Loading...
Hearings Officer Packet - 06/08/1998? f CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER JUNE 8, 1998 -1:00 P.M. A'R EN 0 A 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION Subdivision (SUB) 98-0001 Variance (VAR) 98-0002 LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the north side of SW Walnut Street at its intersection with SW 114th Terrace; WCTM 2S103AB, Tax lots 00600, 00700, 02000, 02100 and 02200. PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an area consisting of five (5) lots totaling approximately 220,413 square feet (5.06 acres) into 22 lots ranging between 7,507 square feet to 8,347 square feet; 2. A Variance request to allow an approximately 500-foot long cul-de-sac, whereas, the Tigard Community Development Code states that the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 400 feet; and 3. A second Variance request to allow 22 lots to have access via a cul-de-sac, whereas, the Code states that no more than 20 lots can have access off of a cul-de-sac. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Low Density Residential; 4.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.40, 18.50, 18.84, 18.88 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARING's OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 6 CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER JUNE 8,1998 - 7:00 P.M. TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 cnyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sig"A" sheet(s). PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ? Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and ? Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above if you are requesting such services. (OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 2 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 0 0 A6ENDA ITEM NO, J• / [PII6E / -OF / 1 DATE. ?" - 7 ' I F PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Prooonent - (Soeakina In Favor) Annnnont - Mnookinn AnnincM Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Ph a No. ) t?t?/ i 2Z S, w . I I to-r-H . AVM zzZ3 510-3? Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. JILR-R--f A • B ???TT 113Lt5 SuJ WAlOOT ST. T'copfLl') . oR . aZa.a3 1c3?-gSloq Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Clotu-sect C(oL4_ ? S? I rates SILL) lwa.C"c,c. T• ca. v- 7 -3 3r?• 33 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, . dres.% and Pho e o. /' VV `- n 1 ij ? (0 4 S? 1,rrs ?tlz-D 1 -7 zz3 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. L_ - Name, Address and Phone No. 0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard/Planning • ? Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall -Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • ? Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Kathy _ ?,riPr being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-T„a 1 at i n mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published atTi clard in the aforesaid county and state; that the a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: May 28,1998 Subscribed and sworn before me this-2 ??n ,1998 I0 tary Public for Oregon\ My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT Legal TT 9142 Notice The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Mon- day, June 8, 1998 at 7:00 P.M., at Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public, oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be con- ducted 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 accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the hearings authority and all parties to respond precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a com- ment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further infor- mation may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98.OOOINARIANCE (VAR) 98.0002 > WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION < The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide ap- proximately 5.06 acres for the creation of a twenty-two (22) lot Sub- division. This application also involves a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard cul-de-sac design standards. The applicant states that existing development constraints, surrounding pattern, topog- raphy, existing configuration of the subject site boundaries, and the lack of existing and future street connections combine to create an extra ordinary hardship for this application which necessitates this cul-de-sac variance. LOCATION: The subject sites are located on the north side of SW Wal- nut Street at its intersection with SW 114th Terrace; WCTM 2S 103AB, Tax Lots 00600, 00700, 02000, 02100 and 02200. ZONE: Single-Family Residential - 7,500 Square Feet or 5,000 Square Feet Per Unit, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The purpose of the.R-4.5 Zoning District is to es- tablish standard urban low density residential sites. The R-4.5 zone al- lows, among other uses, single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Com- munity Development Code Chapters 18.40, 18.50, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. M142 - Publish May 28, 1998. EXHIBIT I' CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, JUNE 8,1998 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0001 VARIANCE [VAR) 98-0002 FILE TITLE: WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: Bill Wagoner APPLICANT'S Ken Sandblast Riverside Homes REPRESENTATIVE: Compass Corporation 16666 Greenbrier Parkway, Suite 140 6564 SE Lake Road Beaverton, OR 97006 Milwaukie, OR 97222 OWNERS: Eva Sweeney, Wayne Thompson, Kent & Brenda Wizer, Ken Kvamstrom, and Dianne Kvamstrom (Ownership location and addresses available upon request). REQUEST ? The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide approximately 5.06 acres for the creation of a twenty-two (22) lot Subdivision. This application also involves a request for approval of a Variance to the City of Tigard cul-de-sac design standards. The Applicant states that existing development constraints, surrounding pattern, topography, existing configuration of the subject site boundaries, and the lack of existing and future street connections combine to create an extra ordinary hardship for this application which necessitates this cul-de-sac variance. LOCATION: The subject sites are located on the north side of SW Walnut Street at its intersection with SW 114th Terrace; WCTM 2S103AB, Tax Lots 00600, 00700, 02000, 02100 and 02200. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.40, 18.50, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. ZONE: Single-Family Residential - 7,500 Square Feet or 5,000 Square Feet Per Unit, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The purpose of the R-4.5 Zoning District is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. The R-4.5 zone allows, among other uses, single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. SUB 98.OOOINAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF 6098 HEARING'S OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT W EN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPO?ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARM. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRE ED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER MAY 19, 1998, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND 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 TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25?) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER JULIA POWELL HAJDUK. ASSOCIATE PLANNER AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. G1 SUB 98-0001NAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF 618/98 HEARING'S OFFICER PUBLIC HEARING • • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Riverside Homes for approval of ) FINAL O R D E R a preliminary plan to divide 5.06 acres into 22 lots and variances ) to the maximum cul-de-sac length and to the maximum number ) SUB 98-0001 of lots with access to a cul-de-sac for land north of Walnut ) VAR 98-0002 Street at SW 114th Terrace in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Walnut Glen) I. SUMMARY A. This final order concerns an application by Riverside Homes (the "applicant") to subdivide property located on the north side of Walnut Street at the intersection with SW 114th Terrace (the "site"). The applicant proposes to divide the 5.06-acre site into 22 lots. All of the proposed lots comply with dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 zone. A single family detached dwelling will be built on all but one of the proposed lots. An existing residence is proposed to be retained on proposed Lot 6. A second existing residence will be removed. B. The applicant will extend public sewer and water service to each lot. The applicant will dedicate right of way and construct half width improvements along the site's Walnut Street frontage. The applicant proposes to dedicate and improve SW 114th Place (designated 114th Court on the preliminary plat) as a roughly 500-foot long cul-de-sac street north of Walnut Street. The CDC prohibits a cul-de-sac street from being more than 400 feet long or serving more than 20 lots. The applicant requests variances to those standards. The applicant proposed to construct two private streets extending from the cul-de-sac street. All proposed lots will be served by the proposed cul-de-sac or private streets. A homeowners association will be created to own and maintain the tracts containing the private streets. C. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from impervious areas and to direct it to a surface water facility in a tract on the north end of the site for treatment. Treated stormwater will be discharged to Summer Creek northeast of the site. The applicant will dedicate to the City the tract containing the stormwater facilities. D. At the public hearing in this matter, City staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. See the Staff Report dated May 28, 1998 (the Staff Report). The applicant accepted the staff recommendations with exceptions. Three neighbors testified orally and in writing with objections and concerns. The hearings officer held the record open for one week to allow the public to review and comment on the evidence submitted at the hearing. The hearings officer held the record open for an additional week to allow the applicant to submit a closing statement. The principal issues in this case include: • If the applicant must provide a public street stub to the east edge of the site; • If the whole pole portion of the proposed flag lots must be at least 25 feet wide; • If the applicant must provide access to the stormwater and sewer facilities in proposed Tract A separate from the driveway serving the adjoining lot; • The adequacy of the proposed stormwater plan; • The traffic impacts of the proposed development; • The potential impacts of clearing on this site; and • • • The compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area generally. E. For the reasons provided and referenced in this final order, the hearings officer approves the preliminary pladfor the subdivision and approves the variances substantially as proposed, subject to the conditions recommended by City staff with certain modifications described more herein. H. HEARING AND RECORD A. Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the hearings officer) held a duly noticed public hearing on June 8, 1998 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. The following testimony was offered at the hearing. 1. City planner Julia Hajduk summarized the Staff Report and proposed development. She testified that the applicant must modify the plat to provide at least 25 feet of frontage for each lot, and that flaring the flag poles for lots 4, 8 and 13 to achieve 25 feet of frontage at the street is not adequate to comply. This may reduce the total number of lots which can be developed on this site. The applicant also is required to extend a public street to the east boundary of the site to allow for future extension when the abutting property is further developed. She argued that the adjoining property could be developed with more than 6 lots pursuant to the density transfer provisions of the Code. The Code prohibits private streets serving more than 6 lots. In addition, providing private street access to abutting properties can create problems with maintenance requirements and access rights. 2. City engineer Brian Rager testified in support of the condition requiring the applicant to extend a public street stub to the east edge of the site. He also testified the applicant should be required to provide access to the stormwater facilities and sewer manhole in Tract A separate from the driveway for proposed lot 13. Separate access is necessary to ensure parking on lot 13 does not obstruct access for City maintenance vehicles. If joint access is permitted, restrictions should be noted on the face of the final plat. Parking, fences, structures or other activities which obstruct access to the sewer and stormwater facilities must be prohibited. If a manhole is provided between proposed lots 14 and 15, it must be located in a tract. He opined that the applicant's preliminary drainage plan adequately addresses drainage on the site. He testified that the City is unlikely to install a stop sign on Walnut Street, a major collector. He testified that Washington County plans to provide a traffic signal at the intersection of Walnut Street and 121st Avenue. The City plans to extend SW Gaarde Street to intersect Walnut Street. These improvements will reduce traffic volumes on Walnut Street. 3. Ken Sandblast appeared as the representative for the applicant. He introduced a revised preliminary plat and topography map of the site and surrounding area. a. He argued that the proposed variances are necessary, because the surrounding land use pattern makes it impracticable to comply with the Code. b. He argued that shared access to the stormwater facilities and lot 13 can be provided. A provision could be included in the CC&Rs prohibiting parking or other uses which interfere with access to the tract. He opined that Tract A may be too small to accommodate separate access. In the alternative, a sewer manhole could be provided within an easement between proposed lots 14 and 15, west of Tract B. c. He argued that the revised preliminary plan shows that all lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on a street. He argued flaring the flag pole for lots 4, 8 and 13 Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-OOOIIVAR 98-0002 (Walnut Glen) page 2 • • where they abut the street is consistent with the plain meaning of the words in the code. The applicant could essentially avoid compliance with this standard by combining. proposed lots 7 and 8 for purposes of the subdivision. The applicant could then file a partition to create two lots without compliance with the 25-foot frontage requirement. d. He argued that a public street stub to the east is not warranted. The existing residence on the abutting property would prohibit further extension of a public street. In addition, development on the abutting property is limited by the accessibility of sanitary sewer service. Only those portions of the abutting site above elevation 180 feet above mean sea level ("msl") could be served by gravity flow sewers. e. He testified that the owner of the "Cloud" property east of the site would like to connect the existing residence to public sewers. The applicant is willing to provide this connection if reasonably practicable. 3. John Fulton testified that he has a 100-foot tall radio tower on his property, located west of proposed Lot 16. He testified that the existing trees on lots 14 through 16 screen the tower from view and from wind. He expressed concern that clearing on this site will expose the trees on his property to greater wind velocities and may cause them to fall onto the guy wires for the tower, potentially causing the tower to fail. He also expressed concerns about stormwater runoff from this site. He currently has problems year-round with standing water on his property. 4. Jerry Bennett testified that he owns the triangular shaped parcel abutting the southeast portion of the site. He argued that the applicant should be required to extend a public street to the east boundary of the site, rather than the proposed private street. He objected to the proposed density of development. He requested the hearings officer hold the record open to allow an opportunity to review the new information submitted by the applicant at the hearing. 5. Claudia Cloud, the owner of the property east of proposed Tract C, also requested the hearings officer hold the record open. 6. In rebuttal, Robert Mazany appeared as the arborist for the applicant. He testified that there is a potential for high winds to cause trees to fall. However proper pruning can reduce the risk. Trees in the adjacent Leron Heights development have had little maintenance. These trees need crown pruning to reduce the potential for failure to an acceptable level. 7. Also in rebuttal, Mr. Sandblast testified that the applicant is aware of the stormwater issue on adjacent properties. The applicant will prepare a final stormwater plan consistent with the requirements of the Code. He noted that the applicant proposed to develop the site with less than the maximum density allowed under the Code. He offered to submit a copy of the tree mitigation plans to Mr. Bennett. He opined that the proposed private street can be extended to serve the adjacent property east of the site. There is no need for a public street. If a public street is required, the applicant should be allowed to modify the plat to provide a private street in the event the adjoining property is developed with 6 or fewer lots. B. The hearings officer held the record open for 7 days to allow interested parties an opportunity to submit additional written testimony in response to the new evidence presented at the hearing. The hearings officer held the record open for an additional week to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit a closing statement. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-0001NAR 98-0002 (Walnut Glen) page 3 • • III. DISCUSSION A. City staff recommended approval of the application based on findings and conclusions and subject to conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report. The applicant accepted those conditions with exceptions. The hearings officer agrees generally with most of those findings, conclusions and conditions, and adopts the affirmative findings in the Staff Report as support for this Final Order except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Final Order. B. There is a dispute about whether the future street plan should be approved, because it provides for the extension of a private street rather than public street to the east of the site. The hearings officer fords that a public street is required in this case. The relevant regulation is CDC 18.164.030(F). That section provides that a public street should be extended to the edge of a site if necessary to give access to or to permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land. a. The hearings officer finds that the proposed private street limits potential development of the abutting property. The abutting property, tax lot 403, contains roughly 2.41 acres which could be developed with a maximum of 11 lots. CDC 18.164.030(S)(3) prohibits private streets serving more than 6 lots, except in planned developments. Therefore the hearings officer finds that the proposed private street limits future development TL 403 and a public street is necessary. (1) The hearings officer concedes that development of the abutting property is limited by topography. Development on the northern portion of the site is further constrained by steep slopes and wetlands near Summer Creek. In addition, the applicant testified that only the southern portion of the site can reasonably be served by existing gravity flow sewers. However these development constraints could be partially avoided through the residential density transfer provision. CDC 18.92.030. (2) The hearings officer finds that a reasonably prudent developer will develop property to the maximum extent feasible. It is not reasonable to assume the abutting property will be developed with only 6 lots. In addition, more than one of the abutting properties could be combined and developed as a single parcel. That is how this site was created; therefore it is reasonable to assume the abutting properties could be developed in a similar manner. Also, as occurred on this site, existing structures could be removed to enhance the development potential of the abutting property. (3) Therefore the hearings officer finds the applicant must construct a public street stub to the east edge of the site to serve future development on adjoining lots. C. There is a dispute about the density of the proposed development. It was argued that the density should be reduced. City staff and the applicant point out that the proposed density is within the range permitted by the R-4.5 zone, and the proposed lots comply with the dimensional minimums in that zone. Because the proposed plat complies with the comprehensive plan map designation and zoning of the property, it must be approved. The Code does not authorize the City to require larger lots. Although the proposed lots are smaller than adjacent lots, they contain compatible uses (single family detached dwellings). D. It was alleged that clearing on this site will expose trees on adjacent sites to greater wind impacts, increasing the possibility that trees will be blown down during storms. The hearings officer acknowledges that the existing vegetation on this site may serve to buffer adjacent properties from strong winds. Clearing on this site will eliminate that buffer effect. However the Code does not prohibit such impacts. Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-00011VAR 98-0002 (Walnut Glen) page 4 • 0 a. The applicant offered to prune the trees on Mr. Fulton's property to reduce their "sail" and failure potential. The hearings officer finds that a condition of approval is warranted to this effect consistent with the offer the applicant made at the hearing. However such a condition should reflect that Mr. Fulton must allow the applicant to enter his property to fulfill the condition. If he declines such consent subject to reasonable constraints, further compliance with such a condition should be waived. b. The applicant also offered to plant additional trees on parcels adjacent to the site and to work with Ms. Cloud to plant trees along their common boundary to mitigate the loss of trees on this site. If these off-site trees are to be counted towards the applicant's required mitigation, the applicant must record deed restrictions or similar limitations on removal pursuant to CDC 18.150.045. E. There is a dispute about the adequacy of the storm water drainage features proposed for the site. Although the concern is a reasonable one and is sincerely expressed, the only substantial evidence in the record about the storm water system supports a finding that the proposal complies with relevant City standards in CDC 18.164.100. See, e.g., Staff Report, p. 24. The hearings officer accepts the testimony of Mr. Fulton regarding storm water ponding on his property. However there is no evidence that the proposed development will exacerbate this existing condition. The applicant is not required by law to remedy that condition. F. There is a dispute about the required lot width. Staff argue that the entire flag pole portion of the proposed flag lots must be at least 25 feet wide. a. CDC 18.164.060(B) provides: Each lot [in a subdivision] shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an alley, for a width of at least 25 feet ...unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit in which case the frontage shall be at least 15 feet." (Emphasis added). b. Construing this section as a whole, the hearings officer concludes that CDC 18.164.060(B) requires 25 feet of frontage for single family detached lots. CDC 18.26.030 defines "frontage" as "the portion of a lot which abuts a road." The hearings officer finds that the Code does not require this "frontage" to continue the entire length of the flag pole portion of a flag lot; only that portion of the lot which "abuts" the street. c. In this case, all proposed lots have a minimum 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. The 15-foot wide flag pole portion of the proposed flag lots is sufficient to accommodate a 15-foot wide access and a 10-foot wide paved driveway as required by CDC 18.108.070(A). Therefore the hearings officer finds that the preliminary plat complies with the access and frontage requirements of the Code. Condition of approval 7 as proposed by City staff should be deleted. (1) The City may have required a 25-foot flag pole for flag lots in prior cases. However the hearings officer finds, based on the above analysis, that the prior conditions were not supported by the Code. Conditions of approval imposed in prior cases have no value as precedent, because they are not land use regulations. G. The hearings officer finds, based on the traffic study, that area roads can accommodate the additional traffic generated by this development. The traffic study was prepared by a licensed professional engineer based on actual traffic volumes. Future traffic volumes were Hearings Officer Final Order SUB 98-OOOIIVAR 98-0002 (Walnut Glen) Page 5 • • estimated using accepted methods of calculation based on the type and amount of development proposed. The unsubstantiated opinions of local residents about what the traffic effects will be is not sufficient to overcome the expert testimony in the traffic study. H. The hearings officer finds that separate access to Tract A is not necessarily warranted. The Code does not require separate access. Restrictions can be imposed to ensure reasonable access is available to the City facilities in Tract A via a single, shared accessway. Construction of a separate accessway would likely reduce the number of lots which can be developed on the site. The applicant should be required to grant an access easement to the City allowing access to Tract A over lot 13. The easement should prohibit parking, fences, gates or other structures, conditions or uses of lot 13 which restrict the City's use of the easement for access to the tract. The easement and its restrictions should be shown on the face of the plat to notify future owners of them. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. IV. CONCLUSION The hearings officer concludes that the subdivision and variance applications do or can comply with the relevant standards and criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) as provided in this Final Order, provided the application is subject to conditions of approval that ensure the final subdivision plat and subsequent development will comply with applicable CDC standards and criteria. Therefore those applications should be approved subject to such conditions. V. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions provided or referenced in this Final Order, the hearings officer hereby approves SUB 98-OWlNAR 98-0002 (Walnut Glen) subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report with the following changes: A. Condition of approval 5 is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.D. Prior to clearing on the site, the applicant shall submit to Mr. Fulton a written offer to prune the trees on his property by an arborist or similar landscape professional to reduce their potential exposure to high winds. The written offer shall summarize the proposed pruning, i.e. when the trees will be pruned and the scope of pruning proposed. The offer shall provide Mr. Fulton a reasonable opportunity (no more than 30 days) to accept or reject the offer in writing. Mr. Fulton's failure to respond within the designated time frame will be construed as a rejection of the offer. Mr. Fulton may accept the offer subject to reasonable restrictions on when the work may be performed and subject to a requirement that the applicant hold the owner of the property harmless for any damage resulting directly from the pruning activities. B. Condition of approval 7 is hereby deleted. C. Condition of approval 26 is hereby amended to read as follows: 26. The applicant shall grant to the City an access easement over lot 13 allowing City vehicles, personnel and equipment access to the sewer and stormwater facilities within or abutting Tract A. The easement shall expressly prohibit any development or use on lot 13 which could interfere with the City's use of the easement, including fences, gates or structures of any kind, and shall Hearings QB uer Final Order SUB 98-OWIIVAR 98-0002 (Walnut Glen) Page 6 expressly require the owner of lot 13 to pave and maintain a driveway in the access easement in a good and workmanlike manner so that it is contin- uously accessible to and safe for access by the City and its employees and agents. The easement shall be approved by the City attorney. 29th dwr6fl e, 1998. Larry E stein," City of ar 4fVngs Officer Hearings OYIcer Final Order SUB 98-00011VAR 98-0002 (Walnut Glen) Page 7 • "EXHIBIT A" -- PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) Record was open to citiaen input 6/9 - 6/15 Received: 6/25/98 1:23PM; 503 684 7297 -> MCKEEVER/MORRIS EPSTEIN DULKEN ; Page 2 06/25%98 13:07 V50304 7297 CITY OF TIGARD• Q002/002 Number Minimum Number Dwelling of Driveways Minimum Minimum Pavement t iced Access width width 1 or2 1 ls' 10' 3-6 1 25' 20' TMC Chapter 18.108.070 A. - Figure 19. Vehicular Access/Egress Minimum Requirements: Residential Use `~`r Reformatted 1994 • MEMORANDUM • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner DATE: June 23, 1998 City of Tigard Community Development Shaping A Better Community SUBJECT: Walnut Glen Subdivision Enclosed are materials submitted to the file on Walnut Glen Subdivision while the record was open to citizen input (June 9, - June 15). Only two items were received: a letter from Claudia Cloud and letter from Ken Sandblast, representing the applicant. No materials were received during the 7 day applicant rebuttal period, ending June 22, 1998. Staff has provided a response to the input provided by the applicant which is included in this packet at well ppN I w s I PLAN SCALE: 1 20 I I I I I y I I? I 3 I I I I II TRACT A' WOLF ;674 SF m x . . QDr 17- Z ? I H I i 13 7,681 Sr. \ ? ••, I I I I I N I?' Ii4 I w t AS' 14 )t 7 aF 12 7301 SF +^ ? Ay ?. tr TRACT B' 15 ??? 1f 7,6871 .. 7.312 SF a Dr taa' \ /WADOWOLADE i Yl ' 18 • ?" f0 7,329 Sr ? 73J0 ? h \ 44 102' .,,TRACT 'C' I t 17 7320 SF f8 7339 SF 9 'wr aF 10 19 Ilk 7a c aF 73218 F ! •e 7,390 IF. I srt?rr-,l P.? v 1?' ror ? -Jtc 20 k B 7,307 IF 5 . g? / ps• pr 7574SF.I a' 1 ?, ar s TRAC D' 21 7, 339 Sr. 4 ? 7649 S.F. I DY - 22 ,g 1 ,- 4347SF. )g 76N aF 1J. ?gfItFE . WA RIVERSIDE HOMES 15455 NW GREENBRIAR PKWY, SUITE 1401 ERTON BEL:V645 09?66REGON 97006 mIg P LIMI AR PLAT COMPASS CORPORATION WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION E ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PLANNING TIGARD, OREGON 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD (503) 853-9093 PHONE - S MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 (503) 853-9095 FAX v\w/z\+v/zucnr, U41ZO/W Al ID:Ia • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner q DATE: June 23, 1998 SUBJECT: Response to applicant letter for Walnut Glen Subdivision As you may recall, in the hearing staff mentioned that there had been precedent set for interpreting that the 25 foot frontage for subdivisions must go all the way along the access drives for panhandle lots. Staff mentioned that one such case had recently been before the Hearings Officer. The subdivision was Brie Woods. The applicant states that the issues between the Brie Woods subdivision and the Walnut Glen Subdivision are not comparable because the discussion was over the width of the access drive back to the subdivision, not the lot frontage. Staff disagrees with this. While the main issue of the hearing was not regarding the 25 foot frontage, within the body of the decision (page 15 of the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer) it clearly states that the entire length of the flag pole must be a minimum of 25 feet. Furthermore, this was the precedent for the frontage requirement before and after the Brie Woods Subdivision decision. CJ RECEIVED JUN 15 1999 June 15, 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Tigard Julia Haj duk Regarding WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION; I'd like trees planted along my property line to compensate for the loss of privacy due to the proposed removal of trees on the WALNUT GLEN PROJECT. I believe Riverside Homes has offered to do this. If possible, I'd like spruce or cedar trees planted eight to ten feet apart along the line dividing my property from the subdivision. The proposed private road stubbed to with utilities should be adequate for needs. Mr. Sandblast indicated that road would be included in the WALNUT Homeowner's Association Plan. 684?, my property line Claudia Cloud 11285 5. W. Walnut St. Tigard, uregon 97223 future development upkeep of this private GLEN SUBDIVISION N 1? W E S TO: COMPASS CORPORATION ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - PLANNING 6564 S.E. Lake Road N ilwaukie, Oregon 97222 CITY OF TIGARD DATE: ATTN: Ms. Julia Hajduk ?AS REQUESTED ?OTHER JOB NO./PROJECT NAME: 4072 - Riverside Homes ENCLOSED ARE: COPIES DESCRIPTION 1 Additional information involving File No. SUB 98-0001 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: ?FOR YOUR APPROVAL FOR YOUR USE REMARKS: COPIES TO: Riverside Homes JUNE 15, 1998 ?pzo® 4,0 6 HOC\C???\ COMPASS CORPORATION BY: KEN SANDBLAST (503)653-9093 FAX (503)653-9095 9 N W + E S COMPASS CORPORATION ENGINEERING - SURVEYING 6564 S.E. LAKE ROAD MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 June 15, 1998 Ms. Julia Powell Hajduk City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 - PLANNING (503) 653-9093 FAX (503) 653-9095 RE. File No. SUB 98-0001- Walnut Glen Subdivision Application Dear Ms. Hajduk: The enclosed materials are submitted in response to the hearings officer's request for further written information at the June 8, 1998 public hearing involving the tree mitigation plan and future street plan on the adjacent parcel to the east of the subject site As per our March 20, 1998 correspondence, the tree mitigation plan proposed by Riverside Homes involves: (i) oversizing the required 2" caliper street trees to 3" inch caliper trees, (ii) planting a minimum of two trees on each proposed lot, (iii) offering to plant 2" caliper trees on parcels adjacent to the subject site, (iv) offering to have professional tree maintenance performed on existing trees on parcels adjacent to the subject site, and (v) mitigation fee payment to the City of Tigard. Riverside Homes is prepared to provide the items included in this tree mitigation plan as per the applicable provisions of Section 18.150. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the 8.5" x 11" revised preliminary plat I submitted during the June 8, 1998 public hearing. The enclosed copy further clarifies a future potential development scenario for the adjacent parcel to the east (namely, "Cloud Property") based upon topographical breaks, the location of Summer Creek and associated wetlands, the location of existing residences on the Cloud Property and adjoining parcels, and Ms. Cloud's expressed desire for limited future development on her property. Also enclosed is a copy of the 8.5" x 14" map I submitted at the public hearing illustrating the subject site and surrounding area to the east including topography and existing house locations. Based upon this information, the private tract proposed by Riverside Homes to serve the Cloud Property is the most appropriate street access to provide while still allowing viable future development to occur. In addition, Riverside Homes is prepared to work with Ms. Cloud to plant trees along their common property line. • 0 Ms. Julia Powell Hajduk June 15, 1998 Page 2 Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Brie Woods Subdivision Staff Report and Hearings Officer Final Order, specifically City of Tigard File No. SUB 97-0009. A copy of both of these items are enclosed with this letter for ease of reference. As stated at the public hearing, city staff believes this case provides precedence to the issue involving accessway width regarding individual lot driveways and minimum frontage width requirements. After reviewing the provided materials and speaking with the applicant's representative in the Brie Woods application, I do not believe the issues are similar enough to warrant comparison or citation as precedent. The main issue in Brie Woods was whether or not a five foot variance to the required 25 foot private drive width standard to serve the five proposed lots was warranted. At issue in our application is a lot's 25 foot minimum street frontage width and individual lot accessway width requirements. To reiterate my testimony at the June 8, 1998 public hearing, Lots 4, 8 and 13 satisfy: (i) Section 18.164.060(B), by having 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street and (ii) Section 18.108.070(A) by providing the minimum 15 feet wide driveway with 10 feet of pavement. These two code provisions combined with their overall size and dimensions support the fact that Lots 4, 8, and 13 satisfy the R-4.5 zone's dimensional requirements. In addition, the fifteen foot driveway area for each of these three lots is excluded from the calculated lot area for each lot. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, G Kenneth L. Sandblast Enclosures cc: Riverside Homes KLS:n:\plan14072\recordopenltr.doc b m / / / o ooa r0 _-- - lJ N 09 ?X 0 p ? ? H: ' eo C O x co \ n ? ^1 0 T ? ' 000 \ i 0 x ti ! n x Q ,` O COPY CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER c* BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER CITY OF TIGARD Community Oevelopment ShgpingA Better Community Case Number(s): SUB 97-0009 / CUP 97-0007 I VAR 97-0019 / VAR 97-0021 Case Name (s): BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION Name of Owner. T.P.B. Properties. Howard Quandt Name of Applicant: Matthew Sprague. Waker Associates. Inc. Address of Applicant: 11080 SW Allen Blvd.. Ste. 100 City: Beaverton State: Oregon Zip: 97005 Address of Property: 14255 SW 103rd Avenue City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97224 Tax Map & Lot No(s).: WCTM 2S111BB, Tax Lot 01900 Request -> A request for the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 1.52 acre parcel into five (5) lots ranging between 10,018 square feet to 12,154 square feet; 2. Conditional Use Permit approval to allow one (1) of the lots to be permitted for the construction of a duplex; 3. Variance request to allow an approximately 470-foot long cul-de-sac, whereas, the Code states that the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 400 feet; and 4. Variance request to allow a 20-foot-wide access drive, whereas, the Code states that the minimum access width shall be 25 feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.130, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Zone: Residential, 3.5 Units Per Acre; R-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. The R-3.5 zone allows, among other uses, single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures. Action: -> 0 Approval as requested ® Approval with conditions Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: 9 CUP Denial D Owners of record within the required distance © Affected governmental agencies © Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator I7 Applicant and owner(s) Roal Decision: % THE BECISION M11- BE:FINAL ON: MABCK.n' 1998 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED..: The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290 (B) and Section 18.32.370, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within ten (10) days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee(s) of $1,745.00 plus transcript costs, not in excess of $500. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 PA. ON MARCH 11;1998: . Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. SUB 97.00091CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019NAR 97.0021 BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION NOTICE OF HEARING'S OFFICER FINAL ORDER BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THh CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by T.P.B Properties for approval ) FINAL Q R D R of a prelimilmy plan to divide 1.52 acres into 5 lots, a ) SUB 97-0009 conditional use permit for a duplex on one lot, and variances ) CUP 97-0007 to access standards for land at 14225 SW 103rd Avenue ) VAR 97-0019/21 in the R-3.5 zone of the City of Tigard, Oregon (Brie Woods) L S y A- This final order concerns an application to divide 1.52 acres into 5 lots. All of the proposed lots comply with dimensional requirements of the R-3.5 zone. A single family detached dwelling will be built on four of the proposed lots. A duplex is proposed -on proposed Lot I at the northwest comer of the site. A duplex is a conditional use in the R- 3.5 zone. The site is between MacDonald Street and View Teaace and west of SW 103rd Avenue. The buildable area of the site is situated roughly 265 feet west of 103rd Avenue. A 20-foot wide strip of land connects the buildable area of the site to 103rd Avenue. B. The applicant will extend public sewer and water service to each lot. The applicant will dedicate right of way for 103rd Avenue along the 20-fum wide site frontage. The applicant will build a 460400t long private drive from 103rd Avenue within the 20-foot wide strip to serve the proposed lots. The CDC prohibits cul-de-sac steads from being more than 400 feet long, and requires access to three or more dwellings to be in a tract at least 25 feet wide. The applicant requests variances to those standards. C. Given the topography of the area, it is a challenge design a minimum 204oot wide paved surface in what is only a 20-foot wide strip. There is more than one way to develop t7;t atc drive. The applicant proposed one way, which requires retaining walls up to ft h a bove and below the roadway. Another way could result in fewer and lower retaining structures and/or a wider unencumbered roadway. A valley gutter or inlets in the private drive could collect surface water without reducing the width of the drive. D. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from impervious areas and to direct it to a surface water facility in a tract on the site, from which it will be piped to the storm sewer in SW 103rd Avenue. A homeowners association will be created to own and maintain the tracts containing the private drive and the surface water facility. E. At the public hearing in this matter, City staff recommended subject to conditions. See the Staff Report dated January 30, 1998 (the Staff Report). The applicant generally accepted the staff recommendations. Four neighbors testified orally with objections and concerns. The hearings officer closed the record at the conclusion of the public portion of the hearing. The principal issues in this case include: • Whether the private drive serving the site will be at least 20 feet wide, as required by the development standards, after mitigating for hazards posed by retaining walls and/or stone water features; • Whether the site characteristics are suitable for the proposed conditional use duplex considering size, shape, location, topography and natural features; and • Whether and to what extent requested variances to the access standards should be granted. Hearings OferFinalOrder SUB 97-00091CUP 97-00071VAR 97-0019121 (Brie Woods) Page 1 F. For the reasons provided and referenced in this final order, the hearings officer approves the preliminary plan for the subdivision, denies the conditional use permit, and approves the variances substantially as proposed, subject to the conditions rt:commendcd by City staff with certain modifications described more herein. II. HEARING AND ECORD A. 'iigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the hearings officer) held a duly noticed public hearing on February 9, 1998 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. The following testimony was offered at the hearing. 1. City planner Will D'Andrea summarized the proposal and existing conditions on and around the site. He explained why the futum str= pattern, submitted by the applicant is appropriate given land uses to the west. He discussed the requirement of the Uniform Fire Code and the CDC that the private drive must be at least 20 feet wide. The drive cannot have even something as insignificant as a 6-inch wide curb or guard rails without reducing its width to less than 20 feet. He noted, however, the CDC only requires the drive to be 20 feet wide. It requires the driveway tract to be at least 25 feet wide to accommodate such things as curbs and guard rails outside the roadway. He discussed the City staff concern about the hazard posed by the height of the retaining wall on the north side of the private drive. If it is elevated that much, some measure is needed to protect people from falling off. But a guard rail would take-up some of the available 20-foot width of the driveway. He opined the driveway could be redesigned to reduce the number and height of retaining walls so that guard rails are not necessary and to avoid the need for curbs. He introduced into the record a letter from Charlie Bernards and a facsimile from Larry Kollay. 2. Matt Sprague appeared as the representative for the applicant He accepted the Staff Report, including proposed conditions of approval. He testified the applicant does not have specific plans for the duplex structure. 3. Jack Reeves appeared as the engineer for the applicant. He discussed issues relating to the proposed private driveway. He said the proposed design achieves a relatively smooth transition. To achieve that given the relatively steep slope across and adjoining the 20-foot strip, the applicant had to use retaining structures. 'If the driveway follows the existing topography more closely, rising and falling accordingly, fewer and lower retaining structurems will he needed, and, in combination with a valley gutter system, all of the 20-foot width of the driveway tract can be paved. He acknowledged the need to provide a 20-foot paved surface. 4. Charlie Bernards appeared on his own behalf. He owns the adjoining property to the north. He questioned the name of the subdivision, awing that name already was used in Washington County. He raised concerns about surface waxer run-off from the site onto his property. He raised concerns about drainage impacts of the proposed private driveway, the impacts of associated retaining structures, hazards created because the roadway will be so elevated above his property, and hazards for emergency vehicle maneuvering, because the roadway will be narrow. He argued the City recommended a public street through the site when it was proposed for development in the past, and its recommendation in this case is inconsistent with that history. He argued, before the City approve.. a plan for the driveway, he should have a chance to review and respond to it. 5. Monica Heise testified in her own behalf. She owns the property south of the 20-foot driveway tract She noted that there is a second legally established dwelling on her property near the driveway tract, but it is not shown on the applicant's plans. Her principal concern was that the development not increase surface water drainage problems. Hearings Off=er Final Order SUB 97-00091CUP 97-00071VAR 97-0019121 (Brie Woody) Pose 2 6. Douglas Johnson appeared on his own behalf. He owns land south of Ms. Heise. He also raised concerns about the narrow width of the proposed private driveway tract compared to experience developing his property. F le argued there is not adequate sight distance at the intersection of the private driveway and SW 1033rd .Avenue, because there is a 12% grade which obstructs visibility. He recommended the hearings officer reduce the density of the proposed development to reduce its negative impacts. 7. Don Meyers appeared on his own behalf. He owns land south of the developable portion of the site. He echoed Mr. Johnson's testimony about limited sight distance and about hazards created from the limited width of the private driveway. He also expressed concerns about removal of tree.-; on the site. 8. In rebuttal, Mr. Reeves testified the height of the wall is only 3 feet adjoining the roadway, but acknowledged it was five feet nearby. He also testified that, by intercepting surface water and directing it to the water quality pond on the site for discharge directly to the storm sewer line in 103rd Avenue, the project should reduce surface water problems. Regarding the design of the private driveway with a "hammerhead" turn-around instead of a bulbous cul-de-sac, he noted the fire marshall approved that design, and Mr. D' Andrea confirmed it is consistent with City development standards. He testified the evidence in the record shows there is ample sight distance at the proposed intersection, and calculations in the record show the water quality facility is sired to accommodate reasonably expected flows from a design storm. He ackmowledged the applicant will not be able to collect all surface water from impervious surfaces on Lot 1. 9. Also in rebuttal, Mr. Sprague testified that the row of tall trees on the south edge of the developable portion of the site will be preserved as a buffer. He testified the County Surveyor had approved use of the proposed name. He noted the private driveway has a turn-out adjoining the tract containing the surface water facility so a maintenance or emergency vehicle can park or maneuver there. B. No witness requested the hearing be continued or the record held open. The applicant waived its right to have the record held open one week for final argument. The hearings officer closed the public record at the conclusion of the hearing. III. DTSCUSSION A. City staff recommended approval of the application based on findings and conclusions and subject to conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report The applicant accepted those conditions. The hearings officer agrees generally with most of those findings, conclusions and conditions, and adopts the affirmative findings in the Staff Report as support for this Final Order except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Final Order. B. There is a dispute about whether the future street plan should be approved, because it does not provide for the extension of a public strecu east-west across the site. Based on the testimony by Mrrs. Johnson and Bernards, in the past, City staff have said such a street would be required. The hearings officer finds that the advice City staff gave in dw past has no value as precedent, because it is not a land use regulation. The relevant regulation is CDC 18.164.030(F). That section provides that a public street should be extended to the edge of a site if necessary to give access to or to permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land. In this case, City staff concluded, "LJiven the existing development pattern of surrounding properties and future development potential, staff finds that it is not necessary to.extend a public street for future connections or facilitate future division of Hearings O, 'xerFuud Order SUB 97-00091CUP 97-"7NAR 97.0n19/21 (Brie Woods) Page 3 adjoining land." (Staff report, p. 14) The hearings officer agrees with the staff. Adjoining land to the west is developed or zoned for development for multi-family uses. The future strut plan the applicant submitted shows that adjoining land can be accessed other than through the site. It is not desirable to route higher intensity traffic from apartment uses over a local street through a single family residential neighborhood if alternatives exist, as they do in this cast. The future street plan also shows potential development on land north and south .of the site can be accessed from streets or drives that exist or can be created on those properties. Public pedestrian or bicycle access through the site in the absence of a public street is not required by the CDC. C. There is a dispute about whether the proposed cul-de-sac provides adequate room for emergency vehicle maneuvering. Although the hearings officer aclmowlcdges that movement of multiple emergency vehicles on the private driveway could be problematic, CDC 18.108.070.C only requires a hammerhead turnaround with a minimum depth of 40 feet. The proposed driveway complies with this standard. The mm-out near the surface water facility will provide access for maintenance to that facility and will facilitate emergency vehicle movement on the cut-de-sac. There is no evidence in the record from the fire Marshall raising concerns about maneuverability. The hearings officer finds the proposed private drive provides for adequate emergency vehicle access and maneuverinunder CDC 18.108.070.C, because it will comply with the hammerhead standard, it will' a turn-our, and the fire marshall did not timely object to it on the record. D. Zhcre is a dispute about whether the proposed cul-de-sac has adequate sight distance where it intersects 103rd Avenue. The hearings officer acknowledges that the grade of 103rd Avenue could pose an obstacle to sight distance from the cul-de-sac, particularly to the south. The CDC 18.102 requires a relatively small vision clearance area - a triangle with 30-foot long sides along the right of way - compared to codes of other. jurisdictions. But that is all that the CDC requires. The hearings officer cannot impose greater requirements than the CDC unless authorized to do so. In this case, the hearings officer concludes he cannot requite the applicant to provide greater sight distant: at the intersection, because the City has a vision clearance standard for that purpose, and the application does or can comply with that standard. E. There is a dispute about whether the proposed cul-de-sac will be a full 20 feet wide as required by CDC 18.108.070.?.. 1. The hearings officer notes that condition of approval 9 clearly requires the improved portion of the private driveway to be at least 20 feet wide. Therefore, if the driveway is not 20 feet wide based on engineered plans, the City cannot approve the final plat without amending the condition of approval 2. The hearings officer also is satisfied by Mr. Reeves' expert testimony and by the evidence in the record regarding the topography of the site and adjoining land that it is feasible for the full 20-foot width of the private driveway tract to be paved for roadway purposes. To achieve this the applicant will have to avoid using and/or reduce the height of retaining structures along the road so that guard rails are not needed to protect the public from the hazards of an elevated roadway. The applicant also will have to use a valley gutter or inlet system that prevents surface water from flowing off-site from the driveway without using curbs. 3. Subject to these reservations, it is practicable for the applicant to do what must be done to provide a 20-foot wide paved driveway. Whether he succeeds in that effort can Hearnnga Uffker Final Order SUB W-WMICUP 97.0007NAR 97.0019121 (Brie Wond,) P-A be verified by examination of final engineered plans submitted by the applicant pursuant to c:unditions of approval, including condition 9. 4. Mr. Bemards and Ms. Heise raised concerns about the ultimate design of the access drive. Mr. gernards requested an opportunity to review the final plans for the drive. The CDC does not provide expressly for such a review. a. There is support under case law in Oregon for public notice and a meaningful opportunity to participate when a'ubsuntial discretion must be exercised in determining compliance with a condition of approval, particularly where a party could be significantly aggrieved by the exercise of that discretion. On the other hazed, then: also is support for the proposition that the exercise of limited discretion involving professional judgment generally is not subject to public notice and review, because it is not a land use or limited land use decision. b. In this case, it appears Ugly the applicant will have to redesign the access drive to fulfill condition of approval 9, (ie., to have a full 20-foot paved width without curbs or guard rails that would effectively reduce that width). Given the topography and storm water issues, compliance will involve more than just measuring the drive width. It wM involve related issues such as public safety, structural stability and storm water drainage. These issues all. are within the purview of the City Engineer and involve the exercise of professional judgment. Therefore the ultimate decision whether to approve the final design should be delegated to the City Engineer. c. But, because of the narrowness of the access strip, the steep topography abutting the strip, the testimony about drainage problems in the vicinity, and the proximity of neighboring structures to the strip, the hearings officer finds the owners of the two properties abutting the access strip (properties now owned by Mr. Bernards and Ms. Heise) have a substantial interest in the final design of the access drive. To protect that interest, given the present uncertainty about the ultimate design and grade of the access strip improvements and the extent of the professional discretion the City Engineer will apply when deciding whether to approve the final plans submitted by the applicant; the hearings officer funds those owners should have a reasonable opportunity to participate in the review of the final design for the access drive. This is preferable to denial, because of the lack of an approvable access plan in the record, or reopening the record to consider a new plan. d. To protect the applicant's intcrests, such an opportunity should not urzreasunably delay final action by the City, and it should be limited to the owners of the two properties abutting the narrow portion of the access strip, because other properties are not situated such that they could be significantly affected by the ultimate design of the access drive to the same extent. e. The hearings officer encourages the applicant to coordinate with the owners of the two properties abutting the access strip regarding the final design of the access drive to reduce the need for further City-managed opportunities for review. (1) If the applicant submits a written statement to the City signed by the owner of either or both properties abutting the access drive accepting the design for the access strip improvements proposed by the applicant, or acicepting that design subject to certain changes or reservations, that will protect that owner's interests in this issue, and no further notice to those owners should be necessary to protect those interests. (2) If the applicant does not submit such a statement from owners of both properties abutting the access tract, the hearings officer finds the City should mail Hearings Of'icerF&wl Order SUB 97.00091CUP 97-0007NAR 97-00191.,1 (Brit Woods) Page 5 notice to the owners of those two properties (or to the owners of one of those properties if the applicant submitted a written statranent signed by the owner of the other one of those properties) befog the City approves the proposed final plans for the access drive, The notice should advise the owners that a final plan for the access drive for the subdivision has been submitted to the City and should state that they may submit a written statement about the plan to the City by a certain date not less than 14 calendar days after the date the City mailed the notice. If the notice does not include a copy of the proposed final design, the notice should state where and when such plans are available for inspection and who to contact at the City to observe and discuss the plans. The City Engineer should consider written comments timely received by the City by or on behalf of the owners of the properties abutting the access strip before deciding whether to approve the final design. F. There is a dispute about the density of the proposed development. Several witnesses argued the density should be reduced, principally because of access limitations. City staff and the applicant point out that the proposed density is within the range permiued by the R- 3.5 zone, the proposed lots comply with the dimensional minimums in that zone, and the width of the paved portion of the driveway complies with CDC minimums. 1. The hearings officer acknowledges the virtues of the application listed above. Because of those facts, the hearings officer cannot reduce the number of lots proposed, and feels compelled to approve the application for the subdivision subject to conditions to ensure it does in fact comply with applicable standards. 2. However, to receive approval of a conditional use permit for the duplex dwelling on proposed Lot 1, the applicant must do more than show that the lot complies with dimensional and density standards. If that was all the applicant had to do, then that is what the CDC would say. It does not say that. It requires the applicant to show that it complies with the standards for a conditional use permit in CDC 18.130.040. 3. One of the conditional use standards requires the applicant to show "[t]he characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location topography and natural features. The Staff Report says the conditional use application complies with this standard, "because the lot itself satisfies the minimum standards necessary to create the proposed lot..." (Staff Report, p. 9) The hearings officer finds that the finding in the Staff Report is not responsive to the approval standard quoted above. 4. In this case, the hearings officer construes the CDC such that the term "site" for purposes of all of the applications under concurrent review is all of the land subject to the applications, not just the lot where the conditional use duplex is proposed. Even if the term "site" for purposes of the CUP application just refers to the lot where the conditional use duplex is proposed, CDC 18.130.040 clearly requires the hearings officer to consider more than that lot when deciding whether to approve the CUP application. 5. The size of the proposed lot for the duplex is presumed adequate for that use, because it complies with the minimum lot size for a duplex in the R-3.5 zone. The min- imum lot size is the same for a detached or attached (i.e., duplex) single family dwelling. 6. Even though the lot size is presumed adequate, them is no substantial evidence that the site will in fact be adequate in this case. That is, the application does not include a plan for the duplex dwelling nor an analysis of the suitability of the site for a duplex considering its shape, location, topography or natural features. In the absence of such a plan and other responsive substantial evidence, the hearings officer finds the applicant failed to carry the burden of proof that the site is suitable for the proposed duplex. Moreover the hearings officer finds as follows: Hearings Officer Final Oder SUB 97.0009/CUP 97-OW71VAR 97.O019n1 (Brie Woodr) rise 6 • • a. Given the steep slope on and abutting proposed Lot 1, the more development on that lot, the more likely retaining structures will be needed and trees and other natural features will be destroyed. The applicant's plan shows two trees will he removed and a retaining wall wd1 be needed along the north edge of Lot 1 due to grading. It is not apparent from evidence in the record if grading could be reduced and retaining walls could be lower or eliminated if Lot 1 is developed with a single family detached dwelIine. If so, a duplex on that lot is not as suitable as a single family detached dwelling considering topography and natural features. b. Given the slope on proposed Lot 1 and the proposed storm water facility up-gradient from the natural grade on Lot 1, the more impervious surface or filling on proposed Lot 1, the more likely there will be adverse off-site storm water drainage impacts. The applicant conceded he could not collect storm waxer from all of Lot 1, because of the elevation of the lot compared to the water facility. In the absence of a plan to the contrary in the record, it is reasonable for the hearings officer to assume that the impervious area associated with a duplex structure will use an area twice as large as the impervious area for a single family detached dwelling. Thos it will increase the impact of storm water drainage. c. The greater building bulk and/or height necessary to accommodate two dwelling units on the same size lot as one dwelling unit could have more adverse impacts on the privacy of abutting properties. Given the grades of the site and abutting properties, such impacts would be difficult to mitigate. Given the lack of detailed plans for the duplex, the hearings officer cannot determine whether the privacy impacts will occur or whether they will be mitigated. d. The applicant failed to show the location of the proposed duplex is suitable, notwithstanding it is morn than 400 feet from the nearest public street and will be accessed from a substandard-width access strip. Although the paved portion of the access drive complies with minimum CDC and L-FC standards, it does nothing more. There is no room on the site for a separate pedestrian or bicycle path, and there is no evidence such features can or will he provided on adjoining land. The narrow access strip precludes a sidewalk. People who live on the site will have to walk in the drive to reach SW 103rd Avenue. The more dwellings served by the accessway, the greater the potential hazard to pedestrians and cyclists who have to use the drive for access to their homes. By increasing the number of dwelling units served by the substandard access strip, the proposed duplex increases the potential risk. Allowing one fewer dwelling unit presumptively reduces the risk by 10 vehicle trips/day and equal number of pedestrian/bicycle trips, based on the ITF' Trip Generation Manual. G. There is a dispute about the adequacy of the storm water drainage features proposed for the site. Although the concern is a reasonable one and is sincerely expressed, the only substantial evidence in the record about the storm water system supports a finding that the proposal complies with relevant City standards in CDC 18.164.100. See, e.g., Staff Report, pp. 20-22. The hearings officer accepts the testimony of Mr. Reeves that storm water measures in the subdivision should reduce off-site surface water flows to the north, and, hence, reduce off-site storm water problems about which witnesses testified generally, because rain falling on impervious areas of the site (at least up to and including design storm events) will be collected and discharged to a tightline storm sewer in 103rd Avenue rather than continuing to flow into and across the site. H. There is a dispute about the subdivision name. That is a matter for which the County Surveyor is responsible. Evidence in the record shows the surveyor approved the proposed name. Heasims Officer Final Order SUB 97-00091CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019/?1 (Brie Woods) Pqqe 7 i Although not framed as such, the substance of much of the public testimony effectively concerned the variances, in that the proposed development is permitted only if the variances are granted. The hearings officer accepts and adopts most of the findings in the Staff Report (pp. 16-17) to support granting the variances. However the hearings officer finds it is not an extraordinary hardship to limit use of the proposed lots to single family detached dwellings, and that there is no property right to develop proposed Lot 1 with a duplex, because a duplex is not a permitted rise; it is a conditional use subject to broad and discretionary standards. The hearings officer also finds that, at least where a property can be developed with the maximum number of lots permitted by the applicable coning, there is no right to develop property at its maximum permitted density if, to allow such density, one or more variances must be granted to standards that otherwise apply. To the extent the findings in the Staff Report are to the contrary, the hearings officer does not adopt them. IV. CONCLUSION A- The hearings officer concludes that the subdivision and variance applications do or can comply with the relevant standards and criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) as provided in this Final Order, provided the application is subject to conditions of approval that ensure the final subdivision plat and subsequent development will comply with applicable CDC standards and criteria. Therefore those applications should be approved subject to such conditions. B. The hearings officer further concludes that the applicant failed to bear the burden of proving that the conditional use permit for the duplex dwelling does or will comply with the relevant standards and criteria of the Tigard CDC. Moreover the hearings officer concludes it does not and will not comply with those criteria and standards. Therefore that application should be denied. V. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions provided or referenced in this Final Order, the hearings officer hereby denies CUP 97-0007 (Brie Woods). The hearings officer also approves SUB 97-00091VAR 974X)19/21(Brie Woods) subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report with the following change: A. Condition of approval 9 is hereby amended to read as follows: 9. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval an engineered design for the private street. a. The plan shall incorporate a valley gutter drainage system or other design to eliminate the need for curbs at the outer edges of the roadway and shall maintain a minimum unobstructed paved width of at least 20 feet. b . If the applicant does not submit a written statement signed by the owners of both properties abutting the narrow portion of the access tract accepting the proposed design (as is or with certain changes), the City shall mail notice to the owners of those two properties (or to the owners of one of those properties if the applicant submitted a written statement signed by the owner of the other of those properties) before the City Engineer approves the proposed final plans for the access drive. The notice shall state that a final plan for Hearings Offker Final Order SUB 97-00091CUP 97-00071VAR 97-UOly121 (Brie Woods) Page 8 the access drive for the subdivision has been submitted to the City and shall state that recipients of the noticc may submit a written statement about the plan to the City by a certain date not less than 14 calendar days after the date the City mailed the notice. If the notice does not include a copy of the proposed final design, the notice shall statc where and when such plans are available for inspection and who to contact at the City for that purpose. The City Engineer shall consider written comments timely =ived by the City from the owners of the properties abutting the access strip before deciding whether to approve the final design. ;ATED this 20th day of February, 1998. Eps , AICP City of Tigard Hearings Officer Hearings GrxerFinal Order SUB 97-00091CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019121 (Brie Woods) Page 9 • Agenda Item: 2Ak Hearing Date: FlWary 9. 1998 Time: 7:00 PM STAFFREPOB,?,?.??T,,???O THE., `?s ?,r2 w ? ?. , ,. 1 `.?l???C??SArA.:c:.•.?;°,?^??_ "' ?>'ta ? . r?!?..a,. r''r v'a 1 NEARIN6SOtICER:r plc r CRY OF TIGARD FOR THE CI.? =0 6ARD; ORE60N--? SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION Subdivision (SUB) 97-0009 Conditional Use (CUP) 97-0007 Variance (VAR) 97-0019 Variance (VAR) 97-0021 PROPOSAL:. The applicant has requested the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 1.52 acre parcel into five (5) lots ranging between 10,018 square feet to 12,154 square feet; 2. Conditional Use Permit Review to allow one (1) lot to be used for the construction of a duplex; 3. Variance request to allow an approximately 460-foot long cul-de-sac, whereas, the Tigard Community Development Code states that the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 400 feet; and 4. Variance request to allow a 20-foot-wide access drive, whereas, the Code states that the minimum access width shall be 25 feet. APPLICANTS Matthew Sprague OWNER/ T.P.B. Properties REP. Walker Associates, Inc. APPLICANT: Howard Quandt 11080 SW Allen Blvd., Suite 100 PO Box 1775 Beaverton, OR 97005 Beaverton, OR 97075 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 3.5 Units Per Acre; R-3.5. LOCATION: 14225 SW 103rd Avenue; WCTM 2S111 BB, Tax Lot 01900. The site is located south of SW McDonald Street, north of SW View Terrace and on the west side of SW 103rd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.130, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 219198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97.0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 22 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit nine (9) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate 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. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be.responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Additional right-of-way (ROW) shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 103rd Avenue to increase the right-of-way to 25 feet from the centerline. The dedication shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall construct a private roadway entrance at the intersection of the new private street and SW 103rd Avenue to meet City public improvement design standards. 5. The applicant's design engineer shall submit proposed solutions to the City Engineer, as a part of the construction plan submittal in regard to resolving the conflict between the proposed private street and the existing driveway entrance immediately south, which presently serves Tax Lot 01800 (WCTM 2S111 BB). 6. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 7. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project to be recorded with the final plat that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 8. , The pavement and rock section of the proposed private street shall meet the City's public street standards for a local residential street. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER MM PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDMSION PAGE 2 OF 22 • CONDITIONS OF APPROIL 9. The applicant sf?redesign the private street to incor?lres te a valley gutter drainage system to elimin the need for curbs at the outer a and maintain a minimum 20-foot paved width. 10. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and the construction of public water lines. 11. The applicant's new public water line shall be extended from the existing six (6)-inch public water line in SW 103rd Avenue. There shall be no connection made to the 12-inch line adjacent to the western boundary of the site. The new water line within the private street shall be a minimum of six (6) inches in size. 12. The applicant shall install a new fire hydrant to serve this site. All portions of the new homes shall be located within 500 feet of a fire hydrant. 13. The applicant shall install an eight (8)-inch public sanitary sewer line within the new private street and provide individual services to the new lots. 14. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer laterals to the adjacent undeveloped properties. 15. Prior to construction, the applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation, for review by the City (Brian Rager), of the downstream capacity of any existing storm facility impacted by the proposed development. The design engineer must perform an analysis of the drainage system downstream of the development to a point in the drainage system where the proposed development site constitutes ten (10) percent or less of the total tributary drainage volume, but in no event less than 1/4 mile. 16. If the capacity of any downstream public storm conveyance system or culvert is surpassed during the 25-year design storm event due directly to the development, the developer shall correct the capacity problem or construct an on-site detention facility. 17. If the projected increase in surface water runoff which will leave a proposed development will cause or contribute to damage from flooding to existing buildings or dwellings, the downstream stormwater system shall be enlarged to relieve the identified flooding condition prior to development or the developer must construct an on-site detention facility. 18. The applicant's final storm drainage plan shall provide a means for collecting the footing drains of all of the lots. Lot 1 is of particular concern as it slopes sharply away from the private street. A private storm line behind Lot 1 may be necessary. 19. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility. o i nrr ncrvn 1 1 v 1 nt MI-AMINUb U"K;tH 2/9198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97.00091CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 22 20. The face of theRnal plat shall contain a note that9dicates the ownership and maintenance responsibility for the private water quality pond. In addition, the CCR's for the project shall contain a section that specifically speaks to the maintenance responsibility and the procedures that are to be followed by the future homeowners. 21. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 22. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 23. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 24. The design engineer shall indicate on the grading plan which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as, lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 25. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 103rd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $1,045 and it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 26. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be-submitted for review by the Planning Division. Staff Contact: William D'Andrea. The revised plans shall include the following: A. compliance with vision clearance criteria given the vegetation and grades along SW 103rd Avenue; B. the entire length of the flag pole on Lot 4 shall be a minimum of 25 feet; and C. a re-design of the street to provide a means to eliminate the hazardous drop off, the design shall continue to provide the minimum 20-foot paved access width. 27. The applicant shall: A. record a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved; and B. submit an arborist report providing recommended tree protection measures. STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea, Planning Division. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 219198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 9740007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97-0021 . BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 22 _ 28. Prio issuance of building permits, thMepplicant shall provide the Engine Dep ent with a recorded mylar copy of subdivision plat. 29. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engin Substantial completion shall be when: A. all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including fran utilities; . B. all local residential streets have at least one (1) lift of asphalt; C. any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished; anc D. all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 30. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct the recommE tree protection measures prior to commencement of construction. 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction piz: issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed with period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cosi expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages, and for extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.160.180 Bond: As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreemen assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to trar business in the State of Oregon; ..?? ncrvn i i v nc ncNnmW urrn;tM 2/9/98 PUBLIC HE SUB 97-0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019NAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 31. All site improvements installed as per the approved plans. 2. A surety bond d9cuted by a surety company authont to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.160.190 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three (3) copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 2098 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-00 CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019NAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 OF 22 18.164 Street & Utilitdbprovement Standards: MW 0 18.164.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 1.8.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: No development applications were found to have been filed with the City. Vicinity Information: Adjoining properties to the north, east and south are zoned R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre). Properties to the west are zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre). The surrounding area is developed with a mix of single-family and multi-family residential structures. a i AN- MtKJKI IQ THE HEARINGS OFFICER. 2099 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97.0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-00191VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 7 OF 22 Site Information and Proposal Description: - The 1.52 acre property is currently vacant and is overgrown with grasses and assorted tree clusters. The property slopes northwesterly from an elevation of approximately 346 to an elevation of approximately 300 feet. The applicant has requested the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 1.52 acre parcel into five (5) lots ranging between 10,018 square feet to 12,154 square feet; 2. Conditional Use Permit Review to allow one (1) lot to be used for the construction of a duplex; 3. Variance request to allow an approximately 460-foot long cul-de-sac, whereas, the Tigard Community Development Code states that the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 400 feet; and 4. Variance request to allow a 20-foot-wide access drive, whereas, the Code states that the minimum access width shall be 25 feet. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $179. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,790. The applicant is being required to dedicate an additional 140 square feet of right-of-way along SW 103rd Avenue. Based on past City purchases of residential property for street ROW, residential property is assessed at $2.00 per square foot. Assuming a cost of $2.00 per square foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the dedication is $280.00 (140 sq. ft. x $2.00). Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $8,950 ($1,790 x 5 dwelling units). Based on the STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Ze% PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019NAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 OF 22 estimate that total TIF fees cover 320Yo ofd citywidelefee that would cover 100% of thi?pro ectstraffic impa street imprm is 968 c divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, $27'968 unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $8,950, the unmitigated impact is be v E $19,018. Given these estimates ($280 dedication), the conditions can be ? Proportional to the impacts. impact are more than Dimensional Re uirements: Section 18.48 states that the -single-family single-family lot in the R-3.5 zoning district is 10,000 square minimum lot area fo feet and width requirement is 65 feet The average minimum lot width for duple less than 90 feet The proposed lots range betweenlot10,018 excess of the minimum 10,000 square foot minimum size,and 12,154 squa ell fj all five (5) proposed lots exceed the 65-foot minimum lot width s indicated on the site duplex lot (lot 1) has provided a 90-foot minimum lot width. Thereforerequirement. The ro; comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-3.5 zone. , the proposE Development Standards: Section 18.48,050 contains stan Single-family detached residential units area Bards for the R-3.5 z comply with the following dimensional requirements fitted use in the zone, and i r Minimum lot size Average lot width 10,000 Square Feet Front setback 65 Feet Garage setback 20 Feet Interior sideyard setback 20 Feet Comer sideyard setback 5 Feet Rear setback 20 Feet Maximum building height 15 Feet 30 F t ee Compliance with setbacks will be reviewed during the building permit review proce However, as indicated on the site plan, these lots can accommodate the required setback: criteria for a Conditional Use: Section 18.130.040 contains the following, general apprc The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the n use. The proposed lot meets the minimum dimensional requi ements?ds of of the the R-3.5 z: propo, and, therefore, the size and area can accommodate the Proposed duplex. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed shape, location, topography, and natural features. The char use considering s suitable for the proposed duplex because the proposed lot itself standards necessary to create the characteristics of the site L d process. application proposed lot, as reviewed through this sub inim? _ divisic All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve public facilities are available, or shall be conditioned to be avai the proposal. All require capacity to serve the site. table, to the site and d hat The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met chapter. The applicable provisions of the R-3.5 zone are fulfilled as except noted modified by thi STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER SUB 97-0009/CUp gT?07NAR 97-001sJVAR g7 previously. -0021 -BRIE WOOpS SUBONISION 2/9/98 PUBUC HEARIN PAGE 9 OF --The supplementary Airements set forth in Chapter 91114 (Signs) and Section 18.120.180 (Approval Standards) Site Development Review, if applicable, are met Neither of these sections are applicable. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Citizen Input: 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. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because a neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on November 13, 1997. Notice of the public hearing was provided to owners of property within 250 feet and was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Housing Needs: Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because allowing the use of the property for a duplex would provide an opportunity for diversity of housing density and residential type. Duplexes: Section 18.130.150(C)(15) states that a duplex must meet the following additional dimensional requirements: Lot size: 10,000 square feet As indicated on the plan, the lot will contain approximately 10,883 square feet, exceeding the 10,000 minimum square feet required. Solar access requirements, Chapter 18.88. Parcel 1 has been considered exempt from the solar access standard. However, the structure must comply with the Solar Balance Point Ordinance even if a lot has been exempted from the basic solar requirement and shall be reviewed during the building permit process. The remaining dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning district Compliance with setbacks will be reviewed during the building permit review process. However, as indicated on the site plan, these lots can accommodate the required setbacks. Section 18.88.040 (Solar Access) states that the solar access design standard shall apply to applications for a development to create lots in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and to create lots for single family detached and duplex dwellings in all other residential zones. Section 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 parcels meet this standard. Lots 3 and 5 satisfy both the front lot line orientation and north-south dimension requirement. Section 18.88.040(E) allows the approval authority to reduce the percentage of new lots from the solar access standard in certain cases, including situations where existing ROW prevents lots from being oriented for solar access. The existing orientation of SW 103rd Avenue, and the configuration of the subject site, prevents proposed Lots 1, 2 and 4 from being orientated for solar access. Therefore, parcels 1, 2 and 4 are exempt from the solar access standard. It should be noted that new structures must comply with the Solar Balance Point Ordinance even if a lot has been exempted from the basic solar requirement. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER ZGM PUBLIC HEARING SUB 9740009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-00191VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 22 ensi : Section 18.90 contains standards for deternong-the permitted project density. The number allowable dwelling units is is on the net development area. The net area is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands,- land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. The net 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. The gross area of the site is approximately 66,211 square feet. The net developable area of the site (after deduction of 12,224 square feet for a private street and 140 square feet for public right-of-way) is approximately 53,847 square feet. With a minimum of 10,000 square feet per lot, this site yields an opportunity for up to five (5) lots under the R-3.5 zoning designation. The applicant is proposing five (5) lots. The proposal is, therefore, in compliance with density calculations. Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The applicant must comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. Street Trees: Section 18.100.035(B) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: 1. Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; 2. Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart. The plan is limited in the possible location of street trees due to the existing lot width. The applicant's narrative states that street trees will be planted along the private street where adequate room exists. The potential street tree locations have been shown on the preliminary plan. This plan shows that street trees can be planted along the lot frontages. Due to the limited areas for planting, the proposed plan can be considered adequate to satisfy this criteria. Buffer Matrix: Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The.Matrix indicates that where detached single-family abuts detached single-family structures, there is no required buffer and screening. This crfteria is satisfied as buffering and screening is not required where single-family residential abuts single-family residential or existing multi-family residential development. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained. on the comers of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30-foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 21M PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97.0007NAR 97-00191VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDMSION PAGE 11 OF 22 located in this area, plvided all branches below eight Itt are removed. A revised plan shall be submitted that more clearly demonstrates that this standard is satisfied given the vegetation and grades along SW 103rd Avenue. Parkin : Section 18.106.030.(A) states that each lot is required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces. Review for compliance with parking standards will be reviewed during building permit review, however, as indicated on the plans, each parcel has the ability to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces in accordance with this standard. Access: Section 18.108.070.A states the minimum driveway required for each lot shall be 15 feet with 10 feet of pavement width. Section 18.108.070.A states that the minimum access width shall be 25 feet and the minimum pavement width shall be 20 feet for private streets serving between 3-6 lots. Review for compliance with individual lot driveway widths shall be reviewed at the time of building permits. As indicated on the site plan, each lot has the ability to provide a minimum 10-foot-wide driveway. The plan shows that a 20-foot "Tract A" has been provided to serve as a private street. The 20-foot width is adequate to provide the minimum 20-foot pavement requirement, however, the required 25-foot access width has not been provided. The applicant has applied for variance approval to allow a 20-foot access width along the "flag pole" portion of the lot. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based upon the findings as contained in section 18.160.120 of this report. Emergency vehicle turnaround: Section 18.108.070.C. states that access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by a hammerhead configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. The proposed design of the private street meets recommended emergency vehicle standards. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a subdivision application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. An existing conditions plan has been submitted with this application which identifies the trees on the property. The applicant's narrative states that there are a total of 55 trees, 12-inch caliper or greater on the site. The narrative states that the proposal will be removing 13 of those trees. According to these figures, the applicant is retaining more than 75% of existing trees 12 inches in caliper or greater and, is thus, not required to provide mitigation for those trees removed. Review of the plan indicates that there are approximately 24 trees that are greater than 12-inch caliper in size. Of those 24 trees, four .(4) are slated for removal. According to these figures, the applicant is retaining more than 75% of the existing trees greater than 12 inches in caliper and, is thus, not required to provide mitigation for those trees removed. Section 18.150.045.8 states that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may, thereafter, be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan according to Section 18.150.025 or 18.130.13., and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 2IM PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-00191VAR 97-0021 . BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 OF 22 approval of any develc&ent permit impacted by this sectio* the effect that such tree(s) may be removed only i e tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant shall: 1. record a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved; and 2. submit an arborist report that provides recommended tree protection measures. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall: 1. construct the recommended tree protection measures prior to commencement of construction. Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Low Density Residential opportunity for the site, as well as, with the applicable policies and regulations of the R-3.5 zone and other applicable ordinances and regulations. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The proposed name of the subdivision "Brie Woods" is not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County, in compliance with this criteria. 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. The site does not abut properties with approved plats that would require conformity or connectivity. Therefore, this criteria is not applicable. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements including the provision for public services such as sewer, water, drainage and street improvements. Therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision. Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street Southwest 103rd Avenue is classified as a local street. The applicant has been conditioned to construct a private street entrance in conformance with the City's public improvements design standards. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states ..crvn I I v 1 nc ncrnmw vrrruwi 2!9/98 PUBUC HEARING SUB 9740OWCUP 97.0007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 13 OF 22 that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The applicant has submitted a future street plan. Property to the southwest is not expected to be redeveloped into single-family residential subdivisions. The grading of the site requires a retaining wall on either side of the proposed private street. The grade differential with the adjacent properties would make a future widening of a public street more difficult. A local public street would require a 44-foot right-of-way width. Given the existing development pattern of surrounding properties and future development potential, staff finds that it is not necessary to require a public street instead of a private street and to extend a public street to provide for future connections or facilitate future division of adjoining land. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. This section is not applicable as there is no existing local streets that abuts the property which would require extending to provide through circulation. Cul-de-sacs: Section 18.164.030(1) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units. The applicant has requested a variance to this standard to allow the cul-de-sac to have a maximum length of 460 feet. - Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based upon the findings as contained in section 18.160.120 of this report. As indicated on the site plan, the cul-de-sac will only provide access to five (5) lots (potentially 6 dwelling units), less than the maximum 20 permitted. Private Street: Section 18.164.030(S) states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer and that private streets serving more than 6 dwelling units are permitted within planned developments. This section also requires a bonded maintenance agreement or the creation of a homeowners association to provide for the continued maintenance of the street in perpetuity. The applicant is not proposing more than six (6) dwelling units, therefore a planned development application is not required. Access shall be reviewed for compliance with Code Section 18.108 (Access Standards). The applicant has applied for variance approval to allow a 20-foot paved driveway on a 204oot access width along the "flag pole" portion of the lot. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based upon the findings as contained in Section 18.160.120 of this report. The proposed lots will be served by a 20-foot-wide paved accessway, in accordance with access standards in Section 18.108.070.A. The accessway will allow for a 204oot unobstructed driving surface, consistent with Fire District requirements. The applicant has also been conditioned to provide for - a bonded maintenance agreement or a homeowner's association for future maintenance of the street. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 21998 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0005 CUP 97-=7NAR 97-0019NAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBOMSION PAGE 14 OF 22 Block Design: Sectio 18'164.040(A) states that the len9Width and shape of blocks shall be designed w due regard to providing ade uaWbuilding s' q rtes for the use contemplated, consideration of needs-for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.164.040(B)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: 1. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; 2. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads; or 3. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The proposed subdivision will not be creating a public street which would be used to form the perimeter of a block. Existing development also limits the potential to extend a proposed public street. Even if a connection could be made, the perimeter of the block would well exceed 1,800 lineal feet. Given these constraints and the provision of a private street, this criteria is satisfied. Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. As previously stated, the existing development pattern of surrounding properties limits the potential for street extensions. Given the width of the rivate street, with vehicular traffic, lack of area to accommodate a pedestrian pathways apotential conflict nd questionable destination of such a pathway, staff is recommending that a pathway not be required. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits than 2.5 times the average lot width, unle s the par el is esst than from 1.5 being ties more minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district As indicated on the proposed plann none of the lots are more than 2.5 times the average lot width and more than 1.5 times the minimum lot size, thereby satisfying this section. Lot Frontage: Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or.private streets, other than an'alley, unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. As indicated on the site plan, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5 comply with this standard. A revised site plan shall be submitted that provides all lots with 25 feet of frontage onto the private street. The entire length of the flag pole on Lot 4 shall be a minimum of 25 feet, not the 20 feet as shown. Sidewalks: Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The property does not have sufficient frontage on SW 103rd Avenue to construct half-street improvements including a sidewalk. City standards do not require sidewalks on private streets. Subdivision Variance - Maximum len th of a Cul-de-sac: Community Development Code Section 18.160.120 provides standards for granting a variance as indicated in "bold" print below: STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER SUB 974005 CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION 219M PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 15 OF 22 • 1 t There are special cirastances or conditions affectinphe, property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. The special circumstances that exist are the site's irregular shape and surrounding development patterns that either preclude or limit the possible extension of public streets. As discussed in the future street plan section of this report, a public street is not recommended for this development. Since a public street is not being recommended, nor a public street stub to the west, the applicant has no choice but to provide a cul-de-sac. The subject parcel is a flag lot that requires a street length of at least 280 feet to provide access to the buildable portion of the parcel. The parcel is shaped such that, the buildable portion of the parcel is parallel with SW 103rd Avenue, requiring further street extensions to adequately serve the parcel. The plan could be revised to limit the length to 400 feet. This revision would require a change to the site plan that would either likely result in the loss of a lot or a major reconfiguration of the proposed lots. Since the lots may be reconfigured, since there is no known public health or safety issue by allowing an additional 60 feet to the length of the street, and since an emergency vehicle tum-around has been provided; staff is not sure what the benefit would be to not allowing a slight extension of the street. Therefore, staff is finding that there is an unusual condition affecting this property. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. As discussed in this report, limitations of providing public street extensions limit the proposal to a private street. Allowance of a 60-foot extension to the length of the street does not interfere with emergency provisions. It is not clear that requiring a redesign of the proposed subdivision would result in a more efficiently designed subdivision. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. Granting of the variance to allow 460-foot cul-de-sac will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to the rights of other properties. The proposed private street width will comply with the minimum street access width standard and will comply with minimum provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Allowing a length slightly greater than the standard does not interfere with the rights of adjoining property in any way. Surrounding properties have the ability to continue to use their property as they currently exist, or to potentially develop the properties, whether or not the City grants the variance. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the. regulations of this title. A substantial property right is generally considered to be a right to use the property or have economic use of the land. There is no question that the potential is there to have economic use of the property by the construction of a single-family residence, potential minor land partition, or potential conditional use for a duplex and be in' compliance with minimum access standards. The variance is necessary to allow the subdivision as the applicant designed it. Further, It. is not clear that requiring a re-design of the proposed subdivision to comply with the 400-foot maximum cul-de-sac length would result in a more efficiently designed subdivision than that which the applicant is currently proposing. Subdivision Variance - Access Width: Community Development Code Section 18.160.120 provides standards for granting a variance as indicated in "bold" print below: There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. The STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 2MM PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009VCUP 97-0007NAR 97-00191VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 16 OF 22 t ;special circumstance i e site's irregular shape. The "flag pff portion of the flag lot is only 20-feet-wide, therefor is not possible to provide the requi d 25-foot access width. The applicant's narrative states that neighbors have been approached in an effort to increase the flag width and size of the development, but no agreements were reached. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. The variance is necessary for the design and function of the proposed subdivision because a denial of the variance would not allow the applicant to create the number of lots proposed. If the variance were denied and the minimum 25-foot access width required, the subject property would only be able to accommodate a total of two (2) dwelling units. Section 18.108.070(A) (Access Requirements: Residential) states that the minimum access width shall be 15 feet and the minimum pavement width shall be ten (10) feet for accessways serving one (1) to two (2) lots. As previously stated, the Code is not clear as to the purpose of the minimum 25-foot width. The width could have been stated to be 22 feet, in which case a variance request for a three (3)-foot modification may not seem as drastic a change. The 20-foot width does meet the minimum access pavement width requirement, does comply with the minimum standards of the Uniform Fire Code and should thus, provide adequate access to serve the subdivision. Therefore, granting of the variance will continue to allow a proper design and function of the subdivision. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. Granting of the variance to allow a 20-foot access width will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to the rights of other properties. The proposed pavement width will provide the minimum access width and comply with Uniform Fire Code standards. The Community Development Code does not explain why the access width is 25 feet. Access standards (Section 18.108) do not require the provision of a sidewalk on a private street. Granting a variance to less than the required 25 feet would not necessarily be detrimental to a stated City policy, excepting the fact that, the additional five (5) feet would allow some maneuvering room for vehicles. Staff is concerned about the height of the retaining wall and the ver icle drop from the street grade. While the 20-foot paved width meets the minimum access width standard, the grade differential raises a potential safety concern given the height of the wall. Therefore, the applicant shall provide a means to eliminate the hazardous drop-off. The design shall not reduce the minimum paved access width to less than the minimum 20 feet paved width. Allowing a reduction in the access width does not interfere with the rights of adjoining property in any way. Surrounding properties have the ability to continue to use their property as they currently exist, or potentially develop the properties, whether or not the City grants the variance. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. A substantial property right is generally considered to be a right to use the property or have economic use of the land. There is no question that the potential is there to have economic use of the property by the construction of a single-family residence, potential minor land partition, or potential conditional use for a duplex and be in compliance with minimum access standards. The variance is necessary to allow development of the property at the calculated allowable density (Section 18.92). The applicant has not provided additional findings as to the extraordinary hardship. . 1 nrr nr-rVn 1 ? v 1 nc ntAKINUb U"K;F-H 2/9198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-00191VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDMSION PAGE 17 OF 22 PUBLIC FACILITY CON RNS: Sections 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied as specified below: STREETS: This site is presently a flag lot with frontage and access onto SW 103rd Avenue. The flag pole width is 20 feet. SW 103rd Avenue is classified as a local residential street which requires a 50-foot right-of-way (ROW). At present, there is approximately 40 feet of total ROW on this roadway; therefore, in order to mitigate the additional traffic generated from this project, the applicant will need to provide a ROW dedication on the final plat to bring the ROW width up to 25 feet from centerline. The applicant's preliminary plan indicates that they will provide this dedication. SW 103rd Avenue is paved, but not fully improved to City standards. The frontage of this property is only 38 feet, which does not lend itself to a significant improvement if a half- street improvement were required. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to construct a private street entrance onto this roadway in full conformance to the City's public improvement design standards. Some paving may be necessary within the ROW of SW 103rd Avenue in order to build the entrance properly. Proposed Private Street The plan proposes that all of the lots within this project be served from a private street. TMC 18.164.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). Since this project will only create five (5) lots, this provision of the TMC is met. 18.164.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section. The preliminary plan indicates the grading of this site will result in the need for variable height retaining walls along the north edge of the site. It appears the tallest retaining wall will be five feet in height (at northeast comer of Lot 1. The applicant's plan indicates that the surface water generated by the private street will be collected in catch basins and directed into the proposed water quality pond. However, the section detail of the private street does not show curb on either side of the roadway. A concrete curb would be required on both sides of the roadway in order to facilitate proper storm water collection and to prevent storm water from flowing onto adjacent properties. However, if curbing is provided, the overall paved width of the roadway would be reduced to 19 feet, since each curb has a width of approximately six inches. Section 18.108.070(A) requires a minimum pavement width of 20 feet for private driveways serving between three and six dwelling units. Therefore, the 19-foot paved width would not meet this provision. Since the applicant did not apply for a variance to this standard, Staff would have to recommend denial of the subdivision. Alternatively, there is a way to design the private street without curbs and still accommodate the 20-foot paved width and facilitate proper drainage. The STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 219198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-OOOSICUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019NAR 97-0021 . BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 18 OF 22 applicant could use a oIley gutter design, where the pav nt would slope toward the y i middle of the roadw where catch basins could pick V the storm water runoff. Therefore, Staff recommends the applicant redesign the private street to provide for a valley gutter and maintain the 20-foot minimum paved width. The entrance onto SW 103rd Avenue is another concern. There is an existing driveway immediately south of the proposed private street entrance that serves the adjacent property (Tax Lot 1800); this driveway enters SW 103rd in an opposing direction to southbound traffic, which is a potential safety hazard. In addition, this existing driveway cuts across a portion of the frontage of this site, which will conflict with the new private street entrance. Staff recommends that as a part of construction of the new private street entrance into this development, the applicant also tie in the existing driveway serving Tax Lot 1800. It may be possible to combine the entrances to form a joint driveway entrance. Staff recommends the applicant's engineer submit proposed solutions to the City Engineer as a partof the final construction design submittals. WATER: This site lies within the City's water service area. There is an existing 12-inch public water line adjacent to the western boundary of the site and a 6-inch public water line located in SW 103rd Avenue. The City of Tigard has established minimum and maximum water pressure limits for water service. These limits are 50 pounds per square inch (psi) and 100 psi, respectively. To provide water pressures within the established pressure limits, water service connections in the proposed development above elevation 290 feet shall be served from the 6-inch water main located in SW 103rd Avenue. The 6-inch water main is supplied from the pressure sustaining system located on SW Canterbury Lane. This system is adequate to provide the necessary pressures for this development. The connection to the existing 12-inch water main adjacent to the west boundary of the site is a transmission facility to reservoirs located on SW Canterbury Lane. These reservoirs have an overflow elevation of 410 feet, thus the 12-inch water main does not provide the minimum required water pressure until the water main falls below an elevation of 290 feet above sea level. Therefore, since this entire site is higher in elevation than 290 feet, connection to the 12-inch water line, as proposed on the applicant's plan, will not be allowed. All water service for this site will need to come from the 6-inch line in SW 103rd Avenue. The minimum main line size within the project will be 6 inches. In addition, Tigard's standards stipulate that all portions of residential buildings be within 500 feet of a fire hydrant. There are no existing fire hydrants near this site that would satisfy this requirement. Therefore,- a new fire hydrant will be required for this development. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located in SW 103rd Avenue with sufficient capacity to serve this site. A new 8-inch public sanitary sewer line will need to be extended within the new private street to serve the proposed lots. The applicant's plans indicate that they will install the necessary public sewer line. The applicant will also be required to provide a sanitary sewer lateral to the adjacent undeveloped parcel to the east. J 1 Arr HErUH I Iv THE HEARINGS OFFICER 2/9198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDMSION PAGE 19 OF 22 STORM DRAINAGE. • _ The topography of this site slopes to the north. The applicant's plans indicate that they will install a private storm drainage line within the private street to collect the lot drainage. The storm water will be directed into a private water quality pond to be located between Lot 5 and the private street. From there, a private storm line will be located within the private street and will tie into an existing public storm drainage line in SW 103rd Avenue. The applicant's design engineer will need to submit to the City a downstream analysis in accordance with USA's Design and Construction standards. The analysis will need to determine if the storm line in SW 103rd Avenue, as well as the storm system beyond, will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional storm water runoff from this site. If there is a constriction in the downstream system that would result in a negative impact on downstream properties with the addition of the storm water from this site, the applicant will then either need to up-size the downstream system or provide on-site detention. If on-site detention is required, the applicant may be able to up-size the proposed pond and allow it to become a water quality and quantity facility. The downstream analysis will be required prior to construction. Staff is concerned about the ability for the private storm line to pick up all of the drainage from Lot 1, particularly the footing drains, since the topography of Lot 1 falls sharply away from the private street. The applicant will need to address this in the final construction plan submittal; it may be necessary for them to install another private storm line in the back yard of Lot 1 in order to pick up the future footing drains. STORM WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. The applicant proposes to construct an on-site private water quality pond adjacent to Lot 5. This facility will need to either be owned and maintained by the applicant or the future homeowners within this project. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the final plat indicating the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for this pond. In addition, the CC&R's for the subdivision shall include a section that specifically addresses the maintenance responsibilities. The CC&R's will need to be reviewed by the City prior to recording of the final plat. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 2/M PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019NAR 97-0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 20 OF 22 submit an erosion co roI plan for City review and appr I prior to issuance of-City .. permits. The applicant's design engineer will be required to prepare a final grading plan for review and approval. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: There are existing overhead utility lines located adjacent to SW 103rd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding 1 can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 38 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $1,045. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Subdivision approval needs to address how storm run-off will be handled. As shown, lot 1 will not and lot 2 will likely not be able to get storm to the private system. There shall be a condition that states °AII concentrated storm run-off shall be conveyed to the public storm system°. Fire apparatus road must be 20 feet wide of all weather surface. No parking along access road, post signs and curb markings. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Encourage house numbers and curb foot of driveway to each property, as well as, on each house. This would benefit all emergency service providers who are attempting to respond. The City of Tigard Water Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Water is available for the proposed project from the 6-inch water main located within SW 103rd Avenue. Connection to the existing 12-inch water main for domestic use, as indicated on the submitted plans, will not be allowed. Water district comments are contained in a memo dated January 12, 1998. A copy is filed in the land use file. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 219198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 97-0009/CUP 97.0007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97-0021 . BRIE WOODS SUBONISION PAGE 21 OF 22 The City of Tigard Maignance Services Division has hafte opportunity to review " this application and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: SANITARY SEWER: Each lot within the development shall be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. The duplex lot should have a separate service to each unit. Sanitary service should be by gravity only and no pumping. STORM SEWER: Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream conveyance does not have capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. WATER QUALITY: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. Northwest Natural Gas states that it is important that any work done in SW 103rd Avenue will require a Northwest Natural Gas Company personnel to be on site as there is a 10-inch high pressure gas main on the west side. There are no other comments or objections to this application. PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea Associate anner/AICP 1 C? :&-Li APPROVED BY: Richard ersdorff Planning Manager January 30, 1998 DATE January 30, 1998 DATE i Acurpln\wilRsub97-09.dec STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 219198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 970009/CUP 97-0007NAR 97-0019/VAR 97.0021 - BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION PAGE 22 OF 22 Tualatin Valley Water District and Portland General Electric (PGE) have also had the opportunity to review this application and have offered no comments or objections. ___..__---_______----_ ' ' , /' , , /' / • ? ,/ ? . STR/Ilq OOJ4AR3 MYORA TO K usro SrOL RMRM ,[•eSL7 r0 i i ,i• ALA Tu.,o„ T= A LAMM nk= / - It t1.R10 T7?MIYAR T. M i " 1i'TNAi SfIfL IfS PW= ARCTdh L+ 7. .' 10r, s- rAR tgr.aeo ./ G% ? - " nsX s• ramp.rRV,r l a.tM ir, 't _Umw TRAM vow tow. CY 'LOT 5 i --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - Y?? - - ,.rat'' , w o ------ --- _ - -" -' / •, /' '? it l scr'i -_z_- ----- -- ----- -' - - _..?T,r.o ----- ----------- --------? --------------?' ?ir --LOT 4--_-_-?______- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j - f' COF Vflm- 4 Pace musar,R., ? SITE PLAN T EXHIBIT MAP z 0 / VI C a z Mume z z a ii. n ce. a now O iRRRR U BRIE WOODS SUBDMSION SUB 97-0009 CUP 97-0007 VAR 97-0019 VAR 97-0021 k . I P R P i N, FRB Ed=l i . 71 61000Ai M10 IM?OAYATIOM At81911 VICINITY MAP BRIE WOODS SUBDIVISION SUB 91-0009 Cup 91-0001 VAR 91-0019 VAR 91-0021 N 0 100 200 300 100 600 Fwd 1•- ]60 fM city of Tigard kilbrlrrtbon On bi nuq r for 0wlwd belbn o* ed shmV be vwMld w101 Or Owwk9111w1 Swwboo D"bm 13123 SW 11J aM T>pmk OR 97223 (30]) a]"121 ht!?YAMw+T. ft".or.w date: Jan 5. 1998: c:lmaglclmeglcdd.apr • "EXHIBIT B" -- TAPED PROCEEDINGS • (Verbal recording of hearing including public, staff and Hearings Officer communications.) NOTE: Tapes are located in the Records Vault, Planning Section. I J 0 0 "EXHIBIT C" -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) Ii • Agenda Item: 2f Hearing Date: June 8.1998 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE F HEARINGS OFFICER J FOR THE CITY, OF TIGARD, OREGON community Development Shaping A Better Community SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 98-0001 Variance VAR 98-0002 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an area consisting of five (5) lots totaling approximately 220,413 square feet (5.06 acres) into 22 lots ranging between 7,507 square feet to 8,347 square feet; 2. A Variance request to allow an approximately 500-foot long cul-de-sac, whereas, the Tigard Community Development Code states that the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 400 feet; and 3. A second Variance request to allow 22 lots to have access via a cul-de-sac, whereas, the Code states that no more than 20 lots can have access off of a cul-de-sac. APPLICANT: Bill Wagoner APPLICANT'S Ken Sandblast Riverside Homes REP.: Compass Corporation 16666 Greenbrier Pkwy, S-140 6564 SE Lake Road Beaverton, OR 97006 Milwaukie, OR 97222 OWNERS: Eva Sweeney, Wayne Thompson, Kent and Brenda Wizer, Ken Kvarstrom, and Diane Kvamstrom (Specific site ownership information and addresses available upon request). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 4.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the north side of SW Walnut Street at its intersection with SW 114th Terrace; WCTM 2S103AB, Tax lots 00600, 00700, 02000, 02100 and 02200. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.40, 18.50, 18.84, 18.88 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Subdivision will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended conditions of approval': STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 8/8198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE I OF 24 • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. (Unless otherwise specified, the staff contact for all conditions is Brian Rager with the Engineering Department at 503-639-4171.) 1. Provide verification that all lots meet or exceed the required 7,500 square foot lot area requirement, exclusive of access drives. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407) 2. Submit a revised plan that shows the proposed setbacks for the existing structure on lot six (6) are met. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407) 3. Modify the street tree plan to show the following: A. Spacing of trees along SW 114th Court will be in accordance with the Tigard Development Code based on the mature size of the tree; and B. Submit a plan that shows that no trees are proposed in the vision clearance triangle. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407) 4. TREE REMOVAL - The applicant shall: A. Provide the total number of caliper inches removed; B. Mitigate for 75% of the caliper inches removed. If the final number of trees removed exceeds 75% of the existing trees, the applicant must mitigate for 100% of the total caliper inches removed; and C. Record a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407) 5. Provide a deed restriction for either lot 16 or lot 10 to prohibit access onto the private drive identified as Tract "B". Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407) 6. Record a deed restriction for lots fronting SW Walnut Street prohibiting direct access onto that street. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407) 7. Revise the plan to provide all lots with a minimum of 25 feet of frontage. This includes lots 4, 8 and 13, identified as panhandle lots. Staff contact, Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x407) 8. Obtain a public improvement permit and compliance agreement for this project. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit nine (9) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate 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. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER &W98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-OWINAR 98-OW2 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 24 9. and telephone number Provide the En9in•in9 Department with the name, address of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 10. Provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 11. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to construction of the public improvements. 12. The final plat shall indicate that additional right-of-way will be dedicated for SW Walnut Street to provide 33 feet from centerline. 13. Construct standard half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Walnut Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 22 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. curb or curb and gutter; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 6-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street striping'; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; H. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities); 1. street signs; and J. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Walnut Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 14. The final plat shall indicate that the new public street name will be "SW 114th Place". 15. Prior to construction of the public improvements, the applicant shall submit, for City Engineer and Planning Director review, a Future Streets Plan to show how a public street stub can be provided to Tax Lot 403 (WCTM 2S1 03AB). The plan shall show plan and profile of the street stub and how it can tie in with a realistic future lot pattern on Tax Lot 403. Topography of the subject site and Tax Lot 403 will need to be taken into consideration in order to ensure that the street stub is placed in an appropriate location. Final street stub location will be approved by the City Engineer. 16. The right-of-way and pavement widths of the street stub to Tax Lot 403 shall be 46 feet and 28 feet respectively. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 24 17. The right-of-way and pavement widths of SW 114th P• shall be 46 feet and 28 feet respectively. 18. Both SW 114th Place and the street stub to Tax Lot 403 shall be signed "No Parking" on one side of the street. The applicant will be responsible for the costs of these signs and shall delineate on the construction plans which side of the streets will contain the signs. Final sign location and type shall be approved by the City. 19. 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 public streets in the subdivision. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 20. A profile of SW Walnut Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 21. Lots 1, 3, 4 and 22 shall not be permitted to access directly onto SW Walnut Street. 22. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private streets will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from them. 23. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private streets. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the streets. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 24. The pavement and rock section of the proposed private streets shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential streets. 25. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 26. A maintenance access roadway, built to City standards, shall be provided to serve the downstream sanitary sewer manhole adjacent to the northeast corner of Lot 13 and the proposed water quality facility in Tract A. This maintenance roadway shall be physically separate from the driveway serving Lot 13 and shall be contained within the confines of Tract A. The access roadway shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. 27. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 618/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98.0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 24 to the City of Tigara on the final plat. Asa part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facilities shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. 28. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 29. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 30. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 31. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 32. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 33. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Walnut Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 10,312.50 and it shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. 34. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review three paper copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative; 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; and C. Once the City and County have reviewed the plat, submit two mylar copies of the partition plat for City Engineer's signature. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 OF 24 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager with the Engineering Department at 503-639-4171.)' 35. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct the recommended tree protection measures prior to commencement of construction. Staff contact. Julia Hajduk (639-4171 x 407) 36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 37. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCEkOF OCCUPANCY PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be JULIA POWE'LL HAJDUK with the Planning Division at 503-639-4171.) 38. All site improvements installed as per the. approved plans. 39. Plant a minimum of two (2) trees on each parcel as proposed as part of tree mitigation plan. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF"THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 618198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98-M2 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 OF 24 18.160.180 Bond: As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.160.190 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER BW98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98.0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 7 OF 24 3. Curve points beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.164 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.164.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-OWlNAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 OF 24 THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Tax lots 02000, 02100 and 02200 were partitioned in 1990 (MLP 90-0004NAR 90-0010) to create the current lots. Tax lot 00600 was annexed in 1992 (ZCA 92-0003). The remaining tax lots were annexed in January of 1983 (staff could not determine the ZCA number associated with that annexation). No other development applications were found to previously have been filed with the City. Vicinity Information: Adjoining properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) and developed with single-family residential uses and vacant lots. The property is bordered on the south by SW Walnut Street. The property to the east is inside the City's Urban Services Area, but outside of city limits. Site Information and Proposal Description: The subject site includes.five (5) lots consisting of approximately 5.06 acres of property. The site is relatively flat in slope except along a portion of the east boundary and at the north end where the slope is between 10% and 20%. There are two (2) residential dwellings in the area to be developed, one of which is proposed to remain on lot six (6). The proposal is to create a total of 22 lots. The proposal also involves a variance request to allow an approximately 500-foot long cul-de-sac, whereas, the Tigard Community Development Code states that the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 400 feet; and a second variance request to allow 22 lots to take access from a cul-de-sac, whereas, the Code states that the maximum number of lots permitted to take access from a cul-de-sac shall be 20. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-OWlNAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 9 OF 24 Anv reauired street imnraGements to certain collector or h1he volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32% of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $179. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,790 (the TIF fee will be increasing to 1,899 on July 1, 1998). The applicant is being required to dedicate an additional 13 feet (4862 square feet) of right-of-way along SW Walnut Street and make improvements. Based on past City purchases of residential property for street ROW, residential property is assessed at $2.00 per square foot. Assuming a cost of $2 per square foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the dedication is $9724 (4862 sq. ft. x $2.00). Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $37,590 ($1,790 x 21 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32% of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100% of this projects traffic impact is. $117,469 ($37,590 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $37,590, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $79,879. Given these estimates ($9,724 dedication), the conditions of approval are more than roughly proportional to the impacts. In addition, the applicant has concurred with the improvements and dedication on SW Walnut Street and the construction of SW 114th Court. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL STANDARDS Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. As will be discussed further in this decision under APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS, the proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Low Density Residential opportunity for the site, as well as, with the applicable policies and regulations of the R-4.5 zone and other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Tigard Development Code. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant provided evidence of the subdivision name reservation from Washington County. The proposed name of the subdivision, "Walnut Glen", is not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County. 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. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER M98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-MlNAR 984=2 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 24 The site does not abutroperties with approved plats that would require conformity or p connectivity. Therefore, this criteria is not applicable. Street and connectivity standards are discussed in more detail further in this decision. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements including the provision for public services such as sewer, water, drainage and street improvements. Therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. The improvements are discussed in detail and conditions applied, if necessary, further in this decision. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the subdivision plat approval standards have either been met outright, do not apply or are discussed and conditioned in further sections of this decision. APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Dimensional Requirements (Section 18.50): Section 18.50 states that the minimum lot area for each single-family lot in the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet and the minimum lot width requirement is 50 feet. The proposed lots range between 7,507 and 8,347 square feet. Three of the lots are panhandle lots and staff can not confirm that the square footage indicated is exclusive of the access drive. As will be discussed further in this decision, the access width for the panhandle lots are not adequate and will need to be enlarged to 25 feet. This will most likely reduce the square footages to such an extent that at least one lot could be lost. The applicant must provide verification that all lots meet or exceed the required 7,500 square foot lot area requirement exclusive of access drives. As indicated on the site plan, all proposed lots exceed the 50-foot minimum lot width requirement. Development Standards: Section 18.50.050 contains standards for the R-4.5 zone. Single-family detached residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size Average lot width Front setback Garage setback Interior side yard setback Corner side yard setback Rear setback Maximum building height 7,500 Square Feet 50 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet 5 Feet 15 Feet 15 Feet 30 Feet Compliance with setbacks for homes on lots 1-5 and 7-22 will be reviewed during the building permit review process. It appears that the setbacks for the house to remain on lot six (6) do not meet the front and rear yard setback requirements. The applicant must submit a revised plan (after all required adjustments are made) that shows the proposed setbacks for the existing structure to remain on proposed lot six (6). Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 618/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98.0001NAR 98.0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 11 OF 24 Citizen Input: Policy A provides the City will assure thacitizens will be provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because a neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on December 18, 1997 and February 11, 1998. Notice of the public hearing was provided to owners of property within 250 feet and was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Housing Needs: Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because it continues to allow for low density residential development. By providing close to the maximum density, the development is better meeting the City's density needs, and thus contributing to the diversity of housing. Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84 defines sensitive lands and provides standards for review of properties with sensitive lands The are no sensitive lands identified on the site, however, there is a wetland area off site in the direction of Summer Creek. The required wetland buffer is 25 feet. This buffer applies even if the wetland is off-site. The wetland buffer is discussed under Public Facility Concerns in relation to the water quality facility. Solar Access - Section 18.88.040 states that the solar access design standard shall apply to applications for a development to create lots in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and to create lots for single-family detached and duplex dwellings in all other residential zones. Section 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 parcels meet this standard. As depicted on the plan, six (6) of the 22 lots (27%) satisfy the basic criteria. Section 18.88.040(E) provides for adjustments to the 80% design standard if compliance would, among other factors cause adverse impacts on density or increases in development costs. The applicant contends that both of these factors are applicable to the subject site due to the fact that compliance would cause a reduction in the proposed lots causing a loss of density and a corresponding increase in development costs. As per the provisions of Section 18.88.040 (E)(1)(a), connection into the existing roadway pattern is required by this application which does not allow compliance with the 80% design standard. In any case, all future single-family detached residences constructed on the subject site will be reviewed for solar balance point standards through the building permit process. Densi : Section 18.92.020 contains standards for determining the permitted project density. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands, land dedicated for public. roads or parks, or for private roadways. The net 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. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 618/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-OWlNAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 OF 24 The nmss area of the sit Ts 5.06 acres (220.413 sauare feet).e net developable area of the site, after deduction of .68 acres (29,620 square feet) for public right-of-way and .30 acres (13,068 square feet) for private streets, is 177,725 square feet. With a minimum of 7,500 square feet per lot, this site yields an opportunity for up to 23 lots under the R-4.5 zoning designation. The applicant is proposing 22 lots including the lot for the existing residence. The proposal is, therefore, in compliance with density calculations. Please note, however, that due to how lot sizes are calculated, it is not always possible to fit the maximum number of units permitted. As will be discussed further in this decision, the applicant may end up losing at least one lot in order to provide the required lot area for all lots. Landscaping and screening (Section 18.100) Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The applicant must comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. Street Trees: Section 18.100.035(B) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: 1. Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; 2. Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart. Street trees are shown to be planted along the newly constructed public street (SW 114th Court) and SW Walnut Street. The trees along SW Walnut Street are spaced approximately every 30 feet. The trees shown along SW 114th Court range in spacing between 50 and 80 feet. This proposed spacing does not meet the standards. The applicant will need to modify the street tree plan along SW 114th Court to provide the required spacing based on the size of the tree at maturity. Buffer Matrix (Section 18.100.130): Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The Matrix indicates that where detached single-family abuts detached single-family structures, there is no required buffer and screening. This criteria is satisfied as buffering and screening is not required where single-family residential development abuts single-family residential development. Visual Clearance Areas (Section 18:106): Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right- of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 304oot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-MINAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 13 OF 24 where no curb exists fm the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. This standard will be reviewed at time of development for individual lots. A required street tree at the SW Walnut Street/114th Court intersection appears to be in the vision clearance triangle. A revised plan must be submitted that shows the vision clearance triangle will be in compliance with the standards of the Tigard Development Code. Off Street Parking (Section 18.106): Section 18.106.030.(A ) states that each lot is required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces. Review for compliance with parking standards will be reviewed during building permit review for the individual lots. Access, Egress and Circulation (Section 18.108.070.A): This Section states that the minimum driveway required for each lot shall be 15 feet with 10 feet of pavement width. Section 18.108.070.A states that the minimum access width shall be 25 feet and the minimum pavement width shall be 20 feet for private streets serving between 3-6 lots. Review for compliance with individual lot driveway widths shall be reviewed at the time of building permits. Based on the lot frontages, however, each lot has the ability to provide a minimum 10-foot-wide driveway. The plan shows the private drives (Tract "D", "B" and "C") will provide the required 25-foot access width. Emergency vehicle turnaround: Section 18.108.070.C. states that access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by a hammerhead configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. The proposed design of the private street meets recommended emergency vehicle standards. Tree Removal (Section 18.150): Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a subdivision application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. An existing conditions plan has been submitted with this application which identifies the trees on the property. The applicant's narrative states that there are a total of 144 trees, 12-inch caliper or greater on the site and 32 of those are considered hazardous. The revised narrative states that the proposal will be retaining 33 of the remaining 112 trees. According to these figures, the applicant is retaining 29% 12 inches in caliper or greater and, is thus, required to caliper inches removed. of existing, non-hazardous trees provide 75% mitigation for those STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 14 OF 24 The applicant has indicafthey will mitigate these trees by a Ombination of oversizing the required 2-inch caliper trees with 3-inch caliper trees, planting a minimum of two (2) trees on each lot and fee mitigation payment to the City. Prior to final subdivision plat the applicant must provide the exact number of caliper inches removed and complete the mitigation by planting or bonding for the required trees and/or paying into the tree mitigation fund. If the final number of trees removed is greater than 75%, the applicant must comply with the full 100% mitigation. Section 18.150.045.13 states that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may, thereafter, be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan according to Section 18.150.025 or 18.130.B., and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit impacted by this section to the effect that such tree(s) may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The applicant has not proposed a deed restriction for trees to be retained. In order to comply with these standards, prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant shall record a deed restriction for those trees that are to be preserved. Prior to issuance of building permits on individual lots, the applicant shall construct the recommended tree protection measures prior to commencement of construction. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision. Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access on a public street and requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. Southwest Walnut Street is classified as a major collector and SW 114th Court will be a local street. The dedication and improvement standards are discussed and conditioned further in this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The applicant has submitted a future street plan which shows Tract "C" extended to serve as a hammerhead providing access to a large undeveloped lot to the east (Tax lot 00403). Initially, it was expected that a public street could be extended through this property and loop back to SW Walnut Street. It is staff's understanding that this is not feasible due to the topography on the adjacent lot, however, this is not confirmed. The property to the east is 2.41 acres and could get 11 lots based on density alone (the actual number of lots possible may be much less due to topography and/or sensitive lands). If Tract "C", a private drive, STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-MAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 15 OF 24 were permitted as the on y access to this lot, it would limit de•pment to six O 6 lots or a planned development. Any development on this lot would further increase the number of lots accessing off of a cul-de-sac. The issue of Tract "C" providing access to the east is discussed in more detail further in this decision. The property to the west is developed as a single-family subdivision and is not expected to re-develop. The property to the north is wetland area and Summer Creek, therefore, it is not likely for a street to be extended to the north. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign,.or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The criterion is satisfied because SW 114th aligns directly across from the existing street, extending to serve the site. Existing Rights-of-way: Whenever existing right-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. Right-of-way dedication for SW Walnut Street is discussed in more detail further in this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Cul-de-sacs: Section 18.164.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units. The applicant has requested a variance to this standard to allow the cul-de-sac to have a maximum length of 500 feet and to allow more than 20 lots to access a cul-de-sac. Staff is recommending approval of the variance requests based upon the findings as contained in Section 18.160.120 of this report. Private Street: Section 18.164.030(S) states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer and that private streets serving more than 6 dwelling units are only permitted within planned developments. This section also requires a bonded maintenance agreement or the creation of a homeowners association to provide for the continued maintenance of the street in perpetuity. The applicant is not proposing more than six (6) dwelling units to take access from the private drive identified as Tract "D". The private drive identified as Tract "B" could potentially provide access to seven (7). lots, however, two (2) of those lots have access on SW 114th Court. The applicant must provide a deed restriction for either lot 10 or 16 prohibiting access from the private drive to insure that no more than six (6) lots take access from the private drive. Since no maintenance agreement has been proposed, the applicant shall be conditioned to provide for a bonded maintenance agreement or a homeowner's association for future maintenance of the street. The issue of Tract C being a public street versus a private street is discussed under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER &W98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98.OWINAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 16 OF 24 Block Design: Section 164.040(A) states that the length, thdth and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.164.040(B)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: 1. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; 2. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads; or 3. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The cul-de-sac does not and can not form a perimeter block or decrease the block length. However, this development is exempt, because a street could not be extended to the west due to existing development, to the north due to wetlands and Summer Creek or to the east due to existing topography. A cul-de-sac, therefore, is the only option given the natural topography, wetlands and pre-existing development. Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. As previously stated, the existing development pattern of surrounding properties limits the potential for street extensions. A pedestrian access will be available upon the construction of a public street to stub at the eastern lot as discussed in more detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS.. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. As indicated on the proposed plan, none of the lots are more than 2.5 times the average lot width or more than 1.5 times the minimum lot size, thereby, satisfying this section. Lot Frontage: Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley, unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. As indicated on the site plan, lots 1-3, 5-7 and 9-12 comply with this standard. Lots 4, 8 and 13 provide only 15 feet of frontage. A revised site plan must be submitted that provides all lots with 25 feet of frontage onto a public or private street. Because the lot sizes are so close to the minimum and the access is excluded from the lot area square footage, an increase in the area reserved for a panhandle drive may result in the loss of at least one lot. A final plat with less than 22 lots, however, will be in substantial conformity with this proposal and can still be approved. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6W8 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-OOOINAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 17 OF 24 Sidewalks: Section 18.14.070 requires sidewalks adjoinin•ll residential streets. The applicant must install half-street improvements along SW Walnut Street and will be required to construct full street improvements for the new street. Standard street improvements include sidewalks. City standards do not require sidewalks on private streets. Subdivision Variance - Maximum length and number of lots served by a Cul-de-sac: Community Development Code Section 18.160.120 provides standards for granting a variance as indicated in "bold" print below: There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. The special circumstances that exist are the site's irregular shape and surrounding development patterns that either preclude or limit the possible extension of public streets. As discussed in the future street plan section of this report, a public street can not be extended to adjacent lots with the exception of the lot to the east. In this case, the street would still need to terminate in a cul-de-sac due to the topography on that site. Because of the special circumstances, the applicant has no choice but to provide a cul-de-sac. Therefore, staff is finding that there is an unusual condition affecting this property. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. As discussed in this report, limitations of providing street extensions limit the proposal to a cul-de-sac. The density permitted for this combination of lots is 23 lots. If the cul-de-sac were permitted to be no greater than 400 feet, it would limit the number of lots able to be developed. In addition, the variance to the maximum number of lots permitted to access a cul-de-sac is needed to provide more closely, the density permitted in this zone. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. Granting of the variance to allow a 500-foot cul-de-sac and allow two (2) additional lots to have access from the cul-de-sac, will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to the rights of other properties. Granting the variance for the length of the cul-de-sac would allow the length to be 100 feet longer than permitted. The applicant is providing adequate turn-around on the cul-de-sac bulb and the width of the street is sufficient to allow emergency vehicles to pass with parking on both sides. Allowing a length slightly greater than the standard does not interfere with the rights of adjoining property in any way. Surrounding properties have the ability to continue to use their property as they currently exist or to potentially develop the properties, whether or not the City grants the variance. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. A substantial property right is generally considered to be a right to use the property or have economic use of the land. If the regulations were strictly enforced, the property would have to develop fewer lots which would not allow for the most economic and efficient use of the STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 618198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98.000lNAR 98.0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 18 OF 24 land. The variance requed is the minimum necessary to preserve the full development potential of the site and allow the development of the property to a density close to the maximum permitted in the code. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW Walnut Street, which is classified as a major collector street on the City's Transportation Plan map. Although Walnut Street is still under Washington County jurisdiction, the City entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the County to provide planning and engineering services within the Tigard area. The agreement places the City responsible for planning and engineering decisions related to SW Walnut Street. The roadway is currently paved, within a right-of-way (ROW) measuring approximately 20 feet north of the centerline. The ROW requirement for Walnut Street is 66 feet overall (33 feet from centerline). The ultimate paved width of this roadway will be 44 feet overall. The existing paved improvement is not built to current City standards for width and structural. section, so in order to mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from the project, the applicant will be required to construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of the site. The applicant's plans indicate that they will provide the half-street improvement. Construction plan review and improvement inspection will be coordinated by the City. The applicant also indicates that they will dedicate additional ROW on the final subdivision plat to provide 33 feet from centerline to meet City standards. The applicant submitted a traffic analysis by Lancaster Engineering, dated February 17, 1998, indicating that this project will generate approximately 191 new vehicle trips during an average weekday. Of these new trips, approximately 15 trips will be added to the AM peak hour (an increase of approximately 1.4 percent) and 20 trips added to the PM peak hour (an increase of approximately 1.7 percent). The small increase in traffic resulting from this project is insignificant and does not warrant additional off-site transportation improvements. Proposed Street Layout The applicant's plan indicates that a new local residential street, SW 114th Court, will extend northerly from Walnut Street at the intersection of SW 114th Terrace. Staff approves of the location of the new street because it aligns with the existing centerline of SW 114th Terrace. The proposed street name, however, will need to be modified to comply with City and Washington County addressing policies. The new street name will need to be "SW 114th Place", not "Court". This change can be made on the final plat and the construction drawings for the public improvements. The new public street is proposed to be built within a 46-foot ROW and have a paved width of 28 feet. These widths are allowable by the Community Development Code (CDC), but the narrower width necessitates a no parking restriction on one side. The applicant will need to provide "No Parking" signs along one side of the new street. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98.0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 19 OF 24 The a licant rovided aPuture Streets Plan" to show how the treet layout in this project pp p may serve future development, particularly to the east. However, the plan is not very detailed regarding future development of the property immediately east of the private street labeled as Tract C (Tax Lot 403, WCTM 2S1 03AB). Any future development of the adjacent property would necessitate that access be taken from the private street (Tract C). Engineering and Planning staff discussed this issue and believe that a public street stub should be extended to the adjacent undeveloped property to assure adequate public street access for future lots. This would also prevent future disputes regarding access rights to a private street and limitations as to the number of lots that can be served from a private street (the CDC allows only six lots to be served from a private street). The topography on Tax Lot 403 may limit where a public street can be built, so the applicant will need provide a plan and profile of the future street stub to show how it can be constructed on the adjacent property. The "Future Streets Plan" should also be revised to show a realistic lotting pattern for Tax Lot 403 to ensure that the street stub is placed in an appropriate location. This additional information will need to be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering departments prior to construction of the public improvements. The street stub shall be of the same pavement and ROW width as SW 114th Place. Proposed Private Streets The plan proposes a total of three private streets (Tracts B, C and D). Previously, the replacement of Tract C with a public street stub was discussed. TMC 18.164.030(S) limits the number of lots to be served from a private street to a total of six (6). Both Tracts B and D would serve five and three lots respectively, which would comply with the TMC. 18.164.030(S) also indicates that the applicant shall ensure the continued maintenance of private streets by establishing a homeowners association. It is recommended that the applicant place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street will be owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it. In addition, the applicant should record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private street. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat. The City's public improvement design standards require private streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. The applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section on the private streets. Water: This subdivision will be served from the City's public water system. There is an existing main water line in SW Walnut Street that can be connected to for the new water line in SW 114th Place. The Public Works Department submitted comments regarding this application indicating that they will need to review a detailed plan of the proposed water system for this project. The detailed review would take place as a part of the overall plan review for the public improvements. Public Works indicates that the minimum water line size to the first fire hydrant will be 8 inches. A second hydrant will likely be required at the end of the cul-de-sac to provide fire protection to Lot 13. A 4-inch line will be required to be extended to north end of Tract B. Line size in Tract C will be dependent upon potential lotting patterns for Tax Lot 403 (NOTE: this is another reason why the applicant must submit a revised "Future Streets Plan" for review). STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 8/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-MINAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 20 OF 24 Regarding main line loc ions, the City requires them to be faced on the east or south side of public streets and 6 feet from the face of curb. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located adjacent to the west boundary of this site and an 8-inch line in Walnut Street partly fronting the site. The applicant's plan indicates that they will connect to the existing 8-inch line adjacent to the western boundary near the north end of the site and extend a new main line inside of the project within the public and private street system. A public sewer line will also be extended to Tax Lot 403 for future extension. In general, Staff approves of the preliminary sewer layout, but has a concern about access to the downstream manhole at the very north end of the site at the northeast corner of Lot 13. It appears that the applicant is proposing to provide access to the water quality facility in Tract A and the downstream manhole via the new driveway for Lot 13. The plan shows Lot 13 as a flag lot with only 15 feet of street frontage. Planning will comment elsewhere in this report about the minimum lot frontage required in a subdivision. Staff is concerned that if access to City facilities is combined with a private driveway, there will be conflicts between parked vehicles and City maintenance equipment attempting to reach the City facilities. Staff recommends the applicant be required to provide one access to the downstream sanitary sewer manhole and Tract A, and a separate access to Lot 13. The access to the manhole and Tract A could be placed within Tract A; the size of Tract A may need to be enlarged to accommodate the access. Storm Drainage: The topography of this site falls primarily to the northeast toward Summer Creek. Summer Creek is located near the northeast corner of the site. The applicant submitted a downstream analysis in accordance with Unified Sewerage Agency standards indicating the additional storm water runoff from this site will not have an adverse impact on the downstream system. Storm water from the site is proposed to be directed to the northeast corner of the site into an on-site water quality facility (Tract A). From there, the storm water will be conveyed across Tax Lot 4200 (WCTM 2S1 03AB), which is an open space tract owned by the City of Tigard, into Summer Creek. The plan indicates that the applicant will request two easements from the City to allow construction of two outfalls from Tract A. Any off-site easements needed shall be obtained by the applicant prior to construction. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98.0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 21 OF 24 As was discussed above the applicant proposes to construct an on-site water quality facility in Tract A. Since this facility will be treating storm water runoff from a public street, it will need to be constructed to meet public standards and will eventually be maintained by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain the facility for a period of three years after the conditional acceptance date of the public improvements. The facility will need to be placed within a tract, as shown on the preliminary plan, and conveyed to the City on the final subdivision plat. As was stated previously, access to this facility by City maintenance vehicles is required. The construction plans shall indicate a paved maintenance roadway to City standards that will enable vehicles to access the control structure(s) of the facility. This maintenance roadway would also be used to access the downstream sanitary sewer manhole at the northeast corner of Lot 13. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The applicant's design engineer will be required to prepare a final grading plan for review and approval. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. Adiacent Wetland Area The preliminary plan and project narrative indicate that wetland areas on the City-owned open space (Tax Lot 4200) adjacent to Summer Creek come within 15 feet of the northeast corner of this site. The water quality facility in Tract A will potentially encroach into the USA- required 25-foot buffer adjacent to the wetland. However, the USA standards indicate thata water quality facility can encroach up to 10 feet inside of a wetland buffer provided a wider buffer is provided elsewhere along the wetland. Staff is of the opinion that the minor STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 8/8198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-0001NAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 22 OF 24 encroachment from Tract4C will fall within the acceptable limitstthe USA criteria and there is additional land area on Tax Lot 4200 that provide a much wider buffer than 25 feet. Therefore, Staff does not oppose the location of the project with respect to the adjacent wetland. Existing Overhead Utility Lines: There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Walnut Street. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 375 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 10,312.50. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS have not been met. The standards can be met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval summarized at the beginning of this decision. If the conditions are met, staff can determine that the standards have been met and approval can be granted. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: The cul-de-sac shall have an outside turning radius of 45 feet. The storm drain lateral must be extended to lots 4,5,8,9,7,10,12,13,14 and others having foundation drainage below street level. The water plan is not complete: Provide fire hydrant at entrance to subdivision at SW Walnut Street and a fire hydrant within the cul- de-sac. No portion of a house shall be more than 500 feet from a fire hydrant. Private streets less than 28 feet wide shall have "no parking signs" and curb markings as required by UFC 902.24 and 901.4-5.2. Provide proper turning radius into Track C drive. Installation of private storm drainage system per Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC). The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Water Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: The developers engineer must provide detailed plans on sizing/location of water facilities. The minimum line size to the first fire hydrant is 8 inches and a second fire hydrant will be required at the cul-de-sac to provide fire protection to lot 13. Also, we will require that a 4-inch water main be extended to the north end of Track B. Line size in Track C is dependent upon future layout of the parcel owned by Cloud. Water main placement is east and south of the street - six feet from face of curb (in front) STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 6/8/98 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-MINAR 98-0002 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 23 OF 24 SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS • The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered comments that have been incorporated into this decision under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Tualatin Valley Water District, Washington County, US West, Portland General Electric (PGE), TCI cable, General Telephone, and NW Natural gas have also had the opportunity to review this application and have offered no comments or objections. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. e 44?+ PREPA BY: Julia Ha' uk Associate Planner APPROVED BY: !--d *4 Richard I Planning rff May 28, 1998 DATE May 28, 1998 DATE iAcurpln? uIia\sub98-01.doc STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 618198 PUBLIC HEARING SUB 98-=INAR 984=2 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION PAGE 24 OF 24 TRACT 'A' \1 ;Q7 I 13 ?7.m7 sr.. ? ( i ? h I 14 l ; 7,511 ( i r N Z Z U) 15 ? 7QD7 SF = 1 w • Z I ? re ii O h 7SIDSr 3, 1 L W ? J , its y , t n 7.5W SF. # I 9? s F 9? ?? 9J MEADOWGLADE 7soMsF •\ '• TRACT 'B' 1 7512 $r AT ro 1 i t I 7,511 IF. o far a a - f9 _ ? 1 7511 Si. 7521 SF. ' 5 m. 7874 SF. rr : TRACT, 'D' ar $? ! ? 7 a ?sf t S1gE, E ?..? _ t. CASE NOW & CASE NAl OSk At WUNTTI= SITE PLAN T EmvuIHlT MAP N SUB 98-0001 z O V z z z Q J CL Q LL O 0 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NARRATIVE Submitted: February 26, 1998 WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NARRATIVE OWNER/APPLICANT: Riverside Homes 16666 Greenbrier Parkway, Suite 140 Beaverton, OR 97006 645-0986 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Ken Sandblast Compass Corporation 6564 SE Lake Road Milwaukie, OR 97222 Tel: 653-9093 Fax: 653-9095 LOCATION: North side of S.W. Walnut Street, at its intersection with S.W. 114'h Terrace. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Assessor's Map 2S-1W-3AB Tax Lots 2200, 2100, 2000, 600 and 700 SITE AREA: 5.06 Acres ZONING: R4.5 APPROVAL CRITERIA: City of Tigard Municipal Code Title 18, Zoning APPLICANT'S REQUESTED APPROVAL: Preliminary Plat approval for the creation of a twenty three (23) lot subdivision, including a cul-de-sac requirements variance. This report will address the applicable standards and review criteria of the City of Tigard's Zoning Codes and Comprehensive Plan. • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page City of Tigard Applicable Policies and Findings ............................................................................. 1-5 Impact Study .................................................................................................... 5 Supplemental Map s, Illustrations and Exhibits Size Site Vicinity Map 8.5" x 11" Washingto n County Tax Assessor Map of Site 8.5" x 11" Exhibit A - Preliminary Subdivision Plat (2 Copies) 8.5" x 11" (18 Copies) 24" x 36" Exhibit B - Traffic Impact Memorandum 8.5" x 11" Exhibit C - Wetland Delineation Memorandum 8.5" x 11" Exhibit D - Halstead Arborculture Tree Plan 8.5" x 11" Exhibit E - Preliminary Storm Sewer Calculations 8.5" x 11" And Downstream Analysis (i) N W *E s _a x n? :u rr rc<I r ?:_ ^; Nip ?i NI ? ?lNs N, 1 , JU 6 ,V 1? - t v K.on..z a?'??. z v tnn rp ' i a St u1 t N. 1 $ 30N x • WASHINJ COUNTY OREGON SCALE I"= 100' SEE MAP IS I 34DC (A C W .? 4100 6 lot R e? TRACT 4 A.. Nal L 34 NA-10-:11 4n.u Ie IN 5?e AY r n•sT'4r•e g 3200 o 8b 4200 w 100 b 4.07 AC. 01 f /L38 AC. .h {. A : 3300 _ 2 e SCHOOL 0/STR/C7 23? ?• ,Is 4O00a 2 (P7J FOWLER 'R. HIGH 1 SEC. LIKE /s OAL NO-s7 INITIAL PT. 9 a o °3400 1 b N Y ?. JOHN L.NlotuN/ / 1 bib 4•aa? 3 ii N0. N \t 13 \5\ \B !? L "No. 37 390018 500 • ? ' 3800 Jr.to 3600 I- •?- TRACT 7 3700 t 83.37 : / OJ A N 4 0 % o \ .r4o 0 6 a 5 0 .sz :.. ° M 20 YJ• 1/0 a 26 2200 Iz4,63 N N •1'M' S32 I 553.8 L...? '2.1. 1.... taa9• 3 403 \ \\ I 406 \ \ 3.07Ac. W E o < I O Pte\. c w l: 2100 23 ?4 - I!.!oAc. (y \ \ o I 2 \ _ MAP 35, 38 1? 3\' 78 1 a.., z IIz!.2sAC. ooo ? 7CC .aJ Jt. g1.• \ °w 1 ge.a ? +1 407 .+i \ 0 _ ?m y .OSac 404 vM •1{. .3039. a ?a l i L /1e .o [ 110 ° NTe, ° 401 I s7e ? " 1 I I . 51 r. N?"o W r4•e• 60 o w - ? '-' of 1V I s u• i.' r t«., I s r .23-78 91 \ "1(2401 TO ruellc iOtt/•C 40 5,7e•!1'A "I'M (C0. 1 WAL s tsts 9e uM Ios.a7 ? I.( eo 2300 900 r•eo so' to, N n ??• 90 2400 OC) m = w 1000 \ :L 7 eo .• +O 2500 .34AC. v X }_ 9 Y I 2600 .34AC. li j Z Q Irn\?? r ti. 2800 .34AC. 0 1 L • 1 ('' 3100 ?- lLJ \ 1400 e3s.i Ne9•oi w = 1300N9woi'r -lam = 91.9! 1 8 C N 55 '' 2900 e > ad s1 1 I' T? .I -r 2 , + y 14 2 S T' S 3000 ° so. 2700 229.58 Y 1< LL, o IB __1 °O Iso .26 I >? r Ixe 70•!1 t 97.35 ,^ V / I V v+ 90 w' b 1 o SEE MAP ?1 2S I SAC • • F I N D I N G S This application involves subdividing the subject site into a total of twenty two lots, one of which will contain an existing single family residence located on the subject site. The subject site consists of Tax Lots 600, 700, 2000, 2100 and 2200 of T2S-R1W-3AB. In addition to the major preliminary subdivision plat application, this project also involves a tree removal/mitigation plan and a variance to the cul-de-sac requirements contained with the City of Tigard Title 18 zoning code. The subject site is approximately 5.06 acres in size, relatively flat in slope (0-101/o) except along a portion of the east boundary and at the north end of the site where the slope is between 10 and 20%. This application will create a total of twenty two lots, one of which will contain the exisitng single family residence presently located on the subject site. All of the lots being created exceed the minimum 7,500 square foot lot size of the R4.5 zoning district. These lots will be served via a forty six foot wide public right-of-way which aligns with the existing S.W. Walnut Street/S.W. 114`s Terrrace intersection and is approximately 550 feet in length. The follwing chapters and sections of the City of Tigard Zoning Code are applicable to this preliminary subdivision plat application based upon: (i) existing conditions present upon and surrounding the subject site, (ii) requirements conveyed by Tigard staff during the pre-application meeting held for this project, (iii) a review of Chapter 18, and (iv) two neighborhood meetings held to discuss this proposal with interested parties prior to submission of this application: CHAPTER 18.50 R-4.5: SINGLE-FAMI1, YRESIDEN77AL PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of this chapter, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application will create single family detached residential lots, a permitted use in the R-4.5 district (Section 18.50.030). All twenty two lots proposed satisfy the minimum lot area and minimum average lot width standards for the R-4.5 district and single family detached residences may be constructed on the twenty one vacant parcels being created in satisfaction of the yard setback requirements and height limitations (Section 18.50.050). CHAPTER 18.40 ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of Section 18.40.040, Residential Density Transfer, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application will not exceed 125 percent of the allowed density in the adjacent existing residential areas. CHAPTER 18.84 SENSITIVE LANDS PROPOSED FINDING: Section 18.84. defines land unsuitable for development due to its location within: (i) 100 year floodplains, (ii) natural drainageways (iii) wetlands or (iv) slopes areas greater than or equal to 25 percent. Summer Creek, a natural drainageway, and its accompanying 100 year floodplain flows on parcels to the north of the subject site. There are no 100 year floodplains or natural drainageways located Riverside Flames - Walnut Glen City of Tigard Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application Page I • • upon the subject site. The applicant retained Pacific Habitat Services, a professional wetlands consultant, to ascertain whether or not any wetland areas are present on the subject site. Exhibit C is a memorandum from Pacific Habitat Services addressing their findings that there are no wetland areas present on the subject site. Based upon topographic data gathered through surveying the subject site, there are no slopes greater than or equal to twenty five percent located upon the subject site, see Exhibit A. Therefore, Chapter 18.84 is not applicable to this application. CHAPTER 18 88 SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of the 18.88.040(C), the basic design standard requirement for solar access is that 80 percent of the proposed lots have a north/south dimension of ninety feet or more and a front lot line oriented within 30 degrees of a true east/west axis. As depicted on Exhibit A, six of the twenty two proposed lots involved in this application satisfy both of these criteria, or 27% of the lots. Section 18.88.040(E) provides for adjustments to the eighty percent design standard if compliance would, amongst other factors, cause adverse impacts on density or increases in development costs. Both of these factors are applicable to the subject site due to the fact that compliance would cause a reduction in the proposed lots causing a loss of density and a corresponding increase in development costs. As per the provisions of Section 18.88.040(E)(1)(a), connection into the existing roadway pattern is required by this application which does not allow compliance with the eighty percent design standard. This application involves a variance to City of Tigard cul-de-sac design standards to adequately serve the subject site due to existing development surrounding pattern, topography, and the existing configuration of the subject site boundaries. All future single family detached residences constructed on the subject site will be reviewed for solar balance point standards through the building permit process. CHAPTER 18.92 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the applicable provisions of this chapter, the density calculations for this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application, as depicted on Exhibit A, are as follows: Gross Site Area 5.06 Ac. MINUS Public Rights-of-way 0.68 Ac. Private Streets 0.30 Ac. Lot for Existing Residence (7,500 S.F.) 0.17 Ac. Net Site Area 3.91 Ac. Convert to Acres (x 43,560 S.F.) 170,320 S.F. DIVIDED BY R-4.5 Minimum Lot Area 7,500 S.F. Calculated Lots 22.71 Lots Total Allowable Lots = Calculated Lots + Lot for Existing Residence = 22.71 + 1 = 23.71 = 23 The total of twenty two lots proposed through this application is less than the allowable total for the subject site. There is no residential density transfer proposed through this application. Riverside Names - Walnut Glen City of Tigard Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application Page 2 • • CHAPTER 1&96 ADDITIONAL YARD SEBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS PROPOSED FINDING: As depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary subdivision plat, all proposed lots along Walnut Street satisfy the 30 foot centerline setback and underlying R-4.5 setback standards as required by Section 18.96.020. As per the provisions of 18.96.080, the area computation for the proposed flag lot involved in this application (Lot # 13) is exclusive of the accessway area. CHAPTER 18.98 ADDITIONAL YARD SEBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS PROPOSED FINDING: The future single family detached residence constructed on the proposed flag lot involved in this application (Lot 413) will satisfy the provisions of Section 18.98.030 with regards to height and setback requirements. CHAPTER 18.100 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of 18.100.030 and 18.100.035, street trees will be provided through the construction of this subdivision. Tentative street tree location in satisfaction of these provisions are depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary subdivision plat. Due to the fact that the type of existing surrounding development is the same as that proposed through this application, namely single family detached residences, the buffering and screening provisions from this chapter are not applicable to this application. CHAPTER 18102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of this chapter, this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat can be constructed to comply with the intersection visual clearance requirements for both the proposed private and public streets. CHAPTER 18106 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FINDING: As per the provisions of the 18.106.030(A)(1), the single family detached residences involved in this application are required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces for each dwelling and, as per 18.106.020(H)(1), these spaces must be located on the same lot as the dwelling. All twenty two of the lots proposed through this application will meet both of these provisions through the future driveways and garages located on each lot. CHAPTER 18.150 TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED FINDING: As depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary subdivision plat, there are trees located on the subject site which meet the six inch or greater caliper at four feet from ground level definition contained with this chapter. Therefore, a tree plan is required for this application in accordance with the applicable provisions of this chapter. Exhibit D, included with this application submittal package, is a tree plan for mitigation of trees being removed and preservation of the existing trees be retained by Halstead Arborculture Consultants. In summary, this tree plan is provided in satisfaction of Section 18.150.025 and meets the applicable provisions of Section 18.150.060. Rivorcidv Flames Walnut Gan City of Tigard Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application Page 3 • • CHAPTER 18.160 LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION PROPOSED FINDING: The administration and approval processes required through 18.160.020 and 18.160.030 will be satisfied through the City of Tigard's preliminary subdivision plat processing. This is no land capable of further division under existing zoning located upon the subject site and therefore, no future phases are involved in this application. The preliminary plat information required by 18.160.070 which is applicable to the subject site is included on Exhibit A, included with this application submittal package. There are no variances requested by this application to the provisions of Chapter 18.160. The sections of this chapter involving final plat improvements, bonding, centerline monumentation and recording will be satisfied through the final plat processing upon preliminary plat approval of this application. CHAPTER 18.164 STREETAND UTILITYIMPROVEMENTSTANDARDS PROPOSED FINDING: In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of Section 18.164.030, the subdivision proposed through this application will take access from Walnut Street, an existing public right-of--way, along the south boundary of the subject site. As depicted on Exhibit A, the preliminary subdivision plat, development of the subject site will be served by a forty six public street right-of-way with a minimum of twenty eight of pavement. This proposed public street and the two private streets conform to the Section 18.164.030 provisions related to minimum widths, street grades, centerline curve radii, intersection spacing, intersection angles. The design of the preliminary plat satisfies the lot and block provisions contained within Section 18.164.040 and Section 18.164.060. In satisfaction of 18.164.070, sidewalks will be constructed along both sides of the public street being created to serve the subject site. A preliminary utilities plan is included on Exhibit A depicting the locations of the sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer systems necessary to serve development of the subject site in accordance with Section 18.164.090 and Section 18.164.100. Utilities placed underground during construction of this development in satisfaction of Section 18.164.120. Exhibit E, included with this application submittal package, is the preliminary storm sewer system calculations and downstream analysis required by City of Tigard for preliminary subdivision plat applications. The provisions of Section 18.164.030(K), cul-de-sac design, are applicable to this application given the proposed street design depicted on Exhibit A. However, a variance is necessary to this section due to both the approximate 500 foot length of the proposed cul-de-sac and the twenty two lot total provided access via the street. This variance is allowable through Section 18.160.090. As applicable to this application, the criteria for granting a variance from Section 18.160.120 are addressed as follows: Section 18.160.120(B)(1) - The special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject site and necessitating this cul-de-sac variance are the existing boundary configuration of the subject site, the surrounding existing development pattern and street network, topography on and adjacent to the subject site. When combined, these factors create a unusually shaped triangular parcel with limited existing available access and restricted future access opportunities. Section 18.160.120(B)(2) - The 100 foot variance to the 400 foot maximum cul-de-sac length standard and the two lot variance to the twenty lot cul-de-sac access maximum is the minimum necessary for the proper design or function of this subdivision. As depicted on Exhibit A, a twenty two lot design can be created on the subject site in satisfaction of all applicable City of Tigard requirements and granting this variance will not cause a baseless reduction in density. In addition, the cul-de-sac length variance is necessary for the proper functioning of the street system while satisfying existing City of Tigard private street standards, particular related to the maximum number of lots accessing a private street being limited to six lots. Riverside Mnmes - Walnut Glen City of Tigard Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application page 4 • Section 18160.120(B)(3) - Granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare nor injurious to the rights of other owners of property within the City of Tigard. Instead, this variance will provide for the construction of a fully improved public street ending in a standard cul-de-sac which will provide emergency vehicles with better access to the subject site than further extending private streets. Section 1&160.120(B)(4) - Granting of this cul-de-sac variance is necessary to preserve the full development potential of the subject site in accordance with all applicable provisions of the City of Tigard zoning code. As listed in response to 18.160.120(B)(1) herein above, the boundary configuration of the subject site, topography and the lack of existing and future street connections combine to create an extra ordinary hardship for this application which necessitates this cul-de-sac variance. IMPACT STUDY In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of 18.32.050(B)(5), this twenty two lot preliminary subdivision plat application needs to address the effects of the proposed development on the transportation, drainage, water, and sewer systems serving the subject site. Impacts to and adequacy of the transportation and drainage systems are addressed through exhibits included with this application submittal package. Based upon information provided through the pre-application meeting, and subsequent discussions, with City of Tigard engineering staff, the existing water and sanitary sewer systems are adequate sized and have capacity available to serve a development of the size proposed. The transportation system improvements that will be required to be constructed by the applicant, including internal street construction and frontage improvements along Walnut Street, are acceptable as proportional to the traffic impact of this development. The drainage system improvements, including an internal storm sewer collection and water quality facility, are in accordance with existing city regulations and are acceptable as proportional to the drainage system impact of this development. The sanitary sewer and water system improvements depicted on Exhibit A which are necessary to serve the subject site are acceptable as proportional to the impacts of this development. As depicted on Exhibit A, the right-of-way dedication along the subject site's S.E. Walnut Street frontage are acceptable as proportional to the impacts of this development. The short term noise impacts of this development include construction noise generated during development of the site. While in the long term, the single family residential nature of this development will generate noise levels compatible with the surrounding existing single family neighborhoods. CONCLUSION Based upon compliance with all applicable review criteria as addressed herein above, the applicant requests the City of Tigard approve this application for a twenty two lot subdivision including a variance to cul-de-sac requirements. Riverside F7ame_c - Walnut Glen City of Tigard Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application Page 5 ENGINEERING Planning • Safety. February 17, 1998 Ken Sandblast Compass Corporation 6564 SW Lake Road Milwaukie, OR 97222 Dear Mr. Sandblast: As you requested, we have conducted a preliminary analysis of the proposed Walnut Glen Subdivision in Tigard. I understand that the subdivision would include 22 single-family houses, although two of the houses presently exist. The subdivision will be located on the north side of Walnut Street with an access directly opposite SW 114` Terrace. A manual traffic count was made in February, 1998, at the intersection of Walnut Street and 114' Terrace. The count was made during the peak traffic periods from 7 to 9 AM and from 4 to 6 PM. It was found that the peak hours occur from 7:50 to 8:50 AM and from 5 to 6 PM. As expected, the peak traffic flow on Walnut was eastbound during the morning peak hour and westbound during the evening peak hour. There are 733 vehicles on Walnut during the morning peak hour and 817 during the evening peak hour. To estimate the number of trips that would be generated by the additional 21 houses in Walnut Glen, trip rates from TRIP GENERATION, 6`h Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, was used. The rates used were for ITE land- use category 210, Single-Family Detached Ho-using. Based on these rates, it is estimate that the new houses will generate an additional 15 trips during the morning peak hour, of which four will be entering the site and 11 will be exiting. During the evening peak hour there will be an additional 20 trips generated, 13 entering and seven exiting the site. Not all of the trips generated by Walnut Glen will be traveling in the same direction.on Walnut Street. If it is assumed that the trips from the subdivision are distributed directionally in proportion to the existing directional split of traffic on Walnut, then about 68 percent of the trips will travel in one direction on Walnut, and about 32 percent will travel in the other direction. This means that in the heavier EXHIBIT B Union Station, Suite 206 • 800 N.W. 6th Avenue • Portland, OR 97209 • Phone (503) 248-0313 • FAX (503) 248-9251 LANCASTER ENGINEERING Ken Sandblast February 17, 1998 Page 2 direction, about 10 trips will be added to Walnut in the morning peak hour, an increase of about 1.4 percent. In the evening peak, the traffic on Walnut would be increased by 14 trips, or about 1.7 percent. These increases are so small that they would not be noticeable by other drivers and are unlikely to result in a measurable impact on traffic conditions. In fact, the increase is less than the normal day-to-day variation in traffic volumes that would be expected on this street. In summary, although the subdivision will increase traffic on Walnut, the increase is very small and will not result in any significant impact to traffic congestion. If you have any questions regarding this preliminary analysis, please let me know. Yours truly, I Tom R ?an aster,: PE Principal ?REO PROFS ..NG NNEF 0 GORE?QN S R. LAN La--9(ai LANCASTER ENGINEERING Directional Distribution TriD Ends TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Single-Family Detached Housing Land Use Code: 210 Variable: Dwelling Units Variable Value: 20 AM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 0.75 Enter Exit 0.25 0.75 WEEKDAY Trip Rate: 9.57 Source: TRIP GENERATION, Sixth Edition SATURDAY Trip Rate: 10.09 Total I PHS L PACIFIC HABITAT SERVICES, INC. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 • PO Box 2870 (800) 871-9333 • (503) 570-0800 • Fax (503) 570-0855 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 February 23, 1998 Bill Wagoner Riverside Homes 15455 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Suite 140 Beaverton, OR 97006 Re: Wetland determination and delineation for the proposed Riverside Homes Walnut Glen Subdivision on SW Walnut Street, in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon PHS Project No. 7-1542 Dear Bill: On December 3, 1997, Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS) conducted a wetland determination and delineation on the 5-acre proposed Walnut Glen development site on SW Walnut Street in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon (Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Section 3). The property is located north of SW Walnut Street and east of SW 116th Avenue. The generalized location is shown in Figure 1. The purpose of the field investigation was to determine whether any portions of the site contain potentially jurisdictional wetland. Wetlands are defined by the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1 (Environmental Laboratory 1987) as areas containing hydric soils, a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. The project site consists of 5 adjacent tax lots; 600, 700, 2000, 2100, and 2200. The site is currently undeveloped except for two single-family residences at the southern end of the site, close to Walnut Street. Residential development surrounds the site to the south and the west. An undeveloped corridor is located northeast of the property, associated with Summer Creek, a tributary of Fanno Creek. Fowler Middle school is located east of the property. The site is zoned for residential development (R-4.5). Much of the northern end of the site is wooded, while the southern end is developed with two single family homes. The southeastern corner of the site is a disturbed vacant lot. The topography slopes gradually from approximately 200 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) in the southwestern portion, down to approximately 160 feet NGVD in the northeastern end of the site. EXHIBIT C General Contractors • OR: CCB # 94379 • WA: PACIFHS062Q2 • • Bill Wagoner, Riverside Homes Walnut Glen Wetland Determination February 23, 1998 Page -2- PHS did not identify any potentially jurisdictional wetland within the project site. Summer Creek and its associated floodplain wetland is located offsite to the northeast. Since property boundaries were difficult to determine in the field, this wetland area was investigated and documented as part of this project. Soils mapped on the site by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) include Aloha silt loam (map unit 1), Cove silty clay loam (map unit 13), and Woodburn silt loam (map unit 4513) (Figure 2). Cove silty clay loam is considered a hydric soil. Aloha silt loam and Woodburn silt loam are not hydric soils, but may contain inclusions of hydric soils. Soils sampled on the site consisted of silt loam, without any hydric soil field indicators. The northern portion of the site is. wooded and dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). The understory is dominated by sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and tall Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa). Non-native plants such as bay laurel (Prunus laurocerasis), English ivy (Hedera helix), and English holly (Ilex aquifolium) are also present. The southeastern corner of the project site is a disturbed, open lot dominated by weedy herbaceous species such as creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), hairy cats' ear (Hypochaeris radicata), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), and common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus). The dominant woody vine species is California dewberry (Rubus ursinus). No drainage features or evidence of hydrology were observed on the site. Site hydrology is limited to direct precipitation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program, has not mapped any wetland within the site (Figure 3). The NWI maps are generated primarily on the basis of interpretation of color infrared aerial photographs (scale of 1:58,000), with limited "ground truthing" to confirm the interpretations. NWI mapping does include a palustrine forested/emergent, persistent, saturated/semipermanent/seasonal (PFO/EM 1 Y) body of water associated with Summer Creek offsite to the northeast. The boundary of the wetland associated with the creek floodplain was delineated in the area where it approached the eastern property boundary (Figure 4). The surveyed wetland boundary is located 15 feet from the edge of the property at its closest point. At the time of the site visit, the wetland area contained saturated soils, and a water table was located at 8 inches below the soil surface. The wetland is dominated by herbaceous species such as creeping buttercup (Ranunculus rgpens), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), and American brooklime (Veronica americana). The transition zone between the upland forest and the emergent wetland is dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor). Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. -2- • • Bill Wagoner, Riverside Homes Walnut Glen Wetland Determination February 23, 1998 Page -3- PHS did not identify any potentially jurisdictional wetland on the Walnut Glen project site. Although a wetland floodplain associated with Summer Creek is located immediately offsite to the northeast, the wetland boundary does not extend on site. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely ulie Fukuda Wetland Scientist Ken Sandblast, Compass Corporation Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. -3- 42 Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. Figure 1. Location and general topography of the proposed Riverside Homes development property in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon (U.S.G.S., Beaverton, OR, 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1961 photorevised 1984). 12/24/97 7-1542 • • ?A Pacific Habitat Senlces, Inc. [ figure 2. Soil mapping units for the proposed Riverside Homes development site on S«% Walnut Street. in 'I'loard. \Vashington County, Oregon (U.S.U.A., S.C.S.. Soil .Sw-ve. ofWashin?1rrrrr ('nrrnli, (h-egon. 1 :20000, 1982). 12/24/97 7-1 5 24 • • PIis T Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. VGUIw I?• \, a.. ?.? • EMIY -300 51 c?j p / r. Rolli 6 t .r.- grit GlevErf. ?'3i_`• (l-; , J I 1 `' ' ? 1 ? ? ' ! ?' ?' n ?_.-.Ill' ... ? •, 'c gMt.Y-o ..??PO roc i i _?w r. % 3 pEMIY -w H ±= W PO KZx ., PEMK 200 _P0 \L reer i. ?.f ?' T• ,li::tom SW.* A O , t'[:`T i J _P ? .C?t: _. 1 .V -'may - +? _ /, -.''• ?' _.- ?' Cc?' n y' -Zoo ..r-=.-?. /•? ?j, =?__, . , ? ?`\ •.?? ? ? ?EF?Y, - :? : "'rte : ; ; ?- _ ?• ?olW I ?; oar--? Site P MAY 11 54 <,: 20 -PbW t r \ o? t FOIL' i• .:? ;\ `_ PFOIW ? ' ;• ! I ';;? ?.-;?:?.? .QCs -::?f?E lf?''???+a- -- --,.a•`' X. it ? ` ?f ?, do j? ?,?- 0.?1? ? _ ??/; _"? ? _ lg• ?''t. r •l'??? 1 o P 17 a: ? . ?.P ?c • ? ? f.r;:? ??.? 1196 ;i ?? ??h ?? I F? ?'%? v r, " ' vt ?? :?Q?',f'',; 'p ?.: ':''Ct Aritlion?x?.- I ^ •'\l' ,`p? ?' / ispoia -may :• it `t` -` r` ? ? ` - %?SSC florys_„1:• 'il::r"`: BM??'26? / -._`%: ? .:i ..? _ 1 i - -\ \??t•, ^1.4__ )' I1T,r ,? 1 -;f J' ':JG't. c.77 lj OI •' •??. ;.t ,-. 7^ \111111TTTC ?\?. ` n ..'y? ?.?.?,'!?/:-' ? ` vry'?X Jr' •, I C 600 ` '1c 1 jr?J) /?/5p". '.Op`;'i, %? ? ; tt,\.,?., ?: .\ ? ? -t. ?.•i%I'•?' ? .?ppppWK 12/24/97 7-1542 Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory designations for the proposed Riverside Homes development property in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon (U.S.f.W.S., Beaverton, OIZ 7.5-minute quadrangle, 1:24000, based on 1981 CIR aerial photography). • Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. f ? 1 \ _.. ...rte \? {{ a 1 1 ?? 1 SF •4.. 1 . 7.9 1 1 1 . IV 10 , 1 :? •• 17. .. 7,370 S? ' ??} ?i' ? 7,Jf9SF. yf 1 1 7.35/ S.? 19 / ss/ sF 1'r;y. ' 7.300 Sf /l l . : r sos sr I &Z3Z Sr. 1 '??? • ? 1 r I _ i7PAC?--? ' =}. t 21 1 1 `•+ ei' ti ? ? . 22 . ? . 7,51 fir: :aa: • 1 1 ••i &OUT 2/23/98 Jllf ?? Legend Wetland r,3tt 3/. .S sr. u. S .n. ?r. 7.sif SJ \ w 0 50 100 200 Scale in Feet 7-1542 Figure 4. Project site and offsite wetland boundary for the proposed Walnut Glen subdivision on SW Walnut Street, in Tigard, Washington County, Oregon (Base map provided by Compass Corporation, 1998). • 0 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE CONSULTANTS Javic Halstead. Consultant 8 S P C Box 1182, Tualatin. OR 97052 Prone: (503) 245.1383 February 18, 1998 ATTN.: Mr. Ken Sandblast Compass Corporation 6564 SE Lake Road Milwaukie, OR, 97222 fx 653-9095 Reference: Tree Assessment Location: Walnut Street Subdivision Subject: Mitigation Report "Specialists in the care and creservation of trees" I have inspected the site located on SW Walnut Street and the intersection of the proposed SW 114th Avenue, the "Preliminary Plat Plan" dated 2116198, and the inventory of trees as numbered on the "Tree Survey Plan"; dated February 1998, for the purpose of determining what trees are to be removed and therefore mitigated per the City of Tigard's "Mitigation Plan". There are a total of 196 trees 6 inches and over at diameter breast height, located on the Tree Survey Plan. 52 of these trees are less than 12 inches and are not required to be part of the mitigation. An additional 32 trees are considered as hazardous and 18 trees will be preserved and are not required to be part of the mitigation. This leaving a total 94 trees to be mitigated. The hazardous trees have been counted in the field, marked on the Preliminary Plan, and noted in the tree inventory "JOB NO. 4072, Tree Table". The hazardous trees are listed as: 2058, 2060, 2061, 2105, 2109, 2110, 2152, 2155, 2158, 2160, 2175; 2190, 2200; 2205, 2206, 2253, 2267, 2271, 2294, 2297, 2298, 2315, 2317, 2330, 2331, 2340, 2347, 2352, 2353, 2356, 2362 and 2364. It is not unusual to find this many hazardous trees on a an undeveloped site such as this. The trees are native, growing in an overcrowded situation and have never had any formal care. Most of the hazards come from severely multiple trunks which have formed from breakage caused by winter storms, damage not corrected and the tree left to decay, disease and severe stress. EXHIBIT D • Page 2 February 12, 1998 Reference: Tree Assessment Location: Walnut Street Subdivision Subject: Mitigation Report Preservation of trees numbered: 0 2062, 2065, 2066, 2111, 2112, 2188, 2189, 2300, 2308, 2327, 2328. 2369; 2376, 2377, 2378, 2383, 2385, and 2386. Trees numbered for preservation are on the border of the property line, in the back of the lots, not so large as to be a threat to the forthcoming building project and should do well providing the root zone is not disturbed. Before construction starts the tree's root area will need to be protected by the placement of Orange Tree Barrier fencing no less than 20 feet from the outside base of the tree. Orange Tree Barrier fencing will be attached to steel fence post placed 8 feet apart. The fence post will be driven into the soil no less than 2 feet. A light cable and/or heavy wire will be interwoven through the fencing and attached to the top of the steel stakes and approximately 2 feet above ground in order to secure and strengthen the fencing. The fencing as described will be maintained throughout the construction phase. If any work is done within the protected area and/or if the fencing needs to be adjusted because of the proposed building it will first be approved by and supervised by the consulting arborist. Pruning and cabling may need to be done in order to make the trees as safe as possible. Those arboriculture technicians working within the trees will need to inspect the tree/s very carefully to make sure they are safe to climb. Therapeutic fertilizing and special treatment will not be needed. Tree removal needs to be completed in a careful manner so as not to damage ant trees to be preserved. Any tree to be removed within 15 feet of a tree to be preserved needs the stump ground out rather than excavated. • • Page 3 Februar .112, 1998 Reference: Tree Assessment Location: Walnut Street Subdivision Subject: Mitigation Report With the number of houses, road ways, drive ways, utilities and other like hardscape areas and the required working areas the remaining trees marked for removal do not have the needed root area, nor the resistance to construction trauma to survive and will be mitigated. Of the 112 trees only 18 are to be preserved leaving 94 trees to be removed for a total of 1,890 caliper inches. The total amount of replacement trees and/or monetary compensation will be 1, 890 caliper inches. This is described in "18.150.045 Incentives For Tree Retention"; "number 2 "a" Retainage of less than 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to "Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees." Mitigation involves dividing our total mitigated inches by the largest reasonable available replacement tree in accordance to the City of Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.150. However, Code Section 18.150.070, E states that a monetary compensation may be made in lieu of tree replacement. If I can be of further assistance in this matter or if more technical material is needed please call me immediately. Sincerely, David Halst6ad BS CA WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION • STORM SYSTEM AND DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS The proposed storm sewer system for this residential subdivision will consist of capturing roadway surface water run-off through a series of catch basins and directing the water through a main line storm pipe to the open space tract located at the north end of the project. The design for the storm sewer system will provide for the collection and conveyance of rooftop drain spout runoff into the main line storm pipe as well. Upon conveyance of the surface water runoff to the north end of the subject site, the treatment storm flow will pass through a water quality swale located in the open space tract and subsequently discharge into Summer Creek which flows on City of Tigard property adjacent to the north boundary line of the subject site. The water quality swale will be designed to filter out phosphorous and other pollutants and will provide good runoff treatment prior to being discharged into Summer Creek. In satisfaction of the application requirements, preliminary water quality calculations have been completed for this development and are included with the application submittal package. Based upon information obtained through a detailed survey of the subject site, field observations, an analysis of the Summer Creek drainage basin from U.S.G.S. Beaverton quadrangle topographic map, and discussions with City of Tigard, a downstream analysis for Summer Creek has been explored for this project. It appears that no adverse impacts will be caused as a result of the construction of this project. In looking at the total run-off volume from this site, we estimate that the project will contribute approximately 5% of the drainage volume at a point 1/4 mile downstream. In addition, it is our understanding that the existing culvert at Tiedeman Avenue has recently been upgraded to handle flows from the entire drainage basin. Therefore, it is proposed that no detention will be provided for this development. TMcrnh N:\CLER\F[IVAL\ W orking\02-98W072Feb.23.doc EXHIBIT E n LJ WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION Water Oualitv Calculations Developed Site Impervious Area Streets: (550 ft)(29 ft) = 15,950 FT2 1/2 Street (370 ft)(12 ft) = 4,440 FT2 Tract "B" = 4,320 FT2 Tract "C" = 1,640 FT2 Tract "D" = 4,600 FT2 Dwelling units: (22 lots) x (2,640 FT2/lot) = 58,080 FT2 Total impervious area = 89,030 FT2 Water Quality Swale Flow entering the swale: • Q into the swale computed from the runoff from 100 percent of the impervious surface of the proposed development during a 0.36 inch in 4-hour storm event. Q = 0.36 in x 1 hr x 1 ft x 89,030 FT2 = 0.19 cfs 4 hrs 3600 sec 12 in Proposed length of swale: 135 ft Bottom width: 4 ft Side slope: 4:1 Channel Slope: 0.015 ft/ft Channel roughness, n: 0.25 From Civil Tools "Man-Made Channels" print-out V = 0.24 ft/sec < maximum 0.9 ft/sec design velocity O.K. Y = 0.20 ft < maximum 0.5 ft design depth O.K. Resident time available = 135 ft x 1 min = 9.4 min. > minimum 9.0 min. o.k. 0.24 ft/sec 60 sec TRK/cmh N:\CLER\FINAL\ W Orkin gN02-98\4072Feb.23.doc '+,Z -r.ry'4---+•-. gnX; s: Y.gy?s+ so x r i ,.? v ... r •e,w..y. -?..t - ?,+ ?.?i -s .. •Z r nru-? ? r+ ? ?w+.x- ,£ _?. r i t..? z ??_. ? / y ? .. ,r se??.i•?r/=a-:T.L 2? a i ?? ur J. t f •?. - v r .... O aa. T ?r ? ° ? llARIABLE? O BE 50 VED a(Y , Q , B , M , S R N) ? Y ^` - t = Q'`(?CFS ? 19 _RESULTS -M-(FT/FT±?-_:__._ :-:.:-_-___.___. --_-? ------ 5" (F,T7FT.) _•:x:.:015= .,=: .:. _.:. ...-_:, .` : A= .. 0:80-'SF..-`= ...: - - _.. --- - N 4 :41-FT -- - V= ?? - Q.24---FPS -- -- - ---- ----- - ?..__... - .. ..... -_-F= 0 .09 --_-_-_-SUB-.CRITICAL:-FLOW--- <Shi.f.t>-:.<.Prt Sc> Print (Return>. repeat ---------------------------------------------- (Space Bar> . back .to..menL --------------------------------- i,.1 ?ha"4?`i ??•'° ?'?1--r... °nt ,...?-?i.??r/ ? a ? µni ?a ?u?t??aa t ?.4 ? ?'4`??3'?'1? ??.,•`t ?? xs„? ~1', ? ??'' •,s .!'x ?^)St a ?r +'' ,t r r •- n r r-? .?r,. ,gar -:,. . =s,: l?Lraa:?? ._ aszY_.3r,?-r.-h•+..., ., _?s. d? .a .. ...,+...+,>?.,..?.•,a ... ..?_ _... ,. _,... ... .. -5115 gc??o&-zt cJl'? and s i a tES • guz and -f a =s & eonsuftin9 eSEZvi-z MEMORANDUM TO: Kenneth L. Sandblast, Planning Compass Corporation FROM: Robert Mazany ASCA #133 Consulting Arborist DATE: March 19, 1998 RE: Site, Plan, Report Review Walnut Glen - Tigard I have completed my site, plan and arborist report review for the Walnut Glen, Tigard proposed subdivision as requested. The attached Field Note Narrative reflects observations and tree condition assessment of those trees recommended to be retained. It also addresses those trees which should be retained pending further site staking and a more detailed condition assessment or potential construction impact prior to a determination by the Consulting Arborist for additional removals. I trust this information will be sufficient for your needs at this time. Please contact me when I may be of further assistance on this project. Attachments: Field Note Narrative Color-coded Plan Tree Preservation/Protection Specifications f C?. fox 7305, SeavEZto?z, C?E9o12 97075 - (5o3) 646-OS97 • • Field Note Narrative Walnut Glen Subdivision Tigard, Oregon March 18, 1998 The following field note narrative is submitted to document observations during site and plan reviews by Robert Mazany ASCA # 133, Consulting Arborist, of Robert Mazany and Associates. It is my opinion the following trees can be retained provided tree preservation/protection requirements are adhered to and therapeutic care recommended is accomplished following the clearing phase of the project. 2062 & 2064-2067 Retain as a group and prune as required. 2104 This Pine is in good condition and well located. 2109 Prune as required with some selective low branch removal to clear proposed improvements. Structural support may be required. 2153 This triple stem Cherry has the canopy equivalent of an eighteen inch diameter tree and is in good condition. 2160 Pruning will be required and possible structural support. 2177-2181 Though smaller, these trees are well located as a group. 2193 2287 & 2289 • Pruning required. • Appear to be located sufficiently distant from proposed improvements. 2295-2296 & 2300 Close to east property line away from proposed improvements. 2308 In good condition - located beyond construction envelope. 2338-2369-2370 All are located within or in close proximity to Tract "A". 2376-2377-2378- 2381, 2390-2391 2362 At west property line - Heavy with Ivy, but can be retained. 2365 Prune and remove Ivy. 2381 Well located to retain - Prune. In addition to the above, the following trees should be retained until the site clearing is completed and site improvement staking is in place. At that point a more definitive assessment of condition and location in proximity to proposed improvements can be made. 2190-2199-2205-2206-2209 through 2212-2215-2250-2256-2363-2366-2383-2385-2386. There are also two trees, 2327, an Ash, and 2328, a dead Fir snag, which should be retained for continued use as wildlife trees. 0 • 1. Many trees identified as Maple are Ash or Alder. Trees recommended to be retained have been field marked with a number tag and chartreuse ribbon. 2. Pruning requirements are to ANSI A-300 standards. Conifers - Remove deadwood to one inch diameter and thin interior crown ten to fifteen percent. Selective low branch removal. Deciduous - Prune for deadwood removal one inch in diameter and larger. 3. Structural support refers to cabling to protect potentially weak stem unions. 4. Tree Preservation/Protection specifications attached. 5. The Consulting Arborist must be retained to monitor clearing limits staking, tree protection fence placements and installation, site improvements and other construction activities which may adversely impact trees to be retained. 6. Approximately 552 diameter inches of trees are recommended to be retained with 394 diameter inches recommended for removal decision deferral. • TREE & PLANT PRESERVATION/PROTECTION PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 DESCRIPTION: A. General requirements: Preservation, protection, and trimming of existing trees and shrubs, and other vegetation indicated to remain. B. Definitions: 1. Consulting Arborist: A Consulting Arborist registered with the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). 2. Certified Arborist: Certified by The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). 1.02 PROJECT CONDITIONS: A. Make every effort to protect all trees, shrubs, ground cover and other vegetation existing on the Project site with the exception of that indicated to be removed. B. Meet local jurisdiction requirements for protection of existing trees and vegetation. C. Provide temporary fencing, barricades and guards as required to protect trees and other plants, which are to remain, from all damage. Erect prior to commencement of clearing and demolition work and remove only after all work potentially injurious to trees and other plants is complete. Fence shall be placed as far from trees as is practical, but in no instance closer than one foot behind required construction limits. Fence shall by 4' visibility plastic on steel posts placed no further than 6' apart extending no less than 4-1/2' above the ground, kept taut at all times. D. Protect all trees from stockpiling, material storage, vehicle parking and driving within the tree drip line or tree protection fence area. E. Protect all plant growth including root systems of trees and plants from: 1. Dumping of refuse. 2. Chemically injurious materials and liquids. 3. Noxious materials in solution caused by run-off and spillage during mixing and placement of construction materials, and drainage from stored materials. 4. Continual puddling of running water. F. Restrict vehicular and foot traffic to prevent compaction of soil over root systems. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS: A. As indicated and required elsewhere in this Specification Section, and as may be recommended by Consulting Arborist. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 GENERAL: A. Protect root systems of existing trees, shrubs and ground covers from damage due to noxious materials in solution caused by run-off and spillage during mixing and placement of construction materials, and drainage from stored materials. B. Protect root systems from flooding, erosion, excessive wetting and drying resulting from de-watering and other operations. C. Protect all existing plant material to remain against unnecessary cutting, breaking and skinning of roots and branches, skinning or bruising of bark. D. Do not allow fires under and adjacent to trees or other plants which are to remain. E. Engage a Consulting Arborist to direct removal of branches from trees and large shrubs, which are to remain, if required to clear new construction and where indicated; and to direct tree root pruning and relocation work. F. Where directed by Consulting Arborist, extend pruning operations to restore natural shape of entire tree. G. Cut branches and roots with sharp pruning instruments. Do not break, chop or mutilate. H. Water trees and other vegetation which are to remain as necessary to maintain their health during the course of the work. Maintain a water schedule and document. 3.02 EXCAVATION AROUND TREES: A. Excavate within root zone of trees only where indicated and acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. B. Excavate around tree roots within tree root zone only under the direction of a Consulting Arborist retained by the Contractor. C. Where trenching for utilities is required within root zones, tunnel under and around roots by hand digging. Do not cut main lateral support roots. Cut smaller roots which interfere with installation of new work; use sharp pruning tools. D. Where excavating for new construction is required within root zones of trees, hand excavate to minimize damage to root systems. Use narrow tine spading forks and comb soil to expose roots. Relocate roots in backfill areas whenever possible. If large, main lateral roots are encountered, expose beyond excavation limits as required to bend and relocate without breaking. E. If encountered immediately adjacent to location of new construction and relocation is not practical, cut roots approximately 6 inches back from new construction. F. Do not allow exposed roots to dry out before permanent backfill is placed; provide temporary earth cover, pack with wet peat moss or 4 layers of wet untreated burlap and temporarily support and protect from damage until permanently relocated and covered with backfill. Water puddle backfill to eliminate voids and air pockets. G. All pruning shall be performed to ANSI A-300 Pruning standards by Oregon state registered tree care firms employing Certified Arborists. Other therapeutic care work shall be performed to National Arborist Association standards. 3.03 GRADING AND FILLING AROUND TREES: A. Maintain existing grade within root zones of trees unless otherwise indicated or acceptable to The Consulting Arborist. B. Lowering Grades: Where existing grade finish grade shown around trees, under Consulting Arborist, carefully hand exi zones to new grade. Cut roots exposed approximately 3 inches below elevation grade. is above new direction of :avate within root by excavation to of new finish C. Raising Grades: Permitted only as acceptable to The Consulting Arborist. 3.04 REPAIR AND REMOVAL OF TREES: A. Retain a Consulting Arborist to direct tree repair work. Engage a Certified Arborist, acceptable to the Consulting Arborist, to perform tree repair work. Repair trees damaged by construction operations in a manner acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. Make repairs promptly after damage occurs to prevent progressive deterioration of damaged trees. B. Remove dead and damaged trees which are determined by the Consulting Arborist to be incapable of restoration to normal growth pattern. 3.05 REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF SHRUBS: A. Repair shrubs, and other vegetation damaged by construction operations in a manner acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. Make repairs promptly after damage occurs to prevent progressive deterioration of damaged plants. B. Remove and replace dead and damaged plants which are determined by the Consulting Arborist incapable of restoration to normal growth pattern. 1. Provide new shrubs of same size and species as those replaced or as otherwise acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. 2. Plant and maintain as acceptable to the Consulting Arborist. 3.06 HARDSCAPE INSTALLATION WITHIN TREE PROTECTION ZONES: A. Electrical conduit and irrigation main lines should be run under walkways, within stone or-concrete subbase, and should not cut into native soil within the Tree Protection Zone (within the drip line). Drip irrigation shall be installed within the Tree Protection Zone. Lateral electrical lines to individual lights, should be installed as close to the soil surface as possible with short runs from the main conduit. • B. Electrical fixtures, housing, and irrigation valves must be installed with care to avoid cutting roots. Digging must be minimal with excess dirt removed from the tree preservation area. Do not cut roots greater than 1" in diameter without the approval of the Consulting Arborist. Roots greater than 1" in diameter exposed during excavation must be cut squarely at the edge of the excavation with a sharp say or appropriate pruning tool. C. Install walkways as close to grade as possible to minimize excavation into the soil where large roots and areas of.high root density exist. Backfill with loose dirt to the minimum depth necessary to achieve a natural look. Mulch if appropriate, as directed by the Consulting Arborist. 3.07 COMPENSATION TO OWNER FOR TREES: A. Contractor shall pay the Owner the value of existing trees to remain that died or were damaged and required removal because of the Contractor's failure to provide adequate protection and maintenance.. B. Value of existing trees will be determined by the Consulting Arborist in accordance with the evaluation formula set forth in "The Council of Tree and Landscape Evaluation Guide for Plant Appraisers," Eighth Edition, 1992. C. Any wound or damage to a preserved tree constitutes partial injury. These include, but are not limited to: Any cambium tissue damage. Unauthorized cutting, breaking or removing tree branches. Unauthorized cutting or damaging protected root zones. Soil compaction. Toxic run-off into tree preservation areas. D. Partial injury will be calculated by percentage of the total value of the damaged tree. E. The loss value penalty will include cost to the owner for loss appraisal by the Consulting Arborist plus the cost for necessary damage repair. PART 4 - PRE-CONSTRUCTION TREE CARE. 4.01 PRUNING AND STRUCTURAL SUPPORT: A. All trees designated to be retained within the project limits shall be pruned to ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. with selective low limb removal, as directed and approved by the Consulting Arborist, where required for construction clearance. B. Structural support (cabling) will be required on specific trees as identified by the Consulting Arborist, to National Arborist Association Standards. C. All therapeutic care recommended will be directed, inspected and approved by the Consulting Arborist. PART 5 - POST-CONSTRUCTION TREE CARE 5.01 FERTILIZATION/AERATION A. Aeration as determined by the Consulting Arborist may be required in areas where construction compaction has occurred. B. Deep root liquid injection fertilizing of all trees retained within the project limits will be required following the completion of construction to National Arborist Association Standards. The timing of this fertilizing will be determined by the Consulting Arborist. Prepared by: Bob Mazany ASCA #133 Consulting Arborist Robert Mazany and Associates P.O. Box 1305 Beaverton, OR 97075 (503) 646-0897 RIVERSIDE HOMES Fax:5036902942 Mar 12 '98 10:14 P.02 03/12!1996 09:05 0-263-7936 KYLE NURSERIES 0 PAGE 02 Kyle Nurseries 5885 S. Anderson Rd. Aurora, OR 97002 Ph# (503) 263-7937 Fax# (503) 263-7936 Email Address: kylensys@web-ster.com Kyle nurseries can deliver and Plant Pseudo menziesii "Douglas Fir" at 525.50 per caliper inch. d 0 O A D v a 0 Nl 1 I 0 Q n V © ..t 1 1 b fj Wiz- --- - - ? 0 000, • ol oooaoooooo*< ?I lel I ?? 111m ?. 11 ?? II 9l 0 0 o ? I II _ III - - - ,moo - 7\ A 0 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE JUNE 1998 T4: RIVERSIDE HOMES AND PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS OF THE PROPOSED WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION, RESIDENTS OF THE LERON HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD. FROM: FEDERALLY LICENSED RADIO STATION W7WZ LOCATED AT 12200 S.W. 116THAVENUE, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 SUBJECT: RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE TO YOUR TELEPHONES, STEREOS, ELECTRONIC ORGANS, INTERCOMS SECURITY ALARMS AND OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES. Several residents in the Leron Heights developments have experienced severe interference to their telephones, stereos; electronic organs etc. When this occurs the device improperly functions as a radio receiver. This is not the fault of the nearby radio transmitter and all that can be done at the transmitter end has been done. Due to cost cutting methods of manufacturing by the provider of your equipment such as insufficient shielding and filtering, your equipment is acting as a radio receiver. Most equipment can be filtered and the manufacturer is the place to start in solving the interference problem. The radio station operator can direct you to sources of filters, interference free telephones and can assist your technician with testing. Do not expect the station operator to purchase any equipment for you or to provide any specific technical advice. Also do not expect the transmissions to stop, day or night. The radio station operator has done all that he can to prevent the interference. The City of Tigard, Washington County and the State of Oregon have no jurisdiction in Radio Frequency Interference matters, It is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission. PL-97-259 gave the FCC authority over interference susceptibility to home electronic equipment, but unfortunately, the FCC chose to ask the manufacturers to voluntarily address this subject. The legislative history of this law is clear: .. '. • • Only the FCC has jurisdiction over interference. Municipal zoning authorities, including local law enforcement officials, do not have that authority. As with restrictive antenna or tower ordinances, the FCC, through a directive from Congress, has preempted any concurrent state or local regulation of Radio Frequency Interference pursuant to the provisions of Section 302(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The legal cite is 47 USC Section 302(a). Also see H.R. Report No. 765, 97 Congress, 2nd Session 33 (1982), reprinted at 1982 U.S. Code Congress. & Ad News 2277. Unfortunately most consumer telephones and electronic equipment located within 1,000 feet of this radio transmitting site will be highly susceptible to interference. While the cost of filters is nominal, the technical time involved in solving these problems can involve many hours of trial and error testing. So the cost to become interference free can be from a few hundred dollars to many thousands if you must hire a competent electronics technician and perhaps replace some of your equipment entirely. Security alarms connected to a service that calls out the fire department are the worst offender. If you install one of these, you are asking for trouble. a i ~ REST StJMMERG I ~ rICARD Sr j fY 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ S ' I KA rHEkN S r ~ ~1 r ,1 ~ I k S 1~ \1 1 60' o' 60' ~ 2a' ~ $a' 1 ! ~ I s ~ s \ ~ TRACT A I RACT~ SCALE 1 " = 60' ~ W.~,F. W. . SI ~'E 3,674 SF KEVSr ~ crN,vsr WA1L'N' C R 05ED ~ ~ ~ __,._w ~ ~ 5r EasE r wANUrsrR~Er ~ ~I ; (11 + N I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 3 13 I II s ~ I ~ ~ I 3 17,881 SF I I ~ ; ~ a I ~ i ~ I ~ ~T`'~ ~R~ sr Ni 'NI ~ ~ I I I II; m 3 m I ~e ~ WEAAND 90UNDARV Tt1 I I , m I CARMEN ST I y 7Pn~J~J~YY~4.A~~ I I ,'~R~~d.+'6JYNLad.}"~ f ONN£R Sr I I ~ I I I ~ 1 I 64 I 95' ~ ~ I I J I I ~ I } I 1 Fear I ~ I ; sraeN Ea~F I n I t i I ~ "`r'te ~1L' _ [ ~p _ SCALE NTS I i ~ ~ I ~ 7J54J SF 12 ~ I 1 ~i ~ I ~ ~ I 1,510SF I - ~ _ I J~ h \ I ~ l I D j J 1''~ I 9~ ~ ~ ~ i , ~ ~ `v' ~ h6 , 17a-,... w_1.a I ~ I / ~ ~ I ~ , / A I 1 ~ ~ ~ TRACT 9 ~ I , ~ T CT ~ , : zz ~ I ~ fec I I p R ~ My IE 15 ~ i ~ , .,w, I I ~ ~ raj ; 7,687SF ~ C~~~~7 ~ , 7,512 Sf~ 1 ~ ~ I\ ~ t I 98 ~ rB v~, I N ~ -r,'q ~"~j I i I ~ ~e I i8 ~ ~ ~9 ~ ~ , ~ ~ 10 ~ o ~ I X529 SF 'Q 1 tea a , ~ ; 7,530 Sf I A ~ ~ :T ~ I ; 1 ~ i f 1 ~ = I ` ~ ~ ~ , I I i 1 l ti SUBJECT SITE; 2S•1W 3AB I 4A R I ,1 lx1 ~ I iD2' ~ ~ I 1b~y~ ~ 1 ~ I TAX LOTS 800, 100, 2000, 2100 AND 2200 5 ~ 1 / ~ { i ~ I~ I I a ~ I rRACr ~XC~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ .._ry...__ \ a ~f 17 ~ 17 ~6 t ~ 1 SIZE: 5 OB ACRES `0 i f 00 I / I 7,520 SF, I ~ I ~ I ~ I 9 •'I ZONING; R• ~4.5 174' ~ i I , ~ 1,513 SF ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ar~: I ~ ~i ~ / ' voari N F ~ I ~ f oso QRTIONS Of LOTS 5 TO 1i AND i2 UTItJT1ES: CITY OF TIGARD ~ I t , ~ l ; ~ ~ , , t ~ r A ~RfA TfR I a o 135' I ~ I ~Rf &RfATfR THAN 10f~ SLDP~ ~ $ ~ ~ ti ! 1 ,~I 18 ~ E 18 ~ , , w , ~ ao I ~ oo I _ / ` CONTOURS: COMPASS CORPORATION FIELQ SURVEY I 1559 Sf • I ~ I 119' ..,.~__~_.._-..~.ti_.,,...~,__ I ~ ~ I U I 1 ~1 j i~8 I ~ ( ~ I ~ I \ 1 ~ --1a;1•- I 1 I ~ \ ~ 7 I r 7 NOr PRESENT OR APPLICABLE: 8 8 19 ~ I 19 . > >5r1 sF 1521 SF 1590 sF, ~ J t I ~ I J I ~ a f , I ~ ~ i6 NA TURAt HAZARDS I 2J' ~ R~ --~~--w.~,~ I r,,, 105' I w ; ~ WETLANDS i i 107 r ~ i .1 f,~.--'""~ ROCK OUTCROPPINGS I 00 ~ I I ~ _ .ems . l -'w- ' s I ~ 75 ~ .-1 I ~ ~ i; I I ~ ' I /J~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ; 7J 507 Sf Vi`i' 8 252 SF ~ I , 1 \ I \ ~ ~ 5 I 1 ~ •s~ / I \ t ~ CA ~ , 9~' r, ~ ~ I i ' ii+` - J 1 I ~ ~ ~ r 1 I V I 9 J r z ~ 0 5B sr 15' TRACT Q ~ T AC1 ~r Acr .ox t ~ \ t ~ 2~ of ~ ~ ' 2~ ' ~ r i 1 i - w I ~ , , _ ~4~ ~ ~,._w, ~ 7,559 5 f ' . ' A \ I ~ I ~ - r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ . ~ I,,~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ 7,51J SF I - ~ ~ ~ ' I 78' ~ 1528 Sf, ~ ~ ~ I ~ ; i ' 1 a ~~LLI r ' , ` , - I ~a 1` 1 ~ 111 ~~F ~ ~ 'ar ~ I I { ~ i t~ f 7,649 SF , ~ ~ ~ r 1 1 ~ I •`~J ~ I I I ~2~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ i ~1 y. ji I 1 I I I 7 . I 211 A. I I I r ~ ~ X341 SF. ~ ~ 1,539 SF, zz _ ~ -t u ~e~,., ~ ~ .I.. G~ I 120 , - , I r ,~,tr7AYEkIRr1hK~' - ~G ~~r~X ~ r _ ~ E A~ ~ ~ ~ 1 V r- , 7 ~ ~ I w ~ i ,,,~.r~ I I .1 ~l /N~ l i` i ~ m ~ m ~ E, 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I, ~i~ ~ ` ICI 3 a b ~ ~ I m m ? I 1I ~y 1I l 1_ 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT SCALE 1' = 60 . PLAN SCALE NTS ~ N DRAWN BJS DESIGNED KLS ICHECKED BDG RIVERSIDE 1 - 60 DATE FEB 1998 ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PLANNING 15455 NW GREENBRlA ERSIDE HOMES WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION COMPASS CORPORATION EENBRIAR PKWY, SUITE 140 TIGARD, OREGO ~ DATE NO REVISION PLAN 97-4072 4072EXH1 6564 S E RAKE ROAD 503 653-9093 PHONE BEAVERTON, OR TON, OREGON 97006 M a MILWAUKIE, OREGON 97222 503 653-9095 FAX PHONE: 6d 3 Dwc s BONE: 645-0986 1 1112 Co su~g8-c~aor vA~t~~~ ~~0" i i i - - P~1 srA .-1f vs srA = sfaz PVI ELEV = 196 88 Pur ELEV -1a~ rr Ap = -500 P~ srA = 2+85 K = 20 00 _ Pv1EtEV= ~ ' N PU1 STA - 6+70 K = 6 61 PV1 ELEV = 188 08 ~ PVI ELEV = 176 31 A D = 1 A p = v oo '~-----100 00' Vc ~ ~ 60 DO ~ VC I K = 111 ~ AD = 900 _._.~..._.~._~_._....._.,_..w..... ,------.._~.---r~--------~_ K = 1114 ~ t ~ ~ - ' ~ 4-- f000~ f 0 00 ~ VC ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ W ~ so oa vc I N N ~ m .3 00 200 ~ - _...w.. ~ .w......W.. ~ s ~ I N TRACT AA' E I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ wQ•~ " ~ ~ ~ v IfEYTr E I rn ~ ~ ro m WAi! Nr PROPOSED I ro ~ ~ l,~ . ~ ~ STORM EASE j g ~ ~ j i ~ i ~ ~ ~ a I i m r t V V - p I ~ m ~ I I I ~ ~ b°~ ~ DO ~ C~ ,1 I r ~ - I r I I , R'1 I ~ WF]CAND BOUNDARY f{1 ti ~ -100 ~'~~~lW`G~.~~~ PRELfMINARY STREET STREET PRO~'i~E PLAN I t ~ SCALE 1 = 60~ HORIZONTAL I ~ I , I 1 = 10 VERTICAL HORIZONTAL VERTICAL v ~ I _ - _ __w _ ~I i STORM EASE I I ~ , I I ~ I - _ T. I I DATUM ELEtr 14 ~ ~ ~foo s+oo s+oo 400 3+00 12 3+00 2100 1f04 Ot00 165 Oa I I i I ;a ___~...____.._-_.~........~.._~.__.1 ~ I i ~ I ~ N - - , ',.s;f A A 11 n f 1r ~ 4 x r~ACr ~ I 1 ' y ~ ~ 15 ~ I r ~ r~ ~ /{J//f 1 4 I ' ~ I l~.............~.___..~..- I ' ~ S I ~ t k E{III ~ X25 ~ ~ 1 1 5 I l25~ ~ ~ ~ i Cr 'A' ~ ~ I I RA ~ I 1 ~a~t 16 f i ~ ~ ( ~ . ~ i , i ~ ) i ~ i~. r i i i A R , ~ ~ r 35 N I ~ ~ , ~ ~ 44 R u 1 ~ I i . I I rRACr~~c~ I SAN' I i I 4~Ath?14~,~y.~4L i ~ ~ ,fir I F ~ J r N ~ U ~ ~ I r g I , ~Z I p I Tom= ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ I ~ E ~ I TRACT r?' zo' PA v~~FNr I ~ ~ I 11 0R CLbC~D I tq i I ' ~ r. I r I y _ _ ~ " i i ~ 1 ~ t E I ~ " ! ~ i ~ ~ i 1 ~ ~ lQ f 1 t ~ I I ~ ~ uj ~ i i TYPE "B" MOUN IABIE CURB A C I I ~ ~ 6" OF 7 "-4"CRUSHED POCK ~ l._..._._.. = I TRACT "C' I EXIST RESIDENCE i I TO REMAIN „y ~ ~ I 11 i ~ _ ( ~ 24 ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ I PRIVATE STREET ~ ~ ~ ~ I TYPICAL, ROAD SECTION I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ i SCALE NTS I 1 ~ ` ~ ~ I e I ~ \ I 18 I I s ~ 1 ~ I ~ l I ~ ~ ~ rRAGr D I ~ ~ 8 I ~ ~ i 1 f wM ~ r I 21 ~ ~ r ! I .M. ~ i I V 1 , 46 R/~f I ~ , ` ~ I { I 3 I ct1 f 20 I ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ i I , , ~ r_ , 1 1 I i 1~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ 5~ 4~ 14' 14~ Exrsr, R si NcE _ _ 4 ~ ' ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I r0 E1~ VED EXlS1.OAR~CE ~ i ~ ~ 1 warx I F r ~ ~ l0 BE RE 4E ' ~ ~ ~ ~ TYPE "c" CURB ~ , y I ~ ~ ~ TRAS 'D" 'p' PROFILE 6" EXPOSURE POIN1 f , r ~ ~ i ~ I ; xf , I ~ ~ ? I i 1 ~ ~ r~ € I 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ I ~ 1 I i 1 I f 1 I t ~ 2 ~,I ~I / w FABRlC if' REQUIRED ~ r ~ r _ - Y A C PAVEMENT PIAGEp IN TWU UfTS 5' 51DEWALK FORMED & OONPACTED SUBCRADE i }/7" OF "C" OVER i ~7 ~ VI r , " r r' ~-WA ~ ~ ~ - r - ~ I T flF 1 "-Q" BASE ROCK, IN 1WO LIf7S f ~ yyAtN r i°'" r 114TH COURT .--'f ~ ~ ~.r'~' ~ ' Sih~ „ ~ TYPICAL. ROAD SECTION w ~ I r r r SCALE NT5 I ~ ~ A ~ + t M ~I I 1 ~ 1` A E I n ~ ~ I 60' 0' ~a' 1 ~0' 1 Ao' ~ r r ~-ter--- ' n PRELIMINARY STREET AND UTILITY PLAN SCALE 1 - 60 SCALE 1" = 60' FUTURE STREET PLAN SCALE 1 " = 100' DRAWN BJS DESIGNED KLS CHECKED BDG N COMPASS CORPORATION RIVERSIDE t I ASIDE DOMES WALNUT GLEN SUBDIVISION SCALE 1" = 60' DATE FEB 1998 $ ENGINEERING * SURVEYING * PLANNING 15455 NW GREENBRIAR 6564 5 E LAKE ROAD 563 653-9093 PHONE BEAVERTON! OREG NBRIAR PKWY, SUITE 140 TIGARD, OREGON N, OREGON 97006 5 WMAUKIE, OREGON 97222 503 653-9095 FAX PHONE; 645. DATE NO REVISION PLAN 97-4072 4072EXM1 DWG NE; 645-0988 PX2