Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Hearings Officer Packet - 02/27/2006
CITYCIF TIGARD ORY"~ON - COMMUNITY DEVELOPN, ',;T - CURRENT PLANNING 1TZ~D HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY - FEBRUARY 27, 2006 - 7:00 PM Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments and qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. Hearings are held in Town Hall at the City of Tigard at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Staff reports are available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 APPEAL OF CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2005-00016 VARIANCE (VAR) 2005-00066 ITEM ON APPEAL: On December 30, 2005, the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 15-unit single-family Subdivision on 1.82 acres; and for an Adjustment to exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length of 200 feet to allow 240 feet where the proposed street to the homes will terminate. On January 17, 2006, an appeal was filed by a neighboring resident in regard to issues relating to traffic, trees, storm water detention, deficiencies in the impact study, and inadequate notice to the neighbors. LOCATION: 15685 SW 79'h Avenue; WCTM 2S112CD, Tax Lot 1900. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a frill range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA SUBJECT TO THE APPEAL: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.790 and 18.810. Page 1 of 2 0 0 2.2 MIRAGE MINI STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2005-00001 VARIANCE (VAR) 2005-00090 REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a three story mini storage facility with a full time on-site attendant on a .72 acre site. In addition the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required on-site parking from 74 spaces to 7 spaces. A conditional use permit is required to allow a self-service storage use in the General Commercial zone. LOCATION: The pro)ect is located on at the end of SW Warner Avenue, north or SW Pacific Highway, east of SW Hall Boulevard; WCTM 1S135DD, Tax Lot 05200. ZONE: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a, permitted use. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 2of2 Depending on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2006 PAGE ( OF_ FILE NAME: "APPEAL" OF CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2005-00016 VARIANCE (VAR) 2005-00066 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT - (Speaking Against) Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. kpvt," 5 I tC(,,j 0ofbso N -1It 2t(`~ C~ S w o~ 5 ~~2e F ~5 Sw CV \V d' C-01 ©K C1 ~ 22-4 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. S~Aarmr► Btor"e.ss0-r) Name, A r ss, Zip Code and Phone No. v r-S ~L9E S-~ ~ `5 ,1 ~ 0 P G Nameddress, Zi Code and Phone No. X60 S bo cA;~J . Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. - -r41ol7-2a~__ Name, Address, Zip Code and_Phone No. ~-q t3 s C-,1 V rJ, ,1 t Lk) `l-~ -T( P -0p, Cf Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. - rck a~ 22-74 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. • CO~UNITY SPAPEl~S 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO Box 22109 • Portland, OR 97269 Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 Email: legaladvertising@commnewspapers.com AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard Public Hearing-Churchill Woods TT10735 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues February 9, 2006 CKO'~ 104C WjAt_'P Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Man ger) Subscribed and sworn to before me this February 2006 C NOTA PUBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires "_"M c7b 1 o;W~7 Acct #10093001 Patricia Lunsford , City of Tigard 0 Ni 13125 SW Hall Boulevard MY COMMIS Tigard, OR 97223 CITY O TIG UBLIC HEARING ITE The following will be consi d by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday February 27, 2006 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Cheryl Caines) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2005-00016/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00066 > APPEAL OF CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION < ITEM ON APPEAL: On December 30, 2005, the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 15-unit single-family Subdivision on 1.82 acres; and for an Adjustment to exceed the maximum cul-de- sac length of 200 feet to allow 240 feet where the proposed street to the homes will terminate. On January 17, 2006, an appeal was filed by a neighboring resident in regard to issues relating to traffic, trees, storm water detention, deficiencies in the impact study, anlo inadequate notice to the neighbors. LOCATION: 15685 SW 79 Avenue; WCTM 2S112CD, Tax Lot 1900. ZONE: R-12: Medium- Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA SUBJECT TO THE APPEAL: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390, 18.790 and 18.810. Publish 2/9/2006 TT10735 Size 2x7.5 Amount Due $125.25 ' remit to address above 9 • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an appeal of an administrative ) FINAL ORDER decision approving an application for a 15-lot ) subdivision on 1.82 acres located at 15685 ) SUB2005-00016 SW 79th Avenue in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Churchill Woods Subdivision) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, Spectrum Development, LLC, requests approval of a preliminary plan for a 15-lot subdivision of a 1.82-acre parcel in the R-12 (Medium Density Residential) zone located on the west side of 79th Avenue just north of SW Churchill Way at 15685 SW 79th Avenue; also known as Tax Lot 01900, WCTM 2S 112CD (the "site"). The applicant proposes to develop each of the 15 new lots with a single family detached dwelling. The applicant will extend a new public cul-de-sac street into the site from SW 79th Avenue.I The applicant will extend two private streets to the north and south of the cul-de-sac street, proposed Tracts A and B. The applicant will dedicate right of way and construct frontage improvements along the site's 79th Avenue frontage. The applicant proposes to collect storm water from impervious areas of the site and to convey it to a storm water facility in the southeast corner of the site, proposed Tract C, for treatment, detention and discharge to the existing storm sewer in SW 79th Avenue east of the site. All proposed lots will be served by public water and sanitary sewer systems. With this application the applicant proposes to remove all of the 151 regulated trees on the site. However the applicant testified that it intends to save many of the trees within the building setbacks and around the perimeter of the site. 2. On December 30, 2005, the Tigard Planning Manager (the "manager") issued a Type II decision approving the application subject to conditions of approval. On January 17, 2006, the City received an appeal of the Manager's decision filed by attorney Kenneth Dobson on behalf of Judy and Kenneth Dobson (the "appellants"). The appeal alleged that the City failed to: a. Require a traffic study or refer the application to the commission for review; b. Require protection for trees on adjacent properties; c. Require the applicant to preserve trees wherever possible; d, Address deficiencies in the applicant's impact study; i The applicant originally applied for an adjustment to exceed the maximum 200-foot cul-de-sac length. However staff determined that the proposed cul-de-sac is less than 200 feet long. Therefore the variance was not required and the planning manager denied the adjustment application. • e. Properly address common improvements; f. Require adequate stormwater controls to accommodate runoff from adjacent properties and runoff flowing over steep slopes created in the northwest corner of the site; and g. Provide adequate notice to neighboring property owners. 3. February 27, 2006, Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. City staff recommended the hearings officer deny the appeal and affirm the manager's decision. See the Memorandum to the Hearings Officer dated February 17, 2006 (the "Memorandum"). Representatives of the applicant testified in support of the application. The appellants and other area residents testified orally and in writing in support of the appeal. The principal issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the City provided adequate public notice; b. Whether a traffic study is required pursuant to TDC 18.810.030.AC and whether additional traffic generated by the proposed development will exceed the capacity of area streets or otherwise create a hazard; c. Whether the proposed development complies with the tree removal regulations of TDC 18.790; d. Whether development on the site will cause or exacerbate flooding and erosion on the site and on adjacent properties; and e. Whether the applicant's impact study is sufficient to comply with TDC 18.390.040.B.2(e); 4. Based on the findings and conclusions contained herein and the testimony and evidence in the public record, the hearings officer denies the appeal and affirms the administrative decision conditionally approving the application for the reasons provided herein. B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about the appeal on February 27, 2006. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony and evidence offered at the hearing. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 2 • • 2. City planner Cheryl Cains summarized the manager's decision, the appeal and her February 17, 2006 Memorandum in response to the appeal. She noted that the manager denied the requested adjustment to the maximum cul-de-sac length standard, because the proposed cul-de-sac is less than 200 feet long and therefore complies with the Code. a. She noted that condition of approval 4 of the manager's decision requires that the applicant submit a Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan and construction sequence for the installation and removal of tree protection devices. The City will monitor the tree protection measures to ensure that construction on the site does not damage the retained trees. 3. Planner Lee Leighton, traffic engineer Michael Ard and attorney Andrew Stamp testified on behalf of the applicant. the appeal. a. Mr. Leighton summarized the proposed development and responded to i. He testified that the applicant will protect trees on adjacent properties during development on the site. The applicant contacted the owners of all abutting properties and requested permission to enter the properties and survey the location of offsite trees. Many neighbors agreed and the applicant surveyed the location of trees on those properties. The applicant revised the grading plan, eliminating all proposed grading in the west and northwest portions of the site in order to reduce potential impacts on trees on neighboring properties and to retain additional trees on the site. See the February 14, 2006 "Grading and Erosion Control Plan." ii. He testified that the applicant intends to retain as many trees on the site as possible. The Code provides a significant incentive to preserve trees by requiring costly mitigation for their removal. However the Code also makes it difficult to revise a tree preservation plan if, based on subsequent engineering and design, it becomes necessary to remove trees that were originally proposed for retention. Therefore the applicant proposed to remove all of the trees on the site in order to avoid the need for a revised tree protection plan if changes are required. However the applicant's construction and tree protection plans will provide protection for trees on the site. The applicant's arborist will inspect the protection measures and submit weekly reports to the City while construction is occurring on the site. iii. He noted that the Code does not require a transportation impact analysis in this case. However the applicant conducted an analysis anyway in order to address neighbors' concerns. That analysis demonstrated that all affected intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service and traffic generated by the proposed subdivision will not cause or exacerbate safety hazards. iv. He testified that the applicant accidentally included the wrong address packet in the application materials. Exhibit P of the application. However the Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 3 City did not rely on the applicant's address packet. The City mailed the public notice to the owners of properties within 500 feet of this site. One envelope was returned from an address that was listed on the notice list for this site but not on the other address list in the application, confirming that the City used the correct address list for this application. v. He noted that the existing pavement on SW 79th Avenue abutting the site is 19 feet wide, based on the applicant's survey, Plan Sheet 2 of 14, which is consistent with Mr. Dobson's observations. The applicant will add an additional 18 to 20 feet of pavement, measured from the centerline of the street, along the site's frontage, creating a 24 to 26-foot wide paved section abutting the site. In addition, the applicant will install sidewalks, a planter strip and street lights on the west side of the street. 79th Avenue. b. Mr. Ard testified that the traffic impact analysis addressed safety on SW i. Intersection and stopping sight distances are adequate along the majority of SW 79th Avenue. Sight distance is limited by a vertical curve near the north end of the street. There is an existing "Hidden Driveways" sign with a 15 mph advisory speed on either side of the driveway. Stopping sight distance is adequate based on the advisory speed. ii. The accident history for this street does not indicate an existing safety problem. Only three accidents were recorded on SW 79th Avenue during the three year period between 2002 and 2004, which equates to an accident rate between 0.12 and 0.48 accidents per million entering vehicles. Most jurisdictions in the region consider an accident rate below 1 accident per million entering vehicles as "safe." iii. The lack of sidewalks on 79th Avenue is not unusual. Similar conditions exist on many residential streets in the City. Pedestrians must exercise caution when walking on this street. But the narrow pavement and lack of sidewalks does not create a hazard. iv. He noted that the traffic engineering firm of DKS Associates conducted a speed study on 79th Avenue in 1998. That study recorded average speeds of 25 to 30 mph and the 85th percentile speed of 31 mph. Those speeds are within the normal range for residential streets. v. He opined that the under-improved conditions on 79th Avenue act a as a traffic calming measure by discouraging cut-through traffic and forcing drivers to slow down. vi. He testified that all of the intersections on SW 79th Avenue currently operate at high levels of service with little delay and they will continue to do so with the additional traffic generated by the proposed development and growth in background traffic. The existing pavement has sufficient capacity to carry 2,888 vehicles Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 4 • • per hour, more than 20 times the current volume, based on information from the Transportation Research Board. vii. The narrow pavement on SW 79th Avenue does not create a hazard. The existing pavement varies in width. However the narrowest section, 16 foot wide, sections are adequate to accommodate two way traffic. c. Mr. Stamp argued that TDC 18.705.030.G(1) is inapplicable to the proposed subdivision, based on the hearings officer's decision in the Churchill Woods subdivision case, SUB2005-00014NAR2005-00068. In addition, this provision is not applicable to preliminary plat approval. It only applies to building permits. If the provision is applicable to building permits for homes on the site, a condition of approval requiring compliance with the Code would be redundant. In any case, the proposed frontage improvements will eliminate any hazard at the intersection of SW 79th Avenue and the site access. i. He noted that the City has limited resources to fund needed road improvements. The City is unlikely to improve this street, which is not listed on the City's Capital Improvement Plan. The City relies on developments to provide incremental improvements by constructing road improvements along the frontage of the developments. The proposed development will improve a portion of SW 79th Avenue abutting the site. The City cannot constitutionally require that the applicant improve the remainder of the street, because it would be disproportionate to the impacts of the proposed development. ii. He testified that the applicant "stands by" its statements at the neighborhood meeting that it will maintain as many trees as possible on the site. However that statement is not sufficient to justify a condition of approval to that effect. In addition, a condition requiring that the applicant utilize "best efforts" to preserve trees is too vague to be enforceable. 4. Attorney Kenneth Dobson summarized his appeal. a. He argued that SW 79th Avenue is hazardous under existing conditions because it is not improved to City standards. The pavement abutting the site is only 19 feet wide, which is barely enough to allow oncoming cars to pass. There are numerous hidden driveways on 79th Avenue. There are no sidewalks or street lights and there is no room for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Vehicle traffic generated by the proposed development will exacerbate the hazard. Therefore all building permits for this development must be referred to the planning commission pursuant to TDC 18.705.030.G(1). Staff determined that this section is an applicable criteria and addressed it at pages 13 and 14 of the manager's decision. The applicant should be required to pay for any future improvements to 79th Avenue. He testified that the City Engineer expressed concerns with the safety of this street in an August 25, 2005 Memorandum. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 5 b. He testified that the applicant claimed at the neighborhood meeting that it would "go to great lengths to preserve trees on the site." The applicant should be held to that statement and required to preserve trees "to the greatest extent possible." He argued that the Code does not allow the applicant to produce a post approval tree protection plan. 5. Alex Davis summarized his written testimony. He argued that the applicant should be required to preserve the mature trees on the site in order to retain the existing character of the neighborhood and the City. 6. Sharon Borjesson testified that she lives on SW 79th Avenue, one block north of Durham Road. She summarized her observations of existing traffic conditions on SW 79th Avenue. She testified that speeding is an extreme problem on this street. She frequently sees vehicles exceeding the speed limit on this street, including one vehicle traveling in excess of 70 mph. The northern portion of 79th Avenue is very narrow and bumpy and cannot accommodate additional traffic. 7. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer closed the public record and took the matter under advisement. C. DISCUSSION 1. TDC 18.390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of Type II decisions, such as the city's decision conditionally approving the subdivision application. TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b provides that appeals: [S]hall be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, as provided under Section 18.390.040.C, unless the Hearings Officer, at his or her discretion, allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The Hearings Officer may allow such additional evidence if he or she determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case. The intent of this requirement is to limit the scope of Type II Administrative Appeals by encouraging persons with standing to submit their specific concerns in writing during the comment period. The written comments received during the comment period will usually limit the scope of issues on appeal. Only in extraordinary circumstances should new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer on appeal of a Type II Administrative Decision. 2. The hearings officer finds that the City provided the public with adequate notice of the application. The applicant accidentally included a copy of the wrong address list with the application materials. Exhibit P of the application. However the City did not rely on that list when it mailed the public notice in this case. The City mailed notice to the owners of properties within 500 feet of this site and other agencies as required by TDC 18.390.040.C(1). See Exhibit 8 of the applicant's February 22, 2006 Hearings Memorandum. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 6 • 3. The hearings officer finds that the Code did not require a traffic impact study in this case because traffic generated by the proposed development will not meet or exceed the standards in TDC 18.810.030.AC.2 The appellant appears to argue that a traffic study is required pursuant to TDC 18.810.030.AC.I.c(6) because "the proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets." However there is no substantial evidence to that effect. In any case, the appellant provided a traffic study in response to the appeal. Exhibit 1 of the applicant's February 22, 2006 Hearings Memorandum. Therefore this issue is moot. 4. The proposed development will generate increased traffic on area streets. That increased traffic will be perceptible to area residents. However the hearings officer finds that the additional traffic will not exceed the capacity of streets nor create a hazard, based on the applicant's February 16, 2006 traffic impact study, Exhibit 1 of the applicant's February 22, 2006 Hearings Memorandum. Although the existing pavement is relatively narrow in some places, it is more than adequate to accommodate the volume of traffic it is projected to carry and it is sufficient to accommodate two-way traffic. Adequate sight distance is available at all driveways based on the posted speed limit or advisory speed limit. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. Neighbors testified that the traffic from the development will exacerbate existing hazards. Neighbors' observations of existing traffic is substantial evidence. But their predictions that the traffic from the proposed subdivision will make the streets unsafe are not supported by substantial evidence, because they are not experts in such matters. The hearings officer finds that the 2 TDC 18.810.030.AC provides: 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: requires a traffic study "for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County b. Trip generations from development onto the City street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added b development 0-3,000 v pd 2,000 v pd 3,001-6,000 v pd 1,000 v pd >6,000 v pd 500 v pd or more c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City engineer: (1) High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out of the site (2) Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the proposed access drive(s) (3) Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points (4) The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a potential hazard (5) The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive-through operation (6) The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. when the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility and/or b. trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility and/or c. trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 7 0 • expert testimony by the applicant's traffic engineer is more persuasive than neighbors' testimony about the impact of traffic from the subdivision and street connection on area streets. The City engineer did not determine that this street is hazardous. He merely noted that "79th Avenue is in poor condition... [and] some level of improvement is needed to enhance safety and provide a good riding surface." See the August 25, 2005 Memorandum from Gus Duenas, City Engineer to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager. a. There is no dispute that SW 79th does not provide optimum driving conditions. There are no sidewalks or street lights, the pavement is narrow with little or no shoulder and there are several hills. However this does not mean that the street is unsafe. The historic accident rate on this street is well below the level action level of 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles. Many streets in the City are in this same condition. These conditions are obvious. Reasonably prudent drivers will observe the posted speed limit and if necessary, further reduce their speed to accommodate changing road conditions. Unfortunately not all drivers are prudent enough to observe posted speed limits and road conditions. However there is no evidence that the development proposed in this application will contribute a disproportionate share of imprudent drivers. The hearings officer encourages area residents to contact local law enforcement agencies to request enhanced enforcement of traffic laws in this area if necessary to ensure compliance with speed limits and other traffic regulations. b. Higher traffic volumes create a proportionally higher risk for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. In response reasonably prudent people exercise more care personally and with family members. Those risks are consistent with the location of the site in the urban area where City plans call for the sort of development being proposed. The applicant is not required to construct offsite sidewalks and other road improvements on 79th Avenue because it would be disproportionate to the impact of the development on the need for such facilities. Applicants are not required to remedy all perceived and existing deficiencies in the vicinity of a development. The Code requires an applicant to mitigate impacts a development causes or to which it contributes significantly. Although the proposed development contributes to problems with substandard streets in the area, those problems exist largely because of existing development. It would be inequitable to require an applicant to bear the full burden of improvements where the proposed development is only responsible for a small portion of the problem. The need for sidewalks and other street improvements is one that exists generally along streets in the area, and is a need to which all adjoining properties contribute, not just the lots being created in this case. Sidewalks in the area will interconnect over time as other properties in the area develop, but the applicant is not required to make such connections at this time. c. The hearings officer finds that TDC 18.705.030.G(1) is inapplicable to this subdivision application. This section only applies to review of building permits, not subdivisions, and to accesses (driveways), not public street connections, based on the plain meaning of the words in the Code. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed street connection to 79th Avenue will "cause or increase existing hazardous Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 8 • 0 traffic conditions." The applicant will construct half-width street improvements along the entire site frontage, including additional pavement, planter strips, curbs, sidewalks and streetlights There is no substantial evidence that the new intersection will create a hazardous traffic condition. Neighbor's unsupported opinion is not substantial evidence. 5. The hearings officer finds that the application complies with TDC 18.790.030, based on the following: a. The applicant submitted a tree plan prepared by a certified arborist outlining the proposed planting, removal and protection of trees on the site as required by TDC 18.790.030. Whether the applicant could save additional trees on the site is irrelevant. The Code provides incentives to encourage the retention of trees. However nothing in the Code prohibits the removal of trees, provided the applicant mitigates their removal pursuant to TDC 18.790.060D. Although "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" (TDC 18.790.030.A) the Code leaves to the applicant the choice whether to save trees or mitigate for their removal. As described by LUBA: The ultimate standard that the [tree preservation ordinance] imposes is not a standard that requires protection of trees. Rather it is a standard that favors protection of trees but allows trees to be removed so long as any loss of more than 25-percent of large trees is mitigated. Miller v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 2003-133 (2004). b. In this preliminary plat application the applicant proposed to remove 100-percent of the regulated trees on the site. Therefore the applicant is required to mitigate for all of the trees removed, resulting in "no net loss of trees." TDC 18.790.030.B.2(a). The applicant is required to submit a cash assurance for the value of the required mitigation trees prior to commencing construction on the site. See condition 3 of the manager's decision. c. The hearings officer finds that the applicant's statement at the neighborhood meeting, that it would "attempt to save as many trees as possible" does not provide a basis for imposing a condition of approval because the Code does not require that the applicant preserve trees on the site and the applicant did not propose to preserve specific trees. In addition, the statement at the neighborhood meeting is consistent with the applicant's testimony at the appeal hearing; the applicant proposed to preserve as many as possible on the site. The preliminary plat application proposed to remove 100- percent of the trees in order to avoid the constraints of the Code. If it is necessary to remove one or more of trees that the applicant originally proposed to retain the applicant must obtain City approval of a revised tree preservation plan. Review and approval of the revised plan can delay construction of the development. However nothing in the Code prohibits the applicant from preserving additional trees on the site during construction. If the applicant proposes to retain additional trees it must identify the trees on the construction drawings and design and install tree protection measures prior to undertaking any development on the site. See Condition 4 of the manager's decision. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 9 0 d. The hearings officer finds that the tree protection and mitigation standards of TDC 18.790 do not apply to trees located on adjacent properties. The tree removal ordinance is limited to trees located on the site, based on the plain meaning of the words in the Code. i. For the most part TDC 18.790 refers to "trees" generally, without distinction between on-site and off-site trees. The stated purpose of the Code is to "encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City" generally. TDC 18.790.010.B(1). However the tree plan requirements are expressly limited to the " lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which [development is proposed]." TDC 18.790.030.A. In addition, TDC 18.790.040.B requires that developers record a deed restriction prohibiting removal of retained trees. The applicant has no right to enter adjacent properties to perform pruning and other palliative measures necessary to ensure the survival of off-site trees. A developer cannot record a deed restriction over adjacent properties. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the Code does not require that the applicant protect trees on adjacent properties. ii. The hearings officer has no authority to determine whether and to what extent the applicant is liable if clearing, grading and construction activities on this site damage trees on adjacent properties. That is civil matter that is not regulated by the TDC. However the hearings officer notes that the applicant revised the grading plan to limit impacts to trees on the site and on adjacent properties. See the February 14, 2006 Grading & Erosion Control Plan. 6. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development can accommodate stormwater runoff from the site consistent with the requirements of TDC 18.810.100, based on the applicant's Preliminary Stormwater Report dated March 29, 2005. Exhibit M of the application materials. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. The applicant will collect stormwater runoff from impervious areas of the site, convey it to a stormwater facility in the southeast corner of the site for treatment and detention. The applicant will release treated stormwater to the public storm sewer system a rate equal to or less than the predevelopment rate. a. The hearings officer finds that it is feasible to accommodate upstream drainage consistent with TDC 18.810.100.C. The site is completely surrounded by existing streets and urban development that blocks the majority of storm water runoff flowing onto the site. See Plan Sheet 5 of 14. Upstream runoff is limited to sheet flows across abutting residential yard areas. See the topographic map, Plan Sheet 3 of 14. The applicant can design the final storm water system to accommodate this runoff and can enlarge the stormwater facility if necessary. b. The existing trees on the site absorb some of the stormwater under existing conditions. Clearing on this site will eliminate this absorption, increasing the volume of stormwater runoff. The applicant's preliminary stormwater analysis considered this impact in Section 4.0 Detention Calculations. The analysis of predeveloped conditions applied different "Curve Numbers" ("CN") for the various areas Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 10 0 9 of the site based on the existing vegetation. The wooded areas of the site have the lowest CN, indicating that those areas retain more runoff than the developed areas of the site. The pavement, roofs and lawns created by development on the site have much higher CNs, indicating that those areas will generate higher volumes of runoff. Detention requirements are based on a comparison of the pre and post development runoff volumes. c. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development will not increase the overall volume of runoff flowing onto adjacent properties. To the contrary, the proposed development is likely to reduce the overall volume of stormwater runoff flowing onto adjacent properties. The topography maps in the record demonstrate that stormwater falling on this site flows downhill to the east, and southeast, onto the adjoining properties, under existing conditions. The applicant proposed to collect storm water from the impervious areas of the site and to convey it to a detention pond at the southeast corner of the site prior to discharge to the existing drainage system at less than predevelopment rates. The proposed stormwater facilities will capture runoff that would otherwise flow onto adjacent properties and will divert it to the detention pond. The applicant proposed to largely retain the existing topography of the site. The revised grading plan eliminated the steep slopes proposed near the south boundary of the site. Compare the August 23, 2005 "Grading and Erosion Control Plan" (Plan Sheet 6 of 14) with the revised February 14, 2006 "Grading and Erosion Control Plan." d. The hearings officer finds that the proposed stormwater quality and detention pond will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The applicant must design, build and maintain the pond consistent with CWS regulations. There is no substantial evidence that similar ponds that are utilized throughout the region create a hazard for adjacent residents. The applicant will install fencing to restrict access to the pond if required by CWS. e. The transfer of the stormwater facilities to public agencies is addressed by CWS regulations. The applicant is not required to provide detailed provisions for such transfer at this preliminary stage. 7. The hearings officer finds that the applicant submitted an impact study discussing the impacts of the development on the listed "public facilities and services" including the transportation and drainage systems, fulfilling the requirements of TDC 18.390.040.B(2)(e). See Exhibit N of the application materials. The Code does not provide any standards for review of impact studies. It is primarily an informational requirement that the City can use to determine whether existing public facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development. The City engineer reviewed the impact study and other evidence in the record and determined that the development does or can comply with all applicable approval criteria and all affected public facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. The appellants argued that the impact study is inadequate. But they failed to point to any specific standards or provide any substantial evidence in support of that contention. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page II • i a. The hearings officer finds that the impact study is not required to address the impact of the proposed development on trees, shading of neighboring properties, privacy, storm water drainage onto adjacent properties and other generally impacts to adjacent properties, because trees, privacy and adjacent properties generally are not "public facilities or services." b. The hearings officer finds that the impact study is not required to address the cumulative impacts of other developments in the area, based on the plain meaning of the words in the Code. TDC 18.390.040.B(2)(e) provides "The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services." (Emphasis added). i. The applicant's traffic analysis did consider the cumulative impacts of traffic by including background traffic growth factor. c. Construction on this site will temporarily cause increased noise, dust and other impacts on adjacent properties. This is only one of the many consequences of living in an urban area. The designation of the subject property as "residential" in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances means that the City has already determined that the amount of noise typically associated with a residential subdivision is acceptable at this location. There is no substantial evidence that construction on this site will generate unusual or excessive noise impacts. The hearings officer finds that, while such impacts may occur, they are not significant enough to require specific limitations on construction other than those imposed by State law and the City Code. Area residents should contact the City if they believe that contractors are not complying with applicable requirements and construction activities cause excessive impacts. d. Removal of the mature trees on the site may increase existing the impact of odors generated by the existing sewage treatment plant. However the proposed development will not generate unusual odors. The applicant is not required to address the impact of odors generated by the existing treatment plant because the existing odors are not generated by the proposed development. In addition, the appellant only alleged that clearing on the site will increase odor impacts on surrounding residents. There is no substantial evidence that clearing on the site will impact any public facilities. e. The appellant testified that the existing forest on the site is a habitat for rats and other vermin. Clearing on the site will eliminate that habitat and drive the animals onto adjacent properties. While such concerns are reasonable, they are speculative. There is no substantial evidence that clearing on this site will cause a significant increase in vermin on adjacent properties. It is equally likely that the proposed development will reduce the rodent population by reducing the amount of habitat available to support them. In any case, the Code does not regulate this issue. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development is consistent with TDC 18.725.030.17, which prohibits the creation of conditions that "[a]ttract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard." Assuming the existing forest on the site provides habitat for vermin, the proposed development will reduce the amount of habitat available Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 12 • • in the area, reducing the attraction and propagation of insects and rodents. There is no substantial evidence that the alleged impacts will affect any public facilities. Therefore the applicant is not required to address such impacts in its impact study. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the appeal should be denied, because the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed subdivision does or will comply with the applicable approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, subject to conditions adopted by the manager, and the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence or evidence of equal or greater probative value to the contrary and/or failed to persuade the hearings officer that the application violates the applicable approval standards based on such evidence. Therefore the hearings officer should affirm the manager's decision. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and incorporated herein, the hearings officer hereby denies the appeal, affirms the decision of the planning manager and approves SUB 2005-00016 (Churchill Woods) subject to the conditions of approval in the manager's decision dated December 30, 2005. DATED this 13th day of March 2006. J urner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00016(Churchill Woods Subdivision) Page 13 0 • "TAB A" Testimony Received at the Public Hearing. • 11/29/05 RE: THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION "CHURCHILL WOODS" Subdivision (Sub) 2005-00016 / Adjustment (Var) 2005-00066 Location: 15685 SW 79th Avenue; WCTM 2S112CD, Tax Lot 1900 • These comments do not address specific "Applicable Review Criteria" but rather raise issues and concerns. Mathew Scheidegger Associate Planner Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 My wife and I live at 7913 S.W. Churchill Way in Tigard. Our house lies immediately south of and shares a property line with the proposed "Churchill Woods" subdivision land at 15685 S.W. 79th Avenue in Tigard. Our property is at the south-eastern extremity below the "Churchill Woods" land and is bordered on the east by the sidewalk and infrastructure of 79th Avenue. We wish to go on record before the City of Tigard, and the Land Use Application pertaining to the proposed " Churchill Woods" subdivision, in voicing our concern about the trees that lie on our property and the harm that could befall them. The trees ( three Douglas Firs and a native Oak ) may be vulnerable because they grow close to the shared property line. The presence of this group of trees was a considerable influence in our decision to buy the property on Churchill Way in the City Tigard in 1997. The small grove towers like a giant green and brown umbrella over the deck, yard and rear gate behind our house. According to the seasons and the weather's whims and turns, these gentle giants will whistle and whine, and howl and thrash and whip, and sway and sigh, and otherwise delight us and those neighbors around us, with an endless circle of decline and renewal and sounds and colors (and debris) that remind us all every day of the magic and mystery of life. Looking north from both floors of our house, the native trees give us the comforting feeling of being in the embrace of the Northwest forest. And this in fact, is really the case. These trees are, from east to west: A Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Just over four feet inside our property line from the sidewalk on the east side of 79th Avenue. 34" in diameter. 22 feet from the property boundary to the north. A Douglas Fir. 25" in diameter. Eight feet from the property boundary to the north. A Douglas Fir. 32" in diameter. 16 feet from the property boundary to the north. • • A native Oak (Quercus garryana). 23" in diameter. 25 feet from the property boundary to the north. Any bulldozing, grading, trenching or other soil-disturbing or drainage-changing activity on the property at 15685 SW 79th Avenue that impact the health and vigor of the trees on our property to the south as the result of the development of the proposed "Churchill Woods" subdivision will be viewed with the gravest concern. Although we do not anticipate or predict or wish for any of the above to occur either in the near or long term, should it happen, the city government and the developer must remember that just compensation will be sought with vigor, persistence and commitment. Therefore, we, the property owners at 7913 SW Churchill Way, advise the current or future developer (s) and their corporations and/or other legal entities in the proposed "Churchill Woods" subdivision enterprise or any other future development, named as it may be, to conduct themselves accordingly. We, the property owners south of the proposed "Churchill Woods" subdivision , reach out to the government of the City of Tigard to remind its planning enforcement and regulatory officers to look out for the general rights of all the citizens, as well as enjoying the glee derived from the anticipation of future property taxes and other revenues as the future rolls relentlessly into sight. Thank you, Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner, Planning Division, City of Tigard, for your consideration of my comments in the matter of Notice of Pending Land Use Application: Subdivision 2005-00016 Adjustment (Var.) 2005-00066. File Name: Churchill Woods Subdivision. Sincerely, - Colin Penno 7913, SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 • • Alex and Karen Davis 8045 SW Churchill Ct Tigard, OR 97224 RE: Cul-de-sac length, tree loss, and Tigard's identity. My wife and I have lived in Tigard for about ten years; first as renters and then as homeowners. When we were looking to buy a house in Tigard, an acquaintance of ours who lives in the Ladd's Addition neighborhood of east Portland (a beautiful neighborhood of large restored homes) was surprised we were staying in Tigard. "Tigard!" he said. "I thought the only things in Tigard were strip malls." Now while there is certainly more to our city than strip malls, I had to admit to myself this perception was partially true due to the rapid growth Tigard has gone through, and will continue to go through. And the problem is not what we think Tigard to be, as much as what potential homeowners and businesses perceive it to be. And I'm afraid to most outsiders Tigard is seen as little more than a bland place to buy a transitional home. But how can Tigard present itself in such a way to break down these preconceptions? Certainly advertising is an option (though an expensive one), but even advertising can't hope to overcome a visitor's first impression if its claims don't jibe with reality. And so the obvious solution is for the city to put on the best face it can, and thus give itself a sense of identity and make itself a destination rather than a de facto suburb. The city is already trying to do this with a plan to redevelop the downtown, but it's not just the downtown that needs attention from forward-thinking planners.' You'll notice I'm not talking about a lack of development but rather about smart development. By this I mean development that will create homes that not only add to the tax base of our financially strapped city, but add in such a way as to both increase the property values of neighboring houses and add to the city identity. Now I'm neither an architect nor a city planner, but as a homeowner I think I can speak to what attracts me to buy a home; in a phrase it is a "neighborhood with character." Unfortunately Tigard doesn't have at present the cultural districts of a place like Northwest Portland or the stately homes of Portland's older neigborhoods. But what it does have are good schools amidst quiet and peaceful neighborhoods with mature trees and landscaping - and that is an excellent place to start. And so it is the loss of mature, quality trees that impact most negatively one of the few things our city has going for it. Housing developments built out on former tracts of farmland don't have any trees to worry about, so they become a developer's dream where houses can be easily arranged in whatever style is desired. But just because a plot of land like that of Churchill Woods has a large number of mature trees, this is no reason to give in to the view of trees as mere annoyances. And I believe that to many developers they are mere annoyances, considering the tree removal fines are incredibly puny considering the amount of profit that can be reaped in the modern housing market. • • Developing a plot of land almost always means the loss of trees. I accept that as an unfortunate fact, and did accept that when I assumed the Churchill Woods property would eventually be developed and that many of the truly towering firs on this property would be turned into firewood. Now from a purely financial perspective I have no problem with the kind of houses being proposed. They seem to be fine houses that are likely to increase the raw real estate value of the surrounding neighborhood. But what I strongly take exception to is the planning proposal to remove 100 percent of these trees, including those that would be in the backyards of these homes. Again, I'm not an architect or an arborist. But in both my house and the houses of my neighbors, we have the same type of mature trees in our backyards as does the backyard area of Churchill Woods. And since our houses were built in the mid 80's and the proposed property will not have any significant grading in the backyard areas where most all of the major trees reside, I cannot understand why building methods of twenty years ago were able to save such trees while today's methods cannot. This of course is the point most directly relevant to the cul-de-sac length-issue. For a shorter cul-de-sac could allow for even a few more feet of backyard space in which to save trees. Again, from a purely financial perspective this development as-is seems to be a beneficial to all, but I think this is only true when viewed from a short-term perspective. The continued loss of our mature, quality trees does little to help this city in the long term, and indeed robs Tigard of its character; character which will be crucial in the years to come if it hopes to successfully stand on its own as a city rather than as a mere bedroom suburb of Portland. Right now you're wrestling with making our aging downtown a destination rather than just a road stop on the way to the coast. But I fear that while you are fighting against problems created by poor planning of years ago, new more subtle development issues are cropping up in residential areas that might have city planners in the future shaking their heads. ii 1 B I T , I ~ 1 r ~ 1 `i ~ ' i _ 1 ~ ~ i. ,k ,r • • ShapingA Better MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hail Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503.639-4171 Fax: 503.624-0752 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager )FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: August 25, 2005 SUBJECT: 79' Avenue Update Because the proposed 79a' Avenue Local Improvement District (LID) was a previous Fifth Tuesday issue, this memorandum is to provide you with a status update prior to the upcoming Fifth Tuesday meeting on August 30, 2005. I had transmitted a progress report via memorandum to Council (dated June 16, 2005) on thepproposed LID. The memorandum (attached) provided some options that may be considered for SW 79b Avenue. Council discussion of the options is scheduled for the workshop meeting on September 20, 2005. A discussion of the Public Facility Improvement standards required by the Development Code for private development and for the City's street projects will precede the 79'b Avenue agenda item. City staff from the Engineering and Community Development Departments will be participating in that discussion. The street section that we are proposing for 79P Avenue is derived from those standards, with some deviation to provide curb-tight sidewalk in those areas where the existing homes are much higher than the street The meandering of the sidewalk to eliminate the planter strips in those areas would allow for better driveway access (less steep slopes) to the homes from the street. To ensure that the residents of the 79P Avenue neighborhood are aware of the current street standards, and of the various options that have been presented to Council for discussion, I have scheduled a meeting with neighborhood residents on August 29, 2005. I asked Kristin Preston to organize the meeting and she agreed. In preparation for the • meeting, I met with Kristin and went over the current standards in the Development Code, the development of the design for the street based on those standards, as well as the options that I presented to Council for discussion on September 20th. The meeting with Kristin went well. I will be going over the same material with the neighborhood residents at the meeting on August 29th. I will include the resident input in the Council agenda summary for the workshop meeting on September 20, 2005. 79th Avenue is in poor condition throughout most of the street, and some level of improvement is needed to enhance safety and provide a good riding surface. Although the street is high on our list for maintenance, the need for significant vertical realignment along several long sections on the street holds us back from scheduling that needed maintenance. We are reluctant to spend those maintenance dollars on improvements that would be eventually discarded to correct vertical alignment problems in the future. However,. like everyone else in the City, the residents along that street are contributing to the Street aintenance Fee revenue and deserve to see some improvements on that deteriorated street We are currently exploring the possibility of upgrading sections of 79th Avenue that do not need significant vertical realignment. The segment between Ashford Street and Durham Road looks promising for phased construction (something less than the ultimate section), and could be proposed for Fiscal Year 2006-07. We would reconstruct the two travel lanes using Street Maintenance Fee funding and add paved shoulders for pedestrians and bicyclists. The elements outside the two travel lanes (paved shoulders, drainage and grading work) would be through gas tax funding. The street section would be designed and constructed such that developers along the street would just need to extend their improvements (sidewalk, planter strip, storm drainage and additional pavement) to match the street section constructed. The street segments that need vertical realignment could be addressed in subsequent fiscal years using gas tax funding to the extent possible. Over time, through developer-initiated improvements coupled with City dollars, the street could be upgraded to provide at least two travel lanes and paved shoulders through its entire length. The areas that develop would have sidewalk and planter strips along their frontages. Other areas would just have the basic section described. I plan to also discuss the possibility of including the upgrading of the street in future fiscal years with the residents at the meeting on August 29th. I shared our thoughts regarding those proposed improvements with Kristin. She was receptive to the idea and felt there would not be any controversy about improving the street in that manner. Attachment c: Vannie Nguyen, CIP Division Manager Marco Cabanillas, Project Engineer Karleen Aichele, Acting Engineering Technician III w =0*78ai r mms Memo to City Council-796 Avenue Update Page 2 of2 r Neighborhood Route -Transportation System Plan Standard Bike lanes/No parking Note: 79A Avenue has been reclassified by the TSP from a Minor Collector to a Neighborhood Route Current Design - Reduced Section derived from TSP Ybrins . ' Q5 to ~S' SkEa►tafk ' F4aaier BAEv Jrr4IW Awe TnnveJ Jame & G" UMftM ar ~ Baca• ~ f9®+t4r Slal~fvaP7c! i RfIV Typical Section Note: Travel lane reduced to 11 feet, bike lane maintained at 6 feet from face of curb. Gutter section reduced from typical 18 inches to 12 inches. Net bike lane outside gutter is 5 feet wide. Planter strip added in line with TSP requirement where feasible (away from the steep driveway areas). •79 b Avenue is on the bite route and bye lanes are needed. W fl, 1' 'Paved Tra►it kae Travd 1a Aamd Jdtl i rx.=dpr * shawdo. 9frfjae mile proflid shoulder straps r1 Phased Construction - Reduced Limits i M i 6.5' , 5.6 16 eke 1 12' 12' 6 Oke, 6.6 ~ 6.6 i t71W 60' • Westlake consultants, inc 0 E IV V 00006 :FEB OAT RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2006 QTY OF TIGARD P~ AW"MROtNE RING TRANSM/TTAL ENGINEERING ♦ SURVEYING ♦ PLANNING Phone: 503 684-0652 FaX 503 624-0 9 57 Date: February 22, 2006 Project No.: 1724-014 To: Hearings Officer Project Name: Churchill Woods Subdivision City of Tigard (SUB 2005-00016 Community Development Department VAR 2005-00066) 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 From: Lee Leighton, AICP CC: Mr. Kenneth Dobson Director of Planning Attorney-at-Law 1000 SW Broadway Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 - 3054 Mr. Kurt Dalbey Spectrum Development, LLC 12703 SW 67th Avenue • Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Andrew Stamp Attorney-at-Law 4248 Galewood Street Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Re: Appeal Response No, of Copies Dated Description 2 2/22/2006 Hearings Memorandum - Appeal Respo nse 3 2/14/2006 Sheet T100 (24x36) Grading and Erosion Control Plan Comments: Please contact our office if you need additional information. Fax ❑ No. of Pages (including cover) Fax No. Mail ❑ Messenger ❑ Overnight ❑ Hand Delivery Pacific Corporate Center, 15115 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150, Tigard, Oregon 97224 0 0 BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In Re: An Appeal of the Churchill Woods Subdivision Application. Tax Lot 1900 of Section 12CD, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon (City of Tigard - R-12 zone) I. Purpose and Introduction. ~ i ECFf-1 V E 0 011--TJ IrL's.iw -I, Z- J =-1 L,JIi„ Jv File No SUB 2005-00016 VAR 2005-00066 HEARINGS MEMORANDUM This Memorandum is intended to provide responses to the legal issues raised by Opponents Judy & Kenneth Dobson, and other unspecified members of "Friends of Bond Park Greenspace."' See Letter from Ken Dobson dated December 1st, 2005 and Notice of Appeal submitted January 17, 2005. The Applicant has carefully considered the materials and arguments submitted by the Opponents. On the basis of that review, we conclude that there is no basis for a reversal or remand of the staff decision. H. Legal Analysis. A. The Opponent's Traffic-Related Arguments Provide No Basis for Reversal. 1. No Legal Standard Requires a Traffic Study in this Case. The Opponents contend that the City erred by not requiring the Applicant to complete a traffic study. The Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) sets forth the criteria which determine whether a traffic study is required for any given development proposal. See TCDC 18.810.030 (AC): AC. Traffic study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: ' 1 The Opponents have provided no information about this group or to explain how this organization has standing to participate in this appeal. a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generations from development onto the City street at the point of ' access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added by development 0-3,000 vpd 2,000 vpd 3,001-6,000 vpd 1,000vpd ' >6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City engineer: (1) High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into ' or out of the site (2) Lack of existing left hum lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the proposed access drive(s) ' (3) Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points (4) The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a potential hazard ' (5) The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive-through operation (6) The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on ' adjacent local streets. 2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility and/or ' b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility and/or c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. (Ord. 02-33) In this case, the Applicant's traffic engineer, in consultation with the City Engineer, ' concluded that neither of the two clear and objective thresholds set forth in TCDC 18.810.030 (AC)(1)(a) & (1)(b) were triggered by this development. See Letter from Michael T. Ard, P.E., Lancaster Engineering, dated February 16, 2006. Exhibit 1. There is also no basis for concluding that a traffic study is warranted as a result of impacts to ODOT facilities. TCDC 18.810.030 (AC)(2). The Opponents' only argument seems to be based on TCDC 18.810.030(AC)(6), which states that a traffic study shall be required if it becomes evident to the City Engineer that "the proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets." The Opponents argue that the proposed development results in excessive traffic on 79 b Ave, but provide no evidence to support their position. ' 79th Ave is not built to current city standards in some locations. However, the applicant's traffic engineer, working in conjunction with the City of Tigard's Development Review Engineer, Ms. Kim McMillan, concluded that the proposed development will not result ' in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. See Letter from Michael T. Ard, P.E., ' 2 Lancaster Engineering, dated February 16, 2006. Exhibit 1. Despite the Opponents' unsupported speculations to the contrary, there is simply no evidence that the traffic generated by the proposed development is "excessive." ' 2. The Applicant Did Prepare a Traffic Study in an Effort to Address Neighborhood Concerns. ' The proposed development fails to meet any of the threshold tests requiring preparation of a Traffic Study, and the City did not err by not demanding one. Nonetheless, in an effort to provide comfort to the City and neighbors of the proposed development, the Applicant commissioned a Traffic Study from Lancaster Engineering. The Traffic Study calculated the effects of the proposed development on four key intersections, including SW 79 b/SW Durham, ' SW Durham/ SW Hall, SW 79th/SW Bond, and SW 79"/SW Ashford. The study concludes that "The proposed development has very little impact to the operations of the study during the morning and evening peak hours. No mitigations are required with the proposed development." ' See Exhibit 2, Churchill Woods Subdivision Traffic Impact Study, dated February, 2006, Executive Summary at page 3. ' B. The Applicant is Not Required to Protect Trees on Neighboring Properties. Various neighbors seek to warn the developer and the City of the potential legal consequences if trees located on neighboring properties are harmed as a result of construction activities. See, e.g., Nov 29, 2005 letter from Colin Penno. As the Hearings Officer correctly noted in the Gage Forest case, "the hearings officer has no authority to determine whether and to what extent the applicant is liable if clearing, grading, and construction activities on this site damage trees on adjacent properties. That is a civil matter ' not regulated by the TDC." See Exhibit 3, Final Order, Gage Forest, dated Feb. 15, 2006, at p. 14. Under common law, roots extending from neighboring properties onto the subject property are considered to be trespassing, and a landowner is fully within its rights to remove those infringing roots. However, the Applicant has repeatedly stated that it would take all reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary damage to the neighbors' trees. ' Mr. Dobson also argues that the tree protection plan required by TCDC 18.790.030 must account for, and demonstrate protection of, trees on adjacent properties affected by the proposed development. However, as the Hearings Officer pointed out in the Gage Forest appeal, "the tree protection and mitigation standards of TCDC 18.790 do not apply to trees located on adjacent properties. The tree removal ordinance is limited to trees located on the site, based on the plain ' meaning of the words in the Code." See Final Order at p. 14. Nonetheless, the Applicant has stated to the neighbors that it intends to preserve as many ' trees on the subject property as possible, and will go to great lengths to avoid harm to any to the 3 • • neighbor's trees. To that end, the Applicant directed Westlake Consultants to contact abutting property owners and, where invited by them to do so, locate trees on neighboring properties and incorporate that new information into the submitted grading and erosion control plan. See Exhibit 4, letter from Lee Leighton dated January 25, 2006 and list of recipients; Exhibit 5, revised Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Sheet T100 (dated 02/14/06), and Exhibit 6, Memorandum from arborist Walt Knapp with recommendations for construction management practices for tree conservation. All legal requirements aside, the Applicant believes that saving trees simply reflects the best way to do business. So any fears by neighbors that the Applicant will clear-cut the entire site is simply unfounded, as it is not in the Applicant's best interest from a business standpoint to do so. The Applicant has represented that it will use best management practices to avoid damage to all trees which can be saved. Thus, while the Applicant does not wish to be legally bound to assure the survival of any one particular tree as part of the preliminary plat approval process, As discussed below, the Applicant can simply cannot guarantee the survival of any particular tree, either on or off site. C. The City Did Not Err By Approving the Applicant's On-Site Tree Protection Plan. 1. Tree Protection Plans: the Decision to Save or Pay Mitigation is left to the Discretion of the Developer. Mr. Dobson states that the Applicant misrepresented its intentions with regard to tree preservation because it told neighbors at the mandatory neighborhood meeting that it would preserve many trees on the property, while its application seeks permission to remove all of the trees on the property. See Dobson Letter dated Dec. 1, 2005, at p. 2. As an initial matter, the Applicant did not "deliberately misrepresent" its intentions to the neighborhood. As stated above, the Applicant stands by the statements it made at the neighborhood meeting. See Neighborhood Meeting Notes, dated March 9, 2005, enclosed at Exhibit J to the Application materials submitted on Nov. 4, 2005. As explained below, the reason the Applicant is seeking permission to remove all of the trees relates to the quirks of the Tigard Community Development Code, rather than from a desire to remove all the trees. As we understand the City's process, the City does not charge mitigation fees based on what is promised at preliminary plat stage, but rather the City requires surety and then calculates the actual mitigation fees after construction is completed. The dollar amount of the fee is based on the number of trees that are actually saved or removed during construction. For this reason, a developer's act of seeking permission to remove all the tree does not constitute an obligation to pay mitigation based on 100% tree loss, if that developer ends up saving some of the trees during construction. As a result of this regulatory paradigm, there does not seem to be any compelling 4 • • reason why a developer would formally request, as part of the preliminary plat approval, that particular trees be saved, even in situations where, as here, the developer fully intends to save many trees. As the Hearings Officer pointed out in the Gage Forest case, the "Code provides incentives to encourage the retention of trees, However, nothing in the Code prohibits the removal of trees, provided that the applicant mitigates their removal pursuant to TDC 18.790.060(D)." See Final Order at p. 13. See also Miller v. City of Tigard, 46 Or LUBA 536 (2004). However, under the Tigard code, if a developer promises to save a tree and then for whatever reason is unable to fulfill that promise, he or she potentially risks significant fines/penalties and must possibility undergo additional time-consuming and costly land use processes to modify the original land use approval. As LUBA noted in the Miller case, "the [Tree Removal Ordinance] does not provide any formal mechanism for amending a tree plan once a subdivision is approved." See Miller, supra, Slip Op at 3. That is problematic, since undergoing a modification to the subdivision approval could be time consuming and is often fraught with uncertainty. See, e.g., McElroy v. Corvallis, 36 Or LUBA 185 (1999), aff'd without op., 162 Or App 390, 991 P2d 582 (1999). The Applicant noted in its application that the uncertainties inherent in the construction process make it difficult to make assurances prior to construction that any one particular tree can be saved. To state in an application that any one particular tree will be saved puts a developer in the awkward position of having to make a promise he or she may or may not have the ability to fully control, particularly where that developer will sell lots to other builders after the final plat is recorded.2 Thus, a prudent applicant will seek legal permission as part of preliminary plat to remove all trees, even if that applicant fully intends to save a significant portion of those trees. Finally, even if somehow the Applicant had in this case misrepresented its intentions with regard to trees, that provides no basis for reversing the land use approval. Under the Community Development Code, the developer has the option of removing all the trees on the subject property, so long as it pays the mitigation. Of course, the Code creates a significant financial incentive for not doing so, and therefore a developer would be foolish to remove trees unnecessarily. In addition, as some of the neighbors noted, the presence of trees can be a significant selling point for a new home, and therefore a prudent developer/builder will seek to retain as many trees as possible. 2. The Applicant is Not Required to Ensure that Future Homeowners Will Not Remove Newly Planted Trees. The Opponents charge that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate how it will comply wit the enforcement provisions of the tree protection ordinance. See TCDC 18.790.060(D). The Applicant has proposed a mitigation plan, as set forth on page 32 of the Application narrative 2 In this case, the developer has identified a builder to construct homes on the subject property. 5 dated Nov. 4, 2005. We believe that the information presented in that narrative is all that is legally required at this stage in the proceedings. But even if the Application is somehow deficient in this regard, a condition of approval can be used to solve the problem. ORS 197.522. The Community Development Code creates penalties for failure to comply with tree protection plans. However, those enforcement provisions are not approval standards applicable at preliminary plat, but are rather continuing obligations of whoever owns the subject property in the future. Homeowners who will purchase homes in the proposed subdivision will continue to be subject to the terms of the Code, and can be fined for removing trees in violation of thereof. D. The City's Explanations of Common Improvements are Adequate. The Opponents argue that documentation of certain specific improvements proposed as part of the development are insufficient to enable the City to grant preliminary plat approval. Specifically, the Opponents argue that the proposed detention facility on Tract C poses a ' drowning risk and can cause the proliferation of mosquitoes. See Notice of Appeal dated Dec. 17, 2005, at p. 2. The Hearings Officer rejected a virtually identical argument levied against the Gage Forest Subdivision, see Final Opinion at p. 28, and we therefore address this argument no further. In a footnote, Mr. Dobson alleges that the construction of the stormwater detention facility does not comply with TCDC 18.725.030(F) because it assists in the propagation of insects and creates a health hazard. See Dobson letter dated Dec. 1, 2005, at p. 2, n 1. In the Gage Forest case, the Hearings Officer noted that these types of water detention facilities are used throughout the city, and held that there was no evidence presented in that case that suggested that a stormwater detention facility in a residential subdivision will create a breeding ground for insects or otherwise cause a health hazard. See Final Order at 28. There has been no evidence ' presented in this case to suggest a different result. Finally, Mr. Dobson states that'the Applicant fails to "adequately discuss the proper ' transfer of the [stormwater detention] facility to public agencies." See Grounds for Appeal dated Dec. 17, 2005, at p. 2. This allegation provides no basis for reversal, as there is no approval standard that requires such a discussion at preliminary plat approval stage. ' E. The Applicant's Stormwater Calculations are Adequate. The Applicant's expert, Westlake Consultants, Inc., provided stormwater calculations as part of the application. See Exhibit M to Application materials submitted Nov. 4, 2005. The Opponents ' contend that these calculations are incorrect because they "assume that the only water entering the property is from rainfall." The Applicant's expert analysis conforms with well-accepted engineering practice for residential subdivisions. In this case, any existing sheet flow coming on ' 6 to the subject property is considered to be a background flow condition.3 The development of the subject property with detached single-family residences will not affect any such existing sheet flows. The Opponents' speculations and lay-person testimony to the contrary provide no basis for reversal. The opponents claim that there will be substantial runoff from Bond Park. The Bond Park neighborhood is fully improvement with local streets containing a public storm system. Runoff from roofs and driveways is directed into these public storm systems. According to Andrew Newbury, P.E. of Westlake Consultants, Inc., "any runoff coming from Bond Park is limited by sheet flow from residential yard areas. This flow will be minimal and can be addressed during final engineering plans." See Exhibit 7. The opponents also claim that increased runoff will occur due to the removing of the fir trees on the western edge of the property and this wasn't considered in the storm report. The opponent might be correct that increased runoff would occur due to the removal of trees if left as ' bare soil, but this area will be replaced with lawns which will help reduce any additional flow. Also, the plans have been revised to show additional existing trees to remain. The last claim in section E of the Opponents' appeal is in regards of the clear cutting and grade changes which will increase the risk of erosion and excessive runoff. An erosion control plan will be shown for the final engineering plans that will meet NPDES 1200-C and Clean Water Services requirements, which will reduce the risk of erosion. Excessive runoff will be detained and treated within the proposed detention and water quality pond to match pre- developed conditions. A final stormwater report will be completed addressing this issue. F. The City Did Not Fail to Address Deficiencies in the Applicant's Impact Study because the Applicant's Impact Study is Sufficient. Opponents assert that the application must be denied because "the impact stuffy fails to quantify many of the many adverse impacts * * * on public facilities and the surrounding ' neighborhood. The City's impact study requirement is set forth at TCDC 18.390.040(B)(2)(e), as follows: [The application shall] [i]nclude an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the ' 3 With regard to surface water inflows to the subject property, the site is completely surrounded by urban residential lots that already have been developed. Site visits and a detailed topographic survey have not identified any point source discharges of concentrated stormwater from off-site locations, so only sheet flows across yard areas are anticipated. Such flows are characteristic of the area and there is no basis for anticipating an acute drainage problem. 7 . noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or ' provide evidence, which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. (Bold emphasis added): ' The Applicant's Impact Study (See Exhibit N of the application materials dated November 4, 2005) provides a general statement concerning impacts of the proposed development, followed methodically by an examination of its effects on City systems (transportation, drainage, parks, water, sewer, and schools), potential noise impacts, and issues related to dedications to the City or to the public, i.e., streets and drainage facilities. This treatment of the development's impacts satisfies the submittal requirement. With the exception of traffic hazards (as one dimension of traffic impacts) and noise impacts, none of the impacts alleged by Opponents are within the scope of review required by TCDC 18.390.040(B)(2)(e), which is expressly limited to impacts "on public facilities and services." In the Gage Forest appeal, the Hearings Officer concluded that trees, privacy, and [storm water drainage onto] adjacent properties are not "public facilities and services." See Final Order, at p. 25. The same is true of some of the issues raised by Mr. Dobson, including air quality and odor control. Concerning traffic hazards, the Applicant's Impact Analysis provides a quantitative statement that the proposed 15 homes will generate approximately 134 Average Daily Trips (ADT), together with a traffic impact study demonstrating that the development will have no significant impact on intersections in the vicinity. Because the proposed development is single- family residential use, there is no reason to anticipate "traffic hazards" that are in any way ' exceptional as compared to all of the surrounding neighborhood blocks and homes. With regard to noise, the Hearings Officer held in the Gage Forest case that there is nothing exceptional about proposed construction of single-family dwellings consistent with residential zoning in a residential neighborhood area. See Final Order at p. 25. The designation of the subject property as "residential" in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances means that the City has already determined that the amount of noise typically associated with a residential subdivision is acceptable at this location. Moreover, the Hearings Officer pointed out in the Gage Forest case that temporary impacts associated with site construction and homebuilding activities not significant enough to warrant limitations on construction other than those imposed by state or local laws. See Final Order at p. 25. 8 0 • Concerning potential noise impacts other than those associated with construction, here, as in the case of transportation analysis, there is no basis for distinguishing the proposed new homes from their neighbors in the surrounding area: they will become the intended beneficiaries of noise control regulations, and they will generate the kinds of noise commonly associated with residential uses in suburban settings - notably, the use of power tools for home and garden maintenance. Future homeowners will be required to comply with the City's performance standards, which regard excess noise as a nuisance. With regard to storm drainage, the opponents make the unsubstantiated claim that "the proposed changes in topography and removal of topsoil will increase the risk of flooding and erosion in the neighborhood." See Dobson letter dated Dec. 1, 2005, at p. 3. Without evidence to back up these speculative claims, the Applicant sees no basis for denial. Nonetheless, the applicant's most recent grading plan shows significantly less cut and fill than previous plans, and should reasonably address any concerns of the neighbors. See Exhibit 5. With respect to actual impacts of the proposed development, the public facilities and services that form the scope of the impact study are all planned by the City of Tigard (or the Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J, in the case of schools) based on anticipated land uses associated with the zoning of the property. That is to say that water, sanitary sewer, transportation, parks, schools and other public facilities and services plans have been prepared by the City in anticipation of residential development of the property in accordance with existing land use zoning. Because the proposed development is residential and does not attempt to increase density beyond the range anticipated by its current zoning, the proposal in effect implements the City's Comprehensive Plan and public facilities plans, providing a positive impact on planning and public facilities implementation. G. Proper Notice Was Provided. The Opponents have noted, correctly, that the application materials submitted on November 4, 2005 contain a map that suggests that the area notified corresponds with the wrong subject property. See Exhibit P to the Application Materials Dated Nov. 4, 2005. That map is incorrect insomuch as it depicts the subject property as the Gage Forest parcel. This error which resulted from the fact that the consultants working on this subdivision application are also working on the Gage Forest application, and the paperwork got a bit mixed up. Nonetheless, we verified that in fact the written notice for the Churchill Woods application was in fact provided to the correct neighboring property owners (i.e., those living within 500 feet of the Churchill Woods property.). See Exhibit 8, email from Asst City Planner Cheryl Caines dated January 24, 2006, and materials submitted in response by Westlake Consultants, Inc. on January 26, 2006. Moreover, the Opponents have not asserted that they have not been adequately notified, and do not have standing to make that argument on behalf of other third parties who have not appeared in this proceeding. 9 1 H. The City Did Not Need To Approve an Adjustment to the City's Cul-de-sac Length Standard (200 ft) Because the Proposed Cul-de-sac is 190 feet in Length. In their letter dated December 1, 2005, the Opponents argued that an adjustment to the 200 foot cul-de-sac length requirement should have been denied. See Dobson letter dated Dec. 1, ' 2005 at p. 1. This issue was not specifically called out in the Dec. 17, 2005 appeal, so we are uncertain if the Opponents intended to pursue that issue on appeal. But see footnote 1 to Appellant's "Grounds for Appeal" document (incorporating all arguments in Dec. 1, 2005 letter by reference."). For the sake of completeness, we address the issue. Under City standards, cul-de-sacs are normally required to be 200 feet in length or less. See TCDC 18.810.030(L). The proposed cul-de-sac is 190 feet long, and for that reason, no adjustment is needed. M. Conclusion. For all of the above-stated reasons, the Opponents' appeal must be DENIED. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of February, 2006. WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC Lee D. Leighton, AICP ' Consultant for Spectrum Development, LLC ANDREw H. STAMP, P.C. a4e FkM ~ ~ Andrew H. Stamp, OSB N d 97405 Attorney for Spectrum Development, LLC 10 EXHIBIT 1 • t LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC STUDY • Inv, engineering 'OREGON February 16, 2006 ELI- 0 Kurt Dalbey "EXPIRES: 12/3101-- Spectrum Development, LLC 12703 'SW 671 Avenue - Tigard, OR 97223 . RE: Churchill Woods Subdivision - Traffic Study Requirements Dear Kurt: This letter is written to provide a review ,of Tigard Community Development Code re- quirements to determine whether a traffic impact study is required for the proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision. : The City of Tigard has established (specific criteria for determining when a traffic-rim- pact study is required for a proposed development in TCDC 18.810.030.AC. These criteria will 'be liste&and examined, in,~detail with -.respect to the proposed Churchill Woods Subdivi- sion. AC. Traffic study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new-or expanded.uses or ;developments under any of the following circumstances: a. when they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high col- lision intersections identiftedby Washington County.. The proposed development will not generate a .10% .or,greater increase in existing traffic ate any intersection. b. Trip generations from developmenvonto the City street at the-point.` of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Union Station, Suite 206 ■ 800 NW 6th Avenue ■ Portland, OR 97209 ■ Phone 503.248.0313 ■ Fax 503.248.9251 0 : 4~1 Kurt Dalbey February 16, 2006 Page 2 of 4 • Existing ADT".-, , ,AbT to be added by the development 0-3, 000 vpd M., ~2, Q00 vpd 3,001-6,000-v pd °a » 1 Q00 vpd > 6,000 vpd_ S00"vpd or more Development of the proposed subdivision will generate only 134 new trips per day: This is sig-- nificantly less than the lowest listed threshold. c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City engineer: (1) High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect move- to °or out of the site Traffic volumes on SW 79`" Avenue are insufficient to cause meaningful delay.to -,vehicles:.enter- ing and exiting the proposed site access. It is anticipated that the site access will operate at level of service', "A",,the!highest:and:besf operational'designati6h! { ;(2) Lack ofyexisting left.=tumwtlanes..onto;the,adjacent.;roadway -at;the proposed access drive(s) As a rule, left-turn lanes are not required for local streets. The addition of left-tumlanes serv- ing the site access is not warranted and would not provide improved operation, since no queu- ing-vill4ypically occur avthe••intersection: , (3) Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points The minimum intersectionr.sighf..,distance.for•ran access.-onla:25;mphkroadway is 280 feet. Sight distance was measured at the proposed access location. Although existing vegetation partially obstructs sight, distance, currently,.-this -vegetation, will, be ,removed with -development and was consequently disregarded. With the removal of vegetation within the right-of-way, the .inter- section sight distance will be in excess of 500 feet in each direction along SW 79' Avenue. Sight distance will be adequate. at the proposed accesstlocation 0 • ' Kurt Dalbey February 16, 2006 Page 3 of 4 (4) The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or in- tersections is a potential hazard Access points :are not limited. on local streets. such as 79th 'Avenue •since -the purpose--of local streets is to provide direct access to individual lots. ' As such, the statutory-speed-Is established to allow multiple closely spaced driveways without creating potential hazards. (5) The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive- through operation No conditional use permit is required for this development, and no drive-through operation is proposed. (6) The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. According to the City of Tigard's current Transportation System Plan, SW 79' Avenue is des- ignated as a Neighborhood Route. Based on this classification, the roadway is expected to carry more traffic than typical local streets. Traffic from cul-de-sacs and other local streets is intended to drain onto Neighborhood Routes in order to gain access to collectors or arterials. The proposed subdivision would add minimal traffic volumes and use SW 79' Avenue pre- cisely as it is intended to be used. 2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or de- velopments under any of the following circumstances: a. when the site is located within 500 feet of an ODOT facility and/or b. trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility and/or c. trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. (Ord. 02-33) The site is not located within 500 feet of an MOT facility and will generate less than 50 peak hour trips and 300 daily trips in total. • 0 Kurt Dalbey February 16, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Based :on the requirements of the .Tigard Community Development Code as listed E.,F y quired for thero p . ~P.:..: , subdivision: abode, ,no further traffic analsis is re osedresidential If you have any questions regarding this information, please'dari't hesitate to 611. Yours truly, Michael Ard,"PE Transportation Engineer • 0 EXHIBIT 2 LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY engnneering • • CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Traffic Impact Study Tigard, Oregon Prepared By MICHAEL ARD, P.E. February, 2006 Union Station, Suite 206 ■ 800 NW 6"' Avenue ■ Portland, OR 97209 ■ Phone 503.248.0313 ■ Fax 503.248.9251 EXPIRES: 12/31 ,;7-11;7106 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Location Description 5 Trip Generation 10 Trip Distribution 11 Operational Analysis 15 Appendix I........................................... 23 -2- ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. A parcel is proposed to be developed with 15 single-family homes in the City of Tigard, Oregon. The site is located on the west side of SW 79' Avenue between SW Churchill Way and SW Ashford Street. A single home is existing on the site, so the subdivision will result in a net increase of 14 single-family homes on the. site. Access will be via a new roadway intersecting SW 79' Avenue near the center of the site frontage. 2. The site is expected to generate approximately 11 new trips during the morning peak hour, with 3 entering and 8 exiting. The evening peak hour is expected to result in approximately 14 new trips, with 9 entering and 5 exiting. The estimated daily traffic volumes for the site are 134 new trips, with half entering and half exiting. 3. All of the study intersections currently operate acceptably during the morning and evening peak hours. With the proposed development in place, all of the study intersections will con- tinue to operate acceptably during the morning and evening peak hours. 4. The proposed development has very little impact to the operations of the study intersections during the morning and evening peak hours. No mitigations are required with the proposed development. 5. Sight distance will be adequate at the proposed site access roadway. No mitigations are recommended for this access. r 1 -3- INTRODUCTION A parcel is proposed to be developed with 15 single-family homes in the City of 'Ti- gard, Oregon. The site is located on the west side of SW 79' Avenue between SW Churchill Way and,SW . Ashford Street. A single home is existing on the site, so the subdivision will re- sult in a net increase of 14 single-family homes on the site. The purpose of this study is to, assess the traffic impact of the proposed development on the nearby street system and to recommend any required mitigative measures. The analysis will include trip generation estimates of the proposed development and level of service calculations at adjacent intersections. Detailed information on.level of service, traffic counts, trip generation calculations, and level of service calculations is included in the appendix to this report. -4- 1 LOCATION DESCRIPTION A parcel is proposed to be developed with 15 single-family homes in the City of Ti- gard, Oregon. The site is located on the west side of SW 79' Avenue, north of SW Churchill Way and south of SW Ashford Street. One home is existing on the site, so the subdivision will result in a net increase of 14 single-family homes on the site. Access for the development will be taken via a new roadway intersecting SW 79' Avenue near the center of the site frontage. A study of the intersections of SW Hall Boulevard at SW Durham Road, SW 79' Ave- nue at SW Durham Road, SW 79' Avenue at SW Bond Street, and SW 79' Avenue at SW Ashford Street was conducted during the morning and evening peak hours. These intersections were chosen due to the proximity to the site. A vicinity map showing the existing lane configu- rations at the study intersections is shown on page seven. SW Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and is classified as an Arterial Street. It is generally a three-lane road near the site with a posted speed of 35 mph. There are curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes along both sides of the roadway. ' SW Durham Road is under the jurisdiction of City of Tigard and is classified as an Ar- terial Street. It is generally a three-lane facility in the study area with a posted speed of 35 mph. There are curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes along both sides of the roadway in the study area. SW 79' Avenue is under the jurisdiction of City of Tigard and is classified as a Minor Collector Street. It is generally a two-lane facility in the study area with a posted speed of 25 mph. There are no curbs, sidewalks, or bike lanes north of SW Bond Street. To the south of SW Bond Street there are curbs and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway. SW Bond Street and SW Ashford Street are under the jurisdiction of City of Tigard and ' are all classified as Local Streets. They are two-lane facilities in the study area with no posted speed. There is a statutory speed along these roadways of 25 mph. There are curbs, sidewalks, and on-street parking along both sides of these roadways in the site vicinity. The intersection of SW Hall Boulevard at SW Durham Road is a four-legged intersec- tion that is controlled by an actuated traffic signal with a westbound right-turn lane overlap ' phase. This right-turn lane overlap phase runs with the southbound split phase. The southbound SW Hall Avenue and eastbound SW Durham Road approaches have a separate left- turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The northbound SW Hall Avenue approach has a single shared lane. The westbound SW Durham Road approach has an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive through lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane. 1 -5- The intersection of SW 79`' Avenue at SW Durham Road is a four-legged intersection that is controlled by an actuated traffic signal. The eastbound SW Durham Road approach has a separate left-turn. lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The westbound SW Durham Road approach has a center two-way left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The southbound SW 79' Avenue approach has a single shared lane. The northbound approach to this intersection is a private driveway access and is a single shared lane. . . SW 79`' Avenue at SW Bond Street is a four-legged intersection that is controlled by STOP signs on the SW Bond Street approaches. All of the approaches are single lane. SW 79" Avenue at SW Ashford Street is a four-legged intersection controlled by stop signs on the SW Ashford Street approaches. All of the approaches are single lane. Transit services are,provided adjacent to the site by Tri-Met route #76 - Beaver- ton/Tualatin. Route #.76 travels between the Beaverton Transit, Center: and the Legacy Meridian Park Hospital in Tualatin. In the vicinity of the site, this service operates along SW Hall Boulevard and SW Durham Road. During the weekdays this service operates with approxi- mately 30 minute headways. The headway for this service is approximately, 60 minutes on the weekends and'holidays. Manual turning movement counts were made at the study intersections during August 2005 and February 2006 from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The peak hours typi- cally occur from 7:15 to 8:15 a.m. and from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. The volumes for the morning and evening peak hours are shown in the traffic flow diagrams on pages eight and nine. -6- LEGEND 0 STUDY IMERSECTION -ISTOP SIGN 9-017 TRAFnC SOM PROJECT SIZE SW ASHFORD STREET JJ F ~ I I I ' SITE 0 SW BOND STREET ' W a SW DUR U ROAD Q s<0> ° VICINITY MAP FIGURE Existing Lane Configurations 1 & Traffic Control Devices no scoie PAGE SW ASHFORD STREET nc~-- 4t--8 .`24 ~ 4 ^N / I I S~TL I ~ g oSDN (-o (J J. L) ;-4 7-:1' (iT0 f2 •r^o SW BOND STREET a n ~i SW DURHAM ROAD 41 ~'a F 2 E~ 0 41 y y E'1Tr> 157-t 604~ ~ 111185-~ Nocv TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour no stole PAGE 8 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE Existing Conditions 45"PM Peak Hour no scale PAGE TRIP GENERATION To estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed residential de- velopment, trip rates , from the manual TRIP GENERATION, Seventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), were used. The manual TRIP GENERATION is an educational tool for used for estimating the number of vehicle trips generated by a proposed development. The trip rates used were for land-use code 210, Single=Family Detached Hous- ing. The trip generation rates are based on the.number of dwelling units. The proposed devel- opment will have a net increase if 14 single-family houses. The trip generation calculations indicate that there will be a total of 11 trips generated by the proposed development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 3 will be entering and 8 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour, there are a total of 14 trips expected, with 9 entering and 5 exiting. the site. A total of 134 weekday trips are expected, with half en- tering and half exiting. Because a residential development is typically an origin or destination for trips, no re- duction was taken =for pass=by trips. `Pass-by trips,are trips that divert from. the adjacent streets to patronize the site:and then continue -in their original direction of travel. In ;order to present a reasonable worst case scenario, no reduction was made for transit use. A summary of the tripe generation calculations for the residential development is shown in -the following table. Detailed trip generation calculations are included in the appendix to this report. TRIP GENERATION SUNEVIARY Churchill Woods, Subdivision Entering Exiting Total ms ms Trips 14 Single-Family Homes AM Peak Hour 3 8 11 PM Peak Hour 9 5 14 Weekday 67 67 134 -10- ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION ' Since the proposed land use is residential and is located amongst other residential land uses, it is expected that the trip distribution patterns will be similar to the existing patterns. For ' this reason, the existing traffic volumes at the study intersections were used to determine the distributional patterns of the proposed development. ' The traffic flow diagram on page 12 shows the distribution of the site trips from the residential development. The traffic flow diagrams on pages 13 and 14 show the assignment of the site trips to the roadway network during the morning and evening peak hours. -11- SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Inbound & Outbound Percentages AM & PM Peak Hours 9 no scale FIGURE PAGE 12 SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC FIG5RE Proposed Development Plan 45~ AM Peak Hour no S°°le PAGE ~o ouzo F 0 0 • °o~ ~To r~- - - - SITE owo ' - - - ~yy t-0 alto SW BOND STREET Q P.' SW DURMU ROAD 00o FO ~yy off' ~Tr~ off' 4Tre 00o 00 oa SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC FIG6RE Proposed Development Plan PM Peak Hour no scale PAGE 14 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Background Traffic 0 Two developments were identified as being approved but not yet constructed. The Lady Apple Subdivision is a small. residential subdivision that did not require any analysis of the transportation system. This development was a 33 lot single-family development. This devel- opment is located at 14815 SW Hall Boulevard. The traffic generated by this site will not im- pact the traffic volumes at the study intersections and were therefore not included in this analy- sis. The Gage Forest Subdivision is a small residential subdivision near the proposed Chur- chill Woods Subdivision site consisting of 33 single-family homes. Due to the proximity of this development, it is expected that additional trips from Gage Forest will increase traffic vol- umes at the subject intersections. Consequently, the trips from the Gage Forest Subdivision were included in the background traffic volumes for this analysis. Due to the size of the development, it is expected that the proposed development could be completed within the year. In order to account for possible minor increases in traffic asso- ciated with developments outside the immediate area of the site, a three percent growth factor was also added to the existing traffic volumes. Traffic flow diagrams showing the background traffic volumes consisting of the exist- ing counted volumes with the addition of traffic from the Gage Forest Subdivision are given on pages 17 and 18. Traffic flow diagrams showing the background traffic with the site trips from the proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision added are given on pages 19 and 2019. -15- TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE Year 2007 Background Conditions AM Peak Hour no scale PAGE 16 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE ® s Year 2007 Background Conditions 4~~ PM Peak Hour no scale PACE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - FIGURE s Background plus Site Trips Conditions AM Peak Hour no scole PAGGE TRAFFIC. VOLUMES 4~~ PM Background plus Site Trips Conditions Peak Hour FI1UORE no - scale PAGE 19 Capacity Analysis To determine the level of service at the study intersections; a capacity analysis was conducted. The level of service can range from A, which indicates very little or no delay, to level F;. which indicates a high degree of congestion and delay. The analysis was made for the existing and existing plus site conditions during the morning and evening peak hours. The study.intersections were analyzed using the signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis methods in the 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM2000), published by the Transportation Research Board. All of the study intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and therefore must operate at level of service D or better for signalized intersec- tions and level of service E or better for unsignalized intersections. All of the intersections currently meet the City of Tigard standards during the morning and evening peak hours. With development of the site, the operations of these study intersec- tions will continue to meet the Cityof Tigard standards. The proposed development has very little impact-to the study intersections and does not require mitigations. The. results of the capacity analysis, along with the Levels of Service (LOS) and delay are shown in the following table. Tables showing the relationships between delay and level of service are included in the appendix to this report. -20- 1 • LEVEL OF SERVICE SUN[MARY Churchill Woods Subdivision AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C SW Hall Boulevard/SW Durham Road Existing Conditions D 51 0.93 D 45 0.94 Background 2007 Conditions D 55 0.95 D 47 0.95 2007 Background + Site Trips D 55 0.95 D 47 0.95 SW 79th Avenue/SW Durham Road Existing Conditions B 19 0.84 B 15 0.79 Background 2007 Conditions C 22 0.86 B 16 0.82 2007 Background + Site Trips C 23 0.86 B 16 0.82 SW 79th Avenue/SW Bond Street Existing Conditions A 9 0.03 A 9 0.02 Background 2007 Conditions A 9 0.04 A 9 0.02 2007 Background + Site Trips A 9 0.04 A 9 0.02 SW 79th Avenue/SW Ashford Road Existing Conditions B 10 0.13 B 11 0.03 Background 2007 Conditions B 10 0.13 B 11 0.05 2007 Background + Site Trips B 10 0.13 B 11 0.05 SW 79th Avenue/Site Access 2007 Background + Site Trips A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01 LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds V/C = Volume-to-Capacity ratio Sight Distance Intersection sight distance was examined at the proposed site access location on SW 79' Avenue.. In accordance with guidelines in A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGH- WAYS AND STREETS (Green Book), published in 2004 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), intersection sight distance was measured at :1 -21- a point 15 feet from the edge of the travel lane from a driver's eye height of 3.5 feet to an on- coming driver's eye height of 3.5 feet. The statutory speed on SW 79' Avenue is 25 mph, re- quiring at least 280 feet of intersection sight distance in each direction. Although existing vegetation partially obstructs sight distance currently, this vegetation will be removed with development and was consequently disregarded. With the removal of vegetation within the right-of-way, the intersection sight distance will be in excess of 500 feet in each direction along SW 79' Avenue. Sight distance will be continuous to SW Durham Road-to. the south and beyond SW Ashford Street to the north. The intersection; of SW Ash- ford Street is located near the bottom of a sag vertical curve on SW 70' Avenue, however the depth of the sag is insufficient to conceal an oncoming vehicle at any position. Sight distance is adequate in both directions, and no mitigations are recommended for this access location. Stopping Sight Distance Although intersection sight distance is adequate at the proposed access location, area residents have expressed concerns regarding the safety of traffic traveling on SW 79" Avenue. This roadway has numerous residential driveways on and near vertical crest and sag curves. The roadway has a posted speed of 25 mph from SW Durham Road to SW Bonita Road. Stopping sight distance was measured along SW 79th Avenue to determine whether through vehicles traveling along SW 79" Avenue have adequate sight distance to stop safely when encountering an unexpected person, object or vehicle in the roadway. Stopping sight distance was measured in accordance with the standards and guidelines in AASHTO's A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, from a driver's eye height of 3.5 feet to an object height of 2 feet. A crest vertical curve located approximately 2,100 feet north of the proposed develop- ment site has been previously identified as having inadequate sight distance and is marked with a cautionary "HIDDEN DRIVEWAYS" sign, accompanied by a 15 mph supplemental,warning plaque. Stopping sight distance on this crest vertical curve was measured to be a minimum of 125 feet. The minimum required stopping sight distance based on a travel speed of 15 mph and a roadway slope of up to ten percent is 86 feet. Based on the posted advisory speed, stop- ping .sight distance is adequate at this location. Elsewhere on SW 79" Avenue, a posted speed of 25 mph applies. The minimum re- quired stopping sight distance for this travel speed is 176 feet, including an allowance for road- way slopes of up to ten percent along SW 79' Avenue. Stopping sight distance was measured along SW 79' Avenue and with the exception of the previously identified crest vertical curve was found to be a minimum of 182 feet. Adequate stopping sight distance is available on.SW 79' Avenue from SW Durham Road to SW Bonita Road based on the posted speeds. -22- 1 r Conclusions and Recommendations All of the study intersections currently operate acceptably during the morning and eve- ning peak hours. Under year 2007 background traffic conditions with the addition of traffic from nearby developments, the study intersections will continue to operate acceptably during the morning and evening peak hours. With development of the site, all of the study intersec- tions will continue to operate acceptably during the morning and evening peak hours. No ca- pacity mitigations are recommended for this proposed subdivision. Sight distance will be adequate at the proposed site access location. No sight distance mitigations are recommended. -23- J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX -24- S LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of service A to C r are considered good, and rural roads are usually designed for level of service C. Urban streets and signalized intersections are typically designed for level of service D. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E is generally considered acceptable. Here is a more complete description of levels of service: Level of service A: Very low delay at intersections, with all traffic signal cycles clearing and no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. On highways, low volume and high speeds, with speeds not restricted by other vehicles. Level of service B: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; short traffic delays at intersections. Higher average intersection delay than for level of service A resulting from more vehicles stopping. Level of service C: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other ' traffic; higher delays at intersections than for level of service B due to a significant number of vehicles stopping. Not all signal cycles clear the waiting vehicles. This is the recommended design standard for rural highways. Level of service D: Tolerable operating speeds; long traffic delays occur at in- tersections. The influence of congestion is noticeable. At traffic signals many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. The number of signal cycle failures, for which vehicles must wait through more than one signal cycle, are noticeable. This is typically the design level for urban signalized intersections. Level of service E: Restricted speeds, very long traffic delays at traffic signals, and traffic volumes near capacity. Flow is unstable so that any interruption, no matter how minor, will cause queues to form and service to deteriorate to level of service F. Traffic signal cycle failures are frequent occurrences. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E or better is generally considered acceptable. Level of service F. Extreme delays, resulting in long queues which may interfere with other traffic movements. There may be stoppages of long duration, and speeds may drop to zero. There may be frequent signal cycle failures. Level of service F will typically result when vehicle arrival rates are greater than capacity. It is considered unacceptable by most drivers. ! i ❑~e . LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (Seconds) A <10 B 10-20 C 20-35 D 35-55 E 55-80 F > 80 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (Seconds) A <10 B 10-15 C 15-25 D 25-35 E 35-50 F >50 R e ~ i eee-oeeeeeee_-«N--a«_e«. -pa33 ~ # ~ 3A3~ai63agiai~33i3~is~k£ ~ ~R~ ~i I« O eeepee...e f ee-Nn il j I y . 400 ..................o..... «NN N g N ~ ...............«_.....ee p o._.e_.«.._. III - NN.. Y a .e2eassA••~•Aesoaseseeas 3MA aga g l s ~ # RSIRC7ARFRSRiSASSSR:SaSR J ~ ill; s .....-N.«e«.«-e----e-- N N O - ^ O - - O - _ O - • R • • --.---.NN-------N----.N- AAAA I NNN-«w-«--««N.-e«-N.N.- SFRS ««_.-NN«_N-N«N-e-NNN-N- __eRA $ F A L j esasttsasasaa~RaaaaaReea f illip J I L - m J L n 1'a ^AOARAFRsRRRRARAR°AasAAA all n -a _ n ~ _~AABSAFBAA9°t~AARFSR~RAR ail{ gg 4 tR r o ~ ~ ~ ± _ ~ ~ AAASRSCSR9RAAARRAO°gRFA ~R~~ ` aaaffaaafafaffaaaaffaaa fall 8 .......e.eeeeeoo e RBa~k~^~IR8 1AaRRQ$R~~oA -MR a I Y e. .eee . eee .eee ee e S [ ~ A e.emee.eee..meeee.em.... e..e !i e a - 11 1 -o i ....ee seas J L - n 1 H ~ sR~a~aRRS~sssrasssa:a7RSS ~@~°c goo. _ -M a POP" 68 an ' eon ee_eee-e-ee.oo-«««e.eee Nw.w F -.-ee.N--.«.e----a----- .gR^ I --N-N-e-.«.N-«.-.N««-.- RR~e :RAF 4 A s $ AACRRi,°-RARAnFRRR~AGFRAR ii~3 m J L B .N°±RLeRmS48O.TF. SL`8 RS7i'~ n - t 9ARRA9RFRRFRRARSCRRFFR3 H33F E r «N.-.e-N...-N--«-« $ 715, or F e.g«_«N...eeem.. R1B0gR ` 3i33333ii3333i333333333 ~ iii3 SLSo FFFFF Bi8581¢8841a38gtl6e519I~w8r FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF }y s 9 oaa•= wrN"».._...+_......a..+.+ J I L L ~R owww eeeeooeeeoe.+°+eoeeosee e J L to ooar rw»+_Yaow«eer+e+oeoow+» : 7 r ea lift" »+N ffiaffisffiffiffiYffiYe;ffisasffiffisaYatla+ °.o.... Y » ¢ r ee+..+...+.........+..e oeeo ~ ooeo.ee0eoeeeeoeeeeeeee ~ ~ J ~ 4 Nrw_ ..+.eee+ooeoooeee_oooeo ~ ~ + ' N q 8 e try. H Ny_ ex C e y.~ oeooe++o-o+°r.+_e.++ ee it a~asasasaaa'seaaaas:asesr t~ . o• +w+-rare+r Fg + I 71. o..eeeeeee.......+....e 1 9 N4w4 .oo.e.oeoeeweoooeeoeee_ QQQ o........+eeeeeoeeeaoo. r OSw.+i ~ OO+OOrrO4orrau+00++ur++ ( Y ~ $ ~ ~ 83.+10' :fSffiaoatlffi~:ffi!8$ffiSlL:.~BaYS ~ a ~ 040V+ ~ OO+oe++.N++Y"N+.oN+uraN. RRds$ lil"goill"NUM Ilia r ~ b boatl ................4.+..N. I $ J Y L JR L - eeee+ eoeoeeo O il ~ J L m idea y Y ~ X889 Doos.e..sNmeer..rw"vr».+ r 3o ° 1 ges~+ >asasasss§8:gs$asa~aa~ssY ~ i r 4+4. +e............. o.++..._ ooe. eoe.eoooeeeoeeeoeeeooee ~ DDe.e oo........... 6 F ~ I C err eooeeeo»++wo_eeeeeo+e.+. ~ - so o~ 9 N4M oee eoee+eer.eoeODO.oe+o my •°t{~ NV. e% HR$R saPa~PaS:8a4883aaS9B~as ~ 44 e - ee - iF atlYY w++ oN.» o I I oeeo eeeooooeooeooDOOaeoooeo x ►woeo °oee eeee eo«4eo oo eoee..oeo.eooeaeooeoo..o ooeeeo.eoeooeeeeecooooo I f est~ • ~ 4 ~ IoYsSBleaa99:s:s~3Fes:lFB a•► ~ g ..D.Di oe"wo°eo°oDDO°0.... oo.. ° s+ F~FF IfIFIFEF~FFlE a E ...a -J L sass -------------I...... .........a ~ J L o 3 ~ wwY is r ...a......... -o 0000000-eeeeeoeoeoeoooo - ~ . . . .eea o...... aYar+~ .__N»__.N.+ J L YYa. .....+ee+a-0000..+aa.e_e - c - ,a - w 4 y uova +weo»»u-+o .............Y 5 e~ NV•OX NV. O% . eeeeeoo-oeeeoo__... 00000 ~ g .~.s.~ ~ oe.+.-.0000+-+eew_eo.eo ~ ~ ' ~ 1 J oaeee ..oeeeee.eo.eeeoeooeooo ooooe ~ eooeeeoee.ooeooeeeoeoooe € oo. ..0°o eeo.oee.eeeoooe ooooa... OOOOOoooooa..e...... yR ♦y 6 BeY~{! •~•~•eOSSGo~od8~P1~8e:gee F oooea O.O.ooaa..... a0.e000e. 6fi g aogia " G t~t ~s ~ a Hill ~ s l k s P~F~F~~FFFY~P€PF£gF.~FPF E .N a........» ddYA ».....»Y+....+.......».. ,o J L is .YY. +000000_.+._.......+..Y I 0000_000_0_+eN0....... 0. 3 n.»..e~~..g.n.......... I i +..........»..+.0.000.+. ~ r S 0000 eeeo.eoeoeaeeeeoeeoee0.1 11 N - W - - y .NYOV w.00+0000+00000+0++++++ i 1 f . F ...0 OOO.OOOO.... A Oe0e0 OOOOeoe0..0a000o.00000a R ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0000. . o e 0 0 e. e 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 10000000000000000000000 { S 0 M ■ R w+~ O 0 O ~S r7~S~~ ~ S.sN+~Y3e+u dS>oRL'a:i.SOg~ F F3 8 00000 .00000000000000000000000 0:05 Location SW 79th Avenue at SW Ashford Street Day of Week Thursday 0:15 Date 2/16/2006 Time Begin 7:00 EB-R EB-T EB-L WB-R WB-T WB-L NB-R NB-T NB-L SB-R SB-T SB-L 7:00 - 7:05 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 7:05- 7:10 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 7:10- 7:15 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 7:15- 7:20 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 7:20 - 7:25 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 7:25 - 7:30 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 7:30 - 7:35 8 0 2 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 7:35 - 7:40 8 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 1 1 2 1 7:40 - 7:45 10 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 0 7:45 - 7:50 8 2 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 7:50 - 7:55 13 0 0 1 2 0. 0 5 4 1 1 0 7:55 - 8:00 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 8:00 - 8:05 8 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 8:05- 8:10 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 8:10- 8:15 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 8:15- 8:20 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:20 - 8:25 3 0 0 2 0 1 8:25 - 8:30 2 0 0 0 0 1 8:30 - 8:35 4 0 0 1 1 0 8:35 - 8:40 2 0 2 1 1 1 8:40 - 8:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 8:45 - 8:50 2 0 0 0 0 2 8:50 - 8:55 1 2 0 0 0 1 8:55 - 9:00 1 0 2 1 0 0 Peds S W E N 7:00- 7:15 0 0 0 0 7:15- 7:30 0 0 0 0 7:30 - 7:45 0 0 0 0 7:45 - 8:00 0 0 0 0 8:00- 8:15 0 0 0 0 8:15- 8:30 0 0 0 0 8:30 - 8:45 0 0 0 1 8:45 - 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 6 1 0 2 1 1 3 1 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Peak Hour = 7:15 to 8:15 AM PHF = 0.71 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 • 0:05 Location SW 79th Avenue at SW Ashford Street 0:15 Date 2/16/2006 EB-R EB-T EB-L WB-R WB-T WB-L 4:00 - 4:05 2 1 0 0 0 0 4:05- 4:10 3 0 1 0 0 0 4:10 - 4:15 0 1 0 1 2 1 4:15- 4:20 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:20 - 4:25 0 0 1 0 1 2 4:25 - 4:30 2 1 0 0 1 0 4:30 - 4:35 2 1 0 0 0 0 4:35 - 4:40 1 1 0 0 0 1 4:40 - 4:45 1 0 0 0 0 2 4:45 - 4:50 3 1 0 0 0 1 4:50 - 4:55 4 0 1 0 0 0 Day of Week Thursday Time Begin 4:00 NB-R NB-T NB-L SB-R SB-T SB-L 0 4 0 2 3 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 3 4 0 1 0 2 4 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 0 0 3 7 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 7 1 2 0 4:55 - 5:00 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 5 1 2 0 5:00 - 5:05 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 2 0 5:05- 5:10 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 1 1 0 5:10- 515 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 0 3 1 5:15- 5:20 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 1 5 0 5:20 - 5:25 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 4 1 5:25 - 5:30 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 4 6 1 1 0 5:30 - 5:35 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 3 0 3 0 5:35 - 5:40 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 7 0 0 1 5:40 - 5:45 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 3 0 1 1 5:45 - 5:50 2 0 0 0 3 2 4 3 8 1 3 0 5:50 - 5:55 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 5 0 5:55 - 6:00 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 Peds S W E N 4:00- 4:15 0 0 0 0 4:15- 4:30 0 0 0 0 4:30 - 4:45 0 1 0 0 4:45 - 5:00 1 0 0 1 5:00 - 5:15 1 0 1 0 5:15- 5:30 0 0 0 0 5:30 - 5:45 0 1 0 0 5:45- 6:00 0 0 0 2 Peak Hour = 4:55 to 5:55 PM PHF = 0.82 s 0 Adshk ,new SW ASHFORD STREET t-0 000 f 0 .G° 000 j- - I 0--) I 1 SITE I I °m o00 E-0 01.4 IF ° 3 0 T r~ 1 \"07~ e n SW DURHAM ROAD r iF00 E-O im E-O -0 ~ ~To 0~ ~T~ o TRAFFIC VOLUMES In-Process Development AM Peak Hour no SCO,e APPENDIX Q 0 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Single-Family Detached Housing Land Use Code: 210 Variable: Dwelling Units Variable Value: 14 AM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 0.75 WEEKDAY Trip Rate: 9.57 Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Distribution Trip Ends PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 1.01 Enter Exit Total Directional 63% 37% Distribution Trip Ends 7:77777 . 77777 SATURDAY Trip Rate: 10.10 Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Distribution Trip Ends `7><'' : `'1 lA: Source: TRIP GENERATION, Seventh Edition (-0 rm 'C o ,V 0 r ~Tr) ' r o0o 0 SITE o00 ~0 - 0 000 SW BOND STREET Q 3n F SW DURHAM ROAD 'NIOO 0 OOh ~ O : 10 11-0 4.T ~Tr~ 01' ~Tr~ p ~ o0o 0p : o00 0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES In-Process Development PM Peak Hour no scale APPENDIX a a HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2115/2006 Time Period AM Peak Hour R! ~1:11;gj Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID ENTRI g ,111111 Hall Blv Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Existing Churchill Woods Subdivision EB 1 1 WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L T R LTR L TR Volume, V (vph) 157 804 23 41 289 108 3 8 19 346 45 69 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike I RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N,,, Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 Ti i G= 10.0 G= 48.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G= 20.0 G= G= m ng Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 LT EB TH Cycle Length, C = 100.0 WB NB RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT SB TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 167 879 44 307 115 32 368 121 Lane group capacity, c 181 908 181 912 1098 104 361 346 v/c ratio, X 0.92 0.97 0.24 0.34 0.10 0.31 1.02 0.35 Total green ratio, g/C 0.10 0.48 0.10 0.48 0.68 0.06 0.20 0.20 Uniform delay, d, 44.6 25.3 41.5 16.1 5.5 45.0 40.0 34.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.44 0.48 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 45.3 22.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.7 52.4 0.6 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 89.9 47.6 42.2 16.3 5.6 46.7 92.4 35.0 Lane group LOS F D D B A D F D Approach delay 54.4 16.1 46.7 78.2 Approach LOS D B D E Intersection delay 51,2 Xe = 0.93 Intersection LOS D HCS2000M Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Vers= 4 to a Ah HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2115 2006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID Hall Btvd/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Existing Churchill Woods Subdivision ES WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1. 1 0 Lane group L TR L T R LTR L TR Volume, V (vph) 204 515 11 20 769 283 19 26 43 244 13 273 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike I RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N O N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time-for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru 8 RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 G= 13.0 G= 46.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G= 19.0 G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 LT EB TH Cycle Length, C = 100.0 WB NB RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT SB TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 217 560 21 818 301 94 260 304 Lane group capacity, c 235 871 235 874 1050 105 343 309 v/c ratio. X 0.92 0.64 0.09 0.94 0.29 0.90 0.76 0.98 Total green ratio, g/C 0.13 0.46 0.13 0.46 0.65 0.06 0.19 0.19 Uniform delay, d, 43.0 20.7 38.3 25.6 7.5 46.7 38.3 40.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.44 0.22 0.11 0.45 0.11 0.42 0.31 0.49 Incremental delay, d2 38.4 1.6 0.2 17.0 0.2 56.0 9.4 46.6 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 81.4 22.3 38.5 42.6 7.7 102.7 47.7 87.0 Lane group LOS F C D D A F D F Approach delay 38.8 33.3 102.7 68.9 Approach LOS D C F E Intersection delay 45.3 Xe = 0.94 Intersection LOS D HC.42000M Copyright 0 2000 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 e i' HCS2000- DET AILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2/15/2006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID Hall Blvd/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Background 2007 Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L T R LTR L TR Volume, V (vph) 163 828 24 42 298 111 3 8 20 356 46 75 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N, Buses stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 12 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 G= 10.0 G= 48.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G'= 20.0 G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 T Cycle Length, C = 100.0 EB WB NB TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT glu SB TH m RT Adjusted flow rate, v 172 897 44 314 117 32 375 127 Lane group capacity, c 181 908 181 912 1098 103 361 345 v/c ratio, X 0.95 0.99 0.24 0.34 0.11 0.31 1.04 0.37 Total green ratio, g/C 0.10 0.48 0.10 0.48 0.68 0.06 0.20 0.20 Uniform delay, d, 44.8 25.7 41.5 16.2 5.5 45.0 40.0 34.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.46 0.49 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 52.4 26.8 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.7 57.8 0.7 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 97.2 52.5 42.2 16.4 5.6 46.7 97.8 35.2 Lane group LOS F D D B A D F D Approach delay 59.7 16.1 46.7 82.0 Approach LOS E B D F Intersection delay 54,9 Xe = 0.95 Intersection LOS D I Nf'S200 " Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Fights Reserved Vernon 4 1 e Ah Ah HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date.Performed 2/1572006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID Hall Bivd/Durhom Rd All other areas City of Tigard Background 2007 Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L T R LTR L TR Volume, V (vph) 214 530 11 21 792 291 20 27 44 251 13 283 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a .2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, LIE 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike I RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N,,, Buses stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 G= 12.8 G= 46.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G= 19.2 G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Yea Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 LT Cycle Length, C = 100.0 EB WB NB TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT IT SB TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 223 563 22 825 303 95 261 309 Lane group capacity, c 231 871 231 874 1053 105 347 313 v/c ratio, X 0.97 0.65 0.10 0.94 0.29 0.90 0.75 0.99 Total green ratio, g/C 0.13 0.46 0.13 0.46 0.65 0.06 0.19 0.19 Uniform delay, d, 43.4 20.7 38.5 25.8 7.5 46.7 38.2 40.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.47 0.22 0.11 0.46 0.11 0.43 0.31 0.49 Incremental delay, d2 49.3 1.7 0.2 18.3 0.2 58.6 8.9 47.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 92.7 22.4 38.7 44.1 7.6 105.3 47.1 87.5 Lane group LOS F C D D A F D F Approach delay 42.4 34.4 105.3 69.0 Approach LOS D C F E Intersection delay 47.0 Xe = 0.95 Intersection LOS D NC82000W Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved version 4. 1 e A a HCS2000- DET AILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2/15/2006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID Hall Blvd/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Background + Site Trips Churchill Woods Subdivision WB NB SB MTH LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L T R LTR L TR Volume, V (vph) 163 828 24 42 299 111 3 8 20 356 46 75 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Fiftering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Ob 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru ti t RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 i Ti G= 10.0 G= 48.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G= 20.0 G= G= m ng Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 T Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Adli EB WB NB TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT M SB TH um RT Adjusted flow rate, v 172 897 44 315 117 32 375 127 Lane group capacity, c 181 908 181 912 1098 103 361 345 v/c ratio, X 0.95 0.99 0.24 0.35 0.11 0.31 1.04 0.37 Total green ratio, g/C 0.10 0.48 0.10 0.48 0.68 0.06 0.20 0.20 Uniform delay, d, 44.8 25.7 41.5 16.2 5.5 45.0 40.0 34.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.46 0.49 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 52.4 26.8 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.7 57.8 0.7 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 97.2 52.5 42.2 16.4 5.6 46.7 97.8 35.2 Lane group LOS F D D B A D F D Approach delay 59.7 16.1 46.7 82.0 Approach LOS E B D F Intersection delay 54.9 Xe = 0.95 I Intersection LOS D I HCS2000n, Copynght 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. It Ah Ah -low HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 21152006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID Hall Blvd/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Background + Site Trips Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WB NB SB LT RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group C JTR L T R LTR L TR Volume, V (vph) 214 11 21 793 291 20 27 44 251 13 283 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike I RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 M 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses•stopping, Ns 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 G= 12.8 G= 46.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G= 19.2 G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 LT Cycle Length, C = 100.0 EB WB NB TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT SB TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 223 565 22 826 303 95 261 309 Lane group capacity, c 231 871 231 874 1053 105 347 313 v/c ratio, X 0.97 0.65 0.10 0.95 0.29 0.90 0.75 0.99 Total green ratio; g/C 0.13 0.46 0.13 0.46 0.65 0.06 0.19 0.19 Uniform delay, dt 43.4 20.8 38.5 25.8 7.5 46.7 38.2 40.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.47 0.23 0.11 0.46 0.11 0.43 0.31 0.49 Incremental delay, d2 49.3 1.7 0.2 18.5 0.2 58.6 8.9 47.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 92.7 22.5 38.7 44.3 7.6 105.3 47.1 87.5 Lane group LOS F C D D A F. D F Approach delay 42.4 34.5 105.3 69.0 Approach LOS D C F E Intersection delay 47.0 Xe - 0.95 Intersection LOS D HCS2000IM' Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e a • HCS2000- DET AILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Perforated 211&06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID 79th Ave/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Existing Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 10 1115 8 2 466 8 2 0 2 83 2 13 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 D 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 6.0 G= 73.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 T EB TH T I IN WB LT TH RT Cycle Length, C = 100.0 NB LT TH RT LT SB TH T Adjusted flow rate, v 11 1248 2 527 4 108 Lane group capacity, c 108 1386 108 1383 144 127 v/c ratio, X 0.10 0.90 0.02 0.38 0.03 0.85 Total green ratio, g/C 0.06 0.73 0.06 0.73 0.09 0.09 Uniform delay, dl 44.5 10.6 44.2 5.0 41.5 44.8 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.42 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.38 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 8.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 39.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 44.9 19.0 44.3 5.2 41.6 83.9 Lane group LOS D B D A D F Approach delay 19.2 5.4 41.6 83.9 Approach LOS B A D F I Intersection delay 19.1 Xe = 0.84 Intersection LOS B HCS200MM Copyright fl 2000 University of Florida All Rights Resmed Version 4 1 e Ah Ah law HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2115/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour 21 1 Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID 1: 79th Ave/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Existing Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 24 803 2 2 1091 62 7 0 1 30 0 20 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand. Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing -Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 6.0 G= 73.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 MR S= E B WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 25 847 2 1213 8 53 Lane group capacity, c 108 1386 108 1376 134 131 v/c ratio, X 0.23 0.61 0.02 0.88 0.06 0.40 Total green ratio, g/C 0.06 0.73 0.06 0.73 0.09 0.09 Uniform delay, dr 44.8 6.6 44.2 10.2 41.6 43.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.41 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.1 0.8 0.1 7.0 0.2 2.0 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 45.9 7.4 44.3 17.2 41.8 45.0 Lane group LOS D A D 8 D D Approach delay 8.5 17.3 41.8 45.0 Approach LOS A B D D Intersection delay 14.5 Xe = 0.79 Intersection LOS B HCS3000W Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Vernon 4.1e a a HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2115/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID 791h Ave/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Background 2007 Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 10 1148 8 2 480 10 2 0 2 92 2 13 a/o Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike I RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nn, Buses stopping, his 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 6.0 G= 72.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 LT EB TH RT WB LT TH RT Cycle Length, C = 100.0 NB LT TH RT LT SB TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 11 1271 2 538 4 117 Lane group opacity, c 108 1367 108 1364 162 141 v/c ratio, X 0.10 0.93 0.02 0.39 0.02 0.83 Total green ratio, g/C 0.06 0.72 0.06 0.72 0.10 0.10 Uniform delay, di 44.5 11.9 44.2 5.5 40.6 44.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.37 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 11.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 32.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 44.9 23.3 44.3 5.7 40.7 76.3 Lane group LOS D C D A D E Approach delay 23.5 5.6 40.7 76.3 Approach LOS C A D E Intersection delay 21.8 Xe = 0.86 Intersection LOS C HCS20007M Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4 It HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2115/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID 79th Ave/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Background 2007 Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 25 827 2 2 1124 72 7 0 1 36 0 21 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start=up lost time, 1, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N,,, Buses stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Ex 1. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G'= 6.0 G= 73.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 T EB TH T 0 tag -as N1 M- WB LT TH RT Cycle Length, C = 100.0 NB LT TH RT LT SB TH T Adjusted flow rate, v 26 863 2 1246 8 60 Lane group capacity, c 108 1386 108 1375 134 131 v/c ratio, X 0.24 0.62 0.02 0.91 0.06 0.46 Total green ratio, g/C 0.06 0.73 0.06 0.73 0.09 0.09 Uniform delay, d, 44.8 6.7 44.2 10.8 41.6 43.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.43 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.2 0.9 0.1 8.9 0.2 2.5 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 46.0 7.6 44.3 19.7 41.8 45.7 Lane group LOS O A D B D D Approach delay 8.7 19.7 41.8 45.7 Approach LOS A B D 0 Intersection delay 16.1 Xe = 0.82 Intersection LOS B HCS2000mi Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida All Rights Reserved Version 4. It a • HCS2000` DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2115106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID 79th Ave/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Background + Site Trips Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 10 1148 8 2 480 11 2 0 2 94 2 14 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 ' 0.91 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Ob 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N,,, Buses stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru 8 RT 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 06 G= 6.0 G= 71.0 G= G= G= 11.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 maw T EB TH RT Cycle Length, C = 100.0 WB NB LT TH RT LT TH RT IT SB TH T Adjusted flow rate, v 11 1271 2 539 4 120 Lane group capacity, c 108 1348 108 1345 179 155 v/c ratio, X 0.10 0.94 0.02 0.40 0.02 0.77 Total green ratio, g/C 0.06 0.71 0.06 0.71 0.11 0.11 Uniform delay, d, 44.5 12.7 44.2 5.9 39.7 43.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.46 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.32 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 13.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 21.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 44.9 26.0 44.3 6.1 39.8 64.6 Lane group LOS D C D A D E Approach delay 26.1 6.2 39.8 64.6 Approach LOS C A D E Intersection delay 23.0 X. = 0.86 Intersection LOS C HCS30001" Copyright 0 2000 Un,venity of Florida. All Rights Reserved Vernion A.l e a Ah HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT Analyst MTA Agency or Co. Lancaster Engineering Date Performed 2115106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID 79th Ave/Durham Rd All other areas City of Tigard Background + Site Trips Churchill Woods Subdivision EB WI3 NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 f 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 25 827 2 2 1124 74 7 0 1 37 0 21 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Ob 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N O N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, Ns 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G, 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 ' G= 6.0 G= 73.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 LT EB TH RT WB LT TH RT Cycle Length, C = 100.0 NB LT TH RT LT SB TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 26 863 2 1248 8 61 Lane group capacity, c 108 1386 108 1374 134 130 v/c ratio, X 0.24 0.62 0.02 0.91 0.06 0:47 Total green ratio, g/C 0.06 0.73 0.06 0.73 0.09 0.09 Uniform delay, d, 44.8 6.7 44.2 10.8 41.6 43.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.43 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.2 0.9 0.1 9.1 0.2 2.7 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 46.0 7.6 44.3 19.9 41.8 45.9 Lane group LOS D A D B D D Approach delay 8.7 20.0 41.8 45.9 Approach LOS A 8 D D Intersection delay 16.2 Xe = 0.82 Intersection LOS B HCS2000M Copyright 0 2000 University or Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.le TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster Engineering 2115/06 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th AveBond St City of Tigard Existing Pro ect Description Churchill Woods Subdivision East/West Street: SW Bond Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: Major Street North-South iis''I !III , 1111111 11151 IlI 111'' 15 11 Northbound Stud Period hrs : 11 Fall ETA M 0.25 outhbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 4 14 0 2 82 0 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 16 0 2 97 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 0 5 7 2 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 0 5 8 2 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 4 2 9 27 C(m)(vph) 1509 1615 944 909 V/c 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.09 Control Delay 7.4 7.2 8.9 9.1 LOS A A A A Approach Delay - - 8.9 9.1 Approach LOS - A A I Rights Reserved 1147,5200 1 Copyright 02003 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.1111 Vmion 4.1 d Ab Ah 42 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster Engineering 2/15/06 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave/8ond St City of Tigard Existing Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision East/West Street: SW Bond Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Stu Period hr s : 0.25 ill:ii ! 11: : Major Street Northbound -Nm ! i11 1 111 15 Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 10 79 4 1 42 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 91 4 1 48 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream.Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 1 11 4 0 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 1 12 4 0 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR w LTR Approach NB SS Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 11 1 17 8 C (m) (vph) 1555 1512 901 880 Vic 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 95% queue length 0:02 0.00 0.06 0.03 Control Delay 7.3 7.4 9.1 9.1 LOS A A A A Approach Delay - 9.1 9.1 Approach LOS - - A A Rights Reserved HCS200011t Copyright O 2003 Universay of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4 Id I Version 4. Id Ah a TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY SUN mwARWAW o Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period ;!i MTA Lancaster Engineering 2115106 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave/Bond St City of Tigard Background 2007 Pro ect Description Churchill Woods Subdivision EastNVest Street: SW Bond Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 6 14 0 2 84 0 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 16 0 2 100 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 0 5 7 2 22 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 0 5 8 2 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 7 2 9 36 C(m)(vph) 1505 1615 928 916 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.12 Control Delay 7.4 7.2 8.9 9.1 LOS A A A A Approach Delay - - 8.9 9.1 Approach LOS - - A A Rights Reserved HCS1000M Copyright a low university or Fionda. All Rights Reserved Version A ld Version 4.1 d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst MTA Intersection 79th Ave/Bond St Agency/Co. Lancaster Engineering Jurisdiction City of Tigard Date Performed 2115106 Analysis Year Background 2007 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Proiect Description Churchill Woods Subdivision East/West Street: SW Bond Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Studv Period lhrsl: 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 18 81 4 1 43 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 .94 4 1 49 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 1 11 4 0 9 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 1 12 4 0 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 20 1 17 14 C (m) (vph) 1554 1508 885 920 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 95% queue length 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.05 Control Delay 7.3 7.4 9.1 9.0 LOS A A A A Approach Delay - - 9.1 9.0 Approach LOS - - A A Kights Keserved 11C.S7000M Copynght O 2003 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4 Id ' Version 4.1 d Ah a TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Anal sis Time Period MTA Lancaster Engineering 2115106 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave/Bond St City of Tigard Background + Site Traffic Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision East/West Street: SW Bond Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 kramm Ma or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 6 15 0 2 87 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 17 0 2 103 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 0 5 7 2 22 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 0 5 8 2 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Approach NB sign= SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 7 2 9 36 C (m) (vph) 1502 1613 925 911 Vic 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.12 Control Delay 7.4 7.2 8.9 9.1 LOS A A A A Approach Delay - 8.9 9.1 Approach LOS - A A Rights Reserved HCS2000iat Copyright O 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster Engineering 2115106 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 791h Ave/Bond St City of Tigard Background + Site Traffic Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision EastNVest Street: SW Bond Street North/South Stre et: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: Ma or Street North-South Northbound Stud Period hr s: 0.25 Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 18 85 4 1 45 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 98 4 1 52 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 1 11 4 0 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 . 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 1 12 4 0 10 Percent Heavy.Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 20 1 17 14 C(m)(vph) 1550 1503 878 916 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 95% queue length 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.05 Control Delay 7.4 7.4 9.2 9.0 LOS A A A A Approach Delay - - 9.2 9.0 Approach LOS - - A A Rights Reserved HCS2000rst Version 4. I d Copyright C 2003 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version4.ld Ah Ah lqw TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster 2H6J2006 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 791h Ave/Ashford St City of Tigard Existing Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision East/West Street: SW Ashford Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North- South Stud Period Mrs : 0.25 ffgi;l In lp~! :11 Ma or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 13 24 4 1 22 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 33 5 1 30 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 24 8 4 4 2 91 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 33 11 5 5 2 128 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Approach' u NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 18 1 49 135 C (in) (vph) 1591 1585 735 1033 Vic 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.13 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.21 0.45 Control Delay 7.3 7.3 10.2 9.0 LOS A A B A Approach Delay - 10.2 9.0 Approach LOS - - B A Rights Reserved HCS2000tsi Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id Am Ad1k TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster 2116/2006 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave/Ashford St City of Tigard Existing Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision EastANest Street: SW Ashford Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs: 0.25 Ma or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 70 40 17 4 30 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 85 48 20 4 36 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 8 1 0 6 19 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 9 1 0 7 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR _ ~ 'y~`j "'3'w :.W3~`i•~=.. `T.: r' E~i :E:'+.• .t - 411;' ;1'. d Z~~C,'R3 d.'Sh7"•^•,•`W: y.~ T•~.~` v. k ?7 pL ,,~1 ~L~~~;,'A.~:m'.'; ,41£ "i~. VY+ Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 85 4 14 30 C (m) (vph) 1578 1544 617 877 V/c 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.03 95% queue length 0.17 0.01 0.07 0.11 Control Delay 7.4 7.3 11.0 9.3 LOS A A 8 A Approach Delay - 11.0 9.3 Approach LOS - - B A Rights Reserved Wslooorst Copyright 0 2003 University of londa. All Rights Resmed Version 4 1 d I Version 4.1d Ah TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster 21162006 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave/Ashford St City of Tigard 2007 Background Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision EastM/est Street: SWAshford Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 13 25 4 1 23 3 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 34 5 1 31 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - .0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 8 4 4 2 94 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 11 5 5 2 130 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 18 1 50 137 C (m) (vph) 1589 1584 730 1032 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.13 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.46 Control Delay 7.3 7.3 10.3 9.0 LOS A A B A Approach Delay - - 10.3 9.0 Approach LOS - - B A Rights Reserved HCS2000ru Copyright 02003 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1 d Ah Adik ,qw TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster 211612006 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave/Ashford St City of Tigard Background 2007 Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision East/West Street: SW Ashford Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 72 41 18 4 31 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 86 49 21 4 37 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 8 1 0 6 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 9 1 0 7 24 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach. N N Siora e 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR MAN= Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 86 4 14 31 . C(m)(vph) 1576 1541 613 879 v/c 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.04 95% queue length 0.17 0.01 0.07 0.11 Control Delay 7.4 7.3 11.0 9.2 LOS A A B A Approach Delay - - 11.0 9.2 Approach LOS - B A Rights Reserved HC S2000M Copyright Q 2003 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved version 4 1 d version 4. id Ah a TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster 211612006 AM Peak Hour n?3ci 1. Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave/Ashford St City of Tigard Background + Site Trips Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision East/West Street: SWAshford Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South WWI Stud Period Mrs : 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 13 30 4 1 25 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 41 5 1 34 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 8 4 4 2 94 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 11 5 5 2 130 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR W, K q an, WA 4 ' ~ -n, LTR ~tf Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 18 1 50 137 C(m)(vph) 1585 1575 719 1027 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.13 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.46 Control Delay 7.3 7.3 10.4 9.0 LOS A A B A Approach Delay - - 10.4 9.0 Approach LOS - - B A Rights Reserved MC'S2000.+ Copyright V 2003 University of Flonda. All Rights Reserved Venion 4 Id Verswn 4 Id Ah Ah TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY q..t .o,. th.'v: 4 t, e~"hs'' r vt;X.:.i~;w. t,sf, siey~t_~ ¢ ~ t a Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster 211612006 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave/Ashford St City of Tigard Background + Site Trips Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision EastANest Street: SW Ashford Street North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 evr Ma or Street Northbound Southbound Movement' 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 72 44 18 4 36 5 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 86 53 21 4 43 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 8 1 0 6 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 013 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 9 1 0 7 24 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Fiared-Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration 1 d. LTR h ~i rt 7 tL S, LTR . 5'k L. •.+hW` tn~', \9.° 7.: iY?.. Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 86 4 14 31 C (m) (vph) 1569 1536 604 870 v/c 0.05 0.00 0.02. 0.04 95% queue length 0.17 0.01 0.07 0.11 Control Delay 7.4 7.3 11.1 9.3 LOS A A B A Approach Delay - - 11.1 9.3 Approach LOS B A Rights Reserved HCI20091`t Copyright 4) 2003 university orMorida. All Rights Reeved Version 4.1d I Version 4.1 d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster 2/152006 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave at Cul-de-Sac Rd City of Tigard Background + Site Trips Project Description Churchill Woods Subdivision EastA/Vest Street: CuAde Sac Road North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North- South Stud Period hr s : 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 1 26 0 0 86 2 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 30 0 0 99 2 ' Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 5 0 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 .3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized E 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR ' Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 1 8 C (m) (vph) 1504 899 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.03 Control Delay 7.4 9.0 LOS A A Approach'Delay - - 9.0 Approach LOS - - A Rights Reservcd HCS2000M Vmion 4.1d Copyright O 2003 U mvmtty, or Flontda. All Rights Reserved Vinton 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period MTA Lancaster 211512006. PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year 79th Ave at Cul-de-Sac Rd City of Tigard Background + Site Trips Pro act Description Churchill Woods Subdivision EaslNVest Street: Cul-de Sac Road North/South Street: SW 79th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hr s : 0.25 Ma or.Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 4 96 0 0 56 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 111 0 0 65 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 3 0 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3. 0 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration " LR MWERMORMHOWN Approach M NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 4 5 C (m) (vph) 1544 873 Vlc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.02 Control Delay 7.3 9.1 LOS A A Approach Delay - 9.1 Approach LOS - A Rights Reserved HCS 2000tst Version 4.ld Copyright O 2003 University or Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id 0 EXHIBIT 3 0 CITY OF TIGARD -NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER 1 1 r 120 DAYS = 2/17/2006 (Includes a 100-extension) ATE OF FILING: 2/15/2006 1 .11 File Numbers: File Name: • CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER Owner's Name: Appellant's Names: Applicant's Name/Address: Address of Pro perty: Tax Mav/Lot Nos.: St Tax Assessor's Map No. 2S112CC, Tax Lot 200. L1 .111 \L-` Vaal+++aa a+vv~.vim.--~~-.~ APPEAL AND APPROVING :A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION AND AN ADJUSTMENT. THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANTS PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE HEARINGS OFFICER HEIR A PUBLIC-HEARING ON NOVEMBER 28, 2005 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. TFIIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AMID CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER Item on Appeal. ➢ On September 29, 2005, the Director issued a decision to approve a request for a 33-lot single-family Subdivision on 3.97 acres, and an Adjustment to the street spacing standard for SW 81St Court. On October 13, 2005, an appeal was filed by three neighboring residents in regard to issues concerning lack of information provided by the applicant pertaining to wetlands, protected species, traffic, public improvements, trees, and storm water treatment. The Hearings Officer held a public hearing on this application on November 28, 2005 and ultimately held open the record until February 8, 2006. At the close of the record, the Hearings Officer denied the appeal and affirmed the Director's decision with minor modifications. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION. Medium-Density Residential District. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12: The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA SUBJECT TO THE APPEAL: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.725, 18.775, 18.790 and 18.810. Action, ➢ ❑ Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice. was published in the newspaper and mailed to: Owners of Record Within the Required Distance ❑x Affected Government Agencies © The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 0 The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: THIS IS THE FINAL DECdSION OF THE CITY AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 15, 2006. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (CUBA) within 21 days according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. ' BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an appeal of an administrative decision) FINAL ORDER' approving an application.for a.33-lot subdivision.). on 3.97 acres located north of SW Bond Street ) .SUB2005-00014NAR2005-00068 and SW 81'` Court in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Gage Forest Subdivision) ' A. SUMMARY .L. The-applicant,.Gage Forest, LLC,,requests approval;of a. preliminary plan for a 33-lot subdivision of a 3.97-acre parcel in the R-25 (Medium High-Density Residential) zone located north of the intersection of.SW;Bond Street and: SW 81'`.Court. The legal . description.of the. site is Tax Lot 200, WCTM 2S 112CC; (the "site")..The applicant., proposes to develop each ofthe 33 new lots with:a single .family detached. dwelling. The applicant will extend SW Patti.Lane and, SW,Langtree.Street into the.site fromtheir existing stubs at the west boundary of the site, The applicant will extend a new:north south street,.proposed SW .81 Avenue .between' the .east ends o f Patti'Lane and..Langtree Street, creating a loop street on the site. The applicant.will extend`SW 81,' Court„into the site between -its ,existina.stub at the south,boundary.of the.site: and the proposed extension of SW Patti Lane. The applicant~will,dedicate right of way;and.construct frontage improvements along the site's SW Bond Street frontage. The applicant also requested an adjustment to reduce the intersection spacing.requirements from .125 .feet to 75 feet for SW 81s` Court. The applicant proposes-to-collect storm water from impervious, areas of the. site and to convey it to a storm water facility in the southeast corner of the site, proposed .Tract A; .for treatment, ,detention and discharge to, the existing storm sewer in SW Bond Street south of the site. All proposed lots will be served by public water,and sanitary sewer systems: The applicant proposes to remove all of the 150 regulated trees on the site. 2. On September 29, 2005, the Tigard Planning Manager. (the "manager") issued a Type R decision approving the application subject to conditions of approval. On October 13, 2005, the City received an appeal of the Director's decision filed by. attorney Kenneth Dobson on behalf of Judy and Kenneth Dobson, Dennis and Virginia Deck and Helene. and Gary Bickford (the "appellants"). The appeal alleged that the City: a. Failed to properly address the presence of wetlands on the site; b. Failed to address the presence of protected species .on the site; c. Failed to adequately, address the traffic impacts of the,proposed development; d. Failed to require a traffic study; e, Failed to address deficiencies in the applicant's impact study; f. Improperly granted `an "adjustmeint Ito the innumum-street spacing requirements; ' g. Committed procedural error`by-.06wiiig the applicant tossiibmit additional information after the application was deemed complete; T: h. Failed to require adequate protection for trees on adjacent properties; and _ i. Faile~46 adequately,address'sto n`water iu~derosion issues. 3.On November 28,-.2.00,5 , Tigard Land [use Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the ' "hearings'ofhcer") conducted a duly-noticed=public;hearing to consider the a.p 'I 'City staff recommended the` hearings `officer deny'the appeal,'and affirm <the manager''s ' decision.`9 ee "the Memorandum t'6 4"h" Offi6e'r-datedwN6'veinber4 & 2005 (the "Memoranduiri"). Representatives IIof he applicant testifiedin support of the application:: = The appellants and ~otliei"area residents -testified orally, and in wnting;'in' support- of the appeal: At'the end of the?hea the`,1eanngs officer ordered the record.>held~ open: Ultunately; at the'applicant's request.",the: hearmgs officer held-`open tfie recoid until - February'8,,2006. The°principal.issues in this case°include the fdllowing: ' 1' . .I. . a uf> . ..k, A a:°Whetherthe Cty;erred by accepting evidence from :the applicant !after' the public coiiimerit.period and'the effect of such°error, ti: Whether the' City provided the public with adequate notice of the ' applicable approval criteria,' c. Whether the site contains wetlands; =d: Whethertfie site contains steep.siopes'subject'to TDC 18.775; t -e. Whether the proposed' development complies with the tree* removal regulations of TDC 18.790; - f. Whether TDC 18.745.010 is an applicable approval criterion; g. Whether the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act as`part of this City review", h. Whether the' applicant is 'required to prevent vermin-living on the site ' from migrating onto adjacent properties; . i. Whether the applicant is required'to extend'existing;stub streets through the site; Hearings Officer Final Order ' Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 2 ' j. Whether additional traffic generated by the proposed development and street extensions will exceed'the capacity of area streets or otherwise create "h hazard; I. Whether an adjustment to, the spacing is-required, whether the City applied the correct standard in reviewing the proposed street spacing adju9tinent and whether the adjustment complies with the applicable criteria; 1. Whether the applicants impact study is sufficient to comply'with TDC 18.390.040:B.2(e); m: Whether development, on the 'site'will cause o'r'exacerbate flooding and erosion on the site and on a- djacent properties; an d n. Whether the,applicant'is required to obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from CWS'pursuaiit-to TDC 1`8:775.020: ' 4. Based on the f ndings ihd conclusions contained. herein and the testimony and ' evidence in the public record,' the:hearings-officer denies the appeal.,and affirms the administrative decision conditionally approving the application with certain modifications for the reasons, provided herein. R ERRING ANDRECORD HIGHLIGHTS' 4.1 1, The hearings officer received testimony at the public'hearing'ab'out the appeal on September:19, 2005. All exhibits and records of testimony-are filed with the Tigard Department `of Community Development. Atthe'beginning of the'hearing, the hearings officer,. made the .declaration reg4ii d by ORS * 197:763': The:hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or, conflicts of interest. The follo~ 'wing is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony and evidence offered at the hearing. ` 2. City planner Matt, Scheidegger summarized the appeal and his November 18, 2005 Memorandum in response to the appeal'. 3. Planner. Lee Leighton and attorney Andrew Stamp testified on behalf of the applicant. a. Mr. Leighton summarized the proposed development and responded: to the appeal. i. He-noted that SW Langtree Street and SW Patti Lane were previously stubbed to the west boundary of the. site. SW 81s` Courtwas stubbed to the south boundary. These streets "were not terminated with,a cul-de-sac or similar turnaround, indicating an intent that they would be-extended into the site when it ' developed. TDC 18.810.030.H(2) requires that the applicant extend these streets into the site to provide connectivity and. cross-circulation. However it. is not feasible to extend SW Wt Court in compliance with, the street spacing standards of the Code. Therefore the Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 3 i 4 K`.., applicant requested an adjustment to the street spacing standards. The applicant's . transportatioii engineer concluded that the proposed streets Will operate safely. 'The intersection,-alignment,will..not create conflicting turn movements and the streets will not , carry: a significant amount oftrac _ 3 • t a;` ii. He tesed that there are no wetlands on the site; based on a site specif c investigation byz the applicant's wetland consultant The site does not contain wetland soils, hydrology or vegetanon, all of which mustbCCe present for anarea to qualify , as a wetland. The City's wetland inventory, which.identifies a non-signific'ant`i%etland in the southwest comer ofthe site,, is based.on review from ofd -site The. site t "t, specific analysis is more accurate than the City's pnor off: site analysis iii. He noted that the. applicant proposed-to create a "mini-park" on the site to provide 'open space and recreational opportunities in the neighborhood. The is unlikely to accept dedication of the small park, Therefore the applicantwill create City a.homeowners association responsible for ownership and maintenance .of the park- The applicant will preserve two trees, a 4=inch Oregon Ash and a l5=mch :Oregon White Oak within? the-park x; iv. He testified that the applicantwill preserve `as many additional' trees on the site. as possible However.-.the applicant.must'.remove.the. majority of the trees I in order to accommodate` grading that^is necessary°to extend the streets through the site and .to create buildable dots ,The topagraphy, and relatively narrow width of the site increasethe airiount of grading pquired 'The__ pplicant may be.ab'164b,preserve some ' trees -in the northeast corner of-the site, which are located'near the rear of propsed'Iots. However the applicant cannot make,that determination until the 'final grading plans are ' completed The applicant will, install tiee protection measures to-protect trees on adjacent properties. 'The applicant will plant additional trees and/or pay fees to the City to mitigate for the trees remo"ved as'required by'the Code. V. `He noted'that the applicant provided a traffic impact study,., although the Code does not require .a traffic study foi"this development The' traffic study concluded that.area streets have adequate capacity to accommodate the volume of traffic generated by the proposed development. b. Mr. Stamp requested the hearings officer hold the record open to allow ' the applicant an opporEiihity` to respond. to the issues raised of the hearing: 4. He noted that the City's wetland inventory map shows a wetland in the southeast corner of the site. Howevefthe City's mapping is not determinative. The Code defines'" wetlands pursuant to the Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") criteria. ' The City does not regulate wetlands unless they meet the Corps' criteria. There are no ' areas of the site that.meet the Corps''wetla id criteria. I He argued that the Code requires the that the'applicant extend SW Langtree Street; 'SW Patti Lane and'SW 81A Court through the site to comply with Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 4 i street connectivityand, cross-circulation requirements of the Code and.the state Transportation Planning Rule (the "TPR" The, appellants' arguments are a collateral attack on the Code and the TPR. The proposed development is unlikely to encourage cut= through traffic, because the proposed streets will create a circuitous route through the neighborhood.. The applicant's traffic; engineer did not observe. Any particular hazards on 79f Street. iii. He argued that. the, Migratory _Bird Treaty Act is inapplicable to this: application..However.the applicant must comply with federal law regardless of the r proposed development. ' iv._ He,argued, that. the City's.receipt of additional evidence after the public,comment period was•merely, a;procedurai. error. It did not prejudice the_ public's right .to.;review and comment:on the application,-because the public had an opportunity to review and comment on the new evidence during the de:n0yo appeal hearing. v. He e testified.that'a professional surveyor measured the topography on the site. There is no evidence'that the, site contains slopes,in 'excess of 257 percent or, more. ' vi. He testified that`the applicant will preserve as many trees as possible on the;site and take steps to. avoid. impacts to trees on abutt ing properties. Potential impacts to neighboring trees:are not a basis, for denial of the application. The purpose, statements of the Code are not. approval criteria.. vii. He :argued that the. applicant is not required to provide detailed engmeering•plans at this:stage. of review. The Code does not'require.public participation in the review of objective engineering and technical issues. vii. ;He argued that. TDC.18.725.030.F prohibits conditions that may attract and- support rode'nts.and insects-. it, does not restrict development because such ' animals may be present on-.this site. 4. Attorney Kenneth Dobson testified on behalf of the. appellants. a. He argued that the site does contain a wetland, a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. Therefore a tree removal permitis required for the removal of trees within.the.wetland. The City determined that the site contained a wetland during its wetland inventory process in the 1990s. The appellants hired a wetland biologist who concluded that the site may contain a wetland. The appellants' wetland biologist observed slough sedge in the southeast corner: of:,the site. Slough sedge only grows in wetlands. b. He argued thatthe proposed subdivision does not comply with TDC 18.810.030.D because the proposed streets are inconsistent with the existing street Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 5 pattern in tle~`neigliborhood.-T}ie existing street pattern consisfs`'of dead=end and cul=de-' , sac streets .'The`' proposed street alignrridnt°willincrease traffic on SW `79`~ Street; a narrow, lolly street, which is'hazardous under existing conditions. a" c. He'argued`that the proposed adjustirierit``to°tlie strdet'spacmg-standar&,, ' ' does not comply with the applicable approval criteria for adjustments to access and` egress standards in TDC 18.370.020.-B.(5). TDC 1-8370.020 B(5,)(b)(2) prohibits adjustmeritswliere alteriiahve access points are.availa 6'.4n`this case, alternative. access is available'via'S-W Lan ee'Street and ifti i:ane. Tlie' extension of SW 81 ~ourt'is not- ' necessary to provide access to the site. n ' d He.argued that clearing and development on the site may kill. migratory birds on the site m violation ofthe federal Nhgratory Bird Treaty `Act: If the applicahonais' 11- - roval is warranted topi-olubitclearing when~migratorybirds approved a condition ofapp are nesting"on"the site.... e. He expressed. concern that theyproposed„development will,cause or .exacerbate storm water runoff and erosion onto adjacentproperties. The proposed A ri gradirig'plan will"create steep`slopes:along the east boundary'of the"site T'he proposed storm water plan does not make any provisions for capturing -runoff flowing'°dovm°the, slopes and onto adjacent properties in addition, the steep slopes will be prone to erosion. ' F-f He 'di pressed, thatgradmg an d development on the site will P° ear iage trees on `neighboringproperties He'subnutted a report'°by a professional atborist addressing the potential impact: oftlie'ddvelopinenton neighbonng.trees`'Tlie applicant should be.required to provide a detailed tree protection plan-outlining the specific measures the" ttn cant will implement to.protect trees on adjacent, properties. He it re quested, the gs officer incoiporate'the recomrniendahons of therCit- orestefas conditions of approval. g:.Hd, argued that the City commrtted;procedurah error by allowing the ' applicant°to submit additional' evi&&e`aA& the public comment period' The public did' not have an opportunity to.review and respond to the new evidence. h.'He argued"thatthd"appli'c' s impact study is-madequate`because it does not, address or quantify a variety of impacts to adjacent residents. 'I .He argued tlat `the Cityshouldhave'its own experts review the site for' wetlands and steep slopes. He opined that the'site'contains areas of 25=percent slope; which are sensitive' lands subject to l'15` 5. Alison Kinsey rioted that TDC' 18.810.030.A(7) provides that tlie-City'"may" ' approve" adjustments. However the City can deny an adjustment and it should in,this case, She argued that,the applicant's proposal to remove all of the trees on the site conflicts with=the purpose'statement'of.TDC 18.745.010:A :She.argued that the applicant's tree preservation plan does not include sufficient detaitto ensure protection. Hearings Officer Final Order , Appeal of SUB200540014(Gage Forest Subdivision)' ' Page 6 r ' and; preservation of trees on adjacent properties, citing TDC 18.790.030.B(4). She testified that the existing forest on the site. supports a large population of rats and other. rodents. Clearing on -the site will.force these rodents. onto adjacent residential properties in.violation of TDC .18.725.030.F.. She.argued that the applicant's impact assessment is, inadequate, because it does not address the impact of the.development on surrounding residents. Residents of the surrounding neighborhood have used the :site for recreation for ' many years. The proposed development will eliminate that use. 6. Judy-Dobson expressed general concerns with the extent of development in the city. 7. Sue Bielke, vice-president of Friends of Summer Creek, argued that the site' contains, significant. natural resource values: that should be protected.., a. She.argued that.the City's.notice of application was inadequate because it did not list TDC 18.725, and.18.775 _ as applicable approval criteri a. She requested the hearings officer.remand the application to the, City to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on these criteria. b.. She ,argued that the applicant's wetland delineation was inadequate. The ' applicant's consultant:performed the delineation after.a ver}! diy winter, which may have affected the hydrology and wetland vegetation. The, investigation was limited to a-single plot in the southeast comer of the site. Based on the tree inventory, the site contains pacific willow, a FAC wetland, plant,. elsewhere, on the,site. The. applicant's consultant should have, performed additional wetland investigations in that area, of the site. c. She noted that the City's wetland maps indicate a wetland on the site. Therefore a wetland exists on the site until the map is revised through the plan amendment process. r - d. She argued that the proposal to remove the majority.of the trees on the site is inconsistent with TDC i8.790.0103,.the.purpose.statement of the tree.removal ordinance. She noted that.the City received.two conflicting tree inventories. The second inventory was received on September 29, 2005, after the close of the,public comment period. Therefore the public had no opportunity to review the second inventory. The applicant must correct the inconsistencies in the tree inventory to ensure adequate mitigation. . e. She testified that area residents, have, observed Coopers :Hawks on the site, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The site. may contain red- legged frogs, a.-state. protected species. f. She requested the hearings officer hold the record open for two weeks to allow the public to submit additional testimony and evidence in response to issues raised at the hearing*. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 7 - 8. Denni's Deck'expressed concern thatclearing anddevelopment on tlie''stewill impact trees on his.'property east of the site, wliieh are located ear.the east'boundaryof the site He expressed conce'.w' I h impacts to- birds and othei wildlife. He argued that . : traffic generated by`this and other developments in the-area wilr have a significant-impact r on area streets He argued that the applicant-s impact analysis°shou~d'have addressed" noise, vibration and other impacts caused bq,con5tructionon=the=site". 9 Ginny, Deck noted that the roots of trees on her property east of the site extend onto the srte'Grading"for the development may damage`the -roots,and'iirrpact the health of her trees. She testified that she observed hawk nests and fledglings and other migratory birds in trees on the site. 10. Professional enguieer`Randall,Elliott testified'that there is'a'Taige cottonwood tree on his property, near. the boundary with the site. He expressed concern that development.on'the site-rnay damage~the'tree. Clearing-onthe`site'wilT=increase wind i e'. impacts'on-this Iree and`ma"y cause ii to'fall"6iito homes on,the=site. R argued that~the' applicant should be required to entire the survival bf'trees.on neighboring, properties or remove trees that may pose a hazard, if requested by the property owner: 1`1: Anii Scheinei`argued that.the' applicants traffic'impact analysis is inaccurate because it was conducted during the summer. months,'when school' ' as not iii session. ' The reduced speed liinits"m `school^zonestimcreas'e congestion m the°area = j 12: Karen Forman azgued that the proposed: extension 'of'81 St Gouit wil-l:create a cut=through oute between Haltt iulevard and Duiham.Road.lBond"Street and-91s` Court are narrow roads that cannot-accommodate additional trek generated by this new street connection: 13. Yvette Marty argued that streets in the area are congested under existing conditions.' The cumulative impact of traffic generated by this and other developments in ' the'area will exceed'-the capacity of area streets:,She testi&&thafthe proposed development will~increase' traffic on`79 .-.Street east,of the site; which-,is'unsafe'under ' ' existing conditions :The-road is verynarrow and steep. The street is oftenflooded in', winter. There are-iio-street lights or sidewalks. ,AdditionaFtraffic generated liy the - proposed street`connection will exacerbate the hazard. ' 14. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the public record-held open for eighteen days, until December 16, 2005, for all parties to submit new testimony ' and evidence in iesponse.to the issues,raised-at the hearing, The hearings, officer ordered the record held open for an°additioiial two weeks, untiFDecember'30; for all parties 1to respond to the new evidence. The hearings officer ordered the-record held•open -for a final week, until January 6, 2006, for the applicant submit a closing argument. a On January 17, 2006, 'in response to the applicant's request, the hearings officer issued a written order reopening the record until February 8 to allow the parties to address the applicability of and compliance with certain adjustment/variance standards. Hearings Officer Final Order , Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 8 The record closed at 5 p.m. on February.2, 2006.1, The applicant's request to reopen the record tolled the 120-day clockduring'the`open record periods as allowed by ORS- 227.178('5). b. The following documents- were submitted during the open record ' period: i. A letter dated'January 25, 2006 from Mr.' Stamp, the. applicant's attorney; ii. A letter dated'January 25,:1666 from -Mr. "D6b§on, the ' appellant's attorney;' iii: A letter dated 7anuary 25; 2006 from Ms. Bielke; iv. A letter dated February'l, 2006 from"Mr: Stamp; and ' v: An email dated'February 2,2006 from W."'Stampvaiving the applicant's final argument and requesting' the ,hearings off cer close the record. C. DISCUSSION .E, 1. TDC 18.390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to'hear appeals of Type II t decisions, such as the city's decision conditionally approving the subdivision application. TDC 18.390.040:G:2.b provides that appea s i ' [S]hall be limited to the specific issues raised during the- written comment' "period, as provided under Section 18.390.040.C, unless the Hearings Officer, at his or her discretion, allows additional 'evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The Hearings Officer may allow such additional.evidence if he or she determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case. The intent 'of this`requirement is to limit the scope.of Type II Administrative Appeals by encouraging'persons with. standing to submit their specific concerns'in writing during the comment period'- The ' written comments received duringthe comment period will usually limit thescope of issues on appeal. Only in extraordinary circumstances should new issues be considered by the Hearings Officer on appeal of a Type H Administrative Decision. 2. The hearings officer finds that the City committed procedural error when it accepted additional evidence from the applicant after the close of the 14-day comment period. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Oregon City, LUBANo. 2004-124 (2005). 1 The hearings officer originally held the record open until Febniary'8, 2006. See the January 17, 2006 Order Opening the Record. However the applicant submitted an email to the City on February 2 waiving its ' final argument and requesting the hearings officer close the record. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 9 "Procedural errors, however.,only:proyide a basis,for.reversal, or remand if they prejudice . a party's substantial, rights. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B)." Id..'in this case the City cured the procedural error by holding a de novo appeal hearing. LUBA stated that if new evidence is submitted.after.,the. close of the:;comment period;_ i. t, [T]he local government must either: (1) reopen the record to allow ot) er participants an,opportunity:to respond to, the new evidence; or (2) reject . the new .evidence as untimely. ODOT v. City of Mosier; 36 Or LUBA,,666, 683 (1999)....The failure to choose one of these options prejudices tire`` ' substantial,nghts, of the parties because it;infringes on their right to a full and fair opportunity to present their case. Id. (Citations: omitted).. The City, complied wtth:the first',option in:this, case;-the City held a de novo appeal hearing, which afforded the, public "full and fair opportunity to present their case" and to respond to the;new:evidence..In addition„the hearings officer held the record open t for more than, two weeks after the hearing to allow fall}parties . an opportunity to submit additional evidence. and..testimony. There is no. substantial evidence that delaying the public's opportunity to ,comment on.the additional: evidence until the appeal hearing ' prejudiced the public's substan dl rights in this case. 3. The hearings officer finds that the City provided the public with adequate notice ofthe applicable approyah criteria. ; ~~l".:. F. :=fir •a a. Contrary to'Ms. Bielke's assertion, both the initial notice.of application/request for comments and the director's decision clearly listed'TDC 18.725 as an applicable.. criteria. , &.As discussed below, TDC 18.775.050 .is not.an applicable approval criteria because there,are no-wetlands on 1the:site. C. The initial:notice and the diiector's.decision did not list TDC 18. . 370. 030.CX1 18.370,.030.C(11),or TDC 1-8.37Q.0 1 O.C(2) as applicable approval ' criteria.,However _the hearings officer's order reopening the record clearly listed these code sectioins. as:potentially relevant. approval criteria and invited ;piiblic comment about those.criteria...,The City mailed that order to. members of the public entitled to notice and ' other parties, of record. _ . 4. The hearings officer finds that there are no wetlands on the site. Therefore TDC 18.7.75.050.is inapplicable,., G a. TDC 18.120.036.A(145) defines "wetlands"=as: _ Land often called swamp, marsh, or bog, that exhibits all of the following characteristics: Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 10 1 ' a. The land supports hydrophytic vegetation. This occurs when more than 50 percent`of the' dominant species from all strata are classified as wetland species; b.. The' land has hydric'soils.`Hydric soils•are soils that are saturated; flooded, cr" in ponds long enough during the growing ' season7to -develop anaerobic conditions in;the upper partof the soil profile; and c. The land has wetland hydrology.'Wetland hydrology is l , permanent or periodic=inundation, or soilsaturation for a . significant period (at least one week) during the!growing' season: ; The City will use the_ Federal Manual for Identitring and Delineating'Jurisdictional-Wetlands" as the basis`for determining t Where wetlands are located::.. ' b. The applicant's wetland expert conducted two'onsite investigations to ' determine whether .these wetland indicators (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils or wetland hydrology) were present.oh the'site. Based -on those investigations, none of the three criteria were present on .this site., See the April 4, 200 letter fror ' RRa dy z ' Cunningham and the December 6, 2005 letter attached to th'e applicanfs°December 16, 2005 "First Post-Hearing Submittal:" ' ' i. 'Opponents arguedthat the City-should•hire;its :ow,n.expeits -to review the site for wetlands. However the'Code expressly provides that "wetland' delineation will'be:done by qualified professionals at the applicant's ekpense:" TDC 18.775.050.B. ' c. The appellants' wetland expert testified that he observed"slough`sedge" (Carex obnupta) an obligate wetland plant, on the site. Based on the presence of this plant and other site conditions he opined that the site "may likely contain =wetland- conditions." ' p. 3 of the November 8,.2005 Memorandum;-from'Jack Dalton.'(the "Dalton"Memo"). However Mr. Dalton. was'unable to reach a conclusive determination, based on his observations of the site from adjacent properties and roads. He testified that "further site ' investigation is recommended to verify the presence -or absence of wetlands on-the site:" Id. ' i. Mr. Cunningham and Professional Wetland"Scientist. Alision Rhea determined, based on on-site observations; that the vegetation observed by Mr. Dalton is actually "Henderson's Sedge,"another species1rom the;"Carex"family: ' Henderson's Sedge is a facultative wetland plant that can grow' in either wetland or upland conditions. See p. 1 of the December 6, 2005 Cunningham letter. d. Ms. Bielke argued that the Hillsboro Loam, '21C soils on the site "is a hydric or wetland soil type." p. 1 of Ms. Bielke's December 18, 2005 letter. (Emphasis in original). This is incorrect. The soil list attached to Ms. Bielke's letter is not a list of Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Pagel] • i hydric „soils;.It is a'iist of all of the soil: ypes'found,:in Washington County. Based on the description of Hillsboro soilsf in the Washmgton,County Soil Survey, Hillsboro soils are not hydnc soils See Attachment 4 of-the applicant's December 30, 2005 "Second Post- Hearing Submttal , Mr Dalton gso testified thit,theWE Isboroo soils mapped on the site "is.not-hsted-as a hydnc soil for.;Was,k n County "p..2 of ttie Dalton Memo. e 1VIs {Biellce noted that other F.aculahve plant species (Oregon ash, Pacific willow,fwestern red cedar, creek dogwood and sedge) are scattered throughout the site and may,indicate the,presence of wetlands ~Theiefore the applicant should have ' investigated entire site for wetlands. However, as. the applicant noted, these plants, are located on topographic uplands and are growing with Douglas.'ff and other plant species that do~no tolerate wetland conditions See p.,2 of the applicants "Second Post-Hearing ' Submittal'. Mr Dalton noted-that topographic low pomf in the southeast comer of the s site is the most likely location for wetlands to form;; However "[h]ydric soil conditions y . y would need to be present to "perch" the precipitation at`the surface." p. 3 of the Dalton Memo: There is rno, substantial evidence that hydnc soils: exist: anywhere on the site. 1... s., f --The appellants arguedthat the below average,rainfall'm the months before, thew hcant's wetland investigation „ma have affected the h drolo on the site. ` However TD,,C 18 120 030 A(145) provides. that alt three .wetland mdicators_ must be, present for anarea to qualify as a "wetland." `Even~assuming that the necessary hydrology , exists but was altered by the unusually dry winter and spring, the other two cnteria`(soils ` and,, tation) were not present on the site., MrDalton's expert opinion that,the site "may'liWyy ontainkwetland conditions" is.based.on off'site observations and is insufficient=lo overcome Mr= CummfighamI..s expert opnuon based on on site " observations, including subsurface analysis of the soils and lydrology: `Therefore :the. hearings :officer finds that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the site does not contain wetlands. 77. . 5 The hearings,officer finds that a plan amendment is not required io remove the wetland designation in this case. TDC ,18.775 130 ,provides a process for quasi judicial' o propdfhes identified comprehensive,.plan amendment to remove Goal 5 protection fr m as :"signif cant wetlands"However this site"is designated as a "nonsignificant wetland on-the City's wetlands map See attachment, of the applicant's:November I 1, 2005 Appeal Hearing Response. y , 6. There ns no.,substantial evidence that the site contains steep slopes of 25% or greater, based on the apphcant.'s topographic survey: Neighbor's unsubstantiated opinion's that the site "may"-.contain areas of 25-percent slope is not sufficient to overcome the experttestimony of the applicant's professional, surveyor, based on site specific measurements. Therefore TDC 18.775 is inapplicable. ' -7. The hearings offncer,fmds that the application complies with TDC 18.790.030, based on the following: ' Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 12 ' a. The applicant submitted.a tree plan prepared by a certified arborist outlining the proposed planting, removal and protection of trees on the site as required by TDC 18.790.030. Whether the applicant could save additional trees on the site is ' irrelevant. The Code provides incentives to encourage the retention of trees. However nothiji 'in the Code prohibits the removal of tree's, provided the`applicant mitigates their removal pursuant to TDC 18.790.060D. Although: "protection is preferred over removal wherever possible" (TDC -18790.030.A): ttie Code leaves'to the applicant the choice ' whether to save trees or mitigate for their removal. As described byLUBA: ' The ultimate standard that the [tree preservation ordinance] imposes is not a standard that re'quires';protection of trees. Rather it is a. standard that favors.'iection of trees but allows trees"to be ' removed so long as anyloss of more than 257percent'of large trees is mitigated. Miller v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 2003-133 (2004). i.' The'hearings officef finds that TDC 18.90.010 and 18.745.010 are purpose statements, not applicable-approval standards. The purpose statements are ' not relevant unless, the implementing regulations. that follow are ambiguous, and resort to the purpose statements is necessary to determine the context and meaning of ambiguous terms. See, e.g., Beck v. City of Tillamook, 18 Or LUBA 587 '(199,0y (Purpose statement stating general objectives only is not arrapproval:criterion:) b. The hearings officer finds that the-applicant's original tree'survey did ' not comply with the submittal requirements•of. TDC.J8.790.030.B(1) because it did not show the correct species of all existing trees' on_th6 '§ite. As the applicant noted "the initial tree survey was... conducted by a survey crew." p. 2=3 of the applicant's "First Post-Hearing Submittal." The applicant's arborist merely "reviewed the condition of the trees shown on the survey..." See the'March 16, 2005. letter from Stephen Goetz, Attachment J of the application. The City should have rejected the application as ' incomplete, because the. tree survey was not prepared by'a `certif ed arborist as required by TDC'l8.7.90.030.A. ' c. The hearings officer further finds that the applicant's revised Tree ' Inventory Plan does comply with TDC 18.790.030.B(t). The revised tree plan was ' prepared by a certified arborist and shows the correct species of.all existing trees on the site. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the application complies with the submittal requirements of TDC 18.790.030.B.1. 1 i. The applicant submitted the revised tree plan after the close of the initial public comment period. This was a procedural error. However the City cured that error, as discussed above, by conducting a de novo appeal hearing. d. The applicant proposed to remove 100-percent of the trees on the site. ' Therefore the applicant is required to mitigate for all of the trees removed, resulting in "no net loss of trees." TDC 18.790.030.B.2(a). The applicant is required to, submit a ' Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 13 revisedmitigation,plan consistent: with this.requirement.prior to the issuance of building permits. See condition 2 'of the, director's decision: i. At the'hearing the applicant proposed to save two trees witliiii ` tlie.proposed muii=park _As discussed. in the director's decision, a newyarborist's report is required for trees.propoged for:,preservation to ensure that the retained'trees'are healthy. ' In addition, .the applicarit ;should be required,to include these trees 'in any tree protection plan. A condition of.approval is'. arranted to-that effect: " e. The hearings offic" if finds that the-tree protection and mitigation standards:of TDC.18'.790 do no't applyto trees located on adjacdnt`properties. The tree removal ordinance 'is limited to trees located 'on the site, based on the plain meaning of , the words -in the.',Code. x - 4 i. For the,most;partTDC 18.790 refers to ".trees" generally, ' without distinction between `on=site and off site trees The; stated.purpose of the Code is to "encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in fire City" generally. TDC 1'8390.0103(1). However the treeplari requirements are expressly lirfi ted to the ' lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels :for which [d'evIelopment is proposed]:" TDC 18:790:030.A In addition, TDC 18 790 0408 requires 'that developers record a deed restriction prohibiting removal=of retained trees"The applicant has,no nght'to enter ' adjacent properties to perform, pruning and other palliative measures necessary to ensure the~survivil of off site trees A`develor cannot record a deed ie'stnetion 'over adjacent . properties; Therefore the`hearings officer finds ttat'the Code does not°require that the applicant protect trees,on adjacent propeerhes: ` . iii. Condition of.;approval, l of the director's decision requires.tfiat the applicant sub Ifa protection plan for trees on adjacent.properties: The hearings officer cannot. modify this condition b require more protection, because the Code does ' not require preservation or pe ection'of trees on.adjacent-properties. The-hearings•officer cannot delete this condition because the applicant did not appeal the director's decision- and the applicant did not.raise this issue during the initial written comment period. , Therefore tl .6 issue. exceeds the scope of ap I Idd; Mowed' by TDC `1000.040.G. : iii. Clearing,ori this site may expose'trees on adjacen 'properties to 11 greater wind impacts, increasing the possibility tfiat,trees will be blown down during storms. However that TDC 18.790 does not prohibit such impacts. iv:' The hearings officer has no: authority to determine whether and , to what extent the'applicant is 14le if'clearing, grading And construction activities on this site damage trees ori'adjacent properties-. That is civil matter that is not regulated by , the TDC. f.'As discussed above, the site sloes not;contain sensitive areas as `defined ' by TDC 18.775. Therefore the tree removal permit requirements of TDC 18.790.050 are inapplicable. Hearings Officer Final Order ' Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 14 • • .9--The hearings officer finds that allegations that the site is subject to regulation as "Fish ah&W.ildlife Habitat". and a "designated timbered or tree area" exceed the scope of the_appe because such concerns were not raised°during the initialwritten comment. In.addition, there 'is no substantial evidence that the site'is delineated on-the "Fish and 'Wildlife"Habitat Map" or that-the, 'site is a "designated timbered or tree area" ' subject to comp :plaii;3 ^4.2.b, c and d; cited by'Ms. Bielke in her December'18, 2005 ' letter. Even' if the:site were so designated,"the standardsin the Compreliensive`Pl'an-are not directly applicable to. this subdivision,'applicaton'because they have'not been incorporated into the Zoning/developmeni code as requiredby ORS' 197.'1'95(1): ' I' S . 1 .8. Clearing and development on this site'w l elirriinate; habitat for wildlife, including habitat for migrafory'birds. But the TDC does not prohibit such an effect. On the contrary, it is an inevitable consequence of conceiitrating new development'mi i urban area..None of the. animals observed on this site is listed as endangered or threatened. They arercommonly observed in the urban area. Their presence is'less likely after the site is developed,'but that' is4o be expected There isno substantial evidence that any endangered 'or threatened species exist on the site. ' 9: The hearings officerfinds that the. federal Migratory-Bird-Treaty Act (the..__.. "MBTA") is not-an applicable approval' criteria. The hearings. officer cannot rely, on,a treaty to deny or condition approval of the application, because a treaty- is-not part of the local development regulations.2 The MBTA'is not. incorporated by-reference pursuant -to % TDC 18.725.020.A,ibecause,,it is.:not a -regulation related to "noise, odor, or discharge [of pollutants].'73 Although :the removal of trees may-affect wildlife habitat including habitat for migrato ybirds;-the TDC;does:not prohibit such,impacts., . 2 ORS 227.173(1) provides as follows: Approval or'denial'of:a.discretionarypermrt application shall be'based on standards and criteria, which h-shitbe set forth'inAhe developmedt ordinance-and which,shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to'the development ordinance and'to "the 'comprehensive plan for the area in which' the development would occur-and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. (emphasis added)' See also, McNern v ."City of Corvallis, 39 Or LUBA 591 (2001) (While a development may have to eventually comply with federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, unless local approval criteria or federal law provisions require that thelocal- decision that approves the development also demonstrate compliance with federal law, the decision need not do 'so)-and Schulte -i City'of Grants Pass, 22 Or LUBA 457 (1991) (A local code provision requiring that partitions comply with "applicable' State and Federal laws" does not make all state and federal statutes and constitutional provisions which are implicated in some way by a particular partition~&cision "land use standards" within the meaning_of'formei ORS 197.015(10)(b)(B)); 3 TDC 18.725.020.A provides: Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity, or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor, and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 15 r - .10 Neighbors testified.that the existu g forest on the site. is a habitat'for rats and other vermin.;Clearing. Qnsthe site will eliminate that habitat and drive the animals onto their. properties While,such.concerns_are reasonable, theyare speculative .There is no substantial evidence that clearing qq tli'is site: will`cause; a significant utcrease;in verminon adjacent properties It~is equallkiikely that the proposed development will reduce the ' rodent.population by reducing theamount o£:habttat available to support then In4any case, the Code does not regulate,.this.issue The hearings officer finds that the"proposed trr r r a development is consistent, with: TDC'18 725 '030 F, which prohibits the creation of conditions "that "[a]ttract or aid the propagation of insects or rodeints or`create'"a health hazard." Assumingthe.existing,forest on the;srte provides ~habitat. for vermin, the F proposed development will reduce theiamount of habitat available in the area, reducing r , the attraction aria"propagation of insects and rodents: 7 11 The hearings=officer findsahat the applicant is required to extend. SW Path Lane, SW Langtree.YStreet and SW 81 Avenue through the 'site to comply ,with the street ' extension "and connectivity standards .of TDC 18 810 030tH and TDC 18 81 030 D(2).4 pertaining to non-pointsource;pollution control;and contained,in}the Oregon Administrative Rules , shall by. 4his referencebe made apart of this chapter. 4 TDC 18 810.030 H,provides: a w , r C _ r' er rr. an 530 feet between connechons,is required th pacu►g of no more J.' Fullstreet-connechonswvtth s except where.prevented'by barrii such id topography, iailroads,areeways, pre .existing ' de'velap`ments;-lease provisions; ease'meats; -covenantsor• other-restrictions^existing pnbr-16May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections:,;A full street connection`i*.Also'be>exempted:due to a regulated water feature if regulations would, not permit construction. 2 All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not. precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence. to, other standards'in , this code. A street connection or extension.is considered precluded when it is. not possible to redesign.or.•recoufgure;the street pattern to.Drovide required extensions.. Land.is,considered topographically constrained'if he.slop6ds greater than 15°a.for,a distance of 250 feet or*more. In the case of environmental or topographical~cr4nts, the.mere 'presence of a constraint is not ' tsuffcient:to show_.that a:street connection is not.possible. The;applicantmust show why the constraint precludes some re'asonable,street connection., : , 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to,provide direct access to existing or planned. ' transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood.facihties,•such as schools, shopping . areas and-parks. 4:, All,developmentsshould,provide an internal network of connecting streets _that provide short, direct travelrroutes and minimize travel.distances within the development.. ' TDC 18.81.030 D(2) proyides: Where the location.of a ,street is.not shown in an approved•street.plan, the. arrangement of streets in a ' development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas,, or : t.. ' b.,, Conform to a plan adopted;by the Commission, U_ it is impractical to conform to existing` street patterns because of particular topographical or oilier existing conditions of the land. Such a 'plan shall be based=on the type of land use to.beserved, the volume of traffic, the capacity,of adjoining streets and the need for publi c convenience and'safety. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB200S-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page -16 0 There is no adopted street plan for this area. Therefore the applicant is required to "provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding area."`TDC 18.81:030.D(2). The hearings, officer finds_that,the proposed preliminary ,plat "jc]onfori[s] to'the flats.of subdivisions and maps of major partitions"' akeady approved for adjoining"property..:" by contin'u`ing these streets, which'prior developments stubbed to`tfie boundAries.of the site. TDC 18:430:040 A(3). The` proposed street layout, connects the 'existing streets 164he area, erihancingYcompliance with•TDC• 18.810.030:H(1) and the City's coriiiectivity goals" a.: The appellants: argue that the street layout should 6e~=designed to maintain a "fused grid" street design`vvith cul-de-sac and dead end`streets:`'See p. 2'6f Mr. Dobson's Decennber.16,'2065' le. The"appellAhts argue that,"thislayout helps improve community livability and encourages non-motonzecl transportation." 7d:'The hearings officer understands that some residents may.prefer to live oni dead-end streets'that-limit through-traffic. The City presumably considered the advantages and disadvantages of a fused grid" versus an interconnected `street design when it aiiopted the current Code. The Ci:.•,~ ~ r . • t. ty concluded that the. advanfages•benefits.ofconnectivity outweigh the disadvantages and adopted the current standards which maze intended'.to iesult in the creafion of an interconnected streefgri0; See.e.g., TDC`M810.03.O.H(1).'The hearings'officer'must apply the City's existing code and cannot reconsider the issue in this proceeding:' ..b:;The extension of these streets was foreseeable. -very nature of the existing design.of,the streets,abutting tlie.site as public.righ' ofway stubbed°to the boundaries. of the site without turnarounds evidenced an intention that the streets would.be;extended. TDC 18.810.030.H(2) requires'that the applicant exte id these streets through the site. For people who have'lived alongzWhat. have heretofore been dead-end streets, the change created by the extension of these -streets will be more significant: They have enjoyed a relatively low level of traffic given their location in an otherwise urbanized area. But it is time to, extend the streets to accommodate. development on this site and fulfill the Cs connectivit' y an ` d'cross;circulation goals. " c. The hearings officer fords that the proposed street connections are unlikely to generate significant "cut-through" traffic. Drivers will logically travel or the shortest, most direct route,between destinations. The proposed street connections may provide a direct route Ito Durham Road for some existing residents living west of the site. It may also provide a direct route to,Hall Boulevard'for some existing residents living east of the site. However the,proposed street connecilons.are unlikely to attract cut- through traffic beiWeen Hall Boulevard and Durham' Road. Drivers using the proposed street connections.: as a'cut-through route mtist niedhder through the area .on several k•...'}' .i: different streets with many stops and turns. SW'Mhfdtd Street north of the-site provides a similar, but more direct, cut-through route under existing conditions. There is no substantial evidence that this. street carries a, disproportionate volume of traffic or, otherwise encourages drivers to`cut-through the local neighborhood. 5 These "goals" are reflected in,the street spacing and connectivity requirements of TDC 18.810.030.H, which,implement the state Transportation Planning Rule. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB200S-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 17 s • ~1 12. -he proposed~development and street, conne a streets.. That incre"asedtraffic will be.pep ill generate increased to are'Atesldents he capacity of streets not create-,a hazard, based on:the applic'ant's September. 2005'traffic unpact study., There ry y. e fV i 3f 3 4, L )4 •s no substantial evidence to."the contrary. Neighbors Testified that the traffic from the development will exacerbate existing hazards `Neighborsobservations of ex sting traffic is substantial evidence. But their predictions that the traffic from the proposed'" subdivision and street connection will :make the streets unsafe are not supported by substantial evidence, because they are not ;experts in such`matters dThe-hearings officer finds that the. expert testuiiony, by the traffic4engineers"for "the applicant and the City is ; E % imony about the unpact of traffic° 'rom the more,persuasive~than neighbors' test subdivision,and street connect;on on area streets TRI: x_' K 4 tr rr s a Some of the traffic from the proposed development will use 'SW 79th ' Avenue There is no di ute Ghat tfiis's&eet does not rovide o timum'drivin ° conditions:" There are no sidewalk's;or street_Iights; the pavement is narrow with little no shoulder an d :there are. several hills. However thf does not me" in`that the`.atr eet:1s unsafe. "Many streets in the City_are in.this same conditron However these potential conditions are obvious. Reasonablyprudent drivers wilh observe.the posted speed-t and if necessary; further reduce their speed to accommodate changingµtpad.conditions Unfortunately not all drivers are3prudent enough,to observe posted speed limits and roadconditions.. a, .However there is no evidence" that the}development"proposedin this application will contribute a dispropomonategshare of imprudent drivers The >ieanngs`o officer encourage"s 6.3 ents to contact.-local law enforcement agencies to request enhanced enforcement area resid of traff c laws m this. area if necessary to ensure compliance with speed limits and other traffic re b. Higher traffic :yolumes create a proportionall higher tisk for` drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists: "In response reasonably prud`enf people' exercise more care' " personally, and with family members.4 Those nsks.are consistent with the location of the site; in the urban;area where C ty,plaris call for the `sor`t of development being proposed,, , T C The hearings officet.finds hat TDC 18.705 030 G(1) is inapplicable to` t this subdivision application This section only applies toreview of building permits, not subdivisions, and,to accesses:(dfivewiy§), not public street connections,: based on the" plain meaning of the words in the Code In. addition, tli'ere is -no substantial evidence that the proposed street connection 681 ,Court%Bond`Street will "cause or increase existing' hazardous traffic conditions:" Neighbor's unsupported opinion is not substantial evidence. 13.'Opponents of the application disputed Ythe accuracy and-'findings of th`e'traffic study. However they failed to offer any substantial evidence to -contra'dict`& findings of the traffic study. The traffic study was conducted by a licensed,.professional engineer.- based oft actual trafficwolumes. Future traffic volumes weretestimated using accepted- methods of calculation based on the type-and amount of development:proposed: The . Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 18 I r~ ' unsubstantiated opinions of local residents of what the traffic effects will be is not sufficient to overcome the expert testimony of the traffic engineers for the City and the applicant.'Therefore the. hearings officer finds that the traffic study is sufficiently . ' accurate and the conclusions" reached are valid.' a. Neighboring residents argued that background-traffic counts conducted in August are inaccurate because school was not in session. Neighbors also argued that traffic from the proposed development, willtravel northbound on SW 79`h Street and the ' traffic. analysis failed to. consider-the 'iinpacts of that;traffic.'The applicant s traffic engineer submitted a revised analysis that included' school generated traffic.' See attachment '3 of tlie:applicant'-s First Post Hearing Submittal. The applicant's traffic ' engineer submitted another revised analysis that assumed '30-percent of the peak-hoar, trips wiii travel northbound on- SW 79th Street. -See attachment 6 of the applicant's Second Post Hearing'Submittal. Those analyses :concluded that traffic generated by the ' proposed"development will not exceed'the capacity of areastreets and'intersections, including the intersection of'79t' and Bonita, even with the additioriai traffic generated by school activities. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. ' b. The intersection of Bonita Road and 79d' Avenue is expected to'reach a failing level of service ("LOS F") by 2015 regardless. of the proposed development. See ' p. 2 of the January 11, 1999 traffic study by DKS Associates. Signal warrants are expected Ito be met at.this:intersection by 20.08: Id. Howeder traffic generated by the proposed development will-have a,de miriiinis impact on this intersectiori.6 The hearings ' officer finds that th'e~projected future failure of thisIntersection does not provide-a`basis application or denial of the proposed conneciion to' 81S`~Court/Bond for denial " pf his Street..Ap- icants are not required to remedy all,' eived and.existing deficiencies in the vicinity, of a development. The Code requires an applicant to mitigate impacts a development.causes-or to which'it contributes significantly. It would be inequitable to require an applicant to bear the full burden of improvements where the proposed ' development is only responsible fora small'portion.of the problem. The need for a traffic signal at the Bonita Road/79t6 Avenue intersection:is created by all of the existing development in the area, not just the- lots being. created`in this case. There is no substantial evidence thafthis intersection is hazardous under existing conditions or that the small increase in traffic generated by the proposed !development an'd street connection ' will cause•or exacerbate a hazard. Based on the DKS study, this intersection will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service for another 9 years. During that time the City may choose to install a traffic signal or other mitigation measures necessary to prevent failure of the intersection. 14. The applicant requested an adjustment to the street spacing requirements of TDC 18.705.030.H(4), which requires a minimum 125 feet spacing between local street intersections. 6 Traffic volumes generated by the proposed development "are'too low to have a measurable impact on the intersection." P. 1 of the December 9, 2005 letter from Lancaster Engineering, Exhibit 6 to the applicant's ' December 30, 2005 "Second Post-Hearing Submittal." Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 19 • • a .The City originally approved an adjustment to this standard pursuant to: TDC 18.370.030.C(5). The Bearings`officer;fiids,that TDC 18:370 030 C(5)"--is inapplicable in this case.This standard is expressly limited to adjustments to the access and egress, standards (e.g.,, driveways), based on the,Plain meaning of,the words in the code 7. TDC 18 370:030.C(5) does not apply'to theapacmg of public street intersections. i The appellantargued that the applicant has no standing to'raise ' <.,k<~a this issue atthis time, because the applicant did not appeal the:director s decision TDC 18.390.030.G(2) limits appeals to "[t]he specif c"issues raised durmgthe written comment period.":,,." The hearuigs officer finds that the apphcabihty`of T'DC 18.370 030. C(5) falls ocnthm the scope of the appeal m ttus case'because the appeal alleged that the 4 'ltcahon does not complywath this section In addition, TDC j' 18.390030 G(2) fiuther provides that "[t]he'". Heanngs Officer, at~lus o"Mr.. discretion; [may],.~allow: addihonalevidence or testimony concercung any other elevant~ issue... [where] such evidence is necessary to resolve the case:" The Bearings officer' finds that'determination of the"applicable.adjustment standard `and whetherthe application_,complies:with the criteria for. the. relevant.adjustment standard is "necessary to resolve,the case." 'Ji `'The hearingsYofficer finds that ihe.Code does.n6t require denial' of,the application for fatlure to list TDC 18310.60.6(41, 18;37:0 030.C(1l:)'or,:TDC 18 37U 01 O C(2) as applicable cntena''The Bearings officer reopened record to allow. all parties an.opportiinity to, comment on which"-is standard"is applicable and wlethei the application complies with the cri teria for the .applicable standard. See`tlie7anuary 17, ,k 2006 Orderning the Record The:Ctty'maled'the;order to members_ofthe public' entitled to notice and other partiesrof iecord; providing the public a 'full and fail oppo=.Oiekqn present eir caseconsisent vwA L,M s decision in Wl I Mart Stores, Inc. City, LUBA Igo 2004-424"(2005). 15 The applicant argued Ik'TDC 1&A7 30:H(4) is not applicable t.o this application bec% ita"[c]onflict[s] withlhe.'subdivisionrules`and standards of this'title:" C 18.705 020.D.provides "the requirements.and.standards of this chapter sfialTnot , apply wliere they conflict with the subdivision rules and standards. of this' title."' The' applicant specifically argues that the;125=foot.street spacing requk* ment'of TD.C 18.705.030.H(4) conflicts with the street extension and connectivity requirements of the subdivision regulations. Therefore TDC 18.705.030.H(4) does notapply and an adjustment/variance is not required. 7 TDC 18.120.030.A provides the following definitions: "Access" - The place, means or way by which pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles enter or leave .property. A private access is an access not in public ownership and is controlled by means of deed, dedication or easement. 18.120.030:-(3) "Egress" - An exit. 18.120.030.A(64). Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) 'Page 20 ' a. The hearings officer finds that TDC 18.705.020.D only applies to conflicts in the text of the code. It'is not intended to apply`to "as applied" conflicts. The applicant failed to'identify any conflict betweewthe 125-foot street spacing requirement ' of TDC 18.705.030:14(4) and the text of the subdivision rules and-standards. They applicant only ideiiiif ed'an as applied:conflict caused by-the unique-circumstances thaf exist on this site;'i.e., the location of existing street` stubs and development.` That is precisely the type of situation1he' variance and adjustment criteria of TDC 18.370 are intended to address. See TDC 18.370.'O10.A. ' 16. Tlie. hearings :off cer finds that the street spacing standard of TDC 18.705.030.H(4) is a "streetiinprovenient requirement" subject to adjustment pursuant to ' TDC 18370.6b.C(11).8'Although TDC 18'.705.030'.H(4)`is. not listed,in TDC 18'.810;: it. is clearly incorporated by reference in `TDC i8:$10:030:G, which provides "street_ spacing and access management. Refer to 1'8-X0 036:H."' ; a. The hearings officer fmds that an adjustment is warranted-in this-case because strict compliance with the street spacing requirements of TDC 18.705.030.H(4) ' will "[r]esult in. an . unacceptably adverse impact. on existing development... [and the] "adverse impacts exceed'the public benefits of strict application of the standards." TDC 18.370.020.C(11). ' i..Strict compliance with. the street spacing standards of TDC 18.705.030.14(4) will have the followmg`adverse'impacts on existing development: '(A)' Strict compliance with the street spacing -standards of TDC 18.705.030.H(4).will preclude the extension, of 81",Court into the site and i completion of the of network of interconnected streets. All of the prior _ developments abutting the site extended streets,to `tfie--boundaries .of'this.site, evidencing an intent to extend, these streets through. the site and create an interconnected street- system when-this site is developed;'consistent with TDC 18.81'0.030.H.-Strict compliance with the street spacing 'standards will have an adverse impact'on existing and.proposed development by forcing focal trips to use the arterial/collector streets, increasing' congestion and by increasing vehicle miles traveled. Strict compliance will also require that all traffic from this site to use Langtree Street, forcing the neitghborhood to -the west of the. site to bear all of the traffic impacts of the proposed development. 8 TDC 18.370.020.C(11) provides: Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by, Section.. 18.390.040, the director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny a request for adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings. that the following. criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed-the public benefits of strict ' application of the standards. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 21 i (B). The design of Bond Street and 81 Court abutting, the site, also::indicate an.intent that these,itreets willbe extended when thus site is dev'e`loped. These streets were,constructed as a.roughly.1;000-foot long dead-end,kreet with'no , turnaround SW 81.` Court.must be extended into thesand connected to other streets to A provide emergency.access and circulation. Strict campharice with the sheet spacing standards will .preclude extension of thus street, resulting dn apermnent dead.end street, - reducing emergency. access to homes south of the site. - , (C) In addition, stnct_compliance with the street.spacing , standards will preclude completion of Bon d:Street abutting the site. Bond Street was . designed an d constructed as a parnal vvrdth improvement, v~nth the reiinder,of the street improvements to be provided,by development on-this siti.,.'rolubituig access to; 81 Court/Bond Street from thus site would eliminate any nexus between the impacts of the" development and the required dedication and improvements for Bond Sheet. Therefore the.., ity could5not,constitutionally requirethat the.applicant construct the remainder of , the Bond, Street umrovements a: u. The; hearings officer finds that these inipacts`outweigh.the , 71 "public benefits of strictf application of the standards" in'this' case: TDC 18.370.020.C(l l). _ (A) The-primary public benefit of the street .spacing ; Potentiall standard is, `ublie safety. S acin bet'w,een"intersections reduces~the risk of P P g . y conflicting turret movements from intersections; in closeproximity to each other. . Y.; ;(B) In this case the proposed"street design will c'r'eate two ' "T" intersections in,relatively*close:proximity to'each other;.the uitersectiori of 81~` Court and' Bond. Street ad'ahe intersection `of 81 Court and Patti'I ane However.the 'location" and design of these streets is expected to nuiiimize'these potential hazards `See the December 29, 20051etter from,Lancaster Engineering The short street sections and 90- degree curves will limit vehicle speeds approaching these intersections In addition, the intersections are expected to carry .relatively 1'ow`volumes oftraffc: There 19 no substantial evidence to. the contrary. ' y (C) Thie hearings officer findstlat the, adverse impacts on, the existing development in the surrounding area more than offsets the minor safety risk created by the reduced intersection spacing in this case. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.370.020.C(11). ' (D) Neighbors,argued that extension of &0 Court will create a`hazard becauseit will increasethe volume of traffic on 79`~.Avenue..The ' hearings officer,'fm' . 'that, to the extent. such impacts wi11'occur and createa hazard, they are not. relevant to the proposed adjustment to the intersectioin spacing requirements. The Code requires that-the applicant extend'the' existing'streets to provide, cross circulation through, the site, including.the-exiension-of 81s` Court regardless of the proposed adjustment. The adjustment is necessary to provide connectivity in this case. But hazards Hearings Officer Final Order , Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 22 alleged by the.opponents result from the connectivity requirements, not from the adjustment to the intersection spacing. °b. The hearings officer further finds-that the,proposed modification- complies.with;the` criteria iri TDC'18.810:030.A(7) and 18.810:030 E(1), based on the findings in Applicant's Ja nuary '25, 2006 submittal.- The hearings officer adopts those findings -as his own'ad incorporates them here` in by reference. 17. The applicant argued, in the alternative, that the proposed adjustment'should- be reviewed under TDC 1.8.370.030.C(1), "Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions" or the general variance criteria of TDC 18.:370.O10C(2): The hearings. officer finds that the that the specific criteria.of TDC 118.370:030:C(11), which regulates adjustments to street. improvements, should. prevail over the general criteria of TDC 18.370.030.C(1) and TDC'18:370.030:C(1). However this determination could conceivably bp reversed on appeal. Therefore; for-& sake'6f completion, the'hearings officer will address' the approval criteria of TDC 1 8.370.030.C(l') and TDC 18.370.010.C(2). a. The hearings officer finds that the"proposed modification to the street spacing standards complies with TDC 18.370.030.C(1), based on the following: ' . `i. The location of the existing bond Street/8`1" Court . intersection he site are "special circumstances affecting the and the:long and narrow shape' of the-site. property i&dc are unusual and peculiar to the land;: as compared to *other lands." TDC 18.370.030:C(l)(a). -815` Court was stubbed to the south boundary of the site`by.a prior development. However the location of the street stub 'and shape of the site .preclude the extension of this street 'alto the site as, required by TDC 18.810.030:H and TDC 18.81.030.6(2) in coi# iance with.the spacing requirements of TDC 18.705.030.H(4). ii. The hearings officer finds that "the adjustment is necessary for the proper design and function of the'subdivision" including the streets within and abutting the subdivision. TDC 18.370:030.C(1)(li).`The adjustment is necessaryto create an interconnected street system within the site consistent with the city's cross-circulation goals and TDC •18.810:030 H and TDC 18.81.030:6(21, Without the adjustment, access` to the site, including emergency vehicle access, would be limited to a single street, SW Langtree. Residents of the site would be forced to undertake substantial out of direction travel in order to reach destinations. to the south and east of the site. In addition, emergency vehicles would be limited to a single access point,'which could be blocked in an emergency. iii. The hearings officer finds that "the granting of the adjustment will not,be'detrimental to the~public'health, safety and welfare or injurious to the rights' of other owners of property." As discussed above, the reduced intersection spacing will not create a hazard due to the low speeds and traffic volumes in the area. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 23 • iv. The hearings officer finds that "the.adjustmeiit;is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment. of a substanti al property. ighi because of an extraordinary_hardship which,would result from:strct compliance with the,[street spacing standards].',': Stnct application of the street spacing standards would preclude. access to 81 Court and Bond street, local public,streets`abutting the site;.access to which is a substantial pf'operty right." In addition,.denial_ of the adjustment-would lirrut,emer`gency access to a single street, SW Ungtree Street, which coulf becobie blocked in art' emergency .f b The h6armgs&kei"finds that &$r6p- ..d ad~usini6nt to "the street spacing, standards complies with. TDCL 8.370 010 C(2)_;based oq the: following , r t,i ',d.., ,1. ...'Fs ...P' J., e proposed adjustment will not be matendlly detrimental to the purposes;,of this title; to any other applicable policies and standards and to 0 th' er properties in the ame zoning distract or vicinityTDC 18.370 010 C(2)(a) To the' contrary, the adjustment'is necessiryto achieve the City's cross-c rculation.and, j ' connectivity goals. The adjustment will not be.materially detrimental to other.propertits, becausedt will not,create a hazard, based on the. applicant's traffic analysis and the above discussion us.The, existing Bopd.Street/;81St Court mtersection.and the long and narrow.shape,of the site are special circumstances which are peculiar to the lot size or shape over which the applicant has no control and which are not applicable to other properties in.the same zonmg district TDC 18 370 Ol0 C(2)(bJ. 81, CourfWas.stubbed to; thesouth boundary of ;the site by atpnor development 'However the location of the ' street stub and shapeofahe site preclude theext'nsion°of this street into the site Vas- required by TD,C ~i8 810:030:H and TDC 18:81 030.D(2) in compliance with the spacing requirements of TDC 18.705 030.H(4). iii. The'proposed- modification will facilitate development of a resident al.subdivision on the--site, a.peniutted use,ihAhe R 25. zone. City sia i`dards will be,maintained.to the,greatest extentpossible. The~mo_dification will alter the'street ' spacing standards,,. but it'will.facilitate compliance with,the connectivity and cross circulation standards of TDC "18 810.030:H a nd TDC 18:8'1 030_.D(2). Therefore'the modification request complies with TDC 18.370.M.C(2)(c). " P iv. The Proposed modification will not.-impact the "existing physical and natural systems ...any moreihan would occur if the development were' developed as specified in this title. TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(d). The proposed modification wiltenhance traffic circulation through the area, consistent with Code requirements. The modification will not create 'a. traffic hazard, based on the applicant's traffic analysis and the above discussion: v. The hardship is not self imposed. The hardship; and the need for the adjustment, results from the location of the existing street stub and the shape of the site. The requested adjustment is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship and Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 24 • allow the extension of 1.8'h Court into the site. TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(e). 18. The hearings officer finds,thaf the applicant submitted an impact study ' ` . discussing the. impacts of the.developinent on the listed "public facilities an d services" including the transportation system, drainage and parks systems, fulfilling the requirements of TDC 1.8.390.040.B(2)(e)'. See Exhibit L of th 'July 22,.2005 application materials. The.Code does not provide any standards'for review of impact 'atudies. It is primarily: an informational requirement that the City can use to determine whether existing public .facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate the .proposed development: The City engineer reviewed the-impact-study.and-other'evidence'in the record and determined that the development does or can _coiriply with all applicable approval criteria. and all affected public facilities have-s fficipi `t capacity to accommodate the proposed development. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. The appellants argued that the impact study is_inadequate. But they failed to point to.any specific standards or.provitle any substantial evidence iii.supportof that contention. a. The hearings offi'ce'r finds that the impact study -is not required 16 address the impact of the ,proposed. development on trees, pnvacy,.storm water drainage onto adjacent.properties and other' gene rally impacts to adjacent properties,,because trees,. privacy.and adjacent prgperfies generally are not "public facilities'or services."' b. The hearings officer..fmds that the impact study is not required to address. the cumulative'impacts of,other developments in the area, based on the plain he Code: TDC 18, 390.'0403(2)(0) provides;"The impact study meaning of the words iii shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services:" (Emphasis added)....... . is The applicant's traffic analysis did consider the cumulative impacts of traffic by including background.traff c growth.factor. c.. Construction on this .site will temporarily-cause increased 'noise, dust and other impacts on adjacent properties. This is-only one of the many; cons I equenc_ es of living in an urban area. The designation of the subject property as "residential" in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances means that the City has already determined that the amount of noise typically associated with a residential subdivision is acceptable at this location. There is no substantial evidence that construction on this site will generate unusual or excessive noise impacts. The hearings officer finds that, while such impacts may occur, they are not significant enough to,require specific.limitations on construction other than those imposed by State law and the City Code. Area residents should contact the City if they beheye thaf contractors are not.complying with applicable requirements and construction activities cause excessive impacts. d. The appellants argued that there is a need for additional parks in the area. The proposed development contributes to the need for parks. However this need • Therefore the application complies with Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 25 exists largely because of existing development. It would be mequitable.to. requri e`this applicant to bear the full burden .of parkland dedication and improvements where:tlie proposed development is: only. responsible. for a.smallportion of the problem. The need properties in for parks is one that.exists.generally in-the area, and is a need to which' all the area contribute, not just the lots being created m this case The proposed' development . will mitigate:its unpacton.parkfaciliiies bypayuig;park;SystemrDevelopment Fees`''" ("SDCs') as-required by;TDC 3.24 and by providing a "mm paron the site. . R `4 4 a k.y Kt. t i.r.r 4 ri i. The heaazings officer:cannot delay-action' or'deny approval of"the. application to allow he Cityan op portunitytyi&purchase the site as a park~The applicant proposes to .divide.thesite. If the application complies with the applicable standards, and criteria in.effect when the application was filed; tlien it must lie approved, whether or not. the site could be used; as a park. TDC 18 810.080 provides that the City may, require dedication or.reservation of,,park or open space area witlin subdivision site were such facilities are 'ghown in ad evelopment plan adoptedFby the City" or "where considered desirable-by the Corrrriission m accordance with adopted cohipiehensive.plan' policies..." and the dedication or'reservation is roughly proportional to the impact-of`the subdivision,on the park system. In'this, case there is-no substantial evidence that the. site is identified as ¢a park site on any.ac~opted plan or that development of ,.park on this site is danc .with adopted comprehensive "[c]onsidered desirable,b.' the Comnussion,i i accor e plan policies. "In addition, preservation of the entire site as a park would'clearly,exceed ' the roughly proportional impacts of the proposed development on'the need` for parks. Y" ii: The applicant proposed to'dedicate the'mini•par0o the City or to a homeowner's association to'ensure regulation.of ma iitenanee'for'tliemini-park.'A condition of approval ;is warranted to #diaf effect: y 19. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development can accommodate'":. stormwater runoff.from_,the.site consistent with the requirements of TDC 18.810.100, based on the applicant's Preliminary Stormwater Report dated March 21, 2005'. Exhibit K r . , of the July 22, 2005 application materi.,als: There is no substantial `evidence'to the contrary. The applicant will collect stormwater runoff from impervious areas of the site, convey ii to a stormwater facilitym* the south end of the site for'treatmeh and detention. !qlp~o plicant will release treated stormto the public storm sewer system a rate or less tlian the pre'development rate } +'N a: The+prosed storm water drainage system is separate and independent of any sanitary se werage'system.;rb 18;810 100*A(I): ' b. The applicant proposed` to provide storm water inlets throughout the streets on the 'site 'to collect. surface water and ensure it is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood "any stteetTDC 1$.810.100:A(2) See plan sheets 7 of'l9 and 9 of 19 through 19 of 19: Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 26 • • c. Surface water, drainage patterns are shown on the plans included with the storm water report show as required by"TDC 18.8'10.100:A(1).' See Plan Sheet BM included with the applicant's Preliminary Stormwater Report. d. 'There are no watercourses, drainageways, channels. or.strearris on the site. Therefore TDC 18.810.100.B is inapplicable: e.. The hearings.officer :finds, that it is feasible to' accommodate upstream drainage. consistent with TDC T8:810:100.C; Ai the applicant noted, the'site is completely surroundedby existing streets and urban development that'blocks the majority of storm wager runoffflowing onto 'the ;site. "Upstream runoff is "lim tea"Ic! 'sheet' ' flows across abutting residential yard areas. See the topographic i aap',`Plan'Sheet 3 of 19.' The applicant can design the final storm water system to accommodate this runoff and can enlarge the stormwater.facility if,n cessary.. f.. The applicant proposed to detain `'treated storm water on the site prior to releasing to the existing downstream storm drainage system. The City Engineer concluded-that the proposed detention facilities is-adequate to ensure that additional runoff resulting from the development will, not overload aiiy existing drainage. facilities. Seep. 0 of the August'31, 2005'Memo6andum from Kim Mcmilla f, City Development Review. Engineer. There is no substantial evidence l6 the contrary..Iherefore the hearings officer finds that it is' feasible to comply with TDCI 8.810.100.D. ,g. The hearings off cer finds that the proposed development will not increase the overall volume of ruI ff flowing`onto;adjacen't.properties jo..the contrary, the proposed development is likely to reduce the overall volurne- of sfoimwater runoff flowing .onto adjacent properties. The topography maps in the .record demonstrate that stormwater falling on this site flows downhill to the south' and southeast, onto. the adjoining properties, under'existing conditions, The applicant proposed to collect storm water from the impervious areas of the site and to convey into a detention pond,at the- south end of the site prior to discharge to the existing drainage'systerri at less than . predevelopment rates. The:proposed stormwaterIacilities will capture runoff that would otherwise flow onto adjacent properties and will divert pit to the detention pond. The applicant opined that the-proposed development will, reduce' the total land area from which surface flows onto adjacent properties to the east by approximately 95% or more. See p. 12 of the applicant's November 11, 2005 Appeal Hearing Response. i. The hearings officer finds that the proposed grading; may result in localized increases or concentration of storm water runoff onto some adjacent ' properties.,;Based on the topographic maps. in the, record, it appears that the southeast comer of the site generally drains directly south under existing conditions. The proposed grading will alter the existing topography, creating small areas of steeper..(3:.1) grade in the rear yards of Lots 1 through 9 and Lots 13 through,15 that'slope.down to the east. See Plan Sheet 6 of 19. These sloped areas may, alter existing storm water flows and direct additional runoff onto adjacent properties to the east. However the hearings officer finds that it is feasible to reduce or eliminate this impact consistent with Clean Water Services Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 27 ("CWS'.')_regulations and state law,regar, gaurface_ruuoff. If necessary, the applicant can grade the site to'direct runoff away Erom.adjacent properties, install drains near the boundaries of the site or utilize'b' ther measures to capture suiface water before it leaves the site. This: is required.by condition 21 of the director's decision. The applicant can address this issue during the foal engineering stage. h The hearings officer finds that the proposed stormwater-quality and detention pond,will not have ari adverse impact dn'suxrounding pr9perhes. The applicant. F~.e< ~ with . must design, buildand.maintain the pond.consistent witli `CWS regulations There is no ` substantial: evidence that similar ponds that are utilized throughout thesregion create a hazard fo'r adUacerit residents T`lie apphcant'will install fencingto restrict access to the pond, if required by CWS. y.`:, Y i. The hearings officer finds ihaf the proposed subdivision- does or can comply ;with the flood control requirements of TDC 18.430.020.E through.I, to the extent these provisions apply to .this development L'The hearings` officer finds "that the subdon is designedito d'F minimize flood damage TDC 1`8 43.0.020 ; The applicra Wt will collect storm water runoff, fro"e' site and convey it to a treatment and detention pond prior to''release to the existing storm system ataess :than predevelopment rates. 'The applicant will: grade the site' to direct storm water towards the storm water-inlets. f Ii. The site` s-not located within or near the 100'year floodplain. SAl , . Therefore TDC 18 43.0.020 G is inapplicable iii. The 'hearings officer' finds that it is feasible to design and'install public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas; el ec'trical,`,and' water systems in' a manner that will "minimize flood'damage The City can ensure compliance'with thi's~requirement " during the final` engineering review. iv. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development will' • provide adequate ''drainage 'Co reduce'exposure'to flood'damage, based on the above discussion regarding thedesigii of the storm water system and compliance with,. CWS regulations: There is no substantial-evidence to the contrary.. 20. The hearings officer fmds that-the proposed development will not cause significant problems with erosion and sedimentation: Y a. The appellants'"engineer testified'that "soil movement (erosion) is likely'to be'.severe" given the "fine silty loam'soils.'::" on~ihe siteAie theNovember28, 2005 letter from"RobertB: Rohol;'-P.E : He argued that the erosion control^ measures proposed in the'applicant's pr' eliminary erosion control plans "will only be adequate during the driest season.::" '"Amore comprehensive plan" will be required to control erosion at any other:tirne of the year Id. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page`28 b:. CWS is Design and. Construction Standards regulate. erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants.read iing the public.storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading,. excavating, clearing; and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion.control phn for City review and approval ;prior to .issuance of City permits..See Condition 20. ohie director's clecisio`n In addition,:the applicat t'is required tp, obtain a National:Pollutant Discharge Elimination. ystem .(NPDES) erosion control permit prior to construction The applicant-will design1 the erosion, control d ' measures.as necessary to control erosion based-on the.actual construction~methods and season. CWS can require additional erosion controls if necessary to accommodate wet weather, steep slopes or other unique ponditions..:-The hearings officer finds that it is feasible to comply with CWS regtilations:'There`is no substantial evidence to the contrary .21. The applicant is not required ffo providedetailed engineering designs at this stage.of review: The purpose of the. preliminary. storm water and erosion control plans' is to determine, whether that it_is feasible to comply with; applicable criteria. The" preliminary.plans are conceptual, and.analysis,of.all technical details is not required:•~See Meye'ry..City of Portland, 67 Or,App,,274,,n.6, 6.78.P2d 741, rev den 297 Qr 82 (1984), ([C]onditions of approval. may include,conditions that ,specific technical solutions to identified developmentproblems be submitted and reviewed and approved by the ; government's technical staff."). To require complete, detailed storm water and erosion control plans prior to approval of the plat would require re-working the entire plan any time amendments or modifications of the pl'afare required. This would~be,highly inefficient; and.is not necessary. to protect the ,public interest. City staffs review of the . .tea. •-•.t.. ..r .Fa: final plans:provides adequate protection of the, public interest..An opportunity for public review of the final plans, is not. required by law., However the applicant's f nal engineer may review: engineering plans are public records that the appellants for the% 22. The hearings officer finds that it is feasible to obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from CWS pursuant to its "Design and Construction Standards" as required by TDC 18.775.020. The applicant can submit an application for the required permit and CWS will review it for compliance with applicable regulations. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. a. The applicant argues that this provision is inapplicable, because the site does not contain any "sensitive lands." However the hearings officer finds that this provision applies to "all proposed 'development'... as defined in the CWS `Design and Construction Standards"', based on the plain meaning of the words in the Code. This requirement is the first provision in the "applicability" section of TDC 18.775. There is nothing to indicate that it is limited to development within or near sensitive areas. It expressly applies to "all development" without limitation. 23. The hearings officer finds that other issues raised in the appeal, at the hearing and during the open record period that are not directly addressed in the above discussion exceed the limited scope of appeal permitted by TDC 18.390.040.G.2.b, because they Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 29 1 were not raised with sufficient speci f c. ty during 'uutial comment period or otherwise "necessary to resolve the' case - TD`C 18'390 040:G(2(b) " 24 Tlie~heaniigs'officer did~not conduct a site`v sit in this case. CDC" 1.8 390 050:D(9) provides that the hearings officer *y conduct a site visit; provided tbe hearings officer discloses;that fact at the"h~c'arnig. The hearmgs`officer'concluded "that a , t ~~x j r t site visit~would not clarify the issues ui this case, which are primari'ly'legal`issues or involve factual issues which req a certain expertise (i a ,wh`ether' wetlands~`exist on the f ~ ~ 'r ~ ~ `D CONCLUSIONS"'' F; : £1 . .a t. F 'z• x .e...., - 't ,l ,.,t,.a. _ a~ ,r w.. ~ na r s Based on the.findings adopted and incorporated herein,'the hearings officer concludes that the appeaLshould be denied, because the applicant sustained .the burden of proof:that the proposed subdivision does or will coinply-witli'the applicable 6vioval standards of the Tigard", pmmunity'Developin}entlit de, subject to conditions adopted'by s T t r, r the.manage; and'the appellants:failed to provide substan#ial evidence'or evidence of equal'or greater probative value to fie{contrary and/or'failed to persuade the'hearings officer that :the application violates the applicable approval standards based :on such rrt< _1 i u V, evidence. Therefore the nearings officer should affirm the manager s decision with minor modifications ' ~ v fF t t +S'.3 a Le.S.:`• -ri 4 In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and:incorporated:herein, the' hearings: officer heieby,denies th e' appeal; affirms the-deciston'of the'planning manager and approves SUB 2004 000`14 (Gage Forest) subject to the ,`following conditions of approval: { "`y Tf 0. rs CONDITIONS OF. APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL SE SATISFIED PRIOR`TO CON IMNCING ANY ONSTTE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING DEMOLITION, GRADING;'EXCAVATION AND/OR MLL ACTIVITIES: = The apphcantshall prepare .a cover' letter and sdbmif it, along with .any su ortiua documents •and/.or pplans that address-the followingg requirements to the CURRENT PLANNINGD.IVISION,.ATTN:`1VIATHEW°SCHE EGGER.503=639-4171; EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearlyidentify where4n.the submittal the required information is found:. 1. -Submit a protection plan:for trees on adjacent properties and for the two: trees proposed for retention within the mini-park. ' 2. . Submit a revised mitigation plan that addresses 100 percent of the mitigation mclies.., . . `requirement for -he 150 viable.trees _g ater than 2' 3. Acknowledge -m* ' writing that tlie,applicarit.understands ttie Environmental Performance -Standards of Section 18:725 of, the,Tigard.Development Code shall be, maintained and any'violation of these 'standards• Will constitute a violation of code. 4. Provide a plan showing streetxtrees,;which,must be reviewed an d approved by the City, s Arbonst. 5. Submit and implement~a..revegetation plan that 'addresses.the~criteria of 18:745.0608 and,C;:(Re-vegetation):: 6. Prior to,coinmencin site work ;the ap}}~~licant shall -submit t a cash assurance for the equivalent .value, of. mitigation re `uired.".If additioiial trees are , reserved through the subdivision improvements and construction ,of houses, and are properly . protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on-site, the amount of.the.cash assurance. may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees-planted on.the:site or off site m-.accordance with 1-8.790.060.(D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final.plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee.,in-lieu of planting. 7. Prior, io commencipg any site work, the.appplicant shall-submit constriction that include the approved Tree.Removal, Protection and-Landscape drawitevans l also nclude a construction sequence inchiding installation Plan. plshal and real of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are.authonzed for removal by this decision: 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed.by the. pro ect arborist 46,protect the trees to be. retained. The applicant shall all ow access~~y the City Forester for the puipose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify thAt.the tree:piotection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the'plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locafions shall' be grounds for immediate suspension of t work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citation's can be processed. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and suUmit'.it,_ along .with any supporting documents and/or pfans that address the following requirements to "the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-6394171, EXT 2642. r Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 31 r I I • i The.:cover.letter..shall..clearly:identify where in the submittal ahe required information;is,.'found 9 Prior to commencing onsite unprovements, a Public Facility Improvement{PFI) pernrut is requued:for this project to cover street construction and~any-other work an the;public right-qf way Siq sets of detailed',pubhc;im ovement plans shall lie submitted "for review to the ngu~eenng Department `NOT'E: sthese„ laps, are m "sad tion to; any drawings;re` d b the Bwldii~g Division` and: houlonly y Improvement inc ude'sheets relevant to pu li0improvements. blic Facilit (PFI) permit pplans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City-full and the City's web page (www.tgard- 'r s , ,'.c r wa 10. The PFLpermit plan submittal. shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number,of the=individual of corporate entity~who will; be desiggnnated as the' `Permittee and'wliovvill:provide the financial assurance'for the-,publ'ic unprovements 'For ek ' )le,:specify if the entityis a co_: oration, lunited partaerslup LL,C; etc Also specify the state``wzthin wlu the `entity'is mcoi orated and provide the:Dame;of the corporate dontact,person °Farlurerto elay provide accurate °infor nati on to the Engineering Uepaifitnent i'1118 processing of project documents. 11. The'applicant shall proViab4tOnsthictil '06hicle access ng,parkmg plan for ' approval by the City Engineer. 'The purpose of this plan is for pparking-and.traffic control during thepublic improvement construction hase All construction. vehicle-parkmgshall be`provlded on-site No-.--,cons t ction vehicles o'r equipment will be. ermitted to park on the adioimng"residential pulihc~s""treets Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or'subcontractor involved in the construction of site impprovements orbuilduig` s proposed by ths~application, and shall` include the vehicle- si of all'supplters anti employees eassoeiated with the project. flag lot, 12 The applicant shall provide signage at the ''ce"of,'e"'a:c'h",shaf"d'd~'.,fl"a-g,,-,'1'6t"% dnweway.or'pnvate street that`hsts the addresses that are, servedby the given ' e oratreet £ drivwa Y 13. The applicant shall submit construction plans to1he En ineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate thatthey will construct. a half street improvement along the :fronta' -f Bond'Street' 'The unprovements adjacent to tlussite shall include } ' A. City standard pavement section'for'a local'street from curb 46 centerline equaLto 16 feet; . B. pavement tapers needed to tie`the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond. the site frontage; C , concrete curb; or curb :and gutter " needed, D: storm drainage;"including any offsitestorm. drainage necessary to convey surface,and/or subsurface runoff, E 5 foot concrete sidewalk with; a 5 `foot planter strip, F. street trees in the, planter strip' spaced per'TDC requirement`s; G; street striping; 14 streetlight' layout by applicant's engineer; to be approved by City Engineer; I. underground utilities; J: street signs {if applicable), K. driveway. apron~,(if applicable), and' f L: adjustrients in vertical and/ or' horizontal alignment to'construct SW Bond safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. Street in a- Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) ' Page `32 r • • 14. Pe. applicant's plans shall be revised to.show.a. stop sign on the southeast, comer the mtersechon of81 Court/Patti Lane. 15. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings for 81" Court,~'8-1 ;Avenue, Patti Lane and.Langtree Street.shall indicateahat full width street improvements, "including 'traf c controll•devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks; driveway aprons; curbs, asphaltic concrete.pavement;sanrtary sewers, storm drainage, street trees;'streetlights, -and underground--aiilities'shall be installedwithin the interior-subdivision streets. Improvements"shall_be..designed_ and coristrueted-to local: sireet,standads: 4: I 16: : "A profile of Bond-. Street, Patti1anbs.Zan ee Street and 815` Court-shall-`be ieq#4-~extending.300~ ket either side o "the sub_ ject;site showing;the existing r grade and.proposed _fiiture_ grade. # r 17. The applicant's construction drawings shall show thaf'the pavement-and, rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard.for 'a local, residential street, 18: Any.extension-of public waterlines shall`be shown-on;the.proposed:Public Facibty Improvement. (PFI);pemut:construction.drawings and shall be:reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department,. as a .part of t-he Engineering Department: Ian, review..NOTEc An;estimatea;12%, fthe water ssteiii.costs must.,be on deposit with the Water. Department prior'.to •appr'o-val.ofYtheP.F.I permit plans.,from.the Engineering: Department and,constiuction:.of public ,water.lines. 19. Final design.plans and calculations for,the , roposed:pubIic water quality/detention:facility shall be. submitted to the Engineering De~partment (Kim McMillan) as apart of the Public Facilttyamprovement, plans. :Included with the plaps shall be, a proposed.landscappe:plan to ;beapprovedh! the-City.Engineer. The, proposed facility shall be_dedicated.m a tract,to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans sub"' .ttal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Mamtenance Manual for the propposed facility for approval by the Mamtenance Services Director.. Tl~e facility. shall be maintained by the developer for athree-year period from the condittonal acceptance of the public improvements. "A written evaluation of the opperation;and maintenance, shall be submitted and approved prior'to acceptance for maintenance by the City. -Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make now of any pproblems that haveeari sen,and require them-to .be resolved ; before the City will take :over,maintenance d4he facility. In :addition, the City will not-take over maintenance of the facility unless".80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time.dunng the maintenance ~eriod;:.the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developerishall unmediately . reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate plants ig 'opportunity. 20. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility' Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the"Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003, edition:'." 21. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The:plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded,to.insure-that'surface. drainage -is directed to the gineering street - a' public. storm. drainage system aappproved by the-En Department: For situations where the back.portions of Yots drain away-from a s, m ate private storm drainage Tines shall str eetand toward adjacent lot be provided to sufficiently contain an d convey runoff from each lot. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 33 22. Tlie applicants' 1 obtain x'1200-C General°Perm it issued by the City of.Tigard pursuant to ORS 468'.740. and the'Fed eral"Clean Wate'r'Act. 23. : -,The applicant shall obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from CWS pursuant to itsµ- `Design and `Con 'tructi on Standards" as required:by TDC' 18:775 020; or provide 4cumentation'.from,;CWS that°a peiirut is;not regnirerl for the proposed development pursuant to,CWS~s regulations i THE,FOLi OWING CONDITIIJNS SHALL BE SATISFIED „ -PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF TH- K, AL„PLAT The apphca t shall repa`re TcovW etter antlstibmit along with any su orting: -1-_-'_ =a.. 11.._:..- .c.::~11a..at...7.1.....,...N.. ~:.'ltw:.a:.e. r..~i•.-rn.:.nwN.1*n=+hnn'T 7~'~i NT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: MATHEW SMEbVGGER-,503 639417.1; EXT 2437. The Kcover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal` the required information is found 24. Prior to final plat approval,`the appplicant shall ensure thaVth'eTr e' c- t'Arborist has submitted written, reports to, the 'City. . Forester, at least, once every two weeks, fromanitial=tree rotection zone' T Z fencin ;installation; thi6ugh;sitetwork, as P. g , he monitors the con 'tructtion'sctivities and:progress These.reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as welll as the condition and ideation of the tree protection feir6ing. If the amount of TRZ was reducedwthen~the:Prdject Arbgnst shall justify why the.fenain'gg was'oved,, and:shall certifyAifthe construction achvities:toy'th' trees~did not adversely impact the overall;along-term health and stability of the trep ~((.s) If the repports are not submitted or receive&by the.CitX Forester at the scheduled intervals; and if it appears.the KTPZ's or' the Tree ' Protection PI.-anis'not being followed by the contractor,' the-City can ; stop work on 3the pro~ect=.until,yan uispectidwcan be:done by thedCity Forester and:the-Project Rrbonst This uispection willYbe toluaferthe tree protection fencing,-determine if°tlie fencing was moved at any,point during con"struction,` and determine if any part of theTree Protection Plan has'been violated: ` 25. Provide visual clearance triangles on"the final plat. ' 26:' Place a note'on the final plat ;that no structures, Tences, retaining wallsa-or vegetation `over three feet will be placed i -the visual clearance triangles The applicant sha . prepare':a~cover letter-. and submit'it,t along: with any supporting documents and/or plans that ad~dFess the'followingg nequireinents,to;the r 'ENGINEERING DIVISION; ATTN IgM MCMILL` ' 503-639=4171; "EXT. 2642. ' The cove``r letter-shall clearly identify where in<tbe:submittal the: required information is found: 27. Prior to fmal pplat approval, the applicant shall pay the addressing fee. (STAFF ' CONTACT: ShirleyTreat; Engineering). " • - .i.'' . - 28. The applicant: shall,ci iise-a statement to-be placed on the fnal.plat to.indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly. owned and maintained by the private i property, owners who abut and take access from it. 29: P ior'to approval of the final. plat; the applicant?shall prepar&Conditions, -'Covenants° and; Restrictions' (CC&R's)' for this .prgj ect; to,be recorded with the final plat, that clearlyaayys out a'maintenance&lan and agreementfor the proposed private street(s): The'CC&R's shall obligate e.private property owners within the.subdivision to'cieate:ahbm'eowner's association to ensure regulation=of maintenance for the Istreet(s) and<the park, unless the City accepts dedication of the park. The applicant shall submit a copy.of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat: Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 34 • • 33. The applicant's engineer.`shall.submit.final.sight;distance certification`for all project intersections prior .to final, plat: appoval THE FOLLOWING, CONDITIONS SHALL.BE;SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE-OF BUILDING'PEP.AMS: 30. 31. 32. Prior, to approval of the: final:plat, the applicant shall. demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a.homeowner;s.associatiQp, The applicant's,final:platshall.contain"State Plane'Coordinates,ozi two monuments with, a.tie to-the: City's .global positioning' system" (GPS)';geodetic control network'(GC 22)."These monuments shall be"on,'the-'same'line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision. platboundary. Along with , the coordinates, the plat shall contain-the, scale, factor, to convert ground measurements to :grid measurements .and the #gle from ;north to grid north: These coordinates cazi• be, e'stabhshed by:.. _ i °GPS :tie.networked to the City's GPSvsurvey: ' _ By raiidoin travene`using con entioi al.surveying methods: Tinal-Plaf Application Submission Requirements: ' A. Submit for Ci . review,four. (4).pa er.copies.of the final plat prepared by,,a landaurveyoT licensed,fo.prachce,ni Oregon, and necessary•data or narrative.. F r B.' Attach a check m,.the amount.ofthe curr6ifflinal plat review fee (Contact: , Planniiig/Engiiieering P6ftnit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2421); C. The final plat and. data or, narrative shall .be drawn to -the `niirizmum standards •set forth by the Or~gon Revised Statutes (ORS. 92.05), , Washington County, .and by the City`:of Tigard..'. D. The right-of--wa' iiedicattori for Bond'Street to provide 27 feet'from centerline shall Ze made orr the-final .plat. E. .NOTE: Washington Cow4`, U not begin their review of the fmal`plat "'until they receive notice from'lhe,Engineeruig.De artment indicating that the City. has. reviewed#the -final plat aEd subziutted comments to `the ap gp licant's,surveyor. F'. After:the City and County ha4r'6viewed the.finaTplat, submit two mylar copies of the. final plat for- CityMngineer.'signature. (for partitions), or City Engineer~and Community: Development.Director signatures (for subdivisions). The applicant shall 'prepare a cover letter and subiniYit,.along with any supporting documents and/or pflans that address the following reqquirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION,.ATTN: MATHEW_SCHEIDEGGER.503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The coveraetter, shallclearly identify ,where in the submittal ahe -required information is founds 34. If the applicant can save trees greater than 12-inches after site iriiproveirients, a new ar orist report will be required'for'each tree to make certain that the,health of the tree is not in a state of decline due to construction activities: Also a revised mitigation plan will be reqqu~ired. Both the revised arborist report and the - - mitigation plan must be submitted prior ;to -the issuance of building permits. The revised arborist report and the mitigation.plan•shall provide for:preservatiMoi f'the two .trees within the mini-park as proposed at the hearing, if their health and condition allow:.; 35. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 35 36. r 'Prior to'issuance of building permits, the applicant/6%AM shall record a deed restriction to.the effect.that any,existing tree greater than" 12" diairieter scheduled for preservation.may be removed only if the tree dies or. is hazardous. according to, .a,certified.arboiist. The.deed:restnction maybe~removed;or:will be consid`e red :invalid if a 1re`e preseryed w accordance with this ~iiecision should either die "or,be :removed asahazardous-tree 37.., ; Prior.to issuance of buildin ermits, the a heant_ shall subnut site; `'lan drawin s uidicatiiigthe.l`ocation:of<thees`that werpe pres`eved on the lgt;lo C01116 f.tree protection fencing,-and a signature,ofapproval from`the protect arborist ag"aiding the placement and:construction techniques to be employed m~bui.1 " g the house. All ,propose I.protechon',' . ingshall a installe~d'an'd'uispected prior to commencing construction, and'shail.iemairi-inplace thrau&the,,duration of home building After. approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may . be removed. T 'opLcanttshall repare a cover Ietter,and submit`>.t, along with any supporting documents and/or ans that addre§s the#ollowingg reqquir`.ements+to the ENGL1~jEERING D SION, ATTN KI1VI MCMILLAN 503 639`'4171; EXT .2642. Thn "nnvdr'lo4~ur: ckgll n}o.~rrli~•ii}nn4ifv mluin.~n^tl~n.o~ihtniHail;thn.~.nnni.iot1 . , inforination:isifound 38. Prior to issuance of building p' ermits,therap licant'shallprovide the' Engineering Department`with a "ph "i", '10' copy of the recb ded'fiiial plat 39. Prior .to issuance of building pernuts~.Vn the subdivision, the City Engineer shalt deem :the ublic unproyei>zents'substantially:complete Substantial, x~ completion: sha 1 lieawheii i) a21 utthties are rnstalled and inspected for compliance, includmgrfranc se utilities, 2)`all local residential streets have at least one hft of asphalt,- 3) anyoff site street and/or uhi improvements are _AV substantiatl cornpleted;'and 4) all;streetilights are instated aiid ready to be ene ##ei d.(NOTE the City apart from this condition and in accordance with the City. s model non e;p'olicy rnay.issue,model`-home permits) 40. Prior to jssuance of building permits the applicant shall provide the Ci with as-, built drawings of the'pI ublic rovemepis'as follows 1) 3 mil'mylar, 2 a ' diskette of the as-builts in "DWG'.'=format; ifavailabie;rotherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3)-the as-builtYdrawinggs shalt-be tied to. the City's:GPS.network. The ap licant's sn eer shallprovide the City with~an electronic "file with points ..r for eac :striicturel nuiholdi ; catbh basuis.~water~vaives, hydrants:and other water ssyystem features). in the .deveio,, ppment,;and their respective X :and Y State Plane . , "Coordinates, refeienced,to 1VAD 83x(91) IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD -BE `AWARE 'OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: : 18.430080Improvemelit-Agreenien'tr- a Before Cityty -approval is certifie&owthe final plat, and, before approved construction plans are issued .by the` City, the 'Subdivider: shall:- r` 1. Execute and.file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the ` eriod within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and Hearings Officer Final Order ' Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) Page 36 I r i i • • 2. Include in the 'agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the =period specifiec~the,City.may,complete the,work.and recover.the.full cost-a' ud expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall-stipulate improvement fees and deposits as maybe required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and, for: the' extension of time under specific conditions aherein:stated in.the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As require y Section 18.430.080, the.subdivider shall file with.the-agreement'an assurance=,of.performance supported'by one;of-the. following;. 1. An irrevocable letter of credit. executed: by a financial "institution authonzed to : . transact business .in the'. State, of Oregon; '..7. 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized-to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains. in force until. the ,surety, company.4s.notified by the City in writing that it -may be,terminated; or - 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish.to the..City.Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the . amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City.. - 18.430.100 FWn and:Recordin Within 0 days o he ity.review and-apQproval, the.apQlicant shall submit.the.final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant, shall submit-to the, Citya mglar copy of the recorded final plat. Final Three copies' o the subdivision plat prepared-by a land surveyor licensed. to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative.. The subdivision,plat and data or narrative.shall be-drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes-(ORS 92.05), Washington"County;~and:`by, the City of Tigard. STREET'CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall, be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) .Page 37 • • ~~gg~~ Monument Boxes~Re aired Monuiiient.boxes confordiing to-City'standk'&- iH be-requued^around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve'points: The tops of alhm6num6nf boxe9°`shall beset to finished, paveriment: grade: t.,.. 18.810 Street,& Utilfi -iMI roveintent Standards: ' 18.810.12'0 Utilities t`. Al utihty`he including }but not limited°to'those=re ired'for electric, comr.numcation, lighting and`cable television services and related fac ties'shall5be placedAm erground, except for surface-mounted`transformers, surface-mounted connection, boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above`g=ound temporary`uhlrty``sdrvide:facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating it- 50,000'volts or above. A."810" C",br Bond Re ed ; All imp rovements,installe by the subdivider shall' be ` guaranteed as `to` workmanship a n d,, material for a,period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee ha11 be',secured~by-cash deposit='or bond in the`amount of the value'of:the improvements as~set'by the City-Engineer. The cash.or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions-of Section 18.8'10:180. 18.810,:150 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks curbs, lighting or other reqquui~rrements shall be:undertaken,except .After .:the plans therefore Piave been approved by the'City, pernut -B ft paid:d permit issued:' _ t 18.810 ,180~Notice .fo>Ci Re aired - Work shall nof-begin' unti `the City'has been notified ii'advance' If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the: City is notified. 18:81`0:200 ;En eer's Certification - - The land divider's engineer shall provide written ceitifcatiori-.of,a'~form-,provided by.- ,-the-City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard ;engineeringg,, and construction`oiictices, and atE of higfh. grade,' prior,to the "City acceptance' of the subdivision's improvements or any por-tion'thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS . FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. DATED" this 15`s .day of February2006. 11 41 1-. Joe Turner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SUB2005-00014(Gage Forest Subdivision) "Page .38 • 0 EXHIBIT 4 1 PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOOD TREES - ~z -_y4 • • Westlake consultants, inc I January 25, 2006 RE: Protecting Neighboring Trees at Churchill Woods Subdivision Dear Neighbor, Westlake Consultants, Inc. is now beginning work on detailed construction drawings for the Churchill Woods subdivision, adjacent to your property. As part of that work, we are required to submit to the City of Tigard a plan showing the proposed locations of tree protection fencing to conserve trees as possible, consistent with the development plan, during site grading and development. Large trees that are located on neighboring properties but close to the shared property line may have root systems that extend across the boundary. We would like the opportunity to locate such trees and add them to our existing conditions date, so that we can locate use protection fencing considering them as well as the on-site trees to be saved. If there are trees larger than 6" diameter at breast height (about 45 feet from the ground) close to your rear property line, and you would like us to field locate them, please call Westlake at 503 684-0652 by February 3" and speak with Planner Kristy Kelly, or Planning Director Lee Leighton. We will gladly arrange for a field survey technician to take measurements and identify the tree species at your convenience. Sincerely, WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Leighton, AICP Director of Planning LDL/kek Pacific Corporate Center ' . _ 97224 WWW. - 1 PH 1 FX _ 7 I., R 2S 112CDO6300 arol A Pelosi & Colin J Penno '7913 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 tS I 12CDO6600 Gary Desa & Sara Wilson 17961 SW Churchill Way igard, OR 97224 William 1120002100 W & Trudy L Delp 8005 SW Churchill Ct Tigard, OR 97224 2S1120002400 Philip W & Lisa M Speers 3733 Quail Meadow Way 'Eugene, OR 97408 2S1120002700 William F Tanner, JR 8085 SW Churchill Ct ,Tigard, OR 97224 2S112CC02600 Current Resident r 8075 SW Churchill Ct Tigard, OR 97224. • 2S 112CD06400 William R & Janet M Metzler 7929 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 2S 112CDO6700 Kurt E & Susan K Haarmann 7977 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 2S 1120002200 John & Celeste Kennedy 8035 SW Churchill CA Tigard, OR 97224 2S1120002500 Craig C Kozak, JR & Courtney R Myrick 8065 SW Churchill CI Tigard, OR 97224 2S112CA13800 William F Tanner, JR. 8085 SW Churchill 0 Tigard, OR 97224 Re: 8055 SW Churchill Ct. 2S112CD06500 Margaret L Krauss 7945 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 2S 112CDO6800 Kirk A & Amy S Markovitz 7993 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 2S 1120002300 Alexander B & Karen E Davis 8045 SW Churchill Ct Tigard, OR 97224 2S1120002600 Audre J Marty 17308 NE 27th Ave Ridgefield, WA 98642 2S 1120002400 Current Resident 8055 SW Churchill CI Tigard, OR 97224 Re: 8075 SW Churchill Ct. • 0 EXHIBIT 5 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 6 wo to wo ow ma 00.00 11,10 t 1 1? ` Sti! 1 .rl3Na3S Jt7 dni!;~ ~'G]el Y 47i.3 ~'~7tFt1 ,I r]tlyll it 8 t i • , t . • I ~ • ` t ' f ! 1 1 J.• 5... I l ~ ~ , r r f O L 1 ~ ,.,j ~ o M ~ i• y... 1 _....t►-170 J "+•^a'. 4 04 wQa°s OREGON V iGARO. PLAN PING EROSION CONTROL GR~ 1i7 ~ 11 ~y~NtY E11C LSt tea' O (.J I. ; ~p111G~ o~~ RENSIONS A _ 4~p6 GRppING n211 III • 0 EXHIBIT 6 CHURCHILL WOODS ARBORIST REPORT 1 Walter H. Knapp Silviculture & Urban Forestry February 20, 2006 Churchill Woods Arborist Report: Protection of Trees on Adjacent Properties Construction of the Churchill Woods development in Tigard will need to protect trees on adjacent properties to the extent possible. Based on my review of the Grading and Erosion Control Plan, it appears to me that the site has been designed to minimize impacts to these trees. In addition, I recommend the following approaches: 1. Chain link fence should be installed at the edge of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of these trees. The TPZ should be at a distance of 1 ft. per inch of tree diameter, measured from the trunk of the tree. 2. Where infrastructure will not permit a TPZ of these dimensions, the dripline area of the tree should be protected if possible. 3. Where this degree of protection is not possible, e.g., within the water quality and detention facility, exploratory . excavation within the root zones should be done either by hand or using an AirSpadelu to expose any affected roots. This will allow the arborist to determine the size and extent of tree roots within the proposed excavation. Depending on findings, the arborist, in consultation with project engineers and planners, will attempt to identify approaches that will minimize impacts. 4. Protection of trees on adjacent properties will require an adaptive ' management approach during construction. This will necessitate close working relationships between the project arborist, engineer, planner, and contractor, including frequent inspections and consultations during periods of active construction. Walter H. Knapp Certified Forester, SAF 406 Certified Arborist, ISA PN-0497 r 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Tigard, OR 97007 Phone. (503) 646-4349 Fax: (503) 265-8117 1 ~ • EXHIBIT 7 ' EMAIL REGARDING STORM SEWER SYSTEM Message ' Lee Leighton Page 1 of 1 From: Andy Newbury Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:31 PM To: Lee Leighton Cc: Kristy Kelly; File Subject: Churchill Woods (1724-14 E) Lee, Here is my response to section E of the Dobson Law Firm, LLC (appellant) report dated December 1, 2005. The appellant claims that there will be substantial runoff from Bond Park. The Bond.Park neighborhood is fully improvement with local streets containing a. public storm system. Runoff from. roofs and driveways are directed into these public storm systems. Any runoff coming from. Bond Park is limited by sheet flow,from residential yard areas. This flow will be minimal and can be addressed during.final engineering plans. The appellant also claims that increased runoff will occur due to the removing of the fir trees on the western edge of the property and this wasn't considered in the storm report The appellant is correct that increased runoff will occur due tothe removal of trees if left as bare soil but this area will. be replaced with lawns which will help reduce any additional flow. Also, the plans have been revised to show additional existing trees to remain. The lastlclaimiri,section E is in regards of the clear cutting and grade changes which will increase the risk of erosion arid'excessive runoff. An erosion control plan will be shown for the final engineering plans that will meet NPDES 1200-C and Clean Water Services requirements which will reduce the risk of erosion. Excessive runoff will be detained and treated within the proposed detention and water quality pond to match pre-developed conditions. A final stormwater report will be completed addressing this issue. Andrew Newbury, PE Project Engineer Westlake Consultants 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 Ph. 503-684-0652 Fax 503-624-0157 2/21/2006 . • EXHIBIT 8 CORRECTED MAILING LIST Page 1 of 1 ' Lee Leighton From: Cheryl Caines [CHERYLC c@Ugard-or.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:37 AM To: Kimberly Bodley; Kristy Kelly; Lee Leighton ' Cc: File Subject: Re: Churchill Woods SUB2005-00016NAR2005-00066 (WCI#1724-014-000) lam, The Churchill Woods file shows that notification for the application and decision were sent to the correct mailing ' list. The copy included in the application submittal is the Gage Forest mailing list. Please sumbit a corrected copy for the file. Thank you. ' Cheryl Caines Assistant Planner City of Tigard ' (503) 718-2437 "limberly Bodley" <kbodley@westiakeconsultants.com> 01/23 5:18 PM Cheryl; 4 ' A review of our file indicates that, while the incorrect mailing list and map of Notice Area, was included in our Narrative Submittal to the City of Tigard (copies provided were for the Gage Forest project); the correct list was ' utilized to do the actual mailings themselves. We will be submitting the correct list, along with supporting documentation to the City prior to the appeal hearing. We would like to confirm that the City's file regarding the list used for the "Notice of Decision" does contain the ' mailing list obtained from Patty Lunsford, City of Tigard, on 10/2512005 (City of Tigard Receipt #27200500000000005446), plot date 10/20/2005. This list references the correct Area Notified for the Churchill Woods project If you would like a copy of this list, please give me a call. Thanks, Kim Bodley kbodley@westlakeconsultants.com Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 Phone: 503-684-0652 Fax: 503-624-0157 Direct 503-548-0114 2/21/2006 li-- ---lb Westlake consultants, inc nra[ 6WAER G ♦ 5 AG ♦ PLAWAG Date: January 26,20D6 To: Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 From: IGm Bodley Re: Notice Area Nlo. of Cooies PJ one.• 5M 664-X52 Fax.- 5Q36240157 Project No.: 1724014 Project Name: Churrhill Woods Subdivision (SUB20050M16 VAR2005000661 CC: 1 01 /24/2005 Property Owner Address List for Completeness Notice 1 Returned Mail "Slimicle Comments: l 67dosedisthecvfrectThW n wwAddewList"whichwestadtopreparetheamdopes su&rm d to t ae 0tycf r19wd fbr caa7#Ma less notification purposes Ttae ineorra< 11st from anoMer pri ecewesinadLalw*irzsetedinourcarr#ww7essnarreiive abirkal The a&aD x d "raa m to "letter has a rx rm that is unique to tfie aurchill p eject VIA acvrparud t#~e name on &e lettr to 6oM lists to deterrnne Matt vies on the Churchill Vkvds list and wasnot on Me (age Fare& List Kb apologize faranycordon this treyh%e caused Fax ❑ No. of Pages (including cover) Fax Nb. Mail ® Messenger ❑ Overnight ❑ Hand Delivery ❑ • • Padfic Corporate Center, 15115 S.W. Sequoia ParlwW, Suite 150, Tigard, Oregon 97224 W O N . H~- co 1M W un 0 .T-.- ► smwae 1 aloaEaEE s1oEEaEE1 ~ a1wrEE~r > UNIMPOSING > W o, , _ 00 a1®w MORONISM* slorma afaEwr GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (500x) FOR Alicia Duncan RE: 2S 112CD, 1900 Property owner information Is valid for S montiss from the date printed on this map. N 1'- 2% fatl W Q 3: City of Tigod F(0 In mAdjan an Rap Is for rnard bcoum 0* arm ShCUW b vm VAM IN OSWkprtaN Bnvion DMajon. 13125 SW )4r B W TWrct OR 07223 (603) 039-1171 hdplAw w.d.6gard.ar.GE Mate: , 200~agia_C034 2S1i2CA-0360o BROOKS FAMILY TRUST • 2 112CC-03100 BI (FORD Y J BY WALTER J BROOKS TR HE 15540 SW 79TH AVE URCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 RD, O .7224 112CA-1 2S112CD-07200 1 RTITION PLAT BODYFELT ROBERT & BARBARA S O S OF LOTS 15740 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-05800 26112CD-08900 ' AITKEN KC BODYFELT ROBERT A & BARBARA S 7915 SW BOND ST 15740 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD. OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CA-12800 2S112CC404800 ANDERSON DREW N & BORGMAN JEAN M ' FONSECA CYNTHIA B 15830 SW BOTH AVE 15617 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-OSOW 2S112CA4)7200 BAILEY TIMOTHY & REBA L BOWEN GREGORY R & ANDREA L 7946 SW CHURCHILL WAY 7947 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224. TIGARD, OR '97224 2S112C&10800 2S112C&12000 BARNES DAVID JAMES AND BROKKEN KAREN.E JEAN HILLIARD BY SHANNA BROKKEN ' 8049 SW ASHFORD ST 1610 NW TURNER DR TIGARD, OR 97223 PULLMAN, WA 99163 2S112CD-04300 2S112CA-03700 BATES CHRIS & SHANNON BROOKS FAMILY TRUST 7870 SW BOND ST BY WALTER J BROOKS TR TIGARD, OR 97224 15540 SW 79TH AVE ' TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-05200 112CA-03800 BAUSTIEN SCOTT & KRISTEN LIVING OKS FAMI UST 8070 SW BOND ST TE ROOKS TR TIGARD, OR 97224 5 79TH AVE 7224 2S112CD426M 2S112CD-02100 BERGERON RUSSELL W & SUZANNE R CARLO JAMES J & ' 17841 WESTVIEW DR CALLAHAN MERRY A LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 7895 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-00107 2S112CD-04200 BICKFORD GARY J & HELENE M CHARLES LARRY & MARILYN L 8080 SW CHURCHILL CT 7850 SW BOND ST ' TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 , 202C"0i00 CHRISTENSEN PHILLIP E AND • 28112CO4)8800 DESA GARY & • SALLY C WILSON SARA E ' 15685 SW 76TH AVE 7961 SW CHURCHILL WAY TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C8-02400 2S712CD4X8200 COLLETTA SEAN D & DILL MATTHEW N SHERON LAURIE 7994 SW CHURCHILL WAY 8110 SW ASHFORD ST PORTLAND, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-11500 2S112CC-03500 COOPER IAN & SHERYL DITTMAN ROBERT LEE & 7799 SW ASHFORD ST TORY TIGARD, OR 97224 8040 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 28112CD-04500 26112CC-028M COUTURE ROBERT E & TRISH S DOBSON KENNETH P & ' PO BOX 3273 CASTILLO-DOBSON JULY ARLINGTON, WA 98223 8095 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CC-08800 2S112CD-01900 CROUSE RICHARD L DRIESNER ROBERT E TR 8085 SW BOND ST 18685 SW 79TH AVE ' TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD. OR 97224 ' 2S112CA-07800 28112CG04800 CULIN EDWARD WARFIELD & DUSKIN GREG A & CAROL A RHODA MICHELE 7998 SW BOND 7740 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-02300 2S112CD4)5500 DAVIS ALEXANDER B/KAREN E ELISARA TOGAMAU T & 8045 SW CHURCHILL CT ELISAA TRACY C TIGARD, OR 97224 7931 SW BOND ST TIGARD. OR 97224 2S712CC-00112 2S712CC4)3300 DECK DENNIS D & VIRGINIA A ELLIOTT SABRINA L 8010 SW CHURCHILL CT 8060 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 1 12CC-03800 2S112CC-00111 D DE D D & VIRGINIA A ENRIGHT MARSHA K KARD, URCH ILL CT 8020 SW CHURCHILL CT 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CC-02100 12CC-03700 DELP WILLIAM W & TRUDY L EN HA K 8005 SW CHURCHILL CT 8020 HURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97223 T D. 97224 r2S712C8-01300 2S112CC-05000 ESPENSHIP BRENT & KRISTA J • HAGAN ELIZABETH OWSTEE 8032 SW ASHFORD ST 8020 SW BOND ST ' TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224, 11X6417 2S112CS42100 E NS BRENT & KRISTA J HALL RICHARD RAY & JAMIE LEIGH 8HFORD ST 8072 SW ASHFORD ST O E7224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-04101 2S112CB.01600 i FEATHERS DAVID L & SARALYN K HANSEN MICHAEL S & MARY A 15795 SW BOTH AVE 8028 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA4)5000 2S112CA-04900 FEENEY PATRICIA K HARTFORD KAREN LYNNE ' 7978 SW ASHFORD ST 79W SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S712CA•11801 2S112CC-03400 FLECK RYAN M & JUDITH L P HARTMAN KENTAH B 15390 SW 79TH AVE 8050 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CS-01500 2S112CD-04700 FULLER DENNIS R & HEIDER RICHARD R AND DEBORAH A LAURELEI M 8018 SW ASHFORD ST 7948 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-00200 2S112CC-15200 GAGE DOROTHY DARLENE 'HOFFART HERBERT J GAGE M A ABRECHT M G 4632 SW VERMONT ST .8000 SW 54TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97219 PORTLAND, OR 97219 2S112C&10700 2S112CD42300 GARDNER LAURA L HOFFMAN JUDITH A 15427 SW'KENTON DR 7865 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 i 2S112CD-06300 2S1120004200 GOLDBERG LAURA D HOLMES H G & LORI 7963 BOND ST 12518 BEAR MOUNTAIN DR TIGARD, OR 97224 DRAPER, UT 84020 2S112CD-087W 2S112CD-04900 HAARMANN KURT E & SUSAN K HORAN MARY CHRIS 7977 SW CHURCHILL WAY 7980 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 ~•2Sr12CA-12200 HUBBARD STEPHEN A & DEBORAHJ ' 15555 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S1 12C"2000 HUGHES STEVEN E & MARY 8064 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-00104 • KINSEY ALISON D 8070 SW CHURCHILL TIGARD, OR 97224 112CC-03200 KI ON D tft0. URCHILL CT 97224 2S112CS-02300 HUTCHINS JAMES M & ALLISON M 8102 ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CS-01900 JACOBS ROLAND L & KIMBERLY M 8056 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-00102 JANICH MARCIA 641 MANZANITA LOS OSOS, CA 93402 2S112CC-04900 UGHNSON BRADLEY AIPAULA C 4OW SW BOND ' TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-04401 JOHNSON GREGORY C 15770 SW BOTH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-04400 KAESS JENNA L & SCHNEPF ZACHARIAH 15880 SW .79TH AVE ' PO BOX 230091 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-05200 KEITH JACK JR 15421 SW THURSTON LN TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-02200 KENNEDY JOHN C & CELESTE 8035 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-05100 KIRKPATRICK DEAN L & CHRISTINA L 8050 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C -02500 KOZAK CRAIG C JR & MYRICK COURTNEY R 8065 SW CHURCHILL CT PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112C1140W KRAUSS MARGARET L 7945 SW CHURCHILL WAY TIGARD,.OR 97224 2S112CA-07800 LEE JOHN Y 7844 SW ASHFORD ST PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112CA-12300 LUNDRIGAN DOUGLAS Al LOIS L 15579 SW 76TH AVE . TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-05800 MAUCH USA & MARCUS 7930 CHURCHILL WAY TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-02001 MALUNSON JOHN D & NEIHART NANCY E 15630 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-02000 MAUJNSON JOHN D & NEIHART NANCY E 15830 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 t 2S112CD-06600 MARKOVITZ KIRK A AND AMY S • 2S112CC-02900 MYLAND KAREN.A 7993 SW CHURCHILL WAY 8100 W CHURCHILL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-02500 2S112CA-07800 MARTY AUDRE J NIELSON STEVEN E & ANDREA C 17308 NE 27TH AVE 7784 SW ASHFORD ST RIDGEFIELD, WA 98642 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-05300 2S112CD-01801 MAY GLADYS M NULTON.KARL E AND 8090 SW BOND ST PATRICIA J TIGARD, OR 97224 15680.SW 79TH AVENUE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD48400 2S112CD-05400 METZLER WILLIAM R & JANET M ONTHANK SONJA R 7929 SW CHURCHILL WAY 7947 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-06700 2SI12CA-04800 MEYER DANIEL B & PARR PHILIPSON JAMES & BONNIE MOCHIZUKI CHIEMI 7934 SW ASHFORD ST 5736 SOUTHWARD DR TIGARD, OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 . 2S112C&10800 2S112CD Xl300 MOORE LIVING TRUST PATTON KENT D & AMY SAGER BY MOORE GERALD J & PHYLLIS A TRS 15735 SW 76TH AVE 15405 SW KENTON DR TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S712CC-03801 2S712CB-02200 MOORE STEVEN A PEACOCK FAMILY TRUST 8030 SW CHURCHILL CT BY PEACOCK WALLACE F & CHARLOTTE A ' TIGARD, OR 97224 306 HUDSON PLACENTIA, CA 92870 2S112CD4)28W 2S712CD4XM MORRIS WANDA PELOSI CAROL A 7725 SW BOND ST PENNO COLIN J TIGARD, OR 97224 7913 SW CHURCHILL WAY TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-02400 2S112CD-08000 MUDD MICHAEL J & WENDY W PHELPS AMELIA SUE F 7845 SW BOND ST 7962 SW CHURCHILL WAY TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C8-12100 2S112CA-07400 MULLEN PATRICK & PATRICIA POTTS MARGARET E 15540 SW 81ST AVE 7903 SW ASHFORD TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S1i2CA4)41b0 POTTS TERRY L & JOHNNIE R 2S112CD-05100 SCHEFTER ANDREW* 7996 SW ASHFORD ST 7995 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112CA-05100 2S112CC-04501 POULSEN MICHAEL T SCHERNER JOHN A/ANN P 7990 SW ASHFORD ST 15800 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CC-04700 2S112CD-04100 POWELL ROBERT J & SIMONS GLEN H POWELL ANNE C HEALY JEAN.M 15860 SW.80TH AVE PO BOX, 5996 TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97228 2S112CD44800 28112CD-02500 RACANELLI ROCKY AND DENISE SJORDAL SUSAN J 7964 SW BOND ST 7785 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD4=01 2SI12CD-070M RAY MICHAEL D/DIANA L SUMICK DANIEL R & MARY A 7979 SW BOND ST 15740 SW 79TH AVE ' TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 ..2S112CC-03900 112CD-07100 READ ROBERT L IEL R & MARY A BY JL SCOTT ol~ AVE 7217 SW DELAWARE CIR R 7224 TUALATIN, OR 97062 2S112CD-08101 2SI12CB-10500 RICE LAURIE E SMITH ERIC P & KAY NIMITZ 7978 SW CHURCHILL WAY 15436 SW KENTON DR PORTLAND, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-12200 2S112CD-04800 ROPPO RONALD A SMITH JOHN WILLIAM 15474 SW 81ST AVE 7932 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-13800 2S112CD-02200 . RUETER FAMILY LIVING TRUST SNIDER JASON B & JODI J 15565'SW 79TH 15588 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC,4X= 2S112CC4)2400 SCHAEFER SHERYL M SPEERS PHILIP W & LISA M 15765 SW 80TH AVE 3733 QUAIL MEADOW WAY TIGARD, OR 97224 EUGENE, OR 97408 2S112CA-12400 2S112CA-07300 SPEIDEL ERIN B & BENJAMIN E WADE WILLIAM C & OIBEL O 115,15 SW 76TH AVE 7925 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-07700 2S112CD-01701 STEVENSON SARA R WALKER JEANNE L 7766 SW ASHFORD ST 15720 SW 79TH AVE ' PORTLAND, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112C4-12500 2S112CD44000 SUN LEI WALLS CHARLOTTE ZHANG LI 7780 SW BOND ST 15603 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA43800 2S112CA-11800 TANNER WILLIAM E JR WHITE DAVID M & MARGARET A 8085 SW CHURCHILL CT 7823 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-13700 2S1.12CC4X= TANNER WILLIAM F JR WIDERBURG PAUL & CALLA 8085 SW CHURCHILL CT 8090 SW CHURCHILL ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 S712CC-02T00 2S112CC-03000 T NER M F JR WIDERBURG PAUL T AND 80 CHURCHILL CT CALLA C RD, 97224 8090 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-11700 2S112CC-00106 TAYLOR PAUL S AND JOANNE C 1 WIDERBURG PAUL THOMAS AND 7867 SW ASHFORD ST CALLA COON TIGARD, OR 97224 8090 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-04700 2S112CA44000 TRUITT RALPH N WILEY JAMES E JR & SHELLEY J 7912 SW ASHFORD ST 15545 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-04300 2S112CD45000 VANDERHEIDEN SEAN WILKERSON RANDAL D 8 15855 SW BOTH AVE M DARIN TIGARD, OR 97224 7998 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-02700 2SI12CA-05300 VOLLINTINE STEVEN T & WILLIS SANDRA MELODY A 15409 SW THURSTON LN 1031 SE DOGWOOD LN TIGARD, OR 97224 MILWAUKIE, OR 97267 2S1i2C11-104W WILSON DANIEL C & CHRISTY E • i 15414 SW KENTON DR ' TIGARD, OR 97224 2SI12CB418M WOO RICHARD DANIEL & DEBORAH L 8048 SW ASHFORD ST ' TIGARD, OR 97224 Josh Thomas ,10395 SW Bonanza Tigard, OR 97224 ' Kristen Miller 8940.SW Edgewood Street ' Tigard, OR 97223 Paul Owen 10335 SW Highland Drive ■ Tigard, OR 97224 ' Tim Esau PO Box 230695 Tigard, OR 97281 CPO 4B ' 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 Ross Sundberg 16382 SW 104th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Brian Wegener 9830 SW Kimberly Drive ' Tigard, OR 97224 t Joseph Dyar 10285 SW Highland Drive ' Tigard, OR 97224-4668 Rex'Caffall 13205 SW Village Glenn Tigard, OR 97223 John Frewing ' 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - SOUTH INTERESTED PARTIES k. I of 1) (hcurpinlsetup\Iabels\CIT South.doc) UPDATED: 21-Sep-04 CITY OF TIGARD 1 COiti+UNITI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HALL 10 ~ P 13125 SW LANNING 6iV1 TI GARD, A OREGON B 97223~D PHONE: S034M171 FAL• .S03-"7241(kb. htty/pl uIftht Property owner inibrmabon is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP & TAX LOT NUMBERS.(i.e.1 S134AB, Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES .FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: _AR 4F~g~ © py~ JR NLY E Kil OF 5Sm1. LL BE PROVIDEAT TTS FOR t3 . Aa your land ap d the City nd WHO e an er s Z jog lical r completenss, you e t o ie~rymeanbean nconn yo11p sets o Is. The 2 final se of labels need to- be aced on envelo wlth first etas letter-rate post a on the and {envel in a of osta e s ps ~n m nV81OPOS and no OuM add FMA use "Mau to a Ci , for t~ u e o pro. In n c e toprope o~me of t pro da { ad a dlon, of enmust a t ss ritee person s w111 p cal to pickup and pay for a {abe when y are ready. NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: ko t UIULn PHONE: (D(- V1,jei *L~ ~ W A FAX; S'a - called to Developr m y mailed,-Wed or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a m Or processing request. Upon completion of Your request, the contact person will be _up their request that will be placed in "Will Calf by their last name, at the Community The tit of processing your request must be paid at the fime of pick up, as exact cost can not be 1 pre-determined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR .REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY'VS, RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. cast Descdation: $11 t4 generate the mailing list, plus $2 per sheet for prhdng the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then, mu ftly the cost tD prof labels by the number of sets requested. L "E.XAMPLEW "COST FOR THIS REQUEST s;9aa of labs x f?lsheet a NX x g sets = $16.00 4sheet(s) of mbels x 92*1eec = 90 j;7 12 _Zsheet of labels x $2/sheet for 1ntempted pattles x 2 seta $ 4.00 sx/ sets ME:RATE LIST GENERATE LIST TOTAL ■ $31.00 TOTAL 1 Westlake consultants,inc RECEIVED JAN 2 4 2005 CITY OF TIGARD 13UILDING DIVISION 7NNSMIRAL OOA ERRING ♦ SURVEYING ♦ PLANNING Date: January 21, 2005 Ta Patty/Planning Cry of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard.OR 97223 Phone: 503 684-0652 Fax 503. .040157 Project No.:. P064076 Project Neme: SW 79" & Churchill From: Abdo Duncan Project Coordinator Re: Request for 500-foot Property Owner Mailing List No. of t I I Request fbr 5004oot Property Owner Mailing List Comments: Thanks Petryl If I do not come to the phone when you cell with the fees, please call again and ask for "sty, as I may be out due to a family emergency. Thanks a bunch! Fax ■ No. of Pages (including cover) 2 Fax No. (SM) 598-1960 ' Moil ❑ Messenger 0 Overnight 0 Hand Delivery 0 Pacific corporate Center, 15115 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150, Tigard, Oregon 87224 o~ Westlake Consultants, Inc. p 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Ste 150 Tigard, OR 97224 ' - y IGMD, OR 9 7 2 2 4 ~1 13 Q.c~o~r'G S 3 r 25112CD-07000 t uYClh I SLIMICK DANIEL R & Y w OOCl S /'Y~Gti n~ i 15740 SW 79TH A TIGARD, OR 4 V" ~ i , wxxxiz 970 O 1 00 02/14/03 RETURN TO SENDER r NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED ` UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 97224710923 *2629-10096-09-40 4 0 "TAB B" Applicant's Materials & All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Turner, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner RE: Churchill Woods Subdivision (SUB2005-00016) Appeal DATE: February 17, 2006 A Tigard area resident has filed an appeal with the City of Tigard in regard to a Director's decision approving the Churchill Woods Subdivision. The appellant's letter received January 17, 2006 outlines the stated grounds for appeal. The issues include but are not limited to: hazardous traffic conditions on SW 79`h Avenue, insufficient protection of trees on neighboring properties, preservation of trees on site, storm water detention, deficiencies with the impact study, and inadequate notice to the neighbors. The City of Tigard has reviewed the information within the appeal and stands by the findings and conditions of approval within the decision. Additional information addressing the concerns of the appellant will be addressed by the applicant at the February 27th hearing. Staff will be available for questions. Attachments: 1. Director's Decision 2. Appeal filing form and attachments. 3. Residents, agencies and other staff comments received during the comment period. „i • • ATTACHMENT I NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2005-00016 CITY OFTIGARD Community OevekTment CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Shaping ABetterCornmunity 120 DAYS = 3/14/2006 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION CASE NOS.: Subdivision (SUB) SUB2005-00016 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2005-00066 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a 15-unit single-family subdivision on 1.82 acres. Street access to the proposed development will be from SW 79tI' Avenue. The proposed street to the single-family homes will terminate in a cul-de-sac of approximately 240 feet in length. The applicant has also applied for an adjustment to exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length of 200 feet. APPLICANT: Spectrum Development, LLC APPLICANT'S Westlake Consultants, Inc. Attn: Kurt Dalbey REP.: Attn: Lee Leighton, AICP PO Box 3440 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 150 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Tigard, OR 97224 - OWNER: Robert E. Driesner, Trustee 15685 SW 79"I' Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-12; Medium-Density Residential. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. LOCATION: 15685 SW 79"' Avenue; WCTM 2S112CD, Tax Lot 01900. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters, 18.370, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18:795 and 18.810. SECTION II. . DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard' Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the requested subdivision and denied the requested ;adjustment subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI of this Decision. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 1 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION It, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING DEMOLITION, GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter an submit it, a ong with any supporting ocuments and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER 503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Acknowledge in writing that the applicant understands the Environmental Performance Standards of Section 18.725 of the TI and Development Code shall be maintained .and any violation of these standards will constitute a violation of code. 2. The ant is required to provide and implement a re-planting plan showing how the subject site Al wilbe re-planted and to what extent. 3. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be corres ondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (DF will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in lieu of planting. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading,, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately.' Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the.designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remedlation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement' plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public Improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 7. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will eTUesignated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents, • NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 2 OF 33 SUB2005-00016-CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION c • 8 •c The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. 9. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, 79th which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 79 Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route from curb to centerline equal to 18 feet (20 feet where matching existing); B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff; 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip; street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; street striping; streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; underground utilities; street signs (if applicable); driveway apron (if applicable); and . surface and/or adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 79' Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 10. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements for the cul-de-sac street, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 11. A profile of 79"' Avenue shall- be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 12. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 13. An extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 14. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality/detention facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of.Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the Citv will take NOTICE OF DECISION SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 33 • • over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 15. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement Eesign FQ permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 16. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 17. The applicant shall obtain a 1200=C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: The applicant shall prepare a cover 11etter an submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER 503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 18. Submit a copy of the construction plans that shows the proposed development with street trees that are in compliance with the City s Street Tree List. 19. Provide visual clearance triangles on the final plat. 20. Place a note on the final plat that no structures, fences, retaining walls or vegetation over three feet will be placed in the visual clearance triangles. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 21. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay the addressing..(STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 22. The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. 23. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private streets will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from them. 24. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street(s). The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 25. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 4 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION ' . ~ • 26. Prior to final plat approval, thg applicant shall pay $1,154.00 to the City for the striping of the bike lane along the frontage of 79 Avenue. 27. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 79th underground as a part of this project, or they may request they be allowed to pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. If allowed by the City Engineer the fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be 35.00 per lineal foot. If the The option is chosen, the amount will be $9,243.50 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 28. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system ffS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 29. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2421). C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for 79 h .Avenue shall be made on the final plat, providing 29 feet.of ROW from centerline, minimum, and 50 feet of ROW from centerline where needed to match existing. E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). 30. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant's engineer Mall submit final sight distance certification for the intersection of the proposed public street and 79 Avenue. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter an submit it, along with-an y supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER 503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall. clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 31. . Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 32. Submit a mitigation plan for 3,147 inches. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 5 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • 33. If the applicant finds that viable trees may in fact be saved prior to building permits, a comprehensive arborist report/protection plan will be required to be submitted and mitigation will be recalculated. 34. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12' diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 35. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy , the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through occupancy of individual units, as he monitors'the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees id not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City. can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fending, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain -in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 37. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat. 38. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits. 39. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2 all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street ligts are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model ome permits). 40. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2)"a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each.structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to-NAD 83 (91).. NOTICE OF DECISION. PAGE 6 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION t • . IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: T's-required by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A. surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City.in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filin and Recordin : Within 60 days o the i review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the. recorded final. plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat A lication Submission Re uirements: ree copies o the subdivision plat prepare by a an surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 7 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. , All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required onurrient boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities A utility lines me udbut not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Re uired improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured. by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite o an division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to Ci Required or shall not begin until the ity as been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200. En ineer's Certification The an ivies engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION Ill. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Histo : to conducted a search of City records and found no other land-use cases associated with the subject parcel. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 8 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION •t * . Site Information and Pro osal Descri tion: The applicant is requesting approva or a 15-unit sine-family subdivision on 1.82 acres. Street access to the proposed development will be from SW 79 Avenue. The proposed street to the single- family homes will terminate in a cul-de-sac of approximately 240 feet in length. The applicant has also applied for an adjustment to exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length of 200 feet. Vicinit Information: e subject site is located north of. SW Durham Road and West of SW 79th Avenue. The zoning of the subject site and surrounding parcels is R-12 Medium Density Residential. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET The City sent notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject proposal. The concerns of the neighbors are as follows: Does a 15-unit single-family subdivision mean townhouses or condominiums or detached-stand alone houses. Staff Response: The applicant has proposed detached stand-alone houses. SECTION V. ' SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this decision are as follows: . A. Subdivision 18.430 B. Applicable Development Code Sections anances an jus ments 18.510 Residential zoning districts) 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.715 Density) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and screening) 18.765 Off-street parking and loading requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands) 18.780 Signs) 18.790 Tree removal) 18.795 Vision clearance) C. Street and Utility Im rovement 18.810 (Street an utility Improvement Standards) D. Decision Makin Procedures mpac . Study) SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SUBDIVISION GENERAL PROVISIONS (78.430): Future Re-Division. When subdiv.iding tracts into large lots, the Approval Authority shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. No large lots are created with the proposed subdivision. Lot #14 is the largest lot in the subdivision at 4,408 square feet and is not large enough to be subdivided under the 3,00 square foot minimum lot size for the zone. Therefore, this standard is met. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 9 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Lot Averaging Section 18.430.020.D states Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not less than allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district. The applicant has not proposed lot size averaging. All of the proposed lots are greater than the minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Temporary sales office. Temporary sales offices in conjunction with any subdivision may be granted as set forth in Chapter 18.785, Temporary Uses. The applicant has not proposed a sales office; however, if one is later requested, it will be reviewed through a separate temporary use permit process. Minimize flood damage. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. Due to the topography of the site, storm water is anticipated to leave the site and not cause flooding. Storm drainage facilities will be reviewed by Clean Water Services and also by the City for conformance with design and construction standards and is addressed later in this decision under Engineering's analysis. Floodplain dedications. Where land filling and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The site is not within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. The nearest floodplain is approximately 850 feet to the east. The base flood elevation of the nearest floodplain is 132 feet. The lowest point of the subject site is approximately 172 feet. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. Need for adequate utilities. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. This proposal includes the full complement of utilities appropriate to serve the development and address its proportional impacts on existing systems and facilities. The subject property is not located in an identified flood hazard area. To minimize potential risk of flood damage and adequately drain the property, storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water quality and detention facility within proposed Tract 'C', which is designed to release storm water at a rate that mimics pre-development conditions. Need for adequate drainage. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage. To adequately drain the roperty, storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water qua Ity andd detention facility within proposed Tract 'C', which is designed to mimic pre-development conditions. Surface water will be treated for turbidity, phosphorus and other pollutants, and then detained before its release into a closed pipe system within SW 79t' Avenue. This criterion has been satisfied. Determination of base flood elevation. Where base flood elevation has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or five acres (whichever is less). NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 10 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • • Base flood elevation data is not required for the proposed subdivision. The proposed site is approximately 1.82 acres. According to the standard, developments less than five acres are exempt from this criterion and floodplain maps indicate clearly that the subdivision is not near the floodplain. Therefore, this standard does not apply. A roval Criteria - Prelimina Plat: The propose pre iminary p complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and reg a ulations. Compliance with the specific regulations and standards of the zoning ordinance will be addressed further within this decision. The proposed: at name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 9K, The applicant has provided documentation that the proposed plat name is not a duplicative. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions. or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width,.general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. According to the applicant, the proposed streets have been designed to match existing road patterns in the immediate area. Primary access to the site will be from the SW 79 Avenue. Access to proposed lots one through one through fifteen will be from the proposed east/west cul-de-sac. Access to proposed lots four through ten will be by a north/south private street identified as Tract 'A' and 'B' on the site plan. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant's narrative provides the necessary explanation for all common improvements. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Section 18.430.060A. authorizes the granting of adjustments for subdivisions in accordance with 18.430.050, provided that the application shalt be made with a preliminary plat application with the criteria for granting such adjustments are contained in Section 18.370.020 C1. The applicant has applied for an adjustment to the maximum cul-de-sac length as required by 18.810, which are addressed below under 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments). Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the subdivision standards have been satisfied. B. APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS Variances and Adjustments (18.370 The can as propose a pu is street entering the subject site that is approximately 190 feet from the edge of rigght-o#-way along SW 79 Avenue to the rear curb of the cul-de-sac. The maximum allowable. length of a cul-de-sac according to 18.810 (Street and Utility Standards) is 200 feet. After review of theplans submitted by the applicant with the City's Project Engineer, the length of the cul-de- sac measured from right-of-way to edge of curb is 190 feet. Therefore, no adjustment is required. Residential Zoning Districts 08.510 Lists the escription o e residential Zoning District. Uses The site is located in the R-12: Medium-Density residential zoning district. The proposed household living is a permitted use in the R-12 zone. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 11 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Minimum and Maximum Densities Density is addressed later in this decision under. 18.715 (Density.Computation). EXCERPT FROM TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD R-12 Sin le-Famil Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 3,050 sq. ft. per unit - Duplexes - Attached unit 1 Average Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit lots N/A - Duplex lots - Attached unit lots Maximum Lot Coverage 80% Minimum Setbacks 15 ft. - Front yard - Side facing street on corner & through lots 10 ft. - Side yard 5 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. - Distance between property line and front of garage 20 ft. Maximum Height- 35 ft. Minimum Landscape Requirement 20% [1] Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more than five attached units in one grouping. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. The proposed lots range in size from 3,086 square feet to 4,408 square feet. The applicant will be required to comply with the setbacks and building height requirements during the building permit review process for the homes on individual lots. All lots within this subdivision are for single-family units. This is not a planned development; therefore, the setbacks are as prescribed by the base zone. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the residential zoning district dimensional standards are satisfied. Access E ress and Circulation (18.705) apter 18.705 establishes s an ar s and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and for general circulation within the site. Table 18.705.1 states that the minimum vehicular access and egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall be one, 10-foot paved driveway within a 15-foot-wide accessway. The minimum access width for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement. Access and egress to the proposed lots will be from the proposed public cul-de-sac and internal private streets.. No lot will have direct access to SW 79th Avenue. Driveway widths to the homes will be reviewed during the building permit phase of the development. This standard has been satisfied. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Scaled site plans have been submitted that indicate how the requirements of access, egress, and circulation are met. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 12 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Joint access has not been proposed.. Each lot will have its own access onto the proposed streets. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Public street access. All vehicular,-access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. All lots will have access to SW 79th Avenue through the proposed. private streets and public cul-de-sac. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Curb cuts will be addressed under Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements Standards later in this decision. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and. neighboring developments; Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossinggs shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation. (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick,_ etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes: Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. This proposal is for a detached single-family development, this standard does not apply. Inadequate or hazardous access. Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or would in any other way cause hazardous conditions lo exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 13 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • • The lots within this subdivision will be providing access to a public street (SW 79th Avenue). Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and Tigard Police have been notified of the proposed subdivision and have not indicated a hazard. The Director has not determined that Planning Commission review is necessary for building permits. With regard to streets and street intersections, these issues are addressed under TDC Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). This criterion has been satisfied. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. The. proposed single-family lots will have access via a proposed public street (SW 79th Avenue) which is not a collector. Therefore, no single-family lot will have direct access to a major collector or arterial. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the. backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. This criterion does not apply to the proposed single-family dwellings. Access Management (Section 1.8.705.030.H lion states tat an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. This development includes the construction of a public road and cul-de-sac. The applicant's engineer has provided preliminary sight distance certification for the proposed intersection with 79 Avenue. The required sight distance is approximately 250 feet based on a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The engineer has stated that sight distance in both directions exceeds 300 feet, therefore this criterion is met. The applicant's engineer shall submit a final sight distance certification upon completion of public improvements and prior to final plat approval. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on, approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting. street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. This development is located on 79th Avenue, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route; therefore this criterion does not apply. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The proposed local street is over 500 feet south of Ashford Street and almost 300 feet north of Churchill Way, thereby meeting this criterion for local street spacing. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 14 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Minimum access requirements for residential use. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; The access and egress into the site itself is discussed later in this decision under the Street and Utility Improvements Standards section of this decision. Access to individual lots will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit phase. Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the. ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units; No multi-family structures are proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform fire Code; Individual driveways will be reviewed at time of building permit. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Section 18.705.030.1.4 states that Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be rovided with approved provisions for the turning. around of fire apparatus by one of the p following: a circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg_ of the hammerhead haven a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. he maximum cross slope o~ a required turnaround is 5%. No access drive will be in excess of 150 feet. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met. Densit Computations and Limitations: CrHapter 18.715 implements the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of dwelling units that may be developed on a site. Based on the formulas in Chapter 18.715 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, the maximum and minimum number of units permitted on the site is based on the net developable area, subtracting sensitive land areas, land dedicated to public parks, land dedicated for public right-of-way, and land for private streets from the total site area. Of the total site area (78,562 square feet), 20,806 square feet will be dedicated to public andrivate street right-of-ways. This results in a net developable area of 57,756 square feet. There ore, the maximum number of units permitted on this site based on 3,050 square foot lot size is 18. The minimum number of lots is 15. The applicant's proposal is to build 15 lots for single-family detached homes, which meets the density requirements of the R-12 zone. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Density Standards have been satisfied. Environmental performance standards (18.725): These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, round, sewer system or stream be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.72.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 off a Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 15 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • • Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is erm ttec in any given zoning. district which is discernible without instruments at the property ine of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous. gases or, other matter in such quantities as to be readily e ec able at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors-( 340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health. hazard. This is a detached single-family project, which is permitted within the R-12 zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be met. However, ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigard's' Code Enforcement Officer. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Environmental Performance Standards have not been met. If the Applicant complies with the condition below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: Acknowledge in writing that the applicant understands the Environmental Performance Standards of Section 18.725 of the Tigard Development Code shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will constitute a violation of code. Landsca in and Screening (18.745L: ~ectiion saes a existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and the plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g. areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees). The applicant has not indicated how existing vegetation is to be protected. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a landscape plan that shows existing plants that are to be saved. Protection fencing shall be shown around all plants and `trees that are to be saved. The location of the protection fencing must be approved by the City's Arborist. Section 18.745.040.C requires that street trees be planted in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or driveway more than 100 feet long. A proposed planting list must be submitted for review by the Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury. This section also contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows: Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 16 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0. • Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; The proposed street improvements within the development include planter strips in compliance with City standards, to accommodate street trees. A Street Tree & Lighting Plan, has been included that identifies the typical species and location of proposed street trees (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 8 of 14 - Composite Landscaping Street Tree & Lighting Plan). A more detailed street tree plan has been proposed to be included with the final construction documents for this development. The applicant is therefore, required to submit a copy of the construction plans that shows the proposed development with street trees that are in compliance with the City's Street Tree List. Section 18.745.050 contains the provisions and requirements for buffering and screening. The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening when a single-family detached residential use is adjacent to existing detached single-family uses. Therefore, this section does not apply. Section 18.745.060 contains the provisions for re-vegetation where natural vegetation has been removed through grading Such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. The applicant has proposed to re-plant or cover areas disturbed during construction per standards as established by Clean Water Services. Appropriate control measures will reduce erosion. The applicant is required to provide and implement a re-planting plan showing how the subject site will be re-planted and to what extent. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been met. If the Applicant complies with the conditions below, the standards will be met. CONDITIONS: Provide a landscape plan that shows existing plants that are to be saved. Protection fencing shall be shown around all plants and trees that are to be saved. The location of the protection fencing must be approved by the City's Arbodst. • Submit a copy of the construction plans that shows the proposed development with. street trees that are in compliance with the City's Street Tree List. The applicant is required to provide and implement a re-planting plan showing how the subject site will be re-planted and to what extent. Off-Street Parking and Loading Re uirements (18.765): Chapter $.765, Table 1 kid . requires a sin e~amily residences be provided with one (1) off-street parking space for each dwelling unit. Compliance with this standard will be enforced during the building permit review process. Since the Code requires 20 feet from the property line to the face of a garage, this will insure that at least one car can park off of the street, outside of any garage. FINDING: Because each individual home will be reviewed for compliance with this standard during the building permit phase and it is feasible that this standard will be met by providing driveways and garages, the Off-Street Parking and Loading requirements have been satisfied. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 17 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Signs 18.780: Chapter 18.780 regulates the placement, number and design criteria for signage. No signs are proposed in conjunction with this development. Any future siggnage will be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. There has been a proliferafion of sign violations from new subdivisions. In accordance with a new policy adopted by the Directors Designee, all new subdivisions must enter into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. FINDING: To ensure compliance and enforcement of sign violations, a sign compliance agreement will be required. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. Tree Removal (18.790): Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot; parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions or landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; C. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has submitted an arborist report and tree plan identifying all trees greater than six inches in diameter. According to the project arborist, there are a total of 151 viable trees greater than 12 inches located on the subject property equaling 3,147 square feet. The applicant has proposed to mitigate 100% of the inches due to the extensive grading that will take place on the property for the proposed infrastructure and in order to create buildable lots. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a mitigation plan for 3,147 inches. If the applicant finds that viable trees may in fact be saved prior to building permits, a comprehensive arbonst report/protection plan will be required to be submitted and mitigation wlll,be recalculated. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 18 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 114 FINDING: Based on the analysis above, and comments provided by the City's Arborist under Section VII (Other Staff Comments) the Tree Removal standards can be met, provided the applicant complies with the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS: Submit a mitigation plan for 3,147 inches. If the applicant finds that viable trees may in fact be saved prior to building permits, a comprehensive arborist report/protection plan will be required to be submitted and mitigation will be recalculated. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final-plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in lieu of planting. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arbonst to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the Ci Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to ven that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow he plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy , the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through occupancy of individual units, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. -These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If. the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 19 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • • Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place througgh the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, tfie tree protection measures may be removed. Vision Clearance: Chapter applies to all development and requires that clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways and at the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The applicant has not shown visual clearance triangles on the submitted plans. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide visual clearance triangles on the final plat. The applicant will also be required to place a note on the final plat that no structures, fences, retaining walls or vegetation over three feet will be placed in the visual clearance triangles. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions below, the standard will be met. CONDITIONS: Provide visual clearance triangles on the final plat. Place a note on the final plat that no structures, fences, retaining walls or vegetation over three feet will be placed in the visual clearance triangles. C - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS (SECTION 18.810): ons uction s an ar s or the implementation of public and private ap er 18.810 provides construction- facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of=Way and Street VNidths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a Neighborhood route to have a 58 right-of-way width and 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and' street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW 79th Avenue, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map., The applicant should dedicate an additional 10 feet to provide for 30 feet from-centerline in order to match existing improvements to the south. SW 79th Avenue is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct half street improvements, matching the existing improvements south of the development and tapering to the minimum standards for a neighborhood route. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 20 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de- sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The site is surrounded by existing houses and therefore, streets would are not able to be extended. This criterion does not apply. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre _existm developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that, a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. Access to the proposed development will be provided by a public cul-de-sac street. This proposed public street cannot be extended further west due to existing development. Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.L states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb, and if a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. The applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac that is approximately 190 feet long, thereby meeting the cul- de-sac length. requirements. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The grades on 79'h Avenue and the proposed cul-de-sac street are much less than 12%, thereby meeting this criterion. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 21 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • • Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.T states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments. The proposed development includes two private streets at the end of the cul-de-sac, each serving less than 6 dwelling units. The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it/them. In addition, the applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) alon with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private streets). These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require rivate streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate bui ding sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. No blocks are created by the proposed subdivision. The applicant has proposed. a cul-de-sac into the subject site due to pre-existing development surrounding the subject site to the north, south and west. Therefore, this standard does not apply. , Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. As mentioned above, no blocks are created within this development. The proposed cul-de-sac is only 190 feet measured from right-of-way. Therefore, no bicycle or pedestrian onnection is required. The applicant's plans do show an internal sidewalk system that extends SW 79" Avenue. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The minimum lot size of the R-12 zoning district is 3,050 square feet. Based on the standard above, none of the proposed parcels can be more than 2.5 times the average lot width unless they are less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size (4,575 square feet). The largest of proposed lots is 4,408 square feet. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 22 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Proposed parcel #13 is shown to have the least amount of frontage with 32 feet. This criterion requires a minimum of 25 feet. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. The applicant's narrative and plans indicate they frontage, both sides of the proposed cul-de-sac streets, thereby meeting this criterion. will construct a sidewalk along their 79th Avenue street and along one side of each of the private Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch sewer line in 79th Avenue. The applicant's plans show the extension of the public sewer line in the public street and private streets to serve this development. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside.the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no upstream drainage ways that impact this development. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff. resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer - shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plans and calculations provide for an on-site detention pond for stormwater runof~ The pre-developed release rate will be used for discharge into the public storm system in 79 h Avenue. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 23 OF 33 SUB2005-00016-CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • • Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. 79th Avenue is designated a bicycle facility on the City's Bicycle Master Plana While it is not reasonable to stripe a small portion of a bicycle lane it is reasonable to require the developer to pay for the cost of future striping. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.8 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction. of bikeway improvements. The amount of the striping would be as follows: • 232 feet of 8-inch white stripe, at $2.50/If • 6 Mono-directional reflective markers @ $4.00/ea • 2 Bike lane legends @ $175/ea • 2 Directional mini-arrows (oD $100/ea 580.00 24.00 350.00 Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. The bicycle travel lane for a neighborhood route is 6 feet. Utilities:. Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall a long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take glace on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development.. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only'vsuch situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of proposed, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage City Engineer may approve requests for the fee-in-lieu on developer is expected to place the utilities underground. The feet; therefore the fee would be $9,243.50. NOTICE OF DECISION SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION SW 79th Avenue. If the fee in-lieu is that contains the overhead lines. The a case-by-case basis; otherwise the frontage along this site is 264.10 lineal PAGE 24 OF 33 DITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT Public Water S stem: The I o Tigard provides service in this area. There is an existing public water line in 79th Avenue. The applicants plans indicate a public water line extension into the site, located within the new street right-of-way. Storm Water Qualitv: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphofus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Gradin and Erosion Control: IMS Design an onstruction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer wi11 be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of.building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the wading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 25 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 -CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • The applicant shall submit a12000 NPDES permit application to the City for review and signature. The City will forward the application to CWS for review and approval. Address Assignments: e i y o Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to final plat approval. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. Su ve Re uirements: TFe app ican s: ina plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91n two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide. the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). D. - IMPACT STUDY Section 18.390.040 sates that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shalt propose improvements necessary to meet City standards; and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. A copy of the applicant's Impact Study can be found in the land-use file which addresses the impact that the proposed development of 15 lots will have on the public facilities and services. The Impact Study has been reviewed by City staff. Any require'd' street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $2,690. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 26 OF 33 SUB2005-00016-CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the need for these streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for the internal streets is created by the development, the impact of the development is directly proportional to the cost of dedication and construction of the internal streets. Uon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TI 's totaling approximately $40,350($2,690 x 15 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $126,094 ($40,350 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered as unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $40,350, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $85,744. Given that the estimated cost of the dedication and half-street is $39,100, the value of these improvements is less than the value of the unmitigated impacts. However, the applicant has proposed to complete the necessary improvements. Therefore, the proportionality test has been met. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. City of Tigard's City Forester has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C, Installation Requirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. . 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions), and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standard set forth in the American Institute of Architects Architectural Graphic Standards, join edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments an modifications. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. • No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 186745.030.E Protection of Existing Landscaping. Existing vegetation on a site shall be pro ec a as much as posse e. 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can pe placed around the individual trees). See comments under "Tree Removal". NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 27 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 • 18.745.030.E Conditions of A roval of Existin Ve etation. The review procedures and s an ar s or require landscaping an screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum. 18.745.040 Street Trees Protection o existin vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, priva e street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. • The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standars set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, join edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments an modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. - No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepare by a certi ie ar oast shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which. a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement gguidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards an shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; C. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees go be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 28 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION 0 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by a certified arborist, Stephen Goetz. The report contains the four required components, and, is therefore, acceptable. • Although the developer will be removing all of the trees onsite tree protection fencing must be installed to protect the root systems of trees that are on the neighboring properties. There are numerous large.trees in the yards next to this development, especially on the east side. Compromising the health and stability of trees that are not owned by the developer would be a distressing result of this development going in. The guidelines for the placement of this fencing should be as follows: - For individual trees calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown in "Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development" by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark. For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line method, whichever is greater. Care needs to be taken to protect these trees' roots in a 11 phases of construction, including any irrigation work that may occur very late into the project. If the developer does not build the homes; the builder must also follow these guidelines and restrictions as well as any standards specified by the project arborist.. I suggest planting native species of trees as some or all of the street trees such as bigleafmaple , cascara or Oregon white oak. Properly sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm & Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745. The species of street tree used in this development is not listed. The species must be approved before the trees can be planted. - If the developer is planning on planting trees on the private properties to satisfy tree mitigation requirements he needs to follow the guidelines developed for planting mitigation trees. The guidelines are attached. Below are my suggestions for the applicant to follow for tree protection guidelines: • Prior to construction, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with .the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture SISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, a ong with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property` adjacent to the construction roject that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. • Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester with notations as to when tree protection devices will be either installed or removed throughout construction of the project. • A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 29 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION All tree protection devices shall be: Visible. Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. - Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating, the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in lieu of planting. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12° diameter scheduled for preservation may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees Identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to' protect the frees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated' locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediatlon measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 5. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy , the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through occupancy of individual units, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 30 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has-been violated. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit it site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborst regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads shall be within 150 feet o a portions o the exterior wall o the first story of-the wilding as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. This condition is met. DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. Does not apply. FIRE APPARATUS vvnen nullain s are completely protectea wl requirements for fire apparatus access may be ON FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: II an approve automatic ire sprinkler system, the nodified as approved by the fire code official. ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS --ONE-OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: Where there are more an 30 one- or o- aml y dwelling units, no less an o separate approved means of access shall be provided. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units and all are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems, a single access will be allowed. The proposed development includes two means of access. REMOTENESS: Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to no ess an one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. This condition is met. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire appparatus access roads shahave an unobstructed width o no ess than 20 eteet (12 fee or up to two dwelling units and accessory buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 26 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 31 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • • SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather su ace a is easily distinguishable rom the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 75,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 10 percent. Intersections and urnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. When fire sprinklers-are installed, a maximum grade of 15% may be allowed. The approval of fire sprinklers as an alternate shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of ORS 455.610(5). SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for singe family dwellings an duplexes serve y a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to 11 Appendix B. FIRE HYDRANTS - ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS & ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: Where a po ion o a structure is more an 600 feet from a hydrant on a ire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. The proposed number and distribution of fire hydrants is acceptable as submitted. ,E HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire.hydrants shall be located not more n feet rom an approve ire apparatus access roadway. REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers s a e blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRL apparatus access roadways an tire fighting water supplies shall be Ins a ec any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: oT 6tlc was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: N: Approved fire operational prior to III DECISION THIS EFFECTIV ONJNUARY11 D 8, 206 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. III NOTICE OF DECISION PAGE 32 OF 33 SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION • i • 5 s A eal: e (rector's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with pal 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted b any party during the appeal heanng, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time {o time by the appellate Y. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JANUARY 17, 2006. Questions: M ou have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. PREPARE thew c ei egger Associate Planner December 30, 2005 DATE December 30, 2005 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersd DATE Planning Manager i:\curpln\matheMsub\sub2005-00016(CHURCHILL WOODS)\sub2005-00016.decision.doc NOTICE OF DECISION SUB2005-00016 - CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 33 OF 33 LN - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY SUB2005-00016 VAR2005-00066 CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION HILL-WY 7 AT~l I I I , w 0 ao N Q 00 DURHAM RD / 1 .nn 200 310 400 Feel 1'= 326 feet City of Tigard . . Information on this map Is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard. OR 97223 v Q (503) 6394171 http://www.cI.6gard.or.us Plot dat e: Nov 15, 2005; C:xMagiCVAGIC03.AP1 6T I I r' j Ty. 13!00 T.L 17700 r - - -1 T.L 13000 I 1~ I II II f ! i f . r L--------^1 I I , LOT I 55 I LL MOO TRACT 'A' [ I I _ [1ev1Yr w1,1v nlrrlrl r _ If.R - L ! 1AlWAlll N [A{[Y1NT ! I ~ 11y --fin --I r ~ - ,rte 1 I ~ I 1 \`1 LOT I I I I I'[ \ 54 I ~rnAIL _ _ I ~ 11 ~j `1 y1 , I .ten I 1i~ "r , I I LOT I I I I I i I I I 53 r I I r r r LO T I _,1111W 52 7 LL OT 51 r I I ` y, I I II LOT r!~`---- ...fin ~I I I I 1 I , II 50 I 1 4B I I 1 r LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOY ' I \ I 48 47 48 45 44 43 1 ftKPAPKMA I PUT BOON 1. PAWS 11-47 I JI \ \ r I I I ORAPHId tcAL9 r~ ` + I A I NO" B r I [L 71tlp L ~ A 1.a. Aa L amb" 104 . 117! ( n . I : r11oPO[to AMUi LOT M -7,133 1V. a 11.11 R[1WY [OT SU . XM v. Q f L 111P071p Mm" LOT $I* - 4w v, r J 3~ ? a M ]000 J 0 Z T.L 1001 CU 1 I T.L. I I 1:;,14 v sw CITY OF TIGARD • ~ ATTACHMENT 2 APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.• (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Appealed: ayfcwk` W00 0$ SVg oiyt5 j01V Is 6Z5 sw Ti}k bf &,V626ps-o004 How Do You Qualify As A Party?: S U bv\i t4~1bl comirlik s flV comyV11 1 T VC1000 Appellant's Address: ai;_ City/State: Zip: Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(_ ) Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: Case No.(s): xC9a01%_-0001 k Case Name(s):CWP_,l-IjL _ tOOD~' Receipt No.: 496V(p-o13.s Application Accepted By: Date: I Approved As To Form By: Date: Denied As To Form By: Date: Rev. 7/1/05 is\curpln\masters\revised\appeal.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Appeal Filing Form (completed) ❑ Flliri^I F°c°c (uased on.criteiia ueiowi Director's Decision to Planning Commission $ 250.00 Expedited Review (deposit) $ 300.00 D Hearing Referee $ 500.00 Planning Commission/Hearing's Officer to City council $ 2,387.00 Transcript) Signature(s of pe nt(s): R ~ AE DOBSON LAW FIRM LIP Kenneth P. Dobson 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, Oregon 97205 telephone: (503) 295-6888 www.oregonenvironmentallaw.com facsimile: (503) 241-2249 email: ken@oregonenvironmentallaw.com VIA HAND DELIVERY Richard Bewersdorff January 17, 2006 RECEIVED City of Tigard Planning Division JAN 17 2006 Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard CITY OF TXAARD Tigard, OR 97223 I;°LAWOM&ARf 1 FERING Re: Appeal of Churchill Woods Subdivision Application (SUB 2005-00016) Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: . I have enclosed an Appeal Filing Form with attached Request for Appeal setting forth the specific grounds for the appeal. We anticipate submitting more detailed discussions of the grounds for appeal in pre-hearing briefs. I have also enclosed a check in the amount of $250 for the filing fee. Please call me if you have any questions or if there are any problems with this submission. Thank you. KPD/kpd Sincerely, Kenneth P. Dobson Encl • • REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF LAND USE DECISION Appellants Judy and Kenneth Dobson 8095 SW Churchill Ct. Tigard, OR 97224 (503) 620-2738 Name of Applications Bein$ Appealed Churchill Woods Subdisvion (SUB2005-00016) and related adjustment (VAR2005-00066) Address of Subiect Property 15685 SW 79 h Avenue WCTM 2S112CD Tax Lot 01900 Grounds for Appeal' The City Failed to Require a Traffic Study or Refer the Application to the Commission for Review - Area residents expressed concern that the new traffic created by the proposed subdivision would create hazardous conditions on SW 79th Avenue - a narrow hilly road that is already failing. These risks are exacerbated by the numerous other developments that have been built and are proposed to be built along or around 79`b Avenue. The City's decision that the proposed development would not increase existing hazardous traffic conditions was wrong and is grounds for reversing the decision. E.g., TCDC 18.705.030G.1 (application must be referred to the commission when the proposal would "cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions."). The City Failed to Require Protection for Trees on Neighboring Properties - The City did not address issues raised by area residents concerning the protection of trees on neighboring properties. The applicant has proposed removing all trees on the site and intends to regrade the property. These activities pose a serious risk to trees on neighboring properties. The City Development Code requires the applicant to prepare a tree protection plan for all trees it intends to retain. Because the applicant has not proposed removing trees on neighboring properties, it must*prepare a tree protection plan for all such trees that will be adversely affected by the proposed subdivision. The City Failed to Require the Applicant to Preserve Trees Wherever Possible - As noted in Mr. Dobson's letter dated December 1, 2005, the developer assured area residents at the mandatory neighborhood meeting that it would go to great lengths, 1 All the issues raised herein were raised during the initial comment period by area residents, including appellant Kenneth Dobson in a letter hand delivered to the planning department on December 1, 2005. A copy of the December 1 letter is attached hereto. The letter, and all arguments contained therein, are incorporated by reference in this Notice of Appeal. 0 including digging foundations by hand, to preserve trees on the property. The developer should now be required to uphold this promise. Specifically, the developer must show why it cannot preserve any of the trees on the property, even if excavations were completed by hand as promised by the developer. In the alternative, the application must be denied on grounds that the developer deliberately misrepresented to area residents that it would undertake Herculean efforts to preserve trees, when in fact it knew that the plans called for removing every tree on the property. Other Issues - As discussed in Mr. Dobson's December 1, 2005, letter, there are other problems with the proposed subdivision that warrant reversing the city's approval of the application, including: • Failure to Properly Address Common Improvements - This includes failure to address safety and insect control issues with the proposed stormwater detention facility and failure to adequately discuss the proposed transfer of the facility to public agencies. • Inadequate Stormwater Control Data and Risks of Flooding and Erosion - This includes issues associated with new slopes to be created on the Northwest comer of the property and the applicant's failure to include runoff from adjacent properties in its stormwater data calculations. • Deficiencies with the Impact Study - This includes failure to adequately address impacts of the proposed subdivision on traffic; problems with noise, glare, odors, and heat; drainage, erosion, and stormwater control problems; and dislocation of wildlife, rodents, and harmful insects. • Inadequate Notice to Neighbors - Exhibit P of the subdivision application suggests that the wrong site location was used in determining which area residents received notice of the application. q6 DOBSON LAW FIRM TC Kenneth P. Dobson 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, Oregon 97205 telephone: (503) 295-6888 www.oregonenvironmentailaw.com facsimile: (503) 241-2249 email: ken@oregonenvironmentallaw.com December 1, 2005 Matt Scheidegger Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: ChrucM Woods Subdivision Application Dear Mr. ScheWgger. VIA HAND DELIVERY I am resident of the Bond Park neighborhood in Southeast Tigard and am submitting this letter on behalf of my family and other Friends of Bond Park Greenspace. The Applicant proposes to build a I5-lot subdivision in a 1.88-acre tract of upland urban forest known as Churchill Woods. As discussed below, the proposed development fails to comply with the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC") and would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. A. The Proceed Subdivision will Creatae Hazardous TmMe CondMons The application must be denied because the developer has failed to pie or submit a traffic study. The proposed subdivision will add significant new traffic to SW 79'& Avenue. As the City is well aware, 79th Avenue is a narrow, hilly road marked with hidden drives and cannot handle even existing traffic. This new traffic on 79th Avenue poses a serious risk to public safety - especially when it is combined with other additional traffic generated from the numerous other new developments on a near 79th Avenue. The excessive new traffic on 790 requires the preparation of a traffic impact study. TCDC 18.810.030.AC. In addition, the application should also be refierred to the Commission for review because the additional traffic will create hazardous conditions. See TCDC 18.705.030.G B. The Applicant has Failed to Properly Address its ROM for Adiusdnent to City Street Standards The TCDC requires that cul-de-sacs not exceed 200 feet. The applicant proposes to construct a 240 foot-long cul-de-sac. This variation is allowed only where the potential.adverse impacts of strictly applying the street standard exceed its benefits. Applicant is apparently concerned that the subdivision cannot be created if the standard is enforced. However, the applicant does not adequately explain why a 200-foot cul-de-sac cannot be built By creating deeper lots on the west end of the property the Applicant can eliminate some of alleged need of for the excessively long cul-de-sac. Deeper west end lots will also allow more trees to be saved, thereby mitigating some of the adverse impacts of the development Redesigning the layout of the private streets or use of stub streets can also achieve proper density requirements without having to violate city street standards. MR DOOM Law FUM lid • December 1, 2005 Page 2 C. The Application Does Not Properly Address Common Imumvements The applicant also failed to discuss safety concerns relating to the stomiwater detention facility on Tract C. The proposed stormwater detention facility is essentially a large bolding pond designed to contain several feet of water- Many young children live and play in the neighborhood surrounding Chun-chill Woods and the stormwater detention facility presents a drowning risk In addition the application does not address the increased risk of mosquitoes - including those carrying the West Nde virus - from standing water in the holding pond.' Because the developer has not addressed this risk of the holding pond to public safety, its analysis of public facilities is deficient and the application must be A The Applicant's Damon of Trees is Deficient The root zones of many of the trees on neighboring properties extend into Churchill Woods. Arbarists retained by neighboring property owners have concluded that the clearcutting and grading of the property will kill off many trees on adjacent.properties. The removal of the thick stand of trees on the subject property will also subject the trees on neighboring properties to the increased risk of wind throw. The applicant has not proposed removing these trees as part of the development Therefore, we must assume that the developer intends to preserve them. However, the application only includes a "tree assessmenC and does not discuss how any trees - either on the subject site or on neighboring properties - will be protected. Because the applicant does not discuss protection of trees on adjacent property, the application must be denied. The applicant's tree plan is flawed in other respects. Under the Development Code, preservation of trees is preferred over removal. Indeed, the developer assured area residents in the mandatory neighborhood meeting that it intended to save as many trees as possible. The developer went on to explain that it would go to great lengths - including digging foundations by hand - to do so. Neighborhood Meeting Notes, at pp. 7-8. Despite these assurances, the proposed development would c1mmut the entire property, leaving no tree standing. On information and belief; the developer knew perfectly well at the time of the neighborhood meeting that none of the trees would be preserved. Thus, the developer's representations flat it would undertake Herculean measures to save as many trees as possible were a blatant attempt to mislead neighbors by giving them a false sense of security. Such shameful conduct on the part of the developer cannot be tolerated and is grounds for disapproving the application. The applicant's discussion of trees is further flawed because it does not explain it will ensure that the replanted trees will survive. The Development Code requires the applicant to replant trees in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. TCDC 18.790.0601)(4). Despite this requirement, the applicant has not discussed how it will prevent homeowners in the new subdivision from removing the newly planted trees. 1 The construction of the stormwater detention facility to hold standing water also does not comply with TCDC 19.725.030F, which prohibits the storage of materials in a maomer that will aid in the propagation of insects or create a health baaard. 2 In addition, the subdivision application states that the stormwater detention facility will be conveyed to Clean Water Services or the City of Tigard after two years. However, the developer has not provided any conveymnce documents or agr+eeman showing how this proposed transfer will be carried out. ` THE 1DOBSON LAW FIRM LL ~ • December 1, 2005 Page 3 E. The Proposed I1►eveloQment Uses Ina _ovate Stermwater Control Data and Fails to der, ,h► Address Increstsed Risk of Erosion and I~Iooding. The applicant used flawed assumptions in determining the amount and speed of runoff associated with existing conditions. Specifically, the applicant's stormwater runoff calculations assume that the only water entering the property is from rainfall. The estimate fails to recognize that the Churchill Woods receives substantial amounts of runofffrom the Bond Park neighborhood, which lies uphill west and northwest of the property. This runoff will be increased by the proposed clearcutting of the thick stand of fir trees on the western edge of the property and the creation of new steep slopes - especially on the northwest corner of the property around lots 10 and 9. Unless this additional stormwater is taken into consideration, the. applicant's assertion that the post-development drainage patterns will `mimic existing conditions" is questionable at best. In addition, the application fails to address the possibility that clog and grade changes will increase the risk of erosion and excessive runoff- especially on northwest comer of the property. F. The Annlicanes Impact Sulu Falls to (hmtfty the Effects of the P%posed The developer's application must be darted because the impact study fails to quantify many of the adverse effects of the proposed subdivision on public facilities and the surrounding neighborhood. Type II procedures require the applicant to submit an impact study that "quantify[s] the effect of the effect of the development on public facilities and services." TCDC 18390.040B(2Xe). In this case, the developer claims that the applicant's impact study fails to properly quantify numerous adverse impacts, inching, but not limited to: Transportation System - As noted above, the proposed subdivision will add significant new traffic to the already failing 79m Avenue and other problematic traffic facilities. The Impact Study fails to discuss these adverse impacts on congestion and traffic safety. The Impact Study also fails to discuss the cumulative effects on traffic from the numerous other new developments in the immediate vicinity of 79* Avenue. Consideration of the cumulative impacts is critical to understanding the true effects of the development on public facilities and services. Noise. Odors. Glam and ~ieaut - The thick, mature stand of fir trees in Churchill Woods provides numerous etlvironme , benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, the abundance of trees in Churchill Woods improve air quality and plays an important role in controlling odors, especially those from the nearby wastewater treatment facility. The Tigard Code and other applicable laws regulate odors. E.g., TCDC 18.725.030.). However, the applicant's Impact Study fails to discuss how the destruction of the Churchill woods will affect air quality and odor control in the area Similarly, the Impact Study fails to discuss the noise from construction or how the loss of the existing forest will affect noise control in general. See TCDC 18.725.030.). The Impact Study also does not discuss the loss of shade and resulting increases in heat and glare. See TCDC 18.725.030.E. Drainage Erosion. and Stormwater Control - As discussed in detail above, the proposed changes in topography and removal of vegetation and topsoil will increase the risk of flooding and erosion in the neighborhood These risks are not discussed in the impact Study, which simply assumes that the creation of the "grassy Swale" will somehow solve all the drainage problems associated with the development. ' A THE DOHS IAw>tntM V December 1, 2005 Page 4 Wildlife. Rodents. and Harmful Insects - Churchill Woods is currently home to numerous small mammals, including rodents. The destruction of the forest will force these animals out into the sin YOUn hng neighborhoods. The Impact Study does not discuss the effects of the forced relocation of these animals. The impact study also does not address the increase in the amount of mosquitoes caused by standing water in the stormwater detention facility. . G. Tk Aputieant's Notice to Noft Resideats was Iaadectuate Under the TCDC, the applicant must notify all residents within 500 feet of the subject property of the proposed subdivision. However, Exhibit P of the subdivision application confirms that this ~t is not satisfied. Specifically, the list of neighbors notified is based on a map that misidentifies the location of the subject property. The map used to determine neighbors within 500 feet of the property mistakenly places the subject site over a block to the west on another parcel of urban finest known as Gage Grove. This glaring emor denied many affected neighbors notice of the proposal and significantly prejudiced their right and ability to participate in the review of the application. Accordingly, the application must be denied. Conclusion For all the forgoing reasons, the application toes not meet the requirements set forth in the Tigard Community Development Code. We respectfully request that the City deny the application to clearcut and subdivide the Churchill Woods. Sincerely, Kenneth P. Dobson 1, Matt Scheidegger - Churchill Woods Subdivision Page 1 0 From: <Sborjesson@aol.com> To: <Matts@tigard-or.gov> Date: 11/22/2005 10:48:30 AM Subject: Churchill Woods Subdivision Hello: As a neighbor I received the material on the pending land use There isn't much information to consider in this material. However, I would like to know if a "15-unit single-family subdivision" means townhouses or condominiums or detached-stand alone houses. Also, I assume the city will set up meetings in the future so we can look at the plans. Thank you. Sharon Borjesson _sbodesson@aol.com _ (mailto:sborjesson@aol.com 789t) ATTACHMENT 3 November 23, 2005 Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner Planning Division, City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Subdivision 2005-00016 Churchill Woods Subdivison Mr. Scheidegger: •t RECEIVED PLANNING NOV 2 9 2005 CITY OF TIGARD This is in response to the city's Notice of Pending Land use Application as referenced above. This being the second letter I've written in the last month regarding still more subdivisions, I'm aware of the futility of responding to Tigard's requests for input. My last letter regarding the Gage property especially noted the terrible traffic conditions that have been created by ongoing development in an area too small to manage additional housing and vehicles. As I drove home the other day I was aware of another huge development breaking ground off Hall by Bonita. This I noticed as cars crept along, unable to even make the speed limit - and this was not at 5 PM, it was at 10 AM. I wonder, does anyone care what you are allowing to happen in Tigard. To get from 72nd to Highway 99 on Durham anytime after 4 PM to 6, is frequently a 45-minute trip. One more unneeded or unwanted comment, I'm struck by the inappropriate sign on 72"d Street as you drive toward Durham - Entering Tree City! That time has gone. Caring„ , I ~ -Betty Hagan 503 968 1340 H7 Ms. Betty Hawn 8020 SW Bond St Tigard, OR 97224 • MEMORANDUM TO: Matt Scheidegger FROM: Matt Stine, City Forester RE: Churchill Woods Subdivision DATE: December 13, 2005 • As you requested I have provided some comments on the "Churchill Woods Subdivision" project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments please contact me anytime. 1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C, Installation Requirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. • • 18.745.030.E, Protection of Existing Landscaping. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). See comments under "Tree Removal". 18.745.030.G, Conditions of Approval of Existing Vegetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum. 18.745.040, Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. • In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: o No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. o No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. o No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by a certified arborist, Walt Knapp. The report contains three out of the four required components, and, is therefore, unacceptable. • The missing component is number four (4) above, "A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction". Before this project can be signed off this plan must be submitted, reviewed and approved. I suggest planting native species of trees as street trees such as bigleaf maple, cascara or Oregon white oak. Properly sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm & Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745. The species of street tree used in this development is not listed. The species must be approved before the trees can be planted. Below are my suggestions for the applicant to follow for tree protection guidelines: • Prior to any site work, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. • Prior to any site work, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester with notations as to when tree protection devices will be either installed or removed throughout construction of the project. • A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. All tree protection devices shall be: ■ Visible. ■ Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. ■ Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. ■ Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. , 1 i ■ Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. To determine the size of the tree protection zone (TPZ) the project arborist should follow the guidelines listed below: For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4'/z feet above the ground, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 15' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. ■ For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line method, whichever is greater. ■ Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown in "Trees and Development. A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development" by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark. ■ The project arborist may propose an alternate method for the establishment of the TPZ, provided the effort is coordinated with the City Forester. • If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. • Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed throughout the entirety of the project, and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in lieu of planting. in K • • 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 5. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy , the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the house. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of home building. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. If you have any questions please call me anytime. Thank you for requesting my comments on this project. 0 W MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: TO: FROM: RE: 12/15/05 Matt Scheidegger, Associate Planner Kim McMillan, Development Review Enginee SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H) Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. This development includes the construction of a public road and cul-de-sac. The applicant's engineer has provided preliminary sight distance certification for the proposed intersection with 79th Avenue. The required sight distance is approximately 250 feet based on a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The engineer has stated that sight distance in both directions exceeds 300 feet, therefore this criterion is met. The applicant's engineer shall submit a final sight distance certification upon completion of public improvements and prior to final plat approval. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. This development is located on 79th Avenue, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route; therefore this criterion does not apply. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 1 1 Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The proposed local street is over 500 feet south of Ashford Street and almost 300 feet north of Churchill Way, thereby meeting this criterion for local street spacing. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a Neighborhood route to have a 58 right-of-way width and 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW 79th Avenue, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate an additional 10 feet to provide for 30 feet from centerline in order to match existing improvements to the south. SW 79th Avenue is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct half street improvements, matching the existing improvements south of the development and tapering to the minimum standards for a neighborhood route. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 2 op 0 • This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant has stated that due to existing development adjacent to the proposed development, future street extension is not feasible. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. Access to the proposed development will be provided by a public cul-de-sac street. This proposed public street cannot be extended further west due to existing development. Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.L states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 3 • 01 • All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and • The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb, and • If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the city. The applicant has proposed a cul-de-sac that is approximately 190 feet long, thereby meeting the cul-de-sac length requirements. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The grades on 79th Avenue and the proposed cul-de-sac street are much less than 12%, thereby meeting this criterion. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.T states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments. The proposed development includes two private streets at the end of the cul-de- sac, each serving less than 6 dwelling units. The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it/them. In addition, the applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street(s). These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 4 W • access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.6.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of- way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. PLANNING Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. PLANNING Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. PLANNING Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. PLANNING Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. The applicant's narrative and plans indicate they will construct a sidewalk along their 79th Avenue frontage, both sides of the proposed cul-de-sac street and along one side of each of the private streets, thereby meeting this criterion. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 5 Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch sewer line in 79th Avenue. The applicant's plans show the extension of the public sewer line in the public street and private streets to serve this development. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no upstream drainage ways that impact this development. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 6 0 Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plans and calculations provide for an on-site detention pond for stormwater runoff. The pre-developed release rate will be used for discharge into the public storm system in 79th Avenue. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. 79th Avenue is designated a bicycle facility on the City's Bicycle Master Plan. While it is not reasonable to stripe a small portion of a bicycle lane it is reasonable to require the developer to pay for the cost of future striping. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. The amount of the striping would be as follows: • 232 feet of 8-inch white stripe, at $2.50/lf $580.00 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 7 • •r • 6 Mono-directional reflective markers @ $4.00/ea $24.00 • 2 Bike lane legends @ $175/ea $350.00 • 2 Directional mini-arrows @ $100/ea $200.00 $1154.00 Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. The bicycle travel lane for a neighborhood route is 6 feet. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under- grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 8 • • right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under- grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW 79th Avenue. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The City Engineer may approve requests for the fee-in-lieu on a case-by-case basis; otherwise the developer is expected to place the utilities underground. The frontage along this site is 264.10 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 9243.50. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: The City of Tigard provides service in this area. There is an existing public water line in 79th Avenue. The applicant's plans indicate a public water line extension into the site, located within the new street right-of-way. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 9 0 • not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, . appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. The applicant shall submit a12000 NPDES permit application to the City for review and signature. The City will forward the application to CWS for review and approval. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 10 0 • Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $ 50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to final plat approval. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. Survey Requirements The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91)] on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS. INCLUDING GRADING. EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 11 improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tiaard-or.gov). The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 79th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route from curb to centerline equal to 18 feet (20 feet where matching existing); B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip; F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 79th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements for the cul-de-sac street, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 12 • i driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. A profile of 79th Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PH permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality/detention facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant, shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 13 A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay the addressing. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private streets will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from them. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street(s). The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay $1154.00 to the City for the striping of the bike lane along the frontage of 79th Avenue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 14 • • The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 79th underground as a part of this project, or they may request they be allowed to pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. If allowed by the City Engineer, the fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 9243.50 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: • GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 2421). C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for 79th Avenue shall be made on the final plat, providing 29 feet of ROW from centerline, minimum, and 50 feet of ROW from centerline where needed to match existing. E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 15 • Prior to final plat approval, the applicant's engineer shall submit final sight distance certification for the intersection of the proposed public street and 79th Avenue. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a "photomylar' copy of the recorded final plat. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). IN ADDITION; THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE, FOLLOWING' SECTIONS.OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS`NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 16 • 0 Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 17 0 a 111 . Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 18 • • temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the city. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SUB2005-00016 Churchill Woods PAGE 19 *I • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: November 17, 2005 TO: Mark Vandomelen, Residential Plans Examiner FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner [x24371 Phone: [5031639-4171/Fax: [5031684-7297 CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development Shaping ,4 Better Community SUBDIVISION [SUB) 2005-00016/ADJUSTMENT (VAIIJ 2005-00066 CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Q REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a 15-unit single-family Subdivision on 1.88 acres. Street access to the proposed development will be from SW 79 h Avenue. The applicant has also applied for an Adjustment to exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length of 200 feet to allow 240 feet where the proposed street to the single-family homes will terminate. LOCATION: 15685 SW 79th Avenue; WCTM 2S112CD, Tax Lot 1900. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R- 12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: DECEMBER 1. 2005. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: of our office. Name & Phone Number of Person Commenting: ai REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: November 17, 2005 TO: Jim Wolf, Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner 1x24371 Phone: 15031639-4171/Fax:15031684-7297 CITY OF TIOARD Community Deve(opment ShapingA Better Community SUBDIVISION (SUB] 2005-00016/ADJUSTMENT [VAR] 2005-00066 CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION Q REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a 15-unit single-family Subdivision on 1.88 acres. Street access to the proposed development will be from SW 79 h Avenue. The applicant has also applied for an Adjustment to exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length of 200 feet to allow 240 feet where the proposed street to the single-family homes will terminate. LOCATION: 15685 SW 79th Avenue; WCTM 2S112CD, Tax Lot 1900. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R- 12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: DECEMBER 1, 2005. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: of our office. & Phone Number of Person Commenting: 6 %M VAo~ 50'~ 11`9 APPLICANT'S APPLICATION MATERIALS Appeal of Churchill Woods Subdivision SU B2005-00016/VAR2005-00066 Churchill Woods Subdivision Prepared for: Kurt Dalbey Spectrum Development, LLC P.O. Box 3440 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Phone: (503) 570-8828 Fax: (503) 570-8869 Prepared by: Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Phone: 503.684.0652 Fax: 503.624.0157 t 1 1 1 e I 1 1 1 i ~ Westlake Consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET .............................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................2 SUBJECT SITE AND ABUTTING PROPERTY INFORMATION ...............................................................................................3 SERVICES AND FACILITIES ..............................................................................................................................................3 SUBDIVISION & ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION REQUEST ...........................................................................5 TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ...............................................................................................5 CHAPTER 18.390 - DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY ............................................................................5 CHAPTER 18.430 - SUBDIVISIONS ...................................................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 18.370 - VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS ..9 CHAPTER 18.510 - RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS I I CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS/EGRESS/CIRCULATION 14 CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 18 CHAPTER 18.725 - ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 20 CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING & SCREENING STANDARDS 22 CHAPTER 18.755 - MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE 28 CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING/LOADING REQUIREMENTS 29 CHAPTER 18.780 - SIGNS 31 CHAPTER 18.790 -TREE REMOVAL 31 CHAPTER 18.795 - VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 33 CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 35 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................:.............................52 Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 i November 4, 2005 0 Westlake Consultants, Inc. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Contents 0 A Preliminary Plans • Sheet 1 of 14 - Cover Sheet • Sheet 2 of 14 - Preliminary Plat • Sheet 3 of 14 - Existing Conditions • Sheet 4 of 14 - Tree Table • Sheet 5 of 14 - Aerial Photo/Circulation Plan • Sheet 6 of 14 - Grading & Erosion Control Plan • Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan • Sheet 8 of 14 - Composite Landscaping, Street Tree & Lighting Plan • Sheet 9 of 14-- Cul-de-sac - Street & Storm Plan/Profile • Sheet 10 of 14 - 79th Ave. - Street & Storm Plan/Profile • Sheet 1 l of 14 - Storm Outfall Plan/Profile • Sheet 12 of 14 - Stormline `B' & `C' Plan/Profile • Sheet 13 of 14 - Cul-de-sac - Sanitary & Water Plan/Profile • Sheet 14 of 14 - Sanitary Line `B' & `C' Sanitary & Water Plan/Profile B Washington County Subdivision Plat Naming (Reservation) C City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application D Tax Map E City of Tigard Pre-application Notes F Parcel Size and Yield Calculations G Access Report H Tree Assessment by Walter Knapp I City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, Figure 8-3 J Neighborhood Meeting Materials K Clean Water Services Stormwater Management Service Provider Letter L Title M Preliminary Storm Drainage Study N Impact Study O 500-foot Surrounding Property Owner List Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 ii Subdivision November 4, 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 DATASHEET Westlake Consultants, Inc. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Contact: Lee Leighton, AICP Phone: 503.684.0652 Fax: 503.624.0157 APPLICANT: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE SIZE: ZONING DESIGNATION: PROPOSAL: Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 Kurt Dalbey Spectrum Development, LLC P.O. Box 3440 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Phone: (503) 570-8828 Fax: (503) 570-8869 Tax Map 2S 1 12CD, Tax Lot # 1900 Robert E. Driesner, Trustee 15685 SW 79 b Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Phone: (503) 639-3483 1.82 Acres R-12 15-Lot Subdivision 1 Subdivision November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. I PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Description The applicant, Kurt Dalbey of Spectrum Development, LLC, is proposing a subdivision consisting of 15 single-family residential lots, public and private streets and a water quality facility. The proposed subdivision will be entitled "Churchill Woods" (See Exhibit B - Washington County Subdivision Plat Naming (Reservation)). The subject property is located north of the intersection of SW Bond Street and SW 79th Avenue. This application addresses the applicable requirements for approval of a subdivision in the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject site R-12 (Medium Density Residential). Proposed lot sizes range between approximately 3,086 square feet and 4,408 square feet. Each lot will feature one single-family detached unit. All utilities are available to service the proposed subdivision. Street access to the proposed development will be from SW 79th Avenue.. As noted on the preliminary plan, the new street will terminate in a cul-de-sac of approximately 240 feet in length, measured from the back of walk at the cul-de-sac bulb to the centerline of SW 79th Avenue, (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 2 of 14, Preliminary Plat). Access to proposed lots 6 through 9 will be by private streets, perpendicular to the cul-de-sac. The proposed new streets will be constructed per city standards with all public utilities and sidewalks A City of Tigard application form has been prepared and included as part of this approval request,__ (See Exhibit C - City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application). A complete list of drawings and exhibits is provided immediately following the Table of Contents. Churchill. Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 2 Subdivision November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. SUBJECT SITE AND ABUTTING PROPERTY INFORMATION SUBJECT SITE The subject property contains approximately 1.82 acres located on the west side of SW 70th Avenue, in the R-12 (Medium-Density Residential) zone. It is identified in tax records as tax lot 1900, tax map 2S 1 12CD, Washington County (See Exhibit D - Tax Map). There is an existing single-family structure and accessory buildings that will be removed per the development proposal. ABUTTING PROPERTIES The subject site has residential uses in close proximity. To the north, the subject property abuts a private street, which provides access to a small infill project containing 3 lots ranging in size from .18 acres to .35 acres. To the east of the subject property, across SW 79`h Avenue are ' several underdeveloped parcels ranging in size from .35 to 1.88 acres. The abutting property to the south is the Bond Park No. 2 subdivision, with single-family residences on lots ranging in size from .10 to .14 acres. The abutting property to the west is the Bond Park No. 3 subdivision, with single-family residences ranging in size from .10 to .20 acres. SERVICES AND FACILITIES SANITARY SEWER/SEPTIC Clean Water Services provides public sanitary sewer through a gravity system to the east of the project; this is the preferred route for making a connection. A gravity line will extend from a proposed manhole in SW 79`h Avenue, from where it will extend westerly into the site. The sanitary sewer main line will consist of an eight-inch (8") pipe gravity system. The proposed sanitary sewer system is illustrated on Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan). WATER SUPPLY AND FIRE PROTECTION The site will be served by the City of Tigard Water Department. The proposed water system improvements will consist of eight-inch (8") pipes. The primary connection will be at the intersection of the proposed cul-de-sac and SW 79`h Avenue. The proposed water system is shown on Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan). Fire hydrants will be provided on-site to meet fire department requirements. Churchill Woods Subdivision ' Westlake No. 1724-14 3 November 4, 2005 0 0 Westlake Consultants, Inc. STORM DRAINAGE Storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water quality and detention facility, designed to mimic pre-development conditions, within proposed Tract `C' (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 7 of 1.4 - Composite Utility Plan). Rooftop runoff from each dwelling will drain directly into subsurface storm laterals connected to a 12" sub street storm line. Other surface runoff will flow into curbside catch basins that drain into the same storm line. The storm line will pipe the runoff into a 100-foot grassy swale within Tract `C.' After which it will flow into a proposed stormwater manhole in SW 79th Avenue then south to another proposed manhole just north of the intersection of SW 79th Avenue and SW Churchill Way, where it will be release into the public system. OTHER UTILITIES: POWER - TELEPHONE - GAS - CABLE TELEVISION Portland General Electric and Verizon provide electrical power and telephone services, respectively. Northwest Natural Gas and Comcast provide natural gas and cable television, respectively. All of these utilities will be provided to the site and coordinated with the appropriate utility. Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1.724-14 4 Subdivision November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. SUBDIVISION & ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION REQUEST The following sections of this narrative address the approval criteria that apply to this proposed subdivision and adjustment to the street improvements requirements. Quoted provisions appear in italics, followed by findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law. TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.390 - DECISION MAKING PROCEDURESAMPACT STUDY SECTION 18.390.040 - TYPE H PROCEDURE ' A. Preapplication conference. A preapplication conference is required for Type II actions. Preapplication conference requirements and procedures are set forth in section 18.390.080C. Response: A pre-application conference was held on Tuesday, February 15, 2005, with the City of Tigard staff.. A copy of the city's notes is attached as Exhibit E (See Exhibit E - City of Tigard Pre-application Notes). This standard is satisfied. B. Application requirements. 1. Application Forms. Type II applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director as provided by Section 18.390.080 El; 2. Submittal Information. The application shall: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; ' d. Include two sets of pre-stamped and pre-addressed envelopes for all property owners of record as specified in Section 18.390.040C. The records of the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate that the most current assessment records have been used to produce the notice list; e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development ' on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence, which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Churchill Woods Subdivision ' Westlake No. 1724-14 5 November 4, 2005 0 0 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: The required forms for this Type II application for a 15-lot subdivision and adjustment have been included with this application (See Exhibit C - City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application). This application addresses the applicable requirements for approval of a subdivision and adjustment in the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The required fees for subdivision and adjustment review have been submitted with this application. This narrative addresses the factual requirements for, and includes an impact study addressing the effect of the development on public facilities and services (See Exhibit N - Impact Study). Furthermore, the design of the proposed subdivision includes all required dedications and meets all public facilities construction requirements. This standard is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.430 - SUBDIVISIONS SECTION 18.430.020 - GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Approval through two-step process., An application for a subdivision shall be processed through a two-step process: the preliminary plat and the final plat. 1. The preliminary plat shall be approved by the Approval Authority before the final plat can be submitted for approval consideration; and 2. The final plat shall reflect all conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. Response: A Preliminary Plat map is included with this subdivision application. It shows the proposed division of land into lots and roadways and includes all of the information required by the applicable standards of this Code (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 2 of 14 - Preliminary Plat). B. Compliance with ORS Chapter 92. All subdivision proposals shall be in conformity with all state regulations set forth in ORS Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions. Response: The Churchill Woods Subdivision, through the processing of this application and the recording of a subdivision plat, will comply with the applicable standards of ORS Chapter 92. This standard is satisfied. C. Future re-division. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Approval Authority shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. Response: No large tracts suitable for future development will be created within the boundary of this subdivision. This standard is satisfied. D. Lot averaging, Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less.than the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not less than allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 6 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: The minimum lot size for parcels within the R-12 zone is 3,050 sq. ft. Incorporating the lot averaging allowance, no lot may be less than 2,440 sq. ft. All lots contain 3,086 sq. ft. or more, and the overall lot size average for the 15 proposed lots is 3,723 sq. ft., meeting the lot ' averaging standard. All of the lots meet or exceed the minimum lot width and depth for the zone. This standard is satisfied. 1 E. Temporary sales office. Temporary sales offices in conjunction with any subdivision may be granted as set forth in Chapter 18.785, Temporary Uses. Response: If the proposed subdivision requires an on-site temporary sales office, it will meet the standards in Chapter 18.785. F. Minimize flood damage. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. Response: The Churchill Woods subdivision does not lie within a 100-year flood plain. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. G. Floodplain dedications. Where land filling and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain outside the zero foot rise floodway, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Response: The subject site is not within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. H. Need for adequate utilities. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Response: This proposal includes the full complement of utilities appropriate to serve the development and address its proportional impacts on existing systems and facilities. The subject property is not located in an identified flood hazard area. To minimize potential risk of flood damage and adequately drain the property, storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water quality and detention facility within proposed Tract `C', which is designed to release storm water at a rate that mimics pre-development conditions. This provision is satisfied. L Need for adequate drainage. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; and Response: To adequately drain the property, storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into a water quality and detention facility within proposed Tract `C' (See Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 7 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. i Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 7 of 14 -Composite Utility Plan), which is designed to mimic pre-development conditions. Surface water will be treated for turbidity, phosphorus and other pollutants, and then detained before its release into a closed pipe system within SW 791h Avenue. This provision is satisfied. J. Determination of base flood elevation. Where base flood elevation has not been provided or , is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments, which contain at least 50 lots or five acres (whichever is less). Response: The site, as noted on the FEMA flood maps, does not lie within a 100-year flood I plain. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. SECTION 18.430.030 - APPROVAL PROCESS A. Review of preliminary plat. Review of a preliminary plat for subdivision shall be processed by means of a Type H procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.430.040. An application for subdivision may also be reviewed concurrently with an application for a planned development, as governed by Chapter 18.350. Response: The proposal is for a 15 lot subdivision within the R-12 zone. Per Section i 18.430.070 as well as Table 18.390.1 of the Tigard Development Code, all subdivision applications are processed as under a Type Il, which will be decided by the Planning Director. The proposed subdivision is not a planned development. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.430.040 - APPROVAL CRITERIA: PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Approval criteria. The Approval Authority may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; Response: The Churchill Woods Subdivision is consistent with all applicable ordinances within the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The lots to be created meet or exceed the minimum lot standards of the R-12 zone, and public services will be provided to each lot. , Surface water runoff will be treated in a water quality facility per Clean Water Services (CWS) standards. This standard is satisfied. 2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; Response: The Churchill Woods Subdivision is consistent with the applicable standards of ORS , Chapter 92. A subdivision naming request has been approved by the Washington County Surveyor's office (See Exhibit B - Washington County Subdivision Plat Naming (Reservation)). This standard is satisfied. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 8 November 4, 2005 , Westlake Consultants, Inc. 3. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general ' direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and Response:. The proposed streets have been designed to match existing road patterns in the immediate area. Access from the SW 79th Avenue to the development is proposed at a single public street intersection. Due to surrounding development and lack of adjacent stub streets, the proposed east-west street is designed to terminate in a cul-de-sac with private streets extending north (Tract A) and south (Tract B) from the cul-de-sac bulb. The private streets will provide access to proposed lots 4 through 10. Both of the private streets have been designed according to ' the City of Tigard Private Street Standards, Section 1.8.810.T.3 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. This criterion is satisfied. 1 1 1 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Response: Three common areas are proposed for this development. Tracts A and B include the private streets. Tracts A and B will be owned in common, and maintained, by Lots 4 through 10. Tract C has been set aside for surface water treatment of storm water runoff. It will be maintained by the developer for 2 years and then conveyed to the City or CWS as appropriate. SECTION 18.430.050 - SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: PRELIMINARY PLAT A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the preliminary plat shall contain specific information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the Director. Response: All requirements for a Type II application have been submitted with this application, as discussed above. This standard is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.370 - VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS SECTION 18.370.020 ADJUSTMENTS A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances: 1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using .clear and objective standards, these can be granted by means of a Type 1 procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. Churchill Woods ' Westlake No. 1724-14 9 Subdivision November 4, 2005 t • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. 2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020. C. Response: The proposal includes plans for an approximately 240-foot long cul-de-sac, measured from the back of walk at the cul-de-sac bulb to the centerline of SW 79`h Avenue, providing access to 15 lots. This exceeds the limitations on cul-de-sac streets in Tigard Development Code 18.810.020. L. Adjustments for street improvement requirements are "special adjustments" per the provisions of this chapter. A detailed discussion regarding the approval criteria can be found below. C. Special adjustments. 11. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. Response: Access to the site will be from a system of a public street and two private streets. The public street will enter the site westerly from SW 79`h Avenue and terminate in a cul-de-sac with private streets extended north and south of the cul-de-sac bulb. There are several special circumstances or conditions peculiar to this parcel of land, which affect its usability and development pattern. The following conditions need to be considered when determining an appropriate street design: The Rectangular Shape. The dimensional characteristics of the lot'as well as its limited size hinder an efficient street design while maintaining minimum size lots. This is due to dimensional requirements as well as street standards. Residences in along the north and south property lines can be oriented around a public cul-de-sac street extending west from SW 79`h Avenue, but access to the northwest and southwest portions of the property requires the extension of two private streets, one to the north and one to the south. Furthermore, the east-west dimension of the subject property is such that the cul-de-sac, must exceed the allowed 200-foot length just to reach and serve the western part of the property. 2. Surrounding Development. The lot is further constrained because it is surrounded on all sides by existing development that precludes current or future street connectivity. In such situations, a round, cul-de-sac terminus (rather than a hammerhead or other turnaround structure) is required for all public streets. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 10 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. In response to these conditions, the Applicant's site plan has these features: • Design for the rectangular infill lot: The design is driven by access from SW 79th Avenue, which brings in an east-west road. To allow for development in the northwest and southwest portions of the site, the most efficient street structure is a system of north- south private streets perpendicular to the cul-de-sac. Because of the City of Tigard requirements to terminate a non-thru street in a cul-de-sac, the east-west street has been designed as a cul-de-sac. 1 • Surrounding Development: Existing development precludes future extension of the east- west street. In response to this existing condition and pursuant to City of Tigard requirements, east-west street is designed to terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb. ' Strict application of the standard to limit the cul-de-sac to 200 feet would preclude access to the northwest and southwest portions of the site, and would result in a development substantially below density requirements. The east-west street could have been stubbed to the west property line; however, redevelopment of the adjacent property is unlikely as it is currently at or near maximum density. These factors are special circumstances or conditions under which the strict application of the standard would result in an adverse impact that exceeds the public benefits of strict application. The Applicant respectfully submits this application for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements to allow for a 240-foot cul-de-sac. CHAPTER 18.510 - RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS SECTION 18.510.020 - LIST OF ZONING DISTRICTS F. R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. 1 Response: The subject site for the proposed Churchill Woods subdivision is in the City of Tigard's R-12 zoning district. Lots within the development range in size from 3,086 square feet to 4,408 square feet, with an average lot size of 3,723 square feet. A detailed discussion regarding the dimensional standards can be found in Section 18.510.050 of this document. This criterion is therefore satisfied. SECTION 18.510.030 -USES B. Use table. A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones is presented in Table 18.510.1. Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 11 Subdivision November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: Single-family residential homes are allowed by this Section of the City of Tigard Community Development Code. The applicant intends to utilize the subdivision lots for single- family detached dwellings; therefore this criterion is met. SECTION 18.510.040 - MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DENSITIES A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum and maximum densities in each residential zoning district. To ensure the quality and density of development envisioned, the maximum density establishes the ceiling for development in each zoning district based on , minimum lot size. To ensure that property develops at or near the density envisioned for the zone, the minimum density for each zoning district has been established at 80% of maximum density. ' B. Calculating minimum and maximum densities. The calculation of minimum and maximums densities is governed by the formulas in Chapter 18.715, Density Computations. C. Adjustments. Applicants may request an adjustment when, because of the size of the site or , other constraint, it is not possible to accommodate the proportional minimum density as required by Section 18.715.020.C and still comply with all of the development standards in the underlying zoning district, as contained in Table 18.510.2 below. Such an adjustment may be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020. C. 2. i Response: The gross area for the proposed development is 1.82 acres. Based on this area, the maximum density allowed is 19 units and the minimum is 15 units. The development proposes 15 lots. (This calculation has been performed in accordance with Section 18.715; the detailed calculation is provided in Exhibit F, Parcel Size and Yield Calculations.) The applicant requests no adjustments for this application and thus this standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.510.050 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Compliance required. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370; 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. B. Development Standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD R-12 Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 3,050 sq. ft. Average Lot Width- None Maximum Lot Coverage - - - - 80% [2] i Mi S tb k , mum n e ac s Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 12 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. - Front yard 15 ft. 1 - Side facing street on corner & through lots 10 ft. - Side yard 5 ft. - Rear yard 15 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. - Distance between property line ' and front of garage 20 ft. Maximum Height 35 ft. Minimum Landscape Requirement - - - - 20% Response: Future construction of single-family dwellings will comply with these standards. No variances or adjustments are being requested to these standards. This criterion is met. SECTION 18.510.060 - ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. Permitted uses. Accessory structures are permitted by right in all residential zones subject to the following: 1. Dimensional requirements: ' a. On sites containing less than 2.5 acres, an accessory structure may not exceed 528 square feet. On sites 2.5 acres or larger, an accessory structure may not exceed 1,000 square feet; b. An accessory structure may not exceed 15 feet in height; c. In no case shall the primary structure and accessory structure(s) exceed the maximum lot coverage allowed in the base zone; ' d. An accessory structure may not be located within the front yard setback; e. An accessory structure must maintain a minimum side and rear yard setback of five feet; ' 2. Non-dimensional requirements: a. No accessory structure shall encroach upon or interfere with the use of any adjoining property or public right-of-way including but not limited to streets, alleys and public and private easements; b. An accessory structure shall comply with all of the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. All accessory structures except those less than 120 square feet in size ' require a building permit; c. An accessory structure which is non-conforming is subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.760, Non-Conforming Situations, when an alternation, expansion or reconstruction is requested; d. The erection of television receiving dishes on the roof of a structure is not permitted in any residential zone. ' 3. All freestanding and detached towers, antennas, wind-generating devices and TV receiving dishes, except as otherwise regulated by Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798), shall have setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the proposed ' structure. Suitable protective anti-climb fencing and a landscaped planting screen, in Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 13 November 4, 2005 1 • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall be provided and maintained around these structures and accessory attachments. Response: At the time of construction, any accessory structures will be required to meet the above requirements. This standard is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS/EGRESS/CIRCULATION SECTION 18.705.020 - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS A. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see Section 18.360.050), and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. B. Change or enlargement of use. Should the owner or occupant of a lot or building change or enlarge the use to which the lot or building is put, thereby increasing access and egress requirements, it is unlawful and is a violation of this title to begin or maintain such altered use until the provisions of this chapter have been met if required or until the appropriate approval authority has approved the change. C. When site design review is not required. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an access plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter in conjunction with another permit or land use action. D. Conflict with subdivision requirements. The requirements and standards of this chapter shall not apply where they conflict with the subdivision rules and standards of this title. Response: The proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision will comply with the subdivision rules and the standards of this chapter. The proposed 15-lot subdivision is for construction of new single-family homes. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter apply, except where they conflict with the subdivision rules and standards of this title. SECTION 18.705.030 - GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the City. Response: The proposed streets have been designed to match existing road patterns in the immediate area. Access from the SW 79 h Avenue to the development is proposed at a single public street intersection. Due to surrounding development and lack of adjacent stub streets, the proposed east-west street is designed to terminate in a cul-de-sac with private streets extending north (Tract A) and south (Tract B) from the cul-de-sac bulb. Proposed streets will be constructed to city standards and dedicated to the city for public use. The private street will be owned in common, and maintained, by Lots 4 through 10. Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 14 Subdivision November 4, 2005 1 1 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. B. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: Scaled preliminary development plans are included with this application. Included ' are a preliminary plat map of roadways and lots and preliminary design of infrastructure improvements (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 5 of 14 - Aerial Photo / Circulation Plan). This criterion is met. C. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Response: Access to proposed lots 4 through 10 will be provided by a private street network extending from the cul-de-sac bulb, forming a tee with the east-west private street. The private streets are identified as Tracts `A' and `B' on the preliminary plat (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 2 of 14 - Preliminary Plat). The private street will be owned in common, and maintained, by Lots 4 through 10. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Response: All vehicular access and egress points will connect directly to the proposed system of public and private streets. This standard is satisfied. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Response: The curb cuts within the proposed subdivision will meet the standards in Section 18.810.030.N, as discussed below. This standard is satisfied. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from. the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; 2. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; Churchill Woods Subdivision ' Westlake No. 1724-14 15 November 4, 2005 i • Westlake Consultants, Inc. 3. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6- inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3 -foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traj~c aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; 4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Response: The proposal includes plans for 5-foot sidewalks within the proposed public street right-of-way along both sides of the proposed east-west cul-de-sac, and along the private streets within a pedestrian easement adjacent to the private street tracts, meeting the standards of this title. G. Inadequate or hazardous access. 1. Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed: a. Would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or b. Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or c. Would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. If direct access is permitted by the City, the applicant will be required to mitigate for any safety or neighborhood trafc management (NTM) impacts deemed applicable by the City Engineer. This may include, but will not be limited to, the construction of a vehicle turnaround on the site to eliminate the need for a vehicle to back out onto the roadway. 3. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. Response: There are no hazardous or inadequate access points into the proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision. Each of the 15 lots will have access onto the proposed internal street system consisting of both public and private streets. No lot will have direct access onto SW 79~' Avenue. H. Access Management 1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1.724-14 16 November 4, 2005 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and ' AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility.) Response: An Access Report is provided as Exhibit G (See Exhibit G - Access Report). This requirement is met. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or ' arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form. on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right- of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case ' where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Response: The subject property is adjacent to a neighborhood route, SW 79`h Avenue, as identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan. The spacing between the proposed ' public street access and the next existing access to the north on the westerly side of SW 791' Avenue is approximately 130 feet. The spacing between the proposed public street access and the next existing access to the south (SW Churchill Way) on the westerly side of SW 79`h ' Avenue is approximately 200 feet. The local access street is designed to form a single point intersection providing shared access to SW 79`s Avenue; no lot will have direct access onto SW 79`h Avenue. i I. Minimum access requirements for residential use. 1. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; Response: Pursuant to Table 18.705.1 (below), single-family detached dwellings are required to 1 have one driveway with 15 feet of access and a 1.0-foot paved width (minimum). Proposed lot frontages at access locations range in width from approximately 19 feet to approximately 50 feet; therefore the proposed layout complies with the requirements of this section. This requirement is met. 2. Vehicular access to multi family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ' ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units; Response: The proposal is for a 15-lot subdivision intended for single-family detached dwellings; therefore this provision does not apply. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 17 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 3. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code; ' 4. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point ' to outside edge of 35 feet; b. A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet; . ' c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. 5. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing ' motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length; 6. Where permitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. ' Response: Each of the proposed 15 lots will have a driveway allowing access to the proposed internal public street system. No lot will have direct access onto SW 79'x' Avenue. Because the proposed east-west street exceeds the Fire Marshal's standard for the minimum length of streets to an intersection, i.e., 150 feet, an emergency vehicle turnaround, cul-de-sac, will be provided for fire apparatus turnaround. TABLE 18.705.1 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQLTREMENT& RESIDENTLAL USE (6 OR FERER UNITS) Number Dwelling Unit/Lots :1linimum Number of Driveways Required X inimum Access Width -Minimum Pavement AV, idth I or 2 1 15' 10' 3-6 1 20' 20' CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS SECTION 18.715.020 - DENSITY CALCULATION A. Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property to be developed: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; c. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 18 1 Subdivision November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the ' following formulas may be used: a. Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; b. Multi family development: allocate 15% of gross acreage. ' 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. ' Response: Pursuant to the above standards, subtractions from the subject property's gross area consist of: • Public right-of-way dedications of 17,735 square feet, and • Private street right-of-way of 3,071. square feet. With these adjustments, the net development area is approximately 57,756 square feet, or 1.33 acres (See Exhibit F - Parcel Size and Yield Calculations). B. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum number of ' residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. Response: The net area of 57,756 square feet (calculated above) divided by the 3,050 square foot minimum lot size equals a maximum density of 19 units. The proposal for 15 lots is fewer ' than the maximum allowed number and is in compliance with the density standard. C. Calculating minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in Subsection B above by 80% (0.8). ' Response: The maximum density of 19 units multiplied by 80% equals 15 units minimum. The proposal is for 15 lots; this number meets the minimum allowed and is in compliance with the density standard. SECTION 18.715.030 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSFER ' A. Rules residential density transfer. The units per acre calculated by subtracting governing land areas listed in Section 18.715.020 A. Ia - c from the gross acres may be transferred to ' the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. ' B. Additional rules governing residential density transfer. Units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.030 A. Id. from the gross acres may be Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 19 November 4, 2005 • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. transferred to the remaining buildable land areas on land zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on the wetland area, if not for these regulations; 2. The total number of units per site does not exceed the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. C. Underlying development standards. All density transfer development proposals shall comply with the development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district unless developed under the provisions of Chapter 18.440, Planned Development. Response: No density transfer is being proposed for this development. These standards are not applicable. CHAPTER 18.725 - ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SECTION 18.725.020 - GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. In addition to the regulations adopted in this chapter, each use, activity or operation within the City of Tigard shall comply with the applicable state and federal standards pertaining to noise, odor and discharge of matter into the atmosphere, ground, sewer system or stream. Regulations adopted by the State Environmental Quality Commission pertaining to non-point source pollution control and contained in the Oregon Administrative Rules shall by this reference be made a part of this chapter. B. Evidence of compliance. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director may require submission of evidence demonstrating compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations and receipt of necessary permits; these include Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) or Indirect Source Construction Permits (ISCP). C. Continuing obligation. Compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations is the continuing obligation of the property owner and operator. Response: The proposed subdivision will meet the applicable state and federal environmental regulations at the time of construction. Compliance will be assured through the review/approval process for site construction plans and building permits for each subdivision lot. All property owners will be obligated to continue compliance with state, federal and local environmental regulations. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.725.030 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.2 10 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Response: The proposed subdivision will meet the applicable standards in Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 at the time of construction. This standard is satisfied. Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 20 1 1 Subdivision November 4, 2005 , Westlake Consultants, Inc. ' B. Visible emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Response: The subject site is zoned R-12; therefore, this standard is not applicable. ' C. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. t Response: The proposed subdivision will meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses are proposed on-site that would cause vibration. This standard is satisfied. D. Odors. The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Response: No uses are proposed on-site that would emit odors. The construction of this proposed subdivision will also meet this standard. This standard is satisfied. E. Glare and heat. No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1. There shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2. These regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Response: The proposed subdivision will meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses are proposed on-site that would cause glare and heat issues. This standard is satisfied. F. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner, which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. Response: The proposed subdivision will meet this standard at the time of construction. No uses are proposed on-site that would attract insects or rodents or create a health hazard. This standard is satisfied. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 21 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING & SCREENING STANDARDS 8 4 2 .7 5.0 SECTION 1 0 -APPLICABILITY A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, remodeling of existing structures where the landscaping is ' nonconforming (Section 18.760.040. C), and to a change of use which results in the need for increased on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. ' B. When site development review does not apply. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the applicable standards in this chapter. C. Site plan requirements. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: The proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision is for 15 lots of new residential construction, specifically detached single-family dwellings. Per Section 18.360.020.A, single family detached dwellings are not subject to Site Development Review. Individual lots will be ' landscaped by the future builder/owner of each parcel. Taken together, the Existing Conditions (see Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 3 of 14 - Existing Conditions) and the Tree Table (see Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 4 of 14 - Tree Table), specify which of the existing trees ' will be retained or removed. Additionally, the Tree Inventory & Protection Plan identifies existing trees to be retained and the locations and species of trees to be planted. The Applicant has also provided a Landscape Plan drawing (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 8 of 14 - ' Composite Landscaping, Street Tree & Lighting Plan) providing information requested by staff as part of the Basic Submittal Requirements provided to applicants. These submitted plans demonstrate that compliance with this requirement can be assured through a condition of ' approval. SECTION 18.745.040 - STREET TREES A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private ' street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040. C. ' B. Street tree planting list. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause personal injury. Approval of any planting list shall be subject to review by the Director. ' C. Size and spacing of street trees. 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in , Section 18.745.040. C.2 below; 2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: a. Small or narrow-stature trees under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching ' at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 22 November 4, 2005 1 1 1 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. b. Medium-sized trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; c. Large trees over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; d. Except for signalized intersections as provided in Section 18.745.040.H, trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet from a street intersection, nor closer than two feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility poles to maintain visual clearance; e. No new utility pole location shall be established closer than five feet to any existing street tree; f. Tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) in the tree well; g. On-premises utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; h. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards; i. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to existing street trees except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer than 10 feet; j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a type which, at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines; k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb; and 1. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway: (1) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand, paver blocks and cobblestones; and (2) Sidewalk cuts in concrete for tree planting shall be at least four by four feet to allow for air and water into the root area. D. Pruning requirements. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 13 feet above local street, 15 feet above collector street, and 18 feet above arterial street roadway surfaces. E. Cut and fill around existing trees. Existing trees may be used as street trees if no cutting or filling takes place within the drip-line of the tree unless an adjustment is approved by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.a. F. Replacement of street trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects or other construction shall be replaced by the developer with those types of trees approved by the Director. The replacement trees shall be of a size and species similar to the trees that are being removed unless lesser sized alternatives are approved by the Director. G. Granting of adjustments. Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granted by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.b. H. Location of trees near signalized intersections. The Director may allow trees closer to specified intersections which are signalized, provided the provisions of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance, are satisfied. Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 23 Subdivision November 4, 2005 0 • 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: The proposed street improvements within the development include planter strips in compliance with City standards, to accommodate street trees. A Street Tree & Lighting Plan, has been included that identifies the typical species and locations of proposed street trees (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 8 of 14 - Composite Landscaping Street Tree & Lighting Plan). A more detailed street tree plan will be included within the final construction documents for this development. The plan, which must be coordinated with the placement of driveways, utilities and signing, will specify with greater precision the species and locations of trees to be planted. This standard can therefore be satisfied with an appropriate condition of approval. SECTION 18.745.050 - BUFFERING AND SCREENING A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles; 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix; 3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D; 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 24 1 1 1 1 1 Subdivision November 4, 2005 I Westlake Consultants, Inc. (1) Small or narrow-stature trees, under 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at ' maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart; (2) Medium-sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; (3) Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted ' for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area; c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those t required for buffering: a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting; or b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. ' 6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795; 7. When the use to be screened is downhill fi-om the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed ' heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval. ' When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval; ' 8. Fences and walls a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction offences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the Director; b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening. However, chain link fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. ' 9. Hedges a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in ' Sections 18.745.050. C.2.a and 18.745.050. C.2. b; b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ' ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and Churchill Woods Subdivision ' Westlake No. 1724-14 25 November 4, 2005 0 0 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 1 1 c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in Section 18.745.050.02 except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects; 2. Fences or walls: a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building permit approval. D. Height restrictions. 1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level off located above finished grade, the height offences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or space shall be measured from the level of such improvements; 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening. F. Buffer Matrix. 1. The Buffer Matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts; 2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2, shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.010. (Ord. 02-33) Response: The applicant proposes a 15-lot subdivision of new single-family detached homes. All uses on adjoining parcels are similar to the proposed development. Residential zoning surrounds the parcel on all sides and thus there is no conflict with adjoining uses. The subject property abuts a private street on the north, which provides access to a small infili project within the same zone, several underdeveloped residential parcels on the east, Bond Park No. 2 subdivision to the south, and Bond Park No. 3 subdivision on the west. According to Table 18.745.1, Buffer Matrix, specific buffering/screening standards are not applicable to residential areas. Residential lots require a rear yard setback that will provide spacing between homes and a buffer between structures. Future homes on the proposed lots will be required to comply with City standards, including height and building setback requirements. Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 26 1 1 1 1 Subdivision November 4, 2005 ' M M M M M M M r i M M M M M M M M M M Westlake Consultants, Inc. TABLE 18:7-I BLTFER NUTRM Di nnr v" r-en UABLIT TL'vG USE Ste Unirs, DEt~a hed; Manftctmed U111Sts AnscLed s a le € 7s arA ndri 1-n I-5 units- Dwleses Ara&--d Sm le Chits and Lwf U1'2j' 57-units Mabde Home Pants Com ert al ZM.es (CC, CG, CP; CM Neigibmboc-d ccom3 vial Zane iCN) is ixed use Employ- MEW LIVA Imtasaiat Lams (IP, 11.) Hem} indust=ial 2bu=_s M PRIM= Lots 4-50 50+ spaces spaces Detacbed.Singe Units: YalanufamavdUnits A c c D C C E F c D A-to Cw Siugle U=s and INUtifa m$F, A - B C D C C E F C D 1-3 Lnlts, D¢Ple-ses Aincbed Siegler Units and Rt.ddhLuily. A A - C D C C E F C D 5+ units MDbile Home Pants A A B - D C C E F C D Cc=m --mial Zcaes (CC, CG, CP. CBD) C C C C - A A D D - Neiabhotiaoo3 Cmmex =l Zo> e C C C C A A D D Mrmd Use EnVloyniw Zone (METE) C C C C A A - D D - - I gl t Tx t .c9al Zone P, IL) D D D D A A A D - - Heavy iudtsst ial Zme (114) D D D D D D D D Pad;iug L arts C C C C - - - - APrial Sweets A A A A - - A D - ,Vote. See Tab!e 19:7451 for s ternative c€r- *ia.:.trns for meeting iLese screenim Ge el sts. 0 • Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 27 November 4, 2005 1 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. SECTION 18.745.060 - RE-VEGETATION 1 1 1 1 A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway; and 1. Such storage may not be located where it would cause suffocation of root systems of trees intended to be preserved, and 2. After completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. C. Methods of re-vegetation. 1. Acceptable methods of re-vegetation include hydro-mulching or the planting of rye grass, barley, or other seed with equivalent germination rates, and: a. Where lawn or turf grass is to be established, lawn grass seed or other appropriate landscape cover is to be sown at not less than four pounds to each 1,000 square feet of land area; b. Other re-vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be approved by the approval authority; c. Plant materials are to be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure survival and growth; and d. The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. Response: The applicant will re-plant or cover areas disturbed during construction per' standards as established by Clean Water Services (CWS). Appropriate control measures will reduce erosion of surface materials until homes and final landscaping are in place. This standard can be satisfied through compliance with appropriate condition(s) of approval. CHAPTER 18.755 - MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE SECTION 18.755.010 - PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that certain new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source-separated recyclable materials prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. B. Applicability. The mixed solid waste and source separated recyclable storage standards shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non- residential construction that are subject to full site plan or design review; and are located within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition, for such uses. Churchill Woods ' Westlake No. 1724-14 28 Subdivision November 4, 2005 0 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: The proposed subdivision is for single-family detached units, not for multi-family units or non-residential construction. Therefore this Chapter is not applicable. The franchise hauler for the area has been contacted and has had the opportunity to review the proposed subdivision to evaluate serviceability. CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING/LOADING REQUIREMENTS SECTION 18.765.020 - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. Response: A detailed discussion and findings are located under the Section 18.765.070 heading below. E. Building permit conditions. The provision and maintenance of off-street vehicle parking and loading spaces are the continuing obligation of the property owner: 1. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans are presented to the Director to show that property is and will remain available for exclusive use as off-street vehicle parking and loading space; and 2. The subsequent use of propertyfor which the building permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of vehicle parking and loading space required by this title; 3. Required vehicle parking shall: a. Be available for the parking of operable passenger vehicles of residents, patron and employees only; b. Not be used for storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conduct of the business or use; and c. Not be rented, leased or assigned to any other person or organization. Response: The road and lot plan has been designed to accommodate the driveway width and off- street parking standards. Compliance with residential driveway width and length standard will be confirmed for each parcel at the time each lot applies for building permit. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.765.030 - GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s); Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 29 November 4, 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 0 0 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: The lot layout has been designed to accommodate the driveway width and off-street parking standards. Compliance with residential driveway width and length standards will be confirmed for each parcel at the time each lot applies for building permit. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.765.070 - MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Table 18.765.2 Minimum and Maximum Required Off-street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements Single-family detatched 1.0/D. U. Response: Each residence will include at least a single-car garage as well as a residential driveway. According to Table 18.765.2 (see below), the minimum off-street.parking standard for single-family detached dwellings is one off-street parking space per dwelling unit. At least two off-street parking spaces will be provided on each of the proposed 15 lots as well as designated on-street parking. This standard is satisfied. Table 18.M1 A4fnimnm and ASssimum RequiTed Off-street Vebiait and Blmle Parking Rttluiremtnsts Y...ASLVISSUSi4::. .ZONE:A' ~AA i ZON-EB.. BIGYCLEtI: FffS tTlAL . Hotaseboid Lid ` erne (M nm fv'l none Dekrned 4064 LVV nme . ; non W Rona . none none Race alaces ttont Mnltif=Lh' Gnics D-C-M ;q:L-. U0li (14) wDe m Done (Mj 1,0,12 DUs ev-qt tMeT4" I bedtoans: ?.?3 D i {?s1) tab %tis LV-0 Dais 2 bedroom: A 3W, (Merl) 3 beft=: 1-7-501,; M) :e nLattwed its 1,0fru tT:' none tM) Wore } Uwe Mob-If Hart- Pzrks 1))Tu (M) Rant M) none t?/, Race GraugLiving 1.0:7mat tact now 1.06 b-& 1.0n.5 beds :,i!101t0« aunt Transitions] Hoasin 10 2 beds none Wane 1.06 lards Home om Stion none Lane none Wane ciCIC Basic Utilities Wont naae can- norr. Colleges 1.015 satdet wSuff 1.0.3 3 srad_aznAuff dAfl 1.0±33 sn;denw;, (M LVI'0 srndesromff commanfivRecreatton 2,0!1.000 2,5rh.000 c.LVIACID 0-11rL060 C'attnral7astitattons 2.5141.004 3,YL000 73 1.ti40 14111.00 Day care Home: at>ute naae aoae Hoare: Donn CanmterrlaY, y,D r}assmam 1.7 1,094 3.2,11140 CDmmer_ial: LSrchssmom Emt mSerrices 3.0'1.000 s,57a.030 4.R1.60 05141.000 AiedttalC:enum 2.O o"' 2.71„ N + -.713,W) 9;.211.4!0 NA.. Not Addressed 1') To be deteaniaed L*T tie Cls} af?ivard based on Meco tri a a. DG: Dne4ine Urct M Pavrared b;cl.le p tic' shall be rvquked per the rr os below escessris no use tW, there be .%-fr the taro spate prDvided (n- Mew Rega iremetst Bess c m 1A3J sg. ft. of :soar vta. unless otla £aisr no tG. KDaesnotincltadeompatiewcinauermedical office.=.; see Me5cal+DetilDf z--e;. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 30 November 4, 2005 kestlake Consultants, Inc. CHAPTER 18.780 - SIGNS SECTION 18.780.020 - PERMITS REQUIRED A. Compliance with regulations. No sign or sign structure shall hereafter be erected, re- erected, constructed, structurally altered or relocated within the City limits except as provided by this title, and a permit for the same sign or sign structure has been issued by the Director. B. Separate permits for each sign. A separate permit shall be required for each sign or signs for each business entity and a separate permit shall be required for each group of signs on a single supporting structure. C. Compliance with UBC. Separate structural permits under the Uniform Building Code shall also apply. D. Electrical permit required. An electrical permit shall be obtained for all illuminated signs, from the enforcing agency subject to the provisions of the State Electrical Code. E. Retroactive sign permits. The Director may require application for sign permits for all signage at a given address if no existing permits previously had been approved or documented. Response: The applicant proposes no project signs are proposed as a part of this subdivision application. Any signs needed for the development will meet the standards of this Chapter at the time of construction. This standard is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.790 - TREE REMOVAL SECTION 18.790.030 -TREE PLAN REQUIREMENT A. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 31 Subdivision November 4, 2005 1 1 1 1 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed, 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. C. Subsequent tree removal. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060D. Response: All trees over 6" in diameter within the project limits were located. Sheet 3 of 14 of the Preliminary Plans - Existing Conditions, shows the locations of trees within the property, and an assessment from arborist Walt Knapp provides an evaluation of those trees that can potentially be saved in the development process (See Exhibit H - Tree Assessment from Walter Knapp). Creating buildable lots will require extensive grading. Because of the uncertainties inherent in the construction process, the Applicant does not represent that any particular tree will be saved in the course of development. (Please refer to the note on Sheet 6 of 14 - Grading & Erosion Control Plan). It may be possible to increase the number of preserved trees with appropriate modifications to the grading plan. However, such a determination is impossible prior to construction. Therefore, the proposed tree plan for this development is as follows: 1. Mitigation pursuant to Section 18.790.030.B.2 for the removal of up to 100 percent of the trees on the subject property. The basis (i.e., 100%) for calculating mitigation consists of 151 trees larger than 12" in diameter and subject to mitigation, with combined diameter inches of 3,147. 2. Mitigation is expected to be through a combination of replanting and fee in lieu of tree conservation. The proposal includes plans for the replanting of approximately 220 trees consisting of a mix of Douglas Fir, Western Hemlock, Western Red Cedar and Black Cottonwood. Typical nursery stock for these species range from 2.5 to 4- inch caliper; therefore the proposed plantings represent approximately 550 inches to approximately 880 inches. (A factual determination will need to be determined at the time of construction.) 3. No tree within the subject property is specifically identified for conservation. This approach complies with the tree mitigation requirements of Section 18.790. More particularly, the mitigation requirement in Subsection 18.790.030.B.2.a provides: "Retention of Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 32 November 4, 2005 testlake Consultants, Inc. less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires mitigation program in accordance with Section 19.790.060.D of no net loss of trees." These findings demonstrate that the Applicant will be able to comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, pursuant to a condition of approval. Staff should specifically determine the applicable mitigation requirements at the time of construction, when a factual determination of trees actually retained or removed can be made. At that time staff can determine appropriate mitigation that combines tree replacement with payment of a fee in lieu of planting, with specific reference to the clear and objective standards in Section 18.790.030.B.2. SECTION 18.790.050 - PERMIT APPLICABILITY A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree, which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 112 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows; or evidence of on.-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 2. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. Response: None of the proposed tree removal falls within a wetland/sensitive land area. This standard is not applicable.. CHAPTER 18.795 - VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS SECTION 18.795.020 - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS A. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. B. When site development review is not required. Where the Provisions of Chapter 18.330, Site Development Review, do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter through a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the standards in this chapter as approval criteria. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 33 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: Clear vision areas will be maintained by respective property owners of the proposed lots on the corners of all street intersections within the proposed subdivision. This standard is satisfied. ' SECTION 18.795.030 - VISUAL CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street ' and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or permanent obstructions shall be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent of the required clear vision area. Response: No plantings are proposed that would conflict with visual clearance requirements at the proposed intersection of the proposed cul-de-sac and SW 79`x' Avenue or the intersection of the proposed private streets, Tracts A and B, and the cul-de-sac. Following construction, clear vision areas must be maintained by respective property owners of the proposed lots on the corners of all street intersections within the proposed subdivision. This standard is satisfied. SECTION 18.795.040 - COMPUTATIONS A. Arterial streets. On all designated arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. Response: The subject property abuts SW 79`h Avenue, which is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan as a neighborhood route; therefore, this provision is not applicable. B. Non-arterial streets. 1. Non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width. At all intersections of two non-arterial streets, a nonarterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad where at least one of the streets or driveways is 24 feet or more in width, a visual clearance area shall be a triangle formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points which are 30 feet distance from the intersection of the right-of-way line and measured along such lines. See Figure 18.795.1: 2. Non-arterial streets less than 24 feet in width. At all intersections of two non-arterial streets, a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad where both streets and/or driveways are less than 24 feet in width, a visual clearance area shall be a triangle whose base extends 30 feet along the street right-of- Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 34 November 4, 2005 Owestlake Consultants, Inc. way line in both directions from the centerline of the accessway at the front setback line of a single family and two family residence, and 30 feet back from the property line on all other types of uses. Response: The cul-de-sac will meet SW 79`h Avenue to form a generally perpendicular ' alignment with good visibility. Proposed private streets located within Tract A and B, have been designed such that they are roughly parallel to SW 791h Avenue. They will intersect with the proposed cul-de-sac to form a generally perpendicular alignment with good visibility. Owners of , properties at all of the proposed intersections will be required to maintain vision clearance areas meeting these requirements. This provision is met. CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS SECTION 18.810.030 - STREETS A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the ' standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half -street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. 4 Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter; 5. If the City could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; , c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant ' improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e.' The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or ' f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 18.810.020.8. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 35 November 4, 2005 ' • Westlake Consultants, Inc. 1 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards. In evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Section 18.810.030 E.1. An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. Response: The proposed streets have been designed to meet the standards of this Chapter. All of the proposed internal streets are local public or private streets. This standard is satisfied. B. Creation of rights-of-waYfor streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the Council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the Council for the purpose of general traffic circulation: 1. The Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full 1 compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the Council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or ' b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of one acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the Commission to the Council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or major partitions. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a ' condition of subdivision and major partition approval: a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the Commission in its review to determine whether or not a ' recommendation for approval by the Council shall be made; b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title; ' c. The Commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the Council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title; and 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the City and shall name "the public, " as grantee. Response: The proposed cul-de-sac will be dedicated to the public through the subdivision platting process. Churchill Woods Subdivision ' Westlake No. 1724-14 36 November 4, 2005 • testlake Consultants, Inc. C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created: 1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207; 2. Access shall be in accordance with Sections 18.705.030.H and 18.705.0301. Response: Tracts A and B, the private streets that will provide access to Lots 4 through 10, will be subject to shared access easements. This can be guaranteed through the imposition of a condition of approval. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Subsection M below; and 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the Commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. Response: The preliminary subdivision plan and grading plan were prepared in accordance with City standards. Street alignments and circulation are consistent with existing conditions in the vicinity. Grading of the roadways will not require any variances or adjustments to the standards. This standard is met. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are presented in Table 18.810.1. 1. The decision-making body shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: a. The type of road as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter - Functional Street Classification; b. Anticipated traffic generation; Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 37 November 4, 2005 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. C. On-street parking needs; ' d. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements; e. Requirements for placement of utilities; f. Street lighting; 1 g. Drainage and slope impacts; h. Street tree location; i. Planting and landscape areas; j. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; k. Access needs for emergency vehicles. ' Response: The proposal is for 15 lots, which corresponds to approximately 150 vehicle trips per day based on 10 trips per day per dwelling; therefore the appropriate standard would be for streets with traffic of less than 500 trips per day. Roadway improvements for the proposed cul- de-sac have a paved width of 32 feet within a 54-foot public right-of-way, corresponding to the standard criteria for a Local Residential Street with traffic of less than 1500 vehicles per day (VPD), pursuant to Figure 18.810.3 (See below). Both private streets will have a paved width of 20 feet within private tracts. Figure 18.810.3 Neighborhood Routes Sample Cross Sections (Ord. 02-33) JVM& r... vwfh Pamno on Both Sides F. Future street plan and extension of streets. ' 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the applicant's request, the City may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the City 1 preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle 1 routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 38 November 4, 2005 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length. Response: Due to existing development adjacent to the subject property, future street extension is not feasible; neither is it required by the City's Transportation System Plan or local area circulation plans. Therefore, there is no need or basis for extending streets to stub to the edges of the property. H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. Response: A system of public and private streets will provide access to the site and to each individual lot. Access to the subject property will be provided by the proposed east-west cul-de- sac. Access to proposed lots 4 through 10 will be by a private street. The design and construction of each street will conform with city standards, will provide uninterrupted pedestrian circulation. The preliminary subdivision plan complies with the standards of this code section. The proposed streets are aligned to connect with all available street connections and form the best possible street alignment for grid connectivity and block size in compliance with standards. This is demonstrated by the Circulation Plan provided in Exhibit A (See Exhibit A - as Sheet 5 of 14 - Aerial Photo/Circulation Plan). Because pre-existing development precludes a Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 39 November 4, 2005 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. through connection, the private streets have not been stubbed to the north and south property lines. This provision is therefore satisfied. L Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 75° unless there is special intersection design, and: 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and ' 3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. Response: The proposed street intersections are at or very near right angles. The proposed private streets identified on the plan set as Tract s `A' and `B' intersect the proposed cul-de-sac bulb at, or very near to, a right angle. The proposed cul-de-sac intersects SW 79`h Avenue at, or very near to, a right angle. None of the intersections has an angle of less than 75 degrees. The ' proposed streets meet the above requirements for minimum corner radii. These standards are satisfied. ' J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. Response: All local streets abutting the subject property have been designed and constructed according to current City of Tigard requirements. The applicant will dedicate and improve rights-of-way consistent with City standards at the time of plat recording and construction. This standard is satisfied. K Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet; while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, ' and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. Response: The proposal includes plans for a half street improvement along SW 79'h Avenue to City standards for a neighborhood route including a 1:1 sidewalk taper to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south of the subject property. The existing paved section of SW 79`h Avenue ' exceeds 20 feet in width and no other partial street improvements are proposed; therefore, this standard is not applicable. L. Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: Churchill Woods Subdivision ' Westlake No. 1724-14 40 November 4, 2005 lowestlake Consultants, Inc. 1. All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and , 2. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb. 3. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street ' may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. Response: Access to the site will be from a system of a public street, namely a cul-de-sac, and two private streets. The proposed public street will enter the site westerly from SW 79 h Avenue and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Surrounding pre-existing development precludes a through connection. The proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 215 feet long, measured from the eastern property line to the back of walk, and will serve as primary access to 15 dwellings. The cul-de- sac is in excess of 200 feet; therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests a Type II Adjustment to the cul-de-sac length. A detailed discussion regarding the requested adjustment can be found below in Chapter 18.370 of this document. M. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets. ' Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as approved by the City Engineer. , Response: The proposed public streets will be named prior to the submission of the final plat. Street names will conform to City standards. This standard is satisfied. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet), 'and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. Response: The topography of the site will allow design of the roadways to meet this standard. Preliminary design of the grades and radii are noted on the preliminary plat and grading plans within the preliminary development plans that are attached. 0. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080; and: 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and , 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. ' Response: The proposal includes a system of continuous sidewalks, on both sides of the public street and one side of each of the private street tracts. All curbs and sidewalks, along with curb , Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 41 November 4, 2005 1 1 I 1 • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. cuts for driveways, will be constructed per city standards during installation of the improvements and home construction. P. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Response: There are no proposed or existing streets adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. This standard is not applicable. Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: 1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector; 2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; 3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation along the arterial or collector; or 4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; 5. If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be from the lower classification street. Response: The subject property does not abut nor is it adjacent to an arterial or collector; therefore this provision is not applicable. R. Alleys, public or private. ' Response: No alleys are proposed. This standard is not applicable. S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the City, it shall be the responsibility of the developer's registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the City that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. Response: As part of the platting process, all survey monuments will be placed for lot corners and street centerlines. The county surveyor will review and confirm that these corners have been ' placed. T. Private streets. 1. Design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer; and 2. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of i private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 42 November 4, 2005 1 Sestlake Consultants, Inc. 3. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi family residential developments. Response: Access to the site will be from a system of a public street, namely a cul-de-sac, and two private street. The proposed public street will enter the site westerly from SW 79`h Avenue and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Access to proposed lots 4 through 10 will be from a system of private streets which are nearly perpendicular to the cul-de-sac. All the streets will be designed and constructed to City standards, including five-foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the public streets and a sidewalk on the west side of the private street (within an easement along the fronts of the proposed lots), providing uninterrupted pedestrian circulation. All lots will have direct access onto either the public street or a private street. The proposed private streets, , identified as Tracts A and B on the plan set, will provide access to 6 dwellings. The Maintenance of the private streets will be through a Homeowners' Association. The private street has been designed to include a 20-foot paved width consistent with City standards. This provision is therefore satisfied. U. Railroad crossings. Response: There are no railroad crossings within or abutting the site. This standard is not applicable. I V. Street signs. The City shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. Response: Street signs will be installed by the developer as part of the construction process. W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least two dwelling units. 1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs; 2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on a copy of the preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer/US Post Office prior to final plan approval; and 3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer/US Post Office prior to final approval. Response: Joint mailboxes are proposed for this subdivision. Design and location of mailboxes will be determined in the construction document design and review process. This standard is v satisfied. , X. Traffic signals. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approved street plans. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a traffic signal, a signal meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a condition of development. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 43 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: With a nominal impact of an additional 120 vehicles trips per day, based on 10 trips ' per day per added dwelling, the proposed development does not warrant such an improvement. Traffic signals are not proposed for this development; therefore, this provision is not applicable. ' Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with regulations adopted by the City's direction. Response: Street lights will be placed along the frontage of the new streets within the development, generally as indicated on the Composite Landscaping, Street Tree & Lighting Plan (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 8 of 14 - Composite Landscaping, Street Tree & Lighting Plan). A lighting consultant will provide a specific design for review and approval by the city as part of the construction permitting phase of the project. Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. Response: Street and stop signs will be installed by the developer during the construction process. AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new ' constructed public roadways prior to final City acceptance of the roadway and within one year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90% of the structures in the new development are completed or three years from the commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less. 1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; 1 2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete; 3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to Cityfinal acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90% of the structures in the new ' development are completed unless three years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the development; 4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P. W.A. standard specifications; and 5. No lift shall be less than 1-112 inches in thickness. (Ord. 99-22) ' Response: Examples of typical street sections can be found in the Preliminary Plans on Sheet 6 of 14 - Grading & Erosion Control Plan. Placement of the final lift of asphalt will be completed per this code standard and coordinated with the city's engineering department. AB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive ' speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the development and/or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the City to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic from the development has triggered the Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 44 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the amount of funds required, and will collect said fiends from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the City for a period of j=ive (5) years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the City within the five-year time period will be refunded to the developer. Response: The proposed development creates no street connections that would potentially create a negative traffic condition on any existing neighborhood street. Accordingly, no traffic calming is required and none has been proposed within this subdivision. AC. Traffic study. , 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision ' intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generations from development onto the City street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added by development 0-3,000 vpd 2, 000 vpd 3,001-6,000 vpd 1, 000vpd , >6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City engineer: (1) High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out of the site (2) Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the proposed access drive(s) (3) Inadequate horizontal. or vertical sight distance at access points , (4) The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a potential hazard (5) The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive-through operation (6) The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. 2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments , under any of the following circumstances: a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility and/or b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an , ODOT facility and/or c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. (Ord. 02-33) Response: Based on an average of 10 trips per day per household, the development will create ' approximately 150 additional vehicle trips per day. This low level of impact does not require an Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 45 November 4, 2005 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. impact study per this section of the development code. The project is not in close proximity to an ODOT facility. SECTION 18.810.040 - BLOCKS A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads. c. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by B.1 above. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. (Ord. 02-33) Response: The subject property is adjacent to SW 79th Avenue, which is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan as a neighborhood route (See Exhibit I - City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, Figure 8-3). Existing development to the north and south precludes street connections. Therefore, the only street connection that is feasible is the proposed public street, namely the cul-de-sac, as provided for in the submitted plans. The resulting block(s) represent the best available configuration in response to prior development and site conditions. The proposed development is eligible for an exception pursuant to 18.810.040.13. La. SECTION 18.810.050 -EASEMENTS A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development traversed by a watercourse, or drainageway, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the City, the applicable district and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The City's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 1 S feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City Engineer. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 46 November 4, 2005 1 Westlake Consultants, Inc. Response: An eight-foot wide easement for utilities is proposed along the frontage of all proposed lots. The applicant will. transfer ownership of this easement to the appropriate jurisdiction to provide full services to the development. These standards are satisfied. SECTION 18.810.060 - LOTS A. Size and shape. Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the development and for the type of use contemplated, and: 1. No lot shall contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way within its , dimensions; 2. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2-112 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1-112 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district; 3. Depth and width of properties zoned for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street parking and service facilities required by the type of use proposed. Response: All lots within the proposed development plan meet the standards of the R-12 zone. Please refer to Chapter 18.510 of this document for a detailed discussion regarding the size and shape of lots. B. Lot frontage. Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land partition in which case Subsection 18.162.050 (C) applies, or unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. Response: All lots will abut a public or private street and meet the frontage requirements of the Code (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 2 of 14 - Preliminary Plat). This provision is , therefore satisfied. C. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where they are essential to provide separation of residential development from major traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation, and: 1. A planting buffer at least ten feet wide is required abutting the arterial rights-of-way; and 2. All through lots shall provide the required front yard setback on each street. Response: The proposal does not include plans for through lots; therefore, this provision is not I applicable. D. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to the street I upon which the lots front. Response: The proposed lots have been designed such that all side lines of lots, as far as practicable, are at right angles to the street. E. Large lots. In dividing tracts into large lots or parcels which at some future time are likely to ' be redivided, the Commission may require that the lots be of such size and shape, and be so Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 47 November 4, 2005 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. • divided into building sites, and contain such site restrictions as will provide for the extension and opening of streets at intervals which will permit a subsequent division of any tract into lots or parcels of smaller size. The land division shall be denied if the proposed large development lot does not provide for the future division of the lots and future extension of public facilities. Response: The proposal does not include large lots suitable for redivision; therefore, this provision does not apply. SECTION 18.810.070 - SIDEWALKS A. B. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along both.sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street Requirement of developers 1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 112 mile of their site to all transit facilities and Neighborhood Activity Centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk, on the same side of the street as the development, within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). Response: The proposal includes five-foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the cul-de-sac, a sidewalk on the west side of the private street (within an easement along the fronts of the proposed lots), and a sidewalk along the west side of SW 79th Avenue along the property frontage, providing uninterrupted pedestrian circulation. Street section drawings on Sheet 6 of 14 - Grading & Erosion Control Plan, detail the location and width of proposed sidewalks. C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities, there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, etc) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required, or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less)Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case by case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. Response: Planter strips are proposed along both sides of the proposed cul-de-sac and along SW 79`h Avenue consistent with Section 18.810. Street section drawings can be found in the Preliminary Plans. Sheets 9 and 10 detail the location and width of proposed planter strips. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 48 November 4, 2005 • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. SECTION 18.810.080 - PUBLIC USE AREAS A. Dedication requirements. L Where 'a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a development plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. 2. Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies, and where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public use areas, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. Response: Three common areas are proposed for this development. Tracts A and B contain the proposed private streets which will provide access to proposed lots 4 through 9. Tracts A and B will be owned in common, and maintained, by Lots 4 through 10. Tract C has been set aside for surface water treatment of storm water runoff. It will be maintained by the developer for 2 years and then conveyed to the City or CWS as appropriate. Section 18.810.090 - Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. Response: Clean Water Services provides public sanitary sewer through a gravity system to the east of the project; this is the preferred route for making a connection. A gravity line will extend from a proposed manhole in SW 79`h Avenue westerly, from where it will extend into the site and laterals extended to proposed lots. The sanitary sewer main line will consist of an eight-inch (8") pipe gravity system. (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan). SECTION 18.810.100 - STORM DRAINAGE A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 49 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm. water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Response: Storm water runoff from the proposed lots and streets will be directed into'a water quality and detention facility, designed to mimic pre-development conditions, within proposed Tract `C' (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan). Rooftop runoff from each dwelling will drain directly into subsurface storm laterals connected to a 12" sub street storm line. Other surface runoff will flow into curbside catch basins that drain into the same storm line. The storm line will pipe the runoff into a 100-foot grassy swale within Tract `C.' After which it will flow into a proposed stormwater manhole in SW 79th Avenue then south to another proposed manhole just north of the intersection of SW 79`h Avenue and SW Churchill Way, where it will be release into the public system. SECTION 18.810.110 - BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all Arterial and Collector routes and where identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan in the Transportation System Plan e (TSP). 2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrianlbikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan. B. Cost of construction. Development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements in an amount roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 50 November 4, 2005 Westlake Consultants, Inc. C. Minimum width. 1. Minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. ' 2. Minimum width multi-use paths separated from the road is ten (10) feet. The width may be reduced to eight (8) feet if there are environmental or other constraints. 3. The minimum width for pedestrian only off-street paths is five (5) feet. , 4. Design standards for bike and pedestrian-ways shall be determined by the City Engineer. (Ord. 02-33, Ord. 99-22) Response: The proposed half-street improvement along SW 79`h Avenue will include a bike path along the curb line.. No bicycle facilities are required or proposed in the local streets within the proposed development (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 10 of 14 - 79`h Ave - Street & Storm Plan/Profile). This standard is met. SECTION 18.810.120 -UTILITIES A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities, and: 1. Plans showing the location of all underground.facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. C. Exception to under-grounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. Churchill Woods Westlake No. 1724-14 51 1 1 t t 1 1 Subdivision November 4, 2005 , e • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. 3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 4. The exceptions in Subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City. All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code. 2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based on a front foot basis. 3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit. 4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within the City at large. The City Engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the City. The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to the City Council for their review and approval annually. Response: Plans will be forwarded to the local utility companies for their planning and design of this project. An easement will be provided along the right of way line of all the streets for the placement of these utilities. It is feasible to provide all necessary underground utility facilities and the easements to support them as part of the final plat and construction phases of the project. These standards will be met through compliance with condition(s) of approval. CONCLUSION The proposed "Churchill Woods" subdivision will provide additional housing opportunities within the City of Tigard, consistent with the City's land use designation and zoning of the subject property. This application addresses the applicable sections of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, and in particular demonstrates how the proposal satisfies all applicable approval criteria for the requested subdivision and adjustment for street improvement requirements. The applicant and property owners respectfully request that the Director approve the proposed subdivision and adjustment. I Churchill Woods Subdivision Westlake No. 1724-14 52 November 4, 2005 0 1 Exhibit A 1 Preliminary Plans 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION TUARD, OREGON J 2 D ~ m J n x D SrT]E~ S ASHFORD LOCATION SW C ILL WA Kn D m SW B ND ST, rn x SW DURHAM RD D f 0 D m a VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SHEET INDEX NAME: NO. COVER SHEET 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT 2 EXISTING COND11IONS 3 TREE TABLE 4 AERIAL PHOTO / CIRCULATION PLAN 5 GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 6 UTILITY PLAN 7 COMPOSITE LANDSCAPING, STREET TREE 8 & LIGHTING PLAN CUL-DE-SAC - STREET & STORM 9 PLAN/PROFILE 79TH AVE. - STREET & STORM 10 PLAN/PROFILE STORM OUTFALL PLAN/PROFILE 11 STORMLINE 'B' & 'C' 12 PLAN/PROFILE CUL-DE-SAC - SANITARY & WATER 13 PLAN/PROFILE SANITARY LINE 'B' & 'C' 14 SANITARY & WATER PLAN/PROFILE ATTENTION: OREGON LAW REWIRES YOU TO FOLLOW RULES ADOPTED BY THE OREGON UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER. THOSE RULES ARE SET FORTH IN OAR 952-001-0010 THROUGH OAR 952-001-0090. YOU MAY OBTAIN COPIES OF THESE RULES BY CALLING THE CENTER. (NOTE: THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE OREGON UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER IS (503) 232-1987). UTILITY STATEMENT: THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE PER FIELD MARKINGS AND RECORD DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY AGENCIES. LOCATION OF NON-OBSERVABLE AND/OR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO BE COMPLETE OR ACCURATE UTILITY VERIFICATION: CONTRACTOR SHALL POTHOLE TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROWDE WES71AKE CONSULTANTS, INC. 72-HOURS NOTICE OF ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. PROPERTY OWNER ROBERT DRIESNER TRUST 15685 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD. OR 97224 PHONE: (503) 639-3483 CONTACT: TIMOTHY DRIESNER APPLICANT KURT DALBEY SPECTRUM DEVELOPMENT, LLC "r.0. BOX 3440 WILSON VILLE, OR 97070 PHONE: (503) 570-8828 FAX: (503) 570-8869 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION TAX MAP: 2S1 12CD TAX LOT NO: 1900 ADDRESS: 15685 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 ZONING: R-12 SITE AREA: 1.82 ACRES ENGINEER / SURVEYOR WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. PACIFIC CORPORATE CENTER L w TIG, WOREGON V97224 w PHONE: (503) 684-0652 FAX: (503) 624-0157 CONTACT: LEE LEIGHTON, AICP AGENCY r m ITT I LOT11L0T12 T 9 LOT 1 LOT 14LOT 1T 6 LLJ 7 Q 6 O1 5 Q 1 EI LOT 3 1 LOT 2 I LOT 1 4 f'_OT__ S.W. CHURCHILL WAY „ LOCATION MAP 'VtiVVM`JII NTs LEGEND - - - ROW CENTERUNE POWER POLE 6+~. MAIL BOX PROPERTY LINE F-.q GAS METER _ SIGN - - - - - EASEMENT LOT LINE GAS VALVE ti CURB CABLE TV RISER TREE - - - - - EDGE OF PAVEMENT CA. GUY ANCHOR FENCE LINE 'T FIRE HYDRANT HOUSE STRUCTURE - -100- - CONTOUR - 5' INTERVAL CONTOUR - V INTERVAL WATER VALVE GAS LINE WATER VAULT FOUND IRON ROD AS NOTED - - UNDERGROUND CABLE _Ll WATER METER - UNDERGROUND POWER f-, yr WELL - - SANITARY SEWER - SAN17ARY SEWER MANHOLE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OD SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE - • - - WATER ❑ CATCH BASIN CITY OF TIGARD PROPOSED 13125 SW HALL BLVD - - - - RDW/PROPERTY UNE Q SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ( +i` K7 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TIGARD. OREGON 97213 PHONE (503) 639-4171 - PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT - - - - Q STORM SEWER MANHOLE - - - CENTER LINE CURB 0 CATCH BASIN SIDEWALK -100- CONTOUR LINE - S' INTERVAL ® WATER GATE VALVE -101- CONTOUR LINE - V INTERVAL 0-0 DOUBLE WATER METER S51T11 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER STMH STORM MANHOLE STORM SEWER FIRE HYDRANT O FOLD INLET - WATER LINE ® RIP RAP CO CATCH BASIN -0-~- SEDIMENT FENCE ® INLET PROTECTION ~ S W~ Al ~4 ej Nil U/ 0, 0 0 ~Z IO LLJ W ~JI 0 U J p ~ W Q 1 = U O h U U Z U m N z N O F a w N ~ o a z rc a SHEET 1 14 JOB NO. 1724-014 9 N 0 Z E2 W W 0 Z W Q Z J W I Ln 0 \ N O t 1 i 1 LCI 56 s I i ; ( i I II I if/I I ; I 3 i ~ ! ` L 13800 T.L 13700. - T.L. 13546 § j ~ ! I ~I i II LOT 55 I T.L. '3400 TRACT "A" I I I SC,',J':9'E IOi.IB' i 589.OB'37"E 19881' 5' SIDEWALK IN EASEMENT Ig--i W I - o- oO ~.ar 14 I , ,m rear - Is ,srt. LCT I I I I I f -5 a _ _ w.er _ _ ti amis~n rt. 12 I I I \ \ \ I f 9 PgE I~ = bl~ ~m ra rt 1 13 rt. 1 4 rt. 1 5 rtl g 11 ywmrt. ~I I _ I I I LOT - - wBB - - I ~.tO.03' \ I I 53 (q I 'a/ r lw 8' PUE ! li i ~ 8 - m 06 2," I I m~ Aamrt-- I t war 19.1r t~ sent: 913W I I I I ~ I w I I o LO: 1 B $ - I- - - - nwo a ;SIR 7 F---~ f' f x 52 3.1 m FL I .i A m ~ Bx»' L kamnWt I I` : 5,76• 4200' ts OEB' 6 PU OT A•emrt I O&OIr 51 gym. IR 5 ~I I BAUmn ;I ] f Awan. uae~m n. mmm I ! 8815 R I awmrt. I I I '0 I uB4mrt. I -Imv''- ~=Bd._ 4xod,_ tzro_ -46m'- x-a- eaw_ sacc' ! scar se.cer w.=5' I - ~rea'rTS2'rr - 1 ~ I \ \ I CT \ 49 i~ II R~ I I F.L. 3804 I I I ` I T.L 2000 i MI I I i T,L. 200' I I 1 s I I ~I I R~ I 50 ROII 30 ~I o' I LOT LCT LCT LOT LCT LOT 48 47 46 45 44 43 r ' I B070 PAW: NO.. 2 ! 1 PLAT 5001( 5$, PAG_5 42-43 ! ; ~ a GRAPHIC SCALE !W~ a a a • ~ ~ (w rtEr) E-1 • 7 IN 30 FT o NOTES 1. GROSS AREA - 1.818 AC. 2. CURRENT ZONE - R12 3. PROPOSED AVERAGE LOT SIZE - 7,723 S.F. 4. R-12 MINIMUM LOT SIZE - 3,050 S.F. 5. PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT SIZE - 3,088 S.F. U! 0 0 Z F- O Q O J 0_ W of 0 Q _j c; 0 J U~ w a T~ 1 U na0 1 ~ i N CSI Z W W Z a ~ ao w F } b Q ° Z a a LNd N LL N~ a I 2 14 1o JOB No.1724-014 B\ IM~IIPo01 / Cc.-e S30 d '95 71009 .1V1 / { ~yi . £9 ■ L _ r' r F SI.ZS 1pS` 3 :88 re'f W u I r.. Ij~ rY _ m Y •lYaF•J a~ / n : CAR, ~'r' nr r 1\ T_ I v N Cr m ^M 1 / 10 - - - J NWSg ~ I ~ . N U l €s$ I t 0f~ 0 0 { c,+ PPP > - i F I I I l 21. i 1 N 105 ' \ SS a'S n.F ( v . .._r x2.48' ss ! ss Ss W W W m Ott ~~-rr (£f 'N'0 3AV HLBL 'M'S ss - C _ A - - cY- - ss W W r>J - W OI OH W OHW W y{ W MIN fq M Yaa~ r- 9S ~a £ N ~S n~ 3 m 4 '.x g P n g P Fyn r c~ a s~ x s c1 ~ 7" e a Fn 0 ~3 s 9 s !q REV ISIONS m ~ _ o = W ~S eg 9 N g z II R { n 0 1 OB/23/0 PREUMINARY ENO 1ST SUB. AW BRAN a 9 A DATE OESCRIP110N BESIra•I 50 9Cri~ CHURCHILL WOODS WESTLAKE T I CARD, OREGON CGNSU TAM- WGRUMOUNG • SURUMI6 • PIAMMG EXISTING CONDITIONS IMISIM 16-. ° ,.fal 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) 0 • ~!1 ~-1 o n n n S D D Zo `D r A Lo w O t7 n O p r D ;z v C D r m • co rr, REVISIONS ~,5~, a C H U R C H'I LL WOOD S D ~III WESTLAKE C2 T I GARD, OREGON C NstnTeNTSan O ^ 1 08/23/05 PREUMINARV ENC 7ST SUB. AM BIYBN I ~q R. 16 ~~e~ 7 eons >teo FAX 0) =772 T DATE DESCRIPTION ~BYY: g EXPIRES: 06 /300 200 AERIAL PHOTO/CIRCULATION PLAN 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) ow r r 00 00 / r / oQ r 1 1 1y 1 y~ ~ c7 W 1 1 ~4 ~ a 1 I I 1 n~ y I ' h N a~ 1 I ~ I I 1 1 1 _8 1 ~N FtK x I ~ G OF 4 ~ woo CH IGARD, OREGON GRAD►NG EROS AK~ CONIROL PLAN I ON i'f w sEu,a►s'►g ~18asxnrtc • c~c • 1123~OS PREU►im~pE719nON ontE ENGINEERING (2) PREUMINAR a F LOT I j 56 i I i I 1 ?.L. 13800 L. 13700 - - T.L. 13600 1 I; ~ l i I I I is Z I"~ ----J F I LOT i 55 1 I T.L. 13900 TRAC= DI-} °A° II ~e~eaat 101.:8' L smx'a~ I2s4r _ - I - - - - - - l f LOT I y LOT 10 LOT 11 I H- 11 LOT 12 I I I I 54 _ I I I ' I LOT 13 L LOT 1 5 OT 14 I f I r U~ m STIAH_ RD 91 I I I LOT 9 I I 5 I I I ~ rn I I I LOT I ` CR- s I I 53 I/ I ~ 4 I Trr. ~-2 I LOT 8 . ~ T1P. - IT - I LCT I I F 52 LOT 7 - I UN A - TMH-a CUL-D S TIT B snAH N f LOT 6 s TYP. 2 ce-i I LCT TYP. I I LOT 5 TYP. I a TV. I ~ ~I I e L I ,II J14f` I I ~ I I ~ 31 iI ~ I T._ 3800 1 I~I _ CWt 9A6 ON SE. S9'- I'I C ~I I ~!I I9I '..L.2000 TYP. I I TRAC .'Cl j II I 1' LOT3 1 I I LOT 1 AI SMH-4 I I / 3 SO I STMH-6 I LOT 2 I LOT 1 I snAH 1 11 LOT 4 I I 1 I , _ I I F,-2 I 4..1lT ?C.p' SC.CY - i 50.W SJ.tp' I LOT 1 1~ v 49 } I1 T.L LOG} rmt~cvE.ar- I I\ T.L. 1801 1 \ I I L^vT .CT LOT LOT LOT LOT \ 48 47 40 45 44 43 I BOND PARK NO. 2 \ I PLAT BOOK 56, ?AGES 42-43 ; I I \ J I STMH-}) c,=.NIR EL \ tl ~ CB-E i i I \ SW CHURCHILL WAY \ - a- n . a im Nia mumNn we~wo .maa~ YOI COnI CAI A[ DIY ->m uo n N u o z ILL z C7 Z F w a_ } Y N W Q 7 ` w J u w n a fll p SHEET O 7 14 o JDB No.1724-014 B 172414P807 0 GRAPHIC SCALE a a (xncr) Ix-30 FY . y s" Ig E • In t- o W ~s VI CDNSTRUCTbN NOTES o. Q 01 INSTALL CLASS 50 RIP RAP O O INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY OO INSTALL STORM LATERAL TO HOUSE z 40 INSTALL 3/4' WATER METER @ SERVICE LINE J ® INSTALL SANITARY LATERAL TO HOUSE z d O O w ~ _ I0 J O J J o ~ - ~ Q I W 2 U Fn a ° N 0 0 LL U _ I U l I / I I r I r I r I I (I O I O I o I I I A I vt I W .._.......L. - TRACT 'B' I I I o I I I ~ \ I ~ I I ~ ~I F _f... f I j I I I I I \TRACT IC I I l I SW 79TH AVE. N 111 Q = REVISIONS J ~e Z o OD-- R 0 B N e~~ 1 08/23/05 PREUMINARY ENC 1ST SUB. ABU BASN DATE DESCRIPTION DgT ream 11 /02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) 0 0 * 0 ~ ° m N N V @m ce @~ Tf Ib tb m mm t~+~ IC~ i? ~ t8 m i H .11 m I Gf ~ m _ m O II I + u N RR~'R A vEr -yyJ Nm A Fg m~ y~ mT mF m BN ~i ®~6 ~4 Ay fl O A A~p ti -II N O yl R Z ~ R O C- .Z Z Z F C y N v_ N n C, .Z7 D ~z a- tl D m a CHURCHILL WOODS I'I WESTLAKE T I CARD, OREGON CONSULTAM- SNGl ZWXfG • SORYSYING • PLANMNG P~C~IC ODRPoF~7E CQ7[E8 STREET TREE & LIGHTING PLAN zl Z4 a n X 0 ~,pV u' a (1 NN° ~ J , c C 1T .9 ~ 177 2 17 .87 . _ .r o ..,,:.__;r,. ~ y STMH-4 STA 9+65,,65; STA 4+8 ( + RTCUL-D (STORMUN E-SAC I t I RI E IN-173.5 E OUT-173. (12'N, S) 4 (12' E) 176.7 1 .0 _ 76.A I STA 10 00 CUL- D E-SAC / J 177 ze 178.1 176.48 Yo / / / 9 175.3 m............ v 4 v 3f ! z / FJ v i 74,8 1 4.89 ti a f ° O _ g I 1 r o / 1716 ~ . -->i l ~ ~ 174.10 . . _ . ( STMH-3 m 7 STA 11+34.6 STA 3+14.44 2, 5' RT (CU (STORM NO L-DE-SAC) 'A') 1710 173.31 m RM__17.1:99 IE IN=167.22 IE IN-187.2 IE OUT-187 (1YW~ N 02 (12 S) _ . ! BVCS 11 20 172.3 1 . . . : + BVCE 172.51 f 172.04 / f O j y+ O 7S yy S S s 4 ~~y-1y L N 171.4 .J E VCS: 11+60 p 172.20 . . EV CE: 172.20 _ ..~a.N / 1 79. % . _ STA_1+8 0.99_ _SW_C UL-DE=SAC RD- 1 2.69 STA 21+ 131.93 @ SW . 79TH AVE _ 17 } I 1 m N A p + Z in N w ? N D > r ° NN p Oa 0 rn 0 14 r^ .nc vJ rn a a O Z ~ n 0 N ~ > I' n o v o c c ~ m m v m A O O R v C .ZI ^ T p is N p Im m f c I I s I I 1 1 I I 1 s I o I o I s N I W I v 1 L9 `D I / • \ - TACT 'B' \ _ _ I t \ TRACT 12' STORM UN 'C' N I ! 12' RM UNE '8' xl t I t , a I .....r ~ 1 O I I 1 4 1 . i + 1 I I I N N _ A u yK 1 + ,T I l m C \ m I c I O PUE 3 1 PUE. 4 F I I n I I i n 5' .5 18' 118' 5 I csi ~ .1 I i I Z' g I I r 0 7-7 SW 79TH AVE r OO+ZZ I 00+1Z ._r.. . a~ w .....__-._._L...... N _ N H N ti N > > r -i w 'Do i- m -I i ,o IV C` S n J B A Zl n o 6 0 D m 6 O O O O O z z 'z z z m y u: N 1 > s ~ ~ v v > S z REVISIONS CHURCHILL WOODS aL`N III WESTLAKE %''FI''0N T I GARD, OREGON coxsosteNTS- oaf CUL-DE-SAC RD. - STREET & STORM P~~~ ~~~*s C~~ 1 08/23/05 PRELIMINARY ENG 1ST SUB. /J~8 6I16 ebl/. B6u00p,L AT BORE 160 (60.7) B~Oh_006! DATE DESCRIPTION °E$T: gy; E%PIRE6: 06 3D 2006 PLAN/PROF I LE 1000N (606) 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) ~ + m N P 7 I I 0 1) I V f `I i I I I I DII-1 67 14 STA 19+79 ' RT t B. . . . IE OUT°171.09 N I STA 22+84.02 2 0' RT i t • 4 72 _ - I END IMPROVEMEN TS, MA E )CISTINC 0 . 17 t At, CURB h D LK. 7 ' 1 TTER EL 1 7 8 1 174.9 ._.....1............ I °.-V 174. ! 1 PVI TA - 20+ 5 N 74 6 ! PW EL EV_.-.174.21 _ . 1 . ( ! r 11 ~ 1 174.1 _ - _ _ . e. - 1 t .6 y ! yA 773.6 nv _ 0 _ ! _ ._............_T.... ° r 1 e ! w STA D+90 m u m ( `A ELEV - 72.94 173.3 _ _ 1 1 j 1 vv11 n ~ ~ . . ~ c 173,0 172.40 _ • _....-.r..._.._... .r.. . .._._J J._ 1..._.J 1 m ~ _._.C _ ! f STA 21+31. 3 SW 79T H AVE.° I 1 STA 1+80.9 SW CUL DE SAC RD o`f ~ f CUTIfli EL. 17218 _ . 17t7 f 2 . _ _ r, _ . - ! ! 1 I SVCS : 21+50 ini . k 1 ~ ) SVCE : 171.85 _ _ _ - J m ° 171.6 _a C / r a ...1.... _ _ A A NN° 1 71.11 .I g ~ro'~ . / oA ~ 1 ! / , ~ / I ' 5 N N 57 .9 . /1 O _.....~.o . m{ .._.,._...m., ,°m-'-"'......._. g 170.41 / m ° 170., 54 189 . _ . _ . EVCS: 2 2+30 ` EWE: 16 /S7M 2 04 . 769.1 168 52 .__.._r._.. - . f - / , STA 1+33.17 (S . TORM LINE ' A g . ~ .4 / STA 22+47.44 5' RT 79T H AVE ~ ' / RIM*187.73 IE IN=184.69 (1 W, 72' N) ~ IE JUT°184.49 S) 2 187.48 ..c::.-::::.':.t".... I -c:.:::.: . r STA 22+84.0 / END IMPROVE 2 20' RT MENTS. MATC H' EXISTING J / / j AC CURB & DEWALK. GUTTER EL 1 8 .28 / ' 671 , . I _ --.....1......._ / . . ~ % 166 - b ~ ~ a ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ "l..STMH - . ' c ) / STA 0+1 4 1. (STORM ' LINE A - / STA 23+ 89.10 5 09TH AVE ~ RIM°183 . 1 .1 IE IN-16 IE OUT- 0. 1 16 .41 . r _ E SE f f 1) O+ TA STA 23+ 00 (STORM LI 79:34 20.25 NE 'A' - ' T 79TH A 16 RI M-162 - - .711 1_ 2._N . ..E7DSRNCy ' I I I ^T I I N I I I I S' 1 I I I r 'ol I 8 I N + T JV 1 . 4 ~m I S IT 2+1.0 ul I I I !1 } tV= I 1~ I I m m S V I I I 50.15' - m LOT' 43 , 1 I tER Rfm Et_. 162.71 U7 S IE. EL. 16D.01 I I I IE-1N-1s0.2 (1 ) IE OUT-16 1.0, (12' S) I rpi + Ol N T k N O Y Z GD L 4 to ~ nQ 9 R O Q79I J 0 1 08/23/0 PRELIMINARY ENO 1ST SUB. A%S BRBN 41 DATE DESCRIP11ON DMM1 B mrmiwrt um 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) a ~ I O ` ~ n Y I~ D - ® (~0,, O 00~ 00000 N nS~>Z N~>OD'~QO> D~ y ti y y U ~ 4ty~ miN c ii A i Z' mro ,j'4 mZJ 2 . € N > , , m =eZ .4 8 v 4 PWR DROf- 9 A v ig x 0 3,v e m s C H U R C H I L LEGOW O O D S WESTTUU MWEIGU RMG • 811RYSYMG • PLNIVMG SW 79TH AVE. - STREET & STORM P~ 16~ 1~6~&olWON~OY,~ A7 gum lw 'ii t~l =1A5 PLAN /PROF I LE 11 I I I a QI TD.8 I PWR DROP ON a e n I I a I P I I a T. L. III + g • I I 1 al r I i {I -1121 012+tt u a v I ".1 I i II T_ PAR DROP el CI ; 1 1~ 8 1 A ~ 9~ I al II I I a l 9 ~I I rI I I yl a ► I t II D I i I 1 g bl 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (1) i T i= f c N OVi o a _STMH-5 i TA 0+9 S 286 (STORM( 1NE `B') 176.8 1 RIM-178. 6 T i._....µ ...._`t_.._..__ IE IN-174 IE OUT-1 .23 4- N I 74.03 (12• ) t 177.1 } 179.0 ( / X 23 g ~ 175 9 c ~ ? g g m . i....- . . ti. z z STMH-4 STA 0+00 (STORMUNE 'C')= 1 STA 4+84.08 (STORMUN E 'A') 177-2 . . STA 9+65, 5' RT (CUL- E-SAC)- . . . RIM-178.54 IE IN-173.54 (12'W1 IE OUT-1733 (12 E) V V OO p~ N O. O 38'3:.5"E 101.19' T. L. S38'3E': ro I I I O I I ~ I I s r I , = I I - ~I I I D r I r, I ~ I gl oy I I I y 4 m '.I y l ~I , ~ I l / N m 1 \ } r 1 " 7, -4 TORMUNE 12 A N.... _ J yyy 01 , O z ?C ~ym A n I N q p s 0 C.""[^" :.""'.._-:.-::r._:.....• TA 0+00 ( TORMUNE 'B TA 4+84 0 I (S-ORUN / 'A') 177.2 . 9+85 5 TA ' RT CUL-O E-SAC)= \ RIM 17'.54 \ C IE IN=173.54 IE OUT=173. (12' 4 (12 E) 1 176.3 . . . w . ~ I 1 t 178,5 N I ~ 0.. _ ~ i m ~ 1 B.5 ......i....-..... j o z 7 L.-........... . ~ I i z i I. I STMH- 6 - i77.0 - 1 I STA 0+83 I (STORMUNE 'C) 1 IE IN-174.16 4 Sw) iIE OUT-173. 16 (12- N) N OV1 p A W (_~,1 Sit REVISIONS Ia®QIFp i o • v "CE9~''I 14 C, e~ 0 -.6 1 08/23/05 PREUMINARV ENC 1ST SUB. NICE BM ~ T 46 DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGN Eor. 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) a 8 z r _ D q4 2 ~ a n ~ 1n a" a e r m 6 I I 1 K 1 \ r C \ I m V 1 1 .0_ LL.J).._. 12~ TORMUNE _ _ J.._. r ~ C I \ I r ml I > I ~ o R ~ I I N I aq. C I I I I I ~ w I I x + I I 50.00` 50.00' _ 50-00' _ CHURCHILL WOODS WESTLAKE T I GARD, OREGON III CODISD7.TAKSm SNGINB88ING ♦ 3URYBYIIYG • p(~[glV~(G STORML I NE M113006 Imm 160 'B' & 'C' PLAN/PROFILE ,a "m w w w w w~ ~w ■w w w w w w w w w w w ww ww 1I m a J J O m + m N N O 0 0 S 1 -1 r4 .A G A NO T r I No o + i O SSMN /2 STA 2+18.71 (SS UNE A) STA 9+80, 5' LT (CUL-DE-SAC RD) ...........................................F1111 STA 0+00 SS UNE B G RIM=178.74 :......_...._.::IE IN=172.74 ((8' N / I IE IN=172.7 (B' S3 IE OUT=1754 (8' E) _ _i I I INSTALL 2 i LOWOFF t m N q tD O 1 I ! I , o ! I 1 , r N I ~ C) I ~ I r I ! I o ! ~I I , w TRA B' 7~RACT A y B' SAN ARY E 'C' B ANIT Y UNE 'B' - xr _ -rrx I 0 I - N I I 8' S' I u C ~ I• w T r 0 I s ofA , I 1 ~ I w -AVE I + D I... m _ 0o+zz ! o0+L _ ...__....-__I-, , . 5 N L Z I m ' r G G G G > G d IA N H r d 0 i m g a`" d D r~°z m S co d z A 0 = q q0' CD® CHURCHILL WOODS CD WESTBTLAKE N SIG ;_2n I,LlOC11~ T I GARD, OREGON III ~ ON SNOINXlMG • SURVEYING • FLUM NG z 2Z:,' CUL-DE-SAC RD. - SAN I TARY & WATER 16.NIe~6t6w*; Y e0es .a6 dos aea-oe66 O 1 08/23/0 PRELIMINARY ENO 1ST SUB. !4106 BRBN n u>$idA e7d8{ NI (OW) 684-0167 DATE DESCRIPTION DESIGN EBCKEO ~i EXPIRES: 00 30 2006 PLAN/PROF I LE .p.- 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) N W 0 K' 00 NNp m t I mFn 0 S ~ SS MH /3 ---'-"-T ST A 0+79.90 SS UNE A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RI M=178.74 I 1 IE1 IN-173.34 (4' NE) ( ID OUT-173.14 (6' S) } v 0 +Jm _ > ~ ~ 0 1" q A KS I O 0 T.... I~........................_ _ m....... . l \ fS ~ i SSW STA D+00 (SS UNE A) _ .®..._p........_.....__.............. _ STA 9+60.6 LT CUL- E-SAC RD RIM-178.74 S. IE IN-172.74 8 N IE IN-172.74 B. SJ IE OUT-17 54 (8' E) 2 N N p S8838'33"E 198.41 I I r ~ I 1 1 DN O V rD ~ Z - - - - - m W I o ~ m s - V 1 1 = 2 RMLIN :AZ O 1 W O N ZL 2 t Z > y m If = 0 1n W zi b D s rn i1 S 6 ~ \ J m I I I I 1 0 d r I ~ I u m m ~ Oo ~ I / ~ I - - o ~ SSMH /2 I - - - - STA 0+00 (SS UNE 'C' (A I= STA 2+16.72 (SS UNE _ ' ) I STA 9+60, S, LT CuL- E-SAC ]RD r I . . RIM-176.74 p I ' IE IN-172.74 (6' N) 1 A IN-172.74 6' S „ IE E OUT 1 0 UN Rl _ 1 ( ? E (6' E) 2 p i 1 o/ el~ i \--I-- f~ I m VL / I Z$ z~ a 1 Vi o 8 o no ~ o ~ o r L," = I I I / m 1 0 ~ :I= I2 I I I c I i SSMH-4, (A I STA 0+ 0+ .i I 90.11 (SS U'E -C') I I I RIM-17A r0 pr 1 I_ E IN-173.39 I I I ,,,1 E OUT-173.19(4" (6' ) _ - - _ - I to I N d r of o I I I 5 (J. 0 0' 50M' t 50.00' - l3:37z s2-w M REV ISIONS CHURCHILL WOOD S f qyj III WESTLAKE r~~lu~i~~~l T I GARD OREGON CON9ULTAN15m N r , KING FLA • G N te IN T I N ~ 6 _ 1 08/23/05 PRELIMINARY ENO 15T SUB. Rl5 APN SAN I TARY L I NE 'B' & 'C' PLAN/PROF I LE 1 ~~p { e , gg r1~1rA G r ( Eck olaWt7 >ffia ra em 6E{-01~61~ DATE DESCRIPTION DEBBYY.. EBBY... EXPIRES: O6 30 2006 ( ) 11/02/05 - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (2) 1 . • 1 1 1 Exhibit B 1 Washington County Subdivision Plat Naming (Reservation) 1 1 ' FROM :WASHINGTON-COUNTY SURVEY 40 02124/20@5 15:39 503-624-0157 FAX NO. :5038462909 ~eb. 25 2005 08:56AM P1 6=TLAVE C_nKPIu TANTS PAGE 01/01 f=A,)+' A' WASHINGTON CO~oNTY FEB ~ ~ L,4ND 115' AND TRAN5P0 SuRVEYO]RIS OFFICIE I request that the washimgton County Surveyor's 0 ae r reserve the faxxaaing subdivision URMO: r 1 1 game of person reserving name: -4/,,f 2-t-*- V ,SZA t t 'aT0 r 40- AT Z 'F' Address:l',Z/ ` -CA/ s ~~t 6r^- i'+KwY Telephone number:,,S,~.8~: obsz. Fax number-.-V03 e D s7" ' Signature., Date: X" Name approved Washington County Surveyor's Ofte ' 158 North first Avanua STu/to 350.16 Nlllabom, OR 87123 Fair (503)848.2309 141 14aRnn151rft,V&YtaAr.4DIRN"BrAOMSUY NAhf.l:,ooc1o9ra6/o1ufv J I understand that if the name is not used within five years, it will be automatically canceled. 1 1 1 r 1 Exhibit C r City of Tigard Land Use Permit Application 1 1 1 1 PRE-APP. HEID BY. 1 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION.- 111 75 .qW Hal 1 ROI It FVARI'l TIv ARn OR 97298-8189 503.639..4171/5.03.684.7297 ttcAR O cirx or OREGON t • LAND-.-U `SE PERMIT-APPLICATION file # Other°C`a'se Receipt ix ; `=Y" ` Cil`Ufb'- Date Compleiel Date By , " ' t' TYPE OF PEf~MIT YOU:ARE APPLYING; FOR ' . 7( s 'S . f .:.4. rv - AdjuslmenWariance (I or 11j1 ' • k Minor LaNd~ Partition (Ilj yt"' ` T` ❑ Zone `Chang'e (111)' 7y' ❑ Comprehensive.Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development (III) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) ❑ ) ❑•Zone Ordinance Amendment (IV,) Conditional Use nsitive ands.Review. (I,.II or-,III (111) " or:] •a: n-'? '[j ite De061opmen# Rev ew {1"1) i` ` ` Y Historic Overlay (11 Home Occupation (II) . Es ubdivision (II or III) (Address i avaj able) 15685 SW 79th Ave. Tax Map.2S1 12CD, Tax Lot 1900 1.88 acres R-12 -PLICAN Kurt Dalbey, Managing Member Spectruin:_Development..: PO Box 3440 Wilsonville OR 97070 TE'(503) 570-8828........ FAX NU. .(503) 570-8869 Lee Leighton,.AICP, Director of Planning PHUNt NU. Westlake Consultants., Inc. (503) 684-0652 ac is i more an one Rob t E. Driesner Trust 15685 SW 79th Ave, Tigard, OR 97224 NF= N9.7 . 503. 639-3483 FAA NU. 'When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be f purchaser of record or a lessee in ,:ti .H.-. .I4... 11.. /F.- n{ '.i {he TFeL....l erc mttc{ einn fK;e nnni;pnfinn in tho ce; rov.,;ided on,,.the back of this. form or submit a written authorization with this a .lic.ation. : . ease be spec is Subdivision 41PLICAT16NS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL. OF 'THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. r • • PRE-APP. HELD Br ff A■ AY.f U I Y tit- I IUAKU I'd..At11KINU [JIV101UN 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223-8189 503.639.4171/503.6.84.7297 CITY OF'TIGARD " OREGON LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION i : File # Other Case Date By } • Receipt City ❑'Uib 0 Date Co p e e ,TYPE OF PERMIT YOU. ARE:APPLYING, FO-R Adjustment/Variance (I or 'II) ""❑'Mmor Land Partition (II)"' one Change (Illy' " Comprehensive. Plan Amendment (1V) ❑ Planned Development (III) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) Conditional Use (II1) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review (I, II or III) ❑ Zone Ordinance Amendment (IV) Historic Overlay (Il or lll)`.'=•.=; : - Sife Deveaopmeht Review`(I1) Home Occupation (II) ® Subdivision (II or III) F-1 ress aval a e 15685 SW 79th Ave. Tax IMap 2S1 12CD, Tax Lot 1900 1.88 acres R-12 Kurt Dalbey, Managing Member Spectrum Development.. JAILING AUL)RE~5b/Ul I Y/b I A I L/ZIP PO Box 3440 Wilsonville OR 97070 (503) 570-8828 - FAX NO. (503) 570-8869 Lee Leighton, AICP, Director of Planning iiii Westlake Consultants, Inc. (503) 684-0652 ac is i more an one Rob t E. 09 ZIFJ 15685 SW 79th Ave, Tigard, OR 97224 503 639-3483 w-± TAX NO. OkNhen the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The~ners must sign this application in the ace rov.ided 'on..the back of this form or submit'a written authorization with this application. NROPOSAL ease be spec ic Subdivision ) APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED- SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS FSrRIRFn IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REOUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. rrtuNrxoomaw'M1161 luouiauw • i MOOMAW, MILLER & =,DEBRAND, LLP Attorneys at Law 12275 SW Second Street neaverton, OR 91003 (503) 646-0566 (503) 644.9574 (Fax) DATE: April 7, 2005 TO: Dana Crocker (~iY l 1 , 4A(/ FAX N'0.: 5 - 44 1 1 1 1 FROM: Kristin I. a en, Legal Assistant RE: Tim Driesner MESSAGE: Dana: Per your request, please find copies of the following: 1. Revocable Living Trust Agreement of Robert Driesnet; 2. First Amendment to Revocable Luring Trust Agreement; 3. Second Amendment to Revocable Living Trust Agreement; and 4. Certificate of Incumbency. Please feel free to call me if You bAve any questions- HARD COPY WM b/WML NOT FOLLOW Time: 3:27 No. of Pages: 26 (including cover sheet) NOTICE TO OPERATOR if you do not receive all pages, please call: (503) 6464S66 ECG This cor nnunicadon may contain confidential information which is Intended only for the individual or entity named on die cover sheet Do not read. disseminate, copy or distribute the information ess the recipient is the intended recipient, or the agent or employee of the intended recipient, who is r ponsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient. The recipient should immediately notify the iendar of the document if this communication is sent in error and irnmedlately return all originals which were tmnsmitisd erroneously. 5623,10-48 j l 'd Hg 9 'ON Nd61 : l l Soot '8 'ddb i APR-07-0 14: zd 1 VVi YMV VJVV 1 f•vvrf DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT ~Kur;-meomaw,Mlil nllooaranu THIS TRUST AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 24th day of August, 1992, between ROBERT E. DRIESNfER, as Trustor, and ROBERT E. DRIESNER as Trustee hereinafter called Trustee. W I T II E S S E T K: The•Trustee acknowledges receipt from the Trustor of the property described in Schedule A, which with any additions thereto constitutes the trust estate to be held, managed, and distributed as follows: ARTICLE I Name of Trust The name of this trust shall' be, the ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST. For purposes of beneficiary designations and transfers directly to ny trust, my trust shall be referred to as; ROBERT E. DRIESNER, TRUSTEE, OR SUCCESSOR IN TRUST, L*DER THE ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, DATED THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1992, AND ANY AMENDKENTS THERETO. ARTICLE IT Additional Trust Property The Trustor or ahy other person may give, bequeath, or devise to the Trustee additional property, real or personal, which upon acceptance thereof by the Trustee shall be a part of the trust estate subject to all the terms of this Agreement. r PAGE 1 - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT (M:\ep\drieSnierfep) Z 'd ED9 'ON xed. NV61: l l SOOT '8 'add /If R-YI-VJ IY.LV Ilv /1 wti we~wn. i.~. ' 1-0 ~axTx~>i~ zzz . Revocation, Withdrawal and Amendment The Trustar may, by written instrument executed by the Trustor and the Trustee, revoke, alter t)r amend this Agreement at any time. The rights of revocation, withdrawal, alteration, and amendment reserved by the Trustor may not be exercised by any agent, guardian, conservator or personal representative. ARTICLE Iv Trustor May Direct Investments The Trustor may in writing di rect the Trustee to purchase property of any kind for the trust or to retain, sell, eXChange, pledge, mortgage, and otherwise deal with or dispose of any part of the trust estate, and the Trustee shall comply with arty such direction without liability for the result thereof. ` ARTICLE V Distributions During Lifatime,ot Trustor During the lifetime of the Trustor, the Trustee shall distribute to or for the benefit of the Trustor the in=me and principal of the trust estate in such amounts as the Trustor, from time to time, may direct the Trustee in writing. Should the successor Trustee at any time consider the xrustor, by reason of illness or accident or for any other reason to be ="Ie to direct the Successor Trustee with respect to the disposition of the income and principal of the trust, the successor Trustee shall expend to or for the benefit of the Trusttor such amounts of income and principal as determined by the. sucoessor PAGE Z - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT E 'd HP9 'ON wdoz:ll Soot '8 'ddd APR-U(-U9 14,61 rftVi IM09maw,Ri 1 4.1 1 UOUI011W Trustee to be necessary or advisable for the maintenance, support, and reasonable comfort of the Truster so as to enable Trustor to maintain the standard of living to which Trustor is accustomed. xf it iv medically advisable to do so, the Successor Trustee may secure the services of a home health care provider to enable the Trustor to remain in the Trustor's home in the event of the Truster s incapacity and maintain the standard of living to which the Truster is accustomed. For the purposes of this trust, signed certificates from two licensed and practicing medical doctors indleating that there is an inability on the part of the Truster to carry out the duties of this trust and to manage the trust assets, shall be adequate evidence of incapacity. ARTICLE V1 Distributiots After Deatb of Tr'ustor it is my intention that any inter vi,vos gifts S may have made to gay beneficiaries referenced herein, accompanied by contemporaneous writings evidencing my intention that the gifts be treated as advancements, shall be taken as advancements against the distributions made, to them in this Trust. gpon the death of the Truster, the income and principal of the trust shall be held and distributed as follows: A. The Successor Trustee shall pay the costs and expenses of the Trustor's last illness," funeral, and burial, or shall contribute thereto as it may deem necessary, unless, in its PAGE 3 - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LT VING TRUST %GREEMENT (w:\ep\dPj wer.ep) ~ 'd ED9 'ON NVOZ : l l sOOZ '8 'M l 1 1 t r 1 11 APR-07-06 14:26 opinion, thereof. FROM-MOUMNIM1 16m ueDrana OVi V4V VVUU i ♦ a J there shall be other adequate weans for the payment a. Unless Trustor's Will provides otherwise, the trust estate shall bear its proportionate share of all estate and inheritance taxes made parable by the Trustor'n death. rurther, the successor Trustee may pay such additional taxes and such of the Trustor's. debts and obligations if Trustor's porsonal representative shall have insufficient funds to pay, or, if there is no administration of the Trustor's estate, as the Successor TrusteB shall in its sole judgment determine to be due and owing. No creditor of the Trustor shall be deemed a beneficiary of this trust. Unless a duly probated Will of the Trustor indicates a contrary intent, taxes paid pursuant to this paragraph shall be charged against the trust estate as a whole and shall not be apportioned among the beneficiaries hereunder. C. The trust estate remaining after any disbursements pursuant to the preceding subsections A and B shall be held, applied, and distributed as follows: The Trustee shall distribute the trust estate to my children, MARX R. DRIESNER, DEBORAH A. DRIESHER, DAVID E- DRYESNER & TIMOTHY M. DRIESNER, in equal shares, or the survivors, without the right of repres,entatiot. j ARTICLE vIs 9arpetuities Savings clause The trust created by this.Agreeement, unless sooner tarminated as otherwise provided herein shall fully cease and terminate 21 ~ PAGE 4 - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCAELE LIVING TRUST AGREEMEN'h S d ED9 'ON WdOl l l ~OOZ '8 ddd APR-07-05 14:29 tRUyF'WOOrIaw,Ml 1 i~anoraiw ow. W-V years after the death of the Trustor and all issue of Trustor living on the date of this Agreement, or 90 years after the death of the Trustor, whichever is later. On such termination, the entire principal of the trust estate of each such trust, together with any undistributed income therefrom, shall vest in and be distributed to the persons entitled to take under the provisions of this trust. ARTICLE VXXX Powers of tho Trustee with respect to the trust herein created, the Trustees, in addition to all powers conferred by law, shall have the right and power to do all acts, except as herein otherwise specified, in the judgment of my Trustee, needful or desirable for the proper and advantageous management of the trust estate, to the same extent and with the same ef4ect as might legally be donh by an individual its absolute ownership and control of said property- In addition, Trustee shall have the following powers: A. To retain any property, whether originally forming a part of the trust estate or subsequently acquired, and to invest any such. property in such securities, including common or preferred stocks of any corporation, or any other property, real or porsonal, as the Trustee may deem advisable and in the best interests of the trust estate, without being restricted to statutory investments and with like discretion to make reinvest-aents and changes of investment from time to time, and to collect the income therefrom. FA-2E 5 - ROBERT ARIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT (w:\ep\dr1*1ner.ep) 9 d ED9 'ON lid Wdll ~ l l 4002 '8 'ddd I A!'K-UMD 14:10 1 rKWMOoQiHNiMI I I I Root d1lu qVW V.W 1--o'"', , , B. To buy, sell, exchange, transfer, assign, grant options to buy, lease, including leases extending beyond the texts of the gust, encunber or otherwise alienate all or any part of the trust estate in such manner, at such time and upon such terms as the Trustee may deem most beneficial to the trust estate. C. To pay all taxes, charges, commissions and other expanses of the trust estate, including reasonable compensation for r Trustee's services and tc reimburse the Trustee for all outlays and advances made by the Trustee and all costs and expenses incurred by -the Trustee for the preservation, maintenance and protection of the trust estate. D. To vote in person or by general or limited proxy at corporate or other meetings, to participate in or consent to any voting trust, reorganization, dissolution, liquidation, m4rger or other action affecting any securities in the possession of the Trustee and in connection therewith, to deposit securities with and transfer title to a protective or other committee under such terms as the Trustee may deem advisable. E. To borrow money for such periods (even beyond the tarn of the trust), and upon such terns as the Trustee sh4ll deem necessary or convenient and to secure arty such loan by mortgage or pledge of principal, and from tits to time to renew or extend any such loan. No lender shall be bound to see to or be liable for the application of the proceeds of any such- loan. The Successor Trustee shall not be personally liable for-any such loan. PAGE 6 - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGRE£MEN1 ,rJ~i 1I+1 L 'd 88ti9 'ON Wd! l ` l l SOOT '8 'ddb' t APR-VI-0 14:Ztl rrtVwmagmaaiM1lli niiuouldim . F. To make such expenditures for the repairing, improving and rebuilding of any property of the trust estate as the Trustee shall deem necessary. G. To hold securities and other property in neg9ti,able form or in the name of the trust or in the name of a nominee, of the Trustee, but the Trustee shall be responsible for the acts of any determine trust in and all to cases what compromise receipts or ipts are submit to income and what are principal and what disbursements are chargeable to income and what to principal. 17. To employ agents, auditors, accountants, and attorneys for a reasonable compensation and to delegate to them such of the Trustee's powers as the Trustee may donsider appropriate. K. To do 'all acts, except as herein otherwise specified, which the Trustee in his judgment determines to be desirable and for the proper and advantageous management of the trust estate to the same extent and with the'same effect Os might legally be done by an individual in absolute ownership and control of the trust property. L. * The powers of sale or 'other disposition and investment and rainvestment herein granted to the Trustee are subject to the condition that the Trustee shall awake no such sale, nominee arbitration any affecti:.g claim such or property. H. To compromise matter and in adjust dispute all . debts ar elaims~ due to or made I. • against To the PAGE 7 ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMEN4 [W.\sp\driesner.ep~ 8 'd ED9 'ON Wd : l l SOH '8 ddd J0 disposition, investment or reinvestment of trust assets without first obtaining the approval of the Trustor. The Trustor may waive tha right to approve and disapprove by a written instrument deposited with the Trustee and such waiver shall remain in effect until revoked by a ai.m.ilar written instrument deposited with the Trustee. The right to approve and disapprove shall be deemed 1 waived upon the death of the Trustor or upon the Trustor bocom=' q incapacitated to they extent that the Trustor is unable to manage the Trustor's business affairs. M. To distribute income and principal hereunder in coney, securities or other property at the market value at the date of distribution as nearly as can be determined by the Trustee and the judgment of the Trustee as to what shall constitute a jiust and i proper division or apportionment among beneficiaries Oall be binding and conclusive on all parties. i N. To retain any business interest, as shareholder, ' security holder, creditor, partner, proprietor or otherwide, even i though it may constitute all or a large portion of the trust estate "d to participate in the conduct of any business with respect to I its management and affairs which an individual could do as 'owner of the business, including but not limited to: The voting of stock and the determining of all questions of policy: L 2. The execution of partnership agreements and amendments theretot PAGE 8 - ROBERT DRZESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT ~ i (W:\epwriesrcr.ep) i 6 d ED9'ON NVzz:ll Soot T ~d~ APR-OT-05 WN 1 hKuM-MDORI3~,MIilia®Drana JVJ VYV VVVU ~ 1 1 . 3. The participation in any incorporation, reorganization, merger, consolidation, recapitalization, liquidation or dissolution of any business or any change in its nature; 4. The investment of additional capital in, subscription to or purchase of additional stock or securities of, or the making of secured, unsecured or subordinated loans to any individual or business with trust funds; and 5. The election or employment of directors, officers, employees or agents of any business, and to compensate such persons, whether or not any such person is a truiitees or director, officer or agent of a trustee. . ARTICLE 12 Trustee abd Successor Trustee in addition to other provisions. applicable to my Trustee generally, the following provisions shall apply to my Trustee and any Successor Trustee: A. 'I hereby appoint ROBERT E. DRIESNER to be the Trustee of this Trust. S. In the event ROBERT E. DRIESNER shall be unwilling or unable to serve as Trustee, then I nominate, constitutes, and appoint TIMOTHY M. DRIESNER as Successor Trustee. C. In.the event TIMOTHY M. DRIESNER shall predecease me or otherwise be - unwilling or unable to serve as Trustee, then Y nominate, constitute, and appoint MARK R. DRIESNER as Successor Trustee. t PAGE 9 - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT (w;%Cp\driesner.sp) 0 d 0 l 'd ED9 'ON WbZl : l l SOOT 'S 'add Arn-wwo M-LO 1 1 1 1 1 1 D. No bond or surety shall be required of my Trustee or any of my Successor Trustees who shall serve hereunder. E. My Trustee, or any successor Trustee, may resign by an instrument in writing. F. Each Successor Trustee shall succeed as Trustee to all of the powers and discreti.ons conferred upon and rights granted to my Trustee herein. G. No one dealing with any Trustee need inquire concerning the validity of anything such Trustee purports to do or see to the application of any money paid or praperty transferred to or upon the order of such Trustee. H. No successor Trustee shall be responsible in any way for any acts or omissions of any previous Trustee. 1. Neither my Trustee, nor any Successor Trustee, shall be liable to my estate, the trust estate, or the beneficiary of the trust for any loss, damages, or expenses which may result direst], or indirectly from the management, possession, or control of the trust estate by my Trustee or any successor Trustee unless the loss, damage, or expense shall be due to fraud, embezzlement, or other unlawful actions on the part of my Trustee or successor Trustee. ARTICLE E Resignation of Trustee The Trustee may resign as Trustee hereunder at any time. In the event of the death or resignation of the Trustee, or in ths event the Trustee shall be unable or unwilling to act as Trustee PAGE 10 - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREMEWT t w: \ep\drj saner. ep) 'd ED9 'ON NVZZ : l ! SOOZ '8 'add RYK'Yf`uo 14:Li rRV11fN1VY~llw~n~ i 1 1114YM~~~~w - - hereunder, the Successor Trustee shall, upon the Successor Trustees acceptance, assum6 the duties of the Trustee and shall have and exercise d1i of the rights( powers and duties herein provided for the Tmstee. ARTICLE $I Invulnerability of Trust k6sets Neither the principal nor the income of the trust estate shall I be liable for the debts of any beneficiary hereunder, nor shall the sane be sub j act to seizure by any creditor of any benssici.ary under any lien or proceeding at law or in equity, and no beneficiary hereunder shall have power to sell, assign, transfer, encumber, or j in any other manner to anticipate or dispose of his or her .interest in the trust estate or the income produced thereby. ARTICLE 8II ' Applicable state Lair The validity of and operation of this trust shall be governed ' by the laws of the State of OREGON. "TICLE %IZS Duplicate originals This trust agreement may be executed in several duplicates: each duplicate shall be considered an original agreement. ' ARTICLE XXV Genera. Matters The following general natters of construction shall apal)'- to the construction, terms and conditions. of this trust agreement; PAGE 11 ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIMING TRUST AGREWITT (w.k4p%driesntr.ep) 11 d ED9 'ON Wb~~ l l_500Z '8 ddb'_,_~ 11fR"YI~VJ 19.OV i t•~ srvvwaalm~ ~ i....... w. 1. Unless the context requires otherwise, words denoting the singular may be construed as denoting the plural, and words denoting the plural may be construed as denoting the singular. words describing one gander may be construed as describing another gender as is appropriate within such context. 2. The headings of Articles, Sections and Paragraphs as used within this trust agreement are included solely for convenience and reference. The headings shall have no significance in the interpretation or construction of this trust agreement. IN WITNESS WREREOF, the Trustor and Trustee have executed these presents the day and year hereinabove first written. ROBERT E. DRIESNER Trustor ROBERT E. DRIESNER, Trustee r 1 1 1 r . PAGE 12 - RobMT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT cw:\ep\4r1*vwr.ep> l 'd ED9 'ON AVEZ : l l SOOT `8 ddH ~rrt-ur~ua ia~av rnVW-xUW94W? IN 1t11 1 119101 0411" The foregoing instrument consisting of 13 pages, including this page, was on this 24th day of August, 1992, in our ,presence signed, published and declared to be the Trust of RoMRT E. DRIEMR, who was at that time of sound and disposing m4nd and memory and not acting under fraud, duress or undue influence of any person whomsoever. I In Testimony Whereof, we do at his request, in his presence and in the presence of each other, subscribe hereunto as witpesses. PAGE 13 - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT tl 'd ED9 'ON NVU:! I U07 'R 'NAd I APR-U/-U0 14'JU rKwmaonvr, MI I I AI I I U0101 at1Y I STATE OF OREGON ss . County of Clackamas ) We, the undersigned, being sworn, each for myself say: on the date of the attached Trust of ROBERT E. DRZESNER in our presence said ROBERT E. DRIESNER signed the same and declared it to be his Trust whereupon, at - hi.s request and in his preser$ce, we attested the Trust by signing our names thereto, and I identify the signature on the foregoing Trust as that of ROBERT Z. DRIE$N$R. To the best of zy knowledge and belief, ROBERT E. DRIESM was then over the age of eighteen years, of sound and dispoai.*g mind and memory, not acting under duress or undue influence and Was not ir,d ed by 7 misrepresentation or fraud to execute this Truu t. , 1 , u W nes Residing at Witness Residing - at SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to by each of the above witnesses this' 24th day of August, 1992. t 4 '~*V Nota for Oregon olcIct.s My co s1 n Expires: KATHY J. HILL NOTARY PUBLIC-ORz-CON COMAgISSION NO, 00CS05 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY IC, LOU PAGE 14 - ROBERT DRIESNER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMBNT (wolrPldrieW*P.eP) Sl 'd ED9 'ON Wb : l l_SOOZ '9 add APR-07-05 1410 FROWMoutaw,Mlll Ni(debrana M Cao u000 1-NVi r-vivo w6w /'JI'M Mr C. a p el? !$'Y Ir' 04 r N P N TY FIRST AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT I LT MS FMST AM N DM , NT TO REVOCABLE LIWNO TRU$T AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 13th day of October, 2003, between ROBERT E. DIUSNER, as Trustor, ' and ROBERT E. DRIESNER, as Trustee, hereinafter called trustee. WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, the parties hereto made and entered into a certain Trust Agreement on August ' 24,1492which 1s by this reference made a part hereof although not attached hereto; and WHEREAS, Trustor desired to amend the provisions of Article 6, paragraph C, of said Trust Agreement; NOW THEREFORE .in consideration for the premises and for the aforesaid purposes, Trustor does hereby cancel and rescind Article 6, paragraph C. as contained in said Trust Agreement, and does hereby substitute in lieu thereof the following Article 6, paragraph C.: C,. The Trustee shall distribute the trust estate as foLlows; a. One share for MARK R. DRIESNER, if he survives me: b. One share for DEBORAH A. DRIESNER; if she survives me; ' c. One share for DAVID E. DRISSNER, if he survives me. d. If any of the above shall predecease me, then his or her share shall be distributed to his or her surviving children. in a ual shares and if none then to my surviving S 4 Y g r Page 1 • FIRST AMENDMENT TO UVOCABLB LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT 91 'd H 9 'ON Nvtti : l l S001,9 ddb ' APR-07-05 W-N hN W900maw,MlI I9 10140ran4 VVY Y'.Y Y-YY • . children, provided, however, char any share distributable to my grandchildren as a result of the death of a child of mine shall be held in trust for each grandchild and distributed according to the ' provisions set forth in subparagraph 2 hereafter. e. One share to be divided as follows: i}. 2a 0% to be distributed aqtWly between CALEB R. SLEMENS and CAITLYN N. SNUENS, to be held in trust under the terms and conditions of paragraph g., below. 2). 80% to be distributed equally between the issue of TIMOTHY DRIESNER, who are alive on the date of my death, to be held in trust under the terms and conditions of paragraph g. below, f. i specifically leave tray son, TIMOTHY DRIESNER, nothing by this trust, as his share shall be distributed as provided in e. above, g, Any share which is distributable to my grandchildren (which shall include CALEB R SIEMENS and CAITLYN N. SIEMENS) shall be held in trust and distributed as follows: a. The Trustee shall hold each share created for a living grandchild as a separate trust, shall pay to said grandchild all of the net income therefrom, and may encroach upon the principal of such share in such amounts as the Trustee may deem necessary in the Trustee's sole judgment to provide for said grandchild s support and education. The Trustee may also distribute to any grandchild a portion of the principal of his or her share to enable such grandchild to marry, to enter into a trade, profession or business, to purchase a home, or for other purposes if the Trustee deems such distribution to be in the grandchild's best interest. b. In making payments committed to the Trustee's sole discretion for the benefit of my grandchildren, the Trustee shall take into consideration any other income or property Page 2 - FIRST AMENDMENT M REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT xsd /I 'd UA 'ON Wd : l l Wz '8 'M 1 1 1 MAR-'YI-U0 Iw-JY rAw" mvwmawii--~ i .r.-- - possessed by my grandchildren and known to the Trustee, but the extent to which such other income or property must be used or liquidated by my grandchildren shall be in the absolute discmion of the Trustee. e. At such time as each grandchild attains twenty-five (25) years of age, the 1 1 1 1 Trustee shall distribute to such grandchild all of the remaining balance then in his or her share and such grandchild's share shall tenDinate. d. Should any grandchild die after the division of the property into separate shares but before he or she has become entitled to receive distribution of all of his or her share, then such share shall be distributed among his surviving descendants, if any with right of representation, and if none, shall be divided proportionately among and added to the trust shares originally set apart for my other grandchildren or their descendants and be held and distributed in all respects as if it had originally been a part thereof. 3. Upon final distribution of the trust, this trust shall terminate, 1 1 1 All remaining terms, conditions and provisions of said Trust Agreement are hereby rarified and confirmed, and the same shall remain in full force and effect excepting only as to the same are amended by this First Amendment to Revocable Living Trust Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Trustor and Trustee have subscribed their names hereto on the day and year hereinabove first written, ROBERT E. DRIESN , Trust Mk-,RT E. DRIE R, Trustor Page 3 - FIRST AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVI NO TRUST AGREEMENT 8l 'd eN 'ON wdSZ ~ ~ ~ Sooz '8 'add APR-9T~09 14M rKUM 9dCGmawim, I I N®17r ellu The foregoing instn=ent consisting of4 pages, including this page, was on this 13th day of October, 2003 in our presence signed, published and declared to be the First Amendment to Revocable Living Tnm of ROBERT E. DWEMR, who was at that time of sound and disposing mind and memory and not acting undue fraud, duress or undue influence ofany person whomsomr. ' In Testimony Whereof, we do at his request, in his presence and in the proserm of each other, subscribe hereunto as witnesses. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 4 - FIRST AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT 6l 'd ED9 'ON i 1 ! WdSZ l l SOOZ '8 ddd D ~ VIII-va 14-ou (11YK'lf1YYI11OP,pllsq,wu,IKOw,wn~ STATE OF OREGON 9S. ' County of Washington We, the undersigned, being sworn, each fof myself say: ' On the date of the attached First Amendment to Revocable Living Trust of ROBERT E. DRIESNER in our presence said ROBERT E. DRIESNER signed the same and declared it to be his First Amendment to Revocable Living Trust whereupon, at his request and in his presence. we attested the First Amendment to Revocable Giving Trust by signing our names thereto, and 1 identify the signatures on the foregoing First Amendment to Revocable Living Trust as that of ROB.EP-T E. DRIESNER. To the best of ray knowledge and belief ROBERT E. DRIESNER was then over the age of eighteenyears, ofsound and disposing mind and memory, not acting under duress or undue influence and were tot induced by misrepresentation or fraud to execute this First Amendment to Revocable Living st. 1 W /Mess Residing fitness 1 ?003. P7 t G•i .'S Residing at SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to by each of the above witnesses this t 3th day of October, PRM otary Public for Ore n =ZM Page 5 - FIRST AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING MUST AGkSEMENT H 'd ED9 'ON wdSZ ~ < < 5ooz s ddd ArK UI'UO 14:3U rINUM-Muma•Ipl~~• I~IWOW Qi1M SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRU sT AGREE ENT 1 7rMS SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMMNT, made and entered into this 30th day of March, 2004, between MBERT E. DRMSNER, as Trustor, and ROBERT E. DRMSNER, as Trustee, hereinafter called Trustee. WITNESSVTH; WHEREAS, the parties hereto made and entered into a certain Trust Agreement on August 24, 1992, which is by this reference made a part hereof although not atEached hereto; and WHEREAS, Trustor desired to amend the provisions of Article 6, paragraph C. df said Trust Agreement; ' NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the premises and for the aforesaid purposes. Trustor does hereby add the following Article 6, paragraph C.: ' C. The Trustee shall distribute the trust estate as follows: a. One share for MARK R. DRIESNER, if lie survives me; b. One share for DEBORAH A. DRIESNER; if she survives me; C. One share for DAVID E, DRI£SNEP, if he survives me.. . d. If any of the above shall predecease me, then his or her share shall be distributed to his or her surviving children, in equal shares, and if none then to my surviving ' children, provided, however, that any share distributable to my grandchildren as a 'result of the death r Page 1 - SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT 9G- Il 'd ED9 'ON AM I Mz '9 add At`fSwf~iJD 14:0! rrtuprowV111aeiin II19 of a child of mine shall be held in trust for each grandchild and distributed according to the provisions set forth in subparagraph 2 hereafter. e. One share to be divided as follows: 1). 20% to be distributed equally between CALEB R. S1ENENS and CAITLYNN. SIEMENS, to be held in trust under the terms and conditions ofparagraph, g., below. ' 2). 80% to be distributed equally between the issue of TIMOTHY DRIESNER, who are alive on the date of my death, to be held in trust under the terms and conditions of paragraph g. below. f. I specifically leave my son, TIMOTHY bRMSNER, nothing by ibis uwp as. his share shall be distributed as provided in e. above. ' S. Other than those persons named above, nobody else, including any god- children shalt take anything by this Trust Agreement h. Any share which is distributable to my grandchildren (which shall include CALEB I SIEMENS and CAiTLYN N. SIEMENS) shall be held in gust and distributed as follows: ' 1), The Trustee shall hold each share created for a living grandchild as a separate trust, shall pay to said grandchild all of the uet income therefrom, and may encroach upon ' the principal of such share in such amounts as the Trustee may deem necessary in the Trustee's sole judgment to provide for said grandchild's support and education. The Trustee may also distribute to any grandchild a portion of the principal of his or her share to enable such grandchild to marry, to ' enter into a trade, profession or business, to purchase a home, or for other purposes if the Trustee ' deems such distribution to be in the grandchild's best interest. Diu Page 2 - SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LiVINO TRUST AGREEMENT IF9 a it * 'd ED9 'ON NV9l : l l SOOZ '8 'm ' Arimi-Y7 ly•JI rnwIn'mvvwcw,mii . ,rr. 2). Inmaking payments committed to the Trustee's sole discretion for the ' benefit of pry grandcbildren, the Trustee shall take into consideration any other income or property possessed by my grandchildren and known to the Trustee, but the extent to which such other income ' or property must be used or liquidated by my grandchildren shall be in the absolute discretion of the ' Trustee. 3). At such time as each grandchild attains twenty-five (25) y0ars of age, ' the Trustee shall distribute to such grandchild all of the revm=ng balance then in his or her share ' and such madohild's share shall terminate. 4). Should any grandchild die after the division of the property into separate shares but before he or she has become entitled to receive distribution of all o his or her , ' share, then such share shall be distributed among his surviving descendants, if any v4th right of representation, and if none, shall be divided proportionately anion and added to the t shares originally set apart for my other gsandehildren or their descendants and be hold and di~ibuted In ' all respects as if it had originally been a part thereof, 1 S). Upon final distribution of the nest, this trust shall terms e. g ~ terms, conditions and provisions of said Trust Agreement are by tati&ed ' All remainin i and confirmed, and the some shall remain in full force and effect excepting only as to a same fie amended by this Second Amendment to Revocable Living Trust Agreement. SS WHEREOF the Trustor and Trustee have subscribed their nam* hereto PA: the day and year hereiaabove first written. i ' ROBERT E. DRIESNM Trustor ROBERT E. DRI ER, T i i ~ I I Page 3 _ SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT 41 t 9 8Z d 88tig'ON r NM:l1J0H '8 ddb ' APHT-05 14,81 MKVM-MQQMZW,MI 14 W091 4114 l A: *14 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The foregotug !wu-=uont cansistng of 4 pages, lnc u ing s gage,. his on ths y U Much, 2004 in our presence signed, published and declared to be the Second Amendment to Ptevocable Living Trost of ROBERT E. DR]ESNEE, who was at that time of sound and disposing mind and memory and not acting under fraud, duress or undue influence of any person whomsoever. In Tostimonr W16feof, wo 4 at his request, iu his presence and in the preswe of each other, subscribe hereunto as witnesses. Paso a - SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT tiZ 'd ED9 'ON Wd : ! ! _S O H •8 UV 1 1 1 1 1 1 To the best of ray knowledge and belief, ROBERT E. DRIESNER was then over the age of eighteen years, ofsouad and disposing mind and memory, not acting under duress or undyse influence and were not induced by misrepresentation or fraud to execute this Second Amendment to Revocable 1 Residin Witness 2004. 1 L L 1.41 au 4, oe~ Residing SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to by each of the above witnesses this 30th d4y of March, rpu~iOoFSeOi~ ~p~etONa asalan Mro~a~arw++~naar IAAAAIII AaAed otary Public for Orega Page S - SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGMMC-NT i ' iwfmi-YB 14.91 1 nVP1 I+IVVu111.IF.. 111....,. STATE OF OREGON ss. County of Washington ) We, the undersigned, being sworn, each for myself say: ; On the dare of the attached Second Amendment to Revocable Living Trust of ROBERT E. DRIESNER in our prescnce said ROBERT E.DA1'ESNER signed the same and declared it to be his 1 Second Amendment to Revocable Living Trust whereupon, at his request and in his presence, we attested the Second Amendmenr to Revocable Living Trust by siping our names ftreto, and t identify the signatures on the foregoing Second Amendment to Revocable Living Trust as that of ROBERT E. DRIESNER. Sl 'd ED 9 'ON W z: l l_S0R '8 'ddd 'Witness APR-OT-05 14:31 f Nl`ktQOAiLN,Mt 1I.~ Iagar arla MMw raw ww~• O+ RT rCAMOF MCMENCY ' STATE OF OREGON } 99. j County of Washington ) I, TIMOT14Y M. DRIESNE& being duly sworn, certifies and says: ' 1, ROBERT E. DRIESNER created & revocable living trust oa August 24,1992, whic4 was entitled the "ROBERT E. DRIESNI-R REVOCABLE LIMG TRUST". 2. The Settlar was named in said Trust as, the initial Trustee. 3, Robert E. Driesner died on June 24, 2004 and a copy of his death certificate Is ' attsc'L; and :nude a part hereof. 4. As the named Successor Trustee, I hereby file this certificate -and accept r a ' trusteeship of said Trust. r r Timothy M. Messer SUBSCR MED AND SWORN to before his day of Jul , 2004. i I . After recording, return to: Gerald E. Montgomery, P.C. 9900 S.W. Greenburg Read, Suite 130 Portland, Oregon 97223 9Z d EE~9 'ON Notary Public for Oregon WA& wa►a ~ ~aet 1ua° -SPr 21. I I i IAIN07' f f ♦nn-Y . o r I , i e 0 0 EXhlbit I) 'ax- map 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 ,6 . '•ll `J 5 "-C rryp ~ls,1t1/ :.au " w4r'; tP S ~ ' ' o J • s '•6d•' w r ~ ~ana» 'N , ei.-vii ~ ~ a c^ - - anz,p . , R 4t 80 Nmd r'.• ° svexcr l!J ni» 1 .~,~.w ~ . .t.~~ n(, , , ~K~~„;y+AM~NZi., wwara d l .a,~prvrq. ,1;. aniop , ym $ 2000 i R ` \ , ;,nip m . 9, . n ^ L'. ; 6k,''` Z p A84C 2 220011 v>, I . V ~ p R 1100 a p 1 ° 2 6' • i mYaoo,• n Y' aiixo " 4t ? 8g 8 rnoo gy 4 + lAe 4c LLI a ;',6 $ 8200 ~L I 5 . R r N7 .mw ` l i~ nuc18 * a 6 a 00 1! ed e Q` 9100 R s g WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON ~ , d d 7 t SE1/4SW7/4SECTION 12T2SR1WW.M. SCALE 1° 100' ; e n a 1• i o 4 R 40. •vm 4` a 6900! >6fix44 `,'a ;d~~° d8 .'aw'. d 8700 41 8800 8600! 84007 I 6300$ x'•, d FF 01 17 _ 46 4b u . 43 ft . ac a J L° S \ • .am 1 7- 3 ° ;0 7 g , CHUR w CHILL = WAY 3 2. 2 0 tA t 9d 9 % Al d8 ; io°J ' _ _ 8900 L e4 2.. - .x mrn 42 ` w:• ak ' 9 2 810+0 8000] a.--- 68000 637°7 7,00 , ;C ; ' i.,, ° ° ° ; S9R°o.• an O f", ID0 ,qa. 40 C r 39 11 3fl 13 r111 1 1 1~ w 72 . ~ g 00 a S ' 23-74 -,4 % -If` - 00 sC. \.'alftda„• 100 7i _r'+~ 7^• 31 7 t 52014 a 32 Q 6300$ 6000§ 33 34 0 6600 $ 36 6800 36 7 y x100a + F 2200 2 rl 2300- 3 J 2d00` d 9 I~) 2500 61r.11 J 2800 6 1 Y' 2700 7 raw 2800„ 8 w 2 900 3000 3100 p ,I wv . = 3100 +y ' I~ 8 m .w pa's ;:,V,::, ..3, • : - D STRE FOR ADDITIONAL MAPS VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT SW °s s BOND wm STREET 7300 0 - r:..' .I.1.eo.M6.nmomacf.o, iawj ®e'$ ®11100° 19n1o`D. ~t ow an LLIl 4tm wm uw 4am °t4o .a°o,p ' 7800 8077002 ~tmc $'53000] 1900 !8008 4]008 d8008 Ib00L , HOp $4300 4200 4100 4000 7900 3800 3700 3800 3500 3400 3300! 7 m„ 0 . `y~. 29 28 27 $ 28 $ 26 23 22 21 $ 20 ; 18 17 16 q 13 1 74002 1 24 18 14R L r 1 ! - E 0l , , nt+,~3m') 1d y' "`a.i „6 r) ~ 1 R:, ;•r :^.BC k`~%'c?~>cr y wm _ • : d gIm ,:8 am, 700 9800. 1300 $ 0B~ t 120E + I '?w• I, , 2° 4 w 1600 11800 i ,4t w o° twaaow - , y" 600 9 22 10300 8105 07 09 ,R 19 L 16 2+y .t1IG R 1 g 2 tl 3 5 B $ 7 8 11100 $1 tiff 13 $ 1700 ° w+_aoe 1 ^ .>'~DB~ : $ialooc I$i4aa, $ : s i I ~ I ,r L r 11 9 10 11 12 13 14L +6 S i' R XM4400 e ' vw r1 it m Il r = 700 ,I` -~tf 'a ..fir '1 J =a=g4 70,1$ Aa nc J T' AROL ANNA COURT §SW ALDER STRE s z : 1` }xc;; co ;'•Ac';; na.:, W.a~ A~ »m 1I, g cn~.'~, a W r g n..t ET zy I r ~ ..I~•,-'~.;'~.,:-~..>:•'::"::•, •A~;' 18:30$'29 x8~ ;7$ ]8$116 248 9~ ~ M1470001 r 1 ✓ ~l 9 i 32 W $ 11900~> " L ,:9 . s , ,diob/ e a :4000 39 f; ,sloo a u . n $'s C, ; ,l.• qq Cancelled Taxlots For. 2S712CD =14100 ACr A' U R, 11 „5 L H D'b L 37$ 38 ? A R Y c 1'° t 8 3°L 33fi yi 35 13300 p • $ 33° 9 2 $ 4 R f 1 60Q1400,1890.e1D0.1700.1500,1800.500,75W.3M. two »oo 8~> f' ~qm jl R e7 31~ >4 a" 19 3 ` Z B00 ;I Y, ,00.t2JID.1000.1100. K „ , msaoon' ur°§ ~~qv.~,~~~~~~~..~,~~,~° ~'~~,1~~~~'R t • . 2+3200: 8.4,43W F +2;W $ % 5 .72 p .1 /y 1 -R-E_-_a'a'~Wg~~~~,~~~_. ~1~~~~U~~,,~,~~•a~~,~'a~~~~~~~~~-_~01„•,, ~ Cr 30J131ry[,4 e 1VIII il,ll >q~ Y29. 13 y. NEa I 12»200 $y .,c j~;,t, f`1u taMa,•.,••':•,_•-,,.,,•,-'; 17 w.vw 7 vim. I\Ill~lllillll,,e1,llll1j'' >2FP °44729 w-0.f n 122~ ,2700 12400 y /7p 9 1j IIIII 25 6 22 $ _ 333 600 III L . 12 23 $i II J I I ss 1 I 900 I rn - I I 4c A2aG I 290 1 1 ~SS~SS~ Pt 1 2d0 I I 9 I I I - A I I TOG 1 - Cf1R ai I - s I _ I I 1i• _ ~r -VI 4 o1V~r F 1 PLOT DATE: April 12, 2005 FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES Q` ONLY- DO NOT RELY ON FOR OTHER USE . 41~rsw abeeanagarowpt •ru6gd4 aoa4~1eMllse , l a1w11- 4al.awm anrslawe'1rm41mrAr.9,° em anmtP'0pL0'mtgmbs Plena mmm 8w gpaprlab nap L~ MLr mouaa,4lYfWmaW4 TIGARD 2S1 12CD 2S 1 12CD 1 1 1 • • Exhibit E I City of Tigard Pre-application Notes 1 r 1 1 1 1 i , 1 1 t : GkR 7N Tt" t : PRA= PP TION f f RE` SCE :NOT :S ; SETT L)P TiGAQL.'ORCaof9 n~ ; e~ t . - ~o~nmu - .r . ,for. Six 6 Months re-A I~ation tvleetrn .Notes are alld } g- S(raigAtBetf unity : PP PRE-APP. MTG. DATE: Z" STAFF AT PRE-APP.: RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: 5a im4 . ~~(!aw L/ AGENT:' c,e Phone: (fd3) ~QLR' Phone: ( ) PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: ,rS6 SCI a ~9 ' ff TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): -ZS t 1-r n :10 110® ~)R~ ___~.P,~rs t ~-y► NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: 'R- 12- ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.5 / O I MINIMUM LOT SIZE: sq. ft. Average Min. lot width:_f~r- ft. Max. building height: 33-ft. Setbacks Front t-5- ft. Side 6- ft. Rear ~Q ft. Corner ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: z'rp GARAGES: -2,e2 ft. [ NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout] THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9 Residential Applicationoanning Division Section RATIVE - [Refer to Code Chapter 18.3001 The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. IMPACT STUDY [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE AN IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property.-interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ACCESS [Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 183651 Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: r- ❑ WALKWAY BEQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7051 Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (exceptAwo-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA, COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. (;~-RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151- SEE B11AMPLE BELOW. The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: All sensitive lands areas including: ➢ Land within the 100-year floodplain; ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; 6~~ ,7q ➢ Drainageways; and . ➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. f'- Public right-of-way dedication: 3,0 ➢ Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or ➢ MUlti-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or ' ➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. o~ E AMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single-Family Mufti-Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8,712 sq. ft. (20%) for public right-of-way 6,534 sq. ft. (15%) for public right-of-way NET: 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet - 3.050 (minimum lot area) - 3.050 (minimum lot areal 11A Units Per Acre = 12.1 Units Per Acre The Development Code requires thatthe net site area e)dstfor the next whole dwelling unit NO ROUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. Minimum Project Densigl is 80% of the maximum allowed density. TO DETERMINE THIS STANDARD, MULTIPLYTHE MAMMUM NUMBER OF UNITS BY A CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section ❑ SPECIAL SETBACKS [Refer t&de Section 183341 STREETS: feet from the centerline of ➢ FLAG LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures. ➢ ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. ➢ MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multiple-family residential developments. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. [See applicable zoning district for the primary structures' setback requirements.) FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7301 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1'/z STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2'/ stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are satisfied. BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7451 In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if. not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is:. Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary. Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: (K LANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 183051 STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. ❑ RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is 'the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9 Residential APpBcabon/Planning Division Section p/t;~ 7F 1 PARKING (Refer to Code ChArs 18.765 8.18.7051 • ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. ➢ Single-family............ Requires: One (1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and . One (1 ~ space per unit less than 500 square feet. ➢ Multiple-family......... Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking. NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on. the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. ❑ BICYCLE RACKS [Refer to Code Section 18.7651 BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. ❑ SENSITIVE LANDS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7751 The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive land areas and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.775.070.01 When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. ❑ CLEAMATER SERVICES IMSI BUFFER STANDARDS [Refer to R & 0 96,44/USA Regulations - Chapter 31 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: r CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Residential Application/Planning Division Section Page 4 of 9 1 t t i 1 1 1 1 r r t i TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDT SOURCE: OWS DESIGN O CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MARUAL1 SOLUTION a ORDER 96-44 { 4 c' " : St~SITIYE~RiEAflEFitd1TI0P1 . SLOFr= ADJACENT WIDTH, OE VEGET.ATE© SfNSITlvE pREAt . CO.RR,IDQRER.;SIDEZ. Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% 10 to <50 acres 15 feet >50 to <100 acres 25 feet e Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow e Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% ! 10 to <50 acres 30 feet > 50 to <100 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting • Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in • Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine3 Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 2Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 3The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the USA Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still .issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. SIGNS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard.;: A..'Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height -beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section '18.790.030.0 A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 Residential Application/Ranning division section THE TREE PLAN SHAL fNCLUDE the following: • Identification of the location, size, species, and condition of all existing trees greater than 6- inch caliper. ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. Q_MITI6ATION [Refer to Code Section 18.790.060.E1 REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to.the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by, the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be ~I viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 183951 The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. The applicant shall show the clear vision areas on the site plan, and identify any obstructions in these areas. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section ruTURE STREET PLAN AND. EKTIOON OF STREETS (Beier to Code Sectio1S.810.03611 A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: ➢ Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. ➢ Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall W. be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Rater to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'/z TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1'/z times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. 9-BLOCKS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0901 The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. CODE CHAPTERS _ 18.330 (Conditional use) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 1L 18.765 (off-street Parktng/Loading Requirements) 18.340 (Director's interpretation) 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center) _ 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.350 (Planned Development) L 18705 (Access/Egress/Circulation) _ 18.780 (Signs) _ 18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) _ 18.785 (Temporary Use Permits) _ 18.370 (Variances/Adjustments) 18.715 (Density Computations) 18.790 (Tree RemovaQ _ 18.380 (Zoning Map/Text Amendments) 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.795 (visual Clearance Areas) _ 18.385 (Miscellaneous Permits) 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) _ 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities) 18.390 (Decision Making ProceduresAmpact Study) 18.730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) - 18.810 (Street & Utility improvement Standards) _ 18.410 (Lot Line Adjustments) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.742 (Home Occupation Permits) 18.430 (Subdivisions) 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.520 (Commercial zoning Districts) 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 18.530 (Industrial zoning Districts) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) / 11 w CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS 00 COMMES: v at ~~~'-r'E ]Vr i y r r I~ PROCEDUR- E~ Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted b mail or dropped off at the counter without Plannin ivision acceptance may be returned. The Planning counter c oses.at 5:00 PM. 1 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes _ Page 8 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Becton The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative deci*aeing or public hearing will typically occu*proximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted complete by the Planning Divislt~Fi. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the. public hearing A 10-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard -IX A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is avail le fro the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice.posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. ' This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant- of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION (County Surveyofs Office: 503-648-88841 PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are required to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approvaVreservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City. receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. i 1 A 1 BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded.,- the. City's policy is to apply those system IT IS OBTAINED). he conference and notes cannot cover all Uode requirements ana aspects relatea to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Go de shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE. REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY- I CITY OF/TIGAiD PLANP N~DIVISION/-/STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: 503-639-4111 FAR: 503-684-1291 EMAIL (staff's first name)@Ci.tigard.or.us TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: WWW.Ci.tfgard.or.US H:Ipattylmasters\Pre-App Notes Residential.doc Updated: 15-Dec-04 (Engineering section: preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section i r 1 1 1 Exhibit F Parcel Size and Yield Calculations 1 t 1 i r i so aw to A- 41110 n M we low. am INK to. 211111111f *w @a wiiiil M Churchill Woods WCI: 1724-14/0 Parcel Size and Yield Calculations 11/03/05 LOT SQ. FT. Code Reference Land Area S q. Ft. Acres 1 4408 2 4154 18.715.020.A. 3 3999 18.715.020.A.1. 4 4279 18.715.020.A.1.a. 5 3614 18.715.020.A.1.b. 6 3415 18.715.020.A. 1.c. 7 3254 18.715.020.A.1.d. 8 3409 18.715.020.A.2. 9 3604 18.715.020.A.3. 10 4268 11 3086 18.715.020.A.4. 12 3282 13 3775 14 3778 18.715.020.A.5. 15 3520 Property Gross Area 79,192 1.82 Calculation of Net Development Area Sensitive land areas 100- ear flood lain 0 0.00 Slopes exceeding 25% 0 0.00 Drainage was 0 0.00 Wetlands 0 0.00 Parks land dedications 0 0.00 Public right-of-way dedications ROW-roads 17,735 0.41 Private streets Private Road Tract A 1,841 0.04 Private Road Tract B 1,860 0.04 Area of lot for existing dwelling n/a 0 0.00 Net Development Area 57,756 1.33 Minimum Lot Size Reauirement Sa_ Ft_ Or_rpc R-12 Min. Lot Size Attached SF Res'I 3,050 0.07 R-12 Min. Lot Size Detached SF Res'I 3,050 0.07 Residential Densitv/Lot Yield Count % Pntpntial Maximum Potential Lots Detached SFR 18.94 100% Min. Re 'd Lots 80% of max. Attached 15.15 80% Proposed Lots 15 79% Density Calculations DU/Unit Area Net Density 11.31 Gross Density 8.25 7d Lot Size Statistics Sa. Ft. Average '179.1 Minimum 3,086 Maximum 4,408 • r 1 1 r I I . Exhibit G Access Report r 1 I 1 1 1 I WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS ~ ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING DATE: MARCH 23, 2005 T0: CITY OF TIGARD FROM: ANDREW NEWBURY, PE PROJECT ENGINEER v~ i RE: ACCESS REPORT FOR CHURCHILL WOODS MEMORANDUM PHONE 503.684.0652 The one access to the proposed subdivision will be from SW 79' Avenue. The access will be located near the middle of the property and will terminate to the east in a cul-de-sac. All driveway accesses will be onto the cul-de-sac road. No driveways are in close proximity to any arterial or major collector street intersections. The nearest street intersection to the property is SW Churchill Way and SW 79' Avenue located approximately 260' to the south. Sight distance will be maintained at the intersections of the new cul-de-sac road and SW 79' Avenue. SW 79' Avenue has a speed limit of 25 MPH and with this posted speed limit requires approximately 250 feet of site distance as recommended by AASHTO. This sight distance is required from vehicles stopped on SW 79' Avenue making a left turn movement into the property and for vehicles exiting the subdivision and making a left and right turning movement onto SW 79' Avenue. The measured sight distance for both right & left turning movements was measured to be over 300 feet so adequate sight distance is available. All lots within this development will be required to maintain adequate sight distance triangles. As proposed, the sight circulation and access to public streets meets the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan. The driveways and streets as configured will provide for adequate stacking, sight distance and deceleration where applicable per City/AASHTO standards. 1 H.-WDMIM172414.051Churchill WoodslEnginWccess-Report.doc 1 1 Exhibit H Tree Assessment by Walter Knapp 1 i 1 1 1 1 Page 1 of 1 Kristy Kelly From: Walt Knapp [waltknapp@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:47 PM To: Lee Leighton; Kristy Kelly Subject: Churchill Woods Attachments: 0516 Churchill Woods.xls Here's my preliminary tree table and supporting pivot tables for the project. I'm sure you'll have some questions at this point; please give me a call and we can discuss. Thanks. Walt 1 t 1 1 7/1/2005 0 0 11 t 1 t 1 1 t r t I i 1 1 Page 1 of 13 • 0hurchill Woods (2).xls Tree Inventory >12" 7/1/2005 Walter H. Knapp # Species DBH in Condition Rx 1256 red oak 21 CONST 1257 red oak 29 CONST 1259 apple 15 CONST 1260 apple 16 decline, stem decay HAZ 1263 English walnut 15 CONST 1265 cherry 15 CONST 1266 English walnut 15 CONST 1268 cherry 18 mechanical damage, included bark HAZ 1272 apple 14 CONST 1274 apple 18 trunk decay DANGER: WASP NEST IN BASE OF TREE! HAZ 1435 and fir 27 CONST 1436 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1437 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1443 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1449 bi leaf maple 25 trunk decay HAZ 1455 bi leaf maple 18 CONST 1456 red alder 18 CONST 1458 bi leaf maple 22 CONST 1460 bi leaf maple 26 deadwood, needs nmin CONST 1461 apple 19 CONST 1512 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1513 Douglas-fir 29 CONST 1514 Douglas-fir 17 HJD 1516 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1517 Douglas-fir 20 HJD 1518 Douglas-fir 29 CONST 1519 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1520 Douglas-fir 34 CONST 1521 Douglas-fir 31 CONST 1522 Douglas-fir 25 CONST 1523 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1524 Douglas-fir 14 IVD 1525 Douglas-fir 26 CONST 1526 Douglas-fir 23 H/D 1527 Douglas-fir 21 H/D 1528 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1529 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1530 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1531 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1532 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1538 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1539 Douglas-fir 28 CONST 1540 Douglas-fir 28 CONST 1541 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1542 Douglas-fir 39 CONST 1553 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1554 Douglas-fir 38 CONST 1555 Douglas-fir 24 trunk decay - red ring rot HAZ 1557 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1558 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1561 Dou las-fir 25 CONST 1 I 1 1 1 t i 1 I r Page 2 of 13 0 050hurchill Woods (2).xls Tree Inventory >12" 7/11/2005 Walter H. Knapp # Species DBH in Condition Rx 1563 bi leaf maple 18 CONST 1564 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1565 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1566 Douglas-fir 16 trunk decay - red ring rot HAZ 1572 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1574 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1576 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1578 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1580 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1586 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1587 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1591 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1592 bi leaf maple 13 CONST 1594 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1595 Douglas-fir 25 CONST 1596 Douglas-fir 14 H/D 1597 Douglas-fir 38 CONST 1599 bi leaf maple 14 CONST 1600 bi leaf maple 14 CONST 1603 Douglas-fir 21 H/D 1604 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1605 Douglas-fir 13 H/D 1610 Douglas-fir 17 H/D 1614 Douglas-fir 32 CONST 1615 Douglas-fir 26 CONST 1618 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1619 Douglas-fir 29 CONST 1633 Douglas-fir 16 T4/r) 1636 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1638 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1639 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1640 bi leaf maple 15 CONST 1644 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1645 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1647 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1653 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1658 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1660 Douglas-fir 30 CONST 1662 Douglas-fir 26 CONST 1671 Douglas-fir 27 CONST 1672 bi leaf maple 21 decay HAZ 1673 Dou las-fu 19 H/D 1675 Douglas-fir 27 CONST 1677 Douglas-fir 14 trunk decay - red ring rot HAZ 1681 Douglas-fir 32 CONST 1683 Douglas-fir 23 H/D 1684 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1688 bi leaf maple 13 CONST 1691 Douglas-fir 17 H/D 1692 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1693 Douglas-fir 30 RETEN 1697 Dou las-fir 39 RETEN t 1718 Douglas-fir 27 CONST 1719 Dou las-fu 22 H/D 1720 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1722 bi leaf maple 17 CONST 1723 Douglas-fir 19 trunk decay - red ring rot HAZ 1724 Douglas-fir 29 CONST 1726 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1728 Douglas-fir 18 jHJD 1729 Douglas-fir 21 H/D 1732 bi leaf maple 16 CONST 1734 bi leaf ma le 15 CONST 1742 Douglas-fir 30 CONST 1744 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1748 Douglas-fir 16 HJD 1749 Douglas-fir 19 HJD 1751 Douglas-fir 23 H/D 1755 bi leaf maple 15 CONST 1756 bi leaf maple 18 CONST 1757 bi leaf maple 18 CONST 1758 bi leaf maple 22 CONST 1762 Douglas-fir 29 CONST 1763 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1764 Douglas-fir 28 CONST 1765 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1769 bi leaf maple 15 CONST 1788 Douglas-fir 30 CONST 1789 bi leaf maple 13 decay HAZ 1793 bi leaf maple 15 snag (dead) HAZ 1794 bi leaf maple 18 CONST 1798 bi leaf maple 13 trunk decay HAZ 1800 bi leaf maple 15 CONST 1801 bi leaf maple 18 . basal and trunk decay HAZ 1804 bi leaf maple 20 CONST 1807 bi leaf maple 30 trunk decay HAZ 1808 r ed alder 16 CONST 1810 b i Ieaf maple 16 CONST 1812 Douglas-fir 24 JI VD 1815 b i leaf maple 13 CONST Page 3 of 13 05&urchill Woods (2).xls Tree Inventory >12" 7/1/2005 Walter H. Knapp 1 i 1 1 t 1 Count of Species Species Total apple 5 bigleaf maple 31 cherry 2 Douglas-fir 106 English walnut 2 grand fir 1 red alder 2 red oak 2 Grand Total 151 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 Sum of DBH in Rx Total CONST 1386 H/D 1387 HAZ 275 RETEN 99 Grand Total 3147 • • mitigate mitigate no mitigation no mitigation 2773 total inches to mitigate $ 125 per caliper inch $ 346,625 total potential mitigation cost 1 t t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Page 6 of 13 • Churchill Woods (2).xis Tree Inventory All 7/1/2005 Walter H. Knapp # Species DBH in Condition Rx 1256 red oak 21 1257 red oak 29 1258 a le 9 1259 apple 15 1260 apple 16 decline, stem decay HAZ 1261 apple 10 1262 apple 6 1263 English walnut 15 1264 bi leaf maple 6 1265 cherry 15 1266 English walnut 15 1267 apple 9 1268 cherry 18 mechanical damage, included bark HAZ 1269 apple 6 1270 apple 10 1271 apple 10 1272 apple 14 1273 apple 6 1274 apple 18 trunk decay DANGER: WASP NEST IN BASE OF TREE! HAZ 1275 cherry 8 1435 and fir 27 1436 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1437 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1438 bi leaf maple 7 1439 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1440 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1441 bi leaf maple 6 1442 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1443 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1444 cedar 8 1445 hawthorn 11 1446 hawthorn 7 1447 hawthorn 7 extreme lean HAZ 1448 hawthorn 6 extreme lean HAZ 1449 bi leaf maple 25 trunk decay HAZ 1450 bi leaf maple 6 1451 hawthorn 12 1452 bi leaf maple 12 1455 bi leaf maple 18 1456 red alder 18 1457 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1458 bi leaf maple 22 1459 Douglas-fir 11 H/D 1460 bi leaf maple 26 deadwood, needs pruning 1461 apple 19 1511 bi leaf maple 6 1512 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1513 Douglas-fir 29 1514 Douglas-fir 17 H/D 1515 Dou las-fir 10 H/D 1516 Dou las-fir 16 H/D 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 Page 7of13 •Churchill Woods (2).xls Tree Inventory All 7/1/2005 Walter H. Knapp # Species D13H in Condition Rx 1517 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1518 Douglas-fir 29 1519 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1520 Douglas-fir 34 1521 Douglas-fir 31 1522 Douglas-fir 25 1523 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1524 Douglas-fir 14 HID 1525 Douglas-fir 26 1526 Douglas-fir 23 H/D 1527 Douglas-fir 21 H/D 1528 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1529 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1530 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1531 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1532 Douglas-fir 22 T4[D 1533 bi leaf maple 9 1534 bi leaf maple 8 1535 bi leaf maple 6 1536 bi leaf maple 10 trunk decay HAZ 1537 Douglas-fir 11 H/D 1538 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1539 Douglas-fir 28 1540 Douglas-fir 28 1541 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1542 Douglas-fir 39 1552 bi leaf maple 6 1553 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1554 Douglas-fir 38 1555 Douglas-fir 24 trunk decay - red ring rot HAZ 1556 Douglas-fir 12 dead HAZ 1557 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1558 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1559 bi leaf maple 12 1561 Douglas-fir 25 1562 Douglas-fir 10 H/D 1563 bi leaf maple 18 1564 Douglas-fir 15 HID 1565 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1566 Douglas-fir 16 trunk decay - red ring rot HAZ 1568 bi leaf maple 9 1569 bi leaf maple 7 1570 Douglas-fir 12 H/D 1571 Douglas-fir 10 RID 1572 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1573 cedar 9 1574 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1575 bi leaf maple 7 1576 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1577 bi leaf maple 7 1578 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1579 bi leaf maple 6 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 8 of 13 • Churchill Woods (2).xls Tree Inventory All 7/1/2005 Walter H. Knapp # Species DBH in Condition Rx 1580 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1581 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1582 bi leaf maple 6 1583 bi leaf maple 6 1584 bi leaf maple 6 1585 bi leaf maple 9 1586 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1587 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1588 bi leaf maple 6 1589 bi leaf maple 6 1590 bi leaf maple 9 1591 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1592 bi leaf maple 13 1593 bi leaf maple 11 1594 Douglas-fir 16 HID 1595 Douglas-fir 25 1596 Douglas-fir 14 H/D 1597 Douglas-fir 38 1598 bi leaf maple 7 1599 bi leaf maple 14 1600 bi leaf maple 14 1602 Douglas-fir 12 H/D 1603 Douglas-fir 21 HJD 1604 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1605 Douglas-fir 13 H/D 1606 bi leaf maple 8 1607 bi leaf maple 7 1608 bi leaf maple 6 1609 Douglas-fir 9 H/D 1610 Douglas-fir 17 H/D 1611 bi leaf maple 6 1613 bi leaf maple 10 1614 Douglas-fir 32 1615 Douglas-fir 26 1616 bi leaf maple 6 1617 bi leaf maple 8 1618 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1619 Douglas-fir 29 1620 bi leaf maple 12 1629 bi leaf maple 8 1630 bi leaf maple 12 1631 bi leaf maple 11 1632 bi leaf maple 8 1633 Douglas-fir 16 H/D 1634 bi leaf maple 6 1635 bi leaf maple 6 1636 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1637 bi leaf maple 8 1638 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1639 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1640 bi leaf maple 15 1641 bi leaf maple 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 9 of 13 • Churchill Woods (2).xls Tree Inventory All 7/1/2005 Walter H. Knapp # Species DBH in Condition Rx 1642 bi leaf maple 10 1643 bi leaf maple 8 1644 Dou las-fir 15 H/D 1645 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1646 bi leaf maple 4 1647 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1648 bi leaf maple 6 1649 Douglas-fir 10 HJD 1650 bi leaf maple 7 1651 bi leaf maple 6 1652 bi leaf maple 8 1653 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1654 Douglas-fir 8 HID 1655 bi leaf maple 6 1656 bi leaf maple 7 1657 bi leaf maple 6 1658 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1659 bi leaf maple 6 1660 Douglas-fir 30 1661 bi leaf maple 7 1662 Douglas-fir 26 1663 bi leaf maple 8 1664 bi leaf maple 6 1665 Douglas-fir 12 H/D 1666 bi leaf maple 9 1667 bi leaf maple 8 1668 bi leaf maple 9 1669 Douglas-fir 12 HJD 1670 bi leaf maple 9 1671 Douglas-fir 27 1672 bi leaf maple 21 decay HAZ 1673 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1674 bi leaf maple 6 1675 Douglas-fir 27 1676 bi leaf maple 8 1677 Douglas-fir 14 trunk decay - red ring rot HAZ 1678 Douglas-fir 10 H/D 1679 bi leaf maple 6 1680 bi leaf maple 9 1681 Douglas-fir 32 1682 bi leaf maple 9 1683 Douglas-fir 23 H/D 1684 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1685 bi leaf maple 8 1686 bi leaf maple 6 1687 bi leaf maple 11 1688 bi leaf maple 13 1689 bi leaf maple 8 1690 bi leaf maple 12 1691 Douglas-fir 17 H/D 1692 Dou las-fir 19 H/D 1693 Dou las-fir 30 RETEN 1 Page 10 of 13 • Churchill Woods (2).xls Tree Inventory All 7/1/2005 Walter H. Knapp 1 # Species DBH in Condition Rx 1694 bi leaf maple 8 1695 bi leaf ma le 8 1696 bi leaf maple 10 1697 Douglas-fir 39 RETEN 1698 bi leaf maple 14 1699 bi leaf maple 15 to decay HAZ 1701 Douglas-fir 30 RETEN 1702 bi leaf maple 10 1703 bi leaf maple 6 1704 bi leaf maple 6 1705 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1706 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1707 bi leaf maple 6 1708 Douglas-fir 19 H/D 1709 Douglas-fir 24 H/D 1710 bi leaf maple 12 1711 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1712 bi leaf maple 7 1713 Douglas-fir 8 H/D 1714 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1715 bi leaf maple 10 1716 bi leaf maple 9 1717 Douglas-fir 20 H/D 1718 Douglas-fir 27 1719 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1720 Douglas-fir 15 H/D 1722 bi leaf maple 17 1723 Douglas-fir 19 trunk decay - red ring rot HAZ 1724 Douglas-fir 29 1725 bi leaf maple 8 1726 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1727 bi leaf ii;ap_le e 6 1728 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1729 Douglas-fir 21 H/D 1732 bi leaf maple 16 1733 bi leaf maple 8 1734 bi leaf maple 15 1735 Douglas-fir 12 H/D 1736 bi leaf maple 6 1737 bi leaf maple 9 1738 Douglas-fir 10 H/D 1739 bi leaf maple 6 1740 Douglas-fir 10 H/D 1741 bi leaf maple 9 1742 Douglas-fir 30 1743 bi leaf maple 6 1744 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1745 Douglas-fir 11 H/D 1746 Douglas-fir 12 H/D 1747 bi leaf maple 6. 1748 Dou las-fu 16 H/D 1749 Dou las-fir 19 HM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 Page 11 of 13 • Churchill Woods (2).xls Tree Inventory All 7/1/2005 Walter H. Knapp # Species DBH in Condition Rx 1750 bi leaf maple 7 1751 Douglas-fir 23 HJD 1752 bi leaf maple 10 1753 bi leaf maple 8 1754 bi leaf maple 9 1755 bi leaf maple 15 1756 bi leaf maple 18 1757 bi leaf maple 18 1758 bi leaf maple 22 1760 bi leaf maple 9 1761 bi leaf maple 6 1762 Douglas-fir 29 1763 Douglas-fir 18 H/D 1764 Douglas-fir 28 1765 Douglas-fir 22 H/D 1766 bi leaf maple 9 1767 bi leaf maple 9 1769 bi leaf maple .15 1788 Douglas-fir 30 1789 bi leaf maple 13 decay HAZ 1790 bi leaf maple 12 1791 bi leaf maple 9 1792 bi leaf maple 12 1793 bi leaf maple 15 snag dead HAZ 1794 bi leaf maple 18 1795 bi leaf maple 12 snag dead HAZ 1796 bi leaf maple 10 1797 holly 6 1798 bi leaf maple 13 trunk decay HAZ 1799 cherry 6 1800 bi leaf maple 15 1801 bi leaf maple 18 basal and trunk decay HAZ 1802 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1803 bi leaf maple 7 1804 bi leaf maple 20 1805 bi leaf maple 6 1806 bi leaf maple 12 1807 bi leaf maple 30 trunk decay HAZ 1808 red alder 16 1809 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1810 bi leaf maple 16 1811 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1812 Dou las-fir 24 H/D 1813 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1815 bi leaf maple 13 1816 bi leaf maple 6 1817 Dou las-fir 6 H/D 1818 and fir 12 1819 Douglas-fir 6 H/D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Count of Species Species Total apple 13 bigleaf maple 138 cedar 2 cherry 4 Douglas-fir 137 English walnut 2 grand fir 2 hawthorn 5 holly 1 red alder 2 red oak 2 Grand Total 308 • i • i Based on the comparison of survey DBH to measured DBH for trees in the following table, the survey DBH estimates appear to be reasonable and are ' accepted for the analysis. Survey diameters were edited to reflect the measured DBH when available. 1 1 1 I 1 # Survey IDBH Measured DBH Residual: Meas. - S . 1256 22 21 -1 1257 28 29 1 1435 29 27 -2 1449 30 25 -5 1460 29 26 -3 1461 18 19 1 1516 17 16 -1 1517 15 20 5 1518 24 29 5 1519 18 20 2 1520 30 34 4 1521 28 31 3 1522 22 25 3 1523 23 24 1 1524 15 14 -1 1525 24 26 2 1526 22 23 1 1531 22 24 2 1532 28 22 .-6 1536 10 10 0 1595 24 25 1 1596 14 14 0 1597 35 38 3 1599 6 14 8 1600 6 14 8 1798 13 13 0 Total 552, 583 31 % Difference: 5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r Exhibit I City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, Figure 8-3 DKS Associates N A CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Transportation Svstems Plan Legend ® Road Closure Functional Classification ' Proposed Freeway Proposed Arterial Proposed Collector N Proposed Neighborhood Route *4 ♦ Planned Arterial . M • Planned Collector Planned Neighborhood Route Regional Center. Town Center, or Sub Area *-Transportation facilities in the Tigard Triangle and Washington Square planning areas have specific design regulations and classifications that may slightly differ from those in the TSP for consistency purposes. In these overlay areas, there are specific planning overlay documents for transportation design regulations. Note: The exact alignment of dashed lines t address physical, access control, right-of-w and environmental constraints in alignment developement. Figure 8-3 Proposed Functional Classification System • Exhibit J • Neighborhood Meeting Materials A0F1 A'V{T OF AI LI &POSTI G NEIGHBORHO&I MEETING NOTICE '~$lllat~Cr;3'~'~CC~ B`~eafe:lCaR:~4y~os~.c,;;ev.:e~~, ascacys►syJ arc „ i - ~asx ref T>i Y d392~ ; ~ g~r,~ ~i s as (state location you posted notice on property) AILING: '"J. ~Yi n 11-C.v ~Gl t , being duly sworn, depose and say that on the day of a , Off, I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the ttached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a pro sed ye(opment at (or near) 1 SLo85 NLk) -ALUL a copy which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. !!flier state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed t said~ersons and were deposited on the fe,ndicated above in the United States Post Office located at ; i.postage prepaid thereon. (signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) DSTING: do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed ~lJ~ ; J ~S~`~ ✓1 affecting the land located at (state he 4p proximate location(s) IF no dress(s) and/or tax lot(s) curren I registered) / s~ 8 S 41V;CA ux- d;did on,.the day of 06CJJ. l a , 20122 personally post notice indicating that the site may be !posed for a \feq~n application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to Cuss the proposal. e sign was posted at `(~0 r~-t kL ~ i lIQ.1►.~OI~ l ~r 4L M\)6&AQJ 64 1 n„Rc GIJ __q cl - C~ ~l W-0 IA-,f, ~l (In the presence of a Notary Public) It~~~. ~E ~(.t~!'21` Rftl• ,6~1~ztSta ~1 ~,~t''~ ~~J,9' ~ b`fit~ - , i1riB$Eg 1tVlSibn . . ' ` le r..d l~ ei (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETEINOTARIZE) 'ATE , ) yht:y of SS. Uobscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of , LIC. OFFICIALSEAL LYNN A. DUNN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON x ~ COMMISSION N0.369685 ',F~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 16, 2007 NOTAR PUBLIC OF ORE ON My Commission Expires: M07 pplicant, please complete the information below: 4Ai1E OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:- FPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: !dress or General Location of Subject Property:; bject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): a hAoain%DattvVmslers\afridavA of mailing-0ostino neiohboA**od meebng.ooc Proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision Neighborhood Review Meeting, Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Ste 150 March 1, 2005 6:00 PM Sign In Sheet Name Address Phone E-mail ~-1.10 l...l U 1 f- cJ ~v p, fit fil 1S c,0. GE\ M 7y61 (A/ U rz t L J&I-es-\ +-,4ti"x Dav;s v''l 5cJ C~Gtirtrt~~~ll Gf 1L_clav~sCO~e;;z ~l_ PAT LkL d1~ 5a 5 g l ve, lD`~ ! (7 ~ls i. (r1 L) w 7U 1~ G r - 3 L M ^ov(S~+. (c ~.t, Q ~ rxj'cece 6 1 I Proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision Neighborhood Review Meeting, Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Ste 150 March 1, 2005 6:00 PM Sign In Sheet Name Address Phnna G_n,mil ,n,✓I rvv~uvl,~ 47T SW ak.W41, 20- 70 l0 7 ~ - S~~ l - ~GL7 ~cGb r 1 John Rueter 5565 SW 79th Migard, OR 97224 tennis & Deborah Fuller fi18 SW Ashford Street 91ard, OR 97224 Fde & Ken Dobson 8095 SW Churchill Court Tigard, OR 97224 Karl & Pat Nulton 5680 SW 79th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 1 Bob Read 735 SW 80th gard, OR 97224 Ivette Marty 75 SW Churchill Court ggard, OR 97224 1 s 1 r 1 • Walt & Joan Brooks 15540 SW 79th Tigard, OR 97224 Craig & Courtney Kozak 8605 SW Churchill Court Tigard, OR 97224 Steve Allsup Wilshire Homes 14845 SW Murray Scholls Drive PMB #409, Suite 110 Beaverton, OR 97007 Mike Pouison 7990 SW Ashford Tigard, OR 97224 Margaret Krauss 7645 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 Kurt Haarmann 7977 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 Karen & Alex Davis 8045 SW Churchill Court Tigard, OR 97224 Carol Pelosi & Colin Penno 7913 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 Trudy Delp 8005 SW Churchill Court Tigard, OR 97224 Sara Wilson 7961 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 Margy Potts 7903 SW Ashford St. Tigard, OR 97224 • Gary Desa 7461 SW Churchill Way Tigard, OR 97224 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS 'z NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES ENGINEERING* SURVEYING* PLANNING PHONE 503.684.0652 DATE OF MEMO: March 9, 2005 PRO]ECT NAME: Churchill Woods DATE OF MEETING: March 1, 2005 PR07ECT NUMBER: 1724-14/D MEETING TIME: 6:00 to 7:45 p.m. LOCATION: Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Ste. 150, Tigard, OR 97224 PRESENT: Steve Allsup (Homebuilder) Lee D. Leighton, AICP (Westlake) Kristy E. Kelly (Westlake) Neighborhood Attendees (see attached sign-in sheets) DISTRIBUTION: All Attendees SUBMITTED BY: Lee D. Leighton, AICP r1r Introduction This neighborhood meeting was conducted in preparation for submitting a Type II land use application to City of Tigard, for approval of a 14-lot subdivision. The subject property is located within the R-12 zone of the City of Tigard. The meeting commenced with Leighton introducing himself as the Director of Planning for Westlake Consultants, the company representing the developer of the project, Kurt Dalbey of Spectrum Development, LLC. A Leighton then introduced the homebuilder, Steve Allsup of Wilshire Homes. As required by the City of Tigard Neighborhood Meeting Process, Leighton read the City's Statement of Purpose to attendees. Leighton then gave a brief presentation of the proposed plans for development of the property. Leighton asked attendees whether or not they had attended the neighborhood meeting for the Gage Forest subdivision; about one half-dozen attendees raised their hands. Leighton reported that the Gage Forest subdivision is within close proximity of the subject property, and that, coincidentally, Westlake has been retained to represent both developers. Process Overview Leighton reported that the proposal is a "limited land use decision" decided by the City of Tigard staff.. Leighton then summarized the application review procedure. The Applicant must first submit an application for subdivision. The City of Tigard has 30 days to deem the application Churchill Woods • ' March 1, 2005 Neighborhokeeting Notes March 9, 2005 Page 2 of 8 ' complete or tell the applicant what information is needed, which the Applicant and/or Westlake would then provide to complete the application. Once the application is deemed complete, the City will send out notice to neighbors, service providers, and affected agencies. Leighton added that the noticing. area for the application would be the same as the noticing area for the neighborhood meeting (owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property). Once the notice is mailed the City allows two weeks for submittal of written comments, or "testimony." This is why it generally takes 5 to 6 weeks for the staff to issue a decision. The jurisdiction ultimately has up to 120 days to issue a final decision. Within this time frame, the jurisdiction must include any staff decisions, public meetings or hearings, the appeal period, appeal hearings and decisions. The Applicant does not have control over how quickly the jurisdiction issues the decision within that context. An attendee questioned whether or not the developer would be willing to open items up to public review before the application is submitted to the City. Leighton responded that they have found that this works well and that the information is public record upon submittal anyway. Allsup agreed with Leighton's statement that the information is of public record and can be reviewed by interested parties. Allsup added that as a matter of practice, typically at this stage not all issues have been resolved at a high level of detail. Proposed Development Overview Leighton showed attendees the proposed preliminary plans prepared by Westlake. Leighton reported that the existing single-family structure and associated accessory buildings will be removed as a part of site development. Leighton informed attendees that the proposal is for the 14-lot subdivision of the property located on the west side of 79"' Avenue, more specifically 15685 SW 79th Avenue. The subject site consists of 1.88 acres, or 81,893 square feet, located in the R-12 zone of the City of Tigard. Leighton explained that the minimum lot size required in the R-12 zone is 3,050 square feet. Leighton reported that all lots had been designed to contain between 3,522 and 5,408 square feet, which exceeds the minimum square footage requirement in the R-12 zone. Leighton further explained that to calculate the maximum number of residential units per net , acre, you divide the number of square feet in the net area by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. Leighton further explained that net area is calculated by subtracting the square footage of right-of-way and any sensitive areas from the gross area. Leighton explained that this reduces the gross area by approximately .49 acres, or 21,323 square feet. The net acreage for this subject property is approximately 1.39 acres, or 60,570 sq. ft. The maximum density for this site equals the net acreage of 60,570 sq. ft divided by the minimum lots size of 3,050 square feet, or 19 lots. Leighton explained that the City also J has standards for minimum density, which is 80% of the maximum density. At a rate of 80% of the maximum density (80% of 19), the minimum density for this site would be 15. The proposal is therefore below the minimum density and the Applicant will be requesting an adjustment for the density reduction. Leighton informed attendees that access to proposed lots 1 through 4 and 11 through 14 will be by the proposed cul-de-sac. Access to proposed lots 5 though 10 will be by private streets 1 Churchill Woods . • March 1, 2005 Neighborhood Meeting Notes March 9, 2005 Page 3 of 8 located within Tracts A and B. Leighton indicated that lots 5 through 10 have been oriented east- west with access from proposed Tracts A and B. Leighton suggested that this creates a better relationship as it will create a backyard-to-backyard adjacency with neighboring lots to the west. Development Requirements Leighton informed attendees that within the R-12 zone required minimum building setbacks for single-family detached dwellings are as follows: 1. Front setback -15 feet 2. Side setback - 5 feet 3. Side facing street on corner and through lots -10 feet 4. Rear setback -15 feet 5. Distance between property line and front of garage - 20 feet Leighton reiterated that proposed lots contain between 3,522 and 5,408 square feet, which exceeds the 3,050 square foot minimum requirement in the R-12 zone. Leighton explained that proposed lots 1 and 14 along the east property line along SW 79`f' Avenue would need to be larger to accommodate the increased setback for corner lots as well as the water quality and detention facility located on the east side of proposed lot 1. An attendee questioned the 15-foot setback as required by the City. He wondered whether or not that also applies to proposed lots in the southwest corner of the property. Leighton responded that proposed lot 5 is oriented east-west such that the south property line will be considered the side lot line and therefore a 5-foot setback would be required. An attendee further questioned whether or not the setback applied to the patio or the house. Leighton responded that the setback applies to the house; therefore homes will be approximately 10 feet apart. There was some general discussion amongst attendees regarding required 5-foot setbacks and the adjacency between proposed lots 5 and 10 and the neighboring properties. Some attendees registered concern for the clustering of homes. Allsup responded that he does not build "box" type homes and that he typically constructs homes with staggered front elevations such that the garage is off- set from the family room. Allsup added that the building envelope is determined by the City not the developer. Allsup gave his opinion as to why cities are electing to require smaller setbacks. Allsup indicated that he would love to purchase a parcel outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for development. Allsup suggested that he would create larger lots with greater setbacks as this is what the market is demanding. Allsup indicated that the requirements are based on regulations set forth by elected officials and the Metro Council for Government. Allsup 1 indicated that he and other developers have discussed this matter and agree that it needs to be changed. Allsup indicated that he watched John Stossel's "Give Me a Break" in which Stossel highlighted the Portland area. Stossel suggested that Portland home prices are high and that eventually Portland will end up just like Manhattan. Allsup urged attendees to vote in the next election. An attendee questioned whether or not the homes could be spaced out thereby reducing the lot yield. Allsup responded that the development is already on the low end of the density scale and r Churchill Woods March 1, 2005 Neighborhoo3Meeting Notes March 9, 2005 Page 4 of 8 this would result in a development below minimum density. Another attendee suggested that Allsup plat the lots but sell each home with an adjoining empty lot. Allsup responded that he the homes would sell for $800,000 and there isn't a, market for that. Allsup added that this would allow purchasers to turn around and sell the empty lots; therefore the subdivision would end up being just as dense. The attendee suggested that Allsup impose covenants and restrictions to prevent the purchaser from reselling the lot. Allsup responded that he is unable to do this. Alternative Development Leighton reported that the R-12 zone within the City of Tigard also allows attached or multi- family housing. Leighton reported that at a rate of 12 units per acre, the subject property could accommodate up to a 22-unit apartment development. Leighton presented an exhibit which graphically represented a possible site plan for multi-family development. Leighton assured attendees that this was not the developer's intentions, but that he wanted attendees to be aware of site development options available in this zone. Housing Stock Allsup introduced himself and his partner, Aaron Fuller, his son-in-law. Allsup indicated that he owns and operates Wilshire Homes. Allsup reported that he has built homes in Beaverton, Tualatin and Bull Mountain. Allsup reported that he works in conjunction with Kurt Dalbey of Spectrum Development. Allsup indicated that Spectrum Development initially purchased the subject property, but that Allsup will complete the actual site development and home construction. Allsup reported that he typically builds 2-story, Craftsman- or Traditional-style homes with a 3- car garage. Allsup reported that due to City requirements, more specifically dimensional requirements, he will be limited to a 2-story home with a 2-car or a 3-car tandem garage. Allsup reported that the homes will range in size from approximately 2,600 sq. ft. to 3,400 sq. ft. Allsup indicated that they will range in price from the high $300,000's to the high $400,000's. Allsup indicated that he uses high-quality materials such as Hardi-plank siding, 30 to 40-year composite roofs, cedar shake siding at the gables and wide trim around the windows to give depth. Allsup suggested that they are upscale homes, not tract housing, with interior amenities such as hardwood flooring typically covering 500 to 700 square feet of the home, granite countertops and tile bathrooms. Allsup reported that it will be similar to the Leiser Park Subdivision by Legend Homes located on SW 81s` Avenue near SW Bonita Road. He indicated that the homes will have a little different look, color and trim package but the basic design of the home is similar. An attendee questioned whether or not the plan is likely to change significantly. Allsup reported that any changes would be a result of City suggestion, but that the plans will be public record and that residents will receive notice of the application. Residents will therefore have an opportunity to view the plans at City Hall as well as provide written comments to the City. An attendee suggested that a lot of houses don't have fences and wondered whether or not Allsup would install them around the periphery of proposed lots. Allsup responded that he typically installs "good neighbor" fencing. Another attendee raised concern for the location of existing Churchill Woods • • March 1, 2005 Neighborhood Meeting Notes March 9, 2005 Page 5 of 8 fences and questioned whether or not Leighton or Allsup foresee boundary issues between the survey and what is actually in the field. Leighton reviewed the site survey map from Westlake and reported that there was possibly a discrepancy of one ore two feet in the fence alignment in two areas. Leighton reported that any issues would be worked out with the adjacent property owner. Leighton reported that a boundary survey had been completed and a few iron rods reflecting property lines had been field located. An attendee questioned whether or not trees would be removed to install fencing. Allsup responded that in the past he has worked around existing trees. An attendee questioned what would be done about existing fencing. Allsup reported that typically he tries to work with the adjacent property owner and if the fence is in disrepair he will likely offer to replace the fence, or portions of the fence, to assure quality and an attractive appearance benefiting both parties. An attendee questioned whether or not landscaping is the responsibility of the homeowner. Allsup responded that the sell of the house includes front landscaping with an option to provide landscaping of the rear yard. Allsup reported that approximately 60% of his clients request both front and back yards to be landscaped. Allsup indicated that a portion of his clients will request the backyard to be covered with bark dust such that they can complete landscaping at a later date. An attendee questioned whether or not Allsup intended to build all of the houses at once. Allsup responded that he would, for efficient operations, adding that the some would be speculative (not pre-sold and built-to-order). Another attendee questioned whether or not there was a contingency to buy. Allsup responded that there is a contingency on the purchase. Storm water Leighton reported that the proposal includes plans for an underground water quality and 1 detention facility. Leighton reported that the original plans called for an above ground facility; however, City Staff suggested underground pipe to conserve space. Leighton reported that the function of the facility is the same as a grassy swale. Stormwater runoff from roof drains and other impervious surfaces will be directed to the underground pipe, where it will be treated for phosphorus and turbidity before its release into the public system. Leighton reported that a public storm drain line is located south of the subject property in SW 79`h Avenue. Transportation /Streets Leighton showed attendees a traffic circulation plan with an aerial photo of the site and surrounding development. Leighton reported that the graphic included line work representative of the street hierarchy surrounding the development. Leighton reported that according to the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, SW 72"d Avenue, Durham Road and SW Hall Boulevard are identified as arterial streets. Arterial streets are intended to provide general mobility for travel within the region and link major commercial, residential, industrial and institutional areas. Leighton added that SW 79' Avenue is identified as a minor collector, which provides access ' and circulation between residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural community areas as well as the Arterial system. Collectors tend to carry fewer motor vehicles than Arterials, with 1 Churchill Woods March 1, 2005 Neighborhopeeting Notes March 9, 2005 Page 6 of 8 reduced travel speeds. Leighton indicated that all other streets within the project area are identified as local streets designed to provide access to adjacent parcels. Leighton reported that due to existing development surrounding the subject property, a through connection is not feasible. An attendee questioned whether or not the cul-de-sac would be a public street and whether or not it would be stop controlled. Leighton responded that the cul-de-sac was designed to City standards as a stop controlled Local Street, adding that the development did not warrant a light controlled intersection. An attendee questioned the what, if any, improvements needed to be done on SW 79 h Avenue. Leighton responded that the developer would be required to perform half-street improvements. An attendee registered concern for the width of the pavement. Leighton responded that he believed that SW 79`h Avenue is paved to City standards, but that the developer would be responsible for dedicating right-of-way such that the right-of-way is to City standards. SW 70`'' Avenue, as mentioned above, is identified in the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan as a collector. The required right-of-way for a collector is a minimum of 58 feet, including 5-foot planter strips, 6-foot sidewalks and a 34-foot paved width with a bike lane and a 1-foot curb. The planter strip will include City approved street trees planted 30 feet on center. Trees Leighton reported that Westlake Consultants had performed a topographic survey in which they located all trees 6 inches in diameter or larger within the subject property. Leighton reported that a grading plan has not yet been completed, but it will be designed such that the cul-de-sac will meet the grade of the existing street and provide for an appropriate profile. Leighton reported that it will be necessary to remove trees within the proposed street right-of-way. Leighton added that it is likely that the Developer will have the opportunity to conserve trees along the periphery of the subject property. Leighton indicated that the Applicant is required to provide a plan that shows trees to be saved versus trees to be removed. Leighton reported that trees to be retained will be protected by the use of tree protection fencing. An attendee inquired about the tree mitigation plan. Leighton informed attendees that the City of Tigard has very progressive tree mitigation standards such that it is costly to remove trees. Allsup added that developments with trees, in his opinion, create a better living environment. Allsup indicated that it is to the developer's benefit to preserve trees as it is a financial burden for the developer to remove them. Leighton added that the City of Tigard has a progressive tree mitigation plan. When a tree greater than 12 inches is removed it has to be replaced with the same diameter total. Leighton explained that typical nursery stock is 2 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). Leighton gave the following example... if a development requires the removal of a 20 inch tree; the developer would either have to plant ten 2-inch trees or pay a fee- in-lieu of removal. Leighton reported that the City's fee for tree removal is $172 per dbh caliper inch; therefore the fee-in-lieu of planting for a 20-inch tree would be $3440. Leighton added that the difficulty in replanting trees is finding the room to plant them. Allsup added that he would like to propose to the City of Tigard that mitigation plantings be allowed on Churchill Woods • March 1, 2005 Neighborhood Meeting Notes March 9, 2005 Page 7 of 8 neighboring properties. An attendee questioned whether or not the developer intended to preserve any trees. Leighton responded that the developer will attempt to save as many trees as possible. Leighton indicated that sometimes trees have a larger or, more complex root system than expected. For example, when a contractor is coring out a road they might come across a tree root that has shot out beyond the tree's root zone. At this point an arborist is called on site to determine the viability of the tree. Leighton explained that because the City has a stringent penalty for removing trees that were identified for retention, the Applicant cannot claim to save any tree in particular due to penalties for removal. An attendee questioned whether or not the developer could build the houses around the trees. For example, build a deck around a tree. Allsup responded that he has built decks around trees in the past. Allsup added that if there is an opportunity to save a tree in close proximity to a house, Allsup will instruct his sub-contractor to dig the foundation by hand in an effort to do so. Allsup reported that unfortunately a lot of times when you remove one tree, you, subsequently lose the stand that it was within. An attendee suggested that the two most attractive trees are a pair of maple trees located in front of the existing dwelling. The attendee questioned whether or not these would be removed. Allsup responded that the viability of the trees at this point is uncertain. Leighton added that an arborist has been retained. Leighton indicated that the arborist will provide a report outlining his recommendations regarding the health and viability of retaining specific trees with reference to the proposed development. An attendee questioned whether or not they would be able to view the report. Leighton responded that the report would be a part of the proposal submitted as public record. w An attendee speculated that the developer will sell the timber; therefore the developer will reclaim a portion of the fees paid. Leighton responded that the efficiencies of timber sales do not exist as they would for a large scale timber company thinning a forested area. An attendee questioned what happens to the trees after they are removed. Allsup responded that he pays a company to have them removed and likely they are chipped or chopped as firewood. Construction An attendee expressed concern for work to be completed on the weekends. Allsup responded that the Tigard code dictates hours of operation. The City of Tigard code indicated that "no work will be permitted during the hours of darkness, nor between 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday nor between 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Saturday, nor between 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. Sunday." Allsup indicated that he does not work on Sundays and does not allow his sub- contractors to as well. He suggested that a lot of his sub-contractors do not work on Saturdays as well. Leighton added that although site construction is likely to begin this summer, actual home construction probably will not start until fall. Allsup suggested that the daylight hours will also dictate the hours of construction Sig,u ficantResource Lands An attendee registered concern for the displacement of animals and other wildlife with the removal of trees. Leighton responded that the state has statewide planning goals which the individual jurisdictions must implement. Leighton went on to explain that the local government r Churchill Woods March 1, 2005 Neighborhooeeting Notes March 9, 2005 Page 8 of 8 must inventory natural resources and determine the quantity and quality of each resource in accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. The Goal 5 process follows three steps. The first step is to identify regionally significant natural resources, such as fish and wildlife habitat, and other significant resources. The second step is to perform an Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis, balancing the competing values. The third step is to develop a program to allow, limit, or prohibit development in significant resource areas. Leighton reported that the subject property does not have the characteristics of a significant habitat corridor as it appears to be an isolated site. Leighton explained that typically significant natural resources occur within riparian corridors along streams. Leighton indicated that because the site has not been identified by the City of Tigard as a Goal 5 significant resource, it is not subject to specific regulation. Allsup assured attendees that he is their neighbor and that he is concerned that the homes complement the existing residences as well. Leighton offered his business cards, and he requested that any concerns or further comments that attendees might have be submitted in writing to his attention at Westlake Consultants, Inc. With no further questions, Leighton thanked everyone for attending and participating in the discussion. Several informal conversation groups formed for a few minutes as the Westlake team put away displays and materials. These notes have been circulated to all of the meeting attendees, with our invitation to provide supplemental notes, to ensure questions and concerns have been adequately represented. Such notes may be sent as follows: Email to: nei hbors westlakeconsultants.com (please use "Churchill Woods" in the Subject header) Fax to: Lee Leighton, Westlake Consultants, Inc., fax # 503 624-0157 Mail to: Lee Leighton, Director of Planning, Westlake Consultants, Inc., 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150, Tigard, OR 97224 Or phone: Lee Leighton, Westlake Consultants, Inc., 503 684-0652 Attachment: ■ Sign In Sheet me W ` so I ow p\ low- a MR .mss ~r a" M• M Proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision Neighborhood Review Meeting, Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Ste 150 March 1, 2005 6:00 PM Sign In -Sheet Name Addracc nL-_ r- l-{ vi c~A E G t~ti-~ ~-x . A l I--f ,wn 6-A NV A l~ ~KGtlt c -7 r e h 4-,4 e x Da v 1 S 90'_1 T 6 LJ Ci A -L4 f C-- l' I 42 0c) J~CL A i VL-r6^1 V6 '~A lp M r rC v JiS F WW 1 th i~rr~ i L")7- i> M ,a~(se ~.f O~ J r L S c) CC 10C. Proposed Churchill Woods Subdivision Neighborhood Review Meeting, Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Ste 150 March 1, 2005 6:00 PM Sign: In Sheet Name Address Phone E-mail C D n i 46 ~c (iJj d b- 7 1 M r 7^+ E~f C i A C (X J Q WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS 4u NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ENGINEERING • SURVEYING* PLANNING PHONE 503.684.0652 February 7, 2005 I RE: 79th & Churchill Subdivision Proposal Dear Neighbor: Westlake Consultants, Inc. is helping Mr. Kurt Dalbey of Spectrum Development, LLC apply for subdivision of the property located at 15685 SW 79" Avenue (Tax Map 2S1 12CD, Tax Lot 1900), as shown on the attached map. The proposal is to subdivide the 1.88-acre property, zoned R-12, into approximately 13 lots for single-family detached housing. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with surrounding property owners and residents. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for the applicant and surrounding property owners/residents to review the proposal and to identify issues so that they may be considered before the formal application is turned in to the City. This meeting gives you the opportunity to share with us any special information you know about the property involved. We will attempt to answer questions, which may be relevant to meeting development standards consistent with the City of Tigard Development Code and respective Community Plan. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Tuesday, March 16`, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 Directions on the back of this sheet. Please note: this meeting will be an informational meeting on preliminary development plans as work is in progress. These plans may be altered prior to submittal of the application to the City. We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please feel free to call us at (503) 684-0652 or fax us at (503) 624-0157 if you have questions. Sincerely, WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Leighton Director of Planning Enc.: Tax map showing subject property Frequently Asked Neighborhood Meeting auestions" H.- WDMINI172414.05179th & Churchil11P1anWeighborhood Meetinglnbad mtg letter.doc i DIRECTIONS TO WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, INC. Traveling South on 1-5 Take the Carman Drive exit. At the light, turn right onto Carman Drive. Stay in the right lane, which will become a right-hand turn lane onto Sequoia Parkway. Travel on Sequoia Parkway to the first cross street (Redwood). Turn left on Redwood. Turn right into the second driveway and then bear left. You will see the entrance on the southwest corner of the building. Travelinq North on 1-5 Take the Carman Drive exit. At the light, turn left onto Carman Drive. After crossing over I- 5, Carmen splits into two lanes. Get in the right lane, which will become a right-hand turn lane onto Sequoia Parkway. Travel on Sequoia Parkway to the first cross street (Redwood). Turn left on Redwood. Turn right into the second driveway and then bear left. You will see the entrance on the southwest corner of the building. Via SW 72"° Avenue Travel south on SW 72 Avenue past Hwy 217 and SW Bonita Road. Turn left at the first street after Bonita, SW Cardinal Lane. Turn right at the first driveway, bear right into the parking lot and proceed south through the parking lot to the next building. Come to the entrance on the southwest corner of the building. r v r t r H.-UDMIM172414.05179th & ChurchilllPlanWeighborhood Meetinglnbad mtg letter. doc j" Ow Im No 00 IM AM 2( >K a3n ~~r" 10~a.n,.~, ~r,a n ~;v` 1. l`° nay n sa81 I ,,T oi`r b . 1'. .S,'3 .•A •'djl;,. b.... 4' ' 52; ,,8 fL`, a/. meal • , - s4 m1 .t„raG 1m ,axp 'A ,au' 7 + l 1n 8 S.'iaoe:~ ~ ~ R •mnzq• my uas. ~w~.~!'•.~,~~~•..w~;C.:w::~6P'.: ~ , 9nnw. ' ^"tmaa , di e<^• ` ,'I 800 . 4~. "4• / 1 •96awk%4..•.C .nhE6dvm• '',~t:,•,;. ";t,-, LLI Z $ 2000 P toot w i _nzd5 1900 S 8 2 0 4 9100 I, •.y 3 200 0 9 1: ~.c W 8 9200 4 IL .'"mac ja: a6a aa. 33 'n A 5 Is,oo fy • ' 1 . %3 , Z E'•.'' bl' a ,.1.now tj\ f z • Z 8 8300 ] L TRAC o r. . ll 1 _i S s S hhheeeYY. nc „>s,n . 1"'Ir~ .d s a 160, $ S1 W 7 o gg e4oo 8 ,a;e,::; 3 r szbe .7t 4c $ to R 7 g s,,, . . . s Q e e e500 I WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON „„xy-~=y C~ j 11 9 3 ,e .;Z t; SE1/4SW114SECTION 12T2SR1WW.M. vp~ SCALE 1" - 100' 49 1 1 ~ •.a:•~6gg07 6700 6600 6600 8400$ 8300$ 8 1701 ~ ~ Y 1 . ,7• . @ 47 46 46 44 R 43 ° (7 .714c - oil J\l 41i A $`Sw•CHURCHILL~ WAY T 3s 7200 0 ale- f4, .q4i / 6900 Oj l.tuK xu AC „4,_.I ~ ,am am6 wn 1, ,a4, • •-4 109' ppgq~ 6000 590016800^ 5700 7 rum. I 41 40 8 9 31 9 37 .1' mr rJJJ/J 7 ■ F i ~°,t~d>' ~ mf1f00' 1 I~ 7200 8 ~ F~ 00 '74 i 2100 2200 2300: 24005 2600 2800 1700" 2600u 29~ 00 rW s'x . = 6 n`13~ j00 5201 $ 6300 6400$ 6500 71'';•'1,; $ 5600 3000 300. 3200 gg mane"''.`'' U7 v0,'. 75•. 32 8 33 34 36 36 $ 1 2 3 •y 4 d 6 8 I 7 9 10 11 12 Ir q5 d x .r iii a 1.. 8 S• 9 3 D S TR a,• ate. , n~.n j wn wn 6600 •°m u on u"a$ : s ° maa" p FOR ADDlIIONAL MAPS Y/SlT OUA WEBSIIE AT - ~ $ SW•: , BOND STREET § 7aooo ? ,O ',3~.~c www.co.wesningl0mor.us 7x4 t4nKx Y~rrae6 livraEn 4a~a 'O u17 w> L2 7800 ;F • }3 Z)17. ,'78,• ,77 a 4m+d' ao.n s'. , ...a ^ , 4 ~:Eg'' `(`SA':~ >I4~ `.~:f f8 4900 48008 47008 4600 4600^ ^4300 4200 4000 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500 3400 ; p> A I"• 2'•,• 29 28 27 20 1 18 S 3300a 3 28 26 3 23 . 22 y 1] L 19 16 ^ 14 ^ 13 7400 1 / gg 24 P +i1a, Fiu: ' ( r P r MMUL. HNIN L;UUHI- Fl ~ •swv ALDER STREET., 99ao yy))..~ ( app 3 >u . 1 . 29' .29 27 J I1 r q X 1j17- •30 26 25 248 J ~ $ 3 aW 9 $ !438 8 23 i , g 10101) ACT •A• k 0 38 S f:Qh L : 37 37 35 u, 0.y,,~• TRACT Q 5 a~ a.so it ■0+,~a1' • 38a 35. 340 331. 13300 u,f/'✓ 'A)• 4ii ~ 127800 8i ~p .1 , .u ~v. , x~ ,,,~~~R / '1.•.~~u~~u'Rb.. aa.ai ¢e, ~..P ,t'~8 ~q~74?_` 3200~~:by~sS14300• 3.~ W 121100 $ i - 7W'6-„\„•,... ,_-u~ ,~u~~,•:. ,a'~,:u~.•.,,....~u~'.,•.,., Vii' u![ii.61. !u~•~a,CuT,tgl`: 'T 4 30029 130f~(!r t.,4f%. ' 2 12200 5 / U -A Q3)- 31 29. ,2 ow 7= 3-~ II =\L A 27 !2 25 :f 2 12300 ' I'hll 'h,'•Ip n+ 6 • n p .1 • I 1..'.! .'I - _ I11r~_ IIp 11 t2 6 122W CI,.7• 1240 1=_, f 12500 I I T 1 2 I 3 3 I I I 1 I F I ~ tz 500 x I I .I'. I I 24 1 I x I I V, I 1 P. - / I O 6S I I 16 - 1 I I. •(4a,aea'• C '>N. "7R 4Y m dlg29lw12 1 CD •i~ c 44 Cancelled Twdob For. 2S712CD ./>(1'.',`•')c'' i 800.1400.1800.8100a700,1500A8001'00,7500.6200,•- Soo 100,1MI000. .72 4c'J i•..'• "yt~ 74- 1 z ac c >r AR ~$eQi®~~ 1~6 Cf$Q _ Cii4(ZTCKi F. Y a SS if I PLOT DATE: October ti 18, 2004 b FOR ASSESSMENT PUAPOSE S O ~ ONLY-DO NOT REL YON P FOR OTHER USE G MW d . .wr1, by 9re7,88d1,0 n . asuaPrv,.a ~a 44rr endnf 4 a,MtP0P4M6ai„1m141 FM4a4 f8,}ulloM IfplCpIW 6140 btlp m4Y taneNlW,naDOn. a2 k •n~ . TIGARD 2S1 12CD 2S 1 12CD FREQUENTLY ASKED City of Tigard Community (Development NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING QUESTIONS S417ingA0etterCommunity What Is The Purpose Of This Neighborhood Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to. let them know what-issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. What Happens After The Neighborhood Meeting? After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the City. Sometimes it takes a while before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be several months between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application. Once an application is submitted to the City, Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes approximately 6-8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns. For all types of applications, property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels receive notice of the public hearing (if applicable), notice of the decision, and are given the opportunity to appeal the decision. What If The Proposal Presented At The Neighborhood Meeting Is Not What Is Actually Submitted? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the project is entirely different, a new neighborhood meeting would be required.. In any case,- notice of decision is sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development allowing them the ,opportunity to appeal.. How.Do I Know What Issues Are Valid? A. decision is reviewed based on :compliance with the Tigard Development Code. . Review the development code to. familiarize yourself with what is permitted and what may not be permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library or a' copy may be purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You. may also contact City Planning staff and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. Be prepared, however, that you may not LIKE all the standards, but at least you- know what they are. If a development meets the code standards, it can proceed. MThe following is a list of questions developed by a subgroup of the Citizen Involvement Team. These uestions are intended. to aid you in formulating your own questions for proposed development in your area. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests. ROCESS What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When. do you expect...to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal? Will the decision on the application be made by City Staff, Hearings Officer, Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (timing)/ At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input? Has a pre-application conference been held with City of Tigard Staff? ✓ Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified? ✓ What City Planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the Planner assigned to the land use case and the one to contact for additional information). CEETS Will there be a traffic study done? What are the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary? What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are proposed? Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths? What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? 10NING AND DENSITY What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning? Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes, to what zone? How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum density LIAG-E allowed in the zone? AND WATER QUALITY • What is your erosion control and drainage plan What is the natural slope of the property? What are the grading plans? • Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own and maintain the facility? TREES AND LANDSCAPING What are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed? • What are the landscaping plans? What buffering or fencing is required and/or proposed? r r 1 t I I Exhibit K lean Water Services Stormwater Management Service Provider Letter 1 1 r i 1 r 01/26/05 10:45 FAX 5036813603 - 1 1 C0PV cleanWater Serv'ces Our commit►i-,ent is clear. CLEAN WATER SERVICES, r 4002 D F E B 7 2005 WC~C- ~ JAN 2 6 2005 File Numbe t1~Jtt~'99 d i~ 3y Sensitive Area PraScreening Site Assessment Jurisdiction Q4:rT,i Date Map & Tax Lot 90 Owner Site Address P° Contact Proposed Activity I ' ' _ Address Phone offlaw use only below Nds Woo Y N. NA ❑ ❑ Sensitive Area Composite Map Map # 251 W_ A ❑ ❑ oz Locally adopted studies or maps specify Y N NA -110 r tea.. ~Sb Stormwater Infrastructure maps ~''i L. ❑ OS O y6.2/ ❑ ❑ ~ Other Specify Based on a review of the above Information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 04-9: ❑ 5ensitivs areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE.APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or-within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may.also be required. Sensltlve areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site aas4ssment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LEER IS REQUIRED. THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT, r ❑ The proposed activity 0008 not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER FETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: Reviewed By: Date: T Z/aS Returned to Applicant Mail X F Counter ~crte 2 D By 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway • Hillsboro. Oregon 97123 Phone: (503) 681-5100 . Far. (503) 6894439 • www-ot®omyajaraaj-vieoa.~ r 50/Z0 3Jdd SINVIIFISNOZ) 3AVUS3M L5T0-bZ9-£®5 8001 500Z/9Z/I0 • r 10 Exhibit L Title 1 1 t I 1 • I 0 01/22/2005 12:43 FIRST AMERICAN TIT LF 95036240157 N0.390 17002 First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon j . Washington (OR) Prepared'For: Prepared By. JENNY VAUNCOU'RT Chstozner Service Departxtt.emt 1700 SW Fourth Avenue - Portland, Oxegon. 97201-5512 Phone: (503) 222-3651 Fax: (503) 790-7872 OWNERSW INFORMATION Owner : Driesner Robert E Tr Ref Parcel Number : 2S 112CD 01900 COOwner r. 02S 'R: 01W 5:12 Q:252 Site Address 15685 SW 79th Avc Tigard 97224 Parcel Number : 80512494 Mail Address 15685 SW 79th Ave Tigard Or 97224 Map Number Telephone : Owner: 503-639-3483 Tenant: County :'Washington (OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :11/0911992 Loan Amount Document # : 79963 Lender Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate % Owned Pesting Type PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Map Page & Grid : 655 F7 MktLand : 5309,800 Census : Tract: 308.04 Block: 3 Mk0ructure : $75,770 Subdivision/Plat : Durham Acres MktOther Neighborhood Cd : 4TIG MktTotal : $385,570 Land Use : 1912 Fj s%Tmproved,Potential Development M50Assd Total : $198,720 Legal : DURHAM ACRES, LOT 13, ACRES 1.88 Y6 Improved 20 03-04 Taxes :53,262.53 Exempt Amount Exempt2ype Levy Code : 02374 Millage Rate :16,4177 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 4 Lot Acres : 1.88 Year Built :1949 Bathrooms :2.00 Lot SgFt :81,892 EffYear.Blr :1960 Heat Method : Forced Bsm Fin SgFt Floor Cover : Carpe Pool Bsm Unfin SgFt : Foundation : Concrete ktg Appliances Bsm Low SgP1 Roof Shape Dishwasher Bldg SgFt :2,156 Roof Mall : Comp Shingle Rood Fan 1st Flr SgFt :1,452, InteriorMat : Drywall Deck Upper Kr5gF' PavingMatl : Concrete Garage Type : Attached Porch SgPt Const Type : Wd Studrshtg Garage SF :576 Attic SgFt : 240 Ext Finish .245 Deck SgFt This title infonmetlon has been furnished, without charge, in conformance with the guidelines approved by the Stabs of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Wsion cautions intermediarles that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indisodminate use only benefiting intermediaries Wil not be permitted. Said services maybe dscontnued. No liablfity is assumed for any errom in this report 01i22i2005 12:43 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 95036240157 First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon e y An WA=dbuuacsanerve ofTMEI WRAMB CM2ANY Cg; OUOW 1700 SW Fourth Ave, Suite 102 * Portland, OR 97201-5515 Phone: (503) 219-8746 * Fax: (503) 790-7872 AUCU DUNCAN WESTLAICE CONSULTANTS 15115 SW SEQUOIA PARK WAY #150 TIGARD, OR 97224 Preferred Client No: 16768 Order No: 236568 Date: 2005-01-22 Delivery Type: Fax Sta4dard Orders Total: 1 Phone No: (503)684--0652 Email: aduncan@westlakeconsultants. com .;'>t.:` . ''t ~~:.:y:~ v Yy+!b?~n:vor •.hv. - - ~(A We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you-.-If you have any questions regarding this report, please call: Jenny Yaleneourt Phone No. (503) 219-8746 Fax No: (503) 790-7872 i jvalencourt@firstam.com Vue title information has been Amiiahed, withm oharp, in coafoffitmaa with the guidel nea approved by the State of Orson Ineum= Camtmeslona, The himr w Division cautious intetmedieries the this service is designed to beacfd the ultimate ia611tede, indisafir r to use mtly beae&tinginzenmeditaiea will not be permitted Said aerviae may be d scoatinved. No liability is assumed for my won in this tepcd. N0.390 Pool Fax: (503)624-0157 01/22/2005 12:43 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 4 95036240157 ~5~ AEd~Rf~ First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon An assumed baainecs Hams of TTTLE INSU ANCE COMPANY OF OREGON J 1700 SW Fourth Avenue Portland, OR 97201-5512 Phone: (503) 222-3651 This map is provided as a convmience in locatir{gproparty Ffrst American TYde Insurance Company assumes no liability for any rmiations as may be disclosed by an actual survey Reference Parcel Number 2S112CD 01900 A) i N/ N, ~ v r \ r r "*A~,r C~ J r r ` 'J4. r \ Y r ` J ♦ 129 w ` r LW K J~ X ~C r\ r f n 2bC 32 . 4 'ZIM x NO.390 P003 N ON \ ~ \ / \ r / ` ♦ / \ M JON J t r % Air r / .Oe \ r W 14 "\4511206, N 19y 00 m 0 /24D0'~\/ 7Ln t3 r 1.$$ AC a G 01'1.87 J' 2$7'6 N 0 40' w J \ \ ae k 12' 12' gd, > > 49 6800" m 4,6 m 6700 6600 6500 Q 6400°o 6300 o 0 a' 47 46 45 44 43 \ \ .ea 9, 30,40 o .28 g 50A4 50.04 50.00 38.24 1 1~ I^,n ev'~Q~s~ t0 S ln/ CHURCHILL 0 WAY lb w a yo~ni ~a,g$ ~ r / 200J / F N6 ♦ W J 42 , I " 4 I T ~ ~ L P C3 SOD \ o 49,78 \4 ` app O / r LD, 47.70 50,00 $0.00 5o d0 42.88 p .33 ~ ~s 6101 m 6000 m 5900 ~ 5800 'ri 5700 o 41 o 40 9 3 9 . 37 r 1 49,78 50.Ofl 50.00 b0.U0 F2.21 3 d• ees! 2000 .35 AC 115.00 N 6900 ~ 7 01/22/2005 12:43 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 4 95036240157 1451 AMEk~e~ First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon An a,=odbu9nsss I= of TITLB INSUg,A13CE COMPANY OF OREGON 1700 SW Fourth .Avenue PortlaXttl, OR 97201-5512 phone: (503) 222-3651 This map a provided as a convonisnce in locatingproperty First American Title Insurance Company assumes no liability for any variations as may be disclosed by an actual survey ` Reference Parcel Number 2S112CD 01900 . 25 1 12C6 . n .w ~.I r r, n, •vT' / hY',',. j(7C]c; X:°;`,' Z (x• /1, ~ivr• v -fix v .f +y'ti''% J % •.,,'~'r+,'>i M ro ry.~ - X r ~v,♦ Grp.'' Y r, N Y. •vf i n.,i, y, : y n ) / :%l''• v +K ice: • ' ,l - ;;~.'S~~} `t, f\. T+;'.,.• ~/•x• Y • c RJR! , r yy~:,, v r" xi ~ ' ...a ' y , f;, f• k .v,...+.; . \ r •n' •Xr4, ..''r~~ ~ 7'~ Y~ le, N0.390 P004 251 12CD •,~7CxY: K NlAgRtNUN.rOUIV~YORk-~1tIN w, r 'r5P? 'up' V Q _t.i a+a 'Ftnk'r.TdZy•+ a~usrnox?amww.W ~ ~ rr 1 r by ~'}~•y~\k.< ryr<'. ,r, x J _ qSW CMURCNILLI WAY ~~oo p e ° 23-74 ii Inw t. I `Y"~ l 1 -t- r . ~~/y"=+''i' rmwopn0lue OW Vecrin R~ s pees E : tv:lk'' r x 4 t; S'r STREET Y !'C Na ST awl BOND ~ '«e a 'j/.'.~'i~,~."•'%.x~°o~ ,•"`px T'4' • Npao Am .m0 noo agae nae xM f ~m ewe ~p ~ x: y r % :P16 k ~ n ~ ~ !1 p ~a° Y tl u ~ !t ~ ~p ;rKj~?k 1%'K • I' AROL ANN COURT a~ je" a-- w~ P y~,lk'K /?AAv ~n~ erw.,amhrit c A I ` d'.c .y . ~~C viii' •/`~x y "h K 00 1 "~..qn x r Y' ' ; y v :vt/x ' v,Xfi T a x a t l c n • i°v, y' ''r +~/,`c• fl./,•r-,;v~ vwTOnTE'a,ornn.wpoga v` as T J ~ PdNES ick+''ti:c 7Cf~ "INN T?? <zx a w..- .wea.:.N.+.r.,,..w.. )C ~'~y\y'~~' <<`. r k:.<Y. / r. •r,'lm - - x Y7'x, : r ✓ l4'!~ '%;a: a^ \.,~,+V ' 1 rrx..rww.+~.~ • k l`'i~:•:r */4,'~'''v~v'Ci~fk dwvx'y~; `'~`.~'`:J~•iy'~`'''4 f~~`Y`:: • ° "'+O t G ey°~n Ll.l~ ,yy'ntini';!')x:<x'•?:~`%F, ~rt.Yy `•,~~c x:•.`K~ } 1. ~f"• :'~f:: y,/ ~'~•`'R 2S 1 12CD 2S 11110 npwq 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 r 1 01/22/2005 12:43 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 4 95036240157 N0.390 P005 rr.~..-w._._ - ~~11_yd.ll,~+Jw:.t'J~7L.i.'J wYk~iLL1W.•-r.^CEs4r~w.:.:..w'~`.T~.w ~l ^ iRDr?~a7-J~-- i~ W, { IN 1tOBERT F: DRIESN~, Grmior, Qmvtp to RAT E. DRS, TRUSTER OR Fits SUCCM01t, UNDUT11a DRm2mR$voCABLE LrMOTRUS'T, UTA DATM AUGUST %TH.1992, Grmth'e, thefaRawidQ raal pmpady dmeted is Wphington t:etmty, Oragaa, to wit: LOT is. DURHAM ACRES, WesFusstat►ComotY. OXPn. SUBJECT YO: riShta of the public is sad to aW' poedao lharoof within the bewdatiea of road end highways. •*,qw al=bad &A* ceetifiwte far 2A.1oaa Drimc a TB$'~itUBCONStDt3itATlONFa1z'11~%COSi~BYAttCHQi„~LE,•~'itttSCONFBYANCHJSFORBS7'ATSPi.M~hD'tCPUAFOSi ONLY• oncd: AUGUST 24TH. IM L. ' & Dremm Tell a4 mtlejWr WU..t.NOT ALWW USE OF MM PROPtR7Y >==ED CI Ttg n4WMOMMlT VMLATION OF APPb1CAMS LAND USS JAWS AND RMULATIOM. VMMRK3lVWQ OR ACC6VTJCto m tN87RUJ w, p USES. tAtOPERTT smOuLD CBECtt Wrre TM AMOPRIASB C= = COUNrT MAMM90 STATE of ORBags. County oft ) m AUGUST 24TH. 1992 I?ta.MMY appeared bdbm me the above-na=W ROBERT B. DRIESM mad acftovAedgod the famsaing i=U=mt tD be his volurtluy act wd dead. I THY J.LI. Borate M ` NOTARY PUSLIC-OREGON p far Qtegan COAlhliSrrOr: MO OOyb05 My bn oxpiit7 7 (14 ptY COttMISSiOtt F~tPtRE54tILY 1a.1494 OAANtESf__ ARM M=di4. Mtttm to. r F. Mnnt40mL[V - 5 Until a change is mqueRed, n1► Isx SGttatnante 6oe11 ba smt to the rallmviag address; No Qan a j-"~' L •r~ri i -+q :ti' .1n c+.••-~•'~t.t~^y G ~ n. °~d: 1........ ;a•lyt- is 3 (~':E~'r~~1f - ` .iii i +.1 '1 I . r 1 + 1 33C %k[!44 L ` .-wu° :'Y~ v~ 1 -e .~h`at377+.'>-1~'~-~-~ L~f*lfkwi!'re~~• s~•1;4.• _ ,#.Ys•9 l;~ €S. t:l ~:YT Q . i ! G :1 r:i i{ir;{I r i1j-14111q eu1iFF;jii~~rii 1~ulw!l~iliil3t ' i 111. .~::~::7 C.I: ~~I~~ +17,~ I•l~.a~..~.::1 4F' 1 :,:.+~in ~::~ii •i Ismail 11HiI~ III iI I 1 i i I o riii:i urllilla STATE Or CWWOWE--STATE WN Of HEA.UH Vltll SI/TlllEo SLdlen 5' 8 t Leal nt. lErm9er CERTII=JCA'TE OF QEArm r 31.11 $tl.Nw,LI, . OIGLAI[0.NAM3 ,A~LL __/l~rll!•- A LIx owwa or Ill&-fft dm yells 6 d 1. 7'WWdA 1111 2?JI IQJI f He Oi N 111 .HM . LACE Whik Ivre, A-rkae L"**, El nrfrllnl -e% r1 A11 dkv 0111[ C■11 g -E f, _ IC 8 . t., ns. ar n IL I[ 1q 19 ~3 d c 3 C DEGlASED r)ciou o x, a rP Tn Nrt+0 xo rr cAt YA iAria » r 'n ~ r.wellryllatw] IRy~ l..dhr.,yh■ unyg yd M1+.IILIls ~I. I~1 tDAa E Tb, 7rw1w r1. Eau 78.J'~IlfSZCFFILO 6 .Nrluymltd /1~~~7. - c Q STATi 01 tIR'IH oiiilsfo) texwl oou+ Nauuoq, Ni .2 r,H~u RA CCrr auusE p«a . x~ d IN r,:e NSA,. wlm. olVellyt t'lloOWto.OITORC[011■raiErt J r • n V Kr>•I:d rn 4:tt ~UUAI ar(1Jt111• H L 1 L 0GC 11011 ELM Lhd o .eH Ar1q f 1~~7J JIfaINFE [R M." " CK +nld'~:r,or Mwae rro„el yy Isle, 1,•In if nrB,p s i .an x4 1:. 543 >Yl ~3 ta. teit Is>L ~lic octula r E 71f16tNG[=lf~a Gov of [Milo '.t1 •livl. 1ii7f iad"gtiata[;'pil zlJl. { /~Q v~}p tit.i..~■iY%t/%~Mtir,Y~~E/;fc~NAf1!P,6EXR'` G la.. R ! 1 ' n 14. T~ lad- 14 rJ""~ 1 7 WHO r1aM[ lrnr m J f M01 IR- lern Mlm. ,:11 We ba PM NI-MAM[ IM +aLw L m d.M+Nd E. r1. ytr ru S. rL~i ~/s 69LL7eafa Rab PAAA u"dobet~ Otledz-lruca~rrd 41, i • p 1 r, n■~wlm Inlnll /A•1 : ■[ATN WAS GU1tD tY: ~4 [ENl[i ONLY ONE CAM PRM CIR C.1, VA MA t _M.[s.;@ e,edrlrh I - do @ - 1■me xn r+ w 4a +a't M W Il a OsnN¢Y!M1 ~ ~ f` ..Im, If mr, ~1r p yt.s r, 1. 1 1 CAUSE l ■WIWMEII. ~pal~irMM eu 1; 1-1m nw ndrr Y/. y fA 1 11 G1MiL 316 1 K Hf COJtLlT1r Nl1 . 4M0 f rn P(■ bt N1 h a ANN OT'~w In /rl [a] 1{ C T 1 Tt! .en 1 C ~ C (!'rLM MI lw drll,mlwVy 01■~„a dl.l ly~-+l ~ ~ AG[leL 11 MI AIM Rf MD d 4■r ~ O[CLRLED eNU rtinfro nhrff1. Pln1 «q./14 DUS 11) Iwlah s+d.el Inanq,dlr.rrad % /j 'r o 1cw I~/ alb x7t r~• l,~r Tod~• . .p I mt air eCf G■ M1ULraI mr, rry mf,f■xory, vGAI na JR.I O. -aTr Pr nwn, /■vtry, n/rel is 1-~• ilwrlEr yl. Pf net ■lG. ELdp...rc/wtdM ~j r• 77 aa. sol_ E r 1'-- 1-700 [Lrlnet t)x~ ,r,,.M, Qp y„r nnnfh d.r v.Ar M dw Ibr Alin 1 Ed ffa CEA1N oOLWLfao L1A.." '-aM o:: +N y.V .t.r Vw badr d+rr, rM c 1 / vxrrY.t do % vlx+rklq,.11tj b.. rcL,.► I d,+e.xd N:arl _ Idte d+e 1 Mr 13 l9-~ tlov1_ z3. Z966 A C - n:riT~Tw -idTral►1 CER><IRER See ?726A { trl, i _ 2ZI/ unlot embe2 i d WIIAt. CIl►Lw110N, LLMOYAL, [1Ja11[Lr O.[ V • A 1AA71). T/PeeiEr) slla~~u Tea. 6Elrti,sL 14h. S1,a dW . - %Il~elL SOt~ilpNw tt I` r. 1 fla it ~ 1 ul i aalaastLlasvs[.w~~a 7 ' E E m I Wt•w ~~,,./:,~~:y;yel7s~=~•-'•r t~~~`i,~:ti•~ -.a{y ~1:•~. ~ i.=•'~`.;:'[Y`inl~~771 Al+r. er piMl eI a 1 1 S dn. 11M1 F m .c rn o fin W. rac Aptr. 26 1471 N llt)r a fern Iral. t 0 ~ aD pore d n tOCA11011 &V e1 te•.n SUM E I! 'y file rf[i E&LPb ! aft E E A u WMA Arevfe-,IM.YIP ~ Fu aeRUL E1oxre !/8314 fl JAW14. TJ yar d, CbE+~ 91u3 &Ali REOvic. sTrTEM La 0 A AMMO, ME RATE. R DISMA■ 2c fde RPR 1071 ~R JTL' ~ m - o M PA 4• 1 '-11 i . 1 {!t t PiivSta:5 1 GJ lD U O G m Q1 1 1 1 1 i Exhibit M I Preliminary Storm Drainage Study 1 1 r t t t . t t 1 Preliminary Stormwater Analysis Report for t Churchill Woods Tigard, Oregon t t t March 29, 2005 H:\ADMIN\172414.05\Churchill Woods\Engin\Storm Report\Calc Cover Sheet.doc i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r i i CHURCHILL WOODS 0 Tigard, OR Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Analysis Purpose 1.3 Water Quality Calculations 1.4 Detention Calculations 2.0 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS 2.1 Total Impervious Area 2.2 Water Quality Volume 2.3 Water Quality Flow 2.4 Water Quality Swale Design 3.0 DETENTION CALCULATIONS 3.1 Pre-developed Conditions 3.2 Pre-developed Runoff Rates 3.3 Developed Conditions 3.4 Developed Runoff Rates 3.5 Pond Outlet Design 4.0 PRE-DEVELOPED RUNOFF CALCULATION REPORTS 5.0 DEVELOPED RUNOFF CALCULATION REPORTS 6.0 REFERENCE TABLES & MAPS ' CHURCHILL WOODS Tigard, OR 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction r This project is located just north of the intersection of SW 79h Ave and SW Churchill Way in Tigard, OR. The total project area is 1.88 acres. The existing site slopes gently from west to east and the existing site includes a single family residence. The existing site vegetation includes many fir trees along the west ' property line, lawns, gravel drive and a grape vineyard row crop. This development proposes to create 13 residential lots with a combined water quality and detention facility located at the southeast comer of the property. The detention & water quality facility will be design according to the requirements set forth in Clean Water Services "Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management", March, 2004. The outfall from this facility will be directed into an existing storm system in SW 79`s Avenue. The existing system continues down into SW Bond St. and outfalls into Fanno Creek to the East. Runoff from the site will not exceed pre-developed rates, therefore no downstream analysis was conducted. 1 1.2 Analysis Purpose The purpose of this preliminary analysis is to determine the following: 1. Water quality treatment rate. 2. Pre-developed and developed drainage basin runoff rate. 3. Required detention volume. 1.2 Water Quality Calculations For water quality, the system shall treat the total precipitation of 0.36 inches falling in 4 hours with a storm return period of 96 hours. The water quality treatment rate was calculated to be 0.11 cfs. A grassy swale will be constructed to achieve water quality treatment and will be designed according to the Clean Water Services requirements. i 1.4 Detention Calculations The detention requirement states that the developed peak runoff rates for the 2-year, 10-year and 25-year shall not exceed their respective pre-developed peak runoff rates. The Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph modeled with a Type 1A storm was used to determine the basin runoff. The 2, 10 & 25-year storm was evaluated to determine the basin peak runoff. Rainfall data for each storm was obtained from Clean Water Services. The existing soils within the property are classified as SCS Group B soils. These were obtained from USDA maps and are attached. * See attached reports from HydroCAD, a stormwater modeling software, for all basin runoff calculations and swale and detention pond sizing. 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 0 • CHURCHILL WOODS Tigard, OR 2.0 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS 2.1 Total impervious area 13 lots x 2,640 impervious area per lot = 34,320 sq. ft. Public street impervious area = 17,991 sq. ft. Total site impervious area = 52,311 sq. ft. 2.2 Water Quality Volume WQV (cf) = 0.36 (in) x Impervious area (sfl 12 (in/ft) = 0.36 (in) x 52,311 (sfl 12 (in/ft) = 1,569 cubic feet 2.3 Water Quality Flow WQF (cfs) = Water Quality Flow c 14,400 (sec) 1,569 cf 14,400 (sec) = 0.11 cfs F- 2.4 Water Quality Swale Design Bottom Width Side Slope Manning's "n" Swale Slope Peak Inflow (CFS) Length Peak Velocity (ft/s) Peak Depth (ft) Travel Time 2' 4:1 0.24 0.50% 0.11 107.3 0.14 0.23 13.1 min 1 Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr WQ Storm Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 1 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Reach S: Water Quality Swale Inflow Area = 0.875 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.64" for WQ Storm event Inflow 0.11 cfs @ 8.04 hrs, Volume= 0.047 of Outflow. 0.09 cfs @ 8.45 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Atten= 11 Lag= 24.4 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 0.1 fps, Min. Travel Time= 13.1 min Avg. Velocity = 0.1 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 17.6 min Peak Depth= 0.23'@ 8.23 hrs Capacity at bank full= 0.42 cfs 2.00' x 0.50' deep channel, n= 0.240 Length= 107.3' Slope= 0.00507' Side Slope Z-value= 4.0'1' Reach S: Water Quality Swale ' Hydrograph = f[I Inflow 0.115: - = ❑ Outflow 0.11 0.105. ' , ' . _ I.1.lft: 0.1 .095 0 • 0.09 crs , . i _ , _ Peak-..Dept 3~'. 0.09 0 085 ` _ . . ; -Max Uel 0 1 f I 0.08 . 0.07 - - . ~0-.240._.. 240 r 40.065 0.06 L 107:;3' 3 0.055- r LL 0.05 0.045 , _ - - 0.04 - 0.035 ' 0.03. . , 0.025' i l r 0.02 . _ . 0.015 . ...........:................i. ~ ~ 0.01- " 0.005 0 , 5 6 7 8 9 1'0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) r 1 1 CHURCHILL WOODS Tigard, OR 1 3.0 DETENTION CALCULATIONS 3.1 Pre-developed Conditions Drainage Basin Area = 91,867 sq. ft. CN = 65 (woods/grass combination, Group B soils) CN = 69 (pasture/grassland, Group B soils) CN = 98 (existing paved roads, SW 79`h) CN = 85 (existing gravel driveway, Group B soils) CN = 78 (existing row crops, Group B soils) 3.2 Pre-developed Runoff Rates 2-year (2.5") = 0.07 cfs 10-year (3.45") = 0.24 cfs 25-year (3.9") = 0.35 cfs di i l d C 3.3 on ons Deve ope t ' Drainage Basin Area = 91,867 sq. ft. Developed drainage basin consists of roof, sidewalk, existing & new public street areas (CN=98), existing gravel driveways to the north (CN=85, Group B soils), existing ' pasture/grassland (CN=69, Group B soils) and landscaping areas (CN=61, grass cover over 75%, Group B soils) 3.4 Developed Runoff Rates 2-year (2.5") = 0.53 cfs 10-year (3.45") = 0.95 cfs 25-year (3.9") = 1.15 cfs 3.5 Pond Outlet Design 1 1 Storm Event Peak Inflow CFS Peak Outflow CFS Allowable Outflow CFS Orifice Size Invert Elevation Peak Stage Storage (cuft) 2- ear 0.53 0.07 0.07 1.2" 166.21' 169.14' 5,335 10-year 0.95 0.24 0.24 0.75'x 0.25' 169.14' 169.31' 5,829 25-year 1.15 0.33 0.35 - - 169.37' 6,006 1 1 CHURCHILL WOODS Tigard, OR 1 4.0 PRE-DEVELOPED RUNOFF CALCULATION REPORTS 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Churchhill Woods - Pre-developed Type IA 24-hr 2-year storm Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/29/2005 Subcatchment 1: Basin 1 Runoff = 0.07 cfs @ 8.99 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af, Depth= 0.34" Runoff by SBUH method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 2-year storm Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN Description 51,836 65 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG B 28,395 69 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG B 7,550 98 Paved parking & roofs 1,655 85 Gravel roads, HSG B 2,431 78 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG B 91 867 70 Weighted Average , Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.4 300 0.0260 0.2 Sheet Flow, Range n=0.130 P2=2.50" 1.4 210 0.0260 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 22.8 510 Total S b t h t 1 B u ca c men : asin 1 Hydrograph I --------il r r - 0.07 Runoff F- 0.07 as 0.065 0.06 " " f 0.055 ..Run' 0 045 Runoff Velu6ie_0:061; of . w 0 04 Runoff Deptl=0.34" . 0 0.035 .................'............_..i................' _ FIoW Length=510' 0.03 • ~ T6-22:$ min.... 0.025 0.02 - A--------.- p - 0.015- - -------4-------- - 4 a0, " - - i 0.005 " - 0 i 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11'81 1 1' lilt' 19 20 Time (hours) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 • Churchhill Woods - Pre-developed Type IA 24-hr 10-year storm Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 2 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002749 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/29/2005 Subcatchment 1: Basin 1 Runoff = 0.24 cfs @ 8.15 hrs, Volume= 0.137 af, Depth= 0.78" Runoff by SBUH method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10-year storm Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description 51,836 65 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG B 28,395 69 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG B 7,550 98 Paved parking & roofs 1,655 85 Gravel roads, HSG B 2,431 78 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG B 91,867 70 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft ) (ft/sec) (cfs) 21.4 300 0.0260 0.2 Sheet Flow, Range n=0.130 P2=2.50" 1.4 210 0.0260 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterwav Kv= 15.0 fps 22.8 510 Total 0.26 " 0.24 ' 0.22- 0.2 0.18- 0.16- 0.14-' LL 0.12 0.1 o.oa I , -----"..r 5 6 7 Subcatchment 1: Basin 1 Hydrograph i Runoff 0 IA 24-fir 1.0 yeah storm..... Rainfall-3.45 '_.Runoff . Area.=91,867..sf.... Runoff..Volume=.0A3.7..af..... F -----__i_.._....._Runoff Depth=0.78°_.... , T,TTT, ~~nath=51.0'..._. ..!CN=70..... '-T'i t i 1 Ti i iTt i~ri t t tTi t t~'~--ir'r. i i i ,'i i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) • Churchhill Woods - Pre-developed Type /A 24-hr 25 year storm Rainfall=3.90" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 3 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/29/2005 ' Subcatchment 1: Basin 1 Runoff 0.35 cfs @ 8.08 hrs, Volume= 0.180 af, Depth= 1.02" Runoff by SBUH method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 25-year storm Rainfall=3.90" i Area (sf) CN Description 51,836 65 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG B 28,395 69 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG B 7,550 98 Paved parking & roofs 1,655 85 Gravel roads, HSG B 2,431 78 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG B 91,867 70 Weighted Average Tc (min) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Capacity Description (cfs) 21.4 300 0.0260 0.2 Sheet Flow, Range n=0.130 P2=2.50" 1.4 210 0.0260 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 22.8 510 Total ' Subcatchment 1: Basin 1 Hydrograph .38 " : - : f I- • ~ ❑ Runoff " 0.36 4 0 0.35 cfs : : IA 24 t r 25'year storm Yp ' . 0. 32 " - - Rainfall=19.0.._..... - Runoff Area=9'f.;867 sf 0.28 p 0.26 - . .;1.80-.af Runoff = - volume 0.24 Runoff Cie y - ~ ` a 0.22 - - ---------11 0.2- " -116w-Length_54Q .2 o.1a ' . ! - min 2 0. 16 0.14" " - - T 0.12: 0.08 0.06 0.04 " 0.02 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) 1 1 1 CHURCHILL WOODS Tigard, OR • 5.0 DEVELOPED RUNOFF CALCULATION REPORTS 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 Bain 2 Detention Pond Subcat Reach Pon Link 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • Churchhill Woods - Developed Type /A 24-hr 2-year storm Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 2 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Time span=5.00-20.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 301 points Runoff by SBUH method Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1: Basin 2 Runoff Area=91,867 sf Runoff Depth=1.05" Flow Length=410' Tc=14.2 min CN=86 Runoff=0.53 cfs 0.185 of Pond 2: Detention Pond Peak Elev=169.14' Storage=5,335 cf Inflow=0.53 cfs 0.185 of Outflow=0.07 cfs 0.063 of Total Runoff Area = 2.109 ac Runoff Volume = 0.185 of Average Runoff Depth = 1.05" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 2-year storm Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 3 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002749 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Subcatchment 1: Basin 2 Runoff = 0.53 cfs @ 8.02 hrs, Volume= 0.185 af, Depth= 1.05" Runoff by SBUH method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 2-year storm Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN Description 36,960 98 Paved parking & roofs (2,640 sf/lot) 3,429 98 Sidewalks 3,395 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 25,143 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 17,991 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers (new asphalt areas) 1,610 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers (existing asphalt north of property - SW 79th) 410 85 Gravel roads, HSG B 2,929 69 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG B 91,867 86 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 110 0.0200 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.50" 1.7 190 0.0400 1.8 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.50" 0.5 110 0.0400 4.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 14.2 410 Total i i is • Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 2-year storm Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 4 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002749 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Subcatchment 1: Basin 2 Hydrograph uno " 0.53 cfs ' 0.55 - ; - - Type- n 1A24-hr--2--year,-storm--0.5 Raiffal1-2.50 0.45 " _-----r Ru n-off---Area-91;,867-sf ; 0.4 - Run-off _Vol.ue-0:.1.8.5_a 0.35 m ' -------=------i----_Runof_f_-Qepth---I-RQ5. ; 0.3 ; Flow Length_=410' 0.25 " T6=14.2 min 0.2 CN '86 0.15 0.1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) 1 • • Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 2-year storm Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 5 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 Pond 2: Detention Pond Inflow Area = 2.109 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.05" for 2-year storm event Inflow = 0.53 cfs @ 8.02 hrs, Volume= 0.185 of Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.063 af, Atten= 88%, Lag= 719.0 min Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.063 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 169.14' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 2,864 sf Storage= 5,335 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 355.1 min calculated for 0.063 of (34% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 111.6 min (832.9 - 721.3 ) # Invert Avail Storage Storage Descrip tion 1 166.21' 6,402 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 166.21 0 0 0 167.00 1,572 621 621 168.00 2,139 1,856 2,476 169.00 2,772 2,456 4,932 169.50 3,109 1,470 6,402 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 166.21' 1.2" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 2 Primary 169.14' 0.75'x 0.25' Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 Primary OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 20.00 hrs HW=169.14' (Free Discharge) T--2=Orifice/Grate 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.07 cfs @ 8.4 fps) ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 2-year storm Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 6 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Pond 2: Detention Pond Hydrograph Inflow ' R-5-3-R-11 0.55 -1nf1aw Area='2109-ac~ , eak Elev. 0.45 1------.._5 335-=---f_.... Storage= , N 0.35 0.3 ' 0 0.25 0.15 ~ - - 0.1 - a.o7 cfs 0.05 0, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) 1 1 1 Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 10-year storm Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 7 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Time span=5.00-20.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 301 points Runoff by SBUH method Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1: Basin 2 Runoff Area=91,867 sf Runoff Depth=1.76" Flow Length=410' Tc=14.2 min CN=86 Runoff=0.95 cfs 0.309 of Pond 2: Detention Pond Peak Elev=169.31' Storage=5,829 cf Inflow=0.95 cfs 0.309 of Outflow=0.24 cfs 0.178 of Total Runoff Area = 2.109 ac Runoff Volume = 0.309 of Average Runoff Depth =1.76" 1 1 1 • Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 10 year storm Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 8 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Subcatchment 1: Basin 2 Runoff = 0.95 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 0.309 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SBUH method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10-year storm Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description 36,960 98 Paved parking & roofs (2,640 sf/lot) 3,429 98 Sidewalks 3,395 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 25,143 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 17,991 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers (new asphalt areas) 1,610 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers (existing asphalt north of property - SW 79th) 410 85 Gravel roads, HSG B 2,929 69 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG B 91,867 86 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacit, min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs Description 12.0 110 0.0200 0:2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.50" 1.7 190 0.0400 1.8 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.50" 0.5 110 0.0400 4.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 14.2 410 Total 0 Developed Inc. Churchhill Woods - ed by Westlake Co O i 986 2003 A Rainfall=3.45" Type IA 24-hr 10-year storm page 9 in., l,?nn5 Preparnn® 7.00 sin 002749 t 1 • Basin 2 Subcatchmen h p Runoff HYdro9rap i .,24-lir 10'.year storm -r a lA'; 45" 0.95 yp, Rainfall=3. off Area- 861" sf Run olume=0.308 of Runoff V Runoff Depth=i.16 , no w Length=4;10' o Tc=14.2 min Ct4 86 20 15 1" 17 18 19 6 12 13 14 7 S 9 10 11 Time (hours) 5 6 Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 10-year storm Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 10 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002749 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Pond 2: Detention Pond Inflow Area = 2.109 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.76" for 10-year storm event Inflow = 0.95 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 0.309 of Outflow = 0.24 cfs @ 11.62 hrs, Volume= 0.178 af, Atten= 75%, Lag= 216.5 min Primary = 0.24 cfs @ 11.62 hrs, Volume= 0.178 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 169.31'@ 11.62 hrs Surf.Area= 2,978 sf Storage= 5,829 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 334.3 min calculated for 0.177 of (58% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 156.9 min ( 856.9 - 700.0 ) # Invert Avail Storage Storage Description 1 166.21' 6,402 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) ' 166.21 0 0 0 167.00 1,572 621 621 ' 168.00 169.00 2,139 2,772 1,856 2,476 2,456 4,932 169.50 3,109 1,470 6,402 ' # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 166.21' 1.2" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 2 Primary 169.14' 0.75'x 0.25' Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.24 cfs @ 11.62 hrs HW=169.31' (Free Discharge) AL 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.07 cfs @ 8.7 fps) ' 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.17 cfs @ 1.3 fps) 1 Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 10-year storm Rainfall=3.45" ' Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 11 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002749 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Pond 2: Detention Pond Hydrograph ; In ow ❑ Primary y ' o.as cts lnflowArea=2.109 ac ' Peak Elev=169.31' Storage=5,029 d N v LL ' 0.24 cfs ' 0- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) 1 1 1 • • Churchhill Woods - Developed Type /A 24-hr 25-year storm Rainfall=3.90" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 12 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002749 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Time span=5.00-20.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 301 points Runoff by SBUH method Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1: Basin 2 Runoff Area=91,867 sf Runoff Depth=2.10" Flow Length=410' Tc=14.2 min CN=86 Runoff=1.15 cfs 0.369 of Pond 2: Detention Pond Peak Elev=169.37' Storage=6,006 cf Inflow=1.15 cfs 0.369 of Outflow=0.33 cfs 0.237 of Total Runoff Area = 2.109 ac Runoff Volume = 0.369 of Average Runoff Depth = 2.10" 1 1 1 • 0 Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 25-year storm Rainfall=3.90 Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 13 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 Subcatchment 1: Basin 2 Runoff = 1.15 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 0.369 af, Depth= 2.10" Runoff by SBUH method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 25-year storm Rainfall=3.90" Area (sf) CN Description 36,960 98 Paved parking & roofs (2,640 sf/lot) 3,429 98 Sidewalks 3,395 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 25,143 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 17,991 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers (new asphalt areas) 1,610 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers (existing asphalt north of property - SW 79th) 410 85 Gravel roads, HSG B 2,929 69 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG B 91,867 86 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 110 0.0200 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.50" 1.7 190 0.0400 1.8 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.50" 0.5 110 0.0400 4.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 14.2 410 Total Rainfall=3.90" 0 Type IA 24-hr 25-year storm Page 14 Church 3I31I2005 Developed Inc hill Woods - ~1ed Microcom uter S stems Prepared by W estn O Z9 ou 986 2003 A H droCAD@ 7.00 s Subcatchment 1: Basin HydrograPh ❑ Runoff 24-hr 25',year storm pe ; Ty I=3.0 • ~ 1.15 cts ~ ~ ; • , • 4__..-__.....__.____________ __~_..-Rain 9 • 1,867; a Runoff-,,,. Area 'Runoff Volume-0.369 a0f Runoff Depth=2•'1 Flow Length=4.0 Tc=1 4.2 nnin ` CN86 0 Za 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 9 10 11 Time (hours) 5 Churchhill Woods - Developed Type /A 24-hr 25-year storm Rainfall=3.90" Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 15 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002749 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 1 Pond 2: Detention Pond Inflow Area = 2.109 ac, Inflow Depth= 2.10" for 25-year storm event ' Inflow 1.15 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 0.369 of Outflow 0.33 cfs @ 10.22 hrs, Volume= 0.237 af, Atten= 71 Lag= 132.8 min Primary = 0.33 cfs @ 10.22 hrs, Volume= 0.237 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 169.37'@ 10.22 hrs Surf.Area= 3,018 sf Storage= 6,006 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 288.1 min calculated for 0.237 of (64% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 132.2 min ( 825.7 - 693.5 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 166.21' 6,402 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) ' 166.21 0 0 0 167.00 1,572 621 621 ' 168.00 169.00 2,139 1,856 2,476 2,772 2,456 4,932 169.50 3,109 1,470 6,402 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 166.21' 1.2" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 2 Primary 169.14' 0.75'x 0.25' Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 Primary OutFlow Max=0.33 cfs @ 10.22 hrs HW=169.37' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.07 cfs @ 8.8 fps) ~ c e/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.27 cfs @ 1.6 fps) _2=Orifi Churchhill Woods - Developed Type IA 24-hr 25-year storm Rainfall=3.90" ' Prepared by Westlake Consultants, Inc. Page 16 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002749 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/31/2005 ' Pond 2: Detention Pond Hydrograph 0 Inflow ❑ Primary 1.15 cfs Infl6w'Ar6a=2.109 aC Pek Elev=169.37' 1 St6rage=6,006 d 0 LL 0.33 cfs 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1'21 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • CHURCHILL WOODS Tigard, OR 6.0 REFERENCE TABLES & MAPS • Water Features Washington County, Oregon [Depths of layers are in feet. See text for definitions of terms used in this table. Estimates of the frequency of ponding and flooding apply to the whole year rather than to individual months. Absence of an entry indicates that the feature is not a concern or that data were not estimated] Water table Ponding Flooding Map symbol and soil name Hydrologic group Surface runoff Month Upper limit Lower limit Surface depth Duration Frequency Duration T Frequency Ft Ft Ft 216: . Hillsboro B Jan-Dec None None UJDANatural Resources This report shows only the major soils In each map unit. Others may exist. Tabular Data Version: 1 Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 04/27/2004 Page 1 of 1 ~Aga st- 37 `tai] Z Gw 9 E_ y i y J INS ~{u~' _ ,'a E v" l~ ~It+<'' d' ` f` ! A~ 406, J {f j f- t t. f-i I(~ti ant +i • • m m d r ra • NTO it T . v.~ ~ f~ its Val A ~vi ~v yf ~c~~ 'S ~ y1°~~al ~r~ ~ ,~-J.,.n, `tif °'a..~~J'I M' r iy _ i.. t' ~ ~j L k4 ~ _U' ~:T.''c t e~ t t t i 0•r r~ I - r` ♦ k Ate. n~ y $ e n O'~ E~.r''p~a s 1~ '1 ..cam rt.S'':. 'r`i„ to ~`+•qi~ A_ ~i.ir~ r ~x + "il ..w~K1~;it Q i ? . at yy 06 - 4 IT &A p.. nF'~1;',tJ ~L Es•.se.. J~~~- ~I~_~-.Ct w., 1 RF,~~yAiL~~`;,:~ J_! ( ~'4 K ' ~Sy ! ~ ti( r ~•r _ s, -C ~ ~r` <p. •.,f~a t;!.:d oil ';1''1,. J~°i ix~~`i= t tom, l,J Y ;r _ ~1 ',v •'~y1? , r 1 6 ~ ~ 1WW t o JI i:•,.~ . '(m 4 ~p7 E w -1'~~. '1 r ~2 3 Fpt 5,- 'l~' a f r . _ - ti + g,~~,R.r~ LSY. j R ~ 1O' t, r y » y yf T f 1 . i b._ ~ d~ ~,Y :,r'•tF .t"~ n'~ x~. ! d '3rlEL,+I.i~!({»~ ~CS:: A67... i J'?=i S'L .~v~r,.~' ~ ~ r,T' ~ 71 ~ C ~ ~ y ~ t ~„C' x-.. 1 f j ~ ti t ~ ~w~„~ d 'F pF' 1~ P OP, t Yj R.;,» x`. M µ - W~ _ - ti F- a•< _e ro r d t 77 a ~'"~7 ~ ~ye~Y-.. ~ ` {J a }y~ P°`_.a'~ .u lt.i.~.. y't`.~ r• M y.+f~-Y3. Sry ' Fs w t4. +g. 1l~.^r 1 > _ -4 'yam. ke . + 41 ~~ll fie' S ~ ~ ~ r ~ - II ~ ~ 'i ' R ' ;~~•f~i ~ r moll 1=11 I ~ I ( 1 t ~~`y t 1 lrf YELLOW - -(:K 511 y.c N 1/2 LOT 20 DURHAM ACRE TRACTS I r c ua P& SA' P~'trri909' rs~ `n i j LOT 56 LOT I wan ~l 1 I ieeo,et 6 I ~~7M N~'~159&~• T 1 LOT I~ \ 54 I I fVG S/YP47"v5(~ 41~ I I ° 53 I I ~o I I Z Er wo we*at >~/snexmMw+~eA° '>o LOT Ip PR 52 l a i9 I 0M. e a A V rp K O roast 2i r D z~"u LOT I' maw 51 Ii II Z~~ I I om 1 C +mn na ,wna4 s aoOe I I t-Sn e1>'sr~AA~w I I m y mr'a" I LOT I' 11 50 I LOT \ 49 \ I I I s T.L. 13800 T.L. 13700 - - T.L. 13600 I I I 102 9 10' EASEMEN+j+ F R SANIT R). SEWER. I ~z DRklt,' PTTA LE WA R JUPPLY, sue pw PUBLIC ANO RI ATE UT1 ITIF ALON"v PERIV,? 0, T ACT "A" ANI_TRAC T- moaKa. anl~aa_ I A~ ~~R NH~1D T.L. 13900 TRACT, S5MWE 1E i (NAS'S1NJ / f ptWNLEtlc 586.35'37'E 11&ffAlNle _ ~,{.q~ iA4NIK A' ~ I / i~A..VA! n gl .~I ~I ~I I~ it ~I I I{ ' I I E { j T.L. 3800 11i ~ ~ l \ l ..I ~e/awrtvc ' j 1 I ~ 3 la IC➢'0MCf1 pRi. ~yyy-61dG 3I1 T.L. 2000 1 I ) SANTI.?Y 4ANNIXt fAA. d '73.22 §t N, ~ FL 151.92 I e• ari S ,E u +5,.52 x LAOOER E 49E NA) (All B' 1mA COUIO NE t0' c T.L. 2001 ;I er eK w o rr \j. II ~ a#~~~ etc' 4' 1 7 r t=, / 1 I sa15• o W I Iy 'all ` _ I ^174- 1 t W / CS n1U1 tiS m FLOW , ATH / -APE AREA =x•11 /ACRE y g `0 00 11A uA or~c~~ i y~1 0 v 1 rrl~y,.f sync ~ v~ y~Fdli~ J rk 1 !1 i~ 1 f J1 C~ iYPaI1R W I I J LOT 48 W CIC - yCiP - ~ V,C~.J0.h LOT LOT LOT LOT 47 46 45 44 -tG9~ ~ II \ LOT aN aR~ a t_ SME I T.L. 1801 ~ sANnAxY Na'A4f~f Rne ~ tssaT 5' 9J k. 4. E:. E:. 15,137 lAO"ER w SDE tT p+) xI (ALL & NA CURD ~r nn~ y ' II PARK N0.2 y j~ \ y j PLAT BOOK 5 • PAGES 42-43 \W I ALL FR NT AND REAR P.DPERTY UNES A, TO HAVE A 5.00 COT tEASENENT OR DRA:.NAGE AN UTiUT'ES fp V'Fi ?EF C iR771 T.L. 1701 gal • 7 GRAPHIC SCALE • ,e A 9 0. i ' ( IN FEET) 1 IN - IG R ~I 12 r V - VI Q 0 Q 0 ~j o z Jo a 0 I0 W D U~ W N W a I U LLJ a5 W z V W z U Q N w Z m ~ o:: a a O to 0 F N M 04 a\ No- 1724-014 0 { ~s ~I GRAPHIC SCALE L VELLaN - BLACK SR2PE 9 , (IN iEFT J C'~ '^F p . I IIN• 70R W I `I O tp I N 1/2 LOT 20 DURHAM ACRE TRACTS I I it fl !i ~1 aOC I Ym yV a xaaFwar w _ r ~ I LE RCP ai . LOT 0 56 I a I 0. r Q I T.L. 13800 T.L. 13700 - - T.L. 13600 z m O _ 0 z } sit LLJ AqF` I 192 'Oq j Y1 f t (/1 I 10' EASEMEN JI F R SANIT 13 LE WA ATE U R SEWER, I 6 DRAINAGE, P TA R JUPPLY, I J x Q PUBLIC AND RI Pi T! ALONG 2a~Ka*° p' T.L. 3800 m PERIA+iTER 0? CT "A° ANTRA- - - - - ~a£ J + f 0 / ~y I rmaa'ww`~w> rA" 1 (j i W LOT m ~ ` { d I CD 0 TA- 13900 TRAF Z f 11roaYC L%j" i I Iv 1 x~v1- umnrvrx - Imn GWn7A;!(588'JB'J]E ' t§a0'»+24f C4!(, W U / SCNa~N=81K 58878'S7'E101.19yy}}•. 4' CJL,YCJN I I ' .n 32,e~ t S 39077 j y {`I W ' rro a/6m aax /wuci ar :1/ ri 'rrr~ /rJ` I / `f ~11 tta NCaf6C• a I / ro:.YC Uem' py~r 5+ I't vo aarx aca ~Wra 64e'19Y 1 r \ 1 / , 31 Fuw-a~r'G LOT Ile 12 I sort. 14 q ' ~ > t+m,n it tee sa rt. ~ .ra,m„ sow/ ~ 1B~ I T.L. 2000 U cro aK w x ~Nwca u 1 , L~I"~~ I„ r i • 1 D sus I Snn8TAR1' M.ANKLE Ren U. 17122 mr I A rr ^I ff rt g'WN. lc,1161.02 53 r / IR~;SH1161b2 y SZE i a av. cum 10' an) D6y6I ~iy2 y I {IyYN N p I y COIN .d le➢ / n t r" _ _ 1 12.11 N 1 1 K>o LOT R r'~AA 52 _aa w ~ll,_: ( %I AGE f 'snvfor• m I 0000 v Y I T.L 2001 g ry 1 Ipc xwN11 ' zCNw o\~ . 1 y\.. _ , wf .t ti' \ a wwezr-~mc m z_ I >Z(+ 422 FF. I LOT 1 , 01-1- 1 (A fn LA 51 I I I Z;ow I tir I.i t-J J r{r f' jrl a= W C -1 can ar ~.,r 1 - ry / I i t $ .r w. e w0ao I se n. 1i ACT { S# r Sa aKav~/w*t~cp ¢ ..e <,oe~A. } tmm I MR NiOP a, E'. Z t l r 104'D M tw r` fi I I / d I m 3{{ m l to W r i s I r{ I I 3 1 LOT eme3m 4d n t1 - III FF } ! I tr m t v I 1 50 ~ 0, - I r I T.L. 1801 W 4 t mlc' / wye k0 - o Z 41 - I I ` 1 - n - 1 1 .u or 1 w. > ~_u nw. sa " 3{B,2&ao.w ¢ so_is ~I a :eaat ! J 1 's}ww .1 , /7731W'¢r NR j jr aRY MEl, ] W Ia vS ~ M. £ EE I 58.1 I jr , TL af' I ~I e• au s. IE SIDE 157.77 CL \ LOT I (nu I~~+ as a>a' ~<awa e^c ~ 1 I I B' ai. Ca a.+€ s-, D !7 OIa) 1 49 - ~'~aa~Ax a s r~w¢Y o o :a a19 - G LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT o \ 48 47 46 45 44 >r SHEET W _q x 0.':Y 1 ~ PARK N0.2 st an a iI I I N BOND ~ \ I PLAT BOOK 42-43 \ ALL FR NT AND REAP °F PERTY LINES AR TO 9Alfc } T.L. 1707 OB N0.1724-044 9(D0 \ `1 A 5.00 [OCT EASEM VT ; OR DRAINAGE AN ?iU 1E5 ,I 1724118M ~ C6 lisp xN 118271^ 'I . 1 1 1 Exhibit N r Impact Study 1 1 1 1 f 0 , Westlake Consultants, Inc. IMPACT STUDY (pursuant to Section 18.390.040.B.2.e.) [Application requirements] [i]nclude an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence, which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Discussion of Effects of the Development 1. General Statement The subject property is located within the R-12 Medium-Density Residential zone of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. To the north, the subject property abuts a private street, which provides access to a small infill project containing 3 lots ranging in size from .18 acres to .35 acres. To the east of the subject property, across SW 79th Avenue are several underdeveloped parcels ranging in size from .35 to 1.88 acres. The abutting property to the south is the Bond Park No. 2 subdivision, with single-family residences on lots ranging in size from.10 to .14 acres. The abutting property to the west is the Bond Park No. 3 subdivision, with single-family residences ranging in size from .10 to .20 acres. (See Sheet 5 of 14, which includes an aerial photograph that provides an overview of the immediate area.) The subject property is an infill development parcel constrained by surrounding development. No development is without impacts in relation to surrounding conditions. Importantly in this context, development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan must be considered to have a positive impact because it is 'implementing the policies and residential use densities prescribed for the property by that Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains policy calling for urban residential character in this area, and other applicable zoning and development regulations contain the standards for public facilities improvements deemed appropriate and necessary to support that policy. 2. Transportation System, including Bikeways a. Effect on public facilities and services The proposed development will result in a net increase of 13 detached single- family homes within the subject property. At 10 vehicle trips per day per CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION IMPACT STATEMENT WEsTLAKE No. 1724-14 1 JULY 2005 • • Westlake Consultants, Inc. residence, this will add an estimated 130 additional vehicle trips per day, which will be distributed to SW 79th Avenue. The Tigard Transportation System Plan identifies SW 790h Avenue as a neighborhood route. According to Policy #6 of the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan, local streets are designed to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel. The proposal includes plans for a public east-west street, which will provide direct access to SW 79th Avenue as well as provide internal circulation and access to the proposed lots. All roadways within the proposed development will be dedicated to the city for public use and constructed to city standards. b. Improvements to meet City standards The developer will improve SW 79th Avenue to meet applicable development standards. The developer will also construct local residential streets within the proposed development, consistent with applicable development standards. c. Impact minimization The proposed street improvements are consistent with the functional classifications of SW 79th Avenue and of the local service streets, respectively. The improvement of SW 79th Avenue will provide a positive impact for all users of this segment of that roadway. The construction of improvements according to applicable standards will mitigate any potential negative impacts on the public at large, public facilities systems and private property owners. r 3. Drainage System a. Effect on public facilities and services The proposed development will include a stormwater quality treatment and I detention facility consistent with Clean Water Services (CWS) requirements. This is consistent with the master planning for surface water management within this drainage sub-basin. b. Improvements to meet City standards Storm water runoff from the proposed streets and driveways will be directed into a water quality and detention facility within proposed Tract "C" (See Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan), which is designed to mimic e- development conditions. Surface water will be treated for phosp d 71 turbidity, and then detained before its release into the public syste ithin SW 79 Avenue. For a preliminary analysis of existing conditions, downstream conditions, and post-development conditions - including system capacity - please refer to ExhibiK. - Preliminary Storm Report. /nn c. Impact minimization The proposed stormwater quality treatment and detention facility is designed to comply with CWS standards, which protect the public at large, public ' CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION IMPACT STATEMENT WESTLAKE No. 1724-14 2 JULY 6, 2005 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. ~i facilities systems, and affected private property users from potential harm due to concentrations of chemicals (such as phosphorus), turbidity, and high runoff flow volumes during storm events. Please refer to the Clean Water Services Stormwater Management Service Provider Letter included as Exhibit I. 4. Parks System a. Effect on public facilities and services The proposed net increase of 13 homes can be anticipated to produce a corresponding increase in utilization of park facilities and services, based on utilization rates characteristic of the local area. Some of this impact may be positive, such as higher participation rates in activities supported by user fees. b. Improvements to meet City standards No specific park improvement to meet a City or County standard is called for within the subject property by the BMCP or any applicable regulation. The site is not suitable for use as a park facility because of its limited size and the presence of existing homes. c. Impact minimization As future homes are constructed, all applicable Systems Development Charge (SDC) fees will be collected as building permits are issued. Consistent with the adopted SDC ordinance authorizing such fees, funds will be expended by the City to provide appropriate public facilities, including parks. This will minimize potential negative impacts on the public at large, and on the public parks system. 5. Water System a. Effect on public facilities and services The proposed development will produce additional demand for water, consistent with projected service demands for the area. r b. Improvements to meet City standards The proposed development will extend 8" public water lines in public streets and will provide new fire hydrants. c. Impact minimization Construction of 8" public water line extensions and fire hydrants will provide service at acceptable levels to the proposed development. These improvements therefore benefit the public at large by improving the public water system. Construction of 8" public water line extensions and fire hydrants will provide service at acceptable levels to the proposed development. These improvements therefore benefit the public at large by improving the public CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION WESTLAKE No. 1724-14 IMPACT STATEMENT JULY 6, 2005 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. • water system and increasing opportunities for neighboring private property owners. 6. Sewer System a. Effect on public facilities and services The proposed development will produce additional demand for sanitary sewer service, consistent with projected service demands for the area. b. Improvements to meet City standards Clean Water Services provides public sanitary sewer through a gravity system to the east of the project; this is the preferred route for making a connection. A gravity line will extend from a proposed manhole in SW 79th Avenue, from where it will extend westerly into the site. r~ The sanitary sewer main line will consist of an eight-inch (8") pipe gravity system. The proposed sanitary sewer system is illustrated on Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan (See Exhibit A - Preliminary Plans, Sheet 7 of 14 - Composite Utility Plan). c. Impact minimization " sanitary sewer line extension will provide service at Construction of an 8 acceptable levels to the proposed development. This is a positive impact on the area because it implements the City's Sanitary Sewer System Plan at the subject site. These improvements benefit the public at large by improving the public sanitary sewer system pursuant to City standards. 7. Noise Impacts a. Effect on public facilities and services Single-family residential use does not typically produce significant noise impacts. Rather, it is typically the object of noise protection measures applicable to commercial and industrial users of land. The proposed development cannot reasonably be expected to have any significant noise r impact on the neighboring area. b. Improvements to meet City standards As no noise impacts are anticipated, no noise-related improvements are warranted. act minimization Im c p . As no noise impacts are anticipated, no noise-related strategies are warranted. 8. Dedication of Real Property Interests a. SW 79th Avenue Right-of-Way Any necessary dedication of right-of-way for SW 79th Avenue, where the street abuts the west side of the subject property will meet applicable City or County design standards. CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION IMPACT STATEMENT WESTLAKE No. 1724-14 4 JULY 6, 2005 1 • Westlake Consultants, Inc. b. Internal, Local Street Rights-of-Way The Developer will dedicate right-of-way and improve all local internal streets within the proposed development to meet applicable City design standards. t i T ili rac Q t es ( c. Stormwater Management Fac The Developer will create Tract C and construct within it a public storm water management facility to meet CWS standards. Following construction, the Developer will convey Tract C, as directed in Conditions of Approval, to an appropriate agency for long-term maintenance, i.e., CWS or the City of Tigard or Washington County. t i r I t 1 Summary This Impact Study demonstrates that the impacts associated with the proposed development will be either positive - e.g. by furthering implementation of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan - or will be satisfactorily minimized - e.g. through compliance with applicable City or County standards or payment of SDC fees. Therefore, the proposed development will not cause any significant negative impacts on the public at large, public facilities systems or affected private property owners. . CHURCHILL WOODS SUBDIVISION WESTLAAKE No. 1724-14 5 IMPACT STATEMENT JULY 6, 2005 I 1 1 Exhibit P I 500-foot Surrounding Property Owner List 1 a 1 I X11213 112CD-09 TITION PLAT NURV*'S TRUST K TR LOTS A6RON ST MT R 97219 2S112CC-08400 2S112CC-14500 I ACEVEDO JOSE M & LAURIE A BARKER BRUCE D & SUSAN L 15679 SW 82ND AVE 20700 COUGAR HILLS LN TIGARD, OR 97223 HILLSBORO, OR 97123 2S112CB-03100 2S112CC-08900 ALEXANDER DAVID B & BARNA JOSEPH H III & MARGUERITE TOWER PAULA A 8274 SW LANGTREE ST 8298 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-07100' 2S112CB-10600 ALEXANDER JOSEPH F & SALLY H BARNES DAVID JAMES AND 15785 SW 82ND AVE JEAN HILLIARD TIGARD, OR 97224 8049 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CC-07300 2S112CB-07000 ALVARIZARES VICTOR & BARTH THOMAS M & STEPHANIE C ALVARIZARES VERONICA 15403 SW 81 ST AVE '15769 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-02700 2S112CC-07200 BAILEY CHRISTOPHER W & JANICE A BAUER BRIAN L & MAYUMI S 8196 SW ASHFORD ST 15773 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-05900 2S112CC-05200 BAILEY TIMOTHY & REBA L BAUSTIEN SCOTT & KRISTEN LIVING 7946 SW CHURCHILL WAY 8070 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-10000 2S112CC-12600 BALDWIN SURVIVOR'S TRUST BEAUCHENE RONALD L & SUE C 4632 SW VERMONT ST 8354 SW BONAVENTURE AVE PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-09600 2S112CC-01800 BALDWIN'S SURVIVOR'S TRUST BY BALDWIN JAY K. TR BENJAMIN JUDITH A 15965 SW 81 ST CT 4632 SW VERMONT ST TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97219 2 112CD-09700 2S112CC-00107 BAL IN' URVIVOR'S TRUST BICKFORD GARY J & HELENE M BY BA IN JAY K TR 8080 SW CHURCHILL CT 463 W V MONT ST TIGARD, OR 97224 P RTLAND, OR 97219 2 112CC•03100 2S112C8-11000 BIC ORD G J AND CARUSO JUDY I • HELE 15369 SW KENTON DR 8080 URCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 T ARD, OR 24 2S112CC-04600 2S112CC-11000 BORGMAN JEAN *M CASE STEVEN E 15830 SW 80TH AVE 8261 SE LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C6-05900 BOYCE AARON L & LESLIE J 2S112C13-05800 CASQUEIRO GENE ALAN & TRACY L 15378 SW 82ND PL 15356 SW 82ND PLACE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C6-10200 2S112CC-10700 BOYER DAVID A & TRICIA L CHACON MICHAEL J & CARA C 15378 SW KENTON DR 8323 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 0 2 2S112CB-12000 S112CC-059 0 BROKKEN KAREN E CHENEY MICHELLE A & BY SHANNA BROKKEN SCHOLZ MARK H 1610 NW TURNER DR 15954 SW 81ST CT PULLMAN, WA 99163 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-12500 2S113BO-00600 BROWN MEGAN K CLEAN WATER SERVICES 15770 SW 82ND AVE 2550 SW HILLSBORO HWY TIGARD, OR 97224 HILLSBORO, OR 97123 2S112CC-08500 2S112C13-02400 BUCKMASTER JARED P & TERRI A COLLETTA SEAN D & 15665 SW 82ND AVE SHERON LAURIE TIGARD', OR 97224 8110 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-17100 .BUENA VISTA CUSTOM HOMES INC 2S112C6-05100 CONTRERAS FRED J & DIANE L 6932 SW MACADAM AVE STE C 15389 SW 82ND PL PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-06900 2S1 12CS-1 0900 BURWELL MARTA K FORMERLY COTTEN LOU CINDA M CAMPBELL 15381 SW KENTON DR 15425 SW 81ST ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-06300 2S112CC-06600 CABRERA ERNEST F CROUSE RICHARD L 15458 SW 82ND PL 8085 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 r 2S112CC-17000 2S112CD-06200 TT EW ' CURTIS LISA M DILL MA H 8382 COLTON LN 7994 SW CHURCHILL WAY TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112CC-02300 2S112CC-03500 DAVIS ALEXANDER B/KAREN E DITTMAN ROBERT LEE & 8045 SW CHURCHILL CT TORY TIGARD, OR 97224 8040 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-10500 2S112CC-02800 ' DAVIS CHRISTOPHER A DOBSON KENNETH P & 8363 SW LANGTREE ST CASTILLO-DOBSON JULY TIGARD, OR 97224 8095 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S 112CC-11900 2S1 12CD-01900 DAVISON JUDITH K 15662 SW 82ND AVE DRIESNER ROBERT E TR 15685 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-08300 2S112CC-08100 DAY JOHN M DUNCAN NEAL C & JANA L 15678 SW 84TH PL 15634 SW 84TH PL TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 . 2S112CC-03800 2S113BO-00400 DECK DENNIS D & VIRGINIA A DURHAM I LLC 8010 SW CHURCHILL CT 8100 SW DURHAM RD TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 12CC-0011 rS' 2S1 13B0-00500 E--C D & VIRGINIA A DURHAM II LLC X CHILL CT 8100 SW DURHAM RD OR 7224 TIGARD , OR 97244 2S112CC-02100 DELP WILLIAM W & TRUDY L 112CC-192 0 D HA AKS OWNERS OF 8005 SW CHURCHILL CT LOTS TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CB-04800 112c- DEMASTER VIRG INIA JOY TRUST BY VIRGINIA JOY DEMASTER TR y HOOL PARK OWNERS OF 8265 SW ASHFORD TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-06600 .112CC-163 DESA GARY & DU AM HOOL PARK OWNERS OF WILSON SARA E LOTS 7961 SW CHURCHILL WAY 0 TIGARD, OR 97224 ~ r 2S1120C-04800 DUSKIN GREG A & CAROL A • 2S112CC-11700 FARLEY KRISTIN. 7998 SW BOND BEADNELL MICHAELL TIGARD, OR 97224 15632 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-06200 2S1 12CC-041 01 EDDLEMON CHAD FEATHERS DAVID L & SARALYN K 15656 SW 84TH AVE 15795 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-03300 2S112CA-05000 ELLIOTT SABRINA L FEENEY PATRICIA K 8060 SW CHURCHILL CT 7978 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-05000 2S112CC-06400 ENGVALL LEE & ANN M 15461 SW 82ND PL FORMAN ROBERT &'KAREN 15867 SW 81ST CT TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-03700 2S112CB-01500 ENRIGHT MARSHA K FULLER DENNIS R & 8020 SW CHURCHILL CT DEBORAH A TIGARD, OR 97224 8018 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 112CC-OO111 2S112CC-00200 EN HT SHA K GAGE DOROTHY DARLENE 8020 HURCHILL CT GAGE M A ABRECHT M G T RD, O 7224 8000 SW 54TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97219 2S112CB-03200 2S112CO-09800 ERNEST LARRY R & SANDRA A GARDINER JONATHAN 8316 SW ASHFORD ST 7955 SW CAROL ANN CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 2s 112C B-01300 ESPENSHIP BRENT & KRISTA J 2S1 12CB-10700 GARDNER LAURA L 8032 SW ASHFORD ST 15427 SW KENTON DR TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 112C6-017 2S112CB-05300 ESP S BRENT & KRISTA J GIVI BABAK & 803 SHFORD ST KEYGHOBADI MODJGAN T ARID, 0 7224 15345 SW 82ND PL PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112CC-05500 2S 1 12CD-05300 ESPOSITO MICHAEL F & SHARON M GOLDBERG LAURA D 8132 SW BOND ST 7963 BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-11600 • 2S112CA-04900 OD GOLDSMITH RICHARD E YNNE HARTFORD KAR 15358 SW 81ST AVE 7956 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CB-06000 2S112CC-03400 ' GOODWIN JOHN M & NICOLETTE S HARTMAN KENTAH B 15390 SW 82ND PL 8050 SW CHURCHILL CT OR 97224 TIGARD TIGARD, OR 97224 , 2S112CB-02800 2S1 12CC-1 1300 GRASSMAN KENNETH J HAVENS GAIL T 8212 SW ASHFORD ST 8215 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S1 12CB-04600 2S1 12CD-04700 GROSE PAUL G & JULI R HEIDER RICHARD R AND 8301 SW ASHFORD LAURELEI M TIGARD, OR 97224 7948 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-06700 2S1 12CC-1 1600 HAARMANN KURT E & SUSAN K HEIKENS ROGER F & CINDY L 7977 SW CHURCHILL WAY 15624 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-05000 2S112CC-09000 HAGAN ELIZABETH R TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ PEDRO & 8020 SW BOND ST BRAN HORTENCIA ' TIGARD, OR 97224 8292 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-02100 2S112CB-11100 HALL RICHARD RAY & JAMIE LEIGH HERNDON MARK R & JENNIFER L 8072 SW ASHFORD ST 15347 SW KENTON DR TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-10800 2S112CC-07700 HALL STEVE & LEANN HOBBS DONALD J & MARGARET A 8301 SW LANGTREE ST 8294 SW BONAVENTURE LN PORTLAND, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CB-01600 2S112CC-14100 HANSEN MICHAEL S & MARY A HOFFART FAMILY 8026 SW ASHFORD ST PROPERTIES LLC TIGARD, OR 97224 4632 SW VERMONT ST PORTLAND, OR 97219 2S112CB-07200 112CC-16100 HARRISON STEPHEN & CYNTHIA J 15369 SW 81ST AVE X TIGARD, OR 97224 ST WVE 219 2$112CD-10100 H FART FA Y PRO S LLC 463 RMONT ST RTL 0. R 97219 S•112CC-15100 ' H FA LY < PRO LC 463 ONT ST RTL97219 • 2 112CC-16200 HO R !ER J 463 RMONT ST RTLAND, OR 97219 2 112CC-1570 HO RT RBERT J 463 RMONT ST RTLAND, OR 97219 112CC-16000 2Q12 CC-15400 ' H FART MILY HO R RBERT J PR IES LLC . 463 RMONT 46 S VERMONT ST RTLAND, R 97219 RTLAN R 97219 112CC-14600 26412CC-14700 HO ART F ILY HOF T RBERT J PROP ES LLC 463 V ONT ST 463 VE C ST RTLAND, OR 97219 RTLAND, OR 97219 21112CD 09400 12CC-14800 HO RT F ILY HO T RBERT J PROP ES LLC 463 MONT ST 463 W V MONT ST RTLAND, OR 97219 RTLAND, O 97219 112CC-15800 12CC-15200 H ART F ILY HO RT RBERT J PROP IES LLC 463 RMONT ST 463 W MONT ST RTLAND, R 97219 RTLAND, R 97219 112CC-15000 2 12CC-1530 HO RT MILY F BERT J PROP S LLC ONT ST 46 SW VE ONT ST , R 97219 ORTLAND, OR 97219 112CC-13900 14112CC-159 ' X6W ILY HO ERBERT J LLC 46 W MONT ST 10 MONT ST RTLAND, 97219 R 97219 112CC-14000 2112CC-142 HO ART F ILY HOF ERBERT J PROP IES LLC 463 V ONT ST 46 W V ONT ST RTLAND, OR 97219 ORTLAND, O 97219 2S112CC-15600 HOFFART HERBERT J ' 4632 SW VERMONT ST PORTLAND, OR 97219 2S112CC-04200 HOLMES H G & LORI 12518 BEAR MOUNTAIN DR DRAPER, UT 84020 2S112CD-04900 HORAN MARY CHRIS • 2S112CC-12200 JOHNSON DANWD DEBRA J 7980 SW BOND ST 15714 SW 82ND AVE ' TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-08000 2S112CC-04401 HUBER KASEY P JOHNSON GREGORY C 15612 SW 84TH PL 15770 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-02000 2S112CC-06200 ' HUGHES STEVEN E & MARY JUNGWIRTH CAROL JENSEN 8064 SW ASHFORD ST 15921 SW 81ST CT TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-02300 2S112CC-06300 HUTCHINS JAMES M & ALLISON M 8102 ASHFORD ST KEEFER DAN M & TYLER A 15889 SW 81ST CT TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-03300 2S112CA=05200 JACKMAN TODD A & MISTY D KEITH JACK JR 8374 SW ASHFORD ST 15421 SW THURSTON LN TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S1 12CB-1 1700 2S112CC-17900 JACKSON KENNETH S KEKACS ELISHA A & SCOTT M 15370 SW 81ST AVE 8387 SW DURHAM LN TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C8-01900 2S112CC-10900 JACOBS ROLAND L & KIMBERLY M KELLEY JAMES M/JACQUELINE L 8056 SW ASHFORD ST 8283 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-00102 2S112CC-02200 JANICH MARCIA KENNEDY JOHN C & CELESTE 641 MANZANITA 8035 SW CHURCHILL CT LOS OSOS, CA 93402 TIGARD, OR 97224 ■ 2S112CC-1 1400 2S112CB-07300 JEUB CHRISTOPHER G 8203 SW LANGTREE ST KETTERMAN HEIDI R & PRICE BENJAMIN E TIGARD, OR 97224 15347 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CC-04900 2S112CC-11200 JOHNSON BRADLEY A/PAULA C KHAJAVI HOMER & DIANA L 8000 SW BOND 1537 BUCKEYE CT TIGARD, OR 97224 PINOLE, CA 94564 2S112CC-00104 2S112CC-13600 KINSEY ALISON D • LEE GORDON D • 8070 SW CHURCHILL CT 8427 SW BONAVENTURE LN TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 2 112CC-03200 2S112CC-13500 K>-Y, A N D LESLIE JOHN G 8HURCHILL CT 8449 SW BONAVENTURE LN T 0 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-05100 2S112CC-07900 KIRKPATRICK DEAN L & LEVARIO RAYMOND A CHRISTINA L 8332 SW BONAVENTURE LN 8050 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-09300 2S112CC-07400 KLEY ARLAN TEN PO BOX 22 LEWIS BRENDA L 15761 SW 82ND AVE ROBERTSDALE, AL 36567 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S1 12CC-01 600 2S112CB-06200 KNEBEL WERNER & INGE B LLOYD KRISTINE D ' 10666 SW LADY MARION DR 15436 SW 82ND PL TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 .2S112CC-02500 2S112CC-12000 KOZAK CRAIG C JR & LUNDBERG RENATE J & ROBERT L TR MYRICK COURTNEY R 4150 GLACIER LILY 8065 SW CHURCHILL CT LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112CD-06500 2S112CB-06500 KRAUSS MARGARET L LYNCH BERNARD B & 7945 SW CHURCHILL WAY PATRICIA M TIGARD, OR 97224 15484 SW 82ND PL TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-05400 2S112CD-06800 LALONDE TIMOTHY A & MARKOVITZ KIRK A AND AMY S DEBORAH L 7993 SW CHURCHILL WAY 15321 SW 82ND PL TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-07800 2S112CB-03500 LAURENCE NATHAN B & CASTLE BRIGETTE S MAROSTICA MARGARET JOAN 8414 SW ASHFORD ST 8310 SW BONAVENTURE LN TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-06500 2S112CC-02600 LAWSON TRAVIS D & JODY J MARTY AUDRE J 15845 SW 81ST CT 17308 NE 27TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 RIDGEFIELD, WA 98642 C 2S1 12CC-091 00 2S112C6-10800 .MASON JEAN ANN TRUSTEE • MOORE LIVING T& 8312 SW LANGTREE BY MOORE GERALD J & PHYLLIS A TRS ' TIGARD, OR 97224 15405 SW KENTON DR TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CB-11900 2S112CC-03601 MAUER ARTHUR V & BEVERLEY M MOORE STEVEN A 15414 SW 81ST AVE 8030 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-05300 2S112CB-12100 MAY GLADYS M MULLEN PATRICK & PATRICIA 8090 SW BOND ST 15540 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CC-16900 2S1 12CC-1 0600 MAYNARD BRIAN & MARY MUSSLER LOREN B & CAROL B 8385 SW COLTON LN 8347 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-15500 2S112CC-02900 MCCLURE ELISE MYLAND KAREN A 4632 SW VERMONT ST 8100 W CHURCHILL CT PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CD-09500 2S112CB-02500 MCGREGOR SUSAN J NELSON MARGARET A/ERIC J 4632 SW VERMONT ST 8134 SW ASHFORD ST PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C6-02900 2S112CC-07600 ' MCKENNA KAREN A NGO TA AND LIEN 8236 SW ASHFORD STREET 15729 SW 82ND AVE ' TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-08800 2S112CC-06100 ' MEMAN SAAD & NGUYEN BINH T KOSRAT 15943 SW 81ST CT 8254 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C13-05700 2S112CC-09500 MILLER LOIS N TRUSTEE NGUYEN MINH VAN & NINH THI 15334 SW 82ND PL 8372 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-10300 2S112CC-12400 MOHATT JOHN F & JAN R NOALL BRADFORD L ' 15390 SW KENTON DR 15752 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC'11800 NOBLE MICHAEL D • 2S112CO-06000 PHELPS AMELIA 15644 SW 82ND 7962 SW CHURCHILL WAY ' TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CC-14400 2S112CC-07000 OLSON DENNIS M & PORTER TAU & LISA R MARILYN J 8222 SW PATTI LN 18820 SW TUALATA AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 2Si12CC=14300 2S112CA-04100 ' OLSON RONALD D & POTTS TERRY L & JOHNNIE R LINDA A 7996 SW ASHFORD ST 3297 SW LAKE GROVE AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 2S112CD-05400 2S112CA-05100 ONTHANK SONJA R 7947 SW BOND ST POULSEN MICHAEL T 7990 SW ASHFORD ST ;TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-16700 2S112CC-04700 PALING ENTERPRISES LLC POWELL ROBERT J & 12 EL GRECO POWELL ANNE C ' LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 15860 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-10400 2S1 12CB-1 1800 PARMELEE BRANDON SCOTT & QUIGG TAD A & FERN G PARMELEE MELISSA ANNE 15392 SW 81ST AVE 8381 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-05600 2S112CO-04800 PATEL RAJENDRA J RACANELLI ROCKY AND DENISE 8154 SW BOND ST 7964 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-11100 PAUL GARY E & JUDITH C 2S112CB-05500 RANDLEMAN ROY E AND JUNE T 8245 SW LANGTREE ST 15310 SW 82ND PL TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-02200 2S112CO-05201 PEACOCK FAMILY TRUST RAY MICHAEL D/DIANA L BY PEACOCK WALLACE F & CHARLOTTE A 7979 SW BOND ST 306 HUDSON TIGARD, OR 97224 PLACENTIA, CA 92870 2S112CC-06900 2S112CC-03900 PEREZ JENNIFER & ANTHONY READ ROBERT L 8210 SW PATTI LN BY JL SCOTT TIGARD, OR 97224 7217 SW DELAWARE CIR TUALATIN, OR 97062 ' 2S112CC-09200 REDDY ASHOK P & PANNALA GEETHA 8332 SW LANGTREE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-06600 RESCH TIMOTHY J 4050 NW 190TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97229 ' 2S112CC-12300 RICE EMILY E & FAN DANIEL C 15730 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-06101 RICE LAURIE E 7978 SW CHURCHILL WAY PORTLAND, OR 97224 ' 2S112CC-05700 RICHARDSON ROBIN J' 15910 SW-81ST CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C13-04900 RIJKEN RONALD W & MARIA E 15483 SW 82ND PL TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-09400 ROBINSON RACHEL A 8356 SW LANGTREE ST ' TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CC-05800 ROGERS CYNTHIA R 15932 SW 81ST CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-12200 ROPPO RONALD A ' 15474 SW 81 ST AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S1 12CC-1 3700 ROUHANIZADEH FIROOZEH & KENNEDY JONATHAN & ROUHANIZADEH FARZANEH 8363 SW BONAVENTURE LN ' TIGARD, OR 17224 2S1 12CA-1 3600 RUETER FAMILY *G TRUST 15565 SW 79TH TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-01700 SATTLER MURIEL I & EDWARD J TRS 13360 SW MORGAN RD SHERWOOD, OR 97140 21 112CC-01701 SA ER IEL I & EDWARD J TRS 1336 MORGAN RD . RWOO , OR 97140 2S112CB-06800 SAVOLAINEN WILLIAM G & GRETCHEN 15443 SW 81 ST AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-06000 SAYLER DEBORAH A 13500 SW PACIFIC HWY #442 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CC-04000 SCHAEFER SHERYL M 15765 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD-05100 SCHEFTER ANDREW R 7995 SW BOND ST PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112CB-02600 SCHENK EVELYN TURNER 8152 SW ASHFORD ST' TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-04501 SCHERNER JOHN A/ANN P 15800 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 2S1 12CC-1 1500 SCHOMMER CAROL 15616 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 ' '2S112CC-01801 2 12CA-13700 SHANAFELT LAUREL . TAN R LIAM 8175 SW DURHAM RD 8085 URCHILL CT ' TIGARD, OR 97224 ARD, OR 224 ' 2S112CB-10500 2S112CB-06700 SMITH ERIC P & KAY NIMITZ TEACH KEVIN RUSSELL & 15436 SW KENTON DR TEACH JOAN MARIE TIGARD, OR 97224 15467 SW 81ST AVE ' TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-14900 2S112CC-12700 SOTELO JORGE A & THOMPSON BRIAN VERONICA L 8376 SW BONNAVENTURE LN 16029 SW 80TH PL TIGARD, OR 97224 ' TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-04500 2S112CC-01100 SPAR DARCIE L & TIGARD FRIENDS CHURCH CORSE MICHELLE C 7130 SW BEVELAND 8343 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CC-02400 2S113BO-00300 SPEERS PHILIP W & LISA M TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL 3733 QUAIL MEADOW WAY DISTRICT 23J ' EUGENE, OR 97408 6960 SW SANDBURG ST TIGARD, OR 97223 2S112CB-04400 2S112CC-07500 STEVENSON STEPHEN J TRAN HUONG/QUYEN 8367 SW ASHFORD ST 15745 SW 82ND AVE PORTLAND, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-05200 2S112CC-08700 ' STORMENT BRADLEY J & KAREN ANN TRAN NHU 15367 SW 82ND 15639 SW 82ND AVE OR 97224 TIGARD TIGARD, OR 97224 ' , 2S112CB-06100 2S112CC-08600 ' STUTEVOSS CAROLINE ZONA TREBELHORN CAROL A 15412 SW 82ND PL 15657 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-13800 2S112CC-04300 ' TANNER WILLIAM E JR 8085 SW CHURCHILL CT VANDERHEIDEN SEAN 15855 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-02700 2S1 12CC-1 6800 TANNER WILLIAM F JR VEAL AARON J & STEPHANIE K ' 8085 SW CHURCHILL CT 8395 SW COLTON LN TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 I 2S112CC-13800 VLAHOS THOMAS P & AMY K ' 15633 SW 84TH PL TIGARD, OR 97224. 2S112CB-03000 ' VONPRESSENTIN MARK E 8270 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CB-03400 ' WADE DIANA L 8390 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-04700 WAGNER RONALD L 8287 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-05600, WAHL JOSEPH M & LORA OSAKI ' 15322 SW 82ND PL TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CB-06400 WALKER MARK S & JUDY A 15472 SW 82ND PL ' TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-01804 WATT DOUGLAS A & KATIE S 15987 SW 81 ST CT TIGARD, OR 97224 ' 2S112CC-05400 WEIJO RICHARD 0 TR & WEIJO SHARON K TR 8110 SW BOND ' TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-06800 WIDERBURG PAUL & CALLA 8090 SW CHURCHILL ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-03000 WIDERBURG PAUL T AND CALLA C ' 8090 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 . 2S112CC-00106 WIDERBURG PAUOOMAS AND CALLA COON 8090 SW CHURCHILL CT TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CA-04000 WILEY JAMES E JR & SHELLEY J 15545 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD. OR 97224 2S112CD-05000 WILKERSON RANDAL D & M DARIN 7996 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224. 2S112CA-05300 WILLIS SANDRA 15409 SW THURSTON LN TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC-12100 WILSON DANIEL C & CHRISTY E 15414 SW KENTON DR TIGARD, OR 97224 112CB-10400 WIL D EL C & CHRISTY E 1541 NTON DR T ARD, OR 24 2S112CB-01800 WOO RICHARD DANIEL & DEBORAH L 8048 SW ASHFORD ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S1 12CB-071 00 ZINSLI STEPHEN R &,JAMIE M 15381 SW 81 STAVE TIGARD, OR 97224 Josh Thomas ' 10395 SW Bonanza Tigard, OR 97224 Kristen Miller 8940 SW Edgewood Street Tigard, OR 97223 Paul Owen 10335 SW Highland Drive Tigard, OR 97224 Tim Esau PO Box 230695 ' Tigard, OR 97281 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 Ross Sundberg ' 16382 SW 104th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Brian Wegener 9830 SW Kimberly Drive ' Tigard, OR 97224 Joseph Dyar . 10285 SW Highland Drive ' Tigard, OR 97224-4668 ' Rex Caffall 13205 SW Village Glenn Tigard, OR 97223 0 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - SOUTH INTERESTED PARTIES (pg. I of 1) (i:\curp1n\setup\1abe1s\CIT South.doc) UPDATED: 21-Sep-04 1„r, -...rte ,rte . CITY -OF TIGARD (OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 S1N HALL BOULEVARD ' TIGARD, OREGON 97223>> PHONE: 503-6394111 FAX: 503-684.1297 (Acts. Patty/Planning) •~~J 1 Lrll\L VV, 1JVL 11"111 I J • CM OF TIGARD com ffdn ty .orwkpmens st .A SBstw cmmwtay Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP & TAX LOT NUMBERS (i,e11S134AB, Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: 1 PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ONLY 1 SET OF LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME FOR HOLDING YOUR NEIGFIBORHOOD MEETING. After subm'tting your land use. applie do to the City, and the proect planner has reviewed your applicatior~ for.comp~eteness, you will be totiied by means of an incompleteness letter to obtain your 2 final sets of labels, ' The 2 final sets of. labels need to be placed on envelopes with first class letter-rate postage on the envelopes in the form of postage stamps (no metered enveloes and -no return address) and resubmitted to the City fpr the pup ose of providing notice to owners of the proposed land use gplication and the decision. The sets of envelopes must be kept separate, The person listed below will called to pick up and pay for the labels when they are ready. NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: PHONE: FAX: (an; (fl a c S - This request may be mailed, faxed or hand delivered to the City o Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests, Upon completion of your request, the contact person will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in 'Will Ca}~I by their last name, at the Community Development Reception Desk. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be ' predetermined, PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. 1 Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list, plus $2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then. multioly the cost to Qrint one set of labels by the number of sets reauested. EXAMPLE 4 sheets of labels x $21sheet = 8.00 x 2 sets = $16.00 2 sheets of labels x $2/sheet for interested parties x 2 sets= $ 4.00 GENERATE LIST = COQ TOTAL = $31.00 COST FOR THIS REQUEST sheet(s) of labels x $21sheet = 91/1 sets = sheet(s) of labels x $21 sheel for interested partles = S x/sets= GENERATE LIST = TOTAL 11,1.Westlake ' consultants, inc TRANSMITTAL ENGINEERING o SURI/EmG f PLANNING Phone: ,503 6B4-0652 ' Fax., 503 624-0157 ' pate: January 12, 2005 To: Patty/Planning City of Tigard • . Community Development Department 13125 S'W Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR. 97223 ' From: Alicia Duncan Project Coordinator ' Pa. Request for 500-foot Property Owner Mailing List 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No. of Copies Dated Comments: Thanks Patty! Project No.: P064-017 Project Name: Gage Creek Subdivision Request for 500-foot Property Owner Mailing List Pax ■ No. of Pages [including cover) 2 Fax No. (503] 599-1960 Mail ❑ Messenger ❑ Overnight 0 Hand Delivery ❑ Pacific Corporate Center, 15115 S.W, Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150. Tigard, Oregon 97224 Depending on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.2 DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2006 PAGE 1 OF/ FILE NAME: MIRAGE MINI STORAGE CASE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2005-00001 VARIANCE (VAR) 2005-00090 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT - (Spealdng In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT - (Speaking Against) Name, Address Zip ode_ alld Phone N q. ^ I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. A ~L Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. $ys ) %vilk, N.3 E- $ofs •s."', b& AV'r'WqW .h~usu~tt-I _ _aa 9:T Lkrvt> Ole--&A I-X _ ;zq *1116 0 - - - - Na , Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. WA46 S1&n L) 009*G?'s ZeeS!' Nw TAIL I ttslte¢• , D ~47/2Y 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. -171a me, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I • COMMUNITY SPAPEI~S 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO Box 22109 • Portland, OR 97269 Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 Email: legaladvertising@commnewspapers.com AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accounting Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of general circulation, published at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that City of Tigard Public Hearing-Mirage Mini Storage TT10734 a copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues February 9, 2006 /"4 1 W Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this F ruary 9 006 NOTARY UBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires ~,_410V Acct #10093001 Patricia Lunsford City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: ..=The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday February 27. 2006 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. 'The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence .'sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection atO no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Cheryl Cainesl at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, by calling 503-639-4171, or by e-mail to C heryllcn tigard-or.gov. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2005-00001NARIANCE (VAR) 2005-00090 > MIRAGE MINI STORAGE < REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a 44,970 square foot, three story mini-storage facility on a .75-acre site. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to allow seven (7) off-street parking spaces in-lieu of the minimum 74 spaces required by code. LOCATION: The subject site is located off of SW Warner Avenue, east of SW Hall Boulevard (No Site Address); Washington County Tax Map 1S135DD, Tax Lot 5200. ZONE: C- G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non- conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use.. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18,765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Publish 2/9/2006 TT10734 OFFICIAL SUZETTE14 NOTARY PUBLI COMMISSION 1 MY COMMISSION D(PIRES Size 2 x 7.75 Amount Due $129.43 . remit to address above k s I ~y I ~ _X e0' CUP20OS•00001 VAR20OS-00090 MIRAGE MINI STORAGE 0 • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Saj Jivanjee for a conditional ) F I N A L O R D E R use permit for a 3-story mini storage facility and a variance ) to the minimum parking requirement at the end of Warner ) CUP 2005-00001 Road, east of Hall Boulevard in the City of Tigard, Oregon) (Mirage Mini Storage) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, Saj Jivanjee, requests approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct and operate a 44,970 square foot, 288-unit, three-story mini storage facility with a full-time attendant. The 0.72-acre site is located at the north end of Warner Road, west of and abutting SW Pacific Highway. The legal description of the site is tax lot 05200, WCTM IS 135DD (the "site"). The site is zoned GC (General Commercial). The applicant also requests approval of a variance to reduce the required on-site parking from 74 spaces to 7 spaces. 2. City Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the application. City staff recommended that the hearings officer approve the application subject to conditions. See the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated February 16 2006 (the "Staff Report"). The applicant accepted the findings and conditions of approval recommended by City staff with certain exceptions. One person testified orally with concerns about the adequacy of the proposed parking. The principal disputed issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the proposed variance to the parking requirements complies with the criteria of TDC 18.370.010.C(2); and b. Whether the applicant is required to provide on-site loading spaces for the proposed use. 3. For the reasons stated herein, the hearings officer approves the proposed use, subject to the conditions at the end of this final order. B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on February 27, 2006. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. • • 2. City planner Cheryl Cains summarized the Staff Report. She requested the examiner delete condition of approval 17. No off-site pedestrian easements or rights of way are required. 3. Architect Saj Jivanjee and transportation engineer Howard Stein testified in support of the proposed development. a. Mr. Jivanjee summarized the design of the proposed development. i. He argued that the facility will not generate trips from large trucks and semi trailers because the facility does not provide for large amounts of storage area. The proposed storage units are relatively small, with four foot wide doors. Five-foot wide hallways provide access to the individual units. The largest units are only 200 square feet (10 feet by 20 feet). The size of the units will limit the type of materials stored on the site. The majority of customers will pick up and deliver materials in passenger vehicles. He argued that the facility is not subject to the loading space requirements of TDC 18.765.080 because it does not "receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck." The facility is self-service. Customers bring their personal items to store on the site themselves. He proposed to provide one loading space in the northwest corner of the site. Locating the loading space near the street will allow trucks to easily enter and leave the facility. ii. He argued that the proposed facility provides sufficient parking for the majority of demand. It is not possible to accommodate the maximum demand for parking at all times. There may be occasions where customers have to wait for a short time for a parking space to be available. But most trips to the facility will be short term while customers load or unload small amounts of material. iii. He waived his right to submit a final written argument. b. Mr. Stein argued that the 7 parking spaces the applicant proposed to provide are more than adequate to accommodate parking demand at this facility, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Parking Generation Manual ("ITE Manual") and his firm's observations of parking demand at three similar facilities in the area. The average parking demand at other storage facilities varied from 0 to 2 spaces, up to a maximum of four spaces in use at one time at one of the facilities. The ITE manual estimates demand for 4 parking spaces at this 288-unit facility. The applicant proposed to provide 7 on-site parking spaces. He noted that Chapter 33.266 of the City of Portland Code requires a minimum four and a maximum seven parking spaces for this size and type of storage facility, including parking for the on-site caretaker's residence. i. He argued that loading spaces are not required to serve the facility. The proposed storage units are relatively small. They are primarily intended to provide storage for office paperwork and excess residential storage. The proposed storage units are too small to accommodate deliveries from full size moving trucks. Customers of the facility will generally arrive in passenger vehicles, pickups and "single unit" trucks. If necessary, large trucks could park in the "head in" spaces in the northeast corner of the site while they load or unload a few items that would fit into one of the units. CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Mirage Mini Storage) Page 2 • • 4. Gretchen Buehner expressed concern with amount of parking proposed. She argued that the applicant should be required to provide at least one loading space for trucks and one or two additional parking spaces. She uses several similar storage facilities in the area and the parking areas are often full on Saturdays. Larger U-Haul type moving trucks often use these facilities. 5. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer closed the public record and announced his intention to approve the application subject generally to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report. The hearings officer took the parking and loading issue under advisement. C. DISCUSSION 1. City staff provided basic facts about the site and its vicinity and existing and proposed uses in the Staff Report and recommended that the hearings officer approve the application for the conditional use permit. The applicant accepted most of the findings and recommended conditions with the exceptions described more below. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report as his own except to the extent they are inconsistent with the findings and discussion in this final order. 2. TDC 18.765.080.H and Table 18.765.2 require that the applicant provide a minimum 74 on-site parking spaces for this use. (1 parking space per 4 storage units). The applicant requested a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces to seven, 6 standard spaces and one accessible space. The hearings officer finds that the proposed variance complies with TDC 18.370.010.C(2) based on the following: a. The hearings officer finds that the proposed design is consistent with the purpose of the parking standards, and will not generate overflow parking on adjacent properties because it provides a sufficient number of parking spaces for the proposed use, based on the following. Therefore hearings officer finds that the proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(a). ore the TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(a). TDC 18.765.010 sets out the Purpose of the off-street parking and loading requirements: A. Insure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards which will maintain the traffic carry ing-capacity of nearby streets. B. Adequate capacity. These regulations are also intended to establish vehicle parking areas which have adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any hazardous conditions on the site and at access points. CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Mirage Mini Storage) Page 3 • i. Based on the ITE manual, this size of mini-storage facility requires an average weekday parking demand of four to seven parking spaces.2 The ITE manual estimates the peak (85`h-percentile) weekday parking demand for this size of facility at 5 to 9 spaces.3 Weekend parking demand is actually lower than weekday demand, based on the ITE manual. The number of parking spaces proposed is consistent with the parking requirements of the City of Portland, which requires a minimum four and a maximum seven parking spaces for this type of multi-story storage facility. The variance is also consistent with Mr. Stein's observations of parking demand at other mini-storage facilities in the area. ii. Ms. Buehner argued that the applicant should be required to provide one or two additional parking spaces, based on her observations of weekend parking demand at other storage facilities in the area. Ms. Buehner's observations are substantial evidence that the demand for parking exceeds the supply at other storage facilities in the area. However she failed to provide any substantial evidence about the size of the facilities she observed or the ratio of parking spaces to the number of storage units. The hearings officer finds that the parking demand estimates in the ITE manual are more persuasive, because they are based on observations of multiple storage facilities and provide a direct comparison of parking demand to the square footage and number of storage units of the facilities. b. The hearings officer finds that there are "special circumstances which are peculiar to the lot size or shape ...over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district." TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(b). The "L" shaped site is relatively long and narrow, making it difficult to provide adequate area for parking and the proposed building. c. The proposed variance will not change the use of the facility. The use will' comply with all other applicable standards. Therefore the modification request complies with TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(c). d. The proposed modification will not impact the "existing physical and natural systems ...any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in this title. TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(d). 2 The ITE manual estimates average parking demand of 0.16 vehicles per 1,000 square feet and 1.39 spaces per 100 storage units. Therefore this 44,970 square foot, 288 unit facility will generate demand for between 7.0 and 7.2 parking spaces. (44,970 square feet x 0.16 vehicles per 1,000 square feet = 7.2 vehicles). (288 storage units x 1.39 spaces per 100 storage units = 4.0 vehicles). 3 The ITE manual estimates the 85`h percentile parking demand of 0.20 vehicles per 1,000 square feet and 1.72 spaces per 100 storage units. Therefore this 44,970 square foot, 288 unit facility will generate demand for between 7.0 and 7.2 parking spaces. (44,970 square feet x 0.20 vehicles per 1,000 square feet = 8.99 vehicles). (288 storage units x 1.72 spaces per 100 storage units = 4.95 vehicles). CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Mirage Mini Storage) Page 4 • • e. The hardship is not self-imposed. The hardship, and the need for the variance, results from the size and shape of the site and the reduced parking demand created by the design of the facility; a multi-story facility with relatively small storage units. The requested adjustment is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship and allow the applicant to develop the site with the proposed use. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.370.010.C(2)(e). 3. The hearings officer finds that the applicant is required to provide off-street loading spaces pursuant to TDC 18.765.080. The facility is a "commercial, industrial [or] institutional building which receive[s] and distribute[s] material or merchandise by truck..."TDC 18.765.080.A. Although the applicant's customers will retain ownership and possession of the stored materials, the building will receive the materials. At least some deliveries will arrive by truck. Therefore the applicant is required to provide at least two loading spaces for the proposed 44,970 square foot facility. TDC 18.765.080.A(2). The hearings officer has no authority to waive or reduce this clear and objective criteria absent a variance or adjustment application. Therefore condition 7 must be retained. 4. The Code does not include specific dimensional requirements for the loading spaces. The Code defers to the expert opinion of the City engineer, based on the size and type of vehicles expected to serve the site. a. The hearings officer finds that this facility is unlikely to generate trips by large "semi-truck" type vehicles, The proposed storage units are too small to accommodate storage of large volumes of material carried by such large trucks. In addition, the majority of customers served the proposed self-storage facility will not have the necessary training and licensing to operate this type of vehicle. b. However the facility may generate some trips by large "U-Haul" type trucks. The storage units may be too small to accommodate the entire contents of such vehicles. However customers may stop by the facility in such vehicles to pick up or drop off extra materials as they move their home or business. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required to design at least one of the loading spaces to accommodate this type of vehicle. A standard parking space may be sufficient to serve as the second loading space. However the actual determination of the size and design of the loading spaces should be left to the expertise of the City engineer pursuant to TDC 18.765.080.B(1). c. The applicant should be required to provide evidence to the City engineer demonstrating the size and types of vehicles used at other similar storage facilities in the area in order to facilitate the engineer's review. The information should include evidence of the turning radius, exterior dimensions and other information about the vehicles to allow the engineer to determine whether the design of the proposed loading facilities is sufficient to comply with TDC 18.765.080.B. Condition 7 should be modified to that effect. CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Mirage Mini Storage) Page 5 • 0 D. CONCLUSIONS The hearings officer concludes that the proposed conditional use permit does or can comply with the applicable approval criteria and standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs. Therefore the application should be approved subject to such conditions. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP 2005-00001 (Mirage Mini Storage), subject to the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department (Cheryl Caines, 639-4171, ext. 2437) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit for review and approval a lighting plan for the entire project site. The plan shall provide sufficient lighting to create a safe nighttime environment for patrons of the facilirywhile assuring that ghting from the site will not produce glare onto neighboring properties. 2. Prior to issuance of site permits for the facility, the applicant must submit a geotech report to the Tigard Building Division. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review that indicates the thickness of and the materials for the landscape barrier to be installed according to code provisions, illustrates trees planted to meet the 20 foot spacing standard and provides screening of the loading facilities consistent with TDC 18.765.080.B(4) and TDC 18.745. Said plan is to be implemented in its entirety. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the facility, the applicant shall provide a signoff letter from the franchise hauler that services the site with a letter approving the facility location. Prior to building permit the applicant shall submit plans that clearly identify interior storage areas and exterior pick-up locations for mixed solid waste and recyclable containers. Said plan shall be implemented in its entirety. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall show the location of the bicycle parking spaces and ensure that all bicycle parking spaces are designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.765.050. CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order Mirage Mini Storage) Page 6 • 0 7. Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the parking plan to include two (2) off-street loading spaces. Said spaces shall be designed and constructed to meet the dimensional criteria in TDC Section 18.765.080(B). The applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the City engineer demonstrating the size and types of vehicles used at other similar storage facilities in the area. The information shall include evidence of the turning radius, exterior dimensions and other information about the types of vehicles likely to use the site sufficient to allow the engineer to determine whether the design of the proposed loading facilities is sufficient to comply with TDC 18.765.080.B. At least one of the spaces shall be large enough to accommodate the largest "U-Haul" type movin van. The loading facilities shall be screened consistent with TDC 18.765.080.Bi Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the site improvements and construction of the commercial structure, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in-lieu of planting. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existm~ tree greater than 12" diameter scheduled for preservation may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree subject to the presentation by the owner of an arborist report justifying the removal. 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 11. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the facility. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of the construction. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. 13. Prior to the issuance of the building permits, the applicant must submit a site plan showing how the vision clearance standards will be met and construct the building accordingly. CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Mirage Mini Storage) Page 7 • 0 Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart, Engineering). 15. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement SPFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design tandards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ti ard- or.gov). 16. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 17. Prior to issuance of the Site permit, the applicant shall pay the addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart, Engineering). 18. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Warner Avenue to increase the right-of-way to provide for the standard cul-de-sac bulb. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 19. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, indicating that they will construct the following frontage improvements along SW Warner Avenue as a part of this project: A. 5-foot concrete sidewalk with a 5-footplanter strip; B. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; C. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; D. driveway apron; and E. 24 foot minimum paved section for Warner Avenue from the Cul-de-sac to Pacific Highway. 20. A profile of Warner Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 21. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility Improvement permit. 22. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Mirage Mini Storage) Page 8 • 0 23. The applicant's engineer shall submit final stormwater detention calculations to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. 24. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 25. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of an adjustment to the cul-de- sac length standards of 18.810.030.1, prior to issuance of permits. 26. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of Highway 217. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Department (Cheryl Caines, 639-4171, ext. 2437) for review and approval: 27. Containers for mixed solid waste and recyclables shall only be placed at curbside one hour before pick-up and must be removed within one hour after pick-up to insure minimal impact on pedestrian traffic in the area. Lack of compliance with this condition will result in revocation of the Conditional Use. 28. Prior to final occupancy, the site shall be inspected to ensure that curbs or wheel stops are provided as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. 29. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. 30. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 31. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way and obtain approval from ODOT. CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Mirage Mini Storage) Page 9 • ! 32. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 33. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as- built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 34. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. 35. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as- built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 36. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final sight distance certification for the access onto Warner Avenue. ADDITIONAL CONDITION TO BE MAINTAINED FOR THE LIFE OF BUILDING: 37. Containers for mixed solid waste and recyclables shall be removed within one hour after pick-up to insure minimal impact on pedestrian traffic in the area. Lack of compliance with this condition will result in revocation of the Conditional Use. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. DATED this 13`h day of March 2006. J umer, Esq., AMP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer CUP 2005-00001 Hearings Officer Final Order (Mirage Mini Storage) Page 10 • "TAB A" 40 Testimony Received at the Public Hearing. S a #~#A 4 W4 ~t~ Chapter 33.266 Title 33, Planning and Zoning Parking And Loading 1120106 Use Categories Specific Uses Standard A Standard B Institutional Categories Basic Utilities None None Community Service 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 196 sq. ft. of floor area area Parks And Open Per CU review for active Per CU review for active Areas areas areas Schools Grade, elementary, middle, 1 per classroom, or per CU 1.5 per classroom, or per junior high or Impact Mitigation Plan CU or Impact Mitigation approval Plan approval High school 7 per classroom, or per CU 10.5 per classroom, or per or Impact Mitigation Plan CU or Impact Mitigation approval Plan approval Medical Centers 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 204 sq. ft. of floor area; or per CU review or area; or per CU review or Impact Mitigation Plan Impact Mitigation Plan approval Colleges 1 per 600 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 400 sq. ft. of floor area exclusive of area exclusive of dormitories, plus 1 per 4 dormitories, plus 1 per 2.6 dorm rooms; or per CU dorm rooms; or per CU review or Impact Mitigation review or Impact Mitigation Plan approval Plan approval Religious Institutions 1 per 100 sq. ft. of main 1 per 67 sq. ft. of main assembly area; or per CU assembly area; or per CU review review Daycare 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 330 sq. ft. of floor area area Other Categories Agriculture None, or er CU review None, or per CU review Aviation Per CU review Per CU review Detention Facilities Per CU review Per CU review Aggregate Extraction Per CU review Per CU review Radio Frequency Unmanned facilities None None Transmission operating at or below 1000 Facilities watts ERP All Other Facilities 2 per site None Rail Lines & Utility None None Corridors Notes: [1] For uses in an EG or I zone, if the site size is 5,000 sq. ft. or less, no more than 4 spaces are required. Where the site size is between 5,001 and 10,000 sq. ft., no more than 7 spaces are required. [21 Minimum of 1 per resident manager's facility, plus 3 per leasing office, plus 1 per 100 leasable stprage spaces in multi-story buildings. Maximum of 2 per resident manager's facility, 5 per leasing office 1 per 67 leasable storage spaces in multi-story buildings. C. Carpool parking. For office, industrial, and institutional uses where there are more than 20 parking spaces on the site, the following standards must be met: 1. Five spaces or five percent of the parking spaces on site, whichever is less, must be reserved for carpool use before 9:00 AM on weekdays. More spaces may be reserved, but they are not required. 2. The spaces will be those closest to the building entrance or elevator, but not closer than the spaces for disabled parking and those signed for exclusive customer use. 266-6 0 • "TAB B" Applicant's Materials & All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. • • Agenda Item: Date: STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = 5/ 6/ 2006 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: MIRAGE MINI STORAGE CASE NOS: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP2005-00001 Variance (VAR) VAR2005-00090 OWNER Ashok & Suryakant Patel APPLICANT'S Saj Jivanjee 14850 NE Sandy Blvd. REP.: Jivanjee Architect,P.C. Portland,OR 97230 9055 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. Portland, OR 97225 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a three story mini storage facility with a full time on-site attendant on a .72 acre site. In addition the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required on-site parking from 74 spaces to 7 spaces. A conditional use permit is required to allow a self-service storage use in the General Commercial zone. LOCATION: The project is located on at the end of SW Warner Avenue, north or SW Pacific Highway, east of SW Hall Boulevard; WCTM 1S135DD, Tax Lot 05200. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION: GG: General Commercial District. The CG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705,18.725,18.745,18.755,18.765,18.780,18.790,18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards for a Conditional Use. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval. As to the Variance, staff suggests the Hearings Officer evaluate the applicant's proposal and justification for the parking variance and make a determination of whether there is satisfactory parking. MIRAGE MINI STORAGE PAGE 1 OF 33 2/27/06 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: Su rmt to the Planning Department Cheryl Caines, 639-4171, ext. 2437 or review an approva : 1. Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit for review and approval a lighting plan for the entire project site. 2. Prior to issuance of site permits for the facility, the applicant must submit a geotech report to the Tigard Building Division. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review that indicates the thickness o and the materials for and thickness of the landscape barrier to be installed according to code provisions and that illustrates trees planted to meet the 20 foot spacing standard. Said plan is to be implemented in its entirety. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the facility, the applicant shall provide a signoff letter from the franchise hauler that services the site with a letter approving the facilitylocation. 5. Prior to building permit the applicant shall submit plans that clearly identify interior storage areas and exterior pick-up locations for mixed solid waste and recyclable containers. Said plan shall be implemented in its entirety. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall show the location of the bicycle parking spaces and ensure that all bicycle parking spaces are designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.76550. 7. Prior to site work, the apppli can t shall revise the parking plan to include two (2) off-street loading s aces. Said spaces shall be designed and constructed to meet the dimensional criteria in TDC Section 1~.765.080(B). 8. Prior to commencing site woa~ditiona the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If l tr ees are preserved through the site improvements and construction of the commercial structure, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be corregp~ndinglyreduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in-lieu of planting. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter scheduled for preservation may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree subject to the presentation by the owner of an arborist report justifying the removal. 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this decision. 11. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by_theroject arborist to protect t e trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the C ty 0rester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adeuately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locatiqons shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. MIRAGE MINI STORAGE PAGE 2 OF 33 2/27/06 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the facility. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction, and shall remain in place through the duration of the construction. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures maybe removed. 13. Prior to the issuance of the building permits, the applicant must submit a site plan showing how the vision clearance standards will be met and construct the building accordingly. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 14. Prior to issuance of the site ermit, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart, Engineering. 15. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is rec~~ired for this project to cover street improvements and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant todpyE iinprovements. Public Facility Improvement (PH permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 16. The PHI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity, who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated an~ provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 17. Any necessary off-site pedestrian easements or ROW acquisition shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a site permit. 18. Prior to issuance of the Site permit, the applicant shall pay the addressing fee. (STAFF CONTACT: Bethany Stewart, Engineering. 19. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Warner Avenue to increase the right-of-way to provide for the standard cul-de-sac-bulb. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-waycenterliie. The dedication document shall be on Cityforms. Instructions are available fromthe Engineering Department. 20. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, indicating that they will construct the following frontage improvements along SW Warner Avenue as a part of this project: A. 5-foot concrete sidewalkwith a 5-footplanter strip; B. street trees in the planter. strip spaced per TDC requirements; C streetlight layout by appcant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; D. driveway apron; and E. 24 foot minimum paved section for Warner Avenue from the Cul-de-sac to Pacific Highway. 21. A profile of Warner Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 22. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance o} the Cites Public Facility Improvement permit. MIRAGE MINI STORAGE PAGE 3 OF 33 2/27/06 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 23. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required byy Clean Water Services Design and Gnstruction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. 24. The applicant's engineer shall submit final stormwater detention calculations to the Engineering Department (Kum McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. 25. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 26. The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of an adjustment to the cul-de-sac length standards of 1010.0301 prior to issuance of permits. 27. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of Highway 217. A copy of the perxrut shall be provided to the City Engineering Department. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Su rrut to e Planning Department (Cheryl 639-4171, ext. 2437 or review an approva : 28. Containers for mixed solid waste and recyclables shall only be placed at curbside one hour before pick- up and must be removed within one hour after pick up to insure minimal impact on pedestrian traffic in the area. Lack of compliance with this condition will result in revocation of the Conditional Use. 29. Prior to final occupancy, the site shall be inspected to ensure that curbs or wheel stops are provided as required by the TIC Chapter 18.765. 30. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verity compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. 31. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall Justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the Qty Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done. by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 32. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way and obtain approval from ODOT. 33. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements obtain conditional acceptance from the Canty, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for sand improvements. MIRAGE MINI STORAGE PAGE 4 OF 33 2/27/06 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 34. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" fgormat, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 35. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsnte storm water treatment facility. 36. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 37. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final sight distance certification for the access onto Warner Avenue. ADDITIONAL CONDITION TO BE MAINTAINED FOR THE LIFE OF BUILDING: 38. Containers for mixed solid waste and rec lables shall be removed within one hour after pick-up to insure minimal impact on pedestrian traffic in the area. Lack of compliance with this condition will result in revocation of the Conditional Use. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. SE CTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Vicini Information: Border e y -1 2 zoning to the north and Hwy 217 to the east, the site is surrounded by a mix of multi- family, single-family and commercial uses. Most of these uses have been long established and no significant re-development has occurred on the surrounding properties. Site Information and Pro osal Description: The site is a vacant parce at the en o SW Warner Avenue. There are several existing trees on the site mostly located along the northern and southern boundaries of the property. The proposal is for a 44,790 square foot, three story muu-storage facility with full time on-site attendant. The applicant is also requesting a variance to reduce the required parking from 74 spaces to 7 spaces. Site Hstorv- The City has no record of past development applications having been filed for this property. All applications are related to the current proposal only. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES, PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. MIRAGE MINI STORAGE PAGE 5 OF 33 2/27/06 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO TF E HEARINGS OFFICER