Loading...
Hearings Officer Packet - 03/30/1993AGENDA TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 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 93-0005 EMMERT (NPO #6) A request for Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a parcel of approximately 0.78 acres into four lots ranging between 7,320 and 10,800 square feet in size. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.88, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164. LOCATION: 10520 SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 10AA, tax lot 100) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single-family attached or detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks, subdivisions, public support services, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. 2.2 SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0007 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 93-0004 GRAY-LAMB/WAYMIRE (NPO #6) The applicant requests preliminary Subdivision plat approval to divide approximately 7.5 acres into 48 lots ranging in size from 4,445 to 10,080 square feet in size. Sensitive Lands Review approval is also requested to allow drainageway and wetlands modifications. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92,18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. LOCATION: A portion of the land on SW 92nd Avenue between Tigard High School and Cook Park (WCTM 2S1 14A, tax lots 100 & 1000) ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) The R-12 zone allows single- family detached or attached residential units, duplex and mulitple-family residential units, residential care facilities, public support services, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, and accessory structures among other uses. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT 0 0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 BEAVERTON. OREGOM 97075 Legal Notice Advertising ~ti~4 • ❑ Tearsheet Notic ~t Q~0 N5S • ❑ Duplicate ANida • City of Tigard PO box 23397 • Tigard, OR 97223 • $0 ~~OP~~ • 00\11 OF Legal TT 7489 Notice The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Tues- day, March 30.1993. gt 7:00 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Ha11,13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the 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 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) I Judith Koehler a~n~~ 119 at Times vertising being first duly sworn, depose and say-th Director, or his principal clerk, of the n newspaper of general cir Cation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published of `MMrd in the afor,nC d93aOD3Me0004 fines// a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One -,uccessive and consecutive in the following issues: March 18, 1993 d ~ Subscribed and sworn before me thi I 18th darn of March Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 40 1993. SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0007 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 93-0004 GRAY-LAMB/WAYMIRE (NPO #6) The applicant requests preliminary Subdivision plat approval to divide ap- proximately 7.5 acres into 49 lots ranging in size from 4,000 to 10,080 square feet in size. Sensitive Lands Review approval is also requested to allow drainageway and wetlands modifications. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.88,18.92,18.100,18.102,18.150,18.160, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. LOCA- TION: A portion of the land on S.W. 92nd Avenue between Tigard High School and Cook Park (WCTM 2S1 14A, tax lots 100 & 1000). ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre). The R-12 zone allows single-family detached or attached residential units, duplex and multiple-family residen- tial units, residential care facilities, public support services, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, and accessory structures among other uses. SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0005 EMMERT (NPO #6) A request for Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a parcel of approximately 0.78 acres into four lots ranging between 7,320 and 10,800 square feet in size. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.88, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108,18.150,18.160, and 18.164. LOCATION: 10520 S.W. McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 IOAA, tax lot 100). ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre). The R-12 zone allows single-family attached or detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks, subdivisions, public support services, fami- ly day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. AFFIDAVIT , TT7489-Publish March 18,1993. T I G!R D H E A R I N G S O F F I NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAR ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT) AGENDA ITEM: -2- LL CASE NUMBER(S): ~U OWNER/APPLICANT: C-OAM ((T LOCATION: WSW SW Kr))®v V, ,A tc (W(--rtA ZzJl 1vAAi-6,>,X 1A On) NPO NUMBER: DATE OF HEARING: PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME. ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT Against the proposal) Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name I Address T I G O R D H E A R I N G S O F F I O L NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAR ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT) AGENDA ITEM: 7.7- CASE NUMBER(S) : 113 -001161-K 13-"q OWNER/APPLICANT: C~V• " LA-dIA40 V-)O y W44rt kmr4 bY~ SW ~2 [1~11UL°CLI I~G4k~ vYlr~~ 4 C fsO~~dSf LOCATION: NPO NUMBER:: Lo DATE OF HEARING: D.•If`i PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME,, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR SIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) r OPPO Against the proposal) Name e5~✓''9~~1V Name Address ./z ~{7 ~ 4144-n ~ 7'- Address J ~ 7 2,01 I IqM 7~> Name o (j S~ ~-t2-s M e Address l y~ s W V, 'Address ct1Z2`t Name 6 F- L Name E&Mbs d ~.~FIZ ~AA AN/I►P~C}Z Addreesl~~d ~ • Address 1 &-5L S Name- Address M 1, n Name Addres Nam Address U ~ .5 n Name J Address-[-6~ : '3w i)`i 1 = 6 -7 Name Address AICM Aq Name Address ~ s C V, s .I ~I Name C-~> Address 1 h "CF S S. UJ- R- Name M^ C V G . Ll , Address $Sd 61;0e- (ZAJ WZ 46 !51-J l ~~g KC( '7j) ~dd ~or~. a7 Zz-3 Name Address Name Addrejw //5ul Name Address T$ f Q ti"'er Z D Name Address T I [IOR D H E A R I N G S O F F I NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE THEIR ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. (Please PRINT)/ ~q AGENDA ITEM: Z Z CASE NUMBER(S): lh f 00 V OWNER/APPLICANT: Law. / (it )a ~i rM c 1~-e LOCATION: 1 1 NPO NUMBER: DATE OF HEARING: PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS„ AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT (Far the proposal) OPPONENT Against the proposal) Name t9ou,. Ov, Qn w~~ 4uJ.Lr-v Name i 1 Address 2Frsxws~J n Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address 0 0 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In the matter of an application by Terry Emmert for ) FINAL ORDER approval of a preliminary plat for a 4-lot land division ) for 0.78 acres at 10520 SW McDonald Street ) SUB 93-0005 in the City of Tigard, Oregon FINDINGS (Emmert's West One) 1. The hearings officer hereby adopts and incorporates herein the findings of the Tigard Community Development Department Staff Report dated March 24, 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. 2. The hearings officer conducted a duly notice public hearing regarding the application on March 30, 1993. At that hearing, City Planner Victor Adonri summarized the Staff Report. No one else appeared. CONCLUSION Based on the above findings, and the conclusions in section VI of the Staff Report, the applicant's request complies with the applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code and should be approved. ORDER The applicant's requests, SUB 93-0005 (Emmert's West One) is hereby approved, subject to the conditions in Section VI of the Staff Report. AT this 5th day ril, 1993. l~ Larry Eps i , City of Tigard earings Officer 0 0 AGENDA ITEM 2-" ► 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Emmert Development STAFF REPORT Company for a subdivision consisting SUB 93-0005 approximately 0.78 acres located at 10520 SW McDonald Street. 1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: Subdivision SUB 93-0005 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Subdivision approval to divide a parcel consisting of approximately 0.78 acres into four lots ranging in size from 7,320 square feet to 10,800 square feet. APPLICANT: Emmert Development Company OWNER: Terry Emmert 11811 SE Hwy. 212 11811 SE Hwy. 212 Clackamas, OR 97015 Clackamas, OR 97015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre) LOCATION: 10520 SW McDonald Street (WCTM 2S1 10AA, tax lot 100) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54.050, 18_88, 18.92, 18.108, 18.160 and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. i II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape: The subject parcel contains 0.78 acres. The site is rectangular in shape. B. Site location: The site is located south of SW McDonald Street, and east of SW 105th Court. C. Existina uses and structures: The subject parcel is largely developed. Three duplexes are currently located on the site. There are a few evergreen trees located along HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 1 D. 0 the western property line, and a few deciduous trees located on the interior of the site. Surroundina land uses: Properties to the north and west of the site are zoned General Commercial. Properties to the south and east are zoned R-12 (Residebtial, 12 units per acre). This area is substantially developed with commercial and residential uses. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS A. Communitv Development Code. 1. Chapter 18.54.050 contains standards for the R-12 zone. Duplex residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size 3,050 square feet/unit Front setback 20 feet Garage setback 20 feet Interior sideyard setback 10 feet Corner sideyard setback 20 feet Rear setback 20 feet Maximum building height 35 feet 2. Chapter 18.88.040(0)(1) 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. 3. 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 by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. 4. Chapter 18.108.070(A) contains standards for residential vehicular access. One driveway which serves two dwelling units must have a minimum access width of 25 feet, and a minimum pavement width of 20 feet. 5. Chapter 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision 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; HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 2 b. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS 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 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. 6. 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) requires a local street to have a minimum 50-foot right-of-way and 34-foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks. C. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 2J times the lot width and requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. d. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. e. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. f. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. B. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. 1. 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 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. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 3 0 0 S. Policy 7.4.4 requires all new development to be connected to an approved sanitary sewer system. 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 developments impacts; e. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or signals shall be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: A. Streets: The site is located on the southeast corner of SW McDonald Street and SW 105th Court. Southwest McDonald Street is classified as a Major Collector and SW 105th Court is classified as a local street. Standards for a major collector call for the following (all distances are from centerline) : 30 feet of right-of-way, 22 feet of pavement, curb and sidewalk. Currently, McDonald Street has 20 feet of right-of-way and improvements in the area limited to 24 - 28 feet of pavement (full width) with some drainage. The applicant should therefore be required to install half-street improvements along the SW McDonald Street frontage of the site. Standards for the local street are (all distances are from centerline): 25 feet of right-of-way; 17 feet of pavement, curb and sidewalk. B.. Sanitarv Sewer: HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 4 9 0 There is an existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer system that is located in SW 105th Court to which the applicant is proposing connection. The sewer line has sufficient capacity to serve this development. C. Storm Drainaae: Effective December 1, 1991, the City is required to comply with a new requirement of the State Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). The EQC is requiring that all new developments which add additional impervious surface area within Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) jurisdiction must include a water quality treatment facility. Previously, developments without a suitable site for water quality treatment were allowed to pay a fee in lieu of on- site water quality treatment. These fees would then be used to construct regional facilities. The Engineering Department feels that these new requirements are inappropriate. It is not feasible for many small developments to build on-site facilities. Construction of numerous small facilities will create maintenance problems both for cities and USA. However, effective December 1, 1991, the City must require these facilities or be in violation of State regulations. The issue of on-site water quality treatment facilities was not addressed in earlier staff reports, as the City expected the issue between USA and the EQC to be resolved. The City is still hopeful that this issue will be resolved within the next three months. Therefore, although the applicant should be required to install a water quality facility, the City Engineer may be allowed to waive this requirement if the regulations are amended. 2. The City of Tigard Operations Department, Portland General Electric, School District #23J, Tualatin Fire District, General Telephone & Electronics, Tigard Building Divivsion and Tigard Water District have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Comuliance with Communitv Development Code. 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the use standards of the R-12 zoning district (Section 18.54.050) because the lots are developed with duplexes, a permitted use in the zone. The four lots ranging between 7,320 and 10,800 square feet are all larger than the minimum 3,050 square foot minimum lot per dwelling unit requirement of this zone. All such lots are subject to the setback standards of the R-12 zone. The existing structures meet all setback requirements as specified by the zoning district. 2. Lot #1 complies with solar access standards since it has a north- south dimension of 100 feet. Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.88.040. requires at least 90 feet. Lots 2,3 and 4 are HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 5 exempted from the solar access standards as per Section 18.88.040(E)(1)[iii)(iv). Since the lots front an existing street, the lots have an average north-south lot depth of approximately 61 feet each. The placement of the existing duplexes on these lots preclude adjusting the lot lines to give a 90 foot north-south lot depth. To not allow this exemption would create undue hardship on the owner, perhaps resulting in the loss of one or more lots. Therefore, these lots should be exempted and the code requirements of Section 18.88 have been satisfied. 3. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92.020. The net developable area of the site (after deduction of the public right-of-way and the creation of the private drive) is approximately 34,064 square feet. With a minimum lot size of 3.050 square feet per dwelling unit, this site yields an opportunity for 11 dwelling units under the R-12 zoning designation. The applicant has proposed the creation of four lots with three pre-existing duplexes and therefore, complies with this standard. 4. Each lot meets the minimum access standards through the provision of one 24 foot wide access driveway from SW 105th Street. Code Section 18.108.0701Al requires that a paved driveway which serves two dwelling units be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The site shows the provision of one 20 foot wide paved driveway for every two duplex units. Therefore, this code section has been satisfied. 5.1 The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision approval standards of Chapter 18.160.060(A) (Subdivisions) because: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Medium Density Residential density opportunity for the site as well as with the applicable plan policies, the regulations of the R-12 zone, and other applicable regulations; b. The proposed name of the subdivision, Emmert's West one, is not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County; C. The existing public street (SW 105th Street) serving the lots is already constructed and meets City standards. 6. 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: a. The applicant will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to the public along the SW McDonald Street frontage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The dedication document shall be on City HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 6 forme. Instructions are available from the engineering Department. b. The proposed 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-12 zoning district. S. Compliance With Comorehensive Plan Policies 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 6) and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site. The proposed site has been posted with a sign noting that a development application on this site was pending. 2. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, 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 advises that the site developer be required to pay a fee in lieu of the construction of an on-site facility. The site is considered unsuitable for development of an on-site facility because of its relatively small size and the unavailability of space within which to place the facility. Payment of a fee in lieu of construction of a facility is authorized by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission and USA regulation is cases where it is undesirable or impractical to construct a facility. 3. This subdivision proposal complies with Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and j 7.4.4 because the existing serve the property public sewer and water systems and storm drainage. The property is currently served by an 8 inch water main line. The three duplexes are each served with a one inch water meter. 4. The subdivision proposal complies with Policy 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 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 required half- street improvement of SW McDonald Street will be consistent with City of Tigard standards for a major collector street. The anticipated traffic from the three pre-existing duplexes now located on the property to be subdivided will not significantly affect traffic level. 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 HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 7 9 0 injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decisi i on complies with applicable local state and federal laws. In recognition of the findings staff recommends APPROVAL of subdivision proposal SUB 93-0005 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. Previous Action: This parcel of land was the subject of a Site Development Review (SDR 92-0008) in March of 1992. The SDR request was for approval to allow the relocation of three 10 year old duplexes to this site. The duplexes were being displaced as a result of the SW Gaarde Street realignment. As conditions of approval the applicant was required to provide the following: L A fee in-lieu of water quality facility L Additional right-of-way dedication along the SW McDonald Street frontage to increase it to 30 feet from centerline. L Standard half-street improvements along SW McDonald Street L Installation of a sidewalk along the site's frontage on SW 105th Avenue. The applicant for SDR 92-0008 and this subdivision are the same. The homes have been moved to the site and are awaiting final occupancy permits. The above listed conditions were required to be completed prior to occupancy. They are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval of this subdivision. After completion of the requirements of SDR 92-0008 the site will be in compliance with the minimum standards. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST. 1. SECTION 18.160.190 Filing and Recording A Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. B.: Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. I 2. SECTION 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements A. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to'practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 8 B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. i 3. SECTION 18.162.110 Centerline Monumentation: Monument Box Requirements A.1 Centerline Monumentation for all Major Partitions: 1. The centerlines of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented as prescribed in ORS 92.060(2) before City acceptance of street improvements under the following specifications: a. Centerline monuments are required to have monument boxes conforming to City standards set for those monuments within the pavement area; and b. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SMALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Prepared By: Victor Adonri Date Assistant Planner A4u W,.4,1 Az&lu -3 p rod Di Bewersdorff (Date ~74"r &'e"~ I Se 'or Planner HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 93-0005 - EMMERT PAGE 9 _ . Ate'-----.-~- 5.._.. -T 7 m 4 Q The City of T I GARD SUB 93-0005 VfT is I_ - ST, Mc00NAL Si te- Area'"-.(: YEN 1ER.1 1141111 IISI 1 1110 #101,1#1• sr1111 rt 1111 11 111 a fif1 IIIrf 111111111 141#• 111# IIIIrelll►r l711~A YEW ~iG 111y Irlftlrl. I#11f• _ IIIt1l1 01#1#girl Ilil er7 If 111rNr1 111 4111 gill IIItt 1%. 1 NEZ H 0 1 ? H tlrlllrll 111711 I.IrrIr111t111 to w,A 11 IIIaInl~rl Ir IP~""'1 ""+1 I l r C 117 • I 111 u l LN. ~--~5 ~ (IitUilll 1 111 ~1l117/111 0 0 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Ken Waymire for approval) FINAL ORDER of a preliminary plat for a 48-lot land division and ) SUB 93-0007 sensitive lands review for land east of SW 92nd Ave. ) SLR 93-0004 north of Cook Park in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Waverly Estates) FINDINGS The hearings officer adopts and incorporates herein the findings of the Tigard Community Development Department Staff Report dated March 23, 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. HEARING 1. The hearings officer conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the application on March 30, 1993. In response to a request from a witness, the record was held open 7 days (until5 p.m. on April 6, 1993). A record of the testimony and evidence is included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceeding), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). 2. The following testimony and evidence was offered at or after the hearing while the record was held open. The relevance and merits of these arguments are addressed in the Discussion section of this decision. a. City Planner Dick Bewersdorff summarized the Staff Report and responded to questions. He opined that filling of the drainageway in the west portion of the site is permitted by the Code if it complies with applicable approval criteria. However, he conceded that not filling the drainageway, such as by relocating the road to the north edge of the site, would more affirmatively comply with certa, : approval criteria. b. Gerald Cash, the Realtor for the site, and Tim Roth, a contractor and developer, testified in favor of the proposal, citing, among other things, the amount of planning that has gone into the proposal, the increased tax revenue from the site if it is developed, and general impressions about the merits of the proposal. c. Doug Smithey, a professional wildlife biologist, testified about the impacts the development would have on wetland, forest and upland habitats. He argued the proposal will adversely affect habitat without mitigating those impacts. He submitted a written statement describing in more detail what those effects are. He proposed the following conditions: delete lots 44, 45, 47 and 48; move the south lines of lots 38 and 39 to the 135-foot contour line; delete or reduce the size of lots 21 and 22; and provide certain kinds of vegetation and limited-access improvements in the open space. e. Mary Meininger testified against the proposal on behalf of Friends of Cook Park. She made the following main arguments: there should be a "wetland impact statement"; a buffer of trees and a fence should be provided between the proposed lots and the wetlands to the south and between the site and the Thomas dairy farm to the east; on- site water quality facilities should be provided; the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (TVFRD) should review and approve the temporary turn-around; public review of grading plans should be required for areas sloped more than 25% before the preliminary plat is r 0 approved; permits from COE and ODSL should be required; a tree survey should be required and section 18.150 (Tree Preservation) should be enforced strictly; sanitary sewer lines should not cross the wetland; the stream should be allowed to flow naturally into the wetlands; and a note on the face of the plat should notify prospective purchasers of the presence of a dairy farm adjoining the site. She submitted two written statements dated March 30, 1993, one of which was received by the City on April 5. She also submitted a letter dated April 2 from Sue Carver (NPO 6) to Bill Parks (ODSL) raising questions about the proposal. f. Attorney Mark Cottle testified against the proposal on behalf of John M. and Sally Thomas, who own the dairy farm east of the site. Mr. Cottle submitted written statements dated March 30 and April 2 in support of his testimony. In summary, he made the following arguments: (1) The proposal does not comply with section 18.84.040, because the development will result in erosion, based on statements in the application that erosion control measures will be used. If an erosion fence need to be placed at the bottom of the slope on the site, then it is reasonable to conclude that erosion will occur. That violates the approval criteria. That impact cannot be mitigated to comply with the criteria. (2) The proposal does not comply with section 18.84.040 B and C, because the application does not include substantial evidence that it will not cause an "other adverse off-site effect or hazard to life or property." He argued the application does not show how much storm water will be discharged from the site, :_^ter development as compared to before development. If the volume or rate of n.n-off is greater, then there would be an adverse impact (i.e., flooding) on the Thomas dairy farm. (3) The proposal does not comply with section 18.84.040, because the record does not include substantial evidence defining the existing quality of the wetland south of the site; therefore, there is no way to evaluate whether the land form alterations will adversely affect the quality of the wetland over time. (4) The proposal does not comply with section 18.84.040(C)(3), because the applicant will fill and pipe the drainageway to the west portion of the site; therefore, the applicant necessarily decreases the capacity of the drainageway. (5) The proposal would better comply with section 18.84.040 if the applicant installed a bridge over the drainageway or moved the road north to avoid or reduce the need for filling; (6) The proposal does not comply with section 18.120, because of lack of an adequate buffer between the proposed residential use and existing adjoining farm use. The subdivision is within 5 feet of the barn on the dairy farm. Agricultural activity in the barn generally begins at 4 a.m. daily, and odor, flies, dust and noise will lead to conflicts with adjoining residents. He recommended a 75-buffer with natural vegetation. To further buffer the site from the farm, he proposed that a storm water facility should be located between the proposed lots and the farm; a drainage swale and 8-foot high fence should be placed along the common boundary of the site and farm.; that all trees removed from the site be replanted in the buffer. (7) A traffic study should be required. g. Bob Sellers argued that the fire access road to 85th Avenue will enable more pedestrian and vehicular access to adjoining properties, increasing the potential for Page 2 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) trespass and vandalism. He also argued the tree preservation ordinance is not well- enforced, and should not be relied on to protect existing vegetation. h. Dan Quello argued that the subdivision will have a significant adverse effect on the character of the area, particularly when viewed from Cook Park. He proposed that the City buy the site for expansion of Cook Park. i. Although they declined to make an affirmative presentation of their proposal, Rea and Ken Waymire responded to questions by the hearings officer about impacts of and alternatives to the proposal. Ms. Waymire argued the subdivision should be approved as proposed. Mr. Waymire testified that he is developing only 7.5 acres of the 12-acre site; that 60% of the trees on the site are retained; that the density is far less than permitted (i.e., up to 140 dwelling units); and that changing the street plan to avoid filling the drainageway in the west portion of the site was too costly because of the loss of lots. j. Dan Mitchell tested with concerns about traffic speed on 92nd Avenue. k. B.C. Lamb submitted a letter dated April 6, 1993 to Ron Pomery (sic) in which he argues in favor of approval of the subdivision. He summarized the history of planning for the development of the site and adjoining land. He argued that the wetland conservation work done to date and the plans for the site are beneficial. He argued that 71% of the trees and 90% of the cedar grove on the site will be retained. 1. Erna Gilbertson submitted a letter dated April 5 in which she argued the site should not be developed; a traffic study should be prepared; and a 25-foot buffer and 10-foot fence should be provided between the site and the farm. m. After the hearing, the applicant submitted applications he has filed with USCOE and ODSL for dredge and fill permits associated with the sensitive lands review. DISCUSSION In general, the hearings officer finds that Section V of the Staff Report contains adequate findings addressing applicable approval criteria, and those findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record There are few factual conflicts in this case. The principal conflict is in applying the facts to the applicable law. The Staff Report and oral and written testimony raise specific issues regarding the application. In the following discussion, the hearings officer addresses those issues that are or may be relevant. 1. The hearings officer recognizes the work that has gone into the plans for this site. Given the difficult natural conditions on the site and adjoining land uses, more work is needed to prepare plans to develop this site than for many other sites. The amount of work that has gone into planning for the site is not relevant to the subdivision or sensitive lands review. What is relevant is whether the results of that work show the development will comply with applicable criteria. The potential tax revenue from the development of the site is not relevant to the criteria for the subdivision or sensitive lands review. The hearings officer cannot consider whether the City might want to or should purchase the land for park purposes. 2. One issue in this case is whether the applicant should be required to provide an on-site storm water quality enhancement facility. City staff, several witnesses and the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) recommend the applicant be required to provide such a feature. See the discussion at pages 7 and 14-15 and condition of approval 4 in the Staff Report. Such features are required by Resolution and Order 91-47. They are consistent Page 3 Hearings Oricer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) with and may be necessary to comply with sections 18.84.040(C)(2) and 18.164.100 and Policy 3.4.2. The preliminary plat does not show such features, and the applicant did not agree to provide them. a. The hearings officer finds that the applicant is required to provide a storm water quality facility on-site, unless the development (1) qualifies for a payment in lieu; (2) the lack of such a facility does not result in erosion, stream sedimentation or adverse habitat effects; and (3) adequate off-site storm water facilities exist or will be provided. b. The hearings officer finds the applicant did not bear the burden of proof that the development qualifies for a payment in lieu of on-site storm water quality facilities. The applicant also did not show that the amount of sediment transported off-site by storm water without such a facility will remain the same. Fabric fences proposed south of the lots and at scattered points along the tow of the slope during construction will trap some sediment, but were not shown to do so completely or effectively over time. Based on the soils and slopes on the site and the amount of disruption to natural conditions that will result from development, the hearings officer finds that the absence of water quality features would violate section 18.84.040(C)(2). The applicant also failed to show that downstream drainage facilities will provide adequate water quality treatment if an on-site facility is not provided. Therefore, the hearings officer finds '',at the absence of on-site water quality features would violate section 18.164.100. Tr:;refore, the applicant should be required to provide such a facility on-site. c. The hearings officer further finds that the storm water quality facility should be located outside of the wetland buffer so that the facility and its maintenance does not conflict with the wetland. It should be accessible to County maintenance vehicles. The facility and access to and around the facility should be dedicated to the City so that the City can maintain the facility after any initial maintenance period for which the applicant is responsible. (1) If the facility can be located in whole or part along the east edge of the site (e.g., on lots 20/21 north of the proposed wetlands mitigation area) so that it provides a buffer between the existing farm and the dwellings without compromising the primary purpose and function of the facility as a storm water feature, then it should be located there. It should be located to minimize potential impacts, such as by minimizing removal of vegetation and grading. (2) There is a maple tree with a 42-inch diameter on lot 21, based on the tree inventory. Because of its size and value as a visual amenity, it should be preserved if practicable even if the water quality facility is situated on that lot. A qualified arborist or equivalent should participate in the design of the facility as necessary to determine whether it is practicable and, if it is practicable, should recommend measures to preserve the tree. Condition of approval 4 should be amended accordingly. d. The applicant can modify the preliminary plan to provide a storm water quality facility. The Public Works Director can evaluate the facility plan (after requesting additional information or consulting with USA and others as necessary) and determine whether it complies with applicable standards, the objectives stated above, and good engineering practice. Approval of a facility plan may require an additional sensitive lands review. Public notice and an opportunity to comment on the facility plan should be provided if required by law. Condition of approval 4 should be amended accordingly. Page 4 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) 3. A second issue is whether the application should be amended to include a traffic study, wetlands impact statement, or wildlife impact statement or a tree survey. Several witnesses argued in favor of such measures. The Staff Report does not recommend a traffic study. Conditions of approval 20 and 21 of the Staff Report require a tree survey and compliance with the tree preservation ordinance in two phases: public improvements and building construction. a. The hearings officer finds that City Code does not require a traffic study, wetlands impact statement, or wildlife impact statement per se. The applicant must provide information about the impacts on wetland and wildlife habitat to respond to section 18.84 and policy 3.4.2* and has to provide traffic information to respond to policy 8.1.1. Although more information and a more active role by the applicant at the hearing would have enhanced the applicant's ability to bear the burden of proof, the hearings officer finds there is sufficient substantial evidence in the record to address these standards and policies. b. The applicant has provided a survey of trees with a diameter of 6 inches or more showing their size and species and their relationship to proposed lot lines, grading, fill, and other features of the development. See sheets 2 and 5 of the oversized exhibits accompanying the application. Therefore, the application is not incomplete for failure to provide this information. The planning director can determine whether removal of any identified tree complies with section 18.150 before streets and utilities are built and lots are rough-graded. Conditions of approval 20 and 21 require compliance with that section in two phases. In conjunction with review of a building permit for proposed public facilities, the planning director decides what trees can be removed for those facilities and related grading. Typically in conjunction with review of a building permit application for each lot, the director decides what trees can be removed for homes and related features. Condition of approval 14 requires a grading plan. (1) It was argued the City does not administer and enforce section 18.150 effectively, although substantial evidence was not introduced to sustain that argument, and the argument was disputed by witnesses and City staff. The hearings officer assumes the City does and will continue to administer and enforce that section. (a) Some of the criteria in that section are clear and objective, but most involve a factual or legal judgment. Some of the criteria in that section are subject to considerable discretion, (e.g., whether tree removal is warranted "to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in an reasonable manner"). Reasonable people can disagree about whether removal of a tree complies with such a discretionary standard. Public notice may be warranted when administering such sta --;lards. (b) Section 18.150 does not authorize the director to require proposed structures to be relocated or plans for grading or yard areas to be modified to reduce the number or significance of trees to be removed. In this case in particular, where the trees form a significant view from Cook Park, minimizing removal of trees from the site * Policy 3.4.2 was not listed by the Staff Report as an approval standard. The hearings officer finds that it is relevant to review of the subdivision application under section 18.160.060(A)(1). Policy 3.4.2 provides as follows: The City shall: (a) [p]rotect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible Page S Hearings O tcer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) 0 0 will reduce the visual impact of the project. Such a goal can be achieved partially through section 18.84 and policy 3.4.2. (c) The applicant has not applied for tree removal permits in conjunction with the project. Although such applications are likely to follow approval of the preliminary plat, the hearings officer does not have jurisdiction over future tree permit applications and cannot prejudge them. (2) Conditions 21 and 22 do not expressly address tree removal when lots are rough graded (e.g., as shown on sheet 5 of the oversized exhibits) and do not expressly relate to the grading plan required in condition 14. The conditions should be amended to clearly require the "public improvement" phase of the tree permit review to include trees to be removed for rough grading by the applicant. (3) Because lot purchasers may not he aware of section 18.150, a condition should be added requiring the face of the plat or documents filled with the plat and referred to in the deeds for the property to advise purchasers that trees larger than 6 inches in diameter at breast height cannot be removed without complying with that section or its amendments. 4. There was concern about the emergency access road to 85th Avenue and the temporary turn-around at the east end of proposed Kent Drive. a. Future street extensions are addressed in section 18.164.030(F). An applicant is required to extend a street to the edge of a site where necessary to give access to adjoining land. The future extension of this street may be necessary to serve adjoining land. Therefore, it should extend to the property line as proposed. b. The hearings officer was unable to find where the Development Code expressly provides for temporary turn-arounds or fire access roads such as proposed in this case; they may be provided for in separate design standards. They are consistent with policy 8. 1.1 and may be authorized pursuant to the Fire Code. They are warranted to ensure emergency vehicles have access to and can turn around on the site. c. Condition of approval 9 of the Staff Report requires the applicant to provide an emergency access road to 85th Avenue, including dedicated right of way, bicycle/pedestrian access, and a gate or bollards to prevent non-emergency vehicle access. The access control is to be subject to review by the TVFRD. The conditions of approval do not expressly require a temporary turn-around on Kent Drive. They should be amended to do so, so that the road does not terminate in a dead end until it is extended east when adjoining land develops. Design of the turn-around should be subject to review by TVFRD to ensure it will accommodate emergency vehicles. d. To prevent the emergency road from providing easy access to adjoining private property, the applicant should be required to install a minimum 6-foot fence to the extent it does not exist already adjoining the north and south sides of the emergency road. 5. A fourth issue is whether the application complies with section 18.84.015(C). That section delegates approval authority to state and federal agencies regarding wetlands. It requires the applicant to obtain applicable federal and state permits before undertaking filling of wetlands. Condition of approval 1 of the Staff Report requires such permits. The applicant can comply with these provisions. Section 18.84.015(C) does not require issuance of those permits before approval of the preliminary plan. The applicant has applied for permits to USCOE and ODSL. USCOE indicates that the proposed filling is Page 6 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) likely to be allowed under a nationwide permit once ODEQ certifies the project does not violate water quality standards. See letter of March 17, 1993 from Dale Haslem to Dennis Smith. ODSL indicates compensatory mitigation will be required See letter of March 26 from Bill Parks to Waverly Construction Co. The preliminary plan identifies land and includes a plan for development of such a mitigation area. The Code requires no more before the preliminary plan can be approved. 6. A set of issues relate to whether the application for the land form alterations on lands sloped more than 25% and in drainageways comply with section 18.64.040(B) and (C), respectively. a. To minimize site disturbances, reduce the potential for off-site transport of sediment, maintain flood carrying capacity, and avoid other potential adverse on- and off-site effects, the applicant should provide a buffer between the delineated edge of the wetland and proposed lot lines. Condition of approval 2 in the Staff Report requires a 25- foot buffer, consistent with recommendations of USA and several witnesses. The preliminary plat includes a 25-foot wetlands buffer north of the wetlands and proposed mitigation area on the site. Therefore, the preliminary plan complies with this condition and, to this extent, with sections 18.84.040(B)(1) and (C)(1). (1) There is a dispute about whether the wetlands delineation provided by the applicant is correct. There is no substantial evidence in the record to rebut that delineation. Distrust of evidence introduced by an applicant in general is not sufficient to discredit that evidence. The hearings officer finds the delineation is substantial evidence. (2) There is an issue whether the buffer is large enough to minimize site disturbances. It was argued that the larger the buffer, the less potential for human activity that would affect the wetland. The buffer can be enlarged to include much of the steeply sloped common open space south of the lots without reducing the number of lots or significantly affecting marketability. Moving the south edge of lots 38 and 39 farther north could enlarge the open space or buffer to include several substantial trees. The Staff Report did not directly address this issue. (a) The hearings officer concludes that the buffer, per se, should not be required to be enlarged because expert testimony shows it is adequate. (b) However, to enhance the water quality and habitat values of the common open space under policy 3.4.2, to minimize site disturbance and other on- and off site effects and to better protect the buffer area, the hearings officer finds- (i) Access, developme:-,i- and tree removal in the common open space should be restricted. This minimizes d•.sturbance of the steep hillside and the vegetation on it and preserves the existing natural resource values of the wetland as much as possible. Specific restrictions are discussed more in findings below. (ii) The south edge of lots 38 and 39 should be moved north at least 50 feet north of the wetland. This provides a 25-foot transition area between the lots and the wetland buffer and protects existing substantial trees from development effects. (3) There is an issue whether the buffer will be managed to minimize site disturbances. The City could acquire title to or a conservation easement over the common open space and/or buffer/wetland area to manage it or have some say in its management over time. The Staff Report did not address this issue. The hearings officer Page 7 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) 0 0 declines to mandate City ownership of the common open space and/or buffer/wetland tracts. Certainly the City can choose to acquire it or to accept its dedication. However, City ownership of interests is not necessary to protect the resource values associated with the site to the extent possible, b. The Staff Report does not expressly require the applicant to fence or restrict access to the wetland and wetland buffer. USA and others recommended such measures, because all-but-limited public access to the wetlands and buffer would conflict with habitat values. (1) The hearings officer agrees the applicant should be required to protect the wetland and the buffer from potential significant ir'i erse effects from too much public access. This is necessary to protect habitat pursuant to Policy 3.4.2 and to minimize site disturbances pursuant to sections 18.84.040(B)(1) and (C)(1). (2) There are a variety of suggestions in the record for such measures. The hearings officer finds that, at a minimum, the applicant should install a minimum six-foot high fence at the north edge of required wetland buffer or further north. If the applicant does not install the fence at the north edge of the common open space, then the applicant should be required to post signs identifying the edge of the common open space and prohibiting development, clearing, grading, filling, or tree removal in that area unless approved by the planning director. Only unpaved pedestrian-oriented pathways should be permitted south of the fence, with access to the wetland at relatively few points if any. Details regarding the fence, signage and potential pedestrian walkways south of the fence can be delegated to the planning director for site development review and approval. A condition to this effect is necessary. c. Mr. Cottle argues the record is inadequate to comply with section 18.84.040(B) and (C), because it does not contain a factual analysis of the existing wetland south of the site; therefore, effects of the development over time cannot be evaluated. However, the hearings officer finds that the record is adequate without a factual analysis of the existing wetland, provided the record shows that the proposed landform alterations will not change the impact of the site on the wetland. The hearings officer concludes the proposed landform alterations, with the exception of the filling of the drainageway in the west portion of the site, will not change the impact of the site on the wetland, based on the following findings: (1) In this case, the wetlands on the site are delineated. They are to be preserved except the drainageway at the west edge of the site. Therefore, with that exception, wetlands on the site will not be filled or otherwise developed in a way that directly affects the wetlands to the south. The hearings officer addresses the filling of the drainageway later in this discussion. (2) A storm water quality facility will collect and treat run-off so that pollutants will not enter the wetland to the south. (3) A minimum 25-foot buffer is provided between the wetlands and the lots to the north. This area will be preserved. There is additional common open space between the buffer and the lots to the north that can enhance the effectiveness of the buffer as protection for the wetlands, provided development does not occur in that area and trees there are preserved. Pollutants that escape the storm water quality system will be filtered out of runoff before they enter the wetlands on the site and further filtered by those wetlands before they enter the wetlands south of the site. The buffer also keeps humans away from the wetlands. To achieve the beneficial water quality effects described here, a Page 8 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) F,.,r 0 0 condition is warranted prohibiting development in the open space except for pedestrian walkways approved by the planning director pursuant to site development review and to prohibit removal of trees from the common open space unless a tree is diseased and there is danger the tree may fall on existing or proposed structures or interfere with utility services. d. Mr. Cottle argues the landform alteration cannot comply with sections 18.84.040(B)(2) and (C)(2), because an affirmative finding cannot be made that removing vegetation from or grading land will not cause erosion. However, he presents no legislative history or other support for his construction of the Code. (1) The hearings officer disagrees with the way Mr. Cottle construes those sections. Rather than prohibiting all erosion, those sections prohibit erosion or other effects 'fi thev are adverse or cause haz r . Erosion is reasonably likely from any development, especially one affecting a drainageway or land sloped more than 25%. It would be illogical for the City Council to adopt an approval criteria that cannot be fulfilled. To construe the sections as argued by Mr. Cottle would prevent approval of any sensitive lands review. That is contrary to the way the sections have been construed since their adoption. The hearings officer construes those sections to require the applicant to show that erosion that could occur either will not or is not reasonably likely to occur or that, if it does occur, it will be mitigated so that erosion does not have short or long term adverse on- or off-site effects. (2) In this case, the application includes a preliminary erosion control plan that shows fabric fences, straw bales, and other sediment barriers will be used to prevent sediment from entering the wetland or being carried off-site. Additional standards are provided for erosion control. See sheet 8 (Erosion Control Details) of the oversized drawings accompanying the application. If the erosion control measures are used, erosion will not occur or, where it does occur, eroded soil will be collected before it enters the wetland buffer, and lands affected by erosion will be replanted with vegetation that will prevent it from occurring in the future. (3) Condition of approval 11 of the Staff Report requires the applicant to submit an erosion control plan for review and approval before approval of the final plat. Although more details about erosion control measures to be used and their lot- by-lot location would enhance the applicant's ability to bear the burden of proof regarding erosion control, the hearings officer finds the application includes sufficient information to show what an erosion control plan will contain and that a mot detailed plan can be prepared and approved by the City. e. Mr. Cottle argues the application does not comply with sections 18.84.040(B)(2) and (C)(2), because it does not quantify the volume of water to be discharged from the site. If more water is discharged, it could flood the Thomas farm. (1) The hearings officer concedes the record does not contain calculations showing the volume of water discharged from the site before and after development. Such calculations are required by condition of approval 12 of the Staff Report. In the absence of such calculations, the issue is whether the hearings officer can conclude the landform alterations will not cause hazards to downstream property. (2) The hearings officer concludes the landform alterations will not cause hazards to downstream property due to increased runoff volume or rate, because: (a) The storm drainage system will be designed to accommodate anticipated flows based on detailed calculations and subject to City engineer Page 9 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) review. Therefore, the subdivision will be served by a drainage system that complies with City standards. Such a system will consider upstream flows and downstream constraints and flood potential. Pursuant to section 18.164.100(D), if the City finds that the subdivision will generate flows in excess of the capacity downstream, then the final plat cannot be approved. The hearings officer assumes, based on these sections, the City will not approve a plan that would increase off-site storm water discharge. (b) The relatively large common open space area, buffer, and wetland provide land within which storm water can percolate. Trees on the site will continue to absorb substantial surface water flows after development. The wetland to the south has been modified and enlarged, increasing its capacity to contain storm water runoff from the site during peak conditions without increasing off-site flooding outside of the wetlands. Storm water from the developed areas of the site will be collected and can be detained as necessary to prevent off-site flows from exceeding predevelopment rates or volumes. The applicant is required to submit to a technical r ~.ew process by which such judgments are made by people with expertise in such matter,:. (c) Mr. Cottle's unrebutted testimony is that any increased runoff from the site will cause off-site flooding. Assuming that testimony is correct, then no increase in off-site runoff rates or volumes should be allowed unless the applicant demonstrates it will not increase the potential for downstream flooding. Condition of approval 12 should be amended accordingly. f. Mr. Cottle argues that filling the drainageway in the west portion of the site necessarily decreases its capacity, contrary to section 18.84.040(C)(3). However, the hearings officer finds that section 18.84.040(C)(3) is ambiguous. It does not state clearly what is meant by the term "water flow capacity of the drainageway." (1) Any filling of a drainageway necessarily reduces the capacity of the drainageway. It would be illogical for the City Council to adopt an approval criteria that cannot be fulfilled. To construe the section as argued by Mr. Cottle would prevent approval of any sensitive lands review involving filling of a drainageway. That is contrary to the way the section has been construed since its adoption. The hearings officer construes this section to require the applicant to show that the capacity of drainageway will not be reduced to less than the reasonably expected capacity needs for the drainageway and to show that it will continue to function as a drainage feature for the affected area to the extent that function is not fulfilled by other features. That is the way the section has been construed in the past, and it is reasonable to construe it that way, because it relates the carrying capacity of the drainage system to the actual flows and demands on the system. (2) In this case, the function of the drainageway will be preserved by replacing the natural drainage channel with a pipeline within an engineered fill. Storm drains will direct water to the pipeline. The record includes the size and grade of the pipeline. It does not include details sufficient to show the size of the pipeline is adequate. However, such calculations will be provided to fulfill condition of approval 12. That is sufficient to comply with section 18.84.040(C)(3). g. Mr. Cottle argues the proposed filling of the drainageway in the west portion of the site violates section 18.84.040(C)(1), because that filling is not necessary. Therefore, the sensitive lands review should be denied or conditioned to that extent. He noted that a bridge could extend over the drainageway, preserving it largely intact, or the road and associated utilities could be moved to the north edge of the site where little if any filling would be needed. The hearings officer raised the "north road" option with City staff and the applicant during the hearing. The staff agreed that moving the road north of the Page 10 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) drainageway would reduce the impacts of associated filling. The applicant argued it would be too costly to lose lots that road would cross. (1) This issue is one of the most difficult of the case, because it is not clear what the law intends. Requiring such a change will reduce the number of lots in the subdivision by up to 4 lots, depending on what other changes are made. Section 18.84 does not suggest such results are intended to follow from sensitive lands review. Sections 18.84.040(C) only authorizes the director to approve or approve with conditions sensitive lands review applications. Denial is not authorized. Neither are conditions that effectively negate part of the development associated with the landform alteration. The standard prohibits a greater impact than "that required for the use." Therefore, the hearings officer construes 18.84.040(0) to assume that the proposed development will be undertaken, and to consider whether it is being undertaken in a way that minimizes site disturbances. (2) The issue also is difficult, because there appears to be shared review authority for the proposed filling. The City delegates responsibility to the Corps and ODSL to decide whether to allow the drainageway to be filled as a wetland, but reserves that responsibility pursuant to its authority to regulate filling of steeply sloped areas and drainageways per se. The hearings officer assumes there is concurrent jurisdiction over the filling of the drainageway, and the City may reach a different conclusion than the Corps or ODSL. It appears from the record that Corps and ODSL permits will be issued for the filling, subject to mitigation requirements. (3) The City is not obligated to accept the mitigation measure in place of the drainageway simply because ODSL does. However, the fact would do so influences the hearings officer to consider the merits of mitigation. Compliance with sections 18.84.040(C)(1) may be based in part on mitigation for adverse effects that could or will occur as a result of proposed filling, because that mitigation affects the extent and nature of the site disturbances. (4) The applicant proposes to mitigate loss of the natural resource values associated with the drainageway by providing a series of ponds for water to pass through before it enters the wetlands south of the site and a lowland that can be inundated during peak flows. See Figure 6 of the application to ODSL and the Corps. The proposed mitigation area is different from the existing drainageway in terms of vegetation, topography, and visual character. It will be created in an area that would be open space anyway given slopes and wetlands. The lack of details regarding the mitigation area make it hard to compare to the existing natural drainageway. The 1.: wrings officer finds the mitigation area will help maintain surface water quality on the site and will provide more wetland habitat. However, it will not replace the quality of the area that is being lost. (5) Filling the drainageway and creating a new wetland area does not minimize site disturbances. Less disturbance would be caused if a bridge were built over the drainageway or the road was moved north so no filling is required. However, assuming the drainageway is permitted to be filled for the road, then bridging the drainageway or relocating the road cannot be required. Providing the wetland mitigation area reduces the adverse effects of the filling by replacing some of what is lost. To that extent, it does minimize the long term disturbance to the functional values of the site. (6) The fill extends to a point south of the south edge of adjoining lots and from top of the bank to top of bank. See sheets 4 and 6 of the oversized drawings. The record does not show why that large an area of fill is needed to accommodate the road. The applicant should use the minimum amount of fill necessary for the road and appropriate transitions in grade to the natural elevation. It is not clear that is the case. Such a showing Page 11 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) 0 0 should be required before a permit is granted to fill the drainageway, pursuant to section 18.84.040(C)(1). (7) It is not clear from the record that the discharge from the drainageway pipeline to the ground will not cause erosion or other adverse effects on the wetland due to the volume or rate of discharge and the nature of surrounding soil and existing or proposed vegetation. Such a showing should be required before a permit is granted to fill the drainageway, pursuant to section 18.84.040(C)(2). 7. Another issue raised by Mr. Cottle and others is the compatibility between the proposed subdivision and dairy farm to the east. He argues the proposal does not comply with section 18.120, because the buffer between the uses is inadequate. a. The hearings officer finds that section 18.120 is not applicable to a subdivision, because it has not been applied to those applications in the past and does not appear to be intended for review of a subdivision. That section does not apply to single family homes, and the applicant proposes a subdivision of lots for single family homes. b. Policy 6.6 requires a buffer between different types of land uses in all areas. The hearings officer finds that residential and agricultural land use are sufficiently different to be subject to this policy. It requires consideration of the following factors in determining the type and extent of required buffer: the purpose of the buffer, the size needed to fulfill its purpose, directional factors, the required density of buffering, and the fixed or mobile character of the viewer. (1) In this case, the viewers are the residents of the subdivision. Their homes and many viewpoints are fixed within the homes. The buffer is needed between the homes and the dairy farm. The buffer should ae~?ress the noise, odors, dust, and activity associated with dairy farming. A combination o'iencing, distance, and existing or proposed vegetation should be used to mitigate these impacts together with a notice on the face of the plat or on documents filed with deeds to the property informing prospective purchasers that an agricultural activity is conducted on adjoining lands that may cause adverse effects. This mitigates the incompatibility between the uses and informs people who should be aware of it before purchasing a lot or home in the subdivision. (2) A variety of suggestions were made about what buffer to provide. The hearings officer has addressed the buffer somewhat in discussing the on-site storm water quality feature, which can serve as a buffer, too. The hearings officer finds that at a minimum, the applicant should install a 6-foot high sight-obscuring fence where a proposed single family lot abuts the farm property, establish a minimum 25-foot wide landscape area along the east side of those lots, and improve that landscape area with a minimum of two rows of trees. The east row should be conifer, the west row can be a mix of conifer and deciduous tree. Trees should be not less than 2-inches caliper at planting, with a mature height of more than 6 feet, and spaced to provide a relatively opaque barrier when mature. Documents filed with the deeds for the lots where those trees are planted shall be required to preserve them. A condition to this effect should be added CONCLUSION Based on the above findings, and the conclusions in section VI of the Staff Report, the proposed subdivision 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. Page 12 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) 0 0 ORDER The hearings officer hereby approves SUB 93-0007 and SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates), subject to the conditions in Section VI of the Staff Report, with the following amendments: 1. Condition 9 is amended to add the following sentence. The applicant shall install a minimum 6-foot high fence to the extent it does not exist already adjoining the north and south sides of the emergency road. 2. Condition 12 is amended to read as follows: 12. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order 91-47. a. The storm water quality facility shall be located outside of the wetland buffer. It shall be accessible to County maintenance vehicles. The facility and access to and around the facility shall be dedicated to the City. b. The facility shall be located in whole or part along the east edge of the site (e.g., on lots 20/21 north of the proposed wetlands mitigation area) to the extent possible while minimizing removal of vegetation and grading. c. If the facility is situated on lot 21, a 42-inch diameter maple tree on that lot shall be preserved if practicable. A qualified arborist or equivalent should participate in the design of the facility as necessary to determine whether it is practicable and, if it is practicable, should recommend measures to preserve the tree. The applicant shall comply with those recommendations. d. Public notice and an opportunity to comment on the facility plan should be provided if required by law. 3. Condition 8 is amended to add the following sentence: The applicant shall improve a temporary turn-around at or near the east end of Kent Drive within a public right of way or easement dedicated to the City, subject to review and approval of the turn-around design and dimensions by the City engineer and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. 4. Condition 11 is amended to add the following sentence: The applicant shall amend the face of the plat or file documents with deeds to the property requiring that building permits for each lot comply with erosion control measures on the approved plan, a copy of which is available from the City. Page 13 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) 9 0 5. Condition 13 is amended to add the following sentence: No increase in off-site runoff rates or volumes is allowed unless the applicant demonstrates it will not increase the potential for downstream flooding. 6. Condition 20 is amended to add the following sentence: The tree removal permit application for the proposed public improvements also shall identify trees that will be removed during rough grading of lots. 7. A new condition 22 is added to reads as follows: 22. Before the City approves the final plat, the applicant shall amend the face of the plat or file documents with the deeds to the property to advise prospective purchasers that trees larger than 6 inches in diameter at breast height cannot be removed without first receiving a permit from the City pursuant to Tigard City Code section 18.150. 8. A new condition 23 is added to read as follows: 23. The south edge of lots 38 and 39 shall be moved north at least 50 feet from the wetland. 9. A new condition 24 is added to read as follows: 24. The applicant shall install a minimum six-foot high fence at the north edge of required wetland buffer or further north. If the applicant does not install the fence at the north edge of the common open space, then the applicant shall post signs identifying the edge of the common open space and prohibiting development, clearing, grading, filling, or tree removal in that area unless approved by the planning director. Only unpaved pedestrian-oriented pathways should be permitted south of the fence, with access to the wetland at relatively few points if any. Details regarding the fence, signage and potential pedestrian walkways south of the fence are delegated to the planning director for site development review and approval. 10. A new condition 25 is added to read as follows: 25. The applicant shall amend the face of the plat or file documents with deeds to the property prohibiting development, clearing, grading, filling, or tree removal in the common open space, wetland buffer or wetland unless approved by the City. Other than utilities and water quality measures, only non-paved pedestrian walkways are permitted in the common open space, wetland buffer or wetland. 11. A new condition 26 is added to read as follows: 26. Before the City issues a permit to fill the a7-ainageway hn the west portion of the site, the applicant shall show to t~-s satisfaction of the City engineer that he will use the minimum amount of fill necessary for the road, associated utilities and drainage, appropriate transitions in grade to the Page 14 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) l~ • natural elevation, and good engineering practice and that water from the pipeline will not cause erosion at the discharge point. 12. A new condition 27 is added to read as follows: 27. The applicant shall install a 6-foot high sight-obscuring fence where a proposed single family lot abuts the farm property, establish a minimum 25-foot wide landscape area along the east side of those lots, and improve that landscape area with a minimum of two rows of trees. The east row shall be conifer, the west row can be a mix of conifer and deciduous tree. Trees shall be not less than 2-inches caliper at planting, with a mature height of more than 6 feet, and spaced to provide a relatively opaque barrier when mature. Documents filed with the deeds for the lots where those trees are planted or retained shall require lot owners to preserve those trees. 13. A new condition 28 is added to read as follows: 28. The applicant shall amend the face of the plat or file documents with deeds to the property advising prospective purchasers that land east of the site is used for a dairy farm that can cause noise, odors and other effects that could affect adjoining lands. a p 1993. D T thi4A. Larry EpsteCity of Ti gags Officer Page 15 Hearings Officer decision SUB 93-00071SLR 93-0004 (Waverly Estates) 0 4P AGENDA ITEM ~-'7-- BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Ken Waymire on STAFF REPORT behalf of R.A. and Linda Gray and Charles and SUB 93-0007 Zada Lamb for Subdivision and Sensitive Lands SLR 93-0004 Review approval. I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: Subdivision SUB 93-0007 / Sensitive Lands Review SLR 93-0004 SUMMARY: The applicant requests: 1) Subdivision approval to divide one parcel consisting of approximately 7.5 acres into 48 buildable lots ranging between 4,445 and 10,080 square feet in size; and 2) Sensitive Lands approval to allow to allow grading and filling for construction of street improvements on land designated as a wetland and for modifications to land with a slope greater than 25 percent. APPLICANT: Ken Waymire 31835 SW Country View Lane Wilsonville, OR 97070 OWNERS: R.A. and Linda Gray PO Box 1016 Sherwood, OR 97140 Charles and Zada Lamb 13770 SW Fern Tigard, OR 97223 School District 231 13137 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre) LOCATION: A portion of land on SW 92nd Avenue between Tigard High School and Cook Park (WCTM 2S1 14A, tax lots 100 and 1000) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.102, 18,108, 18,150, 18.160 and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 1 0 4k II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Backaround Information: The City Council approved the redesignation of tax lot 1000 from Low- Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential, and a zone change from R-7(PD) to A-12 (later R-12), on December 5, 1983. The Hearings officer approved CUP 90-0001 on July 17, 1990 allowing the southern portion of the property in question to be developed with four ball fields and associated site improvements. This approval was valid until January 27, 1992. A one year extension was requested and granted thereby extending this approval until January 27, 1993. Since 1992, substantial modifications of the ball field area and wetlands have been completed to allow continuation of the conditional use approval. There are two additional applications filed in conjunction with this application. A lot line adjustment (MIS 93-0002) was approved on March 11, 1993 which added a portion of the Tigard High School site (tax lot 100) to the subject parcel. Also, minor land partition (MLP 93-0003) has been approved which divides tax lot 100 into two parcels. These adjustments have not yet been made at Washington County. For this reason only, Tigard High School is listed as property owner in this application review. These three application processes could have been reviewed as one application, however there is no requirement obligating the applicants to do so. There have been no other applications filed with the City for this site. B. Vicinitv Information and Surroundina Land Uses: The Tigard High School property is located to the north of the subject site. Kneeland Estates Subdivision lies to the northwest. Cook Park lies to the west and south of the property. These neighboring properties are zoned R-4.5 and are located within the city of Tigard. The Thomas Jersey Dairy Farm which is within unincorporated Washington County is located to the east and southeast of the subject property and is designated Low Density on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. To the northeast and east is the unified Sewerage Agency's Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. These properties are designated for Light Industrial use in the City's Comprehensive Plan and are zoned Industrial Park (I-P). Access to the subject property is provided by SW 92nd Avenue, which extends southward from Durham Road to Cook Park. Southwest 92nd Avenue is' functionally classified as a minor collector street by the City's Transportation .Plan Map. Southwest 92nd Avenue.is. not fully,: improved adjacent to the subject site. C. Site Description: Tax Lot 1000 consists of 26.27 acres.' The approval of Minor Land Partition MLP 93-0003 reduces the size of the subject site to 11.12 acres. The parcel is located on a wooded hillside which drops a vertical distance of 50 feet over a linear distance of approximately 448 feet. Approximately 3.57 acres of the site is undevelopable due to HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 2 0 steep slopes and wetlands. The property is completely undeveloped. The site also contains a mixture of grasses, brushy vegetation and mature trees. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS A. Communitv Development Code. 1. Chapter 18.54.050 contains standards for the R-12 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 35 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 land criteria. Since the applicant proposes to modify the drainageway and to modify slopes greater than 25 percent grade, a sensitive lands permit shall be required as per section 18.84.0151D1. This section states that such a permit shall be { obtained before construction or development begins within these areas. The approval criteria for modifications to drainageways are listed in Section 18.84.0401C1. 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 BEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 3 9 0 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 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. 3. Chapter 18.88.040(C)(1) 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 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 up to eight feet in height. 6. Chapter 18.108.070 contains standards for single-family residential vehicular access. A common private accessway which serves between three to six residences must be a minimum of 30 feet wide with a minimum pavement width of at least 24 feet, curbs and a walkway. 7. Chapter 18.150.020(E) requires a permit for removal of trees having a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground on undeveloped residential land. A permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria as specified in Chapter,18.150.030 (hl: 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; HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 4 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 ORS 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 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.E 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. C. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 21 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. d. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. e. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUS 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 5 0 • f. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. B. ADDlicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. 1. 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 3.1.1 provides that all development in areas identified as containing wetlands and slopes in excess of 25% grade be designed to comply with approved engineering techniques to make the area suitable for the proposed development. 3. Policy 4.2.1 provides that all development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards. 4. 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. 5. Policy 7.3.1 provides the City will coordinate water services with water districts. 6. Policy 7.4.4 requires all new development to be connected to an approved sanitary sewer system. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9.' 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; HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 6 • 0 e. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or signals shall be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Tigard Water District states that, although they have no objections to the proposal, the District will require that an 8 inch D.I. water main be extended from SW 92nd Avenue to the east end of the project. Fire hydrant placement will be coordinated between Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue and the Water District. 2. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has commented: a. A water quality facility, designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorous from the runoff from 100 percent of the new proposed impervious surface, should be installed. This project does not meet the criteria for allowing the fee in lieu of such a facility. The following information should be required with the plan for the facility: Calculations of phosphorous removal. Landscape plan of the facility. Maintenance plan of the facility. b. A hydrological analysis of the watershed to determine the impact of a 100 year storm on the downstream facilities should be required. C.; The 25 foot undisturbed corridor shall be contained in a tract, separate from any lot, and should be fenced. The water quality facility cannot lie within the undisturbed corridor unless additional buffer area is mitigated. d.l Washington County Flood Plain Maps, Corps of Engineer maps and FEMA maps all indicate the flood plain elevation in the area of this project to be 126 feet above mean sea level, not 125 feet as indicated on the applicants plans. Does the City of Tigard have differing information? t e.l Detail drawings of manholes, catch basins, backfill, etc., have not been included with this set of plans. Catch basins shall have an 18 inch sump. f. A redesign of public storm lines will be necessary due to the water quality facility requirement. 'The existing plan does not provide for footing drainage for many of the lots. In particular, lots 24, 25, 26, 33, 34 and 43. A drainage plan is needed showing that flow will be dissipated before leaving the lot when discharging footing and roof drains to the common area. g. It looks like the sanitary sewer could be designed so there are not so many wetland/sensitive land crossings. The Agency would HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 7 9 0 not approve the long laterals serving some of the lots. It looks questionable as to whether the lots on the south side of SW Kent Drive can be served by gravity based on the five foot contour lines. 3. GTE has reviewed this proposal and has requested that the developer/builder contact GTE at least 30 days prior to trench opening. 4. The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has commented that there are no provisions for storm drainage from lots 24, 25, 26, 33 and 34. 5. Tiaard School District 231 has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the proposed development is projected to generate 18 new students for Durham Elementary School, 6 students at Twality Middle School, and 4 students at Tigard High School. The School District notes that school capacities at the High School and Durham Elementary School are already exceeded, although Twality Middle School is presently below capacity. The District notes that the core facility of both the High school and Durham Elementary School are insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. 6. Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO 6) reviewed this application on March 17, 1993 and requests that the City postpone the March 30 hearing date to enable the NPO to review the staff report and any other reports available prior to the hearing. In addition to the March 17 NPO meeting, which was staffed by Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, the applicant attended a previous NPO meeting to-discuss the basic design of this subdivision with those attending. This previous meeting was also attended by Associate Planner Jerry Offer. The staff recommendation is available for public review at least seven days prior to the public hearing. When NPO comments, and comments submitted by other utility and reviewing agencies, are submitted within the review period, they are included within the staff recommendation. All agencies and the public have an opportunity to review this recommendation, along the entirety of the applicant's file, prior to the public hearing. Additional verbal or written testimony may also be presented during the public hearing. The NPO also requests that approval of the associated minor land partition (SUB 93-0003) be subject to the approval of this subdivision request. The intent is that if the subdivision is denied, there is'then no reason to partition this lot into two parcels. While the City understands that this may well be the case, this is not a justifiable reason for the City to deny a reasonable and legally approvable land use request. Due to the timing of these two applications, the City will recommend a condition of approval requiring the recording of the land partition prior to the recording of the final subdivision plat. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 8 7. A letter was submitted to the City on March 17, 1993 from the Friends of Cook Park. This letter recommends that the following provisions be adopted in the approval of this subdivision request. The recommended provisions are: a. Provide a wetlands impact statement from an alternative source other than the developer. STAFF - The developer shall be required to file applications with the Division of State Lands and/or the Corps of Engineers for approval to modify the wetlands. b. Provide a wildlife impact statement indicating a plan of how to maintain the present wildlife. STAFF - No separate wildlife impact statement is required by the City. Rather, this shall be addressed as a portion of the wetland and habitat information provided in order to obtain the appropriate State permits. C. Reduce the number of homes to meet the recommended criteria. STAFF - See analysis under Section V. d. Homes located west of the Thomas Dairy will have a buffer of trees and open space. STAFF - The City Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinances do not allow the City to require a buffer between these two specific uses. An on-site water quality facility is recommended near the southeast corner of the site. This facility will provide a partial buffer between these uses along a portion of the common property lines. e. Provide a buffer of trees between the development site to protect wetlands and create a buffer between proposed baseball fields and potential homes. STAFF - A 25 foot buffer around the perimeter of the wetland is a standard requirement. There is no code provision to require that the potential future baseball fields be buffered from these proposed residences. f. Storm drains to drain into filtering system set up by USA prior to entering the wetlands. STAFF - 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. Section 7.10 of Resolution and Order No. 91-47 list three criteria for not requiring a on-site facility. One of these three criteria are: "the site topography or soils makes it impractical, or ineffective to construct an on-site facility." See analysis in section V regarding the City's determination to accept a fee-in-lieu of the installation of such a facility. g. Cul-de-sacs to be no more than 400 feet long. STAFF - This application request does not propose a cul-de-sac for the public street. The temporary dead-end at the east end of the site will be required to terminate with a temporary turn-around. h. Maintain all existing streams and vegetation. No placing streams in pipes. STAFF - The State of Oregon Division of State Lands has HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 9 0 0 the jurisdiction to review and approve applications for wetlands modifications. Displacement of wetlands requires either on-site of off-site mitigation. The City of Tigard Engineering Division will review all drainage and land form modifications proposed on this site. i.~ Eliminate alley ways (inlets) that are on a steep hill and extend into wetlands. This poses safety issues for fire and pedestrians. STAFF - The locations of the proposed three private streets are not wetland locations. The wetlands are located south of these streets, and south of the lots which are to be served by them. The proposed private streets, and a number of lots, are located within areas with greater than a 25 percent slope. Approved grading plans shall be to Engineering Department standards and ' acceptable to the Tualatin Valley Fire District. j.' Limit number of trees that are cut. No fir trees over six inches in diameter. STAFF - The Community Development Code (Section 18.150) allows for trees to be removed as necessary to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development proposed. The applicant may remove those trees for which the City has issued permits. Trees smaller than six inches in diameter when measured four feet above grade are exempt from the City's tree removal permit process. k. The developer will aid financially in the development of a trail from Cook Park to Tualatin Park. STAFF - The City is not able to obligate participation for such an off-site improvement for this development application. The burden which would need to be demonstrated would be to show that the specific need for the trail is a direct result of the creation of this specific subdivision. Regional participation may be requested through other means. 8. Portland General Electric and Northwest Natural Gas have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Compliance with Communitv Development Code. 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the use standards of the R-12 zoning district (Section 18.54.050) because the lots are intended to be developed as single-family detached dwelling units; a permitted use in this zone. The 48 lots ranging in size between 4,445 and 10,080 square feet are all larger than the minimum 3,050 square foot minimum lot size requirement of this zone. All lots are subject to the setback standards of the R-12 zone. Compliance with these standards will be reviewed as part of the building permit application process for single-family homes constructed on individual lots. The site plan indicates two open space areas; one in the northwest corner of the site and the other in the northeast corner. The City contends that these two open spaces should be incorporated into, and become part of, the adjacent lots HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 10 0 0 rather than be unmaintained areas. This shall be recommended as a condition of approval for this development. 2.; The applicant has indicated on page 3-8 of the preliminary plat, the area of the site containing slopes of greater than 25 percent grade. This is a "U" shaped area which roughly covers the portion of the site between the wetland buffer and the proposed Kent Drive. Prior to any such modifications on-site, the applicant shall submit, and receive approval for, such grading plans from the City of Tigard Engineering Department. All applicable City standards shall be met. Wetlands have been identified on the southern portion of the site. Northwest EnviroScience, Inc. has performed a wetland delineation and preliminary mitigation concept plan for the site. The development of this site will require the filling of approximately 0.15 acres. The mitigation plan calls for a wetland creation area of 0.2 acres and an enhancement area of 0.2 acres. The mitigation will take place on the southeast corner of the site. The identified wetlands and the mitigated wetlands are classified as sensitive land areas under Resolution and Order No. 91-47. This classification requires that an undisturbed corridor be provided which is a minimum of 25 feet wide; measured horizontally from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area. The applicant has defined the sensitive area and provided for this required 25 foot buffer. At the time of application for this development, the applicant had not made application to the Corps of Engineers or the Division of State Lands. The applicant should be to required to apply and meet the requirements of the Oregon Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers as they pertain to the wetlands and their mitigation. 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 application of the minimum required standards in order to provide adequate access to the proposed lots on this site. The applicant's 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 less than 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 shall be approved by the City Engineering Department upon future review. Erosion control measures and approved engineering designs shall be used for all such modifications. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 11 0 0 C. The water flow capacity of the drainageway will not be decreased. Plans verifying this standard 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 mitigated on-site 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 not been applied for regarding the proposed land form modification/development plans. This shall be a condition of approval for this development. 3. Twenty-eight of the lots meet the basic solar access requirements as specified in Code Section 18.88.040(0)(1) (lots 2-16, 24-27, 33-35, 38, 42-45, and 48). 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. Lots 46 and 47 do not have front lot lines oriented within 30 degrees of true east-west. The balance of the lots lack a the required 90 foot north-south dimension; some of these lots also lack the required front lot line orientation. The applicant's narrative states that protected solar building lines shall be applied to lots 1, 28, 31 and 36 according to the provisions allowed in Section 18.88.040(C)(2). Therefore, these four lots shall comply with these requirements. Of the total number of lots, Ten of the lots can be counted as the standard 20% exemption from these solar lot requirements. The balance of these lots (six lots) are accepted by staff as exceptions to these standards as per Sections 18.88.040(E)(1)(a)(ii) and (iiij. There is wetland area located on the south portion of this site within which the applicant is proposing no development and only a small amount of mitigation. 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 desired road pattern in this area, the applicant is limited in ability to create fully solar lots without i significantly reducing the total number of lots. Therefore, is it recommended that the balance of these 48 lots (seven lots) 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 328,639 square feet (7.55 HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 12 0 0 E acres); the gross site is approximately 11.12 acres. With a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet per dwelling unit, this site yields an opportunity for 107 dwelling units under the R-12 zoning designation. The applicant has proposed the creation of 48 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 18.164.060181 (Lot Frontage) are satisfied in that at least 25 feet of frontage is provided for all lots; including those served from private streets. Therefore, all proposed lots meet the required lot frontage widths as specified by this code standard. 7. The applicant has provided a tree inventory for this site, but has not yet applied a tree removal permit for this site as required by Section 18.150.0201E) (Tree Removal). Therefore, prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit, the applicant shall supply a map specifying the trees being requested for removal as they relate to: 1) public improvements - infrastructure, and 2) building envelopes. This information shall identify the type and size of all trees on this site which are greater than six inches in diameter relative to each tree removal permit application. 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-12 zone, and other applicable regulations; b. The proposed name of the subdivision (Waverly Estates) is 4 not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County; 4 C. The proposed public streets provide for adequate and safe ' I access to the lots in this proposed subdivision. This preliminary plat also provides for a future extension of a i proposed street stub abutting adjacent property. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 13 9. 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: Access to the site is gained from SW 92nd Avenue which is classified as a minor collector and has the following minimum standards (all distances are from centerline): 30 feet of right- of-way, 20 feet of pavement, curb and sidewalk. Existing conditions reflect 25 feet of right-of-way, 12 -14 feet of pavement, no curbs or sidewalk. The applicant is proposing, and should be required, to bring SW 92nd Avenue up to minimum standards along the 50 foot frontage of the development. The applicant is proposing to serve the development with a local east/west street. Three private streets with "hammerheads" are also proposed to serve the southern portion of the site. The applicant is proposing, and should be required, to meet all local/private street standards for such streets. At the eastern terminus of the local east/west street, the applicant is proposing to install a 20 foot wide strip extending to SW 85th Avenue. This improvement is entirely on property which is part of tax lot 1000. This 20 foot wide strip will be dedicated and improved for fire access as well as a bike/pedestrian path to SW 85th Avenue. B. Sanitarv Sewer: There is an existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer line located along the southern property line to which the applicant is proposing to connect to serve this development. This line has the capacity to accommodate this development. C. Storm Drainaae: The applicant is proposing to collect the storm water at various points within the subdivision and direct it toward 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. Section 7.10 of Resolution and Order No. 91-47 list three criteria for not requiring a on-site facility. One of these three criteria are: "the site topography or soils makes it impractical; or ineffective to construct an on-site facility." The applicant has requested that a fee in-lieu be imposed because of the steep slopes. The Engineering Department has noted the following concerns with requiring a water quality facility on this site: HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 14 0 a. The only place to install a facility is downstream, which is either on steep slopes (greater than 25 percent) or in the wetlands buffer area. b. If a facility was installed, the City would be required to maintain it. Installed in such an area as described above would add extra ordinary maintenance cost and concerns. The runoff from all 48 lots is proposed to be discharged into the existing wetland. The effect that the phosphorus contained in the runoff will have upon the wetland area is of primary concern. The obligation of this development proposal is to provide such a facility unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is either unnecessary, or impossible. The City finds that the coneruction of a water quality facility on this site is both possible and necessary. The City finds that two options exist: a. Place the facility to the south of lots 28 - 37. An access roadway for maintenance purposes would need to be constructed. This roadway could be placed between lots 44 and 45 above the storm drain. This option would necessitate the removal of a large :,amber of mature Cedar, Alder and Fir trees. The necessary grading would probably cause a greater encroachment into the wetland. b. Place the facility in the location of lots 20 and/or 21 and/or 22. This would cause the developer the loss of one to three proposed building lots. The facility could be accessed through SW Rent Court. The City recommends that the facility be provided in the location of lots 20, 21 and/or 22. This option would create a lesser environmental impact. Additionally, the City's concerns regarding the affect of the odor, noise and flies from the adjacent Thomas Dairy upon the future residents of these lots would be mitigated by utilizing one or more of these adjacent lots for a required water quality facility. Therefore, the applicant should be required to install an on-site water quality facility to serve this subdivision. D. Wetlands: Wetlands have been identified on the southern portion of the site. Northwest EnviroScience, Inc. performed a wetland delineation and preliminary mitigation concept plan for the site. The development of this site will require the filling of approximately 0.15 acres. i The mitigation plan calls for a wetland creation area of 0.2 acres and a enhancement area of 0.2 acres; all to be done on-site. The identified wetlands, and the mitigated wetlands are both classified as sensitive areas under Resolution and Order No. 91- HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 15 0 0 47. The sensitive land area criteria requires that an undisturbed buffer be provided which is at least a minimum of 25 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area. The applicant has defined the sensitive area and has provided for the 25 foot buffer as required. At the time of application for this development proposal,, the applicant had not yet made application to the Corps of Engineers or the Division of State Lands. The applicant should be to required to apply and meet the requirements of the Oregon Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers as they pertain to the wetlands and their mitigation. B. Comnliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies 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 #6) 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. This proposal is consistent with Policy 3.1.1 because evidence of the acceptance of a Division of State Lands wetlands mitigation plan shall be required as a condition of approval. All grading and improvement plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the City of Tigard Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any site permits. 3., 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 construct an on-site water quality facility as required by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission and USA regulations 4. 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. 5. The subdivision proposal complies with Policy 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 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 creation of SW Kent Drive and Thorn, Lloyd and Kent Courts will be required to be improved consistent with the City of Tigard standards for public local and private streets respectively. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 16 9 0 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 93-0007, and Sensitive Lands Review SLR 93-0004 for the proposed Waverly Estates 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. 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. 2. 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. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to incorporate the common areas in the northwest and northeast corners of the site into the adjacent lots. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomeroy, Planning Department 4. 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. 5. Prior to this subdivision plat being recorded with Washington County the Lot Line adjustment and Minor Land Partition, referred to in the City of Tigard Planning records as MIS 93-0002 and MLP 93-0003, respectively, shall either be approved and recorded prior to or recorded simultaneously with this subdivision plat. 6. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW 92nd Avenue frontage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. 7. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground of utilities shall be installed along the SW 92nd Avenue frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to minor collector street standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 17 0 0 8. 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. 9. The applicant shall provided for emergency access from the eastern terminus of the local street to SW 85th Avenue. This access shall include dedication of right-of-way, bike/pedestrian access, and some type of breakaway access control which will prevent motor vehicles from using the path except for emergency vehicles. The access control shall be approved by the Tualatin Valley Fire District. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. The applicant may pay the fee in-lieu for that portion of the site which cannot be directed through the water quality facility. The final determination as to the amount of the fee, if any, shall be established by the City Engineer. 13. 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. 14. A grading plan shall be submitted showing both 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. 15. The applicant should be aware that the City of Tigard has adopted Chapter 70 of the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code. ' The grading plan shall comply with all requirements of this chapter. 16. Prior to the plat being recorded with Washington County the applicant shall provide a 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment. As an alternative the applicant may have the plat recorded after the public improvements have been accepted by the City of Tigard and has posted the appropriate Maintenance Bond. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 PAGE 18 17. 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. is. 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 payment of all permit fees. 19. 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. 20. 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 public improvements. 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: 21. 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 EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. i Prepared By: Ron Pomeroy Assistant Planne I ff Approved By: Dick BewVanner Senior HEARINGS OFFICER - GRAY-LAMB / WAYMIRE SUB 93-0007 / SLR 93-0004 IS SUBMITTED WITHIN Date z3rP.3 Date PAGE 19 s HphALET -TIGAR' V 111G1A SCVAOpI. c N ~ f ~ f ■ U1 3 y P no t. ---A - i 4 us 1 Ito ii r~ 1 Northwest Civil asign, Inc. 1 9130 SW Pioneer Carr, Suite E, Wisonvile. Oregon 97070 50316824M7 01 City Of Tigard Planning Division 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Narrative For The Subdivision and Development Of Waverly Estates Located On The East Side Of S. W. 92nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon Ladies and Gentlemen: February 25, 1993 Project No. 92-195 We are proposing the subdivision and development of the property on the east side of S. W. 92nd Avenue, between the High School and Cook Park into medium density residential housing to the appropriate City standards. This project zoned R12. A site development plan has been compiled showing a project creating 49 residential lots. Lot sizes vary from 4,445 square feet to 10,080 square feet. This site has an area of 11.12 acres with a developable area of 7.55 acres. `It is our intent to configure the lots to provide a lot depth to width ratio not exceeding 2.5 to 1 as required by City Code. Basic requirements for solar access are met by all lots except lots 1, 18 through 23, 28, 31, 36, 40, 46, and 47. Protected solar building lines are to be applied to Lots 1, 28, 31, and 36. This results in a 83% compliance prescribed by City of Tigard design standard. A clear vision area will be provided at the street intersection with S. W. 92nd Avenue. S. W. 92nd Avenue will have additional right-of-way dedicated to create a 30 foot wide right- of-way from centerline. A half-street improvement along the frontage of this project (S. W. 92nd Avenue) is planned to create a 20 foot wide street from centerline. On-site public street improvements (Kent Drive) are planned to create a 34 foot wide street within a 50 foot wide right-of-way. A 20 foot wide strip within a 50 foot wide right-of-way will be dedicated and improved for fire access as well as a pedestrian path to S. W. 87th Avenue. At the time of our pre-application, we indicated design for public street access to lots with circular , cul-de-sacs. The plan has been modified to a private street concept with hammerheads. The private streets will be designed to meet the requirements of City code to include a minimum of 24 feet of paved street with curbs on both sides and sidewalks on one side. 7.. -1- Domestic water and fire service will be supplied by connecting to existing Tigard Water District waterlines near this site with fire hydrants provided as designated by the Tualatin Fire and Rescue District. A sanitary sewer system will connect into an existing 12" City of Tigard sewer system near the southern boundary of this project. As part of the purchase agreement on this property, storm water runoff will be allowed onto the property to the south of this project. This runoff will be managed such that the quality of wetland areas will be maintained. Due to steep slopes, wetlands, flood plain, and heavy tree cover on portions of the site, we feel it is impractical to construct a water quality swale facility. We are requesting to pay the "fee in lieu of" due to these issues. As requested during the pre-application process, it is our understanding that a lot line adjustment and minor partition map will be submitted by Mr. Gray as part of his agreement. We have adjusted the preliminary plat boundary to accommodate the lot line adjustment and minor partition map. We have submitted as part of this application preliminary maps showing how Mr. Gray's surveyor will accomplish their work. Relative to Code 18.84.040 Approval Standards Section (B) we ask that the application be approved for a sensitive lands permit for this site which includes areas with slopes greater than 25 percent based on the following criteria: The development plan is intended to include provisions for constructing adequate access for homesites and will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required. Areas of the site which are occupied by slopes greater than 25 percent are indicated on the enclosed "Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Sheet 3". Provisions will also be implemented to address erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. If any wet soil conditions, high water table, high shrink-swell soils, compressible/organic soils, or shallow bedrock are encountered at this site, appropriate geotechnical input will be included for this project. Where natural vegetation is removed as part of this development, it will be replanted in accordance with Chapter 18.100. Relative to Code 18.84.040 Approval Standards Section (C) we ask that the application be approved for a sensitive lands permit for this site which includes existing drainageways based on the following: As indicated above, the proposed development will be designed in a manner which minimizes site disturbances and addresses erosion, sedimentation, ground instability or other adverse on-site and off site effects or hazards to life or property by appropriate means. The water flow capacity of the drainageway will not be decreased by this project. Erosion control measures will be implemented in areas where natural vegetation will be removed in accordance with Chapter 18.100. The drainageways will be replaced by a public utility designed to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals will be obtained for this project. It is our -2- 1 Northwest Civil Design, Inc. 6 6 understanding that recent negotiations with the southerly property owner, Mr. Robert Gray, to adjust the common property boundary have resulted in adequate open land area and suitable area for a pedestrian/bicycle path within Mr. Gray's property. In addition, we understand that the required maintenance access roads within the proposed public easements will be constructed on Mr. Gray's property. As requested during the pre-application conference, we have enclosed the agreement between the subject property owners relating to storm drainage easements and surface runoff to the southerly property. Relative to Code 18.84.040 Approval Standards Section (C) we ask that the application be approved for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based on the following criteria: A 25 foot setback will be maintained along the northerly boundary of the wetland as shown on the enclosed "Preliminary Subdivision Plat", Sheet 3. The required Division of State Lands wetland fill permit will also be applied for as part of project. The project will be designed in such a manner as to minimize site disturbances as indicated above. Any encroachment or change in on site or off-site drainage which would impact wetland characteristics will be mitigated as part of the project (see enclosed Wetland Delineation/Mitigation Reports). Erosion control measures will be implemented at this site according to Chapter 18.100. To our knowledge, all other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter will be met. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, will also be met. Design of this project will satisfy the physical limitation and natural hazards, flood plain, and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, recreation and open space policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It should also be stated that this development will help to alleviate some of the need for additional housing in the area and will. provide prime access for families to existing educational and park facilities closeby. - Sincerely, NORTHWEST CIVIL DESIGN, INC. Dennis D. Smith, President Engineering Manager DDS:Ivn Enclosures: -3- Northwest Civil Design, Inc. • t Waverly Estates Proposal March 30, 1993 I live in Tigard at 11396 SW Ironwood Loop, 97223. I visited the site of this proposal on March 20, 1993. I am a professional wildlife biologist with an MS degree in the subject. I have worked over twenty years in the field for various public agencies, and have experience with wetlands, forest and desert environments and endangered species. The Waverly Estates Proposal will impact wildlife in the area in three fundamental categories: the woodlands, the wetlands, and water quality. Sensitive woodland creatures such as blacktailed deer will probably be completely driven out. These woods will no longer function as a natural system and there is no proposal to mitigate that. The development is too close to the enhanced wetland. Public access is being encouraged where it will be damaging to sensitive wetland species such as little green herons and great blue herons. They may be driven out of this area or their presence greatly reduced. There are no proposals to mitigate this impact. The development will decrease the water quality in the wetlands and impact the food chain (e.g. fish, frogs, the raccoons which eat them). The in lieu payments proposal will not mitigate for this. I recommend that lots 44, 45, 47, and 48 be dropped and dedicated as woodland habitat mitigation. This would also protect the water quality in those drainages and the wetlands downstream. Additionally I would pull lots 38, and 39 back to the 135 foot contour line. I recommend eliminating or greatly reducing the size of lots 21, and 22. The common use area should be fenced and native thorny plants such as wild rose planted on the far side to discourage entry. One controlled viewpoint could be constructed for people to view the area without leaving a trail. This will mitigate the impacts to sensitive wildlife in the area, and lessen the impacts on water quality. Doug Smithey /~C D aZ ri EKMAN 8 BOWERSOX ATTORNEYS AT LAW JEFFREY A. BOWERSOX 850 LINCOLN TOWER DONALD J. EKMAN 10260 5. W. GREENBURG ROAD MARK O. COTTLE PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 GREGORY C. NEWTON' (503) 452-5858 April 2, 1993 City of Tigard Att: Mr. Bewersdorff - Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Greetings: FAX (503) 452-5867 -AL50 ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA RECEIVED PLANNING APR 5 1993 This is an addendum to my open letter presented at the hearing regarding the Application of Waymire 93-0007/SLR 93-0004. There are several issues that needs to be raised: 1. At the hearing, the, Hearing Officer indicated that-encasing the drainageway may be the only means-available in order to adequately develop the property even if doing so may interfere with the natural drainage of the area. There are other options: a) Put a bridge over the drainageway - although more expensive, it would maximize the natural drainage area and require less land alteration, preserve the natural area to a greater extent and create less erosion. A bridge would more fully comply with 18.84.040. b) Require the entrance roadway to come in further north thereby missing the majority of the drainage area. Some other conditions that would be deemed appropriate are: 2. -Require the water quality facility to be placed between the subdivision and farm. This will ,provide..a safety buffer between the farm and the subdivision. Post-!t" brand fax transi 1. dientlcottle%dgardJtr To L - q A e Co. t Dept. Fax# nittal memo 7671 1 #of pages ► 2- (From &w'l j r,._ M I COIC 1~'t4 -9) I ° q)A (Phone # I ~ q 1-71 (Fax # °I 17111 City of Tigard April 2, 1993 Page 2 3. Require eight-foot fence to be put between the farm and the subdivision. There is a safety concern for both the farm and the subdivision. 4. Require a drainageway to be placed along the subdivision and farm's common boundary line so as to ensure that there will not be "off-site effects or hazards" to the farm property from the drainage of additional water from the development. 5. Require all trees and natural vegetation that are removed to be replanted in a natural area next to the farm. The natural area could serve as the backyard of homes, but could not be altered by the homeowners. Thus, maximizing the land use and maintaining adequate wildlife habitat. 6. Require a traffic impact statement regarding the increased volume to the existing streets, and the proposed expansion onto 85th. The traffic impact statement should review all intersections on Durham that would be effected. The above conditions along with those proposed in my first letter, would more fully satisfy the requirement of 18.84.040 as well as provide adequate safety measures to be taken to ensure the safety of the citizen's of the new development. Very truly your , . Cottle Z _5M2 MOC/lrp copy: Client 2 - dient~catIIcWprdjtr HrfS ~ vli 1 Y v vvv • • t • v a March 26, 1993 40, aegon Waverly Construction Co. 9130 SW Pioneer CourL, Suite E Wilsonville, OR 97070 Re: State Permit No.: RF 7271 Wetland - Fill Dear Applicant: we received yoiir application for the place-rent of fill in a wetland area in Tigard, Oregon. Please use the above referenced State permit number on all future correspondence. Based on your application, a State hermit w311 be required. Your application will be sent to appropriate State agencies, local governments, a 7acent property owners and other interested persons or review and comment. You must also receive authorization, when required, from the U.S. Army Corps of Ingineers and local planning department before beginning co struction. DIVISION OF STATE LANDS "TATP I AND BOARD BARIJAKA ROBERT'S (;twernor PI 111. KU[SUNG &trrviarv of $tata IIM 1fII.i. Slate Tnmsurcr initial review of your application indicates that compensatory mitigation (replacement oEI filled or drained wetlands and waterways) will be require as a condition of permit issuance. For projects requiring compensatory mitigation applicants must complete the enclosed Compensatory Mitigation Form as part of the permit application. A permit application fee of $450.00 (Base Fee c $375.00 + volume Fee - $75.00) is required for your project to complete your state application. Pl~ase remit by April 19, 1993, and reference your remittance to State Permit No. RF 7271. I have been assigned to coordinate youx project. Please call me at 378-3505, ext. 234 if you ha`e any questions. Sincerely, William L. Parks Staff Biologist WLP/lhs per; 295 Enclosure cc; Dale Harlem, U.S. Army Corps of Fngineers Dana Siegfried, Dept. of Environmental Quality Ron Rathburn, Enviroscience, Inc. 0 775 Summer Street NE Salem, OR 97310-1337 (503) 37R-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PORTLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. o. eox 29x6 PORTLAND. OREGON 97206-2946 Reply to March 17, 1993 Attention of: Planning and Engineering Division SUBJECT: Permit Application No. 93-167 Waverly Construction Company ATTN: Dennis Smith 9130 SW Pioneer Court, Suite E Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Dear Mr. Smith: We have received your application for Department of the Army authorization to place approximately 950 cubic yards of fill material in 0.15 acres of drainage channel wetland in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. Approximately 0.57 acres of existing wetland will be enhanced and 0.15 acres of wetland will be created as mitigation for the wetland area filled. Based on the information included in your application, the proposed work would be authorized under the terms of an existing nationwide permit found at 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, Section B. NW26. However, water quality certification from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not been issued for this nationwide permit. Therefore, we cannot authorize the proposed work until water quality certification is granted by DEQ. by: Water quality certification for your proposed work will be considered Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ATTN: Ms. Dana Siegfried 811 SW. Sixth .venue Portland, Oregon 97204-5694 By copy of this letter, we are notifying DEQ of your proposed work. When water quality certification has been issued or waived, you must provide a copy, along with any imposed conditions, to this office. If the conditions of the concurrence are considered appropriate for inclusion in our permit authorization, we will provide verification that the proposed work is authorized. 0 A -2- In addition. you must obtain or aDDly for hermits, where required, under Oregon's Removal/Fill Law and aohrohriate local authorizations. If you have any questions regarding our nationwide permit authority, please contact me at the above address or telephone (503) 326-6996. Sincerely, Dale Haslem Project Manager Regulatory and Environmental Resource Branch Copies Furnished: DSL DEQ w/Application Enviroscience, Inc - Ron Rathburn "r-m ,hill jJ A .~VUV 141tY~+LlG:l 1't [?t ..l V.l Y~lVV 3.! U S Army Corps of Engineers Portland District Corps Action ID Number Dote Received i 0 JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM TH6 APPUCAMN WILL MES THE REAUREMEMA, OF BOTH AGENCIES D'+strict Engineer ATIN: CENPP-PE-RP P O Box 2946 Portland. OR 97208-2946 5031326-7730 Oregon Division of State Lands Number Date Rec~lved - - State of Oregon Division of Stote lands 775 Summer Street NE Salem OR 97310 503137"805 r- - Y,1 - (1) Applicant Name Waverly Construction Company and Address 9130 SW. Pioneer Court, Ste R Wilsonville, OR 97070 9D Authorized Agent Mr. Ron Rathburn O Contractor ENVIR[ISCIENCE, INC. Name and Address 1201 S.W. 12th Avenue, Ste 410 97205 Property Owner (t different than applicant) Name and Address ® Pu+aJEcT LocAilo4 Street, Road or other descriptive location I South of SW Durham Road, Between SW 92nd Ave & Auarf9r SW 85th NE In or Near (City or Town) County Tax Mb # Tigard Washington Waterway River Mile Latitude Business phone # 694-5505 home phone # business phone # 241-0373 home phone # business phone # home phone # Leocl Des; Section 14 ription Township Range 2 South 1 West Tax Lot Longitude Is consent to enter property granted to the Corps and the Division of Slate Lands? OD Yes 0 No (3) PROPOSED PROJECT INFO A71ON Actlvity Type: 0 Fill 10 Excavation (removal) 0 In-Water 5 cture 0 Maintain/Repoir on E)osting Struc- lure Development of a residential area with a ociate wetland mitigation Brief Description: Fill will involve 0 cubic yards annually and/or cubic yards for the total project Fifi will be 0 Riprap 0 Rock 0 Gravel 0 Sand Q Silt 0 Clay 0 Organics 0 Other Fall Impact Area is 0.15 Acres: 7-n ~ length: width: depth Removed will involve n cubic yards annually and/or _ 9Sn cubic yards for the total project Removal witl be 0 Riprap 0 Rock 0 Gravel 0 Sand 1 6silt 0 Clay 3 Organics 0 Other Restllovcrl Impact Area is _ 0.1 !5 Acres: _j-7-tn If length: --Zo/ width. ~ g + depth Estimated Start Date oPen Estimated Completi n Dote q will any motedd. construction debris, runoff, etc, enter awe Hand or aterwoy? I& Yes 0 No if yes, describe the type of discharge and show the discharge location on the site plan. See attachment i 43. tr b41 b1 4~trc~1-Ftri I :.11.1~t'F~b~~7.~ Y tJJ tay J COUNW PLANNING D£PAR'RAENT AFFIDAVIT © (lo be completed by local plan Ling official) OThis protect Is not regulated by the local comprehensIve plan and z ming ordinance. OThis project has been reviewed and is consistent with the local com arehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Ofiis project has been reviewed and is not consistent with the local c omprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. ,Consistency of this project with the local planning ordinance cann( t be determined unftl the following local approval(s) are obtained: OConditiond Use Approval OPtan Amendment Pother J. visi~rJ 0 Development Permit Ozone Change An a plication has 0 has not been made for local approvals checked above. Signature (of local pl pning official) 'Title City] ounty COASTAL ZONE CezriflCAnON 3- '--T - ? Date It the proposed activity described in your permit applicatio i is within the Oregon coastal zone, the following certification is required before your application can be processed. public notice will be issued with the certification statement which will be forwarded to the Oregon Department of Land onservalion and Development for its concurrence orobjection. For additional Informchon on the OregonCoastalzono Mal I iagernen t Program, contact the department at 1175 Court Street N5. Salem, Oregon 47310 or coil 503(373-0050. Certification Slateme I I certify that. to the best of my knowledge and belief. the pro osed activity described in this application complies with the approved Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program an will be completed in a manner consistent with the progrcm. Applicant Signature 0 SIGNATURE FOR JOINT Ap!tcATION (REQUIRED) Date Application is hereby made for the activities described herein. 1 certI6. that I am familiar with the information contained In the appGcalon, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this infon'n Lion is true, complete, and accurate. 1 further c ertify that I possess time authority to undertake the proposed activilies. I erstand that the granting of other permits by local, county, state or federd agencies does not release me from the re irement of obtaining time permits requested before commencing the project I understand that local permits may be re "red before the state removal-fill permit is issued. I understand that payment of the required state processing fee does t guarantee permit Issuance. 1 t priCanr sgnafGie Dole I certify that I may act as the duty authorized agent of the applicant. 'Author2ed Agent,%gAature Data D Sposm PkoizcT PuRPon & D RIPIIQH ioject Purpose and Noed: Devel.oprrent Of a residential area south of Tigard High .ho01 and along the northern boundary of the site. The development of this site will require the filling of 0.15 acres to accomo dat~ an acCess road into the residential community and associated wetland mitigation. tote Description: 1. A wetland delineation and preliminary mitigation con ept plan of the site was performed (see attachment for details) 2. To offset the wetland loss that is required for the xsnstruction of an=access roadway int-) the development, a mitigation plan has been developed (-see figures 5 and 6) with the follow- ing objectives: - Create a wetland that will replace the structure and function of the wetland area that will be impacted. - Create a drainage swale and water retention basin to augment the existing area and provide additional relief from runoff. - Enhance the existing scrub-scrub wetland through a-emoval of Himalayan blackberry vines in the flood plain. {ow many project drawl ig sheets are included with this application? NOTE: A complete application must include drawings and a location map submitted on separate 814 X 11 sheets. PROJECT IMPACTS AND AvrER1 Describe alternative sites and project designs that were corxsidered to a Ab alternative sites were considered in this evaluati figuration of the property. An initial evaluation of resulted in: 1. a reduction in the number of storm d 2. the development of rock dissipaters 3. redesign of the storm drainage line wetlands and d impacts to the waterway or wetland. due to the limited size and con- esign impacts to the existing wetland, ins intersecting the nrorerty, minimize site erosion avoid transecting the southerly 4. the inclusion of additional storm drains to maintain the wetland mitigatior_ area. Describe what measures you will use (before and after construction) to m1 wnee impacts to the waterway or we ond. We will be minimizing impacts to the wetland during con'struction and ensuring that the mitigation plan develops into a viable wetland by: 1. Placing mats under heavyecfuipment in order to preve ~t sinking caused by concentrated loadF 2. Installing silt fences where necessary along the bcmdary between the proposed develop- ment area and delineated wetland.to prevent transport sediment. 3. Excavation and planting of the area will be managed y a qualified wetland biologist to protect the existing wetland and validate the planting ocedures. This latter work would be coordinated with a landscape architect, who would p pare a landscape or planting plan to assist in the final design of the wetland mitigatio At this phase a periodic evaluatioi would be performed. and corrections instituted as requi to adhere to the prcrmsed plan. (Continued..) NOTE. if necessary, use additional sheets. Ca) MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATtc N Adjoining Property Owners and their Addresses and Phone Numbers Tigard High School 9000 SW Durham Road Tigard, OR 684-2255 Charles & Zada A. ianb R.A. & Linda D. Gray Ust all other approvals or certificates received, applied tor, or denied that are related to this applicotiDn. Issuing Agency Type of Approval Identification Number Dates of application / Approval / Denial IPPLEMENTAL WETLAND IMPACT INFARMATIOA ToR WErLAw Fus ONLY) Site Condifions d impact area impact area is 0 Ocean 0 Estuary 0 River 0 Lake 0 Stream QD Freshwater Wetland Note: Estuarian Resource Replacement is required by state law for projeots Involving intertidal or tidal marsh citerations. A separate Wetlvnds Resource Compensation Plan may be appended td the application. Has o wetland delineation been completed for this site? C3 Yes 0 No if yes, by whom: Ran Rathburn EnvironScience, Inc. Describe the existing Physical and biological character of the wet t, and/waterway site by area and type of resource (use separate sheets and photos, if necessary) See attacbe)mt "Results and Discussion" Resource Replacement Mitigation Describe measures to betoken to replace unavoidably impoctedd wetIgnCI resogces f the created wetland basin woul inclu a sedimet collection, The functional values o biofiltering of stormwater drainage, fiood'cvntrol and groundwater recharge. Due to the level of adjacent development, the habitat value o this wetland is considered to be of moderate importance. The removal of 0.15 acres of wetland along a drainage channel will remove vegetation and wetland soil along the drai geway. The area will be culverted to maintain the existing hydrology. Primary impacts w ould be associated with the initial lots of impacted wetland vegetation with tiro tradeoff a enhancing a previously impacted area and the creation of additional wetland to provide ncreased biofiltering within a flood- plain. The planting schedule for this project wil commence after excavation and site preparation has been completed according to the p oposed mitigation plan. It is pre- sently anticipated that the shrubs will be planted in October with the initial ground- cover seeding to occur in early November. If regw, red, a second mixture of groundcover will be applied during the Spring. A monitoring program is proposed to protect the de elopment objectives and ensure that the mitigation plan develops into a viable wetland (se k section 5 of this application for details) Because this information Is not necessary for a complete application,,ou may submit this sheet and other environ- mental Information after submitting your apprication. • 0 (CONT. SECTION 5) During construction, along with the lilt fencing placed at the bottom of the steep bank, straw covering will be used, and if seasonal, the bank will be vegetated Siltation ponds will be installed on existing tributaries or dvainage swales to the creek. After construction all inlets will be oily/waste type catch basins with sediment traps. ,*v PUM 444 46~ I PROJECT AREA Figure i I I` I i 1 I I ,I I I i I_ HI I\ J ~ V IiL~IY 1 V UY Nom. 1 4 1 CYyU .ll VUZ. .1 f.IJ~V..~UU l~ I ~C~~`•~'. !.r rl:0:r ~yll~f'_._-.a - jYl~. ~~~~!~1,~ 3~~ .b~ 5 7X. z.: r P • 18 rYt~~.--",~~ - a "'rl• G . ' ~ O/J t ~~1. ai y~r•'- : rte! r141 ~~~~~r 1~: s ~.-t 3A 1 37A I - hC" .I s~ 1 1 y^"J 71 LC' 13 Q'1 -jam • iJ SID - ~ f;sSS'"` lii`..~ - ! Y"a~.-•♦ Ij.. , 1. • _ _ :i: SAS' ~ l~~ f•'! 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ - : ~r~ Zia ~ ~ ~ ~!A I37A ' M..~.J"• B by ( - •37n ~ 1 ~ 1/'cam 30 364, •ti.Y ~ •1 i \II Y ~ IA1 r - Y 'IA 1 I.L. r- - tW- -~C: i ~Ei 7t e SOIL NJAP 3fa84767243bL31 +bL APR- 5-93 MON 14:06 0 5 t-J 3G 4.7 dUV is 1 - Jit-_ _ _ .wl4~P s 1 i I Y rf f f 4 I 1 J 1'~ r'y l~ fir ~ ''z:~ -rt-s.• - to WETLAND DELINEATION 9- .1-14 Figure