Hearings Officer Packet - 06/23/2003HEARINGS OFFICER
~YjYI~ MONDAY -JULY 14, 2003 - 7:00 PM'` l a~
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on
the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 50339-4171, Ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (fDD - Telecommunications Devices for the
Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments and qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible.
To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the
meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements.
Hearings are held in Town Hall at the City of Tigard at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Staff reports are available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC HEARING
2.1 "APPEAL" OF LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION - 4COMMUED FROM, JUME 23, 200003D
SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2002-00010
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00046
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00047
ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 12, 2003, the Director issued a decision to approve a request for Subdivision
approval to create 19, single-family lots on an approximately 4.36 acre site, and a variance to the tree
removal ordinance to reduce the number of trees that qualify for mitigation. On May 27, 2003 an appeal was
filed by the applicant. The appellant has requested that the Hearing's Officer review the City's approval based
on the imposition of several conditions of the approval as enumerated in his letter of appeal. The issues
generally concern tree protection standards, tree mitigation, street improvements, the requirement that
construction plans show driveway aprons, and that the applicant file an acknowledgement agreeing to comply
with the sign ordinance.
LOCATION: The subject parcels are located south of Bonita Road, between SW 79"' and 81d Avenues;
WCTM 2S1 1213C, Tax Lot 300 (14665 SW 79°i Avenue), and 2S112BD, Tax Lot 2800 (no address).
ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate
detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500
square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and
institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.780, 18.790 and 18.810.
3. OTHER BUSINESS
4. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 1
SUBJECT TO CHANGE I
HEARINGS OFFICER
MONDAY - JUNE 23, 2003 - 7:00 PM
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on
the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the
Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments and qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible.
To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the
meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements.
Hearings are held in Town Hall at the City of Tigard at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Staff reports are available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC HEARING
2.1 "APPEAL" OF LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2002-00010
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00046
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00047
On May 12, 2003, the Director issued a decision to approve a request for Subdivision approval to create
19, single-family lots on an approximately 4.36 acre site, and a variance to the tree removal ordinance to
reduce the number of trees that qualify for mitigation. On May 27, 2003 an appeal was filed by the
applicant. The appellant has requested that the Hearing's Officer review the City's approval based on the
imposition of several conditions of the approval as enumerated in his letter of appeal. The issues generally
concern tree protection standards, tree mitigation, street improvements, the requirement that construction
plans show driveway aprons, and that the applicant file an acknowledgement agreeing to comply with the
sign ordinance.
LOCATION: The subject parcels are located south of Bonita Road, between SW 79th and 81St Avenues;
WCTM 2S1 1213C, Tax Lot 300 (14665 SW 7e Avenue), and 2S1 121313, Tax Lot 2800 (no address).
ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate
detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500
square feet. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.780,
18.790 and 18.810.
3. OTHER BUSINESS
4. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 1
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: JULY 14, 2003
PAGE OF
FILE NAME: "APPEAL" OF LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION - (CCantinmedl ffrrom 61231200003D
CASE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2002-00010
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00046
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00047
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE,
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
PROPONENT -(Speaking In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT-
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
rc I et, To P r P,
1 1 ~e:~55r~ ~
,g 2as 5w0 C~'~e
T8 ~w v~cvc~G.
0A s -7at
1 ~a4xi , nz. 9"
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No-
:4 e.~. M
LO
o a-, -7-90 0V
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
I
12~f,f f d✓ ~ q'T= ~ ~ o 0
47-
v~-~c~,~n c~ Y gr-
/
I
_
_
_
Name, Address Zip_ Code_andPhone No_
Name_, Add;_ se_s _ZipCode na d Ph no a No_
I
1
-
~
-
- - - - - - - - - - -
Name, Address, Zip-Code and Phone No.
• - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
I
1
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
1
I
1
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone i67.
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
1
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1
DATE: JUNE 23, 2003
PAGE_LOF E
FILE NAME: "APPEAL" OF LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
CASE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2002-00010
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00046
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00047
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE,
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE
PROPONENT - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT - (Speaking Against)
Name, Address, Zip Code and Pho~e No. Na , Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
1 q -7 St_, Si-i op / Iq ✓ I ;(9 A% sw VAQ-M ct.
11 -t9-xD_, 04 97Lzy s'b3-639- P77Zl ' %CjOwfd I+" SO3.6o3-939T'
Name Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
re I
°Z~ ~ I q Z sw &VtA-A-
~LW Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name,ddress, Zip Code and PhonNo.
I
( o rres 8zl!~ ' I S~, 8`166 1
14" Ll[a,l - -1 - _ _ - - -
Name, Address, Zip Code a d Phone No Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
69 f I =r6w ~,t 8 LVO
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
/9"t-ow 4/~`4--f.e4 ~c k L oar
J t J 6 q_n X44 -,66;vo
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No.
1
Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address; Zip Code and Phone No.
10. 0
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
*City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
' Tigard, Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Accounts Payable UN ® g 7MUR
Legal
NoticeTT 10253
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )
I, KatbySnvc9Pr
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti Bard-Tualatin Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Piihl; rHearina/SUB 2002-00010
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:
June 5.2003
Subscribed and sworn to efore me this th day of , 2 0 0 3.
OFFICIAL SEAL
N y Public for Oregon ROBIN A BURGESS
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
`
My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO. 344589
MY C01%4V'F'z1')N EYPIRES KPAY 16, 2005
AFFIDAVIT - T'
• •
CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on
Monday June 23, 2003 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center -
Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral
and written testimony is invited.
The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance
with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted
by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set
forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing
prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only.
Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to
the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence
sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to
the issue precludes appeal to the Land' Use Board of Appeal based on
that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community
Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is
directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion.
A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted
by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are
available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be
made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior
to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a
reasonable cost.
Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division
(staff contact: Morgan Tracy) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard,
Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:
SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2002-0001ONARIANCE (VAR) 2002-
00046NARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00047
> APPEAL'OF LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION <
ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 12, 2003, the Director issued a
decision to approve a request for Subdivision
approval to create 19, single-family lots on an approximately 4.36
acre site, and a variance to the tree removal ordinance to reduce the
number of trees that qualify for mitigation.* On May 27, 2003 an
appeal was filed by the applicant. The appellant has requested that
the Hearing's Officer review the City's approval based on the
imposition of several conditions of the approval as enumerated in his
letter of appeal. The issues generally concern tree protection
standards, tree mitigation, street improvements, the requirement that
construction plans show driveway aprons, and that the applicant file
an acknowledgement agreeing to comply with the sign ordinance.
LOCATION: The subject parcels are located south of Bonita Road,
between SW 79th and 81st Avenues; WCTM 2S112BC, Tax Lot 300
(14665 SW 79th Avenue), and 2S 112BD, Tax Lot 2800 (no address).
ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. REVIEW
CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.780, 18.790 and 18.810.
naM~rr nwv
SUB2002.00010
VAR2002-00046
VAR2003-00041
APPEAL OF
LEISER PARK
SUBDIVISION
!
TT 10253 - Publish June*5, 2003
• •
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER:
THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,
IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
CITY OF TIGARD
Community !Development
ShapingA Better Community
PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER. AT A MEETING ON MONDAY,
JUNE 23, 2003 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL
BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NOS.: SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2002-00010
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00046
VARIANCE (VAR) 2002-00047
FILE NAME: APPEAL OF LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT/ Matrix Development Corp. APPLICANT'S SR Design LLC
OWNER: Attn: Craig Brown REPRESENTATIVE: Attn: Steve Roper
12755 SW 69th Avenue, Suite 100 8196 SW Hall Blvd., Suite 301
Portland, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97008
OWNER: Anne Leiser, Trustee
6009 SW Pendleton Court
Portland, OR 97221
ITEM ON
APPEAL: On May 12, 2003, the Director issued a decision to approve a request for Subdivision approval to
create 19, single-family lots on an approximately 4.36 acre site, and a variance to the tree removal
ordinance to reduce the number of trees that qualify for mitigation.
On May 27, 2003 an appeal was filed by the applicant. The appellant has requested that the Hearing's
Officer review the City's approval based on the imposition of several conditions of the approval as
enumerated in his letter of appeal. The issues generally concern tree protection standards, tree
mitigation, street improvements, the requirement that construction plans show driveway aprons, and
that the applicant file an acknowledgement agreeing to comply with the sign ordinance.
LOCATION: The subject parcels are located south of Bonita Road, between SW 79th and 81S1 Avenues; WCTM
2S112BC, Tax Lot 300 (14665 SW 79th Avenue), and 2S112BD, Tax Lot 2800 (no address).
ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate
detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of
7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some
civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
REVIEW CRITERIA
BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.780, 18.790 and 18.810.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER
18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD
HEARINGS OFFICER AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL.
ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES AR4✓AILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAWD HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO
ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR (,-ALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPK- i ERS 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.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING
PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE 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 OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE,
THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR
227.178. 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 THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE
DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN
SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
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 (25G) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE
TIME OF THE REQUEST.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER MORGAN TRACY AT (503) 639-4171,
TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223.
VICINITY MAP
~~Ax
SUB2002-00010
co VAR1002-00046
VAR2002-00041
/ER
LEISER PARK
SUBDIVISION
.r~
Ciry of Tiprd
•
0
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Regarding an appeal of an administrative decision ) FINAL ORDER
approving a 19-lot subdivision and approving and ) SUB 2002-00010
denying variances in the R-4.5 zone at 14665 SW ) VAR 2002-00046 & -00047
79th Avenue in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Leiser Park Subdivision)
A. SUMMARY
1. The applicant, Matrix Development Co., requests approval of a tentative plan for a 19-lot
subdivision of a 4.36-acre lot situated between SW 79th and 81St Avenues south of Bonita Road; also
known as tax lots 300 and 2800, WCTM 2S11BC (the "site"). Proposed lot sizes vary from 7042 to
8226 square feet. The proposed average lot size, after a proposed lot line adjustment, will be 7507
square feet.
a. The applicant proposes to remove a dwelling from the site and to develop each of the
19 new lots with a single-family detached dwelling. The applicant will dedicate and improve a public
right of way for SW Leiser Lane from SW 79th Avenue to SW 81St Avenue and will dedicate and
improve public right of way for SW 80th Avenue from a stub at the south edge of the site to proposed
Leiser Lane. The applicant also will improve a private street extending north of proposed Leiser Lane
to serve two proposed lots. That private street can be extended to serve lots that can be created north of
the site. The applicant proposes to collect storm water from imperious areas of the site and to convey
that storm water to a water quality and detention tract in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
SW 79th Avenue and proposed Leiser Lane. Public water and sanitary sewer will serve all proposed
lots.
b. The site contains 156+ trees that have a diameter at breast height ("dbh") of 12 inches
or more, depending on how one counts multi-branched trucks. Ultimately the applicant requested
permission to remove all but seven of those trees, because 148 trees are situated where roads, utilities
and/or homes will be built and/or because the trees are diseased, damaged or otherwise pose a hazard to
the public. The applicant hopes to be able to preserve many of the trees that he asks permission to
remove; whether the applicant can preserve those trees depends on the success of tree protection
measures during construction, the susceptibility of the trees to root rot, and the desires of future owners
of the proposed lots. The applicant proposes to mitigate for removal of 74 trees by planting trees on the
site as required by the Tigard Development Code ("TDC") and by providing trees to the public at no
cost for planting elsewhere. Removal of about 74 of the trees is required due to the existing sanitary
sewer line elevation. The existing sewer line is higher than it should be to serve the site. The applicant
has to fill a portion of the site to accommodate the sewer, removing trees from that area in the process.
The applicant requested approval of a variance to waive mitigation for removal of the trees that must be
removed due to grading for the sewer. The applicant initially also requested a variance to reduce the
total amount of mitigation due to its excessive cost, but that request is moot, because the amount of
mitigation the TDC requires is roughly one-tenth of what the applicant understood it is, and the
applicant did not appeal denial of this variance.
0 •
2. On May 12, 2003, the Tigard Planning Manager (the "manager") issued a Type H decision
denying the variance to tree mitigation requirements based on their cost and approving the preliminary
plan and the variance to waive mitigation for trees that had to be removed to accommodate the sewer,
subject to 42 conditions of approval. On May 28, 2003, Craig Brown, the applicant's representative,
filed an appeal of the manager's decision in which the applicant proposed that the City delete or amend
conditions of approval 6, 12, 13, 15, and 40-42 of the manager's decision.
3. Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") conducted two de
novo public hearings to receive testimony and evidence regarding the application and the appeal. City
staff recommended that the hearings officer delete or modify some of the disputed conditions and
affirm the manager's decision. The applicant testified in support of the appeal and asked the hearings
officer to continue the first hearing to provide time for the applicant to amend the tree removal and
protection plans and text. City staff and the applicant largely agreed about the final form of the
disputed conditions of approval with a few exceptions. Neighbors testified orally and/or in writing with
concerns and objections about the proposed subdivision and tree preservation and removal. The
principal issues in the appeal include the following:
a. Whether the application complies with the applicable standards in TDC 18.790
generally. In particular:
. i. Whether the applicant accurately identified each regulated tree and whether
each such tree will be removed or preserved (TDC 18.790.030.B);
ii. Whether the form and amount of mitigation the applicant proposes to provide
to make-up for removal of regulated trees subject to mitigation complies with TDC 18.790.060.D;
iii. Where and how the applicant must protect trees to be preserved during
construction (TDC 18.790.030.B.4); and
iv. How the City will determine whether trees required to be preserved have
been preserved, and the consequences to the applicant of failing to preserve trees required to be
preserved (TDC 18.790.030.C, 18.790.040.B and 18.790.060);
b. Whether the proposed private street should extend to the north edge of the site to
provide access to divisible land north of the site, and what form that extension should take (TDC
18.705);
c. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof for the proposed variance to tree
mitigation requirements (TDC 18.370.010.C);
d. Whether substantial evidence in the record shows that it is feasible for stormwater
from the site to comply with applicable standards for stormwater drainage (TDC 18.810.100); and
e. Whether certain disputed conditions of approval comply with the applicable
provisions of the TDC (TDC 18.430.040.B).
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 2
0 0
4. Based on the findings and conclusions contained herein and the testimony and evidence in
the public record, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof for
approval of the preliminary plat and the variance to tree preservation requirements for trees situated
where the applicant must grade the site to accommodate gravity flow sanitary sewers, provided the
applicant and subsequent purchasers comply with conditions of approval that are within the City's
authority and are warranted to ensure the development complies with applicable standards in fact.
Therefore the hearings officer grants the appeal in part and denies the appeal in part and affirms the
manager's decision with modifications for the reasons provided herein.
B. HEARING AND RECORD
1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearings about this application on June
23 and July 14, 2003. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of
Community Development. At the beginning of the first hearing, the hearings officer made the
declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed ex parte contacts, bias or
conflicts of interest, and no one objected to the jurisdiction or impartiality of the hearings officer.
2. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony and evidence
offered at the June 23rd hearing.
a. City planner Morgan Tracy summarized the manager's decision. He responded to the
written appeal and other testimony and evidence as follows:
i. He testified condition 6 was imposed based on comments from the City's
Forester and on guidelines prepared by the applicant's arborist which provided that the City Forester
would have to review and approve the location of tree protection fences for trees to be preserved when
the fence is proposed to be situated inside the drip line of the tree. The applicant proposed to substitute
his arborist for the City Forester in condition 6 and proposed to delete the remaining language. Because
the applicant is bound by the approved tree plan, city staff do not object to having the applicant's
arborist determine where to install tree protection, because, if the applicant's arborist is wrong and a
tree that the applicant intended to preserve is removed instead, the applicant is responsible for penalties
and mitigation required by law. Accordingly City staff recommended the hearings officer amend
condition 6 to read substantially as follows:
Submit with public improvement plans a tree protection plan that identifies the trees to be retained and
the proposed location of fencing to protect those trees during construction. Tree protection fencing
shall be placed in accordance with the applicant's approved tree protection plan. Fencing on the plan
can be removed only after the approval of the City Forester. If fencing is removed or protection is
reduced without prior approval, the City Forester may require the applicant to reinstall fencing
consistent with the applicant's approved tree protection plan.
ii. He testified that the addition the applicant proposed be made to conditions 12
and 13 is unnecessary, because TDC 18.810.030.A.5 allows the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of
building the improvements.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 3
• •
iii. He testified that the change the applicant proposed be made to condition 15
is unnecessary, because the condition does not require the applicant to build the driveway aprons as part
of the public road improvement. Aprons can be built when lots are developed with homes. City
engineer Brian Rager testified that, if the applicant does not show driveway aprons on the public
improvement plans, the applicant should include a notation on the plan that the applicant will build the
driveway aprons by the times homes are built on the site.
iv. He testified that the remedies provided for in parts B through D of condition
of approval 40 should be deleted, because TDC 18.790.060 contains the applicable penalties for
violating an approved tree protection plan. Reference to that section would be an appropriate
amendment. TDC 18.790.060.A.1 provides it is a violation of TDC 18.790 for a person to remove a
tree or tree protection in an approved tree protection plan. TDC 18.790 does not authorize the City to
apply "excess mitigation" to trees that are removed contrary to an approved tree protection plan.
Therefore the change the applicant proposed to conditions of approval 40 and 41 is not consistent with
the law.
v. Regarding condition 41, he testified City staff recommend that the hearings
officer delete that condition. The applicant is subject to compliance with the tree protection plan
whether or not he acknowledges it in writing.
vi. Regarding condition 42, he explained that the City has had a problem
enforcing sign regulations relating to signs advertising lots and homes for sale. The applicant's
acknowledgement of sign regulations is one measure the City employs to help facilitate enforcement by
negating an argument by an offender that he or she was unaware of the regulations and by serving as
notice that the City intends to hold the developer responsible for signs associated with sale of lots and
homes in the developer's subdivisions. Such notice motivates a developer to address sign regulation
compliance with the sales people/company he or she contracts with or employs to market the lots.
c. City Forester Matt Stine testified in response to a letter dated June 4, 2003 from
Mable and Dan MacKinnon, whose property adjoins the southwest corner of the site. Mr. Stine
addressed the issue of whether tree 305 should be removed due to damage or disease. He testified that
he did not see any reason to remove the tree during his site visit. He also testified that the amended list
of trees in the tree protection plan is accurate, based on his review of the plan and the site.
d. Professional engineer Steve Roper, the applicant's representative Craig Brown, and
n ti.~r; n+n teeter T01-les and. It1 L 17.11x7LL1.llt unoK K~./1./1./n1./ n apF-UraA nn hal-lolf of tl,a a"t%lirant Aifr Pr%ni-r tPCtlfiarl }flat flip
-borists 1 e ter 1Vl VJ 1 Vl1 Vll vvllKll Vl LaiV KtJtJ aav Kli L. 1ai. i~Vtlva ~v..r ~aiav~ iiua~ aaiv
discussion of and amendments to conditions of approval proposed by City staff in response to the
appeal solved most of the applicant's reasons for the appeal. Mr. Brown explained his unwillingness to
sign the agreement required in condition 42, because he has to comply with the law whether or not he
has signed such an agreement (i.e., for the same reason City staff recommend the hearings officer delete
condition 41).
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 4
•
e. There followed considerable discussion by Mrs. Brown, Torres, Knapp, Tracy, Stine
and City Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff about where tree protection should be provided and how
it will be documented before and after the development occurs. Mr. Tracy expressed the desire for
generally uniform tree protection methods (e.g., installation of tree protection fencing not closer than
the drip line of a tree) to make it easier to obtain and verify compliance. Mr. Stine highlighted that,
when development, vehicles or storage of materials is proposed within the drip line of a tree, more care
is needed to protect against compaction of the soil and physical harm to the tree and its roots. Mr. Stine
and Mr. Torres described some methods available to minimize such adverse impacts, such as drilling
under roots and using steel pins and grade beams to support loads without damaging the tree or its roots
directly or by compacting the soil. Mr. Bewersdorff testified that the City is not obligated to approve
the applicant's tree protection plan; the City could send it back to the applicant as needed for more
work before approving it. At the conclusion of that discussion, Mr. Brown requested that the hearings
officer continue the hearing for three weeks to allow the applicant to prepare a revised tree protection
plan. The applicant agreed to toll the 120-day clock during the continuance and to submit the revised
tree plan within seven days to facilitate review by City staff and the public.
f. Mr. Torres and Mr. Knapp also testified about tree 305. Mr. Torres met with Mr.
Stine and others at the tree. They observed the tree trunk contains a 17-inch x 12-inch "pruning
wound" situated about 15 feet above grade. By drilling through the trunk, Mr. Torres found a 2-inch x
3-inch cavity and rot that extended halfway through the tree. There was rot above and below the hole
and further evidence of decay in a cavity in the trunk. In short they concluded the tree is hazardous now
and should be removed. Mr. Knapp submitted a report to that effect. Based on the report by Mr. Torres
and Mr. Knapp, the City Forester agreed that tree 305 should be removed.
g. Dan MacKinnon testified in support of removal of tree 305, noting the angle of
repose for the tree increases the pressure at the rotted area of the tree, making it more likely that the tree
trunk will fail over time. He described his experience installing utilities while using means to avoid
damage to trees in the way. He also advocated for thinning of the upper story of remaining trees on the
site to reduce the potential for blow-down, although Mr. Stine noted that the City Code does not
regulate tree trimming.
h. Ken Peterson testified with concerns about the safety of trees remaining on the site
after development. Based on his experience, trees weakened by construction might not show damage
for many years. He also expressed concern about the impact of the proposed subdivision on trees that
are off-site but whose crown extends over the site. Protection should be afforded to those trees no
closer to the trunk than the drip line.
i. Karen Savereide asked how long before damage to trees due to construction will be
apparent. Mr. Stine responded that a rough rule of thumb is that a tree that survives 7 to 10 years after
construction was not damaged by that construction. Ms. Savereide opined that the City should hold the
applicant responsible for damage to trees when that damage becomes apparent.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 5
• •
j. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer ordered the hearing continued to a date,
time and place certain: 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 14, 2003 at City Hall. The hearings officer ordered
the applicant to submit whatever new information the applicant wanted to submit regarding the tree
preservation plan by June 30, 2003.
3. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony and evidence
offered at the July 141" continued hearing.
a. Mr. Tracy identified three exhibits prepared since the June hearing: a memo from Mr.
Stine; an addendum to the tree inventory and tree protection plan by the applicant; and a memo from
City staff. Based on the amended tree inventory and protection plan, City staff conclude that the
applicant will mitigate consistent with TDC 18.790 for removal of regulated trees that are not otherwise
exempt or are being removed to accommodate the sewer line. He acknowledged the applicant now
seeks approval to remove all but 7 trees on the site, although the applicant hopes to preserve more. He
testified that the applicant will protect the seven trees to be preserved with 6-foot high tree protection
fencing no closer than the drip line of those trees. The applicant will have discretion about whether and
how to protect trees that are identified for removal. Tree protection fences are not required around trees
that are identified for removal; however the applicant will install tree protection fences around some of
those trees. Some or all of those fences may be situated within the drip line of the trees. The City will
inspect the trees that the applicant proposes to preserve and the trees that the applicant is authorized to
remove but did not remove to verify those trees are undamaged after construction. If the trees are
damaged, the City will require the applicant to remove them so that they do not pose a future hazard. If
the trees are not damaged, they shall be preserved. City staff recommended certain changes to the
conditions of approval. See pg. 2-3 of Mr. Tracy's July 14 memo. He noted condition of approval 5
requires the applicant to mark trees to be removed and trees to be retained. Compliance with this
condition will address concerns by Mr. Peterson.
b. Mr. Stine summarized his memo to Mr. Tracy. He measured the tree protection
afforded by proposed fencing as shown on the revised tree protection plan and concluded that the
fencing as proposed provides good protection generally, but a few trees need more protection. He and
the hearings officer identified and discussed those trees. He also noted trees 30 and 147 are labeled "to
be preserved" on the plan map while they are labeled "to be removed" in the text of the plan. The
applicant needs to change the plan or the text so the labeling of these two trees is consistent. He
discussed the "critical root zone" (OCRZO), which he characterized as a circle where the center of the
tree trunk is the origin and the radius of the circle extends one foot from the tree for every inch of tree
trunk (dbh). The drip line is a shorthand and expedient way of identifying the CRZ, but not always
accurate (e.g., when a tree is part of a clump of trees or is multi-branched). He recommended more
protection for trees 55, 205 and 218 (i.e., protect the CRZ rather than merely the area within the drip
line, except as otherwise approved by the City Forester). He noted that the radius of the protected area
for trees 27, 207, 211 and 217 is less than the recommended 1 foot:l inch ratio. Also he recommended
that the hearings officer require the applicant to provide tree protection fencing for trees whose trunks
are situated off-site, but whose crown extend over the site and more than 15% of the CRZ of the tree
will be affected by such things as construction, grading, filing, trenching, or storage of equipment and
supplies. He observed that the applicant plans to plant three 2-inch caliper trees on each lot as part of
the mitigation for removal of regulated trees. He recommended the hearings officer impose a condition
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 6
0 0
requiring the applicant to be responsible for survival (or replacement) of those newly-planted trees for
at least one year after planting, and that the applicant submit details about tree species, planting
locations and tree sizes for review and comment by the City Forester. Regarding the bare root trees that
the applicant plans to donate to the Tigard High School Booster Club as part of the mitigation for
removal of regulated trees, he recommended the applicant donate trees in containers so that roots are
better protected and/or provide instructions to be given to the recipient of each tree about how to keep
the tree in good condition until and after planting.
c. Mr. Brown, assisted by Mr. Roper, testified for the applicant. He accepted the
amended conditions of approval recommended by City staff in Mr. Tracy's July 14 memo to the
hearings officer, and conditions requiring the applicant to be responsible for trees planted on the site for
one year from planting and to protect off-site trees where 15% of the CRZ of the tree will be subject to
compaction or otherwise affected by development. He discussed the protection area for some of the
trees to be preserved. Mr. Roper testified that tree 30 will be removed, and tree 147 probably can be
saved. Even if they remove both trees 30 and 147, he testified that the applicant will remove only 48%
of the regulated trees that are not exempt or otherwise excluded from the calculation. Mr. Brown
waived the applicant's right to submit a closing written argument.
d. Mr. Torres discussed an optimal tree protection zone and what can be done to protect
the tree if all of that area cannot be kept free of all development impacts, citing Maltheny and Clark,
Trees and Development - A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Development published
by the International Society of Arboriculture (1998).
e. Mr. Peterson testified with objections to the scope of the proposed tree removal. He
contrasted the representation on p. 12 of the manager's decision that the applicant would preserve 50%
of the trees with the applicant's current plans to preserve only about 5% of the trees on the site. Mr.
Tracy responded by clarifying that the applicant continues to propose to remove a fraction less than
50% of the regulated trees on the site that are not exempt or subject to the approved variance. Mr.
Peterson also raised concerns about 5 trees on his lot northeast of the site for which the tree protection
plan fails to provide any protection.
f. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer closed the public record, and
announced that he would take the matter under advisement with a decision to follow within two
calendar weeks.
C. DISCUSSION
1. CDC 18.390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of Type U decisions, such
as the city's decision conditionally approving the subdivision and variance applications. Pursuant to
ORS 215.416(11)(a), appeals of administrative decisions must be reviewed as a de novo matter. The
hearings officer is required to conduct an independent review of the record. He is not bound by the
administrative decision and does not defer to that decision in any way. New evidence may be
introduced in an appeal. The hearings officer must decide whether the applicant has carried the burden
of proof that the application complies with all applicable approval criteria in light of all relevant
substantial evidence in the whole record, including any new evidence.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 7
• •
2. Nevertheless the hearings officer largely agrees with the findings and conclusions in the
manager's decision and in the City staff memoranda dated June 17 and July 14, 2003. Therefore the
hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in those documents as his own except to the extent
inconsistent with the following findings. To the extent the documents from City staff cited herein
conflict with each other, the hearings officer adopts the findings about a given subject in the last in time
of those documents.
3. The hearings officer observes that the evidence and proposal in this case evolved during the
public hearing process. However the basic application remained the same: a 19-lot subdivision for
single-family detached homes with the same street and utility systems and improvements. What the
applicant proposed to do did not vary as much as the manner in which the proposal had to be described
and substantiated to comply with TDC 18.790, "Tree Removal" in light of the applicant's intentions for
the subdivision.
4. TDC 18.790.030.A requires the applicant to submit a tree protection plan identifying
regulated trees and labeling them to be protected or to be removed. Neighbors disputed the accuracy of
the tree inventory and the adequacy of the mitigation.
a. The applicant submitted a survey of trees and a table listing relevant characteristics
and the disposition of each identified tree. The hearings officer finds this inventory and list is
substantial evidence, and the hearings officer relies on that evidence to conclude that the application
complies with TDC 18.790.030.B.3. The applicant should further refine the tree protection plan map
and text based on the conditions of approval.
b. The applicant also submitted a tree mitigation plan. The hearings officer finds that
plan provides for replacement trees consistent with the requirements of TDC 18.790.030.B.2 and
18.709.060.D. For a period of one year after planting a tree on the site pursuant to the mitigation plan,
the applicant should be required to remove and replace any tree that the applicant's arborist or the City
Forester finds has not survived or will not survive.
c. Conditions of approval 4 through 8, 40 and 41, with certain amendments, will assure
compliance in fact with the approved mitigation plan. Condition 40 should require the applicant to
maintain written records of mitigation trees planted on the site showing the approximate date on which
a mitigation tree is planted and the location where it was planted so that City staff can locate the tree to
verify its continued existence and good health (or not) within the one-year period during which the
applicant is responsible for survival of each such mitigation tree. The applicant should be required to
submit a copy of its records to the City at the request of City staff, but not more than monthly.
Condition of approval 4 should be amended accordingly. That condition already addresses mitigation
trees that will be donated for planting off-site. Provided the trees the applicant will donate for use off-
site are healthy when provided to the Booster Club, the applicant should not be required to replace
donated trees that fail to survive, because the circumstances under which those trees may be kept,
planted and maintained are beyond the applicant's control.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 8
0 •
d. The hearings officer finds that the tree protection plan should protect trees where the
tree trunk is situated off site but where the tree crown extends over the site if development (e.g.,
construction, grading, storage of materials and equipment, access) will or may occur within at least
15% of the area on the site that is bounded by the drip line of the tree or its critical root zone, whichever
is less. To protect such trees, the applicant should install a 6-foot high tree protection fence at the drip
line or outer limit of the critical root zone on the site. Although the TDC is ambiguous (by omission)
about whether it is intended to regulate trees where the tree trunk is off-site, the hearings officer
construes TDC 18.790 to apply to such trees when construction on the site could adversely affect such
trees, based on the context and purposes of the chapter (i.e., the chapter refers to "trees" rather than
only to "trees on the site").
5. TDC 18.790.030.A ends with the following sentence: "Protection [of trees] is preferred over
removal wherever possible." In this context, the hearings officer finds that the word "protection"
means "retention" of trees.
a. It is possible for the applicant in this case to retain more than seven existing trees
(e.g., by preserving more trees on the periphery of some lots). But because this standard is stated as a
preference or aspiration, the hearings officer finds that it does not mandate that the applicant do more
than the applicant proposes to do to retain existing trees on the site.
b. The applicant is not required to protect trees that the applicant does not propose to
retain, provided the applicant mitigates for removal according to a framework that rewards but does not
require protection. There are no other standards in TDC 18.790 for evaluating the decision to protect or
remove trees. The plain meaning of the words in TDC 18.790.030.B.2.a clearly allows an applicant to
remove all trees from a site as long as the applicant mitigates for doing so consistent with the ratios in
TDC 18.790.060.D. Nothing in Chapter 18.790 requires mitigation to occur on the site from which the
trees being mitigated were removed. Hence the plan to provide 750 caliper inches of mitigation by
donating trees to the Booster Club for distribution, in addition to planting three 2-inch caliper trees on
each of the proposed lots, fulfills the requirements of TDC 18.790.030.B.2.
6. The hearings officer finds that condition of approval 5 should be amended to ensure that tree
markings are accurate and have not been altered before trees are removed, because the hearings officer
is persuaded by testimony from neighbors that tree markings have changed as the status of the trees as
"to be retained" or "to be removed" changed and that the markings could be changed by third parties
given the open character of the site. Some confusion could result. A condition requiring verification
should not require extraordinary measures to ensure trees continue to be labeled consistent with their
classification under TDC 18.790 as proposed but should require a diligent, good faith effort by the
applicant to verify the trees are correctly marked consistent with the approved tree protection plan
within not more than 48 hours of the start of tree removal. Such a condition helps ensure that the
correct trees will be removed or retained.
7. The hearings officer finds that condition of approval 6 should be amended substantially as
recommended by City staff to clarify and conform the condition to TDC 18.790.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 9
• 0
8. The hearings officer finds that conditions of approval 12 and 13 are within the authority of
the City to impose and are warranted in this case, because the site abuts public rights of way that are not
dedicated or improved to City standards, and TDC 18.810 requires such dedications and improvements.
The hearings officer also finds that these conditions should not be amended as proposed by the
applicant in the written appeal statement, because the TDC already allows the applicant to guarantee
improvements by paying a fee to the City in lieu of making the improvement.
9. The hearings officer finds that condition of approval 15 should be amended to reflect the
City practice of allowing construction drawings to include a notation that the applicant will install
driveway aprons to City standards in a location to be determined by the applicant subject to review and
approval by the City in conjunction with development of a home on each lot rather than requiring the
applicant to show on the plans where the aprons will be situated. Absent constraints on sight distance
or intersection or driveway separation or the like, which do not exist in this case, it is premature to
show aprons if the developer does not know where such driveways will be at this time, as in this case.
Therefore the hearings officer declines to use the words proposed by the applicant, but grants the appeal
to the extent that a change is made to modify the language of the condition to be more flexible.
10. The hearings officer finds that condition of approval 40 should be amended to reflect the
amended tree protection plan, the applicant's testimony at the public hearings in this matter and TDC
18.790. The amended condition should reflect the framework of Chapter 18.790; that is, the applicant
should identify regulated trees and clearly distinguish between trees to be retained and trees that will or
may be removed. The applicant should be required to implement the approved plan, including the
mitigation required by TDC 18.790.060.D. The applicant should be required to file a plan illustrating
how trees that are to be retained will be protected during the development process with a minimum 6-
foot high fence situated no closer to the tree than the drip line. In the case of trees 55, 205, 207, 211,
217 and 218, the applicant should be required to place protective fencing where the City Forester
approves it, but not farther from the trees than the greater of the drip line of the tree or a circle with a
radius that extends one foot from the tree for each one inch of trunk dbh. Protective fences for trees
that the applicant does not propose to retain need not be provided or, if provided, may be situated inside
the drip line of the trees in question. The condition should require the applicant to remove any tree that
the applicant's arborist or City Forester find are diseased or damaged enough to pose a hazard to
people.
11. The hearings officer finds that condition of approval 41 should be amended to delete parts
B through D of the version of the condition in the manager's decision, because they are not consistent
with TDC 18.790.060. By implementing the development as represented in the application and in the
testimony at the public hearings and by complying with conditions of approval 4 through 8, 40 and 41,
the applicant complies with the applicable provisions of TDC Chapter 18.790 and mitigates for the
removal of regulated trees as provided for in that chapter.
12. The hearings officer finds that condition of approval 42 is within the City's authority to
impose and is warranted in this case, because signage in violation of the City Code is a per se public
nuisance.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 10
• 0
a. City staff testified that illegal signage associated with sales of lots and homes is a
significant problem. The applicant did not rebut that testimony, and the hearings officer is persuaded
by staff testimony that a problem exists with illegal signage for the sale of lots and homes. The lots that
the applicant proposes to develop will be sold, homes will be built on them, and those home will be
sold. Therefore, without accusing anyone or any class of persons in particular of violating City sign
regulations, what the applicant proposes to develop is a potential source of illegal signage.
b. The hearings officer finds that signing an acknowledgement like the one used by City
staff is not expensive, difficult or all that inconvenient to do, and, with minor amendments, it does not
implicitly or explicitly deny the applicant any right or privilege at law. It may have the effect of
increasing the applicant's awareness of the sign regulations and his motivation to share this knowledge
with others who may have some relationship with persons who do or who know persons who do post
such illegal signs.
c. Given the foregoing, the hearings officer concludes condition of approval 42 is
warranted to facilitate a process for resolving a public problem that has a sufficient nexus with the
application. Such a condition is necessary to carry out the comprehensive plan as implemented through
the sign regulations. The hearings officer should modify the condition to direct the planning manager
to modify the acknowledgement form to reflect that the Developer may have certain appeal rights by
law or to amend the form as otherwise directed by City Counsel.
13. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required to extend the tract that will
serve proposed lots 9 and 10 to the north edge of the site and to grant an easement to the owner of the
lot to the north (tax lot 100), so that it can be improved and used to provide preferable access to that lot
in the future, consistent with the provisions of TDC 18.705.030.G.2. However the applicant should not
be required to improve the easement beyond the point where it serves proposed lots 9 and 10, because
there is no nexus between a further improvement and the impacts of the project. That is the applicant
does not create a need for such access if the subdivision is approved.
a. Tax lot 100 has and will continue to have frontage on Bonita Road. Access to that
road from tax lot 100 is possible. However TDC 18.705.030.G.2 discourages individual residential
driveway access onto a collector or arterial street such as Bonita if alternative access can be provided.
By extending the easement to the north edge of the site, the applicant makes alternative access possible.
The owner of tax lot 100 should be responsible for improving that access, because that owner benefits
from the access, and the applicant does not benefit from it.
b. Condition of approval 1 should be amended consistent with the discussion above. As
adopted by the planning manager, condition 1 merely requires the tract to extend to the north edge of
the site, but does not give the owner of land north of the site the right to cross the tract. Therefore
condition 1 should be amended to require the applicant to grant an easement over the tract for the
benefit of the owner of the lot to the north, subject to reasonable and appropriate restrictions and
obligations.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page I I
• 0
14. The hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof for a
variance to TDC 18.790 for the trees removed due to grading to accommodate service from the sanitary
sewer line to the proposed lots by means of gravity as provided by TDC 18.370.010.C for the reasons
given in the manager's decision.
15. Based on the preliminary drainage plan, the hearings officer finds it is feasible for the
applicant to prepare and receive approval of a final stormwater drainage plan, and condition of approval
20 requires the applicant to apply for and receive approval of a final stormwater drainage plan
consistent with TDC 18.810.
D. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the
appeal should be denied in part and approved in part because the applicant sustained the burden of
proof that the proposed subdivision and one variance do or will comply with the applicable approval
standards of the Tigard Development Code, subject to conditions adopted by the manager with
modifications warranted by the findings above, and that the evidence shows a variance to mitigation
requirements is not warranted because their cost is excessive and the applicant failed to provide equally
or more persuasive substantial evidence to the contrary. Therefore the hearings officer should affirm
the manager's decision with modifications consistent with the findings above.
E. DECISION
In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and incorporated herein, the hearings
officer hereby denies the appeal in part and grants the appeal in part and affirms the planning manager's
decision denying VAR 2002-00047 and approving SUB 2002-00010 and VAR 2002-00046 (Leiser
Park) subject to the following conditions of approval:
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ONSITE
EMPROV EMENIS, INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACERTf IES:
Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and
approval:
The applicant shall revise Tract A so that it extends to the north property line and terminates at
WCTM 2SI 12BC, tax lot 100. The width of the tract shall be at least as wide as needed to
accommodate a paved width of 20 feet.
a. In addition to other easements the applicant may grant over the tract, the applicant shall
grant to the owner of tax lot 100 an easement over the tract for access purposes. The
easement shall run with the land and shall obligate the owner of tax lot 100 to make any
improvements necessary to provide access over the tract to tax lot 100 beyond the
improvements existing at that time and shall prohibit that owner from obstructing access
over the easement to the lots within the Leiser Park plat in addition to other reasonable
restrictions on the use of the easement for access to tax lot 100. The easement also shall
obligate the owner of tax lot 100 to participate proportionately in the maintenance of
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 12
0 0
improvements in the easement if and after the owner of tax lot 100 improves the
easement to provide access to that tax lot. The easement shall be noted on the face of
the plat.
2. The applicant shall revise the construction plans to show the private street with sidewalks on at
least one side. The sidewalk may be contained in a separate easement. Furthermore the
construction plans for the private street, "Tract A" and the associated access easement shall
show that the pavement section will only be improved to a length of 150 feet or otherwise will
provide for a standard turnaround. The sidewalks shall continue to the northern property
boundary. Also, incorporate the requirements of Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) as
reflected in the Agency Comments Section of this decision, into the construction documents.
3. Submit a revised street utility plan that shows the location, species, and size (minimum 2-inch
caliper) of required street trees.
4. The applicant shall submit a mitigation program that includes:
Assurances for the sale of 750 caliper inches to be planted in the City of Tigard through
the Tigard High School Boosters, or some other approved alternate community based
group. The program shall include measures to ensure that the trees are distributed solely
to City of Tigard residents. The trees may be sold over a period of time exceeding the I-
year approval period, but in no case shall exceed 3 years. If, at the conclusion of the
third year, there are remaining caliper inches to be sold, the applicant may opt to plant
the remaining trees in an off site location (approved by the City Forester) or pay the fee
in lieu (fee assessed at the time of payment). The trees the applicant provides pursuant
to this condition shall be healthy when provided. The City encourages the applicant to
protect roots of trees to be donated by providing trees in containers.
b. A revised landscaping plan or other document that assures that three (3), 2-inch caliper
trees will be planted per each lot. The planting of said trees shall occur after the homes
are substantially complete, but prior to final occupancy inspection. The applicant shall
maintain written records of mitigation trees planted on the site showing the approximate
date on which a mitigation tree is planted and the location where it was planted. The
applicant shall provide a copy of those records to the City on request, but not more than
monthly. The applicant is responsible for the survival of each such mitigation tree for
one year, and shall replace a tree if the applicant's arborist of the City Forester finds that
Ll.. L......
L
1116 L1GG 15 ,7.. LL0.1110...11bx...1GLL L11 1 LL15G0.JU LL 5uG1..~..1 L1 11110.1 L . 1L1 _ W111 11V1VL1 5Li1Vlve Vr pVJGJ Q 11..4.Gtl1...lU W UIE;
L11G
public within one year after the applicant planted the tree.
5. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall clearly designate the trees for removal in the field
with bright orange spray paint, and those to be retained with a different color vinyl tape or such
other color and marking scheme as the City Forester may approve. The City Forester shall
inspect and approve the final marked trees before clearing commences. The applicant shall
verify the accuracy of the tree labels not more than 48 hours before the start of tree removal.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 13
0 0
6. When the applicant submits public improvement plans, the applicant also shall submit a tree
protection plan for review and approval.
a. The tree protection plan shall clearly identify trees to be retained and trees to be
removed.
b. For at least the trees to be retained, the tree protection plan shall show where the
applicant will install 6-foot high fencing to protect those trees during construction. In the
case of trees 55, 205, 207, 211, 217 and 218, the applicant shall place protective fencing
where the City Forester approves it, but not farther from the trees than the greater of the
drip line of the tree or a circle with a radius that extends one foot from the tree for each
one inch of trunk dbh.
C. For trees whose trunks are situated off-site, but whose crown extends over the site, the
applicant shall show fencing will be situated no closer to the tree than the drip line if
development (such as storage of goods or equipment, grading, construction or access)
may occur within 15% of the area on the site within the drip line of the tree.
d. Tree protection fencing shall be placed and maintained in good condition in accordance
with the applicant's approved tree protection plan. Fencing on the plan can be removed
only after approved by the City Forester. If fencing is removed or protection is reduced
without prior approval, the City Forester may require the applicant to reinstall fencing
consistent with the applicant's approved tree protection plan.
7. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit proposed Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions
(CC&R) for review and approval by the planning manager. Among other provisions the
CC&Rs shall require lot owners:
a. To retain any tree on a lot greater than 126 in diameter at breast height when the City
approves occupancy or final inspection of a home on that lot unless a certified arborist
submits a written statement to the planning manager in which the arborist concludes that
said tree is a hazard due to structural defect or for health reasons and the basis for those
conclusions;
b To maintain trees that mitigate for trees that the applicant removed from the site as
identified in the written records required by condition 4.b except as otherwise authorized
pursuant to condition 8; and
To maintain the private street as provided in the CC&R's.
The applicant shall file the approved CC&R's together with the final plat and deeds to the
property.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 14
8. Prior to or during and construction, the applicant may not remove any of the trees to be retained
based on the approved tree protection plan except after it is approved in writing by the City
Forester. After the subdivision is developed and an Association of owners of individual lots is
in place, the Homeowner's Association shall review and may approve or deny requests to
remove trees. The Association shall create a process and guidelines for considering tree
removal requests. Any tree removed from a lot prior to the issuance of final occupancy on the
house will be required to be mitigated at 100% of the caliper inches removed.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and
approval:
9. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is
required for this project to cover all infrastructure work within the subdivision, the street
improvements in both 79th and 81s' Avenues, and any other work in the public right-of-way.
Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the
Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the
Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public
Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement
Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page
(www.ci.tigard.or.us).
10. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number
of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will
provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity
is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is
incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate
information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents.
11. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the
City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public
improvement construction phase. 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.
12. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the
Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street
improvement along the frontage of 79th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall
include:
A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route from curb to centerline equal
to 18 feet;
B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of
pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 15
• •
C. Concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface
and/or subsurface runoff;
E. A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk with a planter strip;
F. Street trees in the planter strip spaced per Tigard Development Code (TDC)
requirements;
G. Street striping;
H. Streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer;
1. Underground utilities;
J. Street signs (if applicable);
K. Driveway aprons or a note on the face of the plans that the Developer will submit a plan
showing where the driveway apron is proposed for each lot subject to review and
approval by the City as part of the building permit application for each lot and the
Developer will complete construction of driveway aprons to City standard in the
approved location on each lot before occupancy or final inspection for the home on that
lot; and
L. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 79th Avenue in a
safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department.
13. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the
Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street
improvement along the frontage of 81St Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall
include:
A. City standard pavement section for a local residential street from curb to centerline
equal to 16 feet;
B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of
pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. A concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface
and/or subsurface runoff;
E. A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk with a planter strip;
F. Street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements;
G. Street striping;
H. Streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer;
1. Underground utilities;
J. Street signs (if applicable);
K. Driveway aprons or a note on the face of the plans that the Developer will submit a plan
showing where the driveway apron is proposed for each lot subject to review and
approval by the City as part of the building permit application for each lot and the
Developer will complete construction of driveway aprons to City standard in the
approved location on each lot before occupancy or final inspection for the home on that
lot; and
L. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 81St Avenue in a
safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 16
• •
14. The applicant shall consider constructing SW 80th Avenue with a 32-foot-wide paved section to
allow for parking on both sides. The right-of-way (ROW) for 80th Avenue can remain at 50
feet, and the new sidewalks could be constructed curb-tight to match the existing improvements
to the south.
15. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that
full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete
sidewalks, driveway aprons or a note such as the one described in conditions 12.K and 13.K
curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street trees, streetlights,
and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets.
Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards.
16. Profiles of 79th Avenue and 81st Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the
subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade.
17. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the
proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential
street.
18. Any portion of public sanitary or storm drainage lines to be located outside of paved roadway
areas shall be constructed of ductile iron or PVC C-900 pipe.
19. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility
Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the
City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An
estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to
approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public
water lines.
20. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality/detention facility shall
be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the Public Facility
Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved
by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on
the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an
Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance
Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from
the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation
and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the
City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and
make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will
take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the
facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the
maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall
immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 17
0 •
21. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI)
permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control
Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition."
22. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan
shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to
insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved
by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from
a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to
sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot.
23. 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.
24. The developer shall provide signage at the entrance of the private street, Tract A, which lists the
addresses that are served by that street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more
easily find a particular home.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT:
Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and
approval:
25. The applicant shall place a statement on the final plat indicating the private street will be owned
and maintained by the properties it serves.
26. Before the City issues a building permit for any of the proposed lots, the applicant shall submit
a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist that recommends measures to protect the
trees on the individual lot, as well as to protect the root zones of trees on adjacent lots and
properties. The applicant shall be obligated to protect all existing trees with protection fencing
established at the drip line of the trees. No encroachments or relocation of the fencing shall be
permitted for those trees that the applicant proposed to retain in the tree protection plan except
as otherwise approved in writing by the City Forester. Encroachments of improvements or
construction may occur within the drip line of trees authorized for removal, provided the
applicant's arborist concurs that such encroachment will not jeopardize the stability or viability
of the tree, and confirms by a post construction inspection report, that said tree does not pose a
hazard. If the applicant's arborist finds that the tree is no longer viable, the tree shall be
removed and is not subject to further mitigation requirements. Nothing in this condition shall
be construed to limit the City's ability to declare a tree a nuisance and to require its removal
pursuant to Chapter 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 18
0 •
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and
approval:
27. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of
$600.00. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering).
28. The final plat shall show on the face that ROW will be dedicated for 79th Avenue to provide 29
feet from the centerline. The ROW for 81st Avenue shall be 27 feet from centerline. The ROW
for 80th Avenue shall be 54 feet.
29. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed
private street(s) will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut
and take access from it(them).
30. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a
maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street(s). The CC&R's shall obligate
the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to
ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the
CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat.
31. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and
incorporated a homeowner's association.
32. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall pay $963.00 to the City for the striping of
the bike lane along the frontage of 79th Avenue.
33. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 79th Avenue or
81 st 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. The fee must be paid prior to approval of the
final plat. If the fee option is chosen, the amount for each street will be as follows:
♦ 79th Avenue $7,260.00
♦ 81St Avenue $9,130.00
34. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to
the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These
monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the
subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to
convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north.
These coordinates can be established by:
♦ GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey.
♦ By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 19
0 •
35. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor
licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative.
B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact
Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 426).
C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by
the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92:05), Washington County, and by the City of
Tigard.
D. The right-of-way dedications for 79th Avenue and 81st Avenue shall be made on the final
plat.
E. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they
receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed
the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor.
F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the
final plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community
Development Director signatures (for subdivisions).
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and
approval:
36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department
with a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat.
37. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a
construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems
such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits.
38. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the
public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all
utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2) all local
residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any off-site street and/or utility
improvements are substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be
energized. (NOTE: the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model
home policy may issue model home permits).
39. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings
of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in ODWGO
format, if available; otherwise ODXFO will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be
tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an
electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and
other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane
Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91).
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park) Page 20
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS UPON
THE PROJECT:
Contact the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639.4147, ext. 2428) regarding
any questions related to the following:
40. The applicant shall adhere to the final tree protection plan for constructing
the subdivision improvements. Trees authorized for removal are as specified
in the applicant's final tree removal plan. Mitigation shall be performed as
specified in the applicant's mitigation program and as memorialized in
Condition #4. The applicant shall be obligated to protect all trees not
removed with protection fencing established at the drip line of the trees. No
encroachments or relocation of the fencing shall be permitted for those trees
not authorized for removal without prior written authorization by the City
Forester. Encroachments of improvements or construction may occur within
the drip line of trees authorized for removal, provided the applicant's arborist
concurs that such encroachment will not jeopardize the stability or viability
of the tree, and confirms by a post construction inspection report, that said
tree does not pose a hazard. If the applicant's arborist fords that the tree is
no longer viable, the tree shall be removed and is not subject to further
mitigation requirements. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to
limit the City's ability to declare a tree a nuisance and require its removal,
pursuant to Chapter 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code.
41. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing his acceptance of the following
requirement:
If the tree protection guidelines are not followed, or tree protection is
moved after being approved in the field, knocked down during
construction, or removed prior to the end of construction. then the
project will be immediately shut down until the fencing is reinstalled
according to the approved tree protection plan.
42. The applicant shall sign and submit a Sign Compliance Agreement regarding
the placement of temporary and permanent signage, provided the manager
shall amend the agreement by adding at least the following sentence before
the signature block:
City agrees that the Developer may appeal any notice or citation the
City files alleging a violation of the signage regulations pursuant to
this agreement as provided by the Tigard Development Code.
Tf rpi-n 1mi-nAPA bu the ('ih7 Attnrnou rho mn"~par . n- -.-A ♦he
as avvvaaaaaavaaaa r v' .•.V V11' 114..V111V', - 111611-- 11161,' 4111V1111 611v
agreement in other ways.
TED this 25th day of
City of
Appeal of manager's decision in SUB 2002-00010
and VAR 2002-00046 & 00047 (Leiser Park)
Officer
Hearings Officer Final Order
Page 21
A
AGENDA ~tEM 00- 2•1
C
II`1
11V ,I
i
0 - - 0
"EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD
(Written Public Testimony received at the hearing)
<.1 •
•
CITY OF TIOARD
Community (Development
Shaping ,4 Better Community
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: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner °
DATE: July 14, 2003
SUBJECT: Leiser Park Subdivision (SUB 2002-00010) Appeal
Tree Protection Plan Resubmittal
At the previous hearing on June 23rd, questions arose regarding the applicant's submitted
tree protection plan. There was discussion regarding the extent of required protection and
how the City would address trees that became hazardous as a result of construction
trauma. Based on input from the City Attorney's office, staff proposed modifying several
conditions which had previously addressed these concerns, but were found to not be
supported by the language in the code as outlined in staffs memorandum, dated June 17t'.
As a result, the applicant would be forced to comply with the tree removal plan originally
submitted, and if circumstances later required a tree to be removed that hadn't previously
been indicated for removal, this action would constitute a violation and require mitigation
even though the applicant had already provided a mitigation plan showing a surplus of
mitigation.
Consequently, the applicant requested to revise the tree removal plan to show essentially
three types of trees:
1) trees that will be removed to allow the public improvements to be constructed,
2) trees that may be removed since they have already been mitigated for, and
3) trees that are to be protected throughout the development.
For the first type of trees, no protection will be required. The second and third type of trees
will be protected with chain link fencing, six feet tall. For the second type of trees, the
fencing may be established closer than the dripline of the trees provided the applicant's
arborist concurs that such encroachment will not jeopardize the stability or viability of the
tree, and confirms by a post construction inspection report, that said tree does not pose a
hazard. If subsequent construction trauma renders the tree unsafe or not viable, these
trees may be removed without further penalty, since they have already been mitigated for.
The third type of trees will receive the greatest protection, with fencing established at the
dripline, and no encroachments will be permitted. If damage does occur to these trees in
7/14/2003 Public Hearing, Continued - 2"° Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 3
RE: SUB2002-00010/Leiser Park Subdivision Appeal
relation to the construction process, these trees will be subject to the penalties established
in the development and municipal codes.
The following conditions are recommended to address the revised tree protection
plan.
Revise Condition #6 as recommended in staffs previous memo:
"Submit construction drawings that indicate the trees to be retained and the proposed
location of tree protection fencing. Tree protection fencing shall be placed in accordance
with the applicant's tree protection plan. Fencing can only be removed with the approval of
the City Forester, who may require that said fencing be reinstalled per the approved
construction plans."
Amend Condition #26 to address protection after completion of the project:
The applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the
final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private
street(s). The CC&R's shall also designate that any tree greater than 92" in diameter that is
located on the lots following final occupancy inspection of the homes shall not be removed
unless a certified arborist makes a written finding that said tree is a hazard due to structural
defect or health reasons. These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior
to approval of the final plat.
Insert before Condition #36 (Prior to Issuance of Building Permits):
The applicant for building permits shall submit a tree protection plan prepared by a certified
arborist that recommends measures to protect the trees on the individual lot, as well as
protect the root zones of trees on adjacent lots and properties. The applicant shall be
obligated to protect all existing trees with protection fencing established at the dripline of the
trees. No encroachments or relocation of the fencing shall be permitted for those trees not
authorized for removal by the subdivision approval without explicit written authorization by
the City Forester. Encroachments of improvements or construction may occur within the
dripline of trees authorized for removal, provided the applicant's arborist concurs that such
encroachment will not jeopardize the stability or viability of the tree, and confirms by a post
construction inspection report, that said tree does not pose a hazard. If the applicant's
arborist finds that the tree is no longer viable, the tree shall be removed and is not subject
to further mitigation requirements. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to limit the
City's ability to declare a tree a nuisance and require its removal, pursuant to Chapter 7.40
of the Tigard Municipal Code."
Replace Condition #40:
"The applicant shall adhere to the final tree protection plan for constructing the subdivision
improvements. Trees authorized for removal are as specified in the applicant's final tree
removal plan. Mitigation shall be performed as specified in the applicant's mitigation
program and as memorialized in Condition #4. The applicant shall be obligated to protect
all trees not removed with protection fencing established at the dripline of the trees. No
encroachments or relocation of the fencing shall be permitted for those trees not authorized
for removal without explicit written authorization by the City Forester. Encroachments of
improvements or construction may occur within the dripline of trees authorized for removal,
provided the applicant's arborist concurs that such encroachment will not jeopardize the
stability or viability of the tree, and confirms by a post construction inspection report, that
said tree does not pose a hazard. If the applicant's arborist finds that the tree is no longer
viable, the tree shall be removed and is not subject to further mitigation requirements.
Nothing in this condition shall be construed to limit the City's ability to declare a tree a
nuisance and require its removal, pursuant to Chapter 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code."
7/14/2003 Public Hearing, Continued - 2"° Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 3
RE: SUB2002-00010/1-eiser Park Subdivision Appeal
,OF w • •
Replace Condition #41 as recommended in staff s previous memo:
"The applicant shall acknowledge in writing his acceptance of the following requirement: If
the tree protection guidelines are not followed, moved after being approved in the field,
knocked down during construction, or are removed prior to the end of construction then the
project will be immediately shut down until the fencing is reinstalled according to the
conditions of approval;"
Other Items:
This morning, a letter was submitted from Kenneth Peterson regarding the adequacy of the
marking of the trees in the field for those trees slated to be cut. Since multiple surveys and
inventories have been taken of the trees, there are confusing marks on the trees. It is
unclear which marks refer to trees being cut versus trees being saved. He requests that a
final audit be performed prior to commencing any site work. Staff believes condition #5
achieves this, but if a different marking scheme is more appropriate, now would be the time
to amend the condition.
With these revisions, staff finds that the application satisfies the criteria for approval, and
recommends the Hearings Officer adopt the changes noted herein.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Memorandum from Matt Stine, City Forester
Attachment 2 - Applicant's Revised Tree Protection and Removal Plan
Attachment 3 - Letter dated July 14, 2003 from Kenneth Peterson
7/14/2003 Public Hearing, Continued - 2"° Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 3 of 3
RE: SUB2002-00010/1-eiser Park Subdivision Appeal
l;, • •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Morgan Tracy
FROM: Matt Stine
RE: Leiser Park - Addendum to Tree Removal
DATE: July 9, 2003
ATTACHMENT I
As you requested, here are my comments the addendum to the tree removal at Leiser
Park.
As per the Tree Removal plans received by the city on July 3, 2003, the tree protection
fencing is close to the standards recognized by the International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA). The standards recommend allowing one foot of protection for every inch of
diameter at breast height (DBH - 4.5 feet from the ground). This is oftentimes referred
to as the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). For example, a 20 inch DBH tree would have its
tree protection fencing located 20 feet from the face of the trunk all of the way around
the tree's canopy. If possible, I would like to see the fencing brought out to reflect ISA's
standards for tree protection. I would at least require that the fencing extend out further
to add more protection for tree numbers 55, 205 and 218. According to the plans the
tree protection fencing is located:
approximately 19 feet from the face of tree number 27 (24 inch DBH);
approximately 14 feet from the face of tree number 55 (23 inch DBH);
approximately 12 feet from the face of tree number 205 (20 inch DBH);
approximately 15 feet from the face of tree number 207 (18 inch DBH);
approximately 23 feet from the face of tree number 211 (26 inch DBH);
approximately 17 feet from the face of tree number 217 (21 inch DBH);
approximately 16 feet from the face of tree number 218 (23 inch DBH).
The trees on the neighboring properties must also be protected from the adverse
impacts of construction. The developer must show tree protection fencing that will be
installed to protect the roots of these adjacent property owners' trees. Trees that must
receive protective fencing are any trees that will have more than 15% of its CRZ
impacted by construction, which may include but not be limited to, grading, filling,
trenching or equipment storage.
There are two trees listed in the "Leave" column that are shown on the plans to be
removed. They are tree numbers 30 and 147. The developer should make the
necessary corrections in the Mitigation Summary.
,1 • •
The developer has proposed planting three 2-inch caliper trees on each lot to satisfy a
portion of the tree mitigation requirements. I feel that this is an excellent way to satisfy
the tree mitigation requirements since it puts trees back on the site. I would suggest
though that the developer be responsible for the survival of the trees for a period of at
least one year or one complete growing season, whichever is longer. If the trees are
planted in the fall or winter (which is when they should be planted anyway) achieving
this commitment should not be a problem. I would like to be able to review and
comment on any tree planting plans with regard to species selection, planting locations
and size of trees.
My only other comment is in reference to the developer's idea to donate trees to the
Tigard High School Booster Club. I realize that bare root trees are the least expensive
choice when purchasing any kind of tree from a nursery. My only concern with bare
root trees is, if the Tigard residents do not plant the trees right away or properly "heal"
them in to protect the trees' roots from drying out, the survival of the trees will be
significantly lowered than if the people were to receive trees in, say, containers.
Containerized trees may cost more money but the possibility of the roots drying out thus
possibly killing the tree(s) is much less. I think that it would also be wise if instructions
were given out to with the sale of each tree that shows how to properly plant, maintain
and care for the tree. Information contained at the beginning of the City's Street Tree
List may be used to compile information to give to the future tree owners.
•
ATTACHMENT 2
LEISER PARK
19 Lot Subdivision
Addendum to Tree Removal
City of Tigard, Oregon
Agent:
SR Design LLC
Contact: Steve Roper, PE
8196 SW Hall Blvd., Suite 232
Beaverton, OR 97008
office 503.469.1213
fax 503.469.8553
Applicant:
Matrix Development Corporation
Contact: Craig Brown
12755 SW 69th Avenue, #100
Portland, OR 97223
office 503.620.8080
fax 503.598.8900
• •
D. Section 18.790 Tree Removal
This site is extensively covered with trees, many of which must be removed to allow
development of this single family detached subdivision of 19 lots. A total of 156 trees with
sizes greater than 12 inches at breast height have been identified through the efforts of an
arborist, and have been located on the site through a tree survey by G&L Surveying. After
the tree survey and review of the trees on the site, it has been determined that approximately
74 of the trees, or 47.4% of the trees that are greater than 12 inches in caliper must be
removed. This means that 82 trees, or 52.6%, will either be retained on-site, are considered
a hazard due to being dead, dying, diseased, or decayed and will be removed, or are located
in the public ROW, and will be removed.
The Tree Removal Plan (Sheet C4) identifies the locations of all trees on the site greater
than 12" in diameter, both those that will remain and those that will be removed. In order to
provide the necessary streets in this development, as well as creating envelopes for
construction of 19 single family detached dwellings, a total of 74 mitigatable trees must be
removed.
If it is determined mitigation is required at the time of home construction, three (3) trees of
two-inch caliper will be planted on each of the 19 lots, in addition to the two (2) required
street trees. The 57 trees (19 lots x 3 trees per lot) resulting in 114 caliper inches represents
an on site mitigation plan proposed by the applicant. However, this mitigation may not
actually be required.
A critical factor enters into the tree preservation and removal consideration for this site.
Because of the prior sanitary sewer construction that creates the need to import fill and
regrade the site extensively, the applicant is not directly responsible for the trees that must
be removed. Based on the project engineer's grading plan for the site, almost all 74 trees
that must be removed are required as a result of the need for extensive grading resulting
from prior existing offsite utility construction elevations. As such, the applicant is applying for
a separate variance to these requirements to release the applicant from the responsibility for
mitigation for the trees that must be removed due to the original installation of the offsite
utility at an elevation, which has resulted in a situation, which is neither the applicant's
responsibility nor a problem, which they should resolve.
• Section 18.790.010 Purpose
Response: In the Purpose statement of this Section of the Community Development
Code, there are seven (7) individual purposes set forth in subsection B. Only the seventh
purpose, that which deals with Commercial Forestry, does not apply to this site.
Subsection C recognizes that trees must be removed to accommodate planned urban
development within the City. However, this subsection does not provide any specific relief to
property owners and developers who are proposing to develop sites such as the subject site
that are very extensively covered with large trees, and full onsite mitigation is not possible.
The end result is that the developer will be subject to a very expensive mitigation plan and
process in order to achieve the end goal of development of the site for residential use.
■
• Section 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement
■ Response: In accordance with the requirements of this subsection, a Tree Survey has
been prepared that identifies the location, species, and size of the individual trees on the site.
■ This Tree Survey is identified as part of the Tree Removal Plan (Sheet C4).
The Tree Removal Plan identifies the trees that must be removed from the site to permit
' urban residential development of the site. While the City prefers protection of trees on the
site, this is impossible given the development plan for the site under the recognized
comprehensive plan map designation (Low Density Residential) and zoning (R-4.5) and the
depths of the existing off-site utilities.
' The Tree Plan meets all of the stated requirements under subsection 18.790.030 B. This
Tree Plan has been prepared in conjunction with a certified arborist who will prepare the
' details for preservation of the remaining trees on the site, as well as the planting plan for the
new trees.
t • Section 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention
Response: Because of the proposed development of the subject site in conformance with
the comprehensive plan map designation and the current zoning, the incentives for tree
retention that are included in this subsection are largely unusable for this project. We are not
able to take advantage of any density bonus. This circumstance would not apply even if the
applicant were able to save more trees.
The final two parts of this subsection A. dealing with development in the commercial and
' industrial zones does not apply because the site is designated Low Density Residential on
the City's comprehensive plan map, and zoned R-4.5.
■ Subsection D. of this section would apply only to the new streets proposed in this
subdivision. Because the sanitary and storm sewer is already in place, there is nothing that
can be done to accommodate the preservation and retention of trees. However, if the City
' would be willing to reduce the street standards for the new east-west residential street that
will connect SW 791h and 81 s' (Leiser Lane), as well as the connection of SW 80th, it is
possible that some additional trees could be preserved and retained. In fact, if the streets
' were removed entirely, the site would still have to be filled in order to reach the sewer.
gpctinn 1979n-n-s 1 Pprmit Annlinahility
Response: The applicant understands the requirements of this section, including that a
' tree removal permit is required and that the tree removal permit may be granted upon
application.
1 • Section 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal
' Response: No trees have been illegally removed from the property as part of this
development proposal. Therefore, this Section does not apply.
Leiser Park Subdivision
Part One - Variance Application Narrative
' A. The Variance Request
The applicant, Matrix Development Corp., is requesting a variance to the standards of the
t City of Tigard's Chapter 18.790 of the Community Development Code, commonly known as
the "Tree Removal Ordinance". This variance has been suggested by City staff as a method
of reducing the excessive financial burden that would be placed on the developer and the
' property owners under strict compliance with Chapter 18.790 where there is no consideration
of prior factors that adversely impact the site condition.
Part One of the variance request is to reduce the overall number of trees on the site that are
subject to mitigation, due to the prior construction of the sanitary sewer through the site to
serve adjacent properties. This construction failed to install the sanitary sewer line at
sufficient depth to serve the Kuentzle and Leiser parcels.
To rectify this problem and thus to allow full development of the subject site, the project
engineer has determined that it will be necessary to re-grade and fill the majority of the site.
Approximately 1,000 cubic yards must be imported. In addition, approximately 5,000 cubic
yards of material must be re-graded within the site to mitigate for the prior shallow sewer
installation. As a result of this fill and grading, a significant number of trees on the site must
be removed. Because this circumstance is not of the applicant's doing, relief is sought on
behalf of the applicant to reduce the penalty for resulting tree removal.
Granting approval to this variance application will result in no mitigation requirement for the
applicant on this site for those trees that must be removed as a result of filling and regrading
the site to address the shallow sewers.
The second part of the variance request deals with the economic hardship created by the
requirement for potential mitigation payment by the applicant for the remaining trees to be
removed from the site. An economic analysis illustrates that the overall costs to bring each
of the 19 lots to market will render the price of each lot at the upper end of the scale for
similarly sized, similarly located lots with similar physical characteristics. Full payment in lieu
of on site planting of trees, as mitigation for the trees removed, will increase the per-lot price
to something above the current market value. This clearly demonstrates that this would
adversely impact the applicant's ability to compete in the marketplace with the lots from this
project. Therefore, the second part of the variance application proposes relief from the
stipulated mitigation payment and requests alternative mitigation measures (i.e., on site
planting on each lot plus the charitable tree sale for Tigard High School) be accepted by the
City as mitigation in full. This appears to be clearly within the authority of the Director as
provided in Section 18.790.060 D3 and F.
Major factors prompting this request were the original installation of the sanitary sewer and
the storm sewer for Mara Woods in 1985 and additional construction of a sanitary sewer line
to serve the Raze Meadows project in 1991 at insufficient depths to serve the future
development of the Kuentzle and Leiser properties. This situation already results in a burden
for the developer of this particular site by requiring that significant amounts of fill be brought
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
• •
onto and regraded within the site to raise the topography of the site to allow storm and
sanitary sewer service to serve the future lots. Because of the large number of trees on the
site, the added fill needed to resolve the storm and sanitary sewer issue requires the removal
of a significant number of trees from the site. Under these circumstances, a strict application
of the tree mitigation ordinance places an inflated and unreasonable burden on the developer
and increases the costs of the development considerably.
Additionally, the existing sanitary sewer on-site (serving Raze Meadows to the south) will
need to be reconstructed and a new line built from SW 79th at the southeast corner of Mara
Woods. Had these utilities been engineered and installed at the proper depth to account for
the eventual service of the subject site, the current requirement for filling the site to obtain
utility service would not exist today. In fact, most of tree the removal results directly from
having to fill and re-grade the site because of the shallow installation of the existing storm
and sanitary sewers.
Based on the tree inventory of the site, the proposed development plan requires that less
than 50% of the trees (74 of 156) on the site be removed when the site is developed in a
manner allowing connections to the existing of the sanitary sewer and storm service.
However, the applicant is not the root cause for the loss of those trees, which must be
removed because of the fill and grading associated with the existing shallow utilities. When
counting only the removal of those trees on the site for which the applicant may be directly
responsible, the Tree Removal Ordinance would likely require no mitigation.
Therefore, Matrix Development Corp. requests a variance to the Tree Removal Ordinance
(Chapter 18.790) so that the development of the site under the existing R-4.5 zoning might
be pursued in a reasonable and economic manner. Otherwise, the development of the site
may be jeopardized by the potentially onerous and unfair mitigation requirements of the Tree
Removal Ordinance as they could be applied to this specific site.
Matrix Development Corp. requests a variance to Section 18.790.030 B.2.a :of the Tigard
Community Development Code to allow for: 1.) a re-determination of the obligation for the
trees to be removed from the site and, 2.) an alternative method of mitigation for the trees
that must be removed from the site to permit urban development under the existing R-4.5
zoning district. Rather than (a) planting all of the replacement trees onsite, which simply not
a feasible option in this instance, or (b) a cash payment to the City for the trees removed
from the site in lieu of planting of those replacement trees, Matrix Development Corp.
proposes a method of mitigation that will both fulfill the spirit and goal of the mitigation
program and also serve a greater public benefit. This alternative mitigation plan is spelled out
later in this application narrative.
B. Project Background
The site for which the variance is requested is heavily wooded with a mix of larger, mature
coniferous and deciduous trees. Tree species are primarily maple, cedar and fir. Based on
the special circumstances of the site"and the prior development that has taken place
adjacent to the site relating to the sanitary sewer lines and storm sewer, the requested
variance is necessary to allow the subject site to be developed in a reasonably economic and
feasible manner.
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
' The applicant, Matrix Development Corp., proposes to develop the adjoining parcels
purchased from Kuentzle (Tax Lot 2800) and under option from Leiser (Tax Lot 300), totaling
' 4.36 acres, into a 19-lot subdivision for detached single-family dwellings. The site is located
between SW 79th and 81St Avenues, just south of Bonita Road in Tigard. Lot 16 of the
proposed development plan (located on the Kuentzle property) has an existing single family
' dwelling in place that will be removed. All 19 lots will be developed with new dwellings.
There will be no open space tract because this is a subdivision. There will, however, be a
private street (Tract A) adjacent to lots 8 and 11 that will provide access to lots 9 and 10.
Lots 8 and 11, although directly adjacent to the private street, will have direct frontage and
' access onto Leiser Lane. This private street is 27 feet in overall width and approximately
108 feet in total length. The tract is approximately 2,885 square feet in size.
Finally, there will be a storm water facility tract on the easterly edge of the site, located
between Lot 15 and S.W 79th Avenue. This tract is approximately 3,440 square feet in size.
This particular tract will be a public facility tract, dedicated to the City for public purposes.
Lot sizes for this project will range from a minimum of 7,042 square feet (Lot 8) to a
maximum of 8,226 square feet (Lot 16). Average lot size will be 7,505 square feet.
The Kuentzle parcel, the smaller of the two parcels at 1.88 acres, is bound by the Mara
Woods subdivision to the north which is zoned R-7, and a single family dwelling on the
property to the south which is currently zoned R-4.5. Across SW 79th Avenue are two larger
lots zoned R-12 (roughly the size of the Kuentzle and Leiser properties combined together)
with one single family dwelling on each lot. These two lots are eligible for redevelopment at
some undetermined point in the future.
■ The Leiser parcel is bounded on the north by two parcels (Tax Lots 100 and 200), both of
which have single-family dwellings on them. To the south is the Raze Meadows subdivision.
' These properties are currently zoned R-4.5. Across SW 81St to the west is a large lot also
zoned R-4.5 and has a single family dwelling that also serves as the headquarters of a small
logging business.
The proposed subdivision site is undulating in its topography, and is significantly below the
grade of SW 81St Avenue. The easterly portion of the site is approximately at grade with SW
79th Avenue. Topography ranges from a maximum of 182 MSL at the westerly edge at SW
' 81 st Avenue to a low point on the Leiser parcel of 172 MSL, to a high point of almost 177
MSL on the Kuentzle parcel to 170 MSL on the easterly edge at SW 79th Avenue. The
lowest point of the site is on the Keuntzle property, just adjacent to SW 79th Avenue. A
' significant amount of grading and fill will be required to level the site for purposes of
development.
The development site contains many trees that are in excess of 12 inches diameter (DBH, or
Diameter at Breast Height). A spreadsheet (Spreadsheet A) attached as part of this
application summarizes the identification of the trees on an individual basis. The trees are
' located and illustrated on Sheets C1 and C4 of the development plans. As many trees as
possible have been retained in the development plan, but a significant number of trees must
be removed in order to effectuate development of the site.
t Sanitary sewer and water are immediately available to the site, as illustrated on Sheet C6,
Preliminary Utility Plan. In fact, the sanitary sewer line traverses the site in a north-south
direction and is perfectly placed along the common property line of the adjoining Leiser and
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
9 0
' Kuentzle properties. Unfortunately, the sanitary sewer line originally extended from Mara
Woods to serve Raze Meadows was not constructed to the proper depth to allow service of
the Leiser and Kuentzle properties. The existing Mara Woods and Raze Meadows
developments were filled at the time of their development to be served by the sewers.
The existing sanitary sewer line will need to be abandoned from the manhole at the
' southwest corner of Mara Woods to Raze Meadows. The sanitary sewer from Raze
Meadows will need to be connected to the new sanitary sewer line created as a part of this
development. Five of Leiser Park's northern lots will be connected to the manhole at the
' southwest corner of Mara Woods, and the remaining Leiser Park lots will be connected to the
new sanitary sewer line.
The existing storm line located at the southeast corner of Mara Woods in SW 79`h, which
provides drainage off-site, is very shallow with only 1.5 feet of cover over the pipe. In order
to provide adequate cover over the new storm and sanitary lines, the streets will need to be
raised. The lots adjacent to these streets will have to be filled above the street elevation in
order to provide drainage to the streets.
In summary, based on the amount of fill required to bring the site to a grade sufficient to
accommodate utility service, the project arborist calculates that 74 trees will need to be
removed.
C. Mathematical Calculations of Mitiaatable Trees
' The spreadsheet (Spreadsheet A) illustrates the number of trees that may be saved and
those that must be removed in order to permit development of the site as a standard
subdivision. There are a total of 156 trees on the site, totaling 2,861 diameter caliper inches,
' that fit into the City's category of "significant" trees (greater than 12 inches diameter at breast
height (DBH)). Of these 156 trees on the site, 82 trees (representing 52.6% of the total
number of significant trees) having 1,398 of diameter-caliper inches (48.9% of the total
' inches) will be saved under the proposed development plan (except for trees than are
hazardous due to being dead, dying, diseased, or decayed, or are in the public right-of-way.
This means that 74 trees (or 47.4% of the total number of trees and totaling 1,463 diameter-
caliper inches) must be removed to permit urban residential development of the site. Many
fewer trees would have required removal were it not for the shallow depth of the pre-existing
sanitary and storm sewers that serve the site.
' The construction of the storm and sanitary sewer for Mara Woods in 1985 and the extension
of the sanitary sewer to serve the Raze Meadows development in 1991 created a different
baseline for calculation of the trees that must be removed from the site to permit
development under the City's ordinance. The difference between the trees that must be
removed from the site under today's present circumstances and the circumstances that
would have existed had the site not been adversely impacted by poorly planned prior off-site
development for adjacent properties in 1985 and 1991 is substantial. And the potential
mitigation requirements which could required are significant enough that some
accommodation is justified to relieve the applicant of an unfair and substantial penalty which
results from this pre-existing situation, a situation which is not of the applicant's making nor
' reasonably within his control to resolve without the removal of these trees.
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.130C
The proposed plan provides for 52.6% retention of the existing inventory of trees (minus the
hazardous trees, and trees in the public right-of-way). This level of retention requires
mitigation for 50% of the 1,463 total diameter caliper inches of all trees on the site proposed
for removal under the development plan. The number of trees requiring removal could have
been significantly reduced had the existing utilities been installed at a proper depth to serve
the subject site. If tree removal resulting directly to the impacts of prior construction are
exempted from the calculations, there would be minimal mitigation requirements.
The applicant further argues that even if any mitigation should be required for the proposed
tree removal, it is more than met through the applicant's proposal for on site planting of 114
inches (19 lots x 3 trees/lot x 2 inches), and the charitable tree sale through Tigard High
School's Boosters of an additional 750 caliper inches. Together these will provide 864
inches of tree mitigation and a tree replacement ratio of better than 10:1.
D. Variance Criteria
In Chapter 18.370 of the Tigard Community Development Code, subsection 18.370.010 C.2,
there are five specific criteria listed that must be addressed as part of the process in applying
for and obtaining a variance to City development standards. The variance application is
normally a Type II Director's review that may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied. Therefore, because the application for variance is coupled with an application for
approval of the 19-lot subdivision, both applications will be reviewed concurrently under a
Type II process by the Community Development Director.
The five (5) criteria contained in Chapter 18.370 of the Tigard Community Development
Code are as follows:
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title,
to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same
zoning district or vicinity;
b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and
which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district,
c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards
will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting
reasonable economic use of the land,
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage,
dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would
occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
Each individual criterion is addressed in the following section of this application narrative.
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
E. Addressinq the Criteria
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title,
to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same
zoning district or vicinity,
' Response: Regardless of the zoning of this site, a significant number of trees must be
removed to allow development to occur under the "Low Density Residential' designation
' through the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the commensurate R-4.5 zoning. Tree
removal becomes a major consideration in the type of development that might take place on
this site.
' This variance request deals with both the manner of mitigation and a modification of
standards contained in this title. The integrity of this title remains in tact because the
' proposed mitigation plan will provide a greater and more citywide benefit than limiting the
mitigation effort to one site. In addition, there are no alterations or changes to City policies
that are proposed or would otherwise be included as part of an approval of this variance
application.
Within the City of Tigard there are other properties that may be subject to the same type of
variance request where the manner of mitigation may be modified. However, this variance
request will allow the efficient and economic development of the subject site without
adversely impacting any adjoining, adjacent, or nearby property.
' Removal of a significant number of trees from this site must be done in order to allow
development of this site. The usability of the existing sanitary and storm sewers that serve
the site is problematic when considering the need for fill to bring the site to level to sufficient
' to utilize these services. Filling around the trees themselves will result in an unavoidably
adverse impact wherein the base and root system of the trees will be, in essence, "cut off"
from the natural systems that allow the trees to survive. According to our arborist, as little as
four (4) inches of fill around a tree may be enough to kill it. The filling and extensive
' regrading of the site, without removal of trees, will result in a slow but sure mortality of those
trees, and leaving the trees would be an impractical and dangerous practice. Thus, the
required filling of the site in order to permit development under the current Comprehensive
' Plan designation and zoning, will result in the loss of a significant number of the existing
trees. And, of course, grading the site to allow for the installation of streets, utilities, dwelling
footprints, and clear vision areas once the site is filled and leveled, will require that additional
trees be removed.
This situation creates a conflict between the development of the site and the attempt to
preserve and Drotect the trees on the site. There are likelv other orooerties throughout the
City that suffer from the similar conflicts, and a practical resolution begs to be found.
' b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and
which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district,
Response: At 4.36 acres and generally rectangular in shape, this site is similar to other
properties that may be found throughout the City, in all zoning districts. What makes this
property unique is the large number of trees on this relatively small site and the
1:1Data\MAT001\Word1Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
circumstances of the existing utilities that will serve the site. One hundred fifty six (156) trees
of mitigatable size is a large number of trees on an urban site of this size. This does not
include trees of smaller size and the understory vegetation. This vegetative cover on the site
has severe consequences for the development of the site for urban residential purposes.
Given the Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential and the current R-4.5
' zoning, it is impossible to achieve even the minimum acceptable level of urban residential
development without the removal of a significant number of trees of mitigatable size.
The number of trees impacted by the development of the site is unavoidably compounded by
the need to fill and re-grade the site in order to bring the site to a topography permitting
connection to the sanitary and storm sewer lines that were constructed several years ago.
These offsite services were constructed without consideration of the depth required to
eventually provide service to subject site. As such, it is left to the property owners and
developer to solve the problem. The developer's engineer has determined that the only
practical solution to the problem is extensive filling and regrading of the site. And as the site
is filled, there will be an unavoidable loss of many of the existing trees on the site. In the
end, the trees will be lost either as their root systems are buried from fill being added around
the base of the trees or through pre-emptive removal by the developer at the time of initial.
development in order to prevent future hazards and difficulties with the dying trees.
The construction of the existing sanitary sewer across this site to other adjacent properties
was not the doing of the current developer. And while other development sites in Tigard
have topography issues that must be addressed, it is doubtful that many others have the
issue to deal with so directly as a result of past construction of sanitary and storm sewer
lines. Therefore, this site is unique which results in compliance with this criterion.
C. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards
will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting
reasonable economic use of the land,
Response: The parcels on which the 19-lot subdivision is being proposed, are both zoned
R-4.5. The applicant's intent is to remain in compliance with the standards of the City's
Comprehensive Plan designation and this zoning district. Without the ability to remove a
significant number of trees from the site, the potential density (19 lots),would be reduced,
possibly below a minimum density level that is efficiently and effectively practical and which
makes no economic sense for the property owners, the developer and the general public.
The lower the density on the site, the greater will be the cost of each lot.
Therefore, the need to develop the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
designation and the current zoning district outweighs the negative side of removing trees
from the site.
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage,
dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would
occur if the development were developed as specified in the title;
Response: The applicant is proposing to develop the site in conformance with the
specifications of the title, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning district. Only
by altering the physical characteristics of the site through filling and removal of a significant
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
• •
number of trees can the site be developed as intended through the City's long range
planning process. The prior construction of the sanitary sewer line across the site to
originally serve other properties and the elevation of the storm outfall have produced a
special set of problems under which this site might be developed. The required filling and
regarding of the site will adversely impact the ability to retain trees many of the existing trees
on the site, but is required to develop the site for urban residential purposes.
The applicant is not proposing to develop the site any differently than is anticipated through
the long range planning process completed by the City. Therefore, the requested variance
will not alter or change the planned development of the site.
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
Response: The applicant did not construct the storm and sanitary sewer lines in 1985,
which has caused the necessity for the extensive filling and re-grading of the site. The
removal of the significant number of trees comes as a direct and unavoidable result of this
extensive filling and re-grading. Therefore, the factors are inextricably tied together and must
be considered in order for the site to be developed as allowed through the City's
Comprehensive Plan "Low Density Residential" designation and current R-4.5 zoning district.
Because neither the property owners nor the developer created these circumstances, a
variance is necessary and appropriate as a practical and economic solution to the problems.
Based on the amount of fill required to bring the site to a grade sufficient for utility service,
the project arborist calculates that 81 trees will need to be removed for this purpose alone.
Due to high number of trees that must be removed relative to the size of the site, the required
mitigation measures under the Code would be unreasonable and very expensive. The cost
of the mitigation would result in the proposed development being unfeasible without the relief
sought through the provisions of this variance.
F. The Proposed Mitigation Plan
Matrix Development Corp. proposes that it be allowed to mitigate for the trees removed from
this site by using a more philanthropic and community wide approach than the standard
mitigation process. The typical mitigation process requires that either replacement trees
having an equal number of caliper inches be planted on the subject site or at some location
or locations within the City, or that a substantial fee be paid in-lieu in accordance with a
stipulated fee schedule. The City's Community Development Code provides no specific
alternative methods of mitigation that may provide community benefits, equal to or greater
than those provided through the City's ordinance. However, there is authority given in the-
Code to the Director to allow discretion in the method of mitigation, and the applicant is
requesting that this discretion be extended and applied to this application (see
18.790.060.D.3).
If the variance requested to grant relief for those trees removed as a direct result of having to
fill the site to compensate for the elevation of the adjacent sanitary and storm sewers is not
granted, the developer would have to mitigate for a full 50% of the 74 total trees that must be
removed in development of the site. These trees have a combined caliper inch total of 1,463
inches, requiring mitigation of 732 caliper inches. While the City's ordinance provides for
actual tree planting as the preferred mitigation method, the number of trees (assuming an
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
• •
average 1" caliper replacement tree) that would be required to be planted would require
approximately 10 acres of vacant land in order to allow for tree growth, canopy cover, and
tree spacing that would accommodate for growth to maturity. (625 square feet per tree, using
a spacing of 25 x 25 feet, equals approximately 70 trees per acre. At 1" per tree, this would
result in 700+ trees on 10 acres). Use of this number of acres could include sites zoned for
urban uses, thus potentially removing these sites from the City's inventory of developable
properties.
The second option is payment in lieu of tree planting. Under the City's formula, this would
result in a payment of approximately $91,438 (i.e., 1,463 inches x 50% mitigation x $125 per
caliper inch), if no relief is granted for the direct impact of the prior construction and the
solution to that problem. When this potential mitigation payment is added to the cost of
purchasing the land, preparing it for urban residential development, and selling the finished
dwellings to buyers, the total cost spread over the proposed 19 lots simply makes the
development of the property unreasonably and unnecessarily expensive. The tree mitigation
alone adds $4,813 to the cost of each lot. The end result could be that the subject site is not
developed for urban residential uses under the City's "Low Density Residential" designation
on its Comprehensive Plan and the R-4.5 zoning. In addition, the City has no clearly stated
program for the use of the $91,438 mitigation payment, resulting in some uncertainty that it
will be used to plant new trees within the city.
Matrix Development Corp. therefore asks that a variance be granted allowing those trees
that must be removed as a result of the required filling and re-qradinq of the site relating to
the adjacent sanitary and storm sewer elevations not be subiect to the standard method of
mitigation as provided in the Code. These trees (requiring 732 caliper inches of mitigation,
based on a 50% mitigation factor) will instead be mitigated for in the following manner:
Matrix Development Corp. proposes the following mitigation plan for this site:
• Approximately 750 caliper inches of high quality, bare root trees will be
purchased by Matrix Development Corp. from a reputable nursery. These
trees will have an approximate caliper size of one (1) inch. These trees have
been selected as being very marketable and having a high rate of survivability.
These 750 trees represent the calculated mitigation requirement.
• These bare root trees will be purchased by Matrix Development Corp. and
donated to the Tigard High School Boosters, which will then sell the trees as
part of a fund raising program, with all proceeds being retained by the
organization for use in their sponsored programs.
• For the program to be successful, the species offered will need of species
appealing to the general public for residential use. The species will likely tend
toward ornamental, shade and fruit trees with the ultimate selection of size
and species based on the fund raising organization's assessment of what will
most likely succeed in their sale.
• The sale will take place at a well publicized site within the City (such as the
high school), thus targeting City residents.
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
' Because these trees will be bare root stock, the sale will need to take place at
a time when these trees are 1) available from the nursery, and 2) their
' survivability would be the greatest; most likely in the January through March
period.
• It is estimated that the proceeds would range from $15,000 to $20,000+,
' based on wholesale prices for these trees ranging from $10 to $30 each; any
premium over wholesale will produce even more funds for the Boosters.
• The promotional materials will clearly identify that the sale is a subsidized
event to promote the planting of trees within the City of Tigard and purchasers
of the trees will be asked to sign a statement pledging that the trees will be
planted within the City of Tigard.
• In addition to the tree sale by the Boosters, Matrix Development Corp. will
plant up to three (3) two-inch caliper trees on each of the 19 lots within the
subdivision, in addition to the required two (2) street trees. This will total up to
57 trees and 114 caliper inches (not including the required street trees) that
will count toward any mitigation requirement.
This proposed mitigation plan will result in a total of approximately 807 trees, and
more caliper inches (totaling approximately 750 + 114 = 864) than would be
required to be planted within the City of Tigard. using the City's standard mitigation
program. This would be an overall ratio of total trees of over 10 to 1 and would
fulfill both the intent with the spirit of the City's Code.
NOTE: Based on the practical consideration of needing to conduct the
Tigard High School Booster's tree sale during the late winter-early spring
period, Matrix has provided the initial shipment of 310 trees to the Boosters
for their sale. The trees were delivered to the High School on Thursday,
February 20th. Matrix also provided $500 to the Boosters to aid in their
setup and promotional expenses to assure the sale's success. The
Boosters appointed Kris Homma to supervise the sale. She is particularly
well qualified in this effort as she is a District Conservationist with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and frequently works in re-forestation efforts.
Kris can be reached at 503-620-8048 (home).
J:\Data\MAT001\Word\Revised Nar\REVVAR- FINAL - Revised per Tree Removal Revisions 6_30_03.DOC
Leiser Park Mitigation Reanalysis
• Page of 4
7/3/2003 Knapp0134 Leiser- Reanalysi s.xls
Tag #
Species
DBH
DDDD
Leave
Cut
Description
6
Dou las-fir
17
17
no apparent defects or limitations
8
Douglas-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
9
Douglas-fir
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
10
Douglas-fir
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
12
bi leaf maple
13
13
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
13
bi leaf maple
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
14
Douglas-fir
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
15
bi leaf maple
16
16
no apparent defects or limitations
16
Dou las-fir
26
26
no apparent defects or limitations
17
Dou las-fir
27
27
no apparent defects or limitations
18
Dou las-fir
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
19
Douglas-fir
27
27
no apparent defects or limitations
20
Douglas-fir
22
22
no apparent defects or limitations
21
Douglas-fir
29
29
no apparent defects or limitations
26
bi leaf maple
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
27
Dou las-fir
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
28
Douglas-fir
25
25
no apparent defects or limitations
30
Douglas-fir
30
30
no apparent defects or limitations
35
bi leaf maple
17
17
no apparent defects or limitations
36
Dou las-fir
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
37
bi leaf maple
19
19
hazardous due to decay
38
bi leaf maple
16
16
hazardous due to decay
41
Douglas-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
42
Douglas-fir
25,
25
no apparent defects or limitations
43
bi leaf maple
16
16
can't locate
44
bi leaf maple
14
14
no apparent defects or limitations
45
Douglas-fir
38
38
no apparent defects or limitations
47
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
50
bi leaf maple
12.4
12
no apparent defects or limitations
52
bi leaf maple
17
17
hazardous due to decay
53
bi leaf maple
19
19
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
55
bi leaf maple
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
57
bi leaf maple
16
16
hazardous due to decay
59
bi leaf maple
19
19
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease whk
60
bi leaf maple
18
18
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease whk
66
Douglas-fir
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
67
Douglas-fir
30
30
no apparent defects or limitations
68
Douglas-fir
34
34
no apparent defects or limitations
70
Dou las-fir
18
18
no apparent defects or limitations
71
Dou las-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
72
Douglas-fir
25
25
no apparent defects or limitations
77
Dou las-fir
18
18
no apparent defects or limitations
79
Douglas-fir
14
14
mechanical damage to bole
83
Douglas-fir
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
86
Dou las-fir
15
15
hazard due to excessive sweep
87
Douglas-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
89
Douglas-fir
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
90
Douglas-fir
12.4
12
no apparent defects or limitations
92
Douglas-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
95
Dou ias-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
97
Dou las-fir
22
22
no apparent defects or limitations
98
Douglas-fir
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
102
Douglas-fir
21
21
no apparent defects or limitations
104
Douglas-fir
12.5
12
no apparent defects or limitations
106
Dou las-fir
14
14
no apparent defects or limitations
108
bi leaf maple
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
109
bi leaf maple
12.5
12
no apparent defects or limitations
130
bi leaf maple
16
16
dangerous crotch at 3 ft.; deadwood
131
Douglas-fir
18
18
no apparent defects or limitations
132
bi leaf maple
13
13
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
133
bi leaf maple
17
17
no apparent defects or limitations
136
bi leaf maple
16
16
dead or dying
137 b
i leaf maple
13
13
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
139 b
i leaf maple
18
18
bad crotch; suspect root disease. Shares roots with dead tree
Leiser Park Mitigation Reanalysis.
• Page 2 of 4
7/3/2003 Knapp0134 Leiser-Reanalysis.xls
Tag #
Species
DBH
DDDD
Leave
Cut
Description
140
bi leaf maple
23
23
dead or dying
141
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
147
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations %S
148
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
152
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous; multiple weak crotches at 3 ft.
156
Dou las-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
168
Douglas-fir
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
169
Douglas-fir
14
14
no apparent defects or limitations
172
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to decay
176
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
177
bi leaf maple
13
13
undermined roots; bad crotch at 3 ft.
179
bi leaf maple
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
180
bi leaf maple
16
16
bad crotch at 3 ft.
184
bi leaf maple
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
190
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
198
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to decay
199
bi leaf ma le
13
13
hazardous due to decay
200
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to decay
201
bi leaf maple
14
14
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
202
bi leaf maple
17
17
hazardous due to decay
203
bi leaf maple
18
18
hazardous due to decay
204
Dou las-fir
21
21
broken
205
Douglas-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
206
Douglas-fir
22
22
broken
207
bi leaf maple
18
18
no apparent defects or limitations
208
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
209
bi leaf maple
14
14
bad fork with seam at 3 ft.
210
bi leaf maple
14
14
hazardous due to decay
211
Douglas-fir
26
26
no apparent defects or limitations
212
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
214
bi leaf maple
14
14
hazardous due to decay
215
bi leaf maple
24
24
hazardous due to decay
217
Dou las-fir
21
21
no apparent defects or limitations
218
Dou las-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
219
Dou las-fir
33
33
no apparent defects or limitations
219-1
bi leaf maple
24
24
broken
220
Douglas-fir
32
32
no apparent defects or limitations
221
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
222
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to decay
223
Douglas-fir
26
26
no apparent defects or limitations
225
bi leaf maple
14
14
dead or dying
227
bi leaf maple
17
17
broken
228
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
229
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazard due to excessive sweep
230
bi leaf ma le
18
18
excessive deadwood diseased condition
236
Dou las-fir
17
17
no apparent defects or limitations
239
Douglas-fir
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
240
bi leaf maple
12.3
12
no apparent defects or limitations
242
bi leaf maple
18
18
hazard due to excessive lean
243
bi leaf maple
14
14
bad crotch at 3 ft.
244
bi leaf maple
24
24
hazard due to excessive lean
252
bi leaf maple
13
13
suckers off a rotten stump
256
bi leaf maple
18
18
hazardous due to decay 256 thru 256-4 single rootsystem)
257
bi leaf maple
16
16
no apparent defects or limitations
260
bi leaf maple
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
261
bi leaf maple
12.4
12
no apparent defects or limitations
266
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
272
bi leaf maple
18
18
decay at stump whk
273
bi leaf maple
21
21
dangerous fork at 3 ft.
275
bi leaf maple
14
14
suckers off a rotten stump
276
bi leaf maple
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
277
bi leaf maple
21
21
hazardous due to decay
278
bi leaf maple
16
16
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
279 b
i leaf maple
18
18
dead or d in
Leiser Park Mitigation Reanalysis.
• Page 3 of 4
7/3/2003 Knapp0134 Leiser- Reanalysis. xls
Tag #
Species
DBH
DDDD
Leave
Cut
Description
287
bi leaf maple
13
13
mechanical damage to bole
287-1
bi leaf maple
15
15
mechanical damage to bole
292
Douglas-fir
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
294
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to excessive sweep and lean
302
bi leaf maple
14
14
Armillaria root disease 302 thru 302-3, single root system)
303
bi leaf maple
17
17
canker, seam
304
bi leaf maple
18
18
tree is uprooting
305
bi leaf maple
25
25
hazardous due to decay
306
bi leaf maple
14
14
hazardous due to excessive sweep and lean
308
bi leaf maple
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations whk
309
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to weak architecture, butt
316
bi leaf maple
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
318
bi leaf maple
14
14
hazardous due to decay
364
Douglas-fir
14
14
no apparent defects or limitations
2021
Douglas-fir
24
24
dead or dying
2033
Dou las-fir
33
33
no apparent defects or limitations
2034
Dou las-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
2035
Douglas-fir
25
25
no apparent defects or limitations
2036
Dou las-fir
25
25
no apparent defects or limitations
2037
Douglas-fir
22
22
no apparent defects or limitations
Mitigation Summa
Number of trees >12 Inches (including ROW trees): 156
Number of Healthy Cut Trees >12 inches: 74
% Healthy Cut Trees / TOTAL 47%
City of Tigard Mitigation: 50%
Number of inches cut: 1463
Number of inches to mitigate: 731.5
Number of 2-inch trees: 366
Trees Excluded: ROW due to construction of 79th and Aist to City Standards
Tag #
Species
DBH
DDDD
Leave
Cut
Description
1
Dou las-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
2
bi leaf maple
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
3
Douglas-fir
17
17
no apparent defects or limitations
23
bi leaf maple
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
24
Douglas-fir
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
25
Douglas-fir
16
16
no apparent defects or limitations
307
bi leaf maple
20
20
deadwood, diseased condition, excessive elan
315
bi leaf ma le
12.2
12
fell over already
11111 m m m m
r I - (}~(y]y,( %
CNmaNNNNNN+ `++++++,0 m014N+
cnaU+010mVTU1+UN0 T'•~ V
VV V014M010101 U1U G,NO VIaJ1~4N=0UOV01 {Uj1 `•a 00
N+OmVmcnp lOV
y
4 4 4 U 4 4 U 0 0 0 O O p b O p m m pp m VV
bV0144 N+ m aNm VU1NOtOVm410V (~~(y\
N NNNNN+- + - ~~W
BiTEEM l~mcV•ImVNVmOm m~NulmiV a-O
(N(/J~~ N N N N N NI, NI~,, ( N(,,, N N N N N N N N NNN_N_N_N_pNp O No Y
OINj UN0 U0101010m V U1 4N N 0b10Ua N010d
~,,1 {{,,,,U0y, 4{00
I NNNN
0
0000mm V V V V V V V01m01N .1y
VOON 4NNNa Nj V10m V01U4 Nm+pV
L.
N~N/1 ~N1N~NIN NNNNNlwU4Ufp4 D
010I 1U0140((,.,1 0{(~~,{{0,~0yy,,N
I 01 Oafm01 U1 Coo -
I V01 N1♦{p+
• 4 N + _ 1
W
• f 1
0 1
ti
N ~ N N N
mV+00 V
V U1
v
0 -4
X 1
'n 00
,
7 I - 1 - 1
• 1 ~ I
1
yy ~ ~I
d
L 1
1
"I
~I
1 y`
t~ 1 3 _
w
i
t-t.
1 3
I
1
•
1
1
I r
1 6
' IV
CJ
I
1
s~ny 1~
1 /
U:
3~ v
f
1
-.per.
1
x \
-
I I
c. U u
l l
I I
I
o
~ l
m
I
I
I
1
1
1
I I
I I 1
^
y/
m
rrt
Ow
-o .gym
OW
'
m
25
N
m
25
N
v
a
v
as
m m
t5 t5
fi
-0 v
p~ A
Z
a
0 p
IA R:4
T
t
I
O
~
1
,
i
,i
~
9
r ti
L
0,
p.e~
~
.
~
j
01
Q
{
11
A.
°
U
M 0.
MAc
'
MAm
1 ~ °
~
R
A
z
g
z
m
o
N
~
1
AA
g
A
E
m
g
g g
20
o
m
y
m A
A A yy
~jI
v !m'1
A
~A
1~n
A
r
m
z
W
W
SR D sl n uc
V'Gw fwnc - PLAmis c - su ic"M
8196 SIN HALL BLVD., STE. 232
BEAVERTON, OR 97008
PHONE: (503) 459-1213 FAX: (503) 459-8553
YKUJ NU
.
TREE REMOVAL
MAT 001
CASE FILE NO.
PAW
'Y I
14665 SW 79TH
AVE
PLAN
TIGARD, OREGON
TREE
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP. PORTLAND, OR
A
DATE NO.
DESCRIPTION
BY
3 28 03 1
PER CITY COMMENT
SCR
*Phl-
6/30/03 2
REVISED TREE REMOVAL
TJM
J&
t•
DESIGNED: SR
DATE: 1 1103
SHEET
OF
C.
DRAWN: SR
FILE:
C4
EXPIRES 12-31 2
CHECKED:
XREF:
APPROVED:
2SI12BDO2800
/
ATTACHMENT 3
KENNETH M PETERSON
7978 SW MARA CT
TIGARD, OR 97224-7353
503-603-9395
L,
Morgan Tracy, AICP
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223 ti tea- a~x61~
r fi t'.E'i'nl~ GINl E81NO
14 July 2003
Dear Mr Tracy,
I wish to express my concern about two issues concerning the development of the Leisier Park Subdivision:
(1) I strongly object to the first item in the Memorandum of 17 June, particularly the wording and
replaced with alternate language giving deference to the project arborist versus the City Forester regarding the
placement of tree protection fencing." [Italics mine.]
The "project arborist" would seem to be a commissioned expert paid by the developer who has an interest
in presenting conclusions that favor the developer's interest. The City Forester is presumably charged with
arguing for the City's rules and regulations regarding tree protection. At the very least, compromise or
agreement between these two should be the goal, and any "deference" should be to the City Forester, who
represents the interests of Tigard and its residents.
(2) The method of tree-marking is deeply flawed, as the markings can be easily changed in the direction of
tree destruction by a passer-by.
It appears that trees were originally marked for cutting by a blue paint stripe encircling the trunk. An
attached tag of orange plastic (wrapped orange strip or one simply tacked to the tree) indicates the tree is to
be preserved.
However, this forest is frequented by both young kids, probably age 8-12, who "hang out" there without
causing much disturbance. In addition, these woods have this spring been used as a "war games" venue for
a group of young men with headlamps for night use and guns that fire projectiles, probably paintballs. Those
"night games" have now stopped, but the point is that anyone for any reason can reach up and grab one of
the plastic strips off a tree, canceling its being spared from cutting.
Worse, some of the trees are marked both ways: There is both a blue stripe and an orange tag. Is there any
doubt what happens if an orange tag is removed?
I strongly suggest that the tree marking be audited (field-checked) shortly before cutting is to begin by an
agent of the City. Those tags have been up there for months and could easily have been tampered with.
At the very least, I would like to have available a final listing of the preserved tree numbers so I and my
neighbors can personally audit the markings before cutting begins.
Sincerely,
0*b~D
Kenneth M Peterson
•
Arboriculture and Forest Pathology
Peter R. Torres
Curriculum Vitae
Peter Torres began his career in arboriculture as a Massachusetts Certified arborist in 1979. As a
working arborist in New England, the Southwest, the West Coast, and currently, over ten years in
the Pacific Northwest, he has become familiar with most of the tree species populating the urban
and the wild environments. Currently the president of Multnomah Tree Experts, Ltd., Peter has
been based in the Portland, Oregon area since 1992. His clients include cities as far away as
Grants Pass, many construction and development companies, Multnomah County, Metro, and a
constant stream of private property owners.
Mr. Torres is a certified arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture (PN-0650.)
Seeking further knowledge, he earned his Master's degree in the Department of Forest Science at
Oregon State University in 1997, where he concentrated in forest pathology. Shortly thereafter,
he qualified as a Registered Consulting Arborist (No. 372) with the American Society of
Consulting Arborists. Continuing education is an ongoing process, both for the love of the subject
matter, and to maintain the various certifications.
Education and Certifications
► Baccalaureate from Colby College, Waterville, Maine, with distinction in philosophy
► Master of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
► ISA Certified Arborist (PN-0650)
► ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist, No. 372
► Registered Yoga Teacher with the Yoga Alliance, 500 hour level
torrespt@aracnet.com 8325 SW 42nd Ave., Portland, OR 97219 (503) 452-8160
Leiser Park June 17, 2003
Arborist Report for Leiser Park
On June 16, 2003, I spent the day in Leiser Park to observe and evaluate the tree conditions there.
I used a tree survey map and data from the documents, Tree Removal Leiser Park, dated 3/28/03, and Tree
Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method, dated 3/30/03. I classified trees into two categories: trees
that could be reasonably preserved during and after development, and trees that were not suitable for
preservation. I have included the results on a spreadsheet with the title, Leiser Park Tree Evaluation,
6/17/03.
The deciduous tree population at this site is preponderantly big leaf maple, with scattered alder,
cherry, and other species at the east end. The northeast quadrant is heavy in Douglas-fir. The east half of
the property is in generally good condition, with some problematic trees. The west half has some good
conifers and a few viable hardwoods, but is overwhelmingly covered with decrepit big leaf maple trees.
The big leaf maple trees are characteristically full of tight, narrow angle crotches with seams.
There is ubiquitous basal decay, some of which is definitely caused by Armillaria fungus. Many of the
butts and lower boles have been damaged, apparently by logging equipment. There is ample evidence of
verticillium wilt disease, a common affliction in bigleaf maple especially after the soil has been compacted
around them. This woodlot is full of hazard trees, including many that have fallen, and quite a few trees
that are currently hung up in other trees. There is a lot of large deadwood aloft, and many weak crotches,
some with decay, both in the crowns and within several feet of the ground. Between 3/28/2003 and my
visit on 6/17/2003, at least one large tree has uprooted, and at least one is actively in the process of
uprooting right now.
When thin-barked trees like bigleaf maple and alder are exposed to the sun, if they did not
naturally grow in this state from saplings, it is likely that the bark will be burned by the sun on the south
side. This is a likely result of removing surrounding trees. If trees have been covered by ivy, bark that
developed beneath the ivy can be burned by the sun upon ivy removal. This sunburned bark dies, and the
wood under it dies and begins to decay. The tree becomes a hazard. This is something to keep in mind.
Rampant blackberry cover makes travel and inspection very difficult throughout this area. Worse,
the west half of the property is heavily infested with English ivy, which makes visual inspection tenuous. I
am certain that many current and potential defects have been missed due to these infestations, both at
ground level, and aloft. Whatever happens at this site, whether a tree is being cut down or preserved, the
lower trunk and basal area of every tree should eventually be given a more intensive inspection by
stripping away noxious vegetation. Reclassification to hazard tree or nonviable tree should be made where
appropriate.
I was asked to.make one inspection aloft, in tree No. 305, a bigleaf maple. There is an old pruning
wound at approximately 15 ft. above grade. The dimensions of this wound are approximately 17 by 12
inches. There are three cavities in the pruning wound, and these are not visible from the ground. They are
about 3 inches, 3 inches, and 2 inches in diameter. Below the pruning wound there is a cavity which is
visible from the ground.
• I drilled into the tree through the pruning wound. I found that the wood is decayed for the
first 8 inches. Then I hit sound wood.
I drilled into the tree through the lower cavity, and penetrated 7 inches of decayed wood,
and then a cavity.
At a point 14 inches above the pruning wound, I found sound wood for the length of my
For Matrix Development Corp. Page 1
Leiser Park June 17, 2003
drill bit.
• Fourteen inches below the pruning wound, I found 7 inches of sound wood, and then
decay.
I conclude that the wood has been decayed by fungi entering through the pruning wound, which
has very little wound wood or callus growth. The decay is working towards the center of the tree, and
probably has reached the center. The decay is being contained in the upward direction, but containment is
poor in the downward direction. I consider this tree to be a hazard tree, because it is much more likely to
fail than the background failure rate of reasonably healthy trees.
Peter Torres, M.F.
For Matrix Development Corp.
Page 2
•
Walter H. Knapp
Silviculture and Urban Forestry
Walter H. Knapp
Curriculum Vitae
Mr. Knapp's professional experience spans more than 40 years. For the past 11 years, he
has worked as a consultant in silviculture, forest ecology, and arboriculture. His clients
have included 5 cities, Port of Portland, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department,
Oregon Department of Transportation, and a wide variety of individuals, homeowners
associations, and land development companies in the private sector. He has represented
clients as an expert witness.
Prior to entering the private consulting arena, he completed a full career with the USDA
Forest Service, retiring as Regional Silviculturist for the Pacific Northwest Region, with
experience in all of the major forest ecotypes of the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. Knapp holds certifications as a silviculturist (USDA Forest Service), forester
(Society of American Foresters - SAF), and arborist (International Society of
Arboriculture). He is past national chairman of the SAF Silviculture Working Group.
Mr. Knapp has authored or co-authored numerous publications, including those in
refereed journals. He has been a speaker at many professional conferences and has
lectured in silviculture at Oregon State University College of Forestry. His professional
practice includes arboriculture as well as urban forestry and silviculture.
Education and Certifications
• M.S., Forest Resource Management, University of Idaho
• B.S., Forestry, Pennsylvania State University
• CEFES. Graduate studies in forest ecology and silviculture at three Pacific Northwest
universities.
• American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Consulting Academy
• Certified Forester, SAF 406
• Certified Arborist, ISA PN-0497
7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane, Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax: (503) 646-4349
• •
Leiser Park June 17, 2003
Arborist Report for Leiser Park
On June 16, 2003, I spent the day in Leiser Park to observe and evaluate the tree conditions there.
I used a tree survey map and data from the documents, Tree Removal Leiser Park, dated 3/28/03, and Tree
Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method, dated 3/30/03. 1 classified trees into two categories: trees
that could be reasonably preserved during and after development, and trees that were not suitable for
preservation. I have included the results on a spreadsheet with the title, Leiser Park Tree Evaluation,
6/17/03.
The deciduous tree population at this site is preponderantly big leaf maple, with scattered alder,
cherry, and other species at the east end. The northeast quadrant is heavy in Douglas-fir. The east half of
the property is in generally good condition, with some problematic trees. The west half has some good
conifers and a few viable hardwoods, but is overwhelmingly covered with decrepit big leaf maple trees.
The big leaf maple trees are characteristically full of tight, narrow angle crotches with seams.
There is ubiquitous basal decay, some of which is definitely caused by Armillaria fungus. Many of the
butts and lower boles have been damaged, apparently by logging equipment. There is ample evidence of
verticillium wilt disease, a common affliction in bigleaf maple especially after the soil has been compacted
around them. This woodlot is full of hazard trees, including many that have fallen, and quite a few trees
that are currently hung up in other trees. There is a lot of large deadwood aloft, and many weak crotches,
some with decay, both in the crowns and within several feet of the ground. Between 3/28/2003 and my
visit on 6/17/2003, at least one large tree has uprooted, and at least one is actively in the process of
uprooting right now.
When thin-barked trees like bigleaf maple and alder are exposed to the sun, if they did not
naturally grow in this state from saplings, it is likely that the bark will be burned by the sun on the south
side. This is a likely result of removing surrounding trees. If trees have been covered by ivy, bark that
developed beneath the ivy can be burned by the sun upon ivy removal. This sunburned bark dies, and the
wood under it dies and begins to decay. The tree becomes a hazard. This is something to keep in mind.
Rampant blackberry cover makes travel and inspection very difficult throughout this area. Worse,
the west half of the property is heavily infested with English ivy, which makes visual inspection tenuous. I
am certain that many current and potential defects have been missed due to these infestations, both at
ground level, and aloft. Whatever happens at this site, whether a tree is being cut down or preserved, the
lower trunk and basal area of every tree should eventually be given a more intensive inspection by
stripping away noxious vegetation. Reclassification to hazard tree or nonviable tree should be made where
appropriate.
I was asked to make one inspection aloft, in tree No. 305, a bigleaf maple. There is an old pruning
wound at approximately 15 ft. above grade. The dimensions of this wound are approximately 17 by 12
inches. There are three cavities in the pruning wound, and these are not visible from the ground. They are
about 3 inches, 3 inches, and 2 inches in diameter. Below the pruning wound there is a cavity which is
visible from the ground.
• I drilled into the tree through the pruning wound. I found that the wood is decayed for the
first 8 inches. Then I hit sound wood.
I drilled into the tree through the lower cavity, and penetrated 7 inches of decayed wood,
and then a cavity.
At a point 14 inches above the pruning wound, I found sound wood for the length of my
For Matrix Development Corp. Page 1
•
•
Leiser Park June 17, 2003
drill bit.
• Fourteen inches below the pruning wound, I found 7 inches of sound wood, and then
decay.
I conclude that the wood has been decayed by fungi entering through the pruning wound, which
has very little wound wood or callus growth. The decay is working towards the center of the tree, and
probably has reached the center. The decay is being contained in the upward direction, but containment is
poor in the downward direction. I consider this tree to be a hazard tree, because it is much more likely to
fail than the background failure rate of reasonably healthy trees.
Peter Torres, M.F.
For Matrix Development Corp. Page 2
Leiser Park Mitigation Reanalysis.
Page 1 of 3
- 6/23/2003 Knapp0134 Leiser-Reanalysis.xls Iqw
Tag #
Species
DBH
DDDD
Leave
Cut
Description
6
Dou las-fir
17
17
no apparent defects or limitations
8 .
Dou las-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
9
Dou las-fir
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
10
Douglas-fir
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
14
Dou las-fir
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
16
Douglas-fir
26
26
no apparent defects or limitations
17
Douglas-fir
27
27
no apparent defects or limitations
18
Dou las-fir
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
19
Dou las-fir
27
27
no apparent defects or limitations
20
Dou las-fir
22
22
no apparent defects or limitations
21
Douglas-fir
29
29
no apparent defects or limitations
26
bi leaf maple
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
27
Dou las-fir
24
24
no apparent defects or limitations
28
Douglas-fir
25
25
no apparent defects or limitations
30
Dou las-fir
30
30
no apparent defects or limitations
35
bi leaf maple
17
17
no a arent defects or limitations
36
Dou las-fir
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
37
bi leaf maple
19
19
hazardous due to decay
38
bi leaf maple
16
16
hazardous due to decay
44
bi leaf maple
14
14
no apparent defects or limitations
45
Dou las-fir
38
38
no apparent defects or limitations
52
bi leaf maple
17
17
hazardous due to decay
53
bi leaf maple
19
19
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
57
bi leaf maple
16
16
hazardous due to decay
59
bi leaf maple
19
19
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease whk
60
bi leaf maple
18
18
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease whk
68
Douglas-fir
34
34
no apparent defects or limitations
70
Dou las-fir
18
18
no apparent defects or limitations
71
Dou las-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
77
Dou las-fir
18
18
no apparent defects or limitations
79
Dou las-fir
14
14
mechanical damage to bole
83
Douglas-fir
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
86
Dou las-fir
15
15
hazard due to excessive sweep
87
Dou las-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
92
Dou las-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
102
Douglas-fir
21
21
no apparent defects or limitations
106
Dou las-fir
14
14
no apparent defects or limitations
108
bi leaf maple
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
130
bi leaf maple
16
16
dan erous crotch at 3 ft.; deadwood
131
Dou las-fir
18
18
no apparent defects or limitations
132
bi leaf maple
13
13
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
133
bi leaf maple
17
17
no apparent defects or limitations
136
bi leaf maple
16
16
dead or d in
137
bi leaf maple
13
13
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
139
bi leaf maple
18
18
bad crotch; suspect root disease. Shares roots with dead tree
140
bi leaf maple
23
23
dead or dying
141
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
147
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
148
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
152
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous; multiple weak crotches at 3 ft.
168
Dou las-fir
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
169
Dou las-fir
14
14
no apparent defects or limitations
172
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to decay
176
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
177
bi leaf maple
13
13
undermined roots; bad crotch at 3 ft.
179
bi leaf maple
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
180
bi leaf maple
16
16
bad crotch at 3 ft.
184
bi leaf maple
15
15
no apparent defects or limitations
190
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
198
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to decay
199
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
200
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to decay
201
bi leaf maple
14
14
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
202
Douglas-fir
17
17
hazardous due to decay
Leiser Park Mitigation Reanalysis.
Page 2 of 3
- 6/23/2003 Knapp0134 Leiser-Reanalysis.xls
Tag #
Species
DBH
DDDD
Leave
Cut
Description
203
bi leaf maple
18
18
hazardous due to decay
204
Dou las-fir
21
21
broken
205
Douglas-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
206
Douglas-fir
22
22
broken
207
bi leaf maple
18
18
no apparent defects or limitations
208
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
209
bi leaf maple
14
14
bad fork with seam at 3 ft.
210
bi leaf maple
14
14
hazardous due to decay
211
Dou las-fir
26
26
no apparent defects or limitations
212
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
214
bi leaf maple
14
14
hazardous due to decay
217
Dou las-fir
21
21
no apparent defects or limitations
218
Douglas-fir
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
219
Dou las-fir
33
33
no apparent defects or limitations
220
Dou las-fir
32
32
no apparent defects or limitations
221
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to decay
222
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to decay
223
Douglas-fir
26
26
no apparent defects or limitations
225
bi leaf maple
14
14
dead or dying
227
bi leaf maple
17
17
broken
228
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
229
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazard due to excessive sweep
230
bi leaf maple
18
18
excessive deadwood diseased condition
236
Dou las-fir
17
17
no apparent defects or limitations
239
Dou las-fir
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
242
bi leaf maple
18
18
hazard due to excessive lean
243
bi leaf maple
14
14
bad crotch at 3 ft.
244
bi leaf maple
24
24
hazard due to excessive lean
252
bi leaf maple
13
13
suckers off a rotten stump
256
bi leaf maple
18
18
hazardous due to decay
257
bi leaf maple
16
16
no apparent defects or limitations
260
bi leaf maple
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
266
bi leaf maple
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
272
bi leaf maple
18
18
decay at stump whk
273
bi leaf maple
21
21
.dangerous fork at 3 ft.
275
bi leaf maple
14
14
suckers off a rotten stump
276
bi leaf maple
23
23
no apparent defects or limitations
277
bi leaf maple
21
21
hazardous due to decay
278
bi leaf maple
16
16
dieback, characteristic of verticillium wilt disease
279
bi leaf maple
18
18
dead or dying
287
bi leaf maple
13
13
mechanical damage to bole
292
Douglas-fir
13
13
no apparent defects or limitations
294
bi leaf maple
13
13
hazardous due to excessive sweep and lean
302
bi leaf maple
14
14
Armillaria root disease
303
bi leaf maple
17
17
canker, seam
304
bi leaf maple
18
18
tree is uprooting
305
bi leaf maple
25
25
hazardous due to decay
306
bi leaf maple
14
14
hazardous due to excessive sweep and lean
308
bi leaf maple
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations whk
309
bi leaf maple
15
15
hazardous due to weak architecture, butt
316
bi leaf maple
19
19
no apparent defects or limitations
318
bi leaf maple
14
14
hazardous due to decay
364
Douglas-fir
14
14
no apparent defects or limitations
2021
Douglas-fir
24
24
dead or d in
2033
Dou las-fir
33
33
no apparent defects or limitations
2034
Dou las-fir
20
20
no apparent defects or limitations
2035
Douglas-fir
25
25
no apparent defects or limitations
2036
Douglas-fir
25
25
no apparent defects or limitations
2037
Douglas-fir
22
22
no apparent defects or limitations
Mitigation Summary
Number of trees >12 Inches: 123
Number of DDDD and Leave Trees >12 inches: 80
% trees DDDD & Leave >12 inches: 65%
.I:k
Leiser Park Mitigation Reanalysis Page of 3
. 6/23/2003 Knapp0134 Leiser-Res
Ta # S ecies DBH DDDD Leave Cut Descri tion
City of Tigard Mitigation: 50%
Number of inches cut: 849
Number of inches to mitigate: 425
Number of 2-inch trees: 212
Ti- 1 0 S.W. 81ST y AVE.
=p_~ 1$+D
10 00 gyp ' . 14 +00 . ~ - ' 1--- -i
W,
.'"x.....""11 . - _ _ =-ti'rr- - -
T Lk
I C)
-•.r I 1 1 t I - -11 z
l Nt I 1) 14 fr I `
0
} f 1
m
\ VII t 1 ~ Q\ ~ ~
•
- I o , X
r, . 1+ 11 b I t ` t orn
Y b - } 1
s w, 80 A
-fie a 5~- w 10 j r--_.
_
N00'46'54'E 84.37' z
11 ~ o n
o a
b
/ 1
A
DATE NO.
DESCRIPTION
TREE EXHIBIT
° Pa
Ike /
A
PRO CT NO•
~ e
MAT041
LEIS PARK
SR Design LLC
CASE FILE NO.
14665 SW 79TH AVE
G
s
DESIGNED: rJAI
DRAWN: rJn
DnTE: 1 21 O3 SHI
FILE:
X
sw~rnNC
ErmHEEawc ilArau+Q -
OREGON
TIGARD.
C.
EXPIRES 12-31-
CHECKED:
rpPROVEO:
XREF:
E
LEGAL:
8196 SW HALL BLVD., STE. 232
97008
PLAN
EXHIBIT
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP. PORTLAND, OR
BEAVERTON, OR
.....)ter. /RAI) 469-1213 FAX: (503) 469-6553
_
1 ~
.4 -7
1 > t e I I in O•~.
~ tl
z
d 00
0
r ` I;I o V ~
t I 1 i \ ' ;
1
1
1 O
I t ~ ~
{ - - `
00 1~7'
a_
79TH AVE.
!r
i
"EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY
(Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence
filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.)
M •
•
CITY OF TIGARD
Community (Development
Shaping ,A Better Community
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: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
DATE: June 17, 2003
SUBJECT: "FINALIZED MEMO" for Leiser Park Subdivision (SUB 2002-00010) Appeal
The applicant, Craig Brown of the Matrix Development Corporation, has filed an appeal
with the City of Tigard in regard to the approval of the aforementioned subdivision. The
appellant has requested your review of the City's approval based on the imposition of
several conditions of the approval as enumerated in his letter of appeal received May 27,
2003. The issues generally concern tree protection standards, tree mitigation, street
improvements, the. requirement that construction plans show driveway aprons, and that the
applicant file an acknowledgement agreeing to comply with the sign ordinance.
The subject site is located on south of SW Bonita Road, between SW 79th and 81St
Avenues within the R-4.5 residential zone. The Notice of Decision and record is attached
for your review.
The appellant argues that Condition 6 should be removed and replaced with
alternate language giving deference to the project arborist versus the City Forester
regarding the placement of tree protection fencing.
The CiN's position is as follows:
Concfitinnistat_PC St hI mit c_nnstrurtinn drnwinns that _in_dirate the trees to he retained and
the proposed location of tree protection fencing. Generally this fencing shall be
established at the trees' driplines, unless specific circumstances warrant deviation from
this standard. Any deviation must be approved by the City Forester. Prior to commencing
any site work, the applicant shall install tree protection fencing around the trees to be
retained as shown on the approved construction drawings. The City Forester shall verify
that measures have been properly installed before any construction activity occurs. Refer
to the City Forester's comments at the end of this decision for specific tree protection
guidelines."
6/23/2003 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 4
RE: SUB2002-00010/1-eiser Park Subdivision Appeal
R •
1.4 This condition was imposed based on comments from the City's Forester, as well as the
applicant's proposed tree protection guidelines prepared by his arborist which state: "The
arborist/urban forester shall designate the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). Where feasible,
the TPZ shall be established at the dripline of the tree or grove as a minimum. If
infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, and utilities) must be installed closer to the tree(s), the
TPZ may be established within the dripline if the arborist/urban forester determine that the
tree(s) will not be unduly damaged."
The appellant argues that the condition should be written "The tree protection fencing shall
be placed under the direction of the project arborist."
Based on the applicant's tree protection plan, the City believes that if revised, the condition
should read: "Submit construction drawings that indicate the trees to be retained and the
proposed location of tree protection fencing. Tree protection fencing shall be placed in
accordance with the tree protection plan. Fencing can only be removed with the approval
of the City Forester, who may require that said fencing be reinstalled per the approved
construction plans."
The appellant argues that Conditions 40 and 41 fail to account for the proposed
mitigation, and that Condition 40 should not be applicable until the amount of
mitigation has been exceeded.
The City's position is as follows:
Condition 0 reads "The applicant shall acknowledge in writing his acceptance of the
following requirement: If the tree protection guidelines are not followed, moved after being
approved in the field, knocked down during construction, or are removed prior to the end
of construction then:
A. The project will be immediately shut down until the fencing is reinstalled according
to the conditions of approval,
8. Each impacted tree may be required to be bonded for seven years in the amount of
up to $5,000 per tree, based on the estimated cost of removal and replacement of
the impacted tree;
C. Corrective action, including but not limited to loosening compacted soil, replacing
graded soils, or removing filled soil, shall be undertaken by the applicant to address
the damage done in the critical root zone of each tree; and
D. A tine of $250 per day shall be assessed to the applicant following written
notification of the violation, until such time that the tree protection measures are
reinstated."
The City will remove sub items B, C, and D. However, the applicant shall note that the full
penalties as provided for in the Tree Removal Chapter 18.790.060 will be utilized:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this
chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of
up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such
remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section D
below; and
2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully
removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society
of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal." [emphasis added]
Staff believes that this standard provides less certainty for the applicant in terms of potential
costs for damaged trees, but agrees that the measures outlined in the previous condition
were not explicitly provided for in the code language. Additionally, these measures will
have to be imposed through civil court proceedings, which may result in further project
delays, depending on the severity of the violation.
6/23/2003 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 4
RE: SUB2002-00010/1-eiser Park Subdivision Appeal
Condition #41 reads:
`The applicant shall acknowledge in writing his acceptance of the following requirement.
Any tree subsequently removed following this approval, prior to formation of the Tree
Committee or Homeowner's Association comprised of individual owners shall be
required to mitigate for 100% of the caliper inches of the tree being removed. Once the
homes on the lots have received final occupancy, this mitigation requirement shall not
apply. "
The City will delete condition #41.
While staff had initially thought that an excess balance of mitigation could be credited
towards subsequent tree removal, this is not the case. More specifically, the applicant will
be held to the tree removal plan submitted and approved by the city. Any subsequent tree
removal is considered a violation of the tree removal plan, and is subject to the penalties as
an illegally removed tree.
The appellant argues that Condition 12 and 13 should add the verbiage "/f these
improvements are impractical to build with this development, then upon receiving
the City Engineer' s consent, a fee-in-lieu for these street improvements shall be
paid by the developer" to account for feasibility issues with constructing the street
improvements to SW 79 and 81St.
The City's position is as follows:
Section 18.810.030.A.5 already contains the provision for allowing a future improvements
guarantee in-lieu of improvements. The additional wording in these two conditions is not
necessary. Staff recommends no change to the wording of this condition.
The ajpellant argues that the wording "driveway aprons" should be removed from
Condition #15 regarding the list of required public improvement details in the
construction plans.
The City's position is as follows:
Condition p15 is a standard condition that obligates the developer to build the internal
subdivision streets to City standards. The developer is responsible for providing driveway
aprons on these streets, whether they are installed at the time of the main infrastructure
work, or installed as a part of. home construction. The condition does not force the
developer to install the aprons with the main infrastructure. In practice, it is quite common
for the value of these aprons to be included in the one-year maintenance assurance for the
project, to ensure that the aprons are installed with the home construction.
Staff recommends no change to Condition #15.
The appellant argues that Condition 42, related to compliance with the sign code, is
excessive and unnecessary.
Condition # 42 states: "The applicant shall sign and submit a Sign Compliance
Agreement regarding the placement of temporary and permanent signage."
This condition is in response to a problem the City has experienced with off site
advertising that is placed 'in the public right-of-way directing customers to the new lots
and home sites. A copy of the compliance agreement is attached for reference. By
requiring the applicant to sign this compliance agreement, achieves two beneficial
results:
First - the applicant is more acutely aware of the sign placement requirements; and
Second - reinforces the fact that if the signs are not properly placed, the
applicant/developer will be held responsible.
6/23/2003 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 3 of 4
RE: SUB2002-00010/Leiser Park Subdivision Appeal
• •
In summary, staff believes that the revised conditions of approval further the public interest
and benefit the public health, safety, and welfare and are authorized by the Tigard
Development Code to ensure that the standards are met. Therefore, the appeal should be
denied, subject to the changes provided for herein.
Other Items
Following the filing of the subject appeal, the City received a letter from an abutting
neighbor. Dan and Mable MacKinnon submitted comments regarding the condition of a
tree on the Leiser Park site that lies near their property. The MacKinnon's purport that this
maple tree, designated as #305 on the tree inventory plans, is hazardous and a threat. The
City Forester visited the site after the subject approval to evaluate the condition of several
maple trees along the southern project boundary. These trees had succumbed to
verticilium wilt which was not easily identifiable until after the trees began to leaf out. The
forester concurred with the project arborist on the majority of these trees, but disagreed that
tree #305 was a hazard that could be removed without imposing mitigation. It is important
to note that the City does not require specific trees to be retained or removed, as this is left
to the discretion of the property owner and developer. However, the code is designed to
discourage unnecessary tree removal through the increasing mitigation requirements as
the proportion of trees to be removed increases. The applicant has every ability to remove
tree #305, but, as specified in the original conditions of approval, would be required to
mitigate for 100% of the 25 caliper inches. However, based on reconsideration of those
conditions, and the requirement that the applicant's tree plan be adhered to, now, to
remove that tree would be considered a violation of the tree ordinance, subject to the
penalties established in the code.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment Sign Compliance Agreement
Attachment 2 - Letter, dated June 4, 2003, from Dan and Mable MacKinnon
EXHIBITS:
x i t - Notice of Decision
Exhibit B - Neighborhood Comments
Exhibit C - Appeal Filing Form
Exhibit D - Applicant's Submittal
6/23/2003 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 4 of 4
RE: SUB2002-00010/1-eiser Park Subdivision Appeal
• •
ATTACHMENT I
SIGN COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
Witnesseth:
This agreement dated the day of 20_ between the City of
Tigard, as a municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter termed the "City",
and hereinafter termed the "Developer".
WHEREAS, the Developer has applied to the City for approval of
located in Township South, Range One (1) West,
Section , Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted standards in the Community Development
Code Chapter 18 for signs;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows:
The Developer agrees that all signage both temporary and permanent will
comply with City sign regulations. The Developer further agrees and
acknowledges to be responsible for the rectifying of any and all sign regulation
violations during the marketing and initial sale of all properties within said
development. The Developer further agrees that, should sign regulations be
violated, to be subject to all citations that may be issued during the initial sale
and marketing of the properties.
Developer:
By:
The City of Tigard:
By:
(Attached Notary Acknowledgement hereto)
ATTACHMENT 2
~a(I ,y V J
June 4, 2003
City of Tigard,
Planning Managerg
Dick Bewersdorff,
We are the owners of Raze Meadows Lot #11, adjacent to the southwest corner of
the Leiser Park Subdivision. We have, for the past several years, noticed an increasing
number of dying branches in the neighboring Maple trees. As much as we love the trees
and would like to retain as many as possible, we are now pleased that Certified Arborist,
Walter Knapp has identified an incurable disease and will recommended the removal of all
diseased Maple trees within the subdivision project.
It is Tree #305 with which we are the most concerned; a 90' tall, 26" diameter
Maple. Although it does not yet show symptoms of the disease, it is located immediately
adjacent.to the affected area containing the soil borne virus and will likely later succumb to
its effects.
Tree #305 does have another serious problem however; at the 16' high level, a 3"
diameter hole is rotted deeply into the trunk. In coming years this damage will certainly
worsen, causing rot to progress downward and creating a blockage of nutrients upward.
The weakened trunk will eventually cause this tree to break and fall.
This 90' tall tree is located about 60' from the street; 30-40' from the planned new
homes; 50' from our driveway where we normally park 4 vehicles; 60' from our RV
garage; and 70' from our bed! We now consider this once beautiful tree to be a hazard and
a threat.
It may be argued that the tree does not yet have damage severe enough to warrant
its removal. However, now is the time in which the environment of this subdivision is being
prepared for the future homeowners. It should not be considered fair to the new owner of
this lot to require that he be responsible for the liability and repair of a problem that was
identified during the development stage. Now is the time to eliminate the liability of this
tree; while the heavy equipment is there to easily deal it, with a minimum disruption of
future landscaping, and before property is damaged or someone is physically injured.
If it is deemed necessary to retain Tree #305, we believe the liability of any future
damages should lie with the City of Tigard. Please consider its removal.
Sincerely,
4a a on 14750 SW 81 Ave.
Tigard, OR 97224
503-639-8772
• •
e
EXHIBIT A
"iY WI "5-
t n ~a `'f3 -t,a5u,F a 'x914' Nt:2'^rd,-c
riTCE~ OFfYPE~ II DECISIOMY N~
;SUBDIVISION (SUB)`2002 00010 ~cmor FnoaRO'~~ x
11
J s« a;t~C~1L1L2
LEISER PARKkSUBDIVISION
120 DAYS = 718/2003
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
CASE NOS.: Subdivision (SUB) SUB2002-00010
Variance (VAR) VAR2002-00046
Variance (VAR) VAR2002-00047
REQUEST: A request for Subdivision approval to create 19, single-family lots on an
approximately 4.36 acre site. In addition, the applicant has requested two (2)
Variances to the tree removal ordinance to (1) reduce the number of trees that
qualify for mitigation and (2) to vary from the mitigation program requirements.
APPLICANT: Matrix Development Corp. OWNER: Matrix Development Corp. &
Attn: Craig Brpwn Anne Leiser, Trustee
12755 SW 69 Avenue, Suite 100 6009 SW Pendleton Court
Portland, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97221
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
DESIGNATION: R-4.5; Single=Family, Low-Density Residential.
ZONE: R-4.5; Single-Family Low-Density Residential - 7,500 Square Feet Per Unit, 4.5
Units Per Acre. The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish sites for
single-family residential developments.
LOCATION: 14665 SW 79th Avenue; WCTM 2S1 1213C, Tax Lot 300 and adjacent unaddressed
parcel, WCTM 2S112BD, Tax Lot 2800.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Cha ters 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments),
18.390 (Decision Makin Procedures; 18.430 (Subdivision); 18.510 (Residential
Zoning Districts 18.7 5 Access, Egress and Circulation ; 18.715 (Density
Computation); 141.745 (Landscaping and Screening); 18.765 Off-Street Parking
18.790 (Tree Removal); .18.795 (Visual Clearance Areas); an 18.810 (Street and
Utility Improvement Standards).
SECTION II. DECISION
~Nofice,~is 'h"ereb' iyenA~that, the E;Cr~ ,'Yofs}fld"i rd 'Co" 0"fity ;DeveloPmeet kDr.`ectors de~si' nee :has;
y gg r c xa, stf q As
9
APPROVED SUB 002 00010 a acid AR2002 p 00046 ~ subject „toy certalnconditionsR of appfiroal; Viand`,
.DENIED VAR2002-0f0:0'47 The fi;ndlrigs andconluslansRonl which vtFie decrsion,rs basO'd arenotedrn
Section VI of this. Decision t p ' at xr' x xF k
s R ii.-l
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 1 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
• 0
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
)ty .t Y'-.• i l ,~'S ne a..
THEETOLL=OWINGGC;ONDITIONS SI ALL~BE'SSATISFIED,PRIOR TOrCOMMENCING';ANY ONSITE'
IMPROVEMErNTS; INCLUDINGGtZADINGY}EXCAVATION~ND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES,«; ~~fkl
u mit to tY a annrng epa ment in racy, 639-4171, ex t. or review an approva :
1. The applicant shall revise Tract A so that it extends to the northern property boundary and
terminates at WCTM 2S1126C, tax lot 100. The width of the tract may need to be reduced but
in no case shall be less than 20 feet of pavement width.
2. The applicant shall revise the construction plans to show the private street with sidewalks on at
least one side. The sidewalk may be contained in a separate easement. Furthermore the
construction plans for the private street, "Tract A" and the associated access easement shall
show that the pavement section will only be improved to a length of 150 feet or otherwise will
pprovide for a standard turnaround. The sidewalks shall continue to the northern property
boundary. Also, incorporate the requirements of Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) as
reflected in the Agency Comments Section of this decision, into the construction documents.
3. Submit a revised street utility plan that shows the location, species, and size (minimum 2-inch
caliper) of required street trees.
4. The applicant shall submit a mitigation program that includes assurances for the sale of 750
caliper inches to be planted in the City of Tigard through the Tigard High School Boosters, or
some other approved alternate community based group. The program shall include measures
to ensure that the trees are distributed solely to City of Tigard residents. The trees may be
sold over a period of time exceeding the 1 Y2 year approval period, but in no case shall exceed
3 years. If, at the conclusion of the third year, there are remaining caliper inches to be sold,
the applicant may opt to plant the remaining trees in an off site location (approved by the City
Forester) or pay the fee in lieu (fee assessed at the time of payment In addition, the
applican shall submit a revised landscaping plan or other document that assures that three
(3), 2-inch caliper trees will be planted per each lot. The planting of said trees shall occur after
the homes are substantially complete, but prior to final occupancy inspection.
5. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall clearly designate the trees for removal in the field
with bright orange spray paint, and those to be retained with a different color vinyl tape. The
City Forester shall inspect and approve the final marked trees before clearing commences.
6. Submit construction drawings that indicate the trees to be retained and. the proposed location
of tree protection fencing. Generally this fencing shall be established at the trees' driplines,
unless specific circumstances warrant deviation from this standard. Any deviation must be
approved by the City Forester. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall install
tree protection fencing around the trees to be retained as shown on the approved construction
drawings. The City Forester shall verify that measures have been properly-installed before an
construction activity occurs. Refer to the City Forester's commens at the end of this decision
for specific tree protection guidelines.
7. Prior to construction, submit Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&R) deed restrictions
for the trees proposed to be retained.
8. Prior to and during construction, if any tree currently proposed to be retained is to be removed,
approval must be granted by the City Forester PRIOR to any tree removal. Following
construction and establishment of a Homeowner's Association or Tree Committee comprised
of individual owners, review and approval for tree removal requests will become the
responsibility of the Homeowner's Association or Tree Committee. Any tree removed from a
lot prior to tl~e issuance of final occupancy on the house will be required to be mitigated at
100 0 of the caliper inches removed.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 2 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval:
9. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is
required for this projec~ to covgr all infrastructure work within the subdivision, the street
improvements in both 79 and 81 Avenues, and any other work in the public right-of-way. Eight
(8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering
Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division
and should only include sheets relevant !public improvements. Public Facility Improvement
(PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which
are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us).
10. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number
of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will
provide the financial assurance for the ppublic improvements. For example, specify if the entity is
a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is
incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate
information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents.
11. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the
pity Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public
improvement construction phase. 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.
12. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the
Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street
improvement along the frontage of 79th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall
include:
A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route from curb to centerline equal to
18 feet;
B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of
pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or
subsurface runoff;
E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip;
F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per Tigard Development Code (TDC) requirements;
G. street striping;
H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer;
1. underground utilities;
J. street signs (if ap licable);
K. driveway apron (inapplicable); and
L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 79t" Avenue in a safe
manner, as approved by the Engineering Department.
13. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the
Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street
improvement along the frontage of 81St Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall
include:
A. City standard pavement section for a local residential street from curb to centerline equal
to 6 feet;
B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of
pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or
subsurface runoff;
E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip;
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 3 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements;
street striping;
streetlight layout by applicant's engineer,
underground utilities;
street signs (if applicable);
driveway apron (if applicable); and
adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal
manner, as approved by the Engineering
to be approved by City Engineer;
alignment to, construct SW 81St Avenue in a safe
Department.
14. The applicant shall consider constructing SW 80th Avenue with,@ 32-foot-wide paved section to
allow for parking on both sides. The right-of-way (ROW) for 80 Avenue can remain at 50 feet
and the new sidewalks could be constructed curb-tight to match the existing improvements to the
south.
15. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full
width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks,
driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street
trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision
streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards.
16. Profiles of 79th Avenue and 81St Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the
subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade.
17. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the
proposed private street(s) shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street.
18. Any portion of public sanitary or storm drainage lines to be located outside of paved roadway
areas shall be constructed of ductile iron or PVC C-900 pipe.
19. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement
(PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water
Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of
the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI
permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines.
20. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality/detention facility shall be
submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the Public Facility
Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved
by the City, Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on
the final pat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an
Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance
Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from
the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and
maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City.
Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and
make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City
will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of
the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time
during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer
shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity.
21. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit
drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and
Planning Manual, December 2000 edition."
22. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan
shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to
insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved
by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a
street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to
sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION' PAGE 4 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
23. 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.
24. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of the private street,
Tract A, which lists the addresses that are served by that street. This will assist emergency
services personnel to more easily find a particular home.
nTHEMFOLLOWING`CONDITIONS SHAL`La BE SATISFIED
rtPRIOR TO APPROUAL'.0 E FINAL PLAT
Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2415) for review and approval:
25. The applicant shall place a statement on the final plat indicating the private street will be
owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it.
26. The applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) along with the
final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to maintain the private. street(s).
These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the final plat.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval:
27. Prior to approval of.the final plat, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of
$600.00. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering).
28. The final plat shall show on the face that ROW will be dedicated for 79th Avenue to provide 29
feet from the centerline. The ROW for 81St Avenue shall be 27 feet from centerline. The ROW for
80 Avenue shall be 54 feet.
29. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed
private street(s) will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and
take access from it(them).
30. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions,. Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a
maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street(s). The CC&R's shall obligate
the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure
regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to
the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat.
31. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and
incorporated a homeowner's association.
32. Prior to approval of the final plat, ~he applicant shall pay $963.00 to the City for the striping of the
bike lane along the frontage of 79 Avenue.
33. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 79th Avenue or 81St
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. The fee must be paid prior to approval of the final plat. If the fee option is
chosen, the amount for each street will be as follows:
• 79th Avenue 7,260.00
• 81St Avenue 19,130.00
34. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to
the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments
shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat
boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground
measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates
can be established-by:
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 5 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
•
• GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey.
• By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
35. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
A. Submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor
licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative.
B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact
Plannin/Engineering Permit Technicians, at (503) 639-4171, ext. 426).
C. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by
the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORSP2.05), Washington County, and by the City'of Tigard.
D. The right-of-way dedications for 79 Avenue and 81St Avenue shall be made on the final
plat.
E. NOTE: Washin ey receive
gton County will not begin their review of the final plat until th
notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat
and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor.
F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final
plat for City Engineer signature (for partitions), or City Engineer and Community
Development Director signatures (for subdivisions).
ng uepartment (Brian Kager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) or review an approval:
36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with
a "photomylar" copy of the recorded final plat.
37. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a
construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems
such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits.
38. Prior to issuance of building permits within the subdivision, the City Engineer shall deem the
public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities
are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2 all local residential
streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3 any off-site street and/or utility improvements are
substantially completed, and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. (NOTE:
the City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue
model home permits).
39. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of
the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format,
if.available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the
City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with
points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water
system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates,
referenced to NAD 83 (91).
related to the following:
40. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing his acceptance of the following requirement: If the
tree protection guidelines are not followed, moved after being approved in the field, knocked
down during construction, or are removed prior to the end of construction then:
A. The project will be immediately shut down until the fencing is reinstalled according to
the conditions of approval;
B. Each impacted tree may be required to be bonded for seven years in the amount of up
to $5,000 per tree, based on the estimated cost of removal and replacement of the
impacted tree;
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION PAGE 6 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
C. Corrective action, including but not limited to loosening compacted soil, replacing
graded soils, or removing filled soil, shall be undertaken by the applicant to address the
damage done in the critical root zone of each tree;, and
D. A fine of $250 per day shall be assessed to the applicant following written notification of
the violation, until such time that the tree protection measures are reinstated.
41. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing his acceptance of the followingg requirement: Any tree
subsequently removed following this approval, prior to formation of the Tree Committee or
Homeownes Association comprised of individual owners shall be required to mitigate for
100% of the caliper inches of the tree being removed. Once the homes on the lots have
received final occupancy, this mitigation requirement shall not apply.
42. The applicant shall sign and submit a Sign Compliance Agreement regarding the placement of
temporary and permanent signage.
18.430.080 Improvement Agreement:
Before City approva is certified on t e final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by
the City, the Subdivider shall:
1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all
required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and
2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified,
the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider.
The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may
also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under
specific conditions therein stated in the contract.
18.430.090 Bond: .
As require by Section 18.430.080, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of
performance supported by one of the following:
1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in
the State of Oregon;
2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of
Oregon which remains in frce until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it
may be terminated; or
3. Cash.
The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a
registered civil engineer, to assist the City -Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance
assurance.
The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first
secured written authorization from the City.
18.430.100 Filin and Recordin :
Within 60 days o the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for
signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92.
Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded
final plat.
18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements:
Three copies o the subdivision pat prepare by a an surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and
necessary data or narrative.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 7 OF 33
SUB2002-OW10 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
• •
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
cul-de-sac center points, and curve points.
be required around all centerline intersection points,
The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade.
18.810 Street & Utility Improvement Standards:
18.810.120 Utilities
All uti ity lines inc uding, 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.
18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required
All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a
period of one year following acceptance by the City.
Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the
improvements as set by the City Engineer.
The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180.
18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite
No an division improvements, including sanitary . sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs,
lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved
by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued.
18.810.180 Notice to Ci Required
o shall not begin until the qty as been notified in advance.
If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified.
18.810.200 Engineers Certification
e an dividers engineer s a 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.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 8 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Histo :
City records do not indicate any previous development approvals have been granted for this property.
A sewer line was installed through the middle of the project site to facilitate the development of the
Raze Meadows subdivision, located to the south.
Site Information and Proposal Description:
The applicant is requesting Subdivision approval to create 19, single-family lots on an approximately
4.36 acre site. The existing single-familyy home will bQ demolissged to enable an additional lot. There
is one pub Ic street proposed, which w~l connect 79 and 81 Avenues, as well as connect to the
existing 80 Avenue stub. A private street will extend to the north and serve two additional parcels.
Vicinit Information:
e propose development is between 79th and 81st Avenues, south of Bonita Road. The property
borders R-12 zoning to the east and R-7 zoning to the north. The other adjacent properties are
zoned R-4.5.
SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET
Staff received two phone ci2lls of a general nature, inquiring about tree removal, and street
connectivity as it related to 80 extending north through the site to Bonita. No specific concerns were
raised. Letters were received from Janice DeKorte, R.E. Gilmore, Kenneth Peterson and Mark
Walker.
Ms. DeKorte abuts the subject site on the north and takes access directly from SW Bonita and is
currently not served by sewer. Her prop ert y is large enough to be partitioned into 2 lots, based solely
on lot size. She requests that a sewer line be stubbed at the property line, and that an alternate point
of access be provided so that the existing driveway onto Bonita can be closed off. She requests that
the City complete this work. Lastly, she prefers that as many large trees as possible be preserved.
Staff Response: The applicant will be required by the provisions of Chapter 18.810 to extend
sewer lines to adjacent unserved parcels. The applicant has proposed this.
Extension of the access drive, shown as Tract A, will also be required. It should
be noted that only the easement will be required. Physical improvement of the
connection between the subject site and the abutting property will be left the
responsibility of whomever partitions that lot. As the length of the street will
exceed 150 feet when it is fully improved to the boundary of the subject
subdivision, a turnaround will be required. This is complicated by the fact that to
accommodate the access easement to the property boundary, the lot size
average will drop from 7,504 square feet to below the minimum lot size. The
applicant has proposed a lot line adjustment to add square footage to offset the
deduction required of the extended access easement. After the lot line
adjustment, the average lot size will be 7,507 square feet. There is no room to
accommodate the turnaround on the subject property. Moreover, since the
turnaround is not necessary for this development but would be needed for the
future partition, the turnaround will be the responsibility of the northern lot. The
removal of the driveway onto Bonita will also be the responsibility of the northern
lot at the time it connects to the private access way. Finally, the tree removal will
be addressed in the Tree Removal section of this decision.
R.E. Gilmore's letter is primarily concerned with the handling of surface drainage especially as it
relates to overtopping 79 Avenue.
Staff Response: Storm drainage is discussed in greater detail in the Street and Utility
Improvement Standards section of this decision, below.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION PAGE 9 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
Kenneth Peterson wrote regarding the accuracy of the tree list that was provided as "Spreadsheet
Addendum A°. There appears to be an inconsistency between the plans and the trees that are shown
as "Retained mismarked trees on Tree Removal Plan 12-4-02". His concern also is that there are so
many marks on the trees out in the field that there is a strong chance of a tree being removed
accidentally.
Staff Response: Staff concurs that the list is confusing and notes that other inaccuracies were
found upon closer inspection. The applicant revised the spreadsheet to correct
for these inconsistencies and was verified by the City's Forester. A condition
requiring clear marking of the final approved trees for removal will be imposed,
as discussed under Chapter 18.795, Tree Removal, later in this decision.
Moreover, the applicant has reevaluated the tree plan and field-verified the
numbers, and returned with revisions to the Spreadsheet exhibit. The City
Forester has reviewed these revisions and found them to be accurate. The
Forester's comments are reflected toward the end of this decision under Staff
Comments.
Mark Walker expressed his opposition to the granting of any variances for the project. He also
inquired why the City does not require more mature trees for mitigation.
Staff Response: The variance process is in place to address those unique circumstances where
the strict application of the code has an unfair result upon a articular property
based on factors outside the applicant's control. A more detailed analysis of the
variance request is contained later in this decision. As for the size of mitigation
trees, generally a smaller caliper tree will have better survivability rates and
adapts to its new location more readily than larger trees. In fact, over the course
of a few years, a smaller tree will outgrow a larger tree.
B. Aoolicable Development Code sections
8.370
Variances and Adjustments)
18.510
Residential zoning districts)
18.705
Access, Egress and Circulation)
18.715
Density)
18.745
Landscaping and screening)
18.765
Off-street parking and loading requirements)
18.790
Tree removal)
18.795
Vision clearance)
C. Street and Utili Im rovement
18.810
(Street and U I ity mprovement Standards)
D. Decision Makin Procedures
18.390
(impact Study)
order in which they are addressed in
The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of these Specific Development Standard
Code Chapters: 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units), 18.730 ((Exceptions to Development
Standards), 18.740 (Historic Overlay), 18.742 (Home Occupations), 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil
Home Regulations), 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming
situations), 18.775 (Sensitive Lands), 18.785 (Temporary Uses, and 18.798 (Wireless
Communication Facilities). These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval
standards.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION t'AuL iv ur so
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
A. Subdivision
8. 30
• •
SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A - SUBDIVISION GENERAL PROVISIONS:
Future Re-Division.
When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Ap . royal Authority shall require that the lots be of
such size and shape as to facilitate future revision in accordance with the requirements of
the zoning district and this title.
The largest lot in the subdivision is 8,226 square feet, and is not large enough to divide in the future,
therefore, this standard does not apply.
Lot Size Averaging:
Section 18.430.020.D states Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot
size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all lots is not
less than allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under this provision shall
be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the underlying zoning district.
The applicant has proposed to use the lot averaging option. The average of all lots is 7,504 square
feet. The smallest lot is 7,042 square feet, which exceeds 6,000 square feet (80% of the 7,500
square foot minimum lot size). Note that due to some required modifications to allow an access
easement to be created to the northern abutting parcel, Tract A was modified from its 27-foot width to
20 feet and extends from Leiser Lane all the way to the property to the north. The resulting deduction
of this access area reduced the average: lot size below the minimum of 7,500 square feet. The
applicant has filed a lot line adjustment to increase the project site area and enables the lots sizes to
average out to 7,507 square feet, which complies with the standard.
Phased Development:
The Approval Authority may approve a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases,
but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than two years
without reapplying for a preliminary plat; The criteria for approving a phased site development
review proposal are: a.)The public facilities shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction
with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy;
b.) The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of
temporary public facilities: For purposes of this subsection, a temporary public facility is an
interim facili not constructed to the applicable City 'or district standar ; and The phased
development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public
facilities that were required as a part of the approval of the preliminary plat.
The application for phased development approval shall be reviewed concurrently with the
preliminary plat application and the decision may be appealed in the same manner as the
preliminary plat.
The.applicant has not proposed a phased development, therefore, this standard does not apply.
Approval Standards - Prelimina Plat:
The propose preliminary pat complies, with the applicable zoning ordinance and other
applicable ordinances and regulations.
Compliance with the specific regulations and standards of the zoning ordinance will be addressed further
within this decision.
The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of
ORS Chapter 92.
The applicant has provided evidence that the proposed subdivision name has been reserved with
Washington County, thus insuring that the name is not duplicative.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION PAGE 11 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
0 •
The Streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of
major partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general
direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify
the street or road pattern.
Street layout is discussed in more detail, and conditioned if necessary, under the Street and Utility
section of this decision.
An explanation has been provided for all common improvements.
The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements as required and, therefore,
satisfied this criterion. Specific details of the proposed improvements are discussed later in this'decision
under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards section.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposal meets, or will be conditioned to meet further in
this decision, the preliminary plat approval standards for subdivisions.
B- APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOMENT CODE SECTIONS
Variances and Adjustments (18.370)
The .Director shall ap rove= approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance
based on finding that fhe criteria found in 18.370.010 (C) (2) are satisfied.
The applicant has requested two related, variances for partial relief from the tree mitigation
requirements. The first request is to reduce the number of trees that qualify for mitigation based on
preexisting utility constraints. Namely, the placement of the sewer line serving Raze Meadows was
placed too high through the.subject property necessitating the site be filled with approximately 10,000
cubic yards of fill. While the mere act of fi In the site does not require removing trees, even a small
amount of fill will cause the root structures of most trees to rot and eventually kill the tree or cause it
to fail. Therefore in best management practices, when fill is required, trees are removed from the fill
area to prevent a future unsafe situation. The applicant is requesting that the trees that are impacted
by the necessary fill to mitigate for the preexisting placement of the sewer line, be excluded from the
mitigation calculation.
The second request is to reduce the total amount of required mitigation based on economic factors.
Of the trees that do not require removal to accommodate the fill as described previously, there remain
a fair number of multi-stemmed and large sized trees that will require removal to accommodate the
street, utilities and other related site improvements. Since more than 25% of the trees on site will be
removed, the code requires a mitigation program representing a 50% replacement of the caliper
inches lost. The total initial estimated value of the required mitigation equated to $631,375 or
approximately $33,230 per lot (based on previous figures where more than 50 /o of the trees would be
removed, requiring 66% replacement of caliper inches). The applicant argues that the added cost of
the mitigation in addition to other expenses necessary to bring the lots to market will out price the lots
by approximately 44 /o above their estimated market value. Subsequent analysis provided by the
applicant in the revised Addendum to Spreadsheet "A" revealed that fewer than 50% of the qualifying
trees would be removed and thus only 50% of the removed caliper inches would require replacement.
If the first variance is granted, the total mitigation value is estimated to be $69,250 or roughly $3,650
per lot.
Annlvcic of Variannp f#1-reduce the number of mitiaatable trees based on re-existin site
The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any
other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or
vicinity;
The purpose of the tree ordinance includes encouraging the preservation, planting and replacement
of trees, and protecting water quality. The requested variance to reduce the number of trees that
qualify for mitigation will not detract from the purposes of this title, since the developer is still required
to preserve as many trees as practicable (52.1% will be retained) and will replace the trees being
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 12 OF 33
SUB2002-OWIO - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
•
removed at a ratio of 10 for every one tree removed. The tree plan shows that a large number of
trees around the periphery of the pro ert y will be retained so as not to detrimentally impact other
properties in the vicinity. The requesF is based on the fact that the fill that is required to properly
serve the site with utilities will have a significant negative effect on the trees within the fill area.
Removal and replacement of these trees will have a temporary impact to the site, whereas, an
improperly functioning sewer or storm drain system will be a permanent problem and conflicts with
the purposes of Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards).
There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are
not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity;
The variance request is the result of the combination of topography and prior development decisions
regarding utility placement. When Mara Court to the north was developed, the sewer line serving that
development was not placed deep enough to provide adequate cover over the pipe. This left the
subject site with a small mound running in a north-south alignment through the center of the proposed
development. In order to improve streets and have the sewers and storm drainage properly function,
the site needs to be elevated. This is a unique circumstance that is due to factors outside of the
applicant's control, and is not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district or
vicinity.
The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be
maintained to the greatest extent practical that is reasonably possible while permitting
reasonable economic use of the land;
The proposed use is a detached single-family development, which is consistent with the permitted
uses in the R-4.5 zone.
Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic
land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the
development were developed as specified in the title; and
The requested variance will not affect physical and natural systems, except that drainage will be
improved with the construction of a gravity fed storm drainage system. Without the proposed fill, the
water on the western portion of the site would not be able to be conveyed properly to the eastern
portion of the site where it ultimately drains into an off-site natural creek. The variance is also
seeking to reduce the number of trees that qualify for mitigation. These trees would have to be
removed regardless of whether or not the variance is granted in order to develop this site. The
variance is being considered more as a matter of equity, as the preexisting conditions which were
outside the applicant's control have resulted in the need for the additional tree removal. The result of
granting the variance is that fewer overall caliper inches will be required to be replanted; however, the
site will receive, in addition to the required street trees, 57 trees (3 per lot) and through the efforts of
the Tigard High School Boosters in cooperation with the developer, an additional 750 caliper inches
will be planted throughout the city.
The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance is the minimum variance which would
alleviate the hardship.
The hardship for which relief is being sought is the fact that re-existing utility placement necessitates
that the site be filled with approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Had the utilities been placed at
sufficient depth initially, the additional trees would not have to be removed. The total relief
represented by granting this variance is eliminating 19 trees (totaling 355.5 caliper inches) from the
mitigation calculations. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the pre-existing
extenuating conditions on this site.
Analysis of Variance #2-Reduce the total number of caliper inches being replaced based on
economic factors.
The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any
other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or
vicinity;
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 13 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
0
The proposed variance is to alleviate an undue economic hardship resulting from an unusual amount
of tree mitigation based on the density of large trees on this parcel. The tree removal ordinance was
designed to encourage the preservation of trees, in large part through an escalating mitigation
replanting requirement In essence, the more trees that are preserved, the less relative percentage of
caliper inches are required to be replanted. While this ordinance is designed to restore the forest
canopy lost to development, there is a financial cost associated with the mitigation. This serves as a
disincentive to tree removal and allows the trees to be a part of the fiscal analysis for project planning
purposes. The proposed variance has the potential of running afoul of the purpose of this title,
depending on the extent to which relief is granted and the circumstances on the site that determine
the degree of the relief.
There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are
not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district;
There is an unusual amount of large sized trees on this property, however, this is not entirely unique
to this property as there are other properties in the same zoning district that are similarly situated.
Staff does acknowledge this is a circumstance that was beyond the applicant's control.
The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be
maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable
economic use of the land;
Originally, it was believed that more than 75% of the trees on site. would require removal. With this
degree of tree removal, a replacement program representing no net loss of caliper inches would be
required. If the variance to exclude the trees lost due to the fill is granted, then the removal would
represent just under 50%. This means that only 50% of the removed caliper inches will require
replacement. Referring to the applicant's revised Addendum to Spreadsheet A, there are 76 trees
that will be removed (45%) and 93 that will be left (55%). After deducting the trees being removed
solely due to the fill there are 57 trees that will be removed (38%) and 93 that will be left (62%). This
still constitutes a removal of 25-50% of the total trees on site, which means that half of the caliper
inches being removed require replacement. The 57 trees total 1,108 caliper inches, for a total
mitigation requirement of 554 inches. The applicant has proposed planting 5 trees per lot in the
subdivision, as well as a program coordinated with the Tigard High School Boosters to distribute 750
caliper inches throughout the city. Staff recommended reducing the number of on-site trees from-5 to
3 to avoid overplanting. the lots. This amended mitigation program totals 864 caliper inches, in
excess of what is required. Therefore, staff does not see the need to. grant a variance due to
economic factors, since the applicant has shown a proposal that meets the standard.
Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic
land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the
development were developed as specified in the title; and
The relief requested would conceptually reduce the amount of required mitigation. However, with the
revised mitigation calculations, 732 caliper inches would be required to be replaced before the
granting of any variances. The applicant has proposed to mitigate for 940 caliper inches, but will be
required to mitigate for 864 caliper inches.
The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which
would alleviate the hardship.
The hardship is the result of the size and number of trees on this smaller parcel. This is a situation
that was not of the applicant's own doing. Nevertheless, since the proposed mitigation exceeds the
required mitigation, there is no need for this requested variance. Therefore, the minimum variance
would be no relief at all.
Residential Zoning Districts (18.510
fists the description of the residential Zoning District.
The site is located in the R-4.5: Low-Density residential zoning district.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION rHt3c m yr oa
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
• •
The R-4.5 zonina district has the followina dimensional reauirements:
STANDCRD^~ a
F
.
~m s. a
Minimum Lot Size
Detached unit
ft.
7
sq.
,,5500
Duplexes - Attached unit 1
1
.ft.
00 s
Average Minimum Lot Width
Detached unit lots
ft.
5 50
Duplex lots - Attached unit lots
ft.
0
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Setbacks
Front yard
20 ft.
Side facing street on corner & through lots
15 ft.
Side yard
5 ft.
Rear yard
15 ft.
Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district
-
Distance between property line and front of garage
20 ft.
Maximum Height
30ft.
Minimum Landscape Requirement
11] Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units in one grouping.
The proposed lots range in size from 7,042 square feet to 8,226 square feet. Based on the lot averaging
standards of Section 18.430.020.13, lot sizes can be reduced to a minimum of 6,000 square feet as long
as the average lot size for the entire subdivision is at least 7,500 square feet. The average lot size for
the 19 lots proposed for this subdivision (after the lot line adjustment is finalized) is 7,507 square feet.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and averaging requirements of the code. All lots meet
the minimum lot width requirements, based on the dimensions provided on the plan. The applicant will
be required to comply with the setbacks, height and lot coverage/landscape requirements during the
building permit review process for the homes on individual lots. This is not a planned development,
therefore, the setbacks are as prescribed by the base zone. For the purposes of applying setbacks to
lots 9 and 10, the front yard shall be measured from the private street tract.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the residential zoning district dimensional standards are
satisfied.
Access, Egress and Circulation 18.705 :
C a- pter 1.705 establishes and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access
and egress on a site and for general circulation within the site. Table 18.705.1 states that the
minimum vehicular access and egress for single-family dwelling units on individual lots shall
be one, 10-foot paved driveway within a 15-foot-wide accessway. The minimum access width
for 3-6 dwelling units is 20 feet with 20 feet of pavement.
The access and egress into the site itself is discussed later under the Street and Utility Standards
section of this decision. Access to individual lots will be reviewed for compliance during the building
permit phase. A private drive is proposed to serve two lots with a 27-foot-wide tract. This tract will be
reduced to 20 feet in order to off set the square footage required for an extension to serve the
property to the north which presently only has access to SW Bonita Road.
Access management. Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted
with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by
meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT,
Washington County, the City and AASHTO.
A report was prepared by Xavier Falconi, dated January 20, 2003. The report studied several
intersections in the vicinity of this site, including Bonita/7 and Bonita/81St. Mr. Falconi noted that
the sight distance at Leiser Lane/81St and Leiser Lane/79t will be at least 250 feet in each direction,
which will meet the Washington County standard.
However, there are sight distance issues at the intersection of 79th/Bonita Road. There is an existing
retaining wall at the southwest corner that impedes adequate sight distance. There is also a portion
of an existing fence that adds to the problem. Mr. Falconi recommends the wall be lowered and the
fence be moved back to improve the sicaht distance.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 15 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
• •
There are also sight distance issues at the intersection of 81St/Bonita Road, where an existing fence
blocks the view to the west, and an existing retaining wall blocks the view to the east. Mr. Falconi
recommends the fence be moved back and the wall lowered to improve the sight distance.
Both 79th/Bonita Road and 81St/Bonita Road are intersections not immediately adjacent to the
proposed development, and are not intersections created by this development. As such, Staff can
not impose a condition that requires the developer to fix the existing problems at these intersections.
The City should consider making improvements to these intersections.
Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the
influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is
that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The
minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet
measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed
driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from
City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In
a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore
any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or
practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible.
There are no driveways being proposed within the influence area of a collector or arterial street
intersection.
Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum pacing of driveways and streets along
a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing ofsdriveways and streets along an arterial
shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet.
The new intersection of Leiser Lane/79th Avenue is approximately 300 feet south of,the Mara Court
intersection, thereby meeting this standard. The new intersection of .Leiser Lane/81St Avenue is
approximately 260 feet north of the intersection at Carole Court, thereby meeting this standard.
Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize
jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses,
structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title,
provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements,
leases or contracts to establish the l'oint use; and Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or
contracts are placed on permanent file with the City.
Joint access is proposed over a tract of land for lots 9 and 10. The joint access is a private street
labeled "Tract A on the preliminary plan, and then continues in a shared access and utility easement.
Since the easement will be shown on the plat, this satisfies this requirement.
Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and
18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public
use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis.
Based on ttW plans submitted, all lots, with the exception of lots 9 and 10, have direct access to SW
79 , SW 80 , SW 81 , or SW Leiser Lane. Lots 9 and 10 have access to a private street which then
connects to SW Leiser Lane.
Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N.
Curb cuts will be addressed under Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements Standards later in
this decision.
Walkways:
On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall
extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or
elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the
required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between
buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 16 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and
neighboring developments; Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or
parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required
walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. and parking by either a
minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation,
except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than
36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are
used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of ehicle overhangs and
obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall- be in
compliance with ADA standards; Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced
materials such as concrete asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted
and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be
provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways.
Pu,blic sidewalks, are proposed on both sides of the proposed public street and along the site's SW
79 and SW 81St street frontages. Sidewalks shall be constructed per city standards. There are no
other walkways proposed with this development.
Inadequate or hazardous access:
Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the
opinion of the Director, the access proposed would cause or increase existing hazardous
traffic conditions; or would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or would in
any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present
danger to the public health, safety and general welfare.
The proposed access and street intersections meet code standards. Staff does not foresee any
hazardous conditions associated with the proposed access.
Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single-family dwellings and duplex
lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be
considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site.
SW 79th Avenue is a neighborhood route. The other streets abutting and within the subdivision are all
local streets. No access restrictions are required.
In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward
movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family
and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement.
This criterion does not apply.
Minimum access requirements for residential use:
Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units
on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table
18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2;
According to the plans submitted, no access will be less than 20 feet in width, in accordance with
Table 18.705.1. It should be noted that Tract A will be reduced from its present 27 feet to 20 feet, but
will continue to comply with the requirements of this chapter.
Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground
floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the
dwelling units;
No multi-family structures are proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with. the
provisions of the Uniform f re Code;
This provision will be discussed under "Agency Comments" later in this decision.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 17 OF 33
SUB2002-MIO - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
•
Section 18.705.030.H.4 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 one of the
following: a circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center
point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg. of
the hammerhead havin a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. he
maximum cross slope 01 a required turnaround is 5%.
The proposed private street, labeled "Tract A" is shown at approximately 106 feet in length, and
continues in an easement for an additional 44 feet. To address. the issues raised by the neighboring
property to the north regarding providing alternate access, the applicant will be conditioned to modify
Tract A so that it extends all the way to the northern boundary of the proposed project. The
pavement section will only be improved to 150 feet length. When the northern parcel is further
developed, or desires to extend the private accessway, a turnaround will be required to be
constructed on the northern parcel. However, for the purposes of this review, so long as the
pavement section of the drive does not exceed 150 feet in length, no turnaround is required.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not
been satisfied. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards
will be met.
CONDITION: The applicant shall revise "Tract A" so that it extends to the northern property boundary
and terminates at WCTM 2S112BC, tax lot 100. The width of the tract may need to be
reduced but in no case shall be less than 20 feet of pavement. Accommodation for
sidewalks may be provided in a separate private easement. Furthermore the
construction plans for the private street, "Tract A" and the associated access easement
shall show that the pavement section will only be improved to a length of 150 feet or
otherwise will provide for a standard turnaround.
Density Com utations and Limitations:
Chapter 715impTements the omprehensive Plan by establishing the criteria for determining
the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the
net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive
lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks: The net area is then divided b~y the minimum
lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of dwelling units that may be
developed on a site.
Based on the formulas in Chapter 18.715 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code, the
maximum and minimum number of units permitted on the site are based on the net developable area,
subtracting sensitive land areas, land dedicated to public parks, land dedicated for public right-of-wa ,
and land for private streets from the total site area. Of the total site area (189,031 square feA,
46,442 square feet will be dedicated to public street right-of-way and private streets; there are no
wetlands or land dedicated to the, public for parks. This results in a net developable area of 142,589
square feet. The maximum number of lots permitted on this site, therefore, is 19 and the minimum
number of lots is 15. The applicant's, roposal to build 19 lots for single-family detached homes
meets the maximum and minimum density requirements in an R-4.5 zone.
F I N D I N GO: Because the applicant has proposed 19 lots and 19 lots is the maximum permitted
based on the net acreage of the site, this standard has been satisfied.
Landscapinq and Screening (18.745):
CC apter 18.745 contains -Ian scapmg provisions for new development. Section 18.745.100
requires that street trees be planted in conjunction with all development that fronts a street or
driveway more than 100 feet long. A proposed planting list must be submitted for review by the
Director since certain trees can damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or cause personal injury.
Section 18.745.030.E states that existing veggetation on a site shall be protected as much as
possible (for example, areas not to be disturbed can be fenced as in snow fencing which can
be around individual trees).
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION PAGE 18 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
The applicant's plans indicate that more than 50% of the trees on site will be retained. A tree
protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, has been submitted. The protection measures
include snow fencing established at the drip line. The City Forester has also included his
recommended protection measures, which are referenced at the end of this decision.
Section 18.745.040.C contains specific standards for spacing of street trees as follows:
Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall
be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart;
Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be
spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; and
Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no
greater than 40 feet apart;
The applicant has included a landscape and lighting plan that shows conceptual locations of street
trees "per City tree list". Final species selection will occur as part of the construction document
review. These street trees are required to be a minimum 2-inch caliper.
Section 18.745.050 contains the provisions and requirements for buffering and screening.
The Buffering and Screening Matrix (Section 18.745.1) does not require buffering or screening when
a single-family detached residential use is proposed adjacent to existing detached single-family
dwellings. The Leiser Park Subdivision, site is surrounded by detached single-family homes and
undeveloped parcels with R-4.5 zoning. Therefore, this section does not apply.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff cannot confirm that all of the landscaping and
screening standards have been met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed
below, the standards will be met.
CONDITION: Submit a revised street utility plan that shows the location, species, and size (minimum
2-inch caliper) of required street trees.
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements (18.765):
Chapter 8.765, Table 18.765. nmres that single-family residences be provided with one (1)
off-street parking space for each dwelling unit.
Compliance with this standard will be enforced during the building permit review process. Since the
code requires 20 feet from the property line to the face of a garage, this will insure that at least one
(1) car can park off of the street, outside of any garage.
FINDING: Because each individual home will be reviewed for compliance with this standard during
the building permit phase and it is feasible that this standard will be met by providing
driveways and garages, this standard has been satisfied.
Tree Removal:
Chapte-r0 requires mitigation of trees over 12" diameter at breast height (dbh) removed
as part of the development of the site.
The applicant has submitted a tree inventory prepared by a certified arborist. The tree inventory was
revised by Gene Techs which utilized a diameter tape for more accurate tree size measurements.
The City Forester, upon reviewing the tree removal plan against the spreadsheet noted a number of
inconsistencies. The removal plan and spreadsheet were reconciled by the ro'ect engineer with final
results being shown in the "Revised Addendum to Spreadsheet A." The f na~ inventory shows that
there are a total of 169 trees on the site. Of those, 34 are proposed for removal due to grading issues
described previously in the Variance section; 8 will be removed to accommodate Improvinthe
existing streets; 4 are considered dead, dying or dangerous; and finally 72 trees will be remove as a
direct rsult of the applicant's developmendesign. This means that the applicant is removing 42.6%
of the trees from the site as a direct result of the subdivision design. As this results in a removal of
between 25 and 50% of the trees on site, the applicant is responsible for mitigating for 50% of the
removed Calipper inches. Based on the figures provided in the revised spreadsheet, this equates to
629 (1,258 x 50%) caliper inches.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 19 OF 33
SUB2002-=10 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
0 •
The applicant has proposed planting 5, 2-inch trees per lot in the subdivision. The City Forester has
noted that this represents an overplantin of these lots. Instead of 5 trees per lot, he recommends
that the applicant reduce the number of trees to 3 per lot. This would result in 114 caliper inches
planted on site. To account for the difference between the required mitigation and the on-site
planting, the applicant has committed to participating in the Tigard High School Boosters tree sale in
the amount of 750 caliper inches. This may require several years of sales to distribute these trees,
however, the total commitment for 750 caliper inches is binding and does not have an expiration
timeframe. This will be memorialized in a condition of this approval. The applicant's total mitigation
program, therefore, represents 864 caliper inches, which is in excess of the required mitigation. The
requirement for mitigation will be satisfied with the imposition of conditions of approval.
There are trees on site that are proposed for retention. The applicant will need to prepare
construction documents that identify the location of tree protection fencing and any other measures
deemed necessary b the project arborist to protect the trees during construction. Also, based on
comments received from adjacent neighbors, the trees have been surveyyed and marked so many
different times; it is unclear in the field which trees are to be retained. To avoid the possibility of
removing the wron tree, the trees will need to be clearly marked, preferably with bright orange spray
paint for the trees qo be cut, and vinyl tape for those to remain. An inspection of the trees prior to
removal will be required to assure that they have been properly marked. Conditions of approval will
be imposed to ensure that these requirements are adhered to.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tree Removal standards will be met, if the applicant
complies with the conditions listed below:
CONDITIONS:
Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall clearly designate the trees for
removal in the field with bright orange spray paint, and those to be retained with
a different color vinyl tape. The City Foreser shall inspect and approve the final
marked trees before clearing commences.
The applicant shall submit a mitigation program that includes assurances for the
sale of 750 caliper inches to be planted in the City of Tigard through the Tigard
High School Boosters, or some other approved alternate community based
group. The program shall include measures to ensure that the trees are
distributed solely to City of Tigard residents. The trees may be sold over a period
of time exceeding the 1Y2 year approval period, but in no case shall exceed 3
years. If, at the conclusion of the third year, there are remaining caliper inches to
be sold, the applicant may opt to plant the remaining trees in an off site location
(approved b the City Forester) or pay the fee in-lieu (fee assessed at the time of
payment). In addition, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan or
other document that assures that 3, 2-inch caliper trees will be planted per each
lot. The planting of said trees shall occur after the homes are substantially
complete, but prior to final occupancy inspection.
Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall install tree protection
fencing around the trees to be retained as shown on the approved construction
drawings. Generally this fencing shall be established at the trees' driplines,
unless specific circumstances warrant deviation from this standard. Any
deviation must be approved by the City Forester. The City Forester shall verity
that measures have been properly installed before any construction activity
occurs.
If the tree protection guidelines are not followed, moved after being approved in
the field, knocked down during construction, or are removed prior to the end of
construction then:
The project will be immediately shut down until the fencing is reinstalled
according to the conditions of approval;
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION FAut Lu ur s3
SUB2002-OWIO - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
•
i
9 Each impacted tree may be required to be bonded for seven years in the
amount of up to $5,000 per tree, based on the estimated cost of removal and
replacement of the impacted tree;
Corrective action, including but not limited to loosening compacted soil,
replain graded soils, or removing filled soil, shall be undertaken by the
andliccan? to address the damage done in the critical root zone of each tree;
A fine of $250 per day shall be assessed to the applicant following written
notification of the violation, until such time that the tree protection measures
are reinstated.
Prior to construction, submit deed restrictions for the trees proposed to be retained.
Prior to and during construction, if any trees currently proposed to be retained are
removed, approval must be granted by the City Forester PRIOR to any tree removal.
Following construction and establishment of a Homeowner's Association or Tree
Committee comprised of individual owners, review and approval for tree removal
requests will become the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association or Tree
Committee.
Any tree subsequently removed following this approval, prior to formation of the Tree
Committee or Homeowner's Association comprised of individual owners shall be
required to mitigate for 100% of the caliper inches of the tree being removed. Once the
homes on the lots have received final occupancy, this mitigation requirement shall not
apply.
Vision Clearance:
Chapter 18.795 applies to all development and requires that clear vision area shall be
maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways and at the
intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area shall contain no
vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction
exceeding three feet in height.
The applicant has not proposed any structures or vegetation in the vision clearance area.
Construction plans for the streets will need to be reviewed and approved that satisfies the visual
clearance requirements. Subsequent grading and vegetative removal may be imposed during
infrastructure construction to assure that this standard is met.
FINDING: Because no structures are currently proposed in the vision clearance area and all future
buildings will be reviewed-for compliance during the building permit phase, this standard
has been satisfied.
C - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS (SECTION 18.810):
Street And Utility mprovements Standards (Section 18.810
Chapter 18.810 -provides' construction standards for he implementation of public and private
facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are
addressed below:
Streets:
Improvements:
Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be
improved in accordance with the TDC standards.
Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a
portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a neighborhood route
to have a 58-foot right-of-way width and a 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required
may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting,
storm drainage, and street trees.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 21 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
i 0
This site lies adjacent to SW 79th Avenue, which is classified as a neighborhood route with bike lanes
on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW
west of the ROW centerline, according to the most recent tax assessors map. The applicant should
dedicate ROW to ensure that there is 29 feet from centerline. The plan shows a dedication that
would yield a ROW width of 28 feet from centerline. The applicant's ROW dedication will need to
increase by one foot to meet the standard.
SW 79th Avenue is currently paved, but not fully improved to City standards. In order to mitigate the
impact from this development, the applicant proposes to construct g half-street improvement along
the frontage of the site. The City prepared a design for improving 79 Avenue, and has provided that
design to the applicant's engineer for their use. The half-street improvement will need to be designed
to meet the City's plan and profile, with adjustments as needed to comply with the newer
Transportation System Plan (TSP).
This site also has frontage on SW 81St Avenue, a local residential street. The ROW requirement for a
local residential street, with parking on both sides, is 54 feet. The applicant's plan shows only 25 feet
from centerline; it will need to be revised to show the new ROW at 27 feet from centerline.
SW 81St Avenue is also not fully improved, but the applicant proposes to construct a half-street
improvement to bring this roadway up to City standards.
SW 80th Avenue also stubs into the southern bounds of this site with a 3/-street improvement
(constructed as a part of the Raze Meadows subdivision). The existing roadway was designed and
built to have a 50-foot wide ROW, a 32-foot-wide paved section, and curb-tight sidewalks. The
applicant's plan shows a proposal to taper the paved section down to 28 feet at Leiser Lane. It is
Staff's opinion that this roadway segment (between Viola Street and Leiser Lane) will carry fewer than
500 cars per day. With a volume this small, a 28-foot wide street could suffice. However, Staff
encourages the applicant to construct the improvements to a 32-foot wide paved section, but continue
the curb-tight sidewalk along both sides, to be consistent with the improvements to the south. This
would permit the applicant to keep a 50-foot wide ROW and allow street trees to be placed behind the
sidewalk. If additional area is needed to the street trees, landscape easements can be added outside
of the ROW line.
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(F) states that a future street
plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the
boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to
give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to
the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of
the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since
they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is
developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the roperty owners
which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be
included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-
sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length.
The applicant's proposal essentially completes an important link. with regard to SW 80th, continuing it to
an easi-wesl route between 19- aria 81-- Avenues. There are no other large parcels that do not have
adequate frontage to further be divided, with the exception of Tax Lot 100, directly north of the site., This
lot fronts SW Bonita, and would be precluded from further division based on the access restrictions on
Bonita. The applicant revised their plan and applied for a lot line adjustment to address the need for this
northern connection. The revised plans call for an access easement between lots #8, 9 and 10, 11. This
20-foot-wide easement will serve a maximum of 4 lots, in compliance with the access standard.
Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.K states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not
provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or
topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other
standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation:
All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other
than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 22 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
•
0
The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from
the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac.
If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street
may be required to be provided and dedicatedto the City.
The proposed private street will be constructed to a maximum length of 150 feet.
Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030(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.
All the streets that abut this development site have been extended, making necessary connections to
other public streets.
Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on
arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential
access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250
feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer.
The new grade of 79th Avenue ad'mcent to the site will be less than 6%. The grade of Leiser Lane will
be less than 5%. The grade of 8~ Avenue will be 4% or less. Therefore, this criterion is met.
Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.P states that where a
development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or major collector street
the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall
separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design
shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following:
A parallel access street along the arterial or major collector;
• Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or major collector to provide adequate
buffering with frontage along another street;
• Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess
reservation along the arterial or major collector; or
Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection;
• If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be
from the lower classification street.
SW 79th Avenue is classified in the City's Transportation System Plan as a Neighborhood Route.
Nevertheless, traffic conflicts are minimized since access will be restricted to the internal street
system. SW Bonita Road is classified as a Collector, and while this site does not have frontage onto
Bonita, it is improving the access situation by providing an alternate route from the adjoining property
to the north which currently is only provided with a direct access onto Bonita. Once this property
redevelops or is further divided, the access to Bonita Road will be closed off.
Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.T states that design standards-for private streets shall be
established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued
maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets
serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile
home parks, and multi-family residential developments.
Tract A will be a private street that will serve Lots 9 and 10 with the potential to serve two additional
parcels on the adjoining northern tax lot. The six-lot maximum will be met.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 23 OF 33
SUB2002-OWIO - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
The applicant shall place a statement on the face of the final plat indicating the private street(s) will be
owned and maintained by the properties that will be served by it/them. In addition, the applicant shall
record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) alon U(e, th the f inal 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. City's public improvement design
standards require pprivate streets to have a pavement section equal to a public local street. Tfie
applicant will need to provide this type of pavement section.
FINDING: The provisions for streets have not been fully ensured.
CONDITIONS:
The applicant shall revise the plans to show the private street with sidewalks on
at least one side. The sidewalk may be contained in a separate easement.
The applicant shall place a statement on the final plat indicating the private street
will be owned and maintained by.the properties that will be served by it.
The applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's)
along with the final plat that will clarify how the private property owners are to
main'tain the private street s). These CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by
the City prior to approval of the final plat.
Block ,Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be
designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemTlated
consideration of needs-for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic ana
recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography.
Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall
not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way line except:
Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water
or, .pre-existing development or;
For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads.
For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access.
This development will complete a block formed by SW 79th, SW 81St, SW Bonita, and the neVv SW
Leitser Lane. This block will be just under 2,000 lineal feet. The next connection between 79 and
81 S Avenues is at SW Ashford treet, aproximately 2,300 feet to the south. Until the other
intervening properties between 79" and 81b' develop, this development furthers street connectivity
standards as much as possible within the pre existing constraints. Therefore, this standard has been
satisfied.
Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public
easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible.
Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet except where precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict
adherence to other standards in the code.
This development makes full street connections and extends the existing SW 80th Avenue street stub.
Therefore, no additional bicycle or pedestrian connections are required.
Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times
the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the
applicable zoning district.
None of the lots are larger than 1.5 times the minimum lot size.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION
SUB2002-MlO - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION PAGE 24 OF 33 .
• •
Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public
or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies,
which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide
recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit,
the frontage shall be at least 15 feet.
All the lots front a public street for greater than 25 feet with the exception of lots 9 and 10 which front
a private street, Tract "A", for 83 feet.
Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City desiggn
standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streefs.
Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side.
By constructing sidewalks on 79th Avenue, Leiser Lane, 81St Avenue; and 80th Avenue, adjacent to
and within this project, this criterion will be met.
Sanitary Sewers:
Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each
new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water
Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions
or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan.
Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include
consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive
Plan.
There is an existing.8-inch public sewer line located in 80th Avenue and it crosses through this site.
The applicant's engineer proposes to abandon a portion of the existing sewer line and cgnstruct a
new sewer line in Leiser Lane. The new line will tie into an existing public sewer line in 79 Avenue.
The sewer line configuration will ensure that all of the new lots can be served with gravity sewer.
Staff concurs with the applicant's plan.
There will be two new segments of public sewer line located outside of paved areas. For these
segments, they shall be constructed of either ductile iron or PVC C-900 pipe.
Storm Drainage:
General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate
provisions for storm water and flood water runoff.
Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other
drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire
upstream drainage area,. whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall
approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction
Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage
Agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments).
There is stormwater that currently flows onto this site from 81St Avenue. The applicant's storm
drainage plan shows that they will intercept this runoff and tie it into the new storm pipe system for the
projec .
Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by
the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an
existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the
development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or
until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in
accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water
Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future
revisions or amendments).
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 25 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
•
In 1997, the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted
the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan. includes a recommendation
that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program
resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to.the 25-year event. The City will require that all
new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities,
unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to
Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention.
The applicant's storm drainage system will consist of new pipe in the street and along the north
property line that will convey the stormwater into a swale and pond facility to be located at the
northeast corner of the site (Tract B). The detention pond volume will be approximately 9,400 cubic
feet, which is adequate for meetinj CWS detention standards. The pond outfall will tie into the
existing storm drainage system in 79 Avenue.
Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways:
Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed
bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for
the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way.
79th Avenue is classified as a bike facility. The applicant's half-street improvement will provide the
necessary width for the bike lane along the west side of the street.
Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for
planned unit developments conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments
which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or
construction of bikeway improvements.
The striping of the bike lane adjacent to this site should be delayed until more of the roadway is
improved. The applicant should contribute funds to the City, however, to cover the cost of the future
striping along the frontage of this site.
The amount of the striping would be as follows:
• 264 feet of 8-inch white stripe @ $2.50/If 660.00
7 Mono-directional reflective markers @ $4.00/ea. 28.00
1 Bike lane legends @ $175/ea. 175.00
• 1 Directional mini-arrows @ $100/ea. 100.00
1963.00
Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the
roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated
from the road is eight feet.
The future bike lane will be between five and six feet in width.
Utilities:
Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric
communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed
underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes
and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities
during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and:
The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide
the underground services;
The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
• All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets
by the developer, shall be constructed pprior to the surfacing of the streetsi and
Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street
improvements when service connections are made.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 26 OF 33
SUB2002-OMIO - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer
shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take
place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the
development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of
under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the
development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but
not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would
result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities
facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not
underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property
shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding.
There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontages of SW 79th Avenue and SW 81St Avenue.
The criterion only applies to the f ntage from where service is taken. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it
is equal to $7.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontagge
along SW 79 Avenue is 264 lineal feet for a fee in lieu amount of $7,260.00. The frontage along 81S
Avenue is 332 lineal feet for a fee in lieu amount of $9,130.00.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS:
Public Water System:
ip site is located in the City's water service area. There are existing public lines in 79th Avenue and
81S Avenue. A new public line in Leiser Lane will enable a loop connection between the two streets.
Storm Water Quality:
T e itx as 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. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality
facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained
in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces.
In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be
used in keeping the facility maintained through the year.
Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that
will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a
maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction.
As was mentioned earlier, the applicant will construct a vegetated swale within Tract B. The 103-foot
length will adequately treat the runoff from the proposed subdivision.
Prior to the City accepting this facility as a public facility, the developer shall maintain it for a minimum
of three years after construction is completed. The pond shall be placed in a tract and conveyed to
the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which
show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facility for that year. Once the three-year
maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that
have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility.
In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 ercent of the landscaping
is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below
the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next
appropriate planting opportunity.
Gradin and Erosion Control:
Mg-Design an Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount
of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system
resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating: clearing, and any other- activity
which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an
erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 27 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more
acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an
NPDES Permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the
site and/or building permit.
A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall
detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that
surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering
Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent
lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff
from each lot.
The applicant will also need to acquire a NPDES permit through the City prior to construction
Address Assi nments:
The City o Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and
within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address
shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final plat.
For this project, the addressing fee will be $570.00 (19 lots+1 water quality tract X $30/address =
$600.00).
The developer will also be required to provide signsge at the entrance of the private street, Tract A,
which lists the addresses that are served by that street. This will assist emergency services
personnel to more easily find a particular home.
Surve Re uirements
Th-e app scan s ina p at shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91 on two monuments with a
tie to the City's global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network ( C 22). These monuments
shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat
boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground
measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be
established by:
GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey.
By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
In addition, the applicant's as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant's
engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch
basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features in the development, and their
respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91).
D. - IMPACT STUDY
Section 18.390.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the
effect of development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a
minimum the transportation system including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks
system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For
each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements
necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the
public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations
where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,
the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way
dedication, or provide evidence that supports the conclusion that the real property dedication
requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development.
Section 18.390.050 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.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 28 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
Any required street improvements to certain collector or hi her volume streets and the Washington
County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that? are required at the time of development.
Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan
II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new
development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Presently, the TIF for a detached,
single-family dwelling is $2,260.
The internal streets within the subdivision are needed to allow the subdivision to develop and the
need for these streets is created by the subdivision. Because the need for the internal streets is
created by the development, the impact of the development is directly proportional to the cost of
dedication and construction of the internal streets. The applicant is proposing to dedicate
approximately 5 feet of right-of-way along SW 81St Avenue pnd to make half-street improvements.
The-
estimated cost of half-street improvements along SW 81" Avenue is $41,500 (332 feet x $125 a
linear foot) and the estimated value of 5-foot dedication is $4,980 (1,660 square feet x $3 per square
foot). Tqp applicant is additionally proposing to dedicate approximately 8 feet of right-of-wayy along
SW 79 Avenue and to ake half-street improvements. The estimated cost of half-street
improvements along SW 79" Avenue is $33,000 (264 feet x $125 a linear foot) and the estimated
value of the 7-foot dedication is $6,336 (2,112 square feet x $3 per square foot). Upon completion of
this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's totaling
approximately $42,940 $2,260 x 19 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover
32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent
of this projects traffic impact is $134,187 ($42;940 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF
paid and the full impact, is considered as unmitigated impact.
Full Im act 42,940=0.32 $134,187
Less T F Assessment 19 lots x $2,260).... 42,940
Less mitigated costs 86,779
81 ROW dedication and /2 Street Improvement 46,480
79th ROW dedication and Y2 Street Improvement 39,336
nmitigatea im
FINDING: Since the value of the unmitigated impact exceeds the value of the required exactions,
the requirements are roughly proportional.
SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it.
The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it.
The City of Tigard Crime Prevention Officer has reviewed the proposal and notes that the
applicant's plans identify the new east-west street as both "Anne Lane" and "Leiser Lane".
RESPONSE: There is already an "Ann Place" elsewhere in the City. The applicant cannot use "Anne
Lane", that is why the subsequent plans show "Leiser Lane."
The City of Tigard Forester has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments:
1. TREE PROTECTION DEVICES (18.745.030)
E. PROTECTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION. Existing vegetation on a site shall be
protected as much as posse e.
1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation
to remain during the construction process; and
2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas
not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed
around the individual trees).
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 29 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
• •
1.1. All tree protection devices shall be located on the Tree Protection Plan. Any tree that will not
be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any
tree that is located on roe adjacent to the construction Project that will have more than
1 „ n its runt svstPm istur ed by construction activities shat also be Protected.
1.2. Details and specifications are required as to how the trees will be protected on site.
1.3. Provide a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices,
clearing, grading, or installation of sediment and erosion control measures, and other activities
that may be required to implement the tree protection measures.
1.4. Include in the notes on the final set of plans that equipment, vehicles, machinery, dumping or
storage, or other construction activities, burial, burning, or, other disposal of construction materials
must not be located inside of any tree protection device or outside of the limits of disturbance
where trees are bein protected. No grading, filling or any other construction activity may occur
within the tree protection devices at any time or outside of the limits of disturbance where trees
are being protected unless approved by the City Forester.
1.5. All tree protection devices shall be:
Visible.
Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel
posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post
shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below
grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet.
Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign
indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity,
including material storage, may occur behind the fencing.
Approved in the field prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction.
Remain in place and maintained unfit all construction is completed and a final inspection
is conducted.
1.6. To determine the size of the tree protection zone follow the guidelines listed below:
For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at
breast height (1361), or 4 '/2 feet above the ground, allow 12 inches of space from the
trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15° at DBH must have at least 15' of tree
protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree.
For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the dripline of the trees
on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the
stand follow the trunk diameter method or the dripline method, whichever is greater.
1.7. Identify, on the Tree Protection Plan, the location of the stockpile area and the staging area (if
different from the stockpile area).
1.8. All of this information must be included in the final plan's notes or drawings.
1.9. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks,
bulldozers, etc.) the City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering
the protection zone a layer of at least five (5) inches of wood chips or mulch must be placed
over the root zone where the vehicles will be driven. This method will minimize the adverse
impacts of compaction from the equipment. When access to this area is no longer needed the
wood chips or mulch must then be dispersed (somewhere onsite is okay) down to a level of not
more than four (4) inches deep.
1.10. Specific to this project:
All trees on the neighboring properties must receive the same protection guidelines as
the trees on the applicant's site.
If the tree protection guidelines outlined in the conditions of approval are not followed,
moved after being approved in the field, knocked down during construction or are
removed prior to the end of construction the project will be:
Immediately shut down until the fencing is reinstalled according to the conditions
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 30 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
0 0
of approval.
Each Impacted tree shall be bonded for seven years in the amount of $5,000.00
per tree.
Corrective action will taken by the applicant to address the damage done to the
Critical Root Zones of each tree. Corrective action may include, but not limited
to, loosening compacted soil, replacing graded soil or removing filled soil.
A fine of $250.00 per day shall be assessed to the applicant for each day that the
fencing is down.
am concerned about the possibility of adequately protecting Tree # 90, 86, 77, 70, 68,
30, 28, 26, and the trees ranging in numbers from 201 up to 303 in the southwest corner
of the site from grading, fill and/or compaction during construction:
There are several large trees growing on the neighboring properties. that must also
receive protection from construction trauma. All of the trees must be identified on the
plans and accounted for in the tree protection guidelines. Fencing shall be installed on
the construction site to protect these trees' roots just as the trees onsite will receive
fenced protection. Most obvious are the trees growing on lots 5 & 6 in the Mara Woods
Subdivision, which abuts Leiser Park to the northeast. On Lot #6 (7978 -SW Mara
Court) there are several Douglas fir trees (31", 20", 13.7" and 29.3" at DBH) that must
be carefully protected. On Lot #5 (7992 SW Mara Court) there are more Douglas fir
trees (I have not been able to obtain the DBH measurements of these trees) that also
must be protected on the Leiser Park side of the property.
2. ILLEGAL TREE REMOVAL (18.790.060.C.2
Payment of an additional civil penalty rep
removed or damaged tree, as determined
Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal.
3. TREE SPECIES SELECTION & PLANTING
C. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.
follows:
resenting the estimated value of any unlawfully
using the most current International Society of
(18.745.030)
The installation 'of all landscaping shall be as
1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures.
2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading
standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and
any other future revisions); and
3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of.this title.
G. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION. The review procedures
an standards or required an scaping an screening shall be specified in the
conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than
that required for conventional development.
3.1. It is recommended that all tree planting follow the guidelines set forth by the International
Society of Arboriculture's tree planting -guidelines as well as the standapds set forth in the
American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10 edition. In the
Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on
the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and
moth (cations. recommend that these guidelines be followed and adhered to at all times.
3.2. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines
be followed:
No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite.
No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite.
No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite.
3.3. 1 recommend that all of this information be included in the final plan's notes or drawings.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 31 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
0 0
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Tri Met has reviewed the proposal and notes that the proposed public street'connecting SW 79th and
SW 81St is a welcome change to the existing [traffic circulation] development patterns in this area.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following
comments:
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus
access roads shat have an unobstructed width o not less than 20 feet 15 eet for one or two
dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance o not less than 13 feet 6
inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2J) Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 28 feet wide, "NO
PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed.
Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO
PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed.
Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. (UFC Sec.
902.2.4)
Narrower streets with parking on both or one side will be allowed when they are designed and
constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the City of Tigard's Transportation
System Plan.
Tract A shall be posted with "No Parking" signs or be designed to Tigard's narrow street
standards.
2) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather
surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not
less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle
weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will
be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered engineer that the finished
construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may
be requested. (Design criteria on back) (UFC Sec. 902.2.2
3) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES - FIRE )HYDRANTS: Fire hydrants for single
aml y we Ings, duplexes an sub-divisions, shall be placed at each intersection. Intermediate
fire hydrants are required if any portion of a structure exceeds 500 feet from a hydrant at an
intersection as measured in an approved manner around the outside of the structure and along
approved fire apparatus access roadways. Placement of additional fire hydrants shall be as
approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 9034.2.2
4) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN' AC~ESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more
than 5 feet rom an .approved ire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4)
s) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation
o reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side
of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no
center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3)
6) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for
single family dwellings an duplexes shall be 0 a ons per minute. If the structure(s) is(are)
3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix
Table A-III-A-1. UFC Appendix III-A, Sec. WUPPLY 7) ACCESS AND IRE F ppHTNG R DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire
apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed an operational prior
to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704)
SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Notice:
o1T tice was posted at City Hall and mailed to:
X The applicant and owners
Owner of record within the required distance
X_ Affected government agencies
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 32 OF 33
SUB2002-MIO - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
•
Final Decision:
•
EF- THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 12, 2003 AND
EFFECTIVE ON MAY 28, 2003 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
Appeal:
The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in
Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the
Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required
fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was
mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City
Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be
confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the
comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be
submitted by any party during the appeal heanng, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may
be adopted from time fo time by the appellate body. .
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MAY 27, 2003.
Questions:
If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigand Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125
SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171
E94 30 Morgan Tracy
Associate Pla ner
May 12, 2003
DATE
May 12, 2003
DATE
is\curpln\morgan\workspace\sub\sub2002-00010 (leiser park)\sub2002-00010 decision.doc
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION PAGE 33 OF 33
SUB2002-00010 - LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
i 1 TL 200 TL 100
~1► 'l
LOT 6 LOT 9 1 tt~~ LOT 10 A R A W Q 0
I I X11 M 6 7 $ 9
1 1
I 1 I a>ti~w-- f ~s~~- 1 4__• -1 1 ---i-- I
- L
1
If)
s ~p.p~J 11
~ ~ i I I I<~ I l I I I _ I: ~ ~;~1
1 S
LOT LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13
1 I I I I~ I I I I LOT 14 I LOT 15 TL lloo
Li - - - -
l(F-
I, I 1 1
=1 I l 1 I LOT 2 I LOT 3 ; LOT 4 I I I LOT 19 I LOT 16 I LOT Il I L07 16
!i I I l i 1 i I I I
I I it I I ~ !
2 TL 8900 . TL 2800
R A 12 vs 1
TL 8800
I 11
(JW Srm PLAN of TIGARD N
II)
SUB2002-0001 ONAR2002-00046NAR2002-00047
LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
is not to
,
• • EXHIBIT B
.7. 7
Cite of Tigard Attn: Morgan Tracv .
Planning Division Ky ~ d 2003
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd Re: Leiser Park Subdivion
Tigard, Oregon 97223 Sub 2002-00010
This request is for installation of proper surface drainage (by the developer)
that will guarantee that the surface drainage from the new subdivision
located across from our property at 14630 S.W. 79h Ave. will not end up
running across S.W. 7901 and onto our property (which consists of two
parcels extending out to S. W. Bonita Rd.) or any other property located on
the East side of S.W. 791` Ave.
I attended a public meeting dealing with this subdivision. I asked the party in
charge of the meeting about the details of this surface drainage for the new
subdivision and got the quick answer that the existing surface drainage was
sufficient to handle what will come from the new subdivision and no further
details were needed. I can assure you that this certainly did not instill any
confidence in me that they were providing correct and sufficient surface
drainage for the new subdivision.
A few years ago when the property on the S.W. corner of the intersection of
S.W. 79'h Ave. and Bonita Road was developed the surface water ended up
draining onto our property instead of going into the drainage system that
was installed. The City of Tigard finally installed additional drainage and
blocked the path to our property. The only time a problem arose after this
work was done was when a water main broke at this intersection and flooded
several pieces of property.
After you have reviewed the surface drainage design for this new
subdivision I request a letter assuring me that such review was made and any
changes to the design have been made so that no water from the subdivision
will flow, on the surface, across S. W. 79t` Ave.
We are pleased with the type of subdivision that has been planned for this
area and hope that no changes will be made to the type of lots and housing
that is now planned.
Yours truly, R.E. Gillmor, 14630 S.W. 79"` Ave. Tigard, OR 97224
V
TO: Morgan Tracy
FR: Mark & Lisa Walker
RE: LEISER PARK SUBDIVISION
NO VARIANCE REGARDING NUMBERS 1, OR 2 IN THE
PROPOSAL!!!
RECEIVED PLANNING
MAR 18 2003
CITY OF TIGARD
Mitigation of trees is an important part of any city ordinances and zoning!
Those trees are over 80 years old! The city of Tigard needs to quit rolling
over for these developers who want to make their profits and run! Start being
responsible with our city and enforce the codes as they are written!
Mitigation standards are to easy as it is, who wants to wait 10 to 20 years for
the cheap seedlings to grow. Why doesn't the city make the developers put
in a more mature tree anyway?
Mark Walker
14827 sw 79th ave
Tigard Or. 97224
KENNETH M PETERSON
7978 SW MARA CT
TTIGARD, OR 97224-7353
TEL 503.603.9395
03/25/03
Mr. Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Mr. Morgan:
This letter expresses my concern that the accounting and marking of trees for cutting in the Leiser
Park subdivision, No. 2002-00010, may contain inadvertent errors. The cut vs. leave lists seem
confusing.
My south property line abuts the subdivision, and many of the trees slated for removal provide
valuable shade for our property during the summer. Therefore, although I understand and accept
the need for cutting to accommodate the development and the two variances, 2002-00046 and -
00047, I am concerned about the possibility that trees may be erroneously marked for cutting due
to confusion in the tables shown in Appendix A of the plan.
In particular, there is a loose addendum to Spreadsheet A listing trees "mismarked on tree
removal plan 12.4.02." These trees are listed as being added back to the number in the "leave"
column, i.e. not cut. But in a subsequent chart, also part of the Addendum A, another list shows
trees to be removed "due to grading for fill because of off-site utility depth." I presume these are
the trees that were added back to the "cut" column in accord with the two variances.
There is remarkable overlap.between these two lists. Trees that are of concern to us are Nos. 66,
72, and 95, which would we would be sorry to see cut.
I am concerned that the tree marking behind our lot, which has seemingly already occurred, may
contain an error or two because of these confusing lists, and I am requesting a careful audit of the
markings to make sure there are no mistakes. A tree accidentally cut cannot be magically replaced!
I and my immediate neighbors consider the tall trees behind our properties to be valuable assests,
and we request that every care be being taken to preserve as many of them as possible.
Sincerely,
U46J~~
Kenneth M Peterson
• •
City of Tigard
Morgan Tracy, AICP
Planning Division
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 6394171
Associate Planner
Re: Pending Land use application subdivision - Leiser Park
Subdivision (SUB) 2002-00010
Variance (VAR) 2002-00046
Variance (VAR) 2002-00047
To Whom it may concern,
My name is Janice DeKorte. I live at 8040 SW Bonita Rd. Tigard, OR 97224
This letter is in response to the Leiser Park Subdivision letter I received dated March 10,
2003.
I own the %Z acre that backs up to the property in this proposed development.
I would like your consideration concerning my thoughts on this project. I am in favor of
the land being used in this manner. I believe it would be a positive addition to our area.
I strongly wish you to consider the following on my behalf. My driveway is directly on
Bonita Rd. Many times, it has been a safety issue for me. As you know it is a very busy
street. I am proposing that the developer puts me on the end of a street in his
development, so that I enter my property from the southern side. The developer that was
to develop this property last year, said I was at the end of a street on his proposed plans.
If he is the same developer, you would have a copy of what that plan looked like.
Enclosed is a drawing so you have an understandjng on what I feel would be acceptable
to me. He also said that the city would require that he would provide a driveway apron
for me. He also mentioned that I would be provided a future sewer stub out on my
property. As you know, I am on septic and I would love to be on the city sewer system.
My requests are as follows:
My driveway that enters onto Bonita Rd. be closed off. New entrance would be
relocated to the south side of my property. My new driveway entrance would be
through the new street in the Leiser Park development. This would he of a benefit
to the city of Tigard, due to traffic control and also safety concerns on Bonita Rd.
New driveway apron and property entrance to new driveway is to be provided by
developer. I would request that I am given the new driveway to be extended to be
joined to connect to existing driveway on the east side of the property. This
would border south and east side of property.
2. My existing driveway onto Bonita Rd. would be closed off. City would remove
Driveway apron and complete conversion to sidewalk use only.
3. Request developer to provide new sewer stub out to our property line to facilitate
connection to our existing home and also a considered second home we may build
in the future. ( our property is sub dividable)
4. Request that all major trees be preserved as possible.
Thank you for your time and interest in my concerns. I wish continued success on this
endeavor for the developer and also the City of Tigard.
Sincerely,
Janice DeKorte
8040 SW Bonita Rd.
Tigard, OR 97224
(503) 639-1465
(503) 703-5754
i
Pic,,-,.
-7-
v
Vh
N
05/27/20UJ 15:24 FAA 5035VO16 1.111 ur' 11laA" • Wuv~
EXHIBIT C
APPEAL FILING FORM -
FOR LAND USE DECISIONS
CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tlgarnl, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX (503) 684-7297
The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code,
therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions.
The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision In proper form. To
determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process,
please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Property Address/1_ocation(s) and Name(s) of the
Application Being Appealed: U I I Cti ~F Q fv60, y, fr a..~
VA 0~ 2-002 - 0,3 o L14
y~ L--(-1L\oLJ-Y 109 Z-00 Z -OOD 10,
How Do You Qualify As A Party?:
Appellant's Address: / 11,C]c s C.1 Z 19 V
A
Ciiy/State: f O ka- Zip: G'I 7 'L
Z 3
Day Phone Where You Can Be Reachedt.&D L6 ~rYc7 r~ r-~-
Scheduled Date Decision is To Be Final: !M A w
LZ- -1--401
Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given:. MAC.
L, T u Q
Specifics Grounds For Appeal or Review:
,)C#42L(,l'C f'~h_ tL 1.1C KAL
c7 9 T G crr Tb C', J0, eT(,-. J
ja /7Z rL o V A(, r r c vfC
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Case No.(s): con /b
Case Name(s):L° i.SP.1"S~(sb,
Receipt No.: ,Z D o 3- a l G `/t'
Application Accepted Bv: C - 61.r1~
Date:
roved As To Fomt By.
Date:
Denied As To Fort By.
Date:
".I Aug42 Ilcupinllnssteralrevisadla l.aa
REQUIRED SUBMITTAL-ELEMENTS
✓ Application Elements Submitted:
Appeal Filing Form (ooropmm)
Filing Fee (based on criteria bdow)
Y Dk0CW%0edsl0nLpPWr4*VC nM16 on $ X60.00
Y e9eaw Ftev(ew (4"*W) i 300.00
> Nem(np PRAM li 800.00
)o- pww im cogn8s owHeskda officario aty coundl i1,7C0A0
(0 T-cr"
Signature(s)of
APPEAL FILING FORM FORlANO USE DECISIONS (OVER FORADOMONAL WRUNG SPACE)
' a 3
ur l~ue+►~ 0
FA1C 5035981
/27/200' 15124
N5 ~Cont'd)
. ~ pEGlS1O
v . D US
FQRN► FOR
FIL~~C'
APPVAL
j -
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Receipt 27200300000000002164
5/28/2003
9:02:21 AM
Date: 05/28/2003
Line Items:
Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No
Amount Paid
SUB2002-00010 [LANDUS] APPEAL DD - PLN COM 100-0000-438000
250.00
Payments: Line Item Total: $250.00
ivietnou Yayer
User ID Acct/Check Approval No. How Received Amount
Check MATRIX DEVELOPMENT cac 26211
In Person
Payment Total:
250.00
$250.00
0
Page 1 of 1
cReceipt.rpt
0026211119 4 1 2 3000 2 201: 1 S 36000 10 1 SBul
• •
LEISER PARK
A 19 Lot Subdivision
APPEAL
Case No. SUB2002-00010
Decision Date: May 12, 2003
(Section 18.390.040.6.2 )
City of Tigard, Oregon
a•
Agent:
PLA SR Design LLC
Contact: Steve Roper, PE
8196 SW Hall Blvd., Suite 232
Beaverton, OR 97008
office 503.469.1213
fax 503.469.8553
Applicant:
Matrix Development Corporation
Contact: Craig Brown
12755 SW 69th Avenue, #100
Portland, OR 97223
(503) 620-8080 x. 222
• •
Leiser Park Subdivision
A Proposed 19-Lot Single Family Detached
Residential Subdivision
Background Information
• Property Location
• Project Size:
• Legal Description:
Project Name:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation:
Current Zoning:
Citizen Involvement
Team:
Between S.W. 79th and 81 st Avenues, just
south of Bonita Road
Total 4.36 acres (Leiser property = 2.48 acres;
Kuentzle property = 1.88 acres)
Tax Lots 00300 and 02800, NW of Section
12, T2S, R1 W, W.M., Tigard, OR (TL00300 in
T2S, RIM Section 12BC and TL02800 in T2S,
R1 W, Section 12BD)
Leiser Park
Low Density Residential
R-4.5
South
•
APPEAL:
Per City of Tigard Development Code, Section 18.390.040.G.1.a., the applicant (Matrix
Development Corporation) has standing to appeal a Type II Administrative Decision.
This appeal has been prepared to respond to the following Conditions of Approval:
Condition 6.
We would like to have the entire condition removed and replaced with the following
wording: "The tree protection fencing shall be placed under the direction of the project
arborist". The tree protection is the developer's liability and responsibility; therefore, the
placement of the tree protection fencing should be under the direction of the developer's
consultant, not the City Forester's direction. There are many situations where the drip
line can to be encroached upon for construction with no resulting damage to the tree. If
the guidelines of the City's arborist were to be followed, many more trees would have to
be removed to allow for the construction of the homes. It is the developer's intent to
save as many of the trees as possible.
Condition 12 and 13.
We would like to add the following wording to Condition 12 and 13: "If these
improvements are impractical to build with this development, then upon receiving the
City Engineer's consent, a fee-in-lieu for these street improvements shall be paid by the
developer".
Condition 15.
The applicant would like to have the wording "driveway aprons" removed from this
condition, because the location of the aprons will not be determined until the time of
home construction.
Condition 40 and 41.
This condition fails to take into account the proposed mitigation, and to the extent that
additional tree damage/loss does not exceed the amount mitigated for, Condition 40
should not be applicable until the amount of trees mitigated for has been exceeded.
Condition 42.
This condition is excessive and unnecessary.
EXHIBIT D
i
LEISER PARK
19 LOT SUBDIVISION
City of Tigard, Oregon
Agent:
SR Design LLC
Contact: Steve Roper, PE
8196 SW Hall Blvd., Suite 301
Beaverton, OR 97008
office 503.469.1213
fax 503.469.8553
Applicant:
Matrix Development Corporation
Contact: Craig Brown
12755 SW 69th Avenue, #100
Portland, OR 97223
(503) 620-8080
•
9
LESSER
PARK
SP AppEN~ M A
Marsh 612003
01
Addendum Spreadsheet A
Trees removed in R.O.W. of 79th and 81st
•
Tree Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag Ws
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12"
Leave
& Over (in.)
Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
1
TR C 17 1
19.6
20
2
TR D 28 2
24.3
24
3
TR C 15 3
16.8
17
6
TR C 14 6
16.9
17
8
TR C 24 8
23.4
23
9
TR C 15 9
19.3
19
10
TR C 24 10
23.8
24
12
TR D 14 12
13.0
13
13
TR D 15 13
15.4
15
14
TR C 24 14
24.2
24
15
TR D 16 15
16.4
16
16
TR C 26 16
26.0
26
17
TR C 24 17
26.8
27
18
TR C 24 18
24.0
24
19
TR C 30 19
26.7
27
20
TR C 26 20
22.3
22
21
TR C 30 21
29.4
29
23
TR D 24*4 23
15.0
15
24
TR C 18 24
18.9
19
25
TR C 18 25
16.3
16
26
TR D 22*2 26
20.3
20
27
TR'C 24 27
24.1
24
28
TR C 24*2 28
24.6
25
30
TR C 32*2 30
30.2
30
35
TR D 18 35
17.0
17
36
TR C 14 36
15.0
15
37
19.5
19
38
16.1
16
41
TR C 26 41
23.3
23
42
TR C 26 42
24.6
25
43
TR D 20 43
15.7
26
44
TR D 18 44
13.6
14
45
TR C 30 45
38.0
38
47
12.8
13
50
TR D 16 50
12.4
12
51
TR D 16 51
12.0
12
52
TR D 18 52
16.5
.17
55
TR D 28 55
23.3
23
57
TR D 16 57
16.2
16
59
TR D 22 59
19.5
19
60
TR D 22 60
17.6
18
65
TR D 14 65
12.3
12
66
TR C 14 66
15.4
15
67
TR C 28 67
29.7
30
68
TR C 32 68
34.0
34
70
. TR C 16 70
17.7
18
71
TR C 20 71
23.0
23
72
TR C 26 72
24.9
25
77
TR C 20 77
17.8
18
79
TR C 16 79
14.0
14
83
TR C 14 83
12.8
13
86
TR C 18 86
15.5
15
87
TR C 18 87
19.8
20
89
TR C 20 89
14.9
15
Addendum Spreadsheet A
Trees removed in R.O.W. of 79th and 81st
0
Tree Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag Ws
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12"
Leave
& Over (in.)
Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
90
TR C 16 90
12.4
12
92
TR C 26 92
22.8
23
95
TR C 26 95
20.5
20
97
TR C 28 97
22.4
22
98
TR C 24 98
15.5
15
102
TR C 26 102
20.7
21
104
TR C 24 104
12.5
12
106
TR C 14 106
14.3
14
108
TR D 14108
14.9
15
109
TR D 14 109
12.5
12
130
TR D 22*3 130
15.8
16
131
TR D 24 131
18.4
18
132
TR D 18 132
13.3
13
133
TR D 16 133
17.5
17
136
TR D 22*2 136
16.2
16
137
TR D 18 137
12.6
13
139
TR D 24*2 139
18.0
18
140
TR D 32 140
23.3
23
141
TR D 20 141
13.5
13
147
TR D 24 147
13.5
13
148
TR D 20 148
13.2
13
150
12.0
12
152
TR D 18*5 152
12.7
13
156
TR C 24 156
19.8
20
167
TR C 14 167
11.9
12
168
TR C 14 168
13.1
13
169
TR C 14 169
14.4
14
172
TR D 16*2 172
14.6
15
176
TR D 16*5 176
13.2
13
177
TR D 14*3 177
12.6
13
179
TR D 24 179
15.4
15
180
TR D 20*5 180
16.8
16
184
TR D 20 184
15.2
15
190
TR D 20*4 190
13.0
13
198
TR D 24*5 198
14.6
15.
199
TR D 20*2 199
12.7
13
200
14.9
15
201
TR D 16 201
13.7
14
201-2
14.6
15
.202
TR C 20*4 202
16.7
17
203
TR D 24*3 203
18.1
18
204
TR C 26 204
21.0
21
205
TR C 26 205
19.7
20
206
TR C 26 206
22.0
22
207
TR D 24 207
17.7
18
208
TR D 20 208
13.1
13
209
TR D 22*2 209
14.5
14
210
TR D 14 210
13.6
14
211
TR C 32 211
25.8
26
212
TR D 20*2 212
13.3
13
213
TR D 14 213
11.9
12
214
TR D 18 214
14.0
14
217
TRC26217
21.3
21
218
25.0
23
•
Addendum Spreadsheet A
Trees removed in R.O.W. of 79th and 81st
Tree Assessment Usina Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag Ws
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12"
Leave
& Over (in.)
Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
219
TR C 34 219
33.5
33
219-1
23.5
24
220
TR C 30 220
32.0
32
221
TR D 16*2 221
13.5
13
222
TR D 20*5 222
14.6
15
223
26.0
26
225
TR D 20*4 225
14.5
14
227
TR D 18*2 227
16.6
17
228
TR D 20 228
13.5
13
229
TR D 20 229
15.5
15
230
TR D 24 230
18.0
18
236
TR C 20 236
17.0
17
239
TR C 20 239
19.3
19
240
TR D 16*2 240
12.3
12
242
TR D 24 242
18.0
18
243
TR D 20*2 243
14.0
14
244
TR D 30 244
24.0
24
252
TR D 20*6 252
13.4
13
256
TR D 24*5 256
17.8
18
256-1
12.1
12
256-2
20.0
20
256-3
17.9
18
256.4
18.4
18
257
TR D 24 257
16.4
16
260
TR D 26 260
19.2
19
261
TR D 16 261
12.4.
12
266
TR D 16 266
13.2
13
269
TR D 14 269
12.0
12
270
TR D 14 270
11.8
12
272
TR D 26 272
18.0
18
273
TR D 28 273
21.5
21
275
TR D 22*4 275
14.1
14
276
TR D 24 276
23.5
23
277
TR D 20 277
20.6
21
278
TR D 18 278
16.4
16
279
TR D 20 279
17.9
18
287
TR D 24*3 287
12.8
13
287-1
D
14.8
15
292
TR C 14 292
13.5
13
294
TR D 18 294
13.3
13
301
TR C 30*4 301
18.9
19
302
TR D 18*7 302
13.6
14
302-2
17.7
18
302-3
14.7
15
303
TR D 20 303
17.2
17
304
TR D 20 304
18.2
18
305
TR D 26 305
24.6
25
306
TR D 18 306
14.5
14
307
TR D 24 307
20.0
20
308
TR D 24 308
20.1
20
309
TR D 22*2 309
15.2
15
315
12.2
12
316
TRD24316
18.9
19
318
TR D 20*3 318
14.0
14
•
Addendum Spreadsheet A
Trees removed in R.O.W. of 79th and 81st
•
Tree Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag #'s
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12"
Leave
& Over (in.)
Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
364
TR C 28 364
14.5
14
2021
C
23.8
24
2033
C
33.0
33
2034
C
19.8
20
2035
C
24.7
25
2036
C
25.0
25
2037
C
22.4
22
Retain trees w/ tags 2034, 2035, 2036
69.5
-69.5
70
-70
Retain mismarked on 12-4 (see notes below)
293.7
-293.7
291
-291
Retained mismarked trees on Tree Removal Plan 12-4-02
These trees were marked for removal on the plan C4. After comparing removal list, it was discovers
that these were not on the list even though they were marked on map.
Field Cruised
Tag #'s
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
12
13.0
13
13
15.4
15
14
24.2
24
16
26.0
26
17
26.8
27
41
23.3
23
42
24.6
25
50
12.4
12
51
12.0
12
66
15.4
15
95
20.5
20
97
22.4
22
98
15.5
15
104
12.5
12
67
29.7
30
Totals
293.7 Inches
291
15 Trees
15
The trees to be removed in the R.O.W. due to Construction of Streets
to City Standards
Tag #'s
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
1
19.6
20
2
24.3
24
3
16.8
17
23
15.0
15
24
18.9
19
25
16.3
16
307
20.0
20
315
12.2
12
Inch Totals
143.1
143
Tree Totals
8.0
8.0
•
Addendum Spreadsheet A
Trees removed in R.O.W. of 79th and 81st
•
Tree Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag #'s
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
. Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class. (in.)
Leave Cut
Percentage Trees Retained
Retain per tag 2034, 2035, 2036
3.0
-3.0
3.0
-3.0
Retain mismarked @ 12-4
15.0
-15.0
15.0
-15.0
Trees in 79th and 81st ROW
8.0
-8.0
8
-8
Tree Count
93
76
93
76
Percent Retention Based on Tree Count
55.0%
55.0%
Therefore, Tree Mitigation is based on 50% prior to any Grading problem.
Percentage of Inches Retained
Total Cut Inches 12" & over
1463.4
1465.0
Percent Cut Based on Total Inches
48.0%
48.1%
Total Retained Inches 12" & Over
1585.7
1582.0
Percent Retention Based on Total Inches
52.0%
51.9%
Miti atable Inches @ % Rate = 50% of Cut
731.7
732.5
The trees to be removed due to grading for fill because of offstte
utilt de nth.
Tag #'s
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
12
TR D 1412
13.0
13
13
TR D 15 13
15.4
15
14
TR C 24 14
24.2
24
16
TR C 26 16
26.0
26
17
TR C 24 17
26.8
27
41
TR C 26 41
23.3
23
42
TR C 26 42
24A
25
43•
TR D 20 43
15.7
26
47
12.8
13
50
TR D 16 50.
12.4
12
51
TR D 16 51
12.0
12
55
TR D 28 55
23.3
23
66
TR C 14 66
15.4
15
72
TR C 26 72
24.9
25
95
TR C 26 95
20.5
20
97
TR C 28 97
22.4
22
98
TR C 24 98
15.5
15
104
TR C 24 104
12.5
12
287-1
D
14.8
15
Inch Totals
355.5
363.0
Tree Totals
19.0
19.0
•
Addendum Spreadsheet A
Trees removed in R.O.W. of 79th and 81st
•
Tree Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag Ws
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
Percentage Trees Retained w/o Excessive Grading
Trees due to grading
19.0
-19.0
19
-19
Tree Count
Percent Retention Based on Tree Count
112
57
66.3%
112
57
6
Therefore, Tree Mitigation is also based on 50% with Grading problem.
Percentage Inches Retained w/o Excessive Grading
Total Cut Inches 12" & over
1107.9
1102.0
Percent Cut Based on Total Inches
36.3%
36.2%
Total Retained Inches 12" & Over
1941.2
1945.0
Percent Retention Based on Total Inches
63.70/6
63.8%
Mitigatable Inches @ % Rate = 50% of Cut
554.0
551.0
t
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
i
r
i
•
Table of Contents
Leiser Park Subdivision
•
♦ Applicant's Statement
♦ Variance Application
♦ Economic Hardship Variance
♦ Reduced Plan Set
♦ Drainage Report
♦ Title Report #1
♦ Title Report #2
♦ Pre-Application Conference Notes
♦ Washington County Name Approval
♦ Clean Water Services "Service Provide Letter"
♦ Wetland Determination Form
♦ Neighborhood Meeting Information
♦ Arborist's Tree Protection Requirements
♦ Spreadsheet A
♦ Transportation Impact Study
♦ Subdivision Application
JAN 2 3 203
Applicant's Statement
0
0
•
Leiser Park Subdivision
A Proposed 19-Lot Single Family Detached Residential
Subdivision
A. Background Information
• Property Location:
Project Size:
Legal Description:
Project Name:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation:
Current Zoning:
• Citizen Involvement
Team:
• Applicant:
Project Engineer:
• Project Planner:
Between S.W. 79th and 81St Avenues, just south of
Bonita Road
Total 4.36 acres (Leiser property = 2.48 acres;
Kuentzle property = 1.88 acres)
Tax Lots 00300 and 02800, NW of Section 12,
T2S, R1 W, W.M., Tigard, OR (TI-00300 in T2S,
R1 W, Section 12BC and TL02800 in T2S, R1 W,
Section 12BD)
Leiser Park
Low Density Residential
R-4.5
South
Matrix Development Corp.
Craig Brown, Vice President
12755 SW 69th Avenue, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97223
(503) 620-8080 x. 222
(503) 598-8900
Steve Roper, P.E.
SR Design LLC
8196 SW Hall Blvd., Suite 301
Beaverton, OR 97008
(503) 469-1213
(503) 469-8553
Robert Price, Consultant
Planning and Development Services
3935 NE 72nd Avenue
Portland, OR 97213-5711
(503) 281-1037
•
B. Project Overview
•
The applicant, Matrix Development Corp., is proposing to develop the above-referenced
adjoining parcels as a single project. The first parcel was purchased from Kuentzle (Tax Lot
2800) and the second parcel is under option from Leiser (Tax Lot 300). The parcels total
4.36 acres, and the applicant is proposing to develop the parcels into a 19-lot subdivision for
detached single-family dwellings. The site is located between SW 79th and 81St Avenues, just
south of Bonita Road in Tigard. Lot 16 of the proposed development plan (located on the
Kuentzle property) has an existing single family dwelling in place, which will be removed. All
19 lots will be developed with new dwellings. There will be no open space tract. There will,
however, be two private tracts, one for private street access to Lots 9 and 10 (Tract A which
is 2,885 square feet) and one for water quality/water detention adjacent to Lot 15 (Tract B
which is 3,440 square feet).
A new city standard residential street will connect SW 79th Avenue west to SW 81 st Avenue.
The name chosen for this street will be Leiser Lane. SW 80th Avenue will be connected to
the existing 3/ street that is stubbed to the southerly property line located in Raze Meadows
In addition, there will be two lots, lots 9 and 10 that will be served by a 27-foot wide private
street tract (Tract A) off Leiser Lane, between Lots 8 and 11, as illustrated on Sheets CO and
C2. This 27-foot wide private street tract will be approximately 108 feet in length. Lots 8
and 11, although they are directly adjacent to the private street, will take access off of Leiser
Lane. A deed restriction will be included that will prevent future residents from taking access
off of the private street.
Lot sizes will range from a minimum of 7042 square feet (Lot 8) to a maximum of 8,226
square feet (Lot 16). Average lot size will be 7,505 square feet.
A storm water facility will be located within the tract located between Lot 15 and the street
right-of-way for SW 79th Avenue (Tract B). This tract is approximately 3,440 square feet in
size.
The Kuentzle parcel, the smaller of the two parcels at 1.88 acres, is bound by the Mara
Woods subdivision to the north which is zoned R-7, and a single family dwelling on the
property to the south which is currently zoned R-4.5. Across SW 79th Avenue are two larger
lots zoned R-12 (roughly the size of the Kuentzle and Leiser properties combined together)
with one single family dwelling on each lot. These two lots are eligible for redevelopment at
some undetermined point in the future.
The Leiser parcel is bounded on the north by two parcels (Tax Lots 100 and 200), both of
which have single-family dwellings on them. To the south is the Raze Meadows subdivision.
These properties are currently zoned R-4.5. Across SW 81 st to the west is a large lot also
zoned R-4.5 and has a single family dwelling that also serves as the headquarters of a small
logging business.
The proposed subdivision site is undulating in its topography, and is significantly below the
grade of SW 81St Avenue. The easterly portion of the site is approximately at grade with SW
79th Avenue. Topography ranges from a maximum of 182 MSL at the westerly edge at SW
81St Avenue to a low point on the Leiser parcel of 172 MSL, to a high point of almost 177
MSL on the Kuentzle parcel to 170 MSL on the easterly edge at SW 79th Avenue. A
significant amount of grading and fill will be required to level the site for purposes of
development. An engineer's preliminary calculation indicates that approximately 1,000 cubic
yards of fill will need to be imported to this site in order to prepare the site for development of
' the proposed subdivision. However, approximately 5,000 additional cubic yards must be
regraded within the site to compensate for issues arising from some prior construction, which
will be discussed in detail later in this narrative and in the Variance Application Narrative,
' resulting in a total grading of 6,000 cubic yards of material.
The development site contains 169 trees that are in excess of 12 inches diameter (DBH, or
' Diameter at Breast Height). These trees are located and illustrated on Sheets C1 and C4 of
the development plans. As many trees as possible have been retained in the development
plan, but a significant number of trees must be removed in order to allow full development of
the site.
C. Compliance with Chapter 18.430 - Subdivisions
'
Section 18.430.010 Purpose
' Response: The Purpose statement of the Subdivisions chapter contains six individual
purposes. In this particular application, the purpose statements that are being focused upon
are numbers 2 and 5. These state:
2. To carry out the development pattern and plan of the City; and
5. To provide adequate light and air, prevent overcrowding of land, and facilitate
' adequate provision for transportation, water supply, sewage and drainage;
This particular site of 4.36 acres is covered with a significant number of trees that are in
' excess of the 12-inch caliper threshold upon which the city's tree removal ordinance
(Chapter 18.790) shall apply. Development of this site will require removal of many of the
trees. The applicant has proposed lots and building sites for single-family detached
dwellings, which is the general development pattern of the immediate vicinity. To the
' greatest extent possible, trees on the site will be preserved, given the development plan for
the site.
' As many trees as possible have been planned for retention and protection, as a result over
1/2 of the trees saved (88 of the 169 total trees on the site can be accommodated). With a
lotting pattern as designed, including the necessary streets and utilities, the subdivision is the
' best possible layout that will "carry out the development pattern and plan of the City' and "will
prevent overcrowding of land". The site plan preserves, to the greatest extent possible, the
existing landscape features of the site, considering the site is designated for residential
development.
The development plan for this site serves to implement the city's comprehensive plan under
' the existing zoning, complying with the appropriate and applicable development standards.
The plan also fulfills the other individual portions of the Purpose statement by:
➢ promoting the public health, safety and general welfare;
t ➢ lessening congestion in the streets;
➢ encouraging the conservation of energy resources.
1
0 0
e Section 18.430.020 General Provisions
Response: This application represents the request for review and approval through the
two-step process specified in subsection A of this Section of the Community Development
Code. Using the "approval criteria" for the preliminary plat as contained in Section
18.430.040, the applicant has addressed all appropriate and applicable criteria and factors.
Other required provisions of this Section are as follows:
Subsection B - Compliance with ORS Chapter 92. This Section requires that this
"subdivision shall be in conformity with all state regulations set forth in ORS Chapter 92".
This subdivision will meet all standards and requirements of ORS Ch. 92.
Subsection C - Future Re-division. This subsection requires that, in large lot subdivisions,
all lots be of such size as to facilitate future re-division. This proposed subdivision contains
no lots that can be re-divided in the future, under the current R-4.5 zoning district.
Subsection D - Lot averaging. This subdivision will be created using lot averaging.
Lot sizes will range from a minimum of 7,042 square feet (Lot 8) to a maximum of 8,226
square feet (Lot 16). Average lot size will be 7,505 square feet. The smallest lot, Lot 8, is
94% of the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet for the R-4.5 zoning district. The largest
lot, Lot 16, is 10% larger than the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet for the R-4.5 district.
All lot sizes include the easements for sanitary sewer, stormwater and utilities.
Subsection E - Temporary sales office. Under this subsection the
applicant/owner/developer is allowed to maintain a temporary sales office. At this time, the
applicant is unsure whether or not there will be a temporary sales office at this project
location. However, the applicant will pursue the requirements and standards of Chapter
18.785, Temporary Uses, if there will be temporary sales office established on this project
site.
Subsection F - Minimum flood damage. This site is not within the 100-year flood plain, as
established by FEMA and recognized by the City. The flood elevation in this vicinity is 136
feet MSL, while the minimum elevation of this property is currently 172 feet MSL. After we
required filling and grading on this site, the minimum elevation of the developed site will be
approximately 170 feet MSL.
Subsection G - Floodplain dedications. This provision will not apply because there will be no
filling and grading in, or encroachment into the recognized flood plain.
Subsection H - Need for adequate utilities. Sanitary sewer and water are directly available
to the site through extensions of services for surrounding development projects. However,
based on the original construction of sanitary and storm sewers in 1985, additional sewer
lines must be planned, engineered and constructed in order to serve all proposed 19 lots.
Other utilities such as gas, telephone, electrical, cable and others are also readily available
to the site.
Subsection I - Need for adequate drainage. A registered professional engineer who has
designed the project in accordance with the city's engineering and design standards and
requirements has designed the filling and grading of this site.
• •
' Subsection J - Determination of base flood elevation. The project engineer has determined
that the base flood elevation of this project site is 136 feet MSL. The plan for filling and
grading has taken into account the base flood elevation.
• Section 18.430.030 Approval Process
Response: The applicant acknowledges the various steps of the process as set out in A
through E of this Section, including but not limited to the review of the preliminary plat
' through a Type II procedure; Compliance with the stated approval. criteria; The review of the
final plat through a Type I procedure; Recognition of the stated approval period; Need for and
granting of an extension of the time limit for completion; and, the Phasing of development.
The applicant reserves the right to apply for a time extension, as provided for in this section,
in the event that the proposed subdivision is not fully and finally platted within the 1 %2-year
time period specified in this Section. Any potential request for a time extension will follow the
guidelines and requirements of the Code.
1
• Section 18.430.040 Approval Criteria: Preliminary Plat
' Response: There are four (4) specific approval criteria stated under subsection A.
Approval criteria. These are stated and addressed below. The other part of this Section,
subsection B. Conditions of approval then follows.
A. Approval criteria.
1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance
and other applicable ordinances and regulations .
' Under the density computation formula as set forth in Section 18.715, this
site may be developed for as many as 19 units. As a practical matter,
when the site layout was prepared, 19 units could be sited on this property
only if some lot sizes were reduced to allow for the necessary streets
within the development. In order to maximize its considerable investment
in the site, the applicant must have as many units as possible. Otherwise,
' site coverage, building height and setbacks will meet the requirements of
the base zone.
' The site is zoned R-4.5 which allows "Single units, detached" as a
permitted use. As such, the proposal to develop the site with 19 detached
single-family dwellings meets the basic criteria as an allowed use. The
' proposed 19 lots is the allowable maximum to which the site might be
developed.
' With regard to all other requirements of the zoning ordinance and other
applicable ordinances and regulations, this proposed project and
preliminary plat complies.
' 2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions
of ORS Chapter 92.
• The proposed name of this 19-lot subdivision is Leiser Park. This name
is not found to duplicate the name of any other subdivision within the City
of Tigard or Washington County.
As proposed, the preliminary plat for this project satisfies all provisions of
ORS Chapter 92, as well as Chapter 18.430 of the Tigard Community
Development Code.
3. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions
and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to
width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it
is in the public interest to modify the street and road pattern.
The main transportation feature of this project is the local residential street
connecting SW 79th on the east to SW 81 st on the west. This connection is
reasonable, practical and necessary to complete the local street pattern
relative to this project site. In addition, the connection of SW 80th is
provided to the existing stubbed street. Finally, the private street section
(Tract A) that will serve Lots 9 and 10 is designed to serve as access to
Lots 9 and 10 only. No other access from within this subdivision is
planned to other properties.
4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements.
• There is no open space tract in this project, however, there will be one
private tract for access to Lots 9 and 10 (Tract A). A second tract, for
water quality/water detention (Tract B) will be dedicated to the city as a
public facility. These tracts are illustrated on Sheets CO, C2, and C6.
There is an easement for the sanitary sewer that parallels the easterly
edge of Lot 11 and appears on the southeasterly corner of Lot 10. There
is currently a sanitary sewer line through the project site via these
easements to the southwesterly corner of the Mara Woods subdivision
located to the north of the Kuentzle property. The sanitary sewer stubs
out at the southwesterly corner of the Mara Woods subdivision, at the
corner of Lots 5 and 6. Other than the easement on Lots 10 and 11 for the
existing sanitary sewer, the sanitary sewer alignment will be within the
public right of way portion of the new east-west residential street, plus the
stubbed section of SW 80`h as it stubs into the property to the south. This
alignment is clearly shown on the Preliminary Plat Plan (Sheet C2) and the
Preliminary Utility Plan (Sheet C6). There are other utility easements on
Lots 7 - 15 as well, as illustrated on Sheet C6. Finally, there are eight (8)
foot public utility easements along the curb edge of all public rights-of-way
within the subdivision, as illustrated on Sheet C6.
The one tract (i.e., Tract A for access to Lots 9 and 10) will be privately
owned and maintained by the adjacent Lots 9 and 10 of the Leiser Park
subdivision. Tract B (the water quality/water detention facility) will be
publicly owned and maintained.
All other utilities, both public and private, will be underground in this
project.
Improvements of the frontage on both SW 79 h and SW 81 st will be
constructed to match the existing street frontage improvements on
either side.
B. Conditions of approval.
' The applicant recognizes the power of the Approval Authority to "attach such
conditions as are necessary to carry out the comprehensive plan and other applicable
ordinances and regulations". However, the applicant may not necessarily agree with
' such imposed conditions and requests the opportunity to discuss such conditions with
the City in advance of a Type II final decision on the application.
' For the private street section located between Lots 8 and 11, no reserve strip is
necessary because the private street section serves only as access to Lots 9 and 10
and will not be extended to serve any other properties.
• Section 18.430.050 Submission Requirements: Preliminary Plat
Response: This application has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section
18.430, as well as the appropriate and applicable portions of other sections of the Tigard
Community Development Code. The application has been submitted on a proper form
provided by the City, and has been accompanied by the appropriate fee. All other necessary
and required information has been included in this narrative and/or the accompanying design
and engineering exhibits that complete this application packet.
The "Impact Study" that is referenced in 18.390.040 B.2.e is provided below, as there is no
specific reference to the Impact Study within Section 18.430.
Impact Study
The requirement for an "Impact Study' requires that the applicant quantify the effects of the
proposed development on public services and facilities. Because this project is a subdivision
that conforms to the density computations under the R-4.5 zoning district, the level of
development and consequent use of public services and facilities has been accounted for as
part of the preparation and adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, all
services and facilities should be planned for, provided and sized to accommodate a
subdivision development such as this one in this location.
• Transportation system, including bikeways: With the development if this
subdivision, the residential street that connects SW 79"' and SW 81st in a east-
west orientation (Leiser Lane) provides an important link in the connectivity and
circulation pattern of the immediate vicinity. This will permit adequate circulation
' in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the City's Transportation System
Plan (TSP).
' Although no bikeway will be provided on this east-west street, the construction of
the street to city standards within the 50-foot right-of-way will result in the ability to
use the street for a variety of transportation modes, including bicycles.
0 0
Based on a Traffic Impact Study conducted by Falconi Consulting, this
development will generate 225 ADT (Average Daily Trips) to existing and new
streets. Because this total is distributed over the entire 24-hour period, the impact
will be very low at any given time. It is expected that the peak hour trip generation
will be approximately 23 trips during the AM peak hour and 24 trips for the PM
peak hour. This leaves approximately 178 trips to be distributed over the
remaining 22 hours, averaging only approximately 8 trips per hour.
• Drainage system: Drainage created by the development of the site has been
planned for and engineered to connect to the established city system. The water
quality/water detention tract (Tract B) located between Lot 15 and the right-of-way
for SW 79th Avenue has been established to contain storm drainage at peak
periods, slowly releasing the water into the city's system at a fixed rate of flow.
• Parks system: This development proposes no new city park within its site. In the
City's Parks Master Plan, no new park is envisioned in this location. The existing
Master Plan was prepared using the existing zoning of the site and the
assumption that the site would be developed for residential purposes. As such,
the development of this site will have no adverse impact on the City's park
system.
Water system: The City's existing water system has been planned, designed,
engineered, and sized to accommodate the development of this specific site for
residential development. Water service is stubbed at the perimeter of this site
and can be easily connected to and "looped" as necessary. The internal service
lines will be sized in accordance with City standards to serve the individual
dwellings.
Sewer system: An existing sanitary sewer line crosses the site along the
alignment of SW 80th, connecting to the Mara Woods development to the north of
the Kuentzle property. However, this line was not planned, designed, engineered
and built to the proper depth to accommodate development in accordance with
existing zoning of the subject site. The existing sanitary sewer line will serve only
five (5) of the 19 proposed lots within the proposed subdivision because of the
lack of depth of the line. As such, it will require the design and construction of a
supplementary sanitary sewer line to serve this proposed development. The new
internal service lines will be sized in accordance with City standards to serve the
individual dwellings. The existing sanitary sewer line and easement on Lots 10,
11 and 12 may be vacated to reduce encumbrances and constraints on these
three lots. However, any vacation will be done by a separate application and
process.
Noise impacts: As a residential area, noise levels are generally low and limited to
site generated sources such as private vehicles, home utilities such as heat
pumps or air conditioning units, home maintenance equipment such as lawn
mowers or leaf blowers, and vocalization by residents. None of these site-
generated noises should exceed recommended levels as recommended by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. As such, overall noise levels
should remain within acceptable community levels.
This Impact Study provides basic information that fulfills the requirements as set forth in
18.390.040 B.2.e.
0 0
1 e Section 18.430.060 Adjustments Authorized
t Response: The applicant is not requesting any adjustments to the applicable subdivision
regulations as part of this application. However, depending upon the nature of the Type II
decision and any conditions that may be attached to that approval, the applicant may wish to
' seek future adjustments.
The following sections of this Chapter are related to the Final Plat and will be addressed at
that time.
e Section 18.430.070 Approval Criteria: Final Plat
t e Section 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement
e Section 18.430.090 Bond
e Section 18.430.100 Filing and Recording
' e Section 18.430.110 Vacation of Plats
D. Section 18.790 Tree Removal
This site is extensively covered with trees, many of which must be removed to allow
development of this single family detached subdivision of 19 lots. A total of 169 trees with
sizes of 12 inches or greater at breast height have been identified through the efforts of an
arborist, and have been located on the site through a tree survey by G&L Surveying. After
' the tree survey and review of the trees on the site, it has been determined that approximately
81 of the trees, or 47.9% of the trees that are 12 inches in caliper or greater must be
removed. This means that 88 trees, or 52.1 will be retained on the site.
' The Tree Removal Plan (Sheet C4) identifies the locations of all trees on the site, both those
that will remain and those that will be removed. In order to provide the necessary streets in
this development, as well as creating envelopes for construction of 19 single family detached
' dwellings, a total of 81 mitigatable trees must be removed, leaving 88 of the original trees on
site.
' If it is determined mitigation is required at the time of home construction, five (5) trees of two-
inch caliper will be planted on each of the 19 lots, in addition to the two (2) required street
trees. The 95 trees (19 lots x 5 trees per lot) resulting in 190 caliper inches represents an on
' site mitigation plan proposed by the applicant. However, this mitigation may not actually be
required.
' A critical factor enters into the tree preservation and removal consideration for this site.
Because of the prior sanitary sewer construction that creates the need to import fill and
regrade the site extensively, the applicant is not directly responsible for the trees that must
be removed. Based on the project engineer's grading plan for the site, almost all 81 trees
' that must be removed are required as a result of the need for extensive grading resulting
from prior existing offsite utility construction elevations. As such, the applicant is applying for
a separate variance to these requirements to release the applicant from the responsibility for
' mitigation for the trees that must be removed due to the original installation of the offsite
utility at an elevation, which has resulted in a situation, which is neither the applicant's
responsibility nor a problem, which they should resolve.
Section 18.790.010 Purpose
Response: In the Purpose statement of this Section of the Community Development
Code, there are seven (7) individual purposes set forth in subsection B. Only the seventh
purpose, that which deals with Commercial Forestry, does not apply to this site.
Subsection C recognizes that trees must be removed to accommodate planned urban
development within the City. However, this subsection does not provide any specific relief to
property owners and developers who are proposing to develop sites such as the subject site
that are very extensively covered with large trees, and full onsite mitigation is not possible.
The end result is that the developer will be subject to a very expensive mitigation plan and
process in order to achieve the end goal of development of the site for residential use.
• Section 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement
Response: In accordance with the requirements of this subsection, a Tree Survey has
been prepared that identifies the location, species, and size of the individual trees on the site.
This Tree Survey is identified as part of the Tree Removal Plan (Sheet C4).
The Tree Removal Plan identifies the trees that must be removed from the site to permit
urban residential development of the site. While the City prefers protection of trees on the
site, this is impossible given the development plan for the site under the recognized
comprehensive plan map designation (Low Density Residential) and zoning (R-4.5) and the
depths of the existing off-site utilities.
The Tree Plan meets all of the stated requirements under subsection 18.790.030 B. This
Tree Plan has been prepared in conjunction with a certified arborist who will prepare the
details for preservation of the remaining trees on the site, as well as the planting plan for the
new trees.
• Section 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention
Response: Because of the proposed development of the subject site in conformance with
the comprehensive plan map designation and the current zoning, the incentives for tree
retention that are included in this subsection are largely unusable for this project. We are not
able to take advantage of any density bonus. This circumstance would not apply even if the
applicant were able to save more trees.
The final two parts of this subsection A. dealing with development in the commercial and
inrie iofrinl -7nncc Anne nr%f 9nniv hanni icG thin Cifa iC riaClnnatArt i nw ntmnCity Raciripntini nn
1114 GJl11G1 LVIIVV GVVV I.V. MrIrL~ YV VMMVV a..v v.av •v vvv.~......vv rv.• _v.._ . •__.v.
the City's comprehensive plan map, and zoned R-4.5.
Subsection D. of this section would apply only to the new streets proposed in this
subdivision. Because the sanitary and storm sewer is already in place, there is nothing that
can be done to accommodate the preservation and retention of trees. However, if the City
would be willing to reduce the street standards for the new east-west residential street that
will connect SW 79th and 81s`(Leiser Lane), as well as the connection of SW 80`x', it is
possible that some additional trees could be preserved and retained. In fact, if the streets
were removed entirely, the site would still have to be filled in order to reach the sewer.
• Section 18.790.050 Permit Applicability
Response: The applicant understands the requirements of this section, including that a
tree removal permit is required and that the tree removal permit may be granted upon
application.
i
• Section 18.790.060 Illegal Tree Removal
' Response: No trees have been illegally removed from the property as part of this
development proposal. Therefore, this Section does not apply.
Chapter 18.810
1
Street and Utility Improvement Standards
18.810.010 Purpose
Response: This project, as proposed on the subject site, meets all of the
requirements, standards and regulations of this chapter.
' 18.810.020 General Provisions
Response: The provisions of the Tigard Code will apply to this site because of the
change and intensification of use. The creation of 19 lots for single family
' development will create additional local traffic and the need for construction of a new
local residential street on the site that will carry a traffic volume of less than 500 ADT.
The proposed subdivision meets all utility design requirements as well, as specified
in this chapter. Additionally, no adjustments to requirements, standards and
regulations of this chapter have been requested. Therefore, this project meets all of
the requirements, standards and regulations of this chapter.
18.810.030 Streets
Response: The applicant proposes to construct a new local residential street
within this project to current city standards, connecting SW 79th and SW 81St
Avenues. This Local residential street will carry a traffic volume of less than 500
'
AFT. There will also be a stubbed section of SW 80th Avenue constructed to current
city standards that will serve future development on the vacant land to the south of
st
Avenues, necessary
this site. On the frontage areas on SW 79 and SW 81
improvements will be made in accordance with current city standards. No
adjustments to requirements, standards and regulations of the city's Code are
requested. As such, the proposed subdivision project meets all requirements of
'
Subsection A. of this chapter.
In accordance with Subsection B of this chapter, the new Local residential streets
th
'
Avenue) will meet the requirements,
(Leiser Lane and the stubbed portion of SW 80
standards and regulations of the city's Code for specified rights-of-way.
There are no access easements proposed for this project that would be governed by
Subsection C. of this chapter. Lots 9 and 10 will be served by a private tract ("Tract
A"). This tract is 27 feet in width and will be jointly owned by Lots 9 and 10.
Therefore, Subsection C. does not apply.
The street location, width and grade for the Local residential streets (Leiser Lane and
the stubbed section of SW 80th Avenue) will meet all current requirements, standards
and regulations of the city's Code for local residential streets that have a traffic
volume of less than 500 ADT. Therefore, the project complies with Subsection D. of
this chapter.
h
Rights of way and street widths for Leiser Lane and the stubbed section of SW 80t
Avenue have been designed for traffic volumes of less than 500 ADT, based on the
number of lots in the proposed subdivision and the anticipated through traffic
between SW 79th and SW 81 st Avenues. Design considerations taken into account
include anticipated traffic generation, on-street parking needs, sidewalk and bikeway
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
requirements, street lighting, drainage and slope impacts, location of street trees,
planting and landscape areas, safety for all types of users, and access needs for
emergency vehicles. Therefore, the design of new local residential streets meets the
requirements, standards and regulations of Subsection E. of this chapter.
In terms of a future street plan, the applicant has planned the project to include a
stubbed section of SW 80 Avenue to vacant undeveloped land adjacent to the
south. No other adjacent properties require access from or through this project that
are within 530 feet and within the limitations of SW 79th and SW 81st Avenues. In
addition, the stubbed portion of SW 80th Avenue does not exceed 150 feet in length
and does not, therefore, require a hammerhead or cul-de-sac turnaround. Therefore,
the requirements, standards and regulations of Subsection F. are met.
Subsection G. requires compliance with 18.705.030.H., which was addressed
previously. This subsection referenced above requires an access management
report, which is attached as an exhibit.
The new Local residential street that connects SW 79th and SW 81 st Avenues (to be
called Leiser Lane) is designed to intersect with SW 79"' and SW 81St Avenues at
proper distances, angles, and grades that meet current city Code requirements. The
future extension of the stubbed section of SW 80th Avenue will also comply with city
Code requirements and the provisions of this subsection. Overall, the street pattern
created through this project will provide the localized network of connecting streets
with short direct travel routes that the city seeks to provide. As such, the project will
comply with Subsection H of this chapter.
All intersections created by this project will be right angles as desired and required
by the city. Therefore, the project will comply with Subsection I of this chapter.
The only existing rights-of-way that are part of this development will be the rights-of-
way for SW 79th and SW 81st Avenues. Where the project site has direct frontage on
these two streets, required improvements will be made. Otherwise, new rights-of-
way will be created for the internal streets as required by the city's Code. Therefore,
the project as designed will meet the requirements, regulation, and standards of
Subsection J.
Other than the frontages on SW 79th and SW 8181 Avenues where improvements as
required will be made, there are no other street sections, existing or proposed, that
will require only partial street improvements. Therefore, the project will comply with
Subsection K of this chapter.
There are no cul-de-sacs proposed for streets within this project. As such,
Subsection L will not apply.
The street names for Leiser lane and SW 80th Avenue that will be applied to streets
in this project do not duplicate any other street names where it would be
inappropriate to do so. Of course, Leiser Lane reflects the ownership of the project
site, while SW 80"' Avenue reflects the future potential extension of that street
numbering system that exists throughout the city. This fulfills Subsection M of this
chapter of the Code.
' As designed, the new Local residential streets within this subdivision project meet all
requirements, standards and regulations of Subsection N of this chapter of the city's
' Code. These street designs are found on the appropriate sheets of the subdivision
design package.
All individual driveways shall be made of ready-mixed concrete, while the streets
(i.e., Leiser Lane and SW 80t' Avenue), sidewalks, and curbs will be surfaced with
asphaltic concrete. The access over the private tract ("Tract A") will be asphaltic
concrete as well. Local sidewalks will be ready-mixed concrete. All approaches and
aprons, where required, will be built to city specifications. Therefore, this aspect of
the project will meet Subsection O of this chapter of the city Code.
'
None of the streets within this project or in the immediate vicinity of the project site
are adjacent to any railroad right-of-way. Therefore, Subsection P of this chapter
does not apply.
'
While the new streets proposed within this subdivision project will be Local
residential streets, SW 79th Avenue is a designated Neighborhood street while SW
81st Avenue is a Local street within the city's Functional Street Classification. Within
this proposed subdivision, five lots (Lots 1, 5, 6, and 16) have frontage on either SW
79P or SW 81st Avenues, and only one lot (Lot 6) will require its access off SW 81st
Avenue because it has no other alternative street frontage. Because there are no
lots in this project that front on and must gain access from a collector street, there is
no requirement that buffering and landscaping along that particular frontage.
However, Lot 6 has frontage only on SW 81 st Avenue, which is not a collector level
street, and should not be required to have buffering and landscaping along its only
street frontage. The other three lots with frontage on existing streets (Lots 1, 5 and
16) will have driveway access on Leiser Lane and will be restricted in their deeds to
having no vehicular access to the existing 79"' Avenue and SW 81st Avenue. These
'
measures will provide compliance with Subsection Q. of this chapter of the city's
Code.
i
There are no alleys proposed within this project. Therefore, Subsection R. does not
apply.
'
As required in Subsection S., survey monuments will be set in accordance with
requirements of the City Engineer.
This project contains a private street to serve two lots, Lots 9 and 10. This private
street will be within a private tract ("Tract A") and will be covered by a maintenance
agreement that will be part of the deeds for these two lots. Such maintenance
agreement will also be part of the notations on the face of the recorded final plat.
This will insure compliance with Subsection T. of this chapter of the city's Code.
There are no existing nor will there be any railroad crossings involved with this
project. As such, Subsection U. does not apply.
The applicant recognizes the need for some street signs due to the creation of new
local residential streets and the intersection of those streets with existing city streets.
In accordance with Subsection V. of this chapter, the city will determine what signs
are necessary and where they should be located. The city will install these signs at
cost to the developer.
' In accordance with the requirements of this section of the city's Code, and the
requirements and suggestions of the U.S. Postal Service, a mailbox location plan will
be submitted to the postal service prior to submitting construction plans to the city for
their review. All locations will be finalized prior to final plat review and approval, in
compliance with Subsection W.
There are no existing, nor will there be any traffic signals, within this project or at the
intersections of Leiser Lane and SW 79th and SW 81st Avenues. The site generated
traffic, and the additional traffic that may occur as through traffic on Leiser Lane, will
not be of a volume to meet warrants for a signal at any location within or directly
adjacent to the project site. Therefore, Subsection X. does not apply.
In accordance with Subsection Y. of this chapter of the city's Code, street lights will
be designed and installed within this development. A proposed street lighting plan
has been prepared and is part of Sheet C7.
'
As with the requirements of a previous subsection, street name signs are required
and will be installed in accordance with direction by the city. This will insure
compliance with Subsection Z.
Cross sections for the streets within this project have been designed by the Project
Engineer and are included in the overall engineering design. These cross sections
are found on Sheet X. All construction shall be in accordance with the requirements
of Subsection AA of this chapter of the city's Code.
'
Traffic calming, as defined in Subsection AB, is not likely required at the time of initial
development of the project. However, future traffic calming measures may be
desirable as localized traffic patterns change to reflect the existence of a new
through street that connects SW 79th and SW 81st Avenues, and as other vacant
developable land within the immediate vicinity begins to develop in response to
market conditions.
'
At the present time, because Leiser Lane does not exist, there is no through traffic.
With the development of Leiser Lane, site generated traffic will not be significant.
Some cut through traffic between SW 79th and SW 81st Avenues may increase the
volume of traffic on Leiser Lane, but the total volume should not exceed 500 vpd.
The new intersections of Leiser Lane with SW 79th and SW 81 st Avenues cannot be
'
immediately classified as "high collision intersections" since they have no history.
Because intersection sight distances will meet minimum requirements, and existing
volumes of traffic on these two streets are not significantly high to cause the need to
'
classify these streets as high volume streets, and because the project will not directly
impact any ODOT facility, no traffic study is required under the provisions of
Subsection AC.
'
18.810.040 Blocks
Response: Because the overall size of this project is relatively small, the site
design has not created any true "blocks". However, considering the need for building
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 •
sites, local and individual lot access, circulation, local topography, and safe traffic
and street design, pre-existing development on sties around the project, fulfillment
with this section of this chapter has been achieved. Breaks in the street (i.e., Leiser
Lane) on both sides provide opportunities for diversity of travel whether by
pedestrian, bicycle or auto.
18.810.050 Easements
Response: In compliance with this section of the chapter, all easements have
been identified and shown on various sheets. The proposed easements will meet all
requirements of the city and utility providers.
18.810.060 Lots
Response: All 19 lots proposed within this subdivision meet the length-to-width
requirements of this section of the Code. All lots have the necessary and required
frontage on a public street. There are no through, or double frontage lots in this
subdivision. Lot lines are at right angles to the streets and to each other, or are
parallel to each other (in the case of opposing side and front/rear lot lines). Finally,
there are no large lots left within this subdivision that can be re-divided into future
smaller lots, under the current R-4.5 zoning.
18.810.070 Sidewalks
Response: All public streets within the proposed subdivision will have sidewalks
on both sides of the street that meet the city's requirements. The private tract ("Tract
A") that serves Lots 8 and 10 shall have a sidewalk on one side of the access way.
Sidewalks on the frontages sides of SW 79"' and SW 81st Avenues will connect,
where possible, with existing sidewalks.
Planter strips separating the sidewalks and the curbs/streets shall be installed along
both sides of the public streets within this subdivision (i.e., Leiser Lane and SW 80t
Avenue) in accordance with city specifications. These planter strips are illustrated on
various sheets and are shown as part of the street cross-sections.
1
1
1
Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips shall be the obligation of the
individual property owners, as specified in this section of the chapter. In addition,
this requirement will be noted as a deed restriction for all lots.
18.810.080 Public Use Areas
Response: The proposed subdivision does not contain a "public use area"
because there is no area available for such area without the loss of a lot. As it is, the
average size of the lots within the project is virtually at the very minimum size
permitted by the city. In addition, with only 19 lots in the total project, there is no
justification for a public use area, considering the anticipated number of users that
will live within the project. Finally, the city has not requested the reservation of an
area for public use.
18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers
Response: The Project Engineer has prepared a complete plan for sanitary sewer
service to all lots of this development. The plan for sanitary sewer service meets all
requirements, regulations and standards of the city and will allow for future extension
where necessary, to unserved vacant and developable lands that are located directly
adjacent to the project site.
~ i •
As part of the sanitary sewer service plan, a portion of the original service line that
traversed the site will be vacated. While that portion of the line and related
easement is illustrated on Sheet C6, it will require a separate action by the City
Council to complete the vacation of a portion of the existing sewer line.
18.810.100 Storm Drainage
Response: The Project Engineer has designed a storm drainage plan for the
project site that will accomplish all necessary and required storm drainage for all 19
lots plus the public streets and the private tract. Storm water detention will be
accomplished through routing to and holding in a tract located adjacent to Lot 15 and
the right-of-way of SW 79th Avenue. This area is identified as "Tract B". All
necessary and required calculations for storm drainage volumes and flow have been
included as part of the application. This storm drainage plan will meet all of the city's
requirements, regulations and standards.
'
18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways
Response: The new streets within the project site are all Local residential streets
that do not require bikeways. Pedestrian pathways throughout the development are
provided by the required sidewalks that are part of the street system. Required
improvements on both SW 79th and SW 81st Avenues will include necessary and
required bikeways and pedestrian pathways in accordance with the city's adopted
Transportation System Plan (TSP). All improvements are illustrated on Sheet C5 &
C6.
18.810.120 Utilities
Response: All onsite utility service will be taken from available connections either
within the site or directly adjacent to the site. In addition, all onsite utility service will
be through underground service. No above-ground or overhead utilities are
proposed, and therefore, no exception is being requested for above-ground or
overhead utility service to any portion of the project site. The Project Engineer has
' coordinated all utility service to the project site with the respective providers. All
proposed utility service is identified and illustrated on Sheet C6.
18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required
'
Response: As required by this section of the city's Code, cash or bond will be
provided by the developer for the required one-year guarantee period.
18.810.140 Monuments
Response: The developer will insure that any and all monuments within the
project site, and any individual monuments outside the project site, that are disturbed
during the course of construction of improvements shall be replaced as required.
18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite
Response: The developer will construct necessary public improvements only after
the necessary plans have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, the
appropriate fee has been paid and the required permit issued.
'
18.810.160 Installation Conformation
Response: The developer will certify that all improvements will conform to all
'
existing requirements of and followed by the city.
1
1 18.810.170 Plan Check
Response: The developer agrees that no work shall commence until all plans
have been checked and construction estimates reviewed, and authorization in writing
is provided by the City Engineer.
18.810.180 Notice to City
Response. As required, the developer or Project Engineer will notify the city in
advance of the start of all work.
18.810.190 City Inspection
Response: The developer understands and agrees that the city shall be allowed
to inspect all work and require any changes in typical sections and details, if such
changes are warranted and reasonable.
18.810.200 Engineer's Certification
Response: As required the Project Engineer shall provide written certification as
to the quality and standards of the improvements within the project site.
1
1
• !
Leiser Park Subdivision
Part One - Variance Application Narrative
A. The Variance Request
The applicant, Matrix Development Corp., is requesting a variance to the standards of the
City of Tigard's Chapter 18.790 of the Community Development Code, commonly known as
the "Tree Removal Ordinance". This variance has been suggested by City staff as a method
of reducing the excessive financial burden that would be placed on the developer and the
property owners under strict compliance with Chapter 18.790 where there is no consideration
of prior factors that adversely impact the site condition.
Part One of the variance request is to reduce the overall number of trees on the site that are
' subject to mitigation, due to the prior construction of the sanitary sewer through the site to
serve adjacent properties. This construction failed to install the sanitary sewer line at
sufficient depth to serve the Kuentzle and Leiser parcels.
To rectify this problem and thus to allow full development of the subject site, the project
engineer has determined that it will be necessary to re-grade and fill the majority of the site.
Approximately 1,000 cubic yards must be imported. In addition, approximately 5,000 cubic
yards of material must be re-graded within the site to mitigate for the prior shallow sewer
installation. As a result of this fill and grading, a significant number of trees on the site must
be removed. Because this circumstance is not of the applicant's doing, relief is sought on
behalf of the applicant to reduce the penalty for resulting tree removal.
Granting approval to this variance application will result in no mitigation requirement for the
applicant on this site for those trees that must be removed as a result of filling and regrading
the site to address the shallow sewers.
The second part of the variance request deals with the economic hardship created by the
requirement for potential mitigation payment by the applicant for the remaining trees to be
removed from the site. An economic analysis illustrates that the overall costs to bring each
of the 19 lots to market will render the price of each lot at the upper end of the scale for
similarly sized, similarly located lots with similar physical characteristics. Full payment in lieu
of on site planting of trees, as mitigation for the trees removed, will increase the per-lot price
to something above the current market value. This clearly demonstrates that this would
adversely impact the applicant's ability to compete in the marketplace with the lots from this
project. Therefore, the second part of the variance application proposes relief from the
stipulated mitigation payment and requests alternative mitigation measures (i.e., on site
planting on each lot plus the charitable tree sale for Tigard High School) be accepted by the
City as mitigation in full. This appears to be clearly within the authority of the Director as
provided in Section 18.790.060 D3 and F.
Major factors prompting this request were the original installation of the sanitary sewer and
the storm sewer for Mara Woods in 1985 and additional construction of a sanitary sewer line
to serve the Raze Meadows project in 1991 at insufficient depths to serve the future
development of the Kuentzle and Leiser properties. This situation already results in a burden
for the developer of this particular site by requiring that significant amounts of fill be brought
onto and regraded within the site to raise the topography of the site to allow storm and
sanitary sewer service to serve the future lots. Because of the large number of trees on the
site, the added fill needed to resolve the storm and sanitary sewer issue requires the removal
of a significant number of trees from the site. Under these circumstances, a strict application
of the tree mitigation ordinance places an inflated and unreasonable burden on the developer
and increases the costs of the development considerably.
Additionally, the existing sanitary sewer on-site (serving Raze Meadows to the south) will
need to be reconstructed and a new line built from SW 79th at the southeast corner of Mara
Woods. Had these utilities been engineered and installed at the proper depth to account for
the eventual service of the subject site, the current requirement for filling the site to obtain
utility service would not exist today. In fact, most of tree the removal results directly from
having to fill and re-grade the site because of the shallow installation of the existing storm
and sanitary sewers.
Based on the tree inventory of the site, the proposed development plan requires that less
than 50% of the trees (81 of 169) on the site be removed when the site is developed in a
manner allowing connections to the existing of the sanitary sewer and storm service.
However, the applicant is not the root cause for the loss of those trees, which must be
removed because of the fill and grading associated with the existing shallow utilities. When
counting only the removal of those trees on the site for which the applicant may be directly
responsible, the Tree Removal Ordinance would likely require no mitigation.
Therefore, Matrix Development Corp. requests a variance to the Tree Removal Ordinance
(Chapter 18.790) so that the development of the site under the existing R-4.5 zoning might
be pursued in a reasonable and economic manner. Otherwise, the development of the site
may be jeopardized by the potentially onerous and unfair mitigation requirements of the Tree
Removal Ordinance as they could be applied to this specific site.
Matrix Development Corp. requests a variance to Section 18.790.030 B.2.a of the Tigard
Community Development Code to allow for: 1.) a re-determination of the obligation for the
trees to be removed from the site and, 2.) an alternative method of mitigation for the trees
that must be removed from the site to permit urban development under the existing R-4.5
zoning district. Rather than (a) planting all of the replacement trees onsite, which simply not
a feasible option in this instance, or (b) a cash payment to the City for the trees removed
from the site in lieu of planting of those replacement trees, Matrix Development Corp.
proposes a method of mitigation that will both fulfill the spirit and goal of the mitigation
program and also serve a greater public benefit. This alternative mitigation plan is spelled out
later in this application narrative.
B. Project Background
The site for which the variance is requested is heavily wooded with a mix of larger, mature
coniferous and deciduous trees. Tree species are primarily maple, cedar and fir. Based on
the special circumstances of the site and the prior development that has taken place
adjacent to the site relating to the sanitary sewer lines and storm sewer, the requested
variance is necessary to allow the subject site to be developed in a reasonably economic and
feasible manner.
The applicant, Matrix Development Corp., proposes to develop the adjoining parcels
purchased from Kuentzle (Tax Lot 2800) and under option from Leiser (Tax Lot 300), totaling
' 4.36 acres, into a 19-lot subdivision for detached single-family dwellings. The site is located
between SW 79th and 81St Avenues, just south of Bonita Road in Tigard. Lot 16 of the
proposed development plan (located on the Kuentzle property) has an existing single family
dwelling in place that will be removed. All 19 lots will be developed with new dwellings.
' There will be no open space tract because this is a subdivision. There will, however, be a
private street (Tract A) adjacent to lots 8 and 11 that will provide access to lots 9 and 10.
Lots 8 and 11, although directly adjacent to the private street, will have direct frontage. and
access onto Leiser Lane. This private street is 27 feet in overall width and approximately
108 feet in total length. The tract is approximately 2,885 square feet in size.
Finally, there will be a storm water facility tract on the easterly edge of the site, located
between Lot 15 and S.W 79th Avenue. This tract is approximately 3,440 square feet in size.
This particular tract will be a public facility tract, dedicated to the City for public purposes.
Lot sizes for this project will range from a minimum of 7,042 square feet (Lot 8) to a
maximum of 8,226 square feet (Lot 16). Average lot size will be 7,505 square feet.
The Kuentzle parcel, the smaller of the two parcels at 1.88 acres, is bound by the Mara
Woods subdivision to the north which is zoned R-7, and a single family dwelling on the
property to the south which is currently zoned R-4.5. Across SW 79th Avenue are two larger
lots zoned R-12 (roughly the size of the Kuentzle and Leiser properties combined together)
with one single family dwelling on each lot. These two lots are eligible for redevelopment at
some undetermined point in the future.
The Leiser parcel is bounded on the north by two parcels (Tax Lots 100 and 200), both of
which have single-family dwellings on them. To the. south is the Raze Meadows subdivision.
These properties are currently zoned R-4.5. Across SW 81 St to the west is a large lot also
' zoned R-4.5 and has a single family dwelling that also serves as the headquarters of a small
logging business.
' The proposed subdivision site is undulating in its topography, and is significantly below the
grade of SW 81St Avenue. The easterly portion of the site is approximately at grade with SW
79th Avenue. Topography ranges from a maximum of 182 MSL at the westerly edge at SW
' 81St Avenue to a low point on the Leiser parcel of 172 MSL, to a high point of almost 177
MSL on the Kuentzle parcel to 170 MSL on the easterly edge at SW 79th Avenue. The
lowest point of the site is on the Keuntzle property, just adjacent to SW 79th Avenue. A
' significant amount of grading and fill will be required to level the site for purposes of
development.
' The development site contains many trees that are in excess of 12 inches diameter (DBH, or
Diameter at Breast Height). A spreadsheet (Spreadsheet A) attached as part of this
application summarizes the identification of the trees on an individual basis. The trees are
located and illustrated on Sheets C1 and C4 of the development plans. As many trees as
' possible have been retained in the development plan, but a significant number of trees must
be removed in order to effectuate development of the site.
' Sanitary sewer and water are immediately available to the site, as illustrated on Sheet C6,
Preliminary Utility Plan. In fact, the sanitary sewer line traverses the site in a north-south
direction and is perfectly placed along the common property line of the adjoining Leiser and
1
Kuentzle properties. Unfortunately, the sanitary sewer line originally extended from Mara
Woods to serve Raze Meadows was not constructed to the proper depth to allow service of
the Leiser and Kuentzle properties. The existing Mara Woods and Raze Meadows
developments were filled at the time of their development to be served by the sewers.
The existing sanitary sewer line will need to be abandoned from the manhole at the
southwest corner of Mara Woods to Raze Meadows. The sanitary sewer from Raze
Meadows will need to be connected to the new sanitary sewer line created as a part of this
development. Five of Leiser Park's northern lots will be connected to the manhole at the
southwest corner of Mara Woods, and the remaining Leiser Park lots will be connected to the
new sanitary sewer line.
The existing storm line located at the southeast corner of Mara Woods in SW 79th, which
provides drainage off-site, is very shallow with only 1.5 feet of cover over the pipe. In order
to provide adequate cover over the new storm and sanitary lines, the streets will need to be
raised. The lots adjacent to these streets will have to be filled above the street elevation in
order to provide drainage to the streets.
In summary, based on the amount of fill required to bring the site to a grade sufficient to
accommodate utility service, the project arborist calculates that 81 trees will need to be
removed.
C. Mathematical Calculations of Mitigatable Trees
The spreadsheet (Spreadsheet A) illustrates the number of trees that may be saved and
those that must be removed in order to permit development of the site as a standard
subdivision. There are a total of 169 trees on the site, totaling 3,047 diameter caliper inches,
that fit into the City's category of "significant" trees (12 inches and greater diameter at breast
height (DBH)). Of these 169 trees on the site, 88 trees (representing 52.1 % of the total
number of significant trees) having 1,633 of diameter-caliper inches (53.6% of the total
inches) will be saved under the proposed development plan. This means that 81 trees (or
47.9% of the total number of trees and totaling 1,416 diameter-caliper inches) must be
removed to permit urban residential development of the site. Many fewer trees would have
required removal were it not for the shallow depth of the pre-existing sanitary and storm
sewers that serve the site.
The construction of the storm and sanitary sewer for Mara Woods in 1985 and the extension
of the sanitary sewer to serve the Raze Meadows development in 1991 created a different
baseline for calculation of the trees that must be removed from the site to permit
development under the City's ordinance. The difference between the trees that must be
removed from the site under today's present circumstances and the circumstances that
would have existed had the site not been adversely impacted by poorly planned prior off-site
development for adjacent properties in 1985 and 1991 is substantial. And the potential
mitigation requirements which could required are significant enough that some
accommodation is justified to relieve the applicant of an unfair and substantial penalty which
results from this pre-existing situation, a situation which is not of the applicant's making nor
reasonably within his control to resolve without the removal of these trees.
The proposed plan provides for 52.1 % retention of the existing inventory of trees. This level
of retention requires mitigation for 50% of the 1,416 total diameter caliper inches of all trees
' on the site proposed for removal under the development plan. The number of trees
requiring removal could have been significantly reduced had the existing utilities been
' installed at a proper depth to serve the subject site. If tree removal resulting directly to the
impacts of prior construction are exempted from the calculations, there would be minimal
mitigation requirements.
' The applicant further argues that even if any mitigation should be required for the proposed
tree removal, it is more than met through the applicant's proposal for on site planting of 190
inches (19 lots x 5 trees/lot x 2 inches), and the charitable tree sale through Tigard High
' School's Boosters of an additional 750 caliper inches. Together these will provide 940
inches of tree mitigation and a tree replacement ratio of better than 10:1.
D. Variance Criteria
In Chapter 18.370 of the Tigard Community Development Code, subsection 18.370.010 C.2,
there are five specific criteria listed that must be addressed as part of the process in applying
for and obtaining a variance to City development standards. The variance application is
normally a Type II Director's review that may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied. Therefore, because the application for variance is coupled with an application for
approval of the 19-lot subdivision, both applications will be reviewed concurrently under a
Type II process by the Community Development Director.
The five (5) criteria contained in Chapter 18.370 of the Tigard Community Development
Code are as follows:
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title,
to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same
zoning district or vicinity,
b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and
which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district,
c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards
will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting
reasonable economic use of the land,
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage,
dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would
occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
Each individual criterion is addressed in the following section of this application narrative.
• •
E. Addressing the Criteria
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title,
to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same
zoning district or vicinity;
Response: Regardless of the zoning of this site, a significant number of trees must be
removed to allow development to occur under the "Low Density Residential" designation
through the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the commensurate R-4.5 zoning. Tree
removal becomes a major consideration in the type of development that might take place on
this site.
This variance request deals with both the manner of mitigation and a modification of
standards contained in this title. The integrity of this title remains in tact because the
proposed mitigation plan will provide a greater and more citywide benefit than limiting the
mitigation effort to one site. In addition, there are no alterations or changes to City policies
that are proposed or would otherwise be included as part of an approval of this variance
application.
Within the City of Tigard there are other properties that may be subject to the same type of
variance request where the manner of mitigation may be modified. However, this variance
request will allow the efficient and economic development of the subject site without
adversely impacting any adjoining, adjacent, or nearby property.
Removal of a significant number of trees from this site must be done in order to allow
development of this site. The usability of the existing sanitary and storm sewers that serve
the site is problematic when considering the need for fill to bring the site to level to sufficient
to utilize these services. Filling around the trees themselves will result in an unavoidably
adverse impact wherein the base and root system of the trees will be, in essence, "cut off'
from the natural systems that allow the trees to survive. According to our arborist, as little as
four (4) inches of fill around a tree may be enough to kill it. The filling and extensive
regrading of the site, without removal of trees, will result in a slow but sure mortality of those
trees, and leaving the trees would be an impractical and dangerous practice. Thus, the
required filling of the site in order to permit development under the current Comprehensive
Plan designation and zoning, will result in the loss of a significant number of the existing
trees. And, of course, grading the site to allow for the installation of streets, utilities, dwelling
footprints, and clear vision areas once the site is filled and leveled, will require that additional
trees be removed.
This situation creates a conflict between the development of the site and the attempt to
preserve al.. 14 l.I~ v d protlc l a est th1 c a e trev eow - nn fhn eifn ThGrn 7rc lilfaly nthar nrnnartias thrni inhni it thA
vu ~i .~«i. wv cap..
City that suffer from the similar conflicts, and a practical resolution begs to be found.
b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and
which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district,
Response: At 4.36 acres and generally rectangular in shape, this site is similar to other
properties that may be found throughout the City, in all zoning districts. What makes this
property unique is the large number of trees on this relatively small site and the
' circumstances of the existing utilities that will serve the site. One hundred sixty nine (169)
trees of mitigatable size is a large number of trees on an urban site of this size. This does
' not include trees of smaller size and the understory vegetation. This vegetative cover on the
site has severe consequences for the development of the site for urban residential purposes.
Given the Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential and the current R-4.5
' zoning, it is impossible to achieve even the minimum acceptable level of urban residential
development without the removal of a significant number of trees of mitigatable size.
' The number of trees impacted by the development of the site is unavoidably compounded by
the need to fill and re-grade the site in order to bring the site to a topography permitting
connection to the sanitary and storm sewer lines that were constructed several years ago.
' These offsite services were constructed without consideration of the depth required to
eventually provide service to subject site. As such, it is left to the property owners and
developer to solve the problem. The developer's engineer has determined that the only
practical solution to the problem is extensive filling and regrading of the site. And as the site
is filled, there will be an unavoidable loss of many of the existing trees on the site. In the
end, the trees will be lost either as their root systems are buried from fill being added around
the base of the trees or through pre-emptive removal by the developer at the time of initial
' development in order to prevent future hazards and difficulties with the dying trees.
The construction of the existing sanitary sewer across this site to other adjacent properties
' was not the doing of the current developer. And while other development sites in Tigard
have topography issues that must be addressed, it is doubtful that many others have the
issue to deal with so directly as a result of past construction of sanitary and storm sewer
' lines. Therefore, this site is unique which results in compliance with this criterion.
' c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards
will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting
reasonable economic use of the land,
Response: The parcels on which the 19-lot subdivision is being proposed,,are both zoned
R-4.5. The applicant's intent is to remain in compliance with the standards of the City's
Comprehensive Plan designation and this zoning district. Without the ability to remove a
significant number of trees from the site, the potential density (19 lots) would be reduced,
possibly below a minimum density level that is efficiently and effectively practical and which
makes no economic sense for the property owners, the developer and the general public.
The lower the density on the site, the greater will be the cost of each lot.
Therefore, the need to develop the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
designation and the current zoning district outweighs the negative side of removing trees
from the site.
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage,
dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would
occur if the development were developed as specified in the title;
Response: The applicant is proposing to develop the site in conformance with the
specifications of the title, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning district. Only
by altering the physical characteristics of the site through filling and removal of a significant
• •
number of trees can the site be developed as intended through the City's long range
planning process. The prior construction of the sanitary sewer line across the site to
originally serve other properties and the elevation of the storm outfall have produced a
special set of problems under which this site might be developed. The required filling and
regarding of the site will adversely impact the ability to retain trees many of the existing trees
on the site, but is required to develop the site for urban residential purposes.
The applicant is not proposing to develop the site any differently than is anticipated through
the long range planning process completed by the City. Therefore, the requested variance
will not alter or change the planned development of the site.
e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
Response: The applicant did not construct the storm and sanitary sewer lines in 1985,
which has caused the necessity for the extensive filling and re-grading of the site. The
removal of the significant number of trees comes as a direct and unavoidable result of this
extensive filling and re-grading. Therefore, the factors are inextricably tied together and must
be considered in order for the site to be developed as allowed through the City's
Comprehensive Plan "Low Density Residential" designation and current R-4.5 zoning district.
Because neither the property owners nor the developer created these circumstances, a
variance is necessary and appropriate as a practical and economic solution to the problems.
Based on the amount of fill required to bring the site to a grade sufficient for utility service,
the project arborist calculates that 81 trees will need to be removed for this purpose alone.
Due to high number of trees that must be removed relative to the size of the site, the required
mitigation measures under the Code would be unreasonable and very expensive. The cost
of the mitigation would result in the proposed development being unfeasible without the relief
sought through the provisions of this variance.
F. The Proposed Mitigation Plan
Matrix Development Corp. proposes that it be allowed to mitigate for the trees removed from
this site by using a more philanthropic and community wide approach than the standard
mitigation process. The typical mitigation process requires that either replacement trees
having an equal number of caliper inches be planted on the subject site or at some location
or locations within the City, or that a substantial fee be paid in-lieu in accordance with a
stipulated fee schedule. The City's Community Development Code provides no specific
alternative methods of mitigation that may provide community benefits, equal to or greater
than those provided through the City's ordinance. However, there is authority given in the
(`nria fn thin Mrar+fnr fn allMer riierratinn in thin mathnrl of mifinafinn nnrl tha Qnnlir`ant is
requesting that this discretion be extended and applied to this application (see
18.790.060.D.3).
If the variance requested to grant relief for those trees removed as a direct result of having to
fill the site to compensate for the elevation of the adjacent sanitary and storm sewers is not
granted, the developer would have to mitigate for a full 50% of the 81 total trees that must be
removed in development of the site. These trees have a combined caliper inch total of 1,416
inches, requiring mitigation of 708 caliper inches. While the City's ordinance provides for
actual tree planting as the preferred mitigation method, the number of trees (assuming an
• •
average 1" caliper replacement tree) that would be required to be planted would require
approximately 10 acres of vacant land in order to allow for tree growth, canopy cover, and
tree spacing that would accommodate for growth to maturity. (625 square feet per tree, using
a spacing of 25 x 25 feet, equals approximately 70 trees per acre. At 1" per tree, this would
result in 700+ trees on 10 acres). Use of this number of acres could include sites zoned for
urban uses, thus potentially removing these sites from the City's inventory of developable
properties.
The second option is payment in lieu of tree planting. Under the City's formula, this would
result in a payment of approximately $88,500 (i.e., 1,416 inches x 50% mitigation x $125 per
caliper inch), if no relief is granted for the direct impact of the prior construction and the
solution to that problem. When this potential mitigation payment is added to the cost of
purchasing the land, preparing it for urban residential development, and selling the finished
dwellings to buyers, the total cost spread over the proposed 19 lots simply makes the
development of the property unreasonably and unnecessarily expensive. The tree mitigation
alone adds $4,658 to the cost of each lot. The end result could be that the subject site is not
developed for urban residential uses under the City's "Low Density Residential" designation
on its Comprehensive Plan and the R-4.5 zoning. In addition, the City has no clearly stated
program for the use of the $88,500 mitigation payment, resulting in some uncertainty that it
will be used to plant new trees within the city.
Matrix Development Corp. therefore asks that a variance be -granted allowing those trees
that must be removed as a result of the required filling and re-grading of the site relating to
the adiacent sanitary and storm sewer elevations not be subject to the standard method of
mitigation as provided in the Code. These trees (requiring 708 caliper inches of mitigation,
based on a 50% mitigation factor) will instead be mitigated for in the following manner:
Matrix Development Corp. proposes the following mitigation plan for this site:
• Approximately 750 caliper inches of high quality, bare root trees will be
purchased by Matrix Development Corp. from a reputable nursery. These
trees will have an approximate caliper size of one (1) inch. These trees have
been selected as being very marketable and having a high rate of survivability.
These 750 trees represent the calculated mitigation requirement.
• These bare root trees will be purchased by Matrix Development Corp. and
donated to the Tigard High School Boosters, which will then sell the trees as
part of a fund raising program, with all proceeds being retained by the
organization for use in their sponsored programs.
• For the program to be successful, the species offered will need of species
annaalinn to the nPnpral nuhlir. fnr rPSiriPntial iisP Thp cnPCiPS will likely tanri
toward ornamental, shade and fruit trees with the ultimate selection of size
and species based on the fund raising organization's assessment of what will
most likely succeed in their sale.
• The sale will take place at a well publicized site within the City (such as the
high school), thus targeting City residents.
•
• Because these trees will be bare root stock, the sale will need to take place at
a time when these trees are 1) available from the nursery, and 2) their
survivability would be the greatest; most likely in the January through March
period.
• It is estimated that the proceeds would range from $15,000..to $20,000+,
based on wholesale prices for these trees ranging from $10 to $30 each; any
premium over wholesale will produce even more funds for the Boosters.
• The promotional .materials will clearly identify that the sale is a subsidized
event to promote the planting of trees within the City of Tigard and purchasers
of the trees will be asked to sign a statement pledging that the trees will be
planted within the City of Tigard.
• In addition to the tree sale by the Boosters, Matrix Development Corp. will
plant up to five (5) two-inch caliper trees on each of the 19 lots within the
subdivision, in addition to the required two (2) street trees. This will total up to
95 trees and 190 caliper inches (not including the required street trees) that
will count toward any mitigation requirement.
This proposed mitigation plan will result in a total of approximately 850 trees, and
more caliper inches (totaling approximately 750 + 190 = 940) than would be
required to be planted within the City of Tigard using the City's standard mitigation
program. This would be an overall ratio of total trees of over 10 to 1 and would
fulfill both the intent with the spirit of the City's Code.
NOTE: Based on the practical consideration of needing to conduct the
Tigard High School Booster's tree sale during the late winter-early spring
period, Matrix has provided the initial shipment of 310 trees to the Boosters
for their sale. The trees were delivered to the High School on Thursday,
February 20th. Matrix also provided $500 to the Boosters to aid in their
setup and promotional expenses to assure the sale's success. The
Boosters appointed Kris Homma to supervise the sale. She is particularly
well qualified in this effort as she is a District Conservationist with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and frequently works in re-forestation efforts.
Kris can be reached at 503-620-8048 (home).
LtlatllL t1Ul'It5 .7UJ:JJOOJUV 1"• .
• Emmons •
MooM■
■ ■
■ ■M■
' Monsoon
TRIX
' DEVELOPMENT
C RPO,ATION
' February 17, 2003
Tigard High Boosters
' c/o Kris Homma
16520 SW 93rd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97224
' RE: Tree Sale
' Dear Iris:
Enclosed is our check payable to Hans Nelson & Sons Nursery in payment of the first
310 trees which the Tigard High Boosters will be selling. I understand the grower will
deliver these trees to the Boosters on Wednesday, February 19''.
Our commitment is to provide 750 caliper inches of bare root trees to the Boosters in
' whatever time frame you are able to sell them. If you find you have the opportunity to
sell additional trees this spring, we stand ready to pay for them. Whatever cannot be sold
this year, we are committed to providing next year.
' We wish you luck and are pleased to sponsor this fund raising event for the school.
Sincerely,
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Craig `r Brown
Vice President
Enclosure: Check no. 25979
Morgan Tracy, City of Tigard / Planning Dept.
12755 SW 69th Ave., Suite 100
Portland, Orc`gun 97223
503.620.8080 - Tdrp6onc
503.59R.5'~J(10 -Tax
LEGEND HUMES 5UJ*!JtirjaUU P. e
• • PAGE
r 1
'a"' HANS NELSON & -SONS
nos2on DATE
am soNURSERY, INC. t~ 2/6/03
nursery 31020 S.E. Waybill Rd. • Boring, Oregon 97009
'PHONE: (5003) 663-3348 ACCOUNT Na.
CONFIRMATION 013100
s s
Matrix Development Corp. H Matrix Development Corp.
D 12755 SW 69th Ave., #100 p 12755 SW 69th Ave., #100
T Portland, Oregon 97223 T Portland, Oregon 97223
0 0
ORDER NO.
ORDER DATE
SHIP VIA
COMMENTS
TERMS
CUSTOMER P O. NO.
23155
1/27/03
Nelson Deliver
Cash in Advanc
ESTIMATED SHIP DATE
SALESPERSON'
ORDER RACED BY' =
-2/l/03 3/15/03
Dan Nelson
Craig Brown
QUANTITY
PRODUCT.DESCRtPT101+1
S=CESCRIPT[ON=:
UNIT PRICE; : '
;AMOUNT
20
Patmore Ash
20
Canada Red Chokecherry
20,
Snow Ftn. Cherry 5-1/2' graft, Reg.
1"
20
Royalty Fee, Snow Ftn. Cherry
20
Spring Snow Crabapple
1"
30
Kousa Dogwood, bare root
l/2"
20
Hedge Maple
1"
20
Deborah Norway Maple
3/4-
20
Maltese Cross Norway Maple
1"
20
Royal Red Norway Maple
1"
20
Autumn Blaze Red.Maple, Reg.
3/4"
20
Royalty Fee, Autumn Blaze Red Maple
20
Aristocrat Flowring Pear, Reg.
20
Royalty Fee, Aristocrat Flw. Pear
20
Chanticleer Flowering Pear, Reg.
i"
20
Royalty Fee, Chanticleer Fiw. Pear
30
Krauter Vesuvius Plum
3/4"
30
Thundercloud Flowering Plum
3/4"
Thank you for your crderI
- ,
TOTAL:
The plants on this order bearing plant patent numbers have been produced under license from the patent owners and propagation or reproduction of any of these
varieties without permission of the plant patent owner is in violation of the Plant Patent Law.
Orders are accepted an the condition that they shall be void should injury befall stock from hail. fire. frost, flood. drought, theft or any Act of God or any cause beyond our
control. All orders are accepted subject to errors in count and without Wally for non-performance due to stakes or labor shcrtapss. Any cancellation by the purchaser
must be made In writing and received by us prior to the January 1st preceding the originally requested shipping date. Ap cancellations after oaeember loth are
subject to a 10% charge of the original order amount No cence0atbns will be accepted after January tst. Any cost for boxing or baifing to be added. All shipments
travel at the risk and cost of the purchaser. Our responsibility kaases on delivery to the carrier. A SERVICE CHARGE OF t OF TI-w UNPAID BALANCE WILL BE
' ADDED MONTHLY TO ANY OVERDUE ACCOUNT.
•
•
Leiser Park Subdivision
Part Two - Narrative for Economic Hardship Variance
Using the outline provided by City staff, the applicant (Matrix Development Corp.) has
prepared information and responses to the items contained in the outline. Apparently, this
outline comes from the Institute for Local Self Govemment and may not be an official
codified requirement of the City of Tigard. As such, it is a suggested guideline for
addressing the issue of an economic hardship variance rather than a hard requirement.
However, the applicant is able to address all of the items specified in the outline.
Before proceeding with the addressing of the 12 criteria included in the general outline,
the applicant wishes to note that there are some serious deficiencies with the 12 criteria
that will not allow a meaningful picture of the total economic hardship. For example, there
is no criterion that considers the costs of improvements to the land to bring the site to a
marketable condition. This would include the construction of site infrastructure, expected
reasonable profit for the developer from .the sale of finished lots in the subdivision, cost of
extenuating economic circumstances (such as the payment in lieu for tree mitigation), and
comparison of the price of lots for sale in this subdivision, as adversely impacted by the
above costs, when compared to similar lots for sale in the vicinity or neighborhood. All of
these factors will be included in this discussion because they are highly relevant to the
discussion of economic viability of the project and resulting economic hardship for which a
variance is requested.
The date the applicant purchased or otherwise acquired the Property and from
whom.
Response: The site is composed of two separate properties, known as the
Kuentzle and Leiser properties. The Kuentzle property is 1.88 acres. Matrix
Development Corp. purchased it on August 22, 2001 from the Kuentzle family.
The Leiser parcel is 2.48 acres and is owned by Ms. Anne Leiser. This parcel is
under an option agreement with the balance of the purchase price to be paid upon
closing after successful approval of land use and development applications to the
City of Tigard.
2. The purchase price the applicant paid for the Property and the general terms of
any financing that is secured by the Property.
Response: The Kuentzle parcel was purchased for $319,339. This amount
was paid in cash at closing. The Leiser parcel is under an option agreement from
Ms. Anne Leiser. The agreed upon purchase price for this parcel is $335,000, to
be paid upon closing which was to occur upon the successful approval of land use
and development applications to the City of Tigard. This contract has now been
extended twice due to the difficulty of securing the approvals necessary for
development. Taken together, the site has a purchase price of $654,339.
3. The block and lot of any parcels either geographically contiguous to the Property
' or developable with the Property as a single unit and owned by the applicant, its
relatives or its affiliates at the time of application or within the 10-year period
before the filing of the application.
• •
Response: Neither Matrix Development Corp., any of its subsidiaries, nor any
other company or entity affiliated with Matrix Development Corp. owns or has any
interest in any parcel that is geographically contiguous with the site that would
permit further development in conjunction with the site as a single unit. In addition,
Ms. Leiser does not own or have any interest in any parcel that is contiguous to
her parcel.
4. The fair market value of the Property at the time the applicant acquired it,
describing the basis upon which the fair market value is derived, including any
appraisals done at or near the time.
Response: The fair market values / purchase prices of both the Kuentzle and
Leiser parcels were determined by comparable area sales, estimated development
costs and anticipated values of finished lots. Because Matrix Development Corp.
is in the business of land development, its experience has demonstrated that the
prices paid for the two parcels were both fair and reasonable, and within the
parameters of similar parcels in the vicinity that demonstrate similar characteristics
of size, location, physical characteristics, and the challenge of making a successful
project.
5. The general plan, zoning, or similar land use designations applicable to the
Property at the time the applicant acquired it, as well as any changes to these
designations that occurred after acquisition.
Response: The site, at the time of purchase, was zoned "Low Density
Residential", which is R-4.5, as contained in the City of Tigard Comprehensive
Plan. Since acquisition, there have been no changes to either the Comprehensive
Plan designation or the Zoning.
6. Any development restrictions or other restrictions on use, other than government
regulatory restrictions described in Paragraph 5 above, that applied to the Property
at the time the applicant acquired it, or which have been imposed after acquisition.
Response: The site was the subject of a sanitary sewer easement in 1991 to
serve the Raze Meadows development, but the sanitary line was installed at an
insufficient depths to serve the proposed development of the Kuentzle and Leiser
parcels. The tie in point was so shallow that a significant berm was constructed
over the pipe, where it crosses the Leiser parcel. The project engineer estimates
that it will require approximately 1,000 cubic yards of fill to be imported and 5,000
regraded on the site in order to remedy the situation so that the sanitary sewer and
storm sewer can serve all of the proposed lots. The fill that must be imported and
relocated on the site will greatly exaggerate the number of trees that must be
removed from the site. This is not a burden that should be placed on the applicant
/ developer.
7. Any change in the size of the Property since the time the applicant acquired it,
including a discussion of the nature of the change, circumstances and the relevant
dates.
Response: There has been no change in the size of the site since acquisition of
the Kuentzle parcel and the option agreement for the Leiser parcel. The site is,
and always has been, a total of 4.36 acres in size.
8. If the applicant has sold, leased or otherwise disposed of any portion of the
Property, or of any ownership right in the Property, or any portion of the Property,
a description of each instance, including any relevant dates, sales prices, rents,
and nature of the portion or interests in the Property that were sold or leased.
Response: Matrix Development Corp. has not sold or leased any portion of the
' site. A small residence on the Kuentzle property is now occupied, on a month-to-
month basis and without rent, to discourage vandalism.
' 9. Copies of any title reports or similar documents obtained at the time the applicant
acquired the Property and at any time of any disposal of all or any portion of the
Property as described in Paragraph 8 above.
' Response: The title reports for both the Kuentzle and Leiser parcels are
provided in this bound application packet.
10. Any offers to buy all or a portion of the Property that the applicant has solicited or
received, including the approximate date of the offer and offered price.
Response: Matrix Development Corp. has neither solicited nor received any
offers from any party to purchase any, or all, of the 4.36 acre site since the original
purchase of the Kuentzle parcel and the negotiation of the option agreement with
Ms. Leiser for the Leiser parcel.
11. The applicant's costs associated with the ownership of the Property, annualized for
each of the last five calendar years, including property taxes, assessments, debt
service costs (such as mortgage and interest costs), and operation and
management costs.
Response: Since acquisition of the Kuentzle parcel in August of 2001 and
execution of the purchase contract for the Leiser property in May of 2001, Matrix
has incurred costs (as of January 1, 2003) of $64,545 for planning, engineering,
maintenance, property taxes, interest, consultants and legal fees. Additional costs
for these fees and services continue to accrue.
12. Apart from any rent received from the leasing of all or a portion of the land, any
income generated by the use of all or any portion of the Property over the last five
calendar years. If there is any income to report, it should be listed on an
annualized basis along with a description of the uses that generate or have
generated the income.
Response: Matrix Development Corp. has not received any rent from its direct
ownership of the Kuentzle parcel, nor has it received any income from its indirect
ownership of the Leiser parcel as a result of the option agreement with Ms. Leiser.
There is no income to report by Matrix Development Corp. for any portion of the
site.
The 12 criteria contained in this outline do not provide for the opportunity to express the
aoolicant's costs of ourchasina. holding. and oreDarina the site for sale. nor anv
reasonable profit which the applicant should be allowed to obtain in recognition that the
private sector is fulfilling the public sector's plans for orderly and timely growth and
development. As such, the 12 criteria are inadequate and not allow the applicant to
clearly express the true economic hardship involved with the proposed development. The
applicant should be permitted the opportunity to express the economic hardship that it
must endure in purchasing, holding, and preparing the land for sale at a market price that
is competitive in the marketplace. Therefore, the applicant presents further economic
information in fairly simple form that identifies the true economic hardship it must endure
to bring this site into the marketplace.
• •
Estimated Market Value of Lots
• Price paid for the site:
Kuentzle parcel -
$319,339.
Leiser parcel -
335,000.
• Holding costs to date (taxes, cost of money, etc.)
64,545.
• Planning and engineering costs (projected remaining)
33,250.
• Cost of fill/earthwork to provide services to the proposed
lots
because of previous sewers/storm depths
(approximately 1,000 cu. yds. @ $10.00/cu. Yd.)
10,000.
• Estimated cost to complete site infrastructure and bring
19 lots to marketable condition
318,400.
• Fees, permits, bonds, appraisal, legal, consults, misc.
45,408.
• Financing costs
38,000.
• Profit and overhead @ 20% of investment
232,788.
Total costs: (pre-tree mitigation)
1,396,730.
Costs per lot at 19 lots
73,512.
• Estimated maximum market value of finished lots:
75,000.
Estimated Cost of Tree Mitigation
• Potential full tree mitigation payment without
variance approval (1,416" x 50% @ $125/inch) 88,500.
Mitigation cost per lot at 19 lots 4,658.
• Cost of Fund Raising tree sale for Tigard High School
(750 trees at a cost of $20/tree at 1" equivalent) 15,000.
Mitigation cost per lot at 19 lots 789.
• On site planting of 95 trees (5/lot x 2" caliper @ $125/in.) 23,750.
Mitigation cost per lot at 19 lots 1,250.
• •
Based on a prior commitment to Tigard High School, which was made in good faith as a
result of what Matrix believed at the time to be a bonafide agreement with the City, Matrix
has agreed to provide 750 caliper inches of bare-root trees to the school for use in a
charitable fund raiser for school programs. The program has been designed and
promoted in such a manner as to ensure to the highest practical degree that the trees will
be planted within the City of Tigard. This program will provide approximately 10 trees that
will be planted for each tree that is removed in the course of development of the site.
Additionally, Matrix has proposed guaranteeing through a bond or similar manner that
each lot will have 5 additional trees planted as part of the home construction. These are
in addition to the required street trees, which will number approximately 40. Combined,
the school's tree sale, the on-site plantings and the street trees will result in approximately
883 trees being planted to off-set the 81 being removed to develop the site. Under the
scenario proposed by Matrix Development Corp., there will be approximately 11 times the
number of trees planted within the City of Tigard than are removed from the site.
The difference between the cost to develop lots in Leiser Park and other for-sale lots in
the immediate vicinity is significantly impacted by the factors cited above, of which the
"Potential tree mitigation payment" is a major factor. The end result would likely be a
competitive disadvantage for Matrix Development Corp. in the marketplace. In fact, even
if the additional cost of tree mitigation is removed from the equation, the result is an
anticipated average lot price for Leiser Park that will place Matrix Development Corp. on
the upper end of the scale for lots of similar characteristics in the immediate
neighborhood.
Therefore, to impose any tree mitigation payment in lieu of onsite planting would be to
price this site nearly out of competitive contention in today's housing market. As such, a
variance to waive the costs of any tree mitigation, would allow Matrix Development Corp.
to be at least marginally competitive with its lot prices, given that the City's Code restricts
development to a maximum of 19 lots on this site.
Reduced Plan Set
0
0
LEISER PARK
i
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I ~
I
I
I
n I
s~
I I
I I
WJ I
TL 1100 II
I
I F
I I
I I
I I
i I
I I
TL 200
TL 100
I
LOT 6 LOT 9 Ftt1 U LOT 10 00 D S
' ilI MRRA( Vd
I N i'I 6 7 8
I
-
' ' I f--------1------- y-
I I I I I 1 1 1
LOI 5 I LoT 7 Lore I~' 1 i I
LOT 11 ' LOT 12 ' LOT 13 1 I 1
I I I I I LOT 14 I LOT 15
I
1-t----I---- 1E
- - uL 1
TL 8800
I ~ it
I
I TL 8900 TL 2800
121
V
d
ool-
1
1
_--r--_-
1
_
-_--T-
- -
I
I
LOT 1
I
I I
LOT 2
I
LOT 3 I LOT 4 I S I
I
I
I LOT 19 I
I
LOT 18 I
I
LOT 17 I LOT 16
I
I
I I
N
1 " = 50'
F~H
O C
Rk
SW BONITA RD.
81T'E
f
'
03
A
]
"I
~I I I
SW ASHFO 0 ST DST.
VICINITY MAP
NTS
SI TE - INFORMA TION
PROJECT TEAM
SHEET INDEX
CO -
COVER SHEET
GENERAL LOCATION
CIVIL ENGINEER DEVELOPERS
Cl -
TOPO / EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
A 4.34 ACRE SITE LOCATED SOUTH OF BONITA RD.
SR DESIGN LLC MATRIX OEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
C2 -
PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN
BETWEEN 79TH AND 81ST
8196 SW HALL BLVD., #301 12755 SW 69th Ave. p00
O
VERTON. OR 97008 PORTLAND, OREGON 97223
C3 -
CIRCULATION PLAN
CONTACT: STEVE ROPER CONTACT: CRAIG BROWN
PHONE: (503) 469-U13 RHONE: (50.3) 620-OM EXT. 222
C4 -
TREE REMOVAL PLAN
LEGAL LOCATION
FAX: (507) 469-= FAX: (SW) 396-6900
C5 -
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
nr
SURVE TVR 0WINERJ
PQ A
f- -
' DV 70T11 PL A-11 D. PROFILE
rnL. LLIIImIHNIVAnnDI i 9 u, nn a
S.W. 1/4 OF N.W. 1/4, IN SECTION 12, T2S., RIW.,
WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN IN THE CITY OF TIGARD.
G k L LAND SURVEYING, INC. MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
ANNE LOSER TRUSTEE
C6 -
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
8116 S.W. NIMBUS AVE. 12755 SW 69th Ave. X100
6009 SW PENDLETON CT.
C7 -
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING PLAN
TAX MAP AND TAX LOT 2SI12B000300
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008 PORTLAND, OREGON 97223
PORTLAND. OR 97221
AND
PHONE. 541.0308 CONTACT: DING BROWN
RHONE: (503) 620-6000 EXT. 222
CONTACT: ANNE LEISER
PHONE: (503) 245-0547
S.E. 1/4 OF N.W. 1/4, IN SECTION 12, T2S., R1'W.,
FAX: (503) 598-6900
WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN IN THE CITY OF TIGARD.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
T
28W
SITE INFORMA TION
TAX MAP AND
AX LOT 2SI128DO
ZONING: R-4.5
TOTAL SITE ACRAGE: 4.34 ACRES - 189,031 SO. FT.
AVERAGE LOT AREA: 7,505 SO. FT.
BENCHMARK
NET AREJU
INIMUM LOT AREA: 6,000 SO. FT.
M
MARK STAMPED: '1503' (CITY OF PORTLAND B.M.)
ZONING LOT AREA: 7,500 SO. FT.
BRASS CAP ON TOP 0 F A IRON PIPE, ON HALL BLVD., 70 FEET SOUTH OF
MAX DENSITY: 19 LOTS
MINIMUM DENSITY: 15 LOTS
THE CENTERLINE OF BONITA ROAD, 33 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE
OF HALL BLVD., 2 FEET NORTH OF A TELEPHONE POLE, 32 FEET NORTH
OF THE NORTH END CONCRETE CULVERT UNDER DRIVEWAY AT APT. AT
14545 S.W. HALL BLVD.
ELEVATION: <178.88 PORTLAND)>
177 .51 U
~r
L)
~
O
"1
S
Q
~
N
M
8
S
J'.
k
N
c,al.
2
a~U
~ oou~ y~
%
Of
O
O
2
>
W
a
J
Q
O
a
z
Li
00
O>
0
a
0
0
N
Fw
a
~
a
o
J
8
LU
0
x
f
d~ i
2 W
H J
U I... tL
O W
cQc VI
CL ` U
0
V
! I
to
1 °
n
In
1 O
J QO?
J mph
4~ p m
OF = 2
A' (n
NyOI.
.0 m~
OJ 80990 v
@ ~o O O P
a 4t
O
~
-
A
lip
6~P~ 4~..~2 3tla
yy y
~Yy ~Yp al N''P
S
yL
A
Y♦
~a
i
°t 4N. di
11III
'F
21Y
0
{
0
`s i T.
a
ao° ° g
a V
IWIRS. p"""
N grsa't cs 19 g1 444QYP
*1 NZt
P ~ ~ 1
~ ~'yCr1 p'S 4 ~ u
H ~ Q9xQQ Qg
G r 2•~~A
~ 111•••
T~Z.S ~ ~ 1 1 >
O w~ 1p~^ { ~4~, ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ y ~
3a twit ~ -
PrQ'g s
S N
So~s°~ -g4
R
lit
16
~c IS1,111
PROJECT NO-
Mow
CASt r 1,...
5R Des~'~ L1.C A~ _
- 30t PLAN
8LV0• S g11Ne+
8196 SW HALL
EA~ERTON, •OR 92 308FUt: (sos} tb9'1 W
B
PNOHE~ (W)
r
00 C00W
low
t PAS
p~LOPMEt~[t
LEISER OREGON
TIGARD. PORTLAND, OR
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP.
O~
o
0
QESCRIPTION
GATE
NO'
ATE: 11 25
OES EO'
FILE: SR
O1tA1NN:
m4FCKE0:
)(REF:
tS1129 V
ref'"
= U N
v~ W
Q ~ 9YY
N'de!
N
I
I I
I
~ I
1
I
I
:I
I I '
I
I
TL 1100
I
I
R•16.0•~
I
I
I
1 211
i
2C.d
I I
TL 200
1 100
/ r
9Ae
Jar
0 _ td anon EASE-I GJ
libel
sr~:i I
1 a0 S
~I LOT X01 1
&142. sq.ft.
-7 LOT 6 1 ;I~ 7,656. t.
E 1;vR
I'u 7,225. sq.It. bl a Ela 91ARE9 ACCESS
V
' f al al 20' 91AR[0 ACCESS 7 8 9
PRTVAIZ UTI OI1HA: _ 1
Lo
tt EASEMENT - II411i EA9fl01~
1U
I nAd =sib-- 1 SAI' I
0.1
I _T I I
I ~ I 1 I r---II'I'-----F--- ~---"_1---_. -1 Z
I I I _ 1 EXISTING 15' 1 I I 1 STM~ l
SANITARY SEVER Is
2r I I EASEMENT TO BE EASEMENT
I a I I (PRlpOSEO m~
01 ~
LOT 5 bl LOT 7 bl LOT 8 I I" LOT 11 ~I LO 2 ~I LOT 13 ~I LOT 14 vi .I
~I 7.366. sgll, g1 7,IN2. sq.ll. g V la 7,365. sq.it. 1 1 1 LOT 15
i
~I i i 7,368 Sq•It. -I 7,369. aq.it. 7,392 salt. ^I 7,361, eq•II. I ~nl
7,353. sq.f1. .I I
I I I I N I I I I I I N
1 I W P.U.E. (rn) I 'f1,'\~ ' I I I S.W. LGSM ILK I1
~ _ ~r _G~ _l~._ 60.9' - ~~-69.0' 69.9~~ AAO•~__1 ~ _ 1
R.IAd I I I
a21J I
- - _ 50.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
2101 R.16.0, I I R•16.d R.IAd
L_21l I I L4 1Y L•25.1
7 5 ee-r ~6SY_-_ ____5 2.4 1 lG Y 667 _ AA!
I 1 L, P.UE. (rn) 1 I I I cc PALL Imo) 1 1
1 1 I ~.d I I 1 30' WS*O
fl I y~ I~ I I ( ARC
LOT 1 ` LOT 2 «I LOT 3 I LOT 4 I I 71 I j I LOT 19 I LOT 18 l LOT 17 LOT 16
of 7,372, sq.11. 9~ 7,374. Sq.ft. $1 7,379. 6411. $i 7,479. sq.ll. I tli I ~aI 6,09& salt. 7,379. 6R.ft. 1 7,374 6q.ft. l 8,226. 6411,
I I I 1 EIOSTINc ,B I I I
1 I ~I I'"SANIAR7 SEER 1
6µI I I I I ~I I 1 EASEMENT 10 SE 1 I I
I 1 I I I I=) I I 1
$I I
R~ZIE
TL 8800
11
TL 8900 I '
1~ ~ yl
TL 2800
LEGEND
- - - - - - - EXIST UTILITY EASEMENT LINE
- - - PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
0 ~0 n0'
I
h
w2-1
(n
Qo2
m01N
J ~
~q
Q
b~
Oi Q
bm~
v
1
o ~
T \
~U
C
0
Q
Q 0
~ 0 a
d
A It
ii p U
d
1- 0
D
X
4
2 W
J
U ~ W
O lz
'Q W z g
a ~ v a Q,
SIN. WJWA AD.
I ~ I I~
I I I j
I I I
Ti. 1180 I L I 1 I n 10
1
I i
I 1
my I I ..I I I
a
TL 1 Lv3 I I:.. R I
TL 3300
Ti. 200 to
Imo: 7AI
5
I. 1 0 I
LOT 6 LOT 9 I LOT 10 TL 3400 A A W 0
II 6 7 8 9 a
TL 1202 ' . , TL 50 TL 3600 TL 3'l00! TL 3800
I1 f _ - --r- T- -T--- 1
'.1 I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I t~. ~i
LOTS I LOT 7 I LOT 6 I LOT 11 I I I I I 1 1 ~:::I_
I ~ I i i ~ , ~ LOT 12 ~ LOT 13 i LOT 10 ~ LOT 1S ~ I.:;I 1<
1 'I
~I 1[:: t 1:::1
I', I I I I I I I I '
E-
TL 1100 ; SNP ANNE
I.Ep 7.m 1.00 .wo 9.00 I.OO
r
ro:
Us' I-:r j.:I I I I I I L I ' 1 .I
I I:? 1~ I I I~ I I I I,
YY I3
...I LOT I I LOT 2 I LOT 3 I LOT U I LOT 19 I LOT 16 I LOT 17 I LOT I6 1
f-. I 1
II I i i i L i i i I.}.I
t
---------------•j=-~----- ---------------J------
x TL 8900 1 ..1.1
X 7900 TL. 8800 12 TL 2700
TL 7800
TL 9000
8I '
i I
I I n 8600 TL 9100
TL 8400 TL 8500
' TL 9200
TL 9300
TL 2700
fL 1000
TL 1100
TI.. 1200
TL 1300
o• - so 10U'
LEGEND
- - - PROP. CENTENUNE
PROP. PROERTY LINE
PROP. CENTERLINE
MOP. CURB k GUTTER
I - DENOTES ALLOWABLE
WAif1C FLOW LO'I 00100001
I ::j - DENOTES E1OA1OIC ASPLULI
L I
o ~
yU
o
°
$
a
N
c
Q
rc
A
k
Ln
N
i
N
u~
c
u
u
&
~
u,
s
=
n
Q
w
0
O
Q
O
4 0
z CL
0 0:
p U
w
X_
m
F
Q
d
z~ 4 g
Q N Q
O a ~ tai a ~
i
N
1 0
teary
m 1
J
$g
I
p (A
L~
~ mm~
m
m
H
100 V014N0004N_ O
J NUN m N~ 44N ~01N(NJI
0 10101010 O O V V V Q
4N0 VNyI {N, IO {{N,, VIO {N,_ T
-SItrOi4N{/+4NU00 to
O
V V V V V V 0101010101 01 O
~~10VO1A♦N100 V01_0,.,
A
. N N N N N N was,
Al
JN NNNN-1010010101010 =
avoll~It~1a,_00V4pua.tr
O
JwNwNNNNNNNN{,N{,,,,,
OO V01~1+i 4N~S100)01 YI
.J.I1NNN~II Np1NNNNNNNN{N{//,,
A~41V OD0{OA4NU010 VUI
J4{rlU {p,, {p~1Np 1NpNNN
JI OOO{A ODV N{IIN VU~
~~~S~rr~ki5m~amal~
ONpN pNp pNp ONpN•~""
/N_01007VO,utAN _ OV A
94-HU 010001N_0
ti
O
cl)
r
_a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CO
~ 00
Q0
0
a
14 c
J
J~ g
II
1 I
1 I 1 ' !*f
J
I 0
0
1
r 1
- c IF--
O
• 1
00
T-
i
0
1
IV
Q
0
vx~T~~ F
VV o'4pf
S
1
1
I
W
1
1
I
1 ~ ~ E
1 a CO
1 a
-
I
21 1
°V
o
I
I
I I
I
1
1 1
1 1 Y J
•
O
ON
ON
IS 2S
A
A
2S 25
A
A
\\Tllf///
ti
~
ti ti
pp
9
pp
V
~ ti
pp
oo
9
~
~
9
m
~
O
g
0
o=1
g A
m
$
og
o~
g A
~
g g
~ g
A
~
~
~
A A
A A
1~i,
1m.,
A
PROJECT NO.
TpCC Nw,
~IGG
/1
DATE NO. DESCRIPTION I BY
-
MAT001
L
A
F
Pe
U3SM
~i
SR Design LLc
CASE FILE NO.
• ' "
CPJGPNXRM SLWK>M
8196 SIN HALL BLVD., STE. 301
M65 SW 79TH AVE
QA 1a
DESIGNED: SR
DATE: 11125102
SHEET Of
BEAVERTON, OR 97008
PLAN
TIGARD
OREGON
D
DRAWN: SR
FlLE SR
C4
PHONE: (30,7) 169-1213 FAX. (30.7) 169-8333
TREE
,
E1fPIRE512-31 2
CHECKED:
xREF:
8
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP. PORTLAND, OR
APPROVED.
?S112B00Z800
/
z~
r7 I
7 1
00
00
C~
CJ
d
r'+
1
N
V-
~i \ O
on 'D 1
A
{J
F
t
t
a
4
R
E
a
1 q
E
O k --4
L'A r-
C3
1
I
it
a
i
i
q
E
1 I '
0 III
~l
I `
1 ~ t
v
o g p g~ g~ Q~
A
A
- DESCRIPTION
DATE N0
L~Lc
SR Del
301
BSS3
8196 SW HALL 897008 ST
(503) r69-
BEA~RT`O~.N~. 69-12'3 FAX' )
110 C.
~ .u
HAW
PROJECT N0. PAS 1a
MATp01 LSgS
~Q~ CORES 12-31
CASE FILE N0. A4665 SW / "
IIGARD. OREGON
DEVELOPMENT CORP. PORTLAND. OR
PLAN&POFlE MATRIX
go WK I
BVC4 •2.b
f
.P
:S v
F
w
8
m
8
48S~S
Y°
1{O~Nti
sN
gDY-
S
7N..
1 N -
0
S
>
PROJECT NO,
MAT001
PRELUNARY Q
STREET PLAN
O
DATE NO. DESCRIPTION BY
SR D
in
AND PROFILE
LLC
e
CASE FILE NO.
USSEI
R PAW
y
8196 HALL BLVD., STE. 301
tE
9665 SW 79TH A
BEAVERT RTON, OR 97008
PHONE
(303
46
PLAN
~7 •G
!1
s QA,•
DESIGNED: SR
DATE 12131102
SHEET OF
:
)
9-1213 FAX.• (303) 469-6333
PLAN/PROFlLE
TIGARD, OREGON
C. L
DRAWN: SR
FILE.' SR
C
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP. PORTLAND
OR
EXPIRES 12-31
CHECKED:
XREF,
~
,
APPROVED:
2SI12SO02800
/
- - -
► 00
E ;y#Ij i 0
r
I
1 - SL`s/V~L
00+9
I-
d+w :4`.~exeHR-mw~ilis .
I rT-
E A
I~
i
i
E
i
I
si
TI T nri
~i
?E
z
IL
IL
U
H
0
z
LEGEND
-
EXIST STORM LINE
........a
EXIST SANITARY LINE
---o---
EXIST WATER LINE
0
EXIST CATCH BASIN
EXIST STORM MANHOLE
EXIST SANITARY MANHOLE
EXIST FIRE HYDRANT
-So-
PROP. STORM LINE
SS .
PROP. SANITARY FORCE MAIN
. w
PROP. WATER LINE
p
PROP. CLEANOUT
■
PROP. CATCHBASIN
®
PROP. STORM MANHOLE
PROP. FIRE HYDRANT
I
i 3 Ils!i
i
I it
3
u3-It Ijl
1
ao l i j1 ~
('3 I II I
iu3 j1
tl ~I 11
ui S I
f8 I'
ii3•j'f 1
TL 1 i 00 vl C~ I
1
I
E
,r 3
0
W
U
m
M
a
oo~
t
w
O
J
Q O
~ 8 a
d
CL o
O 0
C w
a
0
U,
0
x
2
1-
o Q
a
2
W
J
vi
u
d
F
a
tn~
N 4
. QE:
q
O
n
0' W
OD Rf
It= m m
T`
r.w~ Q p S.W. 815T AVE.
-d - t---s
77 77 7 7 77
<
- - - - F--- I
I Imo,
0 I' I I
'Y~ 1 O
1 ~
1 I 1 0
r*~ ---------I; ` 0
C) o I I ' 1 0
1
N 'I
r I I r I
J21 TRACT A T
to T
cz ~I I ~I 1
°
1 1 r I I r
I .I ! I o 1
frx
- ' I
S.w 80TH _ AVE.
0
I cry
~
1 r 1~ 11 N I
I 1
G 1
---------t-~ I ' I o I cp y'
s I, 'I I !
00 f 1 m
~ I I
~ I ~I r 14 ~
I _ I 0
A•.•• I o
%
a~ II •--~---~--1 , ' I s ~i I Os
1 0 ~ I LIM WATER TRACT -sib
/
0
s
0
SR Design LLc
owrta~c - aA~.«c S RW"NC
8196 SW HALL BLVD., STE. 301
BEAVERTON, OR 97008
PHONE; (50.7) 469-1213 FAX.- (303) 469-BSS.!
PROJECT NO.
MAT001
CASE FILE NO.
PLAN
LANDSCAPE
m ' )K 3:E
1 1
z
gig
r A. e
K
6./1NI.W/' K AM LK*ff VC
LEIS PARK
W65 SW 7911-1 AVE
TIGARD, OREGON
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP. PORTLAND, OR
A p--",
y.•u 4
U C.
EXPIRES 12-31102
DATE NO.
DESCRIPTION BY
D£SCNEO: SR
OATS: !21 OJ
SHEET
DRAWN: SR
FlLE: SR
CT
CHECKED:
XREh
APPROVED:
2S112BD02800
Drainage Report
I*
m sm an No m mmin ~ ' w ~ m mas. = w no m m
• •
Leiser Park
Drainage Report
City of Tigard
January 21, 2003
LEISER PARK
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
Drainage Report
January 21, 2003
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the sizing of a detention facility for the
downstream capacity release rate for the existing and proposed site conditions, quantify
runoff, and evaluate water quality and detention requirements of the proposed Lesier Park
water quality facility. Based on Chapter 3 of the CWS Design and Construction
Standards and the Tigard Public Works Construction Code, the rate of runoff from the
developed site during a 25-year recurrence interval storms shall not exceed the rate of
runoff in which 1 foot of freeboard must be provided for the downstream catch basins.
The catch basins of concerns are located in Fanno Creek Drive north of Bonita.
Additionally, water quality shall be designed to accommodate runoff from 100% of the
newly created impervious surfaces.
Pre-Development Conditions:
The site is located west of the existing SW 79th Avenue and south of Bonita Road. The
existing site is currently vacant with a house located on the parcel fronting SW 79th. The
existing sites drainage is via infiltration. In the past the site drained from the southwest
corner to the northeast and crossed 79th in a culvert. Once Mara Woods was allowed to
fill the corner and cut of the natural drainage channel, run-off from the off-site contributing
basin, Raze Meadows, ponded and ultimately infiltrated on-site. Raze Meadows currently
drains into a pipe which dumps onto the west side of the proposed development. The
water is currently un-detained and un-treated. This water from Raze Meadows will have
to be routed to the detention and water-quality for the proposed site. Then the water will
run through the existing pipe located in 79th and end up in Fanno Creek. The pervious
area curve number (CN) used is equal to 78, representing a combination of woods and
lawn areas.
Pre-development site characteristics & runoff summaries:
Area (1) Area (2)
Impervious Area: 1.07 ac (CN=98) Impervious Area: 0.12 ac (CN=98)
Pervious Area: 1.75 ac (CN=78) Pervious Area: 1.53 ac (CN=78)
6125 =1.64 cfs 025 = 0.67 cfs
Area (4)
Impervious Area: 0.46 ac (CN=98)
Pervious Area: 0.67 ac (CN=80)
025 = 0.74 cfs
Area (5)
Impervious Area: 1.05 ac (CN=98)
Pervious Area: 0.62 ac (CN=80)
025 = 1.26 cfs
Area (6) Area (7)
Impervious Area: 1.16 ac (CN=98) Impervious Area: 0.26 ac (CN=98)
Pervious Area: 1.41 ac (CN=84) Pervious Area: 0.14 ac (CN=84)
6125 =1.74 cfs 025 = 0.30 cfs
1
1
r
Leiser Park
Drainage Report
City of Tigard
January 21, 2003
i
•
Post-Development Conditions:
The post-developed site conditions and areas are shown on the Exhibit Basin Map. The
site is to be developed with residential attached housing.
Post-development site characteristics & runoff summaries:
Area (3) Leiser Lane Area (3) Property to North
Impervious Area: 0.88 ac (CN=98) Impervious Area: 0.81 ac (CN=98)
Pervious Area: 1.72 ac (CN=84) Pervious Area: 1.56 ac (CN=78)
6125 =1.81 cfs 6125 =1.30
Dete Area (3) 79th
Impervious Area: 0.12 ac (CN=98)
Pervious Area: 0.22 ac (CN=84)
G125 = 0.23 cfs
Detention for the proposed development consists of a pond that has a water quality swale
located within its bottom. The pond was designed assuming the water quality volume is
full and the detention was staged within the swale. The peak stage for the detention
facility is shown in the table below.
1
1
1
1
Detention Calculations:
The impervious area for the lots was assessed at a rate of 2,640 square feet. The
remainder of the impervious area was calculated from the actual public improvements.
The detention volume for the pond was calculated and is included in this report. A
summary of the results is shown below:
Leiser Park
cfs
Inflow Q25
5.33
Outflow
2.54
Q25
Peak
169.98 ft
Stage
Pe k
9,405 ft3
Vome
Top Pond
171.00 ft
SR Des~en_
Engineering-Planning-Surveying
Subject: WATER QVII41,11-Y CALCULA-RONS By: TP_P Date: 1-7-1 -03
Project No: M k roo l - L FISt__ 'PA iLv- Sheet: I of I
W ATM QMALlry SWALE
'__0 WA-t.er Ltw GTjj. = t oo F
- Swa Lt- SL15PC o• '5o r-1-
WI TDr+► D-M = 9 ~T
- -T QEA.'TVAVM'r D E PTri = O.2 3 FT_
S1 O E S LGPt< 1N T~~ATtmf~1T fk~EA = sj
1 - D~SGNA2GoLr = o.1la G~S
LJA,r 2- avlAuTI CAL(, LknoNS
' x 1..l. O. o w. E
U ca.
~41N. WA. Dlatti+.\IApQ VoLumE
- _ Z 8 3~+ Z - _
ALA
ir,nP s~
G r ° 0.3 iv1 X AQ 1A
WA.v llAlM1l~ ~o t ~mP
i WQ VOLAME _ (0.36 inn x 78, 3HL -fZ~~12 +n/JP4-
i
1V4.1 .Q. Vo wVri IA , A 00 scc - -
Z 3 50. 3 -F+3
k
WA 'r-mw - 2) 350.3 -~+S 11A11460 sew = ().I&, C s
i
i
r
i
8196 SW Hall Blvd., Suite 301 • Beaverton, OR 97008 • tel (503) 469-1213 9 fax (503) 469-8553
Leiser Park Water Quality Swale
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
Project Description
Project File
c:\haestad\fmw\project3.fm2
Worksheet
Water Quality Swale
Flow Element
Trapezoidal Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
1
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.240
Channel Slope
0.005000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
Bottom Width
4.00 ft
Discharge
0.16 cfs
Results
Depth
0.23
ft
Flow Area
1.11
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
5.86
ft
'
Top Width
Critical Depth
5.81
0.04
ft
ft
Critical Slope
2.569997 ft/ft
Velocity
0.14
ft/s
1
Velocity Head
0.32e-3
ft
Specific Energy
0.23
ft
Froude Number
0.06
Flow is subcritical.
1
101/21/03
09:30:39 AM
I
loom it')
l03` 6~01~ v
103 -136 sex. .
~11N1 E =
12, 21r Im 0 U-rg-s > Q M I N.
FlowMaster v5.11
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cross Section
Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel
Project Description
Project File
c:\haestad\fmw\project3.fm2
Worksheet
Water Quality Swale
Flow Element
Trapezoidal Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Section Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.240
Channel Slope
0.005000
fttft
Depth
0.23
ft
Left Side Slope
4.000000
H : V
Right Side Slope
4.000000
H : V
Bottom Width
4.00
ft
Discharge
0.16
cfs
0.23 ft
1
4.00 ft V
H 1
NTS
101/21103 FlowMaster v5.11
11:53:24 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1886 Page 1 of 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PRO OSED + ' -
RIPR.AP
ENE GY c)
DISSIPATOR I
L Q T 15 I (I
PR-0P-OSED -
_
-
W. Q. SW LE i
D TF-Kf10N
POND
N: it
PROPOSED I
/ R I P R A P
ENERGY
DISSIPATOR
6+00
Mr M M M IM~ M r M r M r M M M M M M
N16
6.03 ` I s
~4I N15
LI 6.03
N13 N14
(YL Weaver Way
5.73 2
I Nt
4.42 vti 5.73
N11
i l 4.79
SW Bonit 4.01
2.87 2.54
1 N
5.33 N7
~J
L 2.54
4.20 YNS 'N2 (]>e
N3 0.22
i4N4 N19
1tO SW 79th
1.64 SW Leiser Lane
(~)N2 2.60
1.64 1 sw else
N1
SWMM2000 Leiser Park Storm Design 11/26/02
Version 8.51 SCS 25 Year Hydraulics
copyright (C) XP Sdhware Ucenced To: Evaluation [42-850-9999] Page 1/1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
0
`N 111,
' b4YM
d• y +YQ~~9
b+y
tit it it it
i
'LYE Y~
Ile*
f ~60~ ~ / if~I6~~ F!
I
I
M r M M M M M M M M M M M M r r M i
XP-SWMM Hvdroloav Data&Result
Node
Sub area data
SCS Hydrology
Nodal Results
Node Name
Contributing area
Impervious %
Slope %
Width
SCS Curve Number
Time of Concentration
Initial Abstraction Depth
Total rainfall
Peak infiltration
Total surface runoff
Total surface runoff
ac
%
ft
min
in
in
in
in
cfs
N1
2.82
37.94
0.02
260
78
18
3.9
1.467
2.433
1.635
N2
-
-
N3
1.65
7.3
0.04
300
78
22
3.9
1.978
1.922
0.671
N19
2.6
34
0.02
200
84
10
3.9
1.174
2.726
1.813
N4
-
-
-
-
-
N5
2.37
34
0.02
100
78
20
3.9
1.536
2.364
1.302
N17
0.34
34
0.03
90
84
12
3.9
1.183
2.717
0.235
N20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N18
N6
N7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N8
1.13
41
0.03
150
80
10
3.9
1.302
2.598
0.744
N9
1.67
63
0.02
90
80
15
3.9
0.928
2.972
1.257
N10
-
-
-
-
N11
-
-
-
-
N12
2.57
45
0.06
250
84
24
3.9
1.031
2.869
1.737
N13
-
-
-
N14
V
0.4
65
0.03
60
84
22
3.9
0.76
3.14
0.303
N15
-
0
0
1
• •
Hvdraulics Calculations
Location
Drain Located On From Station To Station
Dischar a
Basin Area Imp. Area % Perv. CN TC Runoff
Drain Design
Pie Diameter Pipe Sloe Pie Ca acit Omax/Odes . Max Flow Max Veloci Vdesi n
Drain Profile
Length U str. Ground Elev. Downstr. Ground Elev. U str. I.E. Downstr. I.E.
Surcharge Information
Freeboard US Node Freeboard DS Node EGL US EGL DS
1
2
3
ac
%
min
cfs
ft
%
cfs
cfs
16
ft/s
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
It
ft
L1
N1
N2
2.82
37.94
78
18
1.635
1
1.5
4.364
0.375
1.635
8.22
5.556
168
184
182.21
179.52
177
3.947
4.94
180.053
177.698
L2
N2
N3
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
4.924
23.31
0.07
1.635
7.587
13.191
132
182.21
181.57
177
170.5
4.94
10.745
177.698
171.661
L3
N3
N4
1.65
7.3
78
22
0.671
1
1
5.146
0.506
2.602
4.901
6.552
316.7
181.57
174
170.367
167.2
10.745
4.555
171.661
169.597
L18
N19
N4
2.6
34
84
10
1.813
1
0.5
2.519
0.714
1.792
3.527
3.208
94
174.2
174
167.67
167.2
4.681
4.555
169.519
169.597
L4
N4
N5
-
-
-
1
0.507
3.663
1.147
4.195
5.313
4.664
132.25
174
175
167
166.33
4.555
5.834
169.597
169.22
L5
N5
N18
2.37
34
78
20
1.302
2
0.1
10.333
0.516
5.328
1.703
3.289
432
175
170
166.132
165.7
5.834
0.894
169.22
169.115
L16
N17
N18
0.34
34
84
12
0.235
1
0.5
3.639
0.061
0.22
1.546
4.633
109
174
170
166.445
165.9
4.894
0.894
169.106
169.115
L19
N20
N18
-
-
-
4.3
0
46.772
0.036
-1.681
0.014
0.427
96
175
170
165.7
165.7
5.894
0.694
169.106
169.115
L17
N18
N6
-
-
-
-
-
-
170
170
-
-
0.894
3.69
169.115
167.383
L6
N6
N7
1
0.5
3.639
0.697
2.535
5.006
4.633
99
170
168
165.695
165.2
3.69
2.403
167.383
166.204
L7
N7
N8
-
-
-
-
1
2.072
5.129
0.494
2.535
5.963
6.53
85.9
168
171.22
165.1
163.32
2.403
7.303
166.204
164.447
L8
NS
N9
1.13
41
80
10
0.744
1
0.95
3.473
0.825
2.867
4.51
4.422
127.32
171.22
172.76
163.22
162.01
7.303
9.714
164.447
163.31
L9
N9
N10
177
63
80
15
1.257
1
0.787
3.16
1.27
4.014
5.275
4.024
48.3
172.76
170.94
162
161.62
9.714
9.246
163.31
162.9
L10
N10
N11
-
-
-
1
9.525
10.996
0.508
4.788
10.76
14
74.75
170.94
163.72
161.28
154.16
9.246
6.958
162.9
158.48
1-11
N11
N12
-
-
-
-
1
1.602
4.509
0.992
4.417
6.877
5.741
105.5
163.72
156.79
154.09
152.4
6.958
1.32
158.48
155.862
L12
N12
N13
2.57
45
84
24
1.737
1
2.428
5.551
1.031
5.724
7.196
7.068
173.4
156.79
162.81
152.4
148.19
1.32
11.704
155.862
151.911
L13
N13
N14
-
-
1
0.449
3.45
1.659
5.724
7.216
4.392
113.5
162.81
156.76
148.15
147.64
11.704
7.033
151.911
150.535
L14
N14
N15
0.4
65
84
22
0.303
1
0.683
4.253
1.417
6.026
7.7
5.415
205
156.76
157.86
147.56
146.16
7.033
11.257
150.535
148.035
L15
N15
N16
-
1
2.48
8.104
0.744
6.027
1.301
10.319
200
157.86
143
145.96
141
11.257
1.357
148.035
14."
t
1
1
1
1
'
•
•
1/22/03 7:56:16
am
Sh
areware Release
page
1
MAT001
- Leiser
Basin 1-3
BASIN
SUMMARY
BASIN ID: Rlse
NAME: Releas
e Hyd for 25yr event
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
0.00 Acres
BASEFLOWS: 1.54 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE....:
TYPEIA
PERV
IMP
PRECIPITATION....:
3.90 inches
AREA..: 0.00 Acres
0.00
Acres
'
TIME INTERVAL.....
10.00 min
CN.... : 80.00
TC....: 5.00 min
98.00
5.00
min
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
0.20
TcReach - Sheet
TcReach - Shallow
L:
L:
70.00 ns:0.1
220.00 ks:27.
500 p2yr: 2.50 s:0.0200
00 s:0.0200
PEAK RATE: 1.54
cfs
VOL: 6.36
Ac-ft TIME: 490 min
BASIN ID: pre125
NAME: Basin
1 25yr event
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA.......:
2.82 Acres
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION....:
TYPEIA
3.90 inches
PERV
AREA..: 1.75 Acres
IMP
1.07
Acres
TIME INTERVAL.....
10.00 min
CN.... . 80.00
98.00
TC.... : 18.00 min
18.00
min
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
0.20
PEAK RATE: 1.64
cfs
VOL: 0.59
Ac-ft TIME: 510 min
BASIN ID: pre225
SCS METHODOLOGY
NAME: Basin
2 25yr event
TOTAL AREA.......:
1.65 Acres
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PRECIPITATION....:
TYPEIA
3.90 inches
PERV
AREA..: 1.53 Acres
IMP
0.12
Acres
TIME INTERVAL.....
10.00 min
CN.... : 78.00
98.00
TC.... : 20.00 min
10.00
min
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.65
cfs
VOL: 0.26
Ac-ft TIME: 510 min
'
BASIN ID: pst325
SCS METHODOLOGY
NAME: Basin
3 25yr event
TOTAL AREA.......:
5.31 Acres
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE....:
TYPEIA
PERV
IMP
PRECIPITATION....:
3.90 inches
AREA..: 3.45 Acres
1.86
Acres
TIME INTERVAL....:
10.00 min
CN.... : 81.00
98.00
TC.... : 11.00 min
11.00
min
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
0.20
1
TcReach - Sheet
L:
90.00 ns:0.1
500 p2yr: 2.50 s:0.0200
TcReach - Shallow
L:
170.00 ks:27.
00 s:0.0450
'
TcReach - Channel
PEAK RATE: 3.13
L:
cfs
600.00 kc:42.
VOL: 1.12
00 s:0.0050
Ac-ft TIME: 500 min
1
1
1
1
1
1
1/22/03 7:56:16 am
Shareware Release
MAT001 - Leiser
page 2
Basin 1-3
STAGE STORAGE TABLE
CUSTOM STORAGE ID No. pond
Description:
STAGE < STORAGE---- > STAGE < STORAGE---- >
(ft) cf --Ac-Ft- (ft) cf --Ac-Ft-
166.00 0.0000 0.0000 168.60 6100 0.1400
166.10 232.65 0.0053 168.70 6337 0.1455
166.20 465.30 0.0107 168.80 6574 0.1509
166.30 697.95 0.0160 168.90 6812 0.1564
166.40 930.60 0.0214 169.00 7049 0.1618
166.50 1163 0.0267 169.10 7289 0.1673
166.60 1396 0.0320 169.20 7529 0.1728
166.70 1629 0.0374 169.30 7768 0.1783
166.80 1861 0.0427 169.40 8008 0.1838
166.90 2094 0.0481 169.50 6248 0.1893
167.00 2327 0.0534 169.60 8488 0.1948
167.10 2561 0.0588 169.70 8727 0.2004
167.20 2796 0.0642 169.80 8967 0.2059
167.30 3031 0.0696 169.90 9207 0.2114
167.40 3266 0.0750 170.00 9447 0.2169
167.50 3501 0.0804 170.10 9689 0.2224
167.60 3736 0.0858 170.20 9931 0.2280
167.70 3971 0.0912 170.30 10173 0.2335
167.80 4206 0.0966 170.40 10415 0.2391
167.90 4441 0.1020 170.50 10657 0.2447
168.00 4676 0.1073 170.60 10899 0.2502
168.10 4913 0.1128 170.70 11142 0.2558
168.20 5151 0.1182 170.80 11384 0.2613
168.30 5388 0.1237 170.90 11626 0.2669
168.40 5625 0.1291 171.00 11868 0.2725
168.50 5863 0.1346 171.10 12117 0.2782
STAGE < STORAGE---- >
(ft) cf --AC-Ft-
171.20 12366 0.2839
171.30 12615 0.2896
171.40 12864 0.2953
171.50 13113 0.3010
171.60 13362 0.3068
171.70 13611 0.3125
171.80 13860 0.3182
171.90 14109 0.3239
172.00 14359 0.3296
172.10 14608 0.3353
172.20 14857 0.3411
172.30 15106 0.3468
172.40 15355 0.3525
172.50 15604 0.3582
172.60 15853 0.3639
172.70 16102 0.3696
172.80 16351 0.3754
172.90 16600 0.3811
173.00 16849 0.3868
173.10 17098 0.3925
173.20 17347 0.3982
173.30 17596 0.4040
173.40 17845 0.4097
173.50 18094 0.4154
173.60 18343 0.4211
173.70 18592 0.4268
STAGE < STORAGE >
(ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft-
173.80 18841 0.4325
173.90 19090 0.4383
174.00 19340 0.4440
174.10 19589 0.4497
174.20 19838 0.4554
174.30 20087 0.4611
174.40 20336 0.4668
174.50 20585 0.4726
174.60 20834 0.4783
174.70 21083 0.4640
174.80 21332 0.4897
174.90 21581 0.4954
175.00 21830 0.5011
175.10 22079 0.5069
175.20 22328 0.5126
175.30 22577 0.5183
175.40 22826 0.5240
175.50 23075 0.5297
175.60 23324 0.5355
175.70 23573 0.5412
175.80 23822 0.5469
175.90 24071 0.5526
176.00 24320 0.5583
0 0
1/22/03 7:56:16 am Shareware Release page 3
MAT001 - Leiser
Basin 1-3
STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE
MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. Orif.
Description:
Outlet Elev: 166.00
Elev: 166.00 ft Orifice Diameter: 6.8500 in.
STAGE
<--DISCHARGE >
STAGE
<--DISCHARGE >
STAGE
<--DISCHARGE >
STAGE
<--DISCHARGE >
(ft)
---CfS--
(ft)
CfS
(ft)
CfS
(ft)
CfS
166.00
0.0000
167.30
1.4518
168.
60
2.0532
169.
90
2.5146
166.10
0.4027
167.40
1.5066
168.
70
2.0923
170.
00
2.5467
166.20
0.5695
167.50
1.5595
168.
60
2.1307
170.
10
2.5783
166.30
0.6974
167.60
1.6107
168.
90
2.1684
170.
20
2.6096
166.40
0.8053
167.70
1.6602
169
.00
2.2055
170.
30
2.6404
166.50
0.9004
167.80
1.7084
169.
10
2.2419
170.
40
2.6710
166.60
0.9863
167.90
1.7552
169
.20
2.2778
170.
50
2.7012
166.70
1.0653
168.00
1.8008
169
.30
2.3131
170.
60
2.7310
166.80
1.1389
168.10
1.8452
169
.40
2.3479
170.
70
2.7605
166.90
1.2080
168.20
1.8887
169
.50
2.3822
170.
80
2.7897
167.00
1.2733
168.30
1.9311
169
.60
2.4160
170.
90
2.8187
167.10
1.3355
168.40
1.9726
169
.70
2.4493
171.
00
2.8473
167.20
1.3949
168.50
2.0133
169
.80
2.4822
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• •
1/22/03 7:56:18 am Shareware Release page 4
MAT001 - Leiser
Basin 1-3
LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY
MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAK-> OUTFLOW STORAGE
<___=====DESCRIPTION >(cfs)-_(cfs)--=id=_==id-_<=STAGE>-id--_(cfs)_VOL-(cf)
DETENTION POND 1.54 5.41 pond Orif. 169.98 1 2.54 9405.26 cf
.1 • •
Detention orifice sizing
Orifices English Units
' Civil Tools for Windows
(01-22-2003, 08:01:18)
Flowrate Area Coeff Headwater Center Tailwater
Cfs sf ft ft ft
2.540 0.255 0.620 4.000 0.000 0.000
1
1
1
1
180.0
' 170.0
160.0
150.0
' 140.0
N1 L1 N2 L2 N3 L3 N4 L4 N5
L5
MWL6 N7L7N8 L8 NMIM16111L11N12 L12 N13L13N14 L14
N15 L15 N16
O.O(D : 0.000-0: 0.00.00 Q : 0.00 0.00: 0.00.00
Q : 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.0): 0.00.00.00 0.00 0.000 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q : 0.00
0.00 Q : 0.00 0.00
D : 1.00 D : 1.50 D : 1.00 D : 1.00
D : 2.00
D : 1.00 D : 1.00 D : 1.00
D : 1.00
-4-168.00-0--4132.001,- -4 --316.70 0--4132.250--4
432.00
---►=99.00►-85.90-.4127.32►-►.4--►-105.50-X173.40♦-113.50►--205.00-
►-4-200.00-►
• . Untitled
Day [0] Time 00:01:00 Step 2
242.4 484.7 727.1 969.4 1211.8 1454.2 1696.5 1938.9 2181.3
ICING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,.SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TADLE 3.5.23 SCS 1VESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOF CURVE NUhIDERS
SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (Published by SCS In 1982)
Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land use for Type 1A
rainfall distributkn 244xxw storm duratlorL
CURVE NUMBERS BY
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
LAND USE DESCRIPTION
A 6 C D
Cultivated land(1):
winter condition
-88 91 94 95
Mountain open areas:
low growing brush and grasslands
74 82 89 92
Meadow or pasture:
65 78 85 89
Wood or forest land:
undisturbed
42 64 76 81
Wood or forest land:
young second growth or brush
55 72 81 88
Orchard:
with cover crop
81 88 92' 94
Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries,-
landscaping.
good condition:
grass cover on 75%
or more of the area
68 80. 86 90
fair condition:
grass cover on 50%
to 75% of the area
77 85 90 92
Gravel roads and parking lots
78 85 89 91
Dirt roads and parking lots
72 82 87 89
Impervious surfaces, pavemen4
roofs, etc.
98 98 88 98
Open water bodies:
lakes. wetlands, ponds,.etc...
100 100 1DO 100
Singie FamAy Residential (2)
Dwelling Un t/Gross Acre
% impervious (3)
1.0 DU/GA
15
Separate curve number
1.5 DU/GA
20
shag be selected
2.0 DU/GA
25
for pervious and
. 2.5 DU/GA
30
Impervious portion
3.0 DU/GA
34
of the site or basin
3.5 DU/GA
38
4.0 DU/GA
42
4.5 DU/GA
46
6.0 DU/GA
48.
5.5 DU/GA
50
6.0 DU/GA
52
.
6.5 DU/GA
54.
7.0 DU/G.~
58
Planned unit developments,
% Impervious
condominiums, apartments,
nVJ9 be computed
conlrnerclal business and
kWustrW areas.
..r r-vr a more oetaseo oestxlption of agrsWUXW taro use CLXV0 MlInDent roger to National Engineering
Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, Chapter 9,•August 1972
(2) Assumes root and driveway ttutoff Is directed Into street/storm system. '
(3) • -The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be In good condition for these curve numbers.
.3-5.2-3 2/89
C-1
120
1
' Soil name and
map symbol
Aloha:
I
Amity :
2
Astoria:
' 3E 3F _
Briedwell :
4B 5B 5C 5D
Carlton:
68 6C
Cascade:
7B 7C 7D 7E 7F
' Chehalem:
8C
Chehalis:
9 10
Cornelius
111B ' 11C 110, HE [IF
Cornelius part
' Kinton Part
Cornelius Variant:
12A 128 12C
' Cove:
13 14
Dayton :
'
Del
ena
16C
Goble:
17B I7C 17D 17E 18E 18F
Helv tia :
196 19C 19D 19E
Hembre:
20E 20F 20G
Hillsboro:
' 21A 21B 21C 21D
Huberly :
22
Jo3B
2
238 23C 23D 23E 23F
Kilchis :
24G:
' Kilchis part
Klickitat part
• •
SOIL SURVEY
TABLE 13 --Soil and
[Absence of an entry indicates the feature is not a concern See Glossary for descriptions of such
Hydro Flooding
logic
group Frequency Duration Months
C
None
C
None
B
Non
B
None
B
None
C
None
C
None
B
Common
C
None
C
None
C
None
D
Common
D
None
D
None
C
None
C
None
B
None
B
None
D
None
C
None
C None
B None
Brief I Nov Mar
Brief I Dec Apr
122 SOIL SURVEY
TABLE 13. Soil ax
Soil name and
Hydro-
Flooding
map symbol
logic
group
Frequency
Duration
Months
Klickitat :
25E, 25F, 25G
B
None
Knappa :
26
B
None
Labish :
27
D
Frequent
Very long
Dec-Apr
Laurelwood :
28B, 28C. 28D,28E,29E,29F
B
None
McBee:
30
B
Frequent
Brief
Nov-May
Melbourne:
31B, 31C, 31D, 31E, 31F
B
None
Melby:
32C,32D,32E,33E,33F,33G
C
None
Olyic:
34C,34D,34E,35E,35F,36G
B
None
Pervina:
36C,36D,36E,36F
C
None
Quatama :
37A, 37B, 37C, 37D
C
None
-
.Saum:
38B, 38C, 38D, 38E, 38F
C
None
Tolke :
39E, 39F
B
None
-
Udifluvents :
40
B
Frequent
Very brief
Nov-Apr
Verboort:
42
D
Frequent
Brief
Dec-Apr
Wapato :
43
D
Frequent
Brief
Dec-Apr
Willamette:
44A, 44B,44C,44D
B
None
Woodburn:
45A, 45B, 45C, 45D
C
None
Xerochrepts:
' 46F:
Xerochrepts part
B
None
Haploserolls part
C
None
147D:
Xerochrepts part
D
None
Rock outcrop part.
J
1 This mapping unit is made up of two or more dominant kinds of soil. See mapping unit description for the composition and
behavior of the whole mapping unit.
I:
0 0
'
. •
'
Infiltration + Evaporation +
Surface Runoff + Snow removal +
Water remaining in Surface Storage +
'
Water remaining in Snow Cover......... 2.209548E+05
Total Precipitation + Initial Storage. 2.201414E+05
3.914
3.900
'
The error in continuity is calculated as
* Precipitation + Initial Snow Cover
* - Infiltration -
*Evaporation - Snow removal -
*Surface Runoff from Watersheds -
*Water in Surface Storage -
*Water remaining in Snow Cover
Precipitation + Initial Snow Cover
Percent Continuity Error
-0.370
* Table R6. Continuity Check for Channel/Pipes
* You should have zero continuity error *
if you are not using runoff hydraulics *
Inches over
cubic feet
Total Basin
Initial Channel/Pipe Storage....... 0.000000E+00
Final Channel/Pipe Storage 0.000000E+00
0.000
0.000
Surface Runoff from Watersheds 1.458506E+05
2.584
Groundwater Subsurface inflow 0.000000E+00
0.000
Evaporation Loss from Channels 0.000000E+00
0.000
Channel/Pipe/Inlet Outflow 1.458506E+05
2.584
'
Initial Storage + Inflow 1.458506E+05
2.584
Final Storage + Outflow 1.458506E+05
2.584
* Final Storage + Outflow + Evaporation - *
* Watershed Runoff - Groundwater Inflow - *
* Initial Channel/Pipe Storage
*
'
* Final Storage + Outflow + Evaporation
Percent Continuity Error..
0.000
# Table R9. Summary Statistics for Subcatchments #
Note: Total Runoff Depth includes pervious & impervious area
Pervious and Impervious Runoff Depth is only the runoff from those two areas.
Subcatchment........... N1#1 N3#1
N19#1
'
N5#1
Area (acres)........... 2.82000 1.65000
2.60000
2.37000
'
Percent Impervious..... 37.94000 7.30000
34.00000
34.00000
Total Rainfall (in).... 3.90000 3.90000
3.90000
3.90000
Max Intensity (in/hr).. 0.93990 0.93990
0.93990
0.93990
Pervious Area
Total Runoff Depth (in) 1.51023 1.78192
1.79942
r
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
r
•
1.56010
Total Losses (in)......
1.46651
1.53621
Remaining Depth (in)...
0.00000
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
1.01466
0.85940
Total Impervious Area
Total Runoff Depth (in)
0.92327
0.80369
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.62031
0.44272
Impervious Area with depression storage
Total Runoff Depth (in)
0.00000
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.00000
0.00000
Impervious Area without
depression storage
Total Runoff Depth (in)
0.00000
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.00000
0.00000
Total Area
-
Total Runoff Depth (in)
2.43349
2.36379
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
1.63497
1.30212
Unit Runoff (in/hr)....
0.57978
0.54942
Subcatchment...........
N17#1
N12#1
Area (acres)...........
0.34000
2.57000
Percent Impervious.....
34.00000
45.00000
Total Rainfall (in)....
3.90000
3.90000
Max Intensity (in/hr)..
0.93990
0.93990
Pervious Area
Total Runoff Depth (in)
1.79352
1.57821
Total Losses (in)......
1.18255
1.03053
Remaining Depth (in)...
0.00000
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.15487
0.95525
Total Impervious Area
Total Runoff Depth (in)
0.92393
1.29126
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.07978
0.78157
Impervious Area with depression
storage
Total Runoff Depth (in)
0.00000
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.00000
0.00000
1.97775
0.00000
0.62193
0.14032
0.04898
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.92225
0.67091
0.40661
N8#1
1.13000
41.00000
3.90000
0.93990
1.53292
1.30184
0.00000
0.43892
1.06525
0.30501
0.00000
0.00000
•
1.17361
0.00000
1.19661
0.92697
0.61644
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
2.72639
1.81305
0.69733
N9#1
1.67000
63.00000
3.90000
0.93990
1.09975
0.92770
0.00000
0.46517
1.87255
0.79204
0.00000
0.00000
A
r
1
1
Impervious Area without
depression storage
Total Runoff Depth (in)
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Total Area
Total Runoff Depth (in)
2.71745
2.59816
2.97230
2.86947
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.23466
0.74394
1.25721
1.73682
Unit Runoff (in/hr)....
0.69016
0.65835
0.75282
0.67581
Subcatchment...........
N14#1
Area (acres)...........
0.40000
Percent Impervious.....
65.00000
Total Rainfall (in)....
3.90000
Max Intensity (in/hr)..
0.93990
Pervious Area
Total Runoff Depth (in)
1.09911
Total Losses (in)......
0.75969
Remaining Depth (in)...
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.10616
Total Impervious Area
Total Runoff Depth (in)
2.04120
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.19715
Impervious Area with dep
ression storage
Total Runoff Depth (in)
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.00000
Impervious Area without
depression storage
Total Runoff Depth (in)
0.00000
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.00000
Total Area
Total Runoff Depth (in)
3.14031
Peak Runoff Rate (cfs).
0.30331
Unit Runoff (in/hr)....
0.75828
Runoff simulation ended normally.
XP-SWMM Simulation
ended normally.
Your input file was
named : D:\XP SWMM\LeiserPond.DAT
Your output file was named : D:\XP SWMM\Runoff\25SCSRUNOFF.OUT
SWMM Simulation Date and Time Summary
Starting Date... November 23, 2002 Time... 10:39:37:17
Ending Date... November 23, 2002 Time... 10:39:45:50
Elapsed Time... 0.13883 minutes or 8.33000 seconds
Title Report #1
0
i we as Mill
o
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
F
An assumed Iwsuiess of VILE INSMANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512
(503) 222-3651 FAX (503) 790-7865 or 1503) 790.7858
Preliminary Title Report
June 4, 2001 ALTA Owners Stand. Cov. $335,000.00 Premium $1,025.00
ALTA Owners Ext. Cov. S Premium $
ALTA Lenders Stand. Cov. S Premium $
ALTA Lenders Ext. Cov. $OPEN Premium $
Order No. : 926725 Indorsement - 100, 116 a 8.1 Premium $ 50.00
Escrow No.: 01061118300 Other Cost $
Re Leiser, Trustee/Brown Govt. Serv. Charge Cost $ 50.00
A consolidated statement of all charges and advances in con-
nection with this order will be provided at closing.
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
19075 NW Tanasbourne Drive
Suite 100
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Attention: Judy Lynn
Telephone No.: (503)645-0320
Fax No.: (503)645-6351
' We are prepared to issue Title Insurance Policy or Policies in the form and amount shown above, insuring
title to the following described land:
1 Lot 60, DURHAM ACRES, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon;
and as of May 31, 2001 at 8:00 a.m., title vested in:
ANNE LEISER, Trustee of the AMENDED, RESTATED ANNE LEISER TRUST dated May 23, 1996;
Subject to the exceptions, exclusions and stipulations which are ordinarily part of such Policy form and
the following:
i 1. City Liens, if any, of the City of Tigard.
Note: There are no liens as of May 31, 2001.
2. Statutory Powers and Assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency.
3. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits
of roads, streets or highways.
4. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof;
Recorded February 6, 1991 as Fee No. 91006224
Favor of City of Tigard
For Sanitary sewer
Affects The West 20 feet
j 5. Terms, provisions and conditions of the Trust Agreement of the AMENDED, RESTATED ANNE LEISER
TRUST dated May 23, 1996, and any subsequent modifications, a copy of which should be submitted
to this office for inspection.
This report is for the exclusive use of the parties herein shown and is preliminary to the issuance of a title insurance policy
and shall become void unless a policy is issued, and the full premium paid.
9L/9 30dd °E9:91, L0-9Z-d3S `0068969B09 `1N3WdOl3A30 XIUIVW :Ae IN3S
0 0
Page 2
Order No. 926725
6. The following matters pertain to Lenders Extended coverage only:
(a) Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments or any other facts which
a correct survey would disclose.
1 (b) Parties in possession, or claiming to be in possession, other than the vestees shown herein.
(c) Statutory liens for labor and/or materials, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon
for employment compensation and for workman's compensation, or any rights thereto, where no notice
of such liens or rights appears of record.
NOTE: Washington County Ordinance No. 267, filed August 5, 1982 in Washington County, Oregon,
imposes a tax of $1.00 per $1,000.00 or fraction thereof on the transfer of real property located within
Washington County.
Certain conveyances may be exempt from said ordinance, in which case, Washington County will require
a correct and timely filing of an affidavit of exemption. For all deeds/conveyance documents which are
recorded (including situations to most lender requirements) either the transfer tax must be paid or affidavit
acceptable to the county must be filed.
NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000:2001 paid in full.
Tax Amount $1,036.59
Code No. 023.74
Map & Tax Lot No. 2S112BC-00300
Account No. R511805
NOTE: We find no judgments or United States Internal Revenue Liens against CRAIG BROWN or MATRIX
' DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
ROBERTA D. STRAW
Title Officer
Voicemail (503) 790-7844
Fax (503) 790-7858
RS:n
cc: Leiser Intervivos Trust
Attn: Anne Leiser, Trustee
cc: Matrix Development Corporation
Attn: Craig Brown
CCR'S provided, if applicable
THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
We look forward to assisting you in all of your title and escrow needs
5l/6 20Vd •tS:91 10-9Z-d3S !0068969BO9 •°1N3Wd013A30 XII:li" :A9 1N3S
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• •
Recording Information:
Filing Address: Washington County
155 North 1st Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124-3087,
Recording Fees: $5.00 per page
$6.00 per document (Public Land Corner Preservation Fund)
$11.00 per document (OLIS Assessment & Taxation Fee)
$5.00 for each additional document title
$20.00 non-standard fee
gl/OL 30Vd `b4:9t L0-9Z-d3S !006996geog
1N3Wd013A30 XIHiVW :A8 1N3S
1
,-V A M E R
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
ALTA LOAN POLICY (10117192)
' The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay lass of damage, costs, attorneys' lees or expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Anylaw. ordinance orgovernmental regutationiincludingbutnollimited tobuilding endZoning laws, ordinances; orregulations) restricting,regulatig,prOMDibrgorfelstngte(i►lheoccupancy,
use, or enloyment of to land: (a) the character, dimensions or location or any tint rovemem now, or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership are charge in thedkreraiona or
area Oahe land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part: or (iv) environmental protection, o the etiect at any violation of these Is", ordinances o gpverrwrhertsl regulatlors, etcoept o the
extent that a noticeof the enforcement thereof or a notice o1 a defect, ken or encumbrance rest" from a violation or alleged violation affecting the Law has be9n recorded in the public recrds
al,Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, ken or encumbrance resutirg from a violation
or alleged violation affecting the lend has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy
2. Algha of eminent domain Inle9.4 notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the pubic records at Data of Policy, but not excluding from Coverage any taking which has occurred prior to
Dale of Policy which would be binding on Pw rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge
3. Detects, Wens, encumbrances, adverse claims ;c, omer malferw
(9) Created, SUffared, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant,.
(b) not known to she Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. bur known lothe insured claimant and not disclosed in wring to the Company by the insured dairnam prior lothe
date the Insured claimant became an mewed under this policy:
(C) resulting in no Ioss or damage lo the insured claimant:
' (ot) atteehing or created subsequent to Dated Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority ot the lien ot the insured a"& over any statutory ken for services, labor or materiel
or lone extentinsurance is elfordi herein as to assessments for street impovernents under Construction or completed at Date of Policyor
(e) resetting in logy at damage which would not have been sustained d the ensured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage.
4 Lkwiloreahiliy at to ken of the insured mortgage because of the moodily or failure at the insured at Date of Policy, or the inaWity or failure of any subsequent owner at the ere 'adness, tooomply
with applicable doing business laws of the sate in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity of unenforotablllty of the ken all the insured mortgage, or calm theroot. which anses out of the transaction evidenced by the imsed mortgage and is based upon usury or o ny ounsumher
credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any statutory ken for services. Labor o materials (or the claim of Priority of any statutory lien for services. Labor or materials over the lien ot the insured mortgage) arsmg from an mprovernem or work
reined b the land which is domracled Inn and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in wrote or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage
which at Data of Policy the inured has advanced or is obligated o advance
7. Anyclaim, which arisesoutdMetransaction creatinythheinterest dRremortgagee insured bytdspolicy,byreason oftheoperation offederal bankruptcy state insolvency. or simllffioadilos'ngMs
laws, that is bttsetl on
(f) Vie transaction creating the mtaresf at the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance of fraudulent transfer; or
(k) to subordinaton of tie Interest a("* assured mortgagee as a fall at the application at the doctrine of equitable subordination; or
(iii) the transaction creating the Interest of the Insured mortgagee beep deemed a preferential transfer except where the prelermliat transfer results from the lalkxe:
(a) to Lamely record the instrument of transfer; or
(b) of such recordation lo impart notice to a purchaser for vakre Ora judgement or ken credits.
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (10117192)
' The hollowing matters are expressy exCUded from the coverage of this policy and tea Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, atomevs' lees or expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (at Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not itmled to building and zoning laws, ordinances. of regulations) restrichN, regulating, prohibiting or retailing to (i) the occupancy,
use, or eryoyment of the lard; (k) the character, diimensions or location d any improvement now or hereafter erected on the Land: (iii) a separalion in ownership or a change in into dinensios or
area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a pan; or (iv) environmental protection, of the effect of any violation at these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the
e nerd tall a notice at the enforcement thereof or a notice of a detect. Wen or enambrence resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in line pubic records
A Date at Policy.
(D) Any governmental police power no excluded by (a I above. except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereat or a notice of a detect, ken or encumbrance resulting Irorrc a violation or
alleged vity"On affecting the and has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy
2 Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise "real has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. but riot excluding tram coverage any taking which has a= hied prior to
Date at Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value wthout knowledge.
3 Defects, liens, a narmbranoes. adverse claims or other maters'
to) created. sutered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant:
Ib) not known to the Company. not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. but known to the, Insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to
the date the insured Claimant became an insured under Ins policy.
Ic) resulting in no less or damage to the Insured claimant:
Id) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or
(a) resulting In loss or damage which would not have been sustained t the Insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by Ids policy.
4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the inured the estate or interest msuredby this policy, by reason of me operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar Creditors'
rgms laws, that is based on
(I) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by tics policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or touduient transfer; oh
(li) the transaction creating the estate or mnefest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the tallure:
(a) 10 timely record me InWrUmam of barrAer, of
(b) of such recordation to mean race to a purchaser lot value or a judgement or hen Credilor
en
SCHEDULE OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
The ALTA standard policy term will contain in Schedule 6 the following standard exceptions to coverage:
I Taxes or assessments whicn are not shorn as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority mat levies taxes or assessments on real progeny or by the public records; proceedings by a
public agency whhcl*. may result in taxes or assessmemb. of notices of Such proceedings. whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the pubir records.
2. Any facts, rights, mhereshs, or claims which are nor shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an Inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereat
3. Easements, encumbrances, or claims inereol, nor shown by file public records, unpatenled nutting claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof;
water rights. claims or title to water
4. Any ken, or flgnt to a lien. for services, labor, or material ha•elofore or hereafter hnn,sned, imposed by new and not shown by the public records.
' 6. 11 creparaies, conflicts in boundary line,, snortage in area, arc+oaChmems, or any other Tact, which a corl"I survey would disclose. _
NOTE: A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) WILL BE FURNISHED UPON RFOUEST. TI 149
9L/LL 39Vd •ti9:9L W -9Z-d3S 0068865£09 °1N3Wd013A30 XIHiVW Ae 1N3S
t
THIS MAP IS FURNISHED AS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PROPERTY AND THE COMPANY
ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE DISCLOSED BY ACTUAL SURVEY
~ .A AI E F : C
first American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
An assumed business name of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512
(503) 222-3651
SEE MAP
ZS 1 1298
l •
Q R
B ~
1, No. 7!!) •T.44c35 M r $9.37969
9~.xIO19 •I,zlmo 140.•• W
• 98 200 i 100
10•.9 1400 1300 1200 ~Z .534C. STAG.
6800 .43AC. .4ZAC. ZOAc. ,
I Q ~z W tltl
.47 Lx.) 141.1r > 1 O
6900 r 1201
2 4 Q 7 .aoAc. :g s9
p ♦ f
7000 tit 1203 o'
I . /7Ac.
3
~ 1
7100 III LL1 1 1202 x9 xo 300 4-
4 i /7Ac. R 2,49
nr.►s
!i4 90 314.96
9d 1XI
7200 1X
V 4100
w 71A PT L94 4G
~44.9a i ~
400 2 S Z. :L:2 3B
a,
1>3 3500 Ii ~ 59 60 N
19
~t2 W
X3600 ad SEE
~4►,0 20 9d 10.01 o 17s3► loo 2S I
A 117.43 8000.35 c 7900 7800 0 ~Q-► 8800 +89002
3700 3 2 8 I : Q~ o 1
21 88100 0 - N
- 4 `r : ll n 9000
114.13 D ! 40.11 ALSO
b`
3e0o A: 13
22 " SWxSAROLE W. 141.94
114 +r 870 a loo'
u.94 8200 ~y' 9s.ot es.os ' IO ~ ~ 9100
5 8500 S d 14 -10
h
3900 12a 'Z' 8400 r... $ I43a9 Iss'
e 23 83-4 N 7 00 8 ao - 8600 „ 9200
11154 ~ ~ g ~ n 15 0
4000 - +wtnatL I f l r~exas o4a3 00' Iss'
~e 24 I! !12.97 ~tD' 69.14 69.61 19.74 70.37
/ 9600 9500 9400 9300
nx.x6 / w
900 o Iq ~ 18 t 17
9I./ZL 30Vd °99:91. L0-9Z-d3S !0068869£09
`1N3Wd0-I3A30 XIUIVN :A8 1N3S
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
MlT. _ ~ . ~ -fir.,C.. 1 ~y~h",gin. -
__..~43fiC~~; %:.'.O..:yf;e - :i:, ..rT _ ::L^:i!7JV:,ih'.,Jkf:abC !p"Mb~`•iw ~T! hH.ra,S'!,`li.. _---r..
= 8 10062e4
INDIVIDUAL-GEttEFAL PARTNERSHIP w~Mfep~~~~
PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
W
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT Ann Leiser
hereinafter called the Grantor, in consideration of other aeod and valuable -
consideration (S 0 grants and conveys unto the City of Tigard,
hereinafter called Grantee, a perpetual easement for constructing,
reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting and repairing of an un-
derground sewer line and appurtenances, together with the right to remove,
as necessary, vegetation, foliage, trees and other obstructions on the fol-
lowing described parcel of land, situated in the City of Tigard, Washington L..-
county, state of Oregon:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"
- IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD that this easement does not convey any
M. right, title or interest except those expressly stated in this easement,
J nor otherwise prevent Grantors from the full use and dominion thereover;
provided, however, that such use shall not interfere with the uses and pur-
poses of the intent of the easement.
_ IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, Grantee agrees that if said Grantee,
its successors or assigns should cause said easement to be vacated, the -
rights of the Grantee in the above-described easement will be forfeited and
shall immediately revert to the Grantors, their successors and assigns in
-'-D the case of such event.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above-described and granted premises unto said
Grantee, its successors and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) has (have) he_.eu to set his (her) -
'_4-1 (th ir) hand(s) and seal(s) this 1-9-3 day of
(SEAL) I SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL)
STATE OF OREGON )r
SS "i County of Washington ) r""
/O~ 1911..
BE IT REMSERED, that on this-al day of
_2 Letfore me, the undersigned Notary Public in and tor the State of Oregon, -
personally appeared the within-named who is (are) known to me to be the identical individual(s) described in and
who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he (she)
(they) executed the same freely and voluntarily.
IN ESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
day of
AMN(Y L OGG Notary Pu is for 0r o .
-I (NOTARI LN®RARV p LIC - OkEG N My Commis ion Expires: - 7 - 0+2 -
Approved as LGa' `day of 192Ci . -
By:
I Title: r.
Approved this ZQ,►k day of 17ece uber 19 90
G N4i,vcEizi v4 Giry or 7?&ato.
GRANTOR'S NAME/ADDRESS DEPARTM OF J= T 0,MZ4VV -
Ann Le ierr By-
SW Pendleton Ct. Title: e..~e
6009
Portland. OR 97221 -
RETtEiN RECORDED flOC[RMTr 10:
aMY RECORDER, TIGW
PO BOX 23397
7MGM OR 97223 -
9l/£l 30dd `99:91 10-9Z-d3S `0069969£04
`iN3Wd013A30 XIUIVN :A8 iN3S
ALPHA ENGINEERING, INC.
`
i
T
V
OPM
E-A
EYI
O
R
O
S
09
EL
EN
VICES SV
V
N
ENOINEERIN
tp t
AUGUST 21, 1990
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR EASEMENT PURPOSES
i
PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT: LEISER TO CITY OF TIGARD
A STRIP OF LAUD IN DURHAM ACRES, A RECORDED SUHDZVISION PLAT LO-
CATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 2
SOUTH,
RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, O
REGON;
SAID STRIP BEING MORE PARTICOLARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
tiA
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 60, SAID DURHAM ACRES;
THENCE ON THE EAST LINE THEREOF, NORTH 00 12' 00" EAST, 263.94
FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KARA WOODS, A RECORDED SUBDIVI-
SIGH PLAT; THENCE ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 69, NORTH 00 124 00"
EAST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 48' 00" WEST, 15.00 FEET ;
THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINES OF SAID LOTS 60 AND 59, SOUTH
00 12' 00" WEST, 263.94 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 60;
THENCE SOUTH 89 48' DO" EAST, 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN-
NING.
6u1TE 18 . 1750 S.W. SKYLL49 OLVD. PORT IAND.ORCOON 27221 • 1503)297.1 50
;.•i'..•. 'y'. C ,jfiy:r.- -'y_ j.t .tw(•:y_•4•,' :..[T~~a•
9l/tit 30Vd
0
!99:91 10-9Z-d3S `0069969009 •`1N3Rd013A3a XIUiVa :AS 1N3S
SENT BY: MATRIX DEVELOPMENT; 5035988900; SEP-25-01 15:56; PAGE 15/15
p] pfu"Rpp@rrE&u! It"YrrN$"rVm$$+92B1&,uS6 j, _(•,P -ea:.H * f+81-. -W Jcc<$JcE
..•.....•W - :1•L ~Y,~•',:a ~..~•,-•M1;~1!l:GA: :i~tir:'.:., rry~. .a^~1-`-' _
~ ti tt " rnr.-tiw~tis+-r...~.s±~iem:.=
pii~w'',i' 1 1L/,A4 • ' i t~.•4 . W'bPJr.',_'.::.:~
1 ~ ":;,~iF~,~ x; ,mow ~ .:i:...._.
wdzz1SS:EO 166L/90/LO Fr ,tLk? 1 •~+1{ ~"si lti'«~yr* w• i
oo•Ex TL989 :aDau .r':r , . i y r zra:.~
="+'si. !l. J•y'1'°'~,'4::ts•'t~' ,y;'.';..~.•-._.
02290016 DOQ `e';,`•. ?
Cdr' k i '
l !K IWill
~a° >SN6~;. .ol~ysr
•93 P l; lt~o ' o s s~
to ,o lt~: • ' 'a'~' r x c_
m
•A1un 1K't0 iP+ lio+w~~L~ lei curt
P"foo AAA ~i MA ,us i 0143M 841
la4j ar IW utl8o i0{ smuW. ' .
afo0 to is o - s +1oltlYS1 pus
luawo+aaoY to .uoH 'y Auo(• y v ~ •
uoi~lYO~Mb~iao +
39
HODBIAD J0 JiVl9
fir
^IfS
6 °~f
1'1
i
e~
os yoN
°°e r' i ane ~ ',+a
Ljl1 ,y ti ` I
L-J
If Orr
Et'-,Q3 r~ 1
00 NJ
Cc,
jr 77 1, ml, J J J .T ' r -
Cin
~ :~~-'~'`~=i`' ~ h~ 1 Bl~e LI, .-81~• 6ai r^.~ I {4'r='.
i GOX \ ~.r ' iw/' .r~• t"t / r r 'low ?ate r_
4W 1 _j ~_=rte' I ~*o.oc~%' i* .1
t >f 9
S 1C~/Y • as di►7/I wX°°.•* a1L • 0.1 :~+r,.__v
' n p / ,,bl • / 01 a ~ ~ . 0'b T ~:M•-r ~e ~ 4 • F a ^ _
Ise 1 r ~o ~,.•d::..
[40ter`
i~''I~SE1Nd ' - Xv~~•~r_i i .1 a,\~ ; : ~.,o:
.Of
OW93 Irv.
RX9
C7.':ftZ / / ~32ltLil)i0oNiiYW M LJ 01
2194 , L a a d awt a.
mn a.
SQ 0141 a.aav Waspy .wee.Y C J<a7
6 Q. 9 Q
i on vb'M MM r u j1 a,ov ! -
t oa coa oar pord
_
arms riwoe Mr
r.r-
Title Report #2
0
10
FROM s 2001.07-24 14:44 1t384 P.02/07
M a k r .r ` Firs Aynerimn TYale Insurance'-,company of Oregon
AP wooed bAl ww ar TrW. MSURANCE OOMPANY OF OREGON
v 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512
15031 222-3651 - FAX (503) 700-7665 or 15031 790-7656
t Preliminary Title Report
"Way 1, 2001 ALTA Owners Stand. Cov. 0326,000.00 Premium 91,007.00
ALTA Owners UL COV. $ Premium 6
ALTA Landers Stand. Cov. 6 Premium s
` ALTA Lenders W. Cov. $280.600.00 Premium $307.00
Order No. 923552 Indorsement-100, 118 & 8.1 Premium 6 $0.00
Escrow No.: 01100488 other Cost $
- Re Kuentzie/Webbw Govt. 5erv. Charge cost s 50.00
A comordated statement of all charges and advances in con-
nection with this order will be provided at closing.
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
38760 SE Proctor Blvd
Sandy, OR 97055
Attention: Shelley Bolfik
Telephone No.: (803)668-4161
Fax No.: (6031668-8851
We are prepared to issue Title, Insurance Policy or Policies in the form and amount shown above, insuring
title to the following described land:
For legal description see Exhibit "A" attached hereto;
and as of April 20, 2001 at 8:00 a.m., title vested in:
KARL KUENTZLE and ROSA KUENTZLE, as tenants by the entirety;
Subject to the exceptions, exclusions and stipulations which are ordinarily part of such Policy form and
the following:
1. Taxes for the year 2000-2001:
Tax Amount
$1,269.47
Unpaid Balance
S 423-15, plus interest, if any.
Code No.
Map & Tax No.
023.74
2S112BD-02800
Account No.
RS11958
1
r
1
2. City Liens, if any, of the City of Tigard.
Now There are no liens as of April 26, 2001.
3. Statutory Powers and Assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency.
This report is for the exclusive use of the parties herein shown and is preliminary to the issuance of a thle Insurance policy
and shall become void unless a policy is issued, end the full premium paid.
Z 30Vd `19 91 10-9Z-d3S `006986g£Og
`1N3Wd013A30 XIHiVN :A9 1N3S
FROM
j .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MB:dw
cc: Karl and Rosa Kuantzle
cc: John Webber
cc: Century 21 Preferred Realtors
Attn: Diane Hammon
Attn: Closing Coordinator
cc: RE/MAX Equity Group, Inc.
Attn: Paula Peek
Attn: Closing Coordinator
MIKE BRUSCO
Title Officer
(503) 790-7660
THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
We look forward to assisLlnq you in all of your title and escrow needs
0
i
2001.07-24 14:45 #364 P.03/07
Page 2
Order No. 923652
4. The following matters pertain to Lenders Extended coverage only:
(a) Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments or any other facts which
a correct survey would disclose.
(b) Parties in possession, or claiming to be in possession, other then the vestees shown herein.
icl Statutory liens for labor and/or materials, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon
for employment compensation and for workmen's compensation, or any rights thereto, where no notice
of such liens or rights appears of record.
NOTE: Washington County Ordinance No. 267, filed August 6, 1982 in Washington County, Oregon,
imposes a tax of a 1.00 per 51,000.00 or fraction thereof on the transfer of real property located within
Washington County.
Certain conveyances may be exempt from said ordinance, in which case, Washington County will require
a correct and timely filing of an affidavit of exemption. For all deeds/conveyance documents which are
recorded lincluding situations to meet lender requirements) either the transfer tax must be paid or affidavit
acceptable to the county must be fled.
NOTE: The address of the property described herein is,
14665 SW 79th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97224
NOTE: We find no judgments or United States Internal Revenue Liens against JOHN D. WEBBER.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON
£ 30dd `19:91 10-9Z-d3S °0068964£09 !iN3Ald0l3A30 XIaib'W :AS iN3S
1
1
1
r
r
i
FROM 2001.07-24
14:45 #3e4 P.04/07
Recording Information-
Filing Address: Washington County
165 North 191 Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124-3067
Recording Fees: $5.00 per page
38.00 per document (Public Land Corner Preservation Fund)
611.00 per document (OUS Assessment & Taxation Feel
$5.00 for each additional document title
820.00 non-standard fee
b 30dd `ZS:9L 1.0-SZ-d3S `•006886SEOS
`1N3Nd0-l3A30 XIUIVIN :A9 1N3S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
FROM =
2001.07-24 1414S WtB4 P.06/07
Order No. 923552
EXHIBIT "A"
Lot 61, DURHAM ACRES, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon.
9 30Vd `•Z9:9L 10-9Z-d3S •`0069969609
`•1N3Wd0l3A30 XIUIVN :.19 1N3S
FROM
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
1
0
0
2001,07-24 14:45 0394 P.05/07
S~ AMPh/~, .r
P
n` esq.
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
ALTA LOAN POLICY IMAM)
.The bfawi+p mows we esrpeeaky eadsded nom the spwrapa d Est policy and ee Canpam w1A noway loss or oamrpe. oasts a sonoom, moor expense, ~ fertile by mum d:
1. la) Awylaw,a!digsrrvopttaarnwelYr.gJaiun{mdtdirgtanrotlalwadlot><Ifpbptam=arnpdwaordln.nbeis,wrap!Mlisnalreelrigino,replAelmp.prohbiinps►nlednB1o1011.ocolaparsy.
use. or aryoynrrN of the Ind; In) the vwview. Wmmiau Of WAim d afiykWfterna111 row a hreatMr WGCW On h Isutd: (Ili) ■ Mwalal n samrstip w a taMrpf h se tYhortaiofla a
. "cept the
ago of ad" nor Iiouaajdwi~tenlo ~rllitw.oofiro eaadewionor irlcvMbrarosr~iam~npit mivvioolaat~ a~ dvaieb~'~ je d parsr
so Dais of pass,. 11o tie ice raoornsd Agitate" wain pelf nsmr
fb) NW flossess aernal police Dosrv rot onksled by NI wove, expect a she WWI so a seine of the ssertise thereof or a nDdca al a dalan, (en or sinewrtltrance locating from s vie(aaon
a absped vin' w enacelrq M wd lea bean fsbrad M eta ptiehcrecoM M Dole of Policy.
2. RfpMe of emrits daptam uifsaa noln at the esa1D'laa alareof has been reaoreed in awn prbkc neconol at Dole of Poky, bum rot wnaudinp from covefage"taking which has ommed peter to
Dro d Policy wflarlwenrea tit" on this, hphls dapirchowler value wiftiff knowledge.
3. DalaQs, a inn, racswtOrastoes, adrelae daiita a doer manors:
(a) laaafad atllwed, aaalned or speed n by ate intend efaarem.
lb) nol anown a Ire Company. rtM wmrdrdin nesaOleraoords if We of Policy. buff known a she insured danuni and cal diectoaed in ywhing to hie Company, by so ihaured dlgkrienk prior to Rb
nap eta ~so tlasnam OarJrne W iwttri d under lies poky:
Ill raanldrlp ~ ro teas a arfafps to ee insutas cssinlartl;
Ids ~l~tlligaaaehadihdaglwuboweolpokeyleaoap10wennermRWthis poky onrrssVitt priority ofthe4m01tMmaednduyhpeowranyatlltuloryWloraanos.labor amawiel
a b ealarL oevanae O alladed hewn as to as wsartwym lot awl mprovenherss wider mro+Nttion or compblad at Detect Policy): m
(e) rert~rtp h Vrs dr eahtape ve11C/1 p ed rot nsve been susloenad it she lican d daiharo had paid value for Om Ir unW malpapa.
e n wbr~us yahrwedIncmanede1DO@aPolicy, afhsitatilrytrliikredanywWaprma--slow
rdetaeenees.rooonplf
5. rwa6dM er utrtlarraapilry d ohs tin of 11a imam Film t. r claim *wool, whIM ahses out Af me sanseesion widened by ft reuse "ape end Y nand Loon U9ry at any rareun»r
peon pfTlaaaal a nfAl+a hwhdirg Iii.
6. MMftseanrY►enfortrrricss.kwormaton Sfaaucd"IofwwityofanysaaAerybnkysMwo&v.Wwror n6tmlitsover sixteen of lheiwnwsdrronpltpa)rWVfrom annhpovemowuorwant
scaled a
sAiidnal, tend w*h N wnvacud IM and oemnwnno aliweell0nr to Use of Poky and c nal financed In whow or in pal by proceeds of ins incebreQless secured try she insured man w.
DM d policy the j%wed has adventec a is eplipaled to advance.
7. Anycisin.wh)dlwriest aAdmenaninfionciamngtheerateafasinsmatpapreinsuredbythispolicy,byreasonafMecpaalionDI rederalbaisruptry.time ineohyncy.or"let cnda 'rghrc
iliac. final Is ewes m:
01 Inc tnetaaefan aeaiirip err anieresi a nw makrea monpopw bgahp oeemeo a nwdulenl taftveyaroe a rattdtulent traneier : or
fit rte alWdilalien Warr iraerM of We nsweD MMONpen At 11460 01111c apalrAwn a Re doC4ea ol eplitabe subardrtaaan! a
CC) M krartalLl pen olsarq etc .werea sf role rnwnd nvaftpapw temp deemed a ryelerenkial xenelef ercegl vwrre as pefaendal nanafeu rweuhs Iron na failure;
la) b lirtely wand Ira aurufnslr OI Lens+ar; a
rb) Of libel! rsaadaaon to span to" to a puicrasor for value or a Iuagemerv or can cedar,
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (1047192)
Ths isia og ma" tit aspasaiy eacrd6a nom "coverage d Ines DOW and fns Carnoany will not paying or damage. basis. elor bears' few or experges efoich arise by rsasm of:
l• IG) Any law,rdinartonerpevennmenerepUlallbfu(nckdogbunotmsednOki" andrenrglaws. ordianew,or regtaallimlreexicing,npulaTnig,prohloiirgoftow" ro(i)fheociaulmny.
use. a wwyffwl at me lard: (ii) me MaliLlar, omens ons or baton or any mtpovsmam now of hnaaMer erected on lie land: (iai a separation in osysi rakip are dwV in the Gary M a
araad the lard or any parcel of which he Ionic is orway a pan: or f iv l onworrnunal Draedgn, or fed eneq of any violation of those few, ordinances or poi arnmerRal NQ111abons. saw to (h
eahm shat a notice o we emabemem filered as Mike of a salsa, ion of snclntorence recuhirg from a violation or alleged violation afl.eing the lard luebeer+reboPdad+h Inc talEiic reoaa
al Celle at Policy,
III) Any po"Ari nenTal boilp Dower not eeCTlood by (a) aoovs, eacsc; to fin onam Thal it notice of The exercise tree-roof at a mice at a delaa, IMn at enaSenbrona b naaeaifg tram a vtderon or
atisgad itolotion alittauy rrto nano nos been reooroed in one pu:mc xarards at Oala cif Policy.
2. Righlo at sonetanl contain uriie.: race of me exorcise thareer has Deem recorded in the DIAIC femrds at 061 1, of Policy, but riot ssduding hem coverage any tolarg which has occurred peon to
Dale at Poky .tier would be boidetp on Ine ripny or a purchsser for vacua without knowledge.
Deleas, t+K, erlG,.reraraes, toverao claims a cew"weers:
41 crowd, suearec. aswmea of agreed to by the nauraa caiman;
IN Ave known a lee Company. to raooroeo n 1M pubes records at Dee of PDMIY. Dui shown In tNl rrlavred caiman! and rhpi fNscbtlea m wAtirg fo Ins Company by the irwured daimem prix iD
It1! dab the eihra0 aalmadl beeamP. gn xnrasred trafer dole OOI~':
(C) ItlelAtflp i.ro roar:Of damage m tns msurad eMimard:
(d) shading a nealaa eibwolwro to Oae or Pokry: err
(e) !eau" in loss a dsmapd wbcn would nor have then tuslanea line insured claimant had paid value for the eirfale dr i rtf"I insured byEhu pokey.
e. Any ctaaR which nt"6 oral lee l ranseraaon vesting in the incwea)no estate or interest inured by ifrill poetry. by reason of lee operation of federal bankruptcy. state insolvency, or simUaraediars'
fights Wes. oak it Dosed on:
(i) me rtansaeNOn onalitp she sftale or nmbrra wend bT' tfrlo pdiel•fwinp deemed t haudWerll aorireyartef a nrauMm Iranshr•. or
A lie transaction creating me safe or nreraa INWW oy fie; Daley aging aeomed a prarsnl W tronslorarwpl where ins pefefentiat Transfer town tram the faille:
cal q f.rety nerare no+ inprnrnsnt sl xanaler: or
(bi el such retomaxron to ayTpan rotate to a oufchmer Io, value of s pldgemerd er 4n cradlor
SCHEDULE OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
Tne ALTA aancard pollpl' corm win eamwn in Senadwe D Ire fonomn; slAn Bard eseepams to coverage:
1 • Taaes err aaelasyrwret winch arc not srown as noting lien! e~ Ind rteoror of any tenting aUfAi7Aty that loves tgsb_ or aisaserrnente on roal property a by Ins public rococo.: Drocoednp6 Dy e
pwbfic agency when may rerun in ILL;r or assessmeMG• or notices ah such prod adinpe• rHMxatr Or not Shown by Ins fsearo■ of apeney or by the Pudic records.
2. Any Isaac, rights. nurenis. or claims wrum tru rah srown byMe puM:: recorn out vAkh could be ascertained by an inspection a( Geld land or by making iNuuy of p.racna in possession nNrsor.
Easements, eniumbrances. or ewme thereat. eat snown by the dual: records, unpferoad mining dons, rruarvailons or esoeptons in petents or in acts aMherikinp the swans uwest:
writer tights, dsrrii7 err lino to water
a Any non. Of Aahl to a lion, for sevkac, Itrar. or motional nerrdoore or nervaner furninhW. Imposed by taw assn not shown by ins pubes fecofee•
S. Dscrapendm, cMficts in couroery Iles. shdnapt in Prim. onctowmenn. Of tiny other facts wren a eonsel ourvW would disclose.
MOTs! A SPECMSSN COPY Op THE POLICY FORM TOM PDRMSI lehL: ll: FVRMSNED UPON REWS21T. Ti Us
Rsv. 5•ea
9 30Vd •Z9:91 10-9Z-d3S `0068969£05
`1N3Ad013A30 XIUIVN :A9 1N3S
2001.07-24 14,46 #384 P.07/07
FROM I
t Mll MA,' ll! hUIlt ''IED AS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PROP"-"y AND THE COMPANY
ASSUMES NO LIA-iTY FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE OISCLL,__J BY ACTUAL SURVEY
` ~~tl'ArC'~
First American ritle Insurance Company of Oregon
An 68aw"a M.Avem Rr" 0/TITLE INSIMANC[ COMPANY 00 ORGOON
1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 07201-5512
(503) 222-3651
W-T %.V" t IVt\ at. t LJ
t♦ t Va R
2
S112BD WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON
SEE MAP
SCALD= I`= 100'
2S 1 12.6,
•aa♦
~aaaa~a~yes,11►raa~a~aa
~+ttaa~a~►aa~a~~aaavwas
aaaa~'~Q~=>4►z
aa~.~aa
a
~
♦t►a~aaa~r►aa~aa aaa
~
aI. atns M_taOLI
-
al.eon
Mau
3200 _ 3100 390! t w tw gum
I tOQo 900
„a„
800
Q .39Ac.
3Mill A2R
..l7A t.
a
e
67
86
S
34M .W cMARA
we
tea
5 37M 3900 /
X38 S 9 7rs~/AG
2900 1100
cae.l~~,~ ~ asec
61 JI 62 `
63
,zoo
JW AC
Mile
aessr +
'
2700 1300 600
189 /0 ZM AC 1W AC
P
D6 55
54
+
4200 EL 4300
t^, P
Soo
a RAZE MEA.IoWS= ia~oD~ IS&X
23
4500 4400 ad
ffi
N
: . sI•. _ x+10. oa ye, 50 `
5 t
`A
9L/L
30Vd `E9 9L L0-9Z-d3S `0069969E09 !lN3Wd0l3A30 XIHIVW :A6 1N3S
SENT BY: MATRIX DEVELOPMENT; 5035988900• NOV-26-02 1:30; PAGE 1 1 1i1,. .a4 ~ jJ:.,• ~ Y ~ M ` ~..4 fir. k , Y
i er:eP$wx$ie:r~x dap !!`w~:a4~~►iklF+:!&~i#w/4.
(1017,132) 491"
1 ALTA Owner's Poky O
PLIVALICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
' a ST AME J1,
F ti
15S1ilil.> IiF
First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon
r 200 S.W. Market St. 9 Portland. Oregon 97201 • (503) 222-3651
' SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN
SCHEDULE S AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
OREGON, a Oregon corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A against loss
' or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule q sustained or incurred by the insured by
t reason of.
1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title;
3. Unmarketability of the title;
4. Lads of a right of access to and tram the land.
e The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but only to
r the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
BY
ATTEST
9V O
dW FIRST AMERICAN MEEWMRANM COMMAY OF OREGON
444d949N& PRESIDEM'
' i SECRETARY
L KL o ah.!s.
lit
Ti-193 8/93
SENT BY: MATRIX DEVELOPMENT;
' Policy No.: 923552
• 5D35988900;
SCHEDULE A
Amount of Insurance: $319,339.00
' Date of Policy: August 22, 2001 at 3:36PM
1. Name of Insured:
r
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-
2. The estate or Interest in the land which is covered by policy is:
The fee simple estate--
Premium: $995.00
' 3. Title to the estate or Merest in the land is vested In:
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION---
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
Lot 61, DURHAM ACRES, in the City of Tigard. County of Washington and State of Oregon.
1
PAGE 1 of Owner's Policy (1992) No. 923662
NOV-26-02 1:31; PAGE 2/4
0
SENT BY: MATRIX DEVELOPMENT; 5035988900; NOV-26-0 1:31; PAGE 3/4
1
1
SCHEDULE B
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This Policy does not insure against loss or damage land the Company will not pay costs, attomeys'
fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority
that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public
agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not
shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could
be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records, unpatented mining
claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof, water rights,
claims or title to water.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed
by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Discrepancies. conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts
which a correct survey would disclose.
6. Taxes for the fiscal year 2001-2002 a lien not yet payable.
t 7. Statutory Powers and Assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency.
Note: There are no liens as of the date of this policy.
1
1
1 PAGE 2 of Owner's Policy (1992) No. 923552
SENT BY: MATRIX DEVELOPMENT; is 5035988900; NOV-20-0 1:32; PAGE 4/4
1
rlMt American t,ue msurame c,oinp, o
An .wMyO busses ~e or TfTIE INSygMICa@ COf.iArrr OF Oamol, T7.
1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201_5512 (503) 222-3651 IA'T Iffi 1!'T %or 1 1 V /f 1 fL / fL v f
' 2511 ZB~ WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SEE MAP
7 ` SCALE 1= 100 2s 1 Im
♦a~&iaa~aaaa a a~~raa~~~~~~aa><raaa~.aaa It
aaaat'~'+►~ s`rob`~
1 rp 1000 900 Soo '•an
3200 3100 3901 i
a A2R 1 ~ A:66/e i' ssae. .rraf:. ~
$-4 ` 88
1 ~ -
~ S.Wt<. MARA -
f>~ 0
h s 3700 / 700
35o R 9 0 tee, AC
s
V7 D
~ fnalso ss' 41 ~ pfy secs _ ~ _ psa~s.
1 2aoo T 1100
esax W *fAM
Z
moo
t
2700 MOO Soo
AM/C ue LW AC
w as a 54
1 _
made
4m ownaL rt 45M • 23'
C R RAZE A+IEA25 s i~ 5cio
' W. 450Q
4 27 4,4011
qtwwlfsrW N o. 2 ♦ 51 ft.
Pre Application
Conference Notes
0
AWL
C:ITY OF TIGA1ft1D
PRE-PPII f,T,I~N CONFERENCE
S, cowmq,
Prey hcalaon Meebn Notes areYalid :for SIX Months
P...,... S.
~m.' _ RESIDENTIAL
FM-AP MG O z-
APPLICANT: NM-tyn, AGENT:
Phone: (Sc,4) G Zv - Zofao Phone: ISM 6LO- Zoio e-xk. Z22
PROPERTY LOCATION:
ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: _1~e. 79'' b 0 t~~',
TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): _25 i t 2 g e, O D 3 0v 2 511 Z g p a z 6W
NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: S L) „ rt
g CS✓b[.~t tsry
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: _1 g -lad- S%/hdt ✓r 5t c•,?
1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN t ~ A w
MAP DESIGNATION: i.-o~ ti , (`eS
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R - 1l . S
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: S c~v
i
ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18. !;10 1
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 7.4w sq. ft. Average Min. lot width:.. 0 ft. Max. building height: ~3 _ ft.
Setbacks: Front 20 ft. Side ft. Rear
15 ft. Comer S ft. from street.
MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: - % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area:
GARAGES:- ZD ft.
NEI6NBORNOOD MEETING [Refer to the Neighborhood Meedag Randoutl
THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE MEMBERS
OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S), AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of
their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is
' required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting
notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be
accepted.
' NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans
Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application.
' CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9
RB81dg U AppiC26wnarlf n9 Usion $9C5m
1-(Z'NARRATM (Beier to Code ChaptdF18.3901 0
The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on -the applicable
approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to
consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review
the code for applicable criteria.
IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Seedons 18.390.040 and 18.390.050)
As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE
AN IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the
development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the
transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system,
the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type
of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize
the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private
property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real
property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or
provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not
roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development.
W ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.7651
Minimum number of accesses: x 'w 1-Z Minimum access width:
Minimum pavement width: x za' `'Id, 3-46v/silk
❑ WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Chapter 18-7051
Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each
residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING
AREA, COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES.
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION (Refer to Code Chapter 18.715) -SEE EXAMPLE BELOW.
1 The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net
area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as
specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting
the following land area(s) from the gross site area: ~y
J~992I rocs
All sensitive lands areas including: - ~ t 91 Rvc✓
➢ Land within the 100-year floodplain;
➢ Slopes exceeding 25%;
r ➢ Drainageways; and '101 ?o n~-
➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts.
Public right-of-way dedication: M lvf5 rnaK
➢ Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or 110, M~ n
➢ Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or
➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction.
EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS:
EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS
Single-Family MURROm11V
43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area
8.712 sg. ft. X20°~) forpublic right-of-way 6,534 sq ft (15%) for public right-of-way
NET. 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet
3,050 minimum lot area _ 3.050 mi ' um lot area)
a er ACM IM Von er =
The 1111WIpeeat Nde tubes dW the net site sra eMla the next wbM dw*Mw a& No 109NOING 6F IS FEBNIITEO.
IQIIJ~ IN00110nsltll IS 80%111161111111111111111111121 BIM densltY. TO BETEBMIIIETHIS STANOABO, NOLTH'LY THE MIMMUM UMBER Of ONRS OY a.
LA 1Y OF TIGARD Pre-Appliicabon Conference Notes Page 2 of 9
Residential Appk0m* la Wng DVMM SwbM
I❑ 1 SPECIAL SETBACKS [Refer to execdon 18.7301
➢ STREETS: feet from the centerline of
➢ FLAG LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures.
A ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained
between each dwelling unit or garage.
A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multiple-family
residential developments.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less
than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size.
[See applicable zoning district for the primary structures' setback requirements.]
❑ FLAG LOT BUILDING NEIGNT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1 Y2 STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2% stories, or 35
feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are
satisfied.
❑ BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7451
In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE
OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the
CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer
areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of
deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and
horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often
advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may PWI be occupied by
vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials
and sizes may be found in the Development Code.
The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is:
1 Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary.
Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary.
IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG:
j ( LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 18.705)
' STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must
be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of-
way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured
four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the
branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations
affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division.
A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED
in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking
areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view.
RECYCLING Meier to Code Chapter 18.7551
' Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE
SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such
as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within
Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503)
625-6177.
C17Y OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9
Residential App6eWm Pl=ft avWm section
PARKING (Beier to Code Chaptem8A5 a 18.7051
1
f
ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED.
0
➢ Single-family............ Requires: One 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and
One ~1; space per unit less than 500 square feet.
Multiple-family......... Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom;
1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and
1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms.
Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall provide parking for the use of
guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking.
1
1
y
I F-1
NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED
AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows:
➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches.
➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches.
➢ Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned
disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to
be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space
symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be
posted.
BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.7651
BICYCLE RACKS
DEVELOPMENTS.
convenient locations.
are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in
❑ SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151
The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR
DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL
DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON
UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-
application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely
identify sensitive land areas and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas
meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the
development application.
Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands
areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS.
jr-1 STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.715.070.01
When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be
submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code
Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall
include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C.
CLEANWATER SERVICES ICWS) BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to R a 0 96,441111SA Regulations - Chapter 81
LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a
vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive
area.
Design Criteria:
The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table
identifies the required widths:
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 9
ResWenU miming Wsw Sedw
98LE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS
SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANVAURES811111710N a ORDER 96-14
'E AREA OfEFIt~ITION °ADJiAGE1~T IJ11'ID, ' QF VEGETAI•fED
SENS~7
t <,.; , w TEf1"Sf IYE?AREA' cOIDOR PER SIDE
• Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25%
0 10 to <50 acres 15 feet
1 > 50 to < 100 acres 25 feet
♦ Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet
• Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet
♦ Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow
♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres
♦ Natural lakes and ponds
♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining: > 25%
► 10 to < 50 acres 30 feet
1 > 50 to < 100 acres 50 feet
♦ Existing or created wetlands > 25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure
♦ Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting
♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in
♦ Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top
of ravine
Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring
boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15
feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement.
21/egetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition.
3The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The a 35 feet may be reduced to
15 feet if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine.
Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor:
NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals,
dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract
from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the
USA Design and Construction Standards.
Location of Vegetated Corridor:
IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended
for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a
separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit.
--~j CWS Service Provider Letter:
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service
Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O.96-44 sensitive
area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS
Service Provider Letter is not required.
❑ SIGNS (Beier to Cede Cdapter10.780)
SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED.PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of
Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or
height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a
development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for
Director's review.
® TREE REMOVAL P1AH REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.0
A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a
certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a
development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development,
or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible.
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes - Page 5 of 9
Reside N AWJC9MF1Wning Division Section
. THE TREE PLAN SHALL RUDE the following: 0
➢ Identification of the location, size, species, and condition of all existing trees greater than 6-
inch caliper.
➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in
caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.13 according
to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code
provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots:
Retainage of less than 25%a of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a
mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees;
Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that
two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.;
Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that
50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.;
Retainage of 75%a or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no
mitigation;
➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and
➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to
protect trees during and after construction.
TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be
replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D.
MMIRATION [Refer to Code Section 18390.060.E1
REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines:
➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics.
➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably
available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural
resource value.
➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would
not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance
with the following formula:
The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the
estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the
largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be
viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more
replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property
or, with the consent of the owner, private property.
➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to
allow growth to maturity.
IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the
consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree
replacement.
CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7951
The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND
EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size
of the required dear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any
existing obstructions within the dear vision area. The applicant shall show the dear vision areas on
the site plan, and identify any obstructions in these areas.
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9
1 RNWOnU pppica6onlPlWMV Division Section
' FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EUTENA OF STREETS [Refer to Code Section 181k.030.FJ
A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall:
➢ Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The
plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future. streets from the boundaries of the
proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall
include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division.
➢ Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and
pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site.
Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall
be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed.
Ug ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18210.0601
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process.
Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum
15-foot wide access easement.
The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'h TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the
parcel is less than 1 Y2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district.
BLOCKS [Refer to Code Section 18210.0901
The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured
along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography,
wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development.
When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided
through the block.
CODE CRAPTERS
_ 18.330 (conditional use) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design standards) !/18.765 (off-street Parking&wmg Requirements)
_ 18.340 pirerws Interpretation) 18.630 (Washington square Regional center) _ 18.775 (sensitive Lands Review)
_ 18.350 (Planned Devewnent) ~ 18.705 (Aooess&gresdaraeation) 18.780 (signs)
_ 18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.710 (Accessory Residentai units) - 8.785 (rempm use Permits)
18.370 (vadancwAdjustn=ts) 18.715 (5ensity Computations) :;18.790 (Tree Renovaq
_ 18.380 (zoning Maprrext Amendments) 18.720 (Design Compatibility standards) 18.795 (usual Clearance Areas)
_ 18.385 misceitaneous Pemdts) 18.725 (Emrirnnmental Perkxmance standards) _ 18.798 (wneiess communication Fadrrties)
18.390 (Decision making Prooedunesnmpact study) 18.730 (Exoeptioru To Development standards) 18.810 (street 8 Utility improvement standards)
18.410 (Ld tine Adjustments) 18.740 (Hisok overlay)
18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.742 (Home occupation Pem*s)
✓ 18.430 (subdivisions) ✓ 18.745 (landscaping & Sawing standards)
__%C_ 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.750 (Manufach,redlNbba Hare Regulations)
18.520 (Comnw iat zoning Districts) 18.755 (Magid sort wastelRecydng storage)
_ 18.530 (Industrial zoning Dstrids) 18.760 (Nonwnt rming situations)
1
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 9
PMWBnU AppiesrioNPlWkg Division Section
I womoxuCONCERNS oacaMMExrP 0
1
:VV
1
M
PROCEDURE
Administrative Staff Review.
Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer.
Public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a
recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be
held by the City Council.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS
All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the
Community Development Department at Tigard City. Hall offices.. PLEASE NOTE:v~Api2lications
1
CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 9
ResidWM App6ca8oNPlwkV Division sedan
The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the
application. and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter
submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted
materials are required.
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
The administrative decisionlopublic hearing will typically occur apltimately 45 to 60 days after an
application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or
protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review.
Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public
hearing .e 10-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter
would be heard by the Tigard . A basic flowchart
which illustrates the review process is av ilable from the Planning Division upon request.
Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the
applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing.
This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE
INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code
requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff
and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the
site.
SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION [County Surveyor's Office: 5034848841
PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard,
applicants are reUired to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington
County Surveyors Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name.
Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of
approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation.
BUILDING PERMITS
PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR
REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by
the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of
development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the
Building Division.. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is
recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are
building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed.
Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be
demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that
structure will be eliminated when the new plat_is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system
IS OBTAINED).
PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all c;oae requirements ana aspects reiateq o
site planning that should Me to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide
information required b the shall no constitute a waiver of the a plicable standards or requirements.
ack anvoni pc in nded of ri1v ptaff rpint vetopCode reouir me Its nrlor to submlttlna an aDDlicationpment Code or
AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN
APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A
PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as
unnecessary by the Planning Division).
t
PREPARED BY:
I
CITY OF TIGAR4 PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING
PHONE: (S03) 6394171 FAX: (S03) 684-7297
E-MAIL s first narn~r @ d.tigard.or.us
TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: www.cLbgard.or CIS
H:IpattylmasterslPre-App Notes Residential.doc Updated: 26-Jun-02
(Engineering section: preapp.eng)
I CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9
Residential Appio86oNP =*Q amim SeWm
V - 0 0
I CITY OF TIGARD
LAND USE APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Please read this form carefully in conjunction with the notes (provided to you at the
pre-application conference. This checklist identifies what is required for submittal of a complete
land use application. Once an application is deemed complete by Community Development staff, a
decision may be issued within 6-8 weeks.
s
1
1
If you have additional questions after reviewing all of the information provided to you, please contact
the staff person named below at the City of Tigard Planning Division, 503.639.4171.
Staff.
1. BASIC INFORMATION
Date: 9/?P/0;7-
A Please refer to the "Land use applications basic submittal requirements" checklist for the basic submittal requirements.
2. SPECIAL STUDIES AND REPORTS
1
1
1
1
1
Because of the nature of your project and/or the site you propose to, develop, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL STUDIES
WILL BE REQUIRED. These studies must be prepared by certified professionals with experience in the appropriate field:
M/
13
3.
Arborist Report/Tree Assessment
Local Streets Traffic Study
Wetlands/Stream Corridor Delineation and Report
Habitat Area Evaluation
Geotechnical Report
Geotechnical Report must address liquefaction potential and soil bearing capacity
Other
PREPARING PLANS AND MAPS
Plans and maps should be prepared at an engineering scale (1" = 10/20/50/100/200') and include a north arrow, legend
and date. The same scale should be used for all your plans. Where possible the City prefers the use of a scale that
allows a site plan or subdivision plat to be shown on a single sheet. Architectural drawings may be prepared at an
architectural scale. One copy of each plan must be submitted in photo-ready 8Y2 x 11 format. THE FOLLOWING IS A
LIST OF REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR EACH TYPE OF PLAN (If the plans you submit do not include all of the
information requested because you feel. it is not applicable, please indicate this and provide a brief explanation).
✓Vicinity Map
Showing the location of the site in relation to:
• Adjacent properties
Surrounding street system including nearby intersections
♦ Pedestrian ways and bikeways
1
Transit stops
Utility access
11
City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist
h:1pat1yVnasters\cheddist.doc (UPDATED: 26-Jun-02)
Page 1 of 4
w
Existing Conditions Map
Parcel boundaries, dimensions and gross area
Contour lines (2' intervals for 0-10% slopes or 5' for slopes >10%)
Drainage patterns and courses on the site and on adjacent lands
Potential natural hazard areas including:
• Floodplain areas
• Areas having a high seasonal water table within 24" of the surface for three or more weeks of the year
• Slopes in excess of 25%
Unstable ground
• Areas with severe soil erosion potential
• Areas having severely weak foundation soils
• Locations of resource areas including:
♦ Wildlife habitat areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan
• Wetlands
Other site features:
Rock outcroppings
Trees with z 6" caliper measured 4' from ground level
Location and type of noise sources
Locations of existing structures and their uses
Locations of existing utilities and easements
Locations of existing dedicated right-of-ways
Locations of driveways on adjacent properties and across the street
Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map
The proposed name of the subdivision
~=1
1
Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets
Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer surveyor and designer (as applicable)
Scale, north arrow and date
Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided
Names of adjacent subdivisions or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land
Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2' intervals for 0-10% grades and 5' intervals for
grades greater than 10%
The purpose, location, type and size of all of the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision):
Public and private right-of-ways and easements
♦ Public and private sanitary and stone sewer lines
• Domestic water mains including fire hydrants
• Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater)
• Watercourses
• Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances
• The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level
• The location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures
are to remain after platting
Supplemental information including:
Proposed deed restrictions (if any)
A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements
Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands and marsh areas
The proposed lot configurations, lot sizes and dimensions, and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for
purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots
If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated
into a narrative and submitted with the application materials
11
11
11
City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 2 of 4
h:\pattylmasters\checldist.doc (UPDATED: 26-Jun-02)
' Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan
~ The owner's auth❑
The owner of the /alsfor el ❑
~ The map scale, nd date ❑
~ Proposed proper❑
Description of paand boundaries ❑
~ Contour lines (2' lopes 0-10% or 5' for slopes >10%) ~ Location, width a stree ts, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ❑
Location of all p anent buildings on and within 25' of all property lines ❑
Location and idth of all water courses ❑
Location of pfiy trees with 6" or greater caliper at 4' above ground level ❑
All slopes greater than 25% ❑
' Location f existing and proposed utilities and utility easements 11
Any a licable deed restrictions ❑
Evid ce that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑
Future street extension plan showing existing and potential street connections ❑
Site Development Plan
The proposed site and surrounding properties
❑
Contour line intervals
❑
The locations, dimensions and proposed names of the following:
• Existing and platted streets and other pub if; ways
❑
• Easements on the site and on adjoinin properties
❑
• Proposed streets or other public wa and easements on the site
❑
♦ Alternative routes of dead-end or roposed streets that require future extensions
❑
The locations and dimensions of th ollowing:
• Entrances and exits on the si
❑
• Parking and circulation are s
❑
• Loading and service are
❑
• Pedestrian and bicycle irculation
❑
• Outdoor common are s
• Above ground utiliti s
❑
• Trash and recycl le material areas
❑
The locations, dime ions and setback distances of the following:
• Existing perm ent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which
are located o the site and on adjacent property within 25' of the site
❑
• :Pro
posed s ctures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site
an
itary s er facilities
❑
• E
proposed sewer reimbursement agreements
❑
• Snage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions
❑
~
type(s)
Locatof outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques
/
The loof the following:
• Ao be landscaped
• M
❑
♦ Structures and their orientation
❑
City
of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist
Page 3 of 4
h:lpat4ftasters\cheddist.doc (UPDATED: 26-Jun-02)
,'Landscape Plan
Location of trees to be removed
Location, size and species of existing plant materials
General location, size and species of proposed plan materials ❑
Landscape narrative that addresses:
• Soil conditions and how plant selections were derived for them ❑
• Plans for soil treatment such as stockpiling the top soil ❑
Erosion control measures that will be used ❑
Location and description of the irrigation system where applicable ❑
Location and size of fences, buffer areas and screening ❑
Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ❑
Public Improvements/Streets Plan
Proposed right-of-way locations and widths
❑
A scaled cross-section of all proposed streets plus any reserve strips
❑
Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a
reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision
❑
Grading/Erosion Control Plan
The locations and extent to which grading will take place
❑
Existing and proposed contour lines
❑
Slope ratios
❑
tilities Plan
I
Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated
on the plans
❑
Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the locations of valves and meter sizes
❑
Fire hydrants (existing and proposed)
❑
Proposed fire protection system
❑
reliminary Storm Drainage Plan
The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow
❑
Location, width and direction of flow of all water courses and drainageways
❑
Location and estimated size of proposed storm drainage lines
❑
Where applicable, location and estimated size and dimensions of proposed water quality/detention facility
❑
Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan
Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees
❑
Program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal (Section 18.790.030)
A protection program defining standards and methods to be used during and after construction
❑
❑
Architectural Draw* -'b
Floor plans in ' ting the square footage of all structures and their proposed use
❑
Elevation d ngs for each elevation of the structure
❑
Sign Drawings
Specify propo location, size and height ❑
City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 4 of 4
h: lpattyelasterstcheddist.doc (UPDATED: 26-Jun-02)
WA County Name
Approval
0
0
M M IM M r! M M M M M M M M M M w M M
FROM :UASHINGTON_MUNTY SURVEY FAX NO. :5038462909 0 30 2002 11:17AM P1
act ae 02 05e29p CR A isn LL.C (60o) 40 8550 p.1
WASHINGTON COUNTY
LAND USF. AND TRANSPORTATION
SURVEYOR'S OFFICE
1
1
1
1
I ~
1l~LTB~Z~'ZB~ON ~~'..~T N.A.~![Zl~l'GF
I request that the Washington County 8nrveyor's Office
reserve the following subdivision name:
PROPOSED NAIVE OF
SUBDMSION:
Leiser Park
MAP AND TAX LOT NUMBER:
2S1 12B000300
2SI 12BDO2800
CITY JURISDICTION (Which City)
OR
City of Tigard
COUNTY JURISDICTION:
SURVEYOR'S NAME:
Tetsuka & Associates
oNMER9 NAME:
Matrix Development Corp.
I understand that if the name la not used within five years, it will be
automatically canceled.
Name of person reserving name: Steve Rover - SR Design LLC
Address; 1196 SW Hall 91vd.. Suit11301 139averton. OR 97008
Telephone number: 409-1213 Fax number; (503) 488-8553
1 0-"//
Sionaturs:
Date..- iC zB 0'
Noi a eppmved / D = :3 n o ;1-
Wa&VngW County SurveyWs ofte
150 NorM Fiat Avwm% Sulte aisiat6 Hi'//s WM, OR 97123 For
(3fR9)849-2908
'6HARMIJRvEriDATADIR%WEBPAGVSUDNA%W,J)O 10 ,26M1Vk,
CWS
"Service Provider Letter'
0
0
1
CleanWater Services
Our conimit- nenl is clear.
i
July 31, 2001
1
1
I
1
1
a
SR Design LLC
Steve Roper
11290 SW Blakeney Street
Beaverton, OR 97008
Re: Proposed Subdivision at 14665 SW 79th Avenue, Tigard
(Pre-Screen File No. 1199,2S1 12BC 00300 and 2S1 12BD 02800)
Clean Water Services (formerly USA) has reviewed your proposal for the above
referenced activity on your site. Staff has conducted a pre-screen review and
requested completion of a Sensitive Areas Certification Form. Following the
review it appears that sensitive areas do not exist on-site or within 200' from your
project. In light of this result, the above referenced project does not need a
Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 00-7, Section 3.02.1.
This document will serve as your Stormwater Connection Authorization from
Clean Water Services pursuant to Ordinance 27, Section 4.B. All required
permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,
state, and federal law.
This concurrence letter does NOT eliminate the need to protect sensitive areas if
they are subsequently identified on your site.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 503-846-3613.
Sincerely,
Heidi K. Berg
Site Assessment Coordinator
E:\Development Svcs\SP 00-7\Concurrence Letters\2S112BC 300 and 2S112BD 2800.doc
155 N First Avenue, Suite 270 • Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
Phone: (503) 846-8621 • Fax: (503) 846-3525 • www.cleanwaterservices.org
Wetland
Determination form
is
r ~
r
~ r,~,r
r ~
i' IY~-'YL'J 0DSLWD# v
CEa-001 -0135
Wetland Determination Form for` 1i' eh iVig ! 0: Wetlands
This form may be used to document and report on the result of a wetland determination for small parcels that contain no
wetlands or other waters such as streams or ponds (see OAR 141-85-GGG). It may not be used for parcels that contain
wetlands or other waters. This form must be fully completed and include all attachments listed in #4. Include at least
' one wetland determination data form representing field data collected in the lowest area or other area most likely to
be wetland. Check person #1 or #2 as the primary contact person for questions about the report. If in doubt about the
appropriate use of this form, contact the Wetlands Program at the Division of State Lands.
1. Landowner/Legal Agent Information ❑ Primary Contact
Name: Craig Brown Firm Name: Matrix Development
t Address: 12755 SW 69'x' Avenue - #100. Portland, OR 97223
' Phone: 503-620-8080 Fax: 503-598-8900 E-mail:
Permission is grant f r the Division of State Lands staff to access property if needed to verify report conclusions.
Signature: Date: 1 L-2-3 o-r
2. Consultant Information
■ Primary Contact
Name: Greg Summers
Firm Name:
Beak Consultants. Inc.
Address: 317 SW Alder Street Suite 800, Portland OR 97204
Phone: 503-248-9507 ext. 230 Fax:
503-228-3820
E-mail: gsummersna,beak.com
3. Site Information
'
County: Washington
City: Tigard
T 2S R 1W Section 12 QQ
SW/NW Tax Lot(s):
2SI12B000300
Street Address or Location: S. of Bonita Rd., N. of SW Viola St.. E. of 81"
Ave., W. of 79th Ave. Parcel Size:2.48 ac.
NWI Quad: Beaverton, OR
Date of Site Visit:
March 14, 2001
4. Attachments
■ Vicinity Map ■ NWI or LWI Map
■ Soil Survey Map
■ Parcel Map ■ Data Form
■ 5. Investigation Results
' NWI or LWI Mapping: The NWI may for this area does not show any wetlands or other waters on the Project site.
Landscape Position/Site Description & Topography: The project site is a relatively level, undeveloped parcel that is
surrounded by residential development
Oregon Division of State Lands
775 Summer Street NE, Ste. 100
Salem, OR 97301-1279 Ph: 503-378-3805
1
1
1
t
1
1
i •
DSL WD # 2001-013,
Plant Communities and Dominant Plant Species: Project site is forested with a tree canopy dominated by Alnus
rubra Pseudotsuva menziesii Acer macrophvllum and Thuia nlicata. Shrub laver is dominated by Osmaronia
cerasiformis Corylus cornuta and flex aguifolium Vine layer is dominated by Hedera helix. Dominant plants in the
herbaceous laver include Polvstichum munitum and Hedera helix.
Mapped and Observed Soils: The Washington County Soil Survey indicates that the site is underlain by Hillsboro
Loam 3-7% slopes (21B)Soil samples taken in the field had matrix chromas ranging from IOYR 3/2 to IOYR 3/3 with
no apparent mottling Samples were similar to the soil survey's typical pedon description for this soil tune
Hydrology Observations:- No primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed on the proiect .
parcel during the site visit -
Other Pertinent Observations or Information:
6. Conclusions
Parcel is a forested upland site
Signature of Field Investigator: Date: Y/ 9/0
Review and Jurisdictional Determination of the Division of State Lands
There are no wetlands or other waters of this state on the parcel(s); therefore no state Removal-Fill Permit is
required for site development.
' ❑ Based upon a site inspection by the Division, there are wetlands and/or other waters of this state on the parcel(s)
that are subject to state permit requirements. A wetland delineation will be needed to determine the wetland boundaries
(OAR 141-85-AAA to JJJ). The delineation report must be submitted to the Division for review and approval.
❑ The information provided is not sufficient for the Division to make a jurisdictional determination.
This jurisdictional determination is based upon the information provided to us. Should additional information be
brought to our attention or should site conditions change, we could consider the new information and re-evaluate the site
and our jurisdictional determination, as needed.
Comments:
1 Determination by
1
Oregon Division of State Lands
775 Summer Street NE, Ste. 100
Salem, OR 97301-1279 Ph: 503-378-3805
- *VISlUll OF STA _ UNDS
FttCEfYt0' DSL WD #:2 CO I- 013(,
P 1:
LfJUI i'. it L 1
Wetland Determination Form for Parcels With No Wetlands
This form may be used to document and report on the result of a wetland determination for small parcels that contain no
wetlands or other waters such as streams or ponds (see OAR 141-85-GGG). It may not be used for parcels that contain
wetlands or other waters. This form must be fully completed and include all attachments listed in #4. Include at least
one wetland determination data form representing field data collected in the lowest area or other area most likely to
be wetland. Check person #1 or #2 as the primary contact person for questions about the report. If in doubt about the
appropriate use of this form, contact the Wetlands Program at the Division of State Lands.
' 1. Landowner/Legal Agent Information O Primary Contact
Name: Craig Brown Firm Name: Matrix Development
' Address: 12755 SW 69th Avenue - #100, Portland, OR 97223
Phone: 503-620-8080 Fag: 503-598-8900 E-mail:
Permission is grante the Division of State Lands staff to access property if needed to verify report conclusions.
' Signature: r Date: 3 Z 1
2. Consultant Information ■ Primary Contact
Name: Greg Summers Firm Name: Beak Consultants. Inc.
Address: 317 SW Alder Street Suite 800, Portland OR 97204
Phone: 503-248-9507 ext. 230 Fag: 503-228-3820 E-mail: gsummersna,beak.com
■
3. Site Information
County: Washington City: Tigard
T 2S R 1W Section 12 QQ SE/NW Tag Lot(s): 2S 112BDO2800
Street Address or Location: 14665 SW 79'h Avenue Parcel Size: 1.88 ac.
NWI Quad: Beaverton. OR Date of Site Visit: March 14, 2001
4. Attachments
■ ■ Vicinity Map ■ NWI or LWI Map ■ Soil Survey Map ■ Parcel Map ■ Data Form
■ S. Investigation Results
NWI or LWI Mapping: The NWI mal2 for this area does not show any wetlands or other waters on the oroiect site.
Landscape Position/Site Description & Topography: The project site is a relatively level, undeveloped parcel that is
' surrounded by residential development
Oregon Division of State Lands
' 775 Summer Street NE, Ste. 100
Salem, OR 97301-1279 Ph: 503-378-3805
1
I
1
1
1
1
DSL WD # 2C0/-(2I,- (0
Plant Communities and Dominant Plant Species: Project site is forested with a tree canopy dominated by
Pseudotsuga menziesii and Acer macrophvllum Shrub lamer is dominated by Rubus discolor, Osmaronia
cerasiformis and Corvlus cornuta Vine layer is dominated by Hedera helix. Dominant vlants in the herbaceous laver
include Holcus lanatus Geranium erianthum and Galium aparine.
Mapped and Observed Soils: The Washington County Soil Survey indicates that the site is underlain by Hillsboro
Loam, 0-3 % & 3-7% slopes (21A & 21B) Soil samples taken in the field had matrix chromas of l OYR 3/3 with some
faint 10YR 5/8 mottling.
Hydrology Observations: No Rrrimary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed on the project
parcel during the site visit - -
Other Pertinent Observations or Information:
6. Conclusions
Parcel is a forested bland site
1 Signature of Field Investigator: Date:
Review and Jurisdictional Determination of the Division of State Lands •
' There are no wetlands or other waters of this state on the parcel(s); therefore no state Removal-Fill Permit is
required for site development.
❑ Based upon a site inspection by the Division, there are wetlands and/or other waters of this state on the parcel(s)
that are subject to state permit requirements. A wetland delineation will be needed to determine the wetland boundaries
(OAR 141-85-AAA to JJJ). The delineation report must be submitted to the Division for review and approval.
❑ The information provided is not sufficient for the Division to make a jurisdictional determination.
This jurisdictional determination is based upon the information provided to us. Should additional information be
' brought to our attention or should site conditions change, we could consider the new information and re-evaluate the site
and our jurisdictional determination, as needed.
Comments:
Title: n 0 l ( Date: ! Z
Determination by JA dlx~aA_
&jl!
Oregon Division of State Lands
775 Summer Street NE, Ste. 100
Salem, OR 97301-1279 Ph: 503-378-3805
r
t
i
t
r
v
i
9 •
SR Design.
Engineedng - Planning - Swveying
Neighborhood Meeting
Tuesday, July 2, 2002
Richard M. Brown Auditorium
Water District Building
8777 SW Burnham St.
Tigard, OR 97223
6:00 pm-7:00 pm
Name
*,N Pewr'zd V\
Address 1,6r 0 (p0 3- 9 3 9 5
sc,ap""'S~~aa
19" Ski mar`q C'+I L0,1144
/Ifg-r U '4j or
j-j
4,
l ~-'8+r-r~,,d ~ ~.2 s ~'l-,,,ey /.Ja.~ES'
?9 S4 5 w N^~ ¢.a GT (.6'~
968- I$~3 - Zo%&Ce eAnceo s
~c~ Gov-
Lr -701
Iq 7~b s~ ~l
/ y5'3
AA~
L.O2
~ ~ Gfl.-log n
fs~ ?o S w ~lS T Alf
S 1 fnil tihvd- `mf' ;i i,l I}C.>;`; CfrC)(I C )I 5 )n
r
i . . - 0 0
Q: Will there be a fence along the perimeter?
A: Craig Brown said that if Matrix was to build the project that they would put in a
good neighbor fence; which is a 6-foot high board fence. There are not guarantees
that a fence would be built if the project was sold.
Q: Will all the trees be left?
A: Steve Roper explained that in order to fill the site, trees would have to be
' removed. The only trees which would remain, are the ones shown on the tree
removal plan (a tree removal plan was shown at the meeting).
Q:
How big will the lots be?
A:
They will range from approximately 6,700 to 8,800 square feet.
Q:
Will 801h Avenue be extended?
A:
Yes it would have to be connected to the proposed east/west street going through
the project.
Q:
Will you fix SW 81' Avenue where it connects to Bonita?
'
A:
It will not be a part of this project's responsibility to fix SW 81e where it connects
to Bonita. It will be up to the City of Tigard to fix the road.
At 7:15 the meeting was adjourned. All of the community members left the room.
1
SR Den u.
0 40
I " Engineering - Planning - Surveying
1
June 14, 2002
Resident
I RE: Leiser Park Subdivision
Dear Interested Party:
SR Design LLC is representing the developer of 4.34 acres of property located between
SW 79th and 81St Avenues, just south of Bonita Road; tax map 25112BC, tax lot 300 and
tax map 25112BD, tax lot 2800. We are considering proposing a subdivision at this
location.
Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss
the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are
invited to attend a meeting on:
Tuesday, July 2, 2002
Richard M. Brown Auditorium
Water District Building
8777 SW Burnham St.
Tigard, OR 97223
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may
be altered prior to submittal of the application to the City.
We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at
(503) 469-1213 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
SR Design LLC
Steven C. Roper, PE
FREQUENTLY ASKED City of Tigard
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING QUESTIONS s P,g.AB tt Community
What Is The Purpose Of This i b rhood Meeting?
The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are
planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to
let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal.
What Happens After The Neighborhood Meeting?
After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often
taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the City. Sometimes it takes a
while before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be several months
between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application.
Once an application is submitted to the City, Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application
has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes approximately 6-8 weeks
from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications
require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns.
For all types of applications, property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels receive notice of
the public hearing (if applicable), notice of the decision, and are given the opportunity to appeal the
decision.
What If The Proposal Presented At The Neighborhood Meeting Is Not What Is Actually SuT bmitted?
Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it
generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the
neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the
project is entirely different, a new neighborhood meeting would be required. In any case, notice of
decision is sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development allowing them the
oti
pr-.,..ty to appeal.
r
How Do I Know What Issues Are Valid?
A decision is reviewed based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the
development code to familiarize yourself with what is permitted and what may not be
permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library or a
copy maybe purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You may also contact
City Planning staff and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. Be prepared, however, that
you may not LIKE all the. standards, but at least you- know what they are. If a development meets the
code standards, it can proceed.
1
i:lcurpln\i urialcitinfo2.doc
11
1
The following is a list of questions developed by a subgroup of the Citizen Involvement Team. These
1 questions are intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for proposed development in your
area. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests.
1 PROCESS
What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When do you expect to submit the
application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to
submittal?
Will the decision on the application be made by City Staff, Hearings Officer, Planning Commission or
City Council? How long is the process? (timing)/
At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input?
Has a pre-application conference been held with City of Tigard Staff?
✓ Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified?
✓ What City Planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the Planner
assigned to the land use case and the one to contact for additional information).
SjREETS
• Will there be a traffic study done? What are the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the
1 development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary?
• What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets
are proposed?
• Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths?
, What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements?
ZONING AND DENSITY
, What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning?
• Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes, to what zone?
ow any, units ore nmrnnce"i fnr the A=%tgh1e nmanf ionii what is tho minimum onrii movimiem Miencifii
allowed in the zone?
DRAINAGE D~ WATER QUALITY
What is your erosion control and drainage plan What is the natural slope of the property? What are
the grading plans?'
• Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will
own and maintain the facility?
TREES AND LANDSCAPING
• What are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed?
What are the landscaping plans? What h, iffArinn nr fencino is.required and/or proposed?
- - -
• •
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
1
t
1
1
1
1
WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING; LtETtJLtN:T#ilS_AFFIDAV[T TO:
City of Tigard
Pla.nhiog DivUidn
18126 :5 Wa11$ouleard
~'ffx V~V-aA( ; do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating
interest in a proposed 5 LL bC~ + V S 1 a V1 affecting the land
located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently
A. MaD 2S IlLP~C.;T0.~CLOt &-Q aM 'Tay-Map ZS i 12-6D Lot 2900, and
did on the V3*1A day of Juhf, ,
01293personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a l q ~LpT Sj-z& ws ~
application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood
meeting to discuss the proposal.
The sig~'Zve posted at
(state location you posted notice on property)
u0py, ignature (In IfiET p sen ary Public)
iu►aikl 4o 63-4 6124)#2
(THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETEINOTARIZE)
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 175 day of dt.LKt ,
AWER
CAT O K
NWARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 35MW NOTARY PU C OREGON
MY COMMISSION DO'IRES OCT.11, 2005
My Commission Expires:
(Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project)
NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME:
TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
( Name of Applicant/Owner:
Address or General Location of Subject Property:
LSnbject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot#(s)-------------
h:1loglnlpattylmeaterslaffpOSLenst
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• •
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
) SS.
City of Tigard )
and say that on '-'X'. 0e, ~
of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a
development at (or near)
ot- 2aX.
I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said
persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post
,
Office located at SW 14 Q11, Ave, Po r4i avid
with postage prepaid thereon.
I A.
(70py r n the resence of a Nota Public
,tA W -4r, cry Q N 01 Ignatu e p rY )
(THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETUNOTARIZE)
~~l.n..►:L....1 and 4~~fnr~ mn nn 4n !7 r19~i of J -J -l o igr
SubScoiboed and JYY VIIUQIIII IIIGV b0ftbaG IIIV 0011 hl- %AGAY VI ,
1
CATHY L ROPER
CCOOIM MUM NO.35M
WCOMMISSION OPM OCT. 11, 22005
- aa'-t~,' aoaz~
NOTARY P IC OREGON
My Commission Expires: bcA . 11, 'D-W5
(Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project)
I NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: I
TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Name of Applicant/Owner:
AddrPas or General T -m Lion of Subject Property:
`Subject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): _ _ _ _ _ _i
-------------------------------------------------------aste
h:VOglnWeriY4nrelaRmatl.mst
being duly sworn, depose
T caused to have mailed to each
meeting to discuss a proposed
a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof.
-
j ~ 1,osTse0
`
21
T L1-- I r ,
R
i Ll
n
alnunr
,.-.r ..s
-
Tj7
1 Jun
t
a:=
\
,
CIS
~tk
F'
Toro"
Z -
IA7Ce
ic+o
_j 3 l l;
.Y
UMA
CITY of TIGARD
GEOGRAPHIC INTORGATIoN sTsTem
AREA NOTIFIED j
(500')
FOR: Steve Roper
(469-1113)
300 ~
1S 1800
Property owner information
is valid for 3 months from
the date printed on this map.
~ I
♦ I
N
0 100 200 30O 400 500 Peet
I'= 340 feet
f I
City of Tigard
Infomladon an Oda map is for general bcatbn o* and
shoufd be vedfied with the Oevebpmerd SeMces M15lon.
13125 SW Hafi Blvd
-
'
Tigard, OR 97223
(503 639.4171
r
~e: S~002; t 3.A
2S112BA-90121 2S112BA-05500
ACKELSON NORMA M BASTIN JOHN C
U7930 SW FANNO CREEK DR #1 PO BOX 231086
TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD. OR 97481
2S112BC-11800 2S112BA-90081
ALTMIRE GEORGE & DORIS BENEDETTI RIC ARD D AND ANNETTE
14869 SW 81ST AVE 15533 HERITAG CT
TIGARD, OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
2S1128C-07300 2S112BA-90041
ARES RONALD D & LORI L BENSEL GILDA
14616 SW 83RD CT 7910 SW FANNO CREEK #1
TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 972 4
2S112BC-00900
2S112BA-06400
BABIN CHARLES J
BONITA COURT -
36 LLC
VIRGINIA L
9500 SW BARBU
BLVD STE 300
14825 SW 81ST
PORTLAND, OR
7219
1
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S112BC-11100
112BA-
BABIN CHARLES JNIRGINIA L
B IT IRS VI
GE CONDO
14825 SW 81ST
AS ATION O
UNIT OWNERS
TIGARD, OR 97223
p
2S112BC-MOO
2S11213C-08200
BAESE CRAIG A
BUCHOLZ LISA M
&
COUTURE LINDA L
TYLER DAVID W
8070 SW VIOLA
8178 SW CAROL
CT
TIGARD, OR 97224
TIGARD, OR 97
2S112BC-08700
2S112BA-01000
BAIOCCO DEOLINDO F & PAOLA
BUNDY RALPH S
14774 SW 81ST
SANDRA C
TIGARD, OR 97224
7975 KROESE LC
TIGARD
OR 972
,
2SI 12BC-09OW
2S112BD4)4400
BAKER CLIFFORD A & NANCY D
BUNNELL GREGO
Y A & CAMI L
14755 SW BOTH
14859 SW 79TH A
E
TIGARD, OR 97223
TIGARD, OR 9722
2S112BD-03300
2SI 12BB-04400
BAKER TODD A & ANGELA G
CACH GERALD C/
OAN L
7983 SW MARA CT
12525 SW MAIN
TIGARD, OR 97224
TIGARD, OR 9722
I 2S112BD-02500 2S112BA-90051
c3ARNETT MARY E CAREY WILLIAM A
14875 SW 79TH AVE 7910 SW FANNO CREEK DR #2
TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 911224
2S112BD-03400
2S 112BC-08900
CARLSON GREG P
DUFORT PATRI
IA M
7992 SW MARA CT
14733 SW BOTH
WE
.TIGARD, OR 97224
TIGARD, OR 97
4
2S1128C-01202
2S1128C-01300
CARROTHERS DONALD B & DESIRAE T
FIMMEL RICHAR
O
14597 SW 81ST AVE
8901 NE HALSE
'
TIGARD, OR 97224
PORTLAND, OR
$7220
2S1128B-04402
CESSNA JAMES W JR & TAMMIE J
8133 SW BONITA RD
TIGARD, OR 97223
2S112BD-00600
CORNUTT ENTERPRISES LLC
11720 SW LYNN
TIGARD, OR 97223
'
2SI12BA-00300
CREEKSIDE COMMONS-48 LLC
BY THOMAS J ROGERS
PO BOX 231296
TIGARD, OR 97281
2S112BA-00011
CRISMAN ALLEN B
7920 SW FANNO CREEK DR
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S112BC 01100
CRISMAN JAMES W/REBECCA
14635 SW 81ST AVE
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S 112BA-90101
DAVIS TROY D
7930 SW FANNO CREEK DR #3
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S1128C-00100
DEKORTE KENNETH J & JANICE R
8040 SW BONITA RD
TIGARD, OR 97223
2S112BC-04000
JELOZIER LAWRENCE M & GENDELL
14780 SW 83RD AVE
' TIGARD, OR 97224
OR
O
2S112BC-079M
GEARY MARY C ET
8123 SW CAROL CT
TIGARD, OR 97Z3
2S112BB-04200
GIAMPIETRO WIL M AND ANASTASI
8205 SW BONITA D
TIGARD, OR 97
2S112BD-01100
GILLMOR RUTH N & ROBERT E
TRUSTEES
14630 SW 79TH
TIGARD, OR 97224
1128D-01
GI OR H N & ROBERT E
TRUS S
14 S 9TH
D, O 9722
2S112BC4=00
GOERES MARK W & SUZANNE R
14700 SW 83RD A
TIGARD, OR 9722
2S112BC-07000
GOLD JACK C & NDY M
4778 CALAROGA R
WEST LINN, OR 9 068
2S1 128C-08000
GRAY BRIEN &
MACK CATHERINE
8145 SW CAROLE
TIGARD, OR 9722
4112BC-11000
2S112BA-05400
GRIEBEL RICHARD J
INGRAM LEROY
& ANNA RD
BROWN MARJORIE V
14465 SW 80 TH
L
8247 SW MATTHEW PARK ST
TIGARD, OR 972
4
IGARD, OR 97224
'
2S11213C-08100
2SI12BD-03100
HAIDER DANIEL F AND CAROL
ISAAC MICHAEL
& JENNIFER L
8167 SW CAROLE CT
14650 SW 161ST
VE
TIGARD, OR 97224
TIGARD. OR 9722
4
2S112BD-01400
2S1128C-08400
HANSEN MAXINE
JAFF OMAR G AN
D KATHLEEN A
14840 SW 79TH AVE
8134 SW CAROL
CT
TIGARD, OR 97223
TIGARD
OR 97
4
,
2S712BC408500
2S112BC-01200
HANSEN PATRICK L
JENNINGS DONAL
D J AND MARY J
14785 SW 81 ST AVE
14533 SW 81 ST A
TIGARD. OR 97224
TIGARD, OR 9722
4
1
2S1128C-10000
2S112BC-03500
HASTINGS CHARLES K
JOHNSON RICH
D M & SUSAN M
8012 SW VIOLA ST
FAMILY TRUST
TIGARD, OR 97224
14680 SW 83RD A
E
TIGARD, OR 9722
4
r
2S112BD-03600
2S112BA-00700
HAYES MATTHEW R &
JPS PROPERTIES
HAYES KRISTINE.A
BY STEVEN Y OR
UTT
7956 SW MARA CT
PO BOX 69502
TIGARD, OR 97224
PORTLAND, OR 9
201
2S11213C-09200
HAYNES DONALD W & FREIDA M
14791 SW 80TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
2S112BB44403
KATZ HOWARD
8161 SW BONITA
TIGARD, OR 9722
2S 112BA-00800
HAYS JAMES E &
SHELLEY P
14460 SW BOTH PL
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S112BC-11900
HOUGHTON FAMILY LLC
'
BY HOUGHTON RAYMOND C 11 &
CAROLYN B
322 8TH ST
LAKE OSWEGO.OR 97034
2S112BD-00800
IULQUIST MARY ANN
8355 SW LAMANCHA CT
'
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S112BC-06800
KEFFER ERNEST INANCY F
14518 SW 83RD C
TIGARD, OR 97221,
2S 112BC-03800
KING MICHAEL A CATHARINE E
14740 SW 83RD A E
TIGARD, OR 9722
2S112SC-01203
KNOLIN RICHARD EUGENE AND
LYNDA LOUISE
14575 SW 81ST A
TIGARD, OR 9722
2S112BC-11200
2S112BD-00500
LAM EVERETT Y &
MALO ROBERT
VIOLET MAY
QUAN JOANNE
C/o CORNUTT EN
TERPRISES LLC
8225 SW MATTHEW PARK ST
11720 SW LYNN
IGARD, OR 97224
TIGARD, OR 97
3
'
2S112BD-00900
251128D-03200
LARSGAARD DAVID H
MARUTA TOMO
I
7720 SW BONITA RD
7965 SW MARA
T
1
TIGARD, OR 97223
TIGARD, OR 972
3
2S1126C-09300
2S112BA-00600
LAU MARVIN E TRUST &
MATRIX DEVELOP
MENT CORP
LAU NORMA J TRUST
12755 SW 69TH
E STE 100
8009 SW VIOLA ST
TIGARD
OR 97Z
!3
TIGARD, OR 97224
,
2S112BC-08300
25112BD-02600
LEE DAVID H
MATRIX DEVELO
MENT CORP
8156 SW CAROLE CT
12755 SW 69TH #
00
TIGARD, OR 97224
PORTLAND, OR
7223
251126C-00300
11
2 2BA-00500
LEISER ANNE TRUSTEE
MA IX D ELO
MENT CORP
6009 SW PENDLETON CT
1275 69TH A
STE 100
PORTLAND, OR 97221
T D, OR--0722
n
'
2S112SC-07100
2S112BA-90031
LIEBMAN ALAN & FRANCINE
MCEVERS JUSTIN
G
14576 SW 83RD CT
7920 SW FANNO
REEK DR #3
TIGARD, OR 97224
TIGARD, OR 9722,
1
251128C-09500
2S112BA-90071
LIEN ROBERT A/CATHERINE L
MCROBERT HERB
RT F
8063 SW VIOLA
7930 SW FANNO
REEK DR
TIGARD, OR 97224
PORTLAND, OR 9
224
2S112BC-00200
2S112BC-09900
'
LITTLE MARK
MEADE PAUL J AN
D ROSLYN R
PO BOX 1115
8038 SW VIOLA S
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
TIGARD, OR 97
2S112BD-03900
2S112BA-05100
LOVER SYNNOVE
MICHAEL RANDOL
H & PHYLLIS J
'
PO BOX 1888
14385 SW 80TH PL
TROY, MT 59935
TIGARD, OR 9722
1
2Sii2BC-088W
2S112BA-05301
AACKINNON DANIEL W MABLE
MORROW JEFFRE
C
14750 SW 81ST AVE
SWEENEY-MORR
ERIN
TIGARD, OR 97224
14435 SW 80TH P
CE
TIGARD, OR 9722
1 2S1128C-07200
MUNDT DAVID E &
SHERRY L
14598 SW 83RD CT
TIGARD, OR 97224
' 2S1128D-04200
NASHIF GARY G TRUST
14814 SW BOTH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
2S112BD-03800
NGUYEN FRANCIS KHAI &
PHAN CHINH THI
14595 SW 79TH
TIGARD, OR 97223
2S1 128C-09700
NICOLL ELIZABETH L &
ANDREEV GEORGE C
8094 SW VIOLA ST
PORTLAND, OR 97224
2S112BC-09400
NORDLUND SCOTT & CINDY B
8021 SW VIOLA
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S112BC-03900
O'KEEFE EDWARD G AND
RITAMARIE P
14760 SW 83RD
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S112BC-06900
OLLISON LIVING TRUST THE
23737 SW NEWLAND RD
WILSONVILLE, OR 97070
2S112BD-01300
OLSON GRANT L & GINA M
14790 SW 79TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S112BA 90091
PARKER MICHELLE
' 7930 SW FANNO CREEK DR
TIGARD, OR 97224
I 2SIUBD-04500
.'ENDERGRASS RICHARD & SUZANN K
14832 SW 80TH AVE
'TIGARD, OR 97224
2S1 128D-03700
PETERSEN MA HEW
J &
PETERSEN JULI E
M
7934 SW MARA T
TIGARD. OR 97 4
2S1128D-03500
PETERSON KEN ETH M &
BENAVENTE PE ER C
7978 SW MARA
TIGARD, OR 97 4
2S112BD-00700
PYOUNG PARK &
RIELLY BRENDA REVOCABLE LIVING T
7524 SW ELMWO D
TIGARD, OR 97223
2S I 12BA-90061
RANDALL LYNN 1
7910 SW FANNO
TIGARD, OR 972
2S112BA-90111
ROSALES SUZAN E
138 ALTA VISTA AY
DALY CITY, CA 014
2S1128C-01201
SCHIEBOLD DE
14551 SW 81 ST
TIGARD, OR 97
2S1128D-02700
SCOLAR SAELDO H
14725 SW 79TH A% E
TIGARD, OR 9722
2S7128A-05000
SKORPEN NEAL J
MORAVEC MARCI L
14365 SW BOTH PL
TIGARD, OR 9722
DR
2S1128D-03000
STALLINGS ERIC & SANDRA K
1183 SECOND ST W
SALEM, OR 97304
2S1128C-09600
SUMMERS JAMES & ALLISON 1
8085 SW VIOLA ST
TIGARD, OR 97224
2S112BA-00900
2S1128D-01200
TAYLOR BARBARA &
WEBBER PROP R
TIES LLC
BAXTER PAMELA ANN
12155 SW WILD
DOD ST
7980 SW KROESE LP
PORTLAND, OR
7224
IGARD, OR 97224
2S1126C-09100
2S112SC-03700
TAYLOR KERRY R & DIANNE L
WHEELER BRIA
A & NICOLE D
14777 SW BOTH AVE
14720 SW 83RD
VE
TIGARD, OR 97224
TIGARD, OR 972!
4
2S1128C-04100
THOMPSON CRAIG L & DIANE F
14820 SW 83RD AVE
TIGARD. OR 97224
2 1128C-101
TI D OF
' 1312 HALL
T ARD, 97223
' 2 11266 11200
TI RD OF
1312 W HALL
ARD, R 97223
112BD-03901
aAR ER OF
97223
2S112SC-08600
WHITE RODNEY AND GAIL T
14796 SW 81ST A E
TIGARD. OR 97224
2S1128B-04100
WIEK DAVID &
MILNER ELLEN &
BUCK JEANNIE M
9840 SW 90TH AV
TIGARD, OR 97Z
2S112SC-07800
WOLF MARK W &
8101 SW CAROLE
TIGARD. OR 97Z
F
2S 1128A-90021
WRIGHT LIZBETH
7920 SW FANNO REEK DR
TIGARD, OR 9722
2S112SC-03400
WALDO KENNETH E AND
JANICE E
14660 SW 83RD
PORTLAND, OR 97223
2S112BD-04300
WALKER LISA MARIE
14827 SW 79TH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97224
r
12S112BA44700
WAVERLY MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS' ASSO
Y MARSH STERLING E
14090 SW 80TH CT
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 112BA-06300
VC INVESTMENTS LLC
BY THOMAS J ROGERS
SW BARBUR BLVD STE 300
ORTLAND, OR 97219
2SI12BA-05200
YORK GREGORY
14405 SW 80TH PL
TIGARD, OR 9722A
& DEBORAH J
Jack Biethan
' 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4
Igard, OR 97224
Kristen Miller
8940 SW Edgewood Street
(Tigard, OR 97223
'Paul Owen
10335 SW Highland Drive
'Tigard, OR 97224
,Louise Fronville
15760 SW Oak Meadow Lane
'Tigard, OR 97224
I Tim Esav
PO Box 230695
_Tigard, OR 97281
Nathan and Ann Murdock
J0 Box 231265
Igard, OR 97281
toss Sundberg
16382 SW 104th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97224
113rian Wegener
9830 SW Kimberly Drive
,Tigard, OR 97224
D1 Dyar
0430 SW Century Oak Drive
Tigard, OR 97224
i
I OF TIGARD - SOM Cff WCONNUEE (pg. 1 of 1) (i:Icurp1MsetupVabe1s\C1T South. Oc) UPDATED: August 8, 2002
TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
LEISER PROPERTY - TIGARD, OREGON
Before Construction:
1. Tree Protection Area. The arborist/ urban forester shall designate the Tree
Protection Zone (TPZ). Where feasible, the TPZ shall be established at the
dripline of the tree or grove as a minimum. If infrastructure (roads, sidewalks,
and utilities) must be installed closer to the tree(s), the TPZ may be established
within the dripline area if the arborist/ urban forester determines that the tree(s)
will not be unduly damaged.
' 2. Protection Fencing. All trees to be retained shall have chain link fencing, a
minimum of 6 feet tall, with steel posts placed no further than 10 feet apart,
installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline. Tree protection areas
' located at least 50 feet from any construction may substitute orange construction
fencing for the chain link fence.
3. Designation of Cut Trees. Trees to be removed shall be clearly marked with
construction flagging, tree marking paint, or other methods approved in advance
by the arborist/ urban forester.
4. Preconstruction Conference. The arborist/ urban forester shall be on site to
discuss methods of tree removal and tree protection prior to any construction.
During Construction:
5. Storage of Material or Equipment. The contractor shall not store materials or
equipment within the TPZ.
' 6. Activities within the TPZ. All construction activities within the TPZ or the
dripline area shall be under the on-site technical supervision of the arborist/ urban
forester. Excavation with the TPZ or dripline area shall be avoided if alternatives
are available. If excavation within the TPZ or dripline area is unavoidable, the
arborist/ urban forester shall evaluate the proposed excavation to determine
methods to minimize impacts to trees. This can include tunneling, hand digging,
or other approaches.
7. Tree Protection Inspection. The arborist/ urban forester shall monitor
construction activities and progress, and provide written reports to the developer
' and the City of Tigard at regular intervals.
8. Final Report. After the project has been completed, the arborist/ urban forester
-hall nrnvide n final rennrt that describes the measures needed to maintain and
protect the remaining trees.
Walter H. Knapp
Certified Forester, SAF-406
Certified Arborist, PN-0497
•
•
I Spreadsheet A
Tree Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag Ws
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
1
TR C 171
19.6
20
2
TR D 28 2
24.3
24
3
TR C 15 3
16.8
17
6
TR C 14 6
16.9
17
8
TR C 24 8
23.4
23
9
TR C 15 9
19.3
19
10
TR C 24 10
23.8
24
12
TR D 14 12
13.0
13
13
TR D 15 13
15.4
15
14
TR C 24 14
24.2
24
15
TR D 16 15
16.4
16
16
TR C 26 16
26.0
26
17
TR C 24 17
26.8
27
18
TR C 24 18
24.0
24
19
TR C 30 19
26.7
27
20
TR C 26 20
22.3
22
21
TR C 30 21
29.4
29
23
TR D 24"4 23
15.0
15
24
TR C 18 24
18.9
19
25
TR C 18 25
16.3
16
26
TR D 22'2 26
20.3
20
27
TR C 24 27
24.1
24
28
TR C 24`2 28
24.6
25
30
TR C 32'2 30
30.2
30
35
TR D 18 35
17.0
17
36
TR C 14 36
15.0
15
37
19.5
19
38
16.1
16
41
TR C 26 41
23.3
23
42
TR C 26 42
24.6
25
43
TR D 20 43
15.7
26
44
TR D 18 44
13.6
14
45
TR C 30 45
38.0
38
47
12.8
13
50
TR D 16 50
12.4
12
51
TR D 16 51
12.0
12
52
TR D 18 52
16.5
17
55
TR D 28 55
23.3
23
57
TR D 16 57
16.2
16
59
TR D 22 59
19.5
19
60
TR D 22 60
17.6
18
65
TR D 14 65
12.3
12
66
TR C 14 66
15.4
15
67
TR C 28 67
29.7
30
68
TR C 32 68
34.0
34
70
TR C 16 70
17.7
18
71
TR C 20 71
23.0
23
72
TR C 26 72
24.9
25
77
TR C 20 77
17.8
18
79
TR C 16 79
14.0
14
83
TR C 14 83
12.8
13
86
TR C 18 86
15.5
15
87
TR C 18 87
19.8
20
89
TR C 20 89
14.9
15
90
TR C 16 90
12.4
12
92
TR C 26 92
22.8
23
•
Tree Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag Ws
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
95
TR C 26 95
20.5
20
97
TR C 28 97
22.4
22
98
TR C 24 98
15.5
15
102
TR C 26 102
20.7
21
104
TR C 24 104
12.5
12
106
TR C 14 106
14.3
14
108
TR D 14 108
14.9
15
109
TR D 14 109
12.5
12
130
TR D 22*3 130
15.8
16
131
TR D 24 131
18.4
18
132
TR D 18 132
13.3
13
133
TR D 16 133
17.5
17
136
TR D 22*2 136
16.2
16
137
TR D 18 137
12.6
13
139
TR D 24*2 139
18.0
18
140
TR D 32 140
23.3
23
141
TR D 20 141
13.5
13
147
TR D 24 147
13.5
13
148
TR D 20 148
13.2
13
150
12.0
12
152
TR D 18*5 152
12.7
13
156
TR C 24 156
19.8
20
167
TR C 14 167
11.9
12
168
TR C 14 168
13.1
13
169
TR C 14 169
14.4
14
172
TR D 16*2 172
14.6
15
176
TR D 16*5 176
13.2
13
177
TR D 14*3 177
12.6
13
179
TR D 24 179
15.4
15
180
TR D 20*5 180
16.8
16
184
TR D 20 184
15.2
15
190
TR D 20*4 190
13.0
13
198
TR D 24*5 198
14.6
15
199
TR D 20*2 199
12.7
13
200
14.9
15
201
TR D 16 201
13.7
14
201-2
14.6
15
202
TR C 20*4 202
16.7
17
203
TR D 24*3 203
18.1
18
204
TR C 26 204
21.0
21
205
TR C 26 205
19.7
20
206
TR C 26 206
22.0
22
207
TR D 24 207
17.7
18
208
TR D 20 208
13.1
13
ono
To _n 013*9 9na
v
IA
IA
210
TRD14210
13.6
14
211
TR C 32 211
25.8
26
212
TR D 20*2 212
13.3
13
213
TR D 14 213
11.9
12
214
TR D 18 214
14.0
14
217
TR C 26 217
21.3
21
218
25.0
23
219
TR C 34 219
33.5
33
219-1
23.5
24
220
TR C 30 220
32.0
32
221
TR D 16*2 221
13.5
13
222
TR D 20*5 222
14.6
15
•
•
Tree Assessment Usin Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag Ws
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
223
26.0
26
225
TR D 20*4 225
14.5
14
227
TR D 18*2 227
16.6
17
228
TR D 20 228
13.5
13
229
TR D 20 229
15.5
15
230
TR D 24 230
18.0
18
236
TR C 20 236
17.0
17
239
TR C 20 239
19.3
19
240
TR D 16*2 240
12.3
12
242
TR D 24 242
18.0
18
243
TR D 20*2 243
14.0
14
244
TR D 30 244
24.0
24
252
TR D 20*6 252
13.4
13
256
TR D 24*5 256
17.8
18
256-1
12.1
12
256-2
20.0
20
256-3
17.9
18
256.4
18.4
18
257
TR D 24 257
16.4
16
260
TR D 26 260
19.2
19
261
TR D 16 261
12.4
12
266
TR D 16 266
13.2
13
269
TR D 14 269
12.0
12
270
TR D 14 270
11.8
12
272
TR D 26 272
18.0
18
273
TR D 28 273
21.5
21
275
TR D 22*4 275
14.1
14
276
TR D 24 276
23.5
23
277
TR D 20 277
20.6
21
278
TR D 18 278
16.4
16
279
TR D 20 279
17.9
18
287
TR D 24*3 287
12.8
13
287-1
D
14.8
15
292
TR C 14 292
13.5
13
294
TR D 18 294
13.3
13
301
TR C 30*4 301
18.9
19
302
TR D 18*7 302
13.6
14
302-2
17.7
18
302-3
14.7
15
303
TR D 20 303
17.2
17
304
TR D 20 304
18.2
18
305
TR D 26 305
24.6
25
306
TR D 18 306
14.5
14
307
TR D 24 307
20.0
20
308
TR D 24 308
20.1
20
309
TR D 22*2 309
15.2
15
315
TR D 20*3 315
12.2
12
316
TR D 24 316
18.9
19
318
TR D 20*3 318
14.0
14
364
TR C 28 364
14.5
14
2021
C
23.8
24
2033
C
33.0
33
2034
C
19.8
20
2035
C
24.7
25
2036
C
25.0
25
2037
C
22.4
22
• 0
Tree Assessment Using Multi-stems Average Method
Surveyed
Field Cruised
Tag Vs
Tree Types/ size/ trunks / tag
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
Retain trees w/ tags 2034, 2035, 2036
69.5
-69.5
70
-70
Retain mismarked on 12-4 (see notes below)
293.7
-293.7
291
-291
Total Cut Inches 12" & over
3195.2
1418.0
Percent Cut Based on Total Inches
52.4%
46.5%
Total Retained Inches 12" & Over
2903.0
1629
Percent Retention Based on Total Inches
47.6%
53.5%
Mitigatable Inches @ % Rate = 50% of Cut
1597.6
709.0
Percentage Trees Retained
Retain per tag 2034, 2035, 2036
3.0
-3.0
3.0
-3.0
Retain mismarked @ 12-4
15.0
-15.0
15.0
-15.0
Tree Count
88
81
88
81
Percent Retention Based on Tree Count
52.1%
52.1%
Retained mismarked trees on 12-4-02
These trees were marked for removal on the plan C4. After comparing removal list, it was discovere
that these were not on the list even though they were marked on map.
Field Cruised
Tag Vs
Actual 12" & Over (in.)
Leave Cut
Rounded Dia. Class (in.)
Leave Cut
12
13.0
13
13
15.4
15
14
24.2
24
16
26.0
26
17
26.8
27
41
23.3
23
42
24.6
25
50
12.4
12
51
12.0
12
66
15.4
15
95
20.5
20
97
22.4
22
98
15.5
15
104
12.5
12
67
29.7
30
Totals
293.7 Inches
291
15 Trees
15
1
1
1
1
Mr. Craig Brown, Vice President
Matrix Development Corporation
12755 SW Wh Ave. #100
Portland, OR 97223
January 2, 2003
Dear Mr. Brown:
We were asked to complete two projects;
1 1. Mark for cutting designated trees on your proposed Bonita Road development.
2. Mark for cutting designated trees in addition to measure diameters of all trees on
you proposed Leiser development.
Following is our report regarding these two projects.
Marking on the Bonita site is complete with all trees as designated on the development
map marked with blue paint. Each marked tree was banded about 4 to 5 feet above the ground.
Measurements on the Leiser project are completed and designated removal trees have
1 been marked with blue paint for cutting. Marking while measuring helped to efficiently measure.
Prior to work on the Leiser project Matt Stein, City Forester for Tigard, was contacted
regarding the question concerning measuring multiple stems on one stump. We asked him
whether he preferred that we measure the largest stem of the clump or- average the measurement
of all stems within the clump. After conversation regarding both methods, Mr. Stein asked how
we normally approach the question. Our answer was that we have completed assignments using
both approaches, but we would prefer doing it according to his preferences. Mr. Stein replied that
he would be comfortable with either measuring the largest stem or averaging measurements of all
stems within the clump. Whichever method was the chosen technique it should be applied
consistently throughout the project and notes should indicate which method was used.
Accordingly, we chose to measure all stems and average all to arrive at a stem diameter
for the clump. We have recorded all measurements for all trees included within every clump
especially if it appeared that the average might be over 12 inches, thus a possible remove tree.
The enclosed spreadsheet records measurements for all trees. Measurements were
recorded on the base spreadsheet given us for the project. Column 1 is Tree Tag Number. Column
2 Tree Types, size, trunks, and tag as was initially supplied. Column 3 is a restating of the initial
r .
r 1600 N .W. Skv line Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97229
•
OeneThchs
f50311297-1660
diameter. Columns 4 and 5 records diameter measurements to the nearest 1/10 inch for those
trees under 12 inches for both cut and leave trees separated by column. Columns 6 and 7 records
diameter measurements to the nearest 1/10 inch for those trees 12 inches and over for both cut
and leave trees separated by column. Columns 8 and 9 indicate the diameter class rounded to the
nearest full one inch for both cut and leave trees 12 inches and over. Columns under the Notes
section record multiple stem diameters within each clump. Several trees were not found and are
so noted. Several tree numbers are small brushy trees and were not measured.
' Spreadsheet Page One shows measurements for all trees using an average for multiple
stems. Spreadsheet Page Two shows measurements for all trees indicating measurements for each
individual stem as though it represented a single tree. These two methods are presented to help
analyze the effect of presenting the data either as averaged stem diameter per stump or treating
each tree as an individual. Not presented is the effect of presenting the largest stem within the
clump as the diameter for the tree on that stump.
' Listed at the bottom of Spreadsheet Page One are trees that were marked for cutting by
mistake. Most of the trees on this list certainly could in my opinion be left-However, 3 to 4 might
be questionable. These trees can be unmarked, but as we discussed earlier we will wait until you
have made decisions regarding the need for cutting or leaving based upon the criteria you need to
work with. At the bottom of each spreadsheet adjustments for leaving these trees were added to
help in the initial analyses.
Interestingly, the following observations are noted.
1. It apparently makes little difference whether the diameter class (rounded full
number) is used or the actual diameter to the nearest 1/10 inch.
2. While counting as opposed to measuring diameter of the trees yield similar results,
you may have slightly greater flexibility by using the measured diameter.
3. Using the average diameter of all stems on the stump apparently provides greater
' flexibility compared to using diameters for each individual stem exclusive of
whether or not they are on the same stump.
4. Use of stem diameters to the nearest 1/10 inch apparently yields better results for
purposes of calculating mitigation.
Additional questions probably will surface once you have had the opportunity to review
the data. Please feel free to call.
Thanks for the opportunity to assist.
Yours Truly
Richard W. Courter, ACF, CF#23
Professional Forester
RWC:c
Transportation Impact
Study
0
0
M IM M= M M M ai M M i M M M M M IM M M
LEISER PARK DEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
Prepared for:
Matrix Development Corporation
12755 SW 69`h Avenue, #100
Portland, OR 97223
Prepared by:
I
January 20, 2003
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
SECTION I - STUDY SUMMARY
Introduction I
Summary of Findings ..........................................................................................................:4
SECTION II - EXISTING CONDITIONS
'
Site Condition and Adjacent Land Use ................................................................................8
Transportation Facilities
..8
Existing Traffic Volumes
..9
Existing Levels of Service
..9
Accident History
11
Existing Public Transit Service
1 l
Non-Motorized Transportation
12
Planned Transportation Improvements
13
SECTION III - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
t
1
t
1
1
Analysis Methodology .......................................................................................................14
2003 Existing Traffic and Levels of Service Without Project ...........................................14
Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................14
Trip Distribution and Assignment .....................................................................................16
2003 With Project Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service ...............................................16
Site Access and Circulation 16
.
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................20
SECTION IV - TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Year 2003 Traffic Counts
LOS Calculation Sheets
Sight Distance diagrams for Leiser Lane at 796 and 81 s` Avenues
Peak Hour Signal Warrant Calculation
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 0
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map .................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Site Plan ................................................................................................................3
Figure 3a. 79" at Bonita Road Traffic Control and Lane Configuration .............................6
Figure 3b. 81" at Bonita Road Traffic Control and Lane Configuration .............................7
Figure 4.2003 Existing Traffic Flow ................................................................................15
Figure 5. Site Generated Traffic ........................................................................................17
Figure 6.2003 Traffic Volume With Project .....................................................................18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Intersection Level of Service Summary ...............................................................10
' SECTION I
f STUDY SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Transportation Impact Study has been prepared to assess transportation impacts to
the proposed construction of 19-lot subdivision located south of Bonita Road between
79th and 81St Avenues in the City of Tigard. Figure 1 shows the project vicinity.
' Project Description
The project site consists of a 4.34-acre piece of land that is currently vacant. A total of 19
' single-family homes are being proposed for construction on the site. It is anticipated that
a new street (Leiser Lane) will be constructed as part of this project to create a connection
between 79th and 81St Avenues. Also, with this project it is proposed to connect 80th
Avenue to Leiser Lane creating a new "T" intersection.
The existing zoning for this property is R-4.5. The property is surrounded by R-7 and R-
12 designations. Most of the surrounding uses are residential of nature along 79th and 81St
Avenues as well as along Bonita Road in the area adjacent to the project. Figure 2 shows
a site plan for the proposed project.
' Scope of Transportation Impact Stud
' Based on conversations with City of Tigard staff, the following intersections were
analyzed as part of this study:
• Bonita Road at 79th Avenue
• Bonita Road at 81St Avenue
' The remainder of the study presents the following analysis:
• . Existing traffic conditions in the project study area.
• Future background traffic conditions.
• Trip generation estimates for the proposed development.
• Traffic impacts of the proposed development on future peak hour operations at the
key intersections in the site vicinity for the assumed build-out year of the project
(2003) as required by the City of Tigard.
' • Site access and circulation characteristics, as well as sight distance requirements.
°L)
•
a
I
V5,1~
r a»- '~s- ooozt nY G aaE9 ns dl A GJ - J all ~M
H149 ~ I a/ Yd ~
t;
j: z AIDId - 2. .
Ulm
A Vices = MS .
y M > AV It1Q[ MS a s, }.f ooost ti aos► a f
Ad ONZL
ooEEr ti[ } a
AV .
gjpr . ~ ~ ~ NU[ lei ,1~~ ~ r ~ ~ 5 Hl.f•( r .1 rl$
zz.
5N. Av 1u9t1LN5 toy, aosri : r - A
QoEii ~y 7d a. <"~1n131q sV~~:' ~Y H19t Ms i
".Hiet . J Qi. ~ N4 a
' H16
`J6 b S ~tiA~ t al s e
Y 1~IB.!(S p. y~ / Q t J'±rw`"(5 Y A al
° J ? t 1S MS fim.~n ~Md °
F~/ r C oni sA y auana
a>iEe Hs g 5i_ ~ n t , (J~i aEi f7~q _a e= Qstoe~
G a N
"W viA~
M t' I~ r aoeEt .A OAlBl,
i 7,-
O
,~,p~ ■ m MS a =d Abp `'r - a e
1 A
.4e .1
aotit ri j R wRTa AY roar As
~hY Hi06 ~ MS ' tr` ~ ~ ~ ~ d y `A Ad~u a tw
41
EA .~y . 7 4 r f rv . ~T. p nb s! L !t1'IILS 16
AV 3i iei A% t - . ~i^ n3 ~Y AYiff t7 A Re, V
ILI
e OHZ6 MS j- ; •a. ! ~ ~ 4~. , y ('tY 1~ cpp ~~,r ~ Js Irr :ow Ms A _ 91 3 ' . a
Irii'6 !fS al at dW N P1 t'!~ ; t g + i CA s T Y~' - ` a Te[E dA b
. C
iii n
N
W
U
Z ~
0
0
z
r r r rr r m M r M M r 1=1
wr r A r
~ PAR
$jTf INFORM~IiF
G[NERAL LOCAVON
tt1Kd1 7!M Aa9 NaT~ scum or WW" I& .
1FQAt LOCATIObI
m x a tt . 4-a" Anw5,* v
uUmmoum more. *KM
Tae wP 06 uX toT x110000 so
AND
thza► Y.t 1 N QC40M & pt. AtX4
704 aAwn. CUM `T K
VAX NO AND m Of USSMUU*
MASK fA t.S o'r ~ lLk% to rrsr wnr er
ea~wc o 0 r A m TsTSTor`~t canna,,
d XAI►. K~at. i V1LT yaATN Affi mx 72 ►UI Kom
7Mr al f~ tt1 i[ a11► ON= DMW*CV AT APL AT
PROJECT TEAM
CUS mm WiVG.a4q
~
cot ip
Mod s. - 1br JIM so uth *m .
M.
K 'AAt! a 7 OW.AN° TI I
u~w nL m
ir
~
a-
r
.
u
°
s
e
ucW
1
eQ
a ab wml twopooft-W
JIM sw A- on
a" •
It ,MU x4 ~
"
"a CL
'
eaAxtTOw accoX sna ra aKaw rnTa
aim
,67 o
u
~
:
► ..R,~,~
w
q r
r ie
n
A
SITE INMRMAII
no* A-0
ACIAM
1p°r+ sa n
TS
ft
o
Aaw T
mb
n
a
aairiot
an
at AaaA. t.s sas.
rL0. if.
L
f
W AIM
tCHWO 1
is Lait
YAX op
W
.nntw paX,.Th U toll
CHEF r )NDE~f
Co - COVES
CI - TOPo / EX►SUNO CONO1TIONS PLAN '
C2 - PREL (NARY PLAT PLAN
C3 - CIRCULATION PLAN
C4 - TREE RE OVAL
CS PREUMNARY ADR111 PLAN
C8 - PRELIWNARY U71 Ty PLAN
C7 - PREUWNARY STREET TREE PLAN
Figure c.
Conceptual Site Plan
3
5 N! TY MAP
NTS
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
I
1
t
0 0
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following summarizes the major findings of the Transportation Impact Study. The
findings are broken down into two parts: a) summary of the Transportation Impact Study
methodology, and b) the general study findings and recommended on-site and off-site
improvements.
Transportation Impact Study Methodology
1. Existing traffic conditions within the project vicinity were documented to define the
attributes of the area that would be impacted by the proposed project.
2. Traffic conditions without the project were established to define the baseline by
which project impacts could be determined. These traffic volumes were estimated by
using actual traffic counts (AM and PM peak hour turning movements) executed in
January 2003 by Group Mackenzie.
3. Project generated daily, AM and PM peak hour trips. were estimated from rates
published in "Trip Generation, 6 h Edition" (Institute of Transportation Engineers),
Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing). Predicted site-generated trips
were then assigned to the roadway network and added to the 2003 baseline traffic
volumes to develop the 2003 "with project" traffic volumes.
4. Future traffic conditions with the project were established and compared to the
existing traffic conditions to determine the project's traffic impact on the proposed
project vicinity.
5. The future levels of service at the study area intersections were examined to
determine whether any off-site mitigation measures are necessary.
6. Access to the site will be provided by Leiser Lane, a new street proposed to be
constructed to create connectivity between 79th and 81St Avenues to the project site.
Sight distance requirements were also evaluated as part of this study for the analyzed
intersections in addition to 81St and 79th Avenues at Leiser Lane and the future
connection of 80`h Avenue and Viola Avenue at 81St Avenue.
Findings
1. The proposed development is expected to generate 225 daily, 23 AM peak and 24
PM peak hour trips.
2. The STOP sign controlled intersection of 79`, Avenue at Bonita Road was
analyzed under existing conditions (year 2003) and determined to operate at level
of service (LOS) E for the AM peak hour and LOS F for the PM peak hour. These
levels of service are expected to remain the same during the year 2003 with
project traffic added.
4
"
"
S`
3. The STOP sign controlled
T
intersection of 81
Avenue at Bonita Road was
determined to operate at LOS C during the AM peak and the PM peak hours
'
under current conditions for the year 2003. The levels of service will remain the
same for the year 2003 with project added traffic for the AM peak and the PM
peak hours.
'
`h
`
4. Sight distance on Leiser Lane at the intersections with 79
and 81 S
Avenues was
analyzed and determined to be adequate based on the posted speed on both streets.
t
`
5. Sight distance at the intersections of 79
and 81 S
Avenues at Bonita Road was
determined to need improvements. The intersection of Viola Street and 81 S`
Avenue was also determined to need improvements to meet sight distance
standards for a street with 25 MPH posted speed.
Recommendations
Based on the Transportation Impact Study contained in this report, the following are our
recommendations:
I .
STOP sign control is recommended at the new intersections of Leiser Lane at 79th and
81St Avenues for the traffic exitin
the
roject site
g
p
.
'
2.
STOP sign control is also recommended for the new intersection created by
80`h
connectin
80th Avenue to Leiser Lane
A STOP
i
h
ld b
i
ll
d
g
.
gn s
s
ou
e
nsta
e
on
Avenue for vehicular traffic approaching Leiser Lane.
'
3.
An existing retaining wall on the southwest comer of the intersection appears to be
obstructing sight distance for vehicles approaching the intersection of 79th Avenue at
Bonita Road from the south and looking west. In addition, a portion of a fence
(approximately 30 feet in length) would need to be moved back from Bonita Road
about two feet to be able to meet sight distance requirements. A more detailed survey
work should be conducted prior to making improvements.
4.
An existing fence on the northwest corner Tpears to be obstructing sight distance for
vehicles approaching the intersection of 79 Avenue at Bonita Road from the north
and looking east. According to a prior study at this intersection conducted by DKS
and Associates, the fence violates current City of Tigard code for obstructing at an
'
:intersection. It is recommended to move the fence back approximately four feet from
Bonita Road to achieve some level of improvement on sight distance. A more detailed
survey work should be conducted prior to making improvements.
5.
Installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at this time for the intersection of
79`h Avenue at Bonita Road. The peak hour traffic signal warrant and traffic accident
warrant were investigated prior to making this determination. It was found that
neither one of these warrants were met based on current information from traffic
counts provided by Group Mackenzie and traffic accident data provided by City staff.
'
5
BONITA FIRS
SIDEWALK
BIKE LANE
STOP
SIGN
"NO PARKING THIS
SIDE OF STREET"
SIGN
BIKE LANE
SIDEWALK
POSTED
"SPEED 25"
1/17109
Project:
bonitaflow.dwg
NOTES:
0
W
LV
UO
~Z
N
NO SCALE
POSTED
"SPEED 25"
SIDEWALK
BIKE LANE
r SW BONITA ROAD
W
~ VSTOP
%rl SIGN
vi
BIKE LANE
SIDEWALK
TRAFFIC CONTROL AND LANE CONFIGURATION
01
Figure
3a
N
NO SCALE
"NO PARKING THIS
SIDEWALK SIDE OF STREET" SIDEWALK
Q SIGN
BIKE LANE BIKE LANE ,
OC
p 4 ~
SW BONI TA ROAD
O
BIKE LANE
DRIVEWAY
SIDEWALK
POSTED
"SPEED 2:
w 3
U>l BIKE LANE
W
p
Q SIDEWATM
I-(n "NO PARKING THIS
SIDE OF STREET"
co ciGN
STOP
SIGN
1/17103 NOTES: TRAFFIC CONTROL AND LANE CONFIGURATION Figure
Project: 3b
bonitaflow.On
1
1
1
1
t
11
1
1
r
t
1
1
t
t
SECTION II
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SITE CONDITION AND ADJACENT LAND USE
The proposed site is zoned R-4.5 and is vacant. Mostly residential uses surround this
property to the north, south, east and west. The project site is located south of Bonita
Road and between 79th and 81 st Avenues. The nearest major intersections are 79th and 81 st
Avenues at Bonita Road.
Both intersections of 79th and 81st Avenues at Bonita Road are currently STOP controlled
for the traffic approaching Bonita Road from 79th and 81s' Avenues. The four-way
intersection of 79th Avenue at Bonita Road is also controlled on the north side by a STOP
sign on Fanno Creek Drive which is the extension of 79th Avenue to the north of Bonita
Road.
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Roadways have two functions, to provide mobility and access. From a transportation
design perspective these functions can be compatible since high or continuous, speeds are
desirable for mobility while low speeds are more desirable:for land access. Arterials
emphasize a high level of mobility for through movement and by contrast local facilities
emphasize the land access function, while collectors offer a balance of both functions.
The following provides a description of the existing street system in the study area
including a description of street classifications and characteristics.
Bonita Road: Bonita Road is classified as a Collector according to the City of Tigard
Transportation System Plan. This roadway is an east-west facility that connects Hall
Boulevard with Lake Oswego (via Bangy Road) and I-5 (via 72nd Avenue and Carman
Drive or via Bangy Road and Kruse Way). Bonita Road in the vicinity of the project
consists of two travel lanes with sidewalks and bike lanes as well as designated left turn
lanes at the intersections with 79th and 81st Avenues in the City of Tigard. The function of
a collector street is to provide both access and circulation within and between residential
and commercial/industrial areas. Collectors differ from arterials in that they provide more
of a citywide circulation function, do not require as extensive control of access and
connect residential neighborhoods distributing trips from the neighborhood and local
street system. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH.
79th Avenue: 79th Avenue is classified as a: Neighborhood Route according to-*the City of
Tigard Transportation System Plan. This roadway is a north-south route connecting
Durham Road to Bonita Road and extending to the north of Bonita Road as Fanno Creek
Drive which connects to Hall Boulevard. 79th Avenue consists of two travel lanes with
' limited sidewalks and no bike lanes in the project vicinity. The City has planned to
very
8
make some improvements to widen this roadway with the purpose of making the road
safer for vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. Signage has been installed
along this street to warn drivers of the restrictive sight distance compounded by the
presence of pedestrians and traffic generated by private driveways. The signage suggests
a driving speed of 15 MPH. Neighborhood Routes are usually long relative to local
streets and provide connectivity to collectors or arterials. Because neighborhood routes
have greater connectivity, they generally have more traffic than local streets and are used
-
by residents in the area to get into and out of neighborhoods but do not serve
citywide/large are circulation. Neighborhood traffic management measures are often
appropriate to retain the neighborhood character of these routes. The posted speed limit is
25 MPH.
st Is'
81 Avenue: 81 Avenue is classified as a Local Street according to the City of Tigard
Transportation System Plan and forms a "T" intersection at Bonita Road. This roadway is
"
a north-south route connecting Ashford Street to Bonita Road. 81
Avenue consists of
two. travel lanes with intermittent sidewalks and no bike lanes in the project vicinity.
Local Streets have the sole function of providing access to immediate adjacent land.
Service to through traffic movement on local streets is deliberatively discouraged by
design. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH.
The following intersections were analyzed as part of this study:
• Bonita Road at 79th Avenue
• Bonita Road at 81 S` Avenue
Figures 3-a and 3-b show the existing roadway system in the study area including number
of lanes and traffic control on Bonita Road at the intersections with 79th and 81S` Avenues
in the vicinity of the project site.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were obtained at all the study area
intersections. The morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts were
conducted in January 2003 by Group Mackenzie.
Existing morning and afternoon peak hour turning movement counts in the study area are
presented in Figure 4. These actual counts are included in the appendix of this report.
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
1
Based on the volumes presented in Figure 4, peak hourly traffic operations were analyzed
at the intersections identified above using methodologies outlined in the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). According to the HCM, there are six levels of service (LOS) by
which the operational performance of an intersection may be described. These levels of
service range between LOS A that indicates a relatively free-flowing condition, and LOS
F that indicates operational breakdown. LOS D is usually considered as a minimum
1
1
r
i
I
I
t
t
i
11
1
IY
acceptable standard in urban areas. With this level of service, some delays are expected
for certain traffic movements.
Evaluation of signalized intersection capacity and operation utilizes two criteria
standardized in the transportation engineering industry. The first measure of operational
acceptability for roadways and intersections is the ratio of traffic volume to capacity of
the roadway or intersection. This ratio is referred to as the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c).
The second measure operation is the level of service.
Unsignalized intersections are evaluated on the delay experienced by each lane or lane
group and the total intersection average, similar to signalized intersections. This delay
corresponds to the lane or lane groups' reserve capacity that is a measure of the capacity
of a movement that is unused. Because major street traffic is nearly unimpeded, the
intersection average does not always reflect the delays experienced by side street traffic.
For this reason, the lane or lane group that experiences the highest delay will be reported
for the intersection as a whole, along with the corresponding level of service and reserve
capacity.
Year 2003 without project, and 2003 with project levels of service are summarized in
Table 1 for all study area intersections.
TABLE 1. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Traffic Scenario
Intersection
Type of
Peak
2003 Existing
2003 Existing + Project
Control
Hour
App al
Approach
LOS Delay
Critical Approach
LOS Delay
AM
SB
E 38.6
SB
E 40.9
9th Ave. & Bonita Rd.
Stop-Control
PM
SB
F 86.5
SB
F 93.5
AM
NB
C 19.5
NB
C 20.2
1st Ave. & Bonita Rd.
Stop-Control
PM
NB
C 18.5
NB
C 19.5
Notes: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology used in analysis. NB - Northbound. SB - Southbound.
10
ACCIDENT HISTORY
Accident data on Bonita Road at 79th and. 81' Avenues was obtained from the City of
Tigard Public Works Department. This information revealed that only three accidents
were reported on Bonita Road near 79th or 81St Avenues. The accidents reported were as
follow:
• March 27, 1999: 200 feet from 79th Avenue. Backing out of driveway-failure to yield.
February 1, 2000: 500 feet east of 79th Avenue. Rear-end, hit and run.
December 19, 2001: 100 feet from 79th Avenue. Exit driveway, tree or stump-
mechanical defect.
EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
No:transit service is available in the project vicinity. There are currently 12 fixed bus
routes that provide service within the City of Tigard. There are four express routes
providing service to Tigard residents (12E, 64X, 92X and 95X). Existing transit
~I headways on bus routes in Tigard range from 10 to 15 minutes on Routes 12 and 92X to
about 30 minutes on Routes 76 and 78 during peak commute periods. While Tri-Met bus
ridership in Tigard increased 35% from 1990 to 1994 and another 15% from 1994 to
1999 (comparing 12 routes), transit ridership represents 6% of Tigard PM peak hour trip
making.
One of Tigard's greatest transit needs in the future will be improving transit service to the
southwest portion of the City where much of the new development is occurring. Tri-Met
has identified Durham Road and Barrows Road for transit service in the future. Rapidly
increasing employment and housing creates a much greater opportunity to create
productive public transit routing in Tigard.
As part of the development of the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan several
strategies were developed for the implementation of future'transit facilities in Tigard.
These strategies were developed to provide the City with priorities in providing guidance
to Tri-Met since it is likely that the available funding will be insufficient to address all of
the projects identified in the Transit Master Plan.
Strategy number one focuses on providing Commuter Rail through Tigard. This allows
greater connectivity to the regional transit network and to other nearby cities such as
Hillsboro, Tualatin and Wilsonville. Stations in the Tigard area would be located in the
Downtown Area and near Washington Square. Since the Commuter Rail route crosses
Bonita Road just west of 72°d Avenue it can provide some future relief to some of the
traffic currently experienced on Bonita Road at the peak hours.
t
1
11
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are currently available on Bonita Road. Concrete
sidewalks approximately 6 feet in width and 5-foot striped bike lanes are available along
Bonita Drive in the vicinity of the project between 79`h and 81St Avenues. The typical
cross-section for a Collector street classification includes sidewalks and bike lanes.
Continuous bikeways are currently provided for the full length of Durham Road,
McDonald Street and Tigard Street in the City of Tigard. Bikeways are also provided for
significant portions of ORE 99-W, Hall Boulevard, Bonita Road, 97th and 98th Avenues,
Greenburg Road, Walnut Street, 121 St Avenue and Bull Mountain Road.. In addition, there
are few segments where bikeways exist specifically where new development and
roadway improvements have occurred. Continuity and connectivity are key issues for
bicyclists and the lack of facilities or in some cases gaps can cause significant problems
for bicyclists in the City of Tigard. Without connectivity of the bicycle system, this mode
of travel is severely limited.
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) calls for all arterial and collector streets to have
bicycle facilities. In order to meet the TPR requirements and fill in existing gaps in the
existing bicycle system, an action plan that focuses on the framework system should be
developed to prioritize bicycle investment. According to the City of Tigard
Transportation System Plan, there are recommended projects in the Bicycle Project
Priorities for the construction of bike lanes on City arterials and collectors.
A limited number of sidewalks are provided on the arterial and collector roadways in the
City of Tigard, resulting in a fair existing pedestrian network. Many residential
subdivisions in the City are relatively new and a majority of them have sidewalks
available. A problem exists outside the limits of new developments where connecting
sidewalks often do no exist. This is the case of both 79th and 81St Avenues within the
limits of the Leiser Park Development.
Continuity and connectivity are key issues for pedestrians in Tigard since generally
speaking if there is a sidewalk available, there will be sufficient capacity. In general, it is
more important that a continuous sidewalk be available than that of a certain type or size.
Residential trips need a set of interconnected sidewalks radiating out from homes to
destinations within one-half to one mile. Beyond these distances, walking trips of this
type become significantly less common (over 20 minutes). The most common need is to
provide a safe and interconnected system that affords the opportunity to consider the
walking mode of travel, especially for trips less than one mile in length.
As part of this proposed development, Leiser Lane is to be constructed providing
connectivity between 79th and 81St Avenues. Leiser Lane will include sidewalks that will
connect future residents of Leiser Park to nearby collectors and arterials within the City
of Tigard pedestrian system.
12
' PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Many agencies, as well as public and private providers and developers are involved in
building and maintaining the City's transportation system. Metro, the region's governing
body, coordinates transportation financing for many projects, sets priorities for
expenditures, and sets standards for the operation and design of regional elements of the
transportation system.
The City coordinates with other cities in the Metro area, transit providers and the State of
Oregon. One product of that coordination is the City of Tigard Transportation System
Plan (TSP). The improvements needed to mitigate modified 2015 future conditions
combine both those identified in prior plans and those determined as the outcome of the
TSP transportation analysis. The improvements shown in Figure 8-18 of the TSP are part
of the updated RTP listing for the Tigard area. The Figure includes Bonita Road for
improvements consisting of its widening to four lanes from Hall Boulevard to Bangy
Road at an estimated total cost of $8 million.
The City of Tigard has also developed plans for improvements of 79`h Avenue between
Durham Road and Bonita Road. According to City staff plans for the construction of
these improvements are currently on hold.
,o
I
1
1
r
t
1 13
•
SECTION III
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The impact of traffic generated by the proposed Leiser Park development project during
the AM and PM peak hours were analyzed as follows:
• Based on the project size of development, the total number of future AM and PM
peak hour trips, both in and out of the proposed development, were estimated for
complete build out of the site.
• Trip distribution of site-generated traffic was developed from existing count
information as well as logical travel paths to the major transportation facilities.
Background traffic conditions for the year 2003 without the project were estimated by
using actual counts conducted by Group Mackenzie in January 2003.
' Predicted site-generated traffic for the weekday AM and PM hours were assigned to
the roadway network and added to the 2003 existing traffic volumes to develop the
2003 traffic volumes with the proposed project.
• Future traffic (year 2003) demands on each of the study area intersections in the
project vicinity were analyzed to identify any capacity or roadway deficiencies with
the build out of the site.
• Site access, circulation and sight distance issues were analyzed.
A detailed discussion of the methodology summarized above, and the analysis results are
contained in the remainder of this section.
2003 EXISTING TRAFFIC AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT
The year 2003 was used as base for this study since traffic counts were conducted in
January 2003 by Group Mackenzie. The year 2003 traffic analysis was derived from the
actual counts taken. Figure 4 shows the 2003 existing traffic volumes without the project
for the AM and PM peak hours.
TRIP GENERATION
Estimates of daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed
project were developed from rates published in "Trip Generation, 6'b Edition" (Institute
of Transportation Engineers) for this project. The Leiser Park development project is
expected to generate 225 daily, 23 AM peak hour and 24 PM peak hour trips.
14
1
1
l
r
r
N
NOT TO SCALE
AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
01/15/03 NOTES 2003 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure
Project ~1
LEISERPARK
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
To determine the trip distribution pattern of project generated traffic, existing AM and
PM peak hour turning movement traffic counts were utilized as well as logical travel
patterns to the major transportation facilities. A generalized trip distribution for both the
AM and PM peak hours was developed. The trip distribution pattern and assignment of
project generated traffic are shown in Figure 5.
2003 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
The traffic volumes shown in Figures 4 and 5 were combined to determine the 2003 with
project traffic volumes and levels of service. These traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6.
Based on the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, levels of service analyses were
conducted for the 2003 with project traffic volume conditions for both the AM and PM
peak hours. The results of the analysis for the year 2003 with project traffic volumes are
shown in Table 1.
As shown on Table 1, the intersection of 81 Avenue at Bonita Road operates at level of
service C for the AM peak and PM peak hours under current conditions and it will
maintain the same level of service during both peak hours with the project added traffic.
The intersection of 79`h Avenue at Bonita Road operates at level of service E in the AM
peak hour and level of service F in the PM peak hour currently, and with the project
added traffic these levels of service will not change for the AM and PM peak hours.
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to the proposed Leiser Park development will be provided by Leiser Lane, a new
street that will be providing connectivity to 81 sc and 79`h Avenues. The new right-angle
intersections created by Leiser Lane at 791h and 81 sc Avenues will be controlled by a
STOP sign at each of the intersections for the traffic exiting the site. Leiser Lane is
anticipated to be constructed according to City standards for a street serving this
proposed project. Leiser Lane is also anticipated to be located in excess of the minimum
150 feet required by the City of Tigard as separation from an arterial or a collector street,
and over 125 feet from the required distance between local streets in the vicinity of the
project.
The posted speed on 81 S` and 79`h Avenues is 25 MPH. According to AASHTO
requirements and from a sketch developed by SR Design for the location of Leiser Lane
at 81 s` and 79`h Avenues, it can be concluded that both of these intersections provide
approximately 250 feet of sight distance, which is adequate for this type of roadway. In
addition, in the case of 79`h Avenue, there are warning signs placed along the roadway
asking drivers to lower the speed limit (Hidden Driveways 15 MPH) due to the presence
of driveways along the roadway and pedestrians that also use this facility without
sidewalks. It is anticipated that these two intersections would not present potential
conflicts with the operation of other driveways in the project vicinity.
16
1
r
t
1
1
M
1
1
1
(E)
NOT TO SCALE
AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
01/1&03 NOTES SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENT Figure
Project
LEISERPARK 5
1
1
t
r
9,
t
1
1
1
1
1
N
NOT TO SCALE
wr
AWPM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
01/15103 NOTES 2003 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure
Project
LEISERPARK WITH PROJECT 6
r
The required sight distance as determined from a prior study conducted by DKS
Associates as part of the 79 h Avenue improvements (Durham to Bonita) is 380 feet for
vehicles traveling eastbound, and field measurements indicate there are approximately
150 feet of sight distance available to the west and 360 feet to the east. From these
measurements it was concluded that the sight distance should be improved for vehicles
approaching this intersection from the south. An existing retaining wall on the southwest
corner of the intersection is obstructing the sight distance to the west and utility boxes
located on the southeast corner of the intersection also create some obstruction to the
east. It is recommended that a portion of the retaining wall should be lowered and in
addition the fence next to the retaining wall should be moved back from Bonita Road
approximately two feet in order to meet sight distance requirements. The intersection is
currently controlled by a STOP sign for vehicles approaching Bonita Road from 79ffi
Avenue.
The same prior study indicates that the.sight distance also should be improved for
vehicles approaching this intersection from the north and looking to the east (left). The
required sight distance is 390 feet for vehicles traveling westbound and field
measurements indicated approximately 180 feet is currently available. A fence on the
northeast corner is obstructing sight distance. The fence would need to be moved back
from Bonita Road approximately four feet from its existing location to achieve an
improvement in sight distance. The intersection of Fanno Creek Drive and Bonita Road
is currently controlled by a STOP sign.
nal warrants based on traffic accidents and
Traffic si
eak hour traffic v
l
es w
g
p
um
o
ere
investigated as part of the analysis of the intersection of 79`h Avenue at Bonita Road.
Based on the investigation of these two warrants it was determined that a traffic signal
should not be installed at this time. The City of Tigard Transportation System Plan
recommends the possibility of the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection in the
year 2015 provided that traffic signal wan-ants are investigated in accordance to the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices prior to its installation.
With the construction of the Leiser Park development, 80`h. Avenue will provide
connectivity to Leiser Lane creating a new intersection. It is recommended that a STOP
sign be installed on 80'' Avenue for the traffic entering Leiser Lane. This new connection
will also allow traffic from the proposed project to connect to 8Is' Avenue via 80th
Avenue and Viola Street.
The "T" intersection of Viola Street and 81" Avenue is currently controlled by a STOP
sign for the traffic approaching 81" Avenue on Viola Street. From field observation it
was determined that for vehicles approaching this intersection from Viola Street the sight
distance is limited to approximately 100 feet due to the presence of overhanging tree
branches on the south side of this intersection. The sight distance towards the north side
of 81' Avenue is approximately 250 feet. A potential sight distance improvement at this
intersection would involve trimming the overhanging vegetation on the south side of the
intersection.
11 19
Th "T" intersection of 81St Avenue at Bonita Road is currently controlled by a ST
~ Y OP
sign. A residential driveway is located directly across from 81St Avenue. The sight
distance is very restrictive on the west side of Bonita Road (approximately 180 feet) due
to the presence of a fence. To the east the sight distance is compromised by a retaining
wall, which limits the ability to see oncoming traffic on Bonita Road to approximately
120 feet. Following the same sight distance requirements determined from the DKS study
(380 feet for the eastbound and 390 feet for the westbound directions) it is concluded that
improvements such as relocating the fence and lowering/relocating the retaining wall on
the south side of Bonita Road should be considered in order to improve the sight distance
at this intersection.
CONCLUSIONS
The following are the findings and recommendations from the Transportation Impact
Study for the proposed project:
Findings
1. The proposed development is expected to generate 225 daily, 23 AM peak and 24
PM peak hour trips.
2. The STOP sign controlled intersection of 791i Avenue at Bonita Road was
analyzed under existing conditions (year 2003) and determined to operate at level
of service (LOS) E for the AM peak hour and LOS F for the PM peak hour. These
levels of service are expected to remain the same during the year 2003 with
i project traffic added.
3. The STOP sign controlled "T" intersection of 81St Avenue at Bonita Road was
determined to operate at LOS C during the AM peak and the PM peak hours
under current conditions for the year 2003. The levels of service will remain the
same for the year 2003 with project added traffic for the AM peak and the PM
peak hours.
4. Sight distance on Leiser Lane at the intersections with 791i and 81St Avenues was
analyzed and determined to be adequate based on the posted speed on both streets.
5. Sight distance at the intersections of 791i and 81St Avenues at Bonita Road was
_
determined to need improvements. The intersection of Viola Street and 81st
Avenue was also determined to need improvements to meet sight distance
standards for a street with 25 MPH posted speed.
Recommendations
1. STOP sign control is recommended at the new intersections of Leiser Lane at 79th
and 81St Avenues for the traffic exiting the project site.
1 20
2. STOP sign control is also recommended for the new intersection created by
connecting 801, Avenue to Leiser Lane. A STOP sign should be installed on 80`h
Avenue for vehicular traffic approaching Leiser Lane.
3. An existing retaining wall on the southwest corner of the intersection appears to
be obstructing sight distance for vehicles approaching the intersection of 79`h
Avenue at Bonita Road from the south and looking west. In addition, a portion of
a fence (approximately 30 feet in length) would need to be moved back from
Bonita Road about two feet to being able to meet sight distance requirements. A
more detailed survey work should be conducted prior to making improvements.
4. An existing fence on the northwest corner appears to be obstructing sight distance
for vehicles approaching the intersection of 79`h Avenue at Bonita Road from the
north and looking east. According to a prior study at this intersection conducted
by DKS and Associates, the fence violates current City of Tigard code for
obstructing at an intersection. It is recommended to move the fence back
approximately four feet form Bonita Road to achieve some level of improvement
on sight distance. A more detailed survey work should be conducted prior to
making improvements.
5. Installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at this time for the intersection
of 79th Avenue at Bonita Road. The peak hour traffic signal warrant and traffic
accident warrant were investigated prior to making this determination. It was
found that neither one of these warrants were met based on current information
from traffic counts provided by Group Mackenzie and traffic accident data
provided by City staff.
I
A
1
21
SECTION IV
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
• YEAR 2003 TRAFFIC COUNTS
- 79th Avenue at Bonita Road (AM/PM Peak Hours)
- 81st Avenue at Bonita Road (AM/PM Peak Hours)
. L E
EVEL OF SERVIC CALCULATION SHEETS
- 79th Avenue at Bonita Road (AM/PM Peak Hours)
- 81st Avenue at Bonita Road (AM/PM P
k H
ea
ours)
• SIGHT DISTANCE DIAGRAMS ON LEISER LANE AT 81ST AND 79TH
AVENUES
• PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATION
• 22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
•
Bonita Road/SW 79th Avenue
2003 Existing PM Peak Hour
Traffic Count Services
2020171.01
1/7/2003
16:55-17:55
0.92
GROUP MACKENZIE INTERSECTION SUMMARY
SB HV= 0.0%
SU= 0.0%
17
-*j
~ 1
EB
10
65 WB
HV= 0.0%
392'
1094 W- 0.0%
SU= 1.0%
17
j-
45 SU= 0.7%
q
tr
9 3 25
NB HV= 0.0%
SU= 0.0%
SW 79TH AVENUE BONITA_ROAD SW 79TH AVENUE BONITA ROAD
1
0
0-
-l
39
2
0
0-
4
2
28
0
77
1
0
0
3
62
4
0
0
0
0
43
1
114
2
0
0
2
64
6
0
0
3
1
31
0
109
300
0
0
0
8
56
4
0
0
0
0
31
1
100
323
0
0
1
0
64
4
0
0
1
1
37
0
108
317
0
0
0
6
49
3
1
1
1
0
36
1
98
306
0
0
0
7
50
2
1
1
0
0
31
0
92
298
2
0
1
6
98
3
1
0
0
0
30
0
141
331
3
0
0
2
43
6
0
1
1
0
31
0
87
320
1
0
0
2
12
0
0
0
2
1
26
4
48
276
0
0
1
0
51
3
3
0
2
2
32.
2.
96
231
1
0
0
2
113
6
1
1
1
2
20
3.
150
294
1220
• 1
0
1
2
59
4
0
0
2
3
33
4
109
355
1252
1
0
1
2
86
3
0
0
0
1
42
1
137
1275
0
0
0
8
113
4
2
0
5
0
23
0
155
401
1321
0
0
1
6
109
2
0
0
1
1
40
0
160
452
1381
0
0
1
5.
89
4
2
0
4
0
36
0
141
1414
1
0
0
4
98
8
0
0
2
1
24
4
142
443
1458
1
0
0
5
103
6
1
0
3
0
35
0
154
437
1520
1
1
0
3
98
7
1
1
2
0
42
2
158
1537
4
0
0
3
89
4
1
0
1
0
31
1
134
446:
1584
6
0
1
5
72
13
0
0
3
1
35
2
138
430
1674
1
1
1
0
65
4
1
1
1
1
31
0
107
2
0
1
2
74 _
4
0
0
4
1
30
0
118
363
1653
PV
17
2
6
45
1085
65
9
3
25
10
388
17
1672
SU
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
13
HV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DTAL
17
2
6
45
1094
65
9
3
25
10
392
17
1685
GROUP MACKENZIE ON 503-224-9560
h:lprojects102017101Uraflic179bon03.)ds 0690 SW Bancroft Street, Portland, Oregon 97201 1/14/03 4:39 PM
an .w: on MW so am go M, Ift, w m air Im r an ~ a ON Nt
T
Of
N
A
W
N
~
O
tO
tD
V
tD
N
A
W
N
~
p
co
co
V
m
W
A
W N
+
~
v
:
i
~
v
~
~
v
r
r
v
/
r
~
a
~
~
m
m
m
W
C~
~
~
D
p~
(
G
y
y
tJ~
A
♦
O
y
t~
tl~
y
y~~
O
N
S
N
O
pp
(J~
S
Nt~
b~
Wt
~
0
y
y
t1~
A
A
0
~
t~l
N
t~
y
O
{N/~
N
N
O
In
O
p
p
tT
S
r
a
~
~
N
+
W
A
+
+
0
0
0
+
+
O
+
W
N
0
0
0
O
N
+
+
D
CCC
O
0
+
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
o
0
0
0
+
o
+
+
o
+
o
o
+
o
o
+
0
0
0
0
T
fA
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
.Zl
N
O
N
W
W
p~
A
N
01
tD
N
N
N
O
N
N
01
V
to
0
G1
N
W
+
J
pp~~
mm
a~pp
eR
IJ
9
12
S
q
m
W
YE
N
+
m
CS
~
S
t7i
~i
a
V
3
=
A
A
W
A
V
O
W
A
N
P
W
A
O
W
O
W
W
N
W
A
A
m
A
N
1
1
1
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
.0
O
O
O
O
O
cc
G
O
+
O
+
+
O
N
O
N
O
O
+
W
O
O
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
D
2
~
o
+
o
o
+
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
+
o
o
+
o
+
+
o
o
o
o
o
3
1
~
r
P
+
W
+
N
W
N
A
+
M
O
N
+
"
"
-
0
0
+
+
O
W
01
&
T
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
.0.
0
.0
$
Z
.ZI
+
0
0
0
+
O
+
O
+
W
N
N
+
0
0
0
0
+
O
+
O
+
gj
J
j
j
l
J
O
8q
!2
fj
b:
A
6/
A
Si
N
t+
tg
is
8
Ef
t"'
W
2 u
A
V
T
O
O
N
+
N
O
A
0
0
0
+
A
W
N
A
0
0
0
+
O
+
O
+
O
T
D
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
O
O
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
s
t
t
0
page i
t
1
Page i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
Bonita Road/SW 79th Avenue
Eft® L 2003 Existing AM Peak Hour
E " Traffic Count Services
NfB - k : 2020171.01
' " 1/712003
7:25-8:25
0.92
GROUP MACKENZIE INTERSECTION SUMMARY
SB HV= 0.0%
SU= 4.6%
19 3
43
1
I
EB 5
6 WB
HV= 0.3% 876
222 HV= 2.6%
SU= 1.0% 4
-i r--
5 SU= 2.6%
qtr
8 1 39
NB HV= 0.0%
SU= 2.1%
SW 79TH AVENUE BONITA ROAD SW 79TH AVENUE BONITA ROAD
6
2
1
1
9
1
0
0
2"
0
37-
0;
59
5
0
0
0
13
0
1
0
.6
0
53
0
78
7
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
3
0
53
1
73
210
6
0
2
0
15
0
2
0
3
0
59
0
87
238
4
0
0
0
14
1
1
0
3
0
66
1
90
250
6
0
1
0
18
0
0
0
3
0
54
0
82
259
6
1
1
0
15
0
0
0
5
0
65
1
94
266
4
1
0
0
19
0
0
1
8
0
70
0
103
279
9
1
1
0
14
2
2
0
2
1
55
0
87
284
3
0
1
0
15
1
1
0
2
0
52
1
76
266
8
0
0
0
15
0
1
0
5
3
47
1
80
243
2
0
0
1
11
2
0
0
9
0
75
0
100
256
1009
7
0
2
1
19
0
2
0
3
0
62
0
96
276
1046
7
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
3
0
95
0
119
1087
5
0
2
1
23
0
0
0
3
0
80
0
114
329
1128
1
0
0
0
18
0
1
0
4
0
92
0
116
349
1157
1
1
3
0
25
2
0
0
5
0
68
1
106
1173
2
1
4
1
22
0
0
0
4
1
73
0
108
330
1199
3
0
2
1
13
0
1
0
0
0
69
0
89
303
1194
6
0
0
0
24
0
3
0
4
0
68
1
106
1197
4
0
2
0
22
0
0
0
1
2
75
0
106
301
1216
3
1
1
0
18
1
1
0
2
2
60
0
89
301
1229
2
0
3
0
13
1
0
1
1
0
59
2,
82
4
0
1
1
18
0
0
0
2"
0
'60 "
1
87
258
1218
PV
43
2
17
5
211
5
7
1
39
5
864
4
1203
SU
0
1
2
0
5
1
1
0
0
0
9
0
19
HV
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
9
)TAL
43
3
19
5
222
6
8
1
39
5
876
4
1231
GROUP MACKENZIE Ph: 503-224-9560
h:lprojects102017101 ftfRc179bon03jds 0690 SW Bancroft Street, Portland, Oregon 97201
1/14/03 4:39 PM
•
IL
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
a
CL
0
0
,
0
0
,
0
0
x-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
N
O
c
K
`r~
u~
u
M
O
M
O
y
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
Q
O
P!
0
0
0
o
o
0
-
O
O
N
N
O
O
z
8
1
1
1
1
l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
N
W
co
M
N
P1
N
W
N
N
H
T
lO
M
O!
Q
IA
Q
O
Q
~
N
~
N
J
a'
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
Y
F2
c F
i
a
O
-
O
N
-
o
O
O
N
-
O
N
O
O
r
o
0
-
N
0
-
O
O
S
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
a
lil
O
O
O
3
,0
O
N
~
O
N
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
O
S
T
1
1
0
fO
A
Q
f0
W
U1
W
l7
t7
'
W
Q
N
~
N
N
eN-
N
(V
A
N
W
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
~
R
U. S
Q
1
1
T
1
c
O
o
J
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
10
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
O
W
~
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
e-
O
O
N
O
~
O
-
0
0
N
O
N
O
N
f4
N
0
N
M
N
O
O
O
O
o
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
~
1
1
1
1
1
2
a
L
W
N
A
W
Q
W
W
Q
Oi
l7
W
N
A
A
N
~
N
l0
W
Q
M
N
Q
co
r
y
y
E~
~3
iC
8
i0
$
i
Q
D
Si
1C
fG
8
1~
8
1~
°
1~
~
I~
R
1~
ry
8
~
8
~
g
~
~
53
8
8
ig
a
Z ~
_F
D
(
A
1
1
f
1~
h
1~
CD
GD
m
m
m
m
W
W
.
-N
1'7
Q
N
fO
A
W
O)
~
~
~
N
~
~
m
~
^D
~
R
N
~y
N
~
H
N
W
N
I
i
i
m r~ r~ ~ t ~r ~rir r irr r a~ m r r m ! m
t
1
r
0
1 Pwo '
`m MM M MM Man= M M M- M MM m m~ M
t
f
N
A
+
W
m
m
V
W
N
A
tJ
N
+
R
fJ
N
0
1D
W
V
W
N
A
N
+
O
W
W
i
Z
a
a,
N
m
'
m
m
m
m
~
~
~4
,y
y
~
~
y
y
y
~
m
m
m
m
m
a
~
i
u
a
in
o
~n
8
to
~
~n
$
Yn''
~n
o
m
o
~n
B
U
~
~°n
$
Yn'
r
y
m
o
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
5
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
~
C
L
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
C
O
0
0
v
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
r
1
m
-n
0
0
.
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
C
0
0
g
C,
O
+
O
O
N
o
O
"
10
-
0
0
0
+
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
+
0
0
O
1
Z
O
O
O
O
0
.0
.0
.0
0
10
10
O
0
10
0
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
S
`
0
0
.
.
.
0
.
.
0
0
.
.
o
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
y
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
x
o
0
0
0
.
-
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
.
O
;a
1
1
1
1
1
1
;E
~
n
r
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CI
O
01
0
0
0
v
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~
z
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
gm
R
o
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
o
+
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
"
0
0
0
0
+
~g
v
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
p
~n
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
I
G
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
•
GROUP MACKENZIE INTERSECTION SUMMARY
SB HV= #DNro!
SU= #DIV/0I
0
0
1
EB 0
0 WB
W= 0.0% 398
992 HV= 0.0%
SU= 1.5% 8
r--
51 SU= 0.6%
qt
r
4 0 9
NB HV= 0.0%
SU= 0.0%
BONITA ROAD SW 81 ST AVENUE BONITA ROAD
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
0
29
0
39
0
0
0
1
18
0
0
0
2
1
28
0
50
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
33
0
41
130
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
39
130
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0'
0
32
0.
42
122
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
1
0
0
29
1
44
125
0
0
0
2
67
0
1
0
0
0
25
0
95
181
0
0
0
6
62
0
1
0
1
0
40
0
110
249
0
0
0
3
98
0
1
0
2
0
39
3
146
351
0
0
0
2
89
0
1
0
0
0
27
0
119
0
0
0
3
76
0
0
0
1
0
30
0
110
375.
0
0
0
1
92
0
0
0
2
0
40
2
137
366
972
0
0
0
2
83
0
0
0
1
0
29
0
115
1048
0
0
0
6
99
0
1
0
0
0
27
1
134
386
1132
0
0
0
3
92
0
0
0
1
0
24
0
120
369
1211
0
0
0
3
69
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
102
1274
0
0
0
1
81
0
0
0
1
0
44
0
127
349
1359
0
0
0
2
87
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
117
346
1432
0
0
0
19
64
0
0
0
0
0
40
2
125
0
0
0
2
66
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
94
336
1446
0
0
0
5
76
0
1
0
1
0
33
1
117
336
1417
0
0
0
2
62
0
0
0
1
0
30
0
95
306
1393
0
0
0
4
61
0
0
0
1
0
33
0
99
311
1382
0
0
0
2
57
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
80
274
1325
PV 0 0
SU 0 0
HV 0 0
0
h:%pmjects%010250ftfflc%cnt01.)ds
SW 81 st Avenue/Bonita Road
2003 Existing PM Peak Hour
Traffic Counting Services
2020171.01
1/9/2003
16:35-17:35
0.97
0
51
986
0
4
0
9'
0
392
8.
1450
0
0
6
0
0
0
.0
0
6
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
992
0
4
0
9
0
398
8
1462
GROUP MACKENZIE 'Ph: 503-224-9560
0690 SW Bancroft Street, Portland, Oregon 97201
1/14/03 4:37 PM
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
o
0
0
o
a
0
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
/9 0
0
N
O
x
0
0
0
0
N O
x
0
0
0
a
A
N
N
N
lO
fV
~
l7 fV
l9
Q
~
N
H
(~i
~
N
V A
R
R
A
N
0
O
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
LL'
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
CI
O
0
0
y
1
1
1
1
d
N
r
0
0
0
0
r
N O
r
N
r
O
r
O
r
O
0 0
r
r
0
~g
O
O
O
O
O
r
0
0
0 0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Y
Q
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
0
0
O
-
O
0
0
0
0 0
r
0
0
0
CO
T
1
1
1
11
1
.
O
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
K
01
OD
fD
0
0
v
6
IDD
M
m r
g
a
s
g
m
po
M
i
l
e p
N
0
p
8
~
O
r
r
0
0
0
N
CO
Of
NM
r
tV
m
P1
c*
r
N
O!
NN
N
V
N
d'
LL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
y~
~
n
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
1
1
uj
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
IC
1
1
I
S
F
p
8
0
~
N
N
oo
t~I
pp
V
~
oo
~f1
pp
0
~
~
~
pp
N
N
pp
1+/
pp
V
v
pp
W
et~~
b
fC
m
fD
id
tG
m
0
m
-
m
m
-
-
n
-
-
-
-
^
-
-
-
^
-
M
Q 2
B-
r
NaO
V
tt
f tp
ta
m
6
fO
r
N
~
V
'
f0
1~
aD
0
O
N
N
~
lVV
f0`/
0
i
s
t
0
1 PWO 1
m m m m i m = = m = = = i = = m m
v
Q1
(NII
A
W
N
+
0
10
m
V
Of
tn
A
W
N
+
O
CO
CD
V
Of
N
A
W
N
+
y
cc
a Er
v
v
:
:
m
3
D
~
~
~
4
v
~
v
4
~
v
a
a
m
oi
a
m
o
~
m
m
m
ar
{
{nn
(l~
~
~pp
O
~
AA
O
W
W
4~
y
y~~
0
N
N
O
iT+
O
pp
N
S
~
N
N
O
tAN
O
~
w
W
O
fNf~
NN
O
Ln
O
UOi
S
m
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
v
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
10
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
0
.0
0.
0
.0
.0
10
10
10
10
Q
.O
.0
.O
.O
v
fP
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
a
W
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
m~
c,
{
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
a
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
a
0
0
0
m
~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
D
x
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
hff
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
_
o
A
3
~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
SW 81 st Avenue/Bonita Road
2003 Existing AM Peak Hour
Traffic Counting Services
2020171.01
1/9/2003
7:25-8:25
0.90
•
GROUP MACKENZIE INTERSECTION SUMMARY
SB HV= #DIVroI
SU= #DIV101
0 0 0
i
t t
EB 0
-
0 WS
HV= 0.1% 816
--o
272 HV= 0.7%
SU= 12% 4
6 SU= 4.3%
q
tr
5 0 59
NB HV= 0.0%
SU= 0.0%
BONITA ROAD SW 81ST AVENUE BONITA ROAD
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
6
0
29
0
45
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
1
0
43
0
55
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
4
0
45
0
59
159
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
2
0
63
0
75
189
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
89
223
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
5
0
58
0
84
248
0
0
0
1
16
0
0
0
4
0
55
0
76
249
0
0
0
1
15
0
0
0
3
0
54
0
73
233
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
3
0
51
0
74
223
0
0
0
0
9
0
1
0
8
0
48
0
66
213
0
0
0
1
12
0
0
0
5
0
62
0
80
220
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
2
0
78
0
101
247
877
0
0
0
0
23
0
1
0
5
0
68
0
97
278
929
0
0
0
1
22
0
0
0
6
0
54
1
84
958
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
9
0
79
0
114
295
1013
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
8
.0
88
1
118
316
1056
0
0
0
1
23
0
1
0
6
0
60
0
91
1058
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
7
0
90
0
118
327
1092
0
0
0
2
22
0
0
0
1
0
58
0
83
292
1099
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
3
0
65
1
95
1121
0
0
0
0
22
0
3
0
6
0
64
0.
95
273
1142
0
0
0
1
19
0
0
0
5
0
55
0
80
270
1156
0
0
0
1
26
0
0
0
1
0
57
1
86
0
0
0
1
14
0
0
0
2
0
51
1
69
235
1130
PV
0
0
0
6
258
0
5
0
59
0
806
3
1137
SU
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
22
HV
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
TOTAL
0
0
0
6
272
0
5
0
59
0
816
4
1162
GROUP MACKENZIE Ph: 503-224-9560
h:\project5\010250\tr M'CntOl As 0690 SW Bancroft Street, Portland, Oregon 97201
1/14103 4:38 PM
f
v
I
N
d
iN./
N
+
O
-
m
V
W
01
A
W
N
+
O
CD
O)
v
0
41
A
W
N
+
CO)
CA
~
Z
D
oo
m
ap
m
m
m
v
y
.
~
,
y
v
,
y
v
m
m
m
m
m
0)
N
O
I n
O
p
p
N
p
H
{
N
D
D~1
O
pp
4 f
y
O
y
U 1
(
~
0
N
O
t t 1
O
N
p
O
N
N O
N
y
O
(Wl 1
0
m
S
m
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
^1
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
a
m
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
10
0
_0
0
0
01
0
10
10
1
1
T
_
_
0
0
"
0
"
0
0
"
0
0
+
0
0
_
_
0
0
0
0
0
+
O
.
N
n
a
W
N
m
~
L
-N+
~
W
+
tNi1
~
N
O
N
D)
O
U1
01
10
:-4
0
0
+
10
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
~
0
0
0
W
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
+
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~
y
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
z
1
1
1
~
r
N
+
Of
D1
W
+
v
al
or
W.
M.
W
N
N
0)
.
W.
W.
4
0
0
.
"
O1
i
1
1
.
N
O
O
2
.0
0
01
0
0
0
O
O
O
01
0
0
O
O
01
0
O
01
0
O
O
O
am
3
2
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
01
01
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
S
l
J
I
I
2
~1
!1
G
o
a
I"
PA
8
&
to
P,
P,
O
af
T
at
a
W
T
MI
S
j
a
t
&
t3
A
v
+
o
0
-X
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
ff
l
N
O
-
O
2
2
0
0
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
9
r
r r so so
so so
-..d~ so so go so r
1
1
0
1 page 1
exam Tue Jan 14, 2003 17:06:19 Page 2-1
Leiter Park
Sasnario: 2003 Rxisting Traffic, Weekday AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCH Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
#rrir#afrt#trrir#i*#irr#tr###rtrRirr#ffrf##i##rtrti##t*iiir#irir*r#rifrt#lirrrir
Intersection f1 SW Bonita Rd 6 Slat Ave
irtrtit###t#Risiti ri*#tit#tftiiii*iiiiti#it#rtt#ifr#r#t#rt*frt i#ii**ttrrit###iii
average Delay (sea/veh): 19.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
ttiiirir#iii#*iir*#rii#f#t#r#tt##i#tif i#i*if*ii##t####1fr##ritriir##iiirirt#ir#*
Approach: North Bound South Bound Rest Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
1--------------- 11---------------it---------------il---------------1
Control: Stop Sign stop sign uncontrolled uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 5 0 59 0 0 0 0 616 4 6 272 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Soo: 5 0 59 0 0 0 0 916 4 6 272 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PH3 Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHP Volume: 6 0 66 0 0 0 0 907 4 7 302 0
Reduat Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.. 6 0 66 0 0 0 0 907 4 1 302 0
------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 xx= 6.2 xx=== xxxx xxxxx xxxz xxxxx 4.1 xxxx zzxzx
TollowUpTim: 3.5 zxxz 3.3 xx=== zzxz xzxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx zzxzx
------------I---------------tl---------------il--------------- 11---------------I
Capacity Module:
Caflict Vol: 1224 xxxx 909 xxzx xzxx zxzzz xxxz MUM xxzxx 911 xxxx zxxzz
Potent Cap.: 200 xzxz 336 xxxz xxxx xxxxx zxzx xxxz xxxxx 756 xxxx
move Cap.: 198 zzxx 336 xzzx xxxx xzzxx xxxx xxxx xxzxx 756 xxxx saxxz
I II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xzxzz xxza xxxxx zxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xzz= 9.8 xxzz ::su
LOS by Move: * t r r t # i t i A # t
Movement: IT - LTR - RT IT - IRA - RT IT - LTA - RT IR - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: zxzz 319 xxxxx xxxx 0 xzzxx zzzz zxxx xzzxx zxxx xsxx xxzzx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 19.5 xxxxz xamm xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxz xxxxx xxxxz xxxx zzxzz
Shared LOS: t C t t t r r i t # r t
ApproachDel: 19.5 zxzzzz xxzxxx zzxxzx
ApproachLOS: C * * r
exam Tue Jan 14, 2003 17:06:19 Page 3-1
Leiser Park
Scenario: 2003 czisting Traffic, Weekday AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCd! Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
*#arrr*#r#*rrir#t#rt#rtrr##r#t*ft######rrrrtt#rrtRitlt##itit#r##iir#!#trtr###i##
Intersection #2 SW Bonita Rd i 79th Ave
*#iiitrr#rrirrritt#rrt##t##rirttiit#trti#tr#irtf#tit#rt#trt#ittf#tiitif#tit#trtt
Average Delay (sea/veh): 38.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: 6
N##i#i#ir*iiii#tirr##t!t#t#*i Rtt#t#r#t#ttttiiff#iiiri##iit#rtit#i*ttti###tit#t#
!Approach: North Bound South Bound cast Bound West Bound
Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I
Control: Stop sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
------------I---------------i{--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: e 1 39 43 3 19 5 876 4 5 222 6
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bee: 8 1 39 43 3 19 5 876 4 5 222 6
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHP Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
PHP Volume: 9 1 42 41 3 21 5 952 4 5 241 7
Redact Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 9 1 42 47 3 21 5 952 4 5 241 7
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx zzxxx 4.1 xxxx zzzxz
Po1lowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx zxxxx
------------1---------------{1---------------11---------------II---------------I
Capacity Module:
Cn£lict Vol: 1233 1224 954 1242 1223 245 248 xzxx xxxxx 957 xxxx xzzxx
Potent Cap.: 155 181 316 153 181 799 1330 xxxx xxxxx 727 xxxz xxxxx
move Cap.: 148 179 316 131 179 799 1330 xxxx xxxxx 727 zxxx xxxxx
------------I---------------11---------------II---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:x:zxx xxxz 19.1 zzxxz xxxx xxxxz 7.7 xxxx xxxxx 10.0 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * C r # i A # r A #
Movement: IT - LTA - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: 151 xxxx xxxxx xzxx 176 xxxxx zxxx xxxz xxxxx zzxx zxxx zxxxx
Shrd StpDel: 30.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxzx 38.6 xx=== xxxxz xxxz xxxxz xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: D * * • c * * * t # #
ApproachDel: 20.5 38.6 zxxxxx zxzxzx
ApproachLOS: C c * r
•
Is
Traf£ix 7.5.1115 (a) 2001 Dowling Assoc. ' I Traffix 7.5.1115 (a) 2001 Dowling Amoco. :
i m M mm M
expm Tus Jan 14, 2003 17:06:36 Page 2-1
Leiser Park
Scenario: 2003 Existing Traffic, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCH Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
+a++a+arra+rra+arar+a++r+++r+++t++a+t•aaaa+aaa+++car+ar++++ra+++++a+++++++++r+ta
Intersection #1 SW Bonita Rd i 81st Ave
a+ra++a++++rarraaar+a+aararr+raraa+ra+aaaraart+area+++rrr+a+r+a+arr+++++++r+a+a+
Average Delay (sea/veh): 18.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
+++++r+a+ar+++trrarrraa•+aaaa+a+ar++a+++araa++raa++r+rr++r+aa+++ar+++++aa+taarr+
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II1
Vol- Module:
Base Vol: 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 398 8 51 992 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Sze: 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 399 8 51 992 0
User Ad): 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHY Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.97
PHP Volume: 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 410 8 53 1023 0
Redact Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 410 6 53 1023 0
------------i---------------II---------------II--------------- 11---------------I
Critical gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 zxxx 6.2 xzxzz xzzz xxxxx xxxxx xzxz xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
PollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxzz xxzz xxxxx xzzzz xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I
Capacity Module:
Cnfliat Vol: 1542 xxxx 414 xxxx xzzz xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 419 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 128 xxzx. 642 zxxx xxxx xzxzx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1151 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 124 xxxx 642 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xzxx xzzz zzzxz 1151 xxxx zzxzz
I II II II I
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xzx:x xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xzxz xxxxx
LOS by Move: r + + + r + + a a A + +
Movement: IT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT IT - LTA - RT LT - LTA - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 280 zxxzx xazx 0 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx sass xxxx
Sbrd StpDel:xxxxz 18.5 xxxxx xxxxx zxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxzz
Shared LOS: + C + * + * + + + a + +
ApproaohDel: 18.5 xxzxxx xzxxzx xxxxxz
ApproaabLOS: C + • +
exym Tue Jan 14, 2003 11:06:36 Page 3-1
Leiser Park
Scenario: 2003 Existing Traffic, Weekday PM Peak Hour
Level of Service Computation Report
2000 RCH Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
rr++araaar+++rar+a++r+++++a+rr+rr+r+arrar+aar+ar+raaaara++raaaa+a+ra+aar+aaaaar+
Intersection #2 SW Bonita Rd i 79th Ave
ar+r+a+a+araa+r++ataaa+arra+tar++r►+rr+rrraaaaarrrt+araraar+aa+rrrrr++r+atarrra+
Average Delay (sea/veh): 86.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: P
+r+raaraar+aa++r+a+raar++a+a+aar+ra+aaaw+r►ata+a+r+atrr►rrrar+arar+r+rrrrr*aaaaa
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0
------------t---------------II---------------11---------------It---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 9 3 25 17 2 6 10 392 17 45 1094 65
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Use: 9 3 25 11 2 6 10 392 11 45 1094 65
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Ad5: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
PHP Volume: 10 3 27 18 2 7 11 426 18 49 1189 71
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 30 3 27 18 2 7 11 426 18 49 1189 11
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 1.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
YollowVpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------1
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1784 1815 435 1795 1769 1224 1260 xxxx xxxxx 445 xxxx xzxxx
Potent Cap.: 64 79 625 63 62 220 559 xxxx xxxxx 1126 xxxx xxaxx
Move Cap.: 59 14 625 56 71 220 559 xxxx xxxxx 1126 xxxx zx:zx
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx zxxz 11.0 xxxxz xxxx xxxxx 11.6 xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxs zzxzx
LOS by Move: r • B + r t B r a A + +
Movement: IT - LTR - RT IT - LTA - RT IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: 61 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 70 xxxxx zxxx xxxx xxxxx xzxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel: 78.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxz 86.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: F r r a F + + + a a a a
ApproaahDel: 33.0 66.5 azxaxx axxxZZ
ApproaahLOS: D P a a
•
40
Traffix 7.5.1115 (a) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc.
ex + pro} am Tue Jan 14, 2003 11:06:52 Page 2-1
Leiser Park
Scenario: 2003 Existing Traffic + Project Traffic, Weekday AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCH Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
at}#f###*ta#*#t##*#*}t##*t*#}#*####*#}#t*##*#**to###iat#}ia##**######t###}t*ta}}
Intersection /1 SW Bonita Rd i 81st Ave
#a#}a###*a##a}#}}a}}ta*#}#ta#atr##}ta#a}taa#t*t#a#*aa#a}}r}#i}#}}}t*aat*#}#}}}}*
Average Delay (sea/veh): 20.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
*a#*t#tt##a*#tita#ttitt##t#*t#:#t#aa***}}aaa}at}ai###}#}*#t}ia###t#tt*t}it}}***}
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- il---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I
volume Module:
Base Vol: 6 0 68 0 0 0 0 816 5 1 272 0
growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 6 0 68 0 0 0 0 816 5 7 272 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHP Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHP Volume: 7 0 76 0 0 0 0 907 6 8 302 0
Reduat Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 7 0 76 0 0 0 0 907 6 8 302 0
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4 zzxx 6.2 xxxxx zzzz zzzxx zzxzx xxxx zzxzx 4.1 zxzx zxxzz
FollowUpTim: 3.5 zxza 3.3 zzxzx xzzz xxxzz xxxxx zzxz xxzzx 2.2 zzxx xxxxx
---------1---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Nodule:
Caflict Vol: 1227 xxzz 909 xxxz xxxz zzxzx xzzx zxxz xxxxx 912 xzzz
Potent Cap.: 199 xxxz 336 xxxz xxzz zxzzz zzxz zxxz zxxxx 755 xxxz
move Cap.: 197 xxxx 336 xxxx xxxx xxxxx zzzz xxzz xzzxx 755 xxxx xzzzz
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Level Of Service Nodule:
Stopped Del:zxzzz xxzz xazzz x==== xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.8 zxzz xxzzs
LOS by Move: # # } # # # * t # A * #
Movement: L? - LTR - RT L? - LTR - RT IT - LTR - R? IT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: zxxz 318 xxxxx xxxx 0 zzzzz xxxx zzzz xxxxz xxxx xzzz xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 20.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx zzux xzxzx xxxx xxzzz zzxzx zzzz z:Zcx
Shared LOS: * C # + # } t t } } } #
ApproachDel: 20.2 xxxzxx xzxzxz xzzx:z
ApproacbLOS: C * a t
ex + pros am Tue Jan 14, 2003 17:06:52 Page 3-1
Leiser Park
Scenario: 2003 Existing Traffic + Project Traffic, Weekday AM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
######t#a###tt###a#}}at#ti#}####t##ii#a#tt##i#*t#*######ti#}############if i###*#
Intersection f2 SW Bonita Rd a 79tb Ave
a####i iii#i#iittt#i###*##########i*iii###t######*####t######it#####}i#}#fa ai t#*i
Average Delay (sea/veh): 40.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: E
i###i#i#at###iiat}#ti###•a**###}}4}###it####*t##a##a#####*t}######t######}tt##ai
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------I---------------II---------------Ii---------------II---------------1
Control: Step Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lama: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- il---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 9 2 44 43 4 19 5 876 5 7 222 6
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Rae: 9 2 44 43 4 19 5 876 5 7 222 6
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHP Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
PHP Vol--: 10 2 48 47 4 21 5 952 5 8 241 7
Rsduat Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 10 2 48 47 4 21 5 952 5 9 241 7
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------1
Critical gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 1.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xzzz xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xzxxx
PollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xzxx zzxzx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------i---------------II--------------- 11---------------II---------------I
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1238 1229 955 1251 1228 245 248 xxxx xxxzz 958 xxxx xzxxz
Potent Cap.: 154 179 316 151 180 799 1330 zzxz xxxxx 726 xxxx xxxzz
Move Cap.: 146 177 316 125 177 799 1330 xzxx xzxxx 726 zzzz zxxxx
------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xzzxx xxxx 18.4 zzxxx xxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx 10.0 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * # C a # # A # # B # #
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT IT - LTA - RT
Shared Cap.: 150 xxxx xxx= xxxz 170 xxxxx zxzx xxxx xxxzx zxxz zzxz xxxxx
Shrd StpDel: 31.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 40.9 xxxxx xaxxz xxxx xxxxx xxxz xxxxx
Shared LOS: D # • * E # a * # * i t
ApproachDel: 20.9 40.9 ncxzxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C E * #
•
Traffix 7.5.1115 (a) 2001 Dowling Assoc. I Traffiz 1.5.1115 (o) 2001 Dowling Assoc.
ex + prof pa Tub Jan 14, 2003 17:07:08 Page 2-1
Leiser Park
Scenario: 2003 Existing Traffic + project Traffic, Weekday PH Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
#######t#4rt#44###4it###at##t#fitt##titt##a####rt###4####}rtta#4}##ri4#t4}}t##aa
Intersection f1 SW Bonita Rd i 81st Ave
####t###4a#t######tttt##t##at#r44r44rr##t*it##4rt#t##4#at#####a#at#####}##4a }!t#
Average Delay (sea/veh): 19.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
#tt####tt#t##t##44##t#aa4###t#a#r#4taaaa4##tt##t4#rtrta#a#####rrrra#}##artt#####
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
1---------------II------ ---------II---------------tl---------------I
Control: Stop sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
1---------------II---------------II---------------il---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 396 9 57 992 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Boo: 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 398 9 57 992 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
PHY Volume: 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 410 9 59 1023 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 410 9 59 1023 0
------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I
Critical GAW Module:
Critical Op: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx zxxx xxxxx xzxxx zxxz xxzzz 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 zzxx 3.3 xzzzz xxxx xxxxz xxzxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xzxx xxxxx
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------1
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1555 xzxx 415 xxxx xzxx xxxxx zzzx zxzz zzzzx 420 xxxx xxzxa
Potent Cap.: 126 zxzx 642 xxxx zxxz xxxxx xxzz xxzz xxxxx 1150 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 121 xxzz 642 zzzx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxz xxxxx 1150 xxxx xxxxx
------------I---------------11---------------11---------------II---------------1
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxzz xzxz xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxzxx 6.3 xzzz zxzxz
LOS by Have: r # # a # # } # # A # #
Movement: IT - LTR - AT LT - LTA - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx 263 xxxxz xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx xz= xxxzz xxxx xxxx xxzxz
Shrd StpDel:xzxzx 19.5 xxxxz xzxxx xxxx xz::x xxxxz zxxz zzzzx x4Yx zzxz xxxxx
Shared LOS:" + C + # t # t t a # # #
ApproaahDel: 19.5 xxzzxx mm:zzan zxxxxx
Approachws: C # # #
ex + proj pa Tue Jan 14, 2003 17:07:08 Page 3-1
Leiser Park
Scenario: 2003 Existing Traf£io + Project Traffic, Weekday PH Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
aa}rr}##4r#aar##a#rraat*#aaaata*+t**a+}+#+}rrrrr*arc#rr##tt#a:#atrr#rraaraaaa#a#
Intersection #2 SW Bonita Rd i 79th Ave
tar#arrraa#r#rr#rr#taa#t##arr#ar#ra#tr4+#aa*ra4##rr4aar#ataraa#at##r#aatatrrrrr#
Average Delay (sea/veh): 93.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: Y
arara+arrastr*r#aaar#artsaa###ramsraaaaaa4rr*raaa#a#aaa}t#}a#}rr#a}#r##ar#tr##ar
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
I II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I
Control: Stop sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
------------I---------------II---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 30 4 30 17 3 6 10 392 19 50 1094 65
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Boo: 10 4 30 17 3 6 10 392 19 50 1094 65
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHY Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
PHY Volume: 11 4 33 18 3 7 11 426 21 54 1189 11
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 11 4 33 18 3 7 it 426 21 54 1189 71
------------1--------------- Il--------------- II---------------I
Critical gap Module:
Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 6.2 1.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
YollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxzx
I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------i
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1796 1827 436 1810 1802 1224 1260 xxxx xxxxx 447 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 63 78 624 62 81 220 559 xxxx xxxxx 1124 xxxx EExZx
move Cap.: 56 73 624 53 75 220 559 xxxx xxxxx 1124 xxxx xxx
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx 11.1 xzzzz zxxx xxxxx 11.6 xazz zxxx x 8.4 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: + a B # r t B a a A t #
Movement: IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - AT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: 60 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 67 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xzzx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel: 84.3 xxxx xxxxx xzxxz 93.5 xxxxx xxxzz xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: P ► 4 # F } a t t 4 r #
ApproacbDel: 34.4 93.5 xxxxxx zxxxxx
ApproachLOS: D F r 4
•
I*
Traffix 7.5.1115 (a) 2001 Dowling Assoc. . ' Traffix 7.5.1115 (a) 2001 Dowling Assoc. I
I
r
0
TL ' 00
r•nn
I 1 ~
TL. 200
! s
I t 1
1 ~1 I I
REQUIRED ! 1.. - z__.__ _ - LOT 9
STOPPING SITE
DISTANCE VISION i
CLEARANCE LINE ~pH)~ 1 I, LOT 6 1
(BASED ON 25 1
I II I
Iq 15 PRIM EASEMENT
(n :Ilf I
I I I LOT 7 i LOT 8
00 I I E
I l i LOT 5 I I
11 f II
If I
I 5J 1 I 8' P.U.E. (TrP)
I 1 I _ _
1 I+ T I I I - _ -
~ ~ 00 1 i' I
4
Y~ I
REQ IRED 1 i
STOOPING SITE 1 i ~ 1
D?ST NCE VISION ' I
CLE RANCE LINE i
A ED ON 25 MP) i
Tj (B I-I I!
I I I LOT 10 { P, a P '7 T 4
F~
I I ENO Of ACCESS 6
II .i
EASE1rFNT !
C it
I _J ls' Pue'ASEwENT
P 1 ' S
I I 22.3' UBLICEWENT U11Uri E s - + I ; .
I
I
I
I
I
I
t _ I t 21 +GG
i ,+oo L
? 0 c" 2&0 -14.0'
I I ~
_ r , y I 1 I t
I I I I I r-
i q I LOT 15 , v I l !
I I LOT
I~ I T 12 i LOT 13
1 ` I I!
LOT 11 Ii I LO I
I I I I I I i
I , 1 I I i! {
1 IN. 1 I
I i IW. EEISER I _ I B I
1 k+~s.op
6+00
{ 1-{,- +GG
3+00 P.U.E. (T`R) I 1 I I
I 1 II I 11 18 ? N
R25•
I I _ -r - 4 6' P.U.E (T R) I I ` LOT 17 { 01
I 1 t I LOT 16
IN T
` LOT t 8 , I I f t~
' i ► 1 i i LOT 19
1 I I I A
I LOT 3 I LOT q I I Q~ I I I I f i Ilj I
ti$I l LOT2 I I I 1 1 I
t+ I I LOT 1 I I 1 , i I ' 1 I 1 3
~ i, l 7 I I I I, I i I 11 I N
1 I ~ , I 1 I 1
r~ h I l ~ I ~
J _ - - - --'1- REQUIRED
VSIT
TL 2800 STOPPING E
IS N ` I
8900 DISTANCE
CLEARA LINE
1I
r I 1 ? BASEDNON 25 MPH)
I Z 12 y'
P t sI 1
T L. ~4 ~ R 1
8800
I ,I I
1 REQUIRED
1` ' J SITE
STOPPING SION SNRUes NoT ExcEEaNc
DISTANCE ~ 35 fT 7N ~ S E>MMNG
CLEARANCE LINE t 9 TREEjS T T pitE
(BASED ON 25 MPH)
0
0
i
v
c
A
bY' ~ U
~i
y~ x
Q ]u W
1
a
z1
~ou E
,
tL c• 0 `
~cc
K
m i
i
c
°z O
r
u
Q
n~
a
1.
PROJECT NO.
MAT001
SR Design LLC
CASE FILE NO.
ENGMEERWG - PL4mVNG - AMYENVG
8196 SW FALL BLVD., STE. 301
BEAVERTON, OR 97008
PLAN
PHONE: (50.7) 469-1213 FAX: (503) 469-8553
PLAN/PROFILE
PREUMINARY STREET PLAN
AND PRO19L.E
LEISER PARK
14665 SW 79TH AVE
TIGARD, OREGON
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP. PORTLAND, OR
i
l a
N ,
8
R
4
g~
1
3
a
9
I
t
(0f
1.
t
2 l
i, t4gL
1.\\t 'ter
Y
f~
t ~
I ( f r
0
m % U
g $ m A _ € ~ Y
p yA or ppy po.~ pO poti
N, A L m CA A p A
g m z
Ap PR({r(
,NEE. /
W. s,~q.
N C.
EXPIRES 12-31102
DATE NO.
DESCRIPTION BY
DESIGNED: SR
GATE: 121,31102
. SHEET OF
DRAWN: SR
FILE: SR
C5A
CHECKED:
XREF:
APPROVED:
251128002800
m m w
7
w■~ ww w~ w w wrw ~w ww ~■w ww w~ wri w ww ww ww
x
z
ooZ
t~
O
l7 .
r
~U
/ C
0 P co / esf
f
i r3v
i
.
.
184
0
.
13
.
•C,..
'
0
1
33.
-4
0
/
Q
~l G
181
9
i81.
2
'j
-
Lo
00
+
X44
0
....~81
I
t
3
'1
U)
. .1
`a..
.
0
c
.
k
/
\
~
Z
~
181
8
N
O
R
/
~
U
C.
.
a 183
6
-
.
......V!
.
J
4
m
A
~
1as
a
t
i ~
I1?15.
s15
`
`
8~•r
E+'
I
E
87
16"
'2
...........I
SC
N
0
.
E
i
V
189
0
169.
-
.....189
6
.
f
.
.
, 8
.
............i
i
f
/ r^
/ C1
~y:~':''......... SS
3
f
i
i
+i
a. L s b
is
3
s: 130:0.24
5 C, 'C
sue
:r
\
\I~
C,
i
J u i 1T1 ?
i
C7 1• is -
t m
Ilr
p'
<
G• -14 . ,
I:
C) U N
I
f1
N r:+ ^1. tr.
V
'-t'
u
w
H
.
,V
r
C.
5•
•t,
In -7
h 111
tl ~ r
m
~ C• N
N~
11 S)
i)U
Z
I tl
T^
n
of
y.
w 7 1,
tl
; ux
U; u
m °
1 t
VI
L
. U
PROJECT NO.
STD" M QRt 1'U~TA1~1~
v~ , ~1 G Vh7 MI~VG
DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 9Y
MAT001
EXHIBIT (PROPLE VIEW)
PRtYff
~ I
'
l
I
NE
/
SR Dgg
l n LLC
CASE FILE NO
'
4
.
R
PAW
LE3E ~I"
N•
ENGNEERWG - OtANNNG - Su* MNC
/
8196 SIN
HALL BLVD., STE. 301
14665 SW 79TH AVE
DESIGNED
SR
1
ATE
EA RT
B
BEAVERTON
OR 97008
P
.14
:
P
:
2 J1 02
SHEET OF
,
PHONE: (503) 469-1113 KAX: (503) 469-E553
LAN
TIGARD, OREGON
~fN C.
DR4WN: SR
FILE: SR
T
EXHIBIT
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP
PORTLAND
OR
EXPIRES 12-31~D2
CHECKED:
XREF:
~
2
.
,
APPROVED:
25112Rnn7RCX1
i
Q+56
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
December 2000 'Includes 6/14/01 Errata
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
600
x
500
x.
W Q 400
W
CL 300
Q
Z ? 200
~O
> 100
x
Page 4C-9
2 OR MORE LANES &20R MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES 81 LANE
1 LANE 111 LANE
~ e
•150
•100
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane.
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT DATA
Intersection
Analysis Period
Major Street
Minor Street High
Volume Approach
Signal
Volume
(vph)
Lanes
M
Volume
(vPM
Lanes
( )
Warranted?
Got-Arm IZI~
EX is-ft 0 A.M
11 t 8
2-
6S
1
No
A46- . F t4I`Jo GR~talc
ExisTiIQ4 PM
%*L3
z
3
2
NO
E isri06A + IPIZCT.
117-1
2
(o Co
I
00
M
F-k1S-niJLG t PQoS
(21o
z
44
Z
Ao
PM
1
1
1
1
t
s
SUBDIVISION TYPE II
ti qr: t:: ~:TY Er ~I ICI w l ~D to •.:f LFDKT10.4
CITY OF TIGARD 13125 S W Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 9 7223 (503) 639-4171 FAX. (503) 684- 729 7
7HEliD•'-WIT ivlIr / Sherm
i 3:
DATE OF PRE-APP.:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Property Address/Location(s): Leiser - South of Bonita fronting SW
81st. Matrix - 14665 SW 79th Ave.
Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): Leiser - 2S112BC 00300
Matrix - 2S 112BD 02800
Site Size: 4.34 Acres
Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)': Anne Leiser
Address: 6009 SW Pendleton Ct. Phone: (503) 245-0847
City: Portland, OR Zip: 97221
Applicant*: Matrix Development Corporation
Address: 12755 SW 79th Ave. #100 Phone: (503) 620-8080
City: Portland, OR Zip: 97,223
* When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant
must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written
authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s)
must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this
form or submit a written authorization with this application.
PROPOSAL -SUMMARY
The owners of record of the subject property request Subdivision
approval to divide a-
2 parcel into 19 lots between
?.OH Z' and 3117-6 square feet in size.
(provide any additional information here)
1
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Case No (s)
Other Case No (s)
Receipt No
Application Accepted By
Date
Date Determined Complete
Rev.8/4/2000 i:\curpln\masters\revised\subapp.doc
REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS
(Note: applications will not be accepted
without the required submittal elements)
Application Form
Owner's Signature/Written Authorization
❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed
Copy of Pre-Application Conf. Notes
Wa. Co. Subdivision Name Approval
❑ Site/Plot Plan
of copies based on pre-app check list)
❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8112" x11")
❑ Applicant's Statement
of copies based on pre-app check list)
USA Sewer Use Information Card
(Distributed/completed at application submittal)
USA Service Provider Letter
E] 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Starmped
#10 Envelopes & Copy of 500' Property
Owner List Generated by the City
Neighborhood Mtg. Affidavits & Notes
Filing Fee (Preliminary Plat) $3,190.00
$80 Per Lot)
(Final Plat)- - - - - - $ 500.00
* Add 20% PD Fee
Urban: See Wa. Co. Fee Schedule
1
1
1
1
List any VARIANCE OR OTHER vp USE ACTIONS to be considered as p * f this application:
Two-part' var i ante, +a. +ree, mi+i g4+ion ire a uiremen*s , and
vacation of rani+a.n
ewer easeme#it
APPLICANTS:
To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS
as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box.
(Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use
Applications.)
THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT:
The above request does not violate anv deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the
If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject
to all the conditions and limitations of the approval.
All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith,
are true;.and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be.revoked if it
is found that any such statements are false.
The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,. including the policies and criteria, and understands
the requirements for approving or denying the application.
SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property.
1
DATED this a `oo day of NhLv
wner's Signature Ow er' ignature
Owner's Signature
Owner's Signature
- - - - -I~ - - -
t
~ ~
23,539 s.f.
I r'~'.'.'• ' j t~:•.•.~
I
I 1:':: .
I r•... X I -
~::;•:•::•:•::j
I I
'.I J
C•:•.~.•:~.:•I eg I I oe .L
1.•..:,L•.R I ®
I C....... ~ I
r~
:l
~ R
r•~~•~ -
- - - er r.X+.~.--~- K
.I I I
I +I ~ i I I I I II ~ I
f••: I ~ i I I I ~ r.y
~ , :l ~ f J
.:.I
1•',:.1:.:1 I ~ I 1~e I I e3 ~g
I 1••••.• I I I i ti gl I I I
I I ~ •:1 I i ~k 1•,
r.:. ~~o il
. .,•1 ~
, I ~ I I I e I 1..• I ~ I I ~ a 1~ a _
11:.;. , ~
- - 6
1•... , ti r1 _
I ..'l C
. , I ~ g 1~ I f• ~ ~ .3 ~
~ - -
r:.:•...,.•, k~ ~ ...1 ;a
~ , ~
- - 1 - - - ti
r: I
. , I $
~ 13 h I ~ 1•.•...• .::I ~ 1 I I , 3,e ~4,
I i I ~ I ...•.I
1'... ....1 I I I i h
1 I t3 I ~
1 • ~ ~ 33 I I
e_~~ _
J,..,.. ~ I .2 ~ , ~ 3 1''~ k I y_
, .6 ti~ I 3~ I
3 ti~ I I I ~ , ,,3 Z a X I
-
ti ~ .....I.....
•
r sr~
1
•:':~:':~:I::~::':•:~ 5
cn ° ° 1
N , . N
(U
m ~ ~ 1 TAG NUMBERS OF TREES TO BE REMOVED TAG NUMBERS OF' TREES TO BE SAVED
0 1 35 77 140 208 257 308 ,.J L ~ii ~
2 36 79 141 209 260 3 9 27 0
° 83 55 3 37 f47 210 261 315 t
~ 6 38 86 148 266 316 205 212 207 i
8 41 87 152 214 272 318 H L 211
9 42 89 156 215 273 364 m 10 43 90 168 219 275 2021 217 F 4-.1
3 218 D 12 44 92 169 219_1 276 2033 i ~
13 45 95 172 277 2034 i
° 220 m ° 14 47 97 176 221 278 2035
C0 15 50 98 177 279 2036 °i 222
c 16 52 102 179 223 287 2037
0 17 53 104 180 225 287-1 256-1 ~ S
W 18 57 106 184 292 256-2 ~ 227 'i
w 19 59 108 190 228 294 256-3 20 60 109 198 229 302 256-4
21 85 130 199 2 0 302-2
0 3 23 66 131 200 236 302-3 r~ ~
H 24 67 132 201 239 303
25 68 133 202 240 304
26 70 136 203 305 242
28 71 137 204 306 243 30 72 139 206 307 L 1
244 4 _a `
° 252
O " 256 J-7 7
a ~ i
0 0 i {Y ~
a r lid T
oom~
p
7