Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 09/12/1995
i t f. ,.yre'.>• ? S. ,~{ai" .ry ~f.F.•$+_~'ritJh^'~i.; v~7~;}} Ets' wi fG'x a♦h5~~a,.. t` .y:a ,"XK: .^'a'O'; S'•u -?f'/n,,'..: s:. •n. T~.~¢ .::.sn* f6" ^{fir{<`%':;3y.: :..;;r .Ynj;;..s<£z ~,.x4Y:~:'.2°,~`i£n•„: ~v?•.,~`,,M1T,?':ic qs,,F~•.• '>;g"r;" , u?c fir,. \)~w~.::~,~rw, 2 `5 f~ ° Fiv "v •:?)u`s,?~s •?t.4FK• Fl':'3,;i~4i+ „;.Tf "'iYa•. :;4si:,>",'{°.E£3...>::4.~>.}~."v:. i • s::a:;N6•r,',:i• PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to spear on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beglaning of that agenda !tem. Visitor's Agenda Items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer nmaers can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimatede it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet., Dushiess agenda items can be heard In am order after 7s30 P.m, .A.ssistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Tease call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: a Qualified sign language interpreters, for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and a Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Tease notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA n TICMD CI'T'Y COUNCIL MEETING Sir BER 12, 1995 - 6:30 PEA AGENDA 6:3® p.m. ® DYNE G Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ex (h) to discuss labor relations, real pr6perty transactions, current and pending litigation Issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore € othing from this meeting may he disclosed by those Oreseant. Representatives of the mews media are allowed to attend this session, but roust not dkclose any Information discussed during this sessions. > Agenda Review x`:30p.m. S S i S MEi 'I' G 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ax Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Rail Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Comaenunications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Cali to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PROC . MO-AS: 2.1 Disability Employment Awareness Month 2.2 Crime Prevention Month 3. VIS.ITOWS AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item he removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Notion to: 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes: August 13 and 15, 1995 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. 'T'entative Agendas 4.3 Approve Library Board and Planning Commission Appointments - Resolution No. 95- 4.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award of Contract for Construction of the Ash/Sc®fflns Street Storm Drainage CIP Consent Agenda - Items Reed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Cmmnt A enda for separate discussion wiTR be considered . . tely after the CouncH has voted on those items which do not need discussion. COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 2 1111,0101 S. DISCUSS FEE WAIVERS 6. DISCUSSIRFIREW PROPOSED 2 CO EI TO FORWARD TO METRO all Community Development Director ` FROM TASK FORCE O` E COOK PARK PROPERTY PURCHASE Mayor Nicoll 8. DISCUSS REE SPAC Mayor Nicoll 9. PUBLIC HEARMG (Q I-]UDIC ,)o ZONE CHANGE A EXUA - ZCA 95 3 - 3EFFERY A request to annex one parcel of 1.88 acres into the City and change the Comprehensive Plan and Zone from, Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Del Residential, R-7. LOCATION: The western end of S Fern Street adjacent to the Bonneville Power Administration easement. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tlae relevant review criteria are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria; and 10. 1.3 Zoning Designation. Community Development Code Chapters 18,136, Annexation Requirements, and 18®138, Land Classligcation of Annexed Territory. ZONE: Presently Washington County R-6, a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Com munity Development Department d. Public Testimony Applicant Proponents Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation ff. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 95- Ordinance No. 95- COUNCIL AGE NPA - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 -IMAGE 3 10. PUBLIC IH G (Q IIUDICL4,L): "PEAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION (SUB) 95 2 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 95-I012 AND SE S DS REVIEW (SLR) 954)006 "FR.OVAL - FORAN PLACE/PICULELL GROUP A request for approval of the following development applications: 1. Subdivision prelienina plat appravaP to divide an approximately 3.9 acre parcel into 12 lasts ranging beew, een 6,091 square feet to 8,737 square feet. 2. Last Line adjustment re -quest to adjust two parcels ®f approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.69 acres. 3. Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. LOCATION: 'west of Woodford Estates, and approximately 650 feat north of S. W. Bell Mountain Read. ( CTM 2S1, PAP, Tax Lasts 1200 and 5700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community DeveRopment Code Section w 8.52, ;d 5 .84, 18.€18,. 1 ~.9~y 111.1 ~C', 1 ~.1 ~~p 1 X01 I~~g 1 $ ~~p 1x.114, 11 .1 ~'i~, 1 .16A and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies: 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1 and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 uraits per acre). The R-7 zone allows single family residential units, duplex residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment home, farming, manufactured home, fancily day care, honae occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. a. Opera Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Applicant Proponents Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f.' Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 95-- COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 4 t jm~ is! 11. PUBLIC HEARING (L ISA ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 924M04 TREE OVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 1 5.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal avid to provide amended provisions for a stop work order hearing in Section ® 8.24.070. The proposed amendments to sections 15.150 call for the following: 1. 'f'ree removal permits only on sensitive lands as defined by Chapter 18.84; 2. A tree plan prepared by a certified arhorist to be provided with any development application for a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use; 3. Mitigation requirements for tree removal in developments; 4. The prohibition of commercial forestry (removal of ten (10) trees or more., per acre, per calendar year for sale); 5. Kermit exemption for land used for Christmas tree production or If registered as pd open y tax deferred tree farms or small woodlands; 6. Permit criteria hicluding erosion control standards and seventy-five (7S) Percent Canopy cover within fifty (50) feet; of stream or wetland; 7. Provisions for isnceadves and setback adjustments to allo-w for tree retention; 8. Penalties for the illegal removal of trees; 9. Replacement tree provisions. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA.- Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 (Germ ral Policies), 2 (Citizens Involvement), 3.4.b (Natural Areas), and Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code Chapter :1 5.30.120. a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department co Public Testimony Proponents Opponents d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 95 Resolution No. 9S 12. REVIEW DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE STANDARDS ® City Administrator 13. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL COMPENSATION Staff Recap of History to Date: City Administrator COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 5 14. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COUNCIL GROUNDRULES ® City Administrator 15. MOO AGENDA S 16. C E SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session oar-der the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d)o (e), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all eis sslons within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must riot disclose any infor:rnation discussed during this session. 13. IOURHMMY COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEAMER 12, 1995 - PAGE 6 lI III 'I III IIIIII IM MOM,! 1 '1111 IN MI =NOW A Me, I Council Agenda Item L4• 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING I ENWTES - SEP TEMBER 12, 1995 0 Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Nicoli. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Michael Anderson, Development Review Engineer; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator; Jim. Coleman, Legal Counsel; Associate Planner Malone; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. STUDY SESSION Mayor Nicola introduced the following issues: Re ionai Arterial Road/Street Construction - Three counties, Washington, Multnomah, and Claclramas, are looking at pnitting together a proposal for arterial road construction. The counties have approached Metro to coordinate this effoa°t. There is a proposal for a gas tax of 6 cents per gallon which will have to be submitted to the voters. If the voters approve, each county would receive $75 million for road construction. In addition, a separate fund will be established for bridge work. While most of the bridges are in Multnomah County, there may be an opportunity for funding of an extension of Hall Blvd. to cross the Tualatin River. Building Code Appeals Board -Mayor Nicoli introduced this concept to City Council. This Board would review appeals relating to building cede requirements. Formation of such a Board has been available in the past for cities to utilize; however, Tigard has never had such a Board. Mayor Nicoli noted that most of cities of Tigard's size opt to utilize this Board. Further discussion of this topic has been scheduled for Council review on September 26. (Recorder Note of schedule change: Council review on agenda of October 10, 1995.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MR,4UTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 1 Urban Growth Boundaries (2040 Process) - The majority of Council, after brief discussion, agreed that the Mayor should send a letter to Metro supporting Executive Officer Mike Burton's proposal with regard to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGBI Mr. Burton's proposal is to increase densities along mg1or arterials and consider adding 4,000 to 9,000 acres to the UGB. Councilor Scheckla advised he did not support this. Councilors Hawley, Hunt, and Rohlf advised they had no objection to the Mayor sending. a letter of this type. Wa_Ai_-ton County CoordiL atin Committee C,CQ Update - Mayor Nicoli noted that at a. recent WCCC meeting, there vas discussion on the amount of dollars left from the MSTIP/1 projects ($4 miilion). The Committee would like to use the funds leftover to apply to cost overruns on a few projects in VI TSTIP/2. Project overruns in MSTIP/2 have been contributed to environmental problems which need to be addressed, cr new regulations whim are a contributing factor. It is estimated that approximately $3 million would be needed to complete these MSTIP/2 pnr jects. All dollar transfers to projects in MSTIP12 would be referred to the Washington County Coordinating Committee. - Metro Greenspaces - Tigard will have $750,000 from Metro as their share of the voter-approved Greenspaces bond. In Tigard, the Citizen Involvement 'l'earns have been reviewing potential projects which could utilize the Gb eenspaces money. Council will be reviewing the results of the CIT information in late October or early November. Fanno Creek Watershed - Also related to the Metro Greenspaces bond is money for the Fanno Creek Watershed which is considered to be a regional facility. Mayor Nicoli noted that in discussions -Mth Mayor Rob Drake, it was expressed that the cities of Beaverton and Tigard want to be very involved in deciding how dollars will be spent in the Watershed since it is located primarily in these two cities. Part of the Fanno Creek Watershed is also found in Portland and unincorporated Washington County. During preliminary discussions, an idea was formulated that a task force could be proposed to review and put together a recommendation for the expenditure of the Greenspaces fund8. The task force members would consist of individuals from the jurisdictions in which the Watershed is located. Council Compensation Task Force - George Burgess, Deborah Hinton, and CrAg Dirksen of the Compensation Task Force were present to answer questions from City Council. A draft ordinance had been provided to Council and task force members. CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 2 7 There was clarification from Task Force members on implementation, if Council should approve. The ordinance would provide that Council compensation would be reviewed on an annual basis, with rates to be set by resolution. The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:15 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Executive Session recessed at 7:15 p.m. Business Meeting convened at 7:45 p.m.. BUSLNESS MEETING 1.4 Council Connnun cations/Liaison Reports Councilor Hunt noted Music in the Park's successful debut last Sunday. Special thanks went to Martha Bishop for coordinating the event. Councilor *Hunt Schecl la also thanked Jeff Munro from the Parks Division for his assistance on Sunday. Councilor Scheckla announced that the Community Development Block Grant meeting was to be held at Tigard City Fall on September 14. He invited anyone interested to attend, noting this was a Washington County effort and would give people an opportunity to see how the funding and grant process was being utilized for Community Block Grant projects. 2 PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Nicoli issued proclamations for Disability Employment Awareness Month and Cringe Prevention Month. _ 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: ® John Blonigren, 9460 SW Oak Street, Tigard, Oregon, advised of plans for a motel to be built near his home at 95th Street. Of concern to Mr. Blomgren was that money was spent in the past to have fill removed from this area. The Army Corps of Engineers granted a permit for fill; however, there has been no record of how much fill has gone into the area. Mr. Biomgren advised it was estimated that up to 16,000 yards of fill have been * Correction to minutes as noted at the October 10, 1995 Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING M MUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 3 log r. There was clarification from Task Force members on implementation, if Council should approve. The ordinance would provide that Council compensation would be reviewed on an annual basis, with rates to be set by reso!uflon. The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:15 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Executive Session recessed at 7:15 p.m. Business Meeting convened at 7:45 pans. BUSINESS V ETING 1.4 Council Conununicatioans/Liaison Reports Councilor bunt noted Alusic in the Park's successful debut last Sunday. Special thanks went to Martha Bishop for coordinating the event. Councilor Hunt also thanked Jeff Munro from the Parks Division for his assistanc; on Sunday. Councilor Scheckla announced that the Community Development Block Grant meeting was to be held at Tigard City Hall on September 14. He invited anyone interested to attend, noting this was a Washington County effort and would give people an opportunity to see how the funding and grant process was being utilized for Community Bloch Grant projects. 2 PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Nicoli issued proclamations for Disability Employment Awareness Month and Crime Prevention Month. 3. VISITOR'S AG]gNDA: ® John Blomgren, 9460 SW Oak Street, Tigard, Oregon, advised of plans for a motel to be built near his home at 95th Street. Of concern to Mr. Blomgren was that money was spent in the past to have fill removed from this area. The Army Corps of Engineers granted a permit for fill; however, there has been no record of how much fill has gone into the area. Mr. Blomgren advised it was estimated that up to 16,000 yards of fill have been CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 3 lg~i deposited in this area; this is substantially over the amount granted by a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Blomgren noted the plans are for a motel unit with 128 parking spaces to be placed on the site where currently there is a designation for a street extension for 95th street. City Administrator Monahan advised the owners .of the property have been at City Hall discussing preliminary ideas for a development with Planning and Engineering staff. An application was recently received. City Administrator Monahan advised this project could potentially come before the City Council as a public hearing iteni. Council should be cautious about discussing matters regarding the project outside of a hearing process. . Senior Planner Bewersdorff also rooted that in order to implement the plans for development, the applicant would have to propose a street vacation which would be before City Council in a hearing process. Mr. Blomgren referred to the wildlife which lives in the area. He asked that he be kept inforined of the status of any development proposal. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilor Hunt requested that Item 4.2(b) be removed for additional discussion. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve the Consent Agenda, less Item 4.2(10. 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes: August 8 and 15, 1995 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Library Board and Planning Commission Appointments - Resolution No. 95-35 4.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award of Contract for Construction of the Ash/Scofffins Street Storm Drainage CIE' Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") ,M R CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 4 1 Oln Discussion on Item 4.2(b) - Tentative Agendas: Councilor Hunt asked for status on the following items not listed in the tentative agendas: ® Revisions to Development Code a Summerlake - 130th/Winterlake Connection e Water Supply 0 Bikepaths/Greenspaces City administrator reported on the above issues as follows- 0 Revisions to Development Code - These revisions include buffering in residential areas. This project has been placed on the "back burner," as staff" is awaiting results of the 20419 planning process. Staff is also working on reprioritizing the Triangle issues, as well as transportation issues. w Summerlake - 130th/Winterlake Connection - Neighborhood m. eetings are being scheduled; this item will be assigned an agenda date after these meetings. 0 Water Supply - This issue will be discussed at the September 26 Council meeting. 0 Bikepaths/Greenspaces - Dikepaths/Greenspaces will be assigned a timeline for Council review. City Administrator Monahan agreed with Councilor Hunt that the tentative agendas should dhow the items listed above; the Tentative agendas will be revised and resubmitted to Coulnxcil on September 26. He clarified that the Tentative agendas are used as a tool to track agenda items and to determine how to schedule future items by forecasting how full the agendas are becoming. 5. DISCUSS FEE WAIVERS Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed the staff report, noting the issue before Council was: ® Should Council submit a formal request to Washington County for amending the Urban Planning Area agreement? ® Should Council waive the application fees for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 5 i Mr. Bledsoe initiated discussions with staff earlier this year about changing the policy in the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County regarding the zoning of land upon annexation to the City. Mr. Bledsoe also sent a letter to Council dated April 5, 1995. Staff wrote a letter to Mr. Bledsoe on April 6, informing him that this policy was contained not only in the UPAA, but also in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. Mr. Bledsoe expressed interest in amending the Comprehensive Plan and was advised of the time period limitations for initiating this process. Mr. Bledsoe presented his proposal to amend the plan and requested a fee waiver to the West and Central CITs and received their approval on August 1 and August 3 respectively. Mr. Bledsoe then sent a letter to Council requesting the fee waiver on August 22. Contained in the staff report in the Council packet is a memorandum to City Council from James Hendryx regarding the request or the UPAA. amendment and fee waiver for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.. Mr. Bledsoe was also present and testified in support of his quest. He submitted to Council members a memorandum in rebuttal to the memorandum. on the mattek from Community Development Director Heudryx. Council discussed this issue. Assistant to the City Administrator Newton advised that tl:e Central and Nest CITs agree it was appropriate to proceed to discuss Mr. Bledsoe's proposal. After discussion with staff members, City ' Council agreed to waive the Comprehensive Plan Amendment processing fee; this amendment will be submitted during the regular review process cycle next Spring. Council also agreed to include Mr. Bledsoe's issue on a review of the Urban Planning Area Agreement with he County, but not to expedite the tinging of the review, given the current workload of the Planning staff. Staff will analyze the Urban Planning Area Agreement and determine which issues they would like to reopen with the County, with Mr. Bledsoe's issues incorporated at the time staff is prepared to request a total review with the County. Motion by Councilor Bunt, seconded by Councilor Eohlf, to waive the Comprehensive Plan Amendment fee required to initiate review by the Planning Commission. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, and Councilors Hawley, Aunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") CITY CO"UNCEL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 6 1111,111,11 112. 11%fl11Jl11j11il1101 6. DISCUSS/REVIEW PROPOSED 2040 COMMENTS TO FORWARD TO METRO In response to a request from Council, the Planning Commission drafted a letter to Metro regarding the proposed 2040 Plan. Once Council reviewed the letter, several members, while agreeing with the issues the Commission identified, thought the City should take a more supportive position. Councilor Rohlf redrafted the letter. This redrafted letter is contained in the Council packet. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter presented to Metro, commenting can the Region 2040 flan. Motion was approved by a unarnimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Coulncilbrs Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, anal Scheekla voted "yes. UP'IIATE FROM TASK FORCE 011 TI COOK PARK PROPERTY PURCHASE Councilor Hunt updated the Council an a possible purchase of some property adjacent to Cook Park owned by Mr. Robert Cray. The soccer and little league organizations are also interested in buying part of this property. Upon request by Councilor Lunt, Council directed staff to propose an outline of scope of services for a consultant, includivg an estimate of the cost for this consultant, to determine how much property is needed by the City for proposed eases for parking and recreational areas (i.e., permanent stage, covered picnic area, landscaping). 8. DISCUSS GREENSPACES Mayor Nicoli advised Tigard would be receiving $750,000 for projects within Tigard. The public review/input is now underway with Citizen Involvement Teams. Mayor Nicoli also advised that the Fanno Creek Watershed would be receiving dollars as a regional project. The cities of Beaverton and Tigard and the other jurisdictions affected by the Watershed will be organizing to obtain public input. 9. PUBLIC FEARING (gUASI-J I.JDICIAL): ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA 95-0003 - JEFFERY A request to annex one parcel of 1.88 acres into the City and change the Comprehensive Plan and Zone from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential, R-7. LOCATION: The western end of SW Fern Street adjacent to the Bonneville Power Administration easement. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria; and 10.1.3 Zoning Designation. Community Development Code Chapters 18.136, Annexation Requirements, and 18.138, Land Classification of Annexed Territory. ZONE: Prfzently Washington County R-6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 7 a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations and challenges. Mayor Nicoll read the following: Ito any members of Council wish to report any ex paa-te contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? (There were none.) Have all members familiarized themselves with the application,? (All members indicated familiarization.) Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any anember of the Caimcag? i'n'here were no challenges.) Councilor Scheckla received a letter of protest. and submitted this letter to City Adrainistrator Monahan for review. Upon review, City Administrator Monahan advised that the twr lot described in the letter is for property nearby, but not the subject of this public hearing. The letter was referred to Planning staff for follow-nap. C. Staff Deport Senior Planner Valone reviewed the staff report, which is on file with the Council padket material. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Malone clarified that this annexation would not create an island; Fern Street is a County street. Mr. Malone reported that he had visited the site and, in response to a question from Councilor Schecida, advised he did not recall that there were wetlands in the area. d. Public Testimony. Mayor Nicoll read the following: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. CITY COUNCIL MEETING ME'4T.JTE S - SEP'T'EMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 8 Applicant: a Gary Jeffrey, 14520 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified in support of the annexation. e. Public Hearing was closed. f. Council Consideration. SOLUTION NO. 95-39 - A. RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED EXHIBwtl` "All AND ILLUSTRATED IN FI I$IT "A" (ZCA 95-0003) Motion by Councilor Schecida, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt Resolution No. 95-39. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present, (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, runt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") ORDINANCE NO. 95-15 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECT nI E DATE (ZCA 95-0003) Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-18 Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 10. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION (SUB) 95-0002/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 95-0012 AND SENSITIVE LAIRS REVIEW (SLR) 95-0006 APPROVAL - FORAM PLACEIPICULELL GROUP A request for approval of the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.9 acre parcel into 12 lots ranging between 6,091 square feet to 5,737 square feet. 2. Lot Line adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.59 acres. l 3. Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. a _CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 9 III IM: LOCATION: West of Woodford Estates, and approximately 650 feet north of S.W. Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 251, 9AB, Tax Lots 1200 and 5700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102,,18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies: 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, -7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1 and 8.1.3. ZONE: I&7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). The R-7 zone allows single fancily residential units, duplex residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment home, farming, manufactured home, family clay care, home occupation, tencporary use, mid accessory structures. a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declaratilons or Challenges. Mayor Nicoli read the following- Ian any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? (None reported.) Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? (All members indicated familiarization.) Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? (There were no challenges.) C. Staff Report Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report, which is on file with the Council packet material. An appeal was filed with regard to the hearings Officer's decision as contained in the Fiscal Order on file with the Council packet material. Staff recommended that Council support the applicant's request, which would accommodate the westerly and southerly street connection. Staff recommended that City Council adopt the findings as contained in the staff report submitted to the hearings Officer. Condition 9 of the Bearings Officer's Final Order should also be deleted as it relates to the redesign of the proposed Foran Street. It is recommended that City Council approve amended conditions by adopting the resolution contained in the Council packet material. CITY COUNCIL, MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 12,19'95 -PAGE 10 d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli read the following: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or lanai use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. Applicant. Art Ficulell, 3236 SW Kelly, Portland, Oregon, testified on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Piculell submitted a list of exl:ilbits which are contained in the Council packet material (he reviewed them -with Council, noting areas of disagreement with the staff proposal as it related to the Comprehensive Plan). 'Mr. Piculell also reviewed areas of the hearings Officer decision where he believed there were problems. He advised that letters had been submitted from Elizabeth Price, 13125 S'am' Bull Mountain Road, and Marla & Linda Cooley, 13135 SW Bull Mountain Road, with regard to loss of privacy relating to a proposed bikepath in the area. Mr. Piculell noted the bearings Officer's decision, Page 9, listed a series of exceptions to Section 18.164.040 (B) (1), noting there are existing homes in the area so the exception is met with regard to earlier streets not exceeding 1,800 feet. Mr. Piculell advised the City's bike system plan (1988) does not indicate any bikepath in the area. He also noted the location of the bikepath leading to a collector and to an arterial. He reiterated that they were within the exception rulings for pedestrian paths. Frank Foran, 13145 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, testified, noting he was the owner of the property. Mr. Foran testified with regard to concerns for privacy if the development is conditioned as requested by the bikepath. He also noted concerns for the Price and Cooley property. ® Charles Chimento and William Horning were also signed up to speak on this matter; however, they declined to make comments. CITY CO, U NCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 11 Opponents: ® Ed Metzler, 13267 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, testified and submitted a letter to City Council dated September 12, 1995, which is contained in the Council packet material. Mr. Metzler advised he was not in support of the agreement on the western road extension. He questioned that the curve should be more gradual and moved to the east to provide a safer street and to preserve the large trees that may be destroyed if the road is placed farther north. 0 Mile Doane, 14401 SW 130th Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, testified with regard to safety issues concerning traffic. He noted he would be in support of bike paths and expressed concern over excessive length of blocks. He noted it mould fit the city's needs, in the long run, to have these bikepaths. 0 Ken Steele, 8035 SW Churchill, Tigard, Oregon, 97221, testified in support of a bikepath that would make it possible to travel out of the area without having to backtrack. He advised he would like to see more connectivity in the conimunity with bikepaths. a Williams F. Horning, 2436 SW Kelly, Portland, Oregon, 972011, noted Conditions 2 and 3 of the plan, advising that access to the area had been planned by using 132nd Avenue. He said that pedestrian access at arteripls represents a safety hazard. He advised he shares a concern for a continuous mike system, but feels it cannot be achieved in an economical format as proposed. He advised that safety issues had been addressed in the Hearings Officer's decision. With regard to Mr. Metzler's concerns, he voted the applicant had tried to pull the road up as far as they could. He referred to the extension which would also meet the transportation plan. Sandy Metzler, 13267 SW Bull Mountains Road, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, testified with regard to history in the area and the location of some fill. With regard to the statement that 132nd Street was to be utilized to address the connectivity concerns, she advised that 132nd Street was not yet a road and would not become a road in the foreseeable future. She proposed that the development should be smaller to mitigate some of the traffic issues, and advocated a different layout to accomplish some of the connectivity issues. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 12 CI INS,,!, 11122 111 i Rebuttal ® Mr. Foran testified during the rebuttal phase, referring to the Mr. Metzler's concerns with trees. He advised that some trees would be eliminated. He noted he also has a tree farm on his property and that Mr. Art Ficulell has promised Mr. Eoran that he would retain as many trees as possible. 0 Mr. Piculell noted that,%Ath the requested width of the right-of-way, three of the four trees womid need to be removed with the Hearings Officer design. He acknowledged that some of the trees would have to coarse out. e. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommendation was to approve the proposed resolution as written. Staff noted that some of the large trees will be affected. Council discussion followed. There was concern expressed with regard to the agenda item scheduled for later in the meeting to consider a proposed tree ordinance. Legal Counsel Coleman advised the ordinance would not affect this application before City Councii. The application would follow the ordinance in effect at the time the application was submitted. He noted that the actual building of the homes could be affected by the tree ordinance, if certain conditions were impc,-ed by the ordinance at the time of building of the development. There were Council questions with regard to the drawings. It was offered by staff that if the half street improvements were made, then the turn-around area as shown on one of the maps would not be needed. Council was advised by Michael Anderson of the Engineering Department that the Fire Marshall has not reviewed the plans without the turn-around. There were questions on the number of trees which would be taken out (six inches in diameter and greater) should the Planning staffs recommendation be put into place. The record is to remain open on two issues: " 1. Staff is to obtain input from the Fire Marshal on the turnaround; that is, is it needed if the staffs proposal is implemented? 2. The applicant' is to determine the number of trees (f-inches in diameter and greater) which would be affected if the Planning Staffs proposal is implemented. ' CITE' C®UNCEL MEETWG MNUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 19! 5 - PAGE 13 f. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue the hearing to September 26, 1995. Mayor Nicoli advised that on September 26 testimony would be limited to the two issues identified. (as stated above.) Council meeting recessed at 10:02 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 10:16 p.m. 11. PUBLIC EWARMIG (.E$; ISTLATIVE)m ZONE, ORDWA NCE AIA1 / ENT ( A) 912-0004 TREF, R E-4 v1OVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 18.150 of the City of Tigard Com unity Development Code with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide amended provisions for a stop work order hearing in Section 18.24.070. The proposed amendments to section 18.150 call for the following: 1. 't'ree removal permits only on sensitive lands as defined by Chapter 18.84; 2. A tree plan prepared by a certified arborist to be provided with any development application for a subdivision, major partition, site developin*ent review, planned development or conditional use; 3. litigation requirements for tree removal. in developments; 4. The prohibition of commercial forestry (reI of ten (10) trees or more, per acre, per calendar year for sale); 5. . Permit exemption for land used for Christmas tree production or if registered as property tax deferred tree farms or small woodlands; 5, Permit criteria including erosion control standards and seventy-five (75) percent canopy cover within fifty (50) feet of stream or wetland; 7. Provisions for incentives and setback: adjustments to allow for tree retention; 8. Penalties for the illegal removal of trees; 9. Replacement tree provisions. APPLICABLE REVIE, CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Coals 1, 2, and 5; Comprehensive Flan Policies 1 (General Policies), 2 (Citizen Involvement), 3.4.b (Natural Areas), and Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30.120. a. Public Hearing opened. b. Staff Report. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report which was contained in the Council packet material. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Tree Ordinance as submitted in the Council packet. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINIJTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 14 C. Public Testimony. Proponents: 0 Ken Steele, 8035 SW Churchill, Oregon, 97225 commended the City Council for the proposal which was before them. Mr. Steele spoke of his concerns with the commercial forestry section, noting that the intent of the ordinance was to prevent people from clearing land. He said he believes the commercial forestry portion, allowing cutting of ten trees per acre, presented a loophole to the ordinance's intent. He recommended this language be tightened to allow the removal of five trees per acre per year. 9 Christie Herr, 11356 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised she was a member of the Task Force and supported the ordinance. However, Ms. Herr advised she had some issues with the commercial forestry portion of the ordinance. She stated the Task ]Force had decided not to present a minority report; therefore, s. Herr advised her testimony was being presented as an individual. Ms. Herr noted that ten trees per acre per year should be reconsidered as proposed in the commercial forestry section of the tree ordinance. She recommended a reduction to five trees. o Malcolm F. Kirsup, 11323 Sgt' Basswood Court, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised the ordinance represented a good plan and said it was an excellent concept. He did share the concern that ten trees per acre (commercial forestry) was not definitive enough. ® Doug Smithey, 11396 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised he served on the Task Force axed supported the ordinance. He advised he felt that concerns expressed by individuals with regard to the commercial forestry were legitimate, noting that the Task Force did not talk about an average number of trees removed on acreage owned by individuals. He advised this deserved additional review. Opponents: ® Joseph Schweitz, 12505 Ste' North Dakota, No. 1604, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified with regard to concerns of cost which would be passed on to private property owners. He referred to restrictions placed on developers building houses. However, once a private property owner purchases one of these homes, the property owner would have to remove or care for the trees; this would represent additional costs. CITY COUNCIL MEETING M[R*1dJTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 15 r ® Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified with regard to wording on two different sections of the 4 ordinance. He referred to Page 2, 18.150.025(a), noting an exception when no trees would be affected. He also requested that the words "when such a permit is required," be added to a paragraph on Page 7. Mr. Bledsoe advised that the law appeared to be applied more broadly than was needed. 0 Mr. Bob O'Dell, member of the 'T'ask Force, responded to an inquiry from Councilor Hawley: Tree removal had been discussed for sensitive lands only. Doug Smithey also referred to time regulations that were for commercial forestry only. People cutting down trees for landscaping were not affected by the tree ordinance. There was reference to a letter submitted by the Fans of li aanno Creek with regard to protection of the tree canopy. Upon request of Council, Mr. Smithey reviewed the importance of tree canopies to the eco-system. d. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommended approval of the tree ordinance as written. e. Council Discussion In. response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Senior Planner Bewersdorff responded that the "ten trees," as cited in the commercial forestry section of time ordinance, was selected by the Task Force through a consensus process, The Task Force dill not want to be overly restrictive on private property rights. There was brief discussion on Mr. Bledsoe's suggestions for wording changes. 13 Mr. Bewersdorff advised he believed some of the wording was implied, but said he did not object to the additional words suggested by Mr. Bledsoe. f. Public Bearing was closed. g:. Council Consideration. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINU-17ES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 16 151 2 h. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to change the number of trees from. ten to five as the number of trees per acre in the definition of commercial forestry; to add the words "when such permit is requared" as suggested by Mr. Bledsoe, and to incorporate the Fans of Fanho Creek verbiage on tree canopy as submitted in their letter, which is contained in the Council packet material. Discussion on the motion followed. Councilor Rohlf was reluctant to change any of the worsting of the ordinance drafted by the Tree Task Force. He referred to a letter from Sally Christensen, member of time Tree Task Force, which stated she would object to any amendment to time tree ordinance which the Task Force had peat together. Councilor Hunt noted his agreement with Councilor &Rohlf, and advised he would withdraw his second to the motion on the floor. Councilor Scheckla suggested the ordinance be adopted as presented by the Task Force. Then, if proble ns occur, arnen(hinents could be proposed at a later date. Councilor Scheckla comanmaended the Task Force for a tine job. Councilor Haviley made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 95-19, with one amendment to Section 15.150.020, changing time commercial forestry trees from ten to five. There was no second to time motion. i. ORDINANCE NO. 95-19 - AN OE.DWANICE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A REVISED CODE CHAPTER 18.150 REGARD]NG TREE REMOVAL (ZOA 92-0004) AND NEW SECTIONS 15.24.070. Motions by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-19 as submitted. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohif, and Scheckla voted "yes.") j. RESOLUTION NO. 95-40 - A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 91-01 TO ESTABLISH A FEE FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution No. 95-40. CITY COUNCIL. MEETING Ii EWTES - SEPTEMBEIB 12, 1995 - PAGE 17 Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Lunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") After brief Council discussion, it was decided that the Task Force would be'asked to meet again to determine whether amendments should be considered to the ordinance with regard to the number of tree per acre, allowing for commercial forestry (reduce from ten to five), and to review the tree canopy recommendation offered by the Fans of Fanno Creek. Items 12, 13 and 14 were set over to October 16, 1995. 12. REVIEW DEPA RTN ENTAI. SERVICE STANDARDS 13. COUNCE, CONSIDERATY)N: PROPOSED AMENI)MENT TO COUNCIL COMPENSATION 14. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COUNCIL GROUNDEUI..ES 15. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Award a Water Rate Study Contract Council reviewed an issue presented by City Administrator Monahan with regard to CH7M Hill and the Water Rate Study. The principals who made thc- presentation to the Intergovernmental Water Board were awarded the contract and but are no longer with the C112M Mill. Minimal progress has been made on the rate study. After discussion, Council decided that C112M Bill and EES will, be asked to make another presentation to the Intergovernmental Water Board. CH7AI Hill will be asked to agree to terminate their contract if Council decides to go with another consultant. 16. Executive Session - Canceled. 17. Adjournment - 11:26 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder y r, City of Tigard ate: 0 ~I/D1 5 c=0912.95 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 18 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, I Ca Legal R E C L 4 V E D P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (603) 684-03150 Notice TT 8 2 9 8 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 7 1995 Legal Notice Advertising -1T t of IGAR ' 0 13 Oity of Tigard Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ® Duplicate Affidavit °Tigard,Oreaan 97223-8199 Accounts Payable:Terry AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advert'i3ing lI { Director, or his principal clerk, of the T. o -Tualai-i n mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti cgs rd in the aforesaid county and state; that the Zone Cha~ae Anne _35-000 fTPf,-ryl a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for QHE succes3ive and consecutive in the following issues: August 31,1995 Subscribed and sworn to f re me this 31st day of August, l OFFICIAL SEAL ROSIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON !Votary P is for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024552 My Commission Expires: my COMMISSION EXPIRES :1AY1C 1997 ' AFFIDAVIT _ 77 -7Q T ine fa lawin barzll be c tid OR by ~ity~putnezl fit a~~ r f fit, &&,Cryzc" Centex a~w y~ 1, 13:k l l Hatt i~atr7ev 4 w , r4 Ali f bth pttl~ x bral and cYtteat e$tzIn n' as invited 'T1s pttb to Be ring cad 6h4s Matter wall be eon ~lttctedBn acs®rslsanc~;'vsxth tl~~ razle&iaf Chapter ,8:32 ~f ttse Ts~nrd _ ty pal CO~i:y 1 ryles au21 Prllw.i' qFf'$ q ttb2 City oilhozl: WWre tcz ?~nse g~lssa~e _itscio or bylete~r preeludes` n#~eaano4lrar,, t ' p rfy,tlse er raon frarzba t13e a traaiati=ty Isevel93g~meni , "0& air Cei ala apv latl 'at vrls a C4~qatrazent 41 i5~~ t4rr~ cr-terar,~sr ~a:~2es zn~~xraiatz~'~s li" c~~~~z~aed',~rr~ ~ ~t~ nzzzea~ 2i~rzfiee~n sat.l'$1~atePPi., a:~sx kk"l';a?' ar hyIF.. , 639417 5' t'k~EL~L 111~Zio`~. A trst tonrzea~ c+n~ pasci a t$ acres zrtto the cis ana eBaane the ersrsa lzenszv 6a~a as ac~zae lra zf .'as zngl n L"all ~t 6 Czty;gF T r rsl'Mads► a. asaty- eR6'd ttral,jl , C~TIa I ` ~izt~ western end of s"W.' R-4i `at, ftt ja,cent to Sze mo1,novzlle awes Aa irizrszstr t~k^s e r- ;666: ADM%[~ ~►t~l.,~ R~4~~~~; CRi"$~~Ih Ta?e rely vaz~4 xs de~vu crztt n~i r re+C~mpxeheavePlnpralii~s~,,ezs,xenaz~valvirzezat,:ttlr 1,evt.; vicee t"Iivc3 cnpaeaty* €P i I:azarztezzssa anr12E3 3yaoapn o,ag trarz ~'csrazanunst IevelQnsrsentae b?ptrc P 8 136, annex atzen;.r~ , iairerreents and , X' Umdt 6 4'sr~c~uc~n of arcr~exea:teriii6 y. ZONE: i .~resr^rptly ~yaslaf~g,~€sn ~izaA~~yt~-b y.- kq CA 'O t pwsgEsYwa~._ GA _ , 'i79flfS'Lt'P~J~a-~.'Vk 1l6 PiK1 4 ~tio7}Y~FmO 298 Publish Ru~uai 3 T, 199 5. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal ' P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8300 BEA'VERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 0 City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice 131-25 SW Hall _?lvd. 0 Tigard,Oregon 97223--8199 ® Duplicate Affidavit 0 Accounts Payable-Terry i? e J . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, > COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. ~ 1, athv Snyder_ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising i . Director, or his principal clerk, of thy? S~s~rd-Tta 1 at i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 133.010 and 133.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid couptt~~rr and t to h t the Hearlm".1 OA -ab~4 Tree Removal a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: RECEIVE' August 31,1995 SEP 0 7 1995 'CITY OF TJGAR)7 Subscribed and sworn o ore me this~l tlay~f August, 19 OFFICIAL SEAL _ ROSIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 024552 tf Pfota , bli for Oregon i COMA MISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT WMEM 1 F gGr +a' rty t ~G~S3F,gtl ' " - i '£P; s x o Eat~,(C38~f,o!o9irC, In. yyy~W 221 a P~ Ie~.ec$q ~`ya~^~td . f LF K t ~y~♦i OW+~" Y4r~113 i7'i34.ilbl~n c~~tnaac~ 'atf :h'0Uses ?dfaiet 3..2a~ € ~e` igard NOTift ,izd a a cice~sue Wt 'aaI Chlr T I~ x it r~ ! an. , n t y;► 060I ItO toysastern o tsr ea esv f- z A ;aal~ l ~ as n idall ndsp9cltaes iZ,I9 :~rlo ~IE~r~~eo tP~cf~ tlas ~a~Ite~IO:I rt°l.,Irs~se L~aaeaaaesllscty cv ctt o e s o,a 19 : c agsi re i :t_ Which a ct~asaaraerl~ ;s clef tlah tga.:aatlia;r i€~rraaae,: I ;at Cj 'an. ay ~N .)nd'+zaaay : ara f~ QS ~sl ireaaalliav %3 v~ I1 . trs~~ar*l~:r~ ~ . ~Y ~sxdHa• ~a t s~°oP Yo~alio~,F car ~y e~ilk~t; of JPUL 1C a .aGL~L~~.~ 1o~.3lVY Gr A`J~ Y°fr Y'R 3e QQ11 CL, Ulp A Q fat de l~ ~a~ d CRY 4s'te ~"+e~~ of Tl * 'd-j6 €i~¢~Ct! C!€?3 orilae Qsfl°IarctwQtmunrty I3c;velwgrnletatoeae:itta rase ` ~►rYaa~afit4nsavTt&Irainlr itI tree reat►vel avid to Iate ~reaclasl"r p cl rslo s for sin~p lz ..1 9 %gli, C.ctlota,18 24.40 . &~~~al~rrits taa e3ora I3~ I54 rafor tI?e foll+lrag ~,3 V remo ral PeFd-a€~~ e s•Y cn sere a8avs laisIraedy'ia+t' . plara' y a c. 9 -.ed srlbcaxase h~, g. vrds iie~u may' alQ:velbPaneaaa apPIlcataon faar .a sul~davlseoa, major Partets~ra, s:~ a ► I sra alb H~dd dcv~~ Imerat ~r s.:Idaailaaaal . Its; a 11ia nta~sn a~ gQ al<a evelo ra aaaat 'r , 41j : 3~tlalb P~c afaa1 forestry (rrataal caf Y►a tI"3) ts+ r:aa~i~~ Imo` ~~~sstal~,yiear fret sale Par~;ls c~cerelg¢IOn ~ bend .Itecl,f~r',~llrlstraaas tt~ oaia~siera or,~f:; r4istsxerl as,ProPexty MA 7, tiered € s or sm wotxllaaacl~, . MW Opo, , Mgr i~acrat na mc~udaragle lion ce aa¢ral s3te~dar~4 aasaa`sevcnty.flvs 1;7~) Psrcent:canolsy ;cove wri3han €ifey (~4) ~feee of is siren oa~ weds lazed; - I?rOvasions dMncentives and;setl~aal<i4u striaents to a+.El for trey ze1kh on; $ Pell itaes for the Illegal removal eg arses, Replaccment`iree gym asaons.. A pt.IC,4l I,E ] i `d{ CI;I I R1A St tc wide I'Ianraln$ rso Es 1, 2 and S, ogralsrttiensivc Flan Polactes`(06neral`F'ollcies), 2,(Citizen Involve- melaR), 3 6 {IvTatw l Areas), and m Imp Meptatl®IitrbAW, of Policy, 3.4; tired:Comnnlt 9Deueto merit Code haPter`l93a.12® Y p 1178301--Plabllsta 44tIas3 1995 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8301 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 'City of Tigard W 11 Tearshest Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ° Tigard,Or•egon. 97223-8199 ~ 0 Duplicate Affidavit O Accounts Payable-Terry e AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION s~~ rtY STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )88• being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal cleric, of th and-T.» I t f n _2 ,mes s newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ilE~i .6y. and 193.020; published at Ti c7A-ra in the aforesaid. county and state; that the >Iear~:Ap)peal Ree nest for Sub.95-0002 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for-_2WE successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 31,1995 ,QECEIVFD SE p r 8 .1995 CITY OF TIC Subscribed and sworn to' reme th! (In- Qf A»q??st, OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS i4ots lie for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON ry COMMISSION NO. 024552 My Commission Expires: ~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 181997 AFFIDAVIT S ' A t ,~v~n weea.nn .u.wn+~rs~creaa~.raayW ~:¢.~ev`a y re~iudwtl~~} t, ~ p/ll us~s;:w~gt~ia catesjd~r t~v s~ `IRamC _+{j y~ay~p.astey~ x ! 7-M P, M y at i}ic3a i0 C y'lL' 1~+ bA.F, ~~K M?0 2 5'! ' y a Y3125. t Hali Bouievard SZ, ?d t~ bin ~iie~7 a,- "r~ It^ 5 n iaa ss -dtant.~D tst ettrd~ars watb Yla~asl ssasla~ 32 ei~`lae`y '"fi8aat~urztca~a~`~c~~~ y ruled ~~a~r~~~o~~ ~~~ne;1 iCtiy l ~saaaea,r xzaaes eF prt~rW ,e atlitr Cpte~;~ atll xt3a5t B to peon o I" i,.t .k aaa t t x°o :gymc"5x+ a ~ nta iC `y'~D 3e~ a e ar;v&a»~a ~~aas t ra~ iL--.1k~ a '.°~~lr'3.ga~11,,Q3+~1 t~taeiterl~n Dsut~.3rer ar'1'~sa¢atata ia-~d~tsie a~.~'iy fda1D ~tt~~' ~+Datainea from ~hr.crrselarturgty'= DII~iQp~6~~ I~yreC~or or caty . 1i Guider 3t the. ie UZLI 0 ter SHIT' t~7tt4tl/t:"' ' ~aIICA Eti 9 ~.b~1~ i tb Y~2v t~f tDta faiYDisv~cn8 dcu 'Opm i"', 9 l~l~ asps `y inn a Yr "Im, p3 t pproka3 U = ~ ~ x~ aulsYrr ~ . a t ?y, ? a; D anto 1 'est in8ang 9aet eeid 6,09 stD~awr~ A ff o Lo~a~ast~eags~sr~,^.~s~t a ~a~es ~~a a~ t€ ► EZ=a cur pI0, asp TOMIII ''elg` '51 1 & a?crz s isata~ ~ p~rw es ~ g~~~e ately $ sid 2S 3 .21 fiwtasatarre Ito RDview apubbv61 of cii n3raasr lens icx rtiasl ~tst etaora rurt dea+eisj m"; to purtia~sas f fplte subj t p~crz tv tDaaat a;xi+~3 25 pi;r$etat - , W t . C T %13 F ; West t~ ~f d ord'. st~t i aia~, n ' pra3 aaraatayl : 65lY ftt Aaorth cif S.W. uID t foeiaataata°ltbad,(WC'T i 2a1 ADS; tax 1d6` W iW 57x4 ~ .TC 4. LIE. ~%fiE ~'ICY'D'Dr~1A.- Community Development 8 aetse s18 52,:118:88,118100,18 YOY2, 48.106, Y8:Yg8, 1 :Y$ YY~r;'YD3 Y (i 1 8 anct Y8 YCa4 Comprelaa nsa~+&PJaan Pb)`ies 11 K Y 144:2 Y,71:x,7Z ,731,,E SYy8 2 fl9 ~adr313. fDt P,7 2.esadattaD, 7 tztaats per a~cre~ Che R 7'zone alD"pt~rs sirelearnylr as:sDCra'G Giaal14p s, daapltrx residential uriht3, ptaD)DaG sta piart faeilataes :iesiiiesatia Treat nt laoaue; Ywmingo anagaiiifat cure iao7aa ffarraily, day earl; laatna" be Opaabn, temporary, use, An'd a; essory strtactures `Y'I'8301 D~Ia ~ta~Y g!I MORI RIM mom M:. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 3 0 3 BEAVERMN, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising ® City of Tigard Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd„ ® Tigard,Oregon 97223.8199 a Duplicate Affidavit e Accounts Payable-Terry m ..r'i0 . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION SrNl;p. STATE OF OREGON, hre3 ;i Ptn .r . COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Kathy Snyder sr :r., 7 swo, ~ being first dryly sworn, depose and say that I am`the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard--Tualatin ~'imes ;.y a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 195.010 and 193.020; published af, Tigard in the arI ,a 9ueflT aforesald county and state; that the Ciry__S2L_nc-~ 1 ELSiness Itq a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for_i?NY-successive and consecutive in the following issues: September 7,1995 It E C. E I V E D S'EP 113995 2, VIA CITY OF TIGARD 6 Subscribed and sworn t afore me thig t day of Sept mber,1995 OFFICIAL SEAL C~ . ROMP A. BURGESS Notary P &c for Oregon ~ NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 024552 6 My Commission Expires: ANY OOMMISSIGN FXPIR9B MAY 16.1091 ~~m,immr rmor.. ~ioroa~~:srsmm.AFFIDAVIT - - - 11 gill / k - .a9c i tc~llaw as ~ ti ss pc iYe from~r kf=mtiot~ P611 .~ger;d4s may ~i ©bmined fimm t C; CIN'Record3>s, ' 1,34 h2 ..W. n11~( $t;rtl~ ru rd,D gdr.,3.) d, by, =Tling639-417'. t IIT C(3LTNOL.BZThTIvE S INAFETiNG SEPIMVIbER42;,1995 rl+.Iq+F~-ya, Cl~ "~7frAR:D t~^I7Tp~y'7:I~gt~T ~y '.11S-T-~,il7Jl,.T..'7.f'4.[\L+~"c8. ~~'i^zxh 9 # 12f; - ~T. P. S3f'4J1L~iZy,3,1!~Y~i Y REDO d P~~ y Mz; J~, (Rad Ecr.~ Creek Conference ROOM; (6:30 P.IVIL) ~CUEtve S~~negaiY1 CBty, (:er~rci1 inaf® isil~ xIZ>> d. ripe Se.ssic~r~ ~r+cler Eli~~srr~vs,,aei:~s Qa i~~'s:B (a>. (~y, a~cusi`la~ or reiat.ens,'rea; pro a -t.y Fr rzsactier~s, cm n. h;A.;i ndinglhigano 'e~su~s. ; > SZg~i s Nse t n~; ( .vr ?all; (7:30 P Nf f~a,t9zAx~ ° ,ley r en~t 4vai nc;ss I .oii;h n pie ?rev; t^n~t rt?ve Li6ra~y iwarel and Plamliag Cammission'Appcine ryeors al Cogitsac, Rcvie4v`14-.*arc? 3cSc ng t hW.Mf, Of Qi1itfar- R;- C'0 -cstr'-'CfiOu, pftfi6 Ash/86 6fffins Sint: Wrw 0min Car ® 3~scss a ?d~~rQ e~ a Public 171, oaiing Zorie Change Annexation 3effery 95 X03. Ptiblie Hesfifig Vbrar s lace/Pacullei Group-- Appeal s~f r-: '_title5[ t6r .3 SubdWiM6 (SUB)I.5-0002/Lottia a Adjui;L-nt (iV1IS} 9S 0(l12'~nd Ssnsaai~~ La~~ds ~'..~v~ew+ ("~LR~ 95-~t.~~ Ana= prowl _ ® PUIR16'A nng z:,ne' -Ordinance Amendment - ZOA 92~J - erne Rerxaoval • w l~tpdrmeEiiaT Service L,eael 5tarrdar ds C`ufibi .C6inpensati3n ~'.iiy'~auncif t~r~nrs~rmles CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON } Counity of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) p, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose an says That I posted in the follovAng public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) 9S -tj whicn were adopted at the Council fleeting dated copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, 9 on the Q day of 19 Q 1. 'Tigard City Ball, 13125 SW Hsli Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Ubrary, 13125 SWI Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tgard'J+tfater Department, 6777 SW Burnham, "Tigard, Oregon e` A Subscribed and swam to before me this.... day of OFFICIAL SEAL a DIANE M JELDERKS Notary Public for Or NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.0461 42 My COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999 u My Commission Expires: Iogin\jo\affpw;t M CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 95-E- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING A REVISED CODE CHAPTER 18.150 REGARDING TREE REMOVAL (ZOA 92-0004) AND NEW SECTIONS 18.24.070. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning commission reviewed proposals for revising Section 18.150 at public hearings on January 4, 1993, October 4, 1993, and January 17, 1994 and at work segsoions September 20, 1993, October 18, 1993, December 28, 1993 and February 7, 1994; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Section 18.150, which was revised by the City Council and then revamped after review by a City Council appointed Tree Task Force as shown in Exhibit 'A"; and WHERE.&G, the City Council held public hearings on July 12, October 11, 1994 and January 24, 1995 to consider the drafts of a proposed amendment and a further public hearing on September 12, 1995 to consider a revised ordinance as recommended by the Tree Task Force. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria is this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 5, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 3.4.2.b. and Implementation Strategy 4 of Policy 3.4 and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the fallowing findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by neighborhood planning organizations and public hearings as listed above. The City's citizen involvement policies in the comprehensive plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the latest revised ordinance drafts have always been available at least seven days prior to the hearings 'which follow Community Development Code procedure. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. The Council has reviewed the Goal 5 questions and arguments raised by David Smith (in letters dated January 17,. 1994, July 11, 1994, and October 4, 1994), and understands the concern raised by DLCD that the ordinance is part of the City's Goal 5 implementation program. The Council adopts by this reference the analysis of these issues provided by the City Attorney (in memoranda dated March 1, 1994 and August 31, 1994). We conclude that the amendments to the Tree Removal Chapter of the Community Development Code do not require amendment of the City 's Goal 5 implementation program or a new Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy i Kim • ~ amount of land falling under this permit requirement. Previously, the ordinance excluded developed residential property. That term was left undefined by the ordinance; staff interpreted it as including any residential property, 3 acres or less in area with an existing use. It now includes all land which either contains no existing use or which is capable of further' subdivision or partitioning. The Council finds this to improve the effectiveness of implementation of Strategy 4 by placing more land under the term •undeveloped,~ and providing vegetation thereon with better protection. 4. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the abovo findings. SECTION 2: Community Development Code Chapter 18.150 shall be revised as shown in Exhibit °A°, and Section 18.24.010 and shall be added as shown in Exhibit SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members $$r sent after being read by number and title only, this Pol day of 1995. Catherine Wheatley, City R or er APPROVED- This day of ~ , 1 AD , Approved as to form: 3a e icoli a Mayor City Attorney fqc ~ Date 101 Z! 1! NIM111111 11,11,!Ij jiggljif,l~ %§11111! 10 Ills TIEN 11121M.. 1:1 1541 l': i:!iF. Mr. Smith further contends that the City could avoid Goal 5 by adopting ordinances that meet the objective of the Forest Practices,Act (FPA). The City Council finds that: 1) when the original drafts were reviewed, the Department of Forestry said it would no longer administer the FPA within City limits and the City's regulations (including erosion control requirements adopted by the City and required by the Unified Sewerage Agency) were more restrictive than the FPA. (See letter -from Kevin Birch dated January 25, 1993); 2) the City Council prefers to retain local control rather than return to general state regulation; and 3) this amendment is pursuant to the FPA. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1 a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs, 2. Policies 2,1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at multiple public hearings, work sessions and neighborhood groups beginning in January, 1993 through the present. 3. The Council has reviewed the argument concerning Implementation Strategy 4 of Plan Policy 3.4 (hereinafter referred to as Strategy 4) contained in the letters of David Smith dated January 17, 1994, July 11, 1994, and October 4, 1994. The Council adopts by this reference the analysis of this issue provided in the City Attorney's memorandum of March 1, 1994. We concluded that Strategy 4 is satisfied by the amended ordinance. The Council finds the proposed ordinance to satisfy 'Strategy 4 because the ordinance as amended will continue to protect large and unique stands of trees and major vegetation areas as called for by that strategy. That strategy provides: 'where there exists large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the planned development process and the 'tree cutting' section of the Community Development Code.' In his lotter January 17, 1994 letter, Mr. Smith suggests that this policy is effectively amended because the proposed new ordinance addresses 'all trees on undeveloped land . The Council finds this reasoning to be unpersuasive. Strategy 4 does not require that the tree removal ordinance necessarily be circumscribed to those areas (large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas) which it describes. Rather, it requires that ordinance must carry out the strategy by 'ensuring that development proposals do not substantially alter the character' of the described areas. The Council finds that the amended ordinance does so in that it requires development proposals, brought under the restrictions of the ordinance by the Site Development Review proces, §18.120.180.A.1.1, to obtain permits for tree removal. g18.150.030.A. To obtain such a permit requires a. showing that, among other things, the removal is 'necessary' for the development to take place. S18.150.040.C. This requirement is unchanged from the current ordinance. Some of the applicable criteria have changed.. Notably, reasonable alternative to the removal cannot exist. Also changed is the A (ESEE) inventory and analysis under Goal 5 and its implementing rules. The Council recognizes that the City's Goal 5 implementation program references the tree removal ordinance. However; the Council notes that the specifically identified function of the ordinance under that plan in to protect 'major vegetation on undeveloped land' in the Little Bull Mountain Forest. Volume 1, Page I-97, Natural Features and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Report. By showing that the amended ordinance will continue to provide this protection, the Council finds compliance with the City's Goal 5 ESEE plan. Since that plan itself is acknowledged as in compliance with the goal, the ordinance does not require a new ESEE analysis. Many ordinances may be referenced as part of a Goal 5 implementing program. However, to require a new ESEE analysis upon any amendment to such ordinances would produce an absurd result which is not required under the Oregon land us© system. Under that system, the various implementing measures of the comprehensive plan, including the Goal 5 implementation plan, are the guiding documents of the development ordinances. Upon acknowledgement, the plan is presumed to be in compliance with the goal. Ordinances, thus, must show compliance with the plan. The key issue for the Council to determine is whether the amended ordinance continues to fulfill its requirement under the implementing program. Fir. Smith contends that under Goal 5, the City must first inventory the location, quality and quantity of the trees it wants to protect., He thus reasons that upon such inventory, E the city must follow the rest of the Goal 5 process, including an ESEE analysis. The Council finds Smith's premise, that trees are a resource required to be inventoried under Goal 5, to be faulty. Reference to the goal makes clear that trees per se are not a listed resource. The City Attorney's memorandum of August 31, 1994 more fully sets out this reasoning. The Council finds that the amendments will serve to maintain or increase the protection provided by the existing language. The Tree Removal Chapter as amended will continue to protect ,major vegetation on undeveloped land' within the Tittle Bull Mountain Forest, the only such requirement in the City's Goal 5 ESEE analysis in volume 1, Appendix I of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The identified resource areas will not change, and reed not be re-inventoried or re-analyzed because of these amendments. The Council finds no other reference to the Tree Removal chapter in the City's acknowledged Natural Features and Open Spaces Report. Therefore, we find also that the amended Tree Removal Chapter will serve the same Goal 5 function as the existing acknowledged Tree Removal Chapter. The Council finds that, in fact, these amendments have the effect of increasing protection for 'major vegetation on undeveloped land., Under the existing ordinance, developed land is exempted form the permit requirement. Since the term 'developed land, was not defined in the ordinance, it became a matter of staff interpretation. That interpretation was made as including any lot or parcel with an existing use. By setting out a definition which includes in developed residential land only those lots or parcels with an existing use which are not capable of being subdivided or partitioned, the amended ordinance will place more land under this permit requirement. The Council finds that such a result increases the level of resource protection sought by the implementation program. 1:721110111 R i s August 22, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. '?5~ IC, MIU?TE R 18.150 TREE REMOVAL Sections 18.150.010 Purpose 18.150.020 Definitions 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirement 18.150.030 Permit Requirement 18.150.040 General Permit Criteria.- Discretionary - Mitigation 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time 18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal Violation - Replacement of Trees JFA, 0.010 Pur hose. A. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benef its from a large number of trees. These trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the cormunity, help clean the air, help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. The purposes of this chapter are toe 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of*trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties; 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 6. Protect water quality; and 7. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; 8. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. The City recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 1 trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or rewired improvements within the development. (Ord. 8906; Ord. 83-52) 18-150.020 Definitions. A. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, as used in this chapter: 1. "Canopy cover" shall mean the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree. 2. "Commercial forestry" shall mean the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. 3. "Hazardous tree" shall mean a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. 4. "Pr=ingi9 shall mean the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maiatenance practices. 5. "Removal" shall mean the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning. 6. "Tree" shall wean a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level. 7. "Sensitive lands" shall mean those lands described at Chapter 18.84 of the Coda. B. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.150.025 Tree P14nnRegxirement A. 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, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. " B. The tree plan shall include the following: EXHIBIT "A"" TO ORDINANCE No. 95-- Page 2 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2, Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. according to the following standards: a. Retainage of less than 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees. b. Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D. C. Retainage of from' 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.0700. d. Retainage of 75 percent or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are. proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. C. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070 D. 18.150.030 Rjrmit Rec~uiremen~t. A. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.84. B® - A tree removal permit shall. not be required for the removal of a tree which: • 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.102 of the Code; EXHIBIT "A" TO.ORDINANCE No. 95°-A-, rage 3 a! 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Code; 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as property tax deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands; C. Commercial Forestry as defined by 18.150.020.A.2. and excluding B.4 above is not permitted. 18.150.040 Peranit Cr.itr.Tja. A. -The following approval standards shall be used by the Director or designee for the issuance of a tree removal permit on sensitive lands: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flag of surface waters, or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar, material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent yroperty, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion. b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment laden flows; or evidence of on site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the floe of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. 3. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no leas than a 75 percent canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing conopy cover is, less than 75 percent. 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention. A. In order to assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as start of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.150.025: EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 957 'Page 4 1. Density Bonus. For each two percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1#).bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.92. No,more than a twenty percent (20$) bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. 2. Lot Size Averaging. In order to retain existing trees over twelve inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.160, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than eighty percent (80%) of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone. 3. Lot Width and Depth. In order to retain existing trees o°-er. twelve inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18. 160, lot width and lot depth, may be reduced up to twenty percent (20%) of that required by the underlying zone. 4. Commercial/Industrial/Civic Use Parking. For each two percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over- tuielve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan f or commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section. 18.105.030, Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, a one percent (1t) reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a twenty percent (20%) reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development. 5® Commercial/Industrial/Civic Use Landscaping. For each two percent (2-%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1t) reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than twenty percent (20-'20-) 'of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. 6. Setback Adjustment. The Director may grant a modification from applicable setback requirements of this Code for the purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. The setback modification described in this section shall supersede any special setback requirements EXHIBIT 61A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95--_a_ Page 5 ' or exceptions set out elsewhere in this Code, including but not limited to Chapters 18.96, 18.146, and 18.148, except Section 18.96.020. B. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section' may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan according to Section 18.150.025 or 18.130.8., and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this Chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit impacted by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. A modification to development requirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and ienere it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.x.50.0 !5.Ex jration of Aopro`ral - Extension of Time. A. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date of approval. B. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. 18.15Q.060 Z.Mplication Submission Requirements. A. Application for a tree removal permit shall be on a' form provided by the Director. Completed applications shall consist of this form, two copies of the supplemental data and narrative set out in Subsection B or this section, and the required fee. Applications shall not be accepted unless they are complete as defined herein. B. The supplemental data and narrative shall include: 1. The specific location of the property by address, assessor's map number, and tax lot; EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95-%1 Page 6 b. 2. The number, size, type and location of the tree (s) to be cut; 3. The time and method of cutting or removing the tree(s); 4. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting of new trees; and w 5. A narrative as to how the applicable criteria of this chapter, for example, Section 18.150.040.A, are satisfied. C. In accordance with Section 18.32.080, the Director may waive any of the requirements in Subsection B above or request additional information. 38.15g.07t? legal Tree Remove YViolatig-R snlaccgmant Qf Trees. A. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: aa. without a valid tree removal permit,; or b. in noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. in noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. in noncompliance with - any other section of the Code. 2. Breach of a condition of any City permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: I. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter. 2. Pursuant to Section 18.32.390, initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit or approval for which this chapter was an approval standard. 3. Issue a stop order pursuant to Section 18.24.070 of the Code. EXHIBIT 01A" TO ORDINANCE No. 95- I Page 7 12 SHRIMP 11:01@ 21 111 MINIMUM 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Code. 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the 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 Subsection D of this sections 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. D. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines;. 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. 3. 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 n•:mbek 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 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. 4. The planting of a replacement tree. shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. 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. F. The remedies set out in'this section shall not be exclusive. EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 95° l C! Page 8 CITY OF TIGARD 2111 EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. SECTION18.24.070 1. Chapter 18.24 is amended by adding Section 181.24.070 to read as follows: "18.24-,,.070, stop Order Hgarina. A. Whenever any work is being done in violation of the provisions of the Code or a condition of any permit or other approval granted pursuant hereto, the Director may order the work stopped by notice in writing served on persons engaged in doing such work or causing such work to be done. All work under the permit or approval shall cease until it is authorized to continue. B. The Director shall schedule a hearing on the stop order for the soonest practicable date, but not more than seven (7) days after the effectiveness of any required notice. At the discretion of the Director, such hearing may be: 1. Part of a hearing on revocation of the underlying permit or approval pursuant to Section 18.32.390; or 2. Solely to determine whether a violation has occurred. The Hearings officer shall hold this heaaring and shall crake written findings as to tlhe violation within seven (7) days. Upon a finding of no violation, the Hearings Officer shall require the issuance of a resume work order. Upon finding a violation, the stop order shall continue to be effective until the violating party furnishes sufficient proof to the Hearings Officer that the violation has been abated. The Hearings officer's decision is subject to review under section 18.32.310.B." EXHIBIT "BIN' TO ORDINANCE No. 95-) q August 22, 1995 Page 1 MEN 1!111 1 Ii JaEiffiim~§ z r - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed ce, STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) T, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose an say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) 'IS- which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated _ Z;v-a~ e a 1q F 5 copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of 1 g~~ I , Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard library, 13125 SW Hail Blvd., 'l igard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Depadtment, 8M SW Burnham, 'Tigard, Oregon n-. A Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~~day of 0 n om, 19 ~ OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE Al JELDERKS Notary Public for egon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 046142 hAV COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1 9 (w/7 T~Iy Commission Expires: 1og1n\jo\s!4post 3! 10; All: I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 95- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 95-0003). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on September 12, 1995, to consider initiating annexation and to consider comprehensive plan and zone designations for one parcel of land located at the western end of SW Fern Street adjacent to the Bonneville Power Easement; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 1995, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential, THE CITY OF TIGAP.D ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected property shall be designated as follows:. Tax Ma ,a, Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use 2S1 4BC, lot 1100 Wash. Co. R-6 Medium Densitv Residential Current Zoning New Zoning Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7 SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED : By un CL Vii ►'vl.c%u-s vote of all Council members present after being read by number anal title only, this /v-r" day of 199 Cathcr' e Wheatley, City/ corder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council t i l y o~ 1995. Ja Nicol', Mayo ApprovedC as to form: / . Cit to ney r,,, / _12 _GS Date / ORDINANCE No. 95- Page 1 a AGENDA I'I' M NO. 3 -'VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: September 12. 1995 (2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet flr listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asps that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED I p oam o visitors.s t Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGEl0DA 1TEM101®. 9 DATE: September 12, 1955 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA 95-0003 - ,1EMRY A request to annex one parcel of 1.58 acres into the City and change the Comprehensive Pia and Zone from Washingtoxi County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential, R-7. LOCATION: The western end of SW Fern Street adjacent to the Bonneville Power Administration easement. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review trite: is are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 10.1.1, Service Delivery Capacity; 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria; and 10.1.3 Zoning Designation. CoM11minity Development Code Chapters 18.136, Annexation Requirements, and 18.135, Land Classification of Annexed Territory. ZONE: Presently Washington County R-6. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON ' fflATTACKED SIIEE m S - M, AG A YrEM NO. 9 PLEASE Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address an lone No. Name, Address and Phone No. f AkfZ~ 3 14S 2d .Sw ' FOO-il/ fT• 71(9A(Z'57jo21j72-z3 r~.t`f`~'~37 ame, dress an one No. Name, Address an one No. ame, ress an one o. Tun an one o. ame, A re;s an one e. an none o. ' Name, A dress and Phone No. Name, Ad rand Phone No. Name, Address an Phone No. Name, Address an one No. jame,ress an one orn me, Ad Tess an one o. Name, Address an Phone No. ame, Address an one No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Ad ress an Phone No. Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGI TDB : NO.: 10 DA : September 12, 1995 PUBLIC FlEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): "PEAL OF A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION (SUB) 95- 0002/LOT LINE A(dDJUSTIbIIENTT UAIS) 95-M12 AND SENSMVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 95 APPROVAL - F®RAN PLACE/PICULELL GROUP A request for approval of the following development applications: 1. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.9 acre parcel into 12 lots ranging between 6,091 square feet to 8,737 square feet. 2. Lot Lime adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres. 3. Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. LOCATION: West cf Woodford Estates, and approximately 650 feet north of S.W. Bull 1blountaiaa Road. (WCTM 2S1, 9AB, Tax Lots 1200 and 5700). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRTTEI L4,: Community Development Code Section 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Comprehensive Pian Poiicies: 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.' 1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8. 1.1 and 8.1.3. ZONE: R.-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). The R-7 zone allows single family residential units, duplex residential units, public support facilities, residential treat.*nent home, farming, manufactured home, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS trQ 7 AGF.PMA NO. _ H® PLEASE PIUNT Proponent - (Sp eking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address an one No. Name an cn No. 7dd LA k 2) 16 T~ c3~eS , 02' , hZ Z1 Z Or-i , Can Name, Address an one No. Name, Address an one RAA/ orz,4r~ p ae MU~c Joy, I 4-S t,,) ~~rjLL- W-T- 1 Sz ~J as 7 ZZ Y b dPh ne o. LL ame,s one o. amf , s an ~24~-~~ I~ML°wlb 1✓" Name, Address an one No. e, ess one No. 2 $ t Sw l pcl• ti !f U t- 9-77--j Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ame, ress and one No. Name, Address an lone No. ame, ress an one No. anee, ress an one o. ame, Address an one No. Name, Address an one o. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. h Y Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITIM . NO. 11 DATE:, September 12, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDIAIENT (ZOA) TRFA REMOVAL LOCATION: Citywide. A request by the City of Tigard to replace Chapter 18.150 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code with new code provisions pertaining to tree removal and to provide amended provisions for a stop work order hearing in Section 18.24.070. The proposed amendments to section 18.150 call for the following: 1. Tree removal permits only on sensitive lands as defined by Chapter 18.84; 2. A tree plan prepared by a certified arborist to be provided with any development application for a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use; 3. Mitigation requirements for tree removal in developments; 4. The prohibition of commercial forestry (removal of ten (10) trees or more, per acre, per calendar year for sale); 5. Permit exemption for land used for Christmas tree production or if registered as property tax deferred tree farms or small woodlands; 6. Permit criteria including erosion control standards and seventy-five (75) percent canopy cover within fifty (50) feet of stream or wetland; 7. Provisions for incentives and setback adjustments to allow for tree retention; 8. Penalties for the illegal removal of trees; 9. Replacement tree provisions. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 5; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 (General Policies), 2 (Citizen Involvement), 3.4.b (Natural Areas), and Implementation Strategy of Policy 3.4; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30.120. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TEST' ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS AGENDA REM NO. 11 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, d ressfd Ph e No. / Name A ress an one No. ame, ress an one ame, ress an one o. D q' 7 2"2_.3 v ~J ame, ess inz o - o.~A I ~ , ~e. Adar-ess an one No. yt 3 115c~ I~ F3,t1~~v"1co Name, Address an one No. Name, ress an one No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No.. ame, ress an one No. Name, Adaress an one , o. ame, ress an one o. Te., an e o. ame, Address en one o. an one No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, A ress and Phone No. i Council Agenda Item 4.a~ MEMORaAMEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator DATE: August 24, 1995 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, September - November, 1995 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk if generally OR, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. September 4 Mon Labor Day Holiday - City Offices Closed *12 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *19 Tues Council Study Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *26 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting October *10 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 11 Wedw Council Meeting with Intergovernmental Water Board to hear Regional Water Presentation *17 Tues Council Study Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *24 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting November 11 Fri Veteran°s Day Holiday - City Offices Closed *14 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *21 Tues Council Study Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 23- Thurs- 24 Fri Thanksgiving Holidays - City Offices Closed *28 Tues Council Meeting - Cancel? - Conflicts with National League of Cities Conference h:\logia\cathy\ccc&l r a Agenda Item N®. Meeting of g l i a 1 G s _ TENTATIVE COUNCIL AGENDAS (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: September 12, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Proclamation: > Disability Employment Awareness Month > Crime Prevention Month Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes > Receive and. File: e Council Calendar e 't'entative Agenda > Board/Committee Appointments iLiz) > LCRB Business Fleeting: > Review 2040 Comments to forward to Metro (Jim H) > Annexation Public Hearing - Jeffery > Appeal Public Hearing - Foran Subdivision, (Will) > Public Hearina: Tree Removal (Dick) > Council Compensation (set over from 7/25/95 Meeting) > Service Standards > Cook Park Task Force Discussion (Mayor Hiroli) > Greenspaces (Mayor Nicoli) TENTATIVE AGENDA (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matte:: or request.) Date: September 19, 1995 Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Conmmunications > Joint meeting with Library Board (Kathy) > Classification/Compensation Study (Sandy Z.) > 2040 Update (Jim K.) > Use of Water Treatment Facilities (Randy W, Mayor Nicoli) > Reimbursement District Ordinance Discussions Schedule these items to another meeting, but still keep on tentatiyes for 1995: > Triangle Workshop Meeting (Jim H.) > Transportation Systems Study (Jim H.) TENTATIVE AGENDA (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: September 26, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Space issues to 1999 > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes > Receive and File: e Council Calendar ® Tentative Agenda Business Meeting: > Appeal Public Hearing - H:illshire Woods 11 (Mark Roberts) > Building Code Appeals Board (Discussion) (Jim H, David) > water Resources Project Update (Greg Chew, McKeever/Morris - 10-15 minutes) Room Use Policy (Wayne) TENTATIVE AGENDA (Notes Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: October 10, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: >Approve Council minutes >Receive and File: ® Council Calendar ® Tentative Agenda Business Meeting: > Annexation Hearing - Snook - (Ray V.) > Dartmouth LID Financing Hearing (Randy, Wayne) > Review of I-5/217 Subarea Plan Recommendation (Mayor, Bill) > MACC Resolution > Discussion - City/School District 908 Study/Agreement 1011 flil 11 111 011 TENTATIVE AGENDA (Dote: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: October 17, 1995 Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > Joint Meeting with CITs (Liz) 9 CIT Communications (Liz) > Board and Committee Rules (Liz) > Growth Impact Discussion (Bill, Randy) > Council Policy - Half Street Improvements (Randy) > 2040 Update (Jim H.) > Neighborhood Mediation Discussion (Bill) Status of Classification/Compensation Study ® Executive Session: Contract City Adxainistrator's Review 1101 IMF .49 111 61 111 1,11111'' 1 IRIIII!~?: I::! A !I !!I TENTATIVE AGENDA (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: October 24, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes > Phone System Upgrade (Wayne) Business Meeting: > LJRdate: Youth Programs - Police Department (Ron) > Parks SDC Public Hearing (Jim H.) c. y TENTATIVE AGENDA (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: November 14, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m.,Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review > Utility Billing - delinquent collections and rules and regulations - (Wayne) Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes > Receive and File: ® Council Calendar e Tentative Agenda Business Meeting: > Utility Billing Frequency (Wayne) > Purchasing Rules Update (Wayne) 1111,110111, 1 11 TENTATIVE AGENDA Date: November 21, 1995 Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Communications > Annexation Comprehensive Plan Changes (Jim) > Transportation Comprehensive Plan Changes (Jim) > Solid Waste Policy Discussion (Continued from August 15, 1995) (Wayne, Loreen) i KOREA RN ffm TENTATIVE AGENDA (Note: Items underli.ne_d_ are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: November 28, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start.Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes Business Meeting: Cancel Meeting? NLC Conference (11/29-12/3) 17m TENTATIVE AGENDA (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date.. December 12, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes Business Meeting: > Water Rate Study Report (Wayne) > Classification and Compensation Study Recommendations (Sandy) > Audit Report Presentation (Joint Meeting with Budget Committee) - (Wayne) TENTATIVE AGENDA (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's W Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: December 19, 1995 Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Communications TENTATIVE AGENDA t (mote: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: December 26, 1995 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes Business Meeting: > OPEU Contract Negotiations - approval of new contract (Sandy) f:\1ogin\cathy\tertagen.95 MIME= IIIIJ;, 15 11 Agenda horn No. 44•3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Meeting of q/la COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 12. 1995 DATE SUBMITTED: September 5, 1995 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Board and Comm. PREVIOUS ACTION: Appointments PREPARED BY: Liz Newton L' DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Appointments to the Library Board and the Planning Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee met on August 30, 1995 to interview candidates for positions on the Library Board and the Planning Commission. Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, approves the recommendations of the Committee. Also attached are copies of the applications submitted by the individuals being recommended for appointment, with the exception of Brian Moore and Ron Holland who are being recommended for reappointment to the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay appointments --------FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION REM, 1! M r 10"'197 OF ,u %,i oil W TIGARD OREGON CITMEN COQ MITTEE INTEREST PLICAMON Marne: Angus R. Mc Key Date: 10 July 1995 Address (Res.): 9720 SW Frevving St. Tigard OR 97223 Res, Phone: (503) 820-7082 Address (Bus.): Bus. Phone: Length of Residence in Tigard: i Year Suggested by: so Where did you live previously: Portland f'-2 wears): p or to tha vashon island, Washington (outside Seattle) (-'25 years). Educational Background: RA (Math=do maim Phvsiss minor. Unbaff& of Minnesota): graduate work in mathematics/ engineering. UO. Berkeley. California Occupational Status and Background: nt t ma;MIjItg_mantSer itive with several serospacx3 wmpanies: most recently (for about 25 years) with Boeing Aerospace in Seattle, Kont and nearby areas in Washington. At Boeing. ~„„..~gr! atam•s3 ad~kiroputx~ I~s~radaglr-a~iivs.~f~ire3'~arhretnm~r~p~~. d,:yjg~yd •l,t•••••a computers and eomptrtes sysfxsrna imr rrse in Boeing ~ prodrrr~s acrd sysierns: partirdpatzd in systems planning and design: planned. ~JRA ! ~r.x, ,ry$eu.nax:lc saA~!(~(~ eorl~ry'~„rl~®S+r of ! nn:~-1~1 Nor to Paei arlivitiez warn •lar • x~tl iv3issIles and Sparx tTvisiorr and wYiflh then lVor h Amerirasn Aviation. How long HaVe yC~(-b do $MpreSVETnlsrr A. Previous Community Activity : ~ mss. _ ~ ~,n. ~ar,~~.•~, ,~mnl.s~r•! ~aorwrernent. ~'~'+'~'~"1~'SC~gtn4l~'lff~iF}r~ C9f~I~iE~lr1 BCr•~lilB®fYrA'd{hBl~ Organizations and Offices: ePar~r 6l:16~G,(trrs stg: ®....a ~?d ~netrt rris ,.Jsnerer~~ {~,,.r.,. lwr..r a, an of Integra Other Information (General Remarks): O Board or Committee interested in: Any other pertinent information you want to share? 1`0-i ns -"--bcil -do" PreP-al-y "I Ong book an some aspects of recreational rrlaitrerrtatics (not an oxlmzoron!). Have a literature, history, science. language, Ph3tosophy, recrea!ions. (And. I have to add, simpty because I have a bock in my pmue gal library does not necessarily me=an i have not read it') h:\logln\lia\cit omin 13125 SIN Hail BMd., Tigard; OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TQa (503) 684-2772 ---r BERRI PEARSON FINANCIAL GROUP 3®3 293 9565 P.@fl TI OREGON CMZFEN C E I MEREST P C TI 14 Name: 5;CDate: 3 JS- Address (Res.): g35S 5~10 /A/6-a 157` Res. :Phone: _!E?,,Q- -9~ Address (Bus.): 17 2, 2 Bus. Phone: _ 2--q5 - 2-2,0 Length of Residence in Turd: Lim Suggested try: Where did you live previously: - _ ~ 417in Educational Background: ooupational Status and Background: 1~0 01 wt M'M ! , 4b o How long have you been employed with this firm: Previous Community Activity: Cg a r1-tk1 M e . Organizations and Offices: Other Information (General Remarks): ~A A44,& 'a A ~ . < AA 4 Board or Committee Interested in: aLAM NOS ny other pertinent information you want to share? h:\io~in\i!~\oitc~~aln 13125 SW Hall Wd,, Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 634-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r~ CITY OF TTIGARD OREGON W MEN COMMMME EST PUCATION Name: Lawrence Keith Beck (Larry) Date: July 4, 1995 Address (Res.): I1'qAs ~w 4Srh Au,- Res. Rhone: 620-1602 626-2800 x-3-15 Address (bus.): 9450 SW Gemini Drive Beaverton Bus. Phone: Length of Residence in Tigard: 5 years Suggested by-Newsletter Where did you live previously: Grants Pass, OR Educational Background: M. Music. University of. Oregon; MLIS, Brigham Young University; B. Music Education, Lewis and Clark College Occupatonal Status and Background: Supervisor, Software Support, Stream International .1 port Representative/Online Services Adminstrator, Central Point Software How long have you been employed with this firm: 5 years Pry,Aous Community Activity: Tigard Basketball Association Board of Directors Volunteer at Phil Lewis Elementarv school Organizations and Offices: CompuMentor volunteer Other Information (General Remarks): n%a Board or Committee Interested in: Library Board Any other pertinent information you want to Share? I believe that a vital public library essential to the grovYth and development of a community and will commit myself to strengthening the Tigard Public in the best way possible. h:\lagin\iia\6iYCamin 131125 SW Hall BKd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 6$4-2772 Jill Ell MEN= Ma' WE e RECD AL 1 0 1995 n Q's CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Dame: &d i'+k Aldf Date: /7 - 2- i Address (Res.):. 10 3 -4),6a na.- - JT, 22~ Res. Phone: 6 3 LW yd 4 Address: (Bus.): zo;w 9W •J1*'~. JaRy L/4 . A et C2a p Bus. Phone: 2z IT - 5 6"- 7-Length of Residence in Tigard: / - Suggested by: n/cWf/e,~,-~ Where did you live previously: _&r~ & raur~~~r~e ~~r~ ^ ~tlE'~ a Leal 24e ~2z Educational Background: A AS Ed,&rd-f-L1i1_ %c r . Occupational Status and Background: ~-+F rho # or kL .a How long havi a you been employed with this firm: / D M o s Previous CommunKy A&jvity: t/ t.~ D a _-r ~r~Ir~~ d Organi ions. and O fm: Other anform.ation ( eneral Remarks): a use ~ au M e - U Board or Co r aittee a ar ~ssi ~ Ira: J~a h -brz n, 1'.,g Sf d r) Any other pertinent inforTnation you want to share? PJa,0se 2~z ,V0,~i n T2l, /rygf bmdas2 d~ Ht. 6rY~! ~ -K e l _4alv p &u 4o (i tle. h:\1og1n\6zi rain 1312,5 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR .97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-27?2 - ;1 1; 111!11 ligi; 11;111 d OREGON! Naime: _AI K PA 0 6 F T / Date: Address'~Res.): I 7® S k/ ~.,f" Res. Phone: 6.~9 3.2 2 Address .(Bias.); NO ~b1C ?a~~ ~/~a~ ~.r~ Bars. Rhone: C®r. ~ 7 Length of Residence in Tigard: ~ ~ Suggested by: 'Where did you live pr®viousiy: SU V69 Educational Background: N Okra-ERN um o/AS SCA / JOR. 6 we, A Gee - ~~.4 SC9,06/_ ® ~~'✓~i~ occupational. Status and Background: g %f0IleS'S C 0/gJaJ4 How long have you been employed with this firm: 00 ,eY. Previous vommunity Activity: C14te - TW Eh Beet/ S -1660 b die &pb Tice, k bi~r~'~a ~U Cep's<t 6SP~1~ Organizations and Offices: irP- A a c.cga z Other Information (General Remarks): Board or Committee interested in: Any other pertinent information you want to share?/ 1 &SVLN~ n:\iaai~e\,iia\c~4aara~ir~ ~ , 13125 S%N Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4979 IDD (503) 684-2772 INN RECD J U L 0 7 1995 r July 5, 1995 James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Tigard OR 97223 Mr. Hendryx, Please find attached my application to become a planning Commission member. As you can see, my experience includes serving 4 years on the Washington County Planning Commission, 3 of those years as Vice-Chair. I am familiar with planning issues, and the criteria needed to make decisions. I have also worked closely with Bill Monahan during his first stint with the city. If you need any more information, please don't hesitate to call me at 639.3229. I look forward to interviewing for this position. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 4 J_ ' Mark Padgett fi Iggill I lit, NMI, r AGENDA ITEM # 4A, y For Agenda of September 12, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of contract for construction of the Ash/Scoffins Street Storm Drainage CIP PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OK ~ CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for construction of the Ash/Scoffins Street Storm Drainage CIP? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, award the contract to Miller and Sons, Inc. INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 29, 1995, bids were opened as follows: CJ Const. Services, Kent, WA $ 86,166.00 QJR General Cont., Beaverton, OR 65,950.00 CEMS Inc., Vancouver, WA 64,813.00 Hubco Excavating, Gresham, OR 59,700.00 3DC, Beaverton, OR 55,989.75 Miller & Sons Contr., Sherwood, OR 531157.20 Engineers Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 46,000 The purpose of this project is to improve drainage in Ash Street from Scoffins St. to Commercial St. by replacing a nonfunctional private line with a public line within the right-of-way. The low bidder, Miller & Sons, has successfully completed several other similar sewer repair projects. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL, NOTES This project is part of the 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program approved by Council on June 1.3, 1995, with a budget of $50,000. Funding required in excess of this amount will be from savings on previous storm drainage projects. dj/GH:ASH-Scoffins.SS s _ I r AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of September 12, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY rM<-w ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Fee Waiver Request r; PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE T E COUNCIL Should the council submit a formal request to Washington County for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement? Should the council waive the application fees for a comprehensive plan amendment? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council not submit a formal request for amendment of the UPAA at this time, and that' the council decide whether to grant the fee waiver request. INFORMATION SUMMARY Early this year, Mr. Bledsoe initiated discussions with staff about changing the policy in the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County regarding the zoning of land upon annexation to the city. He followed up with a letter to the council, dated April 5, 1995. In response, staff wrote a letter on April 6 to Mr. Bledsoe informing him that this policy was contained not only in the U•PAA, but also in the city's comprehensive plan and community development code. In follow-up discussions, he expressed interest in amending the comprehensive plan and was informed of the time period limitations for initiating this process. Mr. Bledsoe presented his proposal to amend the plan and request a fee waiver to the West and Central CITs, and received their approval on August 1 and August 3, respectively. He sent a letter to the council requesting the fee waiver on August 22. Please see the attached memo for staff evaluation of the UPAA amendment request and fee waiver request. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Initiate a formal request to Washington County for amending the UPAA. 2. Approve or deny the fee waiver request. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact to the city if both requests are denied. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx. DATE: September 12, 1995 SUBJECT: Request for UPAA Amendment and Fee Waiver for Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Bob Bledsoe has expressed interest in initiating the process to change the policy, contained in the Urban Planning Area Agreement and city comprehensive plan, that requires the city to assign zoning to annexed land which most closely approximates the county zoning designation. He requests this be accomplished in three ways: The City Council submit a formal request to Washington County for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) ; a comprehensive plan amendment be initiated to add Policy 10.1.4; and the council waive the application fees for a comprehensive plan amendment. Staff recommends that the council not request the county to open up the UPAA for amendment at this time and the council should decide on the fee waiver request. REQUEST TO AMEND UPAA Mr. Bledsoe requests that the council schedule a meeting to consider changes to the UPAA between the city and Washington County. Section III.A of this agreement requires that the city assign plan designations to newly-annexed territory which most closely approximates the density, use provisions and standards of county designations. The council may request the Washington County Commission to commence discussion and hearings on amending the UPAA. The procedures and timing of the amendment process, however, are the responsibility of the county commission. Staff recommends that the council not request the county to amend the agreement at this time. Since the last update in 1988, several issues concerning the city's urban planning area have commanded attention. For this reason, staff recommends that a formal request to modify the UPAA occur only after the city has discussed other issues, besides that of Mr. Bledsoe, that might need to be amc::nded. h COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST AND PROCEDURES The proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan, if approved, would give the city the option, at the request of the property owner, to assign a zone designation to annexed territory that most 1 LL-1 A u1 E owner, to assign a zone designation to annexed territory that most closely matches the existing development in low density residential established areas. Currently, Tigard's comprehensive plan and development code require the city to assign a zoning district to annexed territory that most closely conforms to the county designation. Mr. Bledsoe requests, through the Central and West Citizen Involvement Teams, that the city council waive the application fee for this action. A waiver of fees is allowed under the provisions of Community Development Code sections 18.30.030 and 18.32.345. There are no criteria listed in the code which guide the council's decision in this matter other than the words "when appropriate". For this reason, the particular amendment request, application procedures and preliminary staff analysis must be addressed to assess whether a fee waiver is appropriate. STAFF ASSESSMENT OF AMENDMENT REQUEST Based on available information and past talks with Mr. Bledsoe, staff offers the following preliminary assessment of the amendment request. The amendment would allow the owners of property to request that the city assign a less dense zone to their property upon annexation. The purpose of this provision is to help preserve the existing density in established residential areas. There are several issues that were considered during this assessment. Staff concerns about this policy change can be broken down to three categories: The amendment's effect on zoning as a consistent, non- arbitrary tool for regulating the use of land; the effect on implementation of the city comprehensive plan, city policies and regional planning goals; and the logistics of applying such a policy. A major purpose of a zoning code is to ensure that development regulations on use of land, bulk and intensity are applied in a uniform manner within zoning districts. This feature benefits both the owner of land and the presiding jurisdiction. Upon purchase of land, a citizen has reasonable certainty of what can and can not be built upon the land. It is their choice to develop the land up to the maximum allowable under the zoning code; or to not develop the land at all. The choice to preserve the existing established neighborhood by not increasing density, therefore, is made by the property owner.' The proposed amendment is not needed to achieve this goal. What the amendment would change, however, is the right of any future owners to develop the property to the density originally allowed on the land, and likely still allowed in the surrounding neighborhood. The city relies on uniform zoning districts for planning and providing.services and facilities in an efficient, cost-effective manner. Planning and budgeting for sewer lines, roads and parks, for example, would be,much more difficult if individual parcels within a single district could be zoned as R- 1, R-2, R-3.5 or R-4.5. A likely outcome would be the outer-sizing 2 xl! 17The second concern relates to the implementation of land use policies as expressed in the city comprehensive plan, as well as in regional planning efforts. The city, plan contains the framework that provides for an orderly and efficient land use pattern and urban services which must be available at the time of development. This framework also provides for the orderly and efficient transition of annexed land within the city's urban planning areas. Planning and budgeting to accomplish this goal depends to a great extent upon consistent zoning districts. The amendment request could possibly affect thousands of parcels both in the city's active planning area and area of interest. The amendment. would have a negative effect on regional planning and growth management efforts. The city must comply with OAR. 660-07- 000, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, which implements state goal 10 (Housing). The purpose of the rule is to assure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the urban growth boundary. it requires the city to provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing or multiple family housing and to provide an overall density of ten units per net residential acre. Currently, the city's housing opportunity index is 10.46 units per acre. The proposed amendment could result in several acres of residential land being rezoned at a lower density, thus decreasing the opportunities for multiple family housing as well as the housing index. When Metro implements Region 2040 regional planning goals and objectives through the Regional Framework Plan, the city will probably need to amend its comprehensive plan and zoning code. Given the emphasis on higher densities within the urban growth boundary, these changes will likely consist of establishing policies to increase housing density. Mr. Bledsoe's amendment would work against this goal. Staff's third concern about the proposed amendment is how it would be implemented. The method for assigning a zoning district to a property under this proposal is to match the subject property to "existing development in low-density residential established areas". The proposal does not define the geographic extent of low- density established areas. Is it the immediately adjacent parcels to the site? Is it one quarter of a mile from the site? Does it encompass only low density zone districts even though a higher zoning district is across the street from the site? These questions would have to be answered and a methodology created to implement the amendment. Moreover, it is unclear from the wording of the proposal whether the amendment would apply to only land that is currently zoned in the county as R-5, which is comparable to the city's R-4.5 (low density), or whether it would apply to land zoned in the county that is comparable to city medium density. Most of the land in the city's urban planning areas to which this proposal would apply is 3 zoned Washington County R-6, which under current policy would be annexed as city R-7, medium density. Could an owner of land with a county R-6 zoning request a lower zoning under the proposal? If so, would the zoning be determined by surrounding existing development that is comparable to city medium density, or would low density areas be used? These issues should be addressed in the proposed amendment language. If not, then city staff and decision- makers would need to interpret the new policy before recommending or issuing approval or denial of applications. FUTURE OPTIONS Mr. Bledsoe may, of course, apply for a comprehensive plan amendment. Staff would review the application and make a recommendation to the planning commission and city council based strictly upon the relevant criteria in the comprehensive plan. The next available time period for application for a legislative action is between January 24, 1996 and February 23, 1996. If the council does not allow the fee waiver now, Mr. Bledsoe or the CITs may request another waiver of fees during for the next application time period. Staff will evaluate the request, at that time, based on any additional information or clarification. of the proposed amendment and provide the council with a recommendation. C . V 4 oVV\ DATE: September 12, 1995 eknL bb , - FROM: Bob Bledsoe c.w+~ TO: Tigard City Council SUBJECT: Response to Memorandum from Jim Hendryx SECOND PARAGRAPH "REQUEST TO AMEND UPAA" Two issues are deceptively lumped together in this paragraph: the request'by the City to the County to modify the UPAA, and the consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council of possible issues to bring to the County. Indeed it is more orderly to negotiate all issues with the County once the City has determined what changes it would like to snake in the UPAA. However, the Commission and Council can easily consider the issues distinctly; this is the way the Comp Plan was totally revised in the early eighties. My request remains to place this topic (zoning established low-.density neighborhoods upon annexation) on your agenda or on the agenda of the Planning Commission. It could be considered by the Planning Commission, and if approved, then be considered by you in a study session. Then the City could wait a reasonable time until all issues were discussed, and then approach the County. PARAGRAPHS 5-10 "STAFF ASSESSMENT OF AMENDMENT REQUEST" Really this is not the time or place to consider the specific merits of our request to amend the Comprehensive Plan; that is the purpose of the hearings. The question is whether you will allow us reasonable access to appeal the law governing us. But since staff has raised some objections, I will briefly address them. PARAGRAPHS 6 "consistent, non-arbitrary zoning" Policy 6.3.3 provides explicitly for preservation of established residential neighborhoods. In applying the zoning districts envisioned in this request, the Council would most likely be responding to near unanimous requests of home-owners in local neighborhoods. I can think of nothing more consistent and non-arbitrary than to zone an area at the density to which the property is actually divided and built. In several cases, we are talking about neighborhoods built before Tigard was even incorporated. Just because the planners got together and spun a net does not mean it is cast in concrete. PARAGRAPHS 7-8 "regional planning goals" Here you see that the planners are not working for you but for METRO. Obviously our desires are not the same as MET'RO's and the planners'. But in a democracy the citizens are not required to conform as zombies just because the bureaucrats have made their policy. METRO wants 10 to the acre; our homes are in neighborhoods of 2 or 3 to the acre. We were here first. We have rights. T:.e number of extra homes that can be squeezed into existing neighborhoods is small, unless a complete redevolpment is done. But the effect on the neighborhood can be substantial. METRO is projecting '185% or 19%, but I think it will be 1% or less, not counting complete redevolpment projects. The gain is not worth the pain. a PARAGRAPHS 9-10 "logistics; how it would be implemented" Staff should give the Council some credit for intelligence. In any decision wholly at the discretion of Council, the Council gets to set the boundaries. It would consider citizen petitions, the development in place, and staff recommendations. The question of County R-6 to City,R-7 should be considered in the hearings process (Staff did not mention the underlying comp plan designations of Low Density versus Medium Density, although that is more important). Personally. I favor giving access to all citizens concerning the zoning of their own neighborhoods. Staff prefers obstacles. I ON al W kMENOWN= ll c'.,Y AGENDA ITEM # LP } For Agenda of q11a Itis CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Letter on 2040 5 PREPARED BY: Carol A. Landsman DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the council authorize the mayor to sign a letter to Metro commenting on the Region 2040 Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The council should authorize the mayor,to sign it. INFORMATION SUMMARY In response to a request from the council, the planning commission drafted a letter to Metro regarding the proposed 2040 plan. When the council reviewed the letter, several members, while agreeing with the issues the commission identified, thought the city should take a more supportive position. Councilor Rohlf redrafted the letter for council review. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Send the letter drafted by planning commission. 2. Send no comments on the plan. FISCAL NOTES % MEN s AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda.of September 12, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Chancre Annexation ZCA 95-0003 C3ef-fr t4 PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Fi Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request to initiate annexation of one parcel consisting of 1.88 acres located at the western end of SW Fern Street adjacent to the Bonneville Power Easement? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation request ti to the Boundary Commission and to assign comprehensive plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with the city comprehensive plan. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed annexation consists of territory comprised of one parcel of land, totaling 1.88 acres, which is contiguous to the City of Tigard. The applicants request annexation in order to partition the property and receive sanitary sewer service. Attached is a resolution initiating annexation and an ordinance to change the comprehensive plan and zone designations from Washington County R-6 to Tigard Medium Density Residential, R-7. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the request. FISCAL NOTES Since the territory is not within the city's active planning area, the applicant is responsible for the Boundary Commission application fee of $395. ligg AGENDA ITEM # !C7 For Agenda of September I-&. 1995 a, ='~3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appeal of SUB - - 2 SLR - PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea DEPT BEAD OR CITY IN t414-1- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council support the applicant's appeal? ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended ghat Council support the applicant's request subject to the applicant providing a street design which would accomodate both a westerly and southerly street connection. Staff recommends that City Council adopt the findings as contained in the staff report as submitted to the Hearing's Officer. Condition #9, of the Hearings Officer's Final Order should also be deleted, as it relates to the re-design of the proposed Foran Street. It is recommended that City Council approve amended conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. INFO TIOYQ Si]k~lt~fARx On July 18, 1995 the Hearing's officer approved an application (Exhibit B) for a. Subdivision / Lot Line Adjustment / Sensitive Lands application (SUB 95-00002/MIS 95-0012/SLR 95-0006) for a 12 lot subdivision., north of SW Bull Mountain Road and west of Woodford Estates. This decision has been appealed by The Piculell Group on behalf of Frank and Patricia Foran. The Picullel Group has appealed conditions ##1 and #2 which require a redesign of the proposed street and dedication/ improvement of a public pedestrian easement (Exhibit C). The evaluation of the appeal items is noted below. apggaln Item Al. Staff would support a change to condition #1 as imposed by the Hearings Officer. Staff is in agreement with the Hearings officer regarding the need to provide a westerly extension of the proposed street and that it should be designed such that the future burden is proportionately shared. However, staff believes that the most efficient'design would provide for a future connection both westerly and southerly, to SW Bull Mountain: Road. 'Staff had made the argument before the Hearings Officer that the proposed street should allow for a connection to SW Bull 1111111111111 11~1;n 11 zql 112 1 0: 1111,11: k A ~ Mountain Road. Condition #1 of the Hearings officer decision would preclude such a connection to SW Bull Mountain Road. As such, staff would support the applicant's appeal provided the applicant design the proposed street to allow nor a future street r connection to SW Bull Mountain Road. This design should generally _ conform to the "revised future transportation map" (Exhibit D) as submitted by staff to the Hearings Officer. h- Appeal Ttem 42. While staff disagrees with the applicant's argument related to third party rights, staff would support removal of Condition #2 provided the applicant provide a street plan which provides a connection to SW Bull Mountain Road. The staff report to the Hearing's Officer did not require a pedestrian connection because the recommendation provided for a future public street connection to SW Bull Mountain Road. A pedestrian connection would not be necessary with the provision of a public street. Should the applicant not provide the southerly connection, staff would recommend that Condition #2 remain as is. In regards to the privacy issue, the proposed easement is located on property owned by the applicant and is a part of the parcel being subdivided. This lot currently contains access easements to adjoining properties for use as a private driveway. The pedestrian easement, as well as a future street, would in no way infringe upon or interfere with the access rights-of-easement currently enjoyed by adjoining property owners. It would, however, mean a potential loss of privacy for the existing property owners. Attachments: A) Resolution; B) Notice of Decision - Final Order (Sub 95-0002/MIS 95-0012/SLR 95-0006) ; C) Applicant's Statement; and D) Revised transportation map as proposed by staff and presented to Hearings Officer. QT R ALTER~,9^rIVES CQXS MERFD ' 1. Support the appeal and approve the attached resolution. 2. Deny the appeal. 3. Support the appeal exactly as requested by the applicant and direct staff to prepare a resolution and final order. FISC&L-I DES All fees have been paid by the applicant. & OEM s CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION AMENDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF A HEARINGS OFFICER FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF MIS 95-0012/SUB 95-0002/SLR 95-0006 WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Hearings officer conducted a public hearing on June 26, 1995 and issued a Final order on July 18, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard City Council conducted a public hearing on September 12, 1995 and finds that the amended conditions are in accordance with City standards; and WHEREAS, the appeal and amendments have received a recommendation of approval by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Council adopts the findings related to the amended conditions as contained in the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby approves the appeal and amended conditions subject to the conditions in the Hearings Officer Final Order as amended herein. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the Hearings Officer's final order be amended as follows: 1. Condition of approval 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the subdivision. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171) 2. Condition of approval 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: RESOLUTION NO: 95- Page 1 r 1; 0 Yll !'I', 111 11 E!, I ^ S I ~ 2. The applicant shall revise the final plat to provide for a half-street connection to the south. The =.wprovements shall provide for a 14 foot wide roadway, curb and sidewalk within a 22 foot half street right-of-way. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639- 4171) 3. Condition of approval 9 is hereby deleted.. SECTION 3: This resolution shall be effective at the expiration of the appeal period. PASSED: This day of 1995. Mayor. - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of.Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 95- Page 2 09/12/95 16:24 0503 520 6971 INFOLAB 0 002 Ed Metzler 2 13267 S Bull Mountain 12d. Tigard, Agenda ftOM No. L Phone: 503-520-6985 Meeting of NA q9 a September 12, 1995 Will D'Andrea City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Halt Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Will: I would like to request that this letter be added to the file for the Foran Subdivision. I understand that the City of Tigard Planning organization has reached a tentative agreement with the The Picullel Group, Inc. on future roads extending South and West from the Foran Subdivison. I am not in support of the agreement on the Western roam extension. Our property borders the Nest end of the Foran property. You have told me that there is proposed future Westerly extension that is aligned coequally between Mr. Murphy's and our South property line. This is consistent with my, and the Hearing Officer's, wishes. However, I am very uncomfortable with the sharp corner in the Foran subdivision road as it makes its bend to the South. I have created a crude drawing below that portrays what I believe to be the current proposal. NiuePbY pro" Fown Subdivision + LXge Property Lne Metzler property trees North wet(andt Property line I can only deduce one rationalization for not building this road in a more linear fashion that it will reduce the number and size of lots available for development in the Foran subdivision, What will be sacrificed to make such a sharp bend in the road? Traffic safety and several large trees! Instead, I suggest that the subdivision road follow a more-or-less straight line though the subdivision. At a minimum, the curve should be more gradual and be moved to the East. This serves two purposes: 1) it provides a safer street with less blind corners and, 2) it preserves the large trees that may be destroyed if the road is placed farthcr North. These trees serve as a watershed to preserve the wetlands below and also are home to several Peregrine falcons and other wildlife, 't'hank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, t~AeA(~ 2A_ 5 Edn and J. Metzler L .n^ CITY OF TIGARG EXHIBIT B Washington County, Oregon i V NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER <a BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER / Concerning Case Number(s) STIR 95-00021MIS 95-00121SLR 95-000Q Naves of Omer. Frank & Patricia Foran Name of Appiacaet The Piculeil Group Inc. AlAdw elfAMFcaut-• 3236 SW Kelly Street City. Portland State. Oregon Hp. 97201 Adit of West of Woodford Estates, and approximately 650 feet north of SW Bull Mountain Road. City. Tigard State. Oregon Rp. 97224 Tax Mop and lot Norsk: WUM 2S1 9AB tax lots 1200 and 5700 Request I,. A reggn for approval of the following development applications: 1I J Subd•viWon preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.9 acre parcel into 12 lots ranging between 6,091 square feet to 8,737 square feet. 2.) Lot Line adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres. 3.) Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies: 2.1,1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3. Community Development Code Section 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. f, a Zone: R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). The R•7 zone allows single family residential units, duplex residential units, public support facilities, re..ential treatment home, farming, manufactured home, family day care, homa occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. AcSon a ❑ Approval as aequested ® Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: 0 Owners of record within the required distance ® Affected governmental agencies 10 The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator ® The applicant and owner(s) Mw CI5101y rS10A~ 1. ~ls F( L fl6 K 31, 1996 U .'S N A~PEkL IS F( U` Oacision The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Pianring Department, Tigard City Ball, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. ABM Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290 (6) and Section 18.32.370, wMch provides that a written appeal may be filed within ten (10) days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee(s) of $315.00 plus transcript costs, not in excess of #500,00. TIIE:!) ADUNE FOR: 4LING OF ~W APPEAL is n3 M ::el91 ' :<3 ~:1 R uesteomi you have any questions, please call the City o Tigard Planning Department at 1503) 6394171. HEUIN GS 0F: ER Nf077CE OF FINAL ORDER July 19, 1995 1 011 101 i!ii; BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY O1=' TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by The Piculell Group for approval) FINAL O 1z D E R of a lot line adjustment, a preliminary plat for a 12-lot land ) SUB 95-0002 division, and sensitive lands review for steeply sloped areas ) MIS 95-0012 of the site in the R-7 zone north of Bull Mountain Road and ) SLR 95-0006 west of SW 130th Avenue in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Foran Subdivision) 1. SLTMARY 1. The applicant requests approval of three related actions. a. First, the applicant proposes to adjust lot lines between two existing parcels under common ownership. The existing lots contain 4.53 and 2.26 acres. After the lot lines are adjusted, they will contain 3.9 and 2.89 acres, respectively. b. Second, if the lot line adjustment is approved, the applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to create 11 lots ranging in size from 6091 to 8737 square feet and one lot containing 1.59 acres and an associated street and utilities. As part of the subdivision, the applicant proposes to extend SW 130th Avenue from its existing terminus at the east edge of the site to the west edge of the site. The applicant would improve a temporary turnaround near the west edge of the site. Proposed lots do or can comply with the dimensional standards of the R-7 zone. c. Third, because the site includes a drainage swale and land with slopes of more than 25%, the applicant also requests approval of a sensitive lands review for development of the steeply slopes land. 2. Bearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") conducted a public hearing in this matter on June 26, 1995. a. At the hearing, City staff recommended conditional approval. b. The applicant accepted some of the recommended conditions, sought clarification of other recommended conditions, and argued against recommended conditions ,equiring dedication and improvement of a public half-street south of the proposed on-site road, reservation of right of way for a street north of the proposed on-site road, establishment of a public pedestrian pathway along the drainage swale through the site or connections to such a path, and submission of a wetlands delineation. c. Four witnesses testified orally against the subdivision or with objections and concerns principally about the extension of the proposed street to the west and south, preservation of trees, management of stormwater from the site, and the staff recommended pedestrian pathway. d. At the applicant's request, the hearings officer held open the public record for seven days after the hearing. The applicant and two neighbors submitted additional written statements after the hearing and before the record closed. Additional written testimony for and against the subdivision was submitted before the public hearing in this matter. Hearings (47cer Final Order in the maner of MIC 95-121SLR 95-061SUB 95-02 (Foran Subdivision) Page I ti too .l 3. For the reasons stated or incorporated by reference herein, the hearings officer hereby approves the lot line adjustment, preliminary plat and sensitive lands review subject to conditions of approval incorporated herein by reference or stated at the end of this order. II. IM ARM AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the duly noticed public hearing about this application on June 26, 1995 and received additional testimony and evidence through July 3, 1995, when the record closed. A record of that testimony is included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at the Tigard City Hall. . a. City planner Will D'Andrea summarized the Staff Report and responded to questions from the hearings officer. He argued in support of recommended conditions requiring the applicant to reserve land for a northbound street and to dedicate and improve a public half-width southbound street, based on the City's maximum block circumference standard and on the standards for interconnection of streets. b. Charles Chimento and Bill Homing testified for the applicant. Mr. Chimento summarized public meetings that the applicant held before submitting the application. Mr. Horning presented the applicant's case-in-chief. The majority of his testimony concerned recommended conditions of approval to which the applicant objected, including the following: (1) Recommended condition of approval 2 requires the applicant to dedicate a 22-foot half-width right of way extending south of the proposed east-west road on the site (referred to as Foran Street for the sake of convenience) and to improve that right of way with a 14-foot paved section, curb and sidewalk. This condition also requires the applicant to reserve a 22-foot wide right of way and 28-foot slope easement for future extension of a public road north of Foran Street. Recommended condition of approval 17 requires the applicant to show how the southerly street extension should intersect with Foram Street. Mr. Horning objected to these conditions mainly for the following reasons: (a) Neither extension is necessary to provide access-to surrounding properties. He submitted a future street to support this argument. (b) Neither extension is necessary to fulfill the City's transportation plan. He submitted a copy of the transportation plan in support of this argument, noting that the plan does not call for the north-south extension of the street in this case. (c) The southerly road extension would cross land over which other property owners own easements and over which the applicant does not have exclusive control. The applicant cannot comply with the condition if those owners do not also agree to accept the condition; they do not. There already are six homes along the private drive that exists within the area condition of approval 2 requires to be dedicated, reducing the likelihood those lots will be further divided in the future. (d) The northerly road extension is not practicable, because of the steep slope and fill adjoining a portion of the west edge of the site. Hearings O fter Final Order in the maner of MIS 95-121SLR 95-061SUB 95-02 (Foran Subdivision) Page 2 III VA 0 1 IN 1! 1 WIN! (2) Recommended condition of approval 9 requires the applicant to relocate sewer connections for four lots to the street on which the lots front. Mr. Horning asked whether private "grinder" pumps can be used to help fulfill that condition. City development review engineer Michael Anderson testified private pumps can be used. (3) Recommended condition of approval 14 requires the applicant to more clearly define the boundaries of the dtainageway on the west portion of the site so that the City can determine whether any proposed development will affect that drainageway and, therefore, will require sensitive land review. Mr. Horning described the nature of that area, arguing that the drainageway does not have a defined boundary and that little stormwater drains through that area. Therefore he argued the condition is unnecessary and impracticable to comply with. (4) Recommended condition of approval 15 requires a wetland p delineation. Although he conceded he is not qualified as an expert in such matters, Mr. Horning argued the site does not contain a wetland based on the absence of wetland plant species. Therefore he argued the condition is unnecessary. (5) Recommended conditions of approval 16 and 21 address tree removal. The hearings officer noted they are repetitive, and can be merged into one statement. There was testimony clarifying which trees are subject to the condition, (i.e., trees with a diameter of more than 6 inches). Mr. Horning asked whether the applicant can remove trees to undertake more detailed geotechnical analysis before the final plat is approved. Mr. D'Andrea responded that such removal is permitted, provided the applicant identified where such trees are situated. Mr. Horning agreed to provide a plan identifying those trees or areas of trees. (6) Recommended condition of approval 18 requires the applicant to provide a pedestrian pathway along the drainageway connecting to the pathway in Wilmington Heights to the northeast. Mr. Horning objected to this pathway, arguing it will not lead anywhere. If it is required, he asked whether it could be improved with a gravel surface. Otherwise he opined the applicant would have to install steps for the pathway to overcome the steep slopes above the drainageway. c. Edwin Murphy owns land west of the site (TL 1000). He testified in favor of preserving existing vegetation on the site to protect the privacy and security of his property, arguing that Foran Street should terminate some distance east of the west edge of the site so that trees could be preserved on the site west of the end of the improved street section. He also expressed concern about inequalities created by the extension of Foran Street across his lot, (i.e., that he would have to dedicate and improve more than one-half the street when he develops his property). d. Ed Metzler owns land west of the site (TL 9W). He testified in favor of saving trees on the west part of the site, suggesting a lot line adjustment to include the trees in his lot and Mr. Murphy's lot. His speculated drainage from his property has been affected by filling on the property and clogged drains, so that his yard now floods. He expressed concern about the geomelxy of Foran Street, arguing that it stubs at an inconvenient angle, and that it should be moved south to avoid the fill on his property. (1) Mr. Anderson testified that the applicant must submit and receive approval of an engineered plan for the road, and that plan must extend at least 200 feet offsite. He opined that would ensure the road extension is practicable. He further opined that the proposed road location best matches off-site grades. He disagreed with Mr. Metzler's testimony that the road would work better if it was moved south. Hearings Q&er Final Order in the n=.-r of MIS 95-121SLR 95-061SliB 95-02 (Foran Subdivision) page 3 e. Tom Jurhs owns land east of the north end of the site (TL 1100 and 1201). He objected to recommended condition of approval 18, which requires the applicant to extend a pedestrian pathway along the drainageway on the site. He argued the pathway would lead to loss of security and privacy. He argued the path would lead nowhere, because the adjoining subdivision to the northeast (Wilmington Heights) was not required to provide the connecting pathway. He testified the applicant had not contacted him regarding an easement for extension of the sewer as shown on the preliminary plat. He expressed concerns about loss of trees, hours of construction, people traveling on his private driveway (which extends north from SW 129th Avenue), and drainage generally. (1) Regarding the sewer easement, Mr. Chimento responded that, if the applicant can use pumps to get sewage up to the street grade, then the applicant does not need an easement across Mr. Jurhs' property. (2) Regarding the pedestrian pathway, the hearings officer asked City staff to provide a copy of the decision regarding Wilmington Heights. f. Mike Done owns property east of the site adjoining the westward extension of SW 130th Avenue. His principle concern was to reduce the volume of traffic on Foran Street and 130th Avenue. To that end, he argued that the applicant should be required to extend a street to Bull Mountain Road from the west end of Foran Street (i.e., as recommended by City staff in conditions of approval 2 and 17). He also argued the applicant should not be permitted to use 130th Avenue for access to the site during construction. He also argued Foran Street should not be extended west of the site, and it should end in a permanent cul de sac. He also expressed concern about the pedestrian pathway and about drainage. g. Mr. Chimento and Mr. Horning responded to the testimony. Mr. Chimento agreed to restrict the hours of construction on the site to 7 AM to 7 PM weekdays and 8 AM to 7 PM Saturdays. No construction would occur on Sundays. He described the storm drain at the common property line of Mr. Done's property. Mr. Horning described why the applicant proposed a 1:1 slope at the proposed temporary turnaround at the west end of Foran Street, (i.e., to reduce the area from which trees would have to be removed from grading). He agreed to use a more gradual slope if necessary to comply with the City Code. h. At the end of the testimony, the hearings officer ordered the public record to be kept open until July 3, 1995 to receive additional testimony. 2. The hearings officer received the following evidence between the close of the hearing and July 3, 1995. a. Kurt Hemry, who owns land in the Woodford Estates subdivision east of the site, submitted a letter dated June 26, 1995, in which he argues that Mr. Done's testimony did not represent the opinion of everyone in Woodford Estates. He stated that half the subdivision's residents want Foran Street to extend west. He proposed that the applicant provide a pedestrian pathway that can be extended to the Three Mountain Estate:: subdivision to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access for the neighborhood without using Bull Mountain Road. b. Mr. Chimento submitted a letter dated July 3, 1995 in which he repeated many of the arguments he and Im'a:. Homing made at the hearing. He expanded on the argument against extending a street to Bull Mountain Road from the west end of Foran Hearings G'fter Final larder in the matter of MIS 95'-IVS1R 45-Oc</SUS 95-02 (Foran Subdivision) Page 4 GII 1111 111, 11, 1 1', 1' gg, Street, arguing they cannot dedicate right of way for the street (because other people own rights to the area as well), and that the cost of the such a street would be prohibitive. He expanded on his argument against extending a street north of Foran Street because of the steep grade of the fill on fr. fetzler's property and the lack of need for the street. He proposed to terminate Foran Street 20 feet from the west --dge of the site to preserve more trees there. He disputed the City staff testimony that a wetlands delineation is needed to comply with requirements of the Unified Sewerage Agency, based on a telephone call with USA staff. He objected to condition of approval 18 (the pedestrian path), because such a path was not required in the adjoining subdivision and would lead nowhere. c. City staff submitted a copy of the final order in the matter of SUB 95-01 (Wilmington Heights). III. 4TI'E VISTI' The hearings officer visited the site before the hearing without the company of others. The hearings officer announced at the hearing that he had done so and invited parties to ask what he observed. No one did so. IV. DISCUSSION 1. City staff recommended approval of the applications in this case subject to conditions in the Staff Report as amended at the hearing. The hearings officer finds that the Staff Report generally contains all the applicable standards for the application and findings showing the applications comply with those standards. Those findings are not disputed in large part. To the extent the findings are not disputed, the hearings officer adopts them as his own in support of a decision to approve the applications in this case subject to the conditions recommended in the Staff Report except as expressly provided otherwise below. 2. There are several related disputes about streets in this case, including whether and where Foran Street should be designed to extend off-site; whether a public road should extend from Foran Street to Bull Mountain Road; and whether a public road should extend from Foran Street to the north edge of the site. The standards relevant to those disputes are CDC 18.160.060(A), CDC 1-8.164.030(F) and (G) and CDC 18.164.040(B).1 1 CDC 18.160.060 provides: A. The Hearings Officer may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the City's comprehensive plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations... CDC 18.164.030(1) provides: 1. A future stet plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan sL-dl show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundmies of the proposed land division and shall include other properties within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division... 2. Where necessary to give access and permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to thb boundary lines of the tract to be developed... Flemings Officer Final Order in the maner of MIS 95-1213LR 95-06&UB 95-132 (Foran Si.bdivision) Page S y N, 02 3. The hearings officer finds that it is necessary to extend Foran Street off-site to the west to give access to and to permit future division of adjoining land in a manner that complies with applicable ordinances and regulations, particularly CDC 18.164.040(B)(1). y a. Existing development and topographical constmiints do not preclude such a street extension. Therefore, pursuant to CDC 18.164.030(F) and (G), the applicant should be required to extend Foran Street to the west edge of the site. b. Although extension of the street to 132nd Avenue in the future is reasonably likely to increase traffic volume on Foran Street and 130th Avenue, that does not preclude extension of the street. The volume of traffic on the street will not exceed its design capacity. The increase in volume will result in a corresponding increase in the potential for traffic hazards. However the conditions on the site are not and will not be unusual in this respect. Pedestrians and cyclists will have to exercise a greater degree of care when using the street. But the exercise of such care is commensurate with the urban character of the site and roads in the area. 4. There is a dispute about whether the west end of Foran Street should be moved further south. The relevant standard is CDC 18.164.030(D).2 CDC 18.164.030(G) provides: 2. All local and minor collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. 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. CDC 18.164.040(B) provides: 1. The preimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1800 feet measured along the right of way line except a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial strets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads; c. For non-residential blocks 2. When block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. 2 CDC 18.164.030(D) provides: 1. The location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan q and shall be considered in relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets... Hearings Offi<:er Find Order in the mover of MIS 95-I2/SLR 95-061SUB 95-02 (Foran Subdivision) Page 6 11101 IS 11!11141 IN !1' 111 !111!!! SZE= a. There is no future street plan for the area. Leaving Foran Street where it is proposed may impo. e different burdens on owners of property to the west, but such differences do not violate the CDC. b. Shifting the street south so that the centerline of the street extends the property line between TL 1000 and TL 900 would make it possible for the owner of each of those properties to extend one-half the street. That enhances the ability to provide access, to potential lots on those properties. c. If Foran Street is not shifted south, the owner of TL 900 would have to divide or sell a portion of his land so that Form Street could extend across the southeast corner of TL 900 to reach TL 1000. If that does not occur, and if a public street is not created from Foran Street to Bull Mountain Road (see below), then potential lots on TL 1000 can be served only from SW 132nd Avenue to the west. d. Based on the foregoing and applicable standards, the hearings officer finds the most appropriate location for the west end of Foran Street is the common property line between TL 900 and 1000. This results in an appropriate projection of that street so that it can serve both properties to the west independently. The hearings officer finds the result is not impractical due to topographic conditions. In fact, by shifting the street south, the elevation of the street will more nearly match the existing off-site grade to the west, based on the topographic maps in the record (and contrary to testimony by Mr. Anderson). Also shifting the street south reduces the need for grading in the drainageway north of Foran Street to accommodate the temporary turnaround at the west end of the street, consistent with CDC 18.84.040(B)(1). Conditions of approval should be amended accordingly. The hearings officer recognizes that such a change in the location of Foran Street may affect the layout and number of lots at the west end of the site. Changes in the plat and lot line adjustment should be permitted to accommodate the change in street location, provided the number of lots is not increased. 5. The hearings officer further finds that the improvement of Foran Street should extend to the west edge of the site. a. CDC 18.164.030(A)(1)(a) requires streets within a development to be improved consistent with City standards. b. The Director may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of improvement only under limited conditions. See CDC 18.164.030(A)(1)(c). But the hearings officer finds that a future improvement guarantee is not proposed, and the conditions do not,exlst that warrant accepting such a guarantee in lieu of improvements. b. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either. (i) Provide for the continuation of appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding area; or (ii) Conform to a plan adopted by the Commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. Hearings Officer Final Order in the matter of ,tf1S 95-121SLR 95-06q..g8 95-02 (Foram Subdivision) Page 7 I F7, Preservation of trees is not one of the circumstances under which the City can accept a guarantee in lieu of improvements. c. CDC 15.164.030(E)(1)(b) requires street improvements to comply with City standards unless compliance with the standards "will result in an unacceptable adverse impact on existing development or on the proposed development or on natural features such as wetlands. steep slopes or existing mature trees" and "the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits" of compliance with the standards. (1) Based on the tree survey in the application, there is only one significant tree (i.e., with a diameter greater than 6 inches) within 20 feet of the west edge of the property. If the road improvements stop 20 feet from the west edge of the site, perhaps that tree could be preserved. (2) The hearings officer finds that extension of the street to the west edge of the site will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts. The potential adverse impact of losing one tree does not outweigh the public benefits of extending the street to the edge of the site so that it can be extended off-site more readily when land to the west develops. (3) There are many smaller trees in the west 20 feet of the site, but the hearings officer finds the loss of those trees is not significantly adverse, because of their small size. 6. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should not be required to extend a public road from Foran Street to Bull Mountain Road, because Bull Mountain Road is a major collector street, based on the City transportation plan. However the applicant should be required to dedicate and improve, as needed, a public pedestrian and bicycle easement through the block. Conditions of approval should be amended accordingly. a. The perimeter of a block can exceed 1800 feet where the block adjoins a major collector or arterial street. CDC 18.164.040(B)(1)(b). The hearings officer assumes the purpose of allowing larger blocks next to major collectors (and arterials) is to reduce the number of intersections onto such streets and, thereby, reduce the disruption of traffic flow on those; streets. b. However, because the block circumference exceeds 1800 feet, the applicant is required to provide a pedestrian and bicycle pathway through the block. CDC 18.164.040(B)(2). Therefore the hearings officer finds the applicant should dedicate a public easement from the west end of Foran Street to Bull Mountain Road and should improve that easement consistent with City standards for such a pathway, as needed, or a otherwise directed by the City Engineer consistent with the law. c. The hearings officer finds contractual commitments with owners of other properties along the private street that now occupies the area where the easement should be located does not preclude the applicant from providing the pedestrian and bicycle pathway. The contracts in question are not in the record, so the hearings officer cannot evaluate them. If the contracts in question require use of the 50-foot strip for access to the adjoining lots, then dedication and improvement of an easement for a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is consistent with those rights. 7. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should not be required to reserve.or dedicate right of way for a future public street extending north of Foran Street. Hearings Officer Final Order in the marter of MIS 95-121SLR 95-061SUB 95-02 (Foran Subdivision) Page 8 ;I IgIll , r z Mars xr a. The hearings officer finds the street is not required to be extended, due to physical constraints that preclude construction of such a street consistent with City standards, most notably the drainage swale on dhe site and the substantial fill on Mr. Metzler's property. CDC 18.164.030(fa). Taken together these features would require substantial grading of sensitive lands and/or street grades in excess of City standards. If access can be provided to developable land without such grading, then it would conflict with the sensitive lands review chapter to require or allow it. CDC 18.84.040. b. Based on the future street plan submitted by the applicant at the hearing (applicant's exhibit 3), access can be provided to the developable lots that can be created from lots west and north of the site without extending the street north of Foran Street. - Therefore the street is not required to be extended to provide necessary access. CDC 18.164.030(F)(2). c. Also the hearings officer finds the comprehensive plan (i.e., the City transportation plan) does not require the street to be extended north of Foran Street. The street is not identified as a collector on the transportation plan. SW 132nd Avenue, about 300 feet west of the site, is identified as a collector. Therefore the street does not have to be extended to provide a collector street identified on the transportation plan. The transportation plan does not identify local streets. The northward extension from Foran Street would be a local street. Therefore it does not need to be extended to comply with the comprehensive plan. d. However, because the block circumference exceeds 1800 feet, the applicant is required to provide a pedestrian and bicycle pathway through the block. CDC 18.164.040(B)(2). Therefore the hearings officer finds the applicant should dedicate a public easement from Foran Street to the northeast corner of the site where it meets the public pathway in the Wilmington Heights subdivision3 and should improve that easement consistent with City standards for such a pathway or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer consistent with the law. The City Engineer may allow the applicant to improve steeply sloped areas of the pathway with a gravel surface to avoid the need for stairs. e. The hearings officer recognizes that such a pathway may detract from the - security and privacy of adjoining properties. However the CDC does not authorize waiving the required pathway for such a reason. The pathway is required to mitigate, in part, the larger-than-permitted block circumference. In this case, where the size of the block is more than twice the permitted size, the pedestrian and bicycle pathway is critical to achieving an interconnected alternative transportation network, consistent with City comprehensive plan policy 8 and the Transportation Planning Rule. 8. The record reflects that the City allows private pumps to be used to move sewage uphill from a private property to the public line that serves a given lot. Therefore the applicant can comply with condition of approval 9. 3 Condition of approval 16 of the final order in the matter of Wilmington Heights provides: It is recommended that the 15-foot public sewer easement to be developed as a pedestri uVbikeway path along the sideyard property tine between Lots 5 and 6. Although this condition of approval is stated as a recommendation, the bearings officer construes it as a, requirement, because it is a condition of approval. Also see finding 7 on page 10 of that decision, in which the pathway is recognized as a requirement based on CDC 18.164.040(B)(2). The hearings officer disagrees with the conclusions by the applicant and Mr. Juhr that the pathway in Wilmington Heights was not regttiretl. Hearings Ofiker Fiscal Order in the Mauer of MIS 95-121SLR 95-OWUB 95-02 (Foran Subdivision) Page 9 3, IIIIIIIIIIE11! !1`2, RV5M,11 9. There is some uncertainty about whether there are wetlands on the site. The preliminary plat shows a "drainage swale" across the site. The boundaries of that swale are not clearly indicated. Testimony at the hearing indicated that more water drained through the swale in the past. Condition of approval 14 requires the'applicant to more precisely determine the boundaries of the drainageway. Condition of approval 15 requires the applicant to submit a wetlands delineation for the area in question. a. The hearings officer finds these conditions of approval are consistent with the information requirements listed in CDC 18.84.070. Until the boundaries of the drainageway are precisely identified, and the character of the drainageway as a wetland or some other sensitive lands feature is determined, the City cannot assure the final plat and subsequent development will comply with the sensitive lands regulations. Testimony by the applicant about this issue was relevant and probative, (e.g., Mr. Horning testified he did not observe any wetland plant species in the drainageway), but was not conclusive or supported by expert evidence. Compliance with conditions of approval 14 and 15 will provide the necessary refinement of evidence. 10. The hearings officer finds conditions of approval 16 and 21 should be merged, because they are substantially similar. The amended condition should authorize tree removal before approval of the final plat to the extent necessary to accommodate surveys and public infrastructure required before approval of the final plat, provided the applicant submits a plan for such tree removal to City staff for review and approval. 11. The applicant proposed to limit hours of construction to be more restrictive than the City Code. A condition of approval is wan-anted to reflect that proposal. 12. The hearings officer finds that conditions of approval 6 and 7 should be amended to be more clear about their timing. V. C®NCLU SIONS Based on the above findings, including the incorporated provisions of the Staff Report, - the hearings officer concludes that the applications in this case do or can comply with the applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code and should be approved, subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report with certain changes consistent with the discussion in section III of the final order. VI. ORDER The hearings officer hereby approves MIS 95-12, SLR 95-06 and SUB 95-02 (Foran Subdivision), subject to the conditions in the Staff Report as amended herein. 1. Condition of approval 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. The applicant shall dedicate right of way for and shall improve Foran Street to City standards across the full width of the subdivision, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities. Improvements shall be constructed to local street standards. The centerline of the west end of Foran Street shall be an extension of the property line between tax lot 900 and tax lot 1000 to the west. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171). Hearings Officer Final Order in the nutter of MIS 95-IZISD 195-061SUB 95-02 (Foran Subdivision) Page 10 2. Condition of approval 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a public easement from the west end of Foran Street to Bull Mountain Road for pedestrian and bicycle access and shall improve that easement with a pathway for pedestrian and bicycle use consistent with City standards or as otherwise permitted by the City Engineer consistent with the City.Code. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639-4171). 3. Condition of approval 6 is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. Before the City approves a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a final grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. A soils report shall °be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639-4171). 4. Condition of approval 5 is hereby amended to read as follows: 5. Before the City approves a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report for the proposed grading and slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Building Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639-4171). 5. Condition of approval 9 is hereby amended to read as follows: 9. The final sewer plan shall provide for sewer connections in the proposed street for lots 1 through 4; provided, the applicant may propose to install private pumps to comply with this condition, subject to appropriate notes or the plat or in documents filed with the plat. 6. Condition of approval 14 is hereby amended to read as follows: 14. The applicant shall identify the boundaries and centerline of the drainageway in the west portion of the property. If proposed non-exempt development will occur within the identified drainageway, the applicant shall show that such grading or development will comply with the standards- .for alteration of a drainageway in CDC 18.84.040(C). 7. Condition of approval 15 is hereby amended to read as follows: 15. The applicant shall submit a wetlands delineation prepared by a wetlands ecologist or biologist or similar qualified professional. If there are wetlands on the site, the applicant shall amend the final plat to identify a 25- foot wide buffer extending outward from the edge of the wetland(s). If proposed non-exempt development will occur within an identified wetland, the applicant shall show that such grading or development will comply with the standards for alteration of a wetland in CDC 18.84.040(D). Hearings Officer FiiW Order in the maser of MIS 95-121SLR 95-061SUB 95-02 (Fortin Subdivision) Page 11 g1wil 111 8. Condition of approval 16 is hereby amended to read as follows: 16. A tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to removing trees. Trees removal permits shall be issued in phases. Initial tree removal shall be limited to the proposed public rights of way and easements and to areas from which trees must be removed to allow topographic surveys and geotechnical review of the site. Subsequent tree removal applications shall identify trees to be removed in connection with preparation of individual lots. STAFF CONTACT: Will D'Andrea, Planning Division. 9. Condition of approval 17 is hereby amended to read as follows: 17. The applicant may amend the lot line adjustment and preliminary plat to revise the arrangement of lots as warranted by the required relocation of the west end of Foran Street, provided, the applicant may not increase the proposed number of lots. 10. Condition of approval 18 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a public easement from Foran Street to northeast comer of the site to match the corresponding easement in Wilmington Heights for pedestrian and bicycle access and stall improve that li easement with a pathway for pedestrian and bicycle use consistent with City ' standards or as otherwise permitted by the City Engineer consistent with the City Code. The easement may be contained within the easement over the drainageway on the site. The City Engineer may authorize the applicant to improve the pathway with a gravel surface in steeply sloped areas to avoid the need to build steps in the pathway. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639-4171). 11. Condition of approval 21, (i.e., the second condition of approval 20 in the Staff Report), is hereby amended to read as follows: 21. Construction of public and private improvements is permitted only from 7 AM and 7 PM weekdays and from 8 AM to 7 PM Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays. The applicant shall include these restrictions on the face of the final plat or in documents fled w'th the plat. TE s 18th day y, 1995. Larry Epst ' , A7 P City of T' and Officer ~S Hearings 0071cer Final Order in the Homer of MIS 95-121SLB 95-061SUB 95-02 (Foram Subdivision) Page 12 e MI. I: a AGENDA ITEM 2.3 BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by The Piculell Group, STAFF REPORT on behalf of Frank and Patricia Foran, for the following SUB 95-0002 development applications: 1) Lot Line adjustment request MIS 95-0012 to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres SLIt 95-0006 into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres. 2) Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.9 acre parcel into 12 lots ranging between 6,091 square feet to 8,737 square feet; 3) Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. 1. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: Subdivision SUB 95-0002 Lot Line Adjustment MIS 95-0012 Sensitive Lands Review SLR 95-0006 SUMMARY: The applicant requests the following development applications: 1) Lot Line adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres.2) Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 3.9 acre parcel into 12 lots ranging between 6,091 square feet to 8,737 square feet; 3) Sensitive Lands Review approval of preliminary plans for grading, road construction and development of portions of the subject property that exceed 25 percent grade. APPLICANT:The Picullel Group, Inc OWNER: Frank & Patricia Foran 3236 SW Kelly Street 13125 SW Bull Mtn. Rd Portland, Oregon 972b1 Tigard, OR 97223 HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 1 'Inn COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Low Density Residential r ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, (Residential, 7 units per acre) LOCATION:West of Woodford Estates, and approximately 650 feet north of SW Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 9AB, tax lots 1200 and 5700) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Section 18.52, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.150, 18.160, 18.162, and 18.164. Comprehensive Plan Policies: 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. 11. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape: Tax lot 1200 is a flag lot which contains approximately 4.53 acres. This parcel is made up of an approximately 425' x 400' "flag" with a 50'x 620' "pole" with frontage on SW Bull Mountain Road. Tax lot 5700 is an approximately 2.26 acre square shaped lot. Tax lot 5700 obtains access to SW Bull Mountain through an access easement granted across Tax lot 1200. Tax lot 5700 was created through the approval of a Minor Land Partition (MLP 92.0001 / VAR 92-0008) in 1992. 'y B. Site Iocation.ExistinQ uses and structures: The site is located north of SW Bull Mountain Road and west of Woodford Estates Sub&vision. Tax lot 1200 is vacant while tax lot 5700 is developed with a single family residence. C. Tooographv and drainage: The site slopes from a high elevation of 552 at the southwest corner of the property to an elevation of 464 at the northeast corner. A revine containing slopes greater than 25 percent and a drainageway runs through the site, also in a _ southwest to northeast direction. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN 1 PIC_'ULELL GROUP PAGE 2 r 'rA•; D. Surrounding zoning and land uses: The surrounding properties to the south and east are zoned R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). All other adjoining properties are under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The area is predominantly developed with single family residential dwellings. Ill. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS A.. Community Development Code: Development Standards: Section 18.52 contains standards for the R-7 zone. Single-family detached residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size 5,000 square feet/unit Average lot width 50 feet Front setback 15 feet Garage setback 20 feet Interior sideyard setback 5 feet Corner sideyard setback 10 feet Rear setback 15 feet Maximum building height 35 feet Solar Access: Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard. Alternatively, an applicant can meet the City's Solar Access Standards by r complying with the protected Solar Building Line Option or the Performance Option. Energy efficiency is ensured through the location of the residence with sufficient solar access or through the design of the homes which incorporates uvindow glazing with solar orientation. An applicant can request an exception to the solar access standards based on the following development constraints: Site topography in excess of a 10 percent slope, shade from existing on-site or off-site vegetation or structures, significant natural features, existing street public easement HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORaAN / PICULELL.GROUP PAGE 3 patterns, impacts to density, cost or amenities of the project which adds five YK percent or more to the cost of each lot. Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84.040(6) contains regulations for the development of lands with a slope of 25 percent or greater.. The intent of the Sensitive Lands Review process is to assure that land disturbances on slopes of 25 percent or greater are limited in extent to what is necessary for the intended use so as to limit soil erosion, ground instability, and other possible adverse effects or hazards to life or property. The Director shall approve an application for sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land use form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. Section 18.84.040(C) states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways ' based upon findings that all of the following criteria has been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to,the extent greater than that required for the use. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 45-0002 - FORA N / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 4 a 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. x Y 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. 7.- Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Because a subdivision is reviewed by the Hearings Officer, the sensitive lands requirements for slopes and drainage come under the scope of the Hearings Officer review. Densitv: Section 18.92.020 contains standards for density. The number of dwelling units permitted is based on the net development area, excluding sensitive land areas and land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. This land area is then divided by the minimum parcel size.permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. Section 18.92.030 lists provisions for residential density transfer for areas within sensitive rands, ie. slopes in excess of 25 percent. This section allows a transfer of 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PiCULELL GROUP PAGE 5 1 the unbuildable area or the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area. Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The applicant must also comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right- of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. Access, Egress. Circulation: Section 18.108 contains standards for the width of access driveways to single family residences. In order to comply with the standard each lot must be provided with a ten foot wide residential driveway. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.020(E) requires a permit for removal of trees having a trunk six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground level. A permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria as specified in Section 18.150.030(A): a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or intertere with utility service or traffic safety; b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner; C. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage problems; HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAIV / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 6 d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or as a desirable balance between shade and open space; e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the aesthetic value of trees to be cut. Subdivision Desien: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: 1. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; 2. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; 3. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Street and Utilitv Improvements: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision: 1. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. 2. Section 18.164.030(E) requires a local street to have a minimum 44 foot right-of-way and 28 foot paved section between curbs and sidewalks. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 7 oil I U915 AMEN= M 3. Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from ,the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. 4. Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 5. Section 18.164.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units. 6. Section 18.164.030(M) requires that grades shall not exceed 12 percent on local streets, except that local residential streets may have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no Greater than 250 feet. 7. Section 18.164.040(A) (Blocks Design) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FOBAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 8 "Y -1: :•.til 8. Section 18.164.040(6)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed ,.9x by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of- way line except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. C. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 9. Section 18.164.040(6)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian / bikeways shall be provided through the block. 10. Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. 11. Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. 12. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. 13. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. 14. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. B. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Citizen Inout: Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and _ development review process. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 9 NAME= Room T Physical Limitations: Policy 3.1.1 states that the City shall not allow development in areas having severe development limitations, including slopes of 25 percent or greater, except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques will make the site suitable for the proposed development.. Water Quality: Policy 4.2.1 provides that all development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards. Public Utilities: Policies 7.1.2,. 7.3.1 and 7.4.4 provides that the City will require as a condition of development approval that public water, sever, and storm drainage will be provided and designed to City standards and that utilities shall be placed underground. Fire Protection: Policy 7.6.1 states that Fire District shall review all new development applications to ensure adequate fire protection is available to serve each new development. Street Improvements: Policy 8.1.1 provides that the City will plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. Street Improvements. Policy 8.1.3 states that the City will require the following as a precondition of approval: a. Development abut a dedicated street or ha.,e other adequate access; b. Street right-of-way shall be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; C. The developer shall commit to construction of the streets, curbs, and sidewalks to City standards within the development. d. The developer shall participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs, and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; e. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or signals shall be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 55-0002 - FORAN J PICULELL GROUP PAGE 10 1 IV. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS 1. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: g A. Streets: The project proposes to construct a new street, SW Foran Terrace (unnamed on the submittal), that would extend westerly from the end of the knuckle constructed in the Woodford Estates subdivision at the northerly end of SW 130th Avenue. The applicant has submitted a Future Transportation Plan as required by Section 18.164.030(F) of the CDC which indicates that SW Foran Terrace will extend westerly to a private driveway approximately at the location of future SW 132nd Avenue. In addition, the Engineering Department is recommending street connections be provided at other existing private streets in the neighborhood that currently serve more than one property, based on the need for street inter-connection. Attached is a copy of the submitted plan which has been revised to show the connections proposed, as marked in red. It is recommended that the applicant revise the subdivision final plat to provide street connections for the future construction of 131 st Avenue at the existing driveway serving the three properties to the south that connects to SW Bull Mountain Road. The proposed street should consist of a half-street width dedication of 22 feet, with a pavement width of 14 feet and a 5 foot sidewalk. In addition, 131 st Avenue could be extended northerly in -the future, connecting to the future extension of Wilmington Court as shown on the revised sketch, and the applicant should provide for a half-street reservation _ along the westerly property line, together with a slope easement to enable this future road construction across the site. This future extension would also provide access to proposed Lot 1 to enable further subdivision of the lot. The overall subdivision street and pad grAdir,.g, that is shown on the preliminary grading plan, will require significant excavation and fill that should comply with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. The HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PIC.ULELL GROUP PAGE 11 M., applicant should provide a preliminary 'geotechnical report and final construction supervision grading report by a Professional Civil Engineer and Engineering Geologist. In regards to the application for Sensitive Lands review, the geotechnical report should also address the structural adequacy of the proposed residential construction on the 25O/o slopes. All proposed foundation construction should be required to remove excess soils from the building site, and no fills should be allowed in any area exceeding 15% as per the requirements of Chapter 70. B. Sanitary Sewer: The existing 8 inch public sanitary out-fall sewer from the Woodford Estates subdivision is located an easement off-site to the proposed subdivision. The applicant proposes to construct a new main that will connect to this off -site sewer in an easement secured from the adjacent property owner. In addition, the preliminary utility plan shows a parallel multi-pipe construction of private sewer lines along the rear of the lots within the 25% slope area for Lots 1 through 4. This would require extra-ordinary means for future maintenance by the property owners and should be avoided. The final sewer design should provide for sewer connections of these lots in the-street. The existing sewer has sufficient capacity for the proposed development. C. Storm Drainage: The existing site currently drains to the natural swale crossing the property in a northeast direction. The applicant proposes to collect the storm water in a new underground system that will extend from the new street to this existing swale. The proposed construction from the street to the swale should be located within-Lot 2 only. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0802 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 12 ^i fees in-lieu of their construction. Section 7.10b of the above noted Resolution and Order cites conditions under which the fee in-lieu may be accepted. Specifically, it provides, that if, "The site is small compared to the development plan, and the loss of area for the on-site facility would preclude the effective development.", the fee may apply. It is our opinion that this site is consistent with this criteria, and we recommend that a fee in-lieu be required. The City of Tigard Water Department states that it will need to review the water system layout, standards and details when the plans are available. The developer is urged to contact the Water Department for current design standards and details. The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and states: 1) all grading shall conform to Appendix Chapter 70 of the UBC. Maximum slope permited is 2:1 and 2) lots 4 and 5 do not have direct access to a storm drainage easement. Such access needs to be provided. Lot 3 should be given a lateral into the storm line in the adjacent easement. V. AGENCY COMMENTS 1. The Unified Sewerage Agency states: 1) All lots within the development must have access to public sanitary sewer and storm sewer. The private connections between the house and the public main are not to be installed upon any lot other than the lot upon which the house is to be built; 2) Provisions for treatment or storm run-off are necessary. Design to meet the requirements of R&O 91=47, as amended by R&O 91-75, and City Code; 3) Public sanitary sewer and storm sewer to be extended to adjacent properties in a location for logical extension to serve upstream developments; 4) Wetlands, if existing, are to be protected by a 25 foot corridor, as defined in the R&O specified above; 5) Detailed hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance should be provided prior to approval of construction plans; 6) Detailed grading and erosion control plan should be submitted with construction plans. 2. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue states that the plans on file with the Fire District (dated 5/1/95) are approved subject to the following: 1) Fire hydrant shown on lot eleven 0 1) to be moved to west lot line of lot ten (10); 2) Inspection of final street construction. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 13 Hill 11 1' 3. GTE states that the developer is to provide trenches and "A" conduit at crossings per GTEIPGE specifications. 4. The City of Tigard Police Department, City of Tigard Maintenance Services Division, Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, and Portland General Electic have no objections to this proposal. Vl. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Compliance with Community Development Code. DevelgDMent: The proposed subdivision shall comply with the use and setback standards of the R-7 zoning district (Code Section 18.52) through the building permit plan check review process. The proposed lots range in size between 6,091 square feet up to 8,737 square feet which exceeds the 5,000 square foot minimum y of the R-7 zoning district. This application would also create a remnant parcel of 1.59 acres on the north side of the drainageway which may be further subdivided. The R-7 zone requires a minimum lot width of 50 feet. As indicated on the site plan all the proposed lots will meet this minimum width requirement. Solar Access: As proposed 10 of the 11 lots comply with the basic solar access requirements as specified in Code Section 18.88.040(C)(1) which requires that 80% of the lots created through the subdivision provide a minimum north-south dimension of at least 90 feet and a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of true east-west. The remaining lot which does not meet the basic requirements can be counted as the standard 20% exemption from these solar lot requirements. Sensitive Lands - Steep Slopes: Development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. Grading related to road construction will result in street grades which do not exceed 12 percent grades and will comply with City standards. The development will not result in adverse on-site or off-site hazards. The applicant states that erosion will be mitigated by x a combination of measures applied under the direction of a geotechnical engineer. The applicant intends to minimize erosion on those lots with steep slopes through the selective use of retaining walls, slope stabilization measures, construction during dry weather months and revegetation of.impacted areas. The applicant's grading shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 70 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code. Individual lot development will further be reviewed by the HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 14 pl; Building Official for slope stability during the building permit review process and shall likewise comply with Chapter 70. } J Sensitive Lands - Drainagewavs: Portions of proposed lots #1 and #2 potentially contain drainageway. The applicant's narrative states that "the drainageway is defined in the eastern portion of the site, and is undefined in the western portion. In the western portion of the site a buffer has been placed over the area that contians the most drainage". The applicant shall determine the location of the drainageway on the western portion of the property. Analysis of the drainageway and its relationship to the proposed lots will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Department. Should disturbance of the drainageway be necessary, the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with drainageway criteria. The Unified Sewerage Agency has stated that wetland, if existing, are to be protected by a 25 foot corridor. The applicant shall submit a wetlands delineation for this drainageway area for verification of the existence of wetlands. If wetlands are present, the applicant shall make a note on the final plat of the 25 foot wetland buffer for all lots effected by the wetland. The applicant shall obtain permits from the Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers, if applicable, prior to site development. Density: The gross area of the site, after the lot line adjustment, is approximately 3.9 acres. Subtraction of 2.1 acres that contain slopes greater than 25 percent leaves a gross acreage of 1.8 or approximately 78,408 square feet. The net developable area of the site, after deduction of 20% of the gross area for public right-of-way is approximately 62,726 square feet. With a minimum of 5,000 square feet per lot, this site yields an opportunity for up to 12.5 dwelling units under the R-7 zoning designation. The applicant is proposing 12 lots (including tract for phase 2), and is therefore in compliance with density requirements. The 2.1 acres, or 91,476 square feet, containing slopes greater than 25 percent is eligible for a density transfer under section 18.92.030. This section allows a transfer of 25 percent of the total number of units which could have been constructed on the unbuildable area or the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area. The total sensitive land area is 2.1 acres or 91,476 square feet. The net developable area of this area, after deduction of 201,16-of the gross area for public right-of-way is approximately 73,180 square feet. With a minimum of 5,000 square feet per lot, this area yields an opportunity for up to 14.6 dwelling units under the R-7 zoning designation. Therefore, the number of units eligible for transfer is 3.6 (14.6 x .23). The total HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 15 ;mgr allowable density for the entire 3.9 acre site, including the density transfer, is .16 lots. The applicant is proposing to develope 11 lots with this application; with a remnant 1.59 parcel for future development. The remaining 1.59 acre parcel therefore is limited to an additional 4 lots. LandscaqThe preliminary plans show the provision of red maple trees to be spaced approximately 35 feet, 2 per lot, on both sides of the street thereby satisfying this requirement. Clear Vision: The Planning and Building Division will review each residence and other related permits for compliance with setback standards set forth for structures within the clear vision area. A visual clearance area for all street intersections shall be that triangular area 30 feet from the intersection of the right-of-way. Placement of any future possible obstructions including street trees and subdivision identification signs shall comply with this standard. Proposed placement of signs and street trees shall be reviewed by the Planning Division for compliance with the requirements.of Sections 18.102 (Vision Clearance) and 18.114 (Signs). Access, Egress, Circulation: Section 18.108 shall be reviewed for compliance at the time of building permits for each lot. Tree Removal: Section 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in diameter that will be removed during construction be minimized. The proposed location and construction of streets, utilities, and the corresponding grading required to accomodate these improvements will require the removal of a significant number of trees on the site. The applicant has been conditioned to provide for a street stub to the south located within lot #11. This plan change has the potential to preserve a number of trees in the area of the proposed emergency vehicle turn-around. The applicant shall submit revised grading plans which incorporate the change in street design. This plan shall be reviewed for its potential to save some of the fir trees which would be removed under the applicant's proposed plan. Tree removal permits shall be issued in phases. Initial tree removal shall be limited to the proposed public right-of-way areas and public utility easement areas. The second phase shall be related to development of individual lots. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 16 f NIR, All NO Subdivision Design.: Section 18.160.060(A) provides standards for review of subdivision proposals. The subdivision partially complies with these standards for -the following reasons: 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive'Plan Map's Low Density Residential opportunity for the site as well as the regulations of the R-7 zone. The proposed site plan does not comply with other applicable ordinances and regulations or with Comprehensive Plan policies as they relate to street connectivity. A revised site plan which provides for a future street connection to SW Bull Mountain Road within the "pole" portion of the subject flag lot would comply with applicable Development Code and Comprehensive Plan policies. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan which provides connectivity as required by City standards as discussed within this report, thereby satisfying this criteria; 2. The proposed name of the subdivision, "Foran Subdivision", is not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County; 3. The proposed subdivision has been laid out so as to conform to the plats of adjoining property. Woodford Estates, located to the east of this proposal, is the only platted subdivision adjoining this proposal. The preliminary plan has provided for an extension of SW 130th Avenue and has therefore complied with this criteria. 4. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements including the provision for public services such as sewer, water, drainage and street--improvements. Street and Utilitv Improvements: Chapter 18.164 provides standards for street and utility improvements. 1. Section 18.164.030(A) and (E) are satisfied as the applicant shall dedicate right-of-way for the extension of SW 130th Avenue and as proposed street meet the City's street standards. 2. Section 18.164.030(F) is partially satisfied. The applicant's submittal contained a• future street plan and the proposed site plan provided a street HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM ! PICULELL GROUP PAGE 17 51 I 11M 1, JIM 11 SAX: iiniii MUM 1~ ~ r r stub with a barracade in accordance with this criteria. However, the proposed site plan does not meet the requirements of this section as it relates to permitting a satisfactory future division of adjoining land. This section states that where it is necessary to permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. The proposed plan precludes a street connection to the south toward SW Bull Mountain Road. Tax lots 5700 and 5800 to the south have the potential for redevelopment. Staff has calculated the density potential, based on the dimensions on the preliminary plan, at approximately 23 lots. This calculation utilizes the 5,000 minimum lot size of the R-7 zone. Under the proposed plan, the only available public street access that would be available is a street connection from SW Bull Mountain Road. This street would would have to be a cul-de-sac and would exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length standards. Such a design ignores the Transportation Planning Rule, City policies and standards relating to street connectivity, block length, affording suitable division of adjoining property and design of an efficient transportation system. Further, the applicant has stated in the narrative that tax lot 1200 is encumbered with access easements and therefore provision of a public street to SW Bull Mountain Road is not possible. Staff disagrees with the applicant's assertion. These easements are agreements and rights to utilize property for access purposes. The applicant has requested -a lot line adjustment with tax lot 5700. As a result, lot 5700 will have direct property frontage on and access to SW Bull Ntountain Road. Tax lot 5800 will retain access easements to utilize the existing driveway. Further, with -a public street connection, private agreements and easements will no longer be necessary and shall free all properties involved of encumbrances. Assuming for a moment that these easements could preclude a street, then tax lot 5700 would be'in a similiar situation as tax lot 1200 is currently. The reason for this is that tax lot 5800 also has an access easement across the "pole" of tax lot 1200 and therefore this easement would preclude tax lot 5700 from providing street access to SW Bull Mountain Road. Given this scenario, tax lot 5700 would"not have access to a public street under the applicant's preliminary plan and the most logical and satisfactory division of land would be for a street connection from the north. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORA( / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 18 r F hy. Under either scenario, a change in the proposed- site plan to provide a street stub to SW Bull Mountain Road would permit the most satisfactory subdivision of tax lot 5700. Such a connection would create the most efficient street system given the size of potential developable property and location of existing driveways. 3. Section 18.164.030(6) is partially satisfied. The applicant has provided for a future street extension to the west. This would allow the opportunity for westerly through circulation, as shown on the applicant's future transportation map. However, given City standards for street connectivity and block length reduction, the applicant's plan does not allow for through circulation to the extent required by Code and that which could be accommodated given the site characteristics. The parcel under consideration has direct frontage on SW Bull Mountain Road. Staff recognizes that while the proposed lot line adjustment would no longer give the subject parcel direct frontage on SW Bull Mountain Road, staff finds that modifying the preliminary plan to stub a street to the south would satisfy the requirement to allow through circulation to the degree the code requires. Such a connection would provide for access to and facilitate future development of tax lot 5700, would greatly reduce the length of the created block and would increase street connectivity. This section does allow provisions for topographical constriants, however the applicant has not shown how such an extension is precluded by environmental or topographical constraints. Therefore, a revised plan shall be submitted which provides for a street stub to the south, thereby satisfying this requirement. 4. Section 18.164.030(K) is satisfied as the proposed street is not considered a cul-de-sac under section 18.164.030(F) above. The applicant has submitted an alternative street design which would provide a cul-de-sac. This alternative plan would exceed the cul-de-sac length standard and would not provide street connectivity and therefore would not meet the applicable street standards. 5. Section 18.164.030(M) is satisfied as grades do not exceed 12 percent. 6. Section 18.164.040(B)(1) is not satisfied as proposed. Given the existing street patterns surrounding the subject property, the applicant cannot meet the specified 1,800 foot block length requirement. However, this does not HEARINGS OFFICE( - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 19 g; @ aggimp 11! excuse the applicant from attempting to satisfy the intent of this standard. The intent of this standard is to increase connectivity by reducing the length individuals have to travel by providing more frequent connections to parrallel streets. Given the sites orientation and shape, the applicant can satisfy the intent of this block section, if not the specified block length. The block length created under the applicant's future street plan has been estimated to be in excess of 3,500 lineal feet. Alternatively, providing a street stub to the south toward SW Bull Mountain Road would provide for a future block length of approximately 2,900 lineal feet. While this length is in excess of the 1,800 foot block length requirement, this connection would create the shortest block length in the area given the existing development patterns. This would also have the potential to reduce blocks created with future development on adjoining properties. Therefore, to comply with the intent of this standard, a revised site plan shall be submitted which provides for a future extension of the proposed street to SW Bull Mountain Road and shall be located within the proposed lot #11. The applicant shall provide a survey and study which determines that the revised location of the street stub can be accomodated as proposed in Exhibit A or that the street shall be offset so the street shall be within the existing 50 foot width of the "pole". 7. Section 18.164.040(6)(2) is not satisfied as proposed. Staff again recognizes that the creation of the block length is beyond the control of this application. However, given the potential for future development and the proposed future street system, the applicant should be required to provide a pedestrian connection through the block in accordance with the t intent of this requirement. The City of Tigard recently approved the t Wilmington Heights subdivision located to the northeast of this subject site. That subdivision provided a pedestrian path with would align with the drainage swale contained in this subject site. In an effort to provide pedestrian connection, the applicant should be required to provide a pedestrian connection which would allow for a future connection to the path within Wilmington Heights. This pathway can be contained with the proposed drianage easement. i 8. Section 18.164.060(A) is satisfied as the plan shows that the proposed lots not exceed the depth to width ratio. HEARINGS OFFICER =SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 20 a. N;. Pp n 9. Section 18.164.060(6) is satisfied as the proposed lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on a public street. 10. Section 18.164.070 is satisfied as sidewalks shall adjoin all residential streets. r 11. Section 18.164.090 is satisfied as sanitary sewer service shall be provided. 12. Section 18.164.100 is satisfied as provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities has been provided. B. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies Citizen Input: The subdivision is consistent with Policy 2.1.1 because a neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on September 29, 1994, notice of the public hearing was provided to owners.of property within 250 feet and was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Phvsical Limitations: The subdivision is consistent with Policy 3.1.1 because the methods for maintenance of slope stability and erosion control shall be submitted for review and approval in conjuction with the public improvement plans and building permits. Review of plans will ensure the use of proven engineering techniques which allow the site to be suitable for development. Water Quality: To comply with Policy 4.2.1 as the applicant shall be required to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quality facility. This is allowed under the guidelines established by the Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution Order NO. 91-47. Public Utilities: Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1 and 7.4.4 are satisfied because the developer is required to extend public sewer and water systems to this site prior to development. In addition, the developer is required to provide for underground installation of utility lines. Fire Protection: Tualatin /alley Fire and Rescue was provided with a copy of the development plan in compliance with Policy 7.6.1. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 21 F, r. • + 3/1.4,.. ¢ r * Street Improvements: The subdivision proposal partially complies with Policies a 8.1.1 and 8.1.3. Policy 8.1.3 is satisfied as the proposed improvements to the streets will be consistent with City of Tigard standards and will be developed to local street widths. Policy 8.1.1 requires that the City will plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. This policy is not satisfied by the proposed preliminary. plan. One of policy 8.1.1's supporting findings states that "many of the streets in Tigard are dead-end streets which adds to the congestion on existing completed streets. Therefore, a number of street connections need to be constructed." The proposed plan is contrary to this finding as well as Code standards as stated above. As also previously discussed, the current plan would force cul-de-sac construction for future development. This type of development is not providing an efficient street system nor meeting the current nor future needs of the r community. Therefore, to satisfy Policy 8.1.1 a revised site plan shall be submitted which provides for a street stub to the south to allow for a future street connection to SW Bull Mountain Road. SECTION VII - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - LOT LINE ADIUSTMENT The applicant is proposing to adjust two parcels of approximately 4.53 and 2.26 acres into two parcels of approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres. Community Development Code Section 18.162.060 contains standards for approval of a lot line adjustment request: 1. An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; 2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structure(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and 3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with these standards. y No new parcel will be created by the adjustment. Both lots will ` HEARINGS OFFICER -,SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 22 j" t _ continue to meet the dimensional requirements of the R-7 zone. All site development improvements applicable to the parcels will remain consistent with Code requirements. In addition to meeting the above standards, a lot line adjustment must also meet the following criteria applicable to lots created through the minor land partition process (Code Section 18.162.050): v<<r A. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. B. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. C. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally r recorded minimum 15 foot wide access easement. D. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. c E. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. F. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. G. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 23 H. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 1. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. J. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable. elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Criteria A,B,C, and D are satisfied. The proposed adjusted lot areas are approximately 3.9 and 2.89 acres, thereby exceeding the required 5,000 square foot minimum lot area of the R-7 zone. The adjusted lot widths are approximately 420 and 410 feet, thereby exceeding the minimum 50 foot minimum lot width requirement of the R-7 zone. The lots have approximately 57 and 50 feet of frontage on SW Bull Mountain Road and SW 130th Avenue respectively, thereby exceeding the minimum 15 foot frontage requirement. As indicated on the site plans, setbacks are satisfied on tax lot 5700. Criteria E, F are not applicable to tax lot 1200 as this lot is not a flag lot. Criteria E and F are satisfied on tax lot 5700 as the driveway is an existing driveway and setbacks are not affected by this adjustment. Fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards thereby satisfying criteria G. Criteria H is not applicable to these lots because a reciprocal easement is not required for these lots. Criteria I is satisfied as accessways are not effected by this adjustment and will continue to comply with access standards. Criteria J is not applicable as this application does not involve landfill and/or development within the floodplain. Vill. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 3 HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 24 ai!p 1101! The Planning Division concludes that the Hearings Officer should find that the proposed subdivision, will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decision complies with applicable local state and federal laws. In recognition of the findings staff recommends APPROVAL of Subdivision SUB 95-0002 / MIS 95-0012 / SLR 95-0006 subject to the recommendations which follow: ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IS Michael Anderson WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 639-4171. 1. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the subdivision. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639- 4171) 2. The applicant shall revise the final plat to provide for a half-street connection to the south. The improvements shall provide for a 14 foot wide roadway, curb and sidewalk within a 22 foot half street right-of-way. In addition, the final plat shall provide for a 22 foot wide street reservation and 28 foot wide slope easement, extending from proposed SW Foran Terrace to the northerly boundary of- the subdivision for a possible street extension to the north. STAFF CONTACT: ~10ichael Anderson, Engineering Department (639-4171) 3. Three (3) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639- 4171) 4. The applicant shall demonstrate that the adequacy of drainage facilities downstream of the proposed development is sufficient to insure compliance with r HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 9 -0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 25 A I Q11,1, 1, 111011 Ai law= USA R & O 91-47, Section 6.02. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department (639-4171) 5. The applicant shall provide a hydrology and hydraulic study to describe the adequacy of the proposed system. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department (639-4171) 6. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Dept(639- 4171). 7. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report for the proposed grading and slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Building Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Dept(639-4171) 8. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February, 1994". 9. The final sewer plan shall provide for sewer connections in the proposed street for Lots 1,2,3 and 4. 10. The applicant shall pay the fees as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. NOTE: This is a two part fee which is paid at different times. The first part is paid with any associated public improvements which is for that portion of the development which increases the impervious area within the public right-of-way. The second part is paid at Building Permit issuance which is for each individual lot. 11. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the public improvement plans but before starting work on the site, The applicant, the applicant's engineer, and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the - approved plans and permits. STAFF CON T AC I : Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639-4171) HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 26 12. Construction of the proposed public improvements and issuance of Building Permits shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvements plans, a street opening permit or construction compliance agreements has been executed, execution of a developer- engineer agreement and payment of all permit fees. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171) 13. Prior to the plat being recorded with Washington County the applicant shall provide a 100 percent performance bond. As an alternative the applicant may have the plat recorded after the public improvements have been accepted by the City of Tigard and has posted the appropriate Maintenance Bond. 14. The applicant shall determine the location of the drainageway on the western portion of the property. Analysis of the drainageway and its relationship to the proposed lots will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Department. Should disturbance of the drainageway be necessary, the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with drainageway criteria. 15. The applicant shall submit a wetlands delineation for verification of the existence of wetlands. If wetlands are present, the applicant shall make a note on the final plat of the 25 foot wetland buffer for all lots effected by the wetland. 16. A tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to obtaining any site permits. Tree removal permits shall be issued in phases. Initial tree removal shall be limited to the proposed public right-of-way areas and public utility easement areas. 17. The applicant shall provide a survey and study which determines that the revised location of the street stub can be accomodated as proposed in Exhibit A or that the street shall be offset so the street shall be within the existing 50 foot width of the "pole". 18. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection which would allow for a future connection to the path within Wilmington Heights. This pathway can be contained with the proposed drianage easement. 19. A lot line adjustment survey map and legal descriptions showing the existing and proposed lot lines shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. Staff Contact: Ntichael Anderson, Engineering Department (639- 4171). HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 27 115 1! MCI= 20. 'Lots 4 and 5 shall provide direct access to the storm drainage easement. Lot 3 should be given a lateral into the storm line in the adjacent easement. Staff Contact: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639-4171). THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 20. A tree removal permit shall be submitted which specifies those trees which are to be removed in connection with the preparation of individual lots. This tree removal shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior to removal of such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT: Will D'Andrea, Planning Division. IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE: THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST. 1. SECTION 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement. A. Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. 1 B. 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. 2. SECTION 18.160.180 Bond A. As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 28 "t E 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. B. 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. C. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 3. SECTION 18.160.190 Filing and Recording A Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. - B. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 4. SECTION 18.162.080 Final Plat Appiication Submission Requirements A. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: a) Centerline Monumentation HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAM / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 29 y b r 1) 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. 2) The following centerline monuments shall be set: A) All centerline-centerline intersection points. B) All cul-de-sac center points. C) Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). b) Monument Boxes Required 1) Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. 2) The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Dept(639-4171). 5. SECTION 18.164 A. 18.164.120 Utilities 1. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and mete, cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 30 jjll''lffl Jill' t ' a B. 18. 164.130 Cash or Bond Required 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. The Cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. C. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee 1. No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. D. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required 1. Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. 2. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. E. 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required 1. The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. t' 4. HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 31 SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS RECORDED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea, VNE Assistant Planner APPROVED BY: James endryx, DATE Community Development Director HEARINGS OFFICER - SUB 95-0002 - FORAN / PICULELL GROUP PAGE 32 z IV •,e~ ji11 IS1 i ; ' ~ 1 1 a, Wod 'if G Z~ rn ~JQWOI 7 sum' F MOUNTAIN RI GE CZ PINEIW ALPINE EIW w > c, > a < rT ~ av N z I VIE j ST < a ~ .yam RHETT i"" w LL t= 0 l°° rj VICINITY EXHIBIT AP CASE: SUMMSICN (SUB) 95-0032 MOTH LOT LIM t (!IS) 95-0012 Scale SEi~ISITTVE LAUDS RE -nW (SLR) 9 FEET T F I EC RAN/PICULELL ~ 0 400 800 fA%CJSDAT\TIGC0V\NELS0WG\SXN13 3%•3/95 EXHIBIT C LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM 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 OREGON form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the 7 appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at.639-4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: SUB 95-0002, MIS 95-0012, SLR 95-0006 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: Applicant: Charles Chimento for The Piculell Group, Inc. and Owner: Pat and Frank Foran 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: See attached statement. 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: July 31, 1995 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISI0 WAS G VEN: July 19 , 1995 6. SIGNATURES 3E)t ~t Yf M DQ rx WHx h NE fE fEit DE3Hf H H H JEiE DHH(#?HF)( 3E M ~(JEM#M ?E k H N ?f K K FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: Date: Time: Approved As To Form By: ,Date: L Time: Denied As To Form By: Date: Time, Receipt No. Amount: X*** x-x-Wx-X*X-x-X-X* *X-X*X-x-*x•N-X x-M•x* *x-x-x-x-x x x•x-x-x *X-"-x x "x x~t x x ~t x x x x x x ~t x~t x x 13125 Std/ Hail Shed., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4471 M, MM MEN= I a. SPECIFIC GROINS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW OF FORAM SUBDIVISION APPLICATION We challenge VI. Order- paragraph 1. The hearings officer's decision of the re-alignment of the centerline of Foran Street does not constitute good transportation planning. His condition contradicts the city staffs position of creating the potential for an additional ingress and egress to Bull Mountain .Road at a future date. See section IV. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS, Paragraph "A. Streets" of staff recommendations. In addition, the added burden of the requirement to realign the western road centerline to the property lines of tax lots 900 and 1000 puts the full burden on the applicant rather than making any proportionate sharing of the burden. We also challenge VI. Order, paragraph 2. The hearings officer summarily dismissed the property rights of third parties, ie. Elizabeth Price and Mark and Linda Cooley. The landowners have property rights not subject to any conditions or attempts to the placement of conditions by the hearings officer. This condition requires land owners (Elizabeth Price and Mark and Linda Cooley) to lose privacy for a public benefit without any request by them to improve their property. This condition addresses a city street standard that is already addressed and met by Condition VI. 10 on property wholly owned by the applicant. Further this subdivision pedestrian improvement requirements with this condition are in excess to its pedestrian demand. The rough proportionality rule is not met since condition VI. 10 already addresses this concern. EXHIBIT D L ---------------J L--- _ I SW.. RIDGEFI ,.I Z Ij , I ' 11 1;1 1 I 1 SW- . -WILMINGTON 1 1 I~ 1 ~ SW ALPINE. VIEW..........__.......,........; -F-T- Lu I ~ j, I ! , I I I - ' i I C~ 1 I it P , ~ I I I i I ; ~ I I I D I I L----- I I I wl . y W z I _ ' wl y I':I 1I I I x N !I I Future Streets Spy I Hearings Officer 9 W Proposed Street Centerline V~( BIRD 1 W Stall Proposed R-O-W and ui I Street connections to hTq~ y < 1 SW Bull Mountain Road x 1 - - - - - - - Proposed Lot Lines ~Oqp N ~ ROAD SUB 95-0002 SW BULL MOUNTAIN FORmAN P LACE 'Afqende Item No. I D Meeting ILL~6l'r ~,J,.L:Ja- ~ ✓=~vi,vtveat.~.ii~ 'r'te/ V{° r~ tYS ~j 'L~ ~ •~-~.✓--.:~cVi ~X.(~' SAS' S h C~F~ ~ _ 4 F ,n . n ' ~J _ Metzler 13 13267 SW Bull Mountain Rd. Tigard, OR 97224 G~ Phone: 503-520-6985 September 12, 1995 Will D'Andrea City of Tigard Planning 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Will: I would like to request that this letter be added to the file for the Foran Subdivision. I understand that the City of Tigard Planning organization has reached a tentative agreement with the The Picullel Group, Inc. on future roads extending South and West from the Foran Subdivison. I am not in support of the agreement on the Western road extension. Our property borders the West end of the Foran property. You have told me that there is a proposed future Westerly extension that is aligned coequally between Mr. Murphy's and our South property line. This is consistent with my, x and the Hearing Officer's, wishes. However, I am very uncomfortable with the sharp corner in the Foran subdivision road as it makes its bend to the South. I have created a crude drawing below that portrays what I believe to be the current proposal. Murphy prop ert y Foratt Subdivision Property line Large Metzler property trees North wetlands Property line I can only deduce one rationalization for not building this road in a more linear fashion that it will reduce the number and size of lots available for development in the Foran subdivision. What will be sacrificed to make such a sharp bend in the road? Traffic safety and several large trees! Instead, I suggest that the subdivision road follow a more-or-less straight line though the subdivision. At a minimum, the curve should be more gradual and be moved to the East. This serves two purposes: 1) it provides a safer street with less blind corners and, 2) it preserves the large trees that may be destroyed if the road is placed farther North. These trees serve as a watershed to preserve the wetlands below and also are home to several Peregrine falcons and other wildlife. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Edward J. Metzler 1 Y-n opn RECEIVED PLANNING Efiza&Ef LAEcs P 13125 .sCW Buff &v 9 ~oaj 5 X995 SLa]Cbm , 6.:Jtzyon 197224 F J i September 2, 1995 a s City Planning Department City of Tigard : 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Gentlemen: I have been informed by my neighbor, Frank Foran, that the City of Tigard wants a bike path along the private drive. I have an easement for vehicular ingress and egress. This private drive has three houses on it. I feel that this violates my agreement with the two neigh- bors. It unduly puts use past the point of safety. I cannot see why a bike path would be needed the short distance from Foran'Place to Bull Mt. Road. As you know, Bull Mt. Road is very heavily traveled and it is no place for you bikers to be. Bikes can already use Woodford Estates and will be able to get into Foran Place from Woodford. Having it con- tinue onto our easement makes no sense at all because of where it ends--Bull Mt. Road. I certainly hope you will reconsider this request. Very truly you EljAabeth Price .r V i~_ Agenda Rom Noo 1 LS 0 meeting of -q I I a ICr I - September 06,1995 Atten:Wxxll 13-Andrea, In regards to the, proposed bike path along our driveway or behind our yard, with the development of prank Foran's property we wanted you to know that we object) We believe that such a pathway in either place would be a danger as well as a nuisance with noise and foot traffic. When we built our bouse at 13135 SW Bull Mtn Rd, it was supposed to be the last thing allowed on the private road, with us putting in and paying for a sidewalk which we did. So for the record the Cooley's at 13135 S.W. Bull Mtn Rd. are adamantly opposed. Thank you, Mark- and Linda Cooley 5 . T1 I 1 3711 71 !,-JM MOM - i SEE M'' Vt• RECEIVE; 40 agenda temNo. Meeting of i (a. 1 J (C°( Sn City Council '0MMUNITY DEVELUNMEN: City of Tigard September 5, 1995 Subject: Written testimony, 9112/95 City Council Public Hearing Reference: Appeal of Sub 95-00021Mis 95-00-12/SLR 95006 Foran Place/Ourcell Group In response to the notice of the Public Hearing of September 12, 1995, 1 wish to offer the following comments: 2 The notice of approval of the Foran Place subdivision was subject to the requirement that, "The applicant shall dedicate to the City a public easement from the west end of Foran Street to Bull Mountain Road for a pedestrian and bicycle access and shall improve that easement with a pathway for pedestrian and bicycle use.....". This pathway will run along the eastern side of my property line just a few yards from my house. Construction of the pathway will result in the removal of a natural barrier (trees and large shrubs) greatly diminishing the privacy I now enjoy and significantly lowering the amenity value of my properly. Equally significant will be the increase in foot traffic just yards from my side door increasing potential security problems. Currently there is minimal traffic along the road allowing unknown people to stand out. 3 What I find most disturbing is that the City is attempting to create a demand for something that doesn't exist today. No one is ciamoring for a pathway through the Foran property. Yet through some ill-conceived notion of public duty, the City requires Mr. Foran to undertake this expensive and, from my perspective, damaging addition for the right to develop his own property. This is wrong? I truly hope the City Council will reconsider the requirement for a public easement.. Respectfully, Edwin E. Murphy 13255 S.W. Bull Mountain Road Tigard, OR. 97224 cc: F. Foran P PICTURES OF ACCESS STIUP 50 FEET WIDE 1. Looking north across Bull Mountain Rd. and down the driveway 2. Looking east on Bull Mountain Rd. at intersection of driveway and Bull Mtn Rd. 3. Looking west on Bull Mountain Rd. at intersection of driveway and Bull Mtn Rd. 4. Approach to the Price's house on driveway 5. The Price's house and access to private driveway 6. Private street in front of the Cooley's house and continuance of driveway to the Foran's The Cooley's house and access to private driveway The end of the Foran's driveway looking south to Bull Mtn. Rd. 9. Standing in front of the Cooley's looking south to Bull Mtn. Rd. ;x >E K Yssi g ~s~n'~* _s ~ .~s'4~ r J~ f *~9y. vii '~3 ~a s it:.•p - _ - - e ~.ta~FzA~ ~ 'il~, ~o,,•.~'~ ~ k ate: ~ f ~ . 1.. 1+ w 1 - aS y ~ C - a , 101 1: ji, IN - - MEMO IQ al ~ ' C I lq V it 1 x. 1 f ~ jl k ~ ' li~ 1 ~ .il ~ {r~hFJ / T I. r~. .0., ~ 7l0 4 I'M t rt~i rt 3rd ~aA } e < b~Lr ~ M a d~~' ~ 1 1' ' as #A'1ldp T k~r y1 . qq DAL r ~ ws,3 I 1 I 1J vl sn Yi. A 1 - I r 1 r i. 1 ~ 4 1'a _ j t f ~ n fit - ,i5 ! .4 3~ r r - t Y T. _ t 1 p ,r lk r ~q'iw lt•y''. 7 6 r .r. a ' 11 tiz fj- r e 4, f S I t t{ _ ~ 4 s •-,ti4 ' ate *~ig~~~ ,.3 z" 'g;~ ' ~ yrfr .5u~ . '1• .~.as✓'~~~tti~S Y~! eft ~ C ~ ~~~rr~ ryL..+."A~'~,,.yri f ~ . 3 t r~ _ zt' l y F TT k I. If ~ A - i YVf f- '~f",5-F~TV'Y1~~3~i,}.~t'.F`~.-.. r ~C4~ . .tT'~~j,.,.....r•-.n...v _ _"°^'.+1.~~~2lreY to - YAK ~ ~ ~rmAr - tit Y r ,s n Yi Haiti, ON rab~. z cf «L~ r1'r, p t AWL 02, Agenda item No. 0 U =2 5 :J Meeting 4e LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A - ORIGINAL PLAN SUBMITTED EXHIBIT R - PLAN RECOMMENDED BY CITY PLANNING STAFF EXHIBIT C - PLAN AS APPROVED BY HEARINGS OFFICER EXHIBIT D - EASEMENT GIVEN TO MARIA COOLEY ACROSS 50 FT EXHIBIT E - PEDSTRIAN PATH RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN WILMINGTON HEIGHTS CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL EXHIBIT F - FINDINGS OF HEARINGS OFFICER AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR WILMINGTON HEIGHTS EXHIBIT G - WILMINGTON HEIGHTS PLAT SHOWING PEDESTRIAN PATH LOCATION d z t,ja i -w ~IG 'I'~I~ O I~I~OVVI DOUUMENI'S ARE OF poOR ORIGINAL QUALI jig DAOTARY we G s , .ry~•~~, 1~. r..~.•' ,y~~.y`t - ~.~p 4~ c~. 4, 160 a i t t OW of: / / ~Mtt 1 x1 „ t OglNAGE 1 pHN 6 F ' . JIG Ep S' r 1 t i 8~~ .5F 1 1 I 4 SIP f t ~j 1 1 1100 g (D It 1 or- S. ~9 rt•-, !3 ~ a a Or i %io 0400 ( J fit' 040c, 9F rG 1 , A pA owl mey d S*t y~ < loo 2-26 e*s 2 w f FOB TO TL 4RE► ~5 14 . Q 'TIL 1an$T ~ry uohm 0" r. 4c'rtt!' ..fir 4' r ~ .s „!,'1• ..r,. it c a%, ' _ t •1 ,y .y ' 4• _ { .:fit mna gW~B Ota 9722s b15.iB i ! 40 'l SAF je, g / / i! ! 1 tp off-' I J !ti ;ti= JJ~' l~ 1 1 j tgyyq OF Zip / { ! i . tg~~•. 91 f OF _ :st'ar' .✓!rrJ - ' iF > F `4 ' 0400 OF 4 OPP" rip _;k+. ~•'A~•~3 ~..1~, s 4Y+F 73 t7 'S!\\ TARP g PAUU \ ow 6121 f;zeo 2.26 L. t P TOE TO TL 1200 arvl sq YJ t A. ! 17 Yr, a3 ~`t N _ ~ F f. 4 ~ ~r yM r 'swum r t A s ,4 - E SC ULI Z _ a y. L~,. `(~61A! s e + y Ia~•~ - 1 AMO nor 4 "Yp`,.. ' i• S$ y a 4r / ' 1' W I a of: *~S'ft a .il' s ~e ! ce a 11100 i{t y w f { ~ c, ltiy 1 'riN nc rI•~ 'r t . Vill, y 3~ 1 1 0400 1 8400 _Z.IK ? }~~v~- 1 '~T..r. t, •s 5 -.r: ..~•p , ~ { Il~yav. y _ 'i ~'y ~M 1. ~ K '1 J6/' TL 5?TG 2.26 _ r..,.- P i t t ~ Y t .3 S~ - . rl UNfA. t e wy~ryc~ i•"v r ` .,"t , J > ti . ,-~k 1! 1.44 W JOHN v s ' { 0410 . s s Y Ire 0Y T yf f~ yHi l.(''` a •tNDt Unite Fi1.,No,~1L-~ ~r~'~(~i ~wi _ t. ~4 t` 11 ( t•, f ~ „7 nr.,x Rum'dinq Rrtjx:t Ctga~ crR¢e8i+~?i L`ca;-^)t t-r: "S~,".~ie~. R rnt trio. ~.5~ ~A~_„i T„i^ i`%~+~ ! O CRYIRr Tc dw.I-ItycfllQgd ~yr~`~n,erg3ar 131=350. T-IM DIM • Tr,-trd, OR 9;221 ] G4i~ 7 t 'tf ti j t Washing or, 0,mi •t ' A: , EASEMENT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE D.RUVENVAY ON ADrOiITlli+iG PARCP.j dfd - RESIDENMAL USE THIS PERP-Z MAL EASE r, made and entered into on this bevNCcn a ax e Rz~2 rQ7~~ 1 _ hereinafter called the first p?Sty. and ;^1100 C;t:YJ~(r;G hereinafter called the second party, f NVITMMET'li NQ CkS.ANGE M TAX STATEIYtI NT . r. L',•, v- nbci r pr~pcriy in tee Cit;+ , O fS&t party the 0`.vrCr is ~L;.^y1C Of + ;Oil v'in~ CCSC " f WKEP,EA.,L~ of Tigard. County, of Washington. State of Oregon, to wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" r:..,. And the second party is the owner in fee simple of the following described real property in the said City, County, and State, to wit: SEE EXI4IBIT "B" i, f{ :rind stki two parcels of rpal estate adjoin each other, Ir WT&77MAS, the parties desire to grant to each other an easement and right .o use the descnccd. motor tr vehicle driveway now or to be coivstructed alorR_ and upon a na.don of both o` t'ie _ra i cls in cenjvn.ction ,3' 'Sifh "Iny la~Jltll use. in consideration of C%:cii n.gr.!'s ga-tin, t0 the O:hcr an eascmenC )1CP':Y~ flt•r n:.szrii,r^','and other vatuable.considcn+Jon crc: to !hc or*-ter in ;lord nzid, Lhe receipt of which is hcraby gcd: TUIOT':• :F :st pl.-',v convt:ys to second party a ?erpaura, caremcnt for rnctor ve::irle driveway purroses i 'r; U:~ni:^'cp^; .clCtiOrt with mrrry, lawful us,: aloi;<; ^_t unOD that ^ordon of ,:lrst party's property described as 0r... to~wjt: E; . SEE EXHIBIT "C" F Jl~ Ca e ? SECOND: Second• Marty cottveys to Lie art party a perpetual casement for motor vehicle purposes for use in eoajunction with any lawful use along and upon that portion of second party's prppertv described ti I as follows, to wit: . r , IM PM: It is mutually agreed that each party may use in common with the other party, the whole of said motor vebicla driveway, including that portion thereof situated on the property of di~ otLcr party for j ingress and epre.si motor vehicle, pcde^strians, '^nd uses incidental to any l3wf0 Use ~f ill P;.open)'. r tf l Iqg?~y ; J1 rr t rr'.; ..,t' tF)~rr r s a . / r f+ r 1-' '~f Pr1~ + 1 l{nn 1~ f Sri r IS,. ~y~. S2 r , a"S• '1 Y 'FOURTH: This ag ecment s - d bind and inurr to the bcnc!it of, as ih Wcumstlncc may require, not " only the immediate parties hereto, but also to ?rem resi cctivc heirs, executors, admiiastratots, anti successor, in interest as well. M i FWrfl: (Optional) The' maintenance shall be a shared responsibility of the parties and each of the parties ' I shalt share the cost of rhaintaining the casement. The obligation to share maintenance costs shall begin } 4ttR"' f y @Y',tt ; .,Y~ wlrcn the driveway is completed. cl~y~~, ~t~rz r. ; •~-i SIAM: (Optional) each of the parties shall maintain liability irmurance which, at a minimum, meet the t IL S hr. standard in the industry for the particular types of uses for which the properties are used. The insurance policies shall name the owner of the adjoining parcel as an additional insured in connection with the use of the casement. i ;l SEVEWH: In construing the foregoing agreement, the plural shall mean and include the singular whenever the context so requires.. IN WITNESS WHE~~OF, the p,vties hereto have subscribed this iirtnimcnt in duplicate on this, the day ' and year first'written 'hereinabovc. ~ , ~ Sit. • Signa S turc ' i n f`•r4S!}/~•t~ / 1Ci/ V ~YJ~[..`~-✓~:h~.=~ t{Y, ' Signature i Signature i it - 1 Address Address ri /t 7a o_ STATE OF OREGO! G ) ss. tF County of Washington) This instremerit was acknowledge boforr, me on (date) by f tn1Q -G V j;! rs3r_ A...~ _F 1 le- 8 (11-;ne(s) of person(s)) ' t ' -vim: ~ - n,.r ~ i~ 1. Cr:.ik..1JcLvJlitS7.. \1. MO' .Rv i .r, ur,•ottecnN Notary's Signature r :1 C;,!.t•ac:~ .pry n; „ ~ r i• . 1 "v corgi sis_ o r_ n My Commission Expires: 44_ r`t a STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. County of Washington) This instrument was acknowledge before me on ~C•„~ ~ (date) by I .s. ' _ (mm~e(s) of pcrwll(s)) ' i ' OFFItjIAL SEAL) v a~J CJi~~f~` VALEit16 TANCIrL Notary's Signata•r NOTARYFJ LIC-OAEOOty MY Commission Expires: d //411sZr COMMISSION NO.004051 AIYCOMMISSION EMPIRES FE8.10,1885 j r i ' , ~ ^i~+°;~~7~",1"i~.t~i'h~l,'~~'ry1:t~tj~r~,. t~i~~tk'SiTli'~~lf-`fi~T{Y~a:W'n'r~Rj,`'.ta+7li ~".~}•}a`!..~h't4 ,tiiC S}t~LY:}••4h3,ri:!Yt Jr4 rW, / Y FRI($ . + ~ 1✓tY4'{7 k+ Ili j} ! rf, 7A. ,_~7.airA, saracaai' z ID ' ~.6r~4t2" ii "`fit ~ r; ,k~ ff "~~~r, Lt2 E 4 July x , 1992, "ll~rgir4i EXHIBIT, DESCRIPTION a~3i p) part of that tract of land described in book 1033, page 456, , 'S Washington Count deed records, located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Tovmship 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, city of Tigard, Washington County, r'(a~.r• 1rS}a~„ Oregon, more particularly described as follows: EYE?~`~;~?: Beginning at a 2 inch iron pipe at the initial point of the duly recorded plat of "Woodford Estates"; thence South 00 4 .4r 15' '27" West along the West line of said plat 279.69 feet to ' 'the Northeast corner of said book. 1033, page 45 and the true point of beginning; thence continuing South 00~ 15' 2711 West along the West-line of said plat 263.21 feet to a. point that 1^ z.•' lien North 00 16' 27" East 102.98 feet iron the Northeast corner. of that certain tract of land described in book 3436 'Page .232, Washington County deed records; thence North 89 24' 3011 West along a line parallel to the North line of said book 343, page 232 a distance of 373.66 feet to the West l..ne of said book 1033, page 458• thence 'North 00° 01' .31" East along the West line of'said book 1032, page 468 a distance of " '263.21 feet to the Northwest corner thereof; thence South 89d i!•„, .14' 33" East aing the North lino of said boot: 1033, page 458 r` i a•ddetance of 374.73 feet to the, Northeast corner thereof and th^ true point of beginning. Fi i r~ - a ~ &i9ad.G'•7~~:•tr ~ItiDt:eP? C,e.:•I.t.tS~! K~ i • - . ~ c > > 'c> t lid ~ .n; i.t rv,e,,..,.... . • Y'f ' 7GL(:. t~ t~.'dfg•};;:i r 1•:;c:: C:.. t' ~ - r ~ , ` y4 , R'a -'fit &i • cPiti' S,'' Yi -lint 'S'' rilt~f, July 1, 1952 t.. fit, r,'.~} RXHIBIT "B" DESCRIPTION u Part of that tract of land doscri•bed: in book !030, pago dye, Waahington County deed records, located in the Northeast j;t:,:.•.},• Quarter of Section 9; Township 2 South, Range 1 Weot, l t.•, f; Willamette Meridian, city of Tigard, Washington County, is ca<< Oregon, more particularly described as follows: • Beginning at a 2 inch iron pipL at the initial point or the f :r duly recorded plat of "Woodford Estates"; thence South 00~ ~r ;y) 15' 27" West along the West line of said plat 279.69 feet to r• = the Northeast corner of ~fsaid book 1033, page 450; thence continuing South 00~ 15' 27" West along the West line of said plat 263.21 feet to a point that lies North 000 15' 27" East t T 104.98. feet from the Northeast corner of that certain tract %x of land described in back 343, page 232, WashAng•ton County deed records and the true point of beginning; thence continuing aloe the West line of Woodford Estates South 00° 151 27" .West a • distance of 103.98 feet to the said Northeast r, corner of book 343, page 232; thence along the North line of sa$d•,book 343, page 232 North 89 441 33" West a distance o~ 373.24 feet to the Northwest corner thereof; thence North 00 011. 31" East along the, West line of, said Bogl: 1033; page 453 a distance of 104.98 feet; thence South 89 441 33" East a t.. distance: of 373.66 feet to the true point of beginning. rF Y y -f• ' :t a,r .)'~'•T re ~ • mac{ ' j { ~.•~w.p~y,gy,..q~ +w•vA ?~~w/VMh/~xo tv.T....~.-..•.+w: ~ .........m.... . .,n P.lt;1;+t: a'r,.Gy]/ :r . re!~ • tl r r~<`'~~±; y' , !I • ..f }tom r1 x I 0 - r .fw•~rtv(tu:~r. ' o• ~ " :5~~. ~ t~ 4 T ' - July 1, 1992 I RI "U" EASEMENT )DESCRIPTION + Part of a GO feet wide eaeenont for ingress and ogress y14 described together with a tract of land in book 1033, page "x+ y:- 458, Washington Coiinty deed records, located in the Northeast t L 1 :a' ti t~ Quarter of S4ction 9, Tovairship 2 South, Range 1 West, f Willamette Meridian, city' of Tigard, Washington County. cT• `r'?•: Oregon, more particularly described as follows: b Segiinning.at a 2 inch iron nips at the initial paint of the , s,t• duly recorded plat of "Woodford Estates"; thence, Souta 00 =i IV. . 27" West alorui' the West line of said plat 279.69 feet to *c th& Northeast ccsrner of nbook 1033, page 653 thence A continuing South'OOo 15' 27" West along the Tlesf line of said plat 263.21 feet' to a point ti. .t lies t+orth 00~' 15' 27" East ` 104.93 fact' from •the. Northeast corner of that certain trac : ' of land described in book 343b page 232, Washington County decd records; thence North 89 44' 33" West along a line parallel to 'the North line of said boost 343, p~sgs? 23?_ a distance of"373.66 feet to th^ Tiost line of the tract of land described in said book 1033, page 458 and true point of 1 beginning okf the 50 feet wide easement; thence South 000 01' ` 31" s*: -11otance of 366.21 fact to the most southerly -?a3.,r!t of ..:c ingreec and Egress easement deacri,bed in said -Oo% 10331 r'Zge 458; thence North 60° 581 52" West along the a+ttnl-srla, cas3r.;::n:: line aescribcd in said book 1033, page 458 to a point 50 feet lies erly measured at right angles to said line. running South 00 01' 31" East 368.21 feet said point .9 also lies on the West line of the 9.ngress, and egress easemon.. t3 gescribed -in. said book 1033, page 458; thence North Ooo 01' 31" East along the West line of said ingress and egress t casemIbnt 340 feet more or less to a point lying 50.00 feet distant when measured at right angles to said West easement j. t 4't> ' • ,~f < xxxp in^•; +'~MwnT's4ltxFina"I~xaw+rv,c++...-.»Y.•,........n...n..,..,-».~..- ,t ....I..... _ i P ,1" Fe,. .t 1t / t 'j ~ ~ , µ t ' S «1lIW. t t '1••. ' t' ' I v % p{ C',w su ~~y ' `5'+ f`..:1 ..aw ',fir" .A; ..I y j• ~iJ~.+. y'~ r N 4r 4< N t })i t T ~ w sx 1' LOCATED IN THE NOR T HEA, EERING & SUR'iEYING TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE :IFIC HIGHWAY #302 CITY OF TIGARD, V!lASHII~~',~`~,;~` )N 97223 y FND 5/8" IRON ROD .17 F^ID 1 1/2" IRON PIPE S.N.23,823 - HELD ~ y'•~x2i,; 16.32\~ N~}3 t '4 x, c-nj r 5 ! JONUMENT ':•`-L D S S 89'44'33" E 415.12' `'lf OF THIS 1; C• 1IRON PIPE 3 i'RRri} 19.65' i I HELD Nl~~r ,1 s iF I• ® N 89'44'33" t11 r Na t 1 ° R"` o o N 89'41'4G" :a• n 4CING IS AN EXACT I 0 10.82' r- , ® PARTITION, PLAT. ° t T , r ' t FND , 8" I.R. ) ' t. 50.00'1 N crn a I INSIDE IRON PIPE t+ T 1: I N ,tfii Jt^ ' S 2246 FND 5/8" IRON ROD W/CAP-"BURTON ENG." HELD INITIAL POINT (S.N.23,823) : < t$w i srt tk" -0 I 'WOODFORD ESTATES' o I FEE NO. 78-31858 LOT 1 St itti f F I S. W. 1.32ND AVENUE T[ I rt he cli rn C,:< (o LOT 33 ° I ain Ti C)I 0r:2 Pt r Mt S 89'44'33" E G. E l' 3" IRON ROD 'J'/CAP f j.. 2" !'N.21.90 - 7) HELD 374.73' LOT 31 p vv)) N :y Fi it1='S M _ IF :h,-6; LOT 30 BI j{inj;: it 4, La PARCEL 1 `n It, P ri 98,492 SO. FT. N3 _ I rt J'tl O N N LOT 29 t I a }t` i 15 W / Pi A r } n v . LOT 28 r 't 33" W 14 I'lW4 4', ti , o • 373.66' ya °i~ LDT 27 T i PARCEL 2 p' FND 3/4" IRON PIP z 4, "S.N.21,907) - HE D 39,205 SQ. FT. o C I ~ r"r N 69'41'33" W.~-,;b 1111 ~b t 5 10 ~ N 1" IF•01•I PIPS ' I NI y J'.f''. ,i t• 373,2.1' ,0T tt .,r it o Ik NELN-S U.81'vd } ' F3 % o t.~ IRON PIPE O.b01, ` (n iv T 9tJ.;r.: ;t 8"W - 2.17' M Si LOT 25 y,. N P R V' Q O I I Z LL FND 1/2" IRON RIND !n 'ciR t I~ VJ 00 1rA HELD FOR R%N ; , o W LOT 24 ~r [ o BOOK 343 w a ; r o 2 ct r a Otj 33 SET 5/ " `l~° PAGE 23 k IRON R o tL ' r} ON PIPE k09 68~ \ I p I I TOT 23 SET 5/8" vt S 3 fi IRON ROD FND 1" IRON PIPE x i~ LOT 2$ 0.13'N OF CA e N cv ~ i` ~ . i' ~ ::^*i;2xl;r..~~. ...ys•i~:'lfi?;~!:^:7~'7:C'~Ia,-~:ry*.,•~^-•rr~r-r^~'a1-r~:.... .e fly. n ` - .ia rL:lJ ,~rNwpa ..~ri.i: kek lr:~ 4 ~ 1 - - 0 4u y'h a xt tt~~~r~tt~: r r S' .e. Ae., ~ tJ VY. • fit' ~ ~ Fr,. 't T - mm OF oqr-CbP1 'r d { County of Washington ! s s 1.JrnryyFI.IIDhn(~ IurofM.-jvp;tlncnl s and TDY.atfon aga~k- I %r^orde of Corr I . voyances foyakTYcc rfdh certify y` i E s that. the y14 7D TIMm mf' j ttit n3 wDS ~i'• , r3 received 1d coordc4'Mn43ook 01,17.cords of j`• said cu , ,~•~.w>rr ~i`,~ t.. :,1 3r4•kft bi for of lrr' ! K iAe F't{ ?xan, Ex- r ~ ~r>.~•;:;: for' F> Doc 9:.05790.3 z. t Rect: 83596 63.00 a f 08/20/1992' 02: 14: 5OPf•9 r Y. r ~e ~:GSRf.:t!~:'1.tC.. •i5 ~tu~.~...yty+!~r.c'1 r t in•S 4 .?'l4iis7Zt'W.i?7'Ti,CF':!li:'S"'3'•'~'+T.^•. °"t}'A't~'+~'7,!'"t11tT;L1`:Tti~:i5'.'p'.'i^:" removed in connection with the preparation of individual lots: This tree remove( 3 ` shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior to removal or such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. . 18. It is recommended that the 15 foot public sewer easement to be developed as a , pedestrian/bikeway path along the sideyard property line between Lots 5 and 6. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 17. Seven of the 1 l lots may he e.empted from compliance with the Basic Standard and the Protected Solar Building Line Options. Development on each. of the 11 lots shall comply with either the Performance or the Solar Balance Point Options. STAFF ' CONTACT: Development Services Technicians 18. The draft C. C. & R's which were provided with this application shall be revised to explain the development constraints inherent in providing solar access to this development. Alternatively, a note may be provided on the Final plat map. STAFF CONTACT: Nlark Roberts, Planning Division. , THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: u 19. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with the street tree plan which has been reviewed and approved. STAFF CONTACT: i'vlark Roberts, Planning Division. IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT SHOULn BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST SECTION 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement A. Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. E.-cecute and rile an agreement with the City Engineer speciMng the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and , 2. Inciude in the agreement provisions that it such work is not compieted within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. 8. 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 staves and for the extension of. time under specific HEARINGS OFFICER- SUB 95-0001/51.1195-0003-WILMINGTON HEIGHTS PAGE 13 f SAL •1 : ?a r"' EJrfr/~s~ /T w NMI ;Ii~i 1~11,1 11 1- OR 21, =t z 11111401101 AW t BEFORE THE LAND,USE HEARINGS OF19- CER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In the natter of an application by Cascade ) FINAL ORDER. Corn nunities for a preliminary 114ot subdivision for ) SUB 95-Ml 3.53 acres in the R-7 zone and a Sensitive Lands ) SLR 95-0003 Review for portions of the site with slopes in excess ) (Wilmington Heights) of 25%.. f 1. FINDINGS The hearings officer hereby adopts and incorporates herein the Tigard Community Development Staff Report dated April 14, 1995 (de "Staff Report), including the sunTrary, findings about the site ' and surroundings, applicable approval standards, agency corrunents, and evaluation of the request, except to the extent expressly modified. II. HEARING The hearings office conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the application on April 24, 1995. The fbIlowkng testimony was offered in relevant part 1. City Planner Marks Roberts summarized the Staff Report He submitted an additional condition #19 to address concerns raised by the applicant and an adjoining property owner about unauthorized access to properties to the south of the proposed subdivision. The condition requires a fence at the end of the sewer easement between lots 5 and 6. 2. The hearings officer asked the staff some questions for clarification. a. She asked if the paving of easement requirements applied solely to the easement between lots 5 and 6. Mchad Anderson responded yes. b. She asked what the, staff response was to rte Fire District's request that "no parking" signs be posted on W Irrington Street. Ntchael Anderson responded that the staff opposes w restricting parEdng on W Irnington Sheet The City adopted a "skinny street' standard in May of 1994. The purpose of the narrower street standard was to reduce the grading and tree removal associated with road construction in new subdivisions. It was not the atys intention to limit parking in the roadway. He stated that the proposed street width provides adequate emergency vehicle access. c. She asked whether the Staff intended to lirrit the applicant to provide required water quality treatawt on the subject site or whether the staff intended to allaw joint use of a water quality detention pond on the adjacent Nbuntain Highlands subdivision as the applicant desires. M&Wlel rv Anderson rest that the downstream system has been designed to include storrnwater runoff from Page 1 Hearings Officer Final Carder SUB 9543001 / SLR 95-OOM - Wtlrrongton Heights x ; 17 3, 1 this subdvision. He suggested an amendment to Condition 3 to clarify that the detention facility may be shared. 3. Don C ley, President of Cascade Communities and project engineer, testified for the applicant. He accepted the Staff Report gerremlly. He stated that they plan to construct Mountain B-Ilghlars Phase 11 and 1MlrnirxJtan Heights sslivisions at the same tioe e, as project, and ihat is vVhy they want to one the water quality pond's service area. He stated that the developer has ocxdinated with the City and USA about the design and location of the facility. The drainageways and emsting facilities have adequate capacity. He also stated that he concurs with the additional condition 3. Tom Jur s, owner of tax lot 1241 which is immediately south of the proposed subdivision. He stated that the pedestrian path is a problem to him because it will encourage people to corm onto his property. He already has problems with trespassers, even though he has put up "no trespassing' signs. Also, he has a problem with people leaving trash on his property and he's worried about fires ' being started by careless trespassers. He said that a good solid 'Fence may help reduce these problems. 4. Don Sill, a resident in Benchview Estates which was developed by Cascade Communities. He testified that Don Oaldey and Cascade Communities did everything they had prcrosed to do and also when any problem arose they took care of them Fie encouraged approval of the subdivision based on the good character of the company. t III. SITE VISIT The hearings officer visited the site before the luring without the company of others. She observed the site's tree coverage, the nature of surrounding development, the terrain and condition of surrounding streets. IV. DISCUSSION 1. city staff recommended approval of the application subject to conditions in the Staff Report. The hearings officer finds that the Staff Report generally contains all the applicable standards for the application and findings showing the application complies with the those standards. Those findings are not disputed in large part. The hearings officer adopts these findings as her own, to the extent they are not disputed as expressly provided otherwise below in support of a decision to approve the subdivision, subject to the conditions recommended in the Staff Report. 2 The staff i=orT mended at the hearing the inclusiai of an additional condition as follows: ,19. Interim security fencing shall be provided to the joint pedestrian pathway / sewer utility easement between Lots '5 and 6 towards the proposed Local Street SW Wllrrington Court. This fencing shall be designed to allow maintenance access. At Page 2 - Hearings Officer Final Order i SUB 951=1 / SLR 95-0003 - VMIrnington Heights 9~ 1 r such hnra as future dmmlopment occurs on properties to the south this fencing may be removed to allow pedestrian aooess to adjoining pedestrian pathways. All fencing shall ` be designed to the satisfaction of ft City Engineer." The hearings officer finds that the fencing condition recommended by the staff at the public tearing is required to protect adjacent properly from trespassers that a pedestrian path terminating at the property line might encourage, to protect the health and safety of the unity, and that the applicant agrees to the additional condition. IV CONCLUSIONS The applies request does or can comply with the applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code and should be approved, subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report with minor changes based on the above findings and the conclusions in section VI of the Staff Repoit V. ORDER The hearings officer approves the applicant's request, SUB 95-OW1 (WIrrrngton heights), sutiect to the cordiotions in Section VII of the Staff: Report, with the following amendments: 1. Condition of approval 3 is aid as follows: Ttrn applicant shall submit a final drainage plan that details on-site or alternative water quality bwtrrient that comply with the guidelines of Unified S rage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91477. The proposed facility shall be dedicated to the City of Tigard. 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. Pag.:3 -Fangs Officer Final Order v SUB- 95-MM / SLR - Wirrrington heights ;yam _ • s, r 2. Condition of approval 18(a) is adders to read as follows: Interim security facing shall by provided to the joint pedestrian pathway / sewer utility easement between Lots 5 and 6 towards the proposed Loral Street SwWlmington Court. This Bing shall be designed to allow mainterawee AY such time as future development oars on properties to the south this fencing may be removed to allow pedestrian access to adjoining pedestrian pathways. All fencing shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Dated this 25th day of ley, 1995 Z a Denieoe B. Won City of Tigard Hearings Officer Page 4 - Hearings Officer Final Order SUB M-Ml / Std g5-M3 - i1 IMington Heights r~ I lip Sri gre~ffi~,~ Su ~gilngington t9reSon , saed 50 feet I ...s®'.m*+^ to l~~ xsA- i ~ ,.O•.,r►•' 181 ® i.._C_. 1 TtaCi Spcre PROP OSEO ©@ cd PROPEaSo 5SOOt' RU SEAa A1ANH ap~N a. \ PROPO SSORiI SEWE CATCH ' ,•s.• PROPOSED giORM ~R , ~~`S ssc~~t+ `'q '\,yd „s 120 - PROPOSED 5 K'SW-j ~/A @ P sE µANNa PROP - ! f ~ ~ P` ~ ~ PROPOSED WATER ~~.~ORANT ~Mhli o o VAIN a'''te PROP0 w q~~ fill PRoPOSE~ WA1L MA PROPOSE 8 PROPOSED CONSERVATION AREA :N g-'ptavr>E oaFnl i g/y ai 9.684 10.034 s4•tt, ~-g= i t! 1 V j 8,615 s4tt. - ` r stvrt1t 1 ft `I 1 ~snNCS,,, o ssti+owN. r 8 6 ~ roct •A al i 162 s4• 1 To r AaO~,tNt to sE I / 9,431 sgft. 8,010 s4 ft 1 ` C?n [ 3 / F-:~ t 1 la. ,y`-_.~+•~` ` ai•~;,,,-~-!.c ~c•~ ~ .,t tQ r ,y'y •t ar . t-. ~ ~ MARY ~ , .~`+s2¢i a-''~ " SMT A y~°~ j 1 11 ,df ~5'?u2uC 54-----SF---- \ a'sirarnar--- 79 1 t~ - / 9761s4ft h ` $ - i 1 gi34s4.ft. g,615s4.f1. ~ I'-~~~~ 1 .R- of 1 A~~NT `r+ 1 . ~ 1 9.232 s4 7 1 e 1 .,~i ~ 9.240 s4•ft: „ 1 1 1 i Zr .r ®iss~... ~ t gtpN.cEi~ 1 ~ mASTa RO ~g{t3F1~i w ell'VAtR 1 i Ell AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of cr I I a t q CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004 Uree Removal) PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK ~ CITY ADMIN Olt ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City revise the Community Development Code by adopting a revised Code Section 18.150 regarding tree removal? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Community Development Code and the attached resolution adopting a fee for tree removal permits. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Planning Division began drafting a new Community Development Code Section 18.150 concerning tree removal in 1991. Original drafts included relatively minor amendments to the existing code. Because of increased citizen interest, the scope of changes increased. After Planning Commission deliberations, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance in July, 1994 and a later work session in August, 1954. An ordinance was drafted to reflect changes made as a result of those meetings as well as an additional public hearing on October 11, 1994 and work sessions on September 27, 1994 and November 15, 1994. On November 15, 1994 the City Council passed a resolution to appoint a Tree Task Force. Membership was composed of a cross-section of community interests including those favoring tree protection regulations and those representing property rights concerns. Working with staff, the Task Force met numerous times to develop a consensus approach of when to protect trees without unduly infringing on property rights. The Task Force worked hard to overcome many polarized issues. A February 28, 1995 memo from the Tree Task Force to the City Council outlined a tree protection program that differed in approach from previous draft ordinances. The program centered on identifying when tree protection is important to the community and when these goals deserve to be weighted more than property rights and vice-versa. The February 28 memo is attached. Tree removal permits would be required only on sensitive lands. A tree plan would be required for the development process. The Task 'Force was directed to complete their work on the draft ordinance. This culminated on April 26, 1995 with the Task Forge completing their review of the draft ordinance. The Task Force presented the draft ordinance to the City Council on June 20, 1995. The attached ordinance is the result of the Task Force's review. Exhibit "A" of the attached ordinance covers the new tree removal permit procedures. Exhibit "B" covers new stop work order provisions reviewed by City Council in previous drafts. Besides the tree removal permit for sensitive lands and the tree plan for development, the draft crdinance dated April 27, 1995 also includes a prohibition against commercial forestry (ten or more trees per acre, per calendar year for sale). Commercial forestry does not include Christmas tree production or land registered as tax deferred tree farms, or small woodlands which are permitted. The new draft also includes a range of mitigation based on the amount of trees removed; approval standards for tree removal on sensitive lands that incorporate the Unified Sewerage Agency erosion control standards applicable to all development; and the incentive and penalty provisions that the Council requested in their previous review. The proposed ordinance will substantially reduce the number of tree removal permits from previous ordinance drafts. The tree protection plans will be incorporated into project plan review without the need for a permit. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Revise the attached ordinance. 2. Leave the existing code as is and move to reject the ordinance. FISCAL NOTES The average estimated cost of processing a tree removal permit was $180 with previous drafts. Since the proposed the ordinance proposed by the Task Force does not require notification of adjacent property owners and is administrative in nature, the average estimated processing cost of a tree removal permit under the April 27, 1995 draft is expected to be $72. Based on the 1984 Council resolution establishing planning fees at 80 perc8nt of cost, the proposed fee should be $58 plus $1 for each additional tree over 5 removed. y: f.- y ``L11 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Tree Task Force DATE: February 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Tree Protection Program Based on our discussions, the Tree Task Force has developed a tree protection program that differs in approach from the original proposed ordinance. We have developed our approach by identifying when tree protection is important to the community and when these goals deserve more weight than private property interests and vice-versa. 1) ON SENSITIVE LANDS (which would include steep slopes, lands within a stream corridor or lands within the buffer and area of a wetlands) the City will require a tree permit. The applicant must prove that removal of the tree or removal and mitigation will not decrease the level of erosion control or water quality protection the tree provided. The City will produce a map showing which areas are affected. 2) The City will conduct a SIGNIFICANT TREE study including review of other communities' work, definition, identification and inventory. This information will be used differently during the development process than it will be when development is not occurring. In the later category, the City will not prevent the removal of the tree but will offer incentives such as maintenance services and recognition. During development, the City may not allow removal of a significant tree, but will provide incentives such as those proposed in the existing draft tree ordinance. This study will also include an evaluation of when and where the City should apply commercial forestry practices. 3) DURING DEVELOPMENT, the City should require a tree plan which will include an arborist analysis of existing trees, strategies for saving existing trees or mitigating tree removal for a goal of no net tree loss. Significant trees and trees in sensitive lands would be protected. The City will offer incentives such as the lessening of otllier development restrictions, as appropriate. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772, 4) iT HMLIFE CORRIDORS, FORESTS, NATURAL LANDS will be protected through the goal 5 comprehensive plan process and through the city land, acquisition program (which has begun with attempts to purchase the red cedar forest, in the Metzger area). 5) Tigard should explore obtaining a Tree City USA designation. This program requires adoption of ordinance provisions that: cover the planting, maintenance of trees on city property ® development of an urban forestry plan which would include a street tree inventory, educational projects, planting programs and beautification establishment of a tree commission, and development of arboricultural specifications, all in concert with a city arborist. hA14n\patty\tmes2 e W7 If IBM W i~ m No. ~ - tefMe®tereg ®f 1! a S September 12, 1995 Mayor Nicoli and Members of the City Council: I would like to urge you to adopt the tree removal ordinance as presented to you by the Tree Task Force. Many ordinary citizens, like myself, are unwilling to get involved in the governmental process because they feel that they cannot make a difference and so their effort is wasted. By adopting the task force's recommendation you are showing that citizen input is valued and heeded in Tigard, Oregon. As a member of the task force, I sacrificed my time and stretched my frustration tolerance in order to participate in creating a fair tree removal ordinance. If you amend the task force recommendation you will be telling me, and the others, that our sacrifice and efforts were not enough. You will be telling citizens that the time and effort they expend on task force participation for this city are not really worthwhile. Thank you, Sally Christensen 15685 SW 76th Tigard, OR log MUM MEN 09/12/1995 15:11 503-293-1105 OREGON EPISCOPAL SCH PAGE 01 k Agenda ItOm 9p OREGON ®ting ®f f OP ~ec,r~ 4laa~ ti s FACSDARZ CO ®°T DATM FRM' j~ D4, N , - / ~s d OREGON OPALsir 6M SW M d d Or - (50) 246-7M M) 293.1105 (FW 09/12/1995 15:11 503-293-1105 OREGON EPISCOPAL SCH PAGE 02 Fans of Farm Creek •r, ,•1f1.0 +r,M r(.ir fit,"'~>.iii. `,Xy.~:e.. s6 •~.n 'w•'.i...i i:f i::j . w+i»'!5.,c•.•. MAmteefs dedleated to the re n a prot n of Fevino Creek and ft idbutoees Mayor Nicoli an City Coancil City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dew Mayor and Councilors: 1 am writing on behalf of MTS of Fanno Creek, a volunteer organization dedicated to the proteCtwo and tiou of the Fa o k watershed, in regard to the Tigard. City Tree Or a, Cbqykr 19.150, Try al. I want to first FANS" express tion of the fine work that has tees done to clams what is a strong ordinance, with approprhae and podtive development ince ves, ! o protect trees and watersW values they bnng" It is uq=tant to remember that trees are below ground as well as above ground, and the benefits of healthy root systems as well as this careopies help improve air mW water quality, soil stability, noise reftction, and tempmature iadon. We old take thme functions ffor gmted; FANS, again, is pleased that the City recognizes these w ft strong or&nance language. FANS has tht: of coamn: 1. 19.150.020 DefjWtions A.?. - -Commercial forestry- shall meam the rural of ten or more trees ' am per calendar yeas for sale." This language does not protect larger stands from being clear-cent, as mn trees avg over the entire lot could be harvesW. For example, for a 10 acre lot, 2Q trew could be cut firom one stud, and the cutting could be concert wed in one arm. • is F fife followsug language to be included in Definitions: " • :Am or ? L { 51i ~1 F1° ~l ~E Si [ aim ~Ei'aa QQO~~i ■~a. ~~9 ~5~ am in W cderil!;Iii tl Fie of Fame Creek P.O. bx 25M d. OR 9=5 A rwt-praflt crjganftftn 09/12/1995 15:11 503-293-1105 OREGON EPISCOPAL SCH PAGE 03 Free Ordimce Page 2 2. 18.150.+040 Permit Ctiteria A.1.a. Add: A e ' fbilo g "1/2 cubic foot in volume," to read "Deposits of mud. dirt, sedhoent or similar materid eexceeding 1/2 cubic food in vole, aLamy_giIM on public of This will prow waterways from sedimentaticm at all times, m at the time of the actual tree removal. 'l'ids implies appropmate re-plantings Ligation will adw ply. 3. 19.150.040 P B. Add: hgfluklm to read as follows: "...50 fed from the boundary of of the suvamzL or This will pvtoct the . e aims shmms a creeks. With these cbanges, FAM. whol Y MM=b the Trc . Apia:, we coed the City for the vision hard wok involved in this ordinance, and recommend the Council vote to accept. Thanks for your 'ova amd tip:. S' lyL , John Y.v , President ~a C~ i 4? NOTE: ITEM NO. 13, COUNCIL COMPENSATION SCHEDULED FOR THE 9/12/95 COUNCIL 14EETING WAS SET OVER TO OCTOBER 10, 1995 y.