ SN FONNER T rn yST r OLQ z; o PL. Sw ALBERTA ST t m4 _ at~~ _ $ Tw FONNER S2 Q/ ST r f •t+ W d 2f Z Sy,! JAMES C ~T SW DEERYDELL N - RD ~"v ` y. T•L tr, gA CT 7K SW MARION ST -Sw>PARK ^ST N u-F- _ ` - ` nry•:1 _ `y GJ-`-S-~:C~~ '~ti, °rn Z Q MIRa E~ T $W FAIRHAVEN $7 y 11 a U y V! FA RVI[N (I" > ~ o swat/ E SW 1 ROSE L'r51a 2r L~ VICYIMOUNT " WY 9 ST ~ [r 3 s~ SW SW GARDEN i zr axu.gn. M 'EWMOUN7 s:*1 GaARDE:.EM N ST PARK- Pt, C 3> _17- 12(700 ~ ~4 11000 M 3 1I 8 n St -L L T DUCHILLY.. Sw I S r CT Cq MCFARLA1Or_CrrO L C ly, iN 3i~ o - y Sw vlEw > R1 S%V $---.~la w~DWOO N yrF,P TEff CTIr j I EVANGLE eL,fl > LN F > _ G Y; Cfhf P r a z RC 1 C'J rr SW a 3 I Ng, IIURDOC6 ST S w 9 o v. 4Q tU CEL 4ONTE oA' ` s . SA CC RLE ST K j = a 4. ys x . - :KING OR i!I Svr- n0 C; Sf 1 v .A_~ . r SUMMfRpELp Q j- /f ,GOLF b COUNTRY r:: :.7 apQO CREEµyE/•F :T 9 /a:r.L:~~ v>•s? ; CLUB L DR-;.::: 1 (s O ~j Nu CIIY f,OLf RT OAROR.i) Q CSW DUP.HA^.T 8 RD'IDuu I - r SA P MI. z f _ SW DICKSON COURSER S8 nonj SW - r ut LN r - Z Z CI`r: Y - Bf S- ROYAL- > G E N 1z1- et AV F VILLA > CI SW MW0,0, C, J`h. it F - ~.J S' N Swaim pv~i4ir r~;sJ=.= w OR "Vii~ 177-1 _r ?2000 SW/ FI$CHER 1:1 1; iUP~a TI Ret.: Thomas Bros. Maps - Portland 1980 TERRA Vicinity Map ASSOCIATES CASA VERDE VISTA Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 12 5 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. )J4 yt p1~1 WA ~ 99 m V!I 10 r -4 ~ kD N as / / . / •r~ 1/ `6 g '%i ~ iii%~=_ ~ ~J - _ .:j_ --','_r < 10 a 0 -C-3 tip(//' 0 3' '/j~ I ~ j~'/';" ~ : l~, i//' ~~~J lj, . ; / 1( pal I , /I ! I ' i 'r~ / / ,li / / ~ ~ 'J /l 439.68 ~ 1~6612_r , I, ~ ' 7777 -7801 gW '109TH AVENUE n ' !0 0 m n M O n n a v+ , C ~ n1 o m C1 y-4 N m v m Z OZ X 13 r m r ~ N D r o f Q c D - o (Da CD Ef m Z;: Z < ~m O Zo m r oa O M o w a CD O ~ N M o O < p - o --i D OD a SOIL CE ASSIFICATION SYSTEM LETTP-R GRAPH MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GRAVELS Clean GW -°Q:°• Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, Gravels little or no fines. _j Poorl raded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures. More than 50% of (less than GP little or no fines. • 5% fines). U) coarse fraction Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, 0 m N is larger than Gravels GM non-plastic fines. W T No11 9q, _N with fines. Clayey ravels, gravel-sand-clay ,mixtures. E plastic fines. a N Clean Well-graded sands, gravelly sands. C~°n C) SANDS Sands SW little or no fines. W ° ° ' Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, (less than U) CO o More than 50% of 5% fines). SP little or no fines. Q CD ~ coarse fraction • Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, O ° s is smaller than Sands SM non-plastic fines. U - with fines. Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, No. 4 sieve. SC plastic fines. organic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, U) SILTS AND CLAYS ML silt or claye fine sands or clayey silts with 'I Inorganic clays of low to. medjum plasticity, O Cl) ° o Liquid limit is less than 50%. CL ravelly clays, sandy clays, silty :lays, lean i 0 C) E ,~l~11I I i Organic silts and organic clays of low W o Z OL 1i1~:iii' plasticity. _ Z C Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous Q ro a; SILTS AND CLAYS MH fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. CO '6 OF a Liquid limit is greater than 50%. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. W 2 " ° OH orOrganic ganic clays of medium to high F•.asticdy, LL sifts. Peat and other highly organic soiis. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS I 2° OUTER DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING,-tsf 2.4` INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER QU PENETROMETER READING, tsf P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight G SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED pCf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic fort Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC NDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot TERRA Luba No. 92-104 ASSOCIATES Exhibit No. Page No. Geotechnical Consultants Proi. No. '1252 TEST PIT NO. TP-1 Logged By JJ Date 1-10-90 Elev. 238 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0.1g ILL: Bow or anic-rich SILT witg white, as iy YAyer . Reddish brown, mottled, clayey,-sandy SILT, ML very moist, stiff. 24 4u =1.25 5 TSF Grades to brown, sandy SILT with clay, very moist, non-plastic, medium dense. 34 10 Test pit completed at 12 feet; ML Light seepage at 18", spotty to 6 feet; Minor caving. 15 TEST PIT NO. TP-2- • Logged By JJ Date 1-10-90 Elev. 254 - ......TOPSOIL and..SOD ML Brown, mottled, sandy, clayey SILT, very 26 moist, stiff: 5 Grades to reddish tan with small rounded gravel, very- moist, stiff. 28 4u= 1.75 10 TSF ML Test pit completed at 12'; No seepage or caving. 15 TEST PIT LOGS • TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA , - ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 12 Exhibft No. q Page No. TEST PIT NO. TP-3 Logged By JJ Date 1-10-90 Elev. 244 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description (°s'6) U-6- DUFF aand 1UPS01L ML Reddish brown, sandy SILT, trace gravel, 24 qu_= 0.5 wet, loose. Grades to very moist, medium dense.. TSF 5 ML Tan, sandy S1IT., angular gravel, dense. 15 Weathered, fractured BASALT. 20 Test pit completed at 6.5 feet; Light seepage 0-3 feet; 10 No caving. 15 • Logged By TEST PIT NO. TP-4 JJ Date 1-10-90 Bev. 239 0 0-8 DUFF and TOPSOIL Brown, mottled, sandy SILT, wet to moist, loose to medium dense. 28 Roots to 1 foot. 5 Tan-brown, sandy SILT and silty, fine SAND, moist,.medium dense. Grades to dense at 6 feet. 10- 26 qu= 4.5 Test pit completed at 11.5 feet; TSF Light, spotty seepage 0-3 feet; No caving. 15 TEST PIT LOGS . ''7 TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES - - Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnica. Consultants Proj. No. 1252 Exhibit No. _c Page No. 218 TEST PIT NO. TP-5 . Logged By JJ Date 1-10-90 Elev. 280 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description N 0 0-4 DUFF and TOPSOIL -11 ML Reddish brown, sandy SILT.with clay,wet to very moist, loose to medium dense. 22 Tan, sandy SILT and silty, fine SAND, 5 S`1t very moist to moist, medium dense. 10 Becomes dense. 22 Test pit completed at 12 feet; Light seepage at 2 feet. 15 Logged By JJ TEST PIT NO. TP-6 ' i Date 1-10-90 Elev. 302 0 0-6" DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Mottled, reddish brown, clayey, sandy SILT, some wea volcanic gravel, wet t:o very moist, stiff. 26 4u= 1.0 "TSF Tan, sandy SILT, moist, dense. ML Becomes very moist, medium dense. 10 Occasional angular volcanic cobbles. Fractured weathered BASALT Test pit completed at 12 feet;: Light seepage at 0-3 feet; No caving. 1 TEST PIT LOGS • TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES • Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants rProj- No. 125: Exhibit No. Page No. TEST PIT NO. TP-7 • Logged BY ii Date 1-10-90 Elev. 322 Depth w (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 and 10PSOIL ML Mottled, reddish brown, sandy SILT with clay, wet to very 24 Qu x.75 moist, loose to medium dense. Roots to 1.5 feet. ,S. 5 ML/SM Tan, sandy SILT and fine, silty SAND, 13 moist to damp, dense. ML/CL Reddish-brown, sandy, clayey SILT with angular volcanic cobbles. 10--i Weathered, fractured BASALT, Test pit completed. at. 10 feet; Light, spotty seepage 0-3 feet; No caving. 15 L099ed BY JJ TEST PIT NO. TP-8 Date 1-10-90 Elev. 322 0 0-10 DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Mottled, clayey, sandy SILT with volcanic gravel, wet to very moist, stiff.'- 26 Roots to 2 feet. 5 ML/ Tan, sandy to clayey SILT and fine;.sitly SAND, moist to damp; stiff :to-"very stiff . 10 Weathered, fractured BASALT Test pit completed at 10 feet; No seepage or caving. 15 TEST PIT LOGS • TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 12: Exhibit No. °J.._. Page No. J36 TEST PIT NO. TP-9 . Logged By ii Date 1-10-90 Elev. 250 Depth w (ft.) USCS Soil Description M 0-3" SOD and TOPSOTT, ML/0 Brown-gray, organic-rich, sandy some clay, wet, . ML/CL Mottled, reddish tan, clayey, sandy SILT and fine, sitly SAND,-.-very moist, stiff. 5 Grades to very stiff. 1 Weathered, fractured BASALT Test pit completed at 10 feet; Minor seepage at 0-3 feet; No caving. 1 • TEST PIT NO. TP-1-GLogged By ii Date 1-10-90 Elev. 306 DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Reddish brown, clayey, sandy SILT, very moist, stiff. Abundant angular volcanic cobbles. Weathered, fractured BASALT Test pit completed at 6 feet; No seepage or caving. 10- 15-1 TEST PIT LOGS • TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Ceotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 Exhibit No. _j_ Page No. -.33S_ TEST PIT NO. TP-11 • Logged By ii 1-10-90 282 Date Elev. Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 - DUFF and TOPS II. ML Reddish brown, sandy,-clayey SILT, wet to 21 very moist, medium stiff to stiff. 4 - 0.5 uTSF 5 ML Tan, sandy SILT, moist to damp, dense. Minor interbed of volcanic ash. ML/CL Reddish brown,clayey SILT with sand and angu- lar volnc cobbles, 22 10 Weathered, fractured BASALT. Test pit completed at 10 feet; No seepage or caving. 15 TEST PIT NO. -r-P-1.2- Logged By JJ Date 1-11-90 Elev. 269 0 0-8- DUkk aand XOPS011, ML Reddish brown, mottled, clayey SILT with SAND, weatherec 'volcanic gravel, wet to very moist, stiff. ML Tan, sandy SILT, moist, dense. 5 Weathered. BASALT Test pit completed at 4.5 feet; No seepage or caving. 10 1 TEST PIT LOGS • TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants Proi.. No. 1252 Exhibit No. Page No. 3 Y TEST PIT NO. TP-13 Logged By ii Date t 1-Qn Elev. 254 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 -10 DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT, wet to very moist, medium stiff. :Becomes tan, moist, stiff to very stiff. 5 1-Weathered, fractured BASALT. Test pit completed at 6 feet; Light seepage at 0-3 feet; No caving. 10- 15 • Logged By TEST PIT. NO. TP-14 JJ Date 1-11-90 Elev. '364 0- 0-4" DUFF and TOPSOTT, M, Reddish brown,. mottled sandy,. clayey. SILT, wet=to very moist, stiff. 24 Roots -to 1 foot. PL Reddish tan, sandy SILT, very moist to moist, medium dense. FeM - .brown,. clayey SILT with angular: volcanic: .ML/!C cobbles, very,moist, stiff to very stiff. 30 Weathered, fractured BASALT 1 Test pit completed at 9.5 feet; Light spotty seepage 0-2 feet; No caving. 1 TEST PIT LOGS TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 Exhibit No. Page No. 3 TEST PIT NO. TP-15 • Logged By ii Date 1-11-90 Elev. 347 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description M 0 0- DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT, angular volcanic gravel, wet to 24 qu= 1.25 very moist, "stiff. TSF 5 SM/ Tan, fine,silty SAND and sandy SILT, moist, medium dense to dense. ML/C . Reddish brown clayey SILT with rock. Weathered, fractured MSALX. 10 Test pit completed at 9 feet; No seepage or caving. 15 JJ TEST PIT NO. TP=16.. Logged By Date 1-11-90 Elev. 334 0 0-10" DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Reddish. b mwn, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT,. with volcanic 29 gravel, wet to very moist, 'stiff . Roots to .1.5 feet. to 1.5 feet. 12 5 ML/S Reddish tan, sandy MT and fine, silty SAM), moist, medium dense to dense. 10 Some angular volcanic cobbles. Test pit completed at 10.5 feet; No seepage or caving. 1 TEST PIT LOGS TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES • Luba No. 2-104 Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 ExhIblt No. 9 Page No. Q34 TEST PIT NO. TP-17 Logged By ii Date 1-11-90 Elev. 315 Depth w (ft.) USCS Soil Description (~,6) 0 0.10" DU and TOPSOIL Reddish brown, mottled,-clayey, sandy SILT, volcanic gravel, very moist. stiff. Roots to 1 foot. qu.= 1.5 hL/SM Reddish tan to tan sandy SILT and fine, TSF 5 silty SAND, moist, medium dense to dense. MULL, Rpddish brown. rlayey ';TT.T with rock, 10 Weathered, fractured BASALT Test pit completed at 9.5 feet; Light, spotty seepage 0-3 feet; No caving. 1 JJ TEST PIT NO. TP_1,8_. Logged By Date 1-11-90 Elev. 341 0- - 0-6" SOD and TOPSOIL M,: Reddish brown, slightly" mottled, clayey SILT 25 q = 0.75 very moist, medium stiff. n Tom' ML Tan, sandy SEZ, very moist to moist, medium dense to dense. 5 Reddish brown clayey SILT with rock. Weathered, fractured BASALT. Test pit completed at 5.5 feet; No seepage or caving. 10- 15-- TEST PIT LOGS TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 EXhiblt No. Page No. ' J 3 5 TEST PIT NO. TP-19 . Logged By JJ Date 1-11-90 Elev. 355 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description (°,6) 0-8" DUFF aand'TOPSOIL ML Reddish brown, clayey, sandy SILT, very moist 24 4 _-=1.0 stiff.- Roots to..1.5 feet. -Ash bed at 3~feet uTSF Tan, sandy SILT and fine,silty SAND, moist 5 to damp, medium dense to dense. Clayey, f r ctured BASALT 10 Test pit completed at 8.5 feet; No seepage or caving. 15 - JJ TEST PIT NO. TP=20 • Logged BY Date i-11-90 Elev. 294 0- 0-10" DUFF an TOPSOIL ML Reddish brown,. mottled, clayey., sandy.SILT very moist-.to moist,. stiff. 23 Roots to 1.5 feet-.. 5 /SM Reddish tan, sandy SILT and fine silty SAND, moist, medium dense to dense. 10 Becomes reddish brown, very moist. 23 Test pit completed at 12.5 feet; No seepage or caving. . 1 TEST PIT LOGS • TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES - Luba No. 92.104 Geotechnical Consultants Proi. No. 1252 Exhibit No. I Page No. 436 TEST PIT NO. TP-21 Logged BY JJ Date 1-11-90 Elev. 334 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 0-6" DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Reddish brown, clayey SIFT, wet to very moist medium stiff. Roots to 1.5 feet: ML Tan, sandy SILT, damp, medium dense to dense. 11 5 Some anular volcanic cobbles and boulders, becoming abundant. Test pit completed at 7 feet; No seepage or caving. 10- 15 • Logged By JEST PIT NO. TP-22 JJ Date 1-11-90 Elev. 404 0-12" DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Brown., sandy, clayey SILT, very moist, stiff. ML Reddish tan, sandy SILT with clay, moist, 5 medium dense to.dense. Reddish brown, c-layey SILT, very moist, very 0_:r ML 1 stiff. Test pit completed at 10.5 feet; No seepage or caving. 1 TEST PIT LOGS • : WR TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 Exhibit No. 9 Page No. Z31 TEST PIT NO. TP-23 • Logged By JJ Date 1-11-90 Elev. 376 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description (°r6) 0 DUFF and TOPSOIL I°II, grown, clayey, sandy SILT, wet to very moist, medium.stiff-. Roots to 2 feet. 28 4u_=0.75 TSF i`1L Tan, sandy SILT, damp to moist, medium 5 dense to dense. -Reddish brown, clayey SILT with rock. Weathered fractured BASALT, 10 Test pit completed at 8.5 feet; No seepage or caving. 15 • TEST PIT NO. TP-24 Logged By L~ Date 1-11-90 Elev. 3% 0 0-10" DUFF and TOPSOIL ML Brown*to reddish-brown, tldyey, sandy SILT, wet-to very moist, very stiff. 27 Q =2.0 NSF ML Tan, sandy SILT, moist, medium dense to dense 5 HI ICE Reddish brown clayey SILT with rock. Test pit completed at 6 feet; No seepage or caving. 10- 15- TEST PIT LOGS Y TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants Proi. No. 1252 Exhibit No. A- I Page No. ? 3 f( TEST PIT NO. TP-25 Logged By _1.1 Date 1-11-90 Elev. 358 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0-10" DITFF and TOPqnTI, ML Brown to reddish tan, mottled, clayey, SILT to sandy:.. SILT, wet -very. moist, stiff. ML Tan, sandy SILT, moist, medium dense to dense. 5 Ash bed at 3 feet. Reddish brown, clayey SILT with rock. Test pit completed at 8.5 feet; 10 No seepage or caving. 1 • TEST PIT NO. TP-26 Logged By ~J Date 1-11-90 Elev. 363 U-8" DUFF an TOPSOIL ML Reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT, wet to very moist, stiff. ML Tan, sandy SILT with clay, moist, medium 5 dense to dense. Becomes very moist at 6 feet. /CL Reddish brown, clayey SILT with rock, wet. 10 Weathered, fractured BASALT. Test pit completed at 10 feet; Moderate seepage at 8.5 feet; No caving. 1 TEST PIT LOGS - TERRA CASA VERDE VISTA ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants ~Proj. No. 12: Exhibit No. 01 R Page No. Z-3 TEST PIT NO. TP-27 • Logged By ii Date 1-11-90 Elev. 344 Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description 0 0-► MUFF and TOPSOIL mL Reddish brown, mottled clayey SILT.with SAND, very-moist-, stiff. Roots to 1.5.feet. ML Tan, sandy SILT with clay, moist, medium 5 dense. Ash bed at 3 feet. Abundant angular volcanic cobbles. Test pit completed at 7 feet; No seepage or caving. 10- 15 JJ TEST PIT NO. TP-28 Logged By Date 1-11-90 Elev. 240 0 0-10" TOPSOIL and DUFF tIL Brown'to reddish brown, mottled, clayey, sandy SILT, very moist, . stiff.: Roots to. 1.5 feet. 25 9u 1.25 ML Brownish tan, sandy SILT with clay, `ISF 5 moist to very moist, medium dense.. Test pit completed at 8 feet; 10 No seepage or caving. 15 TEST PIT LOGS • TERRA CASA_VERDE VISTA 99 - I ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Geotechnical Consultants rProi. No. 125: Exhibit No. Page No. '*0 TYPICAL CROSS SECTipN NEW STRUCTURAL FILL MAXIMUM SLOPE GRAD EXISTING NEW 2IENT 2 (H.V) GRADE STRUCTURAL FILL EXISTING ADE TYPICAL BENCH KEY OF TOP DE AFTER THE R SOIL AND OT EMOVAL S EE DRAINING BEAN NER LOOSE SOILS COUNTERED. KET Np TFS IF GROUNDWATER SLOpE S AND HOULD 2. BENC ES- CS PR ORTj;p PED OF TOPS 3 T EY' SHOULD OULD BE M N/AC'NG AN F LL"° UNSUITABLE HE FULL BE MINIMU MUM 6 FEET SOILS 4. FIE TAL SLOPE Fq TH OF T 2L0 ETD EEP A R ONE EQUIPMENT W/ 6 FEET H Vy1DcL. 5- PLAN N o R OR ROLLER ULD gE DENSIFIE WIDE. EkTEIYDING OF SLOP R HYpRO D BY COMPACTION G 6 OFL TRUCTURE SEEDING FACE WILL R S MODIFIED MAk1►F1U L PL CED EDUCE Y DE SHOULD BE EROSION POTENTIAL : ~ NSITY (ASTM. D-~~S ~ TED TO 95% ASSoC(A TES SLOPE Ftl eOtechn,cal Consultants _,ASA VERDE VISTA Proj- No. Luba No Euh►bn No, + Page No IMPERVIOUS SOIL 6' • o~ °•°o .:.•o.°°o' EXCAVATED SLOPE 12' MINIMUM FREE _ ° o o,o • ; DRAINING GRAVEL O OR MANUFACTURED D. o °o o ° MAXIMUM SLOPE DRAINAGE BOARD ° °o' IVY' DEPENDS ON SOIL oo~o•. ° i• -f CONDITIONS. IN NO •v°o' H CASE SHOULD IT BE 00 a STEEPER THAN 0.5:1(H to V) p •O ° °QO C °t. ° ° • UNCLASSIFIED BACKFILL o°o,o o °°o 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION o ° u °o ° °ASTM 0-1557 :ao 0 0 0 0 _ :o 0 0 0 .0 ° PERFORATED PIPE '0 0 18' MI J7 •°~0 1' WASHED ROCK OR PEA Cj Q d•oQc GRAVEL. WRAP ROCK 00 .O~ .o•~ ~ WITH FILTER-FABRIC SUITABLE BEARING SOIL Retaining.Wall Drainage and Backfill NOT-TO-SCALE OTES 1.-Free Draining Gavel should consist of granular soil having. no more than 2 percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on the 3/4-Inch minus.fraction and no particles greater than 3-Inches in maximum dimension. The percentage of particles passing the No.4 sieve should be " between 25 and 75 percent. 2. Unclassified- backflll should be free of organics, clayey soil, debris, and other deleterious materials. It should be placed within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. 3. For free-standing walls, weep holes may be used. Weep holes should be surrounded with at least 18 Inches of free-draining gravel. • TERRA RETAINING WALL BACKFA.L/DRAtNAGE ASSOCIATES Luba No. 92-104 Exhibjt Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 1252 No. q Page No. Q 4Y COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7228 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising . • ❑ Tearsheet 13 • City of Tigard S PO Box 23397 x ^ Tigard, OR 97223 • ❑ Duplicate p E,`n a o • w N C C~ c o U: E :3 3 y v o. x a o G. tJ c w OHO W MM , Up _O 0 O d .-r 7~ U AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION N ° o' 0 can ww N -12 C3 STATE OF OREGON, ) ? > Z ^ H o g ..W ~ COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' A. 0 W 0 1:4 9 0 !3 w U a Judith Koehler °4 ¢ W ° ° ° ° N I N•• d v U s. 00•~ Gn O rn being first duly sworn, depose and say that I e Advertising o N ^ o o c E- c Director, or-his principal clerk, of the QaZ - o -a =0 0 .2- ' 0 a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 o A 3 U x a3i x E-•'> • and 193.020; published at Ti ga_rti in the = eo c O 0> o a aforesaid county and stgte- that the c z o>- = o ~ U a H o s City Council Business eting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the E -a c ~ c w e o 0 v entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and °c° E~ ^ L c .8 r- E , o'er c a Col.- 8 c a.o U K c -114 ,6 ~2 0-5 v•0 C X a0i. y O N 00 > >0 ca consecutive in the following issues: ca C W C 3 >1 a>O, 1QW j April 9, 1992 • o • • • • L boo - 7 I E- m rQ Cn Co Subscribed and sworn to efore.me this 9th daY of April, 1992. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: ~y AFFIDAVIT Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 16 Page No. 4-43 Council Agenda Item 41 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 • Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie Johnson, Jack Schwab, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Acting Senior Planner (present during Study Session only); Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Floyd Peoples, Park Supervisor (present during Study Session only); Michael Robinson, Legal Counsel (arrived for Business meeting); Cliff Scott, Operations Manager (present during Study Session only); Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Park Board Present - Dr. Daniel Graham, Chairperson; Board Members Mariann Bither, Carolyn DeFrang, Bud Hillman, and Sheldon Scolar. l.. Council/Park Board Joint Meeting - • Parks Levy Review - The majority of the projects are completed. Essentially., the levy proceeds were estimated to fund the first phase of the Park Master Plan. Some levy, projects will need additional funding for completion. Community Director Murphy reviewed a park improvement funding matrix which identified these projects and potential funding sources. Discussion followed. Council members asked questions concerning the scope of the remaining projects. Council also asked questions seeking clarification to understand the funding sources identified to complete the various projects listed in the matrix. • Park & Recreation Needs - There was a brief discussion on the Fanno Creek Conference topic, "Should Tigard address its Park and Recreational needs by joining the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District?" Conference delegates voted 45 to 9 against joining the District. However, many were interested in pursuing a Task Force to investigate park and recreation options for Tigard citizens. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAnF i Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. 144 • Field User's Group Update - Tigard Intern, Elizabeth • Hadley, reported on the successful field user group meeting. She also advised of the amount of field usage and availability of fields. • Strategic Planning - Park Chair, Dr. Daniel Graham, reviewed strategic planning issues. After discussion, consensus was to schedule a joint study meeting with the Park Board on April 21, 1992, to discuss future areas of focus. Strategic issues were listed by Dr. Graham as follows: 1. Expand/modify Parks Master Plan Triangle S.W. Anchor Park 2. What kind of parks facilities, equipment.... 3. Who should develop parks/greenways.... • Greenspaces - Mel Huie of Metro updated the Council and Park Board on the Metropolitan Green Spaces Master Plan. He described the entire program as a regional approach to protecting natural resources. The urban portions of Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties in Oregon and Clark County in Washington make up the study area. r~ The four-phased project is now in Phase 3. This planning phase includes a public outreach program over the next two to three months. A draft master plan will be completed the first week of April. The Metro Council will decide on the amount of funding, if any, to be referred to the voters. (Two figures, $100,000,000 and $200,000,000, were referenced during discussion.) In order for the measure to be ready for the November election, Metro's decision must be.made by September 3. BUSINESS MEETING 2. Visitor's Agenda - No visitors. 3. Consent Agenda: Motion by Councilor Schwab, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the following Consent Agenda items: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 11, 18 and 25, 1992 3.2 Authorize Sale of Real Property at 8640 S.W. McDonald Street 3.3 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I I Page No. 345 b. Proposal for Interim Policy on Undergrounding of Utilities 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0002. NPO #6 - APPLICANT. In response to a remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) of an earlier decision on this matter, the City Council will consider testimony concerning what actions it should consider taking in response to the LUBA decision and possible modification of the decision for CPA 91- 02. a. Public hearing continued from February 25, 1992. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. He referred to a map of the area and clarified the changes made in response to the LUBA remand. Changes to the transportation map which was in effect as of last August was explained by Mr. Murphy. The changes approved by Council at that time included: 1) The elimination of Naeve Street as a Collector Street. 2) 109th was extended to connect at Pacific Highway and Royalty Parkway. 3) Sattler Street extension was added. Note 10 changes as of last August were as follows: "An extension of Sattler Street from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue intersecting 100th Avenue at a point approximately 200 feet north of the existing Sattler Street intersection. An extension and realignment of 109th Avenue south of the Sattler Street extension to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway. The realigned 109th Avenue shall intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately 250 feet to 450 feet east of Pacific Highway. The design of Sattler Street extension may vary from the adopted City standards for minor collectors." Staff recommended changes to Note 10 along with additional findings documenting the council's decision of last August. The recommendation would be a change in the way the Sattler Street extension would be treated. LUBA requested that the City advise why Sattler Street would not have to meet minor collector standards. Two ways to handle this would be to explain why Sattler would not • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. It Page No. Z4 ~ need to meet minor collector standards and the other method would be to note that in the general area there would be a street connecting Sattler and 109th, but it would be a local street. Wording was proposed which would provide: "A local street connection from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue intersecting 100th Avenue either at Sattler Street or at a point at least 100 feet from the existing Sattler Street connection." This was essentially, advised Mr. Murphy, what the council was saying when they approved the language saying that "Sattler Street may vary from the adopted City standards for minor collectors." In looking at the traffic volumes, there is an overlap between a collector street and a residential street. This could easily qualify as a residential street (i.e., 0 trips per day up to 1,500 trips per day). The estimated traffic on this street was about 700 trips per day. Traditionally, local streets are not placed on the Transportation Map. Mr. Murphy then reviewed the staff report and accompanying proposed ordinance which addressed the points remanded by LUBA. d. Public Testimony: • NPO 6: • Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6 advised that they supported staff's additional findings, including the various street designation changes. NPO 6 urged the Council to approve the amended ordinance. Proponents: • Steve Pfeiffer testified on behalf of Triad Development. Triad owns property which would be bisected by the proposal before Council. In addition, a development proposal is pending and will be before Council later in the evening. Mr. Pfeiffer noted he agreed with the NPO 6 testimony. He advised LUBA affirmed the City's decisions and asked for clarification only. • Mark Vandehey, associate with Kittelson Associates, Inc., 610 S.W. Alder, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205. Mr. Vandehey addressed the following: • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. t% Page No. -141 Safe and efficient roadway system: The written evidence on the record, as well as the oral testimony submitted, documents safe and efficient access will be maintained upon completion of the proposed development. All applicable State, County, and City standards dealing with both traffic operations and safety are met. Coordination with State, County, and Regional jurisdictions: Throughout the process there has been coordination with all of these jurisdictions. In addressing the goals, the proposal calls for improved local access, while at the same time, reducing the need for additional access to Pacific Highway which is the regional through facility. The plan is consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan as well as the access management policy for Access Oregon Highways. From ODOT's standpoint, this plan is clearly superior to all that has been presented before and will result in a net benefit to the surrounding street systems. Ensuring adequate access for major arterials to the designated commercial and industrial areas: The plan is consistent with this policy. Not only is safe and efficient access ensured, but there will'be an improved access condition over what would otherwise be available for the remaining undeveloped parcels. The result will be a limit of access to Pacific Highway which, again, is what the State is attempting to do by maintaining the Highway as a regional through facility and consolidate access wherever possible. The new collector facility will have adequate capacity to serve all of the undeveloped parcels plus the Triad Development. Councilor Schwab asked if it would still be possible to access Pacific Highway from Naeve Street? Mr. Vandehey said, "it will be." The plan does not call for closing the Naeve access. The plan provides a "safety valve." This would be an additional outlet and provides ODOT the opportunity in the future, should a safety problem develop, to close the median and eliminate left turns. The new connection would provide left turn ingress/egress. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 5 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. ~ t t • Richard Whitman, 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204 advised he represented Marge Davenport who was one of the parties involved in the LUBA appeal in this matter. Mr. Whitman reviewed the issues identified by LUBA in their remand. Mr. Whitman also identified the following procedural issues: - There was a statement in the staff report that the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended approval of this proposal. The proposal before Council is different from the proposal that was before city council previously and before LUBA. The Planning commission has not reviewed the revised staff proposal. - Adequate notice Mr. Whitman noted that the hearing was continued from a previous hearing on February 25, 1992. Under the City Code, the City is required to send out notice of the hearing ten days in advance of hearing when an alternative is recommended by staff which changes the nature of the proposal. There have been two changes in the nature of the proposal: 1. Sattler Extension has been changed from a collector street to a local street, and 2. There has been a change from a specific designation for the Sattler extension to .a corridor approach. The most important piece of information on this proposal was the map which shows the outline of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest area. That map was not included in the notice which was sent out. Mr. Whitman advised that the f irst time he saw a map of this area was at this hearing. For the record, he objected to the holding of the hearing and requested that it be continued. Mayor Edwards asked for legal counsel's opinion on whether or not the objections warranted consideration of continuation of the hearing. In response to City counsel, Mr. Whitman advised he was requested continuation on the basis of Code Section 18.30.060 and 18.30.080 which are the sections which pertain to when notice must be given for legislative matters. S CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 6 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 0 Page No. z%VL C Community Development Director advised that the hearing • was continued from a previous meeting that was noticed. Staff also sent out the staff report to those who attended the last meeting (including the appellants). Mr. Whitman advised that the hearing was noticed but the map showing the fir grove was not included in the packet which was received by his office last week. Under the City Code, Mr. Whitman further advised, when a change is proposed in the nature of the proposal before the Council, the City is required to give 10-day prior notice. Mr. Whitman said that he thought there was a change between the proposal before Council at the last hearing and the proposal before Council at this hearing. The notice for the hearing on the 25th of February was proper, agreed Mr. Whitman. He contended that the proposal was changed since the 25th and what was currently before Council. City Legal Counsel, Michael Robinson, advised that the meeting was noticed and continued from the February 25th hearing. Under 18.30.090 c., failure to give precisely the kind of notice required does not invalidate the action provided a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to notice. Individuals present at the meeting on the 25th were apprised. He noted that Mr. Whitman was now present and Mr. Whitman's client was present. Mr. Whitman advised that he felt their case had been prejudiced by the fact that the materials were not received until late last week, he did not review them until "today," and the first time he has seen the map showing the significant natural areas was "tonight." (City Recorder Notation: During testimony by Marge Davenport, who is Mr. Whitman's client and the appellant to LUBA, she advised she was sent a copy of the map.) Mr. Robinson advised that, in his opinion, it was not necessary for Council to continue the hearing if it was found that a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to notice. Mayor Edwards acknowledged the objections by Mr. Whitman, but advised the hearing would proceed. Mr. Whitman disclosed the following points of issue: 1. Goal 5 issues were not thoroughly addressed. The natural resources identified in the ordinances are of more significance than just "scenic value." He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 7 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 0 Page No. .350 noted there was no clear map of the area and did not think Council could go ahead with a decision. 2. Goal 9 issues included Mr. Whitman's inability to see evidence that a signalized access on Pacific Highway was guaranteed. (City Recorder Note: During follow-up testimony, City Engineer noted the intersection is already signalized.) Mr. Whitman contended that there was no evidence of City coordination with other jurisdictions. 3. Mr. Whitman referred to Mr. Vandehey's testimony outlining that the configuration confirms Access Oregon guidelines, but at the same time, Mr. Whitman noted this would add another access point. 4. With regard to Policy 8.1.1 concerning safe and efficient streets, Mr. Whitman said Sattler was proposed to become a local street, but he contended that trips would increase by 2,000 trips per day. Sattler, he argued, should be classified as a collector street. 5. Mr. Whitman was concerned that there, is no requirement that the 109th Street extension be completed at the same time as development occurs. Naeve Street, he warned, may be functioning as a collector street without a traffic signal. Mr. Whitman said the staff report appears to resolve the issues raised by the LUBA appeal. However, he said that he did not think the issues were resolved and staff glossed over a number of issues. Mr. Whitman said with regard Goal 5, addressing the protection of significant natural resources, the City has done a thorough job in inventorying these resources. There are 22 significant natural resource sites listed in the inventory and two of those sites listed are the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest area and the Kallstrom Fir Grove area. In addition, the Little Bull Mountain Summit, which staff has stated is not in the inventory, is in fact listed in the inventory of the City on Page 1-42 of the Inventory as a Special Area. Special Areas are characterized as areas that were singled out for priority attention because of their particular vegetation and wildlife values and/or the relative uniqueness. Little Bull Mountain Summit is described as an area which is heavily wooded with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals including deer, racoon and pheasant. This particular section of the inventory goes on to state that, although 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 8 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. t 1 Page No. JSt these special areas of concern are not listed in the inventory as significant natural areas, they are listed as areas of special concern. Mr. Whitman advised that Goal 5 says that local governments, if in the course of their inventory identify areas that warrant. Goal 5 protection, but do not have sufficient information upon which to list them in their inventory, they can defer action on those until a later time. When a particular proposal comes forward that might affect that area or when the City has more information, then the local government is required to address that particular natural resource. The term, "area of special concern," is a term that is used in Goal 5 as well. Mr. Whitman clarified that the Summit area is, he thought, a significant natural resource area under Goal 5. It is a slightly different type of classification from some of the other, areas that the City has inventoried. He said he thought it was germane to this proposal because it would be affected by the extension of 109th Street. The City should address it before making a decision in this matter. Mr. Whitman distributed the following: A map from the City's inventory of significant natural resources. It shows areas of existing vegetation within the City and the three areas he was talking about: the Summit of Little Bull Mountain, the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, and the Kallstrom Fir Grove. • Marge Davenport, 15100 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon, testified as to her concerns with the historic significance of Little Bull Mountain and the preservation of forest and wildlife. She referred to the natural areas and their contribution in controlling air pollution and the "greenhouse effect." Ms. Davenport outlined issues of traffic safety, poor soil conditions which rendered the area unstable and unsuitable for heavy loads when wet. Threat of and, preparation for, earthquake was also of concern to her. She said the City had abdicated its responsibility for planning in the area to the Triad Developers. The only traffic study for the area was done by Triad. She also noted Triad also responded to the LUBA appeal. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 9 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. It Page No. ~S~ C Ms. Davenport advised that the natural resource issues . had not been addressed, the proposed uses were conflicting with the area. She reported that no geologist had been consulted. Mrs. Davenport requested that Council deny the proposal or continue the hearing until there is evidence that the necessary steps have been taken to satisfy the concerns outlined in her testimony. • Al Erickson, 15200 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon, noted concerns with increased traffic and accompanying problems. e. Staff Response to testimony: Community Development Director Murphy reminded Council that the issue of the hearing was a legislative matter about a proposed change to the Transportation Map not the Triad Development proposal. Goal 5 findings were made more clear in the staff report and proposed ordinance amendment as requested in the LUBA remand. The Summit area was identified by staff through description contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The area identified for Goal 5 purposes was deemed significant for scenic value. Then, this value was evaluated along with transportation importance. Goal 9 issues are typically not addressed at this stage but are reviewed before development is allowed to proceed. Wildlife issues will be addressed by Triad in the next public hearing (Agenda Item No. 5) material. City Engineer reviewed the coordination activities between Tigard and the Oregon Department of Transportation. He advised that King City sent a letter to Tigard in support of the proposal. He reminded Council that the S.W. 109th extension plan.has not been changed; right of way existed before the current proposal. He noted that, currently, there is a signal at Royalty Parkway and Pacific Highway. To address Access Oregon concerns, ODOT has advised that the median at Naeve is to be closed when 109th intersects at Royalty Parkway. Mr. Wooley advised that the Sattler extension would handle a portion of the 2,000 trips per day generated by • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 10 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. it Page No. 3S 3 traf f is in the area after development occurs. Sattler I s portion has been calculated at 700 trips per day. NPO 6 and the developer have reached agreement concerning transportation issues. The timing issue of building the road should be part of a specific development plan and not part of this legislative action. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the errata sheet outlining several changes to the proposed ordinance. He recommended that Council close the hearing and direct staff to prepare a final order. Councilor Johnson reminded the Council and staff that she would not be attending Council on March 24. f. Public hearing was closed. g. Council comments: • Councilor Schwartz noted he agreed with the proposal and advised he was in favor of the Planning commission and staff recommendation for approval. • Councilor Schwab outlined his concerns and desire to protect wildlife habitat. He noted that this area was within the urban planning area. Councilor Schwab commented on the state land use laws and efforts of hundreds of people who put these laws together to protect areas for wildlife and provide certain areas for development. He advised that he would vote to adopt the findings as presented, including those contained in the errata sheet. • Councilor Johnson empathized with those who did not want this beautiful area of the City changed. However, she noted its limited value as a natural area because of isolation from other natural settings. In addition, she referred the state land use laws, the urban growth boundary, and the need to provide for safe traffic circulation. She commended the NPO for their work with the neighborhood and developing the best possible transportation plan for the area. - Mayor Edwards advised he would continue to oppose the -transportation plan citing his earlier objections. h. Motion by Councilor Schwab, seconded by Councilor Johnson • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 11 Luba No. -92-104. Exhibit No. t % Page No. Z5+- to direct staff to prepare a refined final order and incorporate the errata information submitted to the Council; the final order is to be brought forward for Council consideration on March 24, 1992. The motion passed by a 3-1 vote (Mayor Edwards voted "no"). Councilor Johnson reiterated that she would not be at the March 24 meeting. Staff advised the record would be available for Councilor Kasten's review. Council meeting recessed at 9:06 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. 5. Appeal Public Hearing - Site Development Review SDR 91-0013 Planned Development PDR 91-0006 Triad Development (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. a. Public hearing was continued from February 25, 1992. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director Murphy advised this was a quasi-judicial development proposal which had been approved by the Planning Commission. Both NPO 6 and Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development, have appealed the approval on different grounds. Mr. Murphy reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commission Final Order was submitted to Council. NPO 6 has appealed the Planning Commission's decision because the members feel that the proposed development should not proceed without concurrent construction of the road connection between S.W. Naeve Street and S.W. Pacific Highway at the Royalty Parkway intersection. The staff report contains information addressing this issue. In addition, Triad submitted an agreement which provided the NPO with assurances that the road improvements would be built. Triad would contribute a share of the costs. Mrs. Davenport's appeal requests denial of the application based on concerns related primarily to traffic impacts, effects on the existing neighborhood, and lack of an environmental impact statement related to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 12 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. t% Page No. ZSS the proposed development. The staff report outlines a response to Mrs. Davenport's issues. d. Public testimony: • NPO 6 - Sue Carver, Chair of NPO 6 advised the NPO would drop their appeal contingent on the signing of an agreement with Triad. This agreement was for a contribution from Triad of $300,000 towards the cost of improvements to S.W. 109th. The City Engineer advised that a draft agreement had been submitted to Council at an earlier meeting (Council meeting of 12/10/91). Proponents: • Steve Pfeiffer, attorney for the Triad Developers, reviewed the work with the NPO and advised that a good solution had been negotiated. He advised of some of the elements of the agreement and that Triad would be phasing in their contribution towards road improvements as building permits were acquired. • Fred Grimm,. advised he was one of the three partners in the Triad Development. He reviewed the history of their efforts to satisfy the concerns in this neighborhood. He described the type of apartment community that they develop and said they would be a good neighbor. He referred to the extensive efforts which had been made to accommodate the concerns. The present zoning was consistent with their development proposal and they are prepared to perform as the Code specifies. Opponents • Beverly Swink, 15875 S.W. Greensway, Tigard, Oregon opposed the development. She cited concerns with increased traffic and the lack of streets to accommodate the demand. She said that Summerfield Drive would be negatively impacted and noted this street is a recreational street with golf carts and high pedestrian usage. Ms. Swink said that with increased density, crime also increases. She alleged that the quality of life in this area was being destroyed and that some areas should be left undeveloped. Ms. Swink CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 13 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. It Page No. ZSb referred to the relatively large number of apartment complexes concentrated in the surrounding area. • William Lindsay, 15505 S.W. 109th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon noted his concerns about increased density and the diminished quality of life. He advised that no one in the area wanted the development to occur and asked that Council reconsider the density in the area. • Richard Whitman, 101 S.W. Main Street, Portland, Oregon advised he was legal counsel for Mrs. Marge Davenport (appellant). He cited three issues: 1. Soils - a detailed soils analysis should be completed prior to development. If the soils analysis was deferred until later during the City Engineer's review, then there would be no opportunity for public review and comment. 2. Completion of S.W. 109th Avenue - Not all funding for this project has been identified. No engineering has been completed and Mr. Whitman questioned the accuracy of the estimate for the construction costs of the road. 3. Important Goal 5 issues need to be addressed. He noted conflicting areas of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to density recommendations. • Al Erickson, 15200 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon, testified he did not support the extension of either S.W. 109th or Sattler Street. • Marge Davenport, 15100 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon, reviewed the elements of her appeal. She did not feel that the concerns in her appeal had been adequately addressed by staff. She noted details concerning the widening of S.W. 109th because of its collector status had not been worked through. Other issues which needed to be analyzed included a study of the soils and advised there was severe soil erosion potential. There has been no geologist evaluation and the area is susceptible to earthquake. She questioned the staff report with regard to the natural and scenic resources in the area. She noted concerns for saving trees and advised that 12 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 14 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. Z S1 large trees would be lost if the road was widened. No protection from noise has been planned. She cited concerns for drainage to the Tualatin River. Rebuttal - Proponents • Steve Pfeiffer advised that the Comprehensive Plan requirements were not being changed because of the Triad development request. Traffic impacts have been studied. Naeve Road would be adequate to handle the traffic with the Triad development. Mr. Pfeiffer noted the geotechnical information was not required at this stage in the proceedings. In addition, issues raised by Mr. Whitman concerning conflicts in the Comprehensive Plan should have been raised a number of years ago. This was not the appropriate time to raise these issues. • Dawn Pavett, commented on the technical issues raised by Mr. Whitman and Mrs. Davenport. Ms. Pavett submitted, for the record, the following: 1. Wildlife Habitat Resources Survey 2. Geotechnical Report • Mr. Ross Woods of Triad commented on the street widening and disagreed with Mrs. Davenport's t comment that trees would have to be removed. He described other apartment complexes built by Triad noting they had recently been awarded the honor of building the "Best Apartment Community in Seattle." Rebuttal - Opponents • Mr. Richard Whitman disputed Mr. Pfeiffer's contention that Naeve Street would be adequate to handle the increased traffic. He noted the concerns raised by King City and NPO 6 if 109th was not completed at the time of this development. He referred to the new material submitted and requested that the hearing be continued so that he and his client would have time to review the materials. • Ms. Davenport questioned how the improvements for all of the 109th extension would be phased in. She noted the expense of property condemnation if that was the method which would be used to acquire right of way. She said the street extension should be in place before the Triad development is built. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 15 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I I Page No. J58 She recommended that an independent evaluation of Triad studies be completed. e. The hearing was set over to April 14 so that all parties would have an opportunity to review the new material. 6. Public Hearing - Zone Chancre Annexation ZCA 92-0001 Robinson (NPO 3) A request to annex two parcels consisting of 2.44 and 14.39 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). Location: 12000 S.W. Bull Mountain road. ZONE: R-4.5 - Allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tanks, and accessory structures among other uses. a. The public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. He advised staff was recommending approval of the resolution supporting the annexation which would be forwarded to the Boundary Commission. Staff also recommended approval of the Ordinance outlining the zoning designation for the subject area. d. Public testimony: Proponents • Larry Rosencrantz, The Aspen Group, 121 S.W. Morrison, Suite 850, Portland, Oregon was in favor of the annexation. He noted the City of Tigard zoning was downzoned from the Washington County designation. • Michael W. Robinson, 12000 Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon 97223, testified on behalf of his mother who owned the subject property. He advised she was in favor of annexation. Opponents • Isador Morgan, 15145 S.W. 119th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon advised he would be against annexation of his property. He referred to the continual annexation of property all around him and advised he would not want to be annexed to Tigard. He said he believes the quality of life outside City limits is better. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 16 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. L Page No. zSq • Dick Stelow, 15120 S.W. 119th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon advised that the City's policy for annexation creates pockets of land not inside the City limits, yet they become isolated from the County and its services. He expressed concern with the zoning and also referred to water drainage problems. • Ken Dickey, 14565 S.W. McFarland, advised he was opposed to annexation. He noted continued development without addressing traffic problems and requiring sidewalk construction. • Robert Ames, 12500 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, noted concerns with quality development in the area. He noted his opposition to the zoning as designated in both the County and City. • Steven Smith, 12036 S.W. Wildwood, Tigard, Oregon said he does not oppose development but said he was concerned about traffic safety on Bull Mountain Road as the area,continues to be built up. • Paul Whitney, 12035 S.W. Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon read a large portion of his testimony from a prepared statement. (This statement has been filed with the meeting material.) Council and several of the persons who testified discussed the issues further. The need for planning for traffic, parks, and safety was discussed. The annexation policy, in general, was questioned. Councilor Johnson reviewed the varying viewpoints (many of which were articulated during the testimony) on annexation policy and the concerns- and challenges this represented to Council. e. Public hearing was closed. f. RESOLUTION NO. 92-10, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (ZCA 92-01) (ROBINSON) g. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, adopting Resolution No. 92-10. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 17 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 11 Page No. -3 ( 0 h. ORDINANCE NO. 92-06, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 92- 01) (ROBINSON) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. i. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Schwab, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-06. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 11:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT: 11:58 p.m. lh.J Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Re order ma-1 64 City of Tigard 74-IL f N idevrf Date: Lt [t7a h:\recorder\ccm\ccm03lO.92 i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 18 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. t% Page No. Q d- I - Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: March 10, 1992 4-APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW _SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the-Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 10DB, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92. 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 6.1.1, and 8.1.3. 1 - PLEASE PRINT '~~S ea'l~itigt a - 0 `3) C3pp~t S~pealFirig airist .SDR3 91 Q0:13) ; Name Name , _ DRv _ Address Address Name Name Address Address s ame Q ICJ` ress Address \ S ~M Name Name k~icl. soK Na Name c d. r G Nam61 Name , 1 nV`(~_ Address \ Address L, I h l 0 G' ~ cep f O 9 _ Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. -2k-'O- t w." CITY OF TIGARD 'i::r:;•:::}::+~:::iii:, >z%':<''.%c::a:>:<o :.:l,a.\. Z` :~:~}f N::.}}r<::•~;.,~••:r-t}::~:>. k«: OREGON ~i .rr.:•t}i u`: J}i.}iytl:fi::r'..-.' i;:0}r•:.i.. ! . }F%'4.J£h. }i.rf •9C:!61$Y.S ~ - • •`s ~ AGENDA 4• n} t• ~ry: {Iii: r!J. lkv :r fr. x:• $ ,~•ir~••,..».~.~ PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an `s };agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sA; sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. • STUDY SESSION - (5:30 p.m.) Workshop meeting with Park Board (6:30 p.m.) Report from Metro on Greenspaces Master Plan - (7:00 p.m.) Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 11, 18 and 25, 1992 3.2 Authorize Sale of Real Property at 8640 S.W. McDonald Street 3.3 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Proposal for Interim Policy on Undergrounding of Utilities • COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE i Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 *3 Page No. _~L3 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002. NPO #6 - APPLICANT. In response to a remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) of an earlier decision on this matter, the City Council will consider testimony concerning what actions it should consider taking in response to the LUBA decision and possible modification of the decision for CPA 91-02. Note: written and oral testimony on the above matter will be limited to the issues that are subject to the remand. • Public hearing continued from February 25, 1992 • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony NPO 6 Proponents (Speaking in Favor of the CPA) Opponents (Speaking Against the CPA) • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 92-K~9) 5. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pack Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 10AD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 10DB, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,18.1 50, 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. On December 10, 1991, the City Council continued the hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on this matter. The hearing was continued to the Council's February 25, 1992 meeting. Due to the remand of the decision for CPA 91-0002 described above and its effect on the Triad PDR/SDR application, the Community Development Department will recommended and Council concurred, that the Public Hearing be continue to March 10, 1992. • Public hearing continued from February 25, 1992 • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony NPO 6 Proponents (Speaking in Favor of the CPA) cti~ Opponents (Speaking Against the CPA) . Rc - v w, • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Councif:~Ordiance N 92 COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. .24q f 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-0001 ROBINSON (NPO 3) A request to annex two parcels consisting of 2.44 and 14.39 acres to the City of Tigard and to 0* change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). Location: 12000 S.W. Bull Mountain road. ZONE: R-4.5 - Allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tanks, and accessory structures among other uses. • Public hearing opened. • Declarations or challenges. • Staff Report/Recommendation - Community Development Staff • Public Testimony: NPO 3 Proponents (in favor of annexation) Opponents (opposed to annexation) • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Rebuttal to Testimony • Council Questions • Public hearing closed. • Council comments O ( v~O • Council consideration: Resolution No. 924; Ordinance No. 92-7ZW 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE/ISSUES • City Administrator 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT cca310.92 COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 10, 1992 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 3 Page No. X1.5 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ENDA OF: March 10. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: March 3, 1992 SSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Appeal of Planning PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission Commission Approval of SDR 91-0013 Hearing on 10/7/91; Council review Tigard Ltd.) and PDR 91-069 (Triad Tigard of 12/10/91 Continued to 3/10/92 PREPARED BY: Jerry Offer DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK Pk- REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a 348 unit multi-family development plan for the southern slope of Little Bull Mountain? Both NPO 6 and Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development, have appealed the approval on different grounds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Planning Commission's approval. of the site development review/planned development subject to the conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC: Adopt the March 2, 1992 staff memorandum as an appendix to the final order. INFORMATION SUMMARY On October 7, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the development plan by lariad Tigard Ltd. Partnership ' for a 348 unit. multi-f amily development project y a 7-1 vote. Those Commission members: supporting approval indicated that, although they favored construction of the section of SW 109th between SW Naeve and Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway as soon as possible, they did not find that there was a significant enough relationship between the anticipated traffic from the proposed 'development and the need for the roadway extension to warrant requiring the developers to construct this road. The Commission, through a separate motion, recommended to the Council that development of this road connection be expedited by whatever means possible. NPO #6 has appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The NPO's appeal form states that the NPO members feel that the proposed development should not proceed without concurrent construction of the road connection between SW Naeve Street and SW-Pacific Highway at the Royalty Parkway intersection. Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development site, has filed a separate appeal of the Commission's decision. Ms. Davenport's appeal requests denial of the application based on concerns related primarily to traffic impacts, effects on the existing neighborhood, and lack of an environmental impact statement related to the proposed development. Attached are both NPO #61s and Ms. Davenport's appeal filing forms, minutes of the October 16, 1991 NPO #6 meeting, Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09PC, minutes of the Planning Commission's October 7, 1991, meeting, and the applicants' development plans. In addition, Ms. Davenport's December 10, 991 written testimony detailing her concerns and a memorandum from the 40. lanning Division responding to those concerns are included. The applicant's raffic study was included in the packet for the Council's December 10, 1991 meeting and therefore has not been reproduced for the current packet. Please contact the Planning Division if you need a copy of that study. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Paoe No. The City Council postponed action on this item at its December 10 meeting, and set it over to March 10 in order to await- the results of the related amendment to the Transportation Plan Map., which.was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Onder a separate agenda item for this meeting, the council has been presented with an ordinance proposing additional findings in support of a Transportation Plan Map amendment affecting street alignments in the area of the subject site. The action that the Council selects relative to the Transportation Plan Map amendment will have a bearing on the traffic issues related to the Triad site plan approval appeal. In response to Ms. Davenport's latest concerns, the attached memorandum provides additional proposed findings in support of the Planning Commission's decision. Staff finds that the issues raised by Ms. Davenport either have been sufficiently addressed in the Planning Commission's review process for this application or else are not applicable to this review action because of prior city actions in the Comprehensive Plan adoption process determining that special resource protections for the proposed Triad site were not warranted. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the site development review/planned development subject to the. conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC. -Adopt the March 2, 1992 staff memorandum as an appendix to the final order. 2. Uphold the Planning Commission's -approval of the site development review/planned development application with a modification to the • conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91711 PC to require the developers to construct a southwestern extension.of SW 109th Avenue from SW Naeve Street to SW Pacific- highway at its intersection with Royalty Parkway. 3. Deny the request on appeal, thereby overturning the commission's decision. FISCAL IMPACT None. JO:su m-tri • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Al Page No. 161 • . • TH EP The City of 9Ut-p > TIGARD R Q EEa M U R D 0 C K 0=1 S D R 9 1- 0 0 1 3 SITE ST %M Site Area BEEF BEND RD m \ x vF ° cc c U CD p= Sv a O O O Dlgl I CIo temp l map reprtoto- Itlon eenpfled by the City L - N s of llgord utltlrfog Ctogro- ll Se ) 1%, of trna ptioo Syetem rro, Itlur- oc+ o ED @ S U M M E R F I E L D p mmay b porlroyed lore my he iottndtd la ho .A uled eith additional JJJTTT~~~ N 0 R T H techtical and/or itati.t dale alt rprto dtttrnlhtd by the Clty e( llgord, (YPS8/110) 0 400 (01128/12) - The C i t v o f ~,v r\\ \~.R 'S See NOTE TAYLOR ~n \~~\X F 11 b T I GA RD a c k a f p e x~ Cora r e h e n s i ve SEE NOTE ~L -y-t S n T n \ !z PI \ \Y ST T PINE a ~ A % E ► T r a n s p o r tat i on DAKOTA \ p FA- \ \ E SEE NOTE ~ ~ \\Li ht Rail J1 ~~~~~7\, \ \ Corridor 9 Q M 4<,,~ sT \ S u d y A r e a 3 4 ST S t u d v Area • E ' ST 11 SEE ~u , ~ N O T E SEE N CH Arterial Mal o r ~r Y \ Caleetor + PINEDROOK Minor + Q \ Collector SATTIJOR ST 5T \ F r e e w a yy -f SEE NOTE 'DR ® Interchan e 0 Digital 40 t0 A map represen- \ totion compiled by the City - AVE of Tigard utilizing Geogra- a phic Information System a i GIS) software. 'nlor- = y'j \ motion portrayed bere O r l i n an e e NO.ORD 91-13 may be intended to be ~ -~G~~ q of used with additional S (rna N 0 R T H technical and/or Map adopted ](JjVE j j j G9j interpretative data as determined by N 0 T E See back (or revision schedule the City of rigord. is Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I y. Page No. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP NOTES coNPPJ&E ENSIVE PLAN 1. Scholls Ferry Road to be realigned to connect with Davies Road. TRANSPORTATION FOP 2. Study area to determine a future connection between the Walnut/132nd REVISION SC.®IILE intersection and the Gaarde/121 st intersection. A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain ORDINANCE DATE Transportation Study Report. An indirect connection of minor collectors has been recommended by NPO #3. 91-22 August 13, 1991 3. Approximate alignments are shown for the extensions of 132nd Avenue south of Bendhview Terrace,. 135th Avenue south of Walnut Street, and Benchview . Terrace west of 132nd, Avenue. These streets are to be designed as minor collectors with a design speed of 25 m.p.h.. 4., Study,area to determine the configuration of a new connection between southbound Pacific Highway and Main Street. . - - Study area to determine the alignment of a minor collector street connecting 68th Parkway near Red Rods Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension; and ` with Hampton Street at 72nd Avenue with the Dartmouth Street extension withim the westerly portion of the Tigard Triangle. 6. Study area to determine the alignment of connections. between Highway 217, Kruse Way, 1.5 and the Tigard Triangle. J 7 Connections between Hunziker•Street, Hall Boulevard at O'Mara Street 4 enerall ,and Bonita Road._ 8. Study area to consider extension of Hall Boulevard southward to connect with Boones Ferry Road in Tualatin for either pedestrian or vehicular access: 9. (Deleted) ht! •1.0. An extension of Sattler Street from 100th Avenue to 109th Avenue intersecting 100th Avenue at a point approximately 200 feet north of the existing Sattler or I Street intersection. An extension. and realignment of 109th Avenue south of the Sattler Street extension;,to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway. The ` realigned 109th Avenue shall intersect Naeve Street at a point approximately 250 feet to 450 feet east of Pacific Highway. The design of the Sattler Street extension may vary from the adopted City standards for minor collectors. i - LAND USE DECISION APPEAL r-ILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right- to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code therefore sets out specific requirements for _ filing.appeals on certain land use decisions. ~~TYOI" TIG~RD The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land -use decision in proper OREGON form. -To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: CARSE 0U_.r. e S 9 1 - bb 1 I PbR I1-ISO 7 .7' 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: ~FF~cTS~ ~TD ESI t-1.C- = A 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR.REVIEW: C-0 tJ0-ccE2' , nSi Q ~S S ?R-U c,~i (J, 9 F +L n rf • rG1C T4 N S uY` r i 4 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: (0 CT 3 i 3v CM S. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: O C-1 19; ( - t1 6. SIGNATURE(S): 1 o FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : Received By: . w Oate : ioe: 0:07 Qrm . Approved As To Form By:c. Q Q, Date: 1J,~13)4rt Time: 10:u'7 k Denied As To Form By- Date: Time: Receipt NO. Amount: . for- ~n-n-;~~-;t-nYx-~e-x•~c~c~c-!e-x-xac~~cic-x-xx~e~`~ae~t-x~t-~t~-x~c-x~x-x~-xae~e~e~"x-~e~e~e~e~t~c-~e~c-x ~'~D t yr u ~.,G~ U ,{,(~'(,rvPJ~ ~v~ l v~a8 elf ~G L Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. J_ 13125 Stir Hall Eivd.. P.O. Box 23397, Tigard. Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Page No. AID NPO #6 Minutes from the October 16, 1991 Ttee ,meeting was called to order at 7:38 om. Members in attendance were: Carver, Clinton, Crow, Davenport, Kasson, Watson and Sellers. Excused: Dillin, Mitchell, Paster_s. Not excused: Wilson (4th unexcused absence) The minutes from the September 18, 1991 meeting were approved as written. CUP 91-0007/VAR 91-0017 - TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST. 23J NPO members reviewed the School District's request for (1) Conditional Use and (2) Variance approval on the upcoming construction project and- had two recommendations concerning the perpendicular parr ins spaces: 1. Members felt that adequate road markings should be installed to help define the separation of the actual roadway and the parking buffer and in addition - 2. Members suggest that the school investigate the possibility of restriping some of the interior parking lot to include compact parking spaces. OTHER BUSINESS: NPO-members made a preliminary review of a subdivision proposal on SW 97th directly adjacent to View Terrace to the east. This small subdivision has seven lots that will use View Terrace for access and egress and two lots that will use SW 97th. Our suggestion to the property owner was that if it was-possible we would like to see one access only on SW 97th (this would-mean the two property owners would s-hare a common driveway access). REVIEW OF FINAL DECISION: NPO members reviewed the decision made by the Planning Com*ni ssion on the TRIAD development and decided to appeal their approval. The following motion was made and passed. "NPO 6 FEELS THAT THE' TRIAD DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT PROCEED WITHOUT CONCURRENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE 109TH STREET EXTENSION TO ROYALTY z PARKWAY AT 99W. NPO 6 MOVE'S TO APPEAL THE PLANNING CO -MISSION DECISION ON CASE NUMB=_'R SDR 91-0013/PDR 91-0006." Votes 5 aye 1 nay and 1 FaDste_nt-ion. +ee . - 9:25 zm. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. AL Page No. k l! LAND USE DECISION APPEAL .-ZLING FOP. The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use • Code therefore sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. CITY OF TIGAMID The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper OREGON -form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to- answer any questions you have regarding. the appeal. process, please contact the Planning 'Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171- 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: Ayfzy" Co - q/- nai,3,/ ~R 9/-oao 6~°-~ 2 . HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: al_hy::~i v~~ P attC4 O . 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: Ju~~ Ja- 6( 11 i ~p ~I nU u v 10,9 PO len ""'TI) 14r~ 7- ' l -t y" 3 ate, ov~z~-r~G . . - 4. SCHEDULED OATS DECISION-IS TO BE FINAL:f / q/ ,71 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION: WAS GIVEN: 6. SIGNATURE(S): G FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: Oate: a3 / Time: :'-(O -r-. Approved As To Form By: C L0 !!~--oate:1,p/~3L4L T ime:3: qo ee..L Denii2d As To Form By: Date: Time: Receipt No. Amount: • CICL .'~ubjQck- fo A-ece(p~ chect S3l5- i C)/--Xi let( a_~ 3: 30 P-rr-,, - fA$. Da-;'a-46rf- w~~( re&UASs de-*- G U.,k -Lbt, e L W ZL-Fr t ftt Gof cZL v,_". 13125 Sl / Hots Blvd_ P-0. Box 23397, Ticard. Ozego197223 (/503) 639-4171 Luba No. 6-104 ---J Exhibft No. Iq 101m is 194cloupcxl age No.,a7 L./ ~•L,D _ l L ~ ~ll Ci-~--Ct~~-l/YLa~ nG~ -~c~itJ [ _llr Q.C.-'~ ~ ~ i i ~(j/%' ~ ~~i L ~~-C~-/~ C!/YL~I~C ~.G'ZC~ %--Gi~ _ r Q~ .~-~t.L•`✓..J-Ci l~/~.:.! %L~-~_/-: I _7ZZc.c.4 S • Luba No. 92-lo4 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. zi 3 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT December 10, 1991 RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY NPO #6: • Typically, developments are required to provide public facilities within the development and on the roadways abuts_nc the development. These improvements are usually -require- =o be constructed to full City standards. Thus, each development provides its piece of the ultimate roadway and utility reeds =or the area. Frequently portions of the improvements provide greaser capacity than is required for the immediate development, in order to provide the development's share of the ultimate future needs of the area. Having provided their piece of the ultimate plan, developments are typically not required to provide off-site improvements beyond zhe abutting streets. Exceptions are: 1. Where the development, by itself, creates the need for the off- site improvement. For example, a develoDmert that will generate large volumes of traffic may be required to provide improvements or signals at impacted intersections awav -from the site. Sometimes interim improvements are required, such as interim paving of a gravel approach road. 2. Where the off-site improvement is essential to the development. For example, it is sometimes necessary to exter a sewer lane to the site. In addition, development pays SDC and TIF to fund the off-Site we;rk that cannot be assigned to any specific development. HOW THIS RELATES TO TRIAD: Triad has been ,required to provide improvements .-o the streets t at run through their property and the streets that abut tre_= property. In addition, they have been required to provide interim paving on Naeve Street between their site and Highway 99 unless concurrent construction of the 109th extension is assured between Naeve Street and 997. Triad was not required to construct the 109th extension south of Naeve Street. There is general agreement that the 109th extension is the best long-term access for the area. Further, =here is general agreement that it is desirable to have the 109th extension in place before :occupancy of the Triad development. =o:.eve=, completion of the of the 109th extension did not appear to be essential to the development, based on traffic impact Enaly_cis provided by the applicant and by ODOT. Further, review o-f oast development approvals does not reveal any locations where such extensive off-site improvements have been required as a condition of development. It should be noted that the 109th extension south of Nae e St:=-et will require the acquisition of right of way -from four property owners. The developer, unlike the City, has no ::ay to aco-u_re this Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. right of way unless all four property owners choose to cooperate. • It would be difficult to condition a development to accomplish.an improvement on land where they have no legal con-rol. rw/off-site Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. Z16 PLANNING DIVISION December 10, 1991 STAFF RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED BY MARGE DAVENPORT'S APPEAL Marge Davenport's appeal filing form raises a number of issues relative to the Planning Commission's approval of the Triad development plan for the Arbor Heights apartment complex- The appeal filing form does not refer to specific sections of the .Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code applicable to this review which Ms. Davenport alleges the Commission's decision is inconsistent with. However, this memo will attempt to address Ms. Davenport's issues on appeal relative to the Plan and Code requirements staff finds are most closely related to the issues raised. First, Ms. Davenport states that the application should be denied because the proposal would "dump high-density traffic from development into a single-family residential area (against stated City codes)." Staff believes that-the "City code" referred to is Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.1.1 (locational criteria for medium density residential development) which states that areas to be designated for medium density residential use shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets. SW 109th Avenue which would traverse the development site is designated.a minor collector street by the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Map as amended by the City Council on August 13, 1991. Therefore, the proposed development site is consistent with this standard. Second, the proposed connection of this segment of SW 109th Avenue through the development site with-the existing northern segment of SW 109th at the top of the hill is consistent with the. City's adopted Transportation Plan Map as it currently exists. If the appellant disagrees with the provisions of the Transportation Plan Map, that is where her efforts need to be directed rather than with regard to a development plan that is consistent with the Transportation Plan Map. Ms. Davenport has appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals the Council's. recent amendment to the Transportation Plan Map related to this area. If Ms. Davenport's appeal is successful on that issue, we would expect an action requiring reconsideration of the Triad development proposal if approved. However for now, the Triad proposal must be reviewed with respect to the Plan as it exists. Third, Triad's traffic analysis report predicts that the majority of the traffic related to the proposed development would use SW 109th and SW Naeve to access Pacific Highway with a lesser amount of traffic related to the development using other streets through primarily single-family residential neighborhoods. Anticipated additional traffic would not come anywhere close to exceeding capacities of these streets. There are no Code or Plan prohibitions against traffic related to a multi-family development passing through a single-family neighborhood, unless perhaps, such additional traffic would lead to a failure of "a safe and eff icient street and roadway system..." (Plan Policy 8.1.1). The Planning Commission found positively with respect to the proposed development's consistency with this policy (Final Order, p. 16) in Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. !I Page No. Z11 finding that the proposed realignments of SW 109th and SW Naeve • would be expected to discourage traffic through Summerfield. Fourth, Ms. Davenport states that the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan relative to the Plan's designation of this area as a scenic area would be violated by the proposed development since no environmental impact statement was filed. The City of 'Tigard does not require that an environmental impact statement be prepared for a proposed development such as this. Potential impacts are assessed through the site development review and planned development review processes. The proposed development has been subjected to these processes. In addition, the scenic area designation does not prohibit development of a site, but instead requires that development plans be reviewed by the City with regard to impacts on scenic values. The objectives of the scenic area designation are implemented through the planned development standards of the Code and the tree-removal permit requirements. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal's development, grading, landscaping, and preliminary tree removal plans with respect to the proposal's impact on scenic values. The Commission's Final Order recognizes that a significant number of trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The Final Order also notes that the proposed improvements would be situated so as to preserve groupings of existing trees and to minimize grading. The Final Order. requires the prospective developer to employ the services of an arborist to supervise tree removal and tree protection efforts. Staff finds that the review of the proposal has been consistent with the Code requirements • relative to its designation as a scenic area. Finally, Ms. Davenport's appeal raises concerns with regard to the proposed development's potential impacts on the "integrity of the neighborhood..." as well as the timing of development. Although staff can certainly understand a long-time resident's dismay at the prospect of a large development replacing a largely vacant tree- covered parcel, it must be recognized that the property's owner has a right to develop the property at any time if the proposal can be shown to be consistent with the applicable development approval criteria - even if the proposed development would make a change in the character of the neighborhood. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. ZI • DECEMBER 10, 1991 COMMENTS FROM MARGE DAVENPORT i Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. !!t Page No. all C f?. t-,5R1%TyN TESTIMONY AGEND4 ITa%l 1\10_ 4 - COUNCIL V c^TING OF-12/10/91 0 PETITION FOR REVIEW City Planning approval of Triad Development proposal Petitioner seeks order reviewing and reversing Planning Commission decision -of proposed Triad development on basis that decision to approve violates applicable provisions of Tigard Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning goals. These are cited in the following pages. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. L ` • Page No. -1 ffo MARGE DAVENPORT For Council Meeting of 12/10/91 There is failure to consider the specific approval standards in Comp- rehensive Plan Polic 3.1.1 regarding development hazards, in the face 7City'S of clear evidence in its own Plan that this development is within hazard areas==buildings, streets(including realignment of 109th)(Plan at 1-19 to 1-34) Failure to develop any record regarding these criteria and failure to adopt any findings regarding development hazards requires that the Council remand the planning decision. (See detailed code findings attached.) No independent studies made on which to base decision. Therefor, Planning decision should be reversed. 2. Failure to address Statewide Planning Goal 5 with respect to impact on Goal 5 resources including the Little Bull Mountain Special Area.The City's Comprehensive Plan recognizes the city's Statewide Planning Goal 5 obligations to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic re- sources. An inventoried Goal 5 resource site--the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest (Plan at 1-96, 1-97). The summit of the Little Bull Fountain area (part of Triad development) is also designated as a Special Area (Plan at 1-42.)This Special Area, identified as one of six such areas by the City's Comprehensive Plan, contain three-separate Goal 5 resources considered to be of significance to city residents-- wildlife habitat, natural forest cover, and outstanding scenic presence and visual impact The plan further states that conficting uses to the natural state of Little Bull Mountain be limited, requiring special attention to development activities impacting this locale. If goal 5 is ignored, the city xAll-fail to follow the requirements of CDC 18.30.130. The planning council decision for approval failed to adequately address Goal 5 priorities, therefore, the decision should be reversed. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Ili Page No. -314 3. Failure to address Comprehensive Plan Policy-3.4 (c) and Implemen- tation Strategy 3 requiring minimization of development impacts to areas of significant environmental concern--those areas valued for specific natural features or as habitats for plant or animal life. Policy 3.4.1 (c) states the city shall designate the following as areas of significant environmental concern: "Areas valued for fragile character as habitats for plants, animal..life,...or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas." Implementation Strategy 3 under 3.4 (Natural Areas), Comprehensive Plan states "The city shall review all development proposals adjacent to wildlife habitat areas to insure that adverse impacts on • any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be, request that other federal, state and local agencies review development oroposals." No effort has 4aken to review the development against these standards from the city's Comprehensive Plan Policies and Strategies. In the staff repor A t is stated that no environmental impact study is required. It goes on to explain that impacts are assessed through site development review processes, but none of the findings set forth in the Plan are specifically addressed , no consultations were carried out with other federal, local or state agenies to review developmental proposals. No inventories of wildlife, animals or plants has been nade. No reference is made to impact of adjacent natural and forested areas. • In ignoring the policy requirment that this is a designated area of significant environmental concern, and treating it as such, the planning cocci ssion and the staf*_= has failed to meet the requirements of Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. i y Paae No.49-1 Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4 (c) and Implementation Strategy 3, therefor, the development should be denied until this is done. 4. Failure to make any finding or address any matters relating to Comp- rehensive Plan Policy 8.1.2, which requires management of transportat= a. OK ation planning process Cof additional trips per day from Triad development through cooperation with affected jurisdictions. ~o~~,rEcYt";) Policy 8.1.2. The city shall provide for efficient manage- ment of the transportation planning process within the city and the Metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions." There is not factual basis in the record to establish that Policy 8/1/2 . has been met. It is relevent because roadway receiving traffic from Little Bull Mountain area is state Highway 99W. Coordination requirements with the etropolitan Service District due to the importance of Highway 99W ; with Washington County, or to detailed planning with ODOT was not done, according to the record. (no evidence ofcommunication). This lack of evidence in the record of any communications or attempts at coordination with these agencig, along with total lack of findings or conclusions about Policy 8.1.2 clearly violates CDC 18.30.120 dealing with approval standards. Therefor, development should be denied. Detailed Policy citations follow for each of the above. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. 4,18 3 There is failure to consider the specific approval standards in Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.1 regarding development hazards, in the. face of clear evidence in Tigards own Plan that the Triad development and proposed street alignments are within hazard areas. 3.1.1, states that: "The city shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the-area suitable for the proposed.development:" b. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential c. areas subject so slumping, earth slides or movement. d. areas having slopes in excess of 25 percent e. areas having severe weak foundation soils." Helvetia Formation This formation, of about the same age as the Troutdale Formation, consists of unconsolidated reddish-brown and light-brown clayey silt and sandy silt deposited on the surface of Columbia River Basalt to a depth of 15-145 feet. It occurs along the mid slopes of Bull Mountain-- Little Bull Mountain where heavily weathered it is converted into a n lateritic soil. " The origin of Upland Silt is in dispute, but its basic characteristics are not. It is a massive, structureless sandy silt and clayey silt. and occupies much of Little•Bull Mountain. Although stable when dry, Upland Silt is unconsolidated and is unstable when moist. It also has low permeability. Some settling is to be expec- ted evn' for light loads supported by spread footings, and heavy loadings cannon be'suiaported. A high moisture content seriously weakens earth slooes and heavily stressed foundations. Mud flows and slumps. Luba No. - 92-104 Exhibit No. it Pane Kin _1~rN 41ity is also to be expected where the Upland Silt rests on basalt which slopes with the surface countour." (Plan at 1-19 to 1-34) There is nothing to indicate that consideration has been given to Comprehensive Plan Policy Local knowlege_of the Triad site states that there are a number of springs which have developed into what locals call "quicksand'; although they are obviously the wet Upland Silt areas mentioned in the Plan. No independent evaluation of the site has been made or. geologist consulted , therefore approval would be in violation of 3.1.1. Furthermore, Oregon is located within one of the most tectonically imstable regions of the earth, where volcanic activity and earthquakes are manifestations of geophysical processes occuring many miles below the surface over areas the size of subcontinents. Tigard was the epicenter of a 1941 earthquake and the area has a continting history of major seismic events. Recent findings have predicted a IX intensity quake possible. In view of these facts, It is additionally important that the steep, unstable silt soils of Little Bull Mountain be appropriately evaluated as called for in the Comprehensive Plan before a large development is approved. This has not yet been done. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I-q Page No. J 9 S Tigards Comprehensive Plan recognizes the city's Statewide Plan- ning Goal 5 obligation to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The Triad site involves the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest (Plan at 1-96, 1-97) and it also indirectly affects the Kallstrom Fir Grove (Plan at 1-106, 1-107). The summit of the Little Bull Mountain area is also designated as a Special Area (Plan at 1-42) meriting priority attention as a Goal 5 resource. This area, identifie'4 a~lne of six such areas by the-City's Comprehensive Plan, contains three separate Goal 5 resources considered to be of significance .to the City's residents (wildlife habitat--Plan at 1-40, natural forest cover--Plan at 1-96, and outstanding scenic presence and visual impact--ID). is The Plan further states that conflicting uses to the natural state of Little Bull Mountain be limited, requiring special attention to development activities impacting this locale. Ignoring Goal S, indicates failure to follow requirements of CDC 18.30.130. C Furthermore, failure to address Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.1 (c) and Implementation Strategy 3 requiring minimization of-development impacts to areas of significant environmental concern of those areas valued for specific natural features or as habitats for plant or animal life. 3.4.1 (c) states the city shall designate-the following as areas of significant environmental concern: "Areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, ...or specific natural features valued for the need to rotec' p Luba No. 92-104 natural areas." Exhibit No. 1-1- Page No. sflL Implementation Strategy 3 under 3.4 (Natural Areas), Comprehensive 3. The city shall review all development proposals adjac- ent to wildlife habitat areas to insure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be, request that other federal, state and local agencies review development proposals." The findings which precede the above-cited Policy and Implemen- tation Strategy indicate that significant plant communities and animal habitat areas are found in the stands of timber and brush, and that development in and adjacent to existing wildlife areas can adversely effect those areas and eliminate their value as wildlife habitat. Furthermore, the findings state that vegetation cont.i:rbutes to the eesthetic quality of the community, performs certain environmental functions and softens the impact of urban environment Plan at II-16 • Identified Resources (I-96 (a) Little Bull Mountain Natural' Fores-t `......DETERMINED TO BE A SIGNIFICANT GOAL 5 resource as a--.I out- standing scenic site. This area is the largest stand of natural coniferous trees within the Tigard active urban planning area, a_nd there- fore, serves as a City visual landmark. ....Staff recommendation for this site is to limit conflicting uses. The limited conflicting uses allowec will be single family detached residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development process'..I-96 SPECIAL AREAS "In addition to the general policies to help protect natural vegetation and wildlife, specific areas have been suggested by specialists for preservation, through fee purchase if necessary. These areas were singled out for priority attention because of: their particular vege- tation and wilflife values, 2kelative uniqueness. Areas identi_`Luba No--92-104 Exhibit No. Pape No. 18q include: 3.11 Summit of Little Bull Mountain. This area has a heavily-wooded with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals including deer, raccoon and pheasant." I-42 Scenery l. "Summit of Little Bull fountain.' An inventory gonducted by the City of Tigard revealed th9t there arF various scenic views and sites, as defined in Goal 5 that exist iT the Tigard Planning Area" including above.-43 The natural areas pre.sent and identified canno-. be 4gnored, or dismissed without detailed inventory and compliance with goals set forth in Comprehensive Plan. It would be erroneous for the city to do so. This obviously has not been done and there is no reference made by staff, other than vague reference to preserving trees, which a look at the proposed development makes it obvious that none of the required criteria are met. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.1 and Imple- mentation Strategy 3 have not been met. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. of Page No. Q 8 Fl City has failed to make any finding or address any matters relating • to Comprehensive Plan Policy 8. 1. 1. which requires management of the transportation planning process through cooperation with affected juri- dictions. "Policy 8.1.1. The city shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process within the city and the metropoli- tan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions." There is no evidence in the record that Policy 8.1.2 has been met. Although ODOT figures indicate that 2,088 trips per day are gen- erated by a 348 u_'lit development, and the only traffic a-!alysis in the record shows that 250 peak hour trips will be put onto Highway 99W from • the Triad development alone (R115) The coordination requirement prescribed by Policy 8.1.2 requires the city to address the imoacts on Highway 991.1 with findings indicating how coordination has been achieved with the obj! ctives of the Access Oregon program, as well as the functioning of the highway as a major regional transportation facility. This later function, is also within the purview of the Metro Service District (Metro) due to the importance of Highway 99W to moving vehicular traffic to and from the southwest portion of the Portland metropolitan area into regional freeway systems. The record does not disclose any type of coordination in the trnas- portation planning process with ODOT, (other than a vague h@arsa3►? - Metro or Washington County. Lack of compliance on these issues violates CDC 18.30.120 dealing with approval standards. • (even though these things were brought to the staff's attention by Council at a prior hearing Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. In addition to compliance with code re~qnizementthere is another important consideratiolpot addressed by the code, but one that must be addressed by the city. The city code has identified the soil on Little Bull Mountain as unconsolidated silt, which when wt becomes very gooey, runny and prone to wash downhill. Digging up the whole south side of Little Bull Mountain is going to create tons of brown, muddy clay-like runoff everytime it rains.....this will drain directly to the Tualatin River a short distance away. The state, the Departmnt of Environmental Quality and county and city agencies have launched an all-out plan to clean up the Tualitan River, and prevent just such things from happening. The only solution would be large settling tanks to hold the run-off, There is no indication that the staff has taken this into consideration, made any such requirement, or considred the consequences. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a- Page No. 490 • s MARCH 2, 1992 STAFF RESPONSE TO MARGE DAVENPORT'S WRITTEN TESTIMONY Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. L4-- Page No. n MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Councilors FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Directo DATE: March 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Marge Davenport's December 10, 1991 Written Testimony On December 10, 1991, Marge Davenport submitted written testimony relative to the appeal of the Planning Commission's Final Order for Site Development Review SDR 91-0013 and Planned Development Review PDR 91-0006 (Triad-Tigard Ltd.). This written testimony is attached. Four major issues are raised by Ms. Davenport with regard to the consistency of the approved site development plan with regard to Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 3.1.1, 3.4.1, 8.1.2, and Statewide Planning Goal 5. The issues are summarized briefly below, followed by City staff analysis. • ISSUE ONE Ms. Davenport alleges that the Planning Commission decision fails to consider Plan Policy 3.1.1 regarding development hazards, in the face of evidence that the proposed development site is within hazard areas identified in Comprehensive Plan Volume I - Resource Document. Ms. Davenport's December 10, 1991 comments quote 'from the Comprehensive Plan resource document regarding the possible presence of Helvetia and Upland Silt soil on the site above basaltic bedrock and the potential development constraints related to these soils and soil/bedrock interfaces. In addition, the comments generally raise the issue of tectonic instability (i.e., potential for earthquakes and volcanic activity) in Oregon. Ms. Davenport alleges that the Planning Commission was in error in approving the development plan for this site without an evaluation of the soils and geology of the site. ANALYSIS Policy 3.1.1 was identified as an approval criterion for the proposed Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application by staff and the Planning Commission- Policy 3.1.1 is implemented through the Community Development Code's Sensitive Lands Review process, where applicable, and through the building • permit review process where the City's Building Official finds additional soils analysis is warranted. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I q Page No. Qia- • The applicant was notified in the pre-application conference that a Sensitive Lands Review application would be necessary if there was to be any development on slopes in excess of 25 percent. The applicant's submittal includes a topographic survey map of the site dated November 21, 1989 by Consulting Engineering Services. The development plan avoids placing any development in this area. Because the proposal would not disturb slopes in excess of 25 percent, no Sensitive Lands Review was necessary as part of the site plan review. The Planning Commission final order's findings for Policy 3.1.1 refer to the proposed development's avoidance of the Sensitive Lands Review process through avoiding development on slopes in excess of 25 percent. The following findings relative to Policy 3.1.1 were provided in the Commission's final order: 2. Policy 3.1.1 is met because the northwestern portion of the property which has slopes over 25 percent and therefore is significantly constrained for development purposes is proposed to remain in its natural state. In addition, the Planning Commission's final order requires the following soils/geologic analysis as a pre-condition to approval of a site-work permit or grading permit for the Triad development: 3. The finished grade of cuts or fills shall have a maximum • slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer shall certify the stability of any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report from a registered engineer shall be submitted. The report shall indicate the location of any fill placed on building sites, suitability of the soil for building construction, and soil bearing capacity. Policy 3.1.1 is not listed as a specific approval criterion by the approval standards for either Site Development Review or Planned Development Review applications in Community Development Code sections 18.120.180 or 18.80.120 respectively. As such, no additional analysis of potential development limitations is required as part of a development application other than the requirements of the applicable implementing development regulations. Therefore, the Planning Commission's findings with regard to this policy should be upheld. ISSUE TWO Ms. Davenport alleges that the Planning Commission decision fails to consider implementation strategy 3 following Plan policy 3.4.2 which states that the City shall review all development proposals adjacent to wildlife habitat areas to ensure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be, request that other federal, state, and local agencies review the proposal. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. P Page No. zqs ANALYSIS The Comprehensive Plan Resource Document in pages I-36 through I-42 speaks in fairly general terms with regard to wildlife habitat resources, including general references to the Little Bull Mountain area. The Little Bull Mountain area, and thus the proposed Triad development site, however is not illustrated as an area with important values for wildlife on Diagram V on page I-41 (attached). Since this area is not illustrated on this map, it is clear that the City has previously decided that the Little Bull Mountain resource site was not an important resource to be protected for wildlife values (i.e., an Oregon Administrative Rules Division 16 Statewide Planning Goal 5 rule 1-a decision). As such, the City is not obligated to assess impacts on wildlife habitat that may occur because of proposed developments in this area. Therefore, the Planning Commission and staff did not err in not requiring a report on the potential for impacts upon the proposed development site's wildlife habitat values, as specified by Comprehensive Plan implementation strategy 3 following Plan Policy 3.4.2 as alleged by Ms. Davenport. ISSUE THREE The written testimony statement alleges that the decision by the Planning Commission fails to address whether other agencies or jurisdictions with responsibilities for the area's transportation system were contacted with regard to the proposed development's anticipated traffic impacts, as required by Plan Policy 8.1.2. ANALYSIS The regional transportation coordination directives of Plan Policy 8.1.2 were implemented in this case through the City requesting (and receiving) comments on the proposed development plan and the traffic study submitted in support of the proposal from the City of Ring City, Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation, and the Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division. The comments are reported in the Agency and NPO Comments section of the Final Order (pages 6 through 10) and the original comments are available for review in the application file for this action. The Metropolitan Service District (Metro) was not contacted with regard to this development proposal since the proposed development's anticipated traffic impacts are within the range that would be expected with full development of the site under the provisions of the City's acknowledged plan; therefore, the development would not be expected to result in traffic issues of regional concern. The City of Tigard does not routinely notify Metro of proposed development actions unless the proposed development could be reasonably considered to have regional impacts. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. j-$- Page No. Z4 • ISSUE FOUR The written testimony statement alleges that the decision by the Planning Commission fails to address the proposed development's impacts upon identified Statewide Planning Goal Five resources listed in Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan. The comments cite the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, the Kallstrom Fir Grove, and the special area (Plan at I-42) "designation" for the summit of Little Bull Mountain which is identified as being significant as wildlife habitat, natural forest cover, and as a scenic and visual resource. ANALYSIS Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan at I-96 designates the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest as an outstanding scenic area due to the visual significance of the stand of coniferous trees. The Plan states that the ..staff recommendation is to limit conflicting uses. The limited conflicting uses allowed will be single family residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development process..." and also that "if the resource is preserved, it will be necessary to situate any structures in a manner that minimizes the loss of trees." The City did not follow the staff's recommendation in this section fully during the adoption of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The City chose to designate the south side and summit of Little Bull Mountain with the Medium • Density Residential Plan designation and the R-12 zoning district, which both allow multi-family development as well as single family development as permitted uses. The City, however, did designate the site with the Planned Development overlay zone in an attempt to limit the conflicts with the resource values of the forested area (A Goal 5 Rule 3-c decision to allow a conflicting use, with limits in order to provide some protection for the resource values of the site). In addition, the Plan Resource Document at page I-95, in summary of the ESEE analysis of inventoried Goal 5 resources, states: The wooded areas on several resource sites will have an impact on the character and intensity of the use allowed. The trees, however, can be incorporated into required setback and landscaping areas without much loss of net building area. The significant wooded areas are identified and mapped. The policy of the City's comprehensive plan is that these areas will be preserved in a natural state as much as possible or integrated into the design of any development, i.e. parking lot island, building setbacks, street rights-of-way and landscaping areas whenever possible. If it is necessary to remove a portion or all of the trees, the replacement landscape features shall be . subject to approval by the applicable approval authority. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. a1S • The Planning Commission reviewed the Triad development plan through the Planned Development Review process as required by the overlay zone. The materials reviewed by the Commission included an existing tree survey as well as a detailed landscaping plan. The Planning Commission was apprised of the issue of tree protection through the staff report and at the public hearing.. The approved development plan includes a relatively large u"disturbed forested area in the northwestern corner of the site, incorporates several groves of existing mature trees within the landscaped areas of portions of the site to be. developed, and provides a substantial amount of replacement landscaping. The Commission's final order notes the following with regard to the proposed development's anticipated effects upon the resource values of the Little Bull Mountain coniferous forest: Policy 3.4.2 is satisfied because wooded sites such as this are to be reviewed through the Planned Development in order to allow Commission review of the tree removal plans. This site has previously been designated with the Planned Development overlay zone. Chapter 18.120 (Site Development Review) is satisfied because the site plan generally provides for the proposed buildings and other site improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees and to minimize alterations to the site's topography and drainage systems... • - Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees in preparation for development. Permits will be granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the development that will be retained. A detailed tree survey and an arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading permit or a tree removal permit. As such, the Planning Commission's review placed restrictions on the removal of trees in the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest to minimize their removal while allowing the placement of permitted structures on the site as required by the Plan's language cited above as well as the approval criteria of the implementing Site Development Review, Planned Development Review, and Tree Removal sections of the Community Development Code. Ms. Davenport's comments allege the proposed development will "indirectly affect" the Rallstrom Fir Grove. Staff fails to understand the "indirect" effect upon this resource site which is to the east of the subject site and SW 109th Avenue, some 300 plus • feet further to the east. Without any further information regarding the alleged indirect effects on this resource site, staff Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. -X 45( recommends that the Council conclude that the proposed Triad development will have no measurable direct effect upon the Kallstrom Fir Groves resource values. The Plan at page I-42 does state that the summit of Little Bull .Mountain and other areas within the City "...have been suggested by specialists for preservation, through fee purchase as necessary" and details the attributes of these sites. The Plan continues, "other factors such as the cost of preservation will, of course, also have to be considered." This language in the Plan regarding special areas was background information on possible resource sites for the City to have chosen to preserve or to limit conflicts with through the development of implementing regulations in the Plan acknowledgement process or through purchase of these properties. The Plan and implementing regulations have not previously placed restrictions on development of this site or the other areas based on these suggestions for preservation on page I-42. The City also did not choose to purchase this or the other site's, possibly due to "other factors such as the cost of preservation." The City's Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances were acknowledged as meeting the requirements of Goal 5 as,-of October 11, 1984 with no special requirements related to this listing of these sites as "special areas" (a Goal 5 rule 1-a decision). Therefore, no Goal 5 analysis regarding the potential impacts of an allowed use upon a resource the City has previously chosen not to protect is necessary during the development review process. RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Site Development Review SDR 91-0013 and Planned Development Review PDR 91-0006 (Triad-Tigard Ltd.). The findings included in this memorandum should be adopted as an appendix to the final order in response to the December 10, 1991 comments from Marge Davenport. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. V1 TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA i r 1 x Areas with important values for wildlife. Source: Uep'artment of Fish and "`'=5 3 ^ua t r Wildlife, 1976. ~It t~r C» 1 t r• f'jti '1'qq J~'...,,.«.tliti.`~• •..r~+tll r~ • ~ ~~c my V \ t• _ ~ ~ ~ , -~a'c~+- ; y~.~ „•+q~.:-t,'~~' \t ;ems ell 1-2 pp •--mot:'..- S ~ ~ t:.l t~? 1 ) 'n ~ t ~1; ;ICJ ~ i a c t I Y t• 1, rt Tr. 1\\ I ~ ~ • t ~I it ~ ~l -a ~n =r 0- o z o J J u~ fi / , ~ r/ ~ n:1nLi ~rr•_./7l\ l~ ' f"'. 'fit MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1991 HEARING Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 11 Page No. -MT Senior Planner Richard Bewersdorff displayed a map showing the location of the subject property. He described the bordering properties aKd gave a brief history explaining that the subject property was annexe into Tigard in 1985. He advised that the Industrial designation w~a?kept en the property was annexed. He said staff was recommending approval of he Zone Change. r APPLICANT'S RESENTATION ' o Stark Ack Tian, an attorney with Black Helterline 200 Bank of California wer, 707 SW Washington, Portland, 9 05, stated he was representing plicants T. Michael and Associ s, Ltd. He talked about the criteria co erned and described the par 1 as an island surrounded by Commercial pro rties. o Mary Dorman, a planni consultant, 61 NE Alameda, Portland, reviewed the designation and in oded uses- a said the amendment would be ding prerty Commercial uses. She discussed consistent with the surro op the change in circti-mstances nd a character of the building, noting that there would not be a non nforming use. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o There was no one signed p to speak this itesi. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Cou ni ssi oner F!pol er said she agreed that t e property was overlooked ies. She expresse when considera Son was given to the other proxrL d concern abou traffic circulation inside the pa '\nT,, entrance. o Cori mi ssi ner Saporta agreed there was a change-in wouldd ecessitate a zone change. o Ca, i ssi oners Boone-, Moore, and Saxton stated -tthe C ip Plan A.m?ndment and the Zone Change. Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Fess. d to the City Council recommendation to approve the CPA 91-0004 and ZON 91-0007. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO 116) A request for Site Develorinent Review and Planned Development Review approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW 11165 - 11185 Naeve Street, between SW i Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300 2S1 - IOAC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900,-and 2S1 IODB, tax lots 100, 200, 8 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18-54, 18.5-, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18,100, 18.102, 18.106, PLANNING C04P1ISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 ?:,GE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. L1__ Paoe No. Z~4q 18.108, 18.11 ,18.120, 18.150, 18.164; Compret, .;ve Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.2.1, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and 8.1.3. Associate Planner Jerry Offer described the site location and adjacent area. He reviewed the first application made a year ago and the reasons the application was approved but denied upon an appeal to City Council. He described the street system in the community and the changes which the development would bring about. He said NPO f6 was concerned about several traffic issues in connection with future development and requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Transportation plan map, resulting in City Council's approval of changes. He elaborated on the collector street changes and the new proposed roads. He explained how the new complex would connect to existing collectors. Associate Planner handed out to Commissioners several replacement pages with changes to the staff report concerning Condition f3 (pages 11 and 18) (see Exhibit A). He explained the NPO had suggested a pedestrian pathway from the northern portion of the development to the existing Tri-Met bus stop on SW Pacific Highway. Associate Planner advised he would like to revise the staff report to reflect the following recommendation: "In addition, the Planning Division rec „ ends approval of the Access Variance to allow the proposed developmeent to be served by four access points rather than the required eight access points." He explained that the code requires access points based on the number of parking spaces, and he advised this may be an error in the code. He said staff recommends fewer access points better serve the existing surrounding coa nuni ti es as well as the proposed subject development- 0 City Engineer Randy Wooley clarified for Ca-amissioner Fyre plans for future transportation improvements regarding SLownerfield and King City. o Commissioner Fessler requested clarification from Associate Planner regarding the ttPO's_ questions about density transfer. He advised. that Commissioners should consider the issue based on the current density approved. He added that the City is not developing at a density higher than was planned. o Commissioner Boone referred to the map for clarification about the private and public streets shown. Associate Planner pointed out the access points. He answered questions regarding turn restrictions. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Ross Woods, 320 Andover Park East, Seattle, Washington, 98138, of Triad Development. He reviewed the March 1990 initial application and the following actions up to the November 1990 denial due to safe street access issues. He stated that Triad worked with neighborhood organizations in an effort to develop a more acceptable traffic plan with improved access and street circulation. He described these in detail. He displayed diagrams showing streets and showed an architectural rendition of the development and amenities. He showed the video tape "On the PLANNING C011-(MISSION MIt:UT`S - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. j~L Paae No. 3o d Green at Harbour, ?ointe", 1cca=ed north of Seattle_ His ca-~entation described the c aimplex, the units, the open space, and the recreation • facilities. He said Triad won the 1990 Seattle Master Builders `lame Award for best apartment coy amenity. Mr. Woods handed out copies of the proposed 109th/Naeve realignment. He talked about traffic impact fees of approximately $160,000. He said NPO =6 recommended a pedestrian path, which he said would create an unsafe situation, as there would not be any lighting or access by police. o Greg Weston, a Civil Engineer with Kampe Associates, Inc., 3681 SW Carman Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035, provided a background on the road design. He talked about many possible plans to access Beef Bend Road at Highway 99, and the rejection by State Highway Department of the design presented because of curves and grade problems. He provided copies of the letter from the Highway Department which states they favor the Naeve Road and 109th realignment. He discussed the storm drainage system, water system, and public roads. 0 Wayne Kittleson, of Kittleson and Associates, 610 SW Alder, Suite 700, Portland, 97204, explained the traffic analyses he has performed for the applicant concerning the proposed development. He presented graphic diagrams: (l) 'Trip Generation (AM Peak)"; and (2) "Arterial Scenario He explained study methods and results; and he discussed the data and conclusions. Fe described several traffic route scenarios and heir ramifications. He concluded that at full build out, the traffic volur~es will be well within the limit of residential streets. He used- another diagram, "Extension of 109th to Naeve," explaining this scenario had the benefit of redirecting cut-through traffic away balm Su aerfi el d. He explained in detail the impact of the Al bertson's Shopping Center and provided trip data. He agreed with staff's position in favor of removing the barricade on 109th, creating a continuous route. e recocn~_-nded aeainst turn restrictions. He answered-questions froim Ca:iiissioners concerning volume, travel times, and stacking problems on the northern portion of the site- 0 City Engineer Randy Wooley answered questions from Commissioner Fessler concerning SW 109th and Naeve street width, stating there was no need for turn lanes or parking and therefore it could be narrower than full street width. Meeting Recessed - 9:00 PM Meetina Reconvened - 9:15 PM o Phil ?asteris, representing NPO =6, favored construction of a pedestrian pathway. He talked about the new 109th through street, stating there was a need for signage restricting parking as well as on the existing SW 109th. He referred to the Development Code and read fron page I. 42, item 3 regarding the Suit of Little Bull Fountain pertaining to areas for preservation because of vegetation and wildlife values. He said there • ::?s concern about protecting ze area. PLANN!_*::u CO`t.ISSION ` iNUTES - OCTOBi.R 7, 1991 PAGE 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. If Page No. 301 He spoke about the high priority of the extension of Royalty Parkway, which he would like to see as a contingency requirenment of the . devel op„ent. He asked the Commission and City Council to consider reassessing the develo pe nt taking place in the area as far as density and overall impact. o Commissioner Hawley asked NPO to comment on the issue of safety regarding the pedestrian pathway. Mr. Pasteris said a safe pathway was feasible. Staff clarified the code regarding planning for access to mass transit. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Associate Planner Jerry Offer handed out two letters received too late for meeting packets (See Exhibit B, letters from Maybell DeMay and Lenore A. Schuster). o Kermit Scott, 15605 SW 114th Court, Tigard, stated he is a member of the Fountains Condominium Association in Sumnerfield and is representing the -Fountains Board of Directors. He advised the Board does not object to the planned ";tension of SW 109th Street across Haeve Road to Highway 99. He expressed concern about the traffic noise impact on the Fountains, and they requested that a sound barrier be constructed from the brick wall bordering Naeve Road along the Fountains borderline to a point south of the two buildings affected by the road. There was . discussion concerning the distance of the road from the Fountains. He handed out a copy of his statements (Exhibit C). o Maybelle DeMay, 15300 SW 116th Avenue, King City, 97224, stated she re?resented King City. She referred to her letter of August 9, 1990 to City Engineer Randy 'Vooley (see Exhibit B), advising of their continued opposition to additional traffic at Naeve and Highway 99 because of safety considerations. She said King City approves of the improvement and signalization of Royalty Parkway and recommends th-at'al°1 traffic improvement be financed by the developer. o Beverly Froude., representing NPO z3, said the NPO fully supported the Transportation Amendment approved August 9th and is now requesting the following language: "Indicate that 109th be realigned to curve across the south slope of the Fountains Development and continue south of Naeve Street to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty Parkway." She advised that the NPO is opposed to connecting increased traffic onto Haeve at Highway 99-without changes to the intersection. She discussed the funding and Traffic Impact Fees, suggesting they be earmarked for this project and she requested a continuation of the hearing until this is completed. She also requested that negotiations with affected property owners be completed before approving the development. She advised that the NPO is in concurrence with opening up SW 109th at the top. PLANINING C01MISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 5 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1,4 Pane No. 36-- o Richard :;atsoi. 10290 SW Highland Drive in Sur.,. field, spo'Ke in support of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation I4ap Arzndmen=. :le agreed with NPO -723 and King City's position pertaining to the timing of the extension of Royalty Parkway. He discussed the traffic problems at Naeve and Highway 99, stating they would like to see this intersection left open as a right turn only in conjunction with the improvement at Royalty Parkway. o Commissioner Fessler discussed the input received fro:l ODOT in assessing the Naeve/99W intersection. City Engineer answered questions on this issue. OPPONENTS o Al Erickson, 15200 SW 109th in Tigard, talked about the problems with parking at the Timberline Apartments and the Canterbury Roods, and the unsafe intersection at Naeve and 99W. o Jack Orchard, 1100 One Main Place, 101 SW Main, Portland, 97204, spoke representing Marge Davenport and the Estate of Bernard McPhillips, property ownership at 15100 SW 109th. -He said his client is "opposed to any efforts to utilize the revised transportation system improvements." He said Mrs. Davenport's concerns are about the Plan designation of the unique area on Little Bull Mountain; traffic impacts on Highway 99, especially the intersection at Naeve; and the overall densities in the area. o Don Feller, 9875 SW View Court, Tigard, 97224, commented favorably on the plan development; although he did not feel that the increased traffic impact was desirable. He strongly favored the Royalty Parkway connection, and wanted to see it placed as a condition of approval. He was concerned about forcing traffic back into the neighborhoods, and explained why SW 100th posed a safety proble:,i for pedestrians. APPLIC,*W S REBUTTAL o Steve Pfeiffer spoke on behalf of 'Tigard/Triad Limited Partnership. He said the key concerns are traffic issues. He said the parking issue was not a problem. He talked about the designation of unique and protected lands, but said he doubted it was implemented; and he was certain there was nothing in the code that would preclude approval of the site plan. He discussed the funding alternatives for the transportation improvements. o Wayne Kittleson spoke again regarding the safety of the intersection of Naeve/99W. He explained the methods and research into accident history. He said the conclusion is that the intersection is not a safety problem and has excess capacity. He discussed the impact of additional east/west traffic if Royalty Parkway is not caimpleted. He said the Triad Development would not have an adverse safety effect. He answered questions from Commissioners concerning turning left from 99W to Naeve, that intersection's accident rate, and volirmies using the Alb-~rtson shopping center. PLn':'JIN:G CO`NISSIOII MI::UTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 6 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No.II-q- Page No. 3a PUBLIC HE, RING CLOSED • o Comiissioner Eessier compared the proposed plan design with the previous one presented. She carmented on the efforts of the co-mwnity and the developer to create the best possible plan. She favored approving the development with the condition that SW 109th has a reserve right-of-way to provide for a future minor collector. o Commissioner Saporta stated he favored the plan. He said the reduced width of the street makes sense in light of preserving the special area. He favored Ono parking" limitations on SW 109th, and he recoam nded opening SW 109th at the top to promote circulation. He advocated the use of public transportation, agreeing that the pedestrian pathway could be safe and useful. He suggested that the cost of improvement to the intersection with Royalty Parkway should be shared. o Commissioner Boone favored the current proposal over the previous one presented. He disagreed with the traffic analyses based on personal experience. He was in favor of the pedestrian pathway. Regarding the questions about emergency vehicle access, he suggested raking the pathways wide enough to facilitate these vehicles. He preferred to have the full width of 109th dedicated for the future. He was opposed to the developer paying all the cost of the transportation improvements, but he was in favor of extending 109th to Royalty Parkway and eliminating the intersection of 11,1aeve/99W, making it a cul-de-sac. o Coi-a-iiissiover Moore complimented Triad on the design of the project. Xe talked about the access problems, favoring campl eti on of the Royalty • Parkway improvement as soon as possible. o Coimnissioner Saxton did not agree that the pedestrian pathway should be made a condition for approval- Xe was in favor of approving the deve l opment. o Cori ssi oner Castile agreed with Cori-,mi ssi oner Boone about closing 11aeve/99W i ntersettiw. He favored having the completion of Royalty Parkway prior to occupation permits being issued. He suggested having the pedestrian pathway approved by the Police Department first. 0 Corm-iissioner Barber mentioned the letters from Douglas Coleman and Lenore Schuster (see meeting packet) referring to the zoning and density issues- She pointed out some positive features of the project. She was not in favor of the parking restrictions on the northern portion of SW 109th. She was also opposed to the pedestrian pathway for safety reasons. She agreed with other Comnissioners to promote the improverwant of Royalty Parkway as soon as possible, but did not agree with Commissioners who favored closing the Naeve/99W intersection. v~r,= 7 PLA':N I NG COtfi1I SSI ON MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 30 o Co:saissioner lley did not ::ant to connect the _ransportation issues concerning Naeve/99W and Royalty Parkway to the development. She expressed concern about sufficient parking- She suggested the width of • SW 109th should be wide enough to accommodate Tri-Met and wide enough to allow for safe automobile traffic if cars do park along the street. She agreed with ODOT's assessment concerning fewer accesses onto 99W. She was is favor of the design and facilities and said she appreciated the* time taken by the developers to work with the community. o Commissioner Fyre favored opening SW 109th at the top for circulation. He did not agree that the developer should bear the cost of improving Royalty Parkway. He preferred to have SW 109th full width. He expressed concern about the traffic flow through Summerfield. He agreed with staff recommendations against constructing a pathway. He generally favored approving the development. o Commissioner Fessler inquired about the possibility of preserving any buildings of historic value as opposed to demolishing them. o There was discussion concerning improvement of Royalty Parkway and 109th. Consensus was that this was a high priority issue and a motion was proposed to communicate concerns on this issue to City Council. City Engineer answered questions pertaining to time frame and funding process. Comissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to recommend approval of PDR 91-0006 and SDR 91-0013 subject to the conditions as written by staff except the following: Condition #3 as it was originally written without the additional wording about pedestrian pathway; Condition B16 requiring that SW 109th shall be built to full minor collector standards with reduced width to be determined by the Engineering Department; and an Access Variance granted to allow 4 access points instead of 8 as called for in the Code. Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present, with C amissioner Castile voting "Nay." President Fyre moved and C am issioner Moore seconded to send two rec emendations to City Council: (a) It is absolutely essential that the extension of 109th south to Naeve be expedited by whatever means possible; and (b) if the traffic impact on Summerfield is greater than put forth in the transportation'plan, then the City should give high consideration to restricting traffic through Summerfield. Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioners Fyre, Hawley, Moore, and Saxton voted "Yes." Commissioners Boone, Saporta, and Fessler voted "No." Commissioner Castile abstained. Camissioners were all in favor of item (a) of the motion, and 3 Commissioners were opposed and one abstained on item (b) of the motion. • PLANUINIG CO'I ISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 8 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 114 Page No. 30 b_ OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT - 11:05 PM Ellen P. Fox, Secretary ATTEST: Milt Fyre, President ti- `•IJ. ,G CQ„~'IISSIQJJ MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1991 PAGE 9 PLAJJ~. Luba o. g~4 N Exhibit No. 1-4- Paoe No. -3-0-4o • LETTERS SUBMITTED AT 10-7-91 PLANNING COMISSION HEARING Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1' Page No. 3 111 1 Ef:ective Aoorosches (such, if not rost, of the remaining natural area in Tigard could completely disappear as the community approaches full development. However, it is possible to preserve significant portions of the natural life found here despite this general trend. To do so the community will need to: 1. Protect existing natural vegetation (trees, shrubs, and grasses) wherever possible (e.g. in parks) especially along watercourses. 2. Use native plants in landscaping. 3. Leave wetlands and riparian areas in their natural state (e.g. discourage filling, channelization, drainage, etc.). 4. Control runoff and erosion to protect aquatic habitat and wetlands. 5. Provide corridors for wildlife movement (e.g. as through the Greenway System). 6. Leave non-hazardous snags along streams and in wetlands. Many of these measures to provide future natural areas and values also accomplish another useful functions as outlined elsewhere (e.g. see sections on Runoff and E'rosion, Scenery, Ground Instability, etc.). Soecial Areas In.ao the _general policies to help protect natural vegetation and wildlife, specific areas have been suggested by specialists for preservation, through fee purchase if necessary. These areas were singled out for priority attention because of: 1) their particular vegetation and wildlife values, and/or 2) their relative uniqueness. other factors such as the cost of preservation will, of course, .a.1so have. to be considered. The six areas which were identified are the: 1. Summer Creek marsh (east of 130th and south of Scholls Ferry Road). This unique 12 acre marsh-pond complex was suggested for preservation by both the district field biologist for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and a field biologist with the Nature Conservancy. 2. Forested Northeast slopes of Bull Mountain. The heavily-wooded steep slopes contain some large Douglas Fir which are up to 100 feet tall and three :.feet in diameter. The site connects with other similar sites outside the plan area. It was recommeded for preservation by the torture Conservation Biologist. 3. Summit of Little Bull Mountain. This area has a heavily-wooded with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals including deer,' r raccoon, & pheasant. `cam tr . Luba No. 92-104 = t t r `y kil Exhibit No. VJ 14 Page No. 30 $ I am Kermit Scott, a member of the Board of Directors of the Fountains Condominium Association in Summerfield. I reside at S.W. 114th Court 415, Tigard- I am representing the Fountains Board of Directors. The Fountains Board does not object to the planned extension of 109th Street across Naeve Road on to Highway 99W- The Board realizes the inevitable and accepts it_ As you are aware, it has been estimated that 800 to 1,000 cars will use the 109th outlet to 99W every day. Couple this with a 4% grade between 99W and Naeve Road and there will be considerable traffic noise. Consider also that the Fountains have two condominiums buildings very close to this proposed road. Therefore, even though the Board accepts the plan to date, it does ask that a sound barrier be constructed from the brick wall bordering Naeve Road, south along the Fountains border line to a point south of the two condominium buildings af=ected by the road. The Board feels that this can be accomplished from either the builder's funds or the City of Tigard road development funds. Thank you . . . Citv Council Meeting' October 7, 1991 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. it- Page No. 309 V :a A -r KING- CITY..: 15300 SAV 116th venue, Bing City, Oregon 9iM Phone: 639.4062 October 7; 1991 Mr. Randal l.- R.- .Wooley,.- City Engineer _ City--of Tigard 13125_S:W: Aa_ 11` - Bo uleva •e- on -:9 Y 7223- arcl Or i T 9 g - - - - - -f~.•.. - 0-0002 _ jPDR = Sub CaseSDR9 / - - .n - _ _ iJt- - y - yl.. - - 3 t- °I vel-o men - - - Triad "De p Dear Mr. Wooley: _ Planning: Commission°- meeting This :letter refers- to he Tigard scheduled for 7:30:`.p.m this evening .to:.consider modified plans for. the---proposed --:348-unit;.Arbor. Heights*:_:apartment: complex -which includes-Lot,:9300::on.:-Taxi Map=2S-1_-LOAD`:,Lots"~600;=:700,•800,-. 900.on.,-_: • Tax Map 2S. 'I 10AC;--:- and ---.Lots -100 -and :200 on Tag.:-Map 2S . 1 lODB. Although the' City.':did not receive notice of this meeting;'- we would; comment and- strongly reiterate: that the City-'.s position- is the-same as stated--.'in our". 1 etter to -you- on August :9, 1990 -that -we are opposed to`"additional traffic-at Naeve Street and-.99W; that we do support the Royalty Parkway :extension. and- .signalization improvement; that=all traffic improvement should be financed by the developer.-:. Because the: cost -of street. construction and signalization would exceed the $300,000:00 TIF fees, Triad financing of-the streets and signal improvements-should be a condition of:approval. We believe the Planning Commission hearing decision' should be postponed until the new street alignment-is finalizad and financing in place. A portion of the surface water which falls on this property will drain directly or indirectly into Highway 99W and possibly through conveyance-systems that pass through King City, Therefore, King City -requests the opportunity to have our engineer review the drainage and erosion control plans required of the developer prior to issuance of any construction permits. Sincerely, Luba No. 9- 4 Exhibit No. Page No. -3-LQ- Mtaelle DeMay • President of the Council J, -A _ K~,jq, WV. 1 %1h avrnuc. Fing Ci*Y. Or:4 .u 97'_'-1 11w1c: CS9- :ice August 9, 1950 Mr. lRandall R. .:coley, Cit_v E'rgineer City O" Ticard 13125 S.ld. Hall Boulevard T_aard, Oregon 97223 SubJ: Triad Develo-mr--nt Dear Mr- b:oolev: Thin n'r you for a copy of your letter to Kalld=e 1:_=;soci aces, Inc- dated 7/1:/90, regard to conclusion of ,:Cur 'llitiscL" st: _.ies Of the oron-osed Triad !'evel o_Ter::E7nr _ i:e of the Ming ci ; y Council re.ccxnll _za tliFa e}:tensive ad'di ional work 3ws been done by loin &-Zartl:==At and O!'Gr on • Lhe_1s Ue ,Or ac-es s- to this d'Vt lCrrCx~Ilt tO 1nC:__ rrC411 HiC`_lda-r J:1. Si-c,: this is What We awed- for at tale recent `:eai11'r 1}efoi:e -!C igaarCl L_tj Council, we- are gratific:l_ C;11: POSI'7 C in further 1-_eariFiCs Cie tlas ~=Oi i n:1_1~C : i. We recret=villa acc``-pt the position 04L -,cm: a; -.J Or</i Dlacir Uke access to Tri=d at 14a-if:- R(,-a(:-,. 2. V.e support to the fullest the reference in itan 2 of your report, that the !\aeV?/91'1 intersect-ion be ~S1CJ '_al ? ~c:l. ::2 can not believe that the increased traffic enterip_g trcEn :1: eve--slli:h a sic_^-ificant proportion desiring -to go okitl-_c-:ard--wculd be safe .lithout a light- With traffic signals we can avoid creating another Gaarde road entraalce fiasco, and maintain higier safety exuectations _ cde relieve the traffic analysis figures, of frCVI 1,700 to 2000 daily trios in and out of Triad, cLaran~_1 this sic*1a'_ ization- We maintain that new traffic iapact must be dealt with by those Flo L.'a11t new deve'_oc>€:ent. gUEREFORE, Triad Develo~:,T,~nt should be required to Day for the improvanent of the 99N/[1aeve intersection, including signali_ation, as a condition of proj.&~:t aroroval _ Co.;is for this inust not b-c (ILm?ed On t'.Ose in already developetl areas, or left for future iA:DOsiti02l on the ne'_C!i?7?OVhOCKI_ We u-nde_rs`_and that at one n oint Triad (level o-rs stated a '_-."Llinme:s i n t, ;S r:~care - - Luba No. 92.104 Exhibit No. J Af Page No. 3 1 17 e above stiriulation should also require cc~nnletion of the 99'9/Naeve limrovelrF-*nts prior to issuance of occupancy permits in their new develor:ient. (As Washington County required of t-he :!ul.ler Group in regard to the 9S:d/Fischer Road Intersection.) Sincerely, Ste_'r_ n McShane, mayor per City Comcil ction, August 3, 1990 c. Ross Woods, Triad Ron Failmezger, OEDdT Lee Gunderson, ODOT Bob Hurd, ODOT Rc:xrt Larson; Covenant Church Sue Carver, NPO 14t6 Ca' i:oolery, CPO #t4 Sum,,erfield Civic Association Bev Froude, NPO ~3 Planning File ~ L Luba No. 92-104 2r ;rCl c~~ Exhibit No. 14 Page No. Sly i LETTERS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 10-7-91 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. 3► N?O #6 Minutes from September 18, 199- The meeting was called to order at 7:43 pm. Members in attendance were: Carver, Clinton, Davenport, Diilin, Kasson and Pasteris. Excused: Crow, Watson, and Sellers. Not excused: Wilson (3rd u_nexcused absence in a row - Liz to mail letter.) The minutes from t'--.e August 14th meeting were approved as written. MINOR LAND PARTITION - MCP 91-0009 - GOTTER: The NPO reviewed the request for approval to divide a parcel of approximately 46,981 square feet into two parcels of approximately 22,30 and 24,681 square feet each and had no objections to it. TRIAD: The NPO wishes t_-e following comments be submitted to the Planning Corm-fission: 1) Consider a pedestrian walkway to 99W through the NW corner of the property to provide access to a Tri-Met bus stop. 2) Restrict all parking on 109th- from the top down to Naeve. 3) Special care must be exercised with any development in this area. As the Planning Commission knows Little Bull Mountain is designated as a scenic area in the Development Code. Further, the NPO continues to question the R-25 and R-12 density designations as too high for the current population trends in Tigard affecting our traffic and our vublic schools. NPO 6 requests a report from the Chairman of the Planning Commission summarizing (by NPO area) the actual density developed or. land designated as "undeveloped" since the City's Development Code was accepted by LCDC. Tie LCDC goal was 10 units per acre, however the actual developed density may be significantly higher due to density transfers, the provision under PD zoning to increase densities by 200, and development in. county areas certain to be annexed into Tigard (i.e. area of high density on Pacific Highway south of Albertson's). WETLANDS: (update in brief) At this time there will not be a wetland property swap. Mr. Herb of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department basica±ly upgraded this wetland and will not let it be reriove6, The developer now has two options - eitaer the sub- divisions road curves south around the wetland area or the sub-division cul- de--sacs to the west of the wetland. zither way the NPO should be reviewing a amended sub-divis_on arODOSaI in t^e future. Meeting ad jour_ned a- alp: ox . 9:45. Luba NO. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 { Page No. -911 1 September 29 i Dear Sir; _ I oDrose the plan of Triad Tigard Limited ?axtnership for planned residential develop- raent adjacent to SW Naeve Street and SW 109th avenue. Thi le it means big bucks to developers to whittle away at all o= Oregon's reenery and no dDubt en_ianced revenue nor tie ty of Tigard i -akes no sense to add, . to the desert_slcatiorl' o' igaS~ v:_^_i_ SJ mar I as come across' as an at- ~r:_ ti :•e o=ac to ? ive. I tr is the ?la" :lg Council and the City Council will use the bet- . -e: judg er and vote ~o veto ; _nis project. Very truly yours, ug s Coleman o6 I 15100 SW Crown Dr=ve King City, 03 97224 i - 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 31 September 25, 1991 RECEIVED PLA,yNING igard Planning Commission SEP30 1991 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Subject: Triad Zoning Application Dear Commission Members: Over my objections the Planning Commission and the City Council recently determined to adopt a Transportation Plan that would accommodate the proposed development referenced above. At that time I requested that if the new Transportation Plan was adopted the City provide funding for the new plan so that when development occurred the traffic problems could be solved by improved roadways that would actually be built, rather than just a conceptual solution to the problem- I write this letter now to request the Planning Commission require.the developer, or the City of Tigard, to acquire the right of way for the recently approved Transportation Plan. That way, as the proposed development occurs., the problem will be solved rather than delayed. Under the new plan. property I own will be substantially utilized for roadway. It will then be impractical for me to develop, my property for any reasonable use. If I allow the roadway or the plan to co unopposed, my property will be severely impaired. Extended controversy on the plan means there will be no near term roadway as now approved. AWther property owners will .benefit 'from the road construction. They are robably anxious to see the improvements completed-. In any event, the Council decided that for the area to develop properly and to move traffic through the neighborhoods. the new plan was required. It is therefore imperative you condition approval for the proposed development on prior acquisition of the right of way to solve the impending traffic problems now rather than delaying decisions until we are forced to face up to them after they get more involved and- expensive. I request that this letter be made part of the Planning Commission meeting. Thank-you for your consideration of this-matter. Sincerely, i Robert C. uton P.O. Box 8041 Black Butte Ranch, Oregon 97759 cc: Randall Wooley, City Engineer Sue Carver - NPO TM6 John Acker, Tigard Planning Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I q Page No. J16 CIVIC ASSOCIATION urnmff TO 10630 S.W. Summerteld Drive Tigard. Oregon 97223 620.0131 September S, 1991 RECEIVED PLANNINCG Mr. Jerry Offer, Associate Planner City of Tigard `E ~ t'r 11991 Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Offer. We are presenting our comments pertaining to the new TRIAD proposal for development of the. multi-family residential complex on .Little Bull Mountain. According to Mr. Ross, TRLAD representative, there was agreement between you and him for the solicitation of these comments at this time. Most of our comments pertain to the complex-generated traffic that will pass over S.W. 109th Street and S.W. laeve Road. It is vital to the Summerfield community that additional routes be developed to accommodate that traffic. The Summerfield Civic Association supported the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Amendment dealing with automobile traffic that will someday be generated by developments on Little Bull Mountain. We continue to support that Plan and, furthermore, we support the idea that parts of the Plan be implemented as developments occur. Foremost is our concern about the timing for development of the S.W. 109th Street extension to S.W. Pacific Highway. This extension should be completed-concu-er ntly with development of the TRIAD residential complex: With that extension, a reasonable part of the complex-generated traffic will bypass established communities such as Summerfreld. Without the extension, or even with a significant delay, the same problems would exist that caused denial of the application last year. Then most of the south and east bound traffic from the residential complex would pass through Summerfield, causing major concerns for safety of the residents. S.W. Naeve Road must be left oven at the intersec::or. of Pac:I:c High vay. This he!p disperse traffic from the area. From the standpoint of safety, that intersection should be modified to allow right turns only with special lanes provided for acceleration and deceleration. Sincerely, Howard Graham, President Summerfield Civic Association HG_FB cc: Ross Woods . Rich Watson Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. _30 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. off Page No. 31 t i - TRIAD August 27, 1991 Mr. Jerry Offer City of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: ARBOR HEIGHTS SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Dear Jerry: As you recall, the Development Code for the City of Tigard contains the following language regarding resubmittal of an application which has been denied: "Section 18.32.280 Denial of the Application: Resubmittal a. An application which has been denied or an application which was denied and which on appeal or review has not been reversed by a higher authority, including the 'Land Use Board of Appeals, the Land Conservation and Development Commission or the courts, may not be resubmitted for the same or a substantially similar action for a period of at least 12 months from the date the final City. action is made denying the application unless there is a substantial change in the facts or a change in City policy which would change the outcome." The revised site plan application meets both criteria for resubmittal. This project was the subject of a request that the same location for Site Development, Plan Development and Variance Review in late 1990, which was denied on appeal to the City Council on November 26, 1990. Pursuant to Section 18.32.280 (a) of the Community Development Code, Triad Tigard Limited Partnership recognizes that review of this revised application requires a finding that there is a substantial change in the facts surrounding the application on the project or a change in City policy which would change the outcome of the earlier decision. De.elopmen; Luba No. 92-104 Reno-.a:ion d ~r. Ond .~C7uisi;ion Exhibit No. j_y_ Page No. 31 Mr. Jerry Offer City of Tigard August 27, 1991 Page 2 Both criteria for review within 12 months are met, since the site plan has been revised to reflect an alternate alignment of 109th Avenue to eliminate the need for a variance and the City Council has amended the adopted transportation plan to reflect this revised alignment. Based upon our understanding that this application will be subject to the comprehensive plan standards as modified by the City Council, this change in city policy, coupled with its implementation through construction of the substantial portion of the roadway in conjunction with this project, will provide a basis for reversal of the earlier decision by the City Council. Also, with this new site plan is a realignment of Naeve St at the intersection of the new 109th Ave. We propose to have a Naeve St aligned on our site as well as a portion of the Covenant Church property located to the West of the Triad site. I have discussed this situation with Steve Dawson, Director of Covenant Development Corporation in Chicago, IL. Mr. Dawson said he will work with Triad on this street alignment. I am requesting a letter from the Covenant Development Corp. to the City of Tigard stating their . position on this matter. ' I will be carbon copying you on-my correspondence with the Covenant Corp. Sincerely, Ross W. Woods Project Manager cc: Steven L. Pfeiffer fn: jeroff.rw-tig Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. _LJ Page No. 3."4 CITY OF TIGARD PLAN1JING COI- -IISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 91-11 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEr7 DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL, AND ACCESS VARIANCE APPROVAL REQUESTED BY TRIAD TIGARD, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at a public hearing on October 7, 1991- The Commission has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below- A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development Review PDR 91-0006 Site Development Review SDR 91-0013 REQUEST: Planned Development Review/Site Development Review of a plan for development of a 348 unit, 17 building multi- family residential complex on a 26.2 acre property. APPLICANT/014NER: Triad Tigard, Ltd. Partnership 320 Andover Park East Seattle,'WA 98138 • ENGINEER: Kampe Associates, Inc. 3681 SW Carmen Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97035 ARCHITECT: Driscoll Architects 2121 First Avenue, Suite 102 Seattle, 'WA 98121 - LOCATION: 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of SW 109th Avenue, south of the Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 IODB, Tax Lots 100 and 200 (also Tax Lot 300 for public road realignment purposes only); WCTM 2S1 LOAD, Tax Lot 9300; W-CT4 2S1 10AC, Tax Lots 600, 700, 800, 900;). PLI.N DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (23 acres) Medium-High Density Residential (4.2 acres) ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (PD) (12 units/acre-Planned Development overlay) (23 acres) R-25 (PD) (25 units/acre-Planned Development) (4.2 acres) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18_100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, 18_160, 18_164 and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2_1, 6.1_1, 6_6.1, 7.1.2,. 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1_3_ D=_'CISION: Approval as proposed, subject to conditions. FINAL ORDER - ?DR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. lAi 2. Backaround Information The subject parcels have been involved in a number of City of Tigard land use and development applications since annexation in 1981. Prior to annexation, the parcels were designated by Washington County with a zoning designation of RU-4 (Residential, 4 units/acre). City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Revision CPR 1-81 approved redesignation of the parcels from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a zone change to R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre). The Planned Development (PD) overlay zone was added to the requested R-12 designation so that all development proposals for the properties would be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission- In December, 1986, the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment for changing the Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This approval redesignated these properties from High Density Residential to General Commercial-. A result of this decision was the removal of the opportunity for approximately 400 potential multi-family housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant, buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, chapter 660, Division 7) requires that Tigard provide a housing opportunity for at least 50 percent nrulti-family units and a net minimum housing density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant buildable land within- the City's -Urban Planning Area_ The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of redesignation of sufficient residential land to higher densities to make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the decision. Several sites throughout the City, including Tax Lot 200, were considered for increased residential densities to make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the Albertson's decision. The western half of Tax Lot 200 and the parcel to the west were proposed for Plan/Zone redesignation from Medium Density Residential/R-12 (PD) to Medium- High Density Residential/R-25 (PD) (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 87-07(G)/Zone Change ZC 87-02 (G)). No change in designation was proposed-for the eastern half of Tax Lot 200 or the other parcels that are the subject of the current application. Redesignation of the western half of Tax Lot 200 and the adjacent parcel. was approved by the City Council in April 1987_' In April, 1989, the owners of Tax Lot 200 requested a Plan Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, and a Zone Change from R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development) to R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) for the eastern 4.27 acres of that parcel (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 89-02/Zone Change ZC 89- 02). After review by the staff and Planning Commission, the City Council denied the proposed Planned Amendment/Zone Change on April 24, 1989_ Tax Lot 100, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue, was the subject . of a Subdivision/Planned Development review by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1989 (Subdivision S 89-071Planned Development PD 89-01). That application requested Planned Development conceptual plan approval and subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide the approximately 10.3 acre parcel into 60 lots intended for single-family residential development. The proposed subdivision would have included a north-south street running through--the • approximate center of the parcel with connections to SW 109th Avenue FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. i q Page No. 3»- • as well as to the property to the west- SW 109th Avenue was proposed to terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb at the northern end of the subdivision- 9-W 109th was to be improved to local street standards and have a number of sinale-family lots fronting on it. The proposed subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission but the approval has since expired. Also on June 6, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal for Planned Development/Site Development Review approval of a request to construct a 72 unit apartment complex on Tax Lots 900 and 9300 north of the previously described proposed subdivision (Planned "Development PD 89-02, Site Development Review SDR 89-06, Variance V 89-20). -These tax lots are also part of the current application. The Commission approved the proposed development plan which included a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of the northern segment of SW 109th Avenue, approximately 250 feet north of the cul-de-sac bulb approved for the single-family subdivision. The proposed dual cul-de-saccing of SW 109th Avenue was intended to provide a separation between the predominately multi-family residential character on the top half of Little Bull Mountain from the proposed primarily single-family residential character of the neighborhood along the south slope of Little Bull Mountain and the properties to the south. The Planning Commission's final orders for both the subdivision and apartment proposals, however, noted that if either of the proposed developments did not occur as proposed; it would be necessary to re- evaluate the road .patterns in this area. In September, 1989, the Planning Commission was presented with a- request to reconsider the application for the proposed 72 unit apartment complex because a significant number of neighboring • _ property owners-that were entitled to notice of the.public hearing on the matter did not receive notice and did not have the opportunity to testify before the Commission- The City Attorney's office reviewed-this request and advised staff that the request be placed on the Commission's November 7, 1990 meeting agenda. The applicant, Terry Cook, requested -that the hearing for reconsideration be indefinitely postponed until the applicant determined whether-to pursue the application further. No further action was taken by that applicant. The current applicant, Triad Tigard Limited Partnership, filed a Site Development Review/Planned Development Review application for development of a 364 unit apartment complex for the entire subject site in early 1990 (SDR 90-0004/PDR 90-0002). The proposal was fairly similar to the current proposal except that there was no public roadway proposed to cut through the site as is currently proposed. The development site was to he bounded by SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue- - The Commission approved this prior application subject to conditions on May 11, 1990, including a condition that the two segments of SW 109th Avenue abutting the site be permanently separated as well as closing SW 109th south of Naeve Street (Commission Final Order 90- 11) - The Planning Commission's decision was reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 199G_ The City Council remanded the application back to the Commission for further review regarding the proposed development's potential traffic impacts on nearby streets- Included in the Council's discussions was a possible extension of SW Beef Bend Road from the west through the-site to connect with SW 109th. On September 4, 1990, the Commission on remand approved an amended • application including a variance to the maximum local street grade FILIAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD ~ Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. H Page No. 3 Z 3 standard for SW 109th Avenue (Commission Final Order 90-22)_ The approval also required development of an emergency vehicle access connection between S`YJ Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue in Summerfield, but no public street connection- This decision was appealed to the Council by NPO 6. On appeal, the Council reversed the Planning Commission's approval thereby denying the application (Resolution No. 90-71)- The Council's findings in support of this decision indicate that-the Council did not feel that the public street connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue in Sun-merfield was acceptable because it would not provide for an efficient neighborhood circulation system and needed connections between residential neighborhoods with Pacific Highway. The Council also was opposed to the development plan's proposal to direct a significant amount of traffic on to an over-steep local street (SW 109th). In addition, the Council was not convinced that a public road or private driveway connection to SW Pacific Highway at the Beef Bend Road intersection was not possible to serve the proposed development. In December of 1990 the City Council authorized NPO #6 to initiate consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment focused on transportation issues in the area of S.W. 109th Avenue and Naeve Street. After review of various alternatives, .the NPO recommended specific amendments to the Transportation Map. The Amendments change the designation of Naeve Street from a minor collector to a local street; designate 109th Avenue as a minor collector; 'indicate that 109th Avenue is to be realigned to curve across the south slope of Little Bull'Mountain, crossing Naeve Street at a point west of the Fountains development and continuing south of Naeve Street to intersect Pacific Highway at Royalty.Parkway; and indicate a minor collector street connection between- 109th. and 100th Avenue to intersect 100th in the vicinity of Sattler Street- The City Council approved this map change on August-13, 1991, (Ordinance 91-22). The. Council's decision was final on September 12, 1991_ A notice of intent to appeal the Council's decision has been filed with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)_ Staff has been advised by the City Attorney's office that the pending appeal need not delay the review of a development application within the affected area. No other land use or development apel? ations have been reviewed by the City for Tax Lots 600, 700, and 8L0. 3. Vicinitv Information The development pattern-in the area of the subject site consists of existing duplexes and the 130-unit Timberline Apartments development -to the north; the Canterbury Woods condominium development to the northeast; single family residences and a nursery on large Jots to the east; an undeveloped parcel covered with tall fir trees to the west (t.l_ 300) ; Pacific Highway and King City further west; and the Summerfield planned community to the south. The Fountains at Summerfield condominium complex is immediately south of the site. As previously noted, the City's Transportation Plan Map now calls for a minor collector extension of S_W_ 109th to be constructed through the subject property- The subject property has approximately 890 feet of frontage on SW Naeve Street which is now functionally classified as a local street- SW Naeve Street is generally substandard in width and state of improvements, with the exception of the frontage of the Fountains at • Summerfield development to the south- Half-street improvements, FINAi, ORDER - PDR 91-G006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD S Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Ida Page No. 31 • including approximately 30 feet of pavement, curbs, a sidewalk. and streetlights have been installed along the Fountain's frontage. The subject parcels have approximately 1500 feet of total frontage along the alignment of SW 109th Avenue. SW 109th Avenue, north of the intersection with SW Naeve Street, is a steep gravel road extending approximately 1200 feet to a dead end. Approximately 200 feet further north beyond this dead end, the northern segment of SW 109th Avenue continues. This northern section of SW 109th Avenue extends northward to Canterbury Lane. The subject properties have approximately 100 feet of frontage along this northern section of SW 109th Avenue. SW 109th Avenue is functionally classified as a minor collector street- Tax lots 600, 700 and 800 have approximately 360 feet of frontage on SW Pacific Highway. Pacific Highway is a 4-lane divided arterial under the jurisdiction of the Oregon State Highway Division. The southwestern corner of the subject site along SW Naeve is located approximately 500 feet. east of the Naeve/Pacific Highway intersection. A left-turn lane is provided on Pacific Highway for southbound traffic onto SW Naeve Street. The intersection of SW Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is not signalized. 4. Site Information and Pronosal Description The subject 26_2 acre property previously contained houses on Tax Lots 200, 700, 800, and 9300. All have been removed except for the house on tax lot 9300. The remainder of the property is vacant, covered with a combination of tall fir trees, lower height deciduous trees, and brush. The property slopes predominantly to the south and southwest at varying grades. Approximately 0.8 acres on tax lots 600, 700, and 800 has a slope of greater than 25 percent. The applicants propose to develop a 348 unit apartment complex on this site. The development would include 101 one-bedroom, 1S1 two- bedroom, and 96 three bedroom units for a total of 348 units. The development site would be split by a curved collector street connection between SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue intended to conform with the recently adopted Transportation Map.ap-sndm~nt for this area- The alignment of SW Naeve Street to the west is proposed to be shifted somewhat northward in order to provide for a 90 degree intersection with this proposed new street. A minor reconstruction of Naeve Street is also proposed at 109th to from a 90 degree intersection. Also proposed would be a recreation building located near the center of the site. A gymnasium, indoor pool, outdoor pool, and lounge within the recreation building are proposed. In addition, a jogging path is also proposed to provide recreational facilities for the proposed development. The areas of tax lots 600, 700 and 800 would not include any new improvements. Parking would be provided by 661 total parking spaces consisting of 360 covered parking spaces (combination of garages and under apartment buildings), 14 designated handicapped parking spaces, and 287 other uncovered spaces. The southern section of the proposed development which contains 60 units would ba served by one 24-foot wide access driveway from the proposed connecting street. No other access would be provided to this section of the development from either SW Vaeve Street. S.: FINAL. ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 5 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. P 5 109th Avenue, or from the pro-posed connecting street. The existing section of SW 109th Avenue, north of Naeve Street, is proposed to terminate in a hammerhead style turnaround short of connecting with the proposed connector street- The northern portion of the proposed development is proposed to be served by a 24 foot wide main access driveway from the proposed connector street extending northward through the site to a connection with SW 109th Avenue in the northeastern section of the site. The northern section would also be served an additional 24- foot wide access driveway onto SW 109th Avenue that would extend westward to connect with the main internal roadway as well as one dead end access driveway which would stop short of SW 109th. A network of five foot wide sidewalks would be provided along the primary roadway and between parking areas and residential buildings. The north-south soft surfaced jogging path provided through landscaped and tree covered area on the eastern portion of the site would provide pedestrian access between the northern-most units and the recreation building. The preliminary landscaping plan shows existing trees that are proposed to be retained. The area along SW Pacific Highway on tax lots 600, 700 and 800 is to be left with existing vegetation. The landscaping plan calls for removing underbrush and planting lawn and a variety of bushes and trees throughout the portion of the site to be developed--in order to create a park-like appearance on the site. The landscaping plan shows cross sections of proposed perimeter buffer material arrangements and lists plant materials. 5. Aaency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has reviewed the-proposal and has offered the following comments: a. -The site has frontage onto SW 109th Avenue, SW Naeve Street, and SW Pacific Highway. SW 109th Avenue is a gravel surfaced street with the northern portion unimproved- Currently S.W. 109th Avenue runs in a north/south fashion.-, o«-. the east edge of the development. Based on the preliminary plans, S_W. 109th will be reconfigured. The current S.W. 109th (also termed the old 109th in this report) will terminate approximately 400 feet north of the S.W. Naeve/109th intersection in a hammerhead. It is proposed that the existing old 109th near Naeve Street remain a gravel road. The proposed new development will have no driveway access to old 109th. Old 109th will serve only the driveways to two existing homes. Since the recent amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, Old 109th is not envisioned as part of the long-range plan for the neighborhood. When the property to the east is redeveloped in the future, it is expected that Old 109th will be eliminated or substantially reconfigured. Therefore, we support the proposal to leave this section of Old 109th as a gravel street- The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map provides that the New 109th Ave., which will be built to minor collector standards, will eventually intersect Pacific Highway across from Royalty Parkway then proceed in a northeastern direction and connect with the existing S.W. 109th Avenue adjacent to the northeast corner of the development. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 6 Luba No. a2-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 'i~b The applicant proposes to fully develop the road from the new intersection of 109th/Naeve, located in the southeast corner of the project, to where the road again intersects the Old 109th in the northeast corner of the project. The preliminary profile indicates the grade to be 12 percent, the maximum allowed by City standards. Although not proposed by the developers, we feel that it may be appropriate to construct New 109th to a reduced street width north of the main entrance to the new development. On-street parking should not be needed in this area- Based on traffic projections, there should not be a need for turn lanes. Therefore, the full minor collector street width may not be necessary. Reducing - the street width would help to fit the street into existing steep grades and to match the existing 109th Avenue to the north. A reduced street width would reduce City maintenance. For these reasons, we are requesting that the Planning Commission authorize the City Engineer to approve reduced width. Details would be worked out with the developer's engineer during final design of the street improvements SW Naeve Street is a partially paved, mostly gravel surfaced local street. The applicant proposes to provide full street improvements in the vicinity of the new intersection of 109th and Naeve; from the intersection eastward, the applicant is proposing to provide two-thirds street improvements. In addition, the applicant is proposing a minor change to the old 109th/Naeve intersection by bringing it more into a 90-degree intersection. Therefore the applicant should be required to do the following: (1) full street improvements in the vicinity of the new Naeve/109th street intersection, (2) two-third street-improvements from the end of the full street improvements to the old Naeve/109th street intersection, (3) interim improvements from Pacific Highway to the full street improvements, which should include 24 feet of pavement and 2 foot shoulders on both sides of the road. Pacific Highway is under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon. Existing improvements consist of the paved roadway with a gravel shoulder and a ditch. The State has requested that curb, sidewalk and drainage improvements be provided along the site's frontage. C. Most of the site slopes toward Naeve Street which then drains to 109th Avenue and Pacific Highway. Presently a portion of this area drains toward Pacific Highway along Naeve Street. This development should reduce the drainage toward Pacific Highway from the site- The proposed storm drainage system is a collection of on-site conveyance structures which dissipate energy and spread out the flow path; where the final runoff will be conveyed to an existing 30- storm drain at the intersection of S.W. Naeve and S.W. 109th Avenue. After review of the plans submitted by the applicants engineer it became apparent there were potential problems. In the areas where the system crosses a public road • the system was going from a private to public and back to FIWiL ORDER - ?DR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 7 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. e Page No.~ 1 • private without a break and could cause potential maintenance problems. After discussions with the applicant's engineer, it was determined that the best solution was to keep each system separate with the final design being approved by the City's Engineering Department- Therefore the applicant should be required to do the following: (1) The existing pipe to be connected to in 109th Avenue should be evaluated to determine if it has adequate capacity to handle ultimate development - of the entire drainage basin, (2) That the on-site water quality facility shall meet current Unified Sewerage Agency design standards and that it shall be the responsibility of the owners of the site to maintain such facilities, (3) Design the system(s) so that there is a clear delineation between the private and public systems. d. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended through the site from the system at the corner of Naeve Street and 109th Avenue. This system appears to have adequate capacity to serve the site. The applicant or the applicant's engineer should be required to verify that the existing sanitary sewer system shall be able to handle this development and any future .development that would connect to this system. The Oregon State Highway Division has reviewed the . proposal and has commented that type ,C curb and sidewalk as well as storm drainage improvements will be required along the site's Pacific Highway frontage. The existing driveways to tax lots 700 and 800 should be removed. An access reserve strip should be recorded along this frontage. Street opening and access permits must be obtained from ODO'i. _ The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments: a. A demolition permit should be obtained prior to destruction or moving any of the existing buildings on the site. If the buildings are on septic tanks, the tanks should be pumped out and either removed .or filled with- sand or gravel. If the buildings are connected to sanitary sewers, the lines should be capped off in an approved manner. An inspection should be obtained after the tank is filled or the sewer capped. A copy of the receipt for septic tank pumping should be provided to the Building Division. b. The finished grade of cuts or fills should have a maximum slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer should certify the stability of any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of _ building permits, a report from a registered engineer should be submitted. The report should indicate the location of any fill placed on building sites, suitability of the soil for building construction, and soil bearing capacity. FINAL OP.DZER - ?DR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 8 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. t Page No. _3 z • Neiahborhood Planning Organization 6 has reviewed the proposal and has Drovided the following comments: 1. Consider a pedestrian walk-..ray to 99W through the northwest corner of the property to provide access to a iri-Met bus stop. 2. Restrict all parking on S-rl 109th from the top down to Naeve. 3. Special care must be exercised with any development in this area. As the Planning Commission knows, Little Bull Mountain is designated as a scenic area in the Development Code. 4. Further, the NPO continues to question the R-25 and R-12 density designations as too high for the current population trends in Tigard affecting our traffic and our public schools. NPO 6 requests a report from the Chairman of the Planning Commission summarizing (by NPO area) the actual density developed on land designated as 'undeveloped' since the City's Development code was accepted by LCDC. The LCDC goal was 10 units per acre, however, the actual developed density may be significantly higher due to density transfers, the provisions under PD Zoning to increase densities by 20%, and development in county areas certain to be annexed into Tigard, (i.e., area of high density on Pacific Highway south of Albertson's). The Summerfield Civic Association has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: The Summerfield Civic Association supported the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Amendment. dealing with automobile traffic that will someday be generated by developments on Little Bull Mountain. We continue to support that Plan and, furthermore, we support the idea that parts of the Plan be implemented as developments occur. Foremost is our concern about the timing for development of the SW 109th Street extension to SW Pacific Highway. This extension should be completed concurrently with development of the Triad. residential complex. With that extension, a reasonable part of the complex-generated traffic will bypass established communities such as Summerfield. Without the extension, or even with a significant delay, the same problems would exist that caused denial of the application last year. Then most of the south and eastbound traffic from the residential complex would pass through Summerfield, causing major concerns for safety of the residents. SW Naeve Road must be left open at the intersection of Pacific Highway. This will help disperse traffic from the area. From the standpoint of safety, that intersection should be modified to allow right turns only with special lanes provided for acceleration and deceleration. The Tigard Water District has reviewed the proposal and has not provided any new comments. With the prior application, the water District reported. no objections to the proposed development but noted that the site requires service from two water pressure zones. Zone 1 is supplied by the pressurized system on the top of Little Bull Mountain. Zone 2 is a gravity system from the existing water line at the corner of Sr7 Naeve Street and SW 109th. In addition, the Water District has noted that because of the size of the FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 9 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. , Page No. 3~~ buildings, each building is to have its own 2-inch water meter. The irrigation system will need to be metered separately with Turbo meters. Water meter locations are to be provided with a minimum planter area of 3 feet by 5 feet. This also holds true for fire hydrants. Water meters and fire hydrants are not allowed to be located in asphalt or concrete, or behind carports, garages, or retaining walls. All water lines must be ductile iron class 52. The Tigard School District has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the proposed complex is located within the Templeton Elementary/Twality Junior High attendance boundaries. This proposed development would be projected to generate 25 new students for Templeton Elementary, 10 students at Twality Junior High, and 7 students at Tigard High School. The School District notes that school capacities are projected to be exceeded as a result of this proposed' development and other recently reviewed and approved developments within those attendance areas. The District notes that core facilities of the schools are insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfiguration, - rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under- utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: a. Hydrant locations will need to be coordinated between the Fire -District and the Tigard Water District.- Hydrants will need to be placed within 250 feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; however, this distance, may be increased if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler. Hydrants should be placed at all intersections. b. The Fire District would prefer to see an emergency vehicle access between the parking area for the southern portion of the development and the southernmost section of SW 109th Avenue. Staff discussed this comment with Gene Birchill of the Fire District on September 22, 1991- Mr. Birchill commented that an emergency vehicle access is a 'preference' and not necessarily a need. If an emergency access is developed, it could be a grass-crete pad through the development's landscaped area. C. Fire fighting' access roads should be extended to within 150 feet of all exterior portions of all buildings; however, this distance may be increased if automatic fire sprinklers are utilized. d. The applicant and the City Building Division, have been provided with further details regarding necessary fire protection for the proposed development- Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation and PGE have reviewed the proposal and have issued no comments or objections. King City, GTE, Northwest Natural Gas, and the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission were provided with plans and an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No comments were received from those agencies. • FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 10 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. A- Page No. X30 6. Other Comments and Hearina Testimonv Letters of comment were received from Douglas Coleman, Lenore Schuster, Kermit Scott, and Maybelle DeMay for the City of King City. These letters were presented to the Commission either with the Commission meeting packet or at the public hearing on October 7, 1991. Oral testimony was received at the October 7, 1991 public hearing from Phil Pasteris and John Dillin of NPO 86, Maybelle DeMay of King City's City Council, Kermit Scott of the Fountains Condominium Owners Association, Beverly Froude of NPO 86, Richard Watson, Al Erickson, attorney Jack orchard representing Marge Davenport, and Don Feller. In addition, the applicants were represented at the hearing by Ross Woods of triad Development, Greg Weston of Kampe and .Associates Engineering, Wayne Kittelson of Kittelson and Associates transportation engineering consultants, and attorney Steve Pfeiffer- A tape recording of the oral testimony was made at the hearing. Minutes of the public hearing are being prepared at this time- B. ANALYSIS Resubmittal Within One Year of Denial Less than 12 months have past since the Council's November 26, 1990 denial of the applicant's prior development application affecting this site. Code Section 18.32.280 contains the following language regarding resubmittel of an application that has been denied: 'a. An application which has been denied or an application which was denied and which on appeal or review has not been reversed by a higher authority, may not be resubmitted for the same-or a substantially similar action for a period of at least 12 months from the date the final City action is made denying the application unless there is a substantial change in the facts or a change in City policy which would change the outcome.' The applicant has submitted a letter dated August 27, 1991, which addresses the criteria for resubmittal. The Commission agrees with the applicant that the current site plan with a-public road through the development eliminating the need for variances to public road improvement standards is a substantial change from the previously denied site plan thereby constituting a substantial change in facts from the previously denied application. In addition, the recently approved amendment to the Transportation Plan constitutes a change in City policy that may affect the outcome of the application. Therefore, review of the current application is consistent with Section 18.32-280- R-25 and R-12 Zonina Districts Multi-family residential use of the site is a permitted use in both the R-25 and'R-12 Zoning Districts. Eighty-eight dwelling units are proposed on area that provides an opportunity for approximately 88 units in the area of the site designated with the R-25 zone. Two hundred and sixty dwelling units are proposed on area that provides a maximum opportunity for 271 dwelling units on the portion of this site that is designated with the R-12 zone. The applicant's density calculations are noted on sheet A001 of the proposed site plan. Proposed site improvements comply with both the R-12 and R-25 district reauirements or building height (45 foot maximum allo+-red FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIt,D 11 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. i' Page No. 3 11 in R-25, 35 feet in R-12; 3S foot maximum height proposed), lot coverage (maximum allowed site coverage of 80 percent in both zones; proposed site coverage of less than 50 percent), and laadscaped area (minimum landscape coverage of 20 percent in both zones; proposed landscape coverage of greater than 50 percent). All proposed building locations satisfy minimum building setback requirements. Site Development Review The proposal complies with Community Development Code Chapter 18.120.180.A Site Development Review approval standards for provision of private outdoor areas (balconies), shared recreation facilities, (swimming pool, recreation center, pathways), screening of service facilities, multi-family residential building separatiop, and design offsets along building faces. Dwelling units and the recreation center have been situated toward the interior of the site so as to reduce possible noise impacts on neighboring properties and to increase visual privacy-between adjacent uses. Reasonable care has been taken to preserve a number of mature trees on the site as shown on the landscaping plan (sheet L-100) although with the amount of development proposed and the grading necessary, a number of trees will be removed. NPO #6 and the staff recommended- that the applicants be required to provide a pedestrian pathway between the northern portion of _the development and the existing bus stop on SW Pacific Highway at the Beef Bend Road intersection: The applicants' representative argued that although such a oath-way would be beneficial in promoting use of mass transit by the development's residents, a pathway in this area could be unsafe due to its necessary steepness, inability to be seen from the development or public streets, and isolation. The Commission concurs with the applicants that the questionable safety of such a path outweighs the benefits that would be gained. The Commission chooses not to require such a pathway. Other Site Development Review standards (Section 18.120.180.A.1) related to other Community Development Code standards are reviewed below. Access and Circulation The proposal satisfies Community Development Code Chapter 18.108 standards for internal roadway widths (minimum width-of 24 feet) and provision of adequate pedestrian circulation through the use of a soft surfaced .pathway through the northern- section- of the development as well as hard surfaced sidewalks adjacent to both the public streets adjacent to the site and adjacent. to the internal roadways. The proposed' roadway system should provide good circulation for emergency vehicles through the site despite the site's steep grade. The two dead end private roadways within the site would be provided with hammerhead turnarounds. The Commission will not require an emergency vehicle access to the southern portion of the site from SW 109th Avenue in order to avoid creating a situation that.could encourage foot or bicycle traffic from the development towards Summerfield. The southern section of the development would be surrounded by public roads and both the internal road and the southern section of SW 109th would be provided with appropriate turnaround areas for emergency vehicles. The Commission finds that the public and private roadway system that is proposed should provide adequate access to the southern section of • the development for emergency service purposes. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD " Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ! Page No. _134_ l • Code Section 18.108.070.D provides a sliding scale standard for number of required driveways for a multi-family development complex based on both the number of units and the null>er of parking spaces. At the public hearing, staff described a portion of this section's access requirements for a development of this size as being a probable typographical error where the access standard switches from being based on number of dwelling units (if a development of 100 or less units is being proposed) to a standard based on number of total parking spaces (if more than 100 parking spaces is proposed). Reading the requirement literally, the proposed 348 unit development would be required to provide two access points for the first 100 units and their 150 required spaces, and one more access point for each of the 100 additional spaces provided (six more spaces for 511 additional spaces beyond the 150 required spaces). Therefore, a development with 348 units and 661 parking spaces would be required to provide eight access points. Staff believes the standard was probably intended to refer to number of units throughout the sliding scale calculation. staff will propose a change in this standard in the future to clarify this section. However, until such a change is made the standard must be read literally- The proposed development would have four access. points; three to the northern portion of the development and one for the southern portion. The applicants intended to limit access points to the northern section of SW 109th Avenue and the new street to be constructed through the site in order to discourage traffic from the development from travelling through Summerfield. The Code recognizes that variances from.the access standards may be. necessary and provides standards for an access variance that are different than for variances in general. The access variance approval standards are: . 1. It is not possible to share access; 2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met; 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access; 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and 6. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. Because of the pattern of surrounding development on abutting lots to the north, it is not practical for the proposed development to share access with the Timberline Apartments. The steepness of slopes and the uncertainty regarding future development type make sharing access with the church property to the west impractical as well. The only other possible access points for the proposed development would either be dangerous due to being located on the downhill curve of the new street or else would direct traffic towards SW 109th through the Summerfield development. It is clear from the previous hearings regarding this site that the City Council and residents of the area would prefer to discourage traffic from this site from being directed through Summerfield. FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 13 Luba No. 2-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. _333 • Anv additional access driveways to the new collector street should be discouraged because of limited sight distance along the road's curve and inadequate separation of access points along a collector street. Any other access points would either create a potential unsafe situation on the collector street or else would encourage traffic through Summerfield; therefore, the degree of variance considered is the minimum variance required to provide safe and adequate access. Because the proposed access points are located at points where adequate sight distance will be provided and because signs and landscaping will make the access driveways very noticeable from the street, the proposed access points should provide for adequate and safe access for the use proposed. Parking The site plan provides for an appropriate number of parking.spaces for a 348 unit apartment development (661 parking spaces required per Code Section 18.106.030.A.4; 661 parking. spaces provided), covered parking spaces (348 covered parking spaces required; 360 covered spaces provided), and allowable 1 to 4 compact to total required parking space distribution. The site plan designates 14" handicapped accessible parking spaces that are distributed throughout the site (a minimum of 14 designated handicapped accessible spaces are•required). It is recommended that several of these designated handicapped parking spaces be relocated under cover to better serve -the needs of handicapped residents of the proposed development and handicapped visitors. • Landscaoina The proposed landscaping plan provides appropriate locations, types, and spacing for required street trees. However, the landscaping plan proposes minimum planting sizes for the street tress of 1 and .3/4 .inch to 2 inch caliper whereas Code Section 18.100.035.A specifies a minimum caliper size of 2 inches at planting. The landscaping plan will need to be revised accordingly. The Dlan also provides appropriate understory plantings along the site's frontages to reduce the impacts of on-site lights on adjacent uses and upon traffic on the abutting streets. The plan provides for a row of evergreen trees and retention of a number of existing trees along the site's northern boundary to provide a 20 foot wide buffer area whereas the required buffer area between this site and the adjacent existing apartment complex is 10 foot wide (Section 18.100.090). Proposed internal site landscaping will provide appropriate numbers of parking area trees, provide buffering and screening between the proposed buildings, and should supplement the trees and other existing vegetation that is to be retained to make an attractive development. The western section of the site above Pacific Highway will retain its existing vegetation. However in the remainder of the site, the proposed development and its attendant significant amount of grading will necessarily require removal of a number of large trees. Reasonable care appears to have been taken to plan the development with respect to retaining a significant amount of the existing mature trees. If possible, the applicants should endeavor to retain more mature trees in areas that will not undergo grading. A tree • removal permit will be required before trees with a diameter of six FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 14 Luba No. 2-104 Exhibit No. t' Page No. 3 3 If inches or greater can be removed. An arborist_s report will be required prescribing measures to be followed for protection of existing trees to be retained. Sians The site plan shows signs to be located at three entrances to the proposed development. Community Development 'Code Section 18_114.130 permits housing complex identification signs to be located at all entrances to multi-family developments. Sign size and height details have not been provided at this time. Sign permits must be obtained prior to erecting any sign. Sign sizes and heights must be shown to conform with Code standards in order for sign permits to be issued- C. CONCLUSIONS The applicable criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6,6_1, 7.1-2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2,.and 8.1.3 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18_80, 18_92, 18_96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18_114, 18.120, 18.150, and 18_164. (Source: Planned Development Approval Standards - Code Section 18_80.120 and Site Development Review Approval Standards - Code Section 18.120.180). 1. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because NPO F-6, the Summerfield Civic- ,kssociation, King City, and affected service providing agencies have been notified of this proposal directly by the applicant-in advance • of the actual application. These groups have been given an opportunity to comment to the applicant and the City of Tigard with regard to their concerns with the development plan. Direct notice of the hearing on this proposal has been sent to property owners within 250 feet of the site- In addition, notice of the hearing was advertised in the Tigard Times and was noted in the South Metro section of the Oregonian on October 7, 1991. 2:-- -Policy 3.1.1 is met because the northwestern portion of the property which has slopes over 25 percent, and therefore is significantly constrained for development purposes, is proposed to remain in its natural state. 3. Policy 3.4.2 is satisfied because wooded sites such as this are to be reviewed through the Planned Development in order to allow Commission review of the' tree removal plans. This site has previously been designated with the Planned Development overlay zone. 4. In order to comply with Policy 4_2_1, a condition is warranted to require the prospective developer to prepare an erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River basin as part of the grading permit application. 5. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the City is obligated to provide for a variety of housing types and rent levels. This proposed multi-family project would-add to that diversity in a community that. is predominantly developed with single family residences at lower densities. The site has been designated for multi-family development by the Comprehensive Plan for some time. FINA1 ORDP.R - POR 91-0006/SOR 91-0013 TRIAD 15 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Iy Page No. 333 J 6. The landscaping plan satisfies Policy 6.6.1 by providing suitable building setbacks and landscaping between this project and the properties designated for single family development on the east side of SW 109th Avenue. All other properties in the immediate vicinity are designated for multi-family use. 7. Policy 7_1.2 is met because adequate public water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer facilities are available to serve the proposed development. Extension of these facilities to or through the site will be required to be constructed to City and Tigard.Water District standards. 8. In order to satisfy Policy 7.2:3, the applicant will, as a condition of approval, provide an appropriately engineered plan-for disposing of storm water runoff from the site in a manner that will not adversely affect any downstream property owners or jurisdictions. 9. Policy 7.4.4 is met because the entire apartment complex would be connected to the public sanitary sewer system. 10. Policies 7.5.2 and•7.6.1 have been satisfied because the Tigard Police Department and the-Tualatin Valley Fire District have been involved in the review of this application and have offered comments that have-been incorporated into this report- 11. Policy 8.1_1 calls for the provision of a safe and efficient street system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. This policy -is sati-sfied because: a. The main driveway entrance to the development is proposed to • be on the new 109th Ave., a minor collector street, which is intended to 'accommodate. this volume of traffic. .Secondary access is provided onto SW 109th Avenue, which will in.turn direct traffic from the development south onto the new street or north to Sri Canterbury Lane, also a minor collector. As indicated in the applicant's traffic report, some traffic will travel south of SW Naeve Street on SW 109th Avenue if the street is left open. The proposed segmenting of both S%4 Naeve Street and S4 109th Avenue is expected to largely discourage southbound traffic on SW 109th Avenu:-_-=through Summerfield. b. The applicant will be responsible for the construction of street improvements along the frontages of the development to City standards. 12. Policy 8.1.2 is satisfied because the State Highway Division and the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation have been involved in the review of the transportation issues pertaining to this application. 13. The conditions of approval for this project will ensure-that Policy 8.1.3 is satisfied because: a. The development abuts three public streets. The proposed driveways should provide adequate and safe access to the proposed development. b. Sufficient street right-of-way shall- be dedicated as a condition of approval along the existing SF' Naeve Street as well as full right-of--way dedication being required for the new collector street through the project. FINAL, ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD Luba No. 92-104 j Exhibit No. t~ Page No. 3 3 . C. The applicant will be responsible for the improvement of the new street, SW 109th Avenue, SW Naeve Street, and SW Pacific Highway abutting the site in a manner that is consistent with City and State standards- d. The project developers will be required to provide interim improvements to SW Naeve Street between the site and Pacific Highway. e. To fully implement the traffic circulation plan for the area as envisioned in the recent Transportation Map amendment, it will be necessary to construct the new connection between Naeve Street and Royalty Parkway. The Commission recommends to the Transportation Advisory Committee and the City Council that funding for this new street connection be given a high priority. If possible, the connection should be constructed concurrent with the construction of the Triad development. f. Due to the location of the project on a street not served by public transit, a bus turnout is not necessary. g. Parking spaces for disabled persons will be provided as required by City and State standards. h. The property is not affected by the adopted bicycle /pedestrian plan for the City. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal, with minor modifications that should be required to be made prior to building permit issuance, is consistent with applicable portions of the Community Development Code based upon the following findings: • 1. Chapter 18_32 (Procedures for Decision Making: Quasi-Judicial) is satisfied because the criteria for resubmittal of a previously denied application are satisfied as described above and because notice and decision making standards applicable to this type of review that are included in this chapter have been followed. 2. Chapter 18.54 (R-12 Zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms with use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R- 12 zone. 3. Chapter 18.56 (R-25 Zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms with use, density, and-applicable dimensional requirements of the R- 25 zone applied to the western portion of Tax Lot 200. 4. Chapter 18.80 (Planned Development) is satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed by the Planning Commission as required by the provisions of the Planned Development overlay zone. 5. Chapter 18_92 (Density Computations) is satisfied because the site plan provides an appropriate calculation of the permitted number of housing units for the site and the proposed development would provide fewer than the allowed number of dwelling units. 6. Chapter 18.96 (Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions) is satisfied because the site plan provides for appropriate distances as required by this chapter between the proposed multi- family residential buildings so as to assure privacy to residents and to also provide adequate light to all units- FINAL ORDE-R - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 17 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 ' Page No. 331 • 7. Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) is satisfied because plans for tree retention and added landscaping satisfy Code recuirements for minimum site area landscaping, street trees, perimeter buffering, and vision clearance at intersections. 8. Chapter 18.102 (Vision Clearance Areas) is satisfied because proposed improvements at driveway/road intersections are located or sized with respect to maintaining clear vision for motorists and pedestrians. 9. Chapter 18.106 (Off-Street Parking) is satisfied because the site plan satisfies Code requirements for number of total parking spaces provided, covered parking spaces, compact/total parking space ratio, designated handicapped parking spaces, and parking area lighting. 10. Chapter 18.108 (Access, Egress, and Circulation) is. satisfied because the site plan provides for safe and efficient-access and egress for the proposed use and for general circulation on.the site. The plan also provides for adequate and safe pedestrian sidewalks through the site. The proposed-access and internal roadway plan provides-for adequate emergency vehicle access and maneuverability through the site. The proposed development will be be provided with an adequate number of driveway accesses to serve the proposed development, despite-not meeting the required number of. access driveway standard of 18.108.070.D. ' The road situation affecting this site dictates a reduction in possible access points on the streets abutting the site in order to direct traffic onto higher order roads and in order to avoid' driveways onto the proposed curve of SW 109th Avenue. The approval criteria for an access variance are addressed above. 11.- Chanter-18.114 (Signs) is satisfied with regard to permitted sign locations. Sign permits must be obtained prior to the erection of any sign on the site. 12. Chapter 18_120 (Site Development Review) is satisfied because the site plan generally provides for the proposed buildings and other site- improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees and to minimize alterations to the site's- topography and drainage systems. The site plan also situates the buildings so as to provide for privacy and light for the proposed dwelling units and to-assure -compatibility between the proposed development and adjacent uses. The proposed recreation center, pool, and walking trail will provide appropriate recreational facilities for the development's residents. 13. Chapter 18.150 -(Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the applicant will be required-to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees in preparation for development. Permits will be granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the development -that will be retained. A detailed tree survey and an arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading permit or a tree removal permit- 14. Chapter 18.164 (-Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of the recommended improvements to the proposed new Naeve/109th connecting street, SW Naeve Street, S-W 109th Avenue, and SW Pacific Highway. • FZR'a-L ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 18 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. 33 T • Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed development. Although the proposed development will contribute a substantial amount of traffic to nearby streets, the additional traffic should not result in the design capacity of these roads being exceeded or require additional traffic control measures. The creation of the 109th-Naeve connecting street should discourage traffic from travelling through the Summerfield area, especially when this street is extended through to the SW Royalty Parkway/pacific Highway intersection. The proposed storm drainage system will collect stormwater from the portion of the site to be developed and direct this water to the storm sewer at the intersection of SW 109th and Naeve. The public improvement plans should include an analysis of the"anticipated stormwater flow from this area. Drainage pipes shall be sized accordingly. Some stormwater drainage resulting from the interim improvements to'SW Naeve Street will be directed towards King City through a culvert under Pacific Highway. Total stormwater flow from this site to the west should be reduced because the on-site storm drainage system should capture some overland flow that would drain westward if the site remained undeveloped. D. DECISION The Planning Commission APPROVES Planned Development PDR 91-0006/Site Development. Review SDR 91-0013 and the associated access variance subject to the following conditions: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED BEFORE ANY TREE REMOVAL, GRADING OR SITE-WORK ON THE SITE_ 1. During all construction of the on-site and off-site improvements, all construction traffic shall travel to and from the site via the intersection of Naeve Street and Pacific Highway- Construction vehicles, including employee vehicles, shall not be allowed to Dark on Naeve Street; 109th Avenue or within the Dublic right-of-wav_ 2. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be removed or retained, an arborist's recommendation for methods of protecting retained trees during construction of the proposed apartments as well as for the long-term health of these trees. This tree protection plan shall include at a minimum all trees designated for retention on the prdliminary landscaping plan and should endeavor to add additional mature trees as practicable. The trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or similar means approved by the Planning Division- No site grading, clearing or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this condition- STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division, (639- 4171)- 3. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide for a minimum caliper of 2 inches at planting for all street trees along public streets abutting the site- STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639-4171)- 4- A demolition permit shall be obtained prior to destruction or moving any of the existing buildings on the site- If the buildings are on FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD 19 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 11 Page No. 331 • septic tanks, the tanks shall be pumped out and either removed or filled with sand or gravel- If the buildings are connected to sanitary sewers, the lines shall be capped off in an approved manner. An inspection shall be obtained after the tank is filled or the sewer capped. A copy of the receipt for septic tank pumping shall be provided to the Building Division. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). 5. The finished grade of cuts or fills shall have a maximum slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer shall certify the stability of any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report from a registered engineer shall be-submitted. The report shall indicate the location of any fill placed on building sites, suitability of the soil for building.construction, and soil bearing capacity. In addition, a grading plan shall be submitted (To the Engineering Department) showing the existing and proposed contours. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast, Building Division (639-4171). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED, OR ELSE COMPLETION SHALL BE FINANCIALLY ASSURED, -PRIOR TO RECEIVING BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACT. FOR ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS CHRIS DAVIES OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UNLESS OTHER7v4ISE NOTED. 6. Two (2) sets of detailed public-improvement plans shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Division. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost -estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by. the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. • 7. Standard half-street improvements,' including concrete sidewalk, curb, storm drainage.,. and-streetlights shall be installed along the Pacific Highway-frontage. Improvements. shall be designed and constructed to State Highway Division standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Oregon State- Highway Division. A copy of the approved plans shall be provided to the City Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. 8. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of Pacific Highway. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Division- prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. 9. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details. shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 9. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream_ 10. The proposed privately-operated and maintained parking lot and/or roadway plan-profile and cross section details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans- FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD ~n Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 340 11- rz erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to 'Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989.' 12. At all parking lot entrances, a minimum of 20 feet between the public sidewalk and the first parking stall shall be maintained- 13. There shall be no vehicle connection between Old 109th and New 109th- A turnaround, i.e. hammerhead meeting the city's and fire departments approval shall be provided at the end of old 109th. No other improvements shall be required north of the intersection of old 109th and Naeve Street. 14. Naeve Street shall be realigned at Old 109th to intersect Old 109th at approximately a 90-degree angle, and shall conform to the alignment shown on the submitted preliminary plans- The existing south curb shall be reconstructed to match the new alignment. NOTE: Old 109th shall be considered from the existing intersection of SW Naeve/109th; New 109th Shall be considered from the new intersection of S.W_ Naeve to where it intersects with the existing 109th in the northeast corner of the development 15. S_W. Naeve Street shall be improved in the following manner (NOTE: All stationing is taken from the preliminary submitted plans): A_ Interim street improvements consisting of a 24 foot wide paved street with 2 foot gravel shoulders and drainage ditches shall be installed from Pacific Highway to STA. 2+37. The pavement section shall consist of a minimum • of 3 inches of asphaltic concrete on a minimum of 10 inches of aggregate baserock. B. Full street improvements, meeting local street standards, shall be provided from STA_ 2+37 to STA. 7+00. Full width street improvements shall include traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities- C_ Two-thirds street improvements, meeting local street standards, shall be provided from STA_ 7+00 to STA. 14+59. Two-thirds street improvements shall include concrete sidewalk, driveway aprons, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, underground utilities, and interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the eastbound lane- D_ The interim improvements, as noted in 14A. above, may be waived, if it is determined that the construction is assured for the extension of New 109th to Pacific Highway; the City Engineer shall make the final determination as to what im_rovements shall be required for this section of road- 16. S_W_ 109th Avenue shall be improved in the following manner (NOTE: All stationing is taken from the preliminary submitted plans): A_ Full street improvements, meeting minor collector street standards, shall be provided from STA_ 10.00 to STA_ FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 3141 19+20. Full width street improvements shall include traffic control devices, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities. B. Two-thirds street improvements, meeting minor collector street standards, shall be provided from STA. 19+20 to STA. 27+80. Two-thirds street improvements shall include concrete sidewalk, driveway aprons, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, underground utilities, and interim improvements to maintain traffic flow in the northbound lane. C_ The City Engineer may approve reduced lane widths within, that portion of New 109th; between STA. 10+00 to STA. 28+00. 17. The applicant shall be required to do the following with respect to the storm sewer system: A. The existing pipe to be connected to in 109th Avenue should be evaluated to determine if it has adequate capacity to handle ultimate development of the entire drainage basin; B. That the on-site water quality facility shall meet current Unified Sewerage Agency design standards and that it shall be the responsibility of the owners of the site to maintain such facilities; and .C. Design the system(s) so that there is a clear. delineation between.the private and public systems. 18_ The applicant shall be required to dedicate the following right-of- way (NOTE': Stationing is based on preliminary plans as submitted to the Planning Department) A_ S_W_ Naeve Street: (1) From STA_ 2+00 to STA. 7+00 - 50 feet of R_O_W., i_e.,25 feet either side of the new center line alignment; (2) From STA. 7+00 to 14+58 - 25 feet of R.O.W_, 25 feet from centerline; B. Old S_W. 109th Avenue: (1) Provide R.O_W_ for the hammerhead turnaround. C_ New S_W. 109th Avenue: (1) From STA. 10+00 to STA. 19+20 60 feet of R.O_W_; 30 feet either side of the new centerline; (2) From STA. 19+20 to STA_ 27+28 - 30 feet of R.O.W.; 30 feet either side of the new center line alignment- FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 3'+..)- PRIOR TO i3V ISSUANCE 0= AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THIS SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR A SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE MAY BE ?OSTED GUARANTEEING COMPLETION OF THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORPIRY OCCUPANCY PERMIT- 19. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed as per the revised landscaping and site plans- STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer, Planning Division (639-4171) 20. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Division prior to the erection of an identification sign. Sign location and size must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the Community Development Code. APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. -PASSED: This A day of October, 1991, by the Planning Commis of the City of Tigard. ' on F. e, siad t T' and Plann n~ offun'ission JO:triad_pdr FINAL ORDER - PDR 91-0006/SDR 91-0013 TRIAD Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. 3f 3 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 N 9 Ce TT 7193 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising o I T N ~I • • ❑ Tearsheet City of Tigard The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full 0 • PO Box 23397 o z o Tigard, Oregon 97223 ❑ Duplicate 'agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall z z Boulevard, Tigard; Oregon 97223, or, by calling 639-4171. Ry CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 4 MARCH 10, 1992 ` TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ;r k ...e. . STATE OF .Study Session (Town Hall Coriference.Room) (5:30 p.m.) OREGON, Joint Meeting with the Park Board COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, l Judith Koehler Study. Session (Town Hall Conference Room) (6:30 p.m.) being first duly sworn, depose and say Executive Session: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive it~at I adm-.the Advertising Sessiori'under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (f) to discuss Director, or his principal clerk of the gar 'M'imes exempt .records. a newspaper of `a public general circyJ tion as defined and 193.020; published 1 in ORS 193.010 afor~,gi~id c u ~rldt to that E~ in the Business Meeting: (Town Hall) (?:30 p.rri+) : ; EF . , i C~ L Coni~ l tag U C I1SVna0a Meetin Local Contract Review Board . a printed copy of which is hereto anngxed was entire issue of said newspaper for e ' Published In the `4 :Public Hearings"-... ; i successive and {Y,: ° , Plan'Amen' dinent - Transportation -109th„and Naeve consecutive in the following issues: (Hearing continued &om•February 25,•1992) March 5 1992 : ,triad 'Development•. (Hearing:'continued from February 25,. ' 1992) Annexation 12000,S.,W.'Bull Mountain Road. Executive Session: The Tigard City' Council:will:go,into Executive $ession:under'the provisions of ORS. 192.660. (1)'.(d);;(e), and (h) to'i $iscuss'labor relations, real property.transactions; current.and pending litigation issues. , Subscribed and sworn to efore me thls5 h day of March 1992 'I'I'7193 Publish March 5, 1992. • ' Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT - i C Council Agenda Item 3.1 • T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 • Meeting was called to order at 5:44 p.m. by Council President Schwartz. 1. ROLL CALL - Council Present: Council President John Schwartz; Councilors Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and Jack Schwab. City Administrator; Janice Deardorff, Personnel Director (for Study Session (Executive Session] only); Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 5:44 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) to discuss labor relations. Council reconvened into regular session at 6:45 p.m. TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION UPDATE: President Mary Tobias updated the Council on the following topics: • Western Bypass • Metro Charter Committee (She noted RGC's input has been valuable). (Note: A packet of information from TVEDC on current issues is filed with the Council meeting packet material.) AGENDA REVIEW Additional material was received at City Hall concerning the hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 which included suggestions on findings. Staff did not have an opportunity to review the material in depth. City Attorney outlined options before Council which included holding the public hearing as scheduled, receiving testimony and then continuing the hearing, or setting the hearing over to a date certain. Council consensus was to set the hearing over to a date certain. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 - PAGE 1 'i Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. 346 BUSINESS MEETING (7:40 p.m.) 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA - No visitors. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwab, to approve the following Consent Agenda: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 28, 1992 3.2 Endorse General Principles of Regional Government and Continue to Support the Regional Governance Committee - Resolution No. 92-09 4. APPEAL PUBLIC REARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue On December 10, 1991, the City Council continued the hearing on an appeal of the Planning commission's decision on this matter. The hearing was continued to Council's February 25, 1992 meeting. Due to the remand of the decision for CPA 91- 0002 described above and its effect on the Triad PDR/SDR application, the Community Development Department recommended that the City Council continue the hearing on the Triad appeal to March 10, 1992. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to continue the hearing to March 10, 1992. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002. NPO #6 - APPLICANT. In response to a remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) of an earlier decision on this matter, the City Council will consider testimony concerning what actions it should consider taking in response to the LUBA decision and possible modification of the decision for CPA 91-02. a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Community Development Director reviewed the status of this hearing item noting additional information had been received late in the afternoon on this day. (See Study Session comments on this item.) C. A letter was received from Mr. Robert Luton's attorney, Mr. James H. Bean. Mr. Bean advised that they were renewing all of the objections raised in their petition to LUBA and those matters previously raised by Mr. Luton • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I(. Page No. 347 or his agents in his earlier appearances and correspondence with the City in regard to this proposal. The letter, dated February 25, 1992, has been entered into the record and is filed with the Council packet material for this meeting. Mr. Bean urged "the Council not to approve any plan amendment which downgrades the designation of Naeve Street, contemplates bisecting or taking of Mr. Luton's commercial property to promote a residential development, or otherwise adversely impacts upon his ability to use and develop the property..." Mr. Bean advised that he had not received notice of the meeting. Community Development Staff reported a notice was sent to Mr. Luton who is apparently now out of the state. d. Mr. Steven Pfeiffer, attorney for Triad Development Company, noted as a point of order that the hearing was "de novo." City Attorney Ramis agreed that the hearing was noticed as de novo, but limited to the issues of the LUBA remand. e. Motion by Councilor Schwab, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to continue the hearing to March 10, 1992. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. f. City Administrator Reilly advised that anyone wishing to receive a copy of the new staff report and draft findings could sign up on a list after the meeting. The report will be mailed to all persons on the list. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS - ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE/ISSUES Fanno Creek Conference Councilor Johnson reported the Fanno Creek Conference, held last Saturday, was a success. She advised the Committee for the Conference will give a full report to Council in the near future. Underground Utility Policy City Engineer will prepare a report for March 10 recommending an "Interim Underground Utility Policy." This policy will address short frontages of new development which are developed except for sidewalks and underground utilities. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I~ Page No. 3149 Solid Waste Ordinance Issue City Administrator referred to a Council discussion item from the February 11, 1992 meeting. Mr. Raymond Ross noted his company had not given specific vehicle information notice as required in the Solid Waste Ordinance in order to continue collecting and disposing of solid waste from Mr. Ross' (and Mr. David Emami's) business sites. City Attorney advised that because of previous testimony received during the hearings on the Solid Waste Ordinance, the City had constructive notice of the company's desire to continue to collect their own solid waste. No objections to allowing this business to continue to collect their solid waste has been received from the other parties to the solid waste ordinance. Council consensus was to allow this business to continue to collect their solid waste at their business sites as provided for by the Solid Waste Ordinance. The company will provide staff with the specific information required in the ordinance. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 8:40 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT: 9:35 p.m. l.~ Attest:/7 Catherine Wheatley, City-R order .71 Mayor, `Ci`ty `"of Tigard Date: -3 10 -q2- h Arecorder\ccn\ccm0225.92 S CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 - PAGE 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. s y 4 1 CITY OF TIGARD ~x•;:.rw.r>• OREGON AGENDA { j PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an M'IN I agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheets . If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. • STUDY SESSION (5:30 PM) (5:30 p.m.) Executive Session: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. (6:30 p.m.) Tualatin Valley Economic Development Commission Update: President Mary Tobias 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 28, 1992 3.2 Endorse General Principles of Regional Government and Continue to Support the Regional Governance Committee - Resolution No. 92- COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 - PAGE 1 Luba No. 2-104 i Exhibit No. I-) ' Page No. 350 4. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 10AD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 10DB, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,18.150,18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. On December 10, 1991, the City Council continued the hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on this matter. The hearing was continued to the Council's February 25, 1992 meeting. Due to the remand of the decision for CPA 91-0002 described above and its effect on the Triad PDR/SDR application, the Community Development Department will recommend that the City Council continue the hearing on the Triad appeal to March 10, 1992, or until resolution of the issues related to CPA 91-0002. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0002. NPO #6 - APPLICANT. In response to a remand from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) of an earlier decision on this matter, the City Council will consider testimony concerning what actions it should consider taking in response to the LUBA decision and possible modification of the decision for CPA 91-02. Note: written and oral testimony on the above matter will be limited to the issues that are subject to the remand. • Public Hearing Opened • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony NPO 6 - Proponents (Speaking in Favor of the CPA) Opponents (Speaking Against the CPA) • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 92- 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 7. ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE/ISSUES • City Administrator COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 1 Page No. 3571 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMENT cca22 m • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 25, 1992 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 17 Page No. 3SA COMMUNITY. NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 NoticeTT 7180 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising The following meeting highlights are published for your informati on: Fu1l,; City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet W't' :'agendas.'may be. obtained from the City Recorder;-13 25':S:W:;Hall: Boulevar 9722 639-411l.,-,' }?p , Box 2337 d;Tigard OregonH 3~or liy.calling ;"'`f? Tigard, Or 97223 ❑ Duplicate Aft i '~r~'• - OUNCII'BUSINESS•MEfiTING;::~,::,r;'i"v;:'• :,r., _ ::'FEBRUAR 25 ' 1 ,;,.•,3~. : ~:,a..~~y,, , , . • r. ' t , ' ~ .TIGARD y.. 992 h<<~ iY' J CITY:HAI.L-TOWNIiALLFl,~ M! ~f ' 13 13125 HALL BOUI:EVARD TI GARD;: OREGON' Mr'°t ]d(••:¢~' Study Session (Town Hall Conference Room)' (5,3O 1?.M Executive' Session::The Tigard Ciii "o will uncil go, into Executive AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Session undef the provisions of,ORS.192,660 (1 d, e) & (h). to ) i' ( STATE OF OREGON, ) discuss labof"relations,.real propectq aansactions, current and + COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' pending litigation issues.... i Judith Koehler f . ; . ; .N • k~~~ } A; being first duly sworn, depose nd Study Session (Town Hall Conference Room) (6:30 P.M.} g y a sax.,that I Arp the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the 11QaYCt limes • TVEDC=-Mary a newspaper of general circ atlon s defined in ORS 193.010 Tobias', ; , cg :r,` ?f;~ur:~:; and 193.020; published at in the % Business Meeting (Town Ha11) (7:30P.M,) a Qresal counT a d state; th the, ' ~1ty Goounci I~usiness Meeting Local Contract Review Board":;; a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the s" Public Hearings:. entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and i consecutive in the following issues: • ' Plan Amendment--Transportation'-109th and Naeve • Triad Development continued to March 10, 1992 February 20, 1992 ? Cr T77180 - Publish February 20, 1992. (D 0) - - Z ' Z O Z O o~ ~ CD N) p Subscribed and sworn o before me this20th day of February 1992 tvk V Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) W. The following Items will be considered by the Tigard City Council on' V IRYERTON, OREGON 97075 Feb 25, 1992, ai 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall i Ike gal Notice Advertising Room. 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard; M- gard, Oregon. Further informadoA R ED F e E 1 9 "may be obtained from the Community Development Director or City Rd. 19 2 corder at the same location or by calling 639417I-Mou are invited W sub- , City of Tigard r E~3 2 . • ❑ Tearsheet Na mit written testimony in advance of t)je public hearing. Both written and` PO Box 23397 G E oral testimony will be considered at file hearing. The public hearings will • Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARI% ❑ Duplicate Afflc.be conducted in accordance with the applicable standards of Chapters t . • 1832 of the Tigard Municipal Code add rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall. I • • 1. y~g@ ttatrive'P 'tae Arnenameni~ NPO 96 - Annlicant In response to a remand fr( qt the Oregon Land.Use Board of A AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION of an earlier decision on this matter'the City' Council will consi~u adoption of additional findin;s in support of the prior legislative', STATE OF OREGON, ) decision and possible modification of the decision for CPA 91-02. The COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' previously approved.amendment had: 1) eliminated S.W. Naeve Street as a minor collector street on the Comprehensive Plan's Transporta- I Judith Koehler tion Plan Map; 2) designated the northern segment of S.W. 109th being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising Avenue on L1We Bull Mountain is a minor collector street; 3) desig- Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard n I - nated a tkw minor collector street alignment from the intersection of a newspaper of general circ~t~flop s defined in OR$ 193.010 S.W. Pacific Highway extending northeastward to connect with the and 193.020; published aL 1>~ar~ Jn the northern segment of S.W. 109th Avenue; 4) designated another new aforesaid coupty andHearin( PAfate; that the collector street from S.W.109th Avenue extending eastward to con- Rrhl i c 91 _(=2 nest with S.W. 100th Avenue near Sauler Strict; and 5) included a note on the Transportati a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the minor on Plan Map noting that the portion of this collector street in the area of the S.W '100th Avenue/Sattier entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and Street intersection could vary from City standards for minor collector consecutive in the following Issues: street standards. , February 13, 1992 The current review is intended to provide additional findings in response to the LUBA remand related to: 1) intergovernmental coor- dination relative to the review of this amendment-, 2) potential effects of the proposal upon identified Statewide Planning Goal 5 identified d natural and cultural resources in the subject area: and 3) effects of the proposal upon the City's obligation to provide for a safe and efficient 1 transportation system as specified by Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1, In addition. the City Count "will consider amending the earlier cribed and swor to before me this h yr of Fe ,wry 1992 decision to delete the rtiinar coll~tor street segment between S.W. i 100th and S.W..109th Avenues and the note on the Transportation Plan Map related to street improvement standards for this section of Notary Public for Oregon roadway. As an alternative, the City Council will review a Transport- don Plan Map note calling for a local street connection in the area be- My Commission xpires: 46 tween S.W. 100th and S.W. 109th Avenues. AFFIDAVIT Note' Written and rr<rimopKon the above matter will be limited , to the issues that a*e sobieet to the 'remand. 2.Appeal of the Plann~g Commission decision for SDR 91 0013/PDR 91-0006 Triad Tigard Limited Partnership=Ap_RGcant e Davenport and NPO 6 have Hied setrarat, woods. On December 10,1991, the City Council continued the hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on this matter. The hearing was continued to the Council's February 25, 1992 meeting. Due to the remand of the decision for CPA 91-0002 described above and its effect on the Triad PDR/SDR application, the Community Development Department will recommend that the City Council con- tinue the hearing on the Triad appeal to March 10, 1992, or until resolution of the issues related to CPA 91-0002 T171168 - Publish February 13, 1992 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. AT Page No. 4~c Council Agenda Item 3.1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 10, 1991 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten and Jack Schwab (present for Study Session only). Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Agenda Review: City Administrator advised that Item 3.3, NPO appointments, should be deleted from the Council's Consent Agenda. Planning Commission review is scheduled for December 16, 1991. This item will be on the Council's December 17, 1991 Consent Agenda. Staff and Council reviewed Item 4 - Triad Appeal Hearing. Staff recommended that the Public Hearing be continued to February 25, 1992. Legal Counsel Elliott explained the continuation recommendation was predicated on the pending LUBA appeal of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the Transportation Map for this area. LUBA's decision will affect one of the approval options for the Triad Development. If LUBA requires the CPA be remanded to the City, then Triad would have to start completely over with the required public hearings. There was discussion on process. Staff recommended a requirement that all documents to be considered by Council be submitted to the City by 5 p.m. on February 3, 1992. Council noted concern for a timely review of this issue. NPO 6's appeal issue may be resolved in the near future. Mrs. Marge Davenport, the other appellant, has requested that the Public Hearing be delayed until after the LUBA decision has been received. City Engineer Wooley advised that the NPO's appeal is based on concern that the new road in the area south of the Triad Development should be built before the development is built. He advised that an agreement in which Triad would match funds expended by the City on such a road is being drawn up. He advised he would like to introduce the draft agreement to the Council during the business part of the meeting so that it is entered as a written part of the record. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 10, 1991 - PAGE 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 355 Greenspaces Program: Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee for Washington County Mayor Shirley Huffman of Hillsboro represents Washington County Cities in the Greenspaces Program and is seeking an alternate to attend when she cannot. Council's busy schedule for the next few months prevents participation at this time. Intergovern mental Coordinating Committee (IGC) for Washington County - Council liked the committee's concept and favored continued work. • City Council recessed at 7:00 p.m. (Councilor Schwab left the meeting at this time). BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: No visitors 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Council Kasten; seconded by Council Johnson to approve the Consent Agenda Item 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4. Item 3.3 will be considered on December 17, 1991. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. Appeal Public Hearing - Site Development Review SDR 91-0013, Planned Development PDR 91-0006; Triad Development (NPO #6): An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 10AD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 10DB, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 10, 1991 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ill Page No. 35(a A. The public hearing was opened. Upon advice of legal counsel, the City Council continued the Public Hearing to February 25, 1992. By then, it is expected that a decision will have been made by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on a case concerning the transportation plan affecting the area in which this development is located. Written testimony will be accepted by the Planning Department or City Recorder until 5 p.m., February 3, 1992. B. The following written testimony was received into the record: • Draft road improvement agreement between Triad Tigard Limited Partnership and City of Tigard. • Petitions for review from Marge Davenport and supporting documentation. • December 1, 1991 letter from James H. Bean, of attorneys for Robert Luton. • December 10, 1991 memorandum from G. McReynolds, King City Councilor to Mayor Edwards and Tigard City Councilor regarding Triad Development. 5. Public Hearinci - Street Vacation for a Portion of S.W. Garden Park Place (Schumacher) A. The public hearing was opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report submitted to Council in their meeting packet. D. Mr. Dean Schumacher, the applicant, advised he would like to see the proposed vacation approved by Council. He said the purpose of the vacation was to allow the road to conform with the adjoining lots and also conform with the right-of-way for adjacent streets. E. Councilor Johnson asked for clarification between Exhibits B and C. The Community Development Director responded that the staff was recommending a different alignment than what the applicant requested. F. Public hearing was closed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 10, 1991 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. (,q Page No. 3S'1 G. ORDINANCE NO. 91-35 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC Ci STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON A PORTION OF SW GARDEN PARK PLACE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. H. Motion by Councilor Johnson; seconded by Councilor Kasten, to approve Ordinance No. 91-35. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 91-0003 A. A proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code Chapter 18.100.090 Setbacks for Fences or Walls to allow fences up to six feet in height in front yards along designated arterial and collector streets excluding clear vision areas; and to amend vision clearance requirements Chapter 18.102.101 (C) to address topography and vertical curve situations. B. The public hearing was continued to January 28, 1992. 7. Executive Session cancelled. 8. Adjournment at 7:42 p.m. ca6-~"I-t (k) Att st: i Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder ,Mayor, City of Tigard Date: h-.V9wfd0AooW4 n1210.91 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - December 10, 1991 - PAGE 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ji- Page No. 35 8 } Depending on the number of persons wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3-5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. / Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. 1 Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO.* 4 DATE: k 12,!10/91. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED'DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT . PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS Appellants &.Those Favoring the opponents to the Appeal Appeal en. YVi ~ ~ItLVS inlG fit NPQ ' IS~7s SW e. A 1 G Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ;Q Page No. 354 co- - z4 F G''~i CdU(~cIL~ ~ ~ttJNG ~Q~LI ~R- '~fUA`~~~'(I N\-01 92-104 x No. page SO- -36-- 4Uv161 maf y L) 1 +041 ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 19 by and between TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Triad" and the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter referred to as the "City." WHEREAS Ordinance No. 91-22 of the Tigard City Council approved an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map providing for the realignment and extension of SW 109th Avenue to intersect Pacific Highway opposite the existing intersection of Royalty Parkway and designating SW 109th Avenue as a minor collector street. WHEREAS Ordinance No. 91-22-has been appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. WHEREAS Resolution No. 91-68 of the Tigard City Council found that the purpose of the proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is to mitigate traffic impacts of future development on the surrounding street system, including Pacific Highway and that the portion of the proposed extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway should be designated as an eligible facility and an eligible project under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance and requested that Appendix "D" (Base Report) of the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance No. 379 be amended to include the portion of SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway as an eligible facility in Table 2 of the Base Report and as an eligible project in Table 4 of the Base Report. WHEREAS the City of Tigard desires to commence construction of the extension of the SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway during the spring of 1992. WHEREAS the City Engineer for the City of Tigard estimates the cost of construction of the portion of the SW 109th Avenue extension between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway to be approximately $900,000. WHEREAS the Tigard City Council, on October 28, 1991, approved a budget authorizing the expenditure of $300,000 in fiscal year 1991-92 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS it is anticipated that the City of Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee will recommend a budget authorizing the expenditure of an additional $300,000 in fiscal • ._PP:3_3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. aI Page No. Not year 1992-93 for the improvement of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission approved, subject to conditions, an application for Planned Development Review Detailed Development Plan Approval, Site Development Review Approval, and Access Variance Approval requested by Triad for the development of a 348-unit, 17 building multi-family residential complex on 26.2 acres of property located at 11165-11185 SW Naeve Street. WHEREAS Final Order No. 91-11 PC of the City of Tigard Planning Commission has been appealed to the Tigard City Council and the Tigard City Council has affirmed Final Order No. 91-11 PC and eliminated the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to provide interim improvements on--Naeve Street from the realignment of Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact fee Ordinance (TIF) imposes a tax of approximately $292,960 on Triad's development. WHEREAS the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF) entitles a developer to a credit against the tax for constructing eligible capital improvement. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is within the impact area of Triad's development. WHEREAS the City Engineer of the City of Tigard has determined that the timing, location, design and scope of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the capital improvements program of the City of Tigard. WHEREAS Triad desires to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to receive a credit against the TIF tax for such construction. WHEREAS City desires for Triad to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. WHEREAS the parties desire to resolve the terms of Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway and to otherwise set forth their respective requirements and obligations thereto. T-PP1340 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 5 i 3 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and stipulations set forth herein, it is agreed between the parties as follows: 1. Construction of Road Improvements. Triad agrees to participate in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 2. Participation. Triad agrees to pay $300,000 of the cost of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. - - 3. Preconditions to Participation. Triad's obligation to participate is conditioned upon (i) the expiration of all periods for further appeal of the affirmance of Final Order No. 91-11 PC by the Tigard City Council; (ii) the expiration of all periods for appeal of the elimination by the Tigard City Council of the condition in Final Order No. 91-11 PC which requires Triad to provide interim improvements on Naeve Street from the realignment of Naeve Street west to the Pacific Highway; and (iii) the ultimate affirmance of Ordinance No. 91-22 and the expiration of all periods for further appeal of such affirmance. If the foregoing conditions are not satisfied, this Agreement shall terminate and all obligations of the parties under this Agreement will thereafter cease. 4. Deposit in Escrow. Triad shall deposit a pro rata portion of the $300,000 in escrow upon receipt of all required permits for each building in Triad's development to be held in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The pro rata portion shall be based on the ratio that the value of such building (as set forth in the permit application) bears to the value of all buildings constructed and to be constructed in the development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Triad shall deposit the entire $300,000 in escrow prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Triad's development. 5. Escrow. Triad shall deposit the $300,000 in escrow with Title Insurance Company (the "Escrow") at its offices in Oregon or at such other place as the parties may • 3 Luba No. 92-104 ?-P?1310 Exhibit No. all Page No. 3-o mutually select. Escrow shall deposit the $300,000 in an interest-bearing account with interest accruing to Triad. The parties shall execute joint instructions to escrow directing it to disburse the funds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Triad shall pay the escrow fee. 6. Participation. The City of Tigard shall use the $300,000 solely for the purpose of constructing the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. The City shall spend such funds only on improvements which are eligible for credit under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). Escrow shall disburse the $300,000 to City upon presentation of invoices by the City, certified by the City Engineer as accurate, for the cost of constructing credit-eligible improvements to the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway. Credit-eligible improvements may include right of way acquisition costs and survey, engineering and inspection costs as provided in the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (TIF). 7. Credit. The City shall grant Triad a credit against the tax due on Triad's development under the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance in the amount of $300,000 for Triad's participation in the construction of the extension of SW 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and Pacific Highway pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall direct the City Engineer to grant Triad such credit in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 8. Default. If either party defaults under this agreement the other party shall be entitled to such remedies for breach of contract that may be available under applicable law including without limitation the remedy of specific performance. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. 9.1 Attorneys' Fees. In the event suit or action is instituted to interpret or enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial or on any appeal, and on any petition for review, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 9.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement. pp 4 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 3 b • 9.3 Notices. Notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered, or if mailed, upon deposit as certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party at the address shown below. Either party may change its address for notices by written notice to the other. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership City: City of Tigard 9.4 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 9.5 Changes in Writing. This Agreement and any of its terms may only be changed, waived, discharged or terminated by a written instrument signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought. 9.6 Authority. The persons who have executed this Agreement have been duly authorized to do so by the party. The party has a good and legal right to enter into this Agreement and to perform all covenants of the party contained in this Agreement in accordance with its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate as of the day and year first above written. Triad: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership a Washington limited partnership By Title: General Partner City: City of Tigard By Title Luba No. 92-104 "-?F"`° 5 Exhibit No. -2 1 Page No. 365 WRITTEN TESTIMONY AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 COUNCIL MEETING OF-12/10/91 PETITION FOR REVIEW City Planning approval of Triad Development proposal Petitioner seeks order reviewing and reversing Planning Ccmmission decision of proposed Triad development on basis that decision to approve violates applicable provisions of Tigard Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning goals. These are cited in the following pages. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 41 Page No. 3 44 There is failure to consider the specific approval standards in Comp- rehensive Plan Polic 3.1.1 regarding development hazards, in the face Clty"5 ) of clear evidence in its own Plan that this development is within hazard areas==buildings, streets(including realignment of 109th)(Plan at 1-19 to 1-34) Failure to develop any record regarding these criteria and failure to adopt any findings regarding development hazards requires that the Council remand the planning decision. (See detailed code findings attached.) No independent studies made on which to base decision. Therefor, Planning decision should be reversed. 2. Failure to address Statewide Planning Goal 5 with respect to impact on Goal 5 resources including the Little Bull Mountain Special Area.The City's Comprehensive Plan recognizes the city's Statewide Planning Goal 5 obligations to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic re- sources. An inventoried Goal 5 resource site--the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest (Plan at 1-96, 1-97). The summit of the Little Bull Mountain area (part of Triad development) is also designated as a Special Area (Plan at 1-42.)This Special Area, identified as one of six such areas by the City's Comprehensive Plan, contain three separate Goal 5 resources considered to be of significance to city residents-- wildlife habitat, natural forest cover, and outstanding scenic presence and visual impact The plan further states that conficting uses to the natural state of Little Bull Mountain be limited, requiring special attention to development activities impacting this locale. If goal 5 is ignored, the city will fail to follow the requirements of CDC 18.30.130. The planning council decision for approval failed to adequately address Goal 5 priorities, therefore, the decision should be reversed. • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. d L Page No. 36'1 C:3. Failure to address Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4 (c) and Implemen- tation Strategy 3 requiring minimization of development impacts to areas of significant environmental concern--those areas valued for specific natural features or as habitats for plant or animal life. Policy 3.4.1 (c) states the city shall designate the following as areas of significant environmental concern: "Areas valued for fragile character as habitats for plants, animal..life,...or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas." Implementation Strategy 3 under 3.4 (Natural Areas), Comprehensive Plan states "The city shall review all development proposals adjacent to wildlife habitat areas to insure that adverse impacts on C: any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be, request that other federal, state and local agencies review development proposals." No effort has aken to review the development against these-standards from the city's Comprehensive Plan Policies and Strategies. In the staff repor~it is stated that no environmental impact study is required. It goes on to explain that impacts are assessed through site development review processes, but none of the findings set forth in the Plan are specifically addressed , no consultations were carried out with other federal, local or state agenies to review developmental proposals. No inventories of wildlife, animals or plants has been nade. No reference is made to impact of adjacent natural and forested areas. OIn ignoring the policy requirment that this is a designated area of significant environmental concern, and treating it as such, the planning commission and the staff has failed to meet the rpm,irPment_s of Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. o-,..,, hl„ 4 'L sY loomprehensive Plan Policy 3.4 (c) and Implementation Strategy 3, therefor, the development should be denied until this is done. 4. Failure to make any finding or address any matters relating to Comp- rehensive Plan Policy 8.1.2, which requires management of transportat= a,o~g ation planning process (of additional trips per day from Triad development) through cooperation with affected jurisdictions. (crorc&44.u( 41) Policy 8.1.2. The city shall provide for efficient manage- ment of the transportation planning process within the city and the Metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions." There is not factual basis in the record to establish that Policy 8/1/2 has been met. It is relevent because roadway receiving traffic from Little Bull Mountain area is state Highway 99W. Coordination requirements with the Metropolitan Service District due to the importance of Highway 99W ; with Washington County, or to detailed planning with ODOT was not done, according to the record.(no evidence of communication). This lack of evidence in the record of any communications or attempts at coordination with these agencig, along with total lack of findings or conclusions about Policy 8.1.2 clearly violates CDC 18.30.120 dealing with approval standards. Therefor, development should be denied. Detailed Policy citations follow for each of the above. i Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a I Page No. 3 4 There is failure to consider the specific approval standards in Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.1 regarding development hazards', in the face of clear evidence in Tigards own Plan that the Triad development and proposed street alignments are within hazard areas. 3.1.1. states that: "The city shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development:" b. Areas having a severe soil erosion potential c. areas subject so slumping, earth slides or movement. d. areas having slopes in excess of 25 percent e. areas having severe weak foundation soils." Helvetia Formation 'This formation, of about the same age as the Troutdale Formation, consists of unconsolidated reddish-brown and light-brown clayey silt and sandy silt deposited on the surface of Columbia River Basalt to a depth of 15-145 feet. It occurs along the mid slopes of Bull Mountain-- Little Bull Mountain where heavily weathered it is converted into a lateritic soil. to The origin of Upland Silt is in dispute, but its basic characteristics are not. It is a massive, structureless sandy silt and clayey silt. and occupies much of Little Bull Mountain. Although stable when dry, Upland Silt is unconsolidated and is unstable when moist. It also has low permeability. Some settling is to be expec- ted evn for light loads supported by spread footings, and heavy loadings cannot be supported. A high moisture content seriously weakens earth slopes and heavily stressed foundations. Mud fl( Luba No. 92-104 ' Exhibit No. 41 Dana nln 3.7d j) Wity is also to be expected where the Upland Silt rests on basalt which slopes with the surface countour." (Plan at 1-19 to 1-34) There is nothing to indicate that consideration has been given to Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.1. Local knowlege of the Triad site states that there are a number of springs which have developed into what locals call "quicksand', although they are obviously the wet Upland Silt areas mentioned in the Plan. No independent evaluation of the site has been made or geologist consulted , therefore approval would be in violation of 3.1.1. Furthermore, Oregon is located within one of the most tectonically unstable regions of the earth, where volcanic activity and earthquakes are manifestations of geophysical processes occuring many miles below the :surface over areas the size of subcontinents. Tigard was the epicenter of a 1941 earthquake and the area has a continuing history of major seismic events. Recent findings have predicted a IX intensity quake possible. In view of these facts, It is additionally important that the steep, unstable silt soils of Little Bull Mountain be appropriately evaluated as called for in the Comprehensive Plan before a large development is approved. This has not yet been done. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 4 L Page No. 311 Tigards Comprehensive Plan recognizes the city's Statewide Plan- ning Goal 5 obligation to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The Triad site involves the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest (Plan at 1-96, 1-97) and it also indirectly affects the Kallstrom Fir Grove (Plan at 1-106, 1-107). The summit of the Little Bull Mountain area is also designated as a Special Area (Plan at 1-42) meriting priority attention as a Goal 5 resource. This area, identified a-)One of six such areas by the City's Comprehensive Plan, contains three separate Goal 5 resources considered to be of significance to the City's residents (wildlife habitat--Plan at 1-40, natural forest cover--Plan at 1-96, and outstanding scenic presence and visual impact--ID). The Plan further states that conflicting uses to the natural state of Little Bull Mountain be limited, requiring special attention to development activities impacting this locale. Ignoring Goal 5, indicates failure to follow requirements of CDC 18.30.130. Furthermore, failure to address Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.1 (c) and Implementation Strategy 3 requiring minimization of development impacts to areas of significant environmental concern of those areas valued for specific natural features or as habitats for plant or animal life. 3.4.1 (c) states the city shall designate the following as areas of significant environmental concern: "Areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, . ...or specific natural features, valued for the need to protect natural areas." Implementation Strategy 3 under 3.4 (Natural A: Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No.. L Pane Nn_ 313. "3. The city shall review all development proposals adjac- ent to wildlife habitat areas to insure that adverse impacts on any wildlife habitat areas are minimized, and if need be, request that other federal, state and local agencies review development proposals." The findings which precede the above-cited Policy and Implemen- tation Strategy indicate that significant plant communities and animal habitat areas are found in the stands of timber and brush, and that development in and adjacent to existing wildlife areas can adversely effect those areas and eliminate their value as wildlife habitat. Furthermore, the findings state that vegetation con4butes to the aesthetic quality of the community, performs certain environmental functions and softens the impact of urban environment Plan at II-lb Identified Resources (I-96 (a) Little Bull Mountain Nat-zirA Foreslt .'.....DETERMINED TO BE A SIGNIFICANT GOAL S resource as an out- standing scenic site. This area is the largest stand of natural coniferous trees within the Tigard active urban planning area, and there- fore, serves as a City visual landmark. ....Staff recommendation for this site is to limit conflicting uses. The limited conflicting uses allowec will be single family detached residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development process'`.I-96 SPECIAL AREAS "In addition to the general policies to help protect natural vegetation and wildlife, specific areas have been suggested by specialists • for preservation, through fee purchase if necessary. These areas were singled out for priority attention because of: their particular vege- tation and wilflife values, elative uniqueness. Areas identified Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a1 C~ include: 3.11 Summit of Little Bull Mountain. This area has a heavily-wooded with undergrowth providing cover for a variety of animals including deer, raccoon and pheasant." I-42 Scenery 1."Summit of Little Bull Mountain.' An inventory ®onducted by the City of Tigard revealed thst there arF various scenic views and sites, as defined in Goal 5 that exist in the Tigard Planning Area'.' including above. 1-43 The natural areas present and identified cannot be 4gnored, or disinissed without detailed inventory and compliance with goals set forth in Comprehensive Plan. It would be erroneous for the city to do so. This obviously has not been done and there is no reference made by staff, othep than vague reference to preserving trees, which a look at the proposed development makes it obvious that none of the required criteria are met. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.1 and Imple- mentation Strategy 3 have not been met. Luba No. -92-104 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. _A-It C City has failed to make any finding or address any matters relating . to Comprehensive Plan Policy B. 1. 1. which requires management of the transportation planning process through cooperation with affected juri- dictions. "Policy 8.1.1. The city shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process within the city and the metropoli- tan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions." There is no evidence in the record that Policy 8.1.2 has been met. Although ODOT figures indicate that 2,088 trips per day are gen- erated by a 348 unit development, and the only traffic analysis in the record shows that 250 peak hour trips will be put onto Highway 99W from the Triad development alone (R115) The coordination requirement prescribed by Policy 8.1.2 requires the city to address the impacts on Highway 99W with findings indicating how coordination has been achieved with the obj-ectives of the Access Oregon program, as well as the functioning of the highway as a major regional transportation facility. This later function, is also within the purview of the Metro Service District (Metro) due to the importance of Highway 99W to moving vehicular traffic to and from the southwest portion of the Portland metropolitan area into regional freeway systems. The record does not disclose any type of coordination in the trnas- portation planning process with ODOT, (other than a vague h@arsa? Metro or Washington Coiinty. Lack of compliance on these issues violates CDC 18.30.120 dealing with approval standards. (even though these things were brought to the staff's attention by Council at a prior hearing Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. QLI Page No.. 3 -75 In addition to compliance with code re-gpitementthere is another important consideratior~ ot addressed by the code, but one that must be addressed by the city. The city code has identified the soil on Little Bull Mountain as unconsolidated silt, which when wt becomes very gooey, runny and prone to wash downhill. Digging up the whole south side of Little Bull Mountain is going to create tons of brown, muddy clay-like runoff everytime it rains this will drain directly to the Tualatin River a short distance away. The state, the Departmnt of Environmental Quality and county and city agencies have launched an all-out plan to clean up the Tualitan River, and prevent just such things from happening. The only solution would be large settling tanks to hold the run-off, There is no indication that the staff has taken this into consideration, made any such requirement, or considred the consequences. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ALL Page No. 3-14 DEC- S-S 1 M0 1 6 1 7 PAC I F= I C TAY: r'-- i ~,tv-~ ~c~c t"c-sfzM~Ny 12110141 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~f'EM December 10, 1991 AGENDA ITEM 4 - TRIAD DEVELOPMENT APPEAL DATE: December 10, 1991 TO: Mayor Edwards & Tigard City Council FROM: Gerry McReynolds, King City Councilor SUBJECT: Triad Development King city Council met December 4, 1991 and discussed the "Triad Development" appeal before you tonight. King City representatives have appeared before you and your Planning Commission expressing our views on the proposed "Triad Development". The King city Council has designated the writer as their spokesman for tonights meeting. King City's concern is the traffic impact of this development. The 348 apartments proposed will generate 600 to 2,000 entry/exits to/from Pacific Highway each day. The development document allows the use of Naeve Road for this traffic. The plan implies, but does not say, that 109th will be extended to Royalty Parkway where there is a light to handle the increased traffic. The plan implies that ~i Naeve Road access will be limited or closed off to development traffic. Pacific Highway is, currently over capacity. The present intersection with Naeve Road is already extremely dangerous. The ingress/egress at Pacific Highway and Naeve Road of the additional traffic from the "Triad Development" apartments will cause a major traffic hazard for our citizens and for others traveling Pacific Highway. King City requests that the plan have a condition on occupancy that the 109th extension to Royalty Parkway and the closing off of Naeve Road access from the apartment complex be completed before xM occupancy be allowed, Thank You for your consideration. Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7071 F -If pages ► / To 1 From Corr~E~R~L ~Ll~ Co, Dept. Phone e~~ 2 Z C~ l Fax ,N . /p Far Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ~ Triad Development Appeal Page No. 3'1 December 10, 1991 1AIr~ 4+eN I6-srZrnC)N . 1210/41 LINDSAY, HART, NEIL & WEIGLER LAWYERS 1 EM C SUITE 1600 • 222 S.W. COLUMBIA PORTLAND, OREGON 97201-6616 TELEPHONE(503)226-7677 FAx (503) 226-7697 TELEx 494-7032 FEDERAL ID 93-1034742. December 9, 1991 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: File No. SDR 91-0013/PDR 91-0006 File Title: Triad Development NPO NO: 6 TO THE CITY COUNCIL Dear Council Members: We represent Mr. Robert Luton. Our client owns property that will be adversely impacted if the above-referenced development is approved. We understand a redesignation of Sattler Avenue on 109th Avenue and minor collections and down grading Naeve are contemplated in connection with this proposed development in violation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As Mr. Luton has previously advised the City Council, this proposed "residential" development and the concurrent and related street changes will have a significant adverse impact on the commercial property located on Naeve Street. We are concerned at the lack of appreciation or consideration of the economic impacts the proposed development will have and upon the failure to consider the implications of the proposed development on statewide goals #1, 5, and 9. Mr. Luton does not expect to be able to be present at the hearing on December 10, 1991. We request you accept this written communication as an expression of his opposition to the development as proposed. We further request the record remain open for at least 7 days after the hearing to allow us to supplement the record with further explanation of Mr. Luton's opposition. R pectfull James H. Bean Of Attorneys for Robert Luton cc: Robert Luton 7900 East Princess Dr. #2215 Scotsdale, Az 85255 uJ 121ID 1aI C ,O Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit NO- Q 1 Pang No. 31$ CITY OF TIGARD L,,~.]][[~ f t wt wf f9 i £c w Jf ''fl r` Y L4l f aW;yy,.y 'Y•:L 4af`£ fh' ki!F:NK cwf,., im f : 'x}'!a! rf f%s OREGON f i•~ fiC i4Kr of +Xt fJt ~~/.•tl f5•rf !f ~ ~i:'7.J`` 7,J,'~'v~C-v}r ,wi•:W:...+1FFr,r ]~`}{:f} ' WS* A MW.11-11~ AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an riate si n-u h.. X•" 8;. ; : } agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up ~~~;~f.-••,.-....rf~:.:.`..r::,..: LJ~ . ~lw..r:::...:.:-`f' P Hl:!{. /rrh f~f.: i'•l~i} f:}f:\r;:: F: f•`f%:rh`-~%ffh:~}+f sheets If no sheet is available ask to be S ,,..:-..L. ?i /'Lf: ~<•ri}•.,•:::.r :Jvzc•::.. w•. .ff .w: {G W%fX`✓ fr+:.Y h Vii: Yf .r} L{r i f::~-.~ ~ .{=.v .ter-.• recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. • STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.)) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: November 19, 1991 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Appointments to the Neighborhood Planning Organizations - Res. No. 91- 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: Approve Purchase of Three Police Vehicles i COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 1 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No.1ZIL Page No. 3 l 4. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval of a 348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 10AD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 10136, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,18.150,18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony: - - Appellants N PO 6 Representative Proponents (Speaking for Appeal) - Opponents (Speaking Against Appeal) Additional Testimony • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Motion: Direct Staff to Prepare Final Order Reflecting Council Decision l.0 5. PUBLIC HEARING - STREET VACATION FOR A PORTION OF S.W. GARDEN PARK PLACE (SCHUMACHER) • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony: Proponents (Speaking for Vacation) Opponents (Speaking Against Vacation) Additional Testimony • Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council • Council Questions or Comments • Close Public Hearing • Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 91- COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 2 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -3 Page No. 396 6. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0003 A proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code Chapter 18.100.090 Setbacks for Fences or Walls to allow fences up to six feet in height in front yards along designated arterial and collector streets excluding clear vision areas; and to amend vision clearance requirements Chapter 18.102.101 (C) to address topography and vertical curve situations. • Staff Recommends Public Hearing be Continued to December 17, 1991 7. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES • City Administrator 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMENT =1210.91 COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 10, 1991 - PAGE 3 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -1Z6- Page No. 3 91 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 10, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: November 25, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Plan- PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ning Commission approval of SDR 91-13, hearing on October 7 19 1 PDR 91-069 (Tigard Triad Ltd. PREPARED BY:Jer Offer Associate Planner DEPT HEAD OR ( CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY:Ed Murphy, Comm Dev Dir ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a 348 unit multi-family development on the southern slope of Little Bull Mountain? Both NPO 6 and Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development, have appealed the approval on different grounds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the site development review/planned development subject to the conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC. INFORMATION SUMMARY *October 7, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the development plan for the Tigard Triad 348-unit multi-family development. project by a 7-1 vote. Those Commission members supporting approval indicated that, although they favored construction of the section of SW 109th between SW Naeve and Pacific Highway as soon as possible, they did not find that there was a significant enough relationship between the anticipated traffic from the proposed development and the need for the roadway- ,e-xtension to warrant requiring the developers to construct this road. The Commission, through a separate motion, recommended to the Council that development of this road connection be expedited by whatever means possible. NPO #6 has appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The NPO's appeal form states that the NPO members feel that the proposed development should not proceed without concurrent construction of the road connection between SW Naeve Street and SW Pacific Highway at the Royalty Parkway intersection. Marge Davenport, a neighbor of the proposed development site, has filed a separate appeal of the Commission's decision. Ms. Davenport's appeal requests denial of the application based on concerns related primarily to traffic impacts, effects on the existing neighborhood, and lack of an environmental impact statement related to the proposed development. Attached are both NPO 6's and Ms. Davenport's appeal filing forms, minutes of the October 16, 1991 NPO 6 meeting, Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09 PC, minutes of the Planning Commission's October 7, 1991 meeting, and the ~plicants' development plans. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -13 Page No. 38~-- PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the site development review/planned development subject to the conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC. 2. Deny the request on appeal, thereby overturning the Commission's decision. 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the site development review/planned development with a modifications to the conditions of approval contained in Final Order No. 91-11 PC to require the developers to construct a southwestern extension of SW 109th Avenue from SW Naeve Street to SW Pacific Highway at its intersection with Royalty Parkway. • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a3 Page No. 3 8 $ SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the TIGARD APARTMENTS Developer. Triad Tigard Limited Partnership 320 Andover Park East, Suite 235 P.O. Box 88070 • Seattle, Washington 98138-2070 Prepared by: Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 228-5230 June 1991 Project No.: 547.00 • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No..~3 Page No. 3 g1 Accordingly, this supplemental report has been prepared to identify the net change in traffic- related conditions likely to be caused by these proposed modifications. CIRCULATION CHANGES Figure 1 displays the realignment .of 109th Avenue as currently suggested by both .Neighborhood Planning Organization #6 (NPO 6) and Tigard T. ri a d--- Limited Partnership. As shown in this figure, the northern portion of 109th Avenue would be extended to the southwest in a curvilinear fashion to connect with SW Naeve Street. This realignment would bisect the project property, resulting in approximately 25% of the developable land located in the southeast quadrant of the parcel being separated from the rest of the property. Additional off-site street system modifications are also being suggested by NPO 6 that do not have an effect on the overall site development plans. Specifically, the t 09th Avenue/Naeve Street alignment would be extended to connect Royalty Parkway, thereby providing signalized access onto and off of Highway 99W. Additionally, the west leg of Naeve Street would no longer intersect SW Pacific Highway and, instead, would terminate in a cul-de-sac . configuration to maintain public street access to all abutting properties. - The location of the specific termination point of this leg of Naeve Street is not addressed in this report. However, the area between the termination point and SW Pacific Highway would probably be abandoned or, at a minimum, reclaimed in some manner. Third, the eastern and western segments of Murdock Avenue would be connected to. allow continuous movement along the full length of this roadway. Finally, Sattler Avenue would be extended-westward to connect with 109th Avenue as shown in Figure- 1. Under the NPO 6 proposal, the east leg -of Naeve Street would continue as currently configured and intersect the existing southern portion of 109th Avenue. However, the existing portion of 109th Avenue between Naeve Street and the point where the new realignment to the southwest begins would be abandoned- The purpose of the proposed realignment of 109th Avenue and the various street abandonments is to discourage drivers from accessing Durham Road by travelling through the Summerfield residential area, while at the same time provide an opportunity for the residents of the Summerfield area travelling to and from the north to access the signalized • intersection of SW Pacific Highway and Canterbury Lane. The purpose of the several Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 4_3 Page No. 395 . OVERVIEW Kittelson & Associates previously prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis, dated February 1990, (Reference 1) for the proposed Tigard Apartments configured with 364 multi-family units, which identified the site generated traffic related impacts on the surrounding street system- This report was amended on March 7, 1990, in a letter to Ms. Suzette Fontana, by a .supplemental report (Reference 2) which responded to four specific issues raised by the City of Tigard. These issues were: • Revise the traffic analysis to consider a possible connection of the two currently severed segments of 109th Avenue. • Revise the traffic analysis to consider the effect of a full access drive on Naeve Street as opposed to the restricted tight turn only access evaluated in the original report. • Consider the potential for existing development to the south to use Naeve • Street due to the required roadway improvements on Naeve Street. • Assess traffic operations at the intersection of 109/Naeve Street for all alternati ves. The results of both the original and supplemental'traffic analyses revealed that the proposed apartment development would not cause significant traffic related impacts on the surrounding street system. One of the conclusions of the previous reports was that under cumulative future conditions, the intersection of SW Pacific Highway and Naeve Street may need to be signalized- The effects of this potential new signal were analyzed as part of a system of signals on SW Pacific Highway, and it was determined that adequate signal progression could be obtained. Since the initial reports were submitted, discussions have continued with City staff, ODOT officials, and neighborhood residents regarding other roadway alignment options that might better serve the needs of all. As a result of these discussions, two street system alternatives have been developed requiring some modification to original site development plans. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. -3V` NORM r Q~ bttJ CK r 0 0 BFFf BEND a 4 SITE = SA7iLER EXfQMN SAi11fR - - ~o ~G ROYA TY PytKWAY SUkdIAysm • PROPOSED STREET SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS TIGARD APARTMENTS Figure i i \ June 1 991 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Al n.,.... %I- 2 Q n identified avenue extensions is to promote good local traffic flow by providing convenient • intra-neighborhood circulation opportunities to the local residents. LAND USE CHANGES As mentioned above, the realignment of 109th Avenue results in a bisection of the proposed project property. Triad Tigard Limited Partnership has prepared a revised site plan based on the identified realignment of 109th Avenue. This site plan results in approximately 60 multi-family units being located on the southern parcel and 288 multi-family units being located on the northern parcel, for a total of 348 units. This represents a 4-5 percent decrease in the number of units assumed for the purposes of the previously-prepared traffic impact analysis reports. Accordingly, this change-in site development plans results in a 4.5 percent decrease in the daily and peak hour traffic expected to be generated by the site. The table below presents a revised estimate of the trip generation characteristics of the proposed development using the reduced number of units. Generated Trips A.M. Peak Hour P.NL Peak Hour Land Use Size Daily Total In Out Total In out multi- Family - Housing 348 2314 182 38 144 220 144 76 In addition to this traffic, the previous reports also considered the future development of nearby (but unrelated) properties that are designated and available for residential development. The remainder of this supplemental report includes consideration of this additional traffic as well Thus, the analysis reflects conditions likely to occur only upon buildout of the site vicinity area. There is some legitimate question as to the future distribution of site generated traffic under the proposed street system modifications. On the one hand, there is potential for this traffic • to focus its morning and evening peak hour activities toward Pacific Highway for all Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Z 3 Page No. Wig" northbound and southbound movments (recall from the previous traffic reports that 70 • percent of the site-generated traffic is expected to travel to and from the north during the morning and evening peak hours for employment and shopping opportunities). The proposed modifications to the street system support this trip distribution notion by providing more convenient and signalized access to Pacific Highway, both at Canterbury Lane and also at Royalty Parkway. The results of this trip distribution pattern (in terms of net additional traffic on each road segment) are shown in Figure 2 for morning peak hour, frill buildout conditions. If this trip distribution pattern were to be realized, then the net additional traffic impacts of the new residential impacts on the local street system would be minimal There is, however, the potential that traffic from the new residential areas would make greater use of the improved local street system to travel to and from the east. This could occur if, for example, these drivers found Hall Boulevard or Durham Road to be faster routes to I-5 (and other northern destinations) than Pacific Highway during the peak hours. For this reason, a second trip distribution pattern was assumed in which a significantly higher percentage of site-generated traffic was estimated to make use of Murdock and the Sattler extension. The results of this scenario are shown in Figure 3 and indicate that, even under this worst-case neighborhood impact scenario, traffic volumes on Murdock Avenue would • grow by less than 20 peak hour (200 daily) vehicle trips, and on Sattler Road by less than 70 peak. hour (700 daily) vehicle trips: These volumes are well within the threshold levels normally established for local streets and collectors in the Tigard area. - From a traffic circulation perspective, the overriding benefit of the proposed street system modifications is in providing a sigi ificant deterrent - to short cut traffic by-passing the intersection of Pacific Highway and Durham Road. Attempting the short cut would result in significant out of direction travel and delay for these motorists. Therefore, while the realignment of Naeve Street does not prohibit the two neighborhoods (the proposed residential development and the existing Summerfield neighborhood) from interacting, it does discourage non-local traffic from short cutting through the neighborhood. TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL EFFECTS Because the net effects of the proposed off-site changes are so small (in terms of the absolute number of site-generated vehicle trips), the findings and conclusions associated with the original traffic impact analysis reports are still valid- Thus, all major signalized and Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Al Page No. 3g1 NORTH V0, r~0 4~o CWM; BURY Q~ MUR000K 5 5 BEEF BEND ITE:::::: S - SUTLM D904SIO14 15-0 ROYAUY Q - . pA~'AY S111fh~ERFiQD (SCENARIO 1 - AM PEAK HOUR) • DISTRIBUTION OF ADDITIONAL AREA TRAFFIC ure TIGARD APARTMENTS Figure 97f, I-hine 1991 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No..0 Panc kin 3gej .1 1 NORTH urn= f~ 15--~ 0 BEE= BENO 3 W N siTE x-15 SAM.ER DGENSION _ 55-0- . O ao ~n pwAY SUWA RFIE7.D (SCENARIO 2 - AM PEAK HOUR) DISTRIBUTION OF ADDITIONAL AREA TRAFFIC TIGARD APARTMENTS Figure June 1991 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Panes Nn_ 391 unsignalized intersections within the site vicinity are expected to continue operating at acceptable levels of service during weekday morning and evening peak hours, even with full buildout of the site in accordance with the proposed site plan and under either of the assumed trip distribution patterns. Further, it is not expected that development of the site in accordance with these plans will create or exacerbate any on-site or off-site traffic safety problems. Therefore, no additional off-site transportation-related improvements are recommended. REFERENCES 1. Bittelson & Associates, Inc., "Tigard Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis" (February 1990) 2. Letter to Ms. Suzette Fontana from Mark Vandehey (March 7, 1990) Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 3`V- • a • TRANSPORTATION 1 - IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 TIGARD APARTMENTS I - - 1 • Tigard, Ore . on 0 KITTCLSON & ASSOCIATES. INC_ February 1990 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 33 Page No. 34 3 TRAFFIC UVIPACT ANALYSIS for the TIGARD APARTMENTS J Developer. Triad Development Inc. Prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 512 SW Broadway,- Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 228-5230 I February 1990 1 Project. No.: 322.00 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. A3 Page No. 31t 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE OF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT STUDY AREA SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS FINDINGS 3 I EXISTING CONDITIONS . 4 SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES - TRANSIT SERVICE TRAFFIC SAFETY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAR HOUR OPERATIONS ' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 16 DEVELOPMENT PLANS , SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRIP DISTRIBUTION IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC VOLUMES FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONSANTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE COMPARISON OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES : INTERNAL SITE CIRCULATION ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SURROUNDING THE SITE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS PROGRESSION OF TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY CONCLUSIONS AND.RECOh9viENDATIONS 35 REFERENCES 36 i 1 I I -i- Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. y Page No. 39 i LIST OF FIGURES i 1. Site Vicinity Map 2 2. Existing Peak Hour Volumes 7 3. Trip Distribution Pattern 19 4. Background Peak Hour Volumes 20 i 5. Site Generated Traffic Naeve-109th Access Alternative 21 6: Site Generated Traffic Naeve Only Access Alternative 22 7. Background + Project Traffic Naeve-109th Access Alternative 24 I 8. Background + Project Traffic Naeve Only Access Alternative 25 j 9. Site Generated Traffic Potential Additional Development • 29 10. Background + Project + Potential Additional Traffic 30 --1 I -I a -ll- Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 396 1 I' LIST OF TABLES 1. Accident History at Naeve/Pacific Highway 6 2. Level of Service Definitions: Signalized Intersections . . 9 3. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections . - 10 4. Level of Service Definitions: Unsignalized Intersections 11 5. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 12 6. Existing Level of Service Results 14 7. Gap Analysis Results 15 8. Trip Generation Characteristics: Proposed Development 18 9. Projected Level of Service Results (Background + Project) 26 10. Trip Generation Potential (Surrounding Properties) 28 11. Signal Warrant Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 12. Signal Progression Analysis Results 34 _i i 1 J I _iu_ Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 311 7Ygard Apartmenu INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to assess the likely traffic-related impacts on the surrounding street system of a proposed 364 unit multi-family residential development located east of Pacific Highway (Highway 99W) and north of Naeve Street in Tigard, J Oregon- Figure 1 shows the site vicinity map. Specific traffic-related issues discussed in this report include: • Existing traffic conditions in the project area. Trip characteristic estimates for the proposed development. • Site access location and operations. • Traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. • Safety considerations including accident experience, appropriate traffic • control devices, and sight distance analysis. • An analysis of the. traffic impacts of potential future development surrounding the site. This report has been prepared following the guidelines set forth by the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Minimum Requirements for a Traffic -Report (Reference 1). I PROJECT DESCRIPTION The western boundary of the proposed . 364 dwelling unit multi-family residential development lies approximately 300 feet east of Pacific Highway (Highway 99W). SW Naeve Street and SW 109th" Avenue form the southern and eastern boundaries of the site, respectively. First construction on the site is intended to begin in 1990. The current site plan includes one site access on SW Naeve Street, a secondary emergency vehicle access on SW 109th Avenue, and an access that connects the site to the northern extension of SW 109th Avenue, which intersects with Canterbury Lane to the north- For the purposes of the report, this access alternative will hereafter be referred to as the Naeve-109th Access Alternative. In accordance with ODOT's Minimum Requirements for a Traffic Report a second site access altemative has also been evaluated as well. The second access alternative consists of site access onto SW 1 - INTRODUCTION Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -L3 1 Page No. ff_8_ tORTH Q .APO 'esr~ ~ 31 _ ° c - ML#LTNOyAH i tam ARDEN J L: DFHNEY v GARDEN HOME AD ST p ry { HAA7 j 2p vE < Z j'~ fFRgT Af - x+44 TI 1'(, fEAAY R l~ n7 r" B > HUBFA FO T p0 gROCAM O t RO i ` POMOMA T ST 1 WEIR tN> 2 STEPH T ` a OAK TA T? GgEEq. SST E 1 q 'TEAR ~•►Y-O RD pr P{ ~'O 9C ~..9 urf i CEP p O 4D ' * A i v DA `5 TWATE a i n y ft7 `OS tree ST `NSer ,R -4SERG AD e0. COVNtR~ "Ut its WAL igard o aD > KRUSE w.. at, « v0 Bull ytpOHALO ST ° F I! Min ST ITA a N { , o ~G PP BULL a0 t < ° EE A. v IJTN SA'rTiEa ST j ~etr c. 5 vte- = W z °E cfar t0 < GaCE TREE AD King DUa..AM RD Ey eE►+O city = e e r e pA4oDR DA BEEF ` urham R y o 7.e/uw N5~ 2 _c O C, AD fUALAT'N RD m c CH2D5 w ivergrOve P O Tualatin I K BORLAND no O SAGEAT t AVERY ST 90 ep u r > = C EOY RD SALRW _ t - U • J'v - < DE KEA ON ST PO 3 v AD o ~ - c Z m(AtDIAH e0 -o C ~ G r0 e ' Off s 0 She RD _ood~ ,o~ ;tECE t = z , + -L .T p 9~ z Opo AD ~ ~ - r0?C c " ~i • 1 l pAY AD - l 1 SITE VICINITY MAP FlgUre 13 _ Luba No. 9-1 -2 D APARTI: ITS TIGAR 0 Exhibit No.Z-3- r ebruOf-Y oaf.n t In 39Q Tigard Apartments Naeve Street only. The second access alternative will hereafter be referred to as the i Naeve Only Access Alternative. PROJECT STUDY AREA Based on the amount of traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed development, the project study area has been identified to include the following key intersections: • SW Naeve St/Pacific Highway r I SW Beef Bend Road/Pacific Highway SW 109th Ave/Canterbury Lane SL VDIARY OF ANALYSIS FINDINGS Based on the traffic impact analysis described in this report, it is concluded that the proposed multi-family housing development can be built while still maintaining acceptable levels of safety and- operations on the surrounding street system. The specific findings of the analysis are as follows: • 1) All intersections within the study area are expected to operate within acceptable level of service limits under existing and projected weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions under any of the access alternatives. 2) The Naeve-109th Access Alternative results in slightly lower traffic demands at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, and provides better emergency vehicle access. I 3) The Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection can remain unsignalized and still accommodate the projected background plus project traffic safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives. 4) bill development of the surrounding undeveloped land, with access similar to that described within this report would likely result in the need for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection- s) A traffic signal could be installed at Naeve Street without significantly impacting traffic signal progression on Pacific Highway. - 3 - LYTRODUCTION Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 3 3 1 Page No. q00 Tigard Apartments i EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES The proposed project site is currently vacant. Land uses in the immediately surrounding area consist of a mixture of single family and multi-family residential developments. r 1 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES i -j Pacific Highway is a primary north-south route in the project area and as such is designated by Washington County as a major arterial (Reference 2). Pacific Highway is also a state highway and is maintained and operated by ODOT. Within the vicinity of the site, Pacific Highway is a four lane divided highway. The typical cross-section consists of two travel lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions, as well as separate exclusive left-turn lanes at most major intersections. The posted speed within the vicinity of the site is 45 miles per hour. No on-street parldng is allowed on either side of the roadway. Within the vicinity of Pacific Highway, Beef Bend Road is designated a major collector (Reference 2) and is operated and maintained by Washington County. Beef Bend Road is an 'L" shaped roadway connecting Pacific Highway to the south and Scholls Ferry Road (State Highway 210) to the north. The north-south section of Beef Bend Road connecting to SchoIls Ferry Road is classified as a minor arterial by Washington County (Reference 2). The typical cross-section of Beef Bend Road consists of one twelve foot travel lane in each direction. The- posted speed within the vicinity of Pacific Highway is 45 miles per hour., No on-street parldng is allowed on either side j of the roadway. SW Naeve Street is designated as a minor collector by Washington County (Reference 2). SW Naeve is currently a low volume two-lane roadway. Within the vicinity of Pacific Highway, the pavement is in poor condition, with a number of potholes. Existing Traffic Control The intersection of Pacific Highway/Beef Bend Road is controlled by a fully actuated traffic signal. The signal is maintained and operated by ODOT. The traffic signal is part of a coordinated signal system on Pacific Highway. The intersection of SW Naeve Street/Pacific Highway is unsignalized with stop sign control on the minor street approach. f - 4 - EXISTA'C COAMITIONS Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. rw 1 Tigard Apartmeras j TRANSIT SERVICE Bus transit service is provided along Pacific Highway by Tri-Met Bus Route No. 12. Route No. 12 provides weekday and weekend service between Sherwood and downtown Portland. This service is provided at 15-30 minute headways on weekdays and 60 minute headways on weekends. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that none of the site-generated person trips are made by transit. TRAFFIC SAFETY Accident History A In order to evaluate existing accident patterns near the Pacific Highway/Naeve Street intersection, a review was conducted of accident records maintained by ODOT. A e detailed summary was prepared of all reported accidents in the vicinity of the intersections for the time period between January 1986 through December 1988. Table 1 displays a summary of this review. As shown in the Table, a total of 5 accidents have occurred at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection during the three year time period- The review of the accident data did not reveal anything that might indicate a significant accident problem. Sight Distance Measurements : As part of the traffic safety evaluation, field measurements of intersection sight distance were performed at all of the proposed access drives and key intersections. Based on these observations, it was found that more than adequate sight distance currently exists at the proposed access drive on Naeve Street as well as at all of the other key intersections within the study area f Based upon a review of the accident data, and on the results of the field observations, it is concluded that no significant safety problems currently exist within the immediate site vicinity. It is not expected that development of this site will adversely affect the traffic safety characteristics of the surrounding street system. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR. OPERATIONS Current weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes at the key ! intersections within the study area were determined through manual counts conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. These counts were conducted during November 1989, and January 1990- The peak hour observations revealed that the morning peak hour occurs from 7:00-8:00 a.m. while the evening peak hour occurs from 4:30-5:30 p.m. The existing morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. - 5 - Fvirrirr. nnPrnrrin\`_C Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. c s' i o_ r 701 IG Conterburv NQ TN ash o < t Q t 0 C) rn 0 s -0-60 zoo r s Bend _ o --:SITE:::• o - s Noeye S 1s~ o t~ N N oIn N AM PEAK a 1~ r 15~ IC, Conterburv ►r,JRni 75 > ~t Q 1 In O rn ~o N O Beef .S-Nk Jr- to B'ON r end ...SITE:.' N O Ilk pr S /Voe o~ tT ~eS ~5 X10 i o~ N PM PEAK EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure to 7.G! TIGARD APARTf l=_N T S Luba No. ~92-104 r ebruary 1990 Exhibit No. oanP No. 9 ~3 Tigard Apartments LOS is a concept developed to quantify the degree " of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best available measure of the LOS at a signalized intersection. As defined within the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 3), six grades are used to denote the various LOS; these six grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table 2. Additionally, Table 3 identifies the relationship between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition, a "D" LOS is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. For signalized intersections, LOS defines the quality of the traffic flow, but does not necessarily describe the overall design adequacy of the intersection to accommodate the traffic volumes being analyzed. As an example, a good LOS can be achieved even - when the volume/capacity ratio for the intersection exceeds 1.0. Similarly, there are conditions under which a poor LOS is achieved even though the volume/capacity ratio for the intersection is well below 1.0. Therefore, all signalized intersection summary tables contained in this report provide both the calculated LOS and the calculated volume/capacity ratio for each intersection. In this way, the reader is provided with. a complete description of the expected operation conditions for each signalized intersection that is analyzed. For unsignalized intersections, LOS is defined differently than for signalized intersections in that it is based upon the concept of 'Reserve Capacity", (i.e., that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used). A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 4.- A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 5. The reserve capacity concept applies only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the capacity of all the individual movements has been calculated amd their LOS and expected delays determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. yl Past experience with the unsignalized analysis procedure indicates that this 1 methodology is very conservative in that it tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems that might exist. Therefore, the results of any unsignalized inter- section analysis should be reviewed with -this thought in mind. Generally, LOS E is i considered to be acceptable for an unsignalized intersection, although it also indicates that the need for signalization should he investigated- I All -LOS analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. Copies of the analysis forms can be reviewed upon request. In order to assure that this analysis is based upon worst case conditions, the weekday peak hour flow rates were used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of service. Thus, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for two hours out of each average weekday. For the remainder of each weekday and throughout the weekends, traffic conditions within the study impact area are likely to be better than that described in this report- 8 - EXISTING CONDITln\'C Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a3 Page No. yo 7Fgard Apartments TABLE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS) Level of Service Traffic Flow Characteristics A Very low average stopped delay, less than five seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. - Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. 1 B Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through e the intersection without stopping. D Average stopped delays are -in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle ' length, or high volume/capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle.failures are noticeable. E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values j generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation. It may also occur at high volume%apacity ratios below L00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor, progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such high delay levels- Note: A signal cycle failure is considered to occur when one or more vehicles are forced to wait through more than one green signal indication for a particular approach. i -9- I Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 4* 5 7 Tigard Apartments TABLE 3 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Stopped Delay Per Level of Service Vehicle (Sec) J A 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.Oto60.0 F > 60.0 Source: Reference 2 I - 10 - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ~ 3 Page No. 4tOL t Tigard Apcrtmente i TABLE 4 GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS General Description 1 A - Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation - Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue J B - Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience - Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue C - Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so D - Often there is more than one vehicle in the queue Drivers feel quite restricted E - Represents a condition in which the demand is near . or equal to the probable maximum number of I vehicles that can be accommodated by. the movement - There is almost always more than- one vehicle in the queue - Drivers find the delays to be approaching 1 intolerable levels F - Forced flow - Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection I i s ; - 11 - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. >.3 I Page No. 4ol Tigard Apartmen_e TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA for - - UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 1 'Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to (pcph) Service Minor Street Traffic >400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays * F * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. f Source: Transportation Research Board_ "Highway Capacity Manual". Special Report 209 (1985) 1 1 - 12 - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -13 Page No. y 6 7lgord l-,~nnmente Table 6 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS calculations for the key intersections within the study area. As this table indicates, all intersections are currently operating at acceptable Levels of Service under existing weekday morning and evening, speak hour conditions. In an eLt71 L to better estimate the existing capacity for minor street left-turn movements at the unsignalized intersection of Pacific Highway/Naeve Street a special : gap study was conducted to determine the availability and distribution of acceptable gaps for left-turning movements. The gap study explicitly accounts for such factors as proximity of upstream and downstream traffic signals which effects whether or not the 1 vehicles are arriving randomly, or in platoons. The results of the gap study reveal the number of critical time gaps available to drivers. Within the context of this report the critical gap is defined to be the time gap, expressed in seconds, which is found to be acceptable by 50 percent of the drivers on the minor street approach and movement. Past experience on other roadway facilities possessing similar speed and cross-sectional characteristics show the critical gap for minor street left turning vehicles to be fairly consistent and at about 6.0 seconds. Another factor that needs to be considered when evaluating the operations of the Naeve StJPacific Highway intersection is the presence of the wide median on Pacific Highway. This median provides a refuge for left-turn movements from the minor street and allows vehicles to cross one major street movement at a time. The result of this is the minor street left-turn movements do not have to wait for simultaneous gaps in the northbound and southbound directions. Because of, these factors, the gap analysis was analyzed for not only simultaneous gaps, . but gaps in the individual northbound and southbound directions as well. Table 7 displays the results of the gap analysis for weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. As shown in the table, the existing available gaps are more than adequate to accommodate existing traffic volumes. PLANNED TRANSPORTATION 11APROVEMENTS Discussion with officials at, Washington County, and the City of Tigard indicate that the only significant transportation improvement currently planned within the study area is at the intersection of Beef Bend -Road/Pacific Highway. At this intersection, Washington County has plans to widen- the eastbound Beef Bend approach to Pacific Highway to provide for a separate right turn lane. Final engineering for this project has not yet been completed, but discussions with Washington County indicate that the improvement will likely take place within the next two years. For the purposes of-the analysis of future conditions at the Beef Bend/Pacific Highway intersection, it was assumed that the above mentioned improvement will be in place. 13 - rrmrw rn~'nrr~n~c Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ~3 Page No. '+o Ylgard Apartments f TABLE 6 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS I Signalized Unsienalized Reserve Intersection pelav V\C, LDa Capacity 1 Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 7 .55 B - - PM 8 .70 B - - Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - - - PM - - I Canterbury/109th AM _ 805 A PM 760 A NOTES: * Operational analysis of this intersection was conducted using a gap analysis procedure. See discussion on page 13. I f - 1 i I - 14 - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. I Page No. i a i 7Tgard Apartments TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS NAEVE STREET/PACIFIC HIGHWAY Number of Available Critical Gans Time Period Northbound Southbound Simultaneous AM Peak Hour 380 510 180 PM Peak Hour 350 305 135 t I I 1 • - 15 - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. Jf i i Tigard Avartmenta TRAFFIC EAPACT ANALYSIS The weekday peak hotir impact of traffic generated by the proposed development was analyzed as follows: • The placement and size of the proposed multi-family housing development were confirmed. • The total number of future morning. and evening peak hour trips, both in and out of the proposed development were estimated for development of the site in 1990. • The distribution of site-generated trips onto the existing roadway system within the immediate site vicinity was estimated based on information obtained from Washington County's regional travel demand forecasting model. • An estimate of projected weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour in-process traffic within the immediate site vicinity was obtained from Washington County staff . • The in process traffic was added to the existing traffic volumes to obtain background traffic volumes for the future analysis condition. • Site-generated traffic predicted for the weekday a-m. and pm. peak hours was assigned to the street system and added to the projected background traffic volumes. ' Traffic demands on each roadway facility were analyzed to identify any capacity, level of service, and/or physical deficiencies under projected future conditions for the two access alternatives. A detailed discussion of this methodology. and the analysis results is contained in the remainder of this section. i DEVELOPMENT PLANS . Current site plans are for a 364 unit multi-family housing development to be constructed on the site by 1990. The proposed access scheme for the development includes three access drives, consisting of an access drive on Naeve Street, a secondary access on 109th Avenue, and an access that connects the site to the northern extension of SW 109th Avenue. It is intended that the access drive on Naeve Street will be designed such that left-turns out of the site on Naeve Street will be prohibited. This will force of the site's outbound traffic to Pacific Highway. 16 - TRAFFIr 111fParT a ~Ta /.V.clc Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. .4j Page No. _tf i Y' 7Tgard Apartments In accordance with ODOT°s Minimum Requirements for a Traffic Report, a second access alternative has been evaluated as well. The second access alternative consists of an access drive on Naevi_~ Street. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Because the assumed trip generation characteristics represent the basis for the entire traffic impact analysis that follows, special care has been taken to ensure the reasonableness of these estimates. Estimates of total daily, morning and evening peak hour driveway volumes were calculated for the proposed multi-family housing development on the basis of - empirical observations at similar developments located throughout the United States.. These empirical observations are summarized in a standard reference manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Reference 4). The trip generation characteristics shown in Table 8 were estimated for development of the property in accordance with the proposed site plan. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of site-generated trips onto the existing roadway system within the immediate site vicinity was estimated through examination of the origins and destinations of home-based work trips within the surrounding area that are contained - in Washington County's regional travel demand forecasting model. On the basis of the information provided by Washington County, the estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3 was prepared. As this figure indicates, it is estimated that approximately 70 percent of the site-generated traffic will travel to and from the north via Pacific Highway. i' IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC VOLUMES i In-Process traffic volumes consist of traffic -projections from planned or committed I developments. Estimates of weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour in-process traffic within the study area were obtained from Washington County staff These volumes were added to the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure 2, to obtain the background traffic volumes for the projected future conditions shown in Figure 4. FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS/INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Using the estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3, the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed multi-family housing development during the weekday morning and evening peak hour was distributed onto the street system within the study area under the two access alternatives. These volumes are shown in Figures 5 ' and 6 for the respective access alternatives. • - 17 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. . 3 Page No. +13 1 7Tgard Apartments -I TABLE 8 PROJECTED TRIP GEIITERATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Generated Trips (B) Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use ` Land Use (Units) (A) Daily Totalkn 9-vA Total In Out Multi-Family 364 2420 190 40 150 230 150 80 Housing Notes: A. Units = Dwelling Units B. Includes both inbound and outbound trips. I .I I I 1 - 18- Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ,Z 1 Page No. 41 NORTH I ~o i ~O I Canterbury > Q Q I 0 Beef j Bend SITE N -i I 1 ESTIMATED TRIP 1 DISTRIBUTION PATTERN TIGARD APARTMENTS Luba No. 92-10~ I <<_~•.,a-y ~~~o Exhibit No..)3 Paqe No. 415 t. ~ I r .n ,O 2151 COnterbu NORTH 125 OG Q t t no O 45-► 60 20~ 5 Beef Bend T O N N :.:.SITE.-.-: ma j~ NQe s 15-1 t/ ON NN N AM PEAK O N N _ r 1501 Canterbury NORTH 95-., Q t Q t i o rn ~N O 1 1 0 45 45-, 10 Beef Bend = 1r o N .SITE-..' N Otl 5 J 5 N~e`~ S 15-j f- 10 t! I 0 n PM PEAK BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - Flnwv c'a r7.~ TIGARD APARTMENTS Luba No. 92- 004 February 1990 Exhibit No. . onnc NO. '41 b _ C, c 01 o Cantercu NORTH N s~ o < a, o Beef r Bend . - O o = :-::SITE:•::- jI O N -1 so - N 1 AO : 300 o Noe~e S - o~ AM PEAK 30 r 0 _-X \`c, Ca nterb u N U2TH 10-x * o Q Q o rn Y o 30~ o Beef - 7.7-7. Bend : - n o _ C, co or 20 ~Qe 120 t r ile ' O N PM PEAK PROJECT SITE TRAFFIC I NAEVE - 109TH ALTERNATIVE 21 Fi TIGARD APARTMENTS Luba No. 92-104 February 1990 Exhibit NOAY Page No. 41-7 .1 o~ r 11 o~ ~\V Cani-erbu-v NORTH 5 QO Q N N 0) o 0 Beef Bend ...SIT_E_ N . O h l L t -110 * ao 40 -00f oeke . o oN AM PEAK N ao 0 o_ r 1 o Canterburv NORTH ,off oo < 1 N N N O Beef Bend :.-:SITE 0 1 60 20 ~a~ _ , 50 J' T ~ Le S o f- o I o~ PM PEAK PROJECT SITE TRAFFIC NAEVE ONLY ALTERNATIVE -22- TIGARD APARTMENTS Luba No. 92-104 Tebruary 1990 Exhibit No.-Xl Pane No. `h Tigard Apartments I The site-generated traffic shown in Figures 5 and 6 were combined with the projected weekday morning and evening peak hour background traffic volumes shown in Figure 4 to arrive at the projected total morning and evening peak hour traffic I volumes shown in Figures 7 and 8 for the two access alternatives. These volumes were used as the basis for analyzing the LOS at the intersections in the study under projected future weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. The results of the LOS analysis for estimated future am. and p.m. peak hour conditions for the two access alternatives are presented in Table 9. As shown in the table, all key intersections within the study area are expected to experience acceptable service levels under either of the access alternatives. As mentioned previously, the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway is different than typical unsignalized intersections due to the presence of the wide median on Pacific Highway. Because of this, future traffic operations this intersection were evaluated using the gap analysis results described previously and displayed in Table 7. The results of the gap analysis revealed that approximately 180.,: and 135 critical simultaneous gaps currently exist during the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively. However, for the- individual directions in excess of 300 critical gaps are available in both the morning and evening peak hours. With the relatively low projected .left4urn demand there appears to be more than ? adequate capacity to accommodate projected demands if the vehicles make use of the center median for a refuge and cross one direction at a time. Therefore, based on the results of the detailed gap analysis, it is concluded that more than adequate capacity will be available to accommodate left turn movements at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. intersection safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives- COMPARISON OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES The analysis results indicate that either of the access alternatives will adequately accommodate the projected site-generated traffic volumes. The Naeve-109th Access.. . Alternative results in lower total traffic demands at the intersection of Naeve St/Pacific Highway than the Naeve Only Access Alternative. - Therefore, the Naeve-109th Access Alternative would likely result in slightly better traffic operations at the intersection of I Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. The Naeve-109th Access Alternative also provides better emergency vehicle access to the site via the connection to Canterbury Lane. INTERNAL SITE CIRCULATION i With regard to internal site circulation, the most important design feature from a I traffic operations perspective is the site access driveways and their relationship to the internal road system. Specifically, ingress and egress at the site driveways should not interfere with parking/unparking maneuvers. If a conflict between these operations did exist, vehicle backups on the adjacent street system can occur. A review of the site plan reveals unobstructed access throats of at least 80 feet will be provided at the major access drives. Based on the volume of site-generated traffic that is expected at both of the access drives under any of the access alternatives, the depth I - 23 - Luba No. 92-104 C Exhibit No. Q Page No. 41 21sJ~ 1 Curterbury 9-IRTH 125 * Q0 Q i I _r_ + o n Q1 .o . O N t5-► 60 30 ~ ~ 5 Beef bend . 40 ~n N a a1 55 . i - tr c N AM PEAK 'o t0 N N r r 150 `o Conterburv W- 43 105.% Qo Q N O a1 O 110 f-- 45 75-%,4 10 Beef _ Bend .n SITE'-'-'- 50 1 25 120J I r lie s t5 10 o< PM PEAK BACKGROUND + PROJECTED TRAFFIC NAEVE - 109TH ALTERNATIVE TIGARD APARTMENTS -Luba No. 92-104 ebruory 1990 Exhibit No. ! 3 Paoe No. "µ6 215 ~ Canterbury NORTH 2s..~ QoG\ t o~ rn 0 ' N - Beef Bend - - • . - SITE'-:'- O h of O~Y ' O Ln ~45 'YQe t S 00 N ~ N AM PEAK .n ,o CD to 150Canterbury NORTH 95-% Qo < tG N 0) ~ O ! ~t - N y Beef _ ' Bend O,N i 65 : 1 I 25 Noe Ile S 115 ~ to tr In 0 o~ PM PEAK BACKGROUND + PROJECT TRAFFIC NAEVE ONLY ALTERNATIVE ^Za TIGARD APARTMENTS f~gu Luba No. 2-1 ! T ebruory 19 9 0 8 Exhibit Nor- 9 i Paoe No. I" t 7Tgard Apartments TABLE 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC Sienalized Unsienalized Reserve Intersection Delay YQ Wa Capacity L-Qa Naeve-109th AlterncW ve Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 9 .57 B - PM 15 :80 C - Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - - - PM - - - Canterbury/109th AM - - - 763 A PM - - - 723 A Naeve Only Alternative Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 9 .58 B - • PM 15 .81 C - Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - - - PM - - - Canterbury/109th AM - - - 806 A PM - - - 759 A NOTES: * Operational analysis of this intersection was conducted using a gap i` analysis procedure. See discussion on page 23. -26- Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. a 3 Page No. Tigard Apartments of the access throat will be adequate to minimize conflicts with parkingfunparking maneuvers. Thus, the internal circulation is expected to operate acceptably, and moreover, circulation internal to the site is not expected to adversely affect traffic operations on the adjacent street system. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SURROUNDING THE SITE The City of Tigard 'requested that the traffic analysis take into account the development potential of currently undeveloped parcels located immediately east and west of the site. The parcels that considered included an approximately 10 acre parcel located immediately west of the site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific highway, and an approximately 40 acre parcel located immediately east of 109th Avenue. t The 10 acre parcel is zoned R-25, which allows for the construction of approximately - 250 multi-family housing units. For the purposes of the analysis, it was assumed that no direct access to Pacific Highway would be provided, and therefore, all of the 250 units would access Naeve Street. The 40 acre parcel is currently zoned R-3.5, which would allow for the construction of approximately 180 single family residential housing units. Discussion with City- staff indicated that the 40 acre parcel would likely have access to 109th Avenue, Naeve Street, as well as a number of local streets located east i of 109th Avenue. Based on a review of the likely internal street connections for the 40 :acre parcel. that was provided by City staf, it was estimated that approximately one third of the parcel, which represents approximately 60 single family housing units, would access Naeve Street. - It is felt that this represents a conservatively high estimate, and therefore provides a reasonable worst-case estimate of future traffic operations on Naeve Street.- Estimates of total daily, morning and evening peak hour driveway volumes were calculated for the potential future development on the basis of the empirical observations summarize by the Institute of Transportation - Engineers (I`I'E) (Reference 4). The trip generation characteristics shown in Table 10 were estimated for development of the property as described above. Using the estimated trip distribution- pattern shown in Figure 3, the traffic anticipated to be generated by the potential -future development during the weekday morning and evening peak hour was distributed onto the street system within the study area. It was assumed that the southern and northern sections of 109th Avenue remained i severed, and therefore all of the traffic was added to Naeve Street. The projected site- generated traffic volumes are shown in Figure 9 for the weekday morning and evening peak hour time periods. _ In order to evaluate aworst-case condition for the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway, the site-generated traffic shown in Figure 9 was added to the projected total traffic volumes for the Naeue Only Access Alternatiue, shown in Figure 6. The resulting Background + Pro ject + Potential Future traffic volumes are shown in ' Figure 10 for the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively. 27 - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Zx 3 I Page No. `tZ 3 Tigard Apartments TABLE 10 TRIP GENERATION POTENTIAL FOR SURROUNDING UNMEVELOPED PROPERTIES Generated Trips (B) Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Land Use (Units) (A) Daily Total in 9mA 1 In. QjA Multi-Family 250 1650 130 30 100 160 105 55 Housing Single Family 60 (C) 605 45 10 35 - 60 45 15 Housing Notes: A. Units = Dwelling Units B. Includes both inbound and outbound trips. C. This represents only the portion of this future development that is expected to access. Naeve Street. _J . j 1 Luba No. 92-104 28 - Exhibit No. 3 1 Page No. 'la`d .l a } 10 NORTH Off' Q Q L i ~ O Beef Bend S......._ N o n 115 35 Npet . I 1 r e S t o~ AM' PEAK- r I `a Canterbury rmRr►+ Off' Q I Q L 0 O Beef Bend . h 20 Npe~ s - e t - - or PM PEAK SITE TRAFFIC POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT -29- Figu TIGARD APARTMENTS Luba No. 92-104 February 1990 9Exhibit No.-)j Paae No. qz5- 1 ~ P .o Canterbu NORTH ~o Q t a1 c 3eef r: Bend r'= ' - j SITE ~o at CO } 1 30 R- 1 80 /vQe C4 _ N N AM PEAK A .o r Canterbu NORTH rn C3 Beef " . Bend ...SITE". a+0 N v N f, 1L . 1 ~ 125 . - - i 45 J 1r s O f~ PM PEAK BACKGROUND + PROJECT + POTENTIAL TRAFFIC -30- F1~ Luba No. 92-101 TIGARD APARTMENTS r ebruery 1990 ''Exhibit No. 43 Page No. 44-14 T4ard Apartments The operational analysis of projected conditions with the potential future development focused on conditions at the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. Future traffic operations at this intersection were evaluated using the same procedures described previously. Based on the projected left-turning volumes during the evening peak hour, the combination of left-turns from Pacific Highway and left-turns from Naeve Street would be approaching the capacity of the unsignalized intersection to handle left-turns. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS As a part of this analysis, a special investigation was conducted to evaluate the need for installing a new traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection. The warrant analysis was conducted for both of the access alternati ves under projected background + project traffic volumes, as well as for projected background + project + potential future development traffic volumes. The Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant (Warrant 1 as described in Reference 5) and the Interruption of Continuous Flow Warrant (Warrant 2) are both based on the eighth-highest hour conditions. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 11) was also examined. Based on previous work within Washington County, it is assumed that the eighth- highest hour on Pacific Highway is approximately 70 percent of the peak hour, and the eighth-highest hour on Naeve Street is approximately 60 percent of the peak hour. Additionally, only half of the minor. street's projected right-turn volume is included for warrant evaluation purposes, because right turning vehicles would benefit little from a traffic signal. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis for Pacific Highway and Naeve Street are shown in Table 11. As shown in. the table, under both of the access scenarios with background plus project traffic, the warrant requirements will not be met for Warrants 1, 2, or 11. When the traffic from the potential additional development is added to the background plus project traffic, it is projected that signal_ Warrants 2 and 11 would be met. 1 Based on the results of the signal warrant analysis as well as the operational analysis for the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, it is concluded that a traffic signal would not be warranted with the addition of the proposed project traffic under either of the access alternatives. If however, the undeveloped land surrounding the project site develops to the full potential allowed under the current zoning, and access to these properties is as assumed in this analysis, it is likely that a traffic signal would be required to accommodate projected total traffic volumes. I PROGRESSION OF TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY With the potential for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection at some time in the future, officials at ODOT requested that an analysis of the traffic signal progression characteristics be conducted to assess the impact of a traffic signal at the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway on the progression of through traffic on Pacific Highway. 1 - 31 - TAAPKII/` TArVAP`T AAIAr VC`7C` Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No..) 3 1 Page No. q-)'1 i Tigard Apartments TABLE 11 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Warrant Volume Projected Volume Warrant Time Major Minor Pacific Naeve Met N me o Warrant Period Stree Street Highway Street Naeve-109th Access Alternative Background + Project) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1550 53 No Volume e Interruption of 630 70 1550 53 No Continuous Flow Peak Hour P.M. 2215 105 2215 88 No Naeve-Only Access Alternative (Background + Project) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1555 62 No Volume Interruption of 630 70 1555 62 No Continuous Flow • Peak Hour P.M. 2225 105 2225 103 No (Background + Project + Potential Future Development) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1585 87 No Volume Interruption of 630 70 1585 87 Yes Continuous Flow Peak Hour P.M. 2265 105 2265 145 Yes Luba No. 92-104 - 32 - Exhibit No. J.4 Page No. 43 S 7Ygard Apartments The effects on traffic signal progression characteristics along Pacific Highway were analyzed using a standard computerized simulation and optimization program (PASSER II-87). Passer H-87 is a macroscopic computer -model that is designed to evaluate a variety of signal strategies along an arterial. Although the program is. capable of analyzing isolated intersections, its most common application is in evaluating and optimizing signal progression on an arterial street system. For this analysis, Passer II-87 was used to evaluate -the relative. effects, from a signal progression standpoint, of an additional signalized intersection at Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. Since a traffic signal would likely only be required when all of the undeveloped land surrounding the project site develops to its potential, the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10 were used as the basis for the analysis. ODOT requested that the progression analysis include traffic signals at the following intersections on Pacific Highway: Durham Road • Royalty Parkway • Naeve Street • Beef Bend Road • Bull Mountain Road • Canterbury Lane • Based on discussions with ODOT, the analysis time periods that were evaluated were the weekday evening peak hour, and the weekday off-peak time period. For the purposes of the analysis, the traffic volumes during the off peak time period were assumed to be equivalent to 70 percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour time period. Table 12 displays the measures of effectiveness (MOE's) typically used when evaluating signal progression- As shown in the table, the results of the analysis indicate that "Great Progression" can be attained with a traffic signal at Naeve Street. Table 12 also displays the estimated green bandwidth (in seconds) both with and without a signal at Naeve Street. Based on the results of the signal operation and progression analysis, it is concluded that a traffic signal could eventually be installed at Naeve Street while maintaining excellent signal progression on Pacific Highway. i _ 33 _ rv~rrr~ raiverr a>,'a/~'CJC Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. -73 Page No. IWJ regard Apartments CONCLUSIONS AND RECOA ENDATIONS Based on the traffic impact analysis described in this report, it is concluded that the proposed multi-family housing development can be built while still maintaining acceptable levels of safety and operations on the surrounding street system. The specific findings of the analysis are as follows: 1) All intersections within the study area are expected to operate within acceptable LOS limits under existing and projected weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions under.any of the access alternatives. i 2) The Naeve-109th Access Alternative results in slightly lower traffic _.J demands at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, and provides better emergency vehicle access. 3) The Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection can remain unsignalized and still accommodate the projected background plus project traffic safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives. 4) Full development of the surrounding undeveloped land, with access similar to that described. within this report would likely result in the • need for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection. b) A traffic signal could be installed at Naeve Street without significantly impacting traffic signal progression on Pacific Highway. 1 f l J • - 35 - C`ntvri.rrcrn~Tc .l Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. .11 Page No. 430 Tigard Apa--ments 1 REFERENCES 1. Oregon Department of Transportation, Minimum Requirements for a 7~ f is Report. 2. Washington County. Functional Classification System. (1988) 3. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report No. 209(1985). 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual: Fourth Edition (1988). 5. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Traffic Control Devices (1984). 1 l 1 i 36 _ RFFFR:ti~Fc Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No..) 3 1 Page No. 431 - • 0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7113 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising Q The following meeting highlights are published ❑ Tearsheet Notice for your information. Full C 41 v • • City of Tigard V. g1 agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall ~g Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by. calling 639-4171. • PO Box 23397 ~F~', 2 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit , . . Tigard, OR 97223 r~t31'K~, CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING • ;:1~.1 i,11 • DECEMBER 10. 1991 TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL . 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Study Mectirig (Town Hall Conference Room) (6:30 P.M.) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) STATE OF OREGON, )ss Public Hearings: COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) • Appeal of Planning Commission Decision -Site Development Judi th Koehler Review - SDR 91-0013 Planned Development PDR 91-0006; Triad being first duly sworn, depose and say t?t I ara t? Advertising Development (NPO 6). Location: S.W. Naeve Street between S.W. Director, or his principal clerk, of the agar Imes Pacific Highway and S.W. 109th Avenue. a newspaper of general ci ulatio as defined in ORS 193.010 • Street Vacation for a Portion of S.W. Garden Park Place. and t 93.020; published at lgard in the • Zone Ordinance Amendment - ZOA 91-0003. To allow fences or• aforesaid county and state; that the walls up to six feet in height in front yards along designated arterial ~o~or C'i ty Cou ci_ Business Meeting and collector streets excluding clear vision areas. -Also to amend vision clearance requirements to address topography. and vertical a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the curve situations., entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and Local-Contract Review Board Meeting, consecutive in the following Issues: December 5, 1991 Executive Session:: .N.:;; • The Tigard City Council will'go -(into e)' Sessron`rinder the. ~TI provisions of ORS 192.660 (1).(d(e); & (h) to discuss labor iela =r C tions, real property. transactions, current and pending litigation issues: CD & O Z o l TT7113 -Publish December 5 1991. Q R, to 5th day of December, 1991. It rV Subscribed and savor to before me this Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT 0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal,,T 7107 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising PU13LIC HEARING , R E C E I V E 0 ` : The `following will be considered.by'the Tigard ~City=CotinciL;on Aecem- • ❑ Tearsheet Noticb6t W,: 09 , 9~~~`' d~) tvl':;~8fflf0'TMt CiViiriCertteilb'Ofi-Hall Room, City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Ha11 Blvd:, Tigard, 0rd,gon:'Puither information'rnay be ob PO Box 23397 OEC 0 2 1991 • ❑ Duplicate Affide tatned from the Community Development Director or City Recorder at the Tigard, Or 97223 same location or by callingg 639-.4171. You are invited W submit written C>ITY OF TIGARD • testimony in. advance of thepublic hearing;. written and oral.testimony will.be considered at the•heanng. The public hearing will be..conducted in accordance:with'the applicable Chapter, 1832 of.the;Tigai•d Municipal „Code and any:rules of:procedure;adopted by'the, Council'and available at the City Hall. 1.;.:1:,; AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91- STATE OF OREGON, )ss TRIADDEVELOPMENT.. (NPO#6) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) ' An appeal of the Planning Commissions decision approving a request for Judith Koehler Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development Approval of I, a.348-unit apartment complex on a 27.2-acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I am be Advertising (Residential,*' 12 tinits/acre. Planned.Development)'and.R-25. (PD) Director, or his ~ clerk, of the ward ~imeS principal - (Residentia1;.25 units/acre.Planned Development) LOCATION: S.W. a newspaper of general circiAtion as defined in ORS 193.010 Naeve Street between S:W:"Pacific Highway-and S.W.'. 100th Avenue and 193.020; published at lgar in the (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300,2S 1 10AC, tax lots 600,700, 800, 900, ~fo Said ounty an t th he and 2S1 IODB; tax, lots 100, 200, & 300). APPLICABLE APPROVAL Yu{lic E~eari.nQ~S ~1- b~3 CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published In the 18.80,' 18.84, 18.92;_ 18.100, 1.8.102, 18.106, 18.108,18.114;•18.120, One 18.150, 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1;.3.4.2, 4.2.1; entire issue of said newspaper for successive and 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2; 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1:1 and 8.1.3:; ; consecutive in the following issues: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTZOA 91-0001 c November 26, 1991 A proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code Chapter 18.100.090 Setbacks for Fences or Walls to allow fences up to six cn =r tz ( feet in height in front yards along designated arterial and collector streets cn & excluding clear.vision areas; and to amend vision clearance requirements z r: Z Chapter 18.102.101(C) to address topography and vertical curve situa- p OZ p ,L r, ~~C /(Gxv Ae~~ tions. v 26th da of November 1991 TT7107 - Publish November 26 1991. Subscribed and savor to before me this - i 4 G J~ Notary Public for Oregon Ay Commission xpires. 4FFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) as. City of Tigard ) I & , Y) V1 i C ~bk-` kw V being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and`say: (Please print) That I am a 11 (J~S1 7~ for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer J/ Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the addres shown on the attached list marked exhibit "B" on the day of I 19,1( , said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the day of " P, , 19 and deposited in the United States Mail on the'' 7-OT9 day of O 19 91 postage prepaid, n D. Prepared Notice Posted (For Decision Only) Subs ibed and sworn/affirm to me.on the 0 day of,i k , 15. _ NOTJpft PUBLIC OF 6AEbbN C.~v V6mmission Expires: Person 44 o delivered to POST OFFICE Sub ribed and sworn/affirm to me on the OC~ day of 197. NOT Y P C OF OREGON My mmission Expires: bkm/AFFIDAV.BRM • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No..) 5 Page No. • N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT ITS MEETING ON TUESDAY,December 10,1991, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: SDR 91-0013/PDR 91-0006 FILE TITLE: Triad Development NPO NO: 6 APPLICANT: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership OWNER: Same 320 Andover Park E. #235 Seattle, WA 98188 REQUEST: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0013 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR 91-0006 TRIAD DEVELOPMENT (NPO #6) An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a request for Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development approval.of a.348 unit apartment complex on a 27.2 acre property. ZONE: R-12 (PD) • (Residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development) LOCATION: SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300, 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, 900, and 2S1 IODB, tax lots 100, 200, & 300) APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code sections 18.32, 18.54, 18.56, 18.80, 18.84, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.150, 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.4.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. (See Map On Reverse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECIEVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER NOVEMBER 20, 1991, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE • REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No-?5-- Paae No. * 35 FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE, OR FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CITY, APPLICANT, OR OTHER PARTIES TO THE APPLICATION WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WILL PRECLUDE APPEAL ON SAID ISSUE TO THE STATE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA). ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR STAFF PLANNER Jerry Offer AT 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON 97223. r 11 FT~ O O t~ ,C. _~T ml • I « o O • . ~.oow _ iL o0 _ r WttM-H .K,. ' L. Fil •Q aL.o-• Z Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 43 TIGARD.. OR 97224 2S110AC-00500 2S110AC-0121 HARRIS, CHARLES B III & DEBORAH WYATT, ROBERT C ESTATE OF 8315 SE STARK BY BEVERLY E DOYLE 0TLAND OR 97216 24768 LLEWELLYN RD CORVALLIS OR 97333 2S110AD-09000 2SIlOAD-09100 HAMMERLY, RAMON J AND FORELL, HILLARD J/DONNA C LEAH R LIVING TRUST 14807 SW 109TH 1305 GREENTREE RD TIGARD OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 2S110AD-09200 2S110AD-08801 LIND, MARGERYIOU TRUSTEES PANORAMA WEST ASSOCIATES HARPER, DAVID W FIRST FARWEST CORP FBO LIND, A BURTON BY SIHHCO PROPERTIES INC 1305 GREENTREE RD P O BOX 4162 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 PORTLAND OR 97208 2SIlOAD-90001 2SIlOAD-90002 LAMB, JAMES O SIECHEN, KAREN OLSON LAMB, MARY LEBICA 334 LOS ALTOS DRIVE LAMB, ROBERT E ET AL ALTOS CA 95003 14820 SW 109TH TIGARD OR 97223 - 2S110AD-90003 2SIlOAD-90004 `BENSON, LE HOINE LEE SANDLES, GLORIA 14824 SW 109TH AVE 14826 SW 109TH AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 OIOAD-90005 2S110AD-90006 ?IX, ROBERTA J RICE, AMY J 11650 SW HAZELWOOD LOOP 14830 SW 109TH TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2SIlOAD-90007 2SIlOAD-90008 HAMMOND, LENORE L LINGENFELTER, SHARON H 14832 SW 109TH 14834 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlOAD-90058 2SIlOAD-90059 BRAITHAN, HOWARD E & LYNN SWAYZE, MARILYN A CO TRUSTEES 14956 SW 109TH AVE 3025 ALISO CANYON RD TIGARD OR 97224 SANTA PAULA CA 93060 2S110AD-90060 2SIlOAD-90061 GOLDSMITH, RICHARD E HAMILTON, CAROL B 14958 SW 109TH AVE 14960 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 110AD-90062 2S110AD-90063 USTER, LENORE A NEWELL, LOUISE AND 62 Sa 109TH DAVIS, LAURIE - Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 4 3"1 2SIlOAD-90064 J.. 2SIlOAD-9000 SHLEIFER, KENNETH H DENTEL, DEBOfv.ff H 805 SW CALDEW DRIVE 14968 SW 109TH 465 0'7_N OR 97219 TIGARD OR 97223 2SIlOAD-90066 2SIlOAD-90067 OREGON, STATE OF DEPT OF VETS AF WELLS, MARY H % MITCHELL, RONALD P 14972 SW 109TH 14970 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD -OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2SIlOAD-90068 2SIlOAD-90069 LAVA, KARIANN BRANDT, MABEL H 14974 SW 109TH AVE 14980 SW 109TH AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2SIlOAD-90070 2SIlOAD-90071 BOYLE, SHARON H LENOW, KATHRYN E 14982 SW 109TH AVE 14984 SW 109TH TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 2S110AD-90072 2SIlOAD-90073 OREGON, STATE OF DEPT OF VETS AF NEWLAND, EVERETT BOYDE 4 ELDIEN, NORM 14988 SW 109TH 7007 SW 33RD PL TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97219 010AD-90074 2SIlOAD-90075 GOETZ, STEPHEN F BARR, CHARLES T AND 14990 SW 109TH AVENUE ADRIENNE FORD TIGARD OR 97223 14992 SW 109TH TIGARD OR 97223 2SIlOAD-90076 2SIlOAD-90000 ROSENDAHL, GILBERT N CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO 14994 SW 109TH AVE BY HOFFMAN AND HOFFMAN TIGARD OR 97223 HILLTOP ESTATES 1888 SW MADISON PORTLAND OR 97200 2S110DA-00200 2S110DA-00300 ERICKSON, ALBERT H DAVENPORT, MARGE E VERLENE F ROBEL, RENEE 15200 SW 109TH AVE 15100 SW 109TH TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 - 2SI10DA-00400 2S110DA-00500 MCPHILLIPS, B A ERICKSON, ALBERT H 15100 SW 109TH VERLENE F TIGARD OR 97223 15200 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD OR 97224 ,gSLS110DA-00800 2S110DA-00900 BRUCE A AND JANET L LAW, BRUCE A JANET L 400 SW 109TH AVE JOHN C TIGARD OR 97223 15400 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 45 Page No. 13 PORTLAND OA 97202 2S110DB-00600 2S110DB-00£ ROEMER, EUGENE MELVIN AND FAITH ANNETTE ~G , 4 30 SW PACIFIC HWY kARD OR 97223 2SIlODB-00900 2SIlODB-00300 PECK, CHARLES JR NORTH PACIFIC CONFERENCE OF BETTY VERNE THE EVANGELICAL COVENANT 11000 SW NARVE ST CHURCH TIGARD OR 97224 925 116TH AVE NE SUITE 221 _ BELLEVUE WA 98804 2SIlODB-90711 2S110DB-90721 STULLENBERG, CLARIBEL G ABSHEAR, FLORENCE 15480 SW 114TH CT #71 15480 SW 114TH CT #72 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90732 2S11ODB-90742 GUSE, PATRICIA A/CHARLES E TYLER, ROSE V 15480 SW 114TH CT #73 15480 SW 114TH #74 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S110DB-90751 2S110DB-90761 4ARREL, ELEANOR R AND PHILLIPS, ELNORA RICHARDS, JANICE E 15478 SW 114TH CT #76 15478 SW 114TH CT TIGARD OR 97224 WI ARD OR 97224 10DB-90791 2SIlODB-90772 `iOREMI, MARY P COREY, MURIEL T 15478 SW 114TH 15478 SW 114TH CT #77 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90782 2S110DB-90802 M000NNELL, JUDITH M VANLOY, GLADYS H 15478 SW 114TH CT #78 15478 SW 114TH CT #80 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90811 2SIlODB-90821 BIERMAN, BERMAN E/HELEN F NARVA, EDWARD T/LINA 15432 SW 114TH #81 15432 SW 114TH CT 082 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90832 2SIlODB-90842 TRACY, SHARON H BAHRENBURG, WILLIAM H & 15432 SW 114TH CT #83 CHARLOTTE G TIGARD OR 97224 BAHRENBURG, JAMES G/CANDACE 767 JOHN RINGLING BLVD D-4 SARASOTA FL 33577 001RENCE IODB-90851 2SIlODB-90861 ER, JOSEPH H AND YODER, JOSE H/FLORENCE J J 15430 SW 14TH H CT 086 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. ? 5 Page No. Y3Q 2S110DB-90872 2S110DB-90t CARROLL, D ESTHER E MCFARLANE, h.JBERT L AND 430 SW 144TH CT 987 MARGARET J #ARD OR 97224 15430 SW 114TH CT #88 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90891 2SIlODB-90901 KERBEL, ALICE G - EATON, RIHARD A AND HANNELORE F PO BOX 2408 15437 SW 114TH CT #90 GEARHART OR 97138 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90912 2S110DB-90922 GUNNELL, MARJORIE R WILSON, PHYLLIS A 15437 SW 114TH CT #91 15437 SW 114TH CT #92 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD . OR 97224 2SIlODB-90931 2SIlODB-90941 SCHICK, HAROLD R JR AND LEVIN, DOREEN A THELMA G 15437 SW 114TH CT #97 15437 SW 114TH CT #93 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2S110DB-90952 2S110DB-90962 WHEELER, WILLIS W AND PAULINE S ALGER, CHESTER 15437 SW 114TH CT #95 15437 SW 114TH COURT #96 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 40slIODD-11000 2Sll0DD-11100 STANLEY, JOHN S AND MELBA H NOEL, WILLIS A/LUCILLE A 15510 SW 109TH 15530 SW 109TH TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 2SIlODD-11500 2S110DD-11600 JOHNSON, CHESTER G AND MAHONE, CLAYTON B & PATRICIA N JOSEPHINE D 10855 SW HIGHLAND DR 10865 SW HIGHLAND DRIVE TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 2SIlODD-13500 2S110DD-13600 BIETHAN, JOHN D AND AVERY, BEATRICE AND JACQUELINE L AVERY, DANIEL GORDON 15525 SW 109TH 15515 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 - TIGARD OR 97224 2S110DD-13700 2SIlODD-13800 LINDSAY, WILLIAM R AND STERRETT, DOROTHY P JEAN W 15495 SW 109TH AVE 15505 SW 109TH TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 IIODD-13900 2S110DD-11200 AMSKI, PETER P AND BENNETH, JOHN AND BETTIANA DOROTHY H 15550 SW 109TH AVENUE 10950 SW NAEVE ST TIGARD OR 97224 Luba No. 92-104 TIGARD OR 97223 Exhibit No. .35 Page No. q40 1 llrnu v_~ 2S110CA-90045 2S110CA-900 COLEMAN, DOUGLAS J WALKER, GORD-A V 15100 SW CROWN DRIVE 16 WALKER, SUSAN B ~NG CITY OR 97224 WALKER, MAXINE 15100 SW CROWN DR 15 KING CITY OR 97224 2SIIGCA-90047 2S110CA-90048 GILBERT, VIRGINIA LEE HILL, GEORGE ALBERT 15100 SW CROWN DR NO. 4 MARY O TIGARD OR 97223 15100 SW CROWN DRIVE #3 KING CITY OR 97223 2S110CA-90049 2S110CA-90050 HOLMAN, WILLIAM C GLEASON, A DIXON HOLMAN, SUSAN H 8 BROWN, WALTER LAND GERALDINE M 8040 SW BROADMOOR TERRACE 4860 E MAIN T-3 PORTLAND OR 97225 MESA AZ 85205 2S110CA-90000 2S110CA-90068 KING CITY CONDO COMER, HARVEL AND SILDA L UNIT OWNERS 11520 SW MAJESTIC LN #1 3Y TUALATIN DEVELOPMENT CO KING CITY OR 97223 15300 SW 116TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. s 5 1 Page No. 441 :.2SIIOAD-90C 2S110AD-90062 SCHUSTER, LENORE A NEWELL, LOUISE AND 14962 SW 109TH DAVIS, LAURIE JO CARD OR 97223 9420 SW HT VIEW LANE TIGARD OR 97223 2S110DB-00400 2S110DB-00500 LUTON, ROBERT KASCH'S GARDEN CENTERS PO BOX 8041 NURSERIES, INC BLACK BUTTE RCH OR 97759 2500 SE TACOMA PORTLAND OR 97202 2S110DB-90851 2S110DB-90861 YODER, JOSEPH H AND YODER, JOSEPH H/FLORENCE J F:,ORENCE J 15430 SW 114TH CT #86 15430 SW 114TH CT #86 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2S110CA-90043 2S110CA-90044 ?ARSONS, LEWIS F/ALDORA N BRADFISH, CHARLES E ...12655 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD NORMA J TIGARD OR 97224 15150 SW 133RD TIGARD OR 97223 TRIAD TIGARD LTD_ PARTNERSHIP 320 ANDOVER PARK E. #235 SEATTLE, WA 98188 SUE CARVER 10155 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 R. GREGG WESTON, P:E. KAMPE ASSOCIATED, INC- 3681 SW CARMAN DR LAKE M-JEGO, OR 97035 i Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. jL4 Y 2S110DB-90351 2S110DB-90362 WALTER W & MARJORY E MCMULLEN, RICHARD D AND 15485 SW 114TH CT #35 GERTRUDE M FO RD OR 97224 15485 SW 114TH CT #36 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90371 2S110DB-90381 KINCAID, LESLIE W & JUANITA LARSEN, CLAIRE 9850 SW HAWTHORNE LANE 15485 SW 114TH CT #38 PORTLAND OR 97225 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90392 2SIlODB-90402 SCHENK, KLAAS AND SOPHIA M NELSON, TORLEF 15485 SW 114TH CT 15485 SW 114TH CT #40 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90411 2S110DB-90421 ROBINSON, SHIRLEY T AMACHER, MARIE A 15483 SW 114TH CT #41 15483 SW 114TH CT #42 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-90432 2SIlODB-90442 ROGERS, VIRGIL CAVAGNARO, MARY ALICE 15483 SW 114TH 143 15483 SW 114TH CT TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 OODB-90971 2S110DB-90982 FISHER, FAY L - BARNETT, ANGELA 15435 SW 114TH CT #97 15435 SW 114TH CT #98 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2S110DB-90991 2S110DB-91001 JOLLY, K LOUISE CUMBEY, ROBERT E 15435 SW 114TH CT #99 15435 SW 114TH CT UNIT #100 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2SIlODB-91012 2SIlODB-91022 SPYKER, ELLINA ASHMORE, ALPHA MARIE SZALOBRYT, JANE C 15435 SW 114TH CT #102 15435 SW 114TH CT #101 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97124 ' 2SIlODB-91031 2SIlODB-91041 KEHM, RACHEL, JOENS, GERTRUDE L 15373 SW 114TH CT #103 15373 SW 114TH CT #104 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97224 2S110DB-91052 2SIlODB-91062 11 ahVIAR, WILLIAM AND BOUR.LAND, JUANITA EVIEVE R 15373 SW~TH CT #106 Luba No. 92-104 i Exhibit No. Page No. 4 4 2S110DB-91071 2S110DB-91081 HENDERSON, ROEBRT D AND ROARK, CLYDE S/MARY JOYCE T 15371 SW 114TH CT #108 *71 SW 114TH CT UNIT 107 TIGARD OR 97224 ARD OR 97224 2S110DB-91092 2SIlODB-91102 WILLOUGHBY, GEORGE P AND TAYLOR, RICHARD K AND SYLVIA R RUTH NADINE 15371 SW 114TH CT #109 15371 SW 114TH CT #110 TIGARD OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 25 Page No. 4 4 It ♦ lUAAL v~ + 2S110DB-91052 2S110DB-91062 SKYHAR, WILLIAM AND BOURLAND, JUANITA GENEVIEVE R 15373 SW 114TH CT #106 73 SW 114TH #105 TIGARD OR 97224 OR 97224 BOB SELLERS 10421 SW KENT TIGARD OR 97224 WALTER L CROW 15535 SW ALDERBROOK CIRCLE TIGARD OR 97224 • Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. Page No. 441 KERMIT SCOTT LENORE SCHUSTER 15605 SW 114TH CT 14962 SW 109TH AVE ~TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 MAYBELLE DEMAY ROBERT C. LUTON 15300 SW 116TH AVE PO BOX 8041 KING CITY, OR 97224 BLACK BUTTE RANCH, OR 97759 GREGG WESTON DOUGLAS J. COLEMAN KAMPE ASSOC INC. 15100 SW CROWN DR. 06 3681 SW DR KING CITY, OR 97224 LAKE , OR 97035 ROSS WOODS PHILLIP A. PASTERIS 320 ANDOVER PARK E. 8935 SW PINEBROOK ST SEATTLE, WA 98138 TIGARD, OR. 97224 WAYNE KITTLESON SUE CAR 610 SW ALDER SUITE 700 10155 HOODVIEW DR PORTLAND, OR 97204 TI OR 97224 BEVERLY FROUDE MARGE DAVENPORT 12200 SW BULL MT. RD 15100 SW 109TH TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 RICHARD WATSON .'10290 SW HIGHLAND DR STEVEN L. PFEIFFER TIGARD, OR 97224 900 SW FIFTH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97204-1268 AL ERICKSON JOHN BUOL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR 15200 SW 100TH CITY OF KING CITY TIGARD, OR 97224 15300 SW 116TH KING CITY, OR 97224 JACK ORCHARD SUMMERFIELD/CIVIC ASSOCIATION 1100 ONE MAIN PLACE 10650 SW SUMMERFIELD DR 101 SW MAIN TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97204 *DON FELLER 9875 SW vIEt•J CT TIGARD, OR 97224 Luba No. 92-104 Exhibit No. 45- Page No. &fq CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, Elizabeth Newton, hereby certify that on May 1992, 1 filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 92-104 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 100 High Street, S.E., Suite 220, Salem, Oregon, 97310 by first class mail. DATED: May v , 1992. Elizabeth Newton Tigard Deputy City Recorder CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth Newton, hereby certify that on May 1, i , 1992, 1 served a true and correct copy of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 92-104 by first class mail on the following persons: Marge Davenport 15100 SW 109th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97224 Steve Pfeiffer 900 SW 5th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Sue Carver, President • NPO 6 10155 SW Hoodview Drive Tigard, OR 97224 DATED: May Z, 1992 b ^ Elizabeth Ne on Tigard Deputy City Recorder ODONNELL RRMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 30,92 12:24 No.009 P.01 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW BALLOW & WRIGIIT BUILDING 1727 N.W. IEoyt Street Pordand, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE. (503) 2224402 PAX, (503) 243.2944 PIYANK REPLY M PORTLAND OFFICE f C_fijkVLE 'j=SjjISSIOIQ COVER SHEET - - THIS COMMUNICATION CONSISTS OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU AkE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO U9 AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. DATE: October 30, 1992 CLIENT NO.: 90046-3 TO: Patrick J. Reilly City of Tigard FAX 684-7297 Phone 639-4171 FROM: Michael C. Robinson FAX 0 (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: Copy of Order on Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. COMMENTS: See attached. 6 PAGES TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Diana M. Doyle AN ORIGINAL IS BEING MATIAD: AN ORIGINAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST: ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 30,92 12:27 No.009 P.07 1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 2 3 4 1 hereby certify that I served the fore0oing Order on 5 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing for LUBA No. 92-104, on 6 October 22, 1992, by mailing to said parties or their attorney a 7 true copy thereof contained in a sealed envelope with postage 8 prepaid addressed to said parties or their attorney as follows: 9 10 Richard M. Whitman 11 Hall, Janik & Novack 12 One Main Place 13 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 14 Portland, OR 97204 15 16 Timothy V. Ramis 17 Michael C. Robinson 1S O'Donnell, Ramis, et al 19 1727 NW Hoyt Street 20 Portland, OR 97209 21 22 Steven L. Pfeiffer 23 Stoel, Rives, et al 24 900 SW Fifth, Suite 2300 25 Portland, OR 97204 26 27 28 Dated this 22nd day of October, 1992. 29 30 31 32 33 34 Zwemk 35 ffice M ager 36 ODONNELL RRMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 30,92 12:27 No.009 P.06 1 The motion for evidentiary hearing is denied. 2 Respondent shall have 21 days from the date of this order 3 to file its brief. 4 bated this 22nd day of October, 1992. 5 6 1 8 9 ' 10 Michael A, Holstun 11 Referee 12 Page 5 ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 30,92 12:26 No.009 P.05 1 application form actually filed. 2 it appeari'from the parties' arguments that a determination 3 concerning when intervenors' application was submitted to the 4 city could affect the outcome of this appeal .3 However, the 5 facts relevant to deciding this question do not appear to be in 6 dispute.6 What the parties dispute is the legal conclusion to 7 be be drawn from these facts. Simply stated, either the letters 8 cited by petitioner demonstrate that the application was 9 submitted on or before August 27, 1991 (as petitioner contends), 10 or the application was not submitted until the required form was 11 submitted on September 13, 1991 (as intervenors contend). An 12 evidentiary hearing would not aid us in making that 13 determination. 14 Finally, intervenors offer other reasons for rejecting the 15 fourth assignment of error and allege petitioner waived her 16 right to argue the application was filed on August 27, 1991, 17 because she failed to raise the argument below. We will resolve 18 these arguments in our final opinion and order, sin order to allow a motion for evidentiary hearing under ORS 197.930 (13) (b) and OAR 661-10-045(2) we must determine that the facts to be established would warrant reversal or remand of the challenged decision. 6As we explained earlier, petitioner does not dispute that the application form required by TCDC 26.32.050(B) (3) was not submitted until September 13, 1991, that the required fee was submitted on September 19, 1991 or that the facts alleged in the affidavit attached to intervenors' motion for evidentiary hearing are true. While intervenors also allege that they would present other pvid©nee concerning the date the application was first submitted, they do not describe what that evidence might be. AU OAR 661-10-045(2), quoted Alti= at a 2. Page 4 ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 30,92 12:26 No.009 P.04 1 requires that an application "(b]e accompanied by the required 2 fee[.]" Petitioner does not dispute that the application 3 attached to intervenors' motion for evidentiary hearing was 4 submitted on September 13, 1991, or that the required fee was 5 received by the city on September 19, 1991, and that the 6 application was deemed complete on this latter date. However, 7 petitioner contends the key data for purposes of determining the 8 applicable standards under ORS 227,178(3) is the date the 9 application was first submitted, not the date' the required 10 application 'form was actually submitted or the date the 11 application was deemed complete. 12 Relying on our decisions in Kixpal Light ca.Rana v_ Qnuglag 13 i'munty, 18 Or LUBA 651, 659-60 (1990), and McCaw Communications. 14 True. v_ PnJk_CmuLty, 20 Or LUBA 456, 464-66 (1991), petitioner 15 alleges the letter appearing at Record 319-20 makes it clear the 16 subject application was submitted either,.on August 27, 1991, or 17 on some earlier date.4 In both KirRal and McCaw we determined 18 an application had been submitted, even though no official 19 application form was filed with the local government. However, 20 in neither case was it clear that the application for permit 21 approval was required to be made on forms provided by the local 22 government. Additionally, in neither of those cases was an 4Petitioner also cites a second letter dated September 5, 1991 from the president of a noighborhood association. Aoeord 317-18. Petitioner points out that letter, which refers to the proposal, was submitted several days before the data intervenors contend the application was first submitted. Page 3 ODONNELL RRMIS ET RL 503-243-2944 Oct 30,92 12:25 No.009 P.03 1 September 12, 1991. 2 Intervenors move for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 3 oR8 197 .830 (13) (b) and OAR 661-10-045.2 Intervenors request the 4 evidentiary hearing to establish that the application for land 5 use approval in this matter was first submitted on September 13, 6 1991, not August 271 1991. In support of their motion, 7 intervenors attach an affidavit signed by a city planner and a 8 copy of the completed application form,3 9 The parties' dispute concerning the date the application 10 Was submitted presents a mixed question of fact and law, 11 However, the factual aspects of the question are not in dispute; 12 and, therefore, we deny the motion for evidentiary hearing. 13 Petitioner concedes the Tigard Community Development Code 14 (TCDC) 18.32.050(A) requires that an application must "be made 15 on forms provided by the Director * * s." TCDC 18.32.050(B)(3) 2ORS 197.830 (13) (b) provides, in part, as followsi "In the ease of disputed allegations of * * * procedural irregularities net shown in the record which, if proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the board may take evidence and make findings of fact on those allegations. • OAR 661-10-045 (1) repeats the above provisions of ORS 197.830 (13) (b) , and OAR 661-10-045(2) provides as follows: * * A motion for evidentiary hearing shall contain a statement explaining with particularity what facts the moving party will present at the hearing and how those facts will affect the outcome of the review proceeding. Whenever possible such facts shall be presented by affidavit with the motion." sThe affidavit explains that tho application form was submitted on September 13, 1991. The affidavit also states that the August 27, 1991 letter cited by petitioner "was not accompanied by, and did not purport to be accompanied by, an application for land use approval from the City." Page 2 ODONNELL RRMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 30,92 12:25 No.009 P.02 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 MARGE DAVENPORT, ) 5 ) 6 Petitioner, ) 7 ) 8 vs. ) 9 ) LUBA No. 92-104 10 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 11 ) ORDER ON MOTION 12 Respondent, ) FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 13 ) 14 and ) 15 ) , 16 TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) 17 and ROSS WOODS, ) 18 ) 19 intervenors-Respondent. ) 20 21 petitioner alleges the application for permit approval that 22 initiated the local proceedings in this matter was submitted to 23 respondent on August 27, 1991.1 Petitioner contends that if the 24 application challenged in this proceeding was submitted on 25 August 27, 1991, the approval standards in effect on that date 26 apply. ORS 227.178(3)1 AAA i paal Light Satagng y_ Douglas 27 County, 96 Or App 202, 212, 772 P2d 944 (1989) (construing the 26 parallel permit provisions at ORS 215.402 to 215.438 applicable 29 to counties). In her fourth assignment of error, petitioner 30 alleges the city erroneously applied amended city comprehensive 31 plan provisions which did not become effective until 1The challenged decision is a "permit" as that term is defined'in ORS 227.160(2), and the provisions set out at ORS 227.160 to 227.185 governing the procedures and standards applicable to review of applications for permit approval apply. Page i O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L BUSCH 1727 N.W Hoyt N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* Portland Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW (503) 266-1149 CHARLES M. GREEFF TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 KAREN E. JONES*** FAX: (503) 243-2944 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE MARK P. O'DONNELL KENNETH M. ELLIOTT TIMOTHY V. RAMIS Special Counsel SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* MICHAEL C. ROBINSON** WILLIAM J. STALNAKER November 18, 1992 .ALSO ADMMED TO PRACLICE QL STAIE OF WASHNGMN ..ALSO ADMMED 10 PRACLI(8 W WISCONSIN ...ALSO ADMMED TO PRACnCE M =&s Mr. Patrick J. Reilly City Administrator City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97281 Re: Davenport v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 92-104 Dear Pat: Please find enclosed a notice from the Land Use Board of Appeals rescheduling the oral arguments in this case from December 1 until December 15, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. As Ed Murphy and I discussed previously, Steve Pfeiffer will submit the brief and argue this case. I will not participate in oral argument at LUBA. Our feeling was that it made sense to have the City Attorney involved with the legislative item, which involved the City's comprehensive plan, but the site plan approval should be defended by the applicant. If you would like me to appear in this matter, please let me know. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN MJ4~ 0, UAI-~ Michael C. Robinson MCR/smc Enclosure m=%TipoF,Qi0M63\RcUbr.L18 cc: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director (w/enc) Jerry Offer, Planner (w/enc) ®r-) r P! npo r P L NOV 231992 1' v u U-~ r VV un ~J "November 13, 19HONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN Richard Whitman NOV 16 1992 L A N D U S E Ball, Janik & Novack BOARD OF Suite 1100 One Main Place A P P E A L S 101 SW Main Street Portland, OR 97204 Timothy V. Ramis Tigard City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, et al 1727 NW Hoyt StreetC(OPY Portland, OR 97209 Steven L. Pfeiffer Stoel, Rives, et al Suite 2300 900 SW Fifth Portland, OR 97204 RE: Davenport v. Tigard LUBA No. 92-104 To the Parties: At the request of the parties, the oral argument for the above-captioned appeal has been rescheduled for December 15, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. in the Land Use Board of Appeals Hearings Room, 100 High Street, SE, Suite 220, Salem. The Board requests that the city contact the Board in advance of that date to assure a current copy of the comprehensive plan and other relevant ordinances are on file with the Board. Because of limited space, please notify the Board no later than 12 days prior to the oral argument if more than 10 people plan to attend, so alternate room arrangements can be made. Also, please notify the Board no later than 12 days prior to the oral argument if reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities are needed. Very truly yours, . 9~a~ Angie Crosby Administrative Specialist N 0 V 2 3 1992 100 High Street SE Suite 220 i. Salem, OR 97310 --`i U (503) 373-1265 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATPORNEYS AT LAW JEFF H. B ~CI~AMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L BUSCH H USCH BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW (503) 266-1149 CHARLES M. GREEFF TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (503) 243-2944 NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. O'DONNELL PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETH M. ELLIOTT TIMOTHY V. RAMIS Special Counsel SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* MICHAEL C. ROBINSON** i s WILLIAM J. STALNAKER Fii October 26, 1992 'ALSO ADb1 = M PRAMCE IN STAn OF W,SHMGMN ~ 0 C T 2 8 1992 -ALSO ADW= M RAMCM M MSODNSW S 3 Mr. Patrick J. Reilly City Administrator City of Tigard P.O. BOX 23397 Tigard, OR 97281 Re: Marge Davenport v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 92-104 Dear Pat: LUBA denied Triad's motion for an evidentiary hearing in Marge Davenport's action challenging the site plan approval. LUBA has set the oral argument for December 1, 1992. I have enclosed a copy of LUBA's decision. I will keep you informed on the status of this matter. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN Kj,j a, Q,~ Michael C. Robinson MCR/dd Enclosure cc: Mr. Ed Murphy (w/enc) Mr. Jerry offer (w/enc) m=%rW ud%90D4&3XR.Wy.Ld 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 MARGE DAVENPORT, ) 5 ) 6 Petitioner, ) 7 ) 8 vs. ) 9 ) LUBA No. 92-104 10 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 11 ) ORDER ON MOTION 12 Respondent, ) FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 13 ) 14 and ) 15 ) 16 TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) 17 and ROSS WOODS, ) 18 ) 19 Intervenors-Respondent. ) 20 21 Petitioner alleges the application for permit approval that 22 initiated the local proceedings in this matter was submitted to 23 respondent on August 27, 1991.1 Petitioner contends that if the 24 application challenged in this proceeding was submitted on 25 August 27, 1991, the approval standards in effect on that date 26 apply. ORS 227.178(3); see Kirpal Light Sa saner v. Douglas 27 County, 96 Or App 202, 212, 772 P2d 944 (1989) (construing the 28 parallel permit provisions at ORS 215.402 to 215.438 applicable 29 to counties). In her fourth assignment of error, petitioner 30 alleges the city erroneously applied amended city comprehensive 31 plan provisions which did not become effective until 1The challenged decision is a "permit" as that term is defined in ORS 227.160(2), and the provisions set out at ORS 227.160 to 227.185 governing the procedures and standards applicable to review of applications for permit approval apply. Page 1 1 requires that an application "(b)e accompanied by the required 2 fee(.)" Petitioner does not dispute that the application 3 attached to intervenors' motion for evidentiary hearing was 4 submitted on September 13, 1991, or that the required fee was 5 received by the city on September 19, 1991, and that the 6 application was deemed complete on this latter date. However, 7 petitioner contends the key date for purposes of determining the 8 applicable standards under ORS 227.178(3) is the date the 9 application was first submitted, not the date' the required 10 application "form was actually submitted or the date the 11 application was deemed complete. 12 Relying on our decisions in Kir a Light Satsang v. Douglas 13 County, 18 Or LUBA 651, 659-60 (1990), and McCaw Communications. 14 Inc. v. Polk County, 20 Or LUBA 456, 464-66 (1991), petitioner 15 alleges the letter appearing at Record 319-20 makes it clear the 16 subject application was submitted either-on August 27, 1991, or 17 on some earlier date.4 In both Kiripal and McCaw we determined 18 an application had been submitted, even though no official 19 application form was filed with the local government. However, 20 in neither case was it clear that the application for permit 21 approval was required to be made on forms provided by the local 22 government. Additionally, in neither of those cases was an 4Petitioner also cites a second letter dated September 5, 1991 from the president of a neighborhood association. Record 317-18. Petitioner points out- that letter, which refers to the proposal, was submitted several days before the date intervenors contend the application was first submitted. Page 3 1 The motion for evidentiary hearing is denied. 2 Respondent shall have 21 days from the date of this order 3 to file its brief. 4 Dated this 22nd day of October, 1992. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Michael A. Holstun 11 Referee 12 Page 5 OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE BALiAW 8: W N.W. Hoyt Street Street BUILDING 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 MARK L. BUSCH 1727 N.W Hoyt CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW (S03) 266-1149 CHARLES M. GREEFF TELEPHONE: (S03) 222-4402 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (S03) 243-2944 NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. KE PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNET Counsel . ELLIOTT TIMOTHY RAMIS SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* MICHAEL C. ROBINSON** WILLIAM J. STALNAKER October 9, 1992 *A= ADMWM TO PRACM M STATE D4 WAS!@I M "A= ADW= M MAC= W WSCWW Mr. Pat Reilly City Administrator Tigard City Hall F; P.O. Box 23397 1992 11 Tigard, Oregon 97223 L . Re: Davenport v. City of Tigard LUBA No. 92-104 Dear Pat: LUBA No. 92-104 is Marge Davenport's challenge to the city's approval of the Triad site plan. This matter has been on hold pending LUBA's decision on a motion by Triad for an evidentiary hearing. LUBA has informed us that they expect to rule on this motion on October 16th. LUBA will then set an oral argument date and should rule on the matter shortly thereafter. I will keep you informed on the status of this case. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN "X C. Michael C. Robinson MCR/sb-kls cc: Mr. Ed Murphy, Community Development Director Mr. Jerry Offer, Planner OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW JEFF H. BACHRACH BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L. BUSCH 1727 N.W. Ho Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW (503) 266-1149 CHARLES M. GREEFF TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (503) 243-2944 NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. O'DONNELL PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETH M. ELLIOTT TIMOTHY V. RAMIS Special Counsel SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* MICHAEL C. ROBINSON** WILLIAM J. STAL.NAKER August 12, 1992 .ALSO ADMITTED 70 PRACITCE IN STATE OF WASNINCiON **ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE W WISCONSIN Ms. Cathy Wheatley City Recorder City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97281 RE: Davenport v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 92-104 Dear Cathy: Enclosed please find a copy of the Intervenors-Respondents' Brief in the above-captioned matter. The copy includes only the arguments and not the many pages of appendices. I will be happy to provide those pages if you wish. As you know, the City did not file a brief in this matter. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN mtf) e-o"A' Michael C. Robinson MCR/sb Enclosure mcr\tigard\davenport\wheadey.ltl ni, AU613199~ ~1 .a fi" T`.. +-t-~-T+S ,c^~ R s-y"`?;i~.-:-•.. <.roTr - *r 's'°' r y,•~",a J. s - '1 0.= ~k L-L^ _ /cy- 3 -^'~iY 1SY'1tS-M!'..wG. Y.a4T.~r: Y~ 4Jyr"-L T gp, PINC; Pet t o ~ ~ , ~`?~~~M~~ ~ ~ -G,,, ' a~ sa~• i4.aa-rsrc-rsr~ Y .z-~r x-~,..a++~;zf-* ~m~~: -g-: ~ •r-,.- n_ -~:s . lr~ uir-a- .rRiec~r ~ y '2~ •~s~ r ~ ~ ~rr`c~-~.. f ' r"'' 6"., z .r .s„' ••uK~ ~ u. rP• -~.-t-+ ,•-^°~,s.-.•....z~--Sd- t=-°---~- rr'_).'-+ ~~r_s • 4 CITY "I I M . * ~ r r ,r ~ tt~a y *J ~ ~ ' ~ v c> f > r 'i.~y~ 1-•Y~ y mvayr~ ~ .•-~_t; f*' ~ N! lr' 7 ~ .X . i~•'!4!,1 t ,,.s .r`~ ,y;YS".` ~ ~1T 'e- .G.13 "°t a•x 'T,cr^y~r Y t t c-'t--». ~it;F4`^-an "4;r..^~~,c c. .r r~',r~.~~ c• ~ ~-~rxat^`+-7r) -"-~n'~'~ ~~>-~rz'~si-r^~.~-s-r s ~ ,>i+ f~ ~.f'.~ ~~*i`"C~*d~_vLri.. PE,sc;•s+Y•+ ~Y-.~s~.~ rrr''""~ rs--~scc...-r---~...x"~.. ~~-c.;,F -r r~ RiAD-TGARDL'IMITED =PARTNERSHIF1=`"~'Y-~-=~ tervenprS Res OllClentS 3~~~.i~{,-~'°`~.~3i4 ~+r..wJh•'st'a'„°'~'•iu~.,i"#'~. ~ a-rr ~..,.~.k-~ ~ ~ - ~~vc y - k=ar~cfi ~.«z;.-' rr~ ...~-.r k.?tom a ~ ~ ,~.t'-a~ s ~ - `yw ~+w r-~-~-~. _ ~•~x. -rr ~ ~ r>--z.F ---r- r.+7Gfy~?'~~. t" m :~b°p.~ ~'_.-c~ .2 c _"~r~~..~:tt Yxr.:. '',~.~-~'-a-..s.. 'z..".~3~_~.."',.3_•..~._ - = f e-v'+.~ , t. _ .e ~ ye + ~Y i. _ ~'"°~--`S~-~...-=~'--z3i~~-.rY+~.-.....>.w .~a.`'~~' ~ M SO INOR - - y _ -y.. -'t J~.eh i^.Ye.+..-. ~ _ f S•~- ~ _ M, _ ` p .TT i ~`s_ilG' : ~a. 'sc&:!~- ,.n+r+.la:.=-.. -ate .-tic ar _Whitman- 89.382 _Michael c. o inson; '°};~'T ~C' SG::i '✓fS,"~e...ar CZsa...rls._+.""sv,+.:. ' -y t r ,rr E Suite 1200 4 ~ x ~ ` 2 & CORRIGAN _ yain ~StreetL 4 ~1727- N:WHoyt"= Street - r Portland; Oregon= 97204 Portland; Oregon' -=97209: r t ~~rTelephone (503)228-2525 s~ =Telephone. (5703j -222 4402 ' tt~ rney orb £ ti At orne ~s~f ResPo d rat 6,11 'x^.. S:?'~A` ~.f't;'~','. ~ ~~i. 'eL. r7 '~~3~~~ a~`•.e"'TFr.-~ t c7~,7~~~se7_.~;• asi..r~sa.~~ t~•s S~-.'« _ _ - - --s«e-sue a---s~,~ .~'-r •s ~'z .3`~ i ~s .s. - ar -•r.._ a"'"r~~a - ~S~...~sa~..~,....¢ .......~...~-.x ~r ----~-s..~ 'I-: -rte., tevei~iffe~.8x4~s ~~M~~aelCampbel.82,00 ="'r OE OIaEY JONES & GREY - - - $ult 23001zttc x_ j - E" ,v. Lam. af. .s.- L u c s ~ - 3~' '~'iu3t .ate • -.,>r a> ' d'_ s- :i,_g---_-- ~7r•-T'_--."-i s< s - } ortlandregon 9g204 F • r ---f---.t L,~" ..rt.t.e-- ,.sr->~ r- .n-f ± wr a --e. ~Tele~One:3(503)~294-9523'' 1 = ttorneys-jrf0- r Intervenors-Resp n ents'"~-' - = ~ - w..~ _ - ~1T W.s~9~ 'X •,rs a5a ~fY s. - . -.N y -2x~ +.s~..~a-.. +-*•3' _ '!M".at7~ ~~^!n~!?'L! ~ ~ m 't ~t 5.~..rl••,.:='3v-r.~ ar -,c~a+ ~rv .1"•'_'r "Yii . "T' sy _ v y 'i _ -,-ii-'C-yT _ '~`.>~n..-~`:~ i'~9r^rl~'}` `'~1's. t~..,r °~i' :suc.. u~.rs.af.• a,~~#`-~. ~'4,•=. '?r'3`- si ,a'`~,--,,ay.ai~~, s-~rr ~'..:•y--'7°'S-. S;-~ ~ s .p- ..-.v r tiZ c - t ¢ z,.-••-`-~ 4-A -`~.,n' +n...iiF~ K~~+$ yp,~ x -Y tr -•-7c-r st ~ --t ' l ~ r _ 4 ay~ cc r .,4~ ~'rs7- Ar ~.sia~4 4 ~-•5~--• ~ ~ Y mac- -r " 1~- -nom J-~-?.~'~'_-' - .`-F`-- ~ •~~r.. ..v.•+. ~ ~a~'3* ~ t..f~..,..'~.~'lt..o.~f' y"~s T.~ - ~-~~.s_ f -x~~ig x--~~ s•'Sy~'3 ~r~+ r .Ir w. K rur ~.5-O ~ "G-'~~v -~~sw..._.i..•~~ v7°v ,.+--.•w:.~ri - '-'.++,-y-l~.. .`~~'9~~~-~~1~~.e~>- ~ -a .,yf'~y..-~ ,"`t ~ ..r,~gc_xr a.J~-~•,-raj-•.eaz -_r=c ~'~~K•-.•rr~=~.r-'-~_=`S_.~.t^•z:_z°tn -'„wa - -r"r2i~ f' i`r.1 t 11r~~~ ,,•t :~•'v c -'3x ia2 v gr' es.~.~..f~.s. - - _ ~ - i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PETITIONER'S STANDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 J II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Nature of the Land Use Decision . . . . . . . . . 1 i B. Summary of Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C. Summary of Material Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 IV. RESPONSES TO THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Response to the First Assignment of Error . . . . 8 The City's decision complies with its acknowledged TCP and zoning ordinance provisions that are intended to implement statewide land use Goal 5. The decision is supported by extensive findings that are = based on substantial evidence in the record Petitioner's assignment of error misconstrues the TCP, ignores evidence in ` the record, and raises issues that she did not adequately raise below. B. Response to the Second Assignment of Error . . . . 20 Petitioner did not sufficiently raise these issues before the local government and may not raise them on review by LUBA. Even if the issues are properly before LUBA, the City's decision correctly applied TCP and TCDC provisions related to natural hazards and wetlands, made proper findings concerning Triad's compliance with those provisions and was based on substantial evidence in the record. C. Response to the Third Assignment of Error . . . . 30 Petitioner did not raise this issue in her notice of appeal to the City Council. Moreover, the adequacy of public school, facilities is not an approval criterion, ii - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 D. Response to the Fourth Assignment of Error . . . . 32 Triad submitted its application after the TCP transportation map amendments took j effect. Those amendments were effective regardless whether they were "acknowledged." E. Response to the Fifth Assignment of Error . . . . 35 This assignment of error was not raised below and is not sufficiently developed to permit a response The City made findings of compliance with all applicable approval criteria, and its findings were supported .by substantial evidence in the record. Petitioner does not identify with any specificity what findings she alleges the City failed to make, how the City misconstrued any applicable law, how the City's findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or how the City prejudiced the substantial rights of _ Petitioner. F. Response to the Sixth Assignment of Error 37 The City followed all required procedures in reaching its decision, and, in any event Petitioner's substantial rights were not prejudiced by any alleged procedural error. V. CONCLUSION 50 Appendices Appendix A: Tigard City Council Decision Appendix B: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Provisions Appendix C: Tigard Community Development Code Provisions Appendix D: Excerpts from the Transcript of the April 14, 1992, City Council Hearing iii - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i I. PETITIONER'S STANDING Intervenors-Respondents Triad Tigard Limited Partnership.and Ross Woods ("Triad") agree that Petitioner has standing to petition the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") for review of the decision of Respondent City of Tigard ("City"). II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Nature of the Land Use Decision Although Triad does not agree that the site of the apartment complex is "in a largely undeveloped area" (cf. Rec. 10), Triad otherwise accepts Petitioner's statement of the nature of the land use decision. B. Summary of Arguments Petitioner's assignments of error were not properly ( raised below, wrongly assume that comprehensive plan statements are approval criteria, misconstrue the law, or reargue questions of fact that were properly decided by the City on the basis of substantial evidence in the whole record. More specifically: With respect to the first assignment of error, Petitioner wrongly assumes that the background documents of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") limit residential development on the site to one to five units per acre or prohibit residential development altogether. To the contrary, the acknowledged provisions of the TCP expressly contemplate and permit residential development on the site to the density allowed by the City's decision. Furthermore, the City's 1 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i i decision protects the designated scenic resources of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest in the manner required by the TCP . and the Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC"). The City's decision is supported by appropriate findings and substantial evidence in the record. With respect to the second assignment of error, the i City's decision correctly applied TCP and TCDC provisions related to natural hazards, including wetlands. Triad submitted detailed, site-specific information concerning the - geologic suitability of the site for the type of residential development planned. That information constituted substantial evidence on which the City was entitled to rely in concluding that the site was suitable. The City further found that the { site did not contain any wetlands and that, even if there were i a wetland on the site, the wetland could be filled under any 1 required permit and would not preclude development of the site. , j Again, the City's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Finally, none of these arguments made in the second assignment of error were properly raised below and may not, for that reason, be asserted on review. With respect to the third assignment of error, the adequacy of public school facilities was not an approval criterion for the City's decision. Moreover, this issue was not properly raised below and may not be asserted on review. Petitioner's fourth assignment of error is based on her mistaken belief that Triad's application was submitted 2 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF } before the TCP transportation plan amendment that is the subject of LUBA No. 92-078. As shown by the documents attached ll to Triad's motion for an evidentiary hearing, Triad's l application was submitted after the amendment became effective. Moreover, the amendment was effective regardless whether it was "acknowledged." Finally, Petitioner failed to raise properly any of these issues below and may not assert them on review. Petitioner's fifth assignment of error is not sufficiently developed to permit or require a response. Petitioner asserts that the City's findings were inadequate but does not identify the inadequacy. The city made findings on all approval criteria for the development, and the City's findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. With respect to the sixth assignment of error, the City followed all required procedures in reaching its decision. Petitioner was not entitled to a continuance to respond to statements regarding wetlands because the statements were not part of Triad's prima facie case and were only responses to testimony submitted by Petitioner. The City properly, and as required by the TCDC, refused to consider issues not raised in Petitioner's notice of appeal to the City Council. Finally, the City followed all procedures required by ORS 197.763. The city was not required to read the notice set forth in ORS 197.763(5) before-every hearing, the City was not required to provide the written notice set forth in ORS 197.763(3) before a continued hearing, and statements made by a member of 3 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF } the planning staff in response to testimony submitted by j Petitioner was not a "staff report" within the meaning of ORS 197.763(4). C. Summary of Material Facts Petitioner's summary of material facts is a presentation of the facts and conclusions that she would draw 3 1 with respect to the development site and Triad's application. To the extent that the presentation is relevant to the issues that she has raised, the presentation is largely unsupported by the record or omits contrary evidence relied upon by the City. Specifically: Petitioner mischaracterizes the vicinity of the proposed development as "one of the largest remaining undeveloped areas in the city." This characterization has little or no relevance to the issues that she raises, but LUBA should be clear (1) that the site has for several years been planned and zoned for the type and intensity of development that Triad has proposed (Rec. 5-8) and (2) that the site, although itself largely vacant, borders a major 4-lane state highway, Highway 99W, and is surrounded by substantial residential developments, including: the 130-unit Timberline Apartments immediately to the north; the Canterbury Woods condominiums to the northeast; and the Summerfield condominium complex immediately to the south (Rec. 10). Petitioner also mischaracterizes the site itself. Petitioner asserts that the site has steep, unstable soils that 4 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF f are unsuitable for building. Petitioner also asserts that the 1 site is covered by "one of the largest and oldest forests in the city" and contains "excellent habitat for a variety of wildlife" and "wetlands." Many of these assertions are immaterial, and the record in any event demonstrates, and the City found, a very different set of facts. Triad submitted an extensive geotechnical study that demonstrated that the soils and other geophysical features of the site were suitable for the proposed development. (Rec. f 215-42.) The City chose to rely on this-specific and detailed i study over the very general evidence relied on by Petitioner, which was not specific to the site, and which did not address the type of development proposed. (Rec. 19-20.) In addition, the site's only significant natural feature--and the only natural feature recognized on the site by the TCP--is the second-growth coniferous forest in the northern i portions of the site. (Rec. 198-209; TCP vol.-.I,- at 96-97.) Based on the wildlife study submitted by the applicant, the City concluded that the wildlife habitat value of the site, which has been disturbed by human activity, and which is surrounded by a major highway and existing residential and commercial developments, was limited. (Rec. 24-26, 198-209.) Moreover, although there was testimony that there was a small area of standing water on the site, the City concluded-that this area did not qualify as a wetland and that there were no 5 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i 4 wildlife or other resource values associated with this area. I' (Rec. 26-27.) The City found that Triad's proposal minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, any adverse effects on the recognized scenic values of the second-growth coniferous forest and any adverse effects on whatever minimal wildlife habitat the site might provide. (Rec. 20-26.) The proposal leaves entirely undeveloped the northwestern corner and the northern border of the site, where the bulk of the largest and most scenic coniferous trees are. In the remainder of the site, the proposal clusters development and incorporates stands of mature trees into the landscaping plan. (Rec. id., 198-209.) Petitioner also asserts that Triad's application was "filed on or about August 27, 1991," 16 days before the comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of LUBA i No. 92-078 became effective on September 12, 1991. Neither Petitioner's record citations nor any other part of the record supports the assertion that Triad submitted its application on "on or about August 27, 1991." As shown by the affidavit submitted in support of Triad's motion for an evidentiary hearing, Triad in fact submitted its application on September 13, 1991. Petitioner makes a number of assertions concerning the present adequacy and condition of S.W. Naeve Street. The City's decision, however, requires Triad to improve S.W. Naeve Street as a condition of development. (Rec. 36-38.) The City 6 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF f found, and traffic studies in the record demonstrate, that t S.W. Naeve Street, as improved by Triad, would be able to handle safely and adequately the traffic generated by the proposed development, even in the absence of the street modifications that are included in the comprehensive plan amendments that are the subject of LUBA No. 92-078. (Rec. 28, I 384-431.) In addition, the City required as a further condition of development that Triad contribute $300,000 to this extension of S.W. 109th Avenue. (Rec. 28-29, 38, 45-49.) The City anticipates that this contribution, together with budgeted and expected funding, will be sufficient to complete the d extension, thereby further reducing traffic on S.W. Naeve Street.' (See Rec. 28-29, 45-49.) ` III. JURISDICTION t Triad agrees that the challenged decision, City of Tigard Resolution No. 92-19, is a land use decision that LUBA i has jurisdiction to review pursuant to ORS 197.825. i 1 Petitioner also asserts that schools in the area are insufficient to serve the projected enrollment that would be generated by the proposed development. This assertion is based on a statement in the Planning Commission's decision that related comments by the Tigard School District. (Rec. 330.) The comments, however, noted that the school district was considering a number of options to increase capacity. (Id.) The school district did not state that adequate capacity would not be available, as Petitioner implies. In any event, school _ capacity was not an issue before the City-Council because neither Petitioner nor the other appellant, NPO #6, raised the issue in their appeal. (Rec. 270-73.) 7 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 J 1 IV. RESPONSES TO THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR2 + A. Response to the First Assignment of Error The City's decision complies with its acknowledged TCP and zoning ordinance provisions that are intended to implement statewide--land use Goal 5. The decision is supported by extensive findings that are ' based on substantial evidence in the record. Petitioner's assignment of error misconstrues the TCP, ignores evidence in the record, and raises issues that she did - not adequately raise below. 1. -The City's decision complies with acknowledged TCP provisions that are intended to implement statewide land use Goal 5. Petitioner identifies three respects in which she asserts that the City's decision violates acknowledged TCP provisions that are intended to implement statewide land use planning Goal 5. (Petition for Review ("P.R.") 16.) First, Petitioner asserts that the City's findings "fail to identify what the impact of the project will be on the inventoried scenic resources." Second, she asserts that the TCP limits development on the portion of the site within the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest to 111-5 units to the acre." Finally, 2 Petitioner divides her arguments into six assignments of error, but each assignment contains a number of separate and often only tangentially related assertions of error, many of which are not developed with argument. This presentation does not comply.with OAR 661-10-030(3)(d) and does not make clear the nature of Petitioner's assertions of error. Nonetheless, Triad has attempted to identify and respond as best it can to Petitioner's arguments. See Van Sant v. Yamhill County, 17 Or LUBA 563, 566 (1989). 8 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i she asserts that the TCP prohibits all development within an unidentified "summit" area of Little Bull Mountain. Before addressing these specific arguments, Triad believes that it is important to address an assumption that underlies all of Petitioner's arguments with respect to the TCP. Petitioner, of course, is correct that Triad's application must comply with the TCP. See TCDC 18.32.250.A.1.a. Petitioner, however, wrongly assumes that every statement in the TCP is an approval criterion for Triad's r development. A general requirement that a proposed development i comply with the comprehensive plan, like the requirement found i in TCDC 18.32.250.A.1.a, "does not impose a burden of consistency with every statement or phrase in a comprehensive plan." Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or LUBA 450, 456-57 k! (1989). Whether a particular plan provision is an approval criterion depends on the specific language and context of the provision. See, e.g. Waker Assoc. v. Clackamas County, Or LUBA , LUBA No. 91-016 (Oct. 15, 1991); Stotter v. City 1 of Eugene, 18 Or LUBA 135, 148-49 (1989). A plan provision that is written in general, nonmandatory language is ordinarily not intended as an approval criterion. See Bennett, sutra, 17 Or LUBA at 456. i 9 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF The only Goal 5 resource that the TCP identifies on } the site3 is the'Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest: "The Little Bull Mountain natural forest area located on the west side of Little Bull Mountain was determined to be a significant Goal--#-5- resource as an-"__.. outstanding scenic site.- The size of the treed area includes approximately 24.9 acres. The wildlife within the site is limited to small birds and animals. The major significance of this area is its visual impact viewed from many vantage points within Tigard. This area is the largest stand of nature [sic] coniferous trees within the Tigard active urban planning area, and, therefore, serves as a City visual landmark. "The Comprehensive Plan designates this area north of Naeve Road a Low Density Residential (1-5 units to the acre) with a Planned Development overlay zone required of any type of residential development. "If the resource is preserved. it will be necessary to situate any structures in a manner that minimizes the loss of trees. "The land also has economic value. Given its proximity to Pacific Highway and adjacent residential areas and - its ' topography, the-land does lend itself to a low density residential use. The staff recommendation for this site is to limit conflicting uses. The limited conflicting uses allowed will be single family detached residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development process, and community recreation reviewed through the Conditional Use process. Both of the processes listed in the Community Development Code have standards which review the removal of any a The Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest is not confined to the site. Much, if not most, of the forest lies north of the site, adjacent to Highway 99W. See TCP vol. I, at 39, 109. 10 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF major vegetation. TCP vol. I, at 96-97 (emphasis added). Volume I of the TCP, in which the quoted statement appears, is entitled "Comprehensive Plan Report" and is the I background document for the TCP. The statement's location in the TCP's background document, as well as its use of nonmandatory language (e.g., "If the resource is protected "The staff recommendation clearly shows that it is not itself intended to be an approval criterion for development. Rather, the statement provides background information concerning a scenic resource within the City, together with a recommendation that the resource be protected by limiting, not prohibiting, conflicting residential uses through the planned development review process of the TCDC. This interpretation of the statement is further supported by TCP policy 3.4.2.b, which is written in mandatory language, and which adopts much of the statement's recommendation. TCP policy 3.4.2.b provides: "The City shall: require that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed." (Emphasis added.) Thus, with respect to the scenic values of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, the TCP required only that Triad's development be reviewed through the planned development process in order to minimize the number of trees removed. That is what the City did in this instance. 11 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 i a. Adequacy of Findings Petitioner's first argument is that the City's findings "fail to identify what the impact of the project will be on the inventoried scenic resources." (P.R. 16.) Petitioner does not identify any provision or approval criterion of the TCP that would require such findings, but Triad assumes that Petitioner is referring to TCP policy 3.4.2.b, which requires that "development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees i removed." This policy does not itself require findings; it requires only that Triad's proposal be reviewed through the - planned development process, which the City did. ' In any event, because the mature coniferous trees of ° the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest are the only inventoried scenic resource on the site, minimizing the number E of mature coniferous trees removed maximizes the scenic resource value of the forest. Contrary to Petitioner's 1 argument, the City's findings identify the scenic resource to be protected and demonstrate how Triad's proposal minimizes any adverse effects on that resource. Moreover, those findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The City found: "The Plan [TCP] expressly requires that 'development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed.' (Plan Policy 12 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i 3.4.2.b.) The Plan thus expressly anticipates that future residential ! development may destroy some or all of the designated resource, provided that the fi development complies with the implementing provisions of the Code. e Z "The proposed development complies with the Code provisions that implement Policy 3.4.2. The development minimizes to the greatest extent possible the number of trees to be removed, particularly the mature coniferous trees that lie within the Little Bull Mountain natural forest in the northwestern and northern portions of the site. The northwestern portion of the site is left entirely undisturbed, and a large buffer of coniferous trees is left along the northern boundary of the site, as recommended by the Fishman Environmental Services report. In addition, the site plan incorporates several groves of existing mature trees within the landscaped areas of the developed portion of the site 9 - and provides substantial replacement _landscaping in areas that will be j disturbed." (Rec. 22-23 (emphasis added).) These findings are supported by ample evidence in the record, including a site tree survey, landscaping plans (Rec. 207, 1 344), and tree and vegetation descriptions included in Triad's e wildlife habitat report (Rec. 1987209).4 } ' 4 Petitioner asserts that the City's findings are inadequate because "[t]here is no analysis of how much of this resource will be left after the Triad development proceeds." (P.R. 16.) The City's findings do not precisely quantify the number or percentage of scenic coniferous trees that will be removed by the development, but the findings do explain that the number removed is-minimized to the greatest extent possible by excluding development from the northwestern and northern portions of the site, where the largest concentration of mature- coniferous trees are located, and by preserving stands of these trees within the development. Petitioner does not, in any (continued...) 13 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 4 t b. Low-Density Residential Development i i Second, Petitioner argues that the TCP limits development on the portion of the.site within the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest to 111-5 units to the acre." (P.R. 16.) Petitioner bases this argument on the following statements in the TCP's description of the Natural Forest: t "The Comprehensive Plan designates this area north of Naeve Road a[s] Low Density Residential (1-5 units to the acre) with a Planned Development overlay zone required of any type of residential development. r "The land also has economic value. Given its proximity to Pacific Highway and adjacent residential areas and its topography, the land does lend itself to a low density residential use. The staff recommendation for this site is to limit conflicting uses. The limited conflicting uses allowed will be single family detached residential units, reviewed through the Planned Development process TCP, vol. I, at 96 (emphasis added). There are two answers to Petitioner's argument. First, as discussed above, nothing in the TCP's description of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest suggests that the description, with its nonmandatory language, is an approval... criterion. The description is simply a staff recommendation for protection of the scenic value of the forest through limits on conflicting uses. TCP policy 3.4.2.b, which is the TCP - 41... continued) - event, identify any approval criterion that would require a specific percentage of scenic trees to be retained. 14 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i1 j provision that adopts and implements much of this ! recommendation, does not.limit uses within the forest to low- density residential uses. Moreover, the TCP's description of the forest does not state or imply that low-density residential uses are the only land uses that-are appropriate within the forest.5 Rather, the description merely describes what was then the existing plan and zoning designations for the area. Second, Petitioner's argument ignores the subsequent comprehensive plan amendments that changed the plan designation of the site from low-density residential to medium- and medium- high density residential. -(Rec. 5-6.) An argument that the plan amendments were inconsistent with the TCP's description of Z the conflicting uses of the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest might have been appropriate in any challenge to the amendments, but the time for challenging the amendments has long since i passed. The current and acknowledged TCP designations for the site are necessarily inconsistent with Petitioner's argument that the TCP limits land uses on the site to low-density residential uses. } c. Absolute Protection of the "Summit" Finally, Petitioner argues that the TCP prohibits all development within an unidentified "summit" area of Little Bull 5 Indeed, there is evidence in the record that low density, single-family residential development, which is inherently more sprawling than high-density residential development, would more adversely affect the scenic resource by requiring more trees to be cut. (See Rec. 202.) 15 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i Mountain. (P.R. 16.) Petitioner does not identify the area { included within the "summit," but she appears to assert that it includes the.entire site. Petitioner does not point to anything in the TCP that would prohibit residential use of the summit of Little Bull t i Mountain. The TCP background document identifies the summit as ! a "special area" that was "suggested by specialists for preservation, through fee purchase if necessary." TCP vol. I, at 42. Apart from the Little Bull Mountain Natural Forest, however, the City never acted on this suggestion by identifying the summit as a significant Goal 5 resource, see TCP vol. I, at 94-108, or by adopting any TCP or TCDC approval criteria or other provisions to protect the summit through a prohibition on } t development. 1 Indeed, Petitioner's argument that development is prohibited on the site contains the same flaw as her argument ' that development is limited to low-density residential development: the TCP specifically designates the site for medium- and medium-high density residential development. If the City had intended its TCP to prohibit development on the site in order to protect the summit of Little Bull Mountain, the TCP would have designated the site as open space or some other designation consistent with a complete prohibition on 16 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF development.6 The TCP's current designation of the site is I i completely at odds with Petitioner's argument. 2. The City's decision complies with TCDC provisions that are intended to implement statewide land use Goal 5. Petitioner identifies two respects in which she asserts that the City's decision did not comply with TCDC provisions that implement statewide land use Goal 5. First, Petitioner asserts that "[n]o analysis of where the existing trees are located in relation to the - proposed development was submitted beyond the wildlife analysis, which contains no quantitative information or mapping i of existing trees." (P.R. 18.) Petitioner argues that a j survey of existing trees was required in order to allow the City to determine whether Triad's development would preserve existing trees "to the greatest degree possible," as required by TCDC 18.80.120.A.3.a.(i). Triad did in fact provide a survey of existing trees (Rec. 344), as well as a landscape plan that showed how those trees would be preserved (id.). Moreover, although Petitioner does not clearly make the argument that the City's decision did not comply with TCDC 18.80.120.A.3.a.(i), the City found that the development 6 Petitioner also did not raise this issue below with sufficient specificity to afford the City and Triad an opportunity to respond to it. See ORS 197.763(1). Although Petitioner argued that the summit area was a Goal 5 resource, she did not argue that the TCP prohibited all development within the summit area. 17 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF "minimizes to the greatest extent possible the number of trees I to be removed." (Rec. 23.) That finding was supported by substantial evidence in the record. (E.q., Rec. 198-207, 344.) Second, Petitioner asserts that the City's decision does not comply with TCDC 18.120.180.A.2.b, which provides that "[t]rees having a six inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character." This issue, however, was not raised by Petitioner (or any other participant) below, either in her notice of appeal to the Council (Rec. 272-73) or in any other manner. TCDC 18.32.340.A.3. requires appeals to the Council } from Planning Commission decisions to contain the "specific grounds for the appeal or review." Furthermore, TCDC j 18.32.320.B.2 provides that the City Council's review of 1 decisions by the-Planning Commission is "[l]imited to the grounds relied upon in the notice of review [sic] as provided in Subsection 18.32.340.A." Petitioner's failure to raise in her notice of appeal the issue of compliance with the requirement to preserve or replace trees six inches in diameter i or more precluded review of that issue by the City Council, even had she subsequently raised the issue. Petitioner's failure to raise this issue in her appeal to the Council was a failure to exhaust remedies available to her by right from the City, which precludes review of the issue by LUBA. ORS 197:-825(2)(a). Similarly, Petitioner's failure to raise the issue before the close of the 18 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF record also precludes review of the issue by LUBA under j ORS 197.763(1). Finally, even if Petitioner had properly raised this issue below, Petitioner's argument misconstrues both TCDC 18..120.180.A.2.b and the effect of the City's decision. TCDC 18.120.180.A.2.b does not require, as Petitioner asserts, a "one-to-one" replacement of all trees over six inches in diameter that are cut. It requires replacement by "new plantings of equal character." Obviously, for these "new plantings" to be of "equal character," they need not be of the same diameter? or planted in the same place. Nor does "equal i character" require that the trees be of the same species,-so long as the new plantings will, upon maturity, restore the aesthetic value of the trees lost. 4 TCDC 18.120.180.2.b, although worded somewhat differently, is substantively identical to the tree-removal permit criteria found in TCDC 18.150.030.A.6. A tree removal permit is required for the removal of any tree that is six { inches or more in diameter. TCDC 18.150.020.E. TCDC 18.150.030.A.6 requires that plantings of new trees "restore the aesthetic value of the removed trees." The City's decision requires Triad to submit to the City a detailed tree protection plan prepared by an arborist For example, it would be virtually impossible to purchase and transplant an 18-inch Douglas fir tree. 19 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF and also requires Triad to obtain a tree-removal permit. (Rec. 32, 34.) As a condition of obtaining the permit, Triad will be required to replace all removed trees that are six inches or more in diameter with new plantings that will be of equal aesthetic value or character. TCDC 18.150.030.A.6. Thus, contrary to Petitioner's argument, the City's decision requires Triad to do all that is required by TCDC 18.120.180.A.2.b. B. Response to the Second Assignment of Error Petitioner did not sufficiently raise these issues before the local government and may _ not raise them on review by LUBA. Even if the issues are properly before LUBA, the City's decision correctly applied TCP and TCDC provisions related to natural hazards and wetlands, made proper findings concerning Triad's compliance with those provisions, and was based on substantial evidence in the record. 1. Geologic Stability _ Petitioner lists a number of TCP and TCDC provisions related to geologic stability that she asserts are approval r criteria for Triad's proposal.8 Petitioner, however, does not argue that the proposal fails to comply with any particular i 8 Triad does not agree that all of the listed provisions are approval criteria for its application. In particular, TCDC chapter 18.84 applies only to "sensitive lands areas" that "are designated as such." TCDC 18.84.010.B. Apart from the steep slopes in the northwestern portion of the site, for which no development is proposed, the site does not contain any designated sensitive lands areas. (Rec. 30.) 20 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF l approval criterion.9 Rather, her arguments are (1) that the ii f City's findings of compliance with these criteria are not based on substantial evidence because the geotechnical report that the City relied on (the Terra Associates Report„) did not address specific development plans and (2) that the City's findings of compliance are inadequate because they do not j explain alleged inconsistencies between the Terra Associates Report and the Soil Survey of Washington County. Oregon prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service ("SCS Survey").lo 1 } 9 If Petitioner intended her assignment of error to allege noncompliance with any of these asserted approval criteria, she has not sufficiently developed her allegation to 1 permit the other parties or LUBA to respond to the allegation. The assignment of error does not identify any particular criterion that is violated, explain how it is violated, or explain why any City finding to the contrary is not supported by substantial evidence. In these circumstances, no response is required. See, e.g., Weist v. Jackson County, 18 Or LUBA 627, 634 (1990); Deschutes Development v. Deschutes County, t 5 Or LUBA 218, 220 (1982). io Petitioner also complains in passing that the City ignored evidence that the site had a "high seasonal water table," "extreme erosion potential," and the "potential for slumping and earth slides." The Terra Associates Report relied upon by the City, however, addresses all of these issues'. (Rec. 215-22.) Furthermore, to the extent the water content or stability of the soil would pose development difficulties, the Terra Associates Report discusses feasible construction techniques and measures that can be used to overcome the difficulties. (Id.) The report concludes that the site is suitable for the development of the proposed apartment complex. (Rec. 218.) The City reasonably relied upon the report and reasonably rejected inferences to the contrary that Petitioner would have drawn from more general statements in the SCS Report and the background document to the TCP. See Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 359, 752 P2d 262 (1988). 21 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF } a. Substantial Evidence 3 Petitioner's first argument is based upon TCDC 18.80.130.B. and Bartels v. City of Portland, 20 Or LUBA 303 (1991) ("Bartels I"). TCDC 18.80.130.B. provides: "Where the site is subject to landslides or other potential hazard, a soils and engineering geologic study based on the proposed project shall be submitted which shows the area can be made suitable for the proposed development." (Emphasis added.) In Bartels I, LUBA remanded a decision approving a residential I development because LUBA concluded that the decision's findings of the geologic suitability of the site for residential development were not supported by substantial evidence. This conclusion was, in turn, based on the absence of any detailed geologic study that addressed the suitability of the site for residential development. Petitioner argues that, under TCDC 18.80.130.B. and Bartels I, the Terra Associates Report was not substantial evidence to support the City's findings of site { suitability because the report did not address specific development plans. There are several answers to Petitioner's argument. First, Petitioner did not raise this or any other argument concerning soil stability in her notice of appeal to the City Council. (Rec. 272-73.) Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the response to the preceding assignment of error, the City Council could not consider this argument in its review of the Planning Commission's decision, see TCDC 18.32.320.B.2, 22 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF l - 18.32.340.A.3., and LUBA may not consider the argument in its review, ORS 197.825(2)(a). Moreover, although Petitioner subsequently raised a number of site stability issues in her arguments before the City Council, she did not argue that the Terra Associates Report was inadequate because it was not based on specific development plans. For that reason as well, Petitioner may not raise the argument now. See ORS 197.763(1). Second, even if Petitioner's argument is properly before-LUBA, the Terra Associates Report and the City's reliance on it was fully consistent with TCDC 18.80.130.B. i This TCDC provision does not require an applicant for planned development review to prepare detailed development plans and i then perform a geologic study to determine whether the plans are suitable. The purpose of the geologic study required by TCDC 18.80.130-.B. is to determine whether a site "can be made suitable for the proposed development" (emphasis added). Once this initial determination of suitability is made, detailed development plans can then be developed using the information derived from the geologic study. Thus, all that TCDC 18.80.130.B. requires in the way of a development proposal is sufficient information regarding the nature of the proposal to allow a determination of the geologic suitability of the site for the development. The Terra Associates Report was prepared with the knowledge that the proposed development would be-a'bultifamily apartment complex with two- to three-story wood frame 23 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF buildings. (Rec. 216.) The report was also prepared with preliminary information concerning building and roadway locations. (Id.) This information was sufficient to permit the report to conclude, and the City to rely on the conclusion, that the site was suitable for the construction of the proposed apartment complex. (Rec. 19-20, 218.) Nothing in the report or its conclusions concerning the suitability of the site suggests that the conclusions would have been different had the report been made with more precise building plans or locations. (See Rec. 218-22.) Finally, the City's decision is consistent with f LUBA's decision in Bartels I and its subsequent decision in Bartels v. City of Portland, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 91-178, ' April 24, 1992) ("Bartels II"). The decision remanded in Bartels I concluded that residential development was feasible on a site with steep, unstable slopes. The flaw in the ` decision was that it relied, unreasonably, on geologic studies that did not address, in any substantial manner, the feasibility of the site for residential development.. In Bartels II, the local government reaffirmed its conclusion that the proposed development site was feasible for residential development. This time, however, the conclusion was based on a geologic report that expressly addressed the feasibility of the site for single-family residential development. As in this case, the geologic report in Bartels II was not based on specific building plans or locations, and 24 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF its level of detail was approximately the same, or even less than, the detail provided in this case. LUBA concluded that the report was substantial evidence upon which the local government could reasonably rely in reaching its conclusion of feasibility: "We emphasize again, as we did in 1 Bartels I, that the preliminary determination required by PCC 33.79.100(h) does not require the kind of certainty or supporting evidence that may ultimately be required for approval of final construction plans. As we recently explained in Southwood Homeowners Assoc. v. City of Philomath, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 91- 103, June 12, 1991), slip op 16: 11*** As long as the determination of feasibility is adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence, i.e. evidence a reasonable person would accept as adequate r to support the decision, the city may properly defer final engineering review to its staff." l Although TCDC 18.80.130.B. and TCP 3.1.1 use the term "suitable," rather than the term "feasibility," they impose a requirement that is essentially identical to that of PCC 33.79.100(h): that a determination be made that the "area can S be made suitable for the proposed development." Like the report at issue in Bartels II, the Terra Associates Report constituted substantial evidence upon which the City could reasonably rely in concluding that Triad's proposed site satisfied the geologic suitability requirements of the TCP and the TCDC. 25 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 b. Adequate Findings Petitioner also argues that the City's findings were F deficient because they did not adequately explain an alleged inconsistency between the Terra Associates Report and the SCS Survey. Specifically, the City found that the Terra Associates i Report reported soil types that were "consistent with the general soils description in the Comprehensive Plan," which in turn was based on the SCS Survey. (Rec. 20.) Because the SCS Survey describes some of these soils as imposing "severe" development limitations, Petitioner argues that there is an inconsistency between the Terra Associates Report's soil findings and its conclusions regarding site suitability. (P.R. 22.) As the City explained in its findings, the SCS Survey contains a very general description of soil types, together with a brief description of the suitability of these soils for development in general. (Rec. 20.) The City further explained that the Terra Associates Report, by contrast, included laboratory analyses of the specific properties of soil samples obtained from 28 test pits at the site, together with an analysis of the suitability of these soils for a specific type of development. (Id.) This analysis, in turn, led to specific recommendations concerning how development problems posed by these soils could feasibly be resolved to make the site suitable for development. Thus, as the City found, there is no inconsistency between the very general, cautionary statements 26 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 } in the SCS Survey and the specific findings, conclusions, and I recommendations of the Terra Associates Report. (Id.) 2. Wetlands Petitioner argues that the City's decision failed to i find that the proposed development would comply with the 1 provisions of TCDC 18.84.040.D. concerning wetlands. Again, there are several answers to this argument. First, Petitioner did not raise this issue in her notice of appeal to the City Council. (Rec. 272-73.) _ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Petitioner may i not raise this issue before LUBA. See TCDC 18.32.320.B.2, 18.32.340.A.3; ORS 197..825(2)(a). Second, even if Petitioner may raise this issue,- the City found that there were no wetlands on the site. (Rec. 26.) 1 Although a letter submitted to the City stated that there was a small area of standing water on the site and recommended that a the area be evaluated to determine whether it was a wetland, the letter did not assert that the area was in fact a wetland. (Rec. 192-93.) Moreover, the author of the letter did not purport to have any expertise in the identification of wetlands. (Id.) Furthermore, neither the site maps submitted by Triad nor City and federal wetlands inventories identified wetlands or potential wetlands on the site. (Rec. 344.) The City properly and reasonably found that there were no wetlands present. 27 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF Finally, as a precaution, and notwithstanding its I finding that the site did not contain any wetlands, the City i required Triad as a condition of approval to delineate wetland boundaries on the site, if any. (Rec. 26-27, 36.) - Furthermore, if wetlands were found, Triad was required to comply with the applicable provisions of TCDC chapter 18.84 concerning sensitive lands. (Id.) - Petitioner argues that this precautionary action by the City improperly deferred a determination of compliance with TCDC chapter 18.84, citing Eckis v. Linn County, 19 Or LUBA 15, 35 (1990), and Vizina v. Douglas County, 16 Or LUBA 936, 942 (1988). Petitioner's argument, however, ignores the City's finding that the site did not contain any wetlands. (Rec. 26.) In the absence of any wetlands on the site, the sensitive lands provisions of TCDC chapter 18.84 do not apply. Moreover, even if there were wetlands present on the site, the City could properly defer a final determination of compliance with TCDC chapter 18.84 by determining that the proposed development could comply with those provisions. See. e.g., Eckis v. Linn County, 19 Or LUBA 15, 35 (1990). The City made such a determination, concluding: "(I]f a wetland is present, the wetland likely could be filled with less than 50 cubic yards and under a nationwide permit from the Corps of Engineers. Accordingly, the wetland likely would not pose any constraints on the property. No evidence was presented that there are wildlife or 28 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF other resource values associated with this wet area." (Rec. 27.)11 The City's determination was supported by substantial evidence. (See Rec. 85, 88-89; Transcript Excerpts, Ex. D.) Petitioner further argues that the city found only that the proposed development could obtain state and federal wetlands permits; the City made no findings with respect to whether the.proposed development could obtain a sensitive lands permit under the approval criteria set forth in TCDC 18.84.040.D. The TCDC, however, expressly provides that wetlands that meet the jurisdictional.and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands are exempt from the sensitive lands permit requirements of chapter 18.84: "Landform alterations or developments within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, Unified Sewerage Agency, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies do not require a sensitive lands permit. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits 11 Petitioner asserts that these findings establish only that the City found that it "may" be possible to obtain state and federal wetlands permits to develop any wetland that is present. (P.R. 27.) As the quoted findings show, that assertion is not accurate. Although the city's findings use the term "likely," a finding that an event is "likely" is simply another way of saying that, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, an event will occur. The City's use of the term "likely" is not equivalent to a finding that a event merely "may" occur. There is no insufficiency in the City's findings. 29 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF for areas meeting non-wetland sensitive land criteria." TCDC 18.84.015.C. Therefore, no findings with respect to the approval criteria of TCDC 18.84.040.D. were required. C. Response to the Third Assignment-of Error Petitioner did not raise this issue in her notice-of-appeal to the City Council. Moreover, the adequacy of public school facilities is not an approval criterion. Petitioner argues that the City's decision failed to consider TCP policies regarding school facilities and that the City failed "to coordinate with the School District by at least finding out whether the proposed solutions (to school overcrowding) are feasible." (P.R. 29.) Petitioner did not raise these issues below, and the TCP policies identified by Petitioner are not, in any event, approval criteria for Triad's development. Petitioner's notice of appeal to the city council did not identify any issues with respect to schools as grounds for appeal. (Rec. 272-73.) Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the arguments made by Petitioner under this assignment of error were not properly before the City Council, see TCDC 18.32.320.B.2, 18.32.340.A.3, and may not be made on review by LUBA, ORS 197.825(2)(a). In any event, the TCP policies identified by Petitioner are not approval criteria for Triad's development. As discussed above in response to the first"assignment of error, not every policy or statement in the TCP is an approval 30 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF criterion simply because Triad's proposed development must be reviewed for compliance with the TCP. See, e.g., Stotter.v. City of Eugene, 18 Or LUBA 135, 148-49 (1989); Bennett v.. City of Dallas, 17 Or LUBA 450, 456-57 (1989). Moreover, a comprehensive plan criterion for one type of land use decision is not necessarily a criterion for another. See Bennett, supra, at 456-57. Petitioner identifies three TCP policies that she asserts are relevant to the City's decision. Implementation strategy 1 of TCP policy 7.8.1 provides: "The City shall monitor school capacity by requiring requests for development proposals and permits to be reviewed by applicable school district[s] for effects on school capacity as a pre-condition to development." Triad's application was reviewed by the Tigard School District, which replied with information concerning school capacity. (Rec. 12-13.) Implementation strategy 1 does not require more. Had this implementation strategy been intended to prohibit new residential developments where school capacity was inadequate, it could easily have been worded to say so. The evident purpose of the requirement is simply to ensure that the City receives current information from the school district for more general planning purposes. Moreover, the TCP describes implementation strategies as "recommendations" that "set forth the means for implementing the plan." TCP vol. II, at 2. They are not approval criteria for planned development and site development reviews. 31 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF Petitioner also points to locational criteria 2.B(3) and 3.B(2) under TCP policy 12.1.1. These criteria are the "capacity of the services" in the medium-density and medium- high density residential areas, respectively. The-criteria serve as "determinants of the density ranges allowed through zoning" in these areas. TCP vol. II, at 78. Thus, the locational criteria are intended to establish the permitted zoning densities in areas designated by the TCP for medium- and medium-high density residential development. The locational criteria are not approval criteria for planned development and site development review. Moreover, TCP policy 12.1.1 uses the term "services" to refer to police, fire, and health services; the term "facilities" is used to refer to sewer, water, drainage, and schools. TCP vol. II, at 78. The term - "services," then, does not include schools. D. Response to the Fourth Assignment of Error Triad submitted its application after the TCP transportation map amendments took effect. Those amendments were effective regardless whether they were "acknowledged." Petitioner's fourth assignment of error is largely predicated on a misapprehension of the facts. As set forth in the affidavit accompanying Triad's motion for an evidentiary hearing filed on July 13, 1992, Triad submitted its application to the City on September 13, 1991, not on August 27, 1991, as Petitioner alleges. Therefore, as a matter of fact, Triad's 32 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 application was submitted after the TCP transportation map amendments became effective on September 12, 1991. Moreover, there are at least four other flaws in Petitioner's argument, even if LUBA were to find that Triad's -application- was submitted before September 12, 1991. First, Petitioner did not raise this argument in her notice of appeal 4 to the City Council (Rec. 272-73), and therefore the argument _ was never properly before the Council, and is not now properly before LUBA. See TCDC 18.32.320.B.2, 18.32.340.A.3; ORS-197.825(2)(a). Second, the argument is also not properly before LUBA because Petitioner never raised the argument in the hearings before the City Council or in her written submissions to it. See ORS 197.763(1). Third, Petitioner has not identified in what respect her substantial rights were prejudiced by the City's application of the TCP transportation map amendments to a development application that was submitted before the effective .date of the amendments. In the absence of such an allegation, the City's action is a procedural error that cannot serve as the basis for a remand of its decision. See Sunburst II Homeowners Assn. v. City of West Linn, 101 Or App 458, 461, 790 P2d 1213 (1990) ; ORS 197.835 (7) (a) (B) . Finally, although the City may have relied on the TCP transportation map amendments in approving Triad's application, the amendments are not "standards and criteria" for the application. See ORS 227.178(3). Therefore, whether the 33 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF ' application was submitted before or after the amendments became 4 effective is irrelevant. Petitioner also argues that, because the TCP transportation map amendments are not yet "acknowledged" 1 pursuant to ORS 197.625, the City either had to apply statewide 1 planning Goal 12 to its decision or apply the TCP transportation map that was in effect before the amendments. Again, this argument is not properly before LUBA because Petitioner did not raise the issue in her notice of appeal to the City Council or in the hearing before the City Council. Even were the argument properly before LUBA, Petitioner has not identified in what respect Triad's development violates i statewide planning Goal 12 or why Goal 12 should apply simply t because amendments to an acknowledged comprehensive plan have not yet themselves been acknowledged. In addition, Petitioner confuses acknowledgement r pursuant to ORS 197.625 with effectiveness. Nothing in ORS chapter 197 precludes a local government from applying or relying on an amendment to its comprehensive plan until the. amendment is acknowledged. So long as the amendment is within. the charter authority of the City and does not conflict with any state or federal law, the amendment is effective, regardless whether it has been acknowledged.12 12 Triad does not understand-Petitioner to argue that the City was precluded by TCDC 18.32.280 from accepting Triad's application, except insofar as Triad submitted the application (continued...) 34 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF E. Response to the Fifth Assignment of Error This assignment of error was not raised below and is not sufficiently developed to permit a response The City made findings of compliance with all applicable approval criteria and its findings were supported by substantial evidence-in the record. J Petitioner does not identify with any J specificity what findings she alleges the City failed to make, how the City misconstrued any applicable law, how the City's findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or how the City prejudiced the substantial rights of Petitioner. Petitioner's-fifth assignment of error is a vague miscellany of alleged errors that is simply too undeveloped to permit a response. Petitioner alleges that the City misconstrued the law, failed to adopt findings, adopted findings that were unsupported-by substantial evidence, and prejudiced the substantial rights of_Petitioner--all in less than two pages. Petitioner, however, does not specify what laws were misconstrued, how they were misconstrued, what findings were not adopted, what findings were not supported by j substantial evidence, or how Petitioner's substantial rights i were prejudiced. No response is required to such "arguments." See, e.g., Weist v. Jackson County, 18 Or LUBA 627, 634 (1990); 12( continued) before the TCP transportation map amendments became effective. Regardless whether the TCP transportation map amendments were effective when the application was submitted, however, the city's adoption of the amendments on August 13, 1991, was in itself a "substantial change in City policy" that-warranted the City's acceptance of the application pursuant to TCDC 18.32.280. 35 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 Deschutes Development v. Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA 218, 220 i (1982). Nonetheless, Triad will attempt to respond as well as it can to this assignment. Petitioner begins by arguing that the City approved a planned development "concept plan," not, as the title of the decision states, a "detailed development plan." Petitioner alleges that this error "has had serious consequences," but she does not say what these serious consequences are. Petitioner appears to argue that the'City somehow thought that it was approving a "detailed development plan," and therefore it did not make findings concerning Triad's compliance with the ti "concept plan" approval criteria found in TCDC 18.80.120. That, at least, is where Petitioner's argument seems to end. 13 It is true that the City's express findings with respect to TCDC chapter 18.80 are brief. (Rec. 27.) The brevity, however, is explained by the fact that the approval criteria listed TCDC 18.80.120 are (1) simple references to other provisions of the TCDC, whose criteria are addressed elsewhere in the findings (see, e.g,, Rec. 30-33); (2) inapplicable to Triad's development, see, e.g., TCDC i 18.80.120.A.3.1 (floodplain dedication requirements); or (3) duplicate the site development review approval criteria of 13 Petitioner also notes in passing, "With the possible exception of the geotechnical report, none of the analyses required by Chapter 18.80 are in the record." Petitioner does------ not identify what "analyses" are missing or even what provision of chapter 18.80 requires "analyses." 36 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF l TCDC 18.120.180, which are also addressed elsewhere in the findings (see, e.g., Rec. 32). Petitioner acknowledges these overlapping provisions, but she makes the bare assertion that the overlap "is not complete by any means." (P.R. 34.) She makes no attempt, however, to identify any of the approval criteria that she alleges the City failed to address in its findings. That is not sufficient for an assignment of error. In the absence of greater specificity, or any specificity, of what findings are missing, Triad cannot respond, and is not required to respond, to Petitioner's assignment of error. See Weist v. Jackson County, supra, 18 Or LUBA at 634; Deschutes Development v. Deschutes County, supra, 5 Or LUBA at 220. F. Response to the Sixth Assignment of Error The City followed all required procedures in reaching its decision, and, in any event, Petitioner's substantial rights were not prejudiced by any alleged procedural error. 1. Continuance At the close of the April 14, 1992, hearing before the City Council, Petitioner's attorney requested a continuance to respond to evidence regarding a wetland asserted to be on the site of the proposed development. (Rec. 90.) The City Council denied the request. Petitioner argues that she was entitled to a continuance under ORS 197.763(4)(b) and that the Council erred by denying her request. (P.R.-36.) 37 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF Petitioner was not entitled to a continuance. r Moreover, even if Petitioner had been entitled to a continuance, Petitioner has not identified any respect in which she was prejudiced by the City's refusal to continue the - - 14 hearing. The background for Petitioner's request for a continuance is as follows: At the March 10, 1992, hearing on Triad's application, Petitioner requested, and the City granted, a continuance to allow Petitioner to respond to new information, including a wildlife report submitted by Triad. (Rec. 198-209, 258-59.) At the request of the City, the wildlife report was reviewed by a wildlife biologist from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Rec. 194.) In his letter to the City, the wildlife biologist noted that there was - -a small wet area on the site, and he recommended that the area be evaluated to determine whether it was a wetland. (Rec. 192-93.) Petitioner also submitted a letter at the continued hearing on April 14, 1992, from another wildlife biologist that referred in passing to a."wetland" on the site. (Rec. 188.) j Finally, in written and oral arguments submitted at the j April 14 hearing, Petitioner's attorney contended that the site 14 As discussed above in response to the second assignment of error, Petitioner did not raise any issue concerning wetlands in her notice of appeal to the City Council. Accordingly, the issue was not properly before the Council in any event. See TCDC 18.32.320.8.2, 18.32.340.A.3. 38 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i might contain wetlands. (Rec. 86, 106.) No issue concerning wetlands had previously been raised. In response to Petitioner's contentions concerning the possible existence of a wetland, Triad's attorney argued on rebuttal that no wetlands inventory showed a wetland on the t site and that; even if the area identified were a wetland, it was sufficiently small that it either would qualify for federal and state wetlands permits, or not be subject to a permit requirement. (Rec. 85.) In addition, a member of the City j planning staff stated that he had observed the area and did not believe that it qualified as a wetland. (Rec. 88-89.) Moreover, he stated that, if the area were a wetland, it was small enough to be filled with less than 50 cubic yards of fill. (Rec. 89.) Petitioner argues that the statements by the planning staff member entitled her to a second continuance of the hearing under ORS 197.763(4)(b), which provides, "If additional documents or evidence is provided in support of the application, any party shall be entitled to a continuance of j the hearing." Stated more generally, Petitioner's argument is I that if any evidence that tends to support an application is submitted at a hearing, opponents of the application are entitled to a continuance of the hearing in order to respond to the evidence. Thus, if Petitioner is correct, the only way in which an applicant can prevent a determined opponent from delaying approval of an application through repeated requests j 39 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i for continuances is to avoid presenting any evidence and to ensure that City staff members and participants in the hearing do not-submit any evidence favorable to the application. LUBA does not appear to have previously ruled on an issue of precisely the kind presented by Petitioner, but in I - Reed v. Clatsop County, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 91-088, Jan. 21, 1992), LUBA commented: "[W]e recognize intervenor's arguments that it is possible under a broad and literal reading of ORS 197.763(4)(b) to require that an applicant remain silent at the initial-hearing and any.continued hearings or risk introducing new evidence and causing a never ending succession of continuances. However, to the extent an applicant limits its presentation to presenting or discussing the evidence previously supplied pursuant to ORS 197.763(4)(a), and rebutting evidence presented by opponents, we question whether a right to.a continuance would arise under ORS 197.763(4)(b)." (Emphasis added.) In this instance, even if the City staff member's statements were "provided in support of the application," the statements were in response to evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner concerning the existence of a wetland on the site. The purpose of ORS 197.763(4)(b) is to ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to respond to evidence presented in support of an application; the purpose is not to ensure that opponents of the application receive a final hearing at which only they are entitled to present evidence. Cf. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Lane County, 102 Or App 68, 74, 793 P2d 885 (1990) (the purpose of ORS 197.763(4) is to enable 40 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i "the applicant, as well as the other parties, to participate in the process fully and effectively"). Petitioner had an adequate opportunity to respond to all of the evidence } submitted by Triad in support of its application and to respond to all of the evidence submitted by City planning staff members that tended to support the application. That is all that i ORS 197.763(4)(b) requires. Triad submitted with its application, in accordance with TCDC 18.120.090, site development plans that did not show the existence of any wetlands on the site. (Rec. 344.) Pursuant to TCDC 18.120.110.A.6.b, these plans must show the location of any wetlands that are present. Thus, even before the Planning Commission hearing, Petitioner was presented with F evidence from Triad that, in effect, asserted that there were no wetlands on the site. In her arguments to the City Council, tPf L Petitioner relied on the written statements by the two wildlife biologists, one of which was submitted by her, to argue that } there might be a wetland on the site. Only in response to this t evidence did the City staff member make his statements 1 concerning the wetlands. Petitioner does not identify any respect in which her ability "to participate in the process fully and effectively" was impaired by the staff testimony for which she demands a # continuance. The testimony presented by the staff member consisted only of his personal observations concerning the { existence and size of the asserted wetland. This was precisely } 41 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 4 the type of evidence presented in the letters from the wildlife i biologists, which had already been submitted and relied upon by Petitioner. Any evidence that Petitioner would present in response to the personal observations of the staff member would be evidence similar to that presented by-the wildlife biologists, which she could have, and did, present before the I i staff member testified. This is not an instance in which an applicant has submitted its prima facie case at the last evidentiary hearing, thereby precluding opponents from effectively opposing the application. Triad's prima facie case was presented long before the April 14, 1992, hearing, and Petitioner had ample time and opportunity to rebut it. ORS 197.763(4)(b) did not i require the City to grant her yet another continuance simply because a staff member responded to evidence that Petitioner herself had submitted and relied on. 2. Limitation of Issues Before the City Council As discussed in the responses to the assignments of 1 error above, Petitioner failed to raise a number of issues in her notice of appeal to the City Council. (Rec. 272-73.) TCDC 18.32.320.B.2 limits the Council's review of a Planning Commission decision to the grounds relied upon in the notice of appeal. By not raising these issues before the City Council, t i Petitioner failed to exhaust all remedies available to her by right from the City. Accordingly, Petitioner may not raise any 42 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 1 issues on review by LUBA that she failed to raise in her notice of appeal to the City Council. ORS 197.825(2)(a). Petitioner first argues that she should be able to raise "the developments hazards issue" because, although it was i not raised in her notice of appeal, it was raised in her "petition for review." As authority for this, she points to } TCDC 18.32.340, which refers to a "notice of appeal or petition for review." A "notice of appeal" and a "petition for review," however, are not two separate documents. Only one appeal document is required by the TCDC in order to perfect an appeal from a decision by the Planning Commission to the City Council. 3 Curiously, the TCDC refers to that document by yet a third i S s term, "notice of review." See TCDC 18.32.310.B.1. Whatever the document is called--"notice of appeal," "petition for review," or "notice of review"--the document must be filed by the date required by TCDC 18.32.310.B.1, and it must contain the "specific grounds for the appeal or review," TCDC 18.32.340.A.3. Furthermore, TCDC 18.32.320.B.2 expressly limits the Council's review "to the grounds relied upon in the notice of review." Petitioner does not contend that her "Petition for Review" at pages 280 to 290 of the record, unlike her notice of appeal at pages 272-73, was submitted prior to the appeal deadline of October 24, 1991. So far as the record shows, her 43 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF "Petition for Review" was not submitted until December 10, I 1991. (Rec. 280.) Petitioner next argues that she was entitled to raise. } the "wetlands issue" because evidence concerning the wetland j was introduced by the City15, and because TCDC 18.32.320.B.1 allows the Council to admit additional evidence. Petitioner's argument, however, confuses evidence with issues. Under TCDC 18.32.320.B.1, the City Council's review of a Planning commission decision is confined to the record before the Planning Commission "unless the Council determines the admission of additional evidence is appropriate." TCDC 1 { 18.32.320.B.2, however, absolutely and expressly bars the council from considering grounds for appeal not asserted in the notice of appeal: "The review of a decision by the Commission by the Council shall be [l]imited to the grounds relied 1 upon in the notice of review The Council's acceptance of evidence concerning the existence of a wetland did not permit it to consider that issue, and the Council in fact concluded in is The assertion that the City requested and introduced evidence concerning the wetland is not entirely accurate. The City asked a wildlife biologist to review the wildlife report submitted by Triad, which contained no mention of any wetland. (Rec. 194.) The wildlife biologist responded to the City by reviewing and presenting evidence concerning wildlife on the site. In his response, he also noted the possible existence of a wetland on the site. (Rec. 192-93.) The City placed his response in the record, but it is misleading-to--assert that the City requested and introduced evidence concerning wetlands on the site. 44 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i + its final order that it could not consider the issue. 16 ! (Rec. 26.) } Petitioner further argues that the City's requirement f that issues on review be specified in the notice of appeal to the Council is preempted by ORS 197.763(1). This argument turns ORS 197.763(1) upside down. Before the enactment of a t ORS 197.763, petitioners could raise issues at LUBA without ever having raised the issues before the local government and giving the local government and other parties an opportunity to respond to the issue. By enacting ORS 197.763(1), the Legislative Assembly provided that no issue could be raised at 1 LUBA unless it had been raised before the close of the record at the last evidentiary hearing before the local government. S t Thus, ORS 197.763(1) establishes a prerequisite for raising an issue at LUBA. It does not affirmatively provide that any issue raised before the close of the record may be raised at LUBA; it provides only that any issue that is raised at LUBA must at least have been raised before the close of the record at the local government. ORS 197.763(1) does not preempt the City's notice of appeal requirement. Moreover, ORS 197.825(2)(a) requires petitioners at LUBA to exhaust all remedies available by right from the local government before petitioning LUBA for review. In this t 16 Because the Council did not and could not consider wetlands issues, except in the alternative, ORS 197.763(7) does not apply. 45 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 1 instance, the local government has provided for City Council review of Planning commission decisions but has imposed the reasonable requirement that persons seeking review specify the grounds on which review is sought. The requirement helps to frame the issues before the City Council, helps other parties to prepare for hearings on review, and prevents issues from i j being raised at the last minute, which would prejudice the ability of other parties to respond to the issues. The TCDC does not in any manner, however, limit the grounds on which review may be sought, and, in particular, does not limit the grounds to those that were raised before the Planning Commission. By failing to raise issues in her notice of appeal to the Council, Petitioner has failed to exhaust the remedies available to her from the local government with respect to those issues. Therefore, Petitioner may not raise those issues before LUBA. ORS 197.825(2)(a). Finally, Petitioner argues that she was not given notice that the issues before the City Council would be limited to those identified in her notice of appeal. The appeal form itself, however, warns that the TCDC "sets out specific requirements for filing appeals" and directs potential appellants to contact the Planning Division for questions regarding the appeal process. (Rec. 272.) But, in any event, no such notice was required. Petitioner points to ORS 197.763(5), but that provision requires only notice of the "applicable substantive criteria" on which an application will 46 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF be approved or denied. ORS 197.76.3(5)(a) (emphasis added.) r TCDC 18.32.320.B.2 is not a substantive criterion. 3. Compliance-with ORS 197.763 i i Petitioner argues that she may raise new issues in E this proceeding because she asserts that the City failed to comply with various provisions of ORS 197.763. j First, Petitioner asserts that the City did not make the statement required by ORS 197.763 at the commencement of the Planning Commission hearing on October 7, 1991, and at the commencement of the City Council hearings on December 10, 1991, February 25, 1992, and March 10, 1992. The record does not reflect whether or not the statement was made before these hearings, but the record does show that the statement was given before the commencement of the April 14, 1992, hearing. (Rec. 75.) Contrary to Petitioner's assumption, ORS 197.763(5) does not require the statement to be made at the beginning of every hearing held by the local government. The purpose of the statement is to ensure that persons who may seek review by LUBA are made aware that their failure to raise an issue before the local government will preclude them from raising the issue before LUBA. This purpose is served if the required statement is made at the beginning of any evidentiary hearing prior to the close of the record. A statement made at this time provides a sufficient opportunity•for potential petitioners to raise any issues that they may have. There is no need, and 47 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF i ORS 197.763(5) does not require, the statement to be read at every evidentiary hearing.l' Second, Petitioner asserts that the City did not i provide the written notice required by ORS 197.763(3) before the April 14, 1992, hearing. The April 14, 1992, hearing, however, was a continued hearing. The notice required by ORS 197.763(3) is not required for continued hearings. See also ApalateQui v. Washington County, 80 Or App 508, 514, 723 P2d 1021 (1986). Where two or more evidentiary hearings are allowed, as in this instance, the notice need only be provided 1110 days before the first evidentiary hearing." ORS 197.763 (3) (f) (B) . Third, Petitioner asserts that a proposed condition ` submitted by the planning staff on the day of the April 14, 1992, hearing (Rec. 103) was a "staff report" that was not provided seven days in advance of the hearing, as required by ORS 197.763(4). The additional condition is not by any stretch of the imagination a "staff report" or even a part of .a "staff t report." Moreover, ORS 197.763(4) does not prohibit a local i 17 In a case in which the local government conducts only one evidentiary hearing, the required notice will necessarily be provided only at the beginning of the last evidentiary hearing. 48 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF t government from supplementing a staff report or require local planning staffs to remain silent at hearings.18 Finally, Petitioner argues that the City failed "to i _ properly identify what was being applied for," contrary to ORS 197.763(3). (P.R. 39.) The City's written notice identified the application as an application for "site Y development review" and "planned development review." (Rec. 435.) Those were the reviews for which Triad applied, and those were the reviews that the City undertook. Petitioner's argument on this point is not sufficiently developed to permit a response because she does not identify in what respect the City's notice was defective. See Weist v. Jackson County, 18 Or LUBA 627, 634 (1990). i i 18 A supplemental staff report or testimony by staff members may be grounds for a continuance pursuant to ORS 197.763(4)(b). A continuance was not warranted in this instance, however, for the reasons set forth above in response - - to Petitioner's continuance argument under this assignment of error. 49 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF t V. CONCLUSION { For the reasons set forth above, Triad respectfully fi requests that LUBA deny Petitioner's assignments of error and x -affirm the City's decision. _ DATED: July 20, 1992. Ste en L. Pfeiffer, OSB No. 81453 Michael R. Campbell, OSB No. 87001 STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES & GREY Attorneys for Intervenors-Respondents a F i 1 i t 50 - INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS' BRIEF 1 ===cRE T=.:., USE =O=;D O- r.-PPE' Ls C(OPY 2 O~ T'---:' STATE O- ORZGON 3 4 . AGE D ~VEN?O cT, ) 6 '-etiticne=, ) 7 ) 8 VS ) 9 ) LU3A No. 92-104 10 CITY OF iIG t-RD, > 11 > ORDER ON MOTION 12 : espondenz, ) =0R E-VIDENTI RY .EARING 13 ) 14 and ) 15 ) 17 and FOSS ,:ODDS, ) 13 ) 19 Intervenors-Tcesc_•ondent . ) 20 21 Petitioner alleges t'e application for permit approval that 22 initiated the local proceedings in this matter was submitted to 23 =e5:,-o'dent on 27, c' I -Petitioner contends that if t^e 24 application challenged in this proceeding was submitted on 25 t 27, 1:10 1, c =^':?1 standards in effect on that date 26 apply. ORS 227. 173 (3) r-0;= l T.icr ) - c?'- a v Doti~aIas 27 Col,nt-v, 96 Or App 202, 212, 772 P2d 944 (1989) (construing the 28 parallel permit provisions at ORS 215.402 to 215.438 applicable 29 to counties). In her fourth assignment of error, petitioner 30 alleges the c_% t.+ errc :eG'__1y appl-ed a',ended c_ty co-;prehens;ve 31 plan provisions which did not become effective until ?The challenged decision is a "permit" as that term is defined 'in ORS 227.160(2), and the provisions set out- at ORS 227.160-to 227.185 governing the procedures.and standards applicable to review of applications _.__for permit. approval apply.. Page 1 1 September 12, 110011. 2 lnterveno-rs move for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 3 OAS 197.830 (13) (b) a-:d O;t~R X51-10-043.2 Intervenors request the evidentiary Neal"?.^.Q to es=ablis 1 that the appiicat=Oil for lard 5 use approval in t`?is matter was -f rSt submitted on September 13, 5 1991, not =u9u'st 27, 1S! :1. In Support of t.° eir motion, 7 intervenors attach an ai=__'av1t SiQn'ed by a city planner and a 3 Copy of the Co-.pl=zed application form.3 9 The parties' disp-~t_ concerning the date the application O was s l+ti+t 111. 1.CQ :JrC Cen 1. S G :ilk }.ed C-e St, O:7 o- _GCL, and law. ll . "o-..;ever, the -actual aspec`s of the Ci:estion are nct in dispute; 12 and, therefore, we deny the Notion for evidentiary hearing. 13 Petitioner concedes t:^.e Ticard Commiunity Development Code 14 (:'CDC) 18.32.050(x.) reCU'_rcS that an a-nolication -gust "be made 15 on forms provided by the Director * * TCDC 18.32.050(B) (3) 20RS 197.830(1:)(h) provides, in part, as follows: "In the case of disputed allegations of * * * procedural irregularities not shown in the record which, if proved, would warrant reversal or rern.and, the board may take evidence and rake findings of fact on those allegations. * * n_~ <cl-lO-C' .S (i) ~a e C=S X97. ~~0 (1~) and ,R GG1-101-045 (L) cS as fella-.;s. * * A motion for evidentiary hearing shall contain a statement explaining with particularity what facts the moving party will present at the hearing and how those facts will affect the outcome of the review proceeding. Whenever possible such facts shall be presented by affidavit with the motion." 3The affidavit explains that the application form was submitted on September 13, 1991. The affidavit also states that the August 27, 1991 letter cited by petitioner "was not accompanied by, and did not purport to be accompanied by, an application for land use approval from the City." Page 2 1 requires that an application "(b]e accompanied by the required 2 fee(.]" Petitioner does not dispute that the application 3 attached to intervenors' motion for evidentiary hearing was 4 submitted on September 13, 1991, or that the required fee was 5 received by the city on September 19, 1991, and that the 6 application was deemed complete on this latter date. However, 7 petitioner contends the key date for purposes of determining the 8 applicable standards under ORS 227.178(3) is the date the 9 application was first submitted, not the date' the required 10 application 'form was actually submitted or the date the 11 application was deemed complete. 12 Relying on our decisions in Kir a Light Satsznq v. Douglas 13 County, 18 Or LUBA 651, 659-60 (1990), and McCaw Communications, 14 Inc. v. Polk County, 20 Or LUBA 456, 464-66 (1991), petitioner 15 alleges the letter appearing at Record 319-20 makes it clear the 16 subject application was submitted either-on August 27, 1991, or 17 on some earlier date.4 In both Kirval and McCaw we determined 18 an application had been submitted, even though no official 19 application form was filed with the local government. However, 20 in neither case was it clear that the application for permit 21 approval was required to be made on forms provided by the local 22 government. Additionally, in neither of those cases was an 4Petitioner also cites a second letter dated September 5, 1991 from the president of a neighborhood association. Record 317-18. Petitioner points out- that letter, which refers to the proposal, was submitted several days before the date intervenors contend the application was first submitted. Page 3 1 application form actually filed. 2 It appears from the parties' arguments that a determination 3 concerning when intervenors' application was submitted to the 4 city could affect the outcome of this appeal.5 However, the 5 facts relevant to deciding this question do not appear to be in 6 dispute.6 What the parties dispute is the legal conclusion to 7 be be drawn from these facts. Simply stated, either the letters 8 cited by petitioner demonstrate that the application was 9 submitted on or before August 27, 1991 (as petitioner contends), 10 or the application was not submitted until the required form was 11 submitted on September 13, 1991 (as intervenors contend). An 12 evidentiary hearing would not aid us in making that 13 determination. 14 Finally, intervenors offer other reasons for rejecting the 15 fourth assignment of error and allege petitioner waived her 16 right to argue the application was filed on August 27, 1991, 17 because she failed to raise the argument below. We will resolve 18 these arguments in our final opinion and order. 5In ' order to allow a motion for evidentiary hearing under ORS 197.830(13) (b) and OAR 661-10-045(2) we must determine that the facts to be established would warrant reversal or remand of the challenged decision. 6As we explained earlier, petitioner does not dispute that the application form required by TCDC 18.32.050(B) (3) was not submitted until September 13, 1991; that the required fee was submitted on September 19, 1991 or that the facts alleged in the affidavit attached to intervenors' motion for evidentiary hearing are true. While intervenors also allege that they would present other evidence concerning the date the application was first submitted, they do not describe what that evidence might be. 5_= OAR 661-10-045(2), quoted S1lpr3 at n 2. Page 4 1 The motion for evidentiary hearing is denied. 2 Respondent shall have 21 days from the date of this order 3 to file its brief. 4 Dated this 22nd day of October, 1992. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Michael A. Holstun 11 Referee 12 Page 5 1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 2 3 4 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Order on 5 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing for LUBA No. 92-104, on 6 October 22, 1992, by mailing to said parties or their attorney a 7 true copy thereof contained in a sealed envelope with postage 8 prepaid addressed to said parties or their attorney as follows: 9 10 Richard M. Whitman 11 Ball, Janik & Novack 12 One Main Place 113 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 14 Portland, OR 97204 15 16 Timothy V. Ramis 17 Michael C. Robinson 18 O'Donnell, Ramis, et al 19 1727 NW Hoyt Street 20 Portland, OR 97209 21 22 Steven L. Pfeiffer 23 Stoel, Rives, et al 24 900 SW Fifth, Suite 2300 25 Portland, OR 97204 26 27 28 Dated this 22nd day of October, 1992. 29 30 31 32 33 34 ld~rn Zwemk 35 ffice M ger 36 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CIACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE BALIAW & WRIGHT BUILDING MARK L. BUSCH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW (503) 266-1149 CHARLES M. GREEFF TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (503) 243-2944 NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. O'DONNELL PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETH M. ELLIOTT TIMOTHY v. RAMIS Special Counsel SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* MICHAEL C. ROBINSON** WILLIAM J. STALNAKER - - June 1, 1992 WSO ADMnTW To MAcncx M STAn OP WASHINGTON "ALSO ADMn7w To PRAMCE IN WISOONSIN Angie /Useard Administrative Specialist Land of Appeals 100 Het, SE, Suite 220 Salem310 RE: Davenport v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 92-104 Response to Petitioner's Objection of the Record & Supplemental Record Dear Ms. Crosby: Please find enclosed an original and a certified true copy of the Response to Petitioner's Objection to the Record, a certified true copy of the Supplemental Record and Certificates of Filing and Service. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN Michael C. Robinson MCR/sb cc: Ed Murphy (w/enclosures) Pat Reilly (w/enclosures) c:\wp50\robinson\tigar" uba.lt2 V JUN 4 3 1992 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE COPY OF 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON THE ORI INAL A OF THE WHOLE THEREOF 3 MARGE DAVENPORT, ) - ) - - OF ATTORNEYS FOR 4 Peti.tioner,_.:____. ) LUBA No. 92-104 5 v. ) RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S OBJECTION 6 CITY-OF TIGARD, - ) TO THE RECORD 7 Respondent, ) 8 and - ) - 9 TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ) and ROSS WOODS-,-_ - - - 10 _ x- Intervenors-Respondents. 12 13 Petitioner claims that she attempted to comply with the 14 requirement in OAR 661-10-026_(1) that_ before filing an objection 15 to the record, a party shall attempt to resolve the objection with 16 the governing body's legal counsel. Respondent's attorney Tim 17 Ramis has no record of Petitioner leaving a message for him to call 18 her regarding a record objection. -Moreover, Respondent's attorney 19 Michael C. Robinson specifically requested that Petitioner contact 20 him regarding this appeal. Petitioner did not attempt to contact 21 Mr. Robinson. - 22 2. 23 Petitioner's first objection to the record is that it lacks 24 an "overhead" used in the public hearing before the City Council. 25 Petitioner does not indicate at which public hearing the overhead 26 was used. The record contains a copy of an overhead used at the ODONNEI L RAMIS. CREW b COR CAN Auomrys ac Law Page 1 - RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S 17V N.W. Hoy[ Sweet OBJECTION TO THE RECORD pad o«3 9 Telephone: (503) ) 2224 402 PAX (503) 2432944 I March 10, 1992 City Council Meeting. Record-at 268.. -Respondent 2 believes this is the overhead to which Petitioner refers. 3 Respondent is submitting as a supplemental record the original of 4 this overhead map used at the March 10, 1992 City Council Hearing. 5 3. 6 Petitioner's third objection is that the record lacks-a copy - 7 of a letter written on behalf of Intervenors -Respondents"concernirig 8 coordination with state agencies. Respondent -believes- that 9 Petitioner is referring to a February 25, 1992 Memorandum from Dawn 10 Pavitt submitted to the City. This memorandum is part 'of the 11 record in LUBA No. 92-078. Record at 77. No such coordination 12 letter was submitted in LUBA No. 92-104. However, Respondent 13 agrees to include the February 25, 1992 memorandum in the record 14 for, LUBA No. 92-104. 15 4. 16 Petitioner requests that Respondent provide a verbatim 17 transcript of the audio tape recordings of the City Council Triad 18 Hearing on April 28, 1992. A verbatim transcript of the meeting 19 -is not required. OAR 661-10-025(1)(c). The Respondent will not 20 prepare a verbatim transcript of this hearing. 21 In light of the fact that Petitioner's record objections are 22 questionable at best, because a copy of the overhead map is already 23 included in the record and a "coordination memo" is not a part of 24 25 26 O'DONNELL RAMIE. CREW b CO;WGAN Attorneys at Law Page 2 - RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S IT7 N.W. Hoyt Street OBJECTION TO THE RECORD portlarA Oregon 97209 Telephone: (503) ''.12-4402 FAX (503) 2412944 I this record, Respondent request that the time for the filing of the 2 Petition for Review not be suspended. 3 DATED this 1st day of June, 1992. 4 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 5 6 By: Michael C. Robinson, OSB #91090 7 Of Attorneys"fore Respondent City of Tigard 8 c.\wpSO\robinson\davenport.ror _ 9 10 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 O'DONNEU, RAMTS, CREW & CORRTGAN Attorneys at Lam Page 3 - RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S 1712 N.W. Hoyt street Orcgon OBJECTION TO THE RECORD Portland, Telephone: (503) (503) ''..12.4402 44 FAX- (503) 143-2944 I CERTIFY THAT AND OF THE WHOLE THEREOF THE ORIGINAL - - 1111111111111' 11111116,..Jjjj, OF ATTORNEYS FOR /t ~frw BEFORE THE LAND USE-BOARD--OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF- OREGON - MARGE DAVENPORT, ) - - Petitioner, LUBA No.-92-104 V. ) SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD CITY OF TIGARD, ) CITY OF TIGARD RESOLUTION-No. 92-19 Respondent, ) and - - - ) TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP- ) and ROSS WOODS, Intervenors-Respondents. ) TABLE OF CONTENTS SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD Exhibit No.-- 1. Overhead (copy of overhead is found in the record as exhibit No. 14 at p. 268) 2'. 2/25/92 Memorandum v CU Ql d 1•- m cy) CIO W " Q , The CIt~ of T I G A R D uukooCK SDI 91-0013 S t a A r 3 04 1 • i~I Y ;NX L , ?p t / ~ C l 1 Iloilo) #110 i 1 1R~ /RO !l/~i);lrlell Ih 0 F; too !I ff 11#10 F! #all 1. t I! ) 0 "101 !OM N ~ f STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES & GREY M E M O R A N D U M February 25, 1992 TO: File FROM: Dawn Pavitt = = _ - - RE: Triad Tigard Development, Inc. On February 24, 1992 I discussed the proposed City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Amendment and resulting roadway change with Mr. Dan Reardon of Metro's Transportation-Planning. - staff. Mr. Reardon informed me that Metro'would -not-comment on-_. a roadway that would access 99W, since 99W is a state highway. He said that ODOT has jurisdiction in those cases...;..-._ On February 25, 1992 I discussed the proposed--amendment- and roadway with Mr. Blair Crumpacker, a Washington County transportation planner. Mr. Crumpacker told me that since the project is south-east of 99W and within the Tigard city limits, that Washington County would not comment. He said-that - Washington County would only comment on projects within Tigard that were north-west of 99W and within the urban planning agreement between Tigard and Washington County. I also spoke with Mr. Harold Lasley of ODOT on February 25, 1992 about the proposed amendment and roadway project. Mr. Lasley said that Tigard would need to follow the Access Management Policy and the Traffic Operation Analysis (En terms of warrants for lane configuration and traffic control). He - also said that Tigard would need to design the intersection to ODOT standards, obtain a permit from ODOT for the work at 9954, and develop an agreement with ODOT for the maintenance and operational costs of any signal which might be necessary. Submitted on February 25, 1992 by Dawn Pavitt on behalf of Triad. d1p0002 17516/1 Luba No. 92-078 EXHIBIT 2-- Exhibit No. 11 Page _!of Page No. 77 -1 - Pages 1 CERTIFICATE OF FILING - 2 I hereby certify that on June 1, 1992, I filed an original and a true and correct copy of this Response to Petitioner's 3 -Objection of -the Record and a true and correct copy of the -___-Supplemental Record with the Land Use Board of Appeals, Suite 220, 4 100 High Street,. S.E., Salem, Oregon, 97310, by first class mail. 5 DATED this ist day of-June, 1992. 6 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN Y: mjwd (f, Ag~~_ _8 Michael C. Robinson, OSB #91090 Of Attorneys for Respondent 9 City of Tigard 10 11 - _ - - _ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12 - I hereby certify that on June 1, 1992, I served an original 13 and a. true and correct copy of the Response to Petitioner's Objection to the Record and a true and correct copy of the 14 Supplemental Record_by first class mail on the following persons: 15 .-Marge Davenport- 15100 SW 109th 16 Tigard, OR 97224 17 Steve Pfeiffer Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Grey 18 - -900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 19 DATED this 1st day of June, 1992. 20 -O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 21 - 22 By: Michael C. Robinson, OSB #91090 23 Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Tigard 24 25 c:\wp50Vtobinson\tigardWavenport.cf2-sb 26 ODONNELL RAMIS, CRE® & COPRIGAN Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE- Au=cratLav (RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S OBJECTION ITnN.w.Hoycs~ TO THE RECORD & SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD T lcpbw 22ZA402 DAVENPORT V. CITY OF TIGARD FAAX- (503) 243-2%4 i• AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, _ M • ~6 A^ V'\ •~4,u~.S hereby certify: (Please Print) That I am av% G for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council LNBA U, Rz)- 10i of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the day of 19lizL , by mailing to each of them at.the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the QI1efi day of YY\ 1914-1. , postage prepaid. W\ . 6.2 Prepa d Notice Subscribed and sworn to before me this-'~6 day of , 19 Not y Public of Oregon My ommission Expires: 'S -y3 GC/` Mai Notice/Delivered to Post Office Subscribed and sworn to before me this e2 day of Notar ublic of Oregon My C ission Expires: S h:\togin\cathy\afofmail Land Use Board of Appeals 100 High Street, SE Suite 220 ' Salem, OR 97310 J i +i r Steve pgeiffec SW 5th Avenue 90 Po~tlandr qR 97204 i Daven1po'c1 Avenue Ma,c9 0 SW 10 9191 224 1510 d► op, Tigat • Sue carver, President NPO 6 10155 SW Hoodview Drive T ! Tigard, OR 97224 a OTONNELL, RAMS, CREW & CORRIGAN JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK I.. BUSCH BAI.LOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW (503) 266-1149 CHARLES M. GREEFF TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 WILLIAM A. MONAHAN FAX: (503) 243-2944 NANCY B. MURRAY JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. O'DONNELL PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE KENNETH M. ELLIOTT TIMOTHY V. RAMIS Special Counsel SHEILA C. RIDGWAY* MICHAEL C. ROBINSON** WILLIAM J. STALNAKER 'May 29, 1992 D •:ALSO ADMrffM TO PMCM IN STATE OF WASMNMN i :MSO ADMIRED TO MAC= IN WISCOWN J' I N ( y 59^2 Mr. Ed Murph _ _ _ Community D velopment Director and 13125 Hall Boulevard City /B23397 P.O. Tigar gon 97281 Re: Davenport v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 92-078 and 92-104 Dear Ed: Enclosed please find the most recent motion filed by Marge Davenport in this matter. Marge is seeking to consolidate her two LUBA appeals and has asked LUBA to put the briefing schedule for per petitions of review on hold until LUBA reaches a decision on the motion for consolidation. I plan to file an objection to the motion today or tomorrow. I will keep you informed on this. Also enclosed is a copy of my response to Marge 's Motion to Consolidate. In addition, the City filed the record in LUBA No. 92-104 last Thursday, May 21st. Marge is now faced with having her brief in LUBA No. 92-078 done on June 9th, and her brief in LUBA No. 92- 104 done on June 11th. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN Michael C. Robinson MCR/bjd Enclosure mcr\tigard\9002"\Murphy.U1 cc: Pat Reilly (w/enc) Jerry Offer (w/enc) MOWS OP W & CORR GA'N' MAY 2 7 1992 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Marge Davenport, ) LUBA No. 92-078 Petitioner ) LUBA N-o. 92-104 vs ) City of Tigard, ) Respondent ) and Triad Tigard Limited Partnership ) Ross Woods ) Intervenors LUBA 92-078 ) Petitioner Moves to Consolidate and put Record on Hold Petitioner moves to consolidate LUBA NO. 92-078 and LUBA No.92-104 Tigard City Transportation Plan Amendiuent.'taixd-Triad-:.Development, res- pectfully. I Petitioner moves the LUBA Consolidation proceeding ibecause both proceedings seek review of the same or closely related land use decisions. In McGreer v.Rajneeshpuram, 6 or LUBA 474 (1982, the decision on consolidation cites "similar records" and"common questions of law and fact." II The following facts justify consolidation the major issue .in both cases is whether the City of Tigard has complied with Goal 5 and the natural resources element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and other parts of Comprehensive Plan. III The Transportation Plan Amendment is a necessary preconsideration of the City's approval 6f the Triad appj:tyation-due to fact that there will not otherwise be adequate access to the site, and therefor the cases are inextricably tied together. IV The records are similar. Y ~ t V It would be a waste of time and resources to brief and argue the cases separately since the Triad decision will have to be remanded if the Transportation Plan amendment is denied. VI Triad Development is the real party of interest in both. VII Petitioner further request that schedule for Petition of Review be put on hold until a decision for Consolidation is given. Petitioner respectfully request LUBA to consolidate the above cases for the reasons given. Respectfully submitted this day of May26, 1992. Marge Davenport Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 26, 1992, I served a true copy of the Motion for Consolidation by mail in stamped env6lopes to the following: Timothy V. Ramis 0"DONNELL, Ramis et al, 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Steven L. Pfeiffer Stoel, Rives et al 900 SW Fifth, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 Dated this 26, Day of May, 1992 Marge.Davenport 15100 SW 109th Tigard, OR, 97224 (503)639-5637 GLIEN S COPY 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON - 2 MARGE DAVENPORT, ) 3 Petitioner, ) LUBA No. 92-018 and 92-104 4... v. ) 5 CITY OF TIGARD, ) RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR - 6 Respondent, ) CONSOLIDATION 7- and ) 8 TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED Tier-liSl:ME W-1-RtEN PARTNERSHIP and ROSS WOODS, ) _ Intervenors-Respondents. ) - R~5/~Or108yI T -..10 12 Petitioners motion relies on OAR 661-10-55 permitting -13 consolidation of cases before the Board if the proceedings seek . - 14 review of the same or closely related land use decisions. 15 2, 16 Respondent objects to petitioner's motion to consolidate. 17 LUBA No. 92-078 and 92-104 are not the same or closely related land 18 use decisions. Each decision involves a different record, 19 different meetings, a different application, different standards 20 of approval and different applicants. 21 LUBA No. 92-078 is a legislative decision amending the Tigard 22 Comprehensive Plan. A neighborhood planning organization was the -23 applicant. The Statewide Land Use Goals and applicable 24 comprehensive plan policies were the approval standards. Contrary 25 to petitioner's assertion in paragraph 2 of her motion, Goal 5 is 26 not a standard of approval for LUBA No. 92-104. Page 1 - RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION O'DONNMJ, RAMrs, CREW & COPTUG" Au0meya at Um 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street i Portland. Ore Eoo 97209 Tdepb- (503) 7124402 PAX- (503) 743-2944 1 LUBA No. 92-104 is a quasi-judicial decision. The applicable 2 standards are found in the Tigard Development Code and the Tigard 3 Comprehensive Plan. 4 The challenged local government decisions are not similar and 5 do not involve common questions of law and fact. LUBA No. 92-078 6 is on remand from this Board and involves a limited number of 7 issues identified in the first decision (Davenport v. City of 8 Tigard, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 91-133 and 91-137, January 28, 9 1992). 10 3. 11 Petitioner cites McGreer v. Rajneeshpuram, 6 Or LUBA 474 12 (1982) to support her motion for consolidation. McGreer is not 13 helpful to petitioner. McGreer involved a city's adoption of a 14 comprehensive plan and zoning of land within its boundaries for 15 urban uses. The case involved two ordinances adopted on the same 16 day. The city adopted a comprehensive plan and then adopted a 17 development code to implement the plan. Without any discussion, 18 the Board granted the petitioner's motion to consolidate those two 19 cases. 20 In this case, there is no similar close relationship between 21 the two decisions. The only connection between the two is that the 22 site development plan approval challenged in LUBA No. 92-104 23 requires the comprehensive plan amendment approved in LUBA No. 92- 24 078. However, even if the challenged decision in LUBA No. 92-078 25 is remanded to the city, this does not moot the challenged decision 26 in LUBA No. 92-104. It is likely that the city could correct Page 2 - RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OTONNO-L ruMtS, CREW a ooRmam Attorneys at Lao 1727 N.W. Hoyt Stmt Ponlan4 Orcgw 97209 Tdepbonc (503) 7124402 PAX: (S03) L3-2941 I whatever errors the Board might find.-.and once again approve the 2 comprehensive plan amendment. In the meantime, the Board could 3 decide LUBA No. 92-104. If the Board upholds the local _ 4 government's decision, then the intervenors-respondents are not 5 further delayed while waiting for the outcome.-of the-decision in 6 LUBA No. 92-104. _ 7 4. 8 Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, it is not-a, waste of 9 time and resources to brief and argue the cases separately.- As 10 noted above, remand alone will not moot the outcome of LUBA No. 92- 11 104. Moreover, because the cases are not the same or closely 12 related, they should be briefed separately. However, respondent 13 would agree to argue both cases at the same time if an expanded 14 oral argument is allowed. 15 5. 16 Petitioner's motion also asked the Board to put the schedule 17 for the Petitions for Review on hold until the Board decides the. 18 motion for consolidation. q 7, Petitioner's Motion for 19 Consolidation. It is unclear whether petitioner wants one or both 20 of the Petitions for Review to be put on hold but, for purposes of 21 this discussion, respondent assumes petitioner wishes both to be 22 put on hold. 23 6. 24 The Board's rules do not allow the time for submitting the 25 Petition for Review to be suspended pending a decision on a motion 26 to Consolidate. See OAR 661-10-030(1) and OAR 661-10-067(2) ("In Page 3 - RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION 0MONNELL LAMM CRE & 00MGM Attorneys at L.av 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Ponland OmSon 97209 Tdepbonc (503) 2n4402 PAX (503) 2412944 -.1 no. event 'sha11' the time limit for the filing of the Petition for 2 Review be-extended without the written consent of all parties."); 3 Bloomer v. Baker County,._ .Or. LUBA (LUBA No. 90-008, April 4 4, 1990) (Motion to Consolidate does not stay the.time limit for 5 filing Petition-for-Review). Even if the time could be suspended, 6 there-is no, reason to do. so- other than to allow the petitioner 7 extra time. Respondent does not consent to an extension of time. 8 for filing the Petitions -for Review 9 7. 10 No extension of time is necessary. The Petition for Review 11 in LUBA No. 92-078 is due on June 9th, while the Petition for 12 Review of LUBA No. 92-104 is due on June 11th. In fact, the times .13 in which the Petitions for Review are due are so close together 14 that no benefit would be gained by consolidating these two matters. 15 Petitioner makes this request only for the purpose of delaying the 16 time to submit her Petitions for Review. This is unjustified and 17 prejudices the respondent.and intervenors-respondents. 18 8. 19 Respondent requests that the Board deny petitioner's motion 20 to consolidate and petitioner's request to put the schedules for 21 Petitions of Review on hold until the motion for consolidation is 22 23 24 25 26 Page 4 - RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION 0T0KNM1- walls, CREm & COMO" Anomeya at Law 17V N.W. Hoyt Steel PWW4 ompa 97209 Tekyb- (503) 111-1402 PAX: (503) 141.2944 1 determined. Respondent agrees to a consolidated oral argument if 2 additional time for oral argument is allowed. 3 DATED this 28th day of May, 1992. 4 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 5 By: 7 Michael C. Robinson, OSB #91090 Of Attorneys for Respondent' 8 - City of Tigard 9 - - 10ws.,asooebrn~. ,~aa 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 5 - RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OTONNHLI. RAM1S. CREW & COMO" AUaaeys st !r 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OMm 97209 Tdepbonc (503) 2124402 PAX (S03) 1432944 J ' CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on May 28, 1992, I filed the original of Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation, together with one copy, with the Land Use Board of Appeals, Suite 220, 100 High Street, S.E., Salem, Oregon, 97310, by first class mail. DATED this 28th day of May, 1992 By: Michael C. Robinson, OSB# 91090 Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Tigard CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 28, 1992, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation by first class mail upon the following persons: Marge Davenport 15100 S.W. 109th Tigard, OR 97224 Steve Pfeiffer, Esq. Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Gray 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 DATED this 28th day of May, 1992. By: Michael C. Robinson, OSB #91090 Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Tigard mcKrV dW004& Con~vl/dd Page 1 - Certificate of service i CITY OF TIGARD OREGON May 26, 1992 Land Use Board of Appeals 100 High Street, S.E. Suite 220 Salem, OR 97310 Re: LUBA No. 92-104 Enclosed is an amended Certificate of Service for the above- referenced LUBA case. The Certificate, Aich was filed on May 21, 1992, indicated that the Index and Record was delivered by first class mail. The record was delivered by messenger and the Certificate of Service has been amended accordingly. l~ Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Marge Davenport Steve Pfeiffer Sue Carver 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 CERTIFICATE OF FILING (amended) I, Elizabeth Newton, hereby certify that on May 21, 1992, I filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 92-104 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 100 High Street, S.E. Suite 220, Salem, Oregon, 97310 via personal service by messenger. Dated: May ZAP, 1992. euu)AA-h -kekt Eliza eth Tigard Deputy Corder • i C) Cf) v..4 C)~ r- CO O O W ~I► O O Cat 1 rJ ~ C) VGUC.) a a a 4~ ~ f .ti -Y : - l.r l..4 r 9 "i v i SITE AREA: Aces 26.187 DENSITY CALCUL 1 r~ EP r i I ~ r V i n ~ r . Square Feet 1,140.836.40 ~ w ~ E w~ ~ ~w.w►~w i ~ a_~~' Triad r i ord Ltd. p Tota~ Net area: 2s. 9 LOCATION: North of Naeve Sheet, between SW 109th 320 Andover Park EQ Sf and Pacfic Highway, City of Tigard R - 25 Zons Seottle, v~A 98188 LessR.O.W.BDed ~206~ 575-9413 eUILDINCiS: 17 Residential less Private Roads 1 Recreational 33 Garages 8 Carports _ n 0 CD ~ 6) ,4 C F~', j t F' } ~ Square Feet per Unrt Motf L. Driscoll Necunnsperncre: 2121 Fir,t Avenue BUILDINGS 6 UNITS: m 0 Q Seattle, WA 98121 > ~20(j~ 441- 77J5 Building No. of U~fts 8 Types No. of Bldgs. 1/1 2/1 2/1.25 2/2 3/2 Total R' ~2 Zone u ~oo c- N C! CU A (12) 2/1, (8) 2/2 5 0 60 0 40 0 100 Less R.O.W. 3 De B (8) `t/1, (12) 2!125 4 32 0 48 0 0 80 Less Private Roads f _ . i F t~ [ID f r , ; i. l~1 1" Q ~i l Y 1 ~ ! C' c_ . C (2~ 1/1 2 48 0 0 0 0 48 less Sensitive Lan Dodd Pacific Engineering, Inc. ~ (~)-3~2 3 0 0 0 o so so C>~ <1 <1 1 v 820 Minar Ave N. E I8? (12) ~/2 a 2a o 0 o ss so L~ I C~j SeatEEe, 1NA 98109 ioa so ae ao ss 348 Square Feet perUnft { ..r y~ u ' (206) 682-1500 CARPORTS d~ GARA'GES: Net UnRs per Acre: Density Transfer (Se t~ r 1 F~ i~ f I I~? C. Cl i ~ i . C~ I !~l E' E' r . No. of BuHdings No. of Stalls 25% of 38.000 = 9, Terra Associates 6 Stall Cxport 24 144 9,500/ 3,050 = 3.1 15301 NE 90th St. s ste° ~ea~ ` s ~ LLJ ~ .--y tLi C: CCU L~ L~ U) 0 (I? LJ W Z W Redmond WA 98052 .7 (Y C1 C~ {ZO~~ 8S1-SrJ7O ' TOTA~UNITSALL TOTAL UNITS PRO Civil ~ ng~neer: -f- z -1 Q C~ Q I Ll_ LZ m CL Kompe Assoc. Inc. 36$1 SW Carmen Dr. _ _ _ _ _ f~._. Lake Oswego Oregon 97Q35 (503) 635-6291 PARKING REQUIR LC~C1dSCQ~r= ArChitPCt: Q~ 1 & 2 Bedroom Thomas Rengstorf, ASLA 2~ u~nsX ~.s 911 Western Avenue Seattle, VNA 98104 2+aedrooms _1_ (206) 682-7562 ss unitsx2 15% Shared P f 1 Recreation Bu Total St 348 Covered Req 14 Barrier Free 165 Compact Alb PARKING PROYIO L.Ij f l Garage Stalls gage Stalls 180 J U ~ V ~ I 1 ' ' Carport Stalls tr rt Stalls 1 ~ ~ StarWard StaI Compact Stall Compact Gera Barrier Free S To X, OF SITE COVER Bldg. i QL i ~ w~ ~iE~p Niwr~ ~ Ol' ~CO~CYGt Q r { Type No. A 5 B 4 i i { C 2 D 3 ; f E 3 Subtotal Repeatlon Bldg. as~~c~«rs Tdal 1 ` _ 0 s ~r, ~ q. cry Sri rt~~ t r_ ` , T ~zo ~1 r i r Q ~ b' d ~ ~ ~ 1 1 i oQ ~o ~o ,~o r r'~ Q1 ~Q , , h~ 1`, ~ ; ~ , ~ Q ~ ~ ~ >y ~ C r i ~ I ~ ~ % ~ ~ + ` N) ry4 0 ~ I ~ ~ o~ p W I c r. V..4 ~ 1 , , ~ , I 'i ~1 ~ ~ ~ l / ~ ~ ~ l , ,ti a~ .1,o 'w-m' CO .,rkm m,,. ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ ~ , ; ` ~ Y1 J ~ ~ ~ f r/ / r , ; , i i r, ~ ~ Y / i 1 r ! , ~ + ~ ~ ~ /r / Y ri i . ~ i ~ i ~ f / ~ i LO CO ' ` ~ C`~ ~ J + ~ ~ ~r ~ '-a--" r `a ~ 10'- 0 " DEDI CATIO ' DEDIC ` ~ ~ 1 ' - - - ATION ~ 1 -=-t --t- - -i---- - ~r a o ~ ~ e~ „ ' N OOd~9~ 13 ' ' " 1 ~ -O CORNS i n % ~ ~ Y , 1 S ~ 1 i ~D CORNER ,A'RD SETBACK 9 r t ; I ~ r _ , > , ~ W 439.68 arar w•r.r•rarar•►•rar•ree r• ara ■s•w•ra aa•rr.rar•rar•r•a•w•r•r•w.r•r ra • awarar ■rar•rar•aar•r•w :rawar•r •ra r• r••••r•rarar•rawar••y / N OOd _ y , 29 4 ._a_._._.r.. ~f_sr._._._._.r._._._._.r _._.r._a_._._.r._.,l...rs_._• •..s Yr._._ ._.r._s , • _.r._._...._.a _ rll ( ~ ~ / ~ O~ / F ~ ■ M..r._._. r.._._._._._. 6. 2 r -1 ~i ! /Y ~ t ! _.r.~.._._._.r._._.w..~._._._ar._._.r.~.._*_.a.re_._._.~._so._.r._._._..f.w._._.r._._. dy_ / i r ) I / / i % i i ~ i % ~ i j + + _ ACCESS ACCESS : ~n ; r' ~ ~ POINT ~ r POINT - / i rr i ~ i l ~ ~ ! i ~ -....._..-__..__.__.-_.r_ / I 1 i /i / ~ , I 1 I I ~ t co co co ~ ~ C ~ i ♦ ' ~ , C~ U \ ~ i ~ i V 4 ' ~ / ~ % l ~Y 1 ! Y/ ~ ~ J 4 ~ h ~ - ~ ~ i ( / / Y ; ' ' ~ w ~ , ' r~' ~ ~ ca 354, 0 ' Q ~ ~ i / ) f Q~G~ ~ ' 1~ ~ ~ i ~ / ~ ` ~ ~ ~ i i + I V 1 I t ! 3 C r ~ ~ , ~ , r~ /i ~ j / i i ~ + ~ + ~ C Y' r I ! 1 7 / ~0 F ~ ; -O R_AR YARD ; , ~ ; / ~ i i ~ / / l + 1 ~ ~ ! t i C / ~ j' ~ ~ / ~ j + J t ~ 1 i ~ , ; 7 ~ ~ , SETBACK ; 1 ~ ~ ~ , FY 1 / / / i ! 1 Y 1 n I I ~ ~ + 3 3 i ; / r ~ 1 fr. 1~ + 1 C ~ I 4d5. ~ C ~ s i 4 +386..0 ~ ~O C~ i ; ~y/ / C ~ ~ ~ Y i ~l 1( C r i i / i~ r 1 I I ! ~ , , C , I C ~ ~ i % ~O +30$.0 ~ ~ i ~ i 1 , , , f ' ; ~ 384.0 / % • I _ , % / / / / / it ! 1 j , J ~ j / 1 1 + 1 I ~ Y 1 / i ~ m + 4 yb ~ 1 If I ~ ! +352.0 ~ / I a C ~ ~ i ! i _ / / i / / 7 1 - - ~ "s"`- ~"~i . T "E% _ iG~ 5" Vii= Lau: ~ - - ~ ; ~ r i ~ i f ' ~ i i ~ i t ~ I +404 ~ C , r , ~ ~ i ~ ~ r_ i ! I ; ~ I r C ~ ~ +37. .~r~~ - ~ I ~ f ! v r ~ C ,fir} I ' ~ ~ r ~ i i I ~ ~ , ' I 2 I t ~ h ~ j I ~ ti J EMER N ' I ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ CESti ,'RIVE, TYP. e; ~ ~ ; o ; +403 - C ' 4 , ~ ; .1, Y c , r .c ~ , C r ~ > ~ ~ 1 h / IC ' tq ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ l r 1 i ~ I i' r ' p: , ~ f ` ~ Q' / j r M^ 10 i W ~ v3 ~ ~ I W J q i ~ 1 ~ ~ l C i `~i t" ~ r r v 1 ~t ~ ~ ~ p` N Q ~ r r ~ / ~ i r C ~ ; i J y,~ l ~ ~ Q r i ' Q ~ , ~ f ix t [f O 3 ~ , +3 i - r 378. C ~ ~ , goo ~ ~ ~ ; a - C 340 ' ~o a ~ r l C 1 ~ , ~ t, S ,i / C +343.0' 1 ~ 'i Q ' i C ~ / C i , 7 r O ~ , C ~ ~ ~ QV , ~ a. ¢ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ , ~ c~ a~, ~ / C / ~ ' , ~ , , 2 rn r ~ i ~ ~ ! W ' ~ 1 / J , 4 e~' ~ J i , , c ~ ~ , ,-c - C ~ ~ ~ ~ ' C ~ , Q Q Q > ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ; } r JOGGING , ~ 1 3 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ , ~ 6 ~ PATH 1 Q 24'-0~ DRN ' } C ; / ~ Q WITH _ fl C C ~ C r C ? ~ ~o SIDE ALK ~ C , Y~ C , > c 36 c, , C ~ , c ~ c ~ ~ s ~ c ~ f ~ c ~ ~ c ~ f,, ~ ~0 C C t ~ C *C ~ 1 + • C / , ~ ~ , ~ 7 rp' S - 5 ~ --t 1 I ~ t ~ ~ i I ~ Y ~V' i i r ~ ~ G J G ~ I ~ I v. 6 ~ 1 l C ~ ~ ' L s• - I fJ ~ ~ i I ' ~ i i ` ` ~ I ~ I ~ ~ l i ~ r i 0 C ~ i ~ ~ ~J I 7 \ ~ ~ C' ~i ~ , JV r / y 1 / % ~ ~ 360 ~ v~ ~ ; it ~f I ~ +359 C 5 G~' I C 316.0 , , I ,t%' ~ C ; ~ ~ , ~ , I ~ r i.+ ~ I ~ C i' I " j' I / / ~ ~ / / ~ , ! ~ Q° ~ ! ~ , ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ , , V ~ I ` / ~ i r' v w ~ I l , ~ I Q0 l , ~ i . ! ~ I ~ ~ ' \ % ~ L~ ' P~ P ' 318,0; % ~ ~ ~ ' G 1 ~ , I ~G ~ Q. P~ I ~ C 6 4111 LPG ; 1 ti ' r r r i r i r I ~ /r~ ry ~ r - ' ~ ~ ~ i ~ ti f r , " I ~ r r r / ~ i r f / r' r rr ~ ~ / ~ \ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ - - ~ \ / / / i ~ r j i i~ r r ~ Q 4 w, ~ KEY. SYMBO LS - j ; ~ r ~ ~ N OOd ~ ~ 39 , W 7 8.7 3 , , ; r r , j r ' ~ ~ ~ ~ EXISTING B LDG. TO B ~ ` LDG. TO BE i' _ " - , o - REMOVED r r t r r 2 ~ r r ~ + , _ ; 1 ~ 0 - 1ti ~ ~ r" 10 O i i - p f ~ UMPSTER ENCLOSUR r SETBACK: ~ ENCLOSURE: r ~ i I I r , o ~ I C`J ~ MAILBOX KIOSK; r r ,rr " r - - _ OQ 04 . , I -INDICATES I . , 3 Bu~L~INCs o h 1 ~ r . - - • I EMOVED, TYP. I 2gb 0 ~a + i GARAGE OR CARPORT: . I I , r ~ i ~ W L- "I / ~ ~ r ' ~ i i ~ ~J / f ~ , CX j "1 ' - i d- r i " I ~I - rr I BARB IER FREE ~ \ y SENSITIVE LAND PARKING STALL. r ~ % r` r; , © . I ~ m t ,J (25% SLOPE N ' I C51 s_-__.__ I ~7a S - _ ~ - r~ ~ I r .r ~ ~ 1, For CODE DATA I CALCULATI( z ~ I _CULATIONS' J BARRIER FREE UNIT see DWG. A001 2, For SIDEWALKS ~ .i , ,PATHWAYS @ i FvFi nNF n~~~ v _ _ - ~ ~ see L A N D S C a P 4 E DRAWIN , CS. , l~ 2~° 3. F or PAVING PROPOS ED UTI~ 1 0 , r,, and ~ , - TEMPORA Rl' ERO SION C - ~Vn - ~'}j, ~ i `i , 1 O ; r ~ r i i / 1 r ~ % ~ , ~9 ~ 't i "ll .-.._-,1 4 Q 26C~ ~ ~ L~) N , a i ~ i ~.2fl n' ~ ~ w To V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ P ~ ~ i ~ ~ E--4 rl C\z H AVENU / i r ~ ~ ti S.W.109 r / ~ ~ / R / r ! ~ _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ l I ~ ~ ~ l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ / / / ~ ~ / ~ 1 1 1 00 ® cl~ r a ~ F f "fi J ~ . , d Q. ~ i' ~ ~ . J / ~ d / J ~ l ~ ~'o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 II ~ f Q o t. i z E' f z ~.,.,'o J~ f~ r ~ Ie ~ ~ { ~ r ` ~ a - x - ~ / ~ J u n a° I I E t ~ / ~ o l ~ ~ . a , r~ ~ ~ . ~ 9~ .v . f r a,.° o J t ; . ~ . ~ ~9 ....r ~ r _ E _ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a,_ , z ~ ~ ~ ca CQ n v ~ ' ~ 1 y 21+ F ~ 1 ; i w ZO+ ~ t ~ , ~ Z~f' i x ~ , ~ ~ , , ~ ~ 3 s } r F a ~ / ~r a Z ~r. ~ ~ r ~ ~ r s s ~i - - , - ° ~ n ~ 3 ` ,N ~ t ~ f ~ ~ i i ~ j 3 ~ a ~ F { Q rw r ~ fi J a j F s e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ pff ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J f ` i ~ ' F / i t W ~ is ± f C7 e / w s / ~ ~ . ~ ~ 1~ ~ / c~ / ~ ~ ♦ f t ~ ~ //J Y / ' f. ~ ~ t/ / ♦ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ m0 I ~ • ~ a ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . r~ ~ ~ - x f~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ MM ~ ~ ~ t E J d v ~ p k r ~ / . ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ / 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ W ' j ' M ! `y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ / 1 4 ~ ~ / ~ ~l 0 ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ e 0 ~ ~ Q h / 0 ~ r ~ ~ / , ~ ~ i / , - ~U / 4 J ~ r - F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ A , - '(Q ~ ; y t ~ a' r r ! z } / lz $ AAA r~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ f i x ~ r ~ , ~ ~ r ~ 1 1 ` ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aQ ~ a. r ! ~ x * ✓ C f 1~ 6 ~ ~ / e f ~ / / / ~ ~ ?1q• / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ r m ~ ~ i f f ~ ~ b / e; ~ F~ 4 ~P ~±.r ~ ~ ~ y 9 , 1, Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ V ` 4 y' ~ ( ~ ~ (p / t~ , ' r' ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~x r ; w ~ ~ d `0' ~ ~ /N ~ r / ~ , t ~ ~ ~ ~ d / + m / ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. ~ ~ d. ~f p k, M y r i co ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ r 4 ~ ~ ~ / ~ P i i ~ o ~ 8F ! f ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ / / ~ ~ Q a ~ ~ b ~ f 1 Q• a~ ~ ♦ ~ ~ y_ n. ,f Q y. x I V/ J m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,r ~ ~ ~ si f ~ L I ■ l ~ t ~ ! 7V ° a / ~ ~n ~ ~ d 3 I 0 ,d ~ ~ Q ~p~~, / J s 'U 2 r 1L g f Q, d' a ? ;i ~ I l ~ it ~_a a x ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ l , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r' ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~i 4 ~ ~ c . 4L ~ F / / ~ 8 i P I'm i ~ ~ ~ ~ w,..._~ ~ d r Q 0 P ~ ~ i f f 4` ~ ~ ~ E P. ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ g r` 6 ~ 1 ~ p ~ ~ t 4 ~ G~ ~i I G 3 P ~ G f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P , I ~ ti ~ ■ ~ 1 % • dr / ~ ~ f E9 ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ i d,, • / ~ - ~ , ~ ~ ~ l r / ~ ~ r Q i ~ ~ ~ / ~ - h u_ ~ ~ ~ e / / ~ m w ~o ~ ~ Os W a... ~ f f ~ ` ! ~ F 1 ~ ~ 4~ F Q ~ ~ ~ Q - / ~ ~ ~ ro ,g G fe Q. ~ ~ VQ' ~ ry / ~ / / ~ o ~ R ~ • / ~ / ~ _ i a 340 ~ / * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ . ~ / f r i i - ~ ~ a ~ ~ / ~ z ,..rte ~ / / ~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~ f / ,r / ~ / / r~ Q K4 J 1 i ~ 3~ w~ ~z,~~ ~ , v~ i 0 / ~ / ~ f i. R z l a _ i"~'. A Q J oC Fl a""~ w ~ J i ~ 1 3 P ~ s B ¢ d=, ,r a„~ ~y„~ d d ~3' - - oc w~~ r.~w. a., ~ Q r ....m_~~ w z ~ ~ ~ z L o_ ~ v e.rti~ w ~ 7 6 Y ,t a,~, ~ ~ ~ ~ w+ $,s u Cc M... 'w ► a,_m n-r~ n ~ ~ e ~ ~ ry / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F 1 C ~ ~ f, Y ~ t k I o.~ ~ ~``f t 2S0 ~ t A i _ ~ 3 M +t i 4 v Jy 253 3 0 ~'1Jft1 Thomas V. R;lmgs-,~L;t C., RE ,~r~ ~.L~ 4 •3 • t i i i f _ I- 0 0 ~U 0 ` ~ ~ r +i, V f Q • f ~ • t) ~ • 0 ~ A . , to e ~ ~ i Q a ~ C U ~ ~ X ~ . ` tp U • " ~ Q ~ h ~ . ~ Q ; • ~ ~ 1 a ' • ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ • f i, - • ~ fp. v' ~ n~ a ~ • i r s ~ "J ' ~ ~ ~ p ~ • ~ r ~ ~ i ' ~ ~o ~ M • ~ ` ~O d , ~Ty` w i • ~ ,y c% • M r" i ~ • ~y • F- • • • • `C I Ue ~ ~ ~ G ~1 Op 0 0 ~ ~ • (j ~o • • p ii,- ,,..f . • . • • 1 ~ ' ~ • 4Q • ~ ,,r^^' f ! ~ ~ -pr ~ e • QU • 10 • ~ ' . • r . ~ i/ . ' • • r - . • • • ~ ~ ~ ~ • ' r~ • • ~ ~ J ~ • • ♦ • ' ~ • ~ ~ ♦ ~ ' ' N . r Q' Q • ~ U it ♦ • ~ ~ • 0~~~ • r0 t A ~ • • N a ~o ~ ~ i. ~ ~ - s~ /Q ♦ , Q 0 v , Q ~ i } • ~ 5 • ~ r,. s Y' • . ~ ~ ~ M i cp • ~ ~ i Q ~ r ~ co f • . ' i} ~ • U' ~ • Q ~ ~ . ~ a r ~ a ' ~ a ~ o ' F.. ~ ~ n . a Vco • C) ~ O~ • ~ ~ a. Q • ~ ; ~0 ~ 's Ut0 ' • ~ • 9 ~ - ~ A.Q • ~ N err=z~ > . • Uto ~ • ~tA a`~ Q • O • LC : / U D. • • ~V l r r' ~ ` • • • F Q i ~ Ut0 ~ ~ ~ • I • a ~ • r• ~ Q . ` f,Y • i ••r ' Q . 'r ~ ~ • . i z~ • • a i ~ • , ' ' ` ♦ ~c ~ 5 0~ G Q~ e5 . ~ ¢ P ~ R• GPG GAP ~ Q ~ ' 0 6 0 ~ Q` P~ PQ' its i PG G r a a G ~ ~o ~o ~ 1- a a ~ = pQ' • k Q v / • • ~ 1 GI I S t ~G , ~ P ~ - n ~ G~ ~ , ~ 0 ~ • r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~fi „dry ; , • ~ r` 3 ' 4. ~ . ~y ~ ~ GP 6 • 6 ~ G 1 ~Q P 1 r~'G,. • _ G ~w~ ~ ~ ' ~ • ~ ~ a Q ~ ~ ~ • • • 1 Q , ry • ~ GP e~ r ~ Dc GP G ° . ~ Q. P • ~ • PG ~ • . ~a c, ~ / ~ 6 • " ~ ry Q t ' ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ z • , ~ A J 0 ~ • ~ p p G 0 4 ° ~ ~ • ~ ~ o 0 0 • t j ' ~ ~ ® SYM80L COMMON NAME TANICAL NAME o ! r 0 T O tt N v o ° Large Deciduous Street Trees 4 314 -2 caliper B&B ° ° ° X25'•40' a to ~ pac g) 0 • Red Oak Cluercus rubra t 0 .f o - Large Deciduous Parking Lat Trees 1 314"-2" caliper 8&B ° 0 5'•40' s acin {2 p g) ° ° London Plane Troe Platanus acerifolia a o Ra wood Ash Fraxinus ornus 'Raywood' Y c, o ° Red Maple Acer rubrum c Sweetgum Liqu~ambar styraciflua ° c ~ Norwa le Acer platanoides O U y o ° American Linden Tilia americana 0 o U ° 0 ent I Trees 1314" call er B&B 20'-25` o ~ Ornam a p { 0 0 0 s Q Q o :pacing) ° Pear P rus 'Bradford' o Fbwermg y ~ i - o ° Washin ton Thom Cratae us haeno .rum g 9 P PY 1 1 c ~ Korean Dogwood Corpus kousa i~ ° Snowdrop Halesia Carolina Sar ent Craba le Malus sa entii 9 PP r9 -1 ° Yashino Cherry Prunus yedoensis a 0 o t t Evergreen Screen Trees 6.8 B&B (25.30 spacing} ° Dou las Fir Psuedotsu a menziesii g g t~ ° ~ Western Red Cedar Thuja piicata Coast Redwood Se uia sem ervirens q P 1 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum Westem Hemlock Tsu a hetero h lia 9 PY 6'•8' BbB 20'-25' s acin Evergreen Trees { p g) d . { NOTE: Yellow Cedar Chamaecyparis nootkatensis L_l i Austrian 81ack Pine Pious n' ra 1. All lantin beds shall receive a 2 dee layer of roved bark mulch. ~ P 9 P ~P Sirore-Pine Pious contorta 41- Z 2. All landscape areas shall be fully irrigated with a automatic beiq~r .grade f3eadara Cedar Cedrus deodora irrigation system, complete in all ways. ~ Lawson t✓ ress ; Chamae aril lawsoniana yP cYP Leylandii Cypress Cupressocyparisleylandii s~ } L i_ r- ~c . •ii f ~ JJ Y x if. is `Y' w j W Fw w ~ ~~o ~ ~ - .r i. i ~ "~^o 00 ~ o~ F- o o ~o 00 0o Q O O ~ o c t. R J. ! - ~ . 3 ~ ~ oZ U~ U w ~ _ Z M ~ N O * . W O `L`~~\ - W n 0 a o © ~ y ~ ~5 0 0 0 0 o N N ~ ~ ° o rn oo ~ va ~ N r t(} ¢ ~ ~ g• . Y ~ 1 ~ o ,n / p I l Y + ..a1 i ~z~s 9;~£~ i N~ud~~ ~ s_ i~ ~ l ~o~ ~i i i ~i i ' _ _ ~ • L r a . - P 1 xu i y 1 ` !;~i ~ j i~~ l ~ ~//l { l l ~/iii/ iii; j/;'%i/ ~ti ~ ~ ~ /~~~j/ /~i~ ~/i iii i~ ~ ~ i / ~ i J .~1 - } ti r___ i ~ ' ~ T _ i N o '~v~.y'i// i/j~~ //~~i ~j// ~ i/fi/ i/ ' 11 i. ~ _ s ~ ~~-4~* ~ r s ~ / ~o iiif ~l%1~~~, / ~ m~ ~-__--~~~~i~,~~ l~~ ~ i~~ ~ i /iii / i Ti i / l ii ~ i i y_ _ Li r ~ u, ~ u 3 - ~ ~ _t i' I i r' I s, E T / i .F- ~ i iii ~ / a~ ~ tom-- ~ ~ - ~ i i ~ / / ~ __~ii~ ~ r n ~ I,`' i y _ _ - - _ a a i i i fa . 1 ~ ~ J ~ . ; ~i - ~ ~ ~ z~ ` - 1 _ ~N U a ~i / 9.~ Z t f 1~ . t ' ~ ' J 1 1p j ~ ~1 i y TAX. L~JT 9 ~ ~ y^~. ' , ~ UyY AP 2~1-1 ~ D ' ~ ){){~I l d ~ • • ~ • M~ ♦♦VVVV~~ .yy, T T' ~ ~.rMMI wwr~ •r~r11 w~Yw Ml~~w~ w~~rA ~wwW ~~/1 ,MMMIiM M~rq w.r~~ nIY~.~1 ~srA wrwlrl 'rV+W ~rnli wriwi wrsM1 wrti+ll M ~nlMl 1rw~ •u~wM~ 14FV~ Iw~l 1iwMA 1~rN ilBr,w ~ y T rwrR fr4N ~A M~~~► I~nr~ FY~y Mrw~~Y ~r irr~~ ~1~Mrb ~Mwr~1 - } ~l - + a6'F ~ tA'F' ~ q, + + ~ 24'P + E4'F' !A`P ~ ~ ~ ( } ~ ~ * ~ * _ ~ t E4'f J tt'f i 12'F' !D"P' app' iCf * ~ J ~ ~ M 1!'F' ~ l # t ~ ~ + i ~ ~ '3t'F + btMf' + 14'F + ~ ~ + ~ ~ a4 + + la+t i~ + + : + ,e~ ~4~ ~1 i~#'F'~ ~ t ~ 1!YF' * + n~ ~ ~ S, + ~ ~,f, ' 19f • ,p,~f ~ , M'P 84`F # I SCR' + + 1 ~s~ + + ~ + ~ « i + ~ 11'f 14'f tA'F 1~1'F 4+ + + Ebb' + ~'F' + + * * lid st'f' 1s~r + ~ sort' ~ t ~ fog + + iA'N !II'1' ~ ~ l~~ + t _ * # + ab'!~ ice' ~ lMM'' CF' # ~ .t~ . t7`F a $0'!1 + l~ts'I~' + ~ R Y Y ~ ~'F' 1~'F' t + t wL ~ ~ 1~'!' + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M rp tii9' f l~ + ~F + ~ 1 r _ + iL'" 1 t ~ ~ w ~ • ~ + * u~+ + * ~ { ~ 1C'P t j i _r ttt + 1~'f ~ t t + + ' ~ , ~f lt'1' Z4'P 24'x' i@'P + ' 84M t 10"P ~ ipM - 12`P t T. Ch + i lA'F t'f ~ + I ' ~ + ~ + 10'f it'!E 1~"P f # 16'S~p + i + SOh~t t a + lr4'S>rit r , _ ~ .1 4'liE6t ~+J 10'E' + `l • - 1~'3iA J ~ li'P iMM , t 4 + i~'~~ 18'Sl~t + ~ 101e 19~ lA'>~it 110'P t_- + ` t1E'► + 1~'1' 't~11 ~ t ~ 4 ti'~1 1R't 8'E ~ + j 10'f S ~ # ~ 0'P -~r'F / ~ 111PiAii # r tE'S!'A T A'P + ( L7Saq W f • } } # 1 p;.~ ~i'N j ~ 1i'M ~~T ~ c~~ ~ y t i~AP X51--~ t~D~ ~ f ° g'am' k fi t4'EfA ~ ~ ~ + Y ~ - 1 W~ Y T > 1 i ~ I ~ + ` + i fi + ~ + ~ + ~ ~ R i'i"~l~t'8k4 + ~fd'II~B w # ~ a + - 1,`u~x ~ t t t6't~ ~ + tom' cup--~ E + + * SY'kEE CPIt~ + * 1 4# 2~'F' * - ` 14'1"8 \ i + i' 36`f ice' + + 3i'~il SPA 1CRE~ ~r ♦ 1~i'P' ~ t i 1~'kl;8 1y`F # ~ ~ ~.T ~ 14'N ~ 1 36'~R !0'Fi!! St"111~f .,~ti ~ 1 ; a ~`P + r 16`fZR - ~ ~ r, t I at~a tt~v `4.. f ~'!1t 4-ip'M ~ 3J' k~ ~ ~ ~ * tl`f"tR ! i ~'C ~4N C. d ~ C.~ Si0"!4'11 a a~rarr ~ !`fit t i f t4'M a i + f t ,F f 6'R'~ "'h ,~,1/`1s'~14't1 19'"F'IR _ 1 t f g ~ e~ 40R W~ 21~ # ~ "1~~! } 3-1$'"11 ~h ORD zr~ DW1~ t t ~ s-~#ND•ls~l~"~`~~ 9'CE,~,R A'E s ~ ~ z { + E ~BiYR i ~ \ ~ 'h { ~'IR ~']i't~`8~ 1 ~i*11~ + i 14 } + ! _ ~ tM1~f8 1 a !"HIV j f f _ 4 y ~ ti., \ 1~'A[8 ~ t ~ 1r k ~ i 7 ~ f I ~f,~] v . '\r/ 1 ~ } ~ oC~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r I ~i ~ nu~ber of ti"@~5 have been located by C at ~~O ~G ~ Q to a and cam ass .methods . ~.r~c~tia C~ ► be saved should he fle1d 5~gnificantgees to . ver~flecf. E 3 j i . r i } i _e N 7 s ti I - ! . car NO, 8 .317 DATE, , REVISMN& BY, WN BYt P.D. RE UBM TT =.-7' AUC. 9 ON G SUVING ENGINEERING SERVICES n EXISTING TREES 12M COM PLAZA +Esr sum 360 > 6"-4509 &V. CEWM ST, WAVERTOK M 97005-l" :x : i r f _ _ 1 cC> C/) OWN" CO CO, r C) Z C/) L. 4 E-1 CC) to Clt c C\2 C\2 v .g , t Crj ~A. s„ ~ SfTE AREA: Acres 26.187 ~DENSI'TY CALCULA Owner%Developer: s~,e~eF~ ,,,~o,~.,o ~ti Af W ~TIA\IN u. aF ~i u r 4 TfiOd Ti9afd Ltd. Total NetAr~: 26.1 320 Andover Park Eost ~~AT10N: North of Naeve Sheet, ~ sw loam R _ ~ ~M i Seottie, WA 98188 and Pacific Highway, City of Tigard ~ R.o.w. a oea {206) 575-9413 BUILDINQS: 17Reside~tial ~easP►n~ereaoeds i Recreational 00 33 Gareges & Carports A A r C ~"1 . i. P C t . Square Feet per Unk: Matt L. Driscoll Neru~aspern~re: wQ<L~' 2121 First Avenue BUILDINGS d~ UNITS: 1 Seattle, WA 98121 N 00 { 0 ~206~ 441- 7705 Building No. of Unfts 8 Types No. of Bldgs. 1/1 2/1 2/1.25 2/2 3/2 Total R ' 12 Zoe A (12) 2/1, (8) 2/2 5 0 60 0 40 0 100 Less R.O.W. 8 Dedi ~ Cn B (8) 1/1, (12) 2/1.25 4 32 0 48 0 0 80 ~e~ PrNete Roads S t r u C t ~a r (~I ~ t= rl C~ I ri r: C (24) 1/1 2 48 0 0 0 0 48 Less Sensidve Lend j F- Dodd Pacific Engineering, Inc. o ~20~ ~2 s o 0 0 o so so W 820 Minor Ave N. E (e> ~/t, X12) 3/2 3 2a o 0 0 3s so _f~~ > D Seatt~e, WA 98109 Boa so as ao ss Sae SquereFeetperUnk: t n U) Q < ct {206) 682-1500 CARPORTS 8 QARAGES: Net Unlta per Acre: { L.LJ Density Transfer (Se G e O t e C rl (~1 I C~ ~ E f 1 C, I I~1 2 e r . No. of Buildings No. of StaNs 25% of 38,000 = 9,5 a..~t ~ cy i- W c (ii cn cn m Terra Associates 6 SteO Carport 24 144 9.500 / 3,050 = 3.11 i- c~ cn (-D cn 15301 NE 90th Sfi.. 8 Stall Geroge s sa w w zw Redmond WA 98052 z c~ ~ cr. z J ~2Q~~ $81-55'o TOTAL UNITSALL TOTAL UNI?5 PRO ~IVI~ ~nC~l!"l~el": Q 0 00- mA Kampe Assoc. Inc. 3681 SW Carmen Dr. Lake Oswego Oregon 97035 (503) 635-6291 PARKING FiE~U1R landscape Architect: ,&2e~~~,,, Thomas Rengstorf, ASLA 252 Unitsxl.5 911 Western Avenue C) Seattle, WA 98104 2+9ed~oorns (206) 682-7562 9s unitsx2 rr ` 16% Shared P Recre~ion Bui Total Sta 348 Covered Req 14 Barrie► Free R n W 0 ~y i f~f~- 1 J. i 185 Cotnpe~t Allo PApKINti PROVIDE 1 Germ Stalls gage Stalls 180 J U V C i Carport St~is Starnlard Stall Compact Sta Compact C,are Barrix Frae S T % ~ SITE COVER 81dg. MT alb n r~ ci I L z° -r ~ . i T Type No. A 5 B 4 _i C 2 D 3 E 3 Subtotal Recreation Bidy. a C3eregedCe►Ports t Trial i ~ i 0 tf O Q t"~. ~ ~ M ~ - 6~ ~ ~ 1 , e 420 1 f , o O O r~ O ` ~ g 1 ~ ~ i 7 o Q ' ~ 1 1 ' i ~ ~ ~ M M~ 1 ~ , ~p ~O ~0 ,~0 ~ , I ~ r , ~ ; ~ It f / r ~ ~ r l ryp Q j p aQ p ~ 1 t ~ , % t ~ / ~ , / ~ ~ l r~r ~ } / ~ M Np ~ O ai9 p + r i ~ a p 1 I ~ ~ J ~ , ' ~SZ 'h ti 1 1 I , Jr ~ ' i i i r i i rr + ~ I i r ; y i ~ i ~ r ~ r i ~ i } / ~ ti i ~ ~ ~ r ~ ; i f t r 1\ 1~ - rl _ r a 10 0 DEDICATI+ DEDICATION ~ ~ , - -=t -fi-- _ - - + N 06d~9~ ~ 3 - 15 -4 CORN 3 W 4..9.68 ~-x •ra~r{r••a aa•asar•rar•r•a••ra r• •sa a~•~~r~~ ~ •~•ra~•~erar•r•~•~•r•r•~as•rs ri • •i• •a~ 7b•r•r•rt~aaa•a~•r•r as•rar•r r•I~•aaiaraa~•r•a•a••r•I Jl , ~ -4" CORN ~ ~ ER .A`RD SETBACK ' ~ ~ ~ i Y ~ - I I , N -~OOd - - 29 4 - - --nr-}oo , ~~.n~~yf~~r~.~.~~~~~~r.a.ase~.~er ~~~~r.~.~s~~~w~e .orr~.~• .a. ~aa~•~ .~sra~v , • ■ ~ ( ( ~-I t' r J ; I ar.r.s.w• •s ■ 2 S r r r ( • ~~..~.~s~.~~~.~~~~~or.~.~.r~~n~..a..r.~~~.w~~~~~~.~wFr~~~~~~a+isara~~~r~~~~ar~~~i~~.~~~~r.~~~. aW~ i i , ~ r rr + 1 ~ l ` ' ~ ACC ; , ACCESS ESS . ~ ~ ; ~r ___~_f___ POI~dT r - POINT ~ ~ j ~ ~ f I I I I ~ , _._--.~-fit r ` -_~L~ - ~ ` I ! i / I + i ~ r I + r l i/ ~ C a ~ r f r' ~ ` ` ' ~ ~ i/ i/ l I ~ , i ~ C a t~ ~ + ~ ~ ' I ~ ~ c,~ ~ i i I r r r r ~ i + ' + r ~ r r ~ ` i l / ~ i I ~ r ~ r ~ r r r r + I i r~ ~ ~~//yy ~ (p ~I 1 r 4 ~ ~ z w { J~-~-_ r~ 354.0 - - - - 7 I Q 4P r c Q ~ ~ , > I ~h tp, ~ ~ 24 -0 REAR YARD I F ~ ♦ i I~ I r r r ~ , SETBACK ; , ~ ~ M I C ~ I r +3 3 L i i 1 ~ ~ ' / ~ ~ ' I C ~ J ; + I / I I ,r 4 +386,0 ~ ~ C- i I ~ r ~ ! i ~ ~ r , C , r 1' a I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r I l , C 384.0 ! ~ , , , I 1 r ~ r . / ~ r i t 1` l i +352. / r S i 1' r , I t , / j ~ I r^ ~ i r r I + 40'4 # C r ~ ~ ~ i ` 1 - ~ I t0 r } C ~ ; 7 ~ a~ 1 ~1 ! ; 5 ~ % ~ Q~ i ; C ; +37. ~U ~ I r / I r ~ f , ' ; C ~ r J I i' 1 + ~ ~ ~ t r r , r ~ , • ~ f I ' 2 I I ~ Q~ ~ r i f 1 i ~ ~ r EM ERG NC ~ I ip a Q Q , ~ ~ ti I t i i ' `C ~ ~ % ~ ACCESS RIVE TYP. C r, ~ rs 7 r ~ ~ ~ r i, ~ - ' , ~ _ -J ~ ,,J ~ + 403 I , C ' 4 i / i I ,1 r C r l t r + ~ i , ~ ~ r 1 r ~ ~ l r r r , rJ / r C r l i , ~ / ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ro I a ~ ~ N ~ ' , t ~1_ C.• i / 1 I I } C'~ ~ ~ / C r ~ Q r ~ C ~ . ; ~ , , ~ / ~ N~ Q ~ 1 ~i ~ Q ~ r C 7 ~ C i ~ ,r r r ~ r i ~ ~ 378, ~ 'C 0o c~ ~ ~ r , ~ c ; r C ~ 345'0' ' ~ ` Q 37,~i.0 f C ~ ~ t' ~ 5 c~ , ' , / C +343.0 r ~'r ; ~ ~ / ~ , ' C i, t O , ~ 7 i ~ 04~ ; l r ~ t ~Uj• v ,r ~ f~ ; ~ ' Q'~~ ,i Q' r i i 7 r ~ l i y (J CC Q ' ~ ~ / r r , ~ rl U ~ r / r ,i ~ r Q ~ i l ~ t 1 ~ U l0 i / ~ / / , ,r Z~ - r C, / ; / , C~ 7 ~ 1 l ~ f1► ~ +3 ; C ; r ~ } 00 ~ o ' / ' C / i ; ! Q~ ~ /r ~ C ~ a~ ; ` `C , S' i ~ C ~ ,r - i v, N ~ I f r ( ~ , ,r ,r C Q<( i i~ ~1 Q ~ \ ~ ~ i Q / } , t r ~ i ~ , (fl r l r } U l6 r'/ i r r ~ ,r JOGGING , ~ w PATH ~ a' Q 24'- ~ 6 5 C ~ 0, DRIVE , „ _ , C % ~ Q WITH ; > ; ' 0 C~C C , ~ ~ C ii ~ SIDEWALK %C ~ ~ 36 ~ ~ f C ~ C C . ~ , R c c i 6 ` ~ ~ ~ / ~ , / •C f 17. ~ , / / ~ r / r j • ~ i r i , (Y , r J I } 37 / 5 ~ ~ ~ Q 5 ~ , 7 ~ ct~-~~- ~ ~ r r---------------+- - - - -------------f-------------------------------~------------------ -~Q. ~ I l~ ~ `F'~ I ~ ~Q Q-~ I , , --------T--------- r. 1 ~ G G r ~ I r , ; I ~ ~ ~ 1 C C ~ ~ I I c ~ I ~o C ~ ~ ; C ~ ti I ; i ~ ~ g / ~ ~ t~ 360 t._--~ ' ~ i i i / \ ~ ;0 C %r ; • ~ ~ , + 359 C S I C ; ~ 316.0 ~ i" r ~ ~ , I ,G c - ~ ~ - L I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ' C / I i ~ ; ` I J I ~ 0~ I I % 6 / i 3 ~ , S 1 w ~P~e~' ~ r' Q I , r 6 C ~ I , ` / / I C ~ ~ ~ 2 , ~ I 1 - ~ o , C , V-' I ~ P 318.0; / 4. ,i ~ I Q ~ I C / I ~ ~ P 3 6 ~ GP ~ , I C , ~ I 410 ,f , r i 8 C , ~ n _ ~ - - - J ~ _ _ C 34~ ~ ~ , T'~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~:f ~ - C, ' ~ ~ , t l~=' r , ~ ; ~ ; 33Q ~ 1 ~ N c c ~ ~ _ _ - C 6~ ~ - 4 ~r•s , ~ r' n BLDG. TO BE - V 9~ 2a 2 - ~ 31 - ~ ENCLOSURE: a ~ I . - N <IOSK: . - Ca 00 , _ i ---INDICATES B I + 3 U LDINGS s D TYP. i TO BE REMOVE R rAPPnRr- i ~y . ~ 1 'LEI 'y - L- I ,r' r _ ~ - - I `'tip ~ ~1J o f•,, t SENSITIVE LAND a . m (25,a SLOPE 4 ~ ;:f-- ; f ~ 270 ~ \ `ti I . tea. a? + _ - 1 For CODE DATA ~ CALCULAT z . ~ w 2, F or SIDEWALKS ~ ` PATH . WAYS yi ~ see L A NDSC~PE D RAWINGS ~ - 6p S 2 3. For PAVIN w ~ PROPO SED U T I ~ ~ r'' ~ , ~Q ~ ~ and TEMPORA ~ R 1' ER OSION n ~ ~ - Y~ ~r ' ! i J ~ t ~ l ! f 7 V C- i (9 S ~ 6q ^0 2 0~ ~ ry L T~ y t 1 j a 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ CD R,y~ U ~ ! ? fi~ ~l k ff ~ ! / ~ i t N AA II c ~ / / ~ ~ ~ ! ~ j / / f1 ~IV 109 H V ~ ~ .V11. ~ ~ , i s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 / r ~ ~ i ! l ON Q 03 o f 1 ~1 ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ i r 1 ~ t ~ ~ ~ 1 ~t / ~ i ~ i l r l l } F O l ~ A N f 1 r 3 `fix ~ ~ 1 1 'F s ~ ~ ~ d l I ~ I ~ I / .l a ~ / r° ~ ! ~ 1 / ~ ~ _ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,i .b s. o v i d x ~ r \ ~ x ~ x 1 r ~+BL rte' r r A..., r~ ♦ ~ ~ j c A i r !''tom ~ ~ ~ R;w ~ -1~ _F. ~ .:y- yam- t~9 ~.S $ ~ ..k a E ~ 21 s ~ 24'1' ~ t i ~ i j x ~ 1 f F 6 "P~ ...1 ~ ~ gC r 1 e 1 S ? i~ p FF I _ ` t ` f9z l 1. 4 d F i e~ a ae d~ ~ 1 ~ ~ t ~ ~ ; - - ~ _ ~ ` ~ 1 4 N ~ f ~ ~ i j tt ~ t / ~ / a / ~ ( ~ / / ~ k q „y ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ }a Y ) d r~ ` / f/ p g i 5{ ~ Q 3 ~ At ~ J ~ ' ~ 1 t r. / w ~ C9 ~ f ,a K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d' . ~ m a ~ 9 r ~ l l ~ f ? e / P r I ♦ 1 1 r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ r ~ l .P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4, a' ~ / / ! / N o ~ 1 1 R ~ ' c ' S ~ ~ / _ ~ a r ~ ~ F~ ` . t ~ ~ ♦ /J t f J ! j ~ ' 1 1 3 ~ r ~ ♦ ~o a ~ ~ ~ ~ (0 M~ Y ~ e I f ~ ; ~ 4F ~ / ! / f 9 / a 0 3 r ~ 0 ~ 4' r ~ t l 0 ~ ~ / 4T rs fn Q ~ , a r ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ a ( i a e ~ { ~i e ~ e~ ~ ~ a ~ ti, ~ ! x~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~Q / V # ! ~ ff ° U ~ / ~ .4 ~ f r / ~ 1 . 0 / { ~ ~ E i 4 ~ ~ F P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p 1 r r ~i ~ ' ~ qj " e~ 's + ~ x'V ! +ry a / ~ e Q ~ / ~ ' ~ ~1 r v ~ ~ 1P ,P/ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ / co ; ~ ~ I ~ / ~ ~ ~ /N ~ ~ / ~~i ~ ~ ~ l ~ a <a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ o b / ~ t r ~ ~ ;i` ~ ~ i-- F f i S~~ ~ 8/ y` ~ 1` r I , ~ / A A' 9 6 ° 3 ~ + / i` ~ d ~ Y 5A. I E ! ~ ~ }z f i ~ r" E' py~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r 6~ f ~ r e ~ M ~ r r- ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~.Q ~ ~ i ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ e r'~ d t ♦ F- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! P ~ 411ca y. ~ ~ 6 € / f ~ r ~ e s ~ f;" 1 a°~ i U 0 ~ r ~ ~ 1X ti D, ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ g" ~ ~ ,f ~ ' r f / t ~ F O ~ ~ ~ A 1` ~ ~ F 1 ♦ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ d r f ~ Q ~ / / ~ / f ~ ~ ~ g :-1 • ~ J iiJ~ ~ ~ d e l , ~ F a ~ Q >J ~ ~ = ~ G ~ GP ~ ~ g 9(P 37 6 ~ c .s ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ f ~ ~ . e ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ P Y ` ~ S '~r 6 J ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ♦ ~fl .d ~ , ~o~ / ~ ~ / • G ! ~ ~ / ~ • / ~ 7 I r.~ ~ / ore ~ e / ~ ~ s~ P~ r / / / ~ a / _ . m ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ / k~ ' ~ / ~ x97; W ~ ~ ~ y / / e- ~ ~ ~ ~s / f ~ / a r ~ / a ~ P t~„ ~ q - / / . w o G~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P ry •Q 1 ~ ! p , ~ / / ~ 1 / ,g~ / i / / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ m./ - .,i ~ / / / ~ , z r Q «,L.. ~ ~ f J ~ ,~a, ~ , i a 1 / w,,,/ ~ ~ i z 1 ~ / / ~ / x.~ Q 1 .r 0 ~.Rn ~ A,~,...a..~ xr`~ ~ i ~ ~ ~C 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h, ~r sw r z { ~,,.un ''°w.~„„ ~ s 'sue ~ ~ F r 4 j r w. m~ ! iI ~ c S ~ 9 , r a ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ ~ b cc: 4~ 0 3. A ~ N ~ i gbir%e l*"%l A T re% c t ~ . ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ j / ~ p~_I s . " ~ r, ~ ~ ,r ~ F I n~° 2 ~ 9 i 3 s i r1 1" / ~ / y / y FN. / • s'T' • • • I • s ~~i ~ CARPORT 6 • G 6 CARS ARAGE. 6 CARS 6 6 ~ Sr ~ i VV 6 6 ~ S= 6 / PT - a7+~.e~ ~ CARPORT 6 ~ 6 CARS ST 6 ■ ~ Gq S RAGS; 6 CARS ~I ~ ~i ~ CARP St g C ORT ■ ARS / - - - - - - i ~ ■ S 5 b' ~ ~ , T ~ I~ ~ b- 1 r~i 5 t~ ~ 3 ■ ~ ES ~ ~ ■ ~i 3 n ~ s s ~ 'ca cs ~i 5 . ♦ ~A T 0 ~i 5 ~ t 09 ~i ' s ~i ~~i T T i ~ 6' ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ '~L w ~I ~I l ~1 ~ 7 ~ I~ ~ . i _ ~ 1 _ _ G ~ L ~i 6' } ~i ~ ~1l1 i ~ S ~ ~ 6`9 ~1!#!! 1 X11 OVA t~ ; y ~~h ~i ~ 9 qp ~U~#t !gip ~ ~f~ ~ ~s ~~t t~« ~1~ ~ CARPO ~ ~ 6 C RT t~~ ARS s~' AAA ~i O '~s ~i Sr s qp s W ~ A ~1~ GARAG s T ARS y J t_^~/ ~ ~ ~Y S ~ ~ r a( ~ _ ~ 2 ~ s 9~ oA 2 / 9 9p F '~s ~ ~ A 1 ~ R 1 r 1 ~ / S R 4 / ~1~ ~ ~ ~i 2 r~~~ ~p ~l ~3 ri - c ~A s q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s Q1 ~ r ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~iti ~ +r► 6 / ~ ~ .i ~9 ~ ~i ST ~i ~i - Y s'~'-~ 1 6 ~ ~i r°'-' _ s 6 ~ ~ r ~~t~ ~i ~i - 6 ~i j s T-• s ~ ~ •.e s s .s - i , sr W sr ~ r s / ,-.L ~ 6 ~ ir~~~ r c,~ C s C pOR s qRA ~ qRs r tt ~~y~ - • c ~ 9,pgQ 1 sr '~i ~~i c BAR ~4 s qR '~+t '~~F ♦ oA t e ~ ~i 9 ~P 'cif c ~s T 'ERs t ♦ ; s ►~i T ~ ~r s~~ ~ ~ , ~ F ~i ~ e ~~i _ C'. Ii. _ i ryes ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / / \ \ \ N / I II I 1 1 11 1 ~i~ - - l~ 1~ i i i 1 f~ i 1 1 f 1 1 ~ - ~ - ~t~+~ I L ~ !f i \ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ..ice - f - 1 ~ sr ~f~ ~ N ~ T 1 ~ S ~t;1 ~ a ~ ~i s q~'p ~ ~ s qR~ ~ s r f,. f ~ s ~p ~ p A s T ~ / ~ s q~A ~ s~ ~ ~ A qq~p s r t~1 ~~i ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ARp~ rig ~i~ s ~ Rr r, t~ ARS t~1 ~ ~ ~i~ / 2 ~i ~l 2 a 11111 ~j 1111! #~1 1/~ I` 1~, I~t ~1 ~ ~~I ~~1 t ~i g 4 y y i ~ ~ ~ s qRA ~i ~ ~ ♦ ~ ~ ~°~T s ~ t ~h +i ~ 1#t tit ~ 11f t~ s°q t~ c~A ~ . s s r ~i 1 ~i s ~ I~! i~, ~~I 1 ~ S~ 11~ ~ j sly ~ ~1~ ~I ~ I~~ t I~t I~, 1~~ ~q ~j~ ~'q I~ ~ G' ~ ~ F ~ s \ ~ S o ~ ~ q~ ~ s r c •i s'~R A \ . ~ q °~r / Rs \ fi s~ ~ s~, i 4~ a \ '~i i a ~ / • ~ ~i t• i ~ t ~ ~ r~ J ti' ~ '1 0~ ■ t ~ ~ i w ~ , s ~ L r ~ ~ ~ D D ~ , 1 ~ ~ \ 0 . _ = 8,, ~ ~ a 1~ ~ ~ ,C ~ P r o z ~ • Z Z _ ~Z 7~ D = m ~ Z « c S DZ Z ~ 3 3 ~ ?a ~ \ L ~ W ~ ~ 3 -C a ~ _ r r - Z ~ r~ \ z C~ / ~ [Q N a n a r m v W D Z i L ~ ~u M fr a i~ f 1 i N 1~ ~/i ~ m s } Z ran j Zi:z M INC. c;s A.,,, PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS P.D. RESUBMITTAL: 27 Tigard, Oregon 0 C1~3 Triad/Tigard Development ~ r. M .at r 1 ^,1 3'V 25c-) Thorp Thomas V. R-rics-m ~ ~F y~ G R E CD (D C\z . . ~ a, o ~ P. o i 1 ~ ~ 1 -l C'n _ • O o c 0 o ~ r ! . J • d ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ • 0 ~ ~ y-. A N ♦ ~ Q ~ o o U ' ~ ~ • • ~ m ~ U r ~ . • / ~ . ~ tr W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LK • ' • • ~ • r Q ~ ' ~ r ~ a ~ • ~ t0 , • ~ f0 G' ~ r~ G ~ • ~ ^7 , ~ . (p • • . (0 ' ~ 0 ~ ~ • ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ • ~ • ~0 tp N) • • ` fp ~ ~ J ~ • • ' ~ • C J ~ • ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ' Li ~ • ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ • ~ • S x ► G~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ a i • `Y 0 Q~ • • • ~ KV l~ " Q G ~ . • / , • • r ' ~ _ _ ~D . ' ~ • ~ ~ . i • • • r . rA V • • 1 W r/^~ • ♦ • ~ ! N r Ve r , Q ~ • . ~ ~ 0 J • • • f0 Y • !I fp • r I 0 ~ i 0 ~0 C9 ~t3 ~ Q, y . ~ 'r ~ ~ j: t f ~ . ~ 't • • r ~ , t • • ~ ~ • ~ ~ . ~ ~ • U ~ . 0 r O • ~ . i- fp r • • • M ~ ~ ~ w o ~o S. a ~ ~ ~ ~ , Q ~ ~ u ~ ~r ♦ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ M o ~ ~ ~ • 4 ~ . G o ~ ~ O~ r ~0 _ . ~ • M ~ 4 V~ O~ ~ • ~ a ~C • • ~p ~~A"- _ s Q 1 ' ~ 3r U ro 1 ~ ~ ~ ~y 4Q • • ~ • N • ~ ~ 1 ~VI Q • ~ • • V • • ~ . ~ ~ ~ •r U _ e Q UtD • ' . • • . fp • ~ Q . Q • . ~ r • 6 • • Q • ~ t~; ~ • • . r0 l ~ . ~ a•C r • V` ~ 5 • . Q~GP G 5 y 6 6 6- ~ P G GP 1 0 0 G ~ ~ ~ t' 0~ ~ ~Q F' i " ' , ` r~ • _ a~ G • • J t . . ~ - • r • • ~ ~ d • . S_ f V < Q ~ ~ ~ • . • . R ~~1 • ~ . • GPG • ' 6 • fp • ~ ~ r• QQ • . { lF. _ r, ~ ~ ~ ~ , U ~ • ~ ~ ~ i Q ~ Q` ~ • • 4 ~ • ,O%/ 1 I GP ~ ~ r ~ GP G P_ ~ • ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ . . © ~ • ~ ~ ~ ti o ♦ ~ li ~ ~ 1 • t ~ Q ~ ° ~ ~ ~ • ~ ` ~ SYMBOL COMMON ~ NAME TANICAL NAME ' 0 ♦ ~ ♦ ~ ~ ' o ' a 0 0 0 , Large Deciduous Street Trees 1 314"-Z" caliper B&8 ° o 25'-4tf' s acin P gl o ~ Red Oak 4uercus rubra L f 0 o ~ are a uous Parkin Lot Trees 1 314"-2" call er Bd~B L g D cid g p 0 0 25'•40' s acin t { p g) ° o Landon Plane Trae Platanus aceri#vlia 0 0 ~ Raywood Ash Fraxinus arms `Raywood' o ° Red M le Ater rubrum o aP o Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 0 0 ® Norw ie Ater latanoides 0 0 ~ p .L o ° American linden Tilia americans G p ° p 0 o Ornamental Treertr t 3~4" calf er B&f5 20'•25' 8 ( 0 0 o p 0 0 0 ~ spacfn9l ° Fiowerin Pear P rus 'Bradford' a ° g Y a ° Washin ton Thorn Cratae us haeno rum 9 9 P PY R. ~ c Korean [bgwood Cornus kousa c Snowdra Haiesia caroling :sr . P Sar ent Crabapple Ma1us sargentii 9 o Yoshina Cherry Prunus yedoensis 0 Q p i c ~ ° 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Evergreen Screen Trees 6.8 B&8 (25.30 spacingf ° f3ou las Fir Psuedotsuga menziesii 9 ry I o ~ Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata , Coast Redwood 5equia sempervirens s i a Giant Se uoia S uafadendron ' anteum q ~ g~9 Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla J f Ever teen Trees 6'-8' B&B (2D'-25' spacing) d ~ COTE; Yew Cedar Charnaecyparis naotkatensis Austrian Blade Pine Pious n' ra 1. All iantin beds shall receive a 2 dee layer of approved bark mulch. p g P Share Pine Pious contorts 2. All landsca areas shall be fully irri aced with a automatic beit~w grade ~ f)eodara Cedar Cedrus deadora 1 irri anon s stern, com fete in all ~aa s. ~ Y P Y Lawson Cypress Ghamaecyparrs lawsornana Cu ress arisle landii Leylanda Cress p acyp y l 1 ;L, i t DETAIL " A" SCALE 1" = 20' A.L. T. A./A.C.S.M. LAND TITLE SURVEY - CLASS A FOR GRAYSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND w o TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE x~ ~ , IN LOTS 7 & 8, "WILLOW BROOK FARM" AND IN THE N.E. & S.E. 1 /4~ S, SECTION 10, T2S, R1 W, W.M. E LY R b~J 109th A N CIiY OF TIGARD C N ~ T -__2~---•, i WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON C A CENTER OF SEC110N LINE I' c PER C.S. S 12250 & 23149 7_ 7.42 _ '~1 89' 36' 00" E 991.08 • SCALE i" = 100 NOV. 15,. 1989 i ~ ~ ; , 1 /4 CORNER ~ ~ 16.43 ~ r 89 29 53 >N ~ ~ FD. 1 /2 LP. PER 8.63 D, ~ WASN. CO. ALUM. CAP. , ~ I'r I ~~ILL0~4' BROOK 5~8' ~ ~ ~ ~ Oq; ~ U.S,B.T. BOOK 3, PAGE 398 ABLE ~ • ~ N, COR LOT 7 FD. 3/4 LP. PAR vT~ •R. ~ E vOR Red PF ALSO ED. 3 /4 1.P. 12.81 I ~ ~ C.S. 19357 HELD R 4 , HELD # ~ Y ~ ~ ~ T I J • =FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD O =FOUND IRON PIPE AS NOTED _ ~ 0. ~ ~p S 63 ~8 30 ~N. THIS POI,J ~ ~ aDS _ ~ LOT 4 ~ ~ ~ F O HAS BEEN 3,JCORREJTLY USED OO =FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED LEGAL DESCRIPTION -OVERALL 0 O AS THE 1 ~ 4 CCR~~,ER. ON MA. ~Y ,TAX LOT # 9200 i d6 # 9200 ■ =FOUND BRASS SCREW ~ / ~ - RECORG DOCUME,dTS. _ i MAP 2S1-1 OAD TAX LOT # 500, ti1Ar' ~ 2S1 10A~ ~7-10AD ~ =SET 5/8" X 30" IRON ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHE STA~APED ' J. PETERSON P.L.S. # 1856" 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M. WASHINGTON SOUTHEAST QUARTERS OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP s u!uunnl M j INTY nRFrtnN Ai enRnOV RFING i ~ ~ , ~ EARIN~S PER C.~. ~ 23149 S BASIS OE B }E =POWER POLE W GUY WIRE MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ~ " 23149 C.S. ~ 1 1001.28 1001.35 ~ i ~ S893600 / / _ , 42.60 FOLLOWS: ~ ~ 515.08 8.05 i 7.74 ; I ~ I ~ ~ ( 40.00 . BEARS NORTH 71' 38' 49" WEST 1050.88 FEET ~ TAX LOT 600 ~ 1 ~ , # I ~ I G V of ~ h ~ N 00 2 2 ~ ~ SEE ~ JOTE~ 2& ~ 40.00 ~ MENT AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID ,CAF 251-10A~ r I --.__DEDIC ~o ~ SOUTH 89' 36' 00" WEST 1001.28 FEET TO AN - ~ ~----~X-- ~ ~ r 1- . VAY LINE OF S.W. PACIFIC HIGHWAY; THENCE FOL- c~ 1 ? ; , w fU i l OUTHWESTERLY 220.44 FEET ALONG A 1392.39 FOOT TAX LOT 9300 ~ 3 r~ ~A ~ \ ~ tf} p ~ r LEFT (THE LONG CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH ~ , ~ ~ ~ TAX LOT 00 I ~ 1-1 A~ ~ i~ ~ ~r M A 2 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ v1 ~ . ~ a 1 rf ENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 1~ ~ l ~ ~i ,c.~ o r~ ~ S-~ ~ ~ , .25 25 ~ ~ o o,~ P J ~ G~ECK~' U Q ET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT, 9, li r _r. r ~ ~ 6~, _ ( ; ~ ~ uE~K t~ ~ ~ I ORTH 89' 29' 43" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, )RNER OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE SOUTH 00' 51' 39 3g. ~ ~ o~ H 4 ~ ID LOT 9, 792.52 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER o ~ z ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ I i F~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ TAX LOT 900 ~ ' # ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ auha~P HQ' SE ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ( ~ r , i I o ; , ~ ; ~ TAX LOT 8:00 ~ , ~ ~ z ~ -!Ia 'z ~ MAP 2S1 _10AC f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;SEE ~ETA4L A ~,av~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 I 250,00 0 ~ ~ ~~~N ~ ~ 342.03 1 h7. ~ 5 O 282.36 67.04 - - - - - ~ - - ----~---3f-, _ - - - - - - i ~ ~ ~ 9 t 9 43 E 1109.02 s N 8 9 2 I~ 4 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ u r NMI ~ r ~ ~ _ T.r=~' r ~ I V , i i ~ ~ li ~ i t V ~I ` i fy ~ ` z 'f I ~ ' 4'f ~ 1 .k ~ Q l ~i ~ U ~ LOT 6 r TO THE INTERSECTION WITH S.W. 109th AVENUE . o ~ ~ l W rn o~ N --THE CENTER OF SAID AVENUE NORTH 00' 34' 47" ~ 9" WEST 437.10 FEET AND NORTH 00' 59' 13" WEST ' D o~~ 1 ~i w ~ T / (1 ' SR" FAgT _145 _15 FFFT Tr-) TNF POINT r)p Ai:- r i o r ry, a' ~ ~ 1, t ; r ~ ~ J ~ N J ~ F ~ T d ~ ~ TAX LOT 30~ rn ,AX LOT 200 I IBLIC TO ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN S.W. NAEVE ROAD ~ r• TAX LOT # 100 MAP 25~-10DB MAP 251-10DB 19 ~ # _ 1-th AVENUE (COUNTY ROAD # 1415). r MAP # 251 l ODB l 3ASIS OF BEARINGS SEE SURVEY BY J. PETERSON DATED ~ i' ~ 3 ~ , ~ m ~ I. ~ /t i r' .t ~ I r- + , , a I~ A ~ DoT 8 o ~ ~oT ~ a I; I i l p I ~ !I ~o ,r ~i ~ ~ Z ~ ~ o ~f I N JY AND TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE: / p PAJ, 1 I I 1 Z' GCN~. C, NELL \ AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE ~ ~ LOT 5 ~ z ~ I ~ IM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR A.L.T.A/ S y~ O TLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY A.L.T.A. AND CURACY REQUIREMENTS OF A CLASS 0 A" SURVEY LOT 7 0 r . III.:`, .A ~ , ~ ~ ~Y/S pOR ~ RO,.,~ ~ GR E~ , / ~a~ CCNC, f 'kl ~,I W O uv~.vmciv i ~ of ~rvi i i V THE MAP AND PLAT OF COUNTY ROAD 1415 S. W. 109th AVENUE STATES THAT THE JORN L. & SHARON M. PETERSON E # ~ ) 10120 S. W. KENT PL. ~ CENTERLINE OF COUNTY ROAD ~ 1415 IS 20.00 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT TiGARD, OR. 97223 2 6, "WILLOW-BROOK FARM" . ~ ~ UUt.;UMtN I # a 1 -1 UO 1 ~ ~ ELBERT A. & B.E. CUSHMAN N ~ ~ ARi;. ~ C/O M.D.S. INVESTMENT INC. 2000 U.S. BANCORP TOWER 111 S. W. 5th AVE. Ro Roga\ ~ J ~ I ~ I ~ r ~ TAX LOT # 800, MAP # 251-10AC P THE ARE,4 IN CONFLICT IS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COUNTY ROAD # 1415 AND BOOK 912 PAGE 572 PORTLAND, OR. 97204 ONLY AFFECTS THE UNDERLYING INTEREST IN CASE OF A VACA710N. WILCOX ERICKSON WESTERN CORP. T RT. 4, BOX 274 g 5 - WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE # 83-0789C (ELIZABETH A. ANDERSON SHERWOOD, OR. 97140 WI TAX LOT # 200, MAP # 251-10DB \ ~ gyp, 3 BOOK 318, PAGE 267 . iz X63. ~~\RpA ! ~,II I ,N, VS. HOFrMAN ANO HOFFMAN, HILLTOP ESTATES) WAS A QUITE TITLE ACT10N FOR TAX 2 tOTS # 600 do 900, MAP ~ 251-10AC AND TAX LOT # 9300, MAP # 2S1-t0A0.IT WAS TAX LOT ~ 900, MAP # 2S1-10AC q SETTLED IN FAVOR OF ELIZABETH A. ANDERSON. THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THE EAST LINE DOCUMENT # 77-35947 WILLIAM B. & CLAIRE M. SANDERS i, ~\8.49 4 ~6SFG t0. ~I~. ie 23256 BENDS RD. N.E. 2~ U T AURORA, OR. 97002 OF TAX LOT # 9300, MAP # 2S1-10AD AS THE CENTERLINE OF S. W. 109th AVENUE ELIZABETH A. ANDERSON T (COUNTY ROAD # 1415). 15001 S. W. 109th ST. D TIGARD, OR. 97223 N LOT 4 NOTE TABLE E 9 B FD I.R. 0.04 fp. 3/4~ I.P. TAX LOT # 300, MAP # 251-10DB S8 ~3 qC qT~~N ~ I~ DOCUMENT # 88-8547 F ~ NORTH PACIFIC CONFERENCE OF THE EVANGELICAL COVENANT CHURCH N~~~^~ 13) ~ a il~ I LOT 4 925 116th AVE. N.E., SUITE 221 q r s~ ~9~ ~O~9~S ~ ~ ~ 889 62 ~ ~ i BELLEVUE, WA. 98804 ~ ~ N 89' 38' 00' W O7 q~0 FD. 1 /2' I.R. 1.25 ~ 3 ~ 30.1 S HELD N/S S 0~' St' t 9' w S~ LY OF CL ELIZABETH A. ANDERSON IS NOW GOING BY H O ~ 3~4. ~ P TO BE DURBIN. Kim Av uco ►I ADDIcn Kl n►Ac uruir~u I OCI ic~rc i 0 ~ FD. 3/4' I.P. 9.89 O Fp. 3/4' I.P. ~ 4 0.04 S~ lY ~ ~ i ~ \ S 19' S4' 04' W 0.28 S' LY 2 1 ALSO FD. 3/4'I.P. 11.87 ~ 5 FD. 3/4~ I.P. S 28' 12' 39' W FD. 3/4' I.P. 0.28 \ S 00' S1' 39' E 3J 0.49 E' LY ` ~ HELD E/W FD. NAIL CURVE DATA ' j~~~ o ; ~ 6 30.04 S' LY CURVE DELTA RADIUS ARC CHORD TANGENT CHORD BRG. ~ FD. 5/8' I.R. 0.20 ~70 ~ 1/2~ I.P. ~ CL ( 4) S 78' 29' 01' E PER 0.27 S' LY ~ ~ Fp. 3/4' I.P. IN 1 19' S3' 00" 1432.39 497.08 494.59 251.07 N 23' 27' 29" E ~e _ C.S. y 23149 MoN. eox HE~n P.D. RESUBMfTTAL: 27 AUG. 91 FD. I.P. 1.78 2 09' 04' 15" 1392.39 220.44 220.21 110.45 N 18' 03' 07" E FU. 1 /2' I.P. N 13' 30' S9' E 3 60' 21' 32" 100.00 105.35 100.54 58.15 N 30' 33' 42" E 4 28' 57' 18" 125.00 63.17 62.50 32.28 N 14' S1 ~ 35' E 5) 0.36 E' LY ~ ~ HELD FOR R/W g 1 Fp, 3~4• ~.p, REGISTERED a. 91 5 28' S7' 18" 100.00 50.54 50.00 25.82 N 14' S1' 35` E PACIFlC HWY. _J ~ PROFESSIONAL ~ LAND SURVEYOR 6 28' S7' 18" 75.00 37.90 37.50 19.37 N 14' S1' 35" E FD. 3/4' I.P. 0.84 Fp. y►.32 c ~ N 89' 29' 43~ E ~ 7 2 S' LY OF CL `79 Fp. 3/4' I.P. ~t~!,~ 2724 S.E. SUNFLO HELD N/S ~ HILLSHORO, ❑REG~ 7 28' S7' 18" 100.00 50.54 50.00 25.82 N 14' 51' 35" E CENSTRUCTIEN ur q we .DM M FE7EFIIN 12 DEVEL_EPMENT & SERVICES 1856 ~ ~l i ,E. SUNFLOWER COURT IRO, OREGON 97123 (503) 648-4959 JAB # 890401 1 , P f 2 t t x 4 y f Prr Y Y i • J • 11 • ~ • • I ..sue. _.....~.w.n.,~.~.w....r+ ~ r.r.M n.+..r rr~.O w~+i1 1nr~r1 ~rN ~.w..nl w+~~ wr.r ~..w ~ ..r w.+ jl 34'F IB~F t t t 3Q.F d4'F + . 14'F t 3~ + + ' t tt~F t 24'F' ~ ~"1''t ~ t u'F ~ + e4~F ~ eo~F t + t ►s t + ~ + 16'F + 3E`F Q ~ + 18'F t t 36'F • 10'F + ~o'F + + i 36"F + 3D'F 16'f t ~ 39T t zwF 3p~F tee + + t ~ 1°'F + ig'F e * + ii`F t i 7 t ~ 1~'F } + li"F 38'F E4`F ~ E+'F + + + 13Nr + 1 t lA'F 124' # + + 2C Z'~'f' t ~~.F + 18'P t + + + + ~ + li'F $4'f + + It 7Q'F' t ~'F ~ lE'f + u,F, F ~ t 84'f + t + la'MF t 3K'F t ~ t t + 14'F 2Mf * 12'F + L g'-~ ~iJ t + t + 34'F i~'F + .Y t 8~'F t 10'10'x' t .F ii!'t~~ t # s +tb i0'f + + 1E"F 8'f + • 1!!'F !0'F ~ t t 1i'F ~ 70'f' + t t + + 14'~F + + PA'F'tt`M ~EL"F' t3' ~1 ~ ~ t 1`~`F t4'F 24'F ~ llMf' t lE'P' + t ~ + t + 32'F t r~ + t i*A'P' + ~ tt'F 12'F t t + r t W lt'F D l..l,i~ t0'f' t9'f t 19'F + ~ i~ + lA'F' 14' i li'F ti'F t + i4'F t iB'F~ ldh • LM'F t t ~ + ib'PF'f ~ + 26T E8'F 1 + t i'F lb'F t t t ~'F' I t t 1Y'F !A'F 34`F 3A'F t + F + i6'F i \ 1E~1'F 8 1Y'f } ~&F + + + + + ( • i~F + 26'F 14'F' 1 t 6'F 12`F ~ + t ru + + ~ » ~ ~ + !~'P ib'P' + tiT + ~ t 12'F ,r'`r t 3C'14'lY + + t + t t 'R } } t + E + zoo + tt+F ~ !MF + 'F S4M ii'f t ~ 1 i Ila'F * # + t + + 86 19'F t 36'P 3Y'F t 34'P" e'E' + ~+lr + } 34'M + t lA`f1iN # + + t + 9'F 14'F 3E'F' ii'F } } ~j~M 38T E4't! 1R'F ~ + t y~,~. 14'f ~ t + 14`F ~ ,~+F ~ 34'F + ll'~K + + •t 1~ 8'F 34 ~ 7'F + + t V V L ~ t "F li'f + t4'{~' t t + 3S~' 30` ~ ry~y '~I MM ii'F ~ t W + + 38'f' tN + + t ~ U + 8A + t + ~ 1i r i 6 ~ + + + } + + Yy 38"f~A ~'f' • L'E'1132'F ! + ~ 1E i ~ ~ + ii'Ft u,F. . i 1 + + 14'ti'Mt + ib F ~ t ~ t ~ i'P 10'P + t 1.v + 1VF t 8'F * t + t }t'F P4'P 24'P 10'P i =r 38'P t 24'M a -l 10'f' + 30'M t 1` _ t lOhi 18'P # _ WN t 14'F IK t 1L'F + i + + + 1 10'F ~ 12'P + 36'SEQ + i E * t i !A`N t IO"P t t ~ t l!4'SQA ~ t 4 SEQ 10'f + w~ t !J • + + + !t'SEii t liT + !4'M a +t 3 ii'TEQ t~ t t 10'P + ll»P t + !C€ + 16'N 1E'f' t + + ~ ~ t 1i"~A t 12Y , I S'R' + * + i8`P t .sw ~ d'P {t t + - ~ + I ~ 1 i6'M YS•CDt ~'p 12'SEQ Y'P + 2F'P ~ V + 10'SEL'l ~ t~► J s P + t fii4'M EA`5~Q iC''SEQ 16'M TAB LOT ~ 10{} ..r ~ .r + F ~ ZA'3~ ~ } t M A P~~ S 1'~ 1 CJ D~ ~ t~ S~Q t t • i~"~Rl t i I ~ AA'1~'9 IQ"16'M i . `ti ~ * # ~ ~ t + I _ P ~ ~ w ~ f i~ J 7Q'Rf8 uw~ ~4 ~ + + + 1 ~ t t + Q 3d'S~Q E4'S~ IEt'1&'I4• + 1~'RfD f + Ion + + g-Iae-i~ + z-~F ~ + i~'F' + ~ * } IE'I~! a6'if~Q SPR ..~r nn P ~ + Iart' u~ ~ ~J ~ + ' if t.J 1 V l.~ . 4'SPR WE~.L t7'F t i~'N * * L'-iD'14't~t ~ ~ I~'N I8'F' ~ ~ [~✓j ~'FtR IA'N xE~ t * lt~'F'I~'f'I ~ ~ t I t e'F~ 4-lp"N R * i I ~ f~ ~t~~ 4.! IZ'k~lf , of * i i f / ` ~ E Q"fTR ; i ~ CANC. fl u c~ 1'F7R 'F'IR IQ'i4'1!1 s ~ v ~ t ffi'f~ + 10'f'IR • + t IS'F } '.,4'~'I~~ ~ { ,F Il'FIR I8'i'IR 9'fIR 14'M i E t 6'f'bR + t I~'M t I9'FIR a4~ + ~ s•~en + 1t~F'~t*~iEB~~R '3lNM + 3--i6`fl + i~`iB'It' } 40R WD t~D ~ ar•~ 8'FtR j ~ DW A ~ ~ ~ t I!'t:E:~AR * .f. 4^6K4'M # I '1~'M s i ~ ixra~ 8'F'IR + u • R 1 I ~ ~ ,y a I i ~ ~ M~a i ~ ~ ~ a4~ra ~ ~ 14 i ~ + • t L+4'iR6H ~ + i ~,r + + 4.~ t I~'RTR ~ 1 + + ~ F ~ + 1 , + ' l i~~ ~ stern E t~ 6! h i i ~ ' 8,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,y ~ ~ oo \ I ~ - S h t t f es E~ave been located by clot tote. ~ number o tre om ass methods. Location of t I +II + i~'F• tape and c ' be saved should he field s~gnif~cant trees to ifi d. ~ ~ ver e • ~ ~ ~ t { s i k 1 E ~ ~ ! e / r~.# 1. i \yf\ ~ { 1 c~ ~ » ~ ~~q ~ ~ s", . n.5 ......k PRnAcr rte. 9- na~, REvIsIOM Q nesuWn an MavN BY, P.D. RESUBMITTA 7 AUG. 91 TVm*.~ A IDn ` CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES EXISTING TREES `OfM P`."L"&n SUM 3" `•r-:,......„~,_ ~ v ~ Mass S.W. ceNnx st, auvExxiEK DR. e7005-UM r t i s ~ { t ~a~ ~cno p O ~ p U w D Q r .J t N~ N ~ ~ J v J i moo QOO ~ O +O J ~ ~ p oZ U 5 U Q ~ d r N L W O O ~ rj, 7. W n 0 j , ~ ~ w Q o ~ p O O O O ~ {y N ~ ~ ° O o rn ao ~ i w 000, ~ saw ~ ~ ~ N / o c~ / J~~~~ ~ ~L'Zj~9~ / 9;64'4 ~~Nd/d~ 3~- d/ R Y - ~ - n l i j it ~I ~ ~ iii ~(gX/~'ii ~ i~i Qom' ' / / / i ~e 1 1 1. ~ ~T., 'to'y- ; ; ,°~,~!''9°~"~ /~7T • ~ ~~~%;'i~;,' ~i / ' ' I ~ ' / /~j'/ ~ 1\i i ~ i'/l~ i;~'i j~j// ijf.~ ~~~~/~~~i~iii j ~ i i F. -L~~ f y.~ t~ - .v .ir• ■ i .n i I =NOW _r s ~T 'f d _ „s- t r~-n i 1~ l_ ~ - 1 ' r ~ zO " / 1/ / i ~ ~ i f i / ~ ~ _ !I T f -j ` }s o ~;;°_t------~:%/ ~ ~ ~i,i~ iii ~,~i ~ iii i~,,~ ~ ~ j r X Qom- ~ j~ ~ f } _ _ ~ i rn! i ! I 1 1 ! ! ~ - i i is / / ~ i ~ ~ --gyp / / ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ / / / ~ / ,fir, ~ ~ ~ , ~ Q Q U ~r - - r / / L / _ N u a ' f ~ 4 i 't 7 %%1 r k 1 ~ " r'~~ s _1 ~ ~ i v._ f + r~ ` l P r i