Hearings Officer Packet - 03/15/1993AGENDA
TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1 SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0001. VARIANCE VAR 93-0003 SENSITIVE
LANDS SLR 93-0001 WOODSIDE VILLAGE/BONFORTE (NPO #7). A
request for approval of the following development
applications: 1) Subdivision approval to divide a 16.28 acre
parcel into 65 lots ranging in size between 3,583 square feet
to 8,352 square feet; 2) Variance approval for the following:
a) to allow local streets in the development to be 20 or 28
feet wide within 32 to 42 foot right-of-ways whereas Code
Section 18.164.030 (E) requires local streets to be
constructed with 34 feet of pavement within a 50 foot right-
of-way; b) 'to allow a cul-de-sac bulb with a 30 foot curb
radius and a 35 foot right-of-way radius whereas Code Section.
18.164.030 (K) requires cul-de-sacs to be constructed with 42
foot curb radius roadways-with 50 foot radius right-of-ways;
c) to allow a 90 foot centerline radius for one road curve
whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (M) requires a minimum 100
foot centerline-radii for local streets; and d) to allow
termination.of the existing stub of SW Morninghill Drive on
the eastern edge of the site without a turnaround whereas Code
Section 18.164.030 (K) requires dead end streets to terminate
in a circular turnaround; 3) Sensitive Lands Review approval.
to allow grading .and filling for construction of street
improvements on land designated as a wetland. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1,
7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3; Community
Development Chapters 18.56, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.102,
18.108, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13824-14102 SW
Scholls Ferry Road; west of the Cotswald subdivisions and
Sunflower apartment complex. (WCTM 1S1 33CC, tax lot 600 and
1S1 33CD, tax lot 203) ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25
units/acre) The R-25 zone allows single family
attached/detached residential units, multiple-family
residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home
parks and subdivisions, public support services, family day
care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory
structures among other uses.
3. OTHER BUSINESS
4. ADJOURNMENT
0 0
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. t_egat
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 NotiCe~T 7469
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
;"''r=
• City of Tigard a E C E I V g • ❑ Tearsheet Notice,
°
;;•c.
PO Box 23397
`F,,"'
"
• ❑ Duplicate Affid
• Tigard, Or 97223 WR 2 21993
avity,cn.f x ,r,.
- Y
Y
cin Of TIGARD
r
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
~~F
;we
STATE OF OREGON, )
ss
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )
'
i,s7
I Judith Koeblar -
4^
Zq h
! : =
being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I am the Advertising
d .
r .
Director, or his principal clerk, of the c
~ A
J
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
nty and state; that the
aforesaid cou
pj
ihlir Haar,nRISiIR43-()()01-yAR93-n()()'4 Woodside Village
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
March 4. 1993
Subscribed and sworn before me this 41-h day of March 1993
_ f
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission xpires: 411-
AFFIDAVIT
The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Otticer on
Monday, March 15. 1993.4t 7:00 PtM. at Tigard Civic Center - Town
Hall, 13125 S.W. Flail Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and
written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be
conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard
Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure
to raise an issue in person or by letter precludes an appeal, and 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. Further information may be obtained from the
Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, or by
calling 639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBDIVISION SUB 93-OQQI VARIANCE VAR 93-0003
SENSITIyE LANDS SLR 93-Ut
NVOODSIDE VILLAGFJBONFORTE (NPO #7)
A request for approval of the following development applications: 1)
Subdivision approval to divide a 16.28 acre site into 65 lots ranging in
size between 3,583 square feet to 8,352 square feet; 2) Ypriance approval
for the following: a) to allow local streets in the development to be 20 or
28 feet wide within 32 to 42 foot right-of-ways whereas Code Section
18.164.030 (E) requires local streets to be constructed with 34 feet of
pavement within a 50 foot right-of-way; b) to allow a cul-de-sac bulb with
a 30 foot curb radius and a 35 foot right-of-way radius whereas Code
Section 18.164.030 (K) requires cut-de-sacs to be constructed with 42 foot
curb radius roadways with 50 foot radius right-of-ways; c) to allow a 90
foot centerline radius for one road curve whereas Code Section
181.164.030 (M) requires a minimum 140 foot centerline radii for local
streets; and d) to allow termination of the existing stub of S.W.
Morninghill Drive on the eastern edge of the site without a turnaround
whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (K) requires dead end streets to
terminate in a circular turnaround; 3) Sensitive Lanus Review approval to
allow grading and filling for construction of street improvements on land
designated as a wetland. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1,
and 8.1.3; Community Development Chapters 18.56, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92,
18.100, 18.102, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13824-14102
S.W. Scholls Ferry Road; west of the Cotswald subdivisions and
Sunflower apartment complex. (WCTM 1S1, 33CC, tax lot 600 and 1S1
33CD, tax lot 203). ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre). The R-25
lone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple-
family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and
subdivisions, public support services, family day care, home occupations,
temporary uses, and accessory stroctmw among other uses.
TT7469 -Publish March 4, il993.
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 7453
R Z C E I ~BEVERTON. OREGON 97075
•
City of Tigard
PG Box 23397
Tigard, Or 97223
•
f 1gl5Notice Advertising The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on
FEB
M A M h l 1993 7 0 P M T' d C T
~F DGAR®
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass.
on ay, all , _ . at . Q , at tgar Crvrc enter - own
• ❑ Tearsheet Noti Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and
written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be
• conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard
❑ Duplicate Affid Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure
to raise an issue in person or by letter precludes an appeal, and 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. Further information may be obtained from the
Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, or by
calling 639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1, -Iudi th Koell ar
being first duly sworn, depose and sa,yy that I arq the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the 3.gard Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193,020; published at_Tigar-d
aforesaid county and state; that the in the
n.u - ,1
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was publis- hed in the
entire issue of said newspaper for
-joM successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
! I
6 L' -
Subscribed and swo to before me this 1&h_daaY of FebMh •y 1993
otary Public for Oregon
PAY Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
SUBDIVISION SUB 93-Q001 VARIANCE VAR 93.0003
SENSITIVE LANDS SLR93-0001
WOODSIDE VILLAGEIBONFORTE (NPO #7)
A request for approval of the following development applications: 1)
Subdivision approval to divide a 16.28 acre site into 65 lots ranging in
size between 3,583 square feet to 8,352 square feet; 2) Variance approval
for the following: a) to allow local streets in the development to be 20 or
28 feet wide within 32 to 42 foot right-of-ways whereas Code Section
18.164.030 (E) requires local streets to be constructed with 34 feet of
pavement within a 50 foot right-of-way; b) to allow a cul-de-sac bulb with
a 30 foot curb radius and a 35 foot right-of-way radius whereas Code
Section 18.164.030 (K) requires cul-de-sacs to be constructed with 42 foot
curb radius roadways with 50 foot radius right-of--ways; c) to allow a 90,
foot centerline radius for one road curve whereas Code Section
181.164.030 (M) requires a minimum 100 foot centerline radii for local
streets; and d) to allow termination of the existing stub of S.W.
Morninghill Drive on the eastern edge of the site without a turnaround.
whereas Code Section 18.164.030 (K) requires dead end streets to
terminate in a circular turnaround; 3) Sensitive Lams Review approval to
allow grading and filling for construction of street improvements on land
designated as a wetland. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1,
and 8.1.3; Community Development Chapters 18.56, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92,
18.100, 18.102, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. LOCATION: 13824-14102
S.W. Scholls Ferry Road; west of the Cotswald subdivisions and
Sunflower apartment complex. (WCTM 1S I, 33CC, tax lot 600 and IS I
33CD, tax lot 203). ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 unitsf acre). The R-25
zone allows single family attached/detached residential units, multiple-
family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and
subdivisions, public support services, family day care, home occupations,
temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses.
TT7453 - Publish February 18, 1993.
\ T I GOk D H E A R I N G S O F F I *R,
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT)
AGENDA ITEM: Z . l CASE NUMBER (S) : ~ 93- 0061J / JA K q 3n-VW'31
OWNER/APPLICANT: ~ JV 1~ \AN 1 Wit C~7v4pr4g /d
LOCATION: CJL) Inne-v6i le" ^
NPO NUMBER: DATE OF HEARING:
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS,. AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT Against the proposal)
-1,
Name Lo 13
RU, Z L
Name rr
Address 3/x.9/ 1T ~l ri~o ~i/~C Address 1114 V~ • ~~i~
5"4"P Rv SE" f~ 9 `Pd S y~_
Name 12! c vl; m' r"--re Name
Address ZT-Y Address AS%
Name( IJtY Y ~i1 / Name
Address`! \ Address
Name 1 Name
Address J Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
T I GqR D HEARINGS O F F I
i L
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND
NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT)
AGENDA ITEM: CASE NUMBER(S): V~ ! C~3 RC-`-W,3
OWNER/APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
NPO NUMBER: DATE OF HEARING:
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS. AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
PROPONENT (Far the proposal) OPPONENT Against the proposal)
Name ~-J 6 " ' p 1 v w ~ r I) rt' P-2 Name
Address 77 olpop- - (191 1~5 I Address
T-L) ~'m xj , cf7oY7z
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
i
i
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
In the matter of an application by Anthony Bonforte for )
FINAL ORDER
approval of a preliminary plat for a 65-lot land division, )
SUB 93-0001
variance and sensitive lands review for land east of )
VAR 93-0003
Scholls Ferry Road in the City of Tigard, Oregon )
SLR 93-0001
(Woodside Village)
FINDINGS
1. The hearings officer hereby adopts and incorporates herein the findings of the
Tigard Community Development Department Staff Report dated March 8, 1993 (the "Staff
Report"), including the summary, findings about the site and surroundings, applicable
approval standards, NPO and agency comments, and evaluation of the request, except to
the extent expressly modified herein. The hearings officer also acknowledges receipt of a
letter dated March 15, 1993 from Jim and Marilyn Rider.
2. The hearings officer conducted a duly notice public hearing regarding the
application on March 15, 1993. At that hearing, the following testimony was offered.
a. City Planner Ron Pomeroy summarized the staff report and
recommendation with revisions.
b. Anthony Bonforte testified on his own behalf. He summarized the
proposal and surrounding land uses. He submitted a revised preliminary plat that provides
a cul de sac at the end of Morning Hill Drive and a slight curve at the south stub of the
principal north-south street on the site. He argued in favor of the proposed variances, and
submitted written comments and pictures in support of the variances. He described the
wetlands on the site and the lengthy process involved in addressing agency and homeowner
conerns about those wetlands. He described the proposed storm water detention facility at
the east edge of the site. The facility will have a gravel base through which water will now
into a perforated pipeline beneath the gravel and hence into the wetland to the west
c. Scott Russell testified on his own behalf. He owns property south of the
site. He testified in favor of the revised plat, which includes the slight curve in the
principal north-south street. If the street is extended south onto his property, then the curve
makes it possible to develop a row of 90-foot deep lots east of the road.
d. Marlin Hopfer owns an adult care facility on an oversized parcel
southwest of the site. He testified in favor of the proposal.
e. Cal Woolery testified for NPO #7 in favor of the proposal, including the
street width variances.
£ John Broome testified for the Wetlands Conservacy in favor of the
proposal, noting that he and a volunteer biologist inspected the wetlands on the site and the
plan and concluded it protects the wetland and forest values of the site. He suggested how
misquito problems could be addressed using natural predators.
g. Mark Lowman owns a home east of the site and testified on behalf of his
family and other residents of the Coswald Meadows subdivision to the east. He introduced
two oversized sheets of photographs and a copy of his testimony. The photographs show
a drainage pond in the Teton Road area. The majority of his testimony was against
Page 1 ---Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 93-OOOIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village)
• •
approval of the storm water detention facility at the east edge of the site. He expressed
concerns about the proximity of the facility to his property; the lack of protection against the
"attractive nuisance" aspects of the facility; the potential for the facility to provide a
breeding place for misquitos, odors and algae; and the lack of assurance that the facility will
work as represented or be maintained over time. He also argued the facility will be
upgradient from the existing stub of SW Ashbury Lane, from which water would be
directed to the facility, and questioned how that could be.
h. Dan Hitt owns a home east of the site and north of SW Ashbury Lane.
He disputed the need for Ashbury Lane to extend across the wetland and connect with
streets providing access to Scholls Ferry Road. He argued against the connection in the
interests of reducing the potential for through-neighborhood traffic. He also disputed the
proposed wetland enhancement features of the project, arguing the existing wetlands are
relatively inaccessible due to vegetation and do not include standing water. If the project is
developed, then there will be standing water in the wetlands, access to the wetlands will be
possible, and potential hazards they contain could attract children and others.
i. City Engineer Chris Davies argued the Ashbury Lane connection across
the wetland is needed to provide for a local street system that does not require excessive
out-of-direction travel and use of arterials to drive from one portion of the neighborhood to
an adjoining portion. He also noted the connection would enhance accessibility for the
existing neighborhood generally and for emergency vehicles.
j. The applicant's engineer, Greg Kurahashi, testified regarding the
proposed storm water detention facility at the east edge of the site.
(1) He said that water from the stub of Ashbury Lane will be piped
to the facility, and excavation will be necessary to accommodate grades, conceding the
natural elevation of the facility site is higher than the inlet in Ashbury Lane.
(2) He said that additional grading will be necessary to create the
facility basin and that the walls of the basin may have to extend into the wetland buffer.
The floor of the pond would about 6 feet below grade at its west edge and 12 feet below
grade at its east edge. It will have a 3:1 slope and will be planted in bunchgrass to facilitate
maintenance. He argued the pond walls are not hazardous and a fence is not warranted
because of their shallow slope. He said the pond will not detain water that is more than 3
feet; a weir will release flows in excess of that amount directly into the wetland.
(3) He characterized the facility as a "dry" pond, because the gravel
bed and underlying perforated pipeline will allow water to move relatively quickly from the
pond to the wetland. That distinguishes it from the pond illustrated in Mr. Lowman's
photographs.
(4) He conceded that lack of maintenance of the facility could result
in siltation of the gravel or pipeline, but that the facility was inherently simple to maintain or
to repair, in contrast to a "wet" pond. He described several methods to prevent adverse
effects if maintenance is deferred including: installing duplicate discharge lines from the
pond and capping one until it is needed to replace the other line; installing a head structure
that can be raised or lowered to adjust to changing conditions; or installing an outlet to
another drainage facility. He noted that the City will be responsible for maintenance of the
facility.
Page 2 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 93-OOOIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village)
• 0
(5) He noted that a biofiltration swale could be used instead of a
pond, but that would affect a much larger area and would require more difficult or costly
maintenance and repairs.
(6) He noted that all of the water going into the pond is from the
existing developed area to the east; that water now simply discharges onto the site.
(7) On behalf of the applicant, he agreed to move the pond further
west and/or to plant conifer trees along the east edge of the pond if permitted by permits
issued by the Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) and Corps of Engineers (COE).
3. The first principal issue concerns the three variances requested by the applicant.
One would allow a 42-foot right of way and as little as a 24- to 28-foot paved section for
local streets on the site. A second would allow a 35-foot radius cul de sac right of way and
30-foot paved radius cul de sac bulb. A third would allow a 90-foot centerline radius
where the extension of Ashbury Lane crosses the northeast edge of the wetland buffer.
a. In its evaluation, City staff recommend approval of the variance to the
centerline radius standard for the extension of Ashbury Lane, the variance to the cul de sac
standards for SW Morning Hill Drive and the cul de sac at the northeast corner of the site,
and deletion of a sidewalk on the west side of the Ashbury Lane extension where it crosses
the wetland buffer. The staff also recommend approval of a variance for a 28-foot paved
section in a 42-foot right of way for the local street east of the west edge of the wetland.
The hearings officer adopts the findings at pages 12 through 15 of the Staff Report in
support of approval of those variances.
b. City staff effectively recommend denial of a variance for a 28-foot paved
section in a 42-foot right of way for the local streets west of the wetland. The staff agree
that the site is subject to special circumstances, (i.e., the wetland and buffer), and that the
variances would not be detrimental to public health or safety. In fact, by reducing
impervious area, the variance reduces the needed size of storm water features; however,
positive impacts of a variance are not relevant. Staff concluded that the variance is not
"necess rte'- for the proper design and function of the subdivision" or "necessarv for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right" (Sections 18.160.12013 and D,
emphasis added), because the lots west of the wetland will be large enough to be
developed, and the number of lots will not be reduced if the applicant dedicates and
improves full-width streets there.
c. The crux of the dispute is what is "necessary" for the proper design and
function of the subdivision and the preservation of the applicant's property rights.
Variances typically are subject to a standard like that in Section 18.160.12013 and D. When
faced with the issue, Oregon courts generally construe the term "necessary" in variance
provisions rather strictly. The staff recommendation is consistent with how that and similar
terms have been applied in other cases in the City and elsewhere generally. However, the
hearings officer notes that a common axiom of land use law is that every case is unique,
and the City has not had an opportunity to construe the word "necessary" under the specific
fact circumstances presented here.
d. The disputed variance would be convenient and may enhance the value,
marketability or flexibility of development of lots. However, the hearings officer construes
the term "necessary" to require more than that. A variance must be necessary to allow the
proper functioning of the site. If by dedicating the full right of way, the building envelopes
on lots are reduced to the extent that they cannot be developed practicably, then the hearings
officer believes the variance would be necessary.
Page 3 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 93-OOOIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village)
0 0
e. In this case, if a full right of way is dedicated from the proposed
centerline of the street, building envelopes on the lots affected would continue to be
generally in excess of 50 feet deep and 30 to 35 feet wide. Lot 24 would have a building
envelope about 46 feet deep and 48 feet wide. Lots 15, 25, 26, and 35 would have
building envelopes less than 40 feet deep, although they would be wider than deep; their
width provides more flexibility in siting a home on those lots than on other lots.
f. The hearings officer finds it is possible to site a single family home in a
45- to 55-foot deep building envelope. There is no evidence in the record illustrating
proposed home sizes and showing that the proposed homes cannot be situated within a 45-
to 55-foot deep building envelope or that the ability to site such homes is necessary to
function of the subdivision.
(1) The minimum lot size in the zone is 3050 square feet. Given
standard setbacks and a rectangular lot 45 feet x 67 feet, such a lot would have a buildable
area about 35 feet wide and 37 feet deep. Other configurations are possible, but all would
have less buildable area than the proposed lots even if the disputed variance is denied.
(2) The hearings officer assumes the buildable area provided by
City Code for a permitted size lot can in fact be developed for a permitted use. Therefore,
the applicant's proposed lots, which provide more buildable area than a minimum size lot in
the R25 zone, should be readily developable.
g. However, the fact that a lot can be developed does not mean that a
variance to allow the lot to be developed more flexibly is not necessary to allow for the
proper function of the subdivision.
(1) The hearings officer finds that smaller buildable areas could
adversely affect the function of the subdivision. Only smaller homes could be built. Less
flexibility and variety in home size, setbacks and architectural style and features are
possible in a smaller building envelope.
(2) Also, if the disputed variance is denied and lots east of the street
are smaller, it will increase the potential for residents of those units to resort to the wetland
for passive and active recreation, because there will be less area on which to undertake
those uses on each lot. This would be contrary to the City's interests in preserving and
protecting the wetland and buffer.
(3) The hearings officer also finds that the significant area of the site
devoted to open space should be considered in determining what is necessary for the proper
functioning of the remainder of the subdivision. That area prevents the applicant from
modifying the lots to provide the requisite right of way and improved width. Therefore,
the open space makes it necessary to modify development regulations that otherwise apply
to enable the developable area to be as large as possible given the remaining developable
area of the site, provided it does not otherwise conflict with the public health or safety.
h. It is a close call. Whether the variance is "necessary" is arguable.
Reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue can be raised. None is totally persuasive
nor supported by legislative history from which the hearings officer can infer the intent of
the City Council when it adopted or applied that term. However, given the findings above,
the hearings officer concludes the variance to the street standards is marginally "necessary"
to the proper function of the subdivision and to the preservation of the applicant's property
rights. Therefore, the variance should be approved for the local street west of the wetland.
Page 4 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 93-OOOIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village)
•
4. The second principal issue is the stormwater facility at the east edge of the site.
a. The facility is needed to address existing stormwater runoff from land to
the east. That water now flows onto the site without water quality treatment or detention.
The proposed facility will provide those features.
b. The hearings officer is convinced by the testimony of Mr. Kurahashi and
the exhibits illustrating the facility that the facility will not be inherently hazardous due to
steep slopes, high water levels, or misquito infestation. Because of its design, it will not
be prone to the sorts of problems illustrated in the photographs presented by Mr. Lowman,
provided it is maintained.
c. The City is responsible for maintenance and is prepared to accept that
responsibility. The hearings officer cannot assume the City will not fulfill its
responsibility. However, the hearings officer finds that all reasonable steps should be
taken to minimize maintenance needs of the facility due to its design and construction and to
provide back-up measures such as those suggested by Mr. Kurahashi to the extent deemed
warranted by the City Engineer.
d. Notwithstanding the lack of inherently hazardous conditions created by
the facility, its proximity to single family homes to the east warrants mitigation, because the
facility should be protected against trespass and residents of the surrounding area should be
protected from visual, maintenance and other potential nuisance effects of the facility.
Mitigation could take one or more of three forms.
(1) The applicant could fence the east edge of the site to prevent
access to the facility from that direction; or
(2) The applicant could physically move the facility as far west as
possible, increasing the setback between the facility and adjoining homes; however, this
would require concurrence of ODSL and COE; and/or
(3) The applicant could plant a substantial vegetative barrier (i.e.,
hedge and/or trees) between the facility and the east edge of the site. This may require
concurrence of ODSL and COE.
The applicant should provide one or more of these mitigation measures,
subject to review and approval of the planning director.
5. The third principal issue is whether SW Ashbury should extend across the
wetland to provide access ultimately to Scholls Ferry Road. The hearings officer agrees
with the testimony of Mr. Davies in finding II.J that the extension of the road is warranted
in the public interest to reduce out-of-direction travel and to enhance emergency and intra-
neighborhood access.
6. That development will facilitate access to the site and its natural features is
inevitable given the zoning and plan designation of the site. The amount of development
proposed is much less than that permitted, so the effect is less than it might be. But in
either event, the fact that development increases access does not violate any City standard
or policy. Open space dedication and mitigation measures are recommended to minimize
the impact of increased site activity and development on the health of the wetland and its
habitat.
Page 5 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 93-OOOIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village)
9
7. The issue of prior LID's and the completion of the Murray Road extension
(raised in the Riders' letter) is not relevant to the review of the subdivision.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings, and the conclusions in section VI of the Staff Report,
the proposed subdivision, variance, and landform alteration do or can comply with the
applicable provisions of the City Code, and the applicant's request should be approved,
subject to conditions and restrictions consistent with the Code and this Final Order.
QRDER
The applicant's requests, SUB 93-0001, VAR 93-0003, and SLR 93-0001
(Woodside Village) and VAR 92-0009, are hereby approved, subject to the conditions in
Section VI of the Staff Report, with the following amendments:
1. Conditions of approval 5 and 25 are amended to read as follows:
Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox
clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement,
sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities shall be
installed within the subdivision. Improvements shall be designed and constructed
to local street standards for the street fronting lots 26 through 35. Throughout the
balance of the subdivision, improvements shall be designed and constructed to local
street standards, with the following exceptions:
a. The right of way shall be reduced to 42 feet and the pavement width shall
be reduced to 28 feet with appropriate transitions.
b. The right of way for a cul de sac shall have a 35-foot radius and a cul de
sac shall have a 30-foot paved radius.
c. No sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of Ashbury Lane along
the wetland between Lots 1 and 63, and that street section can have a 90-foot radius
centerline curve.
2. Conditions of approval 12 and 30 are amended to read as follows:
The applicant shall provide on-site storm water quality facilities as
established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order
91-47. The storm water facility near the east edge of the site south of lot 63 shall be
designed and operated substantially as described by Mr. Kurahashi in finding 3.j,
including mitigation and back-up measures listed in finding 3.j(4) deemed
warranted by the City Engineer. The applicant shall mitigate the potential impacts
of the facility to the extent deemed appropriate by the planning director by doing
one or more of the following:
a. Fence the east edge of the site to prevent access to the facility
from that direction;
b. Relocating the facility as far west as possible with the
concurrence of ODSL and COE; and/or
Page 6 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 93-OOOIIVAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village)
•
0
c. Planting a substantial, dense vegetative barrier (i.e., hedge and/or
trees) between the facility and the east edge of the site with whatever concurrence of
ODSL and COE is necessary.
3. A new condition is added to read as follows:
43. The applicant may develop the subdivision in up to three phases as
shown on the amended preliminary plat dated March 15, 1993, subject to the
requirements of the City Code and this decision that are applicable to the phase of
the subdivision in question or that the City planning director finds must be fulfilled
to address the phase of the subdivision in question.
4. A new condition is added to read as follows:
44. The alignment of the street fronting lots 16 and 17 shall be changed to
provide for a curve to the west with a 100-foot centerline radius beginning at the
north line of lot 16 and extending to the south line of lot 16.
ATE thi 5th da A ril, 190,3J.
Larry Epstei C
City of Tig gs Officer
Page 7 Hearings Officer Final Order
SUB 93-0001/VAR 93-00031SLR 93-0001 (Woodside Village)
0 0
AGENDA ITEM 2.1
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an application by Tony Bonforte on STAFF REPORT
behalf of Woodside Village Partnership Limited SUB 93-0001
for Subdivision, Variance and Sensitive Lands VAR 93-0003
Review approval. SLR 93-0001
I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST
CASE: Subdivision SUB 93-0001 / Variance VAR 93-0003 / VAR 93-0001
SUMMARY: The applicant requests: 1) Subdivision approval to divide two
parcels consisting of approximately 16.28 acres into 65 lots
ranging between 3,583 and 8,352 square feet in size; and 2)
Sensitive Lands approval to allow the crossing and modification
of an existing wetland. The following Variance requests-are also
a part of this application: 1) to allow narrower street widths
than required by current standards for local streets; 2) to allow
a cul-de-sac bulb with a smaller radius than current code
standards allow; and 3) to allow a 90 foot centerline radii
whereas the code requires a minimum 100 foot centerline radii.
APPLICANT:, Tony Bonforte
14675 SW Osprey Drive #413
Beaverton, OR 97007
OWNER: Woodside Village Limited Partnership
11440 W. Bernardo Court #265
San Diego, CA 92127
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre)
LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 33CC, tax lot 600 and 1S1 33CD, tax lot 203)
APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92,
18.102, 18,108, 18,150, 18.160 and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1,
4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions.
II,. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
A. Backaround Information:
An application by XYZ Corporation for the construction of a 290 unit
apartment complex (SDR 89-0007) was approved by the City in 1989. This
approval expired after 18 months and the apartment complex was never
built.
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 1
•
B.
C.
D.
Vicinitv Information:
•
The site is located east of SW Scholls Ferry Road, west of SW 135th
Avenue, and north of the proposed Murray Boulevard extension. Access
to the site is gained from SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW Ashbury Lane and
SW Morning Hill Drive.
Site Description:
The subject parcel is undeveloped. As stated in the applicant's
narrative, the site is relatively flat with the topography ranging from
a high point of approximately 220 feet to a low point of 184 feet. A
wetland area of approximately 3.9 acres exists within the center of the
site running from the north edge to near the southern boundary. The
wetland divides the property into three areas for potential development;
the northeast, southeast and west portions of the site. Vegetation is
limited primarily to the wetland area and consists primarily of 6 to 12
inch Alders. The balance of the site largely consists of indigenous
grasses.
surroundina land uses:
Properties on all sides of this site are zoned R-25 (Residential, 25
units per acre); except for that area to the west across Scholls Ferry
Road. The immediate area is substantially developed with single-family
homes and apartments. Most of the property which is located across
Scholls is currently undeveloped. The Reflections Apartment complex is
northwest of the site.
III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS
A.
Communitv Development Code.
1. Chapter 18.56.050 contains standards for the R-25 zone. A single-
family detached residential unit is a permitted use in this zone.
Detached single-family residential lots in this zone must comply
with the following dimensional requirements:
Minimum lot size
3,050
square feet
Front setback
15
feet
Garage setback
20
feet
Interior sideyard setback
5
feet
Corner sideyard setback
10
feet
Rear setback
15
feet
Maximum building height
45
feet
2. Chapter 18.84.015101 states that landform alterations within
wetland areas must meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit
criteria of the Division of State Lands (DSL), US Army Corps of
Engineers, Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) and/or other federal,
state or regional agencies. Therefore, a City of Tigard Sensitive
Lands Permit for this purpose is not required. However, all other
applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including
sensitive lands permits for areas meeting non-wetland sensitive
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 2
0 0
land criteria. Since the drainageway on the southern end of the
wetland is to be modified for the purposes of as part of the
proposed development, a sensitive lands permit shall be required
as per Section 18.84.015(D1. This section states that such a
permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins
within a drainageway.
The approval criteria for modifications to drainageways are listed
in Section 18.84.040(C). These applicable criteria are:
1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration
or development will not create site disturbances to the
extent greater than that required for the use;
2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground
instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects
or hazards to life or property;
3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not
decreased;
4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form
alteration or development, the area not covered by
structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to
prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100,
Landscaping and Screening;
5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of
adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance
with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; and
5. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of
Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall
be obtained.
The drainageway will be replaced by a storm drain of adequate size
to accommodate maximum flow from the proposed development.
Additionally, all public improvement plans shall be reviewed and
accepted by the City Engineering Department prior to the recording
of the plat with Washington County.
3. Chapter 18.88.040(C)(l) contains solar access standards for new
residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot
standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and
has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true
east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement
if 80% or more of the newly created lots meet or exceed this
standard.
4. Chapter 18.92.020 contains standards for density. The number of
dwelling units permitted is based on the net development area,
excluding sensitive land areas and land dedicated for public roads
or parks, or for private roadways. This land area is then divided
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 3
0 0
by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to
determine the number of lots which may be created on a site.
5.• Chapter 18.102.030 specifies vision clearance triangles adjacent
to intersections in which the height of plantings, signs, etc. are
limited to three feet in height to assure safe and adequate sight
distance at intersections to reduce potential hazards from
vehicular turning movements. Alternatively, trees may be limbed
i up to eight feet in height.
6.! Chapter 18.108.070 contains standards for single-family
residential vehicular access. Additionally, a driveway which
serves two residences must be a minimum of 25 feet wide with a
minimum pavement width of at least 20 feet.
7.I Chapter 18.150.0201E1 requires a permit for removal of trees
having a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter measured four feet
j above the ground on undeveloped residential land. A permit for
i tree removal must comply with the following criteria as specified
in Chapter 18.150.030(A1:
a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or
interfere with utility service or traffic safety;
b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed
improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's
property in a reasonable manner;
C. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability,
or drainage problems;
d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as
windbreaks or as a desirable balance between shade and open
space;
e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually
adversely affected by the tree removal; and
f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will
replace the aesthetic value of trees to be cut.
8. Chapter 18.160.060(A) contains standards for the subdividing of
parcels into 4 or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat
must comply with the following criteria:
a. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive
Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable
ordinances and regulations;
b. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must
otherwise satisfy the provisions of OAS Chapter 92;
C. The streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to
the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 4
0 0
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; and
d. An explanation has been provided for all common
improvements.
9.~ Chapter 18.160.120 contains standards for the approval of a
subdivision variance. These criteria are:
a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as
compared to other lands similarly situated;
b. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function
of the subdivision;
C. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the
rights of other owners of property; and
d. The variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an
extraordinary hardship which would result from strict
compliance with the regulations of this title.
10. Chapter 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities.
a. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining
a development to be dedicated and improved based on the
classification of the street.
b. Section 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) requires local streets to be
constructed with 34 feet of pavement within a 50 foot
right-of-way. This section also requires turn-arounds for
cul-de-sacs to be constructed with 42 foot.radius roadways
with 50 foot radius right-of-ways.
C. Section 18.164.030(M) requires that the centerline radii of
curves to be at least a minimum of 100 feet for local
streets.
d. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than
2J times the lot width and requires at that lots have at
least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets,
other than an alley.
Q. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all
residential streets.
f. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service.
i
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001
PAGE 5
g. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm
i water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage
facilities.
B. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies.
1.i Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be
provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the
planning and development review process.
2. Policy 4.2.1 provides that all development within the Tigard urban
i planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and
regional water quality standards.
3.. Policy 7.1.2 provides the City will require as a condition of
development approval that public water, sewer, and storm drainage
will be provided and designed to City standards and utilities
placed underground.
4. Policy 7.3.1 provides the City will coordinate water services with
water districts.
5. Policy 7.4.4 requires all new development to be connected to an
approved sanitary sewer system.
6. Policy 7.6.1 requires that the development be served by a water
system having adequate water pressure for fire protection purposes
and that the Fire District review all such applications.
6. Policy 8.1.1 provides the City will plan for a safe and efficient
street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated
future growth and development.
7. Policy 8.1.3 provides the City will require as a precondition of
approval that:
a. Development abut a dedicated street or have other adequate
access;
b. Street right-of-way shall be dedicated where the street is
substandard in width;
C. The developer shall commit to construction of the streets,
curbs, sidewalks to City standards within the development.
d. The developer shall participate in the improvement of
existing streets, curbs, and sidewalks to the extent of the
development's impacts;
i e. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or
signals shall be provided when the development is found to
i create or intensify a traffic hazard.
i
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 6
0 0
IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Tigard Water District states that, although they have no objections to
the proposal, the District will require the extension of the existing
12 inch D. I. water line along SW Scholls Ferry Road as shown on the
plans. The District will also require that a connection be made to an
existing 8 inch D.I. water line stubbed from the Sunflower Apartments.
As, with all water line projects, approval must be gained through the
Water District.
2. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal. The Fire
Code requires that not less than a 45 foot turning radius be provided.
This is to be an unobstructed driving surface. Hydrant spacing and
locations shall be approved in cooperation with the Tigard Water
District. Additionally, it is requested that temporary turn-arounds be
provided on long dead-ends until the street if extended.
3. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has commented:
a. Each lot should have a means of discharging storm water to a
public conveyance, by gravity. Untreated water from roof and
foundation drains should not be discharged directly into the
wetlands.
b.' Detailed design of the water quality facility should be approved
prior to recording of the final plat to ensure that lot
configuration will not change as a result of the facility. The
proposed design does not appear to provide water quality for any
of the new construction west of the waterway.
C. The 25 foot buffer should be dedicated to the City of Tigard.
d. Plans, as submitted, do not show wetland mitigation for road
crossing and road construction impacts. [USA has not reviewed the
DSL wetland mitigation permit application.]
e. Detailed hydrolic and hydrological analysis of the drainageway is
necessary to evaluate the impact of the road crossing as well as
the backwater from the Scholls Ferry Crossing.
f. Is the site a designated 100 year plain? If so, the appropriate
mitigation is necessary. If not, the above noted backwater
analysis should be used to protect the future dwellings from
inundation in the event of a 100 year flood.
g.i Are any improvements to SW Scholls Ferry Road anticipated which
will effect the proposed stormwater system? [Additional 8-foot
right-of-way dedication and improvement.]
h.1 Lots which abut the buffer should be fenced to prevent impact to
i the buffer. The Agency recommends chain link fencing to allow the
owner to enjoy the visual aspects of the wetland.
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 7
9 0
4. GTE has reviewed this proposal and has requested that the
developer/builder contact GTE at least 30 days prior to trench opening.
5. The City of Beaverton has reviewed this proposal and stated:
Provide circulation plan for adjacent undeveloped parcels to
assure there is an adequate number of, and location of, stub
streets.
6. The City of Tigard Building Division and Operations Department, Portland
General Electric, and Beaverton School District #48 have reviewed the
proposal and have offered no comments or objections.
7. The City received a letter from Mr. Marlin Hopfer on March 4, 1993 in
opposition to this development. Mr. Hopfer's property is located at the
southern end of the development site, west of tax lot 203 and adjacent
to SW Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Hopfer states that he is opposed to the
downgrading of street widths and the small lot sizes proposed for this
development. Reference was also made to an easement granted on June 29,
1989 for the purposes of obtaining access to sanitary and storm sewers
and public water. Mr. Hopfer requests: 1) Sanitary and storm sewer
lines be extended to his east property line at the lowest point of
elevation; 2) Public water be extended to his property line; and 3) a
fence be constructed to extend the entire length of his property line
to protect him from possible liabilities.
V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST
A. Comoliance with Communitv Development Code.
1.. The proposed subdivision complies with the use standards of the
R-25 zoning district (Section 18.56.050) because the lots are
intended to be developed as single-family detached dwelling units;
a permitted use in this zone. The sixty-five lots ranging from
3,583 to 8,352 square feet are all larger than the minimum 3,050
square foot minimum lot size requirement of this zone. All such
lots are subject to the setback standards of the R-25 zone.
Compliance with these standards will be reviewed as part of the
building permit application process for single-family homes
constructed on individual lots.
I
2.1 Wetlands have been determined to exist in a basin associated with
I a tributary to Summer Creek. Summer Creek is located on the
eastern half of the site.
Both the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Oregon Department
of Fish and wildlife have walked the site with OTAR and have
reviewed the preliminary plans. Their suggested modifications have
been incorporated into the design. The wetlands application to
Oregon Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers is
being made concurrent with the submittal for Preliminary Plat
Approval. The required 25 foot buffer (Section 18.84.028) will
be maintained along the boundary of the wetland.
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 8
0 0
The approval criteria for modifications in sensitive lands areas
have been satisfied as noted below:
a. The proposed land form alterations/development are the
result of the minimum applied standards required in order
to provide adequate access to the proposed lots on this
site. Variances have been requested to further reduce this
impact. The applicants development plans have attempted
to avoid the wetland and drainage area other than as
required to tie the development together. The number of
lots proposed is considerably less that permitted.
b. The proposed land form alterations/development will not
result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground
instability, or other adverse on-site or off-site effects
or hazards as approved by the City Engineering Department.
Erosion control measures and approved engineering designs
shall be used for all such modifications.
C. The water flow capacity of the drainageway will not be
decreased. Plans verifying this shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the City Engineering Department.
d. The area where vegetation is to be removed for such
modifications will be replanted according to an approved
on-site mitigation plan as accepted by DSL.
e. The drainageway will be replaced by a storm drain of
adequate size to accommodate maximum flow as approved the
City of Tigard Engineering Department.
f. Required State of Oregon permits have been applied for
regarding the proposed land form modification/development
! plans.
3.~ Lots 24 - 36, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 and 65 meet the basic solar
access requirements as specified in Code Section 18.88.040(C)(1)
(Solar). The front lot line orientation of these lots is within
30 degrees of true east-west. These lots also provide a minimum
north-south dimension of at least 90 feet. The balance of the
lots do not meet the requirements.
Thirteen of the lots can be counted as the standard 20% exemption
from these solar lot requirements. The balance of these lots are
accepted by staff as exceptions to these standards as per Sections
18.88.040(E)(1)(a)(ii) and [iii). There is wetland area on this
site which the applicant is proposing to traverse at the site's
northern boundary. This wetland will remain in existence after
this development is completed. In order to utilize the buildable
portions of this site and to continue the established road
patterns in this area, the applicant is limited in ability to
create fully solar lots without significantly reducing the number
of lots. Therefore, is it recommended that 33 of these 65 lots
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 9
0 0
be exempted from the solar access requirements according to the
above referenced adjustments to design standards.
4. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of
Chapter 18.92.020 (Density). The net developable area of the site
(after deduction of the public right-of-way and the undevelopable
portions of this site) is approximately 447,361.2 square feet
(10.27 acres). With a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet per
dwelling unit, this site yields an opportunity for 146.7 dwelling
units under the R-25 zoning designation. The applicant has
proposed the creation of 65 single-family lots and therefore,
complies with this standard.
5. Chapter 18.102 (Visual clearance) requires that adequate vision
be provided at all road intersections. This standard shall be
satisfied by adherence to the requirements regarding the height
and placement of any future possible obstructions including a
subdivision identification sign. Prior to the installation of any
such sign, a sign permit from the Planning Department must be
obtained. The sign permit review and approval process will
require a finding that the sign will be consistent with the
requirements of Chapters 18.102 (Vision Clearance) and 18.114
(Signs).
6. Chapter 18.108 (Access) and Section 18.164.060(B1 (Lot Frontage)
are satisfied in that at least 25 feet of frontage is provided for
all lots, except for lot 36. Lot 36 is a flag lot and fronts the
public street for a distance of 20 feet whereas the code requires
only a 15 foot frontage for such lots (Section 18.162.050(C1).
Therefore, all proposed lots meet the required lot frontage widths
as specified by the applicable code standards.
7.; The applicant has not yet applied a tree removal permit for this
site as required by Section 18.150.020(E1 (Tree Removal).
Therefore, prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit, the
I
applicant will need to supply details identifying the type and
size of trees on this site which are greater than six inches in
diameter. This survey shall also indicate those trees which are
proposed for removal.
8.' The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision
approval standards of Chapter 18.160.060(A1 (Subdivisions)
because:
a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive
Plan Map's Medium-High Density Residential density
opportunity for the site as well as with the applicable
plan policies, the regulations of the R-25 zone, and other
applicable regulations;
b. The proposed name of the subdivision (Woodside) is not
duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington
County;
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 10
9 0
C. The proposed public streets provide for adequate and safe
access to the lots in this proposed subdivision. This
preliminary plat also provides for an extension of an
existing street stub,, the termination of another, and
provides two additional street stubs abutting adjacent
properties.
9.1 The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the
proposal and offers the following analysis with regard to streets,
sanitary sewers and storm drainage:
A. Streets:
The site is located west of SW Scholls Ferry Road, east of SW
135th Avenue, and north of the proposed Murray Boulevard
extension. Access to the site is gained from SW Scholls Ferry
Road, SW Ashbury Lane and SW Morning Hill Drive.
Southwest Scholls Ferry Road, adjacent to the site is under the
jurisdiction of Washington County and is classified as a Major
Collector; the City of Tigard classifies Scholls Ferry Road as an
Arterial. The minimum standards for a Washington Country Major
Collector are as follows (all distances are from centerline): 33
feet of right-of-way, 21 feet of pavement, curb and sidewalk.
Currently, along the frontage of the site, there is: 25 feet of
right-of-way, approximately 14 feet of pavement, no curb and an
open ditch for drainage.
Washington County was contacted about this development and has
recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Dedicate additional right-of-way to provide 33 feet from
centerline of SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage, including
adequate corner radius.
2. Sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of
a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve
the base facility of SW scholls Ferry Road between the two
intersections with SW Old Scholls Ferry Road.
3. Establish a one-foot non-access reserve strip along the SW
Scholls Ferry Road frontage except at the approved access
location.
4. Assure that the access to SW Scholls Ferry Road will be
adequately illuminated through the formation of a street
lighting service district, or other measures, as approved
by the County Engineering Division.
5. Assure that the sight distance is adequate at the proposed
. access to SW Scholls Ferry Road.
6. Obtain a facility permit for the following public
improvements:
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 11
0 0
a) Concrete curb and sidewalk to county standard along
the SW Scholls Ferry frontage;
b) Adequate roadway drainage along all SW Scholls Ferry
frontage;
C) Street intersection to County standards at the sites'
access to SW Scholls Ferry Road; and
d) Any traffic improvements which are required as a
result of the County Traffic Analyst's review for
compliance with R&O 86-95.
The City of Tigard Engineering Department concurs with most of the
recommendations regarding the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage.
Based on both the development size and the length of frontage on
Scholls Ferry Road, the applicant should install half-street
improvements rather than signing a non-remonstrance agreement.
The applicant is proposing an internal local street pattern to
serve this design. As part of the local street pattern, SW
Ashbury Lane will be extended to the west. It will then turn and
continue north. A new street will access the site from SW Scholls
Ferry Road and will head east. It will then split and continue
both north and south. The extension to the north will connect
with SW Ashbury after crossing the wetland. The southern
extension will dead-end at the southern site boundary for further
extension when the adjacent property develops. The applicant is
requesting for approval for several variances to the City's local
street standards for all of the internal local streets; except for
the main portion of the road which has direct access to SW Scholls
Ferry Road.
Based on the applicant's statement, variances are being requested for
the following standards:
1. Section 18.164.030(E1(1)(a) which requires local streets to
be constructed with 34 feet of pavement within a 50 foot
right-of-way. This section also requires turn-arounds for
cul-de-sacs to be constructed with 42 foot radius roadways
with 50 foot radius right-of-ways.
2. Section 18.164.030(M1 which requires centerline radii of
curves to be minimum of 100 feet for local streets.
The applicant seeks approval for variances based upon the
following reasons. The applicant's reasons are numbered below.
j The City's comment directly follows each item:
I
I
1. The westerly developable area is approximately 200 feet
i
deep for the majority of the site. Reasonable utilization
! of this land area cannot occur without a reduction in the
street standards. The adjacent lots would need to be made
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001
PAGE 12
• 9
that this is a very difficult area to access, due to previous
adjacent development, and that the impacts to the wetlands should
be reduced. However, a safe traffic system must also be
maintained. Since a portion of this site (the wetland) is non-
accessible and the size and configuration of this site is
problematic for development, it is determined that a reduction in
street widths is appropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that
all local streets within this proposal area provide a minimum of
a 28 foot wide pavement section within a 42 foot wide right-of-
way. By requiring this width, the depth of lots 49, 50, 55 and
56 would be affected, however they will still be able to maintain
a minimum depth of approximately 85 feet.
The applicant also proposes to provide access to two lots (lots
64 and 65) located in the southeast corner of the development.
Currently, SW Morning Hill Drive terminates at the east property
line of this site. The applicant is proposing to serve these two
lots with private drives directly off the terminus of SW Morning
Hill Drive.
In review of the plans, the Engineering Department does not oppose
the development of this portion of the site. However, there is
concern with having private drives accessing directly off the
terminus of a local street. The major concern is with the
maintenance of the public road. If a smaller cul-de-sac were to
be required, the City could maintain the road in its entirety and
make the two new lots more a part of the existing development.
The proposed stub street causes difficulties for street sweepers
and provides no turnaround opportunity for service vehicles.
In conclusion, the City Engineering Department supports portions
of the variances which have been requested under Section
18.164.030(E)(1)(a) and fully supports the variance requested
pertaining to Section 18.164.030(M) (Grades and Curves). It is
recommended that the applicant provide the following:
1. The local streets serving lots 1 - 42 should be built to
current standards. If, at the time of approval of the
construction plans, the City of Tigard has adopted new
street standards, the applicant may construct the roads to
the new standard. This option DOES NOT apply to that
portion of the road which fronts lot 26 through lot 35.
2. The local streets to the north and east which would serve
lots 43 through 62 should meet local street standards with
the following exceptions: right-of-way may be reduced to
a minimum of 42 feet, and the pavement width to a minimum
of 28 feet. For that portion of the SW Ashbury Lane which
abuts lots 57 through 61 the sidewalk on the west side may
be omitted. The cul-de-sacs as shown on the preliminary
plans are acceptable.
3. SW Morning Hill Drive shall terminate in a cul-de-sac with
a minimum right-of-way radius of 35 feet and a pavement
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 14
• 0
more shallow by eight feet in order to meet the 50 foot
right-of-way standard.
The conceptual plan submitted by the applicant indicates a 15 foot
right-of-way dedication along SW Scholls Ferry Road. However,
Washington County is only requiring an additional 8 foot right-of-
way dedication. The unnecessary 7 feet of dedication shown on the
plat can be added directly to the proposed right-of-way width for
the portion of the street adjacent to, and north of, lot seven.
Therefore, the property lines of lots 1-7, 26, and 35-42 would
only need to be shifted a maximum of 1 foot in order to obtain the
minimum design standards for a local street. Lots 8 through 15
could be reduced by 8 feet which would bring the street into
compliance with code standards while continuing to maintain an
adequate building area.
2. In order to provide a 50 foot right-of-way within the
westerly portion of the site, the lots would need to be 8
feet less in depth. This would result in a majority of the
lots being less the 85 feet deep which does not provide
sufficient depth for reasonable house design.
As stated above, lots 8 through 15 would need only be reduced by
8 feet to meet the required standards. Lots 8 through 14 have a
minimum depth of 93 feet, with lot 15 being an irregular shape.
By reducing the lots by 8 feet, there would still be a lot depth
of at least 85 feet. This adjustment would bring that portion of
the road into compliance with the code standards. The applicant
would not lose any lots.
3. Approval of the variances will actually help in slowing
down the local traffic. This is accomplished by the
restricted pavement width and tighter curves.
The Engineering Division contends that the restricted pavement
width and tighter curves may, or may not, slow down the traffic.
As people in an area become accustomed to the street patterns and
widths of a neighborhood, it is the Engineering Departments,
opinion that traffic will not necessarily continue to slow down.
4. Failure to obtain the requested variances would result in
greater impact on the wetlands as well as the creation of
lots with less than desirable depths and building
envelopes. The decreased lot depth could result in the
need to, request variances for individual lots for a
reduction in building setbacks. Alternatively, lots may be
made wider than they normally would be which would both
lower the number of potential lots and result in a lower
utilization of the property.
The northeast portion of the development, as proposed by the
applicant, shows a road pattern which crosses the wetlands to
serve 20 lots. Several different road sections are proposed in
this area. The Engineering Department agrees with the applicant
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 13
0 0
radius of 30 feet. All other local street standards apply.
The Variance criteria of Section 18.160.120(81 (Subdivision
Variance Criteria) are satisfied as recommended by the City's
Engineering Department as follows:
1. These circumstances affecting this proposal are unusual and
peculiar to this site as compared to other lands similarly
situated. Due to the size and shape of the existing
wetland, the location of the developable portions of the
site and the location of existing streets, the applicant
has requested variances which are largely acceptable in
order to fully develop this site.
2. The smaller cul-de-sac bulb serving lots 64 and 65 is
appropriate due to the present termination of SW Morning
Hill Drive and the small amount of developable land beyond
this point. Additionally, the 90 foot curve radius is
necessary to allow adequate crossing of the wetland and
proper street alignment on either side of the wetland.
The construction of a 28 foot wide street within a 42 foot
wide right-of-way is necessary for reasons stated by the
applicant concerning probable inadequate lot depths, as
well as the expected traffic impact and projected travel
patterns through this subdivision. The portion of this
subdivision which would be approved for the construction of
42 foot wide streets would still be served by two 11-foot
wide travel lanes, one 6-foot wide parking lane, and two
sidewalks with curbs (except that no sidewalk would be
required on the west side of SW Ashbury Lane along the
wetland between lot 63 and lot 1).
3. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the
rights of other owners of property.
4. These variance requests are necessary for the retention of
substantial property rights because of an extraordinary
hardship (probable loss of lots) which would result from
strict compliance with the regulations of this title.
Therefore, it is recommended that the variance requests be
approved subject to the above noted modifications.
B. Sanitarv Sewer:
There is an existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer line located in
SW Scholls Ferry Road. The applicant proposes to connect to this
line and extend this sewer line to serve the proposed development.
The existing line crosses Scholls Ferry Road and enters into the
City of Beaverton. The applicant shall show evidence that the
City of Beaverton has reviewed and accepted this proposal. In
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 15
addition, the applicant should meet any special requirements as
conditioned by the City of Beaverton.
C. Storm Drainage:
The applicant is proposing to collect the storm water at various
points within the subdivision and direct it towards the wetlands.
In addition, a portion of the storm water from this and adjacent
developments will be directed through an on-site water quality
facility prior to discharging to the wetlands.
The Unified Sewerage Agency has established, and the City has
agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47), Surface Water
Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water
quality facilities or fees in-lieu of their construction. As
mentioned above, the applicant is proposing to construct on-site
water quality facilities. These facilities are proposed south of
lot 63 and, if necessary, west of lot 43.
The applicant should be required to meet the requirements of the
Oregon Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers as they
pertain to the wetlands and their mitigation.
Therefore, the preliminary subdivision plat is consistent with the
requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement
Standards), or can be modified to be consistent with these
requirements, because:
1. The applicant will be required to extend a westerly
continuation of SW Ashbury Lane. Southwest Morning Hill
Drive will terminate on-site with a reduced sized cul-de-
sac bulb. The improvements shall be designed and
constructed to local street standards or as modified by
variance approvals. An appropriate street connection is
proposed to SW Scholls Ferry Road. A new street stub will
be provided to the property to the south of the site.
2. The proposed buildable lots are consistent with code
standards for maximum lot depth-to-width ratio, minimum
street frontage (as previously addressed), and other
applicable lot dimensional standards as required by the
R-25 zoning district.
3. The existing utility lines and the applicant's preliminary
plans for developing the sanitary sewer as well as public
water lines will provide for adequate necessary public
facilities. The applicant will also either demonstrate
that the existing storm sewer system does not need to be
extended to accommodate this development or, alternatively,
extend the storm sewer to serve this development.
B. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 16
9 0
1. The subdivision is consistent with Policy 2.1.1 because notice of
the application and the public hearing on this item was provided
to the neighborhood planning organization (NPO #7) and to owners
of property within the notification area of the site. An ad has
been placed in Tigard Times which has advertised the time and
place of the public hearing to be held on this application.
2.1 In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to
require the developer to prepare an erosion control plan ensuring
compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River
Basin as part of the grading permit application. The developer
shall also construct an on-site water quality facility as required
by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission and USA regulations
or pay a fee-in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quality
facility. The City's Engineering Department recommends the
construction of such a facility as indicated on the utility plan.
3. This subdivision proposal complies with Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and
7.4.4 because the applicant will extend public sewer and water
systems to this site and will provide for underground installation
of phone, electricity, and cable television lines.
4. The subdivision proposal complies with Policy 8.1.1 and 8.1.3
i because the proposed extension and improvements to the street
within and adjacent to the subdivision should contribute to a safe
and efficient street system in this area. The extension of SW
Ashbury Lane will be required to be improved consistent with these
adjusted City of Tigard standards for public local streets.
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division concludes that the proposed subdivision, will promote the
general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor
injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after
this decision complies with applicable local state and federal laws.
In recognition of the findings staff recommends APPROVAL of Subdivision proposal
SUB 93-0001, Variance VAR 93-0003 and sensitive Lands Review SLR 93-0001 for the
proposed Woodside subdivision subject to the conditions which follow.
ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE
FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE STAFF CONTACT
FOR ALL RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IS CHRIS DAVIES IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
639-4171. ;
1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW
Scholls Ferry Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 33 feet from
the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-
way centerline. For additional information contact Washington County
Survey Division.
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 17
2. Establish a one-foot non-access reserve strip along SW Scholls Ferry
Road frontage except at the approved access location. For additional
information contact Washington County Survey Division.
3. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway
apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm
drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed
along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage. Improvements shall be
designed and constructed to Washington County Uniform Road Improvement
Design Standards shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent
improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department.
For additional information contact Washington County Engineering
Department.
4. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land
Use and Transportation of Washington County, to perform work within the
right-of-way of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A copy of this permit shall be
provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a
Public Improvement Permit.
5. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices,
mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic
concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and
underground utilities shall be installed within the subdivision.
Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street
standards. That portion of the local streets which are east of the
western boundary of the wetlands shall install full street improvements
except that the right-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of 42 feet and
the pavement width to a minimum of 28 feet along with appropriate
transitions.
i
6. For Lots 64 and 65, as shown of the preliminary plat, full width street
improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters,
concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement,
sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities
shall be installed. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to
local street standards for a cul-de-sac except that the right-of-way may
be reduced to a minimum of a 35 feet radius and the pavement width to
a minimum of a 30 feet radius, with appropriate transitions.
7. If the City of Tigard has approved and adopted a new standards for local
streets at the time of plan review for the construction of the public
improvements, including the local streets, the applicant may utilize the
new standards.
8. Lots 30/31 and 32/33, as shown on the preliminary plat, shall have a
common driveway along the common property line. A joint use and
maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard
forms, or one approved by the Engineering Department for all common
driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all
applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the
Engineering Department prior to recording.
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 18
0 0
9. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile
construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the
Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1)
itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional
Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these
plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division
and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements.
10. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public
improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans
- Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989.
11. The applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to the City of'Beaverton
for their approval. A copy of the approved plans shall be provided to
the City of Tigard prior to the construction of any public improvements.
12. The applicant shall be required to provide an on-site water quality
facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency
Resolution and Order No. 91-47.
I
13. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be
discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly
impacting properties downstream.
14. Storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public
improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm
drainage basin service area shall be provided as a supplement to the
public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full
development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of
existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed.
15. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed
contours and typical finished floor elevations on each lot, including
elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan tied to the top of
curb elevations as shown on the public improvement plans.
16. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting
with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the
public improvement plans but before starting work on the site. The
applicant, the applicant ,s engineer and contractor shall be required to
attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans and permits.
17. Construction of the proposed public improvements and issuance of
Building Permits shall not commence until after the Engineering
Department has reviewed and approved the public improvements plans, a
street opening permit or construction compliance agreements has been
executed, execution of a developer-engineer agreement and the payment
of all permit fees.
is. Prior to the plat being recorded with'Washington County, the applicant
shall provide a 100 percent performance assurance or a letter of
commitment. As an alternative, the applicant may record the plat after
the public improvements have been accepted by the City of Tigard and
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 19
Oregon Department of Transportation and the appropriate Maintenance Bond
has been posted.
19. A Sensitive Lands Permit shall be obtained by the applicant from the US
Army Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands, (Authority: Section
404, Clean Water Act, and ORS 541.605 and 641.695). A copy of the
permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department by the
applicant.
20. The applicant shall provide, as a minimum, a 25 foot buffer along the
drainageways and along the boundary of the wetland areas which meets the
requirements of Section 6.08, of R&O No. 91-47.
21. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of Tigard.
This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin
Erosion Control Program.
i
22. Prior to the recording of the Plat with Washington County, the City of
Tigard will ensure the "street plugs" are dedicated to the public. The
"street plugs" are shown as Tracts "D" and "E" on tax map 1S1 33CD.
23. A tree survey identifying the type and size of all trees on the site
which are over 6 inches in diameter shall be submitted. This survey
shall also specify those trees which are proposed for removal in
connection with the construction of Dublic imarovements. A tree removal
permit shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior
to the removal of any such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT: Victor
Adonri, Planning Division.
THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS PRIOR
TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
24. A tree survey identifying the type and size of all trees on the site
which are over 6 inches in diameter shall be submitted. This survey
shall specify those trees which are proposed for removal in connection
with the construction of residences. A tree removal permit shall be
applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior to the removal
of any such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT: Victor Adonri, Planning
Division.
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED WITHIN
EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
Prepared By: Ron Pomeroy Date
Assistant Pla ner
04 -~3
Approve Dick Beweorff Date
Senior Planner
HEARINGS OFFICER - WOODSIDE VILLAGE / BONFORTE
SUB 93-0001 / VAR 93-0003 / SLR 93-0001 PAGE 20
J
~ j
4
v vv 00D
1
R cl e t for
l...' • yes \ V t
an ,
riionwith
Sub, pared for: f - t
' Pre,
A
J
'Bea-viprto
~ t
1+
Prepared by: `
OT. A%ad
s
~Oswegos
003) 6i-~
t
5
~ ~ l r ; ~ r 1 1 1
it 1
~ r
WOODSIDE
OWNER:
WOODSIDE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
11440 W. BERNARDO COURT #265
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
(619) 487-2400
APPLICANT:
TONY BONFORTE
14675 S.W. OSPREY DRIVE #413
BEAVERTON, OR 97007
(503) 643-1578
PLANNER/ENGINEER:
OTAK, INC.
17355 S.W. BOONES FERRY ROAD
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
(503) 635-3618
CONTACT PERSON: DAVID BANTZ
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
1S1 33 CC TAX LOT 200 AND 1S1 33 CD TAX LOT 600
:
AREA:
16.28 ACRES
ZONING:
R-25
t
4304\STATEMNT.SHT
193.13
1
r
s
t
i
i
r
r
i
s
r
r
•
WOODSIDE
I. STATEMENT OF INTENT
•
H. ON-SITE ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT A - PRELI IINARY PLAT
EXH03IT B - ON-SITE ANALYSIS/OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
M. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
IV. UTILITIES
EXHIBIT C - PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
EXHIBIT D - PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS
VI. JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCES
A.PPENDI%
EXHIBIT 1 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT 2 SOLAR EVALUATION
EXHIBIT 3 PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY WORKSHEET
43041TOC
193.13
1
1
f
i
1
1
I
r
1
1
r
1
1
Y
1
1
1. STATEMENT OF INTENT
The intent of this request is to receive preliminary approval of a 65-lot subdivision on a 16.28
acre parcel. In addition, a variance is being requested from Section 18.164.030 Eta of the
Development Code which specifies local streets have a minimum right-of way of 50' and a
minimum roadway width of 34'. This section also requires cul-de-sac bulbs to have a
minimum right-of-way radius of 50' and a minimum roadway radius of 42'. A variance is also
requested from Section 18.164.030 M which requires local streets to have a minimum 100
centerline radii.
The subject property is described as tax lot 200 of 1S1 33 CC and tax lot 600 of IS1 33 CD,
and is zoned R-25.
43991applicat
193.13
1 • •
1
r
1
1
1
H. ON-SITE ANALYSIS
The subject property is relatively flat with the topography going from a high point of
approximately 220 to a low point of 184 feet. A wetland area of approximately 3.9 acres
exists within the center of the site running from the north edge to near the southern
boundary. The wetland bisects the property into three areas appropriate for development.
Vegetation is limited primarily to the wetland area and consists primarily to 6" - 12" Alders.
,r
43991applicat
193.13
rRR ~,.~vi
/r
i ' s
47 49 7 50 y o r
we, Sr, sue' R `xrs 52, 7- 3
bzz-
'M1
= s 46 t f,
~sss.r.' /t i
Vicinity Map
.8 }s45r q: 11 :G 16 Y
R
-EXISTING WETLAND
.B 44 -25' BUFFER HIV
i R sangr. R' f I la 62
a gl _
_p .S$ a : 59 s 6D - e63 a T__,. '
X 43 E I SF. '100 2R9 a]ee
/ zem ssn J' un ..r :°m v.n ° y ' IF.
, 13 R 14
10 t .19
_ bn 4~ t
n ' C IF.. 41, F. e~ = _
\ s ? S 6 5 a wa IF.
"r J-I .en 2 4 + S ms
•
^S- a / a., ' S.F. aeon 513 »
i Son S.F. ~ mar y
~ ~ SP 42 ra.~ Sf. sr.
32
S F.. 41
- _ - ~ - ,a•,-' w.ro `a ~ -ram
40
aq ' •a 'ap ➢ q . a s 24 23 22 21/ t 20 a 19 - 18 17
\ i xf.g _ x ' 16.
39 _ atl a 26 e,25 s ]YS r ba],0 -
R oa,
ir. / 91, SF. Sr, Sf. S.r.
oo xr,
IF.
a5r 8 « ; 5.7e IF- SJ. If. IF.
s
~Se3o,8
'41 IF
34
28
s ec' \ e 8 g R woo S.F.
o sffi~F t . f
` ~ • ~n ~Gnltl O
f II ,29
,«i.iw
~ eozs s.r. 8 ~ mFrz t~z rmvY Ym
\ J p ~ ~~zw,, oanan
30 Ywoomn,mn~ m.,cwc
790] ire LaeY DO°r~EY IRR6 tEaE
41
i ~,e,crrmau Daum ea,rrY
~ a~i IY,tlRT1I WTfmNrD,YItl WTN[LOrara -r
VI* -
Y00R}. Rb
0 SD 100 150
Exhibit 'A'
\ ~ \ ,S' R.O.R. OEAGllOw Shrre RY.
NORTH SCALE IN FEET
~a Rfei.~4304
all
i 1.
Ni ~
w>~ H
~y y
J / 14~ I
w!
§
p...
t
7
T ~ 5x
~
n
tt4
E'
I
R + r~ v
i
t w'
Pit
.c•
:p4
a
-~:e r•. i~a Y uvbi ftC - _ ' saw, ~MR:ti6111 . ,9:a• YGa ..Y... ~
X WOODSIDE ,
(SITE/OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
m E ~ f?11 ~ ~ r
I III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
The subject property is located in an area currently developed with a mixture of apartments
and single-family homes. The single-family homes are located on land zoned R-25 similar to
the subject property.
Access to the site is via SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW Ashbury Lane and SW Morning Hill
Drive.
1
A
1
A
1
439%applicat
193.13
t • •
IV. UTILITIES
The subject property is served by Tigard Water District which has an 8-inch line in SW
Ashbury lane and a 12-inch line in Scholls Ferry Road to the south of the site. An 8-inch line
exists within SW Morning Hill Drive. A sanitary sewer manhole exists within Scholls Ferry
Road adjacent to the site. Storm water will be discharged to the drainage way which runs
through the site.
Fire protection is provided by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue while police protection will be
provided by the City of Tigard Police Department.
1
1
1
v
1
r
1
1
43991apph.,
193.13
m m mm mm m m m= w m m m= m Mm
' 0."IPti Om
p..n Off.
Gn..Y. bM
49' S1.~ .
47 49 50
x 52.
a6
• 4
45 4 56 55 5
-EXISTING WETLAND
I s
44 62' _ •~;5' BUFFER
43 -5&- t63
Ell
fI ~w /
- ;•7 -...r + r~r y'i_., ,
'r7 r.s'..' 64~ J
_ ~Tt' - r_-•c'- - r'; ~r~ / / - ` S , - ' /'a'te', J
' ~ % / ~-E/ -r'i;' ~ ~ - i 's''r- _ - 111
Z Z/
f i / % i 3 a f_, 65.~._:
111 " I i i /fir
l ~ ' Vii' / `~lr
_ I-' 9 11' 12 13 14
8 10 's
15
5 6 7 - .1-'
3 4
42
41
40 39 25 24 23 22 21"F 20 19 18 17 16
iy •1 - ~S - _37 ~ 35
27
sw \ `
34
(no
36 28 I g. ra rn rTr r~ I' i rnl I a
s,
33
-411-b r c' O
/ i } ; i rx rs[ i rsr r~~ i 14 /y 29 ;
32
rez I w~x~ rz
30
TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS
31
otlak.
!
0 so 100 150 - -
EXHIBIT C
F11 \
NORTH SCALE IN FEET 5~.., tee.
4304
a li8IHX3
cn m.__.~.~......
6 \ 1 1 env 1, 1+ r ~I~r
- ,/et /;.~/'~/1\\\ `\1 h ~ S',:,,.~1' ~-_~.•i iii I r' 'J. -
H SW
rJ "r
C4 L4
~ ` _ ~r r I ` j ~ '1• ~ ~j l i+f j~ L.i I r ~ ~ 1
% 1.1p
IN)
v•ti~01 t ` 'h y l ~11 I~. ~z
/ till` ,,l + I ~ y ''1 1~` ! r; h t c,
• 1' i' 11if I it J
s _ \ O\ ~1 ill 7 I I !
• 1 . t ~ I ~ 17L~I ~
1
M J
~ k• ~ ~ ~'h rl 1 '1 ~•Y 4 ril,`~`\~ - l~sw_4ainwc HILL
1 o? '1 I~ j, ' •.~r! e` ter' _ ~
Lni
°
m 01
ti
m °
m
N
D
!
+
i
aW o
WOODSIDE
PRELIMINARY
GRADING PLAN
IN
e e e
1
I V.
1
1
1
1
1
I
•
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS
A.
B.
1
C.
439%applicat
193.13
Dimensional Requirements
The subject property is designated R-25 which allows residential lots with a minimum
of 3050 square feet. All proposed lots will exceed the minimum lot size.
The R-25 section also requires the following minimum setbacks:
• front yard 15 feet
• side yard 5 feet
• side yard facing streets 10 feet
• rear yard 15 feet
No variances from any of the setback requirements are being requested.
There are also no requests to vary from the required 45-foot height restriction for
structures within the R-25 district.
Access, Egress and Circulation
Section 18.105.030 provides standards for the creation of streets and
improvements within public right-of-way. Subsection 18.164.030(E) requires
public right-of-way to be 50 feet wide for local streets and 60 feet for minor
collectors. This section also requires cul-de-sacs to have a 50-foot radius for
their turn-arounds. Roadway widths for local streets are required to be 34
feet and cul-de-sac to be constructed to a radius of 42 feet. The proposed
Woodside development proposes streets to be as narrow as 20 feet wide within
a 42-foot right-of-way with "cul-de-sac" bulb having a 30 foot radius with a
35-foot right-of-way radius. The justification for this variation will be
discussed in a later section.
2. Section 18.164.030(K) requires all cul-de-sacs to be as short as possible and
not to exceed 400 feet. No variance from this section is requested.
3. Section 18.164.030(M) requires all local streets to have grades of 12-percent
or less. Section 18.164.030(M) requires local street a minimum of 100-foot
centerline radii. The streets within the proposed subdivision meet these
standards with the exception of one centerline which is proposed for a 90-foot
centerline radius. The justification for this variation will be discussed in a
later section.
All other requirements of Section 18.164.030 will be met. Plans will be
submitted for review prior to construction of all public improvements.
4. Section 18.164.070 contains provisions for the installation of sidewalks. This
section requires sidewalks to be located on both sided of arterial and collector
streets as well as local streets. The sidewalks for local streets may be
installed in conjunction with the development of the individual lots. The
proposed development will meet the above standards.
Sensitive Lands
Chapter 18.84 of the Tigard Development Code deals with properties determined to be
sensitive. This designation may be due to flood plains, natural drainage ways, steep
slopes or unstable ground. The subject property contains land determined to be
sensitive due to the presence of wetlands. The amount of land containing wetlands is
1 3.9 acres. Approximately 16000 square feet of wetlands will be disturbed by street
improvements. Mitigation will occur for the disturbance. The mitigation will be in
the form of enhancement within the existing wetlands.
D. Solar Access Requirements - Chapter 18.88
This chapter contains rules and regulations regarding solar access provisions. The
solar analysis (Exhibit 3) indicated that 80% of the non-exempt lots meet the basic
solar requirements.
E. Density Computation and Limitations - Chapter 18.92
This chapter provides a formula for determining the number of dwelling units
permitted. The density calculations for the subject property are as follows:
Gross Site 16.28 Acres
Minus Street Dedication 2.46 Acres
Sensitive Lands 3.55 Acres
Net Site 10.27 Acres
Net Units allowed * 146.7_ Units
r
*Net Units was calculated as follows:
447,361 Sq. Ft/3050 Sq. Ft. Per Unit
The total number of units allowed is 146.7 while the total number of lots proposed is
65. This equals 44.3% of the allowable units.
F. Additional Yard Area Requirements - Chapter 18.96
This chapter provides for additional setbacks on lots adjacent to streets with
insufficient right-of-way or where better light, air and vision clearance may be knout.
As the proposed preliminary plat provides sufficient right-of-way for all streets and
adequate vision clearance is being provided for all street intersections, no additional
yard area requirements are needed.
'
G. Building Height Limitations - Chapter 18.98
This chapter contains provisions for height exceptions for non-residential zones and
for buildings located on flag lots. Neither of these provisions apply to the lots
proposed. The building height provisions of the R-25 Zoning District will apply to the
lots within the proposed subdivision.
H. Landscaping and Screening - Chapter 18.100
This chapter provides standards for the buffering, landscaping and screening as well
as specific standards for the location of street trees. The buffering and screening
standards include a minimal level of screening and buffering along property lines
between specific zoning districts. In the case of the subject property all of the
surrounding properties are of comparable zoning. The buffer matrix found in
subsection 18.100.130(a) does not require a buffer between R-25 zoned parcels.
43991applicat
193.13
1
Subsections 18.100 and 18.100.035 contain requirements and standards for the
installation of street trees. Street trees will be planted by the individual property
owners as construction proceeds. The standards of these sections will be followed
during the planting of the street trees.
1.
Visual Clearance Areas - Chapter 18.102
This chapter provides standards to assure proper sight distance at intersections. All
proposed street intersections will meet the required visual clearance provisions of this
section.
J.
Off-Street Parking and Loading - Chapter 18.106
No off-street parking or loading areas are proposed for the subdivision. Therefore this
section does not apply.
S.
Signs - Chapter 18.114
This section does not apply.
L.
Accessory Structures - Chapter 18.144
This chapter provides criteria for the location and usage of accessory structures in
'
residential zoning districts. No accessory structures are requested as part of this
application. Future accessory buildings contemplated by the individual lot owners will
have to be reviewed as a separate application.
M.
Land Division Provisions - Chapter 18.162
' This chapter contains rules, regulations and standards for the submittal of land
divisions. The proposed preliminary plat has been prepared in compliance with this
chapter and the final plat will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter.
1
t
43991applicat
193.13
1 • •
VI. JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCES
As part of our submittal, we are requesting variances from the following Development Code
standards:
Section 18.164.030E(1)(a) which requires local streets to be constructed with 34-feet of
' pavement within a 50-foot right-of-way. This subsection also requires cul-de-sacs to be
constructed to the same standard and turn-arounds for cul-de-sacs to be constructed with
42-foot radius roadways with 50-foot radius right-of-ways.
r Section 18.164.030(M) which requires centerline radii of curves to be 100-feet for local streets.
Section 18.160.120 of Tigard Development Code establishes four criteria for granting
variances as part of preliminary subdivision plat. The criteria are:
1) There are special circumstance or conditions affecting the property which are
unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly
situated,
2) The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision;
3) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and
' 4) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from
1 strict compliance with regulations of this title.
The proposed variances meet the above criteria in the following manner:
1. The subject property contains a substantial wetlands of 3.92 acres (24% of the
site). This wetland bisects the site from the north to south creating three
distinct areas for development to occur. The westerly developable area is
approximately 200 feet deep for the majority of the area and reasonable
utilization cannot occur without a reduction in the street standards. The
adjacent lots would need to be shallower by eight feet in order to meet the 50
foot right-of-way standard.
2. As mentioned previously, the proposed lots would need to be laid out with 8
feet less depth in order to provide a 50-foot right-of-way within the westerly
portion of the site. This would result in a majority of the lots being less than
85-feet deep which does not provide sufficient depth for reasonable house
design. The same constraint occurs within the northeasterly development
area where a road is proposed within the wetlands. Reducing the roadway
width and centerline radii will minimize the impact on the wetlands.
3. Approval of the variances will actually help in slowing traffic down within the
development. This is accomplished by the restricted pavement width and
tighter curves where the proposed standards have been allowed in other
jurisdictions, it has been shown that the streets still allow adequate emergency
access.
Where the street is proposed for a minimum width of twenty feet, the road is
crossing the wetlands and no on-street parking will occur. Other sections of
439%applicat
193.13
l
d
h
d f
re
uce t
e nee
or on-street
the street only have lots on one side which wil
parking.
4. Failure to obtain the requested variances would result in greater impact on
the wetlands and the creation of lots with less than desirable depth. The
decreased depth could result in the need for individual lots to obtain variances
for building setbacks or for lots to be made wider which would lower the
number of allowable lots and result in less utilization of the property.
1
1
1
1
1
1
43991applicat
193.13
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT 1 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT 2 SOLAR EVALUATION
EXH03IT 3 PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY WORKSHEET
430CAPPENDIX
193.13
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
1
SUBDIVISION APPLICATIOIJ
CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171
' 1. GENERAL INFORMATION
PROPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION S.W. Scholls Ferry Road,
' South of Old Scholl Ferry Road
TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. 1S1 33 CC Tax Lot 200 and
1S1 33 CD Tax.Lot 600
SITE SIZE 16.28 Acres
PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* Woodside Village Limited
Partnership
ADDRESS 11440 W. Bernardo Ct. #265PHONE (619) 487-2400
CITY San Diego, CA ZIP 92127
APPLICANT* Tonv Bonforte
' ADDRESS 14675 SW OsDrev Dr. #413 PHONE (503) 643-1578
CITY Beaverton, OR ZIP 97007
*When the owner and the applicant are different
people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record
or a lessee in possession with written authorization
from the owner or an agent of the owner with written
' authorization. The owner(s) must sign this
application in the space provided on page two or
submit a written authorization with this application.
2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The owners of record of the subject property
request permission to divide a 16.28
(Total Area)
parcel into {q5 lots between
(number of lots)
' 3583 and 8352 square feet in size.
' 0520P/13P
Rev'd: 3/88
0
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
CASE NO.
OTHER CASE NO's:
RECEIPT NO.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY:
DATE:
Application elements submitted:
(A) Application form (1)
(B) Owner's signature/written
authorization
(C) Title transfer instrument (1)
(D) Assessor's map (1)
(E) Preliminary Plat (pre-app
checklist)
(F) Applicant's statement
(pre-app checklist)
(G)
addresses within 250 feet (1)
(H) Filing fee 3415 plus $5
--pew-].ate)
DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE:
FINAL DECISION DEADLINE:
COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION:
N.P.O. Number:
Preliminary Plat Approval Date:
Final Approval Date:
Planning
Engineering
Recording Date and Number:
E309ROT 1
0
0
3. List any variance, Planned Development, Sensitive Lands, or other land use
actions to be considered as part of this application; Sensitive Lands & Street
Standard VariEancA. -
4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments
described In the attached information sheet at the time you submit this
application.
5. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT:
A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be
attached to or imposed upon the subject property.
B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights
granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and
limitations of the approval.
C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,
attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the
applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this
application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are
false.
D.' The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including
the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving
or denying the application.
DATED this day of 19
SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property.
(KSL:pm/0520P)
1 ~
O
a
w
w
V
V
Q
a
0
1
T
A
O
z
m
8
h 0.
m
.5 ~
}S L
W v~
- - - - - - - - - -
.4
xx )<XkkXhKxxxxxX'kXxx>CX xX,x
is
.c
-
0
.a
E
o
N
0
u
O
O
Q-0 tp
o~
0 woo
V7 L:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
z
v
O
L•T
Z
a
H
h
L
a
a
U
y
q
S"N~~'~1~9rQ7U' -~TtT E~T 00NN3d~C''W
x
r rr rr r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Block #
SUMMARY:
Lot X
I ~I
I 42-
4-3
I 44-
14s
I ~
1 4-1
I -4S
I ~
f 'iij
I sZ
I S~
I S15,
I ~
I ~1
I s~
I
I~
I~z
I~
1~5
BASIC REQUIR1EMENT LOT'S
NIS Dimrnsioa
01kntation
in Fcct
In Degrocs
I~
An
1 2C~
c~
I ~9
I o
I -T 9
I
'Z G
~ o
I ~
I tc~
I ~
I ~o
I 5 5
I eta
I sc~
I ~
I ~
I io
I ~o
I to
I coo
I ad
I Sa
I ~
I qs
I o
9 5
I
I 5a
ae
I 4~i
9.c5
I 4 ~
I acs
i Qo
I ~
I °ta
I 5
I t
I 5
1_0i-n 4-
a
--tnn t
I
I D
! I
I I
i I
~ I
I I
TOTAL a of Lots = G 5
p Solar Lots a 20
% Solar Lots A,::5
I
S(
SOIAK IIIJ)m
Distance
i
I
)LAR ACCESS EVALUATION
;U14L;LO7S f -----------EXEMPT LOTS----------
Existing
Existing Street
Orientation 20% Exemption Density/Cost Amenities Shade Pattern
I ! I X I I _
I i I x i
x I f
X I I I
I X I I I i
I I k _ I !
I I x I
I I X I
I I X I
I I x I i
I I x I i
I I x I I I
I I x I I I
I I I 1
I I I I
I I I ~ I
I I I x I
I I ! x I
I I f I 1
I I I
I I I I
I' i I I I
I i I i I
I I I I I
I I I
I i I
I I I
! I I
LOTS Mating Basle Requirement = ~,p
LOTS Moetsng Solar Building Line = O
LOTS Requiring Performance Standards = G
LOTS Using 20% Exemption- 5
LOTS Exempted for Cause a 30
Notes
0
f4o"rr-S;
I 1 0 0
1
1
1
1
1
PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY EQUATION
COMPUTATION WORKSHEET
Project Name: 4 43c~
City File Number:
Date:
Stormwater Quality Control Facilities, when required, shall be designed to achieve a phosphorous
removal efficiency as calculated from the following equation:
Rp = 100 - 24.5/Rv.
Where: Rp = Required phosphorous removal efficiency.
Rv = Average site runoff coefficient.
Rv = (Al x 0.7) + (A2 x 0.3) + (A3 x 0.05) + (A4 x 0.0)
Where: Al = The fraction of total area that is impervious and is not treated by a stormwater quality control
facility
A2 = The fraction of total area that is impervious and is treated by a stormwater quality control
feature
A3 = The fraction of total area that is pervious and that is vegetated or a water body. (i.e. grass,
trees, landscaping, wetlands, ponds, etc.)
A4 = The fraction of total area where runoff is collected and retained on site with no direct discharge
to the downstream drainage system.
Al = 255,420 I ~9z.479 - e). 3e~"9
(untreated impervious areal (total area)
A2 = a I ~9Z, r - O
(treated impervious area) (total area)
A3 = 437,55 / , 177q - 6~131
(vegetated pervious area) (total area)
A4 = O O
(area retained) (total area)
Rv=fo•a~,4 x0.7)+f n x0.3)+(o.c-ter x0.05)+f x0.0)=
(Al) (A2) (A3) (A4)
Rp = 100 - 24.5/ ,V. Z9a
(RV)
When Rp is zero or less, no additional stormwater quality control facilities are required.
When Rp is greater than zero, additional stormwater quality control facilities are required.
forms\phos.rem
' 0192.12
1/Z
EXHIBIT 3
N
0
1 e_i_ F . r ~ i O
LLI
' ! ' I{ a 1 i i r i ! a CO 0
1 i i! i!1 ;
E 1:! j .1 ..t..i 1 e t f t€ I _ E i 1 -i! } 7 1 ! i ! b E LU
1 i i ! 4 , -r 1 ~1' '~[y { 1° - i•.t .~-t- _l-i_I Q
!-1 T i ~_1 ~ 1 1 ~ , i I'i~ 1, •E_7-'-~,_i--~-I• t ~ [ I
lj 1 i. 4 1 17 € 1 1 t 1 i ! ! ! t +
A\1p ~ ~ 1-.i _ 6._,i,-;t I ..1 i' ~E (`_i I_t t1 ~ t ~ ~ :_7r• ! ° t
• \ ! €al. 1. 1_t € 1'~T_I 1 ~l 1 I 1 t 1 1 l i ~
C13
h i i l e I I i t_°1 ( i' I_~. i' t_1 € !Y,I,~_! I y€ ! i 1 t
- N ! IX i ..ice i'' f-~ € 1~ `I t~~~~~~-Jt~` _il ! ;-r-[•-. ' r _
1 f 11y' / I I "0 1 1 _I • I I! 1 t I, 1 t 3 1
- ~ ! 'fl _i ~1-~"7 ,1 r ,-,-t'' ,`"T• -~"'{-t'~~.`~~1-1 }"_:!J_t "1, ` I_ _ -I 1-.. - _i
• I1. • ! e l~•_ ' ~ --I_(_.~• I I_{I I 1 ~ t E _ -1_;I If€ ! ! i ~ r ~ t •I '
1l € ) I!-~ I I ! iJ_k" ! 1 L [_€_~~i 1 1 er ' i --I > f ! H
f
_M
f 1 1 i ! 1 1 i t 1 `I ! r 1 1_ b i i ; ! 1_~ 1 I j O
L i_r b ..4 r ~t r 1` i ' ~ 1 i• ! 1 •1 ~i t t 1 d m
•.~_1 ~_1 i~E Y ~_s,.IJ~t•~t~~ i; 1-_-_I_ ! f- f
-t f'F
0 accco
1_r•'' t € €y ! t-r-1 ;_I .I I' i 1_. ' _ u d i o c m m
b.JLh '~y ( 7 ((T I I 11 I I I 1' 1 1 d v? _m p
2c2
1 I 1 i s-I`1. ! ' r Y 1 ! 1 I_ 'l 11-I r' e'"1 1 1 - I t a w y< C
t I`_ 1 J 'ti[ 1. _i _F E T I 1-! r i t...t 1. IMj "Y l I! o- > EE w
- - ~ ~ I f •j 1.1_ j i ~-1~1_ _{~~i i 1 1 - !.1 ~ •L. _I`, t I I ~ p ~
rJ9._ Y i 1 1 I i _I ! I I i
~r'-3 ~~~t~_I 1-I 1 ~•1 1 1 f_5
r_y_ 42
~r t i IWi ! : I f- r~•' ~~_.!'1 _r_I` t~l' 1... i ~ . ' ~i
0 0
WOODSIDE HEARING MEMORANDUM
DATE: MARCH 15, 1993
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL FOR PLAN APPROVAL AND JUSTIFICATION FOR
VARIANCES
[Describe plan elements.]
First: Ask for approval subject to conditions.
Second: Concede revisions in response to late requests
(Hopfer utilities, Russell street curve).
It has been argued that the justifications for variance set
out in our application were not sufficient to support our
request. Which raises the question: "Is there sufficient
cause imposed by the unique conditions on this site to grant
the requested variances?"
We were obviously too Spartan in our written justification,
so this presentation is largely for the purpose of providing
detail and clarification to that which was provided in our
application.
At the outset of our design process, we were aware that the
wetland on this site imposes an over-riding condition. Its
existence. Its size, shape and position within the site
influenced all of our design decisions. We met early with
City Planning and with representatives of State Fish &
Wildlife and Division of State Lands to consider what
limitations and options were involved.
Preliminary designs were presented and modified after
subsequent additional study meetings. It turns out that there
are six State and Federal agencies which have authority over
this type of development: 2 Federal agencies, 4 from the
State plus the USA for Washington County in addition to City
of Tigard which is represented by Planning, Engineering, NPO
& neighbors. Then, there were the interests of the customers
(the builders and the families who will ultimately buy and
live in the community) and finally, the investors.
The seven "outside" agencies plus the two City staffs and the
NPO represent the public. Each with a different perspective;
some of them have conflicting requirements. There are some
differences between the several State agencies, but they will
ultimately resolve those among themselves. Several meetings
have been held with the owners of the neighboring undeveloped
land as to their separate private interests. Each of them had
different interests. These minor changes are in response to
their requests. The two City staffs and the NPO each have
1
somewhat different viewpoints as to the public's interest.
Then several of the homeowners adjoining the property have
expressed separate individual interests. We have satisfied
each of the groups and most of the individuals with our plan,
subject to a few minor modifications. That is with the
exception of the City Engineering staff. There, we have
agreed to disagree about the street widths on the west side
of the wetlands. We do not disagree with the intent of the
regulations governing street widths, but with their specific
application in Woodside.
Inherent in the design which we have proposed, are the street
widths. These conform to the regulations now under
consideration by the City, hence, the support from the
Planning Department. But do not conform to the current
regulations which has caused the Engineering Department to
question our request for variances. The issue separating our
position from that of the Engineering Department is one of
emphasis: Do the conditions within the site impose sufficient
limits on the design to create a hardship? Our position is:
"More than enough imposes a 'hardship"'. Not only on the
proposed development, but on the adjacent wetlands.
A great deal of time and design consideration has been
invested in finding answers to the environmental issues. The
law and common sense encourage, if not demand, that we
consider the environmental issues along with all of the many
other issues including traffic. It may appear that traffic
safety issues were compromised or not given serious enough
consideration. That is not correct. I hope that the
Engineering staff has not been offended by our seeming
preoccupation with the wetland issues or caused to feel that
we are motivated by numbers of lots at the expense of safety.
That is also not correct. However, this area does impose a
unique condition on the development of this property and the
City's design standards do, in fact, invite us to employ
innovative design solutions.
With that in mind, we began with knowledge that the City of
Tigard is now considering changes in its street design
standards patterned after the recently changed City of
Portland's design criteria which allow 18 foot wide streets.
For additional reference, we turned to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) "Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,
1990 edition; Chapter V: Local Roads and Streets; page 436.
This manual describes and condones 26 foot widths in local
residential street patterns as sufficient. We then examined
the traffic needs for this and the surrounding community. The
question we attempted to answer was: "How much is enough?"
What does safety and common sense require in this
circumstance? We believe that the narrower streets meet the
2
0 0
criteria of safety without damaging any of the neighbors, the
general public or the environment. As a matter of fact, we
have learned that the adage "more is better" is not true when
street surface is contrasted with a nearby environmentally
sensitive area.
[Show slides.]
1. 20' wide street.
2. 20' street with 1 parking lane.
3. 28' street.
4. 28' street with 2 parked cars and 2 cars passing.
5. 32' street.
6. 18' radius cul-de-sac. The City of Portland's
answer to street sweeper turn-around. 32' street
in foreground.
Our application states that 3.9 acres or 24% of the property
is designated wetland. That is true, but 5.9 acres or 36% is
devoted to the resulting open space when the required buffer
d
Thi
f l
d
i
l
d
i
1 ®
.
s
eces o
an
are
nc
u
e
strip and residual small p
o
imposes a different obligation on this site that is not
similarly imposed on other properties. One of the more
2
"
critical effects is the resulting dimension between the
o
At
wetland buffer and the property line. In order to efficiently
Z
design home sites which will maintain value with the
neighborhood, we must avoid wasting any space on un-needed
street right-of-way. The pending "skinny" street regulation
gave us that opportunity. And it is on this that we base our
need for special consideration. To require streets which meet
the current standard, creates 19% more public right-of-way and
reduces the lot depths in a way that may reduce their value.
Increasing the right-of-way by 8 feet and the pavement by 6
feet reduces adjacent lots by 9%. That imposes unnecessary
damage on the quality of these lots not the quantity. The
damage to the quality, or value, is far more important. Not
just to the developer, but to the homeowner. We cited our
belief that we would suffer damage in our justification. we
did not intend that the number of lots be the only measurement
of that damage. I'm sorry that the number of lots became an
issue. It is shallow when compared to all the other reasons
for approval of our proposal. Again, this is unnecessary
damage and imposes a hardship by strict enforcement of a
regulation.
From the environmentalist's point of view, the wider street
adds 21% more pavement! That will increase and accelerate
surface water run-off in a drainage basin already suffering
from excess storm run-off and increase erosion and downstream
3
• •
environmental damage in a stream already abused by neglect.
Stated the other way, this means more impervious surface which
reduces water absorption and available live plant space. I
believe that to damage this environment and threaten the value
of these lots when we have reasonable options available is
unnecessary and constitutes a "hardship". I argue that, as
set out in the City's criteria, this constitutes proper
grounds for variance. Because we have presented the plan as
shown, that is with the reduced pavement widths, to the
several agencies which control development in and around
wetland areas, I am concerned that the wider pavement asked
for by the City Engineering staff, may cause them to demand
still further mitigation as a result of the increased injury
that this might cause. Therefore, we are being asked to
suffer additional cost and potential delays.
We believe that a street's primary purpose, or "function" is
as AASHTO has put it, "is to provide land service and foster
a safe and pleasant environment." We believe that the streets
as proposed do just that. They are big enough. They provide
adequate service, discourage speeding, do not invite
unintended and potentially dangerous recreational use, reduce
damage through storm run-off and reduce the City's long term
maintenance expense. It is interesting that if we create an
attractive nuisance on private property, we can be held liable
for an injury that may result in its unintended use.
Excessively wide streets make attractive playgrounds and
invite excess speeds. Isn't that an "attractive nuisance"?
Haven't you invited children to roller skate and play
basketball in a traffic corridor by demanding more street than
traffic needs dictate?
Staff comments that people will get used to skinny streets and
not slow down. I disagree and so does every planner that I
know or have seen quoted. This is a small residential
neighborhood. Skinny streets give drivers an immediate visual
notice, a warning, that they must exercise caution. Curving
streets also do that. We have curved the streets where
proper. Safe street design delivers a caution better than a
sign.
The City staff has included a paragraph that we can use the
new standards which are now under consideration if we delay
our development until they are adopted. This will probably
be in June Or July. We will lose the season and the year if
we wait. I think developer's might be expected to ask "Hurry
up and let me use an old standard before the new and more
expensive one is imposed." I'm asking "Let me use the new one
and not make me cause permanent and unnecessary damage to this
beautiful property."
4
•
Finally, there is the
people environment, if
and have heard nothing
not an advantage, but
advantage because the
proposed development.
community and they add
plus, they make the
environment.
ambiance of the neighborhood. The
you will. I am absolutely convinced,
to the contrary, that wide streets are
that these narrower streets are an
add to the pleasant character of the
They meet the traffic needs of the
to its comfort and liveability. As a
least possible injury on the wild
We are not asking for approval to get a certain number of
lots, or a wetlands design or a particular street pattern.
We ARE asking for approval of a carefully planned subdivision
in its entirety. That is, as a whole, not an assortment of
unrelated parts. Each part must serve its intended purpose,
but each should be looked at as part of the whole. The
benefits from each part of the design should be credited to
every other part. The wetland design, surface water
treatment, lot dimensions, AND the streets are inter-related
and each element lends support for, and is dependent upon each
of the others. We do not seek to compromise safety, the
environment or the public interest. In fact, we seek to
improve them.
In conclusion, we ask for approval of the Subdivision with the
following changes and additions to the Conditions shown in
Section VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION of the Agenda Item
as submitted. We have shown that our proposal meets all four
of the criteria for granting variance under Section 18.160.120
of the Tigard Development Code.
5
0 0
Condition 5 shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
5. Full street improvements, including traffic control
devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway
aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary
sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground
utilities shall be installed within the subdivision.
Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local
street standards in that street which fronts Lots 26
through 35. Throughout the balance of the subdivision,
improvements shall be designed and constructed to local
street standards except that the right-of-way shall be
reduced to 42 feet and the pavement width to 28 feet
along with appropriate transitions. For that portion
of the local streets which are within the boundary of the
wetlands, and which front Lots 49 and 50, and 55 and 56
the right-of-way shall be reduced to 38 feet and the
pavement width to 24 feet along with appropriate
transitions. No sidewalk will be required on the west
side of Ashbury Lane along the wetland between Lot 63 and
Lot 1.
The following Conditions shall be added:
25. The applicant may develop the subdivision in three phases
as shown on the amended Preliminary Plat dated March 15,
1993, subject to the requirements of Section 18.160.050
of the Tigard Development Code.
26. The alignment of the street fronting Lots 16 and 17 shall
be changed to provide for a curve to the west with a
curve, whose radius is 100 feet as measured at the
centerline of the street, beginning at the north property
line of Lot 16 and continuing to the south property line
of Lot 16.
6
0
0
v)slfk
uNh
Y
l~~ 5
J
l
/I
•
f
T
0
I--
0
0
0
0 0
f
k
-s K -j
•
233 B.E. WASHINGTON STREET. HILLSBORO. OREGON 97123
MEMO
DATE: March 15, 1993
•
PJAeuyM
PHONE: (503) 6484061 FAX: (503) 681.7646
TO; Scott Ru sell
3ia9r,~YMOrvo Gect-~
4~ A vse O 7,7 a5 6 C~'o 3, 5'y3' _ H 3 y
FROM: Ryan O'Brien, Pian"ning Consultant
RE: Consulting Fees for Woodside Street Stub
Based upon your request that I review the impact of an agreed street stub from the Woodside
Subdivision Into your commerclal site and based upon the fact that you agreed to a stubout, I offer
the following comments on the location of the street stubout:
1. On Alternative Plan No. 1, the existing street stub would create a hardship on the existing
Commercial site which is anticipated to be rezoned Multiple Family because only 68 feet of
lot width would be available at the Northeast corner. Providing centerline radiuses of 185
feet, the minimum allowed for a 25 mile per hour residential. street, the reverse curve would
extend for approximately 130 feet before it would match the centerline of the road to provide
a lot depth of 90 feet. I am recommending that the 90 feet be a minimum for appropriate lot
depth In order to build multlple4amlly housing. Therefore, I feel that this alternative Is not
suitable for future development of your property.
2. 1 would recommend that you request OTAK to redesign the plan in accordance with
Alternative No. 2. No lots are lost in the Woodside Subdivision and the reverse curve would
start about 70 feet into the Woodside property and tangent back into your Commercial site
and provide a 90 foot lot depth much closer to the north property line. This Is a good
alternative which puts half of the reverse curve on the Woodside property and half on your
property. I feel that this Is a much fairer solution and provides reasonable development of
both sites. The City Code requires roads to be properly located to allow for future
development in a reasonable manner.
Section 18.02.010, Purpose, of the Tigard Zoning Ordinance lists specific requirements for promoting
public health, safety and welfare of the public. The following relate to this proposed subdivision.
A. insure that the development of property within the City is commensurate with the physical
characteristics of the land, and In general, to promote and protect the public health, safety,
convenience and welfare.
E. Conserve all forms of energy through sound economical use of land and land uses
developed on the land. !
G. Afford an efficient, orderly development and arrangement of public facilities and services
within the City.
iial J. :AJ 10-i.:r I'NG.U11 r'.U3
0
COMMENT:
•
In this specific case, all three of these purposes dictate the need to create efficient subdivision and
road patterns which allow for proper development of adjacent properties. Alternative 2, clearly
demonstrates that realignment of the roadway allows for more economical development of your
property, energy efficiency and more orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services within the City. These purposes are very similar to the purposes of the Land Division
Ordinance Section 18.160.010(A).
Section 18.160.060M identifies criteria for approval of preliminary plats. This criteria is almost
Identical to ORS 92. Criteria 1 is Important based upon the fact that It Is necessary to locate streets
to'comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan which encourages adequate housing opportunities
and efficient use of scarce urban land. Subsection B requires the Hearings Officer to attach
Conditions as necessary to carry, out the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable Ordinance
regulations.
COMMENT:
In this case, it Is necessary for a slight relocation of the road In order to allow for proper
development of your property which is in accordance with the housing goals of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan.
LWI 504.1067
0
vo 19V IM9
votv4'►
r g
'l►5'~ ~ r0
%
i
~ t Y01
v
V
i ( 39.85
ergs ve
1
0
4ow
~r
v~
rr .
r i
/ rte Yt
V'
A
m
to
~ %
r
i Yrt
r
19.5
r
a
i
l
v
04 046
r
A
I
1
I~
fl
`
n t $09
nog TWMI 19'69
d l.. S
V9
pry:., ► ~ ; ► ~ ~ g ~ C'4
~
D V S
` l rt v
raj 4 ~ i
Y9~ LL Q
v 9 \ ~ + co f+ Vl y
B\ y4
Jc, It
r
vi
in
w r r
d
8
+h~ 70.95
.ct
T- C*4 Vi
93.ty
93.53
,2 kp
a►
fl~
. ~ r is
f
'
~
.0 1
66
69
o"no ti
g 1 in vi
0'69
o
LL%
N~
06'99
NNN
b'
L9'f8
g"
8)
R'
91,
4
N
go;
volqvsr.e
v0►~fi'r
li
:8 14- cn
co
. Fii*
Q~
~ J
Qa 40
i
. ~ r11*
W
p s~
V i-O . %
1D ~
~41
j V* k
1 I
19.4'S
Val
L
IOb
74
t 1 B'6$
L
-10. LZ
81
r •
k►t+r•.
0 (A
1 ,r CO c z Vi +n
y t ';duo: t +
ail
N 4. r--- 0 cn 10
Ir- in
~ 81
70.45 N N
LL.
4 v '
f
93.17
:r+)
0$'98
-
r- (D W
logo 1_
53
93
A.
.
t^
[9'£8
f 1 A R -*-S3 T H U
March 3, 1993
r3 36 ORPAC
Liz Neuton
Tigard Community Development
13125 SU Hall
Tigard, OR 97223
Tel: 639-41 71
Fax: 684-7297
RE: NPO #7 MEETING; UEONESDAY, MRRCH 3, 1993-7 PM
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER RT 7:05 PM.
ROLL CALL
Present: Uoolery, Blanchard, Cunningham, Gross, Howden.
Excused: McGlinchy.
APPROVED MINUTES FROM FEBRURRY 3, 1993 MEETING RS-RERO.
UELCOME TO GUESTS
46 1
C41 irnan Uoolery welcomed to our meeting:
p~
~
~
t
Scott Russell, landowner in the Scholls Ferry and Murray area; and
Homeowners in the Cotswold Subdivision.
SUB 93-0001: UOODSIDE/80NFORTE
Members reconsidered applicant's request for approval of a subdivision
in the vicinity of (Hew> Scholls Ferry and Ualnut next to Cotswold Sub-
division.
Members considered testimony from:
Tony Bonforte, applicant;
Jim Lee, of OTRK. on behalf of applicant; and
Homeowners in Cotswold Subdivision, including concerns about through--
traffic, property values and open space.
Members discussed in detail:
•
P- 6 1
Bill Gross
11035 SU 135th
Tigard, OR 97223
Tel: 524-632S
Uetlands enhancement within this subdivision;
Street width variances within it;
Traffic circulation within it;
MAR 4-93 -r"U 5 :37 0FZRAC P. 02
i •
Permitted development {mul-ti-family R-25 zoning) within itz r
Ashbury Lane connection between it and Costwold Subdivision;
Through-traffic in Cotswold Subdivision;
Property ualues in Cotswold Subdivision; and
Private property rights of Tony Bonforte et al.
Motion; Lee Cunningham; to reaffirm our prior recommendation of approv-
al of this request with the condition that the site development pre-
serve as many trees as is practical.
Second: Ed Howden; In Favor: S; Against: 0; Abstain: 0.
SYHEKTRON SITE DESIGN REUIEU
Members considered applicant's request for approval of a building site
plan in a business park in the vicinity of Scholls ferry and Nimbus..
Motion: Ed Howden; to recommend approval of applicant's request without
conditions.
Second: Lee Cunningham; In favor: S; Against: 0; Abstain: 0.
OTHER BUSINESS
UPDATE ON STPEET-GRRUE CHANGE ON 121ST RHO SCHOLLS FERRY
The street-grade change made on 121st during the Scholls Hwy recon-
struction is too severe for a safe approach to the 121xt and Scholls..
Ferry intersection; cars on 121st have been, sliding into the-curb (in-
stead of sliding into Scholls ferry,traffic> at this intersection in
bad weather.
Also, the median barrier island in Scholls ferry immediately east of
the Horth Dakota intersection is too close to the eastbound inner traf-
fic'lane for a safe passage next ;to the island; eastbound cars are run-
ning into the island Cone even breaking a wheel)-
Motion; Jim Blanchard; to send a letter to Micheal Hills, - City Con-
struction Inspector, which 1) confirms that these safety hazards exist
and'2) requests that the City remedy these hazards In any way possible.
Second: Ed Howden: In Favor: S; Against: 0; Rbstain -0.
MEEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Gross, Secretary
0 0 RECEIVED PLANNING
AR 15 1993
11768 SW Swendon Loop
Tigard, OR 97223
March 15, 1993
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: File No: SUB 93-0001/VAR 93-0003/SLR 93-001
We are not opposed to a housing development on this land.
We prefer it over apartments. We are concerned about .
item 3) Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow grading
and falling on designated wetlands. How can this be
avoided?
We are also very concerned- about an item not mentioned.
Years ago when our LID was formed to improve 135th, the
city wanted to include all of that undeveloped land and
also do the Tigard section of the Murray Road extension
at the same time. This-would not have cost the existing
homeowners any more money because the size of the LID
would have been greater. The owners of the undeveloped
land protested, asserting that they could extend Murray
Road as they built on the land and it would be much'less
costly to them.
We think it is of highest priority that the Murray Road
extension be completed, and these developers must be
held to their promise to do it as they develop.
Sincerely,
Jim and Marilyn Rider
MARCH 14, 1993
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
THE RESIDENTS OF COTSWALD MEADOWS HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS IN REGARD
TO THE PROPOSED WOODSIDE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT GOING IN ADJACENT TO
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY.
SINCE 1957 WE HAVE ENJOYED THE QUIET, SAFE AND SOMEWHAT ENCLOSED
CONFORT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR CHILDREN HAVE NOT BEEN EXPOSED TO
THE OPEN TRAFFIC PROBLEMS THAT OTHER LARGE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE HAD
TO DEAL WITH. BUT AS PROGRESS GOES, SO MUST MUCH OF OUR REASON FOR
CHOOSING THE AREA WE LIVE IN NOW. THE PROPOSED WOODSIDE VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT WILL PRESENT US WITH THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS :
1. THE INCREASED RISK OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY RESULTING FROM THE
ADDITIONAL VOLUME OF THRU TRAFFIC.
2. THE INCREASED TRAFFIC INTO THE CONNECTING COMMUNITIES.
3. THE GREATLY INCREASED HEALTH HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE WET
PONDS (I.E. MOSQUITOES). WE ALREADY HAVE A TERRIBLE PROBLEM
WITH THEM AS THE WETLANDS CURRENTLY EXISTS.
4. THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTAINS MANY SMALL CHILDREN WITH AGES
RANGING BETWEEN 1 - 10 YEARS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BECOME
TRAPPED IN THESE MUDDY PONDS.
WE HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED BIO-FILTRATION
SYSTEM THAT MR. BONAFORTE WANTS TO POSTION BEHIND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AFTER INSPECTING AN EXISTING SYSTEM IN THE TETON ROAD AREA OF
TIGARD AND ASKING CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS ADJOINING THIS
SYSTEM OF THEIR COMMENTS THE GENERAL CONCENSUS SEEMS TO BE THAT
THEY "CAN'T STAND HAVING IT AROUND."
THEY REPORTED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
# IT SMELLS DURING THE SUMMER
MOSQUITOES ARE PREVALENT
BECAUSE THIS SYSTEM IS NOT MAINTAINED, IT IS FILLED WITH
ALGAE AND OIL
SINCE IT IS NOT RESTRICTED BY A FENCE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CHILDREN COULD FALL INTO IT.
* IT IS AN EYESORE I
OUR CONCERNS FOR THE PROPOSED SYSTEM IN OUR AREA ARE THE SAME.
IF. 1 0
PAGE 2
•
WHAT REMAINS PUZZLING, IS THAT THE PROPOSED SYSTEM IS TO BE LOCATED
"AWAY" FROM THE WOODSIDE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND UP AGAINST THE
BACK OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS ALSO PUZZLING AS TO HOW THIS WATER IS GOING TO RUN 10-15 FEET
"UPHILL" FROM THE CURRENT DRAIN AT THE END OF ASHBURY LANE TO THE
PROPOSED SYSTEM. UPON REVIEW OF THE CURRENT GRADING PLAN, WE FEEL
THIS WOULD ENTAIL EXCAVATING A "PIT" APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET BY 160
FEET, DEPTH UNKNOWN, BEHIND OUR HOMES. 160 FEET WOULD EQUAL THE
WIDTH OF TWO (2) TO THREE (3) PROPERTIES.
THE HOME AT THE SOUTH END OF THIS "PIT" CURRENTLY HAS NO BACKYARD
FENCE, AS DO NONE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE CONNECTING PROPERTIES
EXTENDING SOUTHWARD TOWARDS MORNINGHILL DRIVE. THIS COULD RESULT
IN A POTENTIAL HAZARD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO CURRENTLY PLAY IN
THIS WOODED AREA.
THE CURRENT RESIDENTS WOULD ASK THAT MR. BONAFORTE RECONSIDER THE
PLACEMENT OF THIS BIO-FILTRATION SYSTEM ON THE PROPOSED WOODSIDE
VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT.
SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS TO SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH
CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING AND AT UNITED SEWER AGENCY LEAD ME TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THE TRACK RECORD OF SUCH A SYSTEM IS AS YET
UNPROVEN. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THIS
SYSTEM IS TO FILTER OUT APPROXIMATELY 65% OF THE PHOSPHATES WHICH
CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE RUN-OFF WATER. NO TESTING HAS BEEN
DOCUMENTED CONFIRMING THE PHOSPHATE FILTRATION CAPABILITIES THIS
SYSTEM PROVIDES, NOR DOES EACH AGENCY KNOW JUST HOW LONG THESE
SYSTEMS WOULD REMAIN EFFECTIVE.
IT IS ALSO UNCLEAR AS TO HOW AND BY WHOM THIS SYSTEM WOULD BE
MAINTAINED.
BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS LISTED ABOVE, WE ASK THAT THE CITY OF
TIGARD NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT AN ALTERNATE
LOCATION FOR THIS PROPOSED BIO-FILTRATION SYSTEM OR AN ALTERNATE
TYPE OF SYSTEM BE DEVELOPED.
KIM AND MARK LOWMAN
11743 SW WILTON AVENUE
TIGARD
. r.,.,_ ~ ~,"/~F - r
tS ~ , E., E., .p,~ _ .i
y ~ y .~V i, %l , ~
Daslgnad Odte
SHO 1 14 93
- Orawn Oate
~.ti .r „ ~t S1r ~ cha~kad oats
1.83 ' ■ 99.17 55.00 - _ " ~ ~ _ _ ~ ,
.93 e~-- i 2 CSP f ~ S R REV! ION rEaa
9 ~ ~ 1 N . h gG - 1.
5130 ~ ~ o,
" ~ 4 90 0 F of w S ~ 4855 ao ~F. ~ P `.F , 4 ; ~ kr
5091 S.F. S F 4448 39.0 S.F. n $ a a ~ N I
43.71 ~ ' ° - ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~A ~
~a s 4822`° 6),3? ry1~ Os 49.82 1~ w S.F ~ ; i ~~eQ ~ it ' #
, 48.85 ~ 3 'R.'.'.•.'.
rkMW 1 4 rw
h p 34'R........~: 3 , . ~ 45.54 ~ Y I ~ l . L, ' • . ,
4159 S.F. .....V.. , . 1 • ~ w M
~ry 40.00 48.84 , . ° ' ' z
78.90 of J
. ~F 40.8 ~ ~Jicinity Map
o, i~ p " 4742 n ~ • Q.' /
, O ~ n ~ $ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s.F. . $ ~ ~ •
~ $ • . ~ 4884 4 ~ ~ : 2
3941 S.F. n 4 59 ~ ~ (n • S.F. S.F. 4303 ~ - Q
78.90 S•F. ~ ~ N ~ r ~
3 H EXI5TING WETLAND G 55.00 50.00 47.66 nN a0 87.36 ~ ~ ~
I 28.59 18.99 ~ ~ Y 2 FF $ 5 8U ER ` zl ~ti
N ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 N r; i- "
3941 S.F. ~ ~ ~ a►~,
78. . ~ ~ 41495 S.F. ~ ` 1~ i
~ _ ~ ~ ~ 93.87 ~ ~....•.~~.~..w.. V \ ` 89, 88 r _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~r ~ ~ 3 I ' ~
4832 $ o ~ . $ 4500 ~ .•.•.•.z'.•.•.• ~ ~ ~ ~ g a ~ ~ N $ ' / J
$ ~ , 4289 4286 ~ ~ . ~ ~ o~z < 3941 S.F. ~ S.F. S.F. ° 1~.-_ w 5183 5.F. ~ \ ~ ~ S.F. S.F n-- ar ~ ~ a
~ 0~ 109.68 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
78.90 . ~ , ° ~ \ < 6 35.00 ~ .:n._~.,...' ~ h \ ~
.'.j.'...'.'.. 50.00 ~ ~ 47.68 47.87 , . ~ ~ ~ - ~ N \ .ice' ~ . r ~ ti_n ~ ~ ` ~ % ~w~i ~ < < ~ ~ dd ~ 1 490.00 0 <
. y ~ f ~ ~ 1 ~ ` ~ 4 ~ ~r. ~
' Q
, ~ ~ , it I........... r ~ " ,
/
~ i r . cv _ a ~ 4
~ / r t t
/ ~ ~ ~ ` /L ~ I~ v 1 ~ \[)120-J~ c n ~
q~ e l ~
_ _ ~
j. ~ < J. - < < <
t
C/ `
< < f \ ` d 1 -r
~ r - /
~ ~ , r
< ~ , 200- \ < • /1U^
~ \ ~ r ~ 50.01 ~ - _ ,A5 20.89 52.91 V A~ A < - r ~ ~
< < J 29 v \ \ ~ . N 9 52.98 ~ ~ ~ ~ -
_ - 20.68 33.37 4J,93 50.00 ~ - _ " 43.9 ~ 48 ii
r • 6 46.
_
~ / o"}- ~ ~ 4717 ~ 48. m ~ 4922 ..r~-...r A~ ~ ~ u 4924 .F /S'
~ ~ ~ 4817 ~ o, m .a 4939 S.F. i
a' ~ ~ S.F. o ~ 9 S.F. 6
~ o. 4890 ~ 5075 S.F 49 ~ ' ~r<' ~ ,o ~e s .F. 5145 1 - 50.00
\ • ~ ~ d8 S S.F. 50.05 \ ~ , 9 S. F. , 50.00
~ \ . ~ 4832 0 ~ "
, 4.57 Y._,_.., ~ 1 ~ 0 . ; 64.52 43.22 ti "'~~:.•r.•~-.'.•. ~.~.•,•..',.,~,.~.•.'.'.'.•.'.','•8S',•. .
` 4499 ~ o • • •
~ \ ~ , R.,.... • , 81.91 ~
~ ?9 ~ 4494 ah 54,89 .....................".'.'•'.','.'7~..t'••••.•.' 88.83 ,
?0 _ ~ 82.83 ? ~
s ~ ~ 610 . F N \ a 6217 ao 0 S ~ < N ~ N 5456 S.F. .
~ ~ . ~ Z ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 98.00
\ ~ ~ rn " ~ • 100.00 ~ . • ~ 6801 N ~ 5616 S.F. •
454 140.00
• ~ S. i $ I
s \ , , ~ . \ ~ ~ 5000 S.F. ~
ly , ~ Sa, I ?s $ ...•i., i \ 8
S ~ ~ ti too.oo . ~ ~s 4„ao s.F. ~ ti
0\ ~ • • ~ \ ~ ~ h~ 100. ~ \ ~ ~ a 00 •
S \ '
F ~ \ ~ ~ r i
~ $ 000 S.F, $ ~ ~ ~ IS.F. ~ . p ~ , ~ ~ ~ 4500 S,F. ~ ~ . . • too. r,
0 ~ ~ ...•a.... rte;
\ ~ 100,00 . \ ~
~
'7 N ~ ~ ~ N t Ql. ry 5170 5.F. I
6 . ,•~r:.•.. ,12 4 ~ 025 S.F. , ~ 143,
~ 0 /
~ y. i
\ ~ ~ti • . • _
` ~ • 5903 S.F
r ~
0' \ a
2\ 8352 S,E.~ y~Wrlt
ARFA: 16,281 CRE a~rrcop~ ~M,~I~
cxaK ~u ZONING: R-25 in~orp0fal~d
N. 113331.WBoaaf~ld,lcUSripe,0117WS.(703)ISS-Si1(f
\ 00 f0IE.01AS4rd.formw.#A$1000 (20!)WS-0331
a o ie 0 50* 10 0 15 0 2! c D" 1rf i J" K~bnd, WA l103! (~f!)az:-wa
Exhibit 'A'
15 R.O.W. DEDICATION ON
Sheet No.
N OR T SCA,LE, IN, FEET
4 430 -4,
Projecf_ Nar
1
i
i
f
-
i, 4 r~ r e').: "2'~ I' .~7r air i'1 Ir A `~I. ~.Yt I s ~ t r t , ,4. r t i < r' ~4~
Y ti x ,5', Y' k , 1 ~1,. + r r:4 a. rq i s 7 1 ~1: d t, } 7 a ~ ci'}Y y ='rL L.~ .ESL! i , 1, Y i a is S 5 rF..• .r'. y" r r' „ it ! y. . y
.."r. ~ Ur-. { f - . W .:'1 ~ fir. :'f. ~v t) 1 < 4 ; 1 1 I t k 1 t ~ t, . >r f 1
l f f ,4' 1. r r r t Y' .f rl ~ 'a~ tr 'ir 1 2 'd i 1 - 4 J~. t 1' • t. ' 1 .r,: ...fig.. .,.ti *r y 'q'', . . r
i; d .5r . - 1 Y i' r ` r Et. ~1~ 1' r ~ r4 'r t CC ~ 3 { t ~Ir a r .P :r' 'z x ; 1 > ( z 1 1+ i . ,'r r s E a - s r w,
I -1 ~i r=`. t r 'i', r r. , { r ~,r a `ti . . i J 1 A `r i r t .r
5 r-- ~i j i~ '.t r k i1~ ~.r. F 7 , P r i • i ~ :h, ea :;.r,
, -i .~r f ..k i 7r..., ,.a. M.~ - :.~j.. ~ i. 5 :.,C: r pf ~ i. f Sa r rrr, ,F..... r ~ ~,i ! ~ ~ y 1,:$ d. to ,.t - 't ! '~~t A.' r.'~~ it f t y _ ) 117
M.,. - .,r _ : J ._Y .f 'k'id .f. l~i6' 'r4 y~y r _ y 11%c C 4. v; F r , Y , ~ J / I -rr 9 r
.'~t•. .r h. r~ F 1. °i' 'r. dtl' 1 ti' +y 'r' Y 1 t { t 1 i" , 'r e t i. fFr' .4, 4 - ti r. a'
, ~ rp; t. a r ,y i. fs t- r J z- r. 'ti r ~e . 1 Ji 'r` e S : ~F dr' f ~ a ~ i! i t' f ~t u r ~i t 3 ~r , , • : , r, { .d X11 ;s; m t, rt. ~ a' ~1;
v t ~ u . ~ F . r. , i. , , t i - f ~ ; . 1 r r '3.9 i r: t: ti. <S. 1~ „ t , r ~~r1 i. u. tlr'. rirlr r, C 34.E x' 4.Y'+" :W' t. ( r f - F. ~ ti Y. jj F 'r ~ S- if
- I F~ ,ai.~..ti i ~ f.. 1. t -q z _ . ~ r F , , ~ ~ 1~c~ r'.. _CS7 - `sJ y ~F I. rr. r.. »e J t. r F : tY e ~1 . ( Z: 9 Y' ~ }y :~Y i ,}j' ~F +7' m ~ d ro ~ Y„ , ~ t.. i r . ! . ~ ~ ,1~ ~A'Y. ~ ra i 1J., `L~i a r ~i t'• l ~q 1.,,. :a ~ f' ~'..r r,. p r:.o 5-.- r3; e r 'a" S. 3' '.•r e. t 4 ~~i ,,eE ~ G n, t .r, i' c. as r' ^4 ;f ~ ..1.R. t. ~h, i ,I , e r , 4 1 . i' ~ { q 'r 'S. ,r f4 v P t mss, ~~Y r ~ is s r~. . 4 ~ • _ s r y ~.a. g a, p t 7.e ,F ."A ' e v "'~.c 1• . o. t:z X ; , r., . ,y.~tr:~. _5r .s~ , , -y. 1 1-:<i> . ,,,1 S ~i y,o f~r}'~, q I•r,
J r : ."a. F... k y h r. <1`,, e r .i~• r.:-.s+, a r-.: ~.p,.}a4,4. r1 .~la ¢ ,~1,. l.) _ A .~1, f-. ~ ~ ~ -,l'. rF }e... r , i ~ l , d i t N .r -Y..: S 0 k af.,. f~} r,. _ ~-~t. } t•r_re:SS t: rt r.. ..:,.-n.Y,, ` ~ ~ .-m. ?r, r.A '`37 rrgrli",+a ',C at . s ~ ~r~i':• ~s,, c"tAx,.~,.. .5~, .a a ~r{- ~tad1 ~ r y tY<r.rr d ,`v eil a~;? {_'r'.V J ~ 5:. ~ k..4 fa a#. d "rL t .r~-r'~.. c. Yz';3"f'X.-.'~ ~r- ~ .1, a. I ir..f! rY S r'•'x ,~i.~4'i.yyr' . ~ f. r i, :nfy~:n~~~?I"_.:_.^Lr~. _,a:~+(-'.{`a:'',~~'':_1...WE:::itt:~',`.,A'-.r~f4_
U _ t~~~.:..~~~~:•£_~'.n'~,..1~1~.'~.s_~.~,. _..6,~'~'~ 2 :,~.~_J,~i,..:._~S.-_.d.i~.~~.tt1-~y__te._..t.i~~,.._
- ~
_ ,
f _ _ 1
i -
i _
' ~
' /1 „
_ _ iii
" z ~p _ _
~ ~ ~ ~ v
l ~ 1 R" r _
i
d i ~ n ~
~ w ~ 3 ~ d i
i `
~ ~ h ~ 7 ~ ~ '
5A ~ ~ ~
~ ~W ~o o ~ 2
• a, ~ ~ ; Q,
. a ' b
f ~ ~i
~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~ . n - ~
~ ~
' ~ v s Q,
EXISTING WETLAND ~ 3 n ~
~ 25. , ~UFFEi~
' ~ ~
'
; _ u ,
~ . J 2' f' 'yT r.a
~ y ~ ~ _ i.STQN~ Al1TY~ ~ ~ .r
~ i ~ i ~ wf " 9~L- a
~ ~ i~ .y
-I- " i_ - jam. ~ ~+,v~.: n ~ ` ~
TORM UTATER OUAUTY RETENTION POND _ _ _ ~ ~r ~ ~ l 7 y 3 ~ ~ ~ ^ -
/ / / ~ / /
1 i % % i x j ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ / / ~ ~ ~ % ~ / / ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ / i
S i~ -d ~ ~ -~,j/ ~ / ~ i ~
~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ / / . / / , , ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / , / / / ~ / ~ ~ r
i r/ ~ i ! / / i ~ ~ / / ~ ~ ~ / / i i ~ / / / f i _ / i ~ i ~ / / / i / i ~j i / ti / / / ~ i i / / / / 1 - ~ i /
G i / / / / / / ~ i ~ ~ i , / / pn / / / ~ / j / _~i ~ / / / ~ / ~ ; j, / ~
j / i / / / / ~f ~ / i / / / j / i~ / / / f ~ / ~ic / f / / / Ti / ~ r ~ / / r'~ ! / / ~ ~ / / / ~ a
/ i i
~ / ' / t ~ / / / / ~ / / r' ; ~ I i
/ / i ~jj~ / / / j ~ / i~ j ~j~ / / ~ / / / ~ ~ 1 i / / / / ~ / / i / ~ / % / ~ ~ / ~ / ~ ~ d i i~ i i ~ i ` ~ i ! / ~ ~ ~ ~ , i / / i / r ~ / 1 ~ ! /S / i /
i i/ i / / 1 j / / S / ~ ~ i / ~ / /
~ / / ~i~ < / / / / / i / / , d ~ / i ~ ~ / / , i ~ ~ %
i i i ~a ! 'i a. / ~ ~i i / 2. ~fR
y
~ Sl'~._ j j ~ i4-f-~ 1 Lt~r~"'A ~ / / ism .J ~ / j ~ j~ i / ryy ~ It . / f ~~%riy h ~-~_~II a~ ~f ,y~i~l i / i i~L.~ /
i
/ i
r. r- i ~ i / ~ v~y 7~
~ ~~L'r ~
~ ~ .i • ~ - i r S4 _
" ~ ~ ~ • ,y~~ ~ ~C,
/ ~ ~ ,
~ ~ , ~ 'A i Sq
~ ° _ J p 1v
J ' ~ / ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ 8'
~ ~ y
~ ~ ~
~ '
/ ~ ~ ~
~ \ _ ' ~,~1 ~ i s'
f r"
F' i , ,
\ / ' ` j ~ ~ ~ ~ y m . _ o.
~ ~ 1~ ~
S ~ ~ ` 3 ,
5.,~
C ~ ~ ~ . ti ~ \ . 0 ~ ~ (
S
F
~ , r~ R b b Y ~ 1
~ .11.E 0 ~
. q a . , ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ . 4Y
~ Z/. ~ :f~
~ ~ - 4 ~ - ~
~
\ f1i \ ~ \ ~ \
~ ~ ~ /
~
~ ~ 1
f
1 ~
\ ?i ,t
~ \ ~ Ima0rp0rcfr4
1135SS.ri.9nruf~n}9d..ck~~trp,(~SiGSl(k3ji33-7ti1 '
iOlL BthSktikV rv.nr,AASam {7CSjits- -0 }a
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 50 100 150 C v* OikwA WA MW, {1G4w.u„
, , ~
\ EXHIBIT-,Cy
Sheet No.
NORTH S,.CA,LE IN FEET.
48
Project No.
.
I
- _
Designed Date
5HD 1 14 93
Drawn Date
'~a~ fy Checked Date Rr r
,Fl~ ~ ' ' ~ REVI ION
,a~; ;E~
s N ~ ee
21,83 99.17 55.00 -50;Q0• - -9-59 - ` ~ `12 CSP ' !f
! ~ Ilf i w
1
U+ M I M
1 ~ 5130 ~ ~ r 4 90 ~ ~ ~ S.F. i ~ F. ~Ml j
4789 403 ~ • ~ z 4 ~ z QP ~ ~
5091 S.F. 3 S,F. S F N ~ 9.0 43 4822'; t~ ~ _ ~
~a
~ ~o hh S.F " 1 67,3 ; 9s 37,58 37,56 h• ~r ? ti .o ~ SGN~,I w K
35 R ~ ~ CJ
_ _ w ~ 45.54 30 R ~ -3d~- ~1°
1~ ~ ~ , . < W 1/icin ity Map
`0 4159 S,F. ~ 40, 8, ~ ~ z
ry 00 s ~
~ < 78.90 ~ ~ ~ h # 40. a, ~ ~
N 4742m ~ 1 ~
o S, F: ~ OD J J
~ ~ N l 0 8. o f ~ N~ x 2
' o o ~ ~ ~ ~ 4884 00 8 ro . + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , n 440 4303 - q 3941 S.F. S.F. S.F. ~ ~ o ZI
F: N IN(, WETLAND s, ~ ~ EXIST 7asa ~ ~ 3
N 87,36 ~ ~ 25 BUFFER ~I~ 4,
55,00 50,00 47.66 28,gg 18,99 ~ rn Y I ~ ~ , ~ old ~
8. ~
~ ° ~ S.F. _ _ ~
3941 S.F. 4495 ~ r 93.87. _ ~ ~ < 78.90 ~ 1$ ~ ~
1 ~ . . n $ 89.88 ~ ~ _'~.C...,~-_........olt~... <
$ ~ _ a ~
4832 ° o r a ~ _ 4500 4289 4286 :c 5183 S.F. ~ _ _ . ~i~ Q _ ~ ~ ~ ~ x90,00 o a
' 0 3941 5.F. S.F. S,F. S.F1. ri -~'33~SF. ~g N 0 _ 109.68 ~ c N ~ ~ _ ~ h
78.90 ~ ~ 35,00 50.00 ~ ~ 47.66 47.67 - " ~ " ' ~J ~ a ~ s ~ ~ T ~
_ ~ o - a ~ ~ ~ ~ as 6
~ ~ at ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ma ~ ~ZO'. ~ ' 1, 6
- W 4 , i+ ~ I TJT~. ~_,~'lli~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 35'x`'-=~- _
it a
i~
- ~ ~ ~ / ~ r ~ a
~ ~ ~ . i~r
~ ; ,
I < < < F r
! ~ ~ , ! i t < < 1
d d
p ~ r ~
~ ~ J ~o ~ < ~ -
~ ,,G-,,...___~_ . ~ " _ _ b
.pl J < ~ ~ ereeee■eereee 5
< - rr'~ - ptli~~--- - 5Q.01 c , ~ ~ - - ,r it p 52.91 1 _ 'reeer 9 Ay 20.89
_.r - e e e 52.16 /rM■ ~ee/ _ ~ seo ■eeer~r"ree < < < ~ r ~ ...50 ~ ,D 1 .j c
N ~ ~ e : r 2Q,88 33.37 43.93 43,98 46,48 :y ~
\ ~ 4717 01 ~ - ~
. " r - o 4922
°q~, ' ~ o ' y n^~ w t0 ~ S, F. ~
♦ ~ ~ 4939 ) , • ~ ~ ~ 4817 ~ ~ ~ 4793 S.F. _
~ - S.F. o, 5075 S.F. _ 50,00 ~ 4890 0,05
~ 6 5145 S.F. 5 ~ s S.F. go,oo
.10 ~ ~.9 50,01 ; N .00
\ ~ 4832 00 ~ 59, 51 y0 " 83' i~= 1
0, 15 22 14. ~ S.F. ,~0 •?p 60,52 43, s.~rs " - J
~ 4499 ; ' o~ 4 ~ 1 - -81.91
~e~ S, F~' cP - - ~ \ 8 7,~~ I 88 ~
~ 4494 ~ es - - ~ ~ ?8 ~ ~ ~ -
'ps S.F, Oti 44,88 ■~r~r*e1~ol~eee~ u? ~ ~
20 ,83 ? ~ 6100 S.F. a _ _ 82 ~ ~ ` s i N 5458 S,F.
s~ 6217 ~ .9 ~ c~ . , ~ N M r~ 98,00
~ r, o, ~ ~ ~ o, ~
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 5816 S,F. , 1 ~ ~ 34-h
880 r ~ ~ S,,F~=,~~_ _.~45~4 100,00 $ - $
)0 ' ' 9 ~ S,~, i o ' 1
s ~ ~ N 5000 S.F. $ ' ti m
S e4, I g ~ ?9 ^ $ i 00.00 ' ~
~ 4500 S.F. d S S
c ? ti e d` ~ o Q ~ h. 0.00 o
~ + o I i $1 S t
F ~ 0 S,F. ~ F 500
R ~ 8, 98 $ $ Y ~ t0o,oo ~S.F. ~ 4500 S.F f
l l' 0 0~ l ~
t ~ o 0 , , 1 aoo _ ~i
ae ~ ~ ~ ~
r NO o
6025 S,F. , ~ 103,07 c ~ ~
ps n
?6 ~
` 5903 aFr~'~
~ ~ M r ~ <0I , ~ ~
~ 1 ~0
, ~2; n~
l
'1[ o two c C
173555,W.9om"rmy RA,Lakooswop,OR97035.(SO3)635-3618
1016 6th Skid,Vonoourv,WA 95660 (206)695-0351
a► m o0 0 50 loo 150 2$ C*nW Wo7, J 305 Kkklord,WA 93033 (206)622-4N6
i ~i Ehibit 'A'
Sheet No.
15' R.O.W. DEDICATION ICATION
NORTH SCALE IN FEET
4304
Project No.
~ t. ~ ✓a.4+,. .r a:. 1Y u ..r"'~ : w:~'r in" i 'Jp lr,
s„ '
. u. .,a. ,
h . O 4. ,'0
o a a
.r j ~ F' , ~
. ` * 'K ' t'.µ•
z ~ ~ t ~ . i~1, ~a
I '
t ,~yy r. Y4 `K
l~~'
4r ~ ~ m i ~ r : ii t x~
r . T V - q
m 0 .L o a ~ '
. ~ v
a y~ y ,
' ~ : '
H ~
. 9-Z
N
4; ~ `h
.1 b
a «
~ ~ ~ ' . , ~ '
A ~ , %
~ ,
.~3~#~S 33S 'i ~ „ a it:~ .>ar ~ ~ l ~i ' '1( ..v' fir ~t 4,+Hi
' ~ '~r o 3 ~ ~ h. !~Hi~~;~~~t
r•~1e ry c k^~9 ,4't` < ,re e 1. +~1 r~.?k i ,,t Y
.~9 'r,~,1 , ~ ~ P' 4.t )k ~~~k 14 ~t 111' ji fR
i e ~6' fy~g. ~~d 1 1~.
~ L S. ~ Y'. L L 'a~ ~ I~YY "NY.
9 1 a~ 1 .l 5. I ) "r ~ ~ 1 ~.i,. ~ t i~-
1 tt ur rs ij 1 _ ~ ~1
ti' .Gr'
y, '
~ ~ ! Y ~-,fit 1 1 '~lt ~r
1 Mw..,.n,
i,1 Y t ~ 'k i i r17 y~ ` I
ii,. lit5
-z -
• ~ ~ ~ - ~ + ,6~ ~ ~ ti
r ',d
~ t °,d ~ h ~ ~ , ! > ,,+1 C~ndip ~ Y .a, ~ v ~ ~ .r S A. ~
I N. ~'r ~ i~~ ~ s~ , G,~
f ~ , R
~ e ,.y rt/ Y 7, ' ~ ~ l } ~ + '}rte "a Y F1
O lj } ~ ~~tk~~ssWW ~yy~Y ~ ~ ~ V'' l ~ y
Q ---i--• ~ a ~ !_11 `.4 i., ~ ~ BSI
b ` n gat , t ~ rv}}1 ~.1 :hs t
! .~,rr ail + ' I
r .,ti ~ ~ ii5' t~ 9 • ~ ~ ,
u ~ ~ , , ~ ~ , ~ti' k., i ~
I 1 .1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~di~ ~ + ,1: ~ I, ,;~.9~~ f.a~p AY,.., , Il~
~ ~ f~. ;A, < ~.r,~t 'r' ; ~ k
V ' ~ " ,~aq~.~ . a ~ ~ r~x~ P
t t~,re y `[:i~~ 'p ~ WMD o ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ `
~ ddA ~ ~l ( ~ ~
c~^'`u~ a. ~..1 ~oCU 4 `ii. 1. . ~ ~ ~ ~i, 'ai`r, t , f'S~?~ ~.i -
~ d ~Sr` +
~ .'r ~ ~ ~ . t +4rx
_ ~r q iG j 1.H~`vft 1 '.i~ l ~ 1 t F :`~i
ti i ~ v'r! ~ ~ Way }N ~'a
f ~ 1
I 11!' S~.'F.
+ .o. .J ~ ty .i ~8 j 4 " . F
• ~ 1 y~,~'~ i ~ ~ ro
i ~ Z
~ ~ . , 1 ~ ,
. 1
s~ I { y
r Pn _ nr"r5~. Y ~ ~~r Nt~] ~:v 1 f ( ~t7~i r ~'X 4. + .c1 ' 1L ~dla
~ ' ~ ~ ~ v ~ '~:d~ ~ t, ,y, 'r, P. f... ~ . A
~ ' ! rrz~~
~ ~r ~Tw .r ~ ~ , + r-.r. 1 ,r' , 1 t
e .
~ t ~ r s s '„t ~ '~.,~g ~ . K
p I ~ ~ ~~'a , ~ u~y: _ 7~ ~ ~ 1 'tiN I ~r
J z r m ~
I ~ k ~ i 7 4 Yy~~~k 'rx.ll i,
a' r t~~ ~''r~ ` r min ~s,4 ~ rr r 'S+ c 1 _ 1 s' ~_.~ii c. j sti 1c dQ
r ~ i as x5~
' ~ ~ ~ ~ J!, y , + ~1 L ~ U i~.,b~+' 4
t
i ~ ' ,
x '~a t ~ n'f:~ ' 'r ~ 4 I r
l ` r
~ '.`~+1 11~ f ♦ J .
~ ~!1 ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ h ~z~ h' !
Y
. 71 S l
'y +~w,. ~ ~ 'n+ _u~ r. ~ ~ i ~ ?3~ ~lr§ ~
~ ~ iii}', d~r r~1'~ ~.r'- t ~ ' F IF/
, w,+~
'.,4 ! ~ . S y; ~ l ~j ; l ~ _ '.1, fr v,~ r
~ I. h'. - z..
~ ~ ~ ~ y'r,-~ ~ _ ~ Se.+:tayLi ~ ~ } Kok?..
< i ! ~ ~ t Z ,~r
i ~ ~ ts~; ~
f ~ ~ _ I ~ ~ ~ ~ r, t '
a s r 3
~ ~ , ~ . ~ L ti-.
r `~d
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 4 .k mA J ? ~L4 ; ~ inl, ~ C.', ~~ii f~ _ A~ N ~~i S.
~ t9 ~ ~t ~1yq(. V ~
~ ~ b?~ r~Y=~S~ ~ i:,W~ "~,1.. a ~ (15 ~ s,
s ~
J r
- ~ 1r -w...wLr''i Mt ~ ~°1~~~ y ~'lru~~oi~ r~Kr ti fi~
1. ~,y it ~E . ~.y 1 C;, 1 ti "'1!'~''-~~,t j} 5 I~` '+s. 1t ~9~4L~~. 1. '.Y°~,~ .,~ti~f s la, °~,~t 4.
~ t~ ~ r-~ ~ ~ ~ ar a ~
f ~ ~ ,s . r;~+ i f 1 1 'f t ~.R r f r ,~P~~k
4 ed f ~ ~ `4 r ~~$a~~111%,b 1 is ~ ' - 4~ . ~,~j I ~v4t f+.4}~,YA~ i.z
i
{~j - ,~r.. 1 ~ Q ~ ,+~,q
_ ~ :~a ~ D~. `r - -
~J i~. , ~ 'y ~ `'~iSE ~ ~
~ fJ`yr ~ ' "fie i F~ . ,~,yr°. r-; s '~~qi~ ~~i~,.1ie^ a f`r "T'!Y'e R oa ~"i4ro 5~. x
i ~ r 5 ~ - ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~~,~~C 5~ , t ~9,.~,, _ dt ~ ~~,+z ,.HOPI ~ ~ . ~X, ~
j v ~ j~'(~ , y~4 ~ t ' S .e N e ~ r r , yam s yr .
J~. ,'tc 11 ~ _f~~F j aJ 4, ~ T
~ ' ,i ' / 77 ~~.la pt ..~~~~N~~~a~r . i}r~ ,k•~_ , v
~i ti "i .wtr•~. w+n. r. r „f~~
r . a ~~.a-1 . u`:d,.,~.w~z+r n~~;4 . x .A +~~ry 1 q~ pl
, e
r4 ~ li ~~5'~u1 , ~3~ r ~ ~ ,n. ~ "r ylrv~ y 'a.
..t . , f III 1 ~~~y~f ~
s3 _ ~ arJ~y„ t
~ ~ +r~ ~i / ~w ~
l ( ,
",F; ~ I t + r. v
J, ~ r ~ ~ ~ t
.n
~ ~1
? 6 } ' ~r ~ , xq,; w.,
. 5 i ~r ~x
„a„ y 4 ~ 3~v ~ r ti ti` ~ tia' ~',~ye ~
~,CD , ~ J ~ . ~
~ ~ ~~:4. I
i ~ I ~ ,b11f ~ - ,t
r,
1' t i ~i t~.
J + ~
z .r:;,r ~ ~ .ti ~ ~
`"ti'""" ~
t
h*° w i 11 .j 4~ '4 _ ~
i 1 ~ ''v+ro awt ' 1
~J ~ t
~ r y, s ~ r. 1. s_ ~t... ~~T , E
i iSt ~y f~. ~ r n . ~ ~1 ~x
i ,E~ V CY~~O~~
i ...r. i
j i
Designed Date
Drawn Date
W > ~ 3~
~ Checked Date
°m Q -b REVISIONS
,.I ~ ;
t
~
~ NORTH 0' 10' 20' 40'
`
m
•T
STORM WATER RETENTION POND ~ ; Z
Q o ,
~ ~
~ ~ ~ -EXISTING WETLAND o ~ I f..
0 0 ~
J U
~ Q 25 BUFFER ,
,
_ i _ _ _ _ • _ -
~ ' 1 \ f ~ \
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ .l
i
1 , _v , I ' L..' _
~
r t . CO LL tD. _ ~ ,
I ~r ' ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ \ , . , :r y~, rK. 1( , t ; ,x, .t , < X .x X ;x jc; ; T~ y4,.~=, `ti<'," K f ~ f; ,X v ;t t t`,,h ~ .%t, ,x. ' ' F..X , ' ,
r i ~ ~ k x Y x 4~ r{ x ' x ; ~,,:x x 4, x `x< x'``: x `x,`;t 7K?; ,x ;;~h { X < x 4 x' ' rl x x `:;"`x r ~kr r Y r k X X, n , r F Y iS Y i~ r - f h Y X , h ~ , r~ r „ , ti . , k = K A x ~ 'YC ; x 'r ~x Y; x x, >t ~ x + n r x' K x x ~ = t, x x _s K x ; jt, x ,
~ ,fie! ,/K j . ~ , . ;i `y ,s ,`i k, y k, i; ,R ;s P .s, k ~ y • • %s. J~ f k : , . Y' Y ~ Y ~X. d k Y k, ;s Q
~ O ~L x, x ~ ,x.. , _ `k Y ~ ~ , k ~ x ~ x x x K r n „ a x~ , , x k x t , - - ~ N ~ O . ~ x r , fix: r , , x_~, t,-„ ,..'x. ` x ' ~ t` ; ` ` x. r , , x, , • K x ,X , •x ~ ~ O
~ ~ N ~ %t i', k ; ~ ~ ~ k,~ k ~ ; x ~ r k ~ , -'r ~ . k ; • ~t X ,x ~ ~ . K X ` / ~ ~ ' ' r , , x x t ~ ,r x x ;,;t a ~ x : * . r a r, ,x 'Y Y, < h ' /
' ~ ~ I ~ Y ;i ~ l( k Y' ;;,,h. ,r 4, fn 4, t Y i,._ k < r ,s k r 5(.~~ t' / , r F, h, rX n, M1 ' ~ 1 ~Y _ t ,K 'K;t Y l ,A, 6, ~ ~ f < ~ ~ ,`n j;l :i x F _ _ / , / . 1 , _ ~ t ' ;si Y rf. K=K,t ~ 4 Y , ks ~l , `_,'=,4 x ti s Y'~`` /
1 r=. , f 1 , , , , _ Y K x ~ ~Y ~ , x ,._jC ~ * 1;'}C K ` 7: x / y i
r , ; ~,c t~ N ...fix .k' 4',r: /
/
h
M~ ' , ti. M
J' -
l f , .y,~ Y ..n~. ..-„m~....... w~
~ ~ ti
~ _ _ Q
. ~
~ ~ °
f '
r r ,,r``~ ~ ,,'f ,
' r r / rf
,f'% ~ ~
_
r
r i
r'~ r f y
r w
r r''f ,r'' ~ CO ~
f ~
r~ d ~ f r - ~ ~ _ r'
rr ~ ,r~ f' r l r ! ~ f r` ~ 1
s,+ r' r
~Ir /J f { f ' F ~ j
fff t
~ ~
r
r r~ ~ ,r 1, r f f ~ r
,r'~ ,r{ ' " F 1
. ~ f % ~ r t ;
f ,,,r' ,r f
~ . f ~ r ~
~ r.
' r~ t/~ , f`f mow.
r
r• / 1 ~ , ,r ~ ~ i ' w f l ~ . W^I'
" - _ - . 200 r ~ - ..ft.r ~
w ~ '
N ~---i..-~- , ; ,r _ .,may, r~ / ,
..r I . ff , i r ~ 1.. f
A. f ~ , r ' ~ t 7
~ t r. i - -
i ~ ~,y . _
~s, - Y
w s
y - • t ~ r !
j •
_
"
nn pia en
landscape architects u idA surveyors
in c o r p o r a f 9 d r'
17355S.W.BoonesforryRd,Lake 0svego,OR97035,(503) 634-3618
101 E. BM Street,Vancouver,WA 98660 (206)895-0357 24 Central Way, 1 304 Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 622-4449
2_ 4 5 6
3_
r - Sheet No.
4304
Project No.
I