Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 09/09/1997
lim oVtfGOt4 ; h t civ C)K 4. TlGARI t ~4} t t~ t l y~ -f 4 's ! , VIM& cou~~OL mt-evissli F ti 1 ~.f 639.4171 TDB ~5p3) 684 2772 S,N Natl BNd•, ligatd. OR 97223 (5p3) 13125 V if I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CITY OF 71GARD j BUSINESS MEETING E SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 6:30 PM i [TIGARD CITY HALL i I 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak 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 beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. 1 Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. ` - " Assistive 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. Please 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: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing - impairments, and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of 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). i j SEE ATTACHED AGENDA •i _ i f COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 1 i E a i F 9 _ 7 i AGENDA CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 6:30 p.m. • STUDY SESSION i > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ex (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current { and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within 1 i 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 not disclose any information discussed during this session. j > AGENDA REVIEW 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ez Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 'I 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance j 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 3 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 1 7:35 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) i 7:45 p.m. 3. 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 be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: August 12 et 19, 1997 3.2 Receive et File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. i COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 2 3 r Y i 7:50 p.m. j 4. COUNCIL REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: STOP SIGNS AT MAIN a BURNHAM STREETS a. Staff Report: Engineering Department b. Public Comments C. Council Discussion e. Council Direction to Staff 8:1S P.M. 5. CONSIDERATION OF GREENSPACE PROJECT LIST j a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Questions/Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97-`5-/ 8:30 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION: FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92ND AVENUE PARTITION j APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same l PO Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: To partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,570, 8,040 ' and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM IS 135 DC, Tax Lot 06701. APPLICABLE f REVIEW E CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre, R-4.5. The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. (Continued on next page.. ) COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 3 I j 6 1 a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Applicants, Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Staff Recommendation 1 h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 97-3Y i 9:30 P.M. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9:40 p.m. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive j Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8t (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions 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 not disclose any information discussed during this session. i 10:00 P.M. lsa~) 9. ADJOURNMENT iaadmicalhy\ccat970909.doc ~ - 1 r 1 COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 4 1 i Agenda Item No. Meeting of 1141111q, TIGARD CITY COUNCIL II ( MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. - > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff, Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Planner Mark Roberts; and City ( Recorder Catherine Wheatley. Bill Monahan, City Manager, reported Councilor Hunt's concern regarding greenspaces. b'd Councilor Hunt was opposed to acquiring both the Bond Street property and to the property just north of Cook Park. > Goal Setting Mr. Monahan reviewed his memo regarding scheduling the goal setting session. He noted the I Council discussion at the previous meeting to schedule a goal-setting meeting on September 30, with discussion and prioritization of goals at that meeting, and a second session on October 4 to finalize the list prepared by staff. He mentioned that his performance review was also due soon. The Council discussed scheduling goal setting. Councilor Scheckla objected to a Saturday meeting. Councilor Rohlf said that he would be out of town for the September 30 meeting. Councilor Moore asked to see the Visioning Task Force report as part of the Council goals discussion. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, reported that the Action Committees were still meeting. Mr. Monahan suggested scheduling the two sessions for October 7 and October 21 (at the I regular study session). The visioning report should be ready by October 9. They could still hold V the special events discussion on October 21, and do his review in November. > Feed & Seed Store Mr. Monahan reported that staff has cleared the concrete off the property. The fencing was still up, as the demolition company's lease did not run out till the end of the month. He, Ed Wegner, and the two John Cooks visited the site to investigate what needed to happen next. Mr. Monahan reviewed the options before the Council: take the fence down, make the necessary improvements and let people park on it, or keep the fence up and not let people park on it. He explained that staff did not budget money to make the required improvements for a parking lot CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 1 i 1 on it. He explained that staff did not budget money to make the required improvements for a parking lot because they knew that the Chamber would not build this year. He mentioned the expectation that the Railroad would abandon one of its lines and transfer the underlying land to ODOT. If that happened, then the 25-foot setback from the railroad on this property was not applicable, and there was more room for parking. Mr. Monahan noted that the fencing lease was between the demolition company and the company renting the fence, and did not concern the City. However if the City picked up the fencing contract, there was a concern for appearances since the Mayor's brother owned the company renting the fence. He mentioned that they were asking for six-month quotes for fencing. If parking was not allowed, should staff keep a fence up or arrange for some other II method of keeping people off the lot? He suggested holding off on a decision until they received more information on the plans of the Railroad and the Chamber. Staff would return in two weeks with another update. t e j Councilor Rohlf asked if there was a City policy prohibiting people from parking on dirt. Mr. Monahan said there was a policy prohibiting the use of unimproved lots for parking. Councilor Rohlf suggested revisiting that policy. Mr. Monahan pointed out the wintertime problem of cars ! tracking mud from unimproved lots onto the streets. Councilor Scheckla asked what the status was on the Chamber and their building. Mr. Monahan said that he thought the Chamber might begin construction in 18 months. However, if the ~s Railroad abandoned its line, that gave the Chamber more room for their building and they could I`I change their plan. He explained that Willamette Pacific said last week that they were close to I purchasing the track and dedicating the land under the track to ODOT. l Councilor Moore asked what the cost of leasing a fence would be for 12 to 18 months versus the Public Works Department installing railroad ties and chains. Mr. Monahan said that the ball park estimate for the chains was $3,500 while a fence could be leased for $200 per month. Councilor Rohlf asked if the policy prohibiting parking on unimproved lots served other areas of the City. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, said that this question came up often. Cities commonly require pavement in parking lots. One reason was preventing cars from tracking gravel onto the streets. Mr. Monahan pointed out that at some point the Council had to decide whether or not they were going to make this lot available for parking. That decision would determine future action. The Council discussed the issue. Councilor Scheckla supported allowing parking. Councilor Moore pointed out that people would question putting in a parking lot now if it turned out that by waiting they would have received the extra 25 feet from the Railroad. Mr. Monahan suggested staff return in two weeks with more information for Council. > Friends of the Library 9 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 2 i ;j •j 3 j i requiring offering this concession to the Commission for the Blind but the Commission did not have anyone who could meet the Friends' requirements. They have narrowed the vendor proposals down to one. The Board was ready to enter into an agreement with the Friends to authorize implementation of an espresso cart that could be on line by October 1. Councilor Scheckla raised the issue of food and drink in the library. The Council discussed the issue. Mr. Monahan said that current Library policy did not allow food and drink in the library, j s although the former City Librarian, Kathy Davis, had allowed coffee in the Puett Room in an k t attempt to increase adult usage of the Library. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern at the potential mess food and drink could cause, and favored allowing it only in designated areas. ! Councilor Rohlf noted that Powell's had a coffee area. j Mr. Monahan pointed out that for this idea to work there had to be a policy created, it had to be policed, the staff had to buy into it, and the patrons had to buy into it. He commented that the j Friends were willing to move ahead without that policy. He mentioned that the contract would be between the Friends and the vendor; the Council simply agreed to allow this use in the public space. He said that once the vendor had built up his clientele and cash flow, he would give back revenue to the Friends who would in turn use it for the Library. j The Council discussed whether or not to allow the Friends of the Library to utilize the public space and have a vendor provide an espresso service. Councilor Rohlf supported doing so, pointing out that the Library needed to discuss the policy about allowing food and drink in the 4 _ Library immediately because in the winter people would want to come inside. Councilor Moore + concurred. Mayor Nicoli noted that the City cmploycos could use this service. Ms. Nev ,on i~ r mentioned that the service would not provide sandwiches or lunches. Mr. Monahan said that the operating hours might extend beyond the Library's operating hours to accommodate the employees. The Council agreed by consensus to allow the Friends to use the public space as requested. > November 11 meeting Mr. Monahan mentioned that November I 1 was Veteran's Day. He asked if the Council wanted to reschedule the meeting to November 4. The Council agreed that if there was a lot of business, they would hold the November 11 meeting; otherwise, they would cancel the meeting. > Agenda Review Mayor Nicoli asked about the review of the telecommunications ordinance. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the entire ordinance would come back to Council through the Code rewrite process. Mayor Nicoli said that he would like to see a higher level of screening required for a tower located within 200 feet of a residential area. He said that it was fair to ask the companies to 5 spend a few thousand dollars on appropriate screening of their pole. He noted that on the west 7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 3 i J ! , 't i t a t i 1 j side of town, which was primarily residential, they might have to locate poles in residential areas f because of the lack of commercial spaces. Councilor Scheckla cited other jurisdictions, such as Camas, Washington, that required cell companies to provide documentation that they have exhausted all other possibilities before a , tower could be put up in a residential area. Staff mentioned that only 2 of the 16 permits that have been granted were close to residential, one on Main Street, and one north on Highway 99W. Mayor Nicoli expressed his continuing concern that they allowed the monopole onto a non- I conforming site. The Council briefly discussed the situation. The Mayor noted that the neighbors have called the police on numerous occasions because the businesses were not conforming to regular business hours. I Mr. Bewersdorff suggested including an amendment to the ordinance regarding the screening of 7 poles within the Code rewrite process. Staff reviewed the procedures for the public hearing on the director's decision on the Downing property. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, said that he sent out a letter regarding the d Erickson timber lot in which he explained that cutting the trees met the definition of a development (a major change to the appearance of the land) and was, therefore, subject to site development review. He reported that the owners then asked if thinning the trees would be subject to development review. He said that he needed more information before he could make that determination. He mentioned that the trees left after thinning would be more dangerous because they lacked the root structure needed to withstand high winds. Mr. Monahan pointed j out that at some point all the trees would be removed. The question was whether or not how j they harvested the timber would give the city a dangerous winter with erosion. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. i • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: NONE • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: NONE 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: NO VISITORS f I 3. CONSENT AGENDA i Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 4 l j 1 r Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: August 12 & 19, 1997 3.2 Receive and File: j a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda i 5. COUNCIL REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: STOP SIGNS AT MAIN & BURNHAM STREETS 1 Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reported that the four-way stop signs at Main and Burnham streets e 3 were working well. He said that the intent was to allow left-hand turns at that intersection and to create spacing in the traffic to allow left-hand turns at other intersections on Main Street. He 1 commented that this was the opportunity for the public to provide input on the stop signs. He recommended completing a three-month trial, and then doing an assessment to determine if they wanted to make them permanent. f j S. Carolyn Long, 14240 SW Main Street, Executive Director of the Tigard Area Chamber 14 of Commerce, expressed the support of the Chamber staff and Board for the four-way stop k signs. She commented that it slowed traffic and helped greatly with the traffic situation in the downtown. a _ d j Mark Mahon, 11310 SW 91" Court, supported the stop signs as an improvement to the traffic situation in. the downtown. He noted the slowing down of the cut-through traffic also. j Councilor Moore asked if traffic counts were taken before and after the stop signs. Mr. Duenas said that they had traffic counts from before and intended to take traffic counts at the end of the i trial period. He stated that they suspected that much of the traffic was cut-through traffic from j 99W which would reduce in volume and speed once the motorists realized that it was not a shortcut. Councilor Moore noted the letter from Mr. Mintner that spoke of a five to seven block backup i because of the stop signs. Mr. Duenas said that there had been a backup on the first day and only one other backup that he was aware of. He has travelled through the area with no problems. Councilor Rohlf said that he saw backups on the 99W side in the first week but believed that it was cut-through traffic. Since then the traffic has been smooth flowing. Councilor Scheckla asked if the police were writing citations in the area. Mr. Duenas said that he did not know and would check into it. The Council agreed by consensus that staff should complete the three-month trial period and report back to Council at the first meeting in January. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 5 L~ ~ 1 Fj_ r t 5. CONSIDERATION OF GREENSPACE PROJECT LIST ~ i Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presented a slide show of the new sites nominated by citizens for the Greenspace project list. The slides included the Bull Mountain 47-acre forested site located between the BPA power lines and Sunrise Lane (which had a preexisting trail system and many owners), a 3.5 acre site located on Little Bull Mountain (asking price $400,000), a 2.4 acre site on Former Street (assessed value $75,000), and a one-acre site in three tax lots at SW { 69th and Baylor with two owners (asking price $303,000). Mr. Roberts mentioned that the City i received a letter from the Oregon Education Association requesting that its 10-acre site { (nominated by a citizen) not be considered for the greenspace program. He noted that the 3.7- { acre Former Street property was not available. i Mr. Roberts reviewed the staff recommendations. They stood by their original recommendations { for the Fanno Creek and Bull Mountain target areas. In addition they recommended Bull Mountain Forest Acres. He asked for allocation of greenspace money to purchase the two small river tracts owned by the Tualatin Country Club that staff negotiating on per Council f ? authorization last month. He clarified that the City of Tualatin requested a $50,000 contribution f from Tigard for the design of the pedestrian footbridge. Mr. Roberts said that the rail line, if abandoned, could be made available to the City for trail use j but it was an unknown at this time. He recommended that staff be authorized to hire a contract person to assist in the ncgotiations with owners. j ' Councilor Scheckla asked how much money was left in the fund. Mr. Roberts said that the City - ! had a balance of $633,000. The Council discussed the Bull Mountain forest area. Mr. Roberts identified its exact location { relative to the Water Dept. property on Menlor. In response to Councilor Scheckla's question on the timeframe, he explained that the City had until September 1, 1998, to complete purchases j with some opportunities for extending the date. > Ramsey McPhillips, 13020 SW McPhillips Road, McMinnville, pointed out that staff shifted his Little Bull Mountain property down to the bottom of the list because it was low priority. He reviewed the history of the parcel, explaining that his grandfather, Barney McPhillips, purchased the property originally. His grandfather was the founding Director of the Environmental Quality Commission in Oregon, served the State with distinction, and received many awards. He said that if purchased, it would be appropriate to dedicate the land in his grandfather's memory, considering his considerable work for the State. He said that his grandfather would be pleased if i the land were preserved for the families in the area. j Mr. McPhillips pointed out that this area was developing very quickly, and this was one of the last opportunities to preserve a greenspace for the residents. He said that he believed that the purpose of the greenspace program was to quilt together pieces of greenspaces for everyone. He mentioned that when driving on Highway 99W, the trees visible on the top of Bull Mountain I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 6 i j I i r i I were on this property. He explained that his family would most likely sell the land to a developer for $600,000 if the City did not buy it for $400,000. Councilor Scheckla asked where this property was located in relation to the cemetery. Marge Davenport reviewed the exact location of the property. She stated that the developers of the apartments nearby have agreed to save the big trees at the top and to take over maintenance of the 3.5 acres of greenspace. She pointed out the many children living in the apartments and condos who had no place to play. f3 1 > John Putnam, 6960 SW Clinton, said that he nominated the one-acre parcel on the corner of SW Baylor and 69th in keeping with the DKS plan for the Tigard Triangle. He quoted the provisions regarding the protection and enhancement of natural resources in the Triangle. He noted that this parcel was expensive but contended that land would only get more expensive in the Triangle. He spoke to getting some greenspace area in the Triangle while they could, as he believed that high-density housing would be built in the Triangle east of Dartmouth. He i suggested a public/private partnership to purchase the land. > Nikki Matnati, 10529 SW Naeve, said that she represented the Summit Homeowners i Association, the neighborhood right below the Erickson tree farm. She spoke to preserving greenspace in the area for the children to play in, especially with the harvesting of the tree farm. Mayor Nicoli noted the work staff has done in the past year-and-a-half to purchase greenspace j land and the difficulties they have run into. He spoke to purchasing property for a large regional I park in the middle of what would be a heavy residential area, and completing the pathway and greenway through the City. He said that at this point he was looking at the interests for all the citizens of Tigard, not simply one neighborhood. Therefore, he supported the staff recommendations. i - I I Councilor Rohlf spoke to stall's need for flexibility in moving forward with this program. He commented that identifying specific properties seemed to aggravate the problem of prices j escalating beyond the City's reach. He supported staff moving as quickly as possible to secure these properties. Councilor Moore pointed out that they did not have the money to buy every space on the list. He supported the staff report, concurring with the need for flexibility in purchasing as much as they could with the funding they had. Councilor Scheckla said that he could support the staff report also, although he would like to see the Bull Mountain properties purchased if possible. Mr. Roberts said that staff would return with a resolution amending the intergovernmental agreement to reflect the new list of projects. Tonight staff had a resolution to identify the Tualatin Country Club properties and to authorize use of greenspace money to purchase them. i Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, read the sentence to be added to Resolution No. 97-37: "The CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 7 d i n allocation of the balance of $267,000 remaining from the elimination of the 129`h and Bull Mountain Road site will be decided at a future public meeting." Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution 97-37. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. { RESOLUTION NO. 97-37 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR CERTAIN OPEN SPACE, I > TRAIL ACQUISITION OR ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL SHARE COMPONENT OF THE METRO OPEN SPACES GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE. Councilor Rohlf spoke to the need for speed in purchasing these lands. He stressed that delay cost the City precious resources that they did not have the money to offset. „ i , Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION: r . FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0010 ` FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92n*° AVENUE PARTITION 1 APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same 1{ PO Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: To partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square reef into three (3) lots of approximately 7,670, 8,040, and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92"d Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701 i APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164 i ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The Purpose of the R-4.5 zoning j district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 8 '•4 i 1 n a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. , 1 b. Declarations or Challenges I Councilors Moore and Scheckla each declared a site visit. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report: Community Development Department , Mark Roberts, Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that at the August 12 meeting, the Council moved to review the Director's Decision on MLP 97-00010. He reviewed the location and specifics of the .60 acre property located on SW 92nd Avenue. He reported that at the August East CIT meeting, five of the six regularly attending members requested that the Council call this application up. j Mr. Roberts reviewed the information developed by the neighborhood property owners as i presented in an August 8 letter from the East CIT, and in an additional 23-page letter. He f noted the first argument that the minor land partition should be reviewed as a subdivision. He explained that while the property owner did own both the subject site and the property at the corner, they were two legally separate lots, created in 1940 in accordance with the applicable law at the time. Because the applicant did not include the second lot in his application, and was dividing the first lot into only three parcels, his application did not j meet the definition of a subdivision (one or more contiguous units of land that create four 1 or more lots). Mr. Roberts noted the neighbors' argument that the definition in the Code of the pole f portion of a flag lot met the Code definition of a street. He said that the Director made the j interpretation that the pole portion of a legal lot was not a street, as it was not created for 1 street purposes but rather to provide a separate legal building site. He stated that to f interpret the pole portion as a street meant that driveways serving residences would be defined as streets, rendering the lots non-conforming in size because street area was not included in net lot area. Mr. Roberts discussed the neighbors' argument that because the City was considering a revision to the Code requiring minor land partitions to file a tree mitigation plan, the Code j did not at this time implement the Comprehensive Plan provision requiring the City to protect large stands of trees through the planned development process and the removal process. He explained that the City has not required tree-mitigation plans for minor land partitions because of the development constraints inherent in these smaller sites that filed for minor land partition. Also the revision was under consideration because the state statutes no longer made a distinction between minor and major land partitions. Mr. Roberts stated that the Code tree-removal section was specifically aimed at large stands of trees found on large acreages proposed for subdivision or commercial and industrial uses. Mr. Roberts noted three other issues raised to support the neighbors' contention that this tJ partition did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. First, the lot sizes were significantly CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 9 k I j E ~ i 1 I 11 r smaller than the Dogwood Ridge subdivision lot sizes of 18,800 square feet. However, the ; proposed lot sizes did conform to the R-4.5 zone. Second, the application did not address the traffic safety issues of adding three more homes to a narrow 20 foot street. Staff did not find that adding three homes would significantly impact the controlled intersection at SW 92nd and Greenburg. They further concluded that children already had to use safety awareness to traverse the existing driveways along 92nd. Third, tree removal would remove a needed buffer for the adjoining trees. Mr. Roberts said that if the City had a requirement that removal of trees would not be allowed where it might affect the character or integrity of trees on adjoining properties, then they would effectively place a moratorium on new development at sites near other wooded properties because nearby trees were usually affected by removal of nearby trees. Mr. Roberts discussed the neighbors' argument that the R-4.5 zoning in the Comprehensive Plan for this area was in error; it should be R-3.5 in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said that this property was not part of the subdivision. He pointed out that this entire area was zoned R-4.5. He reported that staff who worked on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan have stated that property owners in this area were involved. Mr. Roberts noted the argument that the five-foot of right-of-way dedication was inadequate. SW 92"d presently had a 50 foot right-of-way dedication with a 20 foot street. Staff felt that future improvements to widen the street and put in curbs and gutters could be - accomplished in 45 feet of right-of-way. He said that the East CIT was asking the Council to find that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did not support that I finding, and recommended approval subject to the Director's Decision. Councilor Moore asked for clarification regarding the right-of-way dedication. Mr. Roberts said that staff was not requiring half street improvements with this site because i. there was unimproved right of way between this site and Greenburg Road. They were requiring a five-foot dedication and a waiver of remonstrance against a future LID. I Councilor Rohif asked if the East CIT took a position on this application or asked for Council review. Mr. Roberts said that the CIT asked for Council review. d. Public Testimony APPLICANT i > David B. Smith, 6975 SW Sandburg, attorney representing applicant, Miles Downing, stated their agreement with the staff report. He pointed out that the Council needed to focus on the specific review criteria applicable to a minor land partition (Section 8.162.040). These five criteria were conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, compliance with state statutes and city ordinances, availability of adequate public facilities, conformity with lot size and dimensions, and compliance with all applicable city and agency standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 10 ! f 1 i Mr. Smith discussed the neighbors' contentions that the partition did not comply with i Comprehensive Plan polices and implementing criteria regarding trees (Section 3.4.2) and that there was a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan because this area should not have been zoned R- 4.5. Mr. Smith argued that this lot was never designated as a timbered or treed area and therefore was not subject to the planned development process or to the tree removal provisions. Such designations had to be done through the Goal 5 process. i Mr. Smith stated that to challenge the Comprehensive Plan within the context of a quasi-judicial t land use action was an "impermissible collateral attack on the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan." That type of action should occur during periodic review, as supported by the courts. Mr. Smith cited the staff report's conclusion that this application did conform with all statutory, regulatory, and ordinance requirements. He stressed that this was a minor lot partition occurring on one lot. He said the state definition of a "tract" in ORS 215 (cited by the neighbors) applied to rural lands and counties, not to lands within the urban growth boundary. He said that the l Code clearly distinguished between accessways and streets, and it defined the pole portion of a flag lot as an accessway, not a street (18.108.070). He argued that to adopt the construction of the CIT for this section would annul the section and make it meaningless. i Mr. Smith pointed out the staff conclusion that five foot of right-of-way dedication was more s than adequate. He reiterated that the Council could not deal with the question of whether or not j the Code properly implemented the Comprehensive Plan within the context of a quasi-judicial application. That took a legislative process, as did identifying significant groves or stands of trees under the Goal 5 process. i Mr. Smith emphasized that this was a minor land partition that conformed with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. It had no designated unique stands of trees, and the tree ordinance did not apply to minor partitions. He stated that Mr. Downing has engaged a certified arborist to investigate the site, as the trees were the major issue of concern to the neighbors. He entered into the record the overlay map that indicated which trees could be saved and which could not. He mentioned that the arborist found diseased trees on the site which would have to come out in any case. He explained that Mr. Downing was simply preparing the site for development but was not the actual developer. He said that they would make every reasonable effort to save every tree they could. Councilor Rohlf asked for clarification on the tree map. David Halstead, 4490 SW 160`h, Beaverton, Halstead Arborculture Consultants, said that the Douglas fir grove on this site was infected with laminated root rot, though he did not have sufficient time to confirm his diagnosis with lab tests. He reviewed the four trees he hoped to leave as a buffer to the north but pointed out that they would have to remove diseased trees. Councilor Rohlf asked if the removal of trees would impact neighboring trees on adjoining properties. Mr. Halstead said no, and commented that he had not seen many trees on the ! neighboring lots. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PACE 1 I f f C i r I . 1 1 Mayor Nicoli asked if this document was entered into the record at previous hearings. Mr. Smith said that they created this document by overlaying a site plan showing tree locations with a site plan showing the flag lots. The two site plans were submitted previously as separate documents. Councilor Scheckla commented that if the Douglas firs were dying, then there was little point in preserving the trees. Mr. Halstead concurred. He stated that the Pacific Northwest was experiencing a general infestation of laminated root rot that was doing serious damage to the trees. He cited work he has done in Gresham, Beaverton, and Lake Oswego diagnosing root rot and removing trees. He explained the specifics of how this disease destroyed the trees. He pointed out that within this neighborhood there were no young Douglas firs, despite the large number of seed produced by a single tree. Councilor Scheckla expressed his displeasure that the applicant did not address the tree situation until it was too late to get back lab tests to confirm the presence of the disease prior to this hearing. } Mr. Smith explained that the red dots on the tree map indicated trees to be preserved. He said { that the remainder of the trees were within the driveway or house footprints or too close to the house to be preserved. He commented that trees identified for preservation would have to be removed for safety reasons if they were infected. Councilor Rohlf asked if the applicant would accept a condition of approval to try to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Smith said that j they had no objection, that that was Mr. Downing's intent. PROPONENTS , I OPPONENTS - > Carrie Gavett, 11435 SW 92"d, thanked the Council for reviewing this application. She said r j that in response to the Council indications that they wanted to support the neighbors on the tree issue, the neighbors prepared documentation in detail. She presented an aerial photograph of the area to demonstrate that, while this property was not technically part of the Dogwood Ridge subdivision, it was nonetheless within the neighborhood because it was on SW 92nd Avenue. She pointed out that the neighborhood was ringed by Douglas firs, and that the large lots enabled them to preserve that feature. Ms. Gavett stated that they were not trying to stop the development but wanted to minimize the ! impact to the neighborhood by insuring that his development would be similar in character and quality to the neighborhood. They held that the Code and the Comprehensive Plan provided the means to do so. Ms. Gavett reviewed the interactions between the neighbors and Mr. Downing. She said that Mr. Downing originally told them that he intended to clear cut the lot for profit. During the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission, the neighbors rejected his offer to preserve one tree on the entire property and prepared a counteroffer (Appendix B) that he build two homes and preserve more trees. Mr. Downing rejected their proposal, stating that he would remove all j i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 12 I i the trees ` just to spite us," and informed them that any more contact with him would have to be through City staff. At that point negotiations broke down. Ms. Gavett reiterated that the neighbors had understood that Mr. Downing intended to clear cut the lot. The information that he intended to preserve any trees at all was news to them. She asked that his intentions for tree preservation be in writing, especially since he would not develop the lot himself. She asked for a tree mitigation plan with testing to confirm the claim that the trees were infected with root rot. j Ms. Gavett discussed the issue of the incorrect processing of the application as a minor land partition. She reviewed the neighbors' reasons why they thought it should be processed as a major land partition. She said that the distinction between "major" and "minor" did not occur at the state level, and therefore was a local distinction. However the state regulations defined "street" or "road," and the Code adopted that definition verbatim. She pointed out that a major land partition required tree mitigation plans whereas a minor land partition did not. Ms. Gavett argued that in the Code the characterization of the pole portion of a lag lot as an "access drive" met the state definition of a private street (an accessway that was under private ownership). It also met the definition of "street" or "road" (a public or private way that was a created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas, or tracts of land.) Ms. Gavett cited Mr. Roberts' statement in the staff report: "If more than one lot is accessed by the flag pole, in the director's opinion this kind of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street." She argued that the definition said "one or more" and that the staff interpretation was not supported by the Code. She held that because the definition came from the state, it lay outside the City's jurisdiction to use the interpretation that it had to be going to more than one lot. Ms. Gavett disagreed with Mr. Roberts' contention that defining the pole portion of a flag lot as a "street" meant that all standard driveways in Tigard became roads, making the lots nonconforming in size because roads were not included in lot size calculations. She said that the purpose of a driveway was to provide offstreet parking per the Code requirements. She argued that the street a house was located on provided the ingress and egress to the house, not the driveway. 4 Ms. Gavett noted several differences between driveways and accessways. Accessways cannot be included in the lot size calculations, cannot be used for off street parking, and have to meet emergency vehicle width requirements. None of these provisions applied to driveways. Ms. Gavett reiterated the neighbors' contention that the application should be reviewed as a major land partition requiring the applicant to consider the preservation of trees and a tree mitigation plan. She said that the central issue was whether or not poles to flag lots were streets. j Councilor Rohlf asked for the definition of a "street" in the state interpretation. Ms. Gavett said I that it was the same as in the Code. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 13 j i i~ ' i ;b i > Wes Gavett, 11435 SW 92"d, said that as a licensed civil engineer practicing for more than 13 years, much of his professional experience dealt with the interpretation and implementation of federal, state, and local regulations and codes. He said that, as he read the statutes, the approval authority had to insure that their decision was based upon proof of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He contended that in approving this application, the Council has failed to do so. Mr. Gavett cited the Comprehensive Plan goal "to maintain and improve the quality of life for the city residents by retaining natural areas and resources." He mentioned the policy that "the city shall designate by definition features to be protected as natural areas." He pointed out that it was done by definition, not by designation. He cited other provisions relating to protection of natural areas so that the character of the area would not be altered by development. He mentioned the findings of the Tree Task Force adopted in 1995 in which they recommended that the city conduct a significant tree inventory including a review of other communities' work, and that the city require a tree plan with strategies to save existing trees or to mitigate tree removal. He cited the ORS statutes requiring local jurisdictions to enact ordinances to implement their j Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Gavett cited the more than 50 trees identified in the applicant's site plan as evidence for the existance of a significant stand of trees on the property. He said that the applicant indicated to the neighborhood that he had intended to remove all the tree without any mitigation. He argued _ " that because the Code did not define use based on size or magnitude of development, a 100 acre ` parcel could be divided in such a way that it was a minor land partition. He said that this was a loophole. He contended that the Code did not implement the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan because it had no mechanism to establish trees as significant. Yet the Plan stated that stands f of trees were designated by definition as significant. Mr. Gavett read from a memo prepared by Dick Bewersdorff to the Council in July 1997. He pointed out that Mr. Bewersdorff said that the intended tree inventory to identify unique trees or stands of tree needing protection was not done due to other work priorities. He quoted Mr. BewersdoriTs statement that the Code was silent on designation of significant trees, lacking a mechanism or program to so designate them. He reiterated that clearly a major Plan objective was the protection of trees and natural areas. i Mr. Gavett contended that this property and the entire neighborhood contained significant trees which were an integral part of the community. He mentioned the argument that an application (with regards to tree mitigation and protection) did not have to demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because it complied with the Code which complied with the Plan. He held that this argument was in error because the Code was mute on the topic and clearly contradicted the Plan requirements. Mr. Gavett pointed out that in the tree cutting policies of Forest Grove, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Portland, this property would be subject to a tree mitigation plan. He mentioned that the Council could take judicial notice of ordinances of other planning authorities in the a ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 14 i ` 1 E / I E j ~I r Metro area. He held that Tigard should be obligated to use the same high standards to protect f natural resources. Mr. Gavett said that he did not expect this property to go undeveloped. He commented that in his work as an engineer he found solutions to people's problems that minimized the impact on the local community, protected the environment, and were compatible with local land uses. He said that he believed that that could be accomplished on this property but not with this proposal. i Mr. Gavett commented that this neighborhood of mature trees, large lots, well maintained and established homes was unique in Tigard. He asked the Council not to allow it to be diminished by poor planning and the ability to play fast and loose with the Code. He asked the Council to uphold the intention of the Comprehensive Plan. i , Councilor Moore asked what results did the neighbors expect to get from a mitigation plan. Ms. Gavett said that if the applicant's numbers were accurate, he had estimated that it would cost him $70,000. She presented a petition signed by all neighbors on SW 92"d Avenue supporting the I report. i > Tom Strong, 11465 SW 92"d Avenue, reiterated that the neighbors did not believe that this decision was based on proof by the applicant that his applicant fully complied with the { Comprehensive Plan. He spoke to the issue of maintaining quality of life, which was the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. He cited reasons why he believed that his quality of life would be 3 affected by this development. The neighbors have always thought of the subject parcel as part of _ the neighborhood, regardless of whether or not it was officially in the Dogwood Ridge subdivision. Allowing a development on this parcel that clearly did not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood diminished the quality of life for the neighbors. He cited the aerial photograph as evidence that the neighborhood was ringed by a significant stand of fir trees. Mr. Strong addressed the issue of safety as a part of quality of life. He mentioned that the 1 neighborhood children played on the narrow dead-end street, though not allowed to get too close to Greenburg Road. He said that he thought that the addition of three houses to the existing neighborhood would create a significant increase in traffic for the neighborhood, although it might not appear that way from a city-wide perspective. This would affect the kids walking down to catch the school bus. He held that the Comprehensive Plan provided the umbrella of protection that prohibited development from diminishing the quality of life. > Barbie Knauss, 11495 SW 92"d Avenue, stated that her lot was not part of Dogwood Ridge either but when they built on it 15 years, they were required to line up with the pre-existing access and to dedicate a portion of the frontage to the City. She asked why this property (directly across from her lot) was not required to do so. She asked how the neighborhood could acquire the additional five feet of right-of-way in the future, should this lot be approved with a misaligned right of way and the neighbors decide to form an LID to improve the road to the full 50 feet. She pointed out that the additional five foot of right-of-way could help improve the safety of the entrance which was curved. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 15 E i C- 1 i 1 i Ms. Knauss asked if it was not the normal practice of jurisdictions to clean up right-of-way misalignments as part of the approval process. She asked how it could be construed as fair to the rest of the street to not require consistent dedication. She asked if the City would vacate all the way up the street to align with the new standard for the street. Ms. Knauss read a letter from William Weber, 11285 SW 92"d Avenue, in which Mr. Weber addressed the two conflicting philosophies involved in this proposed development. They were i higher density housing units to accommodate growth without causing an expansion of the urban growth boundary, and the dependence of cities on their neighborhoods for quality of life and vitality of the city. He pointed out the City's commitment to its neighborhoods through its emphasis on citizen involvement. He spoke to SW 92"d Avenue between Greenburg and North Dakota as a neighborhood actively involved in the city. He contended that this new development would change their neighborhood and downgrade it which was not consistent with the City of Tigard's interests in preserving old and established neighborhoods. ff > Terry Smith, 11480 SW 92nd Avenue, submitted his testimony in writing with accompanying f materials. He declared that the City has not processed this application correctly because the City has not applied defined criteria to evaluate whether or not the development qualified as a treed area. He cited two petitions by the neighbors asserting that a large and unique stand of trees has i been observed on the subject property. He contended that the City, in processing this application as a minor land partition, was effectively saying that the tree stand did not exist. He argued that this failed as criteria because it did not serve to determine whether the trees existed or whether they were large or unique. Mr. Smith contended that the City promised the state and Tigard citizens that it would designate natural areas by definition, not by location, but it still lacked a definition or an instrument to do C so. Therefore the Code failed to implement the Plan, and the City could not legally implement this application until it provided the necessary definition. He said that minor land partition f ? development allowed harvesting of unlimited size parcels of trees without mitigation. Within one year, a subdivision application could be made. Mr. Smith requested in writing that the City provide the defining criteria for large or unique stands of trees. Then the City could process this application using that criteria to demonstrate that development was not occurring in a designated tree area. He contended that the City had to demonstrate that the subject parcel was not a treed area according the defining criteria. Mr. Smith spoke to the issue of the pole portion of a flag lot meeting the definition of a road or street. He contended that the City has not demonstrated that the definition of a minor land partition excluded or exempted the creation of an accessway under private ownership or that the pole portion of a flag lot did not meet the definition of a street or road. He held that the legal lot area included only the flag, not the pole. If a partition created a road or street, then it was not a minor partition. He said that the purpose of the pole was the same as the purpose of a road or street. He reiterated the different standards for driveways and accessways mentioned by Ms. Gavett. He argued that since a flag lot could not be legally created without creation of an accessway, it meant that flag lots had to be processed as major partitions. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 16 i 1 Mr. Smith requested an interpretation of the phrase "area or tract." He said that the City's actions indicated that the phrase meant only "parcels." He argued that this was contrary to the state definition. He asked if the staff conclusion that one person could own contiguous areas or tracts of land but did not have to include neighboring parcels in an application was a legally correct concept. He spoke to handling the phrase "area or tract" as the state intended in order to avoid unlawful partition. Mr. Smith spoke to the issue of the R-4.5 zone as an incorrect zoning designation of this area. He cited the large lot sizes, and a previous City Council's denial of an application to partition one of these parcels into a flag lot. He said that none of the neighbors were aware of when they participated in the Comprehensive Plan process, as indicated by staff, nor did staff provide a record of that involvement. He noted that the only other lot developed since the subdivision, Ms. Knauss' lot, developed with the same characteristics as the neighborhood. He said that the neighbors were realizing that R-4.5 zoning did not prohibit development from diminishing the character and property values of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that the zoning did not allow for homesite and substantial tree protection. He held that the City promised to allow only development that accomplished its purposes. Those purposes included insuring development commensurate with the physical characteristics of the neighborhood, promoting and protecting the neighbors' welfare, and prohibiting development that caused a diminishing of the quality of life. He spoke to R-3.5 zoning as allowing an _ appropriate level of development while preserving the neighborhood. He reiterated that R-4.5 zoning was a mistake, and requested that it be changed to R-3.5. . e Mr. Smith commented that the overlay drawing submitted by the applicant tonight had not been submitted before because no other document in the application showed the neighboring trees. He said that the neighbors felt that they could not rely on the verbal promises of a developer who would not live in the neighborhood. He asked the Council to make the requested interpretations and definitions, and to find that the application should not be processed as a minor partition. Councilor Rohlf asked if anyone in the neighborhood had approached the City regarding a significant tree designation prior to the discussion of this application. Mr. Smith said that the neighbors had not been aware until now what the impact could be. He explained that he did ask the director about a Council hearing on a significant tree designation after Mr. Downing withdrew his first application. A month and a half later, the director told him that he could submit an application. He pointed out that the neighbors tried to follow the Mayor's request to provide specific code and policies in addressing this situation. > Linda Eaton, 9625 SW Lewis Lane, owner of a rental property on SW 92nd Avenue, expressed her concern that a large walnut tree in the back yard along the fence would be damaged by this development. She said that she asked Mark Roberts what could be done to preserve her tree, and he told her not to worry at this time; if anything happened, she could sue the developer. She asked that the developer be required to do something to protect her tree. She suggested that the arborist not be employed by the developer. ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 -PAGE 17 a k i M ~J J J I I > Jack Frechette, 11300 SW 92"" Avenue, spoke to the neighborhood as a wonderful place to live with rich soil for growing things and a beautiful entrance with the trees along Greenburg. He questioned the diagnosis of the trees as diseased, commenting that he did not see any signs of rot on the roots of trees blown over by the windstorm. He submitted a letter from a gentleman who has lived in the neighborhood for 47 years. j THOSE NEITHER IN FAVOR NOR AGAINST 1 > Mark Mahon, 11310 SW 91" Court, East CIT facilitator, stated that while the East CIT did vote to support bringing this application up for review, the CIT did not take a stand the application. REBUTTAL ` David Smith said that the width of the flag pole for a flag lot was defined by the minimum 1 j required frontage on a street, and that the access drive had to fit within the pole. He cited the definition of public street access in CDC 18.108.040 as evidence that the access drive in the pole was not a public street because it connected to a public street. He argued that the purpose of the Code to protect natural areas was implemented in the Code through the procedures for legislative decisions (CDC 18.30). He reiterated that the City could not decide if this was a designated tree area within a quasi-judicial hearing. He argued that the purpose statement in the Comprehensive j Plan regarding the diminution of quality oflif was not in and of itself an approval criteria. He said that they intended to use Mr. Halstead as their arborist, noting his work for the City and well-established reputation. e. Council Questions Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, stated that their office reviewed this application and was satisfied that it was not a subdivision. He said that the subdivision argument was based upon a definition in the statutes that applied to the county plans. He said that they felt that the applicant had the better argument on the issue of whether or not the flag pole was a street. The pole was counted towards lot area, and the frontage measured based upon where the pole connected to the street. He commented that he knew of no jurisdiction that interpreted the pole portion of a flag lot as a street. i Councilor Rohlf asked if it was economically feasible for Mr. Downing to put in two lots instead of three. Mr. Smith said no, and mentioned the Metro 2040 plan for higher density. Councilor Rohlf asked about the suggestion to get a neutral arborist, mutually accepted by both parties, who would devise a tree plan more acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that if Mr. Downing was going to pay for the arborist, then Mr. Downing should get to pick the arborist. He reiterated that Mr. Halstead has worked for the City and had well-established credentials. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 18 { I ! I i J _J i I i I i 1 I I Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, cited the closure of the City's periodic review through the recent adoption of the Goal 5 Safe Harbors element into the Comprehensive Plan as evidence that the state found that the City's implementing ordinances for its Plan were consistent with state wide goals and guidelines, and implemented the Plan. He said that there was no further requirement for the City regarding the preservation or removal of trees other than what was adopted in the Code. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that this has been an exhaustive process for the neighbors, the I applicant, and the staff. He said that staff evaluated the numerous issues raised during the process, and verified the process and procedures with the City Attorney's office. He pointed out that the staff report was exhaustive on all issues raised tonight. He stated that the conclusions and findings in the staff report justified the decision made. i Councilor Rohlf asked what the impact of tree mitigation would be on this partition. Mr. i Bewersdorff said that there was no guarantee that the trees would be saved. He explained that the impact depended on the number of trees removed. He mentioned a tree mitigation plan that mitigated for trees removed for disease by payment of fees. Mr. Roberts said that the cost would be in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. He mentioned that mitigation did not z refer to diseased trees, and a special requirement would have to be included for this site. f Councilor Scheckla asked why there was no requirement to install a sidewalk from Greenburg Road to the development. Mr. Hendryx said that the City's normal practice was j not to require sidewalks where it would begin in the middle of a block, as in this case. He j mentioned that the applicant would sign a remonstrance for improvements. Mr. Monahan explained that City policy has changed regarding sidewalks. Councilor Scheckla spoke for i requiring a sidewalk, since three driveways would be added. He argued that the change of policy created inconsistency in sidewalk installations. He expressed concern that whoever bought the lot from Mr. Downing would pay for a sidewalk through a future LID, not the i developer. • 'I i G Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval with the findings in the staff report. h. Council Deliberation Councilor Rohlf said that he heard a willingness from the applicant to accept a condition that he make all efforts to preserve the trees to the largest degree possible. Mr. Bewersdorff said that was up to the Council. j > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 10:26 p.m. I > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m. 1{ ` CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 19 F , 7 l i i Councilor Rohlf commented that the tree ordinance had been a painful process for the City because of the high emotions on both sides: the rights of private individuals on their property versus the right of a community to have quality of life. He said that he was sympathetic to the neighborhood trying to preserve quality of life, and to the applicant trying to make use of his property. Councilor Rohlf complimented the neighborhood on an outstanding presentation but said that their legal arguments did not convince him. He stated that the best the Council could do was to condition the application to preserve as many trees as possible. He said that he wished they had better "teeth" for preserving the quality of iife, citing Bull Mountain as an example. He commented that people defined "quality of life" as different things. He reiterated that he thought that Mr. Downing had the better legal arguments, and that he had c no choice but to approve the application and to request a condition to preserve as many i trees as possible. ` Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Rohlf s remarks. He said that he had voted "no" on the motion to call this application up for review because he thought that it met all t the applicable criteria. He mentioned the excellence of the neighbors' presentation. He said that he still thought that the applicant met the criteria, and that he would approve it. E Councilor Scheckla spoke against approving the application. He said that doing so made it more difficult for that neighborhood (or any neighborhood in Tigard) to maintain its " quality. He said that he did not think it was attractive to the rest of the area. j i i Mayor Nicoli concurred with Councilor Rohlf s comments. He commended the neighborhood also for an excellent presentation. He complimented the applicant for his willingness to accept a condition regarding the trees. He suggested a condition that the l applicant agree to replant a four inch diameter tree somewhere on the site for any of the trees marked to be preserved on the overlay drawing which could not be saved for any reasons, be it disease or damage. Councilor Rohlf mentioned that the Council was invited to take judicial notice of other communities' tree ordinances. He said that if they did that, then they broke faith with those who helped the City craft their tree ordinance. If there was an issue with the tree i ordinance, then the community needed to go through the same process in order to deal with it. The Council discussed the Mayor's suggestion for four inch diameter trees to replace those marked for preservation but lost to damage or disease. The Mayor reiterated that he wanted a sizable tree put back in for each of the trees lost. He said that he understood that the applicant has already offered to put fencing around the trees to be saved during construction but he wanted a guarantee to the neighborhood that there would be a certain number of trees left on the site, no matter what happened during construction. Mr. iI Monahan restated the condition as "after the applicant makes every effort to save the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 20 a ~ i i f E designated trees, then, if the trees cannot be saved due to damage or disease, and are removed at a later time, then those trees will be replaced." The Council discussed whether this condition would run with the land. The Mayor said that he did not want the condition to run beyond the first property owner, The Council discussed the logistics of crafting the ordinance. Staff said that they had until November 5 under the 120 day-rule. Staff said that they could return in one week with a draft ordinance for Council review at the September workshop. In response to staff questions, Mayor Nicoli said that he did not want the applicant to submit a tree mitigation plan but to stick with the overlay drawing submitted this evening. He said that he was comfortable with W. Halstead's analysis on whether or not they could k. save a tree. He reiterated that he wanted an assurance that the applicant would make every effort to save the trees he has proposed saving, and if he could not, then he would replace them on the site in a location that Mr. Halstead determined allowed the best chance of i - j survival for the tree and that fit in with the future homes. The Council directed staff to craft the condition, send it to the City Attorney's office for review, and to the Council for approval next Tuesday. I Councilor Moore expressed concern that the overlay drawing used fictious footprints, and that the trees that could be saved might change with the actual footprints. Mr. Ramis said w that he understood the applicant to be volunteering to restrict his building envelope in order to save the trees. Mayor Nicoli said that using the actual footprints as an excuse to cut down one of the trees marked to be saved was unacceptable. E > Mayor Nicoli reopened the public hearing. Terry Smith said that if the right of way was extended to match the rest of the street, then the City would have control over the significant large tree that stood within that right of way. He spoke to the impact that large tree had on the entrance to the neighborhood. David Smith said that he did not disagree with Mr. Smith's comments. i. f > Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli continued the hearing to September 16 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that Terry Smith has asked that his request for an interpretation of the definition of significant trees and of an area or tract be considered next week. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the City had a request mechanism for interpretations of the Code. He asked if it was appropriate to circumvent this process during a quasi-judicial 1 hearing. Mr. Ramis said no, unless the interpretation was critical to the decision. He stated i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 21 ~ i l.~ r. - f 1 that these definitions were not critical to this decision because by approving the application, Council declared those issues as not relevant to the decision. 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS: NONE 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CANCELED 9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:03 p.m. j t Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder f r, City of Tigard in tt : 10~(~~~t7 1^adrn cathyrccm\970909.dx I ttP l i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 22 1 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8925 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 I 1 n Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 Sit Hall Blvd. SEP 0 9 1997 • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OFTIGARD Accounts Payable I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION f STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )s s. 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising v t{^ 6 Director, or his principal clerk, of th(.T-14ard=Tu l-a-t-in Tlmes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the City .pnnc-i 1 Businp--gg a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 011E successive and consecutive in the following issues: I September 4,1997 _ 1 Subscribed and sworn tc a me this ate, day of September, 1997 I[([( OFFICIAL SEAL - ROSIN A. St1R0ESS Notary P Ic f r Oregon *COMMISSION NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. i CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING I September 9 1997- 37GARCITY HALL- 6:30 TOWN HALL ' 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, OWN N HALL Study Meeting (Red Rock Creck Room) (6:30 PD' OREGON I 1 > Executive Session Business Meeting (Town Hall Room) (730 P.M.) 1 > Public Hearing: Council Review of Director's Decision: Minor Land Partition - MLP 97.0010 (92nd & Greenburg Road) > Consideration of Greenspaces Project List > Request for Public Comment: 4-Way Stop Sign at Burnham & Main TT8925 - Publish September 4, 1997. ~ E! COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Leg,, P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 Notice TT 8917 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising E C E I V E D • City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice SEP 0 2 1997 j 1-3125 SW Hall Blvd. CITY OF, TIGARD 1 • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit {c • Accounts Payable • II zed " AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION t.v STATE OF OREGON, )ss COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, Kathy Snyder _ being first duly swrorn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of th~1aard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at 1 c 3rd in the aforesaid county and state, that the a, tSLP Downing-92nd Avenue Partition a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the i entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: 7 August 28,1997 T-'• / / i. Subscribed and sworn to b re me this 28th day of nuaust, 1997 OFFICIAL SEAL e2q L l CJL~C ROSIN A. BURGESS Notary P is for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON *COMMISSION NO. 062071 - My Commission Expires: MV COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT - I i { . i i I The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Septem- ber 9, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council, or rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.30. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request, accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Ap- peals based on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a com- ment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further infor- mation is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Development Director or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING: COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION FOR: MINOR LAND PARTITION [MLP] 97.0010 DOWNING-92ND AVENUE PARTITION The applicant has requested approval to partition one (1) lot of ap- proximately 26,850 square feet into three Lois of approximately 7,570, 8,040 and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM IS135DC, Tax Lot 06701. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The _ purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low den- sity residential sites. TT8917 - Publish August 28, 1997. 9 ti9g7 OpNE : Se tember E VISITORS pGEN4p ITEM w. - hear from You pGENDp lease) oil wishes to through or less, P s The to Coun ooncerns ►Lirnited to Z' minutes enda item resolve Vol" sheet for listed a91at you first UYthe meeting. Thank You ropriate the start p CONTpCTE~ on the aPP the agenda. but asks Prior to please sign on Administrator p gTAp not on other issu conta t the City Please TOPIC staff • ~ i pDpRESS & PHONE ~a~ NAME, u` y 1 CS (t (1~I t k ~ i depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of .,-ne 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 ITEM NO. 4 DATE: September 9, 1997 PUBLIC COMMENT - STOP SIGNS AT MAIN & BURNHHAM STREETS i i E a I PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS 9 i - i i i - i i i i AGENDA ITEM NO. PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 5 , Ca ro ! y v~ ~o ~S ~ p 4• ~ S w C a-V.~"e r (v u r y ~ ~+-n 1z gq 3~`$ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. /eGrf..vv- w If y- 6le Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I i I 1 J, j Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. j j Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. S' i 1 , /~epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of i l ne 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. i AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: September 9, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION: FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92ND AVENUE PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same PO Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97223 A P REQUEST: To partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,570, 8,040 and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701. i APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS I AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 ' 7 PLEASE PRINT 'i Proponent - (S eakin In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and PhoiW No. DAV l > f3 s M IT H Kerr Ga llz- AT-rOf~N y t-O2 /-'PPLICAlL)T- 1143 5W gaNo 6CL-1 SW SA 0r7 - R ORG 0-ISO ~i 5ara(~ o(? a'f2Z3 'r~G~4►zD `k-l ~oL3 Name, Address an~dPhone}~o. Name, Address and Ph~ qne No. _y ~l~vi0 ~~IfLS ~ ll~s CTavett 11 ~1y5v S~~ - ~yc 114-35 Sw 92tic., Avt= ~7~~vCo:~~., J~ `~700~ 'i-iyavG, 02 9Z2Z3 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ~oHn '~'rRof-J~ ~ . l R ills- w{ 61 I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. fiGt~~r Elz 91223 y l Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 7 # erf -n 441 /V i } T Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. a 3 Name, Address and Phone No. Nam , Ad (Tress an Phone No. ftck Frc(Jl e-- - Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. j I : i Council Agenda Item For Agenda of (7) MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator DATE: September 2, 1997 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, September through November, 1997 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. I. { September 4 Thurs Special Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 9 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session ' Business Meeting r. *16 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *23 Toes Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 30 Tues Special Goal Setting Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 1 I October * 14 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *21 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 25 Sat Make A Difference in a Day - Volunteer Day *28 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting November 11 Tues Veteran's Day Holiday (City Offices Closed) *18 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *25 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 1 Study Session Business Meeting 27-28 Thurs - Fri Thanksgiving Holiday (City Offices Closed) is\adm\cathy\councUkccal.doc - 1 j~ i - Agenda Item No. ~ ~ w _ _-native Agenda Meeting Of c~Ll_ _ ' _ j'~ "h"ard Council +i+ -Businesss 1,121/1997_)Notksh0P Set Gonls Study 10/1411997 9123/1997-Businesss 913011997 - Session yn611997-wo~~snoP Study Session Brief cc on CPA g7.0011ZOA 97-004 Presentations Presentations onset gen a Bid Avcard -Traffic onset gen a SW No• Dakota (depend- . Award Tree Planting Cntrcl ing on recommendations Park Mstr Plan Cool" Task Force) Consultant Seleciton Merestone Dam - Etgr Sel. \Vorkshop Tepics Business Mectinfi Update: Housing Code Update - Planning Stu Discuss Fees Business Meeting scuss Engineering scholls Topics Upate: Washington utttmerlake WashiFerry Workshop Square Cl,f Facilitator (I hr) Award Tree Planting Cntrct Walnut Island Update-CD Code Rewrite Update 99W Update: Visioning Update: SW N.Dal' Council Goal Codc Council Goal studies Update: HousingUpdate -Planning Discuss En itreerine fees Council Goal Cnirct Bid Avvard. SW No. Dakota Award Trce planting council Goal park Mstr Plan - Update-CD Code Rewrite Consultant Selection i - i AGENDA ITEM # I FOR AGENDA OF September 9, 1997 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 4-Way Stop at Burnham and Main WW PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 4 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council will provide an opportunity for public comment on the 4-way stop installed at Burnham and Main. ~ t , STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council receive public comment on the 4-way stop installation to obtain preliminary indication of how the motoring public feels about it. Staff further recommends that the 4-way stop remain in 3 place for at least 3 months before a decision is made on whether or not the installation is to remain permanently. ' INFORMATION SUMMARY to intersection of Main Street with Burnham Street has increasingly been a traffic problem over the last few years. During peak traffic hours, left turning movements in and out of Burnham Street have been extremely i difficult. This problem is likewise experienced at the intersections of Main Street with Tigard Street and Commercial Street. Indications are that cut-through traffic is using Main Street as a bypass to Highway 99W creating traffic congestion in downtown Tigard. The temporary 4-way stops that had been installed during the j construction on Hall Boulevard provided a strong indication that permanent installation of an all-way stop in at least one intersection would ease the traffic congestion in downtown Tigard. To provide the side streets easier access to Main Street, a 4-way stop was installed during the third week of August at the intersection of Burnham and Main. The objectives of this 4-way stop are to allow Burnham Street traffic controlled access to Main Street, and to provide sufficient gaps in the traffic flow to allow easier access to Main Street from Tigard and Commercial Streets. Traffic backups on eastbound Main Street were experienced during the first day after installation. Since then, the backups have lessened appreciably, indicating that motorists are no longer viewing Main Street as an easy bypass to 99W. To provide a full trial period for the new 4-way stop installation, and to allow staff sufficient time to perform traffic studies at that area, the 4-way stop installation should remain in place for at least 3 months. This period will also provide staff the opportunity to make minor adjustments to the installation, if necessary. After that { period, further input from the public should be obtained. A full discussion of the public input and staff findings 1 should be conducted, and staff will request direction from Council on whether or not the installation should remain in place permanently. This trial period should likewise provide some indication if additional all-way stop sign installations may be necessary east of Burnham and Main. I 1 ~ • (6 . OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No action Signal System installation FISCAL NOTES There is no designated funding for this project. The installation of the curb was from the Engineering Department's budget, and the signs were manufactured and installed by the Public Works Department. 1: 1CITYWIDEZUMW-WAYSTP. DOC - I i. 1 a ~ `s: 1 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of 9/9/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 4 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK ` CITY ADMIN OK i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL What changes are needed to the city's official list of Greenspace projects ! and to the process used to implement these projects? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the action plan described in the attached staff report. This includes shifting more funds to the acquisition of land within two y previously approved Fanno Creek riparian areas. It also includes the identification of two Tualatin River riparian properties and a large Bull Mountain forest area. This identification of target areas rather than 0.1pecific parcels will eliminate the need to come back and amend the Geenspaces IGA whenever a specific transaction goes awry. Most important, it will help retain the city's negotiating power and will address concerns from property owners within the areas who do not wish to sell. To keep s things moving forward, staff recommends Council authorize staff to hire a contract firm to assist in conducting negotiations with property owners within target areas. Staff recommends Council reserve funds for half the cost of the Tualatin ! River pedestrian bridge design work. These funds will be reallocated to land acquisitions, if not needed. Staff recommends Council agree upon a list of projects at the 9/9 meeting. Council can choose to adopt all or portions of the staff recommendation as it sees fit. Because the IGA completion date is one year away, we recommend against further study. Acting now will allow implementation activities to proceed in a timely manner. Adopt the proposed interim resolution amending the IGA to identify the Tualatin River tracts. 71 INFORMATION SUMMARY i 1 At its regular 8/12/97 meeting, Council considered changes to the city's list of local share Greenspaces projects and took testimony from citizens wishing to nominate new natural area sites of interest to them or to support the re-consideration of previously identified sites. At the conclusion of the meeting, Council directed staff to research and 3 return to Council with information on the three new sites discussed at the meeting. This information is contained in the attached staff report. J Included also is basic data on two new projects put forward by citizens some days after the Council meeting. If desired, individual tours of any or all of the various sites can be arranged. i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternative actions are discussed in the staff report. They include „ reconsidering two previously identified land acquisitions, greenway trail s constr•ction, and assisting Tualatin River bridge design work. - FISCAL NOTES The city is eligible to receive $758,000 in Greenspaces funds. So far, the city has spent $125,000, leaving $633,000 in unspent funds. hCRYW DMUMIGRN2.SUM I~ - ~J _ I Staff Report on Greenspace Project Nominations At its regular 8/12/97 meeting, Council considered changes to the city's list of local share Greenspaces projects and took testimony from citizens wishing to nominate new natural area sites or to support the re-consideration of previously identified sites. At the conclusion of the meeting, Council directed staff to research and return to Council with information on the three new sites discussed at the meeting. This information is provided below. Included also is basic data on two new projects put forward by citizens some days after the Council meeting. Correspondence from the persons nominating these i latest sites together with maps of all five new sites is attached. I Before this review, a portion of the citizen testimony received at the 8/12 meeting is t addressed. j Project Selection Process a _ l At the meeting, a citizen commented that throughout the implementation of its Greenspaces program, the city has not followed a so-called scientific approach to identifying and evaluating potential Greenspaces projects. It was asserted that the city ,ash should have followed the professional park planning practice of ranking and picking potential projects based upon objective rating criteria. j In response to this comment, it is instructive to note that two years ago when the original list of recommended local projects was put together by an inter-departmental staff committee for public consideration, just such as approach was in fact followed. Formal J rating criteria and a point system were established and used to identify and prioritize JJ potential local projects. The criteria developed essentially were identical to those developed and used by Metro for identifying and ranking regionally significant projects. These criteria included such attributes as the quality of the site, unique natural features, size, degree of development threat, connectivity to other open spaces and parks, j opportunities for partnerships with other agencies, and so forth. l 1 The two key criteria were quality and development threat. To identify and evaluate the 1 i quality as well as the unique features, if any, of potential sites, several data sources were consulted. They included the city vacant land inventory, the city and country Goal 5 significant natural resource inventories, the two city-wide wetland and riparian area inventories, and the city's two forest inventories. As for the "scientific" status of these sources, we note that field investigations by wildlife biologists were use to identify city Goal 5 natural areas. The city's 1995 wetland inventory was one of the first in the state based on the DSL approved methodology for evaluating the quality of Oregon's wetland areas. A paper on the methodology developed for the Tigard natural forest inventories is scheduled to be presented at this year's national Natural Areas Association Conference. i Staff Report on Greenspace Project Nominations Page 1 ' i ' 1 As with Metro and its Greenspaces Advisory Committee and Councilors, its city counterparts, the Planning Commission and City Council, were not required to adopt the list of recommended projects forwarded by staff based only on these "professional planning" and "scientific" criteria. Because implementation of the Greenspaces program was subject to voter bond measure approval, the Metro staff, advisory committee, and Council also looked at factors that were not considered in the site evaluation criteria. These included such equity and stakeholder factors as geographic distribution and voter proximity. Likewise, in addition to the city's objective criteria, the city's implementation process has relied to a great extent on a public participation component. As for the substitute sites now under consideration, it is of interest that all the sites l recommended by staff as replacement projects have been independently identified by Metro, using its own rating system and selection process, as regionally significant projects. For instance, the city's two Fanno Creek corridor areas and two small Tualatin River replacement sites are located within the boundaries of areas identified by Metro as regionally significant trail corridors. The other recommended substitute site, the Bull 1 Mountain forest acreage, is located within an area identified by Metro in 1992 (based on 1989 inventory data) as a regionally significant large-acre site. This site was eliminated i when Metro's list of target projects was updated in 1994. This was done because the I intensity of development during the period had resulted in shrinking the size of the ® natural area below Metro's minimum acrrage criteria. Thus, it seems true to say in the case of these recommended local projects that if the city identification process is flawed, i{ tt the same must apply to Metro's process. As a final point, it appears that at least part of the Greenspace issue the individual raises l relates more to the city's acquisition parameters than to its project selection process. Greenspaces is a willing seller program. Except in highly unusual cases, the city's Greenspace IGA with Metro precludes the use of condemnation to acquire land. The I project of special interest to the citizen is in fact included in the city's original list of project priorities. Unfortunately, after a long negotiation process with the out-of-state owner, Council ultimately decided to forgo this project. This was because the cost was not supported by the property appraisal. This is a common situation the city and other park providers must deal with in completing Greenspace land acquisition transactions. How far above fair market value should the city pay for Greenspace properties? In the case of the property under discussion, Council reviewed this transaction and decided not to proceed. This is an exercise in Council judgment that is outside the rating and selection process. Proiect Nominations A. Fonner Street Property This site consists of two separately owned tax lots of 3.7 and 2.4 acres each. The site is heavily wooded and includes a gully. The understory appears to contain mostly native species. According to the owner, a spring fed wetland is located on the western parcel. I Staff Report on Greenspace Project Nominations Page 2 J ~l I The smaller parcel is a flag lot with the stem connecting to Fortner Street. The owner of this lot lives in Port Orchard, Washington. This owner has been contacted and is receptive to selling. The property currently is not on the market and the owner has not established an asking price. The tax assessed value is $75,600. The larger parcel is adjacent to the Hunter's Glen Subdivision and has been proposed for development. This parcel is a "C" shaped lot bordered by SW Fonner on two sides. The owner's planning consultant presently is checking whether the owner is receptive to selling the raw land for city Greenspace. As of this writing, this information was not available. The tax assessed value of the parcel is approximately $150,000. An annexation request for the larger parcel was approved by Council last month. The request was submitted in order to develop the property as a 14-lot subdivision in the city. ti From a public interest point of view, completion of the subdivision project would have two benefits. It would extend SW 116th through between Walnut and Fortner. This would significantly improve connectivity within this portion of the Walnut Island area. s Likewise, the project also would provide an important sewer extension to Fortner, where { many septic systems reportedly are close to failure. B. OEA This 8-acre, square shaped site is located in the Tigard Triangle between the OEA campus and 72nd Avenue. A gully runs diagonally through the property. A segment of Red rock creek flows in the gully and together with a narrow fringe area is classified as a wetland. i The site is covered by a mixed coniferous-deciduous stand of mature trees. The portion I of the lot bordering 72nd is an open field. Except for this portion, the majority of the land is sloping. f Over the past few weeks, the organization owning this property has been contacted by letter and hand delivered note, twice by phone, and twice by in-person visits. To date, no one with the organization has responded. During the recent Triangle design process, an organization representative indicated that the organization had unspecified plans for the future use of the site. It seems safe to assume the organization does not wish its property to be considered for Greenspaces. C. SW 69th and Baylor Street Property . . This approximately one-acre site is located at the comer of 69th and Baylor in the Tigard Triangle area. It is relatively flat and is covered by tall fir trees. The understory is blackberry and brush. The site includes three tax lots. The owner of the smallest lot, 5,000 feet square in all, has been contacted and is open to working with the city to preserve the site. The property currently is not listed for sale and the owner has not set an asking price. She recently has been approached by a buyer. The owner of the two other lots is a developer who owns several other properties within u and outside the Triangle. So far, this person has not responded to phone calls and Staff Report on Greenspace Project Nominations Page 3 i 1 i ry correspondence to his Portland office concerning this property. His secretary was contacted and had no information on the status of this property or the owner's potential interest in selling to the city. This information may be obtained by the date of the Council meeting. - r 1 D. Japanese International Baptist Church on Spruce Street s An e-mail nominating this site arrived on 8125. The e-mail refers to the undeveloped i portion of the "church" property. Property records show the two to three acre open space area located behind the church building actually is under three separate ownership's. Except for a drainageway and wetland located between the site and Hall Boulevard, the site is surrounded on four sides by development. Approximately half the undeveloped c area is flat and has been cleared. The remainder includes a swale surrounded by deciduous trees and brush. According to an adjacent owner, the swale is an off-site drainage facility for a nearby apartment project. The southern portion of the undeveloped area includes several mature pine trees and a small pastureland. I When contacted, a representative of the church indicated that the congregation has formed plans for developing the unused portion of the church property and, therefore, j does not wish its portion of the vacant area, the largest of the three lots making up the site, to be considered for Greenspaces acquisition. For this and accessibility reason, this does not appear to be a feasible site. E. Little Bull Mountain This 3.5-acre site has been nominated by a citizen. Correspondence received from this citizen is attached. The site consists of two parcels, with a single family house located on one of the parcels. The site is located on the southern slope of Little Bull Mountain and contains a dense stand of coniferous trees. It is located across 109th and east of the Little Bull Mountain t - Forest site, which is a Goal 5 identified significant resource area because of its outstanding scenic qualities. Although not part of the designated area, the nominated site appears to be identical in character to the goal 5 site. It also is contiguous to the 25-acre Erickson property, which is proposed for development. In February of this year the owners of the two lots under discussion contacted Metro with an offer to sell the land for Greenspace. The asking price at that time was $425,000. The current asking price is $400,000. This price does not include the value of the house, which is considered a tear down. Because the property is not located within an identified regional target area, Metro was not able to consider the property. However, since it potentially is eligible for local share funding, One of Metro's negotiators contacted city staff and offered to sign up the land subject to a life estate, if the city were interested. This information was forwarded to the Council-staff work group formed to considered potential park and greenspace land acquisitions. The work group reviewed the offer and g determined the property was not a priority. Metro subsequently was informed by letter 1 1••+ of the city's lack of interested in the property. i a Staff Report on Greenspace Project Nominations Page 4 ~ t I i Staff Recommendation Although more or different information may become available on some of the new sites nominated by citizens, it appears that four of these sites are infeasible because of unwilling sellers. The fifth previously was considered by a Council-staff work group and was determined not to be of interest at that time. Having completed the follow up work directed by Council, staff stands by its original recommendations for reprogramming the remaining Greenspaces funds. These i recommendations were outlined in last month's staff report, the pertinent portion of which is included as an attachment here. The recommended projects include large Fanno Creek and Bull Mountain target areas. These areas contain more acreage than the city u can afford to acquire. This will help retain the city's negotiating power and will address concerns from property owners within the areas who do not wish to sell. The t identification of areas also will eliminate the need to come back and amend the 1 Geenspaces IGA whenever a specific transaction goes awry. To keep things moving forward, staff recommends Council authorize staff to hire a contract firm to assist in conducting negotiations with property owners within target areas. Council oversight t will be preserved as before. Specific land deals negotiated within these target areas will be brought to council for approval to close transactions. 3 c Staff further recommends Council agree upon a list of projects at the 9/9 meeting. f Council can choose to adopt all or portions of the staff recommendation as it sees fit. i Because the IGA completion date is one year away, we recommend against further study. 1 Acting now will allow implementation activities to proceed in a timely manner. As an interim measure, staff also recommends Council adopt the attached resolution amending the IGA to identify the Tualatin River tracts. This will allow Greenspace dollars to be used to complete the purchase of these properties. The terms for the purchase were reviewed and approved by Council approximately two months ago. i/Irpn/dr/gm2.sub `J - Staff Report on Greenspace Project Nominations Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS site Budget (in dollars) Tualatin River Tracts 25,000 Fanno Creek Riparian Areas 291,000 Bull Mountain Forest Area 291,000 , Negotiation Services (included in above ' r Tualatin River Pedestrian Bridge Design 25,000 ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS Bond and 82nd Avenue 300,000 Forest Parcel above Cook Park 175,000 Grecnway Trail Construction FEASIBLE NEW PROJECTS 1 . Little Bull Mountain Site 400,000 Balance Available 633,000 fI ~ a z 1 Page 5 8/12/97 Greenspaces Staff Report Recommendations i In response to the need to identify new projects, staff recommends the following: (1) Tualatin River Properties: These are wo small wooded properties, under common ownership, located along the Tualatin River between Cook Park and the railroad tracks. The owner of the properties is receptive to selling. The purchase price is $25,000. ! (2) Fanno Creek Stream Corridor: As seen in the attached documents, the previous project list allocated $176,000 toward i the acquisition of land within the Fanno Creek greenway corridor. Staff recommends that this amount be increased to $316,500. These funds would be used to go after small i properties along the creek. Metro, using regional funds, would continue to pursue the large-acre properties. One such large-acre negotiation is in progress. (3) Bull Mountain Area: 1 As noted, a Council-staff work group looking inside the city identified only three small C properties, covering three acres in all, as feasible acquisition opportunities. In contrast, _ a many acquisition opportunities exist in the city's urban services area. The rationale for j targeting this area is that it is designated for future annexation into the city and includes large blocks of relatively pristine forest areas. The area as a whole also contains the headwaters of waterways that feed Summer and Fanno Creeks and the Tualatin River. j As its third recommendation, staff recommends the allocation of $316,500 toward the l acquisition of property in an area situated between the Bonneville Power lines and Sunrise Lane. This 47-acre area includes extensive forest cover. A ravine with a year round stream runs in a northerly direction through the middle of the area. The area was identified by the county as a top candidate during its Greenspaces site selection process. It is made up of multiple owners, most of whom expressed supported for the county's potential intentions. The county Greenspaces briefing paper described this site as of particular interest because it has a pre-existing trail system that follows a small creek from the top of Bull Mountain down to Mer for Road and, previous to recent developments, on to Scholls Ferry Road. In the future, this trail may act as part of a trail network connecting to other surrounding parks and neighborhoods. According to residents, people have been using this existing trail for many years. This has aided in the acceptance by local residents of its preservation as an official Greenspaces site. The county identified a broad range of land values within the area, ranging from $15,000 to $90,000 per acre. The specific area city staff recommends for purchase includes J l~ i e Page G I i ! property along the trailway and adjacent hillsides. This property has less development potential, and accordingly, could be expected to cost less. Depending on land costs and the success of landowner negotiations, the focus could be on acquiring the trail corridor or on acquiring the two trailheads. Recent correspondence from a trailhead landowner is attached. As with the Fanno Creek target areas, staff recommends that a broad area, rather than specific parcels, be identified. This will eliminate the need to come back and aniend the Greenspaces IGA whenever a specific transaction goes awry. This is an allowed strategy under the terms of the agreement. (4) Negotiation Services: To keep things moving forward, staff recommends Council authorize staff to hire a ` contract firm to assist in conducting negotiations with the owners of property within I approved target areas. This would allow the city to engage in a very focused acquisition 1 effort. Use of a portion of the Greenspace funds for this purpose is an allowed expense. Assuming Council authorizes the use of a contract firm, preference in the hiring of a consultant would be given to firms with experience in negotiating open space contracts. Depending on cost, multi-discipline firms with in-house site assessment, appraisal, and negotiation expertise could be given special consideration. { Alternative Projects Other potential options Council may wish to consider include: I (1) Old Sites: Reconsider the two sites previously abandoned as cost prohibitive. They include the forest parcel located above the Cook Park soccer fields and the Bond and 82nd Avenue parcel. As indicated in the attached landowner correspondence, both continue to be available. Many members of the South CIT are supportive of this approach. (2) Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge: In partnership with the City of Tualatin, consider allocating $50,000 or a different amount toward moving the proposed Tualatin River pedestrian bridge project from the concept plan to the design development phase. This work is a Greenspaces eligible activity. A letter from the City of Tualatin is attached. (3) Trail Construction: Consider allocating funds for trail construction and/or other Green space-related capital improvements. Although trail installation is an eligible activity, during the previous Greenspace site selection process, the CITs and Planning Commission expressed strong support for focusing on land acquisition. For this reason, staff recommends this as an option of last resort. t 'Ail IV 1 ? ~7 u 2 ~ ! 11 tilt 'Ic 1Ll li Y 16 IV - 1 _ -rt J 1 f !I New Greenspace Nominations 1 ~ I I F EAVERiON~ ti- I , t / rlI% soHO~~s / l GF C d / ~ , I r / ~ a `Q i t~ ~ I I C23 -71 JL~ C > / / i I ~ 0 ! I ((~jl I aI I ~ ' B~ND RO I _ - r 1 BEEF I ] ouwtan+ r~ C {e9 I r _ li I i i i I i j j 41197 gis\{xcjedsVeq~tsldG\dPa I c 1+ I ~ j m SE 1/4NW114SECTIUN 3 T2SRIWWM. 2S 1 3BD WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON m W SCALY• ~ • IO'' iiii f0[ r i! . d W >p .x e1 S W ` mo .am SWYBAMBI LNry tlOL +JyOn ' Y 2 W s N rl z7 W aJOo ' Z Z azo0 UWi em • 10n I I W 6900 izoo W ,e w 61 I 7 13 T 11 Q sl 4 Q 4 idi'Q si00 •T •••90', :I.•.... E ~r Y9fS 6x1 T iw' w00 11A 2 Ji:s 23-741 ~u.'• i l67o T ifoo , ' 10a _ ,i I ssos oG . noo _ u s .•Y - ~ acoo w Y xeN • - ~ lloo' zz 2 ' - tE i L~ x300 3 j n 33 ✓ ~ ~ l20C 6300 j ((Y JJ W - '1200 a li i 21 T J1 f 23-78. 'o V Q Oa0° 31~ ' 3•ro gK IT-PPItT 1100 " ••y 13 .L RILE " lag x _ vl 19 W ~ni ~ c SE[ ,1aP \ 'a I IJ 1 199 2200 zS 1 f. zs1 ,e: I.00 to 13 • G' ' 01-1 Opm( . ~e s e: ,z s , sw0 7 T^ ,,t 1i S-_ 1: 1211 xex00 1 r..- r. V1 EI A R ?vl E N Fes, s • CARM6ENmf '.'S REET4 •6l00 zmo x300 zG x100 'x0o . ooa x9ao xeoo xxoo '.~f n woa . Is by ~f ' 1le I 2 a z x i! e ; ~ seo0 ~ .s9oo ~.r~~rJJJ ! q Y ROHR Aal ESSNCNT f s[s o- w ro 3 :S °=OO. ~ wa S Ron r OTIER U¢ ffl "1 ~RiMT SW 1i _ LL 'ONNER 'STREETf ~.>,R~. TIGARD 2S 1 3 SD sic rxs !c ~ . f IF SEE MAP IS I S6D0 - 72nd. ° AVENUE - I I 1. i I I I I I I I I 1=- - u I le I~ o\ 3 el al . I - lo vi. ~ I II it \ I I _i_ V I i p I I ~ Iw ' I I \ II I' I H 1341- IGo °I, II al I I I lY N ( I s I [a I I ~ I " I ~ n I I I 6A199 Kljles SN OCK 8 J Pw;~i 1 .ASSESSMENT(, X FILMED 12/20/94 SE L14 SEW SECTION 36 TI S R I W WK& IS 136DD WASHINGTON CO " CAEGON SCALE I)IOO' ¢YC YV HAINS " T ATLAN .ocl. •Y ~ `~r1 9TIIEET TA • T~• ~ STREET I • ~ us~Y "is Z Z a t W a ,:I I u5: ; ~i u ) i r a Q a' xl = a t A • ~'r ! 1 29 Z m t~ n Me I m t :i,: z c 2 t l c 3 i s 19 "°nsT n i r ~aoo s I ex ¢ 1 Qw a3ol x 4 a t e Sr t»di. I.szr°:e 'nr I 1,< L w a cil¢o»ewrtH oe¢ol`.e t > a¢ a »as: Bson aoT»IS i_ L I 1 V l a w )S.W.» r BAYLOR»»•,» STREET! ? I a FaE F- . . . » t~ ' ~m,,,x nxoa ex ».ir',c • z. r Q Al~g c30 T BH Z 3 ate'. 6 7 el 3402 ezx W. t .r.c eno I • srx i P-.x t ° r».».m» S p~d• 7 t E } I0 a sW - • . zsoo p : c e I5 D; t a ! x t ~ ~ 33 s t " ls<1 STREEiw Do .e0 T 0. 3500 naa ? '{o' aaza'r as I°' W z .i 9 L. )S.W. CLINTON STREET) u_ r r r„ T T, T r ~ff~ 3 a llicT 'x 3. s a r - z"iv ! a r eH Y U xco t cl i nxc uc p~ caoL k • , . ' ' ».em ? .mac t rzK a x t e n apc { uj , 13 a + D t wnrmsau-lort .MSI s t e3x 115 } rec°n.u°Ti, T.00 e a t t ,rrju nn . , , T i F ° t, C I T i ]5 'J 9 Sw. T T T,T, ---/A]7A- DOUG A3 Tn mil a a n x. a .i c iu~'c`,nl HI ?;i,~ 3~ao I _ STNET . zA 14tl a a a a aTPI; I¢ m a a a ze r l E, L A C K A M A S ' )SW. DARTMOUTH STREET ) .d r I5„."I m..e »t»1 c o U N T Y It---~~ I ooucLAS i TIGARD I 20 I !S I I IB Yd I 17 lO $ DRIVE .JI rE za -A ~ f IS 136DD P Forwarded by: "Nancy Lof' <TIG3/NANCY> Forwarded to: TIG3/LIZ, TIG3/DUANE Date forwarded: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:06:00 PST Date sent: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:53:34 -0700 From: Pauline Bradley <pauline.e.bradley@tek.COM> Organization: Tektronix To: nancy@ci.tigard.or.us Subject: Greenspaces Program Suggestion Attention: Duane Roberts and Liz Newton There is an open space in Tigard behind 83rd Avenue and Steve Street, currently owned by the Japanese International Baptist Church, which would f be a wonderful space to preserve as a natural greenspace for the i _j community. There are several very large trees (firs & bull pine) ffff adjoining a designated wetland which is home to many species of birds. Unfortunately some of its natural beauty has already been distroyed, j including a very old oak and wild roses, but it's not too late. As you know this area of Tigard is very congested with freeways and commercial development. It would be wonderful to preserve this small ~s oasis of greenspace for the neighborhood. Pauline Bradley 11055 S.W. 83rd Tigard, OR 97223 620-4431 I i o Duane Roberts 1 Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:19:30 NWV4SWI/4 SECTION 36TIS RIW WM IS 136Ce \ W SAMTON CCUNTY OREGON V SCALE 1••100' S,e XQ ~ds I 111 v zee I~ 9 SW _ SPRUCE STREET 4400 W.T.7,01 z, z~a xm~ ma' ~'zm G i s ' •R..;"r... ws u• r iz a s• a i z c U ~ * ~ ° ° D6n~ ' ilz t j:= •`'w°n ~..vr 'xm xn w•• zo-~•'t. 5•{REET `4l > i„ .za ;zae`• SEE Fcwr f. a _ - ' I }TORN, °i ?z° • :..SWa•scz w a zz• :a c xxz 4 , •zf' zt _ p Q P a a`~ i c. .s O:x = ~/~I' a 4•• a.~ emu.. so STEVE. o STREET c w eao I I •a : ~ssx 91.! srca ~ • om ~ eom• zero +eoo aT0D ti° I~ i ¢ BPS it a I z a • i _p r•t Z TJ° '°a°° p~~ . i aim ' .1 •Am 1 ~y _t, ~`sewc til z. _ laoo . ".zzoe = areo ~e Iseel saeA w zr r ax Ll f f , a j I ,aeo N v s ~ L -•~we~j~ •:aoo a a Iz zc ltl Soo, z e av a U V / F xoo hl Izoc zaoo Q ~ So nco n p acv v rcoo u 11• > :..m aooo 0., < n szc IIAr zax~ttl ,x Ix z i smo IS I av I~I` > a~ao Too z zaoo . • Axo \ a L ~ azD L•: ~ 3 1 n 1~ Q = ~ e o ? ~ ~ leoo i z ' •z W00 L~ ' i_ 194' ..1 •a C~ a i 6°YJ"+ . U, I DD7 .~~a.. :aN 1• 3100 • fi1O0 9l00 9 - z • Ix 6~ • 0C0 If N ! > : • K • .ri Co- IS~UCNTfOAUAN° OIEP~i.4 Llc- ~ yf y; T "-•--'1s xow SW ~PFAFFLE ..„yrSTREETs s TIGARD ssc IS 1 36CS e I t. (vA Mayor Jim Nicoli and Tigard City Council: Sirs: Please consider the property on the south side of 109th and on the north side of 109th with the large trees (top of little Bull Mountain) ` 1 for Tigard green space. i I managed to negociate with Arbor Heights apartment developers to save the trees on the north of 109th, and I believe they would donate ! this area. The trees on the south are part of a life-tenacy estate and all ies concerned are anxious to see this beautiful fir forest preserved. , part 1 Because of the high density in this area, it seem i~~-that space for people and kids to be able to enjoy such a park-like area is increas- ingly important! And as soon as the Erickson forest is logged, these trees will be the only ones left on Little Bull Mountain, which was 'i designated by earlier commissions as a goal 5 area to be preserved. You have this opportunity to save what is left! i Sincerely, e Dalvenport 639-5637 i Contact Ramsey McPhillips for details about purchase of property. - - i ' I'IIAAUG 2 0 lggl s i NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTAVI0 T2S RIW W.M. r_9 1 10DA WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SCALE 1.. 100' -EE MAP I~r u,. .r. wnann nr - 11040 {I/ .-.t mw 200 100 J]JIC JWIc y i iee wrca~m n. 400 e / fl i IS L c 400 _ ' W e+ . W I SEE MAP 23 I IICB 500 S.W. Fi00DV1EW OR SEE MAP - I l V 2S I IODS 2-3-74 = t~J i S.NC KABLE ST. T A rl? 3 700 wn n..s a 2600u•.t w 11 - - - - - .40- 3100 3300 a 320, S 17 _ „ 2500 800 24 I ~ IB r• I.l7Ar. 2S 23 .2700 W / - ` 2400 i. 0 3500, l~AC - 3700 - = d 3100 YY Boo ~ 15 - N 26 3800 .f. Q 2 3~ 9 b ..r.. • Q .t q 23,0 z5 ze 3 o s000 zsoo . 4. zr ~ ¢ 3 21 zo 9•W y 4 . 2 00 I SEE MAP 13 fy 'yro~r X11 5 21IKC 4 f8t\ .ot S. W.' u' oNAEV . - S IigardhlcPhillips U rn. No. 97010017 f r - i i I III I I _ SUMMARY APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY ! LOCATED AT 1 15100 SW 1091h Avcnue 4 Tigard, Oregon 97218 for ll augcbcrg,Rucicr,Sionc,Gowcll,Frcdricks 620 East Fillh Street McMinnville, Oregon 97128 I as of j January 16, 1997 ' i by Ron Woodard 5995 SW Cougar Mtn. Rd. McMinnvillc, OR 97128 Ron Woodard ~ I ,ndependun, RON WOODARD F~~ Appr~s~r Real Estate Appraisal Service 5995 S. W. Cougar Mtn. Rd. McMinnville, OR 97128 Ph— (503) 171-1009 F Y (60.3) 471.1E5B , January 16, 1997 Mike McPhillips 13351 SW McPhillips Rd. McMinnville, Oregon 97128 RE: McPhillips/Davenport Estate r:. i ( I Dear Mike, , i I Per your request, I conducted a preliminary exterior and interior t inspection of: Tax Lot #2S110DA00300 & 400 15100 SW 109th Avenue Tigard, Oregon I further state that I have no interest in the subject property, other than this limited restricted summary appraisal report. The subject property is currently held as Life Estate, but for the purpose of this appraisal is it will be appraised as Fee Simple to determine fair market value. This inspection was for the purpose of estimating the market value of the above describe properties for Market Value is defined as: l J The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from I seller to buyer under conditions whereby (1) buyer and • seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or j creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone _ associated with the sale. \J I • BITE Tax Lot 2S110DA00300 contains 1.68+/- acres. Tax Lot 2S110DA00400 ; contains 1.61 acres. The subject sites are larger than typical single family residential sites in the neighborhood. Although the subject property has marketable timber, no value will be assigned, as it is considered personal property or cash crop. IMPROVEMENTS Tax Lot 2S110DA00300 is improved with an older single wide Manufactured style dwelling (Tax #MO0133419). This mobile dwelling is past the end of it's lifecycle and will be given no value in this report. 1 Tax lot 2SI10DA00400 is improved with a 72 year old Bungalow style single family residential dwelling. The subject dwelling has been remodeled and added on to throughout the years. The overall ti quality and condition of the dwelling is rated fair. ZONING The current zoning for the subject parcels is R-3.5. This zoning requires residential lots to have 10,000 square foot of land per residential dwelling. HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use is considered to be that use which will yield the greatest net return over a given period of time. In determining the subject's highest and best use, each potential use was tested to see whether it is physically possible, legally permissible, and financially feasible. The tests are generally applied in this sequence and any uses failing one of the tests is a-. eliminated from further consideration. Of the uses that remain, the one that is most profitable is selected as the highest and best use of the subject. The highest and best use of the subject sites is multi-family residential sites. The highest and best use of the subject parcels as improved, is multi-family residences. RECONCILIATION Contact was made with the City of Tigard's Planning and Land Use Department. There is a high possiblity of changing the zone on the subject parcels due to the high density zoning that surrounds the subject parcels. City Planners have stated that a R-12 (residential 12 units per G acre) zoning change could be possible by requesting and submitting a written proposal showing the plot and plans of the existing property to determine the increase of the zoning capacity. Using the Highest and Best Use Theory, the subject property will be valued as if zoned R-12. Due to the determination of the Highest and Best Use Theory, all existing improvements on the subject parcels will be given zero value in this report. { As a result of my inspection and a general survey of bare land sales in the subject's marketing area, it is my opinion that the value of the subject is in the range of: THREE HUNDRED NINTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($395,000.00) The value given in this report is contingent upon the subject property achieving a zone change of R-12 from the City of Tigard. I NOTICE OF USE RESTRICTIONS 1 This Limited Restricted Summary Appraisal Report is intended to be used exclusively for financial planning purposes, with the purpose of evaluating the subject's estimated market value to comply with the reporting requirements under standard Rule 2-2 (b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). t.: Again this is a limited restricted summary appraisal of value for residential non-complex property. This report was conducted under USPAP rule, which complies with the Departure Provision SR 1-4 (a), SR 1-4 (b, i, ii, iv, vi), SR 1-4 (c), and SR 1-4 (h), unless - otherwise noted. EVALUATION PROCESS An interior and exterior inspection of the subject property and a field inspection of the comparables used were made. Data was gathered and confirmed from (1) observations during the inspection, (2) public records and/or (3) Multiple Listing service information. Further details such as standards regarding the limited appraisal process and applicable certifications, assumptions and limiting conditions are dated and attached to this report. Sircerel Ron Woodard Appraiser, L000264 i i i 1 i ^ DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: Tm nwnl Mobeble Mke w,kh a MwwrN ahmk akq In . cwnPNX/n erM ' Open makN under eq cwMNkn• reaul.Ne to a lek eek. the buyw and x0er, each •dkq p-dent.. krwwnadpeebN , - sM e•swnlr,p IM Pkw h nd sfIMM W undue elimuh-. ImplMq h lnh tearWbn h M can mmelkx, of a eek • of • •I,eciaet deiv end the pe•sk,p of Ink Iron seller I. a+Ies lsMCr cwWNbw vnmeW '(1) b,rye, end seMr , - M• IWkeW mo1NWM: (2) bath pedke we weq hlormed d weq edrieed, •„d each sdk,p N wwl he coneMle- his - 1pmt WN k,lmnl; (J) s r esmeWe IN,w M egw~ed Id e.poaure In 11w Dire- mmkN: f•1 paYnwM M made In terms - • of cash h U.B, folk- w h terms of fher,cl.l err.rgemenie cwroereae tl end (5) tlw wke ,eweaente the - nwmW coneld.relbn IO Ih• MoplM •oW dullecled W sfwdW « creni.e Ikwnchg d enlee corwee.bna' grnnled I W arryone ..-.W -hthe snk. 'AdWelm.MS to the col-wredee mutt be nwde Id eDeclel w creel.. 1-1-V d Wee cwreeekns No edj.A-.• , s, nsce••ery Iw Ihoe. costa wnM:h ire -11, geld W sage- ee a -.11 of Iredlikn w law h • merkef arse, Ihe•e pool. r 'molly 41en11geWV akwe Ilw eeM pen owes cast- h Wh.s' en sske henm,cllw,e. sfwclel w _ eslM fMnc V W)ueimcM. a be mode to llw w-bk Mo 11 W uenpn,iwms In Ikurwing Iwma oI1dM W • Ihkd iwrlr M--1 knder Ihnl In nM .1-d, hvMrM h tiro Mdw,lY w I,nr,m,clkr,. Arty edlustmeM ' should nd De cekdeled nwchehkel donor rd ddier coal of u,e f me g w con Aone DW it,, domw amols,l of s,ry .dlwlmeM should --W, the mmkefe reedhn to the Bnandrp w ewwes•kms based m the STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION - , I CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: Toe erT><eleere eenukelkn gwl appears M N. epp-IW rePOrl h euDIM to the Io1kM„g cwMNbns: 1. The slrorekwr Wit hof t iols f« metfen of a kpal --lure 1111 effsCi either the wooedy bekp epwslsed y « IM Ink to q. The ep«Neer a umes 1.1 the lnk Is goad aid merkeleae sr W, therelMV. vAq nd rawer erry opN,kns sbM the Ink. The «opmtY Is -1t-1 m ths bests of n Wi,g lMm Iteponelbl. ovm.-hip. 2. 3. TM eD lw has a-mhr4 Ihv ev.n.bk flood rrwm Ihst •ra MoNtet by IM Federal EmmgencY WnepemeM C/ Aosn dn.r dst. •w.nw.l eM Is. holed h ths emWsA report wfwlhm IM eubl.cl eN• M kcslef in •n Ms,glfkf 8,-W Fkot H-d M... 0eceuee IM eW.1- Is nol a •urveyd, Iw or she makes ho guerentee•, e-ese w Implkd, 'ogwdft this TM eD hiet will not pM I.ellmw,Y or eovem In ewst because he or she mate on apww-l of ths M-dY In - pues(kn, Imlea• pocIrl. .nano-sht. to do sa have been made bsfwNwhd. 8 (f. The sl--h "I holed ki ttn .trv•=.:J r<v~•~ c'^• "•~`•INw,n pod, „n. nnedM re,whe. d-mis im, l~ r . . wseanq of h•zmdw• wades, lodo •ubslnnce., stc) observed doling IM Ih-lion o1 the •ubfecl wolwd, w Ihet hs « she became ' of durhg Iho -Drawl research k-k d h lo--kV IM a Asst Unts- elh-oss .Inlet I. h !M epwslW report, ths epMWem het m kno ,;s of m hltden or uwppesm cmdnbne of the woosM i s~s• emkdvmnlW c«Wgb w (1-Wkq the wesenua or hez.rdwa wsafee. IIAI •Wool.nce.. Ne.) thst -W f make ths wopeny i-e « kes wlu•WS, end hoe •unwd Ihnl Itw,. are m uch cw,dnkn• mM makes fAwrWae• d wartWba, egea.e w knplkd, regerdlrp 1M c-A- of the Mopefty. The etwreleer wk not be re•ponWbk for •M each oontgkvw tMl do .sill m for shy engi-e V w leelhg lhel might be roOW,ed to dhmvar _ wtwlh« such oondllbha eAsl. Uses- IM .pp-her is n01 • e,mmt h Iho flew d emkwv w hsisrde, tiro - app-lull rspwt must ml be cohsws,N es on smbmme w eeseeemeM of IM pmpmly. _ 7. TM epMehm otol.l d IM hlormelkN,, eslhwlea, end opinkan 1-t we, .swasead h Ihs sPwalW r.porl from _ _ rn IhN M or she eonelde- 10 De regede eM blleva• Them to pe 1- eM carracl. Ttw epweleer does not'' $ .es,mw -eomeiWlgY Iw the sonasc,, of each neon lhsl were fu hlshsd W other pa,lka. - 0. TM epwstsm wN „d d-l ss the conlmh of Itw ap Issi report -p, es Mo-t fro in the UMldm Slandmds If Prole•skx,el ApwelW Preclke. g. TM .-.I- hoe bests his or her epdeleel repot end wluetkn -W.ke, lw sh -.1sel IM1W is •ubfed to ullaleclwY corn w1oh, -pal-, « ens-Ibns m Ih. --otkh Ihel cwnpklkn of tM knwowmeme vAn is PMmr,.d h a workmenake manner. 10. The epw•Ieer must MoNde his w her Pk -11en consent betwa ths k ,rfcnsht .paclaet h ihs .pwelW rsparl un fhlrlaae the epprehel repwl (Including ear,ckwbrr• ebdl IM wopeM vela., Itw epprehefs idanlny j and wols.sbnst te.lgnstk,rn, ant references I. mry Mofe•elOrwi ep«elnel wgenlzstkns w IM 0rrr, with which the j pp W Is sssoowled) 1. aniw,e dhw Ihen the borrower. IN, mooch.- w n. s,pceeean erW assigns; IIw nx,Aa e I - I h•MSr, eonwnsnt.: -1-tonal • Wssl dasnlzNkna; ehY slate er ledereny epwovet It-ill Mt"-: or siv ,F WpMmh., apx,cy, « MI-mmnWM of tM U."" Biel- d erry .-1e « the Dlehlcl Or eokm,bh; -1 Ihst i Y _ tna Ie,Marfclkd mry m.trlbN. ths -P" aaecrlplbn .scum of the rer- " In d.l. coll-loon w s,11pg i •1S -4-0) wlthM hswp to oast- Ina sDwelnef• pe- -M,h -_N. Tlw epwelsefg when coneeM er,d •ppronl moat oho b WA-1 belwe the a lssl Oen be oorweyeC W s-s to IM publk hough eMm W- pubik reletkns, newt, asks, w dhn hwdle J Frsddk W. Form 139 60J Pepe 1 02 F•nde Mee Fwm 11%10 5.03 .I 3 i ~ I tigar<IMcPhillips rrpa 97010012 - APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: 'ha A".,.., _ I. 1 have re ll- the .,bled me- are. and here s<leclea a ml,Uk m of uvee '.teat sei<e of p-tlee noel - ' . .knller arts Moalma to 'he WAq- propen, In, cmMber.l ken M the enamnnrhon laity.,. eM vhe- made abler edluslrneM wlwn epq 1W. to haled the ket e<Ibn In lMa -n. of apnllksN n'lelbn II :1.-- roam In . canoe'... Mooney h aunerkr rlo, a 1- -.b.. than, IM eublea m-11. I hew made e rwgelhw eal-menl to relate Ilw wf"Mat ants. Mkt nl Ilw <anfar.ble arts, II a elonllknnl aem In a aennernhte -,hr h Mln- lo, a lea. l.va.ble Ilan hro aubf-A M 1 lave note neat.. adlualrnenl I. I...... IM edN.- ealee'k. of oomparateb. - 2. 1 have 1.- Info oonnperel4m the laclwa Ihl have an knnect value on N my doves-.1 of the nllmela of markat rape In IM .poet-, reood. 1 hew not b-noly wllhAeMeny nbNpceM Mlwmelbn Iron IM epgslwl report aril I believe, to 0e bell of my kroMwlal. that all aleleme.e erM Inlonmelbn M the ep wall report we ' ' Irua arts carts. I ateled In the eppsleel report my my own personal, unhlneed. end m.-Wont ...We. oplnkne, end owWlwbna, whkh are subject my to the cnmin0enl arts IImuov condillone aoeclflad M Ihle 1wm. . 1 hero ro peaeM w goapeclNe INaetl In IM goperly Ihl la llro sublet, to I.e repel, eM I trove n0 q.eerA - w proepeclM personal in,eat w tiles wlh respect to Iha pedklpaw. In the Ira -tioh 1 old nol been, either - panhpy w ownptaly. my ma"Is a- It, aelknw, of make, "a M the .IWralwi report an the fete, Cobh, J 100lon. w , hndkep. remlllel watw, w nelknel odgh of either the MoapeclM ownws w oceupenls of the aubje properly w of th --ml omen w oc mmis of the Monwhw, In the v Inny of the subject -,,ey. S. 1 hove no In-" e, conlemplahd future Inln<al In the aubfect goperty, Im,I neither V .anent at, INur. - employment nor my canpenwlkm Iw perfwmlrq INe apgeleel Is eonlingenl m the appal... value of the property, e. 1 wee not reeulred to report a gnlelennined value w dl-km In value that favors Iha a or the If— o, nn, rehhd pets. Ina amount of the value ..,,meta, the W1.1 nent of . apeclfle reaun. w Iha --a- o1 aubawt-I event In order to re " my own Pa W,on W-n, emotem'ant for mommkq the .,Whet..,. 1 old not f bee. Iha -eleal 'alga on • '-.led ml.mum vMUetbn, . epecllk velwllon, w Iha need to approve a -Inc mongeoa ben. 7. 1 pwfwmed Ihh -Waal In owllwmlly oath Ito Uniform Slenderda of Pfolwelonel AWWaw Prectloe that ware I70 old gomrAoMW by the A-1w,f Sineerda 0oard or 1h Amw- F-W- Im I that war. In 0- s rf IM atfeclM dale of thle .-W-1, 1 - neLrMly. I -*-Id- that m wllmala of . 'easel.. - Iw .-ta. In the open mark., h . co tor, _ the dMMebn of martel veke erq Iha ea Imel. 1 d-loped te oonW,I A with the mertelkq llme hehd In Iha nebhmI-1. ton of thlh, report, INew I heva othnwlee WWwJ M Iha racmclllalbn seclbn. 0. 1 have I-onnM tnwof wf the IMnbr ant eatnt, she a of the subject wetowty and the ..IwIw of N gopadlea 1 eelad u owm n.b.. In the eMe-, repel. 1 ,unto ,W!~ taw rolao ern, .-.nl w k- .draw ~ - ' wroo- In Iha ubjecl Improve WArt. m ,h sublod one, w m am/ lea Ina kmmeTats vl.nny of he .ublwt gopa'tY of ankh I a . erW have med. edluslmnd. for thew whnnaa w ;on. M nn, -,W. of the property whet to the eaten! thMr I had market evloenca to support them. 1 he,. Mao come w, abeN the e11M M the edvn e,-Won. m the mnkateMay of In. aubi-IIn-ty. I _ o. 1 ,wwon.M gepered an wrlehnlorle eM Wntone about the rent ..tale that ww et forth M the In-o eel repent. ' 11 1 reaw m .bNe . pr.rewbne, esM.lanu Iron wry noM . w W -.W. M the ledorm _ of IM I .P-tact or Iha MaPwetbn of the epwalwl report 1 have named aueh IMNMUM(s) erW dl bead the ,pedne lath - pntoned by them M the recmcllbtkn ,eclbn or Ihte epwahal mood. 1 e,Iry lh, any kgkAd W ao named h _ q r Mal to Pedwm Iha I..ks. 1 have not eMhortsed a- to make a chnpa to arty tam In the repot; Ihnelwe, If an un.ulhortred Cheap. h made to Iha Me,-, report, 1 was tska re lwponM.ley Iw e. < ~SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: If a supentswy aWatear .bred the emalow lepwt, he w ah _ cwhd old agree, that: I OkMy eupaMee the app.- a p eared the epMebal rend, have revlewwd the sWWaaI repot, .ww with the .talwronle nM pwloluakne of the .pprstan, agrw to be berets by the am.lwl. twill Mlomr - ram wl •I lough 7 M-a, and .m taking lull rwgenalMly for the .-waW and the w-waal repot. I ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 15100 SW 109th Avcnue Tignrdl~fegI, 97215 APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (my lfreryvlral): I slg,,.lwe: Na a: jt "d It- _ Dm. Stmed: 1/16/97 Dale fiprwd: ateleCMykelbn l' Stele Cedeluibn/, ~ - w 610. Lt.-.1: L000264 w 91ate Lkee I: _ SIM.: OR St.,.: Enw,*Iar MI. of CMakelkn w Lkenaa: 9/25/97 En,- Dale . Cenelc.llon d Lk.- ❑Oid OOtd Not Imp- Pmpeny Freddie Mx Fam a]6 603 Pao.2 of 2 FeaAe Maa Fam 10010 603 Ron Woodard - - I a _ a MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council _ FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager f DATE: September 9, 1997 SUBJECT: Greenspaces Program f a Councilor Paul Hunt is unable to attend tonight's Council meeting. He asked me to pass on to Council his feelings regarding two properties which are under consideration as Greenspaces. ' Councilor Hunt is very much against buying either the Bond Street property, (Gage property) or the land right above Cook Park. i WAM\jh j I W~MATWM7-1 dc I -T f ~ E ; j { cc) a3w { September 7, 1997 ~~nf~flil CITY OFTIGARD, {ii SEP 9 1997 City Council 171=t U~u" 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 To Tigard City Council: Last month I attended the monthly Council meeting as I was interested in the discussion with regard to green spaces in the city. Being very concerned and interested in the Gage property I was, of course, hoping to hear that you had finally made a decision, especially since residents of this area had contributed financially for the preservation of this little- bit of remaining green in Tigard. I was very impressed with the two representatives that spoke in behalf of the property and its surrounding residents. I was disappointed in the "no-action" attitude of the Council members and our mayor. Many of us try to remember and empathize with the Council's need to hear and act on numerous city matters; however, many of us are also getting weary with the number of unmade decisions, the number of decisions made in favor of over-building and crowding; poor decisions with regard to community welfare - at this very moment I'm thinking especially of your decision to forego an annual mosquito abatement spray; and sad i ( decisions regarding the overall beauty and environment ofTigard. it certainly is not a ° pleasant, welcoming community anymore. A final comment with regard to Tigard's reputation - it is heartbreaking to be in a group situation attended by individuals outside Tigard's parameters and to hear the negative comments regarding its general situation. We can't help but wonder who pays whom for ' the privilege of overdeveloping industrial parks, corporate areas, and unsightly apartment complexes. It was my impression that mayors and council members were elected to safeguard their communities, to work diligently for community improvement, and to feel concern for their constituents. It was the last series of mosquito bites that led to this letter. With infectious disease on the rise you certainly picked the wrong year to keep the winged marauders alive. Sincerely, C l . n D. H gan ~ 8020'SW Bond St. Tigard, OR 97224 I ~ I ~ t I J y ~r { CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON j RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION AMENDING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL ACQUISITION OR i ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL SHARE COMPONENT OF THE METRO OPEN SPACES GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE I WHEREAS, On May 19, 1995, the electors of Metro, a metropolitan service district, approved a ballot measure authorizing Metro to issue $135.6 i. million in bonds for open space, parks, trails, and streams (the "Measure"); and WHEREAS the Measure provided $25 million from bond proceeds be ~ expended by local parks providers for specified projects; and h' WHEREAS, the City is a local parks provider which has received approval 1 for funding for projects as specified by the Measure; and i ~ WHEREAS, the City and Metro entered into a contract to expend the pass- through funds to implement certain listed projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1. The City's project list, which was submitted to Metro in C;$ the spring of 1996, is hereby modified as set forth and attached as Exhibit "A". The modification is based on the following findings. i( A. The Council finds the acquisition of the Forest Area between ` 129th Avenue and Bull Mountain Road, identified as a partnership opportunity with Washington County, is infeasible. This is because the ! owners of the property rejected a City-County offer to purchase the property and instead accepted a significantly higher offer from a private firm wishing to subdivide and develop the property. The Council therefore wishes to remove this project from its project list and to add the acquisition of two vacant tracts of forest land, together totaling 2.25 acres, located along the Tualatin River downstream from Cook Park at a cost of $25,000 (Exhibit "B"). B. The Council finds that a public process identical to the process used to select the initial sites was used to recommend the modification. The City Council considered the modification at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997. C. The Council finds that the modification has been discussed with and received tentative approval from Mel Huie, Local Share Coordinator of Metro's Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department. RESOLUTION NO. 5S- Page 1 i now D. The Council acknowledges the modification to the list will not increase Metro's financial obligation under the existing intergovernmental agreement. i PASSED: This day of 1997. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard 'c i/citywide/res/grn.amd f. a 4 cn• RESOLUTION NO. 95 l Page 2 j AGENDA ITEM 1 FOR AGENDA OF: September 9. 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i ~ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: City Council Review of Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97-0010 - 92nd Avenue Site. j PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts 1*•AODEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK fs i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97-0010 filed by Mr. Miles Downing to partition an existing parcel of.60 acres into three lots of 7,750, 7,771 and 8,040 square feet? I STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the Conditions of Approval previously issued by the Director. INFORMATION SUMMARY 1 At their "August 6, 1997" East CIT Meeting the Downing Minor Land Partition 97-0010 was reviewed by the East 11 CIT. A majority of the attending members were neighboring residents. Of the six regularly attending members who voted five requested that the City ('--1l -view this item, ler the meeting the East CIT submitted a memorandum and attachment concerning findings they wish the City Council to adopt to deny and/or modify the previous Director's Decision to approve Minor Land Partition. The submittal argued that the application was improperly processed as a Minor Land Partition. Also it states that the applications fails to comply with the applicable Community Development Code standards and Comprehensive Plan policies. The statements provided within the East CIT submittal were arguments that have been developed at length by neighboring property owners. A memorandum is attached that responds to the statements. The complete submittal has also been attached. The Director approved Minor Land Partition 97-0010 subject to Conditions of Approval on "August 7, 1997". At I the "August 12, 1997" City Council Business Meeting, the Council moved to review the Director's Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010. Because the application complies with the Community Development Code's implementing standards the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The 120-day time limit expires November 5, 1997. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Approval of the application subject to revised Findings and Conditions of Approval. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact. I ATTACHMENT: Memorandum concerning East CIT Submittal East CIT Submittal Resolution 97- Director's Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010 i:`cigwide`sum`ccdo„nsum Mark R - 27•A,.g-97 - (7:53 AM) - i r-.., - - - 4 . Attachment 1 S CRY OF TIOARD Cammunity'Derdapment . SkapingABetwCam="ty MEMORANDUM CITY Of TIGARD, OREGON T0: City Council FROM: Mark Roberts DATE: September 9, 1997 SUBJECT: Response to information submitted concerning the Downing 92nd Avenue Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97-0010 1 ' s At the "August 12, 1997" City Council Meeting the City Council moved to call up for review the Director's Decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010. The Director approved this apptw heaat u t :on subject to cGitu .J:. tons on n 11...-. uyVBi 71, , ta^^ s7 _ _ ~ 37. 3 At the "August 12, 1997" City Council Meeting information was submitted from the East f CIT. This application was discussed at the August East CIT Meeting. The majority of those attending were residents of the area near the proposed partition site. However, five of the six regularly attending members who voted that night requested that the City Council call up this item. The submittal reviewed issues that have been raised by neighboring property owners. t' This information discussed four areas where the proposed Minor Land Partition did not meet the Community Development Code standards and Comprehensive Plan policies. Lastly the information requested that the City Council find that the Minor Land Partition does not meet the standards of the Community Development Code or implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A summary of the areas where errors were stated to have been made in the Director's Decision to approve this application is provided within this memorandum. An explanation as to why the Minor Land Partition has been found to comply with the approval criteria that has also been provided: 1. The application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition; The information stated that the proposed Minor Land Partition meets the definition of a Subdivision. The information provided the Development Code's definition of "Subdivide Land", Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 92.010(16) definition of "Subdivision" and the definition of "Tract" under ORS 215.010 (2). I k y ~ - i i "Subdivide land" - to divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership at the beginning of the year. (Section 18.26.030 of the Community Development Code). "Subdivision" - means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land subdivided. (ORS 215.010 (2)). "Tract" - means one or more contiguous lots or parcels under the same ownership. (ORS 215.010 (2)). The information went on to state that the proposal to partition the subject parcel into three new lots while retaining the contiguous parcel as a separate individual lot clearly meets the definition of a "subdivision" or "subdividing land" given above. The Minor Land Partition was stated to have met the definition of a subdivision because the two parcels have existed as contiguous units of land under single ownership at the beginning of the year. This interpretation was S based on the information contained within the applicant's narrative for the Minor Land Partition that clearly identified the property ownership as a single unit of land (if not a single legal lot) for 50 years. l The City Attorney found substantial legal evidence that the subject property was originally - created by deed. ORS 92.010 defines "Lot" as a unit of land that is created by a subdivision of land. The method of subdivision of the subject property was a recorded I i deed that was a legal method of lot creation. The fact that both contiguous properties E6 were owned by the same property owners since the 1940's does not mean that a Minor Land Partition or Subdivision application for part of the property ownership would be j i required to include both legal parcels. The applicable definitions only state that if the application includes one or more contiguous units of land that create four or more lots that E this meets the definition of a subdivision. The proposed Minor Land Partition is to divide one legal lot into three lots. The application did not include more than one unit of land or 1 legal lot(s), nor is the applicant required to include both units of land. For example this determination would mean that City wide if a developer owned two contiguous legal parcels of 10 acre each and wanted to subdivide one of them that both parcels would be required to be included in the land use application. The City Attorney also found that the definition of a tract found in ORS 215 is not applicable to this request because the provisions of ORS 215 provide for statewide Comprehensive County Planning requirements and as such are not applicable within an incorporated City jurisdiction. A related point was made that the Development Code defines the pole portion of a flag lot to meet the definition of a street. For this reason, it was argued that the J application should have been reviewed as a Major Land Partition. Major Land Partitions require the submittal of a tree mitigation plan. 1 i L~ The Community Development Code defines a "street or "road" as a public or private way that is created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, mining or agricultural purposes. The Community Development Director has made the interpretation that the flag portion of a legal lot is not a street because a flag lot is not created for street purposes, a flag lot is created to provide a separate legal building site. An interpretation that a flag pole is a street would mean that any driveway serving a residence is defined as a ~tr~ct. Because the area of a sireet is taken from the net lot area in determining compliance with minimum lot size standards, deducting the driveway area would mean that hundreds of lots City wide that had heretofore been considered to comply with the minimum lot size standard would become legal non-conforming in terms of compliance with minimum lot size standards. 2. The second argument that was made is that the adopted Community Development Code did not implement the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The stated basis of the error was the Development Code's implementation of Comprehensive Plan Volume II "Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies". Chapter 3 the Natural Features and Open Space section of this volume contains Policy 3.4.2 (b) which states that "Development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the "Planned Development" process to ~-Mi-iiilize the number of bees removed. j Implementation Strategy 4 related to this policy also requires that large or f unique stands of trees shall be protected through the "Planned Development" I and "Tree Removal" review process. During the adoption process of the Tree Removal standards the City Council took extensive public testimony over a period of several months. Because no clear consensus was reached during this testimony a task force was then formed to review proposed Community Development Code revisions on tree removal issues. The task force was made up of individuals with a broad range of perspectives. Through this process Minor _ Land Partitions were not included among larger scale development application types that require tree mitigation plans. Currently Major Land Partitions, Subdivisions, Site Development Reviews and Conditional Use Permits require tree mitigation plans. The City Council has not previously required this as a standard within the Community Development Code in part because of the development constraints inherent with the development of Minor Land Partition site's that are generally about one half acre in size and are not usually as heavily wooded as the Downing property. The submitted materials make the interpretation that because the City is considering a revision to the Community Development Code to require Minor Land Partition applicants to file a tree mitigation plan that the current adopted Community Development Code does not implement the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The reason Minor Land Partitions will be included in the requirement for tree mitigation in the newly revised code is that the ~J distinction between Major and Minor Land Partitions is being eliminated to coincide with previous revisions to State Statutes concerning partitioning. i J Through the adoption process of tree removal standards neither the Tree Task Force nor the City Council had required tree mitigation plans for Minor Land Partitions because the City the Comprehensive Plan Policy is specifically directed towards larger stands of trees n such as those found on larger acreage's that are proposed to be subdivided or developed for commercial or industrial uses. Three other issues were raised that the Minor Land Partition decision does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan. The first point was that because the proposed lots would range in size from 7,700 square feet to 8,000 square feet the r lots woiiiu be rniiGh ..211°: than the 18 ,800 square f.. +t , rox Gr.,o}n =ye. of the other existing lots within the Dogwood Ridge Subdivision. Also, it was stated that the partition failed to address traffic safety issues because SW 92nd Avenue is of substandard width. This was because SW 92nd Avenue is of 20 feet of paved width, and traffic will increase traffic by almost 20% on the street by adding three new homes to the 16 existing homes that use this portion of SW 92nd ' Avenue. The safety of children of walking to the school was also felt to be impacted j because of the addition of three new driveways starting at 135 feet north of the ` intersection of SW 92nd Avenue and SW Greenburg Road. Lastly, a point was made that the integrity of nearby trees will not be preserved by the complete removal of trees that buffer trees on neighboring properties. The minimum lot size of the properties underlying R-4.5 Zoning is 7,500 square feet. The j p.arid.n complies '-•IJ _ standard. The Cvmmuni 'h• Jc'v'cwlopmciin Code ♦ Co de does not uwith this . c ,y f contain any standards that require lot size averaging with adjoining properties. Given the x.r direction of the Metro 2040 Framework plan to require new development to provide a 80% of the maximum density allowed within a given residential area the City could also not add this type of requirement to the Community Development Code. Also, even if the City's Development Code had a provision requiring all treed site's to be developed under a l Planned Development this generally means that no minimum lot size standard would I apply. If 7,750 square foot lots are not felt to conform with the neighborhood's pre-existing i' subdivision pattern, it could be argued that an even smaller lot reviewed through the Planned Development would be less conforming. The intersection of SW 92nd Avenue and SW Greenburg Road is currently a controlled intersection with an existing stop sign. Because of the existing stop sign there is no evidence that the addition of three dwelling units would necessitate the provision of additional traffic safety measures. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits each new residence will be required to pay traffic impact fees to address City wide transportation improvement needs. Future property owners will also pay gas and property taxes that are also used for City wide transportation improvements. During the annual Capital Improvement Plan prioritization members of the East CIT have not identified a traffic safety issue with this intersection. The addition of three new residences is not expected to significantly impact level of service at this controlled intersection. Children living on this portion of SW 92nd Avenue already must observe and respond accordingly to traffic utilizing driveways onto SW 92nd Avenue. Upon reaching .1 SW Greenburg Road children and others must then always be aware of numerous bicyclists, personal and commercial vehicles, Tri-Met and School buses. The three I f i a s i additional proposed driveways will require the same type of traffic safety awareness as the existing driveways already require. As to the statement that tree removal will eliminate a needed buffer for adjoining trees the City's adopted tree removal standards do not apply to Minor Land Partitions. However, if the City had a requirement that removal of trees would not be allowed where it might affect the character or integrity of trees on adjoining properties this would in effect place a moratorium on new development of a site with wooded neighboring properties. Nearby trees on adjoining properties are generally always affected by removal of trees on adjoining properties. 3. The third issue that was raised stated that an error was made when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted because the R-4.5 Zoning that was i adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan allows 7,500 square foot lots. The zoning it was stated should have been R-3.5 that has a 10,000 square foot lot minimum. It was stated that this should be required in order to preserve the character of the Dogwood Neighborhood. The R-4.5 Zoning District Designation has been the established zoning designation for the j entire area west of SW 95th Avenue, north of SW Greenburg Road and east of SW 90th and SW Lomita Avenues. Existing parcels in this area vary in size Staff who worked on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1983 state that property owners in this area I were involved with its adoption. The "Dogwood Neighborhood" has not been specifically identified except through the subdivision plat name for 16 of the 18 lots on what is now ' called SW 92nd Avenue between SW Greenburg Road and SW North Dakota. However, three properties at both the northeast and northwest comers of SW Greenburg or, S:^1 y 92nd Avenue, including the subject property, were not included in the Dogwood j Subdivision. I j. 4. The fourth argument that was made concerning this application was that the required 5 feet of right-of-way dedication to provide a total of 45 feet of right- of-way was inadequate. This statement was made because currently a total f of 50 feet of right-of-width was dedicated as part of the Dogwood Ridge Subdivision. Currently SW 92nd Avenue is not improved to City standards. Along the subject R property's street frontage a total paved width of 18-20 feet is existing. The section of the street is also not currently improved with curb, gutter and sidewalks. However, other sections of SW 92nd Avenue appear to have a wider half street paved width. Also upon review of the Dogwood Ridge Subdivision plat the entire existing right-of-way section for what is now SW 92nd Avenue that is existing in this area was dedicated though the Dogwood Ridge Subdivision. The reason that the entire 50 feet of right-of-way width is not existing is because the subject property was not part of the Dogwood Ridge Subdivision. Based on a review of the existing right of-way the required additional five feet was found to be sufficient in this area to accommodate any future street improvements that may be constructed. At this time the City has no plan to construct additional street improvements however if this became a priority project through the Capital Improvement Program or if the property owners wished to participate in the contraction of additional street improvements through a Local Improvement District the maximum paved with of 32-feet r for a Local Street could be accommodated within the proposed 45 foot right-of-way. Any future curb, gutter and sidewalk can also be accommodated within this width. In 1995 the City adopted narrower Local Street standards in response to the Transportation Planning Rule. These standards allow for a range of Local Street right widths and design sections from 36-50 feet. Currently, the more heavily traveled Local Streets within the Applewood Subdivision was approved with a 45 foot right-of-way section. For these reasons the additional five feet of right-of-way was not required. Lastly, the submittal stated that under Section 18.32.250 states that the approval authority shall be based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The approval authority in their review may adopt the f following findings and conclusions: * contained in the staff report ` i * from a lower approval authority * submitted by any party, or j ' * its own findings and conclusions, Consideration may also be given to: 9 3 proof of a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map related to the property which is the 1 subiect of the development application; and * factual oral testimony or written statements from the parties. i Based on these standards the submittal concluded by stating that the City Council should require the proposed development to be correctly processed and have the development to be scaled back to avoid a diminution of property values and quality of life for residents on adjoining properties that would be caused by the proposed partition. This last portion of the information submittal is a request to adopt the submittal as findings for adding additional Conditions of Approval or denying Minor Land Partition 97-0010. As discussed within this memorandum staff and the City Attorney have found that the proposed Minor Land Partition complies with the standards of the Community Development Code which implements the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval of the partition application as it was previously approved. It is recommended that the City Council conclude that the application was correctly processed within the limitations of a Minor Land Partition and approve the proposal based on the findings contained within Directors Decision. A resolution to this effect has been J provided within the City Council packet. ixurytr✓markr/dwngcc.doc - I t f j i I n I i Attachment 2 i , A - 111 1 y i 1 1 To: City of Tigard Council From: East CIT Date: .-August 8, 1997 ~ I RE: Request for City Council to Review Director's Decision of MLP 97-0010 I The members of the East C IT, in support of the residents of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood, and homeowners of nearby properties are requesting that the City of Tigard Council call up the Director's Decision for a ;Minor Land Partition (;V1LP 97-0010) for - review. The Decision is to partition a parcel of land in Tigard, Oregon into three lots, as a Minor Land Partition. A review of the Decision by the City Council is necessary for the j following rcasons: • the application was incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition; • the applicant has failed to prove that the approved partitioning conforms to the l City's Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (Code); ~ • an error exists in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the designated zoning for i Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and the parcel approved for partitioning; and • The annlicant is not rerlifted to dedicate sufficient 'lwi-- u io iire City so that the Right-o&Way width of SW 92"d Ave. will be 50 feet in front of the subject parcel. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan and Code any development on the subject site should { not reduce the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of the City of Tigard, or create unsafe I{ conditions, and should be required to preserve scenic and natural resources. The proposed development will be an integral part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. Any approved partitioning and construction must be compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and not substantially alter the character of the grove of fir trees on the subject parcel. SUMMARY OF PARTI"CIONING PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to partition a 26.850 sq. ft. parcel located on SW 92nd wz , north of S%V Greenburg Road, into three lots. The lot is presently undeveloped and contains many trees which are part of a larger grove of mature Douglas fir trees. 'NIr. Miles Downing purchased the property, along with an adjacent parcel in May 1997, from dirs. Dorothy Shaw. Although the two parcels are considered to be separate legal lots, they have ahvaNs been sold under one deed from 1947 to 1997, and have been considered a single tax lot. -1- j The parcel which is to be partitioned contains 51 trees. Forty-two of the trees consist of I large mature Douglas Fir trees. Eighteen of the fir trees range in diameter from 24 to 42 inches. The fir trees are a significant natural feature of the Greenburg Road area of Tigard. They can be seen from all directions as the area is approached. I. ` The lots to be created by the applicant will become an integral part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood (See Figure 1). The neighborhood was developed nearly 50 years ago as a ' premier development in what was to become a part of Tigard. Dogwood Ridge consists of -a'olfvdat is c117 92nd a~u - - , cci1 iaigc luis lucaivi vu Ave_ north oY SW Greenburg Ruad. " - This portion of SW 92"d Ave. is presenth a quiet dead-end street which was built solely to provide access to homes in Dogwood Ridge. Fourteen of the 16 lots are 18.900 sq. ft. and i two lots are approximately 16,300 sq. ft. VFifteen of the lots presenth contain homes. An ' r. additional lot of apprositnatel• 10,900 sq. ft. is located adjacent to Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood on SW 92"d Ave. The homes in the Dogwood Ridge Negghbohood were built among the trees which form part of the grove on the subject parcel. The character and quality of Dogwood Ridge is unique not only to this part of Tigard but to the rest of the City as well. It is rare to find an entire street of older well-maintained homes on large lots where in-Fill development has not yet destroyed the character of the neighborhood. t The proposed development is to consist of a single lot located along S\\- 92"d Ave., with two flag lots located behind the first lot. Each flag lot is proposed to have a strip which will allow access from the flag portion of the lots to SAC 92nd Ave. The lots will range in size from 7,750 sq. ft. to 8,040 sq. ft. BASIS FOR REVIEW The City Council is bcin; requested to review the Director's Decision of \ILP 97-0010 for the reasons described below: f APPLICATION HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY PROCESSED AS A MINOR ULND PARTITION The application has been incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition for the reasons listed below. (Minor Land Partitions are the only type of development proposal which presently do not require the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan.) 1. THE PROPOSED LAND PARTITION MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION: The proposed land division meets the definition of a Subdivision under the Code and the Oregon State Statutes. Definitions: 1 I n G --Subdivide land" - to divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership at the beginning of the year. (Section 18 26.030 of the Code). ■ "Subdivision" means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land l subdivided (ORS 92.010 (16)). ■ "Tract" means one or more contiguous lots or parcels under the same ownership (ORS 215.010 (2))• The proposal to partition the subject parcel into three new lots wltile retaining the contiguous parcel as a separate individual lot clearly meets the definition of a -'subdivision" or "subdividing land" given above. The two parcels exist as contiguous units of land under I single ownership at the beginning of the year in which the application is being made to partition the land. Furthermore. the two parcels have been described under a single deed. have been under single ownership from 1917 to 1997, and have been combined as a single I j tat lot. Based on these facts. the two parcels have clearly been identified as a single unit of 4 1 land (if not a single legal lot) for 50 years. { 2. THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION WILL CONTAIN ' R0.1DS" OR "STREETS": 4{ _ 1 The City has approved the creation of flag lots which will contain two private accessways ~ meeting the definition of a private ''road" or "street" under both the Code and L'rc Oregon State Statutes. T1ta sole difference between whether or not an application should be considered as a Major or Minor Land Partition is whether or not a -street" or "road" is created. The sole difference in submittal requirements is the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan. t In the staff report written b}-.Ir. Mark Roberts on May 8, 1997, in response to the appeal of Mr. Dovyning's first development application for the subject parcel. Mr. Roberts wrote that if more than one lot is accessed by a flag pole. "in the Director's opinion. this type of access situation would then meet the current definition of street." However, it should be noted that thus is an opinion, and is not supported by the Code. In fact, this opinion contradicts the Code which defines a -road" or "street- as a public or private way created to provide ingress or egress to one or more lots. parcels. areas and a "private street" as an accessway which is under private ownership (Section 18.26.030). 3. THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION SHOL-LD BE REVIEWED UNDER THE PLANED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The Comprehensive Plan states that the Cit) shall require development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas to be reviewed through the Planned Development process to minimize the number of trees removed. However, the City. Code does not have a mechanism by which to designate "timbered or tree areas" and therefore is not requiring `J that such areas be developed as Planned Developments. y L~ i 1 THE DECISION DOES NOT CONTO2\t TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PL.41; ! Pursuant to Section 18.162.010 of the Code, the Cit} has failed to make the applicant prove ' that the proposed partition conforms to the Cites Comprehensive Plan. Part of the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to "maintain and improve the quality of life for residents by providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which contribute to the livabilit}' of the comrnurih To acN-zve this. one of the Irnplem.c.,.ation Siaiu-ics (No. i) of inn Comprehensive Plan is to "ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of large or unique stands of trees." The Code is failing to implement this in caws where "large and unique stands of trees" exist on undeveloped land which is to be partitioned as a Minor Land Partition. j The preamble to tite "tree cutting'' ordinance states that "the Council finds the proposed ordinance to satisfi• the Implementation Strategy No. -t of the Comprehensive Plan because the ordinance as amended will continue to protect large and unique stands of trees and major vegetation areas called for by that strategy." However, the '`tree cutting'' code is not always protective of "large or unique stands of trees on undeveloped land" during the development process because applications for Nlinor Land Partitions are one type of development proposal which are not presently required to prepare a tree cutting plan. XIr. i Dick Bewersdorff stated in a letter to the City Council. dated Jul)- 2. 1997 regarding the _ 1 Tree Code Standards that ".After passage of the new tree ordinance provision. there was an ~a intent to conduct a study to determine if there were unique trees or stand; of trees need: g protection. This has not been accomplished due to other work priorities." The Code is therefore failing to implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. ! Mr. Dick Bewersdorff has informed us that the City recognizes that the Code is failing to require Tree %litigation Plans in some cases where *large and unique stands of trees" exist. He told us that in the City is in the process of rewriting the Code. In the revised Code. the City will no longer make a distinction between Maior and XMinor Land Partitions. The division of land will fall under the eategora of a subdivision or a land partition. which is consistent with Oregon State statutes and definitions. The "tree cutting" portion of the code will be revised so that it states that applications for land partitions will be required to prepare to. and submit Tree vlitigation Plans. In the future, the Code will meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan to protect large and unique groves of trees during development. We believe that Mr. Downing should be required to prepare a Tree Mitigation Plan. The requirement of the Comprehensive Plan that "large and unique stands of trees be protected during the development process" would then be met, and safety and aesthetic concerns would be addressed. The introduction to the Comprehensive Plan also states that the purpose of the Plan is to "maintain and improve the existing quality of life for the residents." This is accomplished in part by -prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of Tigard." Tlie proposed partition will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood in several ways: f j 4 l~ y I r - T he new lots are proposed to be much smaller than existing lots and the new I homes will be built much closer to SW 92"d Ave. than existing homes. This gill affect the general character and open and spacious feel of the i t neighborhood. B - The proposed partition will increase traffic by almost 20 percent (3 new homes 16 existing homes). The increased traffic will create dangerous conditions 4 along the narrow entrance of SW 92"d Ave., which is less than 20 feet wide. Small children have to walk this section of road each week to the school-bus stop on SAV Greenburg Road. The Decision fails to address the impact of increased traffic. I - All trees are to be removed prior to construction affecting the character of the neighborhood which was built among a large grove of fir trees. Furthermore, the integrity of nearby trees on adjacent properties will be compromised by the 1 i complete removal of the buffer offered by the trees on the subject parcel. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE CODE The applicant has failed to prove that the proposed partitioning complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations as stated in Section 18.162.040 of the Code. ( The introduction to the Code states its objectives are to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the public (Section 18.020.010). The Code is to implement these goals in the following manner: • Ensure that the development of property within the City is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, and in general. to promote and protect the public health. safer-, convenience and welfare: • conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources: and • provide for review of ;hose uses which may have a detrimental impact on the corammity. We believe that the applicant has not proven that the development proposal will not be harmful to the residents for the following reasons: The proposed development will increase traffic at the narrow entrance to SW 92nd Ave. by almost 20 percent. The Decision fails to address the dangers and impacts of increased traffic. The applicant is not required to prepare a Tree `litigation Plan. Such a plan is critical to evaluate the effects of removimg all trees from the subiect parcel on trees located on adjacent parcels. r r ~ I The applicant's proposal is not commensurate with the physical characteristics of the surrounding area (e.g. fir trees will be removed which add to the uniqueness of the neighborhood and serve as a buffer to noise), as stipulated by the Code. AN ERROR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An error was made in the Comprehensive Plan which designated the zoning of Dogwood Ridge Neighborlood (as well as the subject parcel) to be R-4.5, which allows a minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. The zoning should be R-3.5 (which allows a minimum lot size of 10.000 sq. ft.) so that the character of the neighborhood can be preserved as intended b,, the original developers of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood, and so that any new development on undeveloped land will not adversely impact the neighborhood. A zoning designation of R-4.5 for Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood must be a mistake, because it will j allow in-fill development which will destroy the character of the neighborhood. This is in conflict with the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to prevent development which will cause a diminution to the existing quality of life for the residents of Tigard. RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH v 2 A t n'.h n,.'_w_- Ind As a statcu u-i t'lic D wto s Dccinu, a tiN 9- Ave. is a local i'esiduatial sheet that is pa:C.,, t but not improved to City standards. The Right-of-Way (ROW) width of the section of SIV I{f " i 92"d Ave. that is located in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood is 50 feet wide. The ROW width of the portion of SW 92"d Avenue that fronts the subject parcel is presently only 40 r feet wide. The Director's Decision states that the applicant will dedicate an additional five feet to the Cih-'s ROIL'. However, as can be seen in Figure 2, this dedication will create a ROW that will only be 45 feet wide along the frontage of the subject parcel. The edge of i the ROXV on the opposite side of the street is presently in alignment with the ed2c of the ROIL in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. This parcel was developed at a later date than j Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and the homeowner was required to dedicate a portion of his property so that the edge of the ROW would be in alignment with the rest of SAC 92"d Ave. It would not be appropriate to ask this homeowner to dedicate an additional five feet to the City's ROW to create an ROT width of 50 feet. since the edge of the ROIL is in alignment with the rest of the street. Therefore, the applicant should be required to dedicate a total of 10 feet to the City so that the ROW width will be 50 feet, which meets Code requirements for a local residential street and is consistent with the remainder of the street. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION PROCESS OF THE APPROVAL AttTHORIT 17 f The Code (Section 18.32.250) describes the decision process of the Approval Authority i and states that the decision shall be based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the relevant approval standards j t in the Code. The Approval Authority in their review may adopt the findings and conclusions: i , i r t I • contained in the staff report, e from a lower approval authority, e submitted by anv_ panty, or - • its own findings and conclusions. f j. , Consideration may also be given to: ` • proof of a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application: and I E- • factual oral testimony or written statements from the parties. CONCLUSIONS XVe are requesting that the City Council review the Director's Decision of XILP 97-0010 to ensure that the application is processed correctly and that any proposed development does not cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of the City of Ti-ard. - or create unsafe conditions. Any proposed partitioning should be scaled back so that it is compatible with the character of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and does not substantially alter the character of the grove of fir trees on the subject parcel. Imposing conditions on the i Director's Decision which would cause the applicant to develop the subject lot at a lower density than proposed. should not be considered a "takings issue." Instead. it is a matter of t requesting the applicant to address and mitigate harmful impacts to be caused by the proposed partitioning on the surrounding neighborhood. s ` U j i 1 /ti i I ~ ® • i o ® c3j DAKOTA I I I i I I I ~I , LES Q LOMITA TAN I is C vicinity map N FIGURE 1 II11I LDC-A-rION OF `i DGWOOD KIDGE • INDICATES FLAG LOT a e NE I G H (30RHOOD A tv p Sv gJEc-r s PA2cEL ' J I r. Attachment 3 S` f i i i ~N 9 Attachment 4 1 t. l _ - IU CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON G RESOLUTION NO. 97- 1 A RESO UTION OF HE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE DIRECTOR'S FINDINGS AND I CONDITI S OF APPROVAL CONCERNING MINOR LAND PARTITION 97-0010 FILED BY MR. MILES DO ING TO PARTITION ONE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS. 1 WHEREAS, on J o~nne 25, 1997 the appiicatn Mr. Miles Downing did file an application for Minor Land ` I Partition 97-0010 to\partition an existing .60 acre parcel into three parcels of approximately 7,750 , 7,771 and 8,040 square feet. WHEREAS, on August , 1997 the Director issued a decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010 subject to Conditions of A proval. i WHEREAS, on August 12, 997 the City Council called up the Director's decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010 for fort er review. WHEREAS, on September 9, 1 7 the City Council conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which j Public Testimony was taken an d the pplicable approval standards were reviewed. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV P by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: the City of Tigard, Oregon ereby determines that Minor Land Partition 97-0010 complies with the applicable approval standards and a roves the request subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval issued by the Director. 1 PASSED: This day of 1997- Ma r - City of Tigard ATTEST: \ City Recorder - City of Tigard i:k igividckcdo%,m.ms RESOLUTION NO.97-_ Page 1 I i, ~~y HOUSE ~,ti•• W YARD w SHED YARD o SHED ~ _ nvxiw • ~ ~ ~ w? ' ~ ~R ~ _ e°~ ~ ,~r~ . K ~ ~ }^p . T ~ w 903] N ♦Yt' 2 ,Y`,. • ~ ~ 90]9 V ~ .JK B f V Pt ~~f./~ ~,r gpoo ,.~,a~j,,3„~ t,• c YARD y, ~ ❑SHED S d ~ i tip ~ SH d S ~S~ ~ ~ w ~ ~sh. ~i . ,gin` 2 rya c V U ' y; (V/~ G Ech; h~~~ q~ 9/~rla7 os,ogre~ Tfe~m ~•Cv . Agenda # 6 1 of 4 ' ' [f this notice appavs clearer ;han the ~ ' AUG 2 41998 ; .a :document, the document is of m tcgin~l ,t~;fiity • MICROFILMED tl 1[~~ rrrli - 1 a^-2'~:..#:..: .1,=.._. _ ~ "t '11-• 12 ~ q,r R . ":95!;' ~ Ii T';: 11 tl~;"~~: _ _ _ -`=~2._-.. p 1111N11111111~8111fN[1111{~(81111{~]({Ilflff Illl{Illi~llil~lllllllllll{IIIIII11111101111(f)!IIIIIIIIlI1(IIIIIIIII1118111Iff(Illllll{IItlIIII~ilUliti~lUIIIIIIl111111fIlIllilllllllillil( (m~ uu mtTiiiifiuilt~u~u~uuTi(Il{ - 1 ~_Op IYZ►I_ G01 •ti~~\y~Z t'~ ~'[Z OL ( 6i6 6i6 6'i6 ' ~ M,K eON LL ~ ' ~ 1 _ _ I n J I ~J ~ J ' 1 .J ~ I I I `~1 ~J ~ ~ ~ n ~ h O O O N ~ ~ O VI ~p~ O O I O n Lln O Q N M - _ O M r 1= 091 M,9a eo c (V tol O N ~ : . o „ -v~ e +yl ~y 09'19 0929 09'19 04'15 OS'L9 OB'Z9 N I-~ IL19 ti o ! s f -I Al ,S o0 6 - Q O ¢F 8 'u F~ ,'-,J 1 ~ O I n hl N 0) (/~1 CC)) 1 Q' o lJ ,J M1 10'011 3 ~ "1 ro n m r I~ n m m v 0 A ti m to NO._n N m Iry ~ d'ro ~ ~ 00 n0 a_ 1QQ -O ~ n p rl - p n O r:0 mo O t'K o/ ~ 6't6 6'i8 6•£t 1' Op n 0 - O - to m_ N m m ip b O ~ O ~ N ~ N N I6 7 ~£I eo s col 9 I v9 - Tt ,Y C►'Lf OS'L9 0929 09'19 09'19 ` Fyly ' ~ / n 1,~ nog 16 p O 90 ,7?~ 9'6t 901 I l l rrej N 1~~~ _ ~ 90 l ~I L£'L£ 0£'LS 0£'19 O£'L9 0£'LS 1 N N o o ~ ` a,.~ mr< Fg. h9 ~ £.D, < 3nN311b ~S16 ~ M'S -1 O n F~\ ~ V n ~r,,,,JJ tt iA ~~~JJ 1.J. + ...r ~ ~'l ii A N A = O 01 O7 ro O h 3n n O O Q Zo '1 :.1 (.J. AJ f ~.J , _ - ~ _ I ai0- ro O O O O O m. .p ~ 0) ~ ~ ~QF O ~ N N rv =0 O O O O ~ o= =tn d N b; z0 F= m O - 01 e1 m' ~ m h O 0) _ m N - _ _ _ _ _ O f ' - - - n 'LI 'IVILINI g Itli l I,DI e0 N 0£29 0£'LS 0£2S 0£'LS 0£'LS 1£'Z9 011 N100t t 9t St C6 r,OreOt I I,0►°0 f NLOOt N100t fi it • = I Ct = C6 u ~ AV,LO °0 r~ I ~ l _ ~ ~ ~ a ~ . ~ I,, A n m • Row wlnTr{ ~ f= IO w e Ih ~ d' o M : N e ~ a 01 3 m n- a ~I O - - - $ O ~ :m W . g s o 0 8 8 o g dN' v I c m ao h ~ W to t7 M. N I ~ T2il ~ CI 1 C6 Ct 96 S6 C6 /6 / r 3nN3nd P~Z6 'M'S a , ° ~ Dry t 70I 16 96 9t g6 96 98 96 ~ I/'C 11 ° M,IOeO t 1 r ~ a Q '~i' FIGUQE 2 ~ I r ~ p ~ + m P ~sr~owrNG- ~I ~J ~ J ~ ti ~ P ~~T ~ 11 ~t ~ ~r ~ a ~ A ~ A ~ n ~ m h v ~ Or,►t N ~ ROW WIDt}{ oN Iw N + w s $ $W 92ND qVE. ~ ~ _ ' ~ A ~ ~ e _ tY ~u t el - - ~ O A' Q O w ~ ~ O O - 8 V e ~'ZO °II p Q C9109197 M V 2I ~ d• V' d. a it Agenda#6 ~ ~ ~ I it \ ~ = h ,b d' 2 of 4 _ tr ~ I ~ _ _ . ' ~ If this notice Nppaars clearer than the ~ AUG 2 1998 ~ .a :document, the document is of marginal ,uaiih' ~ MICROFILMED a L! It i ItE t. . INCN''MADE aI CHINk ~ - __.c . 1 e•,t::.:.3~: 4.~~.... >1-'_-= t-; '1 ll~:-: 1T .lit?'. li ~'15.:~- if Y.i" if lt.'_"29: ti,_ _3 79. ~ . dlul~uuluiirlm6~miildrulil~Il Uiuru I i~ iii qq1 Iir _ , - In ~ n~ I - I u U imt~ ~IIIIIIIIIIII~III III~I((III(11(IIIIIIMiIIIIIIIIf1IIIlI~Ifllllill(If~llWllll(ilUUlt~IIIIgII~IIIIIIIllIII1fIllAllllf( i r 1 m ml~Iiiliu~u u~ u~~~u~-mliu l - - s _ H _ ~ _ J, .,.yJl ~ g ..~,.;....,7• ~ ',,"-:vr ,F• m-g '.x~r 'ae~'. ;.m.... - ,-yu~,: ..rr~,.~•~p*,,~ .T.,-~•"•zw,_ .';~aT - !.'1 "~a" ~ ~s~"s,;a',~.~i sr,~.~ _ _..a;?'~.~, -~u,:xt . .wW,.q a~;.:; z "tt.'a;: 4'•~~irr , . `i^'r1 W~`. '''fir ,~,8 F .R f '~'6r ~,aw~ , r`"H? ( .(`scsn,>'.x~ . F. tt M } e.Y ,MrY d •1.rpv 9 A. - :.~r r. ~ _ •s~. x'q • ~•:1 r ~ ~ %°a~,'n~l w !'+X'/•.w...•...arw~. { Kr•.-. n.. c~.tR<" t~M te{ii rt ,,p~ryry 'C a ~ t~ri, e 1 )p ~~7,{,~{/~;} t~~ N'~^nn :{}~j{ . ~ ~lw i' if''Y,~° f ~•'~t ''A'} "~`G' G4 .akLk•a~WY'L~' ~ ,ttl,'~ ',ai~'tAaild~U'i ZRR1132kYM5~'i,., Al .oi. ! + ~ c.nr ~ . 3.y . ~ y , "w ~ x Y: ~..(q u w,..•_,..~,. i C4' .,r.. , S 4 ° I t f~~~. ~ ,s ;'K ~g~ ;x; . .;af ~ ~w: _F~ ,.t":,,_rtiwt [ ~ .m~_`i_ `Y,~i sy r :i' ~~y, ~i''?,: y vt4;µ 5~yr 5Y. ~hjc. r+,~.'i::T, 't„,:., a(~., r!'9~ri.".'S ^'[~.eik~SY ~R.~r"~'-vrn - N".~ R3 ~ ~ . R~ .di-x~s `t - .;'fib ;^'7 ~ M R:~- r~'~C~~ ~'i.. r,~ `;,x ",'~a.-`-.~ ~~•~h~d_' i ' v r_~ v ,-a, .u;~"~,~~ z.-" i~d;•.~ ~~>''~,~Ft.,;'`t,~',~k _f iuS..M-__.a.:... r-"`a: ~ _ ~ ' ~~}'~~L~':; '~.:":~b:y ! i~i9y, Indla. t. + G'~~,ur ?~`F-.=1'SG .S. iJrv:i'rf3~ a v~:r• ~R - r:~ "a'r++✓ XsHat. 'J ~'S E 7a; • -"1 _ ' 1~ . 'A's' ~ oii ~'~r'::; r'?`"..v...: °'N° - r k.: - Ng,; -~%,SW- ;a , .-5 a~ ! '~:d.; , S i . rl t I i ! . t - ai . =~,r r~ s~"_ ~ I • 1 ~y.;~'.: ~ti 1 41 ~ ~ + i. I !i „Y ...~%a.,_ _b'iv.~f.^ w~,e~;;,-' - r I~ ~,4 P f, E ~i7.t ,y, ' , i~'!• .9 m~ I it s AA~ _Y .-.t..':•~;~wa.. . ' ' b .y ~ yx . uc. ~y`n'1 _ : ~ ~r d 'Q :m .,.~C.,ra'Y.~o`i~-a+n ".r~ } ,t,~ '~„~a' - C5- ~:?p ~ t:,,M' - t r _ t,•~ d 'F', } ,rte J, :,C'~':d .x.-~~'.ti` ~ •~545,:.w: a .«>~S . 1 ~ . u" ~ •'a ^ r ti A ~ ~ f~ A ~ Luk3,y ~ . ±r ; g 1' yam, '#e.. F # FvY :i , ~ .,G, 4";,F I::lci 3K..:, -x --~`af3: - 'p 'vn ~ ~ .m '`~y~,_y~.~f f t •~.m1 1 ..i9 ~ '~i'.1 ~ is' -v, {~,e_,, ti.,~. ~y'-4sn'"'~, ,..A` `v..w...y,~.~` - ~~'~~°..::,.''~.:-'_r:Z.r ir'ffi Fi,y"a - ~ F d ` a>i7. •f ~t, .y ..pd~s,'M ^'t ~ 'mi'l s8:a1i~.'~>., 3 .1.- o .i4`.`a{ ~7 ..ly'; 1 ,j ,+.,.:Fw. ,i,~ 4:. ~ Ty,' us., d.°k'• . `•k"` ..~ib1t. r 9 pcr±,+.v.'me,> +aN'" wrfd-C" ~ - qi.:m+ ~ :y., wr"Yl?.~. "r`~ ' L,,,'.iw f ' . • ~ ?t - a`Ydt .~a , i.iw15.., :'+."''~k„'~ w*u,!('ry+'!' s°'r ry, ..r,a .rpY,.~a.' -M1~'. I. Y L;. + ~`~uR'..5t a^ ,~cf.' ! °>.7i1.;~ • +.+a~r.,.:r';:.. :w`,>y'x'` Y>+ya '~a•eY. { ~ Y~'+y .'✓4 `+`.~k y > P e,~oy....,~^, . - I .~7'"`: R Sro°'`~,.".:nY}' ^'S,`~ +t'risdw " ~ apa+,. . ~ .a'wms«.',°'v°~ x,.-w~ ~.wdt~:' `~a b-''-'~'';,~ r+ ..Y ' '`.,b"' ~^+;rt. ~ s ''`r'=`. eems~,, F~,, .'sue' ° i r,_~'-.>-,~a,.,:rc±; ~ .e.".:a,'"' - ` { ' ' ' ~ •v ~ ` G,c. e~y,. i F"'~',i °q~ Si' 0.:'.-Y 5^K'.:s'''~''~''' .}n, .r" rr~rrc "~'F .I ~e'~S-"`*i~ y~'.,i.~ r"s,~ r1',' a?^ - ~ - ~ ~''[i ~E „~yf"' :n., h3. { _ ~ '"°'S ly, 'h. ` "Y °,r .-a'~ - ~~~sr"~L'c'Lt~; 'iryt-~I:~,.,,J'n r~,. _y,.,~ Y, ,ir +'o+ir' ''d<' , • h$ ~ g ' `We ~ } . ' `ay3:.+.~'ec'' ~ c,;~9 r, ~ .~aM.e r ti"~ ~ 'i"C. ~ # v S' srv;; 9 . . ~ 4. _ .e ~3y^~ - I ,r~';~n ) -t y. '"~i;'~ ~.r^^~i 1; r; .",d?~ ~ "''fi'r "*tk, sh 2 7 ;tW.r.'~t, r r.. '~,r - ;d':` : KC' ,.,{,a,.:d. .,S #JnX .3!''..',~1,,,, a ° ...~',•a '.'S-., -0.a'~ Y1 ,''3 }iT' ,,.~EK~ 'S ~s„~A~,.' ~a ,E ''l.,-qtr ,M ,4~_ ~h 's'•~ ,~f♦ ,t4y"A•{!". :~,y.. }d'"'i, .Nrr - 1 .yF?~ ..•r~' <.Y rrl I r~ i-~C- .4 ..f "S+. a •~J'_ _ Yx~.~_. ;d~•v , ,:/i 1 a,.~Fn yet."} I -b ,Ty2". , T.' w .t 1 r,~J e e1~~.• ~~'`s? 'g't~'rf''s~fi I. ~4e. .~7'+' a .4.,,..,.-.,. r ~-tyC - _ 4?r, i~5 "+,4^ ~'"r~ 'l ~ :[^r+,~',i ~!''~'Fi,iF~. •j3-;;5 '`~"rO~t ri~ r_'-r-F' ','K-~ ~."'~.,,r, ai.~ ,,(r .r++:y.'.. P .<"g'. _ v;~~ -.,i i. ~ - i c ~4.'1~n • eF=wr~ '=r,"'s,Fn •T;' { 1 . esq. ' F :Y', b y vr_ •n:.-._A-,,.. tY t. N, .wn.p, %2s15~'~`11F. '.1' :tR:9 P ~ .T, .a F,y •,d',,~x;f°'fM..a `ea*amv , i. .y!:~~ ^ w:.aad' v. ' 7 ; h~. f ~ ,by ri'i \t- 3,f. ~ K~!}I r,.r, d . 4 - ,,,.,,h ~ kf ' -'+7' .Hr~ ..i.dv' sr ct K :wv?•o~ ~~,b-Y^*Y -dye. . r ~ t .;r.r . 1 ref .'ad ~ . .f,~. *,NY° ~ - "~%.p \s a ,,y`'s" a:'~;"a,,? ,,y'. r ~ i + 'Ps' ~ .r. x ~ r..9Q: .b. :.'"t~ rwC;.,;t,. "h. "~i x'`i.9~'i`'~ ,.t•,• F,gw' ~ g F T-0 • ~ =>ky1g. -f *n~,,,f. ~ . r r r^ d,f~e'S S~ S "~+T I c..?tA "r«. ,jv :a,=4 ~ ...:tiaY . a e•rF,f . m.fi4~ r:: ~ L°'r•+Y eS•.., r .ti ~ar+,R 'I3• `'2. J ~5- r f1'i` •y,~y,.~,,~}. M~.. _i":• '.Ra'^ivnl e i"r i ~ '.N", s5 s'. tv ~ •n3"`"ti` ~ .r"''.rF`" ~v~k, ~ , 4 a, s'':%`~i, .+j :i ~ ~ ~ t}'- " ,j, 'C~ `t~~:t~1;+3;;:t ?r-''^- .p~, s"~ r~"~ " .par . ~;s: ...z r. 'iK.q"° ~ ..w S d^+ f .;'Y., ,~?,.:=~,w`gc .'f` . h ~ ,r7 ~ ~M pax I,rP`.!.e^•L'%pzx tr - r'~~ ~ si~J E~.^»'i. t [Y.,~ .a-, { , r r•~ LL ai. - k:Jyi ~ 3y,r l ~~L.+'" V'`•, ~ ' •1.'. . 'S, ~ ~~`F l(~'? .,A u..~F ~ ~ S 1 ' ' -'~""~':f :'.n M •'4`>,1+`~ , 'F;. ~ i ~ ~ f . ~.nq, ~F s r„ r k"' • ' ~t~-r ~ ...+1`.*~ ~r~a.uuv ±;s..wr? ~ <4'a'". .a.:.Ct^~ ~ I .a s..~Ff. ,•u-~..'rb u e>.6A~' ' ,:+pTr ~x+•s - ..2 ' d.M 1°.~ 'z. a;:rTMt:g:n~ -'.wrtr~ ! J, q~,'~'r,,,,F,~~~4t, ~ ~ r$,~s'r.~- ~1~ 7;~;; ~'y~•+r. A `r. ~ _ ~ 'ru?" .Kr:'tY: ~~.`...~~~s'-. ,e?~,rx.T.°r„w ~ fi'r' + ~a g-. :il'- • x~GPi.4' , °~n, .G r rA~ { r. u~~ ♦ ,.10 '-J.Y'.~ l,~ .~'S~~yy -a° ~ >~s '~t• c k.. r,a,. 'vr{ .a 14a!' . `a zqo^~ _ ,,~`ct..>,.i ; t v~r;j. ?a '~v ',~"'!p ~'y,~,?'"+~ - i,,, ~t,,,o~.....: Ya;. _r°', .3.., ~..kC„•'-s tux, -°K *r.~ ,9°':st,:• .:.7;c:'y~'; ~j"i>;:~. t~ - 'i~°'S E ~ g,,.id ~~Lgr"',. x; h,z~~o,~' ~ - :,iY' c~,- . ~~+x✓„ _ k, N`r, i - ~ r~N ~ : ,s:. ;F`a.. _ y ~.s'.7 r. i~~ paw, "a. . a t~%,~ ' xv4tar1~ _ .e _ ~ i ~ - _ ,y` '1? i Ik ~ ~ i"' ~.a,~YwY ~ k: iyr 'Y J a'i3 ~i, 5. ,;4ti~ _ „.~~t A<. =r4 lr • .~~a:,.=*;~S' i ~c,,,,7 '~y'"t5kS~ .,,r ,,,~'y.Y;' ~ a:w. c, .'Np y I •W.:,, y.~ n x. ;a"2' ism, «,Skg ! ~F~y+ s.~ ! .:;'~`P ti,.' :..:-.1„~. . . 4'' .t r a . ~ 7 ~ ts~, ` _ . n _ ',",~~t _ ,.,rl;;~' K,~-'r ''°,K' i. a~ SL ~ ' 5; - ' is 5"'' '8' • _ L,:. X'a." C:.i'R.P t~ r~ ~ rrn •~1 _ j' ,p;'t«~ "s 'l r ,~L .,Ir, .r.~ ; a ~5 r;`.~ ' C.vr ~ ' ,n. , ? ~ " s - . ~ < 'P ,'r"iii ""r K '~9 °`~'1 cwt. ~ A i i3, . r .'f"` ~ -~Sm` a 4 ~ '°S . "`'•t` . - I c .y rv, 'St'_^i, t' 4,e"r. ~'z 'Ii:1~ ~at; . e - a&k 1; , :vl [ ~',"r'ee:l ~ .C, do-, , y !L.~- i, ~t _~,4 ~ ~x _x,.. it try>y~ .,r7 ~ P~'' .'~5,`i~a'..` , o6aF' ! r ARr'~ ~;~A^v ~,m^i _ -n u A.~,..,t~ F E .,r; .'S 1.+.`'M1 t. ~ ,ri...~.s.=,,.w. - ~d' k~ c ,C:',sk m r^` - ,h ~ :~}i., ry . 'r r.P ~ ~ va3;4ti ~ ; ~,A ."y' .''~,c, .,,fir ~rYx< Sy, f y N,~"'lA ,a, ^ s, taz:: ~ • _ ` " i:"~,.}'~R ~ ~ ~ .rr'~~ °`'F " ,,.A Ti s;,. J f , ry ~ d i; b• ~ d ~ ,~1' ~ _ v r A. ~ .i[ ~x':S`-: Y~..~' '•,h- ~s~.sr~:7'~: '~'•^,,,Jhx' i7 .'F° 1 y.S"'* Nt, _ -fJ+.. •`.i, . • r".rl„Fy.k,'~ ' ?Jh..~c~~?~' - y~. °!w':t ~~a r :r.~,~'-04y'~'_~,_r(i-:>i~ n;~ ~ •.n~ ~:'y'~°'.w~k-~ t,"'~'-~"+,ac:~~r: ~''~~-'wT, A..~h`c~, 2 'rr'D' ^~Et 'a' r»'. . ~ + 7 k ~ ~ nfi •,.E... ~ , k'.. ~ S : P p i#d ~n o- .,,..t' A. , ^ r,; Y. F, : t y +~r,'"' ~ r„„via :t>• , st 'q y'!f✓~ ~ I - ~ ~ br €'~'~.•w {',i'it~@ j ...i , ~ P~~ r ~ ~ G „r:~5~, µ,,rep ~»-~y a , ~ :,~rtn F t( y.._.. r, F-m°X' .wvzm,wva,r,.a.. _ '~2: I _1 : ~v "4u~r d S~:t` y,+ ~ 'v '.r " w 6 .~'z' :r ~ .A•~ ~'x 'ai"'~^,'NF? d4"~a ± ..„,33 r` A:u ,..f. a,~~Wi 1~h+'~,a _ y~'.*,~'*~'„'"4` a ^rr ~'"~'`a"~k` _ - r``s .."Ye+, ',w,~?-r t, rt;. ^f~ :,~y,~~~.... . :c r - p4a _ _ ~.~'+~T "La •kY•i~.y'. ,$y ~ :4; - 4. 'i, ~ ° '~b'~ kC'z'.~~,y~•~/. a ~t,.~F ";h. :u ...e , df x ."u$~.eS?~ Aa ~ ' ~ :•P'~g'% ~ rJi 2 StiC a ' 1 ` ` f k ~~'~~T~n,~~y4'. - X~~~'.,,~~,~j' } ! frYG" paE ~'AJ4.t `'A";~,P", ~ dx4j~ ~.y •S~ t. , rg?-SY~y, .~F• C. •'fN~ ~ '~i. ^ri`~^n' r ~,';,,,"}'aC, ~i +R^~ ` ,r•Z~Y,2+`S._i ':'~`f~, '~~Yr~t~i 5 Yry eS~ ,;tom. ms's r i,..,,m r.^. <'Y'. ,.tit 4~° - k'.. - V~,u:;' r",v} ~ r~ _ TI - l~' ~;-7 ;'+'u, ;:.2~~lp a~h r ~ - ~'i ~ - '1 •''u~:,;2 • ~t~$~ ,r a ;u} n ' Fy~ti• - 'i ~,c ,K+o r~*n a ` 9 aa° ~ ,~,;'1;- i. " r.9" ~ ~ ~ ~'rsft r'~aX~:? ' F t'~ , '~•r,rrr ~ .:ss°~ b . ~ - :~e i I ;f' .s .,,,c rc •ti s .(hr . ' i. -a""' ' ° Cl t f"'~',., KSy. j ~ s n. ~ y i','iti ~ r f ~i w ~ k"~ ~ W A ~ x,y ~,.,~G~+ 5 _y .4t,,..i ^w~".,. -,,J; t. t, 3,ar"' [A•+ '~93, gin. --}r~~ ll 7R ~ . .2. ,c-i. f;r .,k~ 1 xiC'w, x..L.f';'-";.`~~: _~,~b ._i' J~, ' ;Myr:; 'S,c w^z x' C i•=ri ;~''~4 .+7.-. ,f vv~"Y+' 'i,..a: :?2 ~t ~J~ ,~r LEA. _ T ~ • r. ~ r R a~,; .y .9 a a ,A- ~ f- ri±., f': d • _ r d'."A. {6 I 1 ~ :y ~ 4p I r y'g4'd ~5 ir`;„,e,.. . , r1,~ 'q~~;,~., °-".:~,,,;,-a . iJ` 'k«G . a"'7 , , . _ .'s~'i ~ .t~ ',~,~,v~•ly,:, ~r. '`~"'}-rt' 4 .d,~ "~F+l;.a `'[':~,~v! ~,•A.s'•.•iy';`.~iC~~ d"ra+`aR i f-r r~.~'. ..C.+ p ,7 ~X~ a>.,~. '":;.YA~.'I ^Ltr.yfK - 'n~ f ['i ~'~'a~ r+:i':~ I,A -,er, .'r Z~1 .t '~'tri~'F':,s» ''~:,;{;;7,".K'''tl ~~•.i:; •-r~>r. -'Ltd 4v, ,,h,-,~%F.`;^'>i ,'y-x~z~~^httr t } ~«J~- Via'{5 f r4 y,3;~*~,,c.,.;%.7:;:f: ~!._`a',t~'f ~»iE%, d :aj ~"Sroe ,~arn.'aya:a-':a _ ~ t yy ~ . Vim, r yJ 'x7, _ .k...~ „n4.v+45 ~Sti R- ~n r. -,'sv: '.C"'~ Sri . °F• ~>r,~'~~ S5~ ~ i a' ~ f„~r- 1 .fi3y U`fii'r~. ~ ,.3 t ~ :,F~, S_f , ~ i 4 , 3•?~,4'^aY ~,~z ~''f .4 [rr ':'^1,~~ .d~ F;. 4;:t I~'" - ~ r;t ..ay, .eF m.~3, d• .'<7'y ~ V ' ` •an. 1 y~:~ ~ ~7 ~ .,b, KC , `."`'*+~.3.ty;~ E l ` vh k Y` t'•~ , r. ~:v n~ • SPENCER•B. GROSS, INC. ` '~`nd y tr us r r ~ ay ;p. 7 z ti' 1 _.:d... y ~ ,N,L' x z ' _ „ , , r ! V ~ • t ' 13545 NW Saence`l:'arY<"Drrve ' r Fq'?_: K ~n:r: I ~ ,a:- { PORTLAND, OR 97229 (503) 646.1733•,':.rw3 t ~ ! ;ter 09109!97. y..:.:~".. _ _ - i.,.- - , v Agenda It 6 30(4 S II' Ihis nnlice appx•nrs clcu'cr 1h;ul Ibc 4U6 `l,. r! 1998 dnc•umc•nl, the dorumeni is of m:u';~iu;ll :;u,liih' MICROFILMED f~t~~f~? f~r~I;l I~i~lji~i'~I~ili~i~i~l~i i~i~i~i i~i~i~i i~i~l~tl~~l~!~!!I~i~i!i i~i~!~iii~i~i~!~i~i~iii;i~i~l;i i~i~l~i I~i~i~i Iji~1~l !!I~!il i~{li(I ili~I~illii~lji iit~l~t i{I~i~i I~I~I~. INCH MAO N CHINA ' I 1 I, i E. 2 4 6 i II t =mP 1 e I S B I 1 D ~ 0 In tt I 12 17 14 IS 16 Il 18 IB I 20 21 28 td i5 I 26 t.i-T ~ '2B 29 ~Illi"Ill~llll~lilil!III~I!;I~!IP~lill~!!VIII!!~191~!I!I~II!!~!III~!II!~IIII~!III!!III~III!~IIII~IiII~IIII~IIIinIII~JI(I~IIII~IIII~!III!III~IIII~!III~IIII~IIII~II~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII~llllllllllllll~llll~llillllll~illltllll~lli!IIIII~I!jl~lll!~!IIIIIIIIIII!IIIIII~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIq~IIIjllili~llilii~f b- y M, d2 .0 H I LLB ~ ~ / ~ L ~ ~ ~ I CJ . _ ~ \ u n N p 7 ~ ~I m p_ ® O ~ O n Lm 0 a N m n n w eol ^ O N N I 0.01 M,£0 •0 S N O r n ~ O ~ s Y ~ 0919 04'14 0429 09'LS 04'L9 09'Z9 N I-~ Ill B a o r 4~ A,,4.o e~ - I N S o S ~ z~ (J o ~J . ~ ° loon 3 ~ ^~i ~ m . n I O._ M NO ~ N ~ O to ro O ~ n ON •n m mO mm ~ lip e'IZ OL w 6'£b e'ie YI 6•y6 • m _ O _ N . = O m• O N -i a~ N N N a £'46 i~£i.D s 901 s 1 _ o Aa. r N y ryay O N BITa 19 f i~i O °n m = b~ 4ti'1£ OS'L4 OS'L9 09'19 09'19 ~ ,,,2,12 * Y - i N ~ O ~ a° d' d ~ . rd L, M _ ~ I nl~n0~ t O ? S'et S01 901 ~ c,'e N td.~h - i n L£1£ OC'LS 0£19 0£19 OE'L4 tN a ~ro C { 31 I N3/,~/ T'S16 n ~ 'M'S~ • °1 ! L10f ,7y' r'J 1 n~ Fy~b y15 ~rr0~ N r: ~ ~ / I 1~ .DF W ~c. ~ G.py 9. Cd a n N ai - - 0) _ O N_ n n . Q I"'~ N N • a aiO- O- O O O p =m ~ LI N p 'gyp ~FZ N O M a - m - p. 1 .O O O O ~ N : o c 0~p 01 °D r ~ - m =a iv M Dl,o H m o Ic11 t~l 1 ' ~ ~ - ~ n Id 17111N1 r N1001 { SL St Se . OC19 OC19 0£'1S O£•LS OC•LS 1C'Z9 011 ~~_1 't ~ i ~ YeSZ i ~ 21 ' jf ,OY.01 I I 1,OY.0 1 111001 N1nOS i r = Ce M,10 .0 C 96 C S ~ ( ,-r1 a. - ~ ~ ~ F-~ W t D T Q ~ Rove H ~ I a d _ e O a m r Z O N ~ ih ~ d' o M a N o - ~ ~ ~ S - O 8 g O S . W a N Z O I - 0) 07 N rtQi N S I ' ~ TZtI d I 90 Se S5 9/ Ce /1 • r .o. • u A , . 3f1N311~! P Z6 MS ~Tr, 1 ela a 9e u ee ee se 9e le•cu I M,lo.o c * •a. r P Ad .ion 1 P ~J ~ J CJ ~ ~9,DB,97 ~JI 11 ~ N y Agenda#6 ~ r ~ a d' ~ ~ m f0 c+ ~ ~ ~ 0j.r1 ~ 4of4 1 - I„ N to ~ ~ ~ ' ~ /r s ~ - I ~ m ti e 711 ~ I ~ • O ~ ttl • W a ~ - nd t • ~ =I ~ c' •t ~t 4 Q Figure 7-1 Rigltt-of--Way Width of SW 92 Ave. h ..,1......• ~ ~dM,' . 1, n _ I- [f this notice appaars clearer :han the AUG 2 41996 ' document, the document is of marginal quaiih'• + MICROFILMED • - ► ~ ~ T I :i.r r 7r t:r fi• i'.r~`f! I i I _ t . 1: . f _ °_;[~i(ff~(, r I•__.~~ ilj(l~; ~~~E~ r r~gll~lil (~I~ _►~~j}~~ I-~! I l,T'i 1.- INCH 1 MADE W CNaIA~ . _ - , ` I ~ s a r _ a 1 la n I2 u u Is a tr la lr 'ta: - to - e ~ IIi~ ' . t I Ir liliu~m~iiml~im~ Im~rur Iut11IUImUunhuuun ulivur r ~lum(r • I,~Ihul~Imhliilludliumldiulilliilturulliluuim~rlilluldmlimduulimf~uumlllilli~umulllmlalllllullulllmdmliullbluululuuillldumm hmu I - - - • • 9-9-97 To: The Tigard City Council 4 From: Terry Smith, 11480 SW 92nd Ave Tigard, OR 97223 s I declare to the City council and for any future legal settings that the City has not i j processed this application correctly because: j 1. The City has not enacted or applied defining criteria to evaluate whether or not the development qualifies as a tree area. It has been asserted to the city by petition of the residents on two occasions ( the petition represents every property owner on SW 92nd t Ave except the new developer /applicant) that a large and unique stand of trees has been ! observed and is in existence on SW 92nd Ave as demonstrated by the aerial photograph r: ~ and the personal eyewitness observation of the 23 petition signers. The city by its action is saying that the grove does not exist because the application is only a minor partition. This fails as criteria because it does not serve to determine whether the trees exist or whether E j they are large or whether they are unique. There is currently no_maximum lot_ size E Y requirement for the parcels created by minor partition which may also be treed. There is no process for revtew of an any possible uniqueness. The City has promised to the State and , Tigard residents that it recognizes natural areas as areas of significant environmental concern and it promised that shall designate these areas by their definition and not by their 1 location. The Oregon Revised Statues say (ORS 197.175.2b) that the city "shall enact land j use regulations to implement their comprehensive plan". This has not been accomplished E4~ because the City has not provided defining criteria for dete,l.urttng whether th2 trees i uut j as large or unique. As a result the city cannot legally process this application until it does so. As it is, minor land partition development can occur as a means to harvest an unlimited sized parcel(s) of its trees and avoid any mitigation, followed by an application to r ! subdivide after one year. I re uest that the City provide the defining criteria for "large or ~ i j unique stands of trees" and then process his apptication using that criteria to demonstrates f r as it has promised that development is not occurring in what may qualify as a designated 1 tree area. The city must demonstrate that it is not a tree area by this criteria (please see comprehensive plan 3.4.1c, 3.4.2c and strategy 2. The City has not demonstrated that the definition of major partitions specifically excludes or exempts accessways which are under private ownership when it refers to partitioning which "includes the creation of a road or street". Neither has the City demonstrated how the definition of a minor partition does not exclude or exempt the creation of an accessway which is under private ownership when it says the partition "does not include the creation of a road or street". Also the City has not demonstrated that the Flag of a "flag lot" is not an "area" as used in the definition of "Road or Street". We find that as long as the city maintains the current code definitions of "Flag lot", "Road or street", "Street, private", "major partitiod' and "minor partition"(Please see the code) j that the City must make these and other demonstrations to maintain a legally persuasive position. The real question is does this partition include the creation of any accessways which are under private ownership? Will one exist as a result of the partition?. If it does then it is a private street which cannot be included in a minor partition. The staff has said that it is just a standard driveway and therefore ruling that an accessway has been created l s r and is included with the partition of a flag lot will cause all driveways to be deducted from the lot area of all city lots making them non conforming lots. The reasons for ruling that an accessway under private ownership which is a street exists would not apply to a standard driveway. Please observe that the purpose of the "pole" portion of a flag lot is consistent with the purpose of a "road or street" as seen in the definitions. The city has not demonstrated that the pole is inconsistent with a road or street. A standard lot driveway is not consistent with the purpose of an accessway because once you have crossed the right of way line on a standard lot you have entered the "lot area" you do not need an oss.vay to accomplish this since the right of way line does not have dimension, because i there is no distance to travel, all that is needed to access the "lot area" are the access po inls. Standard driveways exist as "lot area" for offstreet parking. Also the requirement i that the accessway portion of a flag lot cannot be included as part of the lot area is consistent with the requirements for roads or streets. This requirement is not consistent for standard driveways because their purpose is different than that of accessways. Access ways provide a way of travel from a street over a dimensional space that is not "lot area" to the "lot area". Does an accessway exist that is under private ownership when a flag lot is created? A flag lot cannot be legally created unless it does exist. If it does exist then it } simply and only means that flag lots must be processed as major partitions and the only I difference then is that the tree ordinance must be applied. i 3. The application cannot be processed correctly until the staff defines or interprets the phrase "area or a tract". This is a request for interpretation. This interpretation is vital i because the State and code both require that no land be subdivided or partitioned except i in accordance-.4t), RS I ORS 92.010 to 97.19f1. it is not 1POai to to nart-tinn with the wrong r- , definition. The actions of the city indicate that they believe that the phrase means only the parcel(s) which are the subject of an application. If this is true then it would be permissible for one person to purchase all of the properties on our street, remove the houses and process fourteen simultaneous partition applications to avoid the control of a subdivision because using the current City approach each application would not be required to include the contiguous units of land. The City indicates that as long as the application does not include neighboring parcel(s), then :who owns the contiguous parcel is irrelevant. The City is indicating that one person can own contiguous "areas or tracts" of land, is this a legally correct concept?. It is important handle the phrase "area or tract" as the State has intended to avoid unlawful partitioning, Has the State acknowledged a City definition or interpretation of the phrase "area or tract"? If the City has not submitted an interpretation to be acknowledged then does it have substantial reason to believe that the State means something other than what they have defined for county planners? If the State intends the definition for tract is the same for Cities and counties then this application is taking a tract which consist of two parcels and will leave it subdivided into four parcels. If the State means parcel or parcels instead of contiguous parcels under the same ownership then why bother using the phrase "area or tract"? The law says the number of parcels the "area or i tract" is divided into when the action is done is what determines whether the application is { a subdivision or a partition" It does not specifically say the number of parcels which are the subject of the application is the determinant. This is why it is not unreasonable to request a 3 clear interpretation or definition for "area or tract" as the State intends it to be used. j i :a ,I i 1 s 4. The City has not addressed the reasons we (100% of the property owners now accessing SW 92nd) have at least twice presented to support the fact that the zoning applied to properties accessing SW 92nd is a mistake. The original developers created SW~ 92nd for Dogwood ridge TherAEo properties currently accessing SW 92nd that do notes have the same predominant characteristics which include large private lots over 10,000 square feet, and fir trees. These were designed this way on purpose and has been maintained this way on purpose. The neighborhood successfully stopped an attempt by the then owner of lot 11 to partition it creating a flag Int. The C;., council o,ftha uia i _ t time denied the application and said that "these people have a beautiful neighborhood, it would be a shame to start carving it up like this". The staff has said that we participated in the hearings and were involved with its adoption, however none of us are aware of that and when asked to provide the record of that involvement the staUid not produce it. We are only aware of one other property which has accessed SW 92nd since it was eve oped, that is lot 4901 and it was developed maintaining these same characteristics. It is reasonable to say that properties accessing SW 92nd form a neighborhood. They are in I view of one another and as such do directly impact each other. We are realizing that the zoning of R 4.5 does not prohibit development which will begin the process of diminishing i of those characteristics which are associated directly to the property values as well as the s investment made recently by many improve and maintenance these homes. This zoning does not allow for a homesite and substantial tree protection. More flag lots on established homesite would require the removal of virtually all trees and the loss of privacy. It would i bring a sense of oddness to the development which again lowers property values We read j I that the City nrnmicPri it woiirl only approve development which accomplishes its I ~ purposes. One of these purposes (18.02.010.A) is to ensure the development is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land and to promote and protect our welfare. The City Also promised in the comprehensive plan that it prohibit development I which would cause a process of diminishing to our existing quality of life. The Neighborhood on 92nd has been established nearly 50 years, we know more than those who have not invested here what the impacts of development under 4.5 zoning will have if allowed on any property accessing Stir' 92nd. We find that R 3.5 will still allow reasonable development on undeveloped land and will serve to better promote and protect our welfare. Also R 3.5 will serve to preserve the existing Characteristics of the neighborhood and avoid the process of diminishing them. Therefore this demonstrates how the R 4.5 zoning for all properties which do and will access SW 92nd Ave including the property which is the subject of this application is a mistake. I request that it be changed to R 3.5. Please make the requested interpretations and definitions and then apply them to this application. Please ensure that any development approval on SW 92nd. require dedication i consistent with the rest of the street. Please find that this application should not be processed as a minor partition. Thank you. ~ ~J J i s 3 I 1 { 1 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING COORDINATION 197.175 j (5) Study and make recommendations to 197.165 Local Officials Advisory Corti- the Legislative Assembly on improvements to mittee. Far the purpose of promoting mutual i the land use appeals proa•ss; und+ c:tanding and cooperation between the (6) Make recommendations to the Legis• commission and local government in the im- lative Assembly on any other matter relating plementation of Ol(S chapters 195, 196 and to land use planning in Oregon; and 197 and the goals, the commission shall ap- P3int a Local Officials Advisory Committee. (7) Study the availability and adequacy The committee shall be comprised of persons of industrially designated or zoned lands serving as city or county elected officials and within urban and urbanizable areas. 11973 c A0 its membership shall reflect the city, county §z4. Not c7St+s2al and geographic diversity of the state. The Bole: Section 1, chapter 521, Oregon Lows 1995, committee shall advise and assist the com- proc(des mission on its policies and programs afTect- ' ccc The ._:_s , La„d ing local governments. 11977 c664 §7; 1981 e.748 1 ' Use shall study and ma~e~•rocomme ~ndations u~to the §Loal ~ ' Sixty-ninth Legislative Assembly on the exceptions ' process and those areas and activities under the au• f , thont of the Land Conservation and Development COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING i Comrnisston that should be eliminated or more : ppru' RESPONSIBILITIES § priately assumed by other state agencies or local gov. . ernments. 11995 x521 §11 197.175 Cities' and counties' planning . responsibilities; rules on incorporations; j ADVISORY COMMITTEES compliance with goals. (1) Cities and coun- 197.160 State Citizen Involvement Ad- ties sha!] exercise their planning and zoning respuns ibilities, including, but not limited to, j visory Committee; city and county citizen a city or special district boundary change 1 advisory committees. (1) To assure wide- which shall mean the annexation of unincor- spread citizen involvement in all phases of porated territory by a city, the incorporation S the planning process: of a new city and the formation or change l (a) The commission shall appoint a State of organization of or annexation to any spe- ' Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee, cial district authorized by ORS 198.705 to - broadly representative of geographic areas of 193.955, 199.410 to 199.519 or 451.010 to } the state and of interests relating to land 451.600. in accordance -with ORS chaPtees uses and land use decisions, to develop a 195, 196 and 197 and the goals approved un- program for the commission that promotes der ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197. The 1 and enhances public participation in the commi>siuo shall adopt rules clarifying how adoption and amendment of the goals and the goals apply to the incorporation of a new guidelines. city. 'Notwithstanding the provisions of sec- (b) Each city and county governing body tion 15. chapter 827, Oregon Laws 1983, the . i shall submit to the commission, on a periodic rules :hall take effect upon adoption by the basis established by commission rule, a pro- commission. The applicability of rules prom- gram for citizen involvement in preparing, ulgated under this section to the incorpo- I adopting and amending comprehensive plans ration of cities prior to August 9, 1983, shall i and land use regulations within the respec- be determined under the laws of this state. tive city and county. Such program shall at (2) Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196 t least contain provision for a citizen advisory and 197, each city and county in this state committee or committees broadly represen- shall: tative of geographic areas and of interests a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise relating to land uses and land use decisions. r comprehensive plans in compliance with t (c) The State Citizen Involvement Advi- goals approved by the commission; sory Committee appointed under paragraph (bi Enact land use regulations to imple- (a) of this subsection shall review the pro- meat their comprehensive plans; posed programs submitted by each city and ` county and report to the commission w&ther lei If its comprehensive plan and ]and use i or not the proposed program adequately pro- regulations have not been acknowledged by vides for public involvement in the planning the commission, make land use decisions and process, and, if it does not so provide, in limited land use decisions in compliance with t what respects it is inadequate. the goals; (2) The State Citizen Involvement Ad-3- (d+ If its comprehensive plan and land use sory Committee is limited to an advisory role regulations have been acknowledged by the to the commission. It has no express or im. commission, make land use decisions and ' plied authority over any local government or limited land use decisions in compliance with state agency. (1973 c 80 §35; 19x1 c.748 i25; 1953 c.740 the acknowledged plan and land use regu- 1 §491 lations. and f Title 19 Page 1~1 (1995 Edition) i ` _J SUBDIVISIONS AND PARTITIONS 92.016 TENTATIVE AND FINAL. APPROVAL 110) "Yn,perty lino- means the divi.--ion OF PLANS; I'1.ATS lino botieeon twounits of land. 92.010 Definitions for ORS 92.010 to (11) "Property lint, adjustment" means 91'..190. As used in OHS 92.010 to 92.190, un- the relocation of a common property line be- less the context requires otherwise: tween two abutting properties. (1) "lloclarant" means tlu• person who (121 "Replat" moans the act of platting files a declaraljon under OHS 92.075. the lots, parcels and casements in a recorded (2) "Declaration" moans the instrument subdivision or partition plat to achieve a re- described in OHS 92.075 by which the subdi- configuration of the existing subdivision or vision or partition plat was created. partition plat or to increase or decrease the number of lots in the subdivision. (3) "Lot" means a single unit of land that (13) "Head" or "street" means a public is crcted by a subdivision of land. or private way that is created to provide (41 "Negotiate" means any activity pre- ingress or egress for persons to One or more liminary to the execution of a binding agree- lots, parcels, areas o tracts (if land, exclud- ment for Lhe sz!e of !and i a subdivision or ing a private way that is created to provide partition, including but not limited to adver- ingress or egress to such land in conjunction tising, solicitation and promotion of the sale with the use of such land for forestry, mining of such land. or agricultural purposes. (5) "Parcel" means a single unit of land (14) "Sale" or "sell" includes every dis- F that is created by a partitioning of land. position or transfer of land in a subdivision (6) "Partition" means either an act of or partition or an interest or estate therein. partitioning land or an area or tract of land (15) "Subdivide land" means to divide partitioned. land into four or more lots within a calendar ! (7) "Partition land" means to divide land year. into two or three parcels of land within a (16) "Subdivision" means either an act of ! calendar year, but does not include: subdividing land or an area or a tract of land (a) A division of land resulting from a subdivided. lien foreclosure, foreclosure of a recorded (17) "Subdivision plat" includes a final contract for the sale of real property or the map and other writing containing all the de- creation of cemetery lots; scriptions, locations, specifications, dedi- _ 6 cations. provisions and information (b) An adjustment of a property line by _.za the relocation of a common boundary where concerning a subdivision. Mmended by 1955 c756 an additional unit of land is not created and §l; 19:3 c696 13: 1977 c809 §4; 1999 6 §1; 1995 069 §5: 1955 c.717 §l: 1969 a?;2 1, 1991 c.7.763 $1: 1993 c702 where the existing unit of land reduced in 41; 1993 c.704 §4: 1995 c.382 §31 size by the adjustment complies with any 92.012 Compliance with OILS 92.010 to ' r applicable zoning ordinance; 92.190 required. No land may be subdivided { !c) The divi )on of land resulting from or partitioned except in accordance with i the recording of a subdivision or condomin- ORS 92.010 to 92.190. 11973 cs96 §2: 1975 c.643 §241 ium plat; or 92.014 Approval of city or county re- d) A sale or grant by a person to a pub- quired before creating street or road to lic agency or public body for state highway, partition land. (1) No person shall create a county road, city street or other right of way street or road for the purpose of partitioning purposes provided that ouch road or right of an area or tract of land without the approval way complies with the applicable compre- of the city or county having jurisdiction over hensive plan and ORS 215.213 (2)(p) to (r) the area or tract of land to be partitioned. and 215283 (2)(p) to ,r,. However, any prop- erty divided by the sale or grant of property strument dedicating land to public use shall far state hiof w ay, county road, city street or be accepted for recording in this state unless other right of way purposes shall continue to such instrument bears the approval of the be considered a single unit of land until such city or county authorized by law to accept j time as the property is further subdivided or 1 partitioned. such dedication. 11955 c.756 §3; 1973 c.696 ¢t; 1991 c.763 §41 (8) "Partition plat" includes a final map 92.016 When sales of lots prohibited and other writing containing all the de- until approval obtained; exception. (1) No scriptions, locations, specifications pro- person shall sell any lot in any subdivision visions and information concerning a with respect to which approval is required partition. by any ordinance or regulation adopted un- (9) "Plat" includes a final subdivision der ORS 92.044 and 92.048 until such ap- plat, replat or partition plat. proval is obtained. No person shall negotiate Title 10 Page 47 (1995 Edition) INTRODUCTION r-0 KV~ ` hS 1 \/F-: A. PURPOSE The Comprehensive Plan is the document through which the citizens of Tigard have i , made the basic choices on how land development and redevelopment should occur, and how it will be managed. After many years of segmented planning, the seven i separate Neighborhood Planning Organization plans comprised the communities' planning efforts. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to aggregate the i communities' planning efforts into one 'Community Wide Comprehensive Plan, for the Tigard lirban Planning Area. The purpose of the plan is to maintain and improve the existing quality of life for tho residents bj,: I 1. Prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of Tigard; 2. Protecting individuals from the negative impact of developing land which has natural hazards and is subject to natural disasters; 3. Identifying and protecting resource lands from urban development I encroachment; 4. Providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which i contribute to the livability of the community; I 5. Providing adequate land to meet anticipated future demands for urban development in a logical and orderly manner; i 6. Encouraging flexibility and innovation in development techniques to permit " diversity within the community and to slow the increase in development r costs; t 7. Reducing the uncertainty of the development process; - 1 8. Contributing to a healthy, stable and diversified economy within Tigard; 1 9. Providing for an orderly and timely arrangement and provision of public facilities and services to function as the framework for urban development; f and t` 10. Facilitating citizen participation in all phases of the planning process. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is the plan on which land use decisions will be made for the area within the Tigard Urban Planning Area during the planning I period (1980-2000). In areas outside the Tigard city limits, Washington County retains legal jurisdiction over development proposals and public improvement projects. The City, however, reviews and makes recommendations on proposals and projects inside the Urban Planning Area, and often coordinates with the County on related projects. An Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County regarding planning in the Tigard Urban Planning Area has been adopted. This agreement 111 includes recognition of an Urban Planning Area boundary and related policies which are intended to; I i I J II - 1 i a j TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. f _ s Chapter 18.02. PURPOSE. I. Protect the quality of air and water resources of the City; 18.02.010 Purpose. J. Protect life and property in areas subject 18.02.010 Purpose. to floods, landslides and other natural disasters and hazard--; i " As a means of promoting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, this title is K Provide for the recreational needs of designed to set forth the standards and residents of Tigard and visitors to the City; . procedures governing the development and use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard L. Provide the means for citizens to be comprehensive plan. To these ends, it is the involved in all aspects of the planning process; purpose of this title to: j M. Conserve needed open space and protect A. Ensure that the development of property historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources; j within the City is commensurate with the physical and 1 characteristics of the land, and in general, to promote and protect the public health, safety, N. Provide for the review of those uses It convenience and welfare; whic1h may have a detrimental impact on the ! community. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)® B. Promote and diversify the economy of the City; f C. Ensure the contin„ed prov lion of are " adequate type and supply of land for various uses sufficient to accommodate future growth; D. Encourage the provision of affordable housing in quantities adequate to allow all I persons some reasonable choice in the selection of a place to live; ff E. Conserve all forms of energy through sound economical use of land and land uses developed on the land; F. Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use; G. Afford an efficient and orderly development and arrangement of public services and facilities within the City; H. Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City; 18-02-1 Reformatted 1994 f L.~ U j ' TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1 ! . Chapter 18.12. INTERPRETATION. j 18.12.010 Interpretation. 1912 " • inierpreiaiion. i A. The Director shall have the initial authority and responsibility to interpret all terms, provisions and requirements of this title. A request for an interpretation shall be made in writing to the Director. The Director's interpretation may be appealed to the Commission as provided by Section 18.32.310.A. i B. The Director may develop guidelines as provided in subsection (A) of this section to aid in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this title. C. The Director shall keep on file in the department of Community development a record of all interpretations. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)_ 1 if( i 18-12-1 Reformatted 1994 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE { A. With respect to the Director, a decision "Floodway fringe" - the area of the , made under Sections 18.32.090.A and 18.32.110 of floodplain lying outside of the floodway. this title, whichever is applicable; "Floor area" - the gross horizontal area, B. With respect to the initial hearing body, a under roof, of all floors of a building, measured I decision made under Sections 18.32.090.B or C from the exterior walls, excluding vents, shafts, and subject to r<-vic: ; courts and space devoted to off-street parking. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, j C. With respect to the Council, a decision not provided with surrounding exterior walls made under Section 18.32.090.D. shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. j "Findings" - a written statement of the ! facts determined to be relevant by the approval "Frontage" - that portion of a development p. authority as the basis for making its decision. The site which abuts a public or private i approval authority applies the relevant facts to the street. { approval criteria or standards in order to reach its f decision. "Garage" - a building or portion thereof in { J which a motor vehicle is stored, repaired or kept. "Flag lot" - a lot located behind a frontage lot, plus a strip out to the street for an access "Grade (adjacent ground elevation)" - the { i drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision of lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of partitioning of a residential lot or parcel which is the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area more than twice as large as the minimum allowed between the building and the property line or, ( - i in the „nderlying zone, but without sufficient when u`le pivp,e iy line is more than five feet from i. frontage to allow two dwellings to front along a the building, between the building and a line five / street. There are two district parts to a flag lot: feet from the building. the "flag" which comprises the actual building site i located at the rear portion of the original lot, and "Gross acres" - all of the land area the "pole" which provides access from a street to included in the legal description of the property. i the PPh flag, "Home occupation" - When a dwelling f unit in a residential, commercial or industrial zone { "Floodplain" - the zone along a is used for a for-profit business purpose. See watercourse enclosed by the outer limits of land Chapter 18.142. which is subject to inundation in its natural or lower revised contours by the base flood. "Homeowners association" - an incorporated, nonprofit organization operating "Floodway" - the normal stream or under recorded land agreements through which drainage channel and that adjoining area of the each lot owner of a planned development or other natural floodplain needed to convey the waters, described land area is automatically subject to a and including the zero-foot rise floodway area charge for a proportionate share of the expenses defined by the U.S. Corps of Engineers Flood for the organization's activities, such as Insurance Study, February, 1984. Floodways must maintaining a common property. be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface "Implementing ordinance" - an ordinance elevation. adopted to carry out the comprehensive plan, including, but not limited, to the provisions of this title. i i 18-26-6 Rev. 05/30/95 i .d I TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE "Lot line, side" - any lot boundary not a of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to front or rear lot line. any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid f for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space ! "Lot of record" - a lawfully created lot free in connection with securing the trade or which existed prior to the effective date of the patronage of such person. code codified in this title. "Mobile home subdivision" - a subdivision i "Lot, through" - an interior lot of record designed and approved for the sale of lots for which has both frontages on two streets. residential occupancy in mobile homes only. 4 I i "Lot width" - the average horizontal "Negotiation" - any activity preliminary to f distance between the side lot lines measured at the execution of a binding agreement for the sale t the building line. of land in a subdivision or partition, including but not limited to, advertising, solicitation and I r "Major partition" - a partition of land promotion of the sale of such land. which creates three lots or less within one calendar year and includes the creation of a road "Net acres" - the total amount of land or street. which can be used for development. See Chapter 18.92. "Manufactured home" - a structure constructed for movement on the public highways "Nonconforming use or structure" - a that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing lawfully existing structure or use, or one in the t facilities, that is intended for human occupancv, process of being constructed at the time of the S that is being used for residential purposes and adopting of this title, which does not conform to t that was constructed in accordance with federal the setback, coverage, height, use or other similar ' manufactured housing construction and safety requirements of the district in which it is located. 1 standards regulations in effect at the time of j construction. "Oregon Administrative Rules" (OAR) The Oregon State administrative rules. "Minor partition" - a partition of land which creates three lots or less within one "Oregon Revised Statutes" (ORS) - The calendar year, and does not include the creation of Oregon State law references. f a road or street. "Owner" - any person, agent, firm or "Mobile home" - a structure constructed corporation having a legal or equitable interest in for movement on the public highways that has the property. sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used "Parcel" - a unit of land that is created by for residential purposes and that was constructed partitioning land. between January 1, 1962, and June 15, 1976, and i , met the construction requirements of Oregon "Park" - any tract of land set apart and mobile home law in effect at the time of devoted to the purposes of pleasure, recreation, construction. ornament, light and air for the general public. i "Mobile home park" - any place where "Parking space" - an area within a private four or more mobile homes are located within 500 or public parking area, building or structure for feet of one another on a lot, tract or parcel of land the parking of one vehicle: under the same ownership, the primary purpose i / 18-26-8 Rev. 05/30/95 i. j f 1 i J I 1. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE i A. Standard, 9 feet wide by 18 feet long; "Public support facilities" - services which B. Compact, 8 feet 6 inches wide by 15 feet are necessary to support uses allowed outright in long; the underlying zone and involves only minor s ^ cti,res such as power lines and poles, phone C. Handicap designated, 12 feet by 18 feet booths, fire hydrants, as well as bus stops, benches long or as specified in the Uniform Building Code. and mailboxes which are necessary to support l principal development. "Partitioning land" - division of an area or I tract of land into two or three parcels within a "Quasi-judicial" - action which involves calendar year when such area or tract of land the application of adopted policy to a specific exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under development application or amendments. single ownership at the beginning of such year. I "Partitioning land" does not "Receipt" - a mere acknowledgement of include: submittal. A. Divisions of land resulting from lien "Recreational vehicles" a vacation trai... foreclosures, foreclosures of recorded contracts for or other unit, with or without motor power, which the sale of real property, and creation of cemetery is designed for human occupancy and to be used i lots; temporarily for recreation or emergency purposes. The unit shall be identified as a recreational ' q- „a;.. • ~;_a ehiAo by , manufa-rarer. f additional parcel is not created and where the "Remodel" - an internal or external existing parcel, reduced in size by the adjustment, modification to an existing building or structure is not reduced below the minimum lot size which does not increase the site coverage. established by an applicable zoning ordinance; or "Reserve strip" - a strip of property C. The sale of a lot in a recorded subdivision, usually one foot in width overlaying a dedicated even though the lot may have been acquired prior street which is reserved to the City for control of to the sale with other contiguous lots or property access until such time as additional right-of-way is by a single owner. accepted by the City for continuation or widening of the street. "Person" - an individual, corporation, governmental agency, official advisory committee "Residence" - a structure designed for of the City, business trust, estate, trust, occupancy as living quarters for , one or more partnership, association, two or more people persons. having a joint or common interest or any other legal entity. "Residential trailer" - a structure constructed for movement on the public highways "Plat" - a final map, diagram or other that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing writing containing all the descriptions, facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, specifications and provisions concerning a that is being used for residential purposes and subdivision. that was constructed before January 1, 1962. "Public business day" - the regular hours "Residential use" - a structure used for of business of the Tigard City hall as designated human habitation by one or more persons. and posted by the City. 18-26-9 Rev. 05130195 i L~ 1 1 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE "Review" - to re-examine administratively, and the upper surface of the floor next above, a reconsideration of a decision by a lower except that the topmost story shall be that portion approval authority. of a building included between the upper surface I of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. "Right-of-way" - a strip of land occupied If the finished floor level directly above a or intended to be occupied by a street, crosswalk, basement or unused underfloor space is more pedestrian and bike paths, railroad, road, electric than six feet above grade as defined in this section transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, water main, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or sanitary or storm sewer main, street trees or other is more than 12 feet above grade as defined in this special use. The usage of the term right-of-way section at any point, such basement or unused for land division purposes shall mean that every underfloor space shall be considered . right-of-way hereafter established and shown on a as a story w plat or map is to be separate and distinct from the lots or parcels adjoining such right-of-way and not "Story, first" - the lowest story in a included within the dimensions or areas of such building which qualifies as a story, as defined in lots or parcels, this section, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor shall be classified as a first "Road" or "street" - a public or private story, provided such floor level is not more than way that is created to provide ingress or egress for four feet below grade, as defined in this section, persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or of land, excluding a private way that is created to more than eight feet below grade, as defined in provide ingress or egress to such land in this section, at any point. conjunction with the use of such land for forestrv, mining or agricultural purposes. "Story, half" - a story under a gable or gambrel roof, the wall plates of which on at least I "Setback" - the minimum allowable two opposite exterior walls are not more than two horizontal distance from a given point or line of feet above the floor of such story. If the finished reference, which shall be the property line unless floor level directly above abasement or unused otherwise stated to the nearest vertical wall of a underfloor space is not more than six feet above building or structure, fence or other elements as grade, as defined in this section, for more than 50 defined by this title. percent of the total perimeter or is not more than yjy 12 feet above grade as defined in this section, at t "Specified anatomical areas" -uncovered any point, such basement or unused underfloor or less than opaquely covered, postpubertal space shall be considered as a half story. human genitals, pubertal human genitals, pubic areas, postpubertal human female breasts below a "Street" or "road" - a public or private way point immediately above the top of the areola, or that is created to provide ingress or egress for the covered human male genitals in a discernibly persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts turgid state. of land, excluding a private way that is created to j provide ingress or egress to such land in "Specified sexual activities" - human conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, mining or agricultural purposes. acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, sodomy, flagellation, torture or bondage either real or "Street, private" - an accessway which is simulated. under private ownership. "Story" - that portion of a building "Structure" or "building" - that which is included between the upper surface of any floor built or constructed, an edifice or building of any 18-26-10 Rev. 05130145 I I I I TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE I kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or which are used by the organization which is composed of parts joined together in some located in the City. definite manner. "Tree" - any living, standing woody plant j trac, "Subdivide land" - to divide an area or having a trunk two inches or more in diameter, I of land ^to four or _more lots within a four feat above the eTound level. calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a "Use" - the purpose for which land or a single ownership at the beginning of such year. structure is designed, arranged or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained. "Subdivision" - either an act of i subdividing land or an area or a tract of land "Vision clearance area" - a triangular area subdivided as defined in this section. located at the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a street and a driveway; defined "Substantial improvement" - any repair, by a line across the comers, the ends of which are reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the on the street or alley lines, an equal and specified cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the distance from the comer. market value of the structure either: "Visual obstruction" - any fence, hedge, A. Before the improvement or repair is tree, shrub, device, wall or structure between the j started; or elevations of three feet and eight feet above the adjacent curb height or above the elevation of R. If the structure has been damaged and is gutter line of street edge where there is no curb, as j j being restored, before the damage occurred. determined by the public works Director or City { "Substantial improvement" is considered to occur engineer, and so located at a street, drive, or alley K when the first alteration of intersection as to limit the visibility of pedestrians i any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of or persons in motor vehicles on said the building commences, whether or not that streets, drives, or alleys. i ' alteration affects the external dimensions of the f structure. The term does not, however, include "Wetlands" - land often called swamp, either: marsh, or bog, that exhibits all of the following j characteristics: 1. Any project for improvement of a i structure to comply with existing state or local A. The land supports hydrophytic health, sanitary or safety code specifications vegetation. This occurs when more than 50 which are solely necessary to ensure safe living percent of the dominant species from all strata are conditions; or I classified as wetland species; 2. Any alteration of a structure B. The land has hydric soils. Hydric soils are listed on the National Register of Historic Places -oils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long or a State Inventory of Historic Places. enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil "Temporary Use." See Section 18.140. profile; "Tigard-based nonprofit organization" - C. The land has wetland hydrology. an organization which has nonprofit status as Wetland hydrology is permanent or periodic defined by the state of Oregon which raises funds inundation, or soil saturation for a significant 18-26-11 Rev. 05/30/95 ~I TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 7. A copy of the notice which was given as provided by Section 18.32.130, accompanying 1. Adopt findings and conclusions affidavits and list of persons who were sent contained in the staff report; 1 mailed notice. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) i 2. Adopt findings and conclusions of a fff - 18.32.250 F he Decision Process of the lower approval authority; Approval Authority. 3. Adopt its own findings and conclusions; A. The decision shall be based on: 4. Adopt findings and conclusions 1. Proof by the applicant that the submitted by any party provided all parties have application fully complies with: had an opportunity to review the findings and t, comment on the same; or a. The City of Tigard comprehensive 1{ plan; and 5. Adopt findings and conclusions from another source, either with or without b. The relevant approval standard modification, having made a tentative decision, found in the applicable chapter(s) of this title or and having directed staff to prepare findings for other applicable implementing ordinances; review and to provide an opportunity for all parties to comment on the same. 2. The standards and criteria that were .j applicable at the time the application was E. The decision may be for denial, approval, or I - j determined to be complete at Such time as the approval wa conditions, pursuarat to subbection i City's plan and applicable ordinances are 2 of this section. acknowledged. 1. Conditions may be imposed where such B. Consideration may also be given to: conditions are necessary to: r 1. Proof of a change in the neighborhood a. Carry out applicable provisions of or community or a mistake in the comprehensive the Tigard comprehensive plan; plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development b. Carry out the applicable application; and implementing ordinances; and 2. Factual oral testimony or written c. Ensure that adequate public statements from the parties, other persons and services are provided to the development or to other governmental agencies relevant to the ensure that other required improvements are existing conditions, other applicable standards made; and criteria, possible negative or positive attributes of the proposal or factors in Subsections 2. Conditions may include, but are not A or B.1 of this section. limited to; C. In all cases, the decision shall include a a. Minimum lot sizes; statement in a form addressing the requirements of Subsection 18.32.060.A.3.b which refers to the b. Larger setbacks; Director's staff report. c. Preservation of significant natural R D. The approval authority may: features; and 18-32-16 Rev. 6/ 11 /96 i t l~ i JJi 1 i TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE I j property record of the applicable County and filed d. Dedication of easements; in the Countv records; and . y When a condition of approval requires c. Such co.-ktracts shall be enforceable •I:e transfer to the public of an inrerest in real against the signing parties, their heirs, successors property, the approval authority shall adopt and assigns by the City by appropriate action in findings which support the conclusion that the law or suit in equity for the benefit of public interest in real property to be transferred is health, safety, and welfare; and i roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. 7. A bond in a form acceptable to the Director or, upon appeal or review by the 3. Conditions of approval shall be fulfilled appropriate approval authority, a cash deposit within the time limit set forth in the decision or, if from the property owners or contract purchasers no time limit is set forth, within one year. Failure in such an amount as will ensure compliance with to fulfill any condition of approval within the time the conditions imposed pursuant to the Section, limitations provided may be grounds for may be required. Such bond or deposit shall be revocation of approval, after notice and an posted prior to the issuance of a building permit i opportunity to be heard as an administrative for the use covered by the application. action; F. The final decision on the application may 4. Changes, alterations or amendments to grant less than all of the parcel which is the k the substance of the conditions of approval shall subject of the application. (Ord. 96-23; Ord. 90-41; i be processed as a new administrative action; I Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) f 6 5. Prior to the commencement of 18.32.260 The Form of the Final Decision. ~ development, i.e. the issuance of any permits or the taking of any action under the approved A. The final decision shall be a decision which is development application, the owner and any in writing and which has been: contract purchasers of the property which is the subject of the approved application, may be 1. Signed by the Director in the case of a f, required to sign and deliver to the Director their final decision by the Director, and filed as a final acknowledgment and consent to such conditions; decision within 10 calendar days unless extended i pursuant to Subsection 18.32.300; 6. The conditional approval may require the owner of the property to sign within a time 2. Formally adopted and signed by the certain or, if no time is designated, within a chairperson of the approving authority other than reasonable time, a contract with the City for the Director, and filed with the Director within 10 enforcement of the conditions and: calendar days of the formal adoption of the decision; or a. The Council shall have the authority to execute such contracts on behalf of 3. Formally adopted by the Council, and the City; signed by the Mayor and filed with the Director and the City Recorder within 10 calendar days of b. If a contract is required by a the formal adoption of the decision. conditional approval, no building permit shall be issued for the use covered by the application until B. The final decision shall be filed in the records the executed contract is recorded in a real of the Director within 10 calendar days after the decision is signed, and notice thereof shall be 18-32-17 Rev. 6/ 11 / 96 L~ I 99-08-1997 09:14AM FROM HALSTERD' S fa HU M4 l I lht t u ~ r7c r. ix 4PO HAL~ySTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE -Sp°claksrsinthe We and CONSULTANTS 7 p'Qy°^1bonoftn°i" Qyrld Hlfyflid. cony Wfenr as i P.0 Boa 1182 Tuylfion OR 97063 Phone 13031245-1383 • I September S, 1997 mr. xmz -V 11800 SW Greenbetp Road Tigard, OR 97223 RWiwnw: Tree assessment l ocation: I I Ing 17wGngenterp Knurl I have inspected a1! of the trots located on the proposed three lots east aide of 92nd Amnue and north of 11800 SW Greenberg Road, the Sibs Frlen end the ' Ties Slte Plan for the purpose of deftm* rp what base can be presOrved and what proMdion and preservetton wig be needed. All of the bass that are vvlfhin the drlwwaya, house fFwt pAnt, wfMin 10 ffaet from any excav dm of the above and/or uW tts and any bee which is not s hch ally sound andtrdlseased wi g need to be removed. The f0ftWng teas have been tagged, id4entJAed and visually Inspected, from the grannd, for hea>M and statute. These Nees have never had any Mpmel cane and it is posalbfo that there are mya flews, not visible hom tht ground, that could mater Me tree hazardous. once tht bless haw been dirnbad and dwroughiy ltlspacted ft m top to bottom and the bunk has been and core =mplfed fordtsease It Is possible that the lose ooW be confirm W and would haul to be mmved I mwftn the disaass because there are spin of 4 ditnW lrroureblb dseesea wftn this WON grow which has made several bits sbtrctunw unsound. FwVw,, any Nee widen 75 Amt of a dmesed bas is probably fnlcted PRESERVATION: W-903V 22 Inch at diamaler breast fwight MW Dotgtsa.ffrtroe. 75 Asst to with a 22 toot limb spread Tice is very heeghy and abuclumgy atrony, l Tree vvli! nagairo fienoe prutecbm only. The fertdng needs to be 15 fbet from flea base OfMe ims and M the shape of a hell ants atarUng and en*V at the north a lance. i J yI '97brJ~ /`R7 Y. i , ~0 -177 f 07. 44M'1 'ML I-j R9L71 r-rw a MMDWM i-.L. I UKr- I U i Pape 2 September 5. 1997 Reffsrence: Tree assessment 111160 $rr Gr"nowg Road Subject: Cats and Pmwfvation JK90388.• 48lnch at DSH Douglas-fir bee, 120 Met tall with a Nmb spread of 40 Net, Thee is very healthy and fair in abuctum. Theis ere soars/ *no of seem sPkft and minor taws throughout the ma/n trunk. In addWn tote are sov<sral kmba throughout the tree wAc h am cracked, broken andku heavy with exoesa weight. i Ties w6Y rw Aft farce protection from north neighbors Ibnoe, south, on both &Ws and 15 first past the tree. I rwonvn&W the boa be pruned for Way and to lessen wand throw and therapeutically f thAmed JK90373: 48 hhch at DSH Dougb"r tree. 120 !foot fW with a knb 8piead of 40 fit fast. Tive is very heaft and feirin sbucturs. Triers am a few signs of mom j spas and nafihor i vwv throughout the meta tnm*. In addition there are sevsra► /untie tinvtphout the tree which are a caked, broken on&br heavy with excess weight JK90373 AREA: There ors 6 &"W dogwoods. 3 a w*ig cheniss and several 3=9 Species of 0908 within the protection 9100 of the has nambetsd JK110373 !het fx?ed8 to be preserved as welf. FendV needs to start approximefWy 57 fast west and 55 /lest south of the northsaW comer and then join together to ftmh a btenpk around the bee and the preservation area. REMOVALS: I haws tegfled and i►rsoeoted the wneinfrrg 8 Douglas-8r tees. numberod JK90374 -78, JKD0397.99 located between the !hiss Iota for the purpose of i ft0d4itrp the bees and On* sewra defects, both in shuctum and he$". i have made several notes on the obwm a sbuchnw problems such as boring kha®ct, gaffs end conks which is a OwW Indloatian of Z.emfnated Root Rae In addition, the hses have broken tops, codom►nate stems, leas than one thud tf bge. -98 at the top, signs of up roowv and very WWow roots. I J nrr~o-i~r a~•Iori~ rrcu~ PFLtDitHW'b WI IGULTLRE TO 99685198 P.04 I n I i 3 Se~ptem6er S 1997 Re*mnce: TOW osssssment ton: 111600 SW Grasnbery Road Subjed. Cav and Aeserwftn This canbbwtlon of pmb tm wig cause the bees to blow doom during nom ! { wfrtter storms. Shoe the target area wN be mcrosed these trees am aonaldered hazardous. tf I can be of flurfher asSrstenae of if more technical IntmwbOn is needed p"se calf me Immediately. David Nbstead SS CA 1 f - ~ I i I a i I i i t MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD = _ . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: August 8, 1997 SUBJECT: MLP 97-0010 (92nd and Greenburg) At the August 7, 1997 East CIT meeting, residents of the Dogwood Ridge requested that the CIT support them in a request to City Council to call the minor land partition application up for review. i A majority of CIT members that regularly attend voted to support the neighborhood in their request. A representative will attend on August 12 under the Visitor's Agenda to request Council consideration. Attached is information submitted to staff by a representative of the neighborhood. Also enclosed are copies of correspondence between staff and Terry Smith who recently appeared before Council on this issue. c. LN\jh. attachments ~t i:\adm1bi11\080897-3.doc ' I f 1 i To: Cite of "fgard Council From: Last CIT i t Date: .August 8, 1997 l RE: Request for Cite Council to Review Director's Decision of ML.P 97-0010 j i S { - The members of- the East CIT. in support of the residents of Dogwood Ridge + Neighborhood, and homeowners of nearby properties are requesting that the Cite of Tigard Council call up the Director's Decision for a Minor Land Partition (NIL.P 97-0010) for ! review. The Decision is to partition a parcel of land in Tigard. Oregon into three lots, as a i Xlinor Land Partition. A review of the Decision by the City Council is necessaii- for the (t following reasons: i • the application was incorrecth processed as a Nfinor Land Partition: • the applicant has failed to prove that the approved partitioning conforms to the i City's Comprehensive Plan and Communit}" Development Code (Code); I t • an error exists in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the designated zoning for t Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and the parcel approved for partitioning: and • The applicant is not required to dedicate sufficient land to the City so that the Right-of-Way N idth of S%~7 92nd Ave. will be 50 feet in front of the subject parcel. j C Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan and Code any development on the subject site should ` not reduce the qualiith of life enjoyed by the residents of the City of Tigard, or create unsafe conditions, and should be required to preserve scenic and natural resources. The proposed development will be an intesu'ai part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. :Urv approved partitioning and construction must be compatible % ith the character of the neighborhood, and not substantially alter the character of the grove of fir trees on the subject parcel. j St'.INL\Rl' OF PARTITIONING PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to partition a 26,850 sq. it. parcel located on SR' 92"'I :kve.. north of SW Grecnburg Road, into three lots. The lot is prc;scntly undeveloped and t contains many trees which are part of a larger grove of mature Douglas fir trees. Nh-. Miles Donning purchased the property, along with an adjacent parcel in May 1997, from Ms. Dorothy Shaty. :although the two parcels are considered to be separate legal lots. they have ahyavs been sold under one decd from 1947 to 1997, and have been considered a single tax lot. I I i j ! t I f+ j s The parcel which is to be partitioned contains 51 trees. Forte-two of the trees consist of i large mature Dou`, as Fir aces. Eighteen of' the fir trees range in diameter irony 24 to 42 i y inches. The fir trees are a Si2nifiCant natural feature of the Grecttburg Road area of Tigard. They can be seen from all directions as the area is approached. 4 ~ The lots to be created b} the applicant will become an integral part of Dogwood Ridge ! Neighborhood (See Figure 1). The ncii)hborhood was dcveiop_d nca-1 50 year, ago as a j prc,iucr dcvciopmcnt in what was to become a part of Tigard. Dogwood Ridge consists of } sixteen large lots located off of what is now SR' 92rd Ave., north of S\6' Greenburg Road. 'this portion of SNV 92'd Ave. is presently a quiet dead-end street which was built solely to provide access to homes in Dogwood Ridge. Fourteen of the 16 lots are 19.900 sq. 41. and two lots are approximately 16,300 sq. ft. Fifteen of the lots presently contain homes. An additional lot of approximately 10,900 sq. ft. is located adjacent to Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood on S11' 92"d Ave. The homes in the Dogwood Ridge Neighbohood were built among the trees which form part of the grove on the subject parcel. The character and quality of Dogwood Ridge is unique not only to this part of Tigard but to the rest of the i Citv as well. It is rare to find an entire street of older well-maintained homes on large lots j where in-fill development has not yet destroyed the character of the ncigliborhood. The proposed development is to consist of a single lot located along SW 92"' Ave., with g two flag lots located behind the first lot. Each flag lot is proposed to have a strip which will t allow access from the flag portion of the lots to SAC 92" Ave. The lots will H~ ~..b,. Il.V t from 7,7,n sq. f1. to 8,040 sy. ii. q t BASIS FOR REVIEW t. { The City Council is being requested to review the Director's Decision of ~iLP 97-0010 for j' the reasons described below: i APPLICATION HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY PROCESSED AS A MINOR LAND i PARTITION The application has been incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition for the reasons listed below. (Minor Land Partitions are the onl} type of development proposal which presently do not require the preparation of a Tree :Mitigation Plan.) i 1. TTIE PROPOSED LAND PARTITION 3IEHTS "]'HE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION: j The proposed land division meets the definition of a Subdivision under the Code and the Oregon State Statutes. 1 Definitions: r i i _z 1 re --Subdivide land'* - to divide an area or u'act of iand into four or more iots witiun a calendv' wear when such area or tract of land ex sts_?S_-- unit .gr_ con_tiuuous units c f l:urd under single ownership at the be inning of the year. (Section 13.26.030 of tile Codc). t ® --Subdivision" means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land ..t:bd"4 cal (:)PS 9'.1,)111 '1 1-,`n ? ® "Tract" means one or more contiguous lots or parcels under the same ownership (016 315.010 (2)). s r The proposal to partition the subject parcel into three new lots while retaining the contiguous parcel as a separate individual lot clearly meets the definition of a "subdivision" or '-subdividing land" given above. The two parcels exist as contiguous units of land under j simple ow_ncI's at the bevinnint, of tile_~ear in which the application is bcfng made to partition the land. Furthermore. the two parcels have been described under a single deed, t' have been under single ownersltfp from 1947 to 1997, and have been combined as a sutje tax lot. Based on these facts, the two parcels have clearly been identified as a single unit of t land (if not a single legal lot) for 50 Fears. 2. THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION WILL CONTAIN OR "STREETS": ~ the Cih has approved the creation of llag lots which will contaut two priwaie; acccssways i meeting the definition of a private "road" or "street" under both the Code and the Oregon State Statutes. 'llre sole difference between whether or not an appfcation should be F considered as a Ndajor or Minor Land Partition is whether or not a "street" or "road" is created. The sole difference in submittal requirements is the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan. In the staff report written by \It-. Mark Roberts on May 3. 1997, in response to the appeal of Mr. Downing's first development application for the sulliect parcel. \lr. Roberts wrote that if more than one lot is accessed by a flag polo, "in the Director's opinion, this type of t access situation would then meet the current definition of street." however, it should be noted that this is an opinion, and is not supported by the Code. In fact, this opinion contradicts the Code which defmcs a "road" or --street' as a public or private way created to t provide ingress or egress to on_e_or_more lots, parcels, areas and a "private street" as an accesswav nvhich is under private ownership (Section 13.2(1.0.0). 3. THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION SHOULD BE RI--\ IF.RTED UNDER THL PL:1\Ell llEVELOP\11?\"1' PROCESS llte Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall require development proposals in (Icsignated timbered or tree areas to be reviewed through the Planned Development process to minimize the number of trees removed. f Iow'cver, the CitN' Code does not have a mechanism by which to designate --timbered or tree areas" and therefore is not requiring that such areas be developed as Planned Developments. i -3- J ~ -1 THE DECISION UGH;S 10'1' CO\FUR.~['I'U'i'fIl? COMPREHENSIVE PLAN f Pursuant to Section 18.162.040 of the Cock, the City has failed to make the applicant prove 1 that the proposed partition conforms to the City's C'omprchensive Plan. Part of the purpose i I of the Comprehensive Plan is to "maintain and improve the quality of life for residents by provldm,- for the retention of natural and cultural rrcnnrccs wh;,,h _o- tribute to the 11-Vabolij' j f of the community." To achieve this. one of'the Implementation Strategies (No. 4) of the Comprehensive Plan is to "ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of large or unique stands of trees." The Code is failing to implement this ui cases t where "large and unique stands of trees" exist on undeveloped land which is to be i partitioned as a Minor Land Partition. r The preamble to the -tree cutting" ordinance states that "the Council finds the proposed ordinance to satisfy the Implementation Strategy No. 4 of the Comprehensive Plan because the ordinance as amended will continue to protect large and unique stands of trees and major vegetation areas called for by that strate.,n,." However, the "tree cutting' code is not always protective of "large or unique stands of trees on undeveloped land" during the g development process because applications for 'Minor Land Partitions are one type of i development proposal which are not presently required to prepare a tree cutting plan. Mr. f s'. Dick Bewersdorff stated in a letter to the City Council. dated Jule 2, 1997 regarding the Tree Code Standards that "After passage of the new tree ordinance nrnticinn, rh'_re an uticnt io conduct a study to determine if there were unique trees or stands of trees needing s protection. 'T'his has not been accomplished due to other work priorities." The Code is r therefore failing to implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. F l Y; i \4r. Dick Bewersdorff has informed us that the City recognizes that the Code is failing to E require Tree Mitigation Plans itr some cases where '-large and unique stands of trees'exist. He told us that in the City is in the process of rewriting the Code. In the revised Code, the City will no longer make a distinction between Xlajor and Minor Land Partitions. The division of land will fall under the category of a subdivision or a land partition, which is consistent with Oregon State statutes and definitions. The "tree cutting" portion of the code will be revised so that it states that applications for land partitions will be required to prepare and submit Tree y-litigation Plans, In the fixture, the Code will meet the requirements of the Comprehensive plan to protect large and unique groves of trees during development. NVe believe that Mr. Downing should be required to prepare a 'T'ree Mitigation Plan. The requirement of the Comprehensive Plan that "large and unique stands of trees be protected P during the development process" would then be met, and safety and aesthetic concerns j would be addressed. { The introduction to the Comprclicmivc Plan also states that the purpose of the Plan is to `maintain and improve the existing quality of life for the residents." This is accomplished in part by -'prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing qualit}- of life for the residents of Tigard." The proposed partition will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood in several wavy: - 4- 1 i k 1 ~ 4 - 'Fite new lots are proposed to he much smatter than existing -lots and the ncw- ! homes will be built much closer to SQL' 92"t Ave. Ilan existing homes. This { Dill affect the general character and open and spacious feel of the neighborhood. { The proposed partition will increase traffic by almost 20 percent (3 new homes 16 existing homes). The increased traffic will create dangerous conditions along the narrow entrance of' SW 92n" Ave.- which is less than 20 feet 447de. Small children have to walk this section of road each week to the school-buss stop on SW Greenburg Road. 'Ile Decision fails to address the impact of increased traffic. - All trees are to be removed prior to construction, affecting the character of the neighborhood which was built among a large grove of fir trees. Furthermore, the integlity of nearby trees on adjacent properties will be compromised by the 1 complete removal of the buffer offered by the trees on the subject parcel. € i THE APPLICATION DOES NOT CONFORM «'ITI I THE CODE i The applicant has failed to prove that the proposed partitioning complies with all statuton• G and ordinance requirements and regulations as stated in Section 18.162.040 of the Code. The introduction to the Code states its objectives are to promote the general health, safety L and welfare of the public (Section 18.020.010). The Code is to implement these goals in the following manner: • Ensure that the development of property within the City is commensurate with the k z physical characteristics of the land, and in general, to promote and protect the --blic heald~ safet2~ convenience and welfare • conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources: and • providc for review of those uses which may have a detrimental impact on the community. ; We believe that the applicant has not proven that the development proposal will not he harmful to the residents for the following reasons: j t The proposed development will increase traffic at the narrow entrance to SAC 92"' Ave. by almost 20 percent. I lie Decision fails to address the dangers and impacts of increased traffic. The; applicant is not required to prepare a Trec MitiLation Plan. Such a plan is critical to evaluate the eff"Is of rctno4ing all trees from the subject parcel on trees located on adiacent parcels. i i i 7 1 f The applicant's propo<al is not aonimensuralc with the physical characteristics i of the surrounding- area (e.2. fir trees will be removed which add to the uniqueness of the neighborhood and serve as a buifer to noise). as stipulated by the Code. ` 1 AN ERROR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~ 1 An error was made in the Comprehensive flan which designated the zoning of Dogwood Ridge Ncig-ltborhood (as well as the subiect parcel) to be R-4.5. which allows a minimum f lot size of 7,500 sq. ti. The zoning should he R-3.5 (which iUo%,.s a minimum lot size of 10.000 sq. ft.) so that the character of the neighborhood can be preserved as intended by l - the original de,~clopars of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. and so that any new development on undeveloped land will not adversely impact the neighborhood. A zoning 1 designation of R-4.5 for Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood must be a mistake, because it will allow in-fill development which will destroy the character of the neighborhood. This is in conflict with the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to prevent development which will s, cause a diminution to the existing quality of Life for the residents of Tigard. s RIGHT-OF-WAY NVI DTH C :LS slated 111 illo Dliecior's Dcc;ion, S'„" n.- r. -k.. ~n'1 ;s , local residential street that is paved. hurt not improved to Cite standards. 'File Right-of-Way (RO«V) width of the section of SW 92rtl Ave. that is located in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood is 50 feet wide. The ROW a width of the portion of SW 92n1 Avenue that fronts the subject parcel is presently only 40 feet wide. The Director's Docision states that the applicant will dedicate an additional five E feet to the Citv's ROW. However, as can be seen in Figure 2, this dedication will create a kkC ROW that ',will only be 45 feet wide along the frontage of the subject parcel. The edge of t 1 the ROW on the opposite side of the street is presently in alignment with the edge of the ~ ROW in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. -this parcel was developed at a later date than Dogwood Ridge Neigmborhood and the homeowner was required to dedicate a portion of his property so that the edge of the ROW would be in alignment %vith the rest of SW 92rd Ave. It would not be appropriate to ask this homeowner to dedicate an additional five feet t i to the City's ROLL' to create an ROW width of" 50 feet. since the edge of the ROW is in alignment with the rest of the street. Therefore. the applicant should be required to dedicate a total of 10 feet to the City so that the ROW width will be 50 feet, which meets Code 1 requirements for a local residential street and is consistent with the remainder of the street. SUIIMARV OF THE DECISION PROCESS OF THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY The Codc (Section 18.32.250) describes the decision process of the Approval Authority and states that the decision shall be based on proof by the applicant that the application fulh' complies with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the relevant approval standards in the Coda The Approval Authority in their reNicw may adopt the findings and U conclusions: i rl- j I~ a • contained in the staff report, I I • from a lower approval authority, i • submitted by any party, or t 1 i } • its own find n&s and conclusions. s Consideration may, also be given to: . • proof of a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application; and 1 G„ • factual oral testimony or written statements from the parties. a CONCLUSIONS We are rec uestino that the City Council rep ew 1 7 the Director's Decision of X1I.P 97_0010 to ensure that the application is processed correctly and that any proposed development does not cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of the City of Tigard, Cr create ate insa conditions. A, »rnrn, nerrl partiflnnino should be scaled back so that it is g compatible with the character of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and does not substantially alter the character of the grove of fir trees on the sul;iect parcel. hnposing conditions on the Director's Decision which would cause the applicant to develop the subject lot at a lower density than proposed, should not be considered a `takings issue." Instead, it is a matter of requesting the applicant to address and mitigate harmful impacts to be caused by the i proposed partitioning on the surrounding neighborhood. ¢ . j ~ I I ' i i i -7- L r--- 62. I 5 .i I , ° ~ t ~ ~ ~r> I I ` ' DAKOTA ~a--; y LAS LN 1 1 TAN C i IG~1RE 1 GWOOD KIflGE LocpT10 tj o O 4N0 Sv Oe-i' Vicinity Map w. . E N E i c PkaCE:`- ♦ } ~D1GVrES FLAG LOT s i , , i I , CITY OF TIOARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community 1 MEMORANDUM l VI 1 T OF ~ IVMrtL/ i TO: City Council I i / FROM: Jim Hendryx 1--fC DATE: August 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Terry Smith's Request for a Hearing On June 24, 1997, Terrv Smith appeared before Council and submitted a written request for Council to conduct a hearing on two specific issues. Both requests involve properties along SW 92nd Avenue. In separate memos, both of which are attached, are the responses we provided. I 17utsidp of formal applications being submittoti by Mr. Smith, procedural steps do i vt exist to Uonduct a hearing" to consider the issues. Mr. Smith and his neighbors have the right to take necessary steps, either through a land use appeal process involving a specific application, or through a rezone application to address their concerns. Staff does not find that there is justification for staff to initiate a zone change. Further, staff does not concur with the statement that the tree code provisions need adjustment. Mr. Smith has the opportunity to initiate text. or map amendments to address either issue. Mr. Smith has also discussed the idea that the City should purchase properties located at the i 92nd/Greenburg Road intersection. The primary reason would be to protect and preserve trees situated on the property. That issue may arise during the Greenspaces hearing on August 12, 1997. Staffs initial evaluation of the site is that it is not substantial enough to warrant consideration for purchase through the Greenspaces program. i j j { 1 MEMORANDUM City of Tigard j CITY OF T1GARO, OREGON 4 S 9 ' TO: City Council FROM: Dick Sewersdorff / DATE: July 2, 1997 SUBJECT: Tree Code Standards ~ j I RACKGROUIND At the June 24, 1997 City Council meeting, Mr. Terry Smith asked for the City to review and designate a specific property located at the comer of SW 92nd Avenue and SW 1 Gn_enburg Road, as containing significant trees. This memo is intended to clarify and summarize the City of Tiigard's current tree code requirements. i -the Community Development Code was amended in September of 1995 as a result of recommendations of a Tree Task Force convened in an attempt to try to balance property owners rights with the need for tree removal and preservation. The entire process of code review took over three years. In summary, the new code provisions require tree removal permits in sensitive land areas only. These include wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplains. This was based on the desire to protect sensitive areas from erosion and for water quality needs. The new code provisions also recognized the desire to promote tree preservation when in L conjunction with larger scale development_ This was done by requiring a tree plan for development including: site development reviews, planned developments, conditional uses, and major land partitions. The new code provisions also intended to allow property owners to remove trees without a permit if their land was not in a sensitive land area. Prohibition of commercial forestry of ten (10) trees per acre for the purpose of sale was intended to apply to timbered properties not involved in the development process. The code also allows the cutting of registered wocdlots. Tree plans are intended to promote protection of trees through the identification of trees 12 incites in caliper or greater. The code specifically recognizes that trees will have to be removed to acCommcdate structures, streets, utilities, and other improvements. The i original tree ordinance provisions allowed tree removal if necessary for a development ;take place. The new code establishes standards for tree mitigation based on the Page 1 of 2 t'~uCimaictc'LrecoCe.mem , J percentage of tree removal required for development. The more trees removed, the higher the amount of mitigation. Mitigation is accomplished either by planting trees to offset the caliper inches being removed, or payment into a tree replacement fund in an amount that provides for replacement. Much of the testimony received in the draft and adoption phases centered on the fact that most of the trees in Tigard were planted and were not natural vld gmvu h. Incentives to save trees were built into the code to provide for density bonuses, lot size averaging, reduced lot width and depth, setback adjustments, and parking and landscaping reductions. e We have found through arborist reports that grading needs and structural improvements (including foundations and streets) result in situations where many trees cannot be saved. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has general policies to protect vegetation and wildlife. Six (6) areas were suggested in the plan for preservation through purchase, if necessary, due to particular vegetation and wildlife value and relative uniqueness. _ Included are the forested northeast slopes of Bull Mountain, the Summer Creek L1a,rsh, the summit of Little Bull Mountain, Willow Brook, the Tualatin River bank between 108th and Cook Park, and the Fanno Creek Marsh. There are no tree areas singled-out for preservation by plan policy. After passage of the new tree ordinance provision, there was an intent to conduct a study to determine if there were unique trees or stands of trees needing protection. This has not been accomplished due to other work priorities, although, there was a study conducted of natural forested areas in 1994. DESIGNATION OF SIGNIFICANT TREES t The code is silent on designating specific trees. There is nomechanism or program in i place to designate specific trees or stands of trees. Such a designation would require an overlay designation similar to the Historic Overlay District. A planned development } overlay can also be placed on a property. This would require a zone change public hearing. Application must be made by the property owner, or initiated by the City. The t planned development overlay is not designed specifically for tree preservation. Under i the planned development provisions, trees are to be saved with development, wherever 2csgiblp. This leaves little guidance relative to grading and structural improvements. Designation of a site for tree preservation brings on a number of taking issues for properties that are developable. Purchase or a property owners' willingness to restrict removal are the only means currently available to preserve soec'mc trees or stands or trees. It would be very difficult to evaluate any tree or stands of trees, as to community value and protection without a study of such in relation to all of the possible choices within the city. 1 j t crrp+ma~acereec~ee.m«n Page 2 of 2 i 1 I CITY OF TIGARD Community Ormlopment I+ AdpingA Better Community ~ i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx /A/v, DATE: August 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Correspondence from Terry Smith - June 24, 1997 Mr. Smith appeared at the June 24, 1997, City Council meeting requesting consideration of two issues associated with a minor land partition (downing) at SW 92nd and Greenburg Road. Dick Bewersdorff provided a response to one of Mr. Smith's issues associated with a grove of trees I~ ted on Mr. Downing's property. Mr. Bewersdorffs response was sent to you, along with Mr. h's letter, in the July 11, 1997, weekly newsletter. The second issue raised by Mr. Smith involved the zoning of properties along SW 92nd. Mr. Smith stated: I "The possibility that there is mistake in the zoning as the city has applied it to those properties which adjoin SW 92nd Ave. Most of the basis for our finding is the fact that we i believe that development as allowed by the zoning the city has applied will cause a diminution in the existing quality of life." 1 have reviewed the zoning for SW 92nd and determined the following: I • The area is designated low density residential (1-5 units/acre) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation was applied to this area with the City's initial comprehensive planning effort that occurred in 1983. • The area's designation did not change with the last periodic review procedure that occurred in 1991. • Four separate zoning designations meet the allowable density of the low density designation. They are R-1 (30,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); R-2 (20.000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); R-3.5 /10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); and R-4.5 (7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size). • Lots along SW 92nd are zoned R-4.5 (7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size), but the average lot size is approximately 18,800 square feet. F7- 0 Current staff members who participated in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning of the area - indicate that the City had extensive public involvement throughout the planning process. - Property owners have the right to request the rezoning of their properties. Mr. Smith and his neighbors believe that there was a mistake and could initiate such an application. In conclusion, I could not determine that any mistake had occurred during the original process for designating the land use and zoning for the area and would not recommend a City initiated rezone for the area. i i ' i j i i 61 O n C M ~ ~ H N ~ ~ J g Aso 61 0. s ~i~p'p, 0.' P ~ 1y ~'n N •M ~ f G•~ ~ $ a ~ A c, ir V. g 43 9 n s h i { i i OVERSIZED DOCUMENTS I MEETING DAT'E■ Dq10l1q7 j AG E N ®A i J i SEE 35MM ROLL FILM i:\records\microflm\targets\osdocccm.doc 1 ~ a - i i E MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD I Community /Development CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ShapingA Better Community 1 TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Dick Bewersdorff i DATE: August 7, 1997 j SUBJECT: Approved Land Use Decisions through August 7, 1997 Qotaldecisions this memo 31 final Order Issued.- 8/ 6/97 i Baal Appeal Date: 8/18197 { U CONUMONAL USE PERMR [CUP] 97-0004 j ➢ AT&T MONOPOLE TOWER Q i 1 The Tigard Hearing's Officer at the July 7, 1997 Public Hearing, HELD OPEN THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR A TOTAL OF THREE WEEKS (until 7/28/97) TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE OPPONENTS OF THE PROPOSAL TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE. In recognition of the findings and conclusions in the Hearing's Officers Final Order, and incorporating the Staff Report and other reports of affected public agencies and testimony and xhibits received in this matter, the Hearing's Officer APPROVED, (subject to conditions. R ~.-.+t+3G1?ed„ Y r^.^yi+wt fvr vv~~u~uvuai Use approval to develop a 50-foot tall cellular communications) J Conditional Use ? Lmonopole tower and related equipment structures. LOCATIOIE 13707 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 2S103DD, Tax Lot 00400 (Not plawmapaUachedl ! ZONE General Commercial; C-G. The General Commercial zoning district provides sites for the provision of major retail goods and services. The provision of utilities are also allowed in the u General Commercial zoning district. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.62, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108 and 18.130. h:\patty14ocs\8.7-97.m2 (Memo Cover Page 1/3) _ l~ y J L~ ST ' ~ PPRK ST I ~ s P ~yt v ' ~ I :,yam top tag 1t9~-~+ i i i i• i 0 OLDpC lvACJPlTI - ~ . 0 - ~ i~ I I I I I ~ TUNE A CAR ~ U ~ I!®Il i I illllilll ~ n 1 AJAx ew r w II II Z . Q ' I AMEIIUE AID &AFFO f J snzcm @ I ~l Toux vewi 1 5T anEw - A i o o ri' x W-P pREFAMCATED . EaWrt-'R SCUM - _ O r FQIDA17Q1 DE~ FCR TOU13t AID ECUrV*Kf S18TM 6T onf3m ~n VEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION V i _ CASE NO. `J 1=XHIBI~'~P s A.T.&TMonopole I SW Pacific Highway Site CUP 97- 0004 c LCONOQIOMALUSEPERMIT (CUP)97-0004-> ATLTMONOPOLITOWS -CONOQIONSOFAPPOOVALI UweIof11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639-4171.) 1. Before the City issues a building permit for the proposed tower, the applicant shall submit a site plan to the planning director for review and approval. The site plan shall identify where one (1) off-street parking space will be provided for the communications facility. That space may be situated in the existing parking lot if the applicant shows that the number of parking spaces on the site exceeds the minimum number required by the CDC by at least one space. 2. The site plan shall show a sight-obscuring fence on at least the west, south and east elevations of the ground-mounted equipment on the communications facility site. The applicant shall C maintain the approved screening in good condition as long as the applicant uses the site for communications facility. 3. If li htin is for security or safe i g g i proposed ry purposes, the site plan shall show all such lighting, { . - subject to condition of approval 5. ` 4. The applicant shall show there is at least 25 feet between the facility and the closest point of the parking spaces that abut the north side of the southernmost building on the site. i 5. The tower shall not incorporate any advertising, signage, or lighting except as required by the l Federal Communications Commission or other applicable agency with jurisdiction; provided, the planning director may approve lighting deemed necessary for security and safety purposes; f provided further, permitted lighting shall be designed, situated and/or operated to minimize its off-site impacts. 6. The applicant shall allow antennas for other telecommunications service providers to be situated on the proposed tower, provided it does not increase the height of the tower or substantially increase adverse visual impacts, and shall allow associated transmission equipment to be situated in the proposed accessory building on the site if the tower and/or building can accommodate such additional antennas and equipment or can be modified to do so; provided, the applicant may require such shared user to pay all costs associated with such shared use as a condition of such shared use; provided further , such modification to the conditional use should be subject to applicable review by the City. The applicant shall respond promptly and in good faith to any inquiry regarding shared use of the tower site. 7. The applicant shall remove the tower within 90 days after the communications facility is abandoned or its use is otherwise terminated. The facility is presumed to be abandoned if all of the antennas are removed from the tower or are not operated for at least six consecutive months. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. e To: Tigard CIP, Council t ' Z i We. the undersigned. requust that the Tigard Cit, Council revlei,\" the Director's Decision of TALI) 97-0010 for the tollomng dcliciencies: 1. The application has been incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition. 2. The Iirector's Decision does not conform to the Cite of •I'igard's j Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code. One of the aims of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that development proposals do not substantialk- alter the character of large or unique stands of U"ces. The Code ~ c. is failing to implement this ~\licn land is to be partitioned as a Minor Land s Partition. The purpose of the Code is to promote the general health. safety , .I• fl... .ki; . •I.r r , not ui~u ~~C+uirv .w i... iie `r,. llas no, rCirtii rCd the applicant i0 tllll~' address these issues.. " 3. An error was made in the Comprehensive Plan N\hich designated the zonin(-, ofDcumood Ridi-,e Ncialiborhood (as xNell as the subject parcel) to be R-I.3. which allo«s a mininnun lot size of 7.500 sq. ft. The zoning should be R- Y 3.5. N\hich allots a minimum lot size of 10.000 sq. ft. 4. The applicant is not required to dedicate sufficient land to the Cite so that the Right-of- 'a-v width of SW 92`1 Ave. in front of the subject parcel will is be 50 leet. i,\hich is consistent xNith the Ri,(,ht-of-Wa,,- width of the remainder I. • c• of SW 92"''' Ave. in Doexwod Ridge Neighborhood. it We also support the findim-,s and conclusions presented in the document entitled "Request for Tigard Cliv Council to Reviei,\ the Director's Decision of Application M1,1' 97-001(1. Name (Print) Signature Address Date: t~ L A ii.361o Lw to /.4 ie, 1' 7 uA, lb"/~~t ~K~~e.chefte _/c~ Tiy~r~ 70 14- s 360l Tyr. r; n f.T - ' SC~ ~f~T~lti.lR.S'Hc..~-ri:.,~- _~J!3~...T..~ ~_•.4~..~.~ _ ..~,._S<.. ~t.a -y~a_ ~/-S' 7 e,i,\"~~, x`31 C zX? 1_6,1 Ye.O 6e c y -Qs e L'~_.1I~35 __~w 4aiNa Ave ~c1`d. off-- q-T-g7 i 1 j 1 a To: Tigard City Council We, the undersigned, request that the Tigard City Council review the Director's Decision of MLP 97-0010 for the following deficiencies: - i. The application iiuJ been illy Vli\. lly pl V44JJt.u as a 1V 1 Vl 1- u Pal lltl Vll. 2. The Director's Decision does not conform to the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code. One of the aims of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of large or unique stands of trees. The Code is failing to implement this when land is to be partitioned as a Minor Land 4 Partition. The purpose of the Code is to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the public. The City has not required the applicant to fully ' address these issues. l' 3. An error was made in the Comprehensive Plan which designated the zoning of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood (as well as the subject parcel) to be R-4.5, which allows a minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. The zoning should be R-3.5, which allows a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. 4. The applicant is not required to dedicate sufficient land to the City so that the j Right-of-Way width of SW 92"" Ave. in front of the subject parcel will be 50 feet, which is consistent with the Right-of-Way width of the remainder of SW j 92"a Ave. in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. We also support the findings and conclusions presented in the document entitled "Request for Tigard City Council to Review the Director's Decision of Application MLP 97-0010. Name (Print) Signature Addres Date a F/ 1137~~~ SZ~`{ 9~ J`, f; v,.1 6 )'LtU `ZZ-(C.. 22 ; ~i.IC,.7 i + 7 q A( Q - 1 (;>tiC Ii' L2 Y l ~ ~ U/1-17 r l 1,4n`' Sh/ 9T 7 j I I r i i I ® I CON ST]CTU['7C I OWN ]H[ ]L]L A 3 LOT MINOR LAND PARTITION Aor • - (tom-.»_._ CONTENTS 2 3 4 APPLICANTS STATEMENT 5 6 VICINITY MAP - s SITE PLAT MAP 1o VISUAL CLEARANCE AREA MAP 12 TREE MAP 13 14 FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TEST REPORT 15 16 FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT f 17 ACCESS AND WATER SUPPLIES i 1s 19 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (DOCUMENT NO. 97056444 IN C 1 20 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOOK OF RECORDS). 21 22 SOLAR ACCESS MAP 23 24 SCREENING MAP 26 FIVE PREVIOUS DEEDS OF RECORD 25 C 27 i 28 DOGWOOD RIDGE SUBDIVISION MAP i i ~,.J f 29 JUNE 26, 1997 n 30 31 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 32 33 APPLICANT ! OWNER Miles Downing 34 P.O. Box 230972 - 35 Tigard, Or. 97281-0972 36 37 REQUEST 3 Lot Minor Land Partition 38 39 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at a point in North line of the John Hicklin F 40 Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 41 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, Countyof 42 Washington and State of Oregon, Which bears South 89° 34' West 968.88 43 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim: thence south 0° 01' West 44 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein 45 described: thence North 65° 38' 30" west 219.53 feet to a pipe: thence " . 46 North 0° 01' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 88° 36' West 10 feet 47 from an iron nnat the Southwest TLVIJ %0 GjYVVVL A1LUC,'%0OD RIDGE ~ pipe tia vY \.Jl ~.Vll1C.1 o lfl Lot 9 7 , a as plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 89° 59' East 200 49 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; 50 thence South 0° 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. SEE 51 DEED OF RECORD INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION. 52 53 54 55 SIZE 26,850 square feet 56 57 LOCATION Approximately 11510 SW 92ND Avenue. 58 Tax Lot 6701 map 1 S1 35DC. 59 See map attached. 60 61 ZONING DESIGNATION R-4.5 Single Family Residential (7500 62 square feet) 1 - t i 1 i I L~~ 63 I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 64 65 A. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan 66 67 B. The Following Sections of the City of Tigard Community Development Code 68 Chapter 18.02 PURPOSE 69 Chapter 18.10 CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LAWS 70 Chapter 18.26 MEANING OF SPECIFIC WORDS AND TERMS 71 Chapter 18.32 PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: 72 QUASI-JUDICIAL 73 Chapter 18.50 R-4.5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 74 Chapter 18.88 SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT 75 Chapter 18.92 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 76 Chapter 18.96 ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 77 AND EXCEPTIONS i' 78 Chapter 18.98 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: EXCEPTIONS i 79 Chapter 18.100 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 80 Chapter 18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS I 81 Chapter 18.106 OFF STREET PARKING 82 Chapter 18.108 ACCESS, EGRESS & CIRCULATION ` 83 Chapter 18.15.0 TREE REMOVAL 84 Chapter 18.162 LAND DIVISION: MINOR LAND PARTITIONING 85 Chapter 18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT 86 STANDARDS 87 88 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 89 l 90 The subject property has approximately 26,850 square feet and fronts on SW 92nd 91 Avenue for a distance of 89 feet. The subject property is zoned R-4.5, the same 92 zoning as the surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are all in use as i 93 single family residential. The property has a consistent slope of 5 to 6 percent. 94 Vegetation on the property consists of trees, shrubs and a grass field. 95 The applicant is requesting approval of a 3 lot minor land partition. The 3 96 proposed partition involves the creation of three parcels as depicted on the attached 97 Preliminary Plat. Sizes of the proposed lots are approximately as follows, lot 1 has 98 7570 square feet, lot 2 has 8040 square feet, lot 3 has 7771 square feet. Areas 99 calculated do not include the pole area of the flag lots. All three parcels are ioo intended for future single-family residential use. Five feet along SW 92nd street j 101 will be dedicated to the city along with a non remonstrance agreement consisting of 102 an area of 450.41 square feet. Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots, each exceed the required 103 minimum of 15 feet of frontage on SW 92nd. Frontage of the proposed lots are as 104 follows, lot 1 has 58.33 feet, lot 2 has 16.46 feet, lot 3 has 16.46 feet. Public %P) 105 utilities area available to serve the proposed partition (see section 18.162.040/A/3 106 later in this document). 107 108 log III. FINDINGS 110 111 A. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 112 113 COMMENT. 114 Except inhere specifrca!!y required by the community development code, this ii s application is not required to address goals and policies related to the development 116 of land, since the plan is implemented by the code. 18.02. 010 "this title is 117 designed to set forth the standards and procedures governing the development and 118 use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard comprehensive plan 119 18. 10.010 "All provisions of this title shall be construed in conformity with the j 12o adopted comprehensive plan i 121 T CITY /1TT7/\ A 1.11 1lTf~T tVT J ~l.'1 0vvJiVTY 122 15. Y Ur 1 f 123 DEVELOPMENT CODE 124 125 18.02.010 PURPOSE ff 126 As a means of promoting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, this I r 127 title is designed to set forth the standards and procedures governing the 128 development and use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard 129 comprehensive plan. 130 131 18.10.010 CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LAWS 132 Each development and use application and other procedure initiated under this title 133 shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the city of Tigard as 134 implemented by this title and with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. j 135 All provisions of this title shall be construed in conformity with the adopted 136 comprehensive plan. S 137 138 18.26.030 MEANING OF SPECIFIC WORDS AND TERMS 139 "Flag Lot" a lot located behind a frontage lot, plus a strip out to the street for an 140 access drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision or partitioning of a residential 141 lot or parcel which is more than twice as large as the minimum allowed frontage to 142 allow two dwellings to front along a street. There are two district parts to a flag lot: ~i i 1 143 the "flag" which comprises the actual building site located at the rear portion of the 144 original lot, and the "pole" which provides access from a street to the flag_ 145 "Road" or "Street" a public or private way that is created to provide ingress or 146 egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a 147 private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction 148 with the use of such land for forestry, mining or agricultural purposes. 149 COMMENT 150 The definitions above clearly define thepO!e 0fJ Gi[i- 101 as bciagpari Ofa lOi tiiul - - 151 provides access from the street, and a street provides access to a lot, therefor in no 152 way can the lot or any part of the lot be considered a road or a street. 153 154 18.32 PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: F 155 QUASI-JUDICIAL 156 157 COMMENT 158 The applicant specifically concurs will: the dedication requirement that 5 feet of ! 159 the subject parcel be given to the City of Tigard for the right-of-way in SW 92nd . s 16o Avenue. I 161 f 162 18.50 R-4.5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 163 ~ 164 18.50.030 Permitted Uses. 165 A. Permitted uses in the R-4.5 district are as follows: 166 1. Single-family detached residential units. 167 COMMENT. 168 The applicant is proposing the creation of a three lot minor land partition. All 169 three lots are intended for future single family residential use. 170 171 18.50.050 Dimensional requirements 172 A. Dimensional requirements in the R-4.5 district are as follows: 173 1. The minimum lot area shall be: 174 a. 7,500 square feet for each detached unit. 175 2. The average minimum lot width shall be: 176 a. 50 feet for detached units. 177 1 Except as otherwise provided in chapter 18.96(Additional Yard 178 Setback Requirements And Exceptions) and Section 179 18.100.130(Buffer Matrix), the minimum setback requirements are as i 180 follows. 181 a. The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 182 c. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 5 feet. j 183 d. The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. i 1 ~ . i i ' 184 e. The distance between the property line and the front of the 1 _ 185 garage shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 186 COMMENT: 187 The proposed partition exceeds the minimum lot size and lot width standards of the 188 R-4.5 district. Sizes of the proposed lots are approximately as follows, lot 1 has 1 189 7570 square feet, lot 2 has 8040 square feet, lot 3 has 7771 square feet. Areas 190 calculated do not include the pole area of the flag lots. The requirement of a i9i average Ict ::'idth nf50_feet is easily meet as demonsiraied by the preli ninan' plot 192 map included with this application. The approximate width of lot 1 is 78 feet. The 193 approximate width of lot 2 is 65 feet. The approximate width of lot 3 is 87 feet. 194 The use of setbacks will be implemented at the time a building permit is applied 195 for. 196 197 CHAPTER 18.88 SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT 198 199 18.88.040 Solar access for new Development. 200 E. Adjustments to Design Standard. The approval authority shall reduce 201 the percentage of lots that must comply with section 18.88.040 C to 202 the minimum extent necessary if it finds the applicant has shown it 203 would cause or is subject to one or more of the following conditions: f 204 1. Adverse impacts on density and cost or amenities. { . I 205 a. If the design standard in section 18.88.040 C. 1. is 1 206 applied, either the resulting density is less than that 207 proposed, ect. j 208 COMMENT 2o9 Although all three lot can contain a line along the north south axis exceeding 90 f 210 feet in length, as the definition ofa north south line is applied the dimensions are: 1 211 For lot 1, 82.45 feet. For lot 2, 72.33 feet. For lot 3, 86.49 feet. Lot 2 does comply f 212 with this section because the front lot line is oriented within 30 degrees of true east { 213 west axis. Because 80%, or all three lots, must be included with 18.88.040 C, 214 applying 18.88.040 C. 1. would require elimination of one of the lots and would 215 reduce the density, therefor 18.88.040 C shall be reduced to allow for the R-4.5 216 density as stated in 18.88.040 E. Solar calculations will still be required at the I 217 time of any construction on the site. See 18.88 solar access drawing included with 218 this application. i i i 1 219 CHAPTER 18.92 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS. { r > 220 I 221 18.92.020 Density Calculation. 222 COMMENT: 223 The net area of the subject parcel is 26,850.5 square feet. The subject parcel does 224 not contain any sensitive land nor is it near any sensitive land. Five feet along SW 225 92nd street will be dedicated to the city along with a non remonstrance agreement 226 consisting of an area of 450.41 square feet. 26,850.5 - 450.5 = 26,400 square feet. 227 26,400 - 7500 square feet per lot = 3.52 or 3 single family residential units. 228 229 18.92.030 Residential Density transfer 230 COMMENT 231 Based on the results of the above density calculation, a residential density transfer 232 is not required in order to obtain three lots on the subject site. 233 234 18.96 ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND 235 EXCEPTIONS. 236 237 18.96.080 Lot Area for Flag Lots. 238 A. The lot area for a f1so lot chnll rmmnhr with the lit nren i - a _ i..~ 239 requirements of the applicable zoning district. 240 B. The lot area shall be provided entirely within the building 241 site exclusive of any accessway. 242 ' 243 COMMENT 244 The proposed partition exceeds the minimum lot size and lot width standards of the 245 R-4.5 district. Sues of the proposed lots are approximately as follows, lot I has 246 7570 square feet, lot 2 has 8040 square feet, lot 3 has 7771 square feet. Areas 247 calculated do not include the pole area of the flag lots. 248 249 18.96.090 Front Yard Determination 250 A. The owner or developer of a flag lot may determine the 251 location of the front yard, provided no side yard setback 252 area is less than 10 feet and provided the requirements of 253 Section 18.98.030(Building Heights And Flag Lots) are 254 satisfied. 255 COMMENT 1 256 The option described in this section may be applied if necessary at the time of a i 257 building permit application. t 258 18.98 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: EXCEPTIONS 7 259 260 18.98.030 Building Heights and Flag Lots. 261 A. Limitations on the placement of residential structures on flag lots 262 apply when any of the following exist: 263 2. A flag lot is created after April 15 1985 by an approved minor 264 land partition. 265 B. The maximum height for a singie-family residential structure on a nag 266 lot is 1-1/2 stories or 25 feet whichever is less, except that the 267 maximum height may be 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet, whichever is less, 268 provided: 269 1. The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable 270 dimensional requirements of the zoning district. 271 2. A 10 feet side yard will be preserved. 272 273 3. A residential structure on any abutting lot either is located 50 274 feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelling, or 275 the residential structure exceeds 1-1/2 stories or 25 feet in height 276 on any abutting lot. 277 4. Windows 15 feet or more above grade shall not face dwelling 278 unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal 279 includes and agreement to plant trees capable of mitigating 280 direct views, or that such trees exist and will be preserved. 281 COMMENT 282 The limitations described in this section may be applied if necessary at the time of 283 a building permit application. The flag lots do provide a building envelope area 284 greater than 50 feel from neighboring buildings. If an applicant for building 285 permit wishes to build at 2-112 stories or 35 feet and plans to build with windows 286 15 feet or more above grade facing other dwelling unit windows or patios then the 287 applicant for building permit must plant trees capable of mitigating direct views. 288 289 18.100 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 290 ! 291 18.100.030 Street Trees. 292 A. All development projects fronting on a public street more than 100 feet 293 in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the 294 in 18.100.035. j 295 COMMENTS ' 296 The proposed minor land partition has a street frontage less than 100 feet in length 297 and therefor no street tree planting is required as stated in 18.100.030 A. 298 C.> 299 18.100.070 Buffering and screening General Provisions. 300 B. Buffering and Screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent 301 uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrix in this 302 chapter. 303 COMMENTS 304 The use of the proposed minor land partition is of the same type as the surrounding 305 properties and therefor is not required to provide screening as stated in 30o 18.100.070 B. Other screening may be required, see section 18.162.050 307 F(Screening Of Flag Lots) later in this document. 308 309 18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS i 310 311 18.102.015 Applicability of Provisions 312 C. The applicant shall submit a site plan which includes: f 313 1. The location and height of all hedges, trees, plantings, fences or f 314 wall structures within the vision clearance area as computed in 315 18.102.030, 18.102.040, and 18.102.050; and f 316 2. The location of all access points, parking and circulation areas, 317 loading areas and pedestrian walkways within the vision fi 318 clearance area as computed in Scctivr, 1 o. 11 nU2.03'~1, i o. i 0" V4.0400, 319 and 18.102.050. 320 18.102.050 Computation: Non-Arterial Street and Accessway Less Than 24 Feet 321 In Width 322 A. The visual clearance area for accessway intersections having less than 323 24 feet in width shall be that triangular area whose base extends 30 324 feet along the street right-of-way line in both directions from the 325 centerline of the accessway at the front setback line of a single family 326 residence. 327 COMMENT 329 Clear vision areas will be maintained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 329 18.102. Existing 6' chain link fence on subject parcel will be removed as it will be 330 in the street right-off-way. Clear vision area for lot 1 will be determined at the 331 time a building permit is applied for. For lots 2 and 3 the clear vision areas 332 marked on the drawing represent the clearing required for 32.92 feet of pavement, j 333 the width of the frontage of lots 2 and 3. The final product, constructed by the 334 applicant of a building permit, will not be required to be at the maximum width of 335 32.92 feet. The final product and the associated clear vision areas will fall t 336 somewhere inside the clear vision area of the drawing. See visual clearance 337 drawing. U - _r I 338 18.106 OFF STREET PARKING f 339 i 340 18.106.030 Residential Uses j 341 A. 1. Single-family residences - 2 off-street spaces for each dwelling 342 unit. 343 COMMENT 344 The proposed lots contain adequate area to accommodate a minimtm? ; Avo 345 parking spaces for each respective dwelling unit in accordance with Section 346 18.106.030. 347 348 18.108 ACCESS, EGRESS & CIRCULATION 349 350 COMMENT 351 The attached Preliminaiy Plat demonstrates that the proposed parcels contain 352 adequate area to accommodate the minimum requirements for vehicular access to 353 dwelling units in accordance with Section 18.108.040 and 18.108.070. All tree lots 354 have direct access to SW 92nd Street. Access will be brought to within 50 feet of 355 the ground floor entrance or ground floor landing of a stairway leading to any { 356 dwelling units built in the future by the applicant of a building permit. k 357 3s8 18.150 TREE REMOVAL 359 360 18.150.025 361 A. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protect-on of trees prepared 362 by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or 363 combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for 364 a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned 365 development or conditional use is filed. 366 COMMENT 367 For this minor partition a tree plan is not required as stated in 18.150.025 A, 368 minor land partitions are not included. It is the applicants understanding that 369 commercial forestry was not intended to and does not apply to land use decisions. 370 Trees on the property will be removed at the developers discretion. I 371 372 18.050.030 373 A. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree 374 which is located on or in a sensitive land are as defined by 18.84 } 375 COMMENT 376 There arc no sensitive land areas on or near the property being partitioned 377 therefor permits for removal are not required as stated in 18.150.030 A. It is the 378 applicants understanding that commercial forestry was not intended to and does i 379 not apply to land use decisions. Trees on the property will be removed at the 38o developers discretion. 381 382 18.162 LAND DIVISION: MINOR LAND PARTITIONING 383 384 18.162.020 385 B. A minor land partition review is required when three lots or fewer are 386 created without the creation of a street or road, Within one calendar 387 year. 399 389 COMMENT 390 This application is for three lots and therefor is considered a minor land partition. 391 392 18.162.030 393 A. The applicant of a partition or lot line adjustment proposal shall be the 394 recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the I 395 owner. 396 COMMENT 397 The gnnlicant is Ilya n\UNOr of the proporyy• 398 d~ 399 B. Any application for a major or minor land partition or lot line 400 adjustment shall be in conformity with all state regulations set forth in 401 ORS Chapter 92, Subdivision and Partitions. I 402 COMMENTS 403 The application is in conformity with state regulations as demonstrated by the City 404 of Tigard Community Development Code and this application. 405 406 18.162.040 Partition Approval Criteria 407 A. A request to partition land shall meet all of the following 408 criteria: 409 l . The proposal conforms to the Cities comprehensive 410 plan. 411 COMMENT 412 The proposal conforms to the Cities comprehensive plan as demonstrated by the 413 Cities Community Development Code, which implements the comprehensive plan, 414 and this application. The city of Tigard community development code states in 415 chapter 18.10.010 CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LA [VS.- Each 416 development and use application and other procedure initiated under this title 417 shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the city of Tigard as `J 418 implemented by this title and with applicable state and federal lalvs and 419 regulations. All provisions of this title shall be construed in conformity with the 420 adopted comprehensive plan. I I l~ 421 I 422 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and 423 ordinance requirements and regulations. I 424 COMMENT 425 The proposal conforms to all ordinance requirements and regulations as 426 demonstrated by the Cities Community Development Code and this application. i 427 The city of Tigard community development code states in chapter 18. 428 CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LAWS: Each development and use ~ 429 application and other procedure initiated wider this title shall be consistent with 430 the adopted comprehensive plan of the city of Tigard as implemented by this title 431 and with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. All provisions of this 432 title shall be construed in conformity with the adopted comprehensive plan. 433 434 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the 435 proposal. 436 COMMENT 437 Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal. A utility easement 438 will be granted from neighboring parcel of land. See plat map. 439 SEWER V 44o An R" ,Sewer line exiSlS in SW 92nd Aven!te Another 8" se,,ver line orict , in I J 441 Greenburg Road that may be accessed through a easement that will be granted 442 across the neighboring property. 443 WATER 444 A 4 " water line exists in SW 92nd street. A 6" water line serves the fire hydrant at 445 the northeast corner of Greenburg Road and 92nd Avenue. The fire hydrant has a 446 flow rate that meets the standards set by the fire marshal, see attached flow report. 447 STORM WATER 448 A storm water catch basin exists at the north east corner of Greenburg Road and f 449 92nd Avenue to catch storm water run off that flows in a ditch at the side of 92nd 45o Avenue. Another storm water catch basin exists 45 feet, east along the northern 451 edge of Greenburg Road, from a easement that will be granted across the 452 neighboring property. Storm water can be diverted through the easement to the 453 curb on Greenburg Road or to the ditch along 92nd Avenue. 454 GAS 455 A natural gas line exists in 92nd Avenue 6' off the current property line. j 456 ELECTRICITY, TVAND PHONE j 457 Electricity, TV and Phone exist on the opposite side of 92nd street and at the end of 458 the utility easement granted across neighboring parcel of land. 459 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional S 460 requirements of this title. 1 461 COMMENT 462 All proposed lots conform to the size and dintensional requirements of this title as 463 demonstrated below in section 18.162.050 and by the preliminary plat included 464 with this application. 465 466 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable 467 agency standards. 468 COMMENT 469 A11 proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards as 47o demonstrated by the Cities Community Development Code and this application. 471 472 18.162.050 473 A. Lot Width: 474 1. The minimum width of the building envelope area shall 475 meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning 476 district. 477 COMMENT " - 478 The requirement of a average lot width of 50 feet is easily meet as demonstrated by 479 the preliminary plot map included with this application. The approximate width of 480 parcel I is 78 feet. The approximate width of parcel 2 is 65 feet. The approximate 481 width of parcel 3 is 87 feet. 482 483 B. Lot Area: 484 1. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable 485 zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway 486 may not be included in the lot area calculation. 487 COMMENT 488 The proposed partition exceeds the minimum lot size and lot width standards of the 489 R-4.5 district.. Sizes of the proposed lots are approximately as follows, lot 1 has 490 7570 square feet, lot 2 has 8040 square feet, lot 3 has 7771 square feet. Areas 491 calculated do not include the pole area of the,Jlag lots. 492 493 C. Lot Frontage: i _ 494 1. Each lot created through the partition process shall front 495 a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a j 496 legally recorded minimum 15 foot wide access i 497 easement. - 498 COMMENT 499 Five feet along SW 92nd street will be dedicated to the city along with anon 500 remonstrance agreement consisting of an area of 450.41 square feet. Lots 2 and 3 is i I Sol are flag lots, each exceed the required minimum of 15 feet offrontage on SW 92nd. 502 Frontage of the proposed lots are as follows, lot 1 has 58.33 feet, lot 2 has 16.46 i 503 feet, lot 3 has 16.46 feet. All three lots conform with this code. 504 505 506 D. Setbacks: 507 1. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning 508 district. 509 COMMENT 51o In the R-4.5 district set backs are as follows. 511 Front yard a minimum of 20 feet. 512 Side yard a minimum of 5 feet. 513 Rear yard a minimum of l5 feet. € 514 Garage from the property line a minimum of 20 feet. 515 Implementation of setbacks will be made at the time when a building permit is 516 applied for. 517 518 E. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: 519 1. When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may dote rninP th location of the front vard, provided that no o, 520 - - - ,J 521 side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally 522 be located so as to maximize separation from existing 523 structures. 524 COMMENT 525 Such front yard determination will be made at the time when a building permit 526 application is made. 527 528 F. screening of Flag Lots: 529 1. A screen shall be provided along the property line of a { 530 lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is 531 located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance 532 with sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening 533 may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting 534 lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for I 535 proposed development. 536 COMMENT 537 A screen will be required at the time of construction along the southern property 538 line were the driveway to lot 3 is within 10 feet of the neighboring property line j 539 and must be installed before an occupancy permit is issued for any structure built 540 there. Some other screening may be required for the flag lots depending on the 541 structures built in the future. Any screening will be determined at the time of 542 application for building permits. The flag lots do provide a building envelope area 543 greater than 50 feet from neighboring buildings. If an applicant for building 544 permit wishes to build at 2-112 stories or 35 feet and plans to build with windows 545 15 feet or more above grade facing other dwelling unit windows or patios then the 546 applicant for building permit must plant trees capable of mitigating direct views. 547 Other screening is not required, see section 18.100.070 B earlier in this document. 548 See the screening map included with this application, note that the house on the 549 drawing is only an example nn1 a pronosed house. 550 551 G. Fire Protection: 552 1. The fire district may require the installation of a fire 553 hydrant where the length of an accessway would have 554 a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 555 COMMENT 556 There is afire hydrant on the north east corner of SW 92nd and SW Greenburg 557 road. The fire hydrant meets the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue standard as 55s demonstrated by the flow test made by the Tualatin Valley water district included 559 in this application. The fire hydrant is within 500 feet of any portion of any 560 conceived structure that might be built on any of the three lots. Fire apparatus 561 access to the twoflag lots must be provided by a minimum driveway width of 15 562 feet and s1?n11 be lyithin A- feet of all portiuiis oy tiie exteriur wull of fire f[rsl story ~i 563 of the buildings as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the 564 building. An approved turnaround will not be required for either of theflag lots as 565 the distance of the driveways will be less than 150 feet. Fire access roads will be 566 capable ofstipporting not less than a 12,500 pounds point load and a 50,000 567 pound live load. Several designs for the fire road will be possible at the time of 568 construction and will be determined by the building permit applicant, the City of 569 Tigard, and the Tualatin Valley fire & Rescue Fire Marshal's Office at the time of 57o application for the building permit. Note that this application is for a minor land 571 partition, not for building permits. FOR ALL APPLICABLE RULES AND 572 RESTRICTIONS SEE THE FIRE MARSHALS "FIRE & LIFE SAFETY 573 REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTACCESSAND WATER 574 SUPPLIES" INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICA TION. 575 _ 576 18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS I 577 578 18.164.030 Streets 1 579 1. c. The Director may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu 580 of street improvements if one or more of the following 581 conditions exist: j 582 (iii) Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent 583 properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be 584 extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement i 1 t . say associated with the project under review does not, by 586 itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety 1 ] 587 or capacity. 588 589 COMMENT s9o Five feet along the properties SW 92ND street frontage will be given to the city of 591 Tigard fnr the street right-of-way, the npnlicant specifically concurs with the 592 dedication being roughly proportional to impacts generated by future construction 593 on the subject parcel as a result of the newly created lots. A non-remonstrance 594 agreement will be given to the City of Tigard in lieu ofstreet improvements, 595 because it is unlikely that SW 92nd(a dead end street) will be improved and the 596 minor partition under review does not by itselfprovide a significant improvement 597 to street safety or capacity. 598 Properties surrounding the subject parcel have existing residential i . 599 structures that would prevent the extension of a new street through to SW 91st i 600 Avenue, and the proximity to Greenburg Road would make a new road between 601 91st and 92nd impractical. Public transportation moves in both directions along 602 SW Greenburg Road. Turnouts and bus stops exist on the northwest and southeast f 603 corners of Greenburg Road and 92nd Avenue. Bike lanes exist on both sides of 604 Gr cc .built Roau'fui' iruvei t'iY eii{ier direction. Sr ✓aiks exist vii bot{i Sides of 605 Greenburg Road for pedestrian use. See the Vicinity map included with this 1 606 application. 607 608 18.164.040 Blocks 609 COMMENT 610 SW 92nd Avenue is a dead end street that does not, and would not f completed, f 611 exceed 1800 feet. Because of existing development surrounding the property a 612 pedestrian/bikeway would not be possible or practical. A sidewalk and a bike lane 613 exist along Greenburg Road less than 135 from the property. i 614 615 OTHER 616 There are no noise sources on the property. Noise sources offsite are regular 617 traffic noise from SW Greenburg Road. 619 619 DEED OF RECORD 62o Two separate purchases of two separate parcels of land were made at two separate 621 times and were recorded separately on separate pages in separate books in the 622 records of Washington County. On September 27,1945 the subject parcel was 623 deeded separately to B. W. Robison and lucinda Robison front Mollie B. Dykes. 624 Then in On June 12, 1946 approximately nine months later the Robison 625 purchased another parcel of land from Mrs. Dykes. See Washington County 626 Deeds of Records number 4407 book 249 page 391, and number 3018 book 260 4 L- .Mod i 627 page 601 included with this application. The book and page numbers of the 628 recordings are listed on the deeds and on the Dogwood Ridge subdivision map 629 included with this application. Robison then sold both parcels to P. Val Hoge and 630 Enid M, Hoge in 1947(recording number 7068) who sold the two parcels to Lloyd 631 P and Dorothy J. Shaw(recording number 230476 book 426 page 800) who sold 1 632 the property to Miles Downing in 1997 (doc: 97047536 rect: 186933) who 633 deeded the parcel to himself in 1997 providing the Deed of Record-for the subiect _ 634 parcel of this application. The two separate parcels of land remained under 635 single ownership up to now, and were listed under the same deed from 1946 until 636 June 20 of 1997, see the current deed of record included with this application. 637 Copies of the other deeds mentioned are included with this application. Deeds 638 previous to 1945 are not necessary to prove the parcels were separate. The above t 639 information proves the subject parcel to be a legal parcel of land separate from 64o any other parcel. 641 642 SW 92ND A VENUE 643 It may be interesting to some people to note that SW 92 Avenue was previously { 644 named Robison Avenue. This name appears to come from the owner of the subject L 645 parcel, in other words the street in front of the property was named after the owner . 646 wav back when. - I h i I i i (7) =1 I DAKOTA IF o • i 01 a ~rNgU -T 17 LEV~S W Q LOMITA HH TANGELA C i ~ ~ ! • ~~-tea' ! I~ FT~ ~ 4 • ^ G Vicinity Map WE • NDICATES FLAG LOT s " , . - .71 i tA. D I w Il Fsrc APFLICANT/OWNEP a ;raEn - MILES DCwNING 100.x' P.O BOX 230972 1 ' oo L TICAPD OP 972E1-0972 - 00 0 T 1 ❑ T MAD ISI35DC t_ TAX LOT ;;701 fi % z e CI / u'. 2141 ~iFIRE HYDRANT JG~ Rio JUNE 26 195~ \OPM DPAIt•I; TO CU PR I \ 'l ~ '\/-ST GSM WATER CATCH SA.!!. (1-To 11 OPT P 'SCALE P =50':' j LEGEND EXISTING^CI AIN LINK FENCE I AEL 1 -~0.00 j = 1 l\10c UAL CL EAR ANCI, E <E AREA I = 4' 01 (~J M F a 4. i ~I-j 00 ~ I L11 CATiCf~! EE THEE ElN '~-'UL JE T f= ; _ E -CALE 1"=30' i C, 13 ~35'i ]k t OIS'FIF ° 'F!^n ° 10'GECICL'OU~ • 8'FL.".E F. aYFIF ° .,F]• 035TIP Li 1 IF - V 31'FIP o13'F iF 042•FIF O2'2'F IP o9'F IR ~a2'F1F. O~n.F~R o12'DOG`..Ol)D OI?'Fik o I3'FIF Q32'FIF O:c'F IF L?6'i 1= ° 9'I"1 niLL ~ o12'FIR 3c"FIR 26'F IP 7'15ECICLOUS , 10-CHEERY o I6'F IR O la'FIR = F1P V 35'FIF ~ ~ \ O2c'F1R o!G'FIR 015'FIP 'DIR-FIP 1 12',12'CNE RRv 016"F 14 ~G5"FIR n,~•F IR °c'FIk 0 24'F ]F I~J0F'TH L. c' FIR p2a•FIF i ` ~ 10'AFFCE i ~ ai `~s 1 J ( 04/24/97 THL' 08:19 FAX 503 591 .6 T\'trD ENGINEERING 121001 I 1 TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TEST REPORT Location: L/ on s Date: S~ z/ 7 Test Made By: (Company & Individual) w 1~ Witness: ~~d -T✓-46 Time: ^urNOSe of Test: _ #1 #2 #3 #4 Total Flow Hydrant Ports GPM C = Hydrant Coefficient D = Inside Dia. Of Outlet, 2 in. _ P = Pilot Reading Sb Q=GPM Flow equation: Q = 29.83 C D2 (P)112 ; Use C = 0.9 for hydrant pitot flow gauge See Hydrant Monster data for flow equation; Use C = 0.8 for Hydrant Monster Flow tubes Used? Yes Noo_ Pose ivionster Used' Yeses No No. of ports flowed at a time: Aoe 11350 S J Static Pressure 9Q psi Residual Pressure--/9 psi Flow at 20 psi Residual Pressure (Calculated) G i - Remarks Location Map: Show on map which hydrants were flowed and which were used to monitor residual pressure. Label ports #1, #2, etc. 1 Note: The mapping, flow, or pressure information contained herein reflects conditions on the date and time of the test. Tualatin Valley Water District makes no representations as to the system's ability to meet specific fire flow requirements. Future system capability may differ from the flows reported herein because of subsequent modifications to the District's system andfor because flow and pressure may vary by time of day and seaso . Post-it' Fax Note 7671 oatey 23'9 Pages r' To ///i ~O fit/ From Co,ioept. Co. bt..l o. _o a Phone p n iiN 7n 7 /7~ n Tualatin Valley Fire Fire & Lire SafPiy Dead End,Turnii'll Nadirs and No Requirellielits Parking Sion Diagrams ResCtle Statistics for Fire ellal'tiltellt l~ R Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue '~15=.~r 45' 1 serves 310,200 citizens covering Access and 216 square miles in unincorporated ~~lies +-g0'-' areas of Clackamas County, Water atel Su Washington County, Multnomah County and the following cities: ~5 R Tills brochure is being provided as a 25' R. . Aloha resource only. The items listed inside ♦ Beaverton are the requirements most generally 20' 2O'- . Charbonneau sited on plans for approval. If these ♦ Durham items are included on the plans, the e King City likelihood of a timely approval on the ♦ Rivergrove initial review is greatly increased. If ) 45' I20•1 e- • Sherwood questions arise with regard to any of the i ♦ Tigard provisions, please call the TVFBR Fire ! 5' Tualatin Marshal's Office at (503) 526-2469. e Nlilsonville 20' 4--65=-= Tualatin Valley has 20 fire stations 25' R. 1 located throughout the Fire District. 20' r 20, ~~pZtN Vq~~ Total staffing is 461. t >,J F~ 12 234 Career Firefighters/Paramedics 125 Volunteer Firefighters Y~LJ% PARKING 40 Fire Prevention, Public 45' R. Education, Training ~RF6 RESGJ . dministrative Support 47 A f8" 15 Explorer Scouts Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Fire fllarshaPs Office Emergency Incidents in 1995 20,407 P.O, Box 4755 Fire 1,090 Medical 13,474 Beaverton, OR 97076 Mutual Aid 384 Hazards 630 (503) 526 2469 lear Pub. Assists 4,8229 pace NOW T - ttta Chief. NFC Sec. hydrants shall be as approved by 9034.2.2) ACCESS w th the American EIS ANC E FRAM ore than 55 Standard ed In accordance lion Officials 15) FIRE HYDRANT hall be located not m shall be design hway and TranspotThe bridge shalt b3 6 Association hydtan s s araWS access roadway. CE Association 01 H1g E3ddges. 50 000 pounds. ROo roved WO app Ap DISTAN lee, tion, 24) SPacit cations for Highway (UFC Sec. 903. ACCESS RO S: Access load sut 1) FIREAPPARATUS IDTURNAROUND igned for alive ficienttocatry RTMENT f the axle loVed II des(UFC Sec. 902 2.2.5) aratus access T I FIRE DEP'Q 11 In70 FROM BUILDING A~ rt ""s. w thin tso teat of all P° an aPP Dilate 1B) FiRS HY 11ON A toe hydrant shall be to Fie Yuan S; Where bra aPP dr is roads tall be asrneasuraAn pproved lNGSIGN C7ION: FDC)• r fsl story of the buildin9a buildtng• g) NO P J CONNE a side of the fire of the atdarior of th Signs shall be installed on feetEeet oinmenl ad connection { d the distance to a the fire roadways are not of sutfrctent width to accom 903 4 2 5) For' route arou" parked vehicles, `No Parkm9 and in turnarounds as and FDC's shall be local our- Sec. 1996 Oregon uhed it the remainin easuted alonUF, Sec. ides of the roadway signs shall read'NO 98.810 the Chief. t turnaround is fe4 roadwaY• as m 150laet. l one or both s g02.2'41 si AWAY ZONE, ORS apparatus access r°adwaYoved by approved Intersecting realer than (Sec. locations shall be as aP Sec- S041 .1) road, is 9 needed. NFFIRE LLANE' TOW clear space above oc;ally Code. aPParatus access PARKING inches wide by i6 ShucWtal Sp CTIONS 01all not be 902.2.1) D EXCEPTION 98.812" ano shall be installed with a 12 order T CONNE LESS ROA when signs shall be pEPARTMEN ATUS AC PppTECT10N: ground lave) °i 7 teal. led h.11 4 5 l1 tellers 1 t2) & (3)) FIRE ail that is men' being coon Pof clad. NFC Sec. ppPAR hand shalt ha CFO Sect 901 and b 17) t3U1L Fire dap 2) Ft__; pTIC SPRINKLER roved inches hig k round. l on a white ba= 9 back) located on the building FOR AUTOM rotected with an approved sera completely p uiaments for h e Chiet. (gee diagram °n ades shall not 1103,4.2.5) building stem, the req roved by the roadway 9 REQUIRED FVR automatic tiro sprinkler sY uditied as approved imurn building hall no GRADE: Fire aPParatus access feet. CIAL BUILDINGS' the available lion 1) 10) vr,rage grade 0110 Percent w e ith a max 19) (•QMMER or rksheet aPPa( atus acces ; EX epm ms of no mot than 200 Ttre required We flow for tGxhPM) (UFC Sec. 802.2' exceed an aFL__O• W, er minute l A wo eril ROADS' Where there are 20 access or rade of 15 p E:lc for tang aeons p aratus accees Intersections ion ePd turn of arounds crowning shat exceed 3,000 g sYstem at 20 psi. 61• with the a l fur (UFC Sec. 902.2.2. GPM in the equired fire an rovaPP ximurn the r slow is available from ADDtiIONAL ACCESSroved second tiro apoadwaY or access g 5'lal water delivery (county be love' tma Eor calculating UFC Sec. 903.3) mote dwellings, ided to a city IRED FiRE 902.2.2) Fite Matshal's oltice REQU to tami Y roadway must be p water run'olt. easement. (UFC Sec- S' Fite aPParatus ac t4O roadway PARKING DWELLINGS' a stroke vailable tits "ow i ger i`minute. RATUS ACCESS ROAD W lus IDTH AND PAINT bs ED shall CURS ellow and marked" 19} SINGLE FAMILY aa access roads 11) ing hall have C FL_ OW' The minimum a 1,000 9 lions per 'leach 25 1eet . Lettersix inches high. (UF s and duplexes shall be q) FIRE APPA CE: Fite app 20 feet (15 cur be 031 VERTICAL CLEARAN FIRE LANE' ide by dweling uare fleet or lar, eUFC idih of not less than cture(s) is 3.600 sq ellmg units) and an of not less than one inch w 0 the stru sh6bedetelm'ne aceo ll-A Sec- unobshucted 11 have an than 13 feet 6 - See, got 4.5.2) UMBER UFC Appendix ill-A, .51 MINIMUM N required lireble .M.A 1 l feet for not m veA cal Ilea ante of not less BUILDINGS' number of lire A1pendix Table A FIRE FLOW unobstructed 902 2 211 12) COMMERCIAL ANTS: The minimum aired Tire REQUIRED ln°hP.S. (UFC Sec, Fire apparatus OF FIRE NYDR -tsed on the req stems. 20) RURAL BUILDINGS s shall be calculated in CE AND LOAD CAPACITIES : shalt be b. tection sY Hydrants for a building credits lot lire pro dram rot the first Required lire slow for teal bull m9 accordance with National fire Protection Association SURFA is capable or nor to giving any lire hY Fire Marshal's office • 5} area and' flow P (GPM) required tile ilow and bne Standard 1231please contact the access roads shall be of an alFweather sudaco that is ea altons P'• the surrounding nt load Iwheet Tile, PM or paiio° . aments that will apply e 'hall nor enirnule one (1) aglat help and other requi distinguishable horn 12,500pounds P01 ,0009 . for sP Doing not less than dent for each 1 At) . 903.3) weighrb 1 add'aronal lire hY Fire hydrants shall be evenly R SUPPLY ounds live toad l9toss vehicle 2 supp 00013need to Provide wilt their locations shall be (UFCSec WATER load) and 50, you may Weer that the design thereof over 2.000 GPM. and FIGHTING e building UC 11 be .21 ntation 9034.2.1) Np FIRE Chief. ACCESS A TEON: Apptires Shall u ec.902.2 2 itom . a ragisteied en9 and docume spaced atound tti (U building sec- (UFC pp i 21) G CONS tiling water su on documentation on ng such loading approved by the YD RANTS: DURIN consiruclion capable of suPP finished conshuction is in UILDINGS' FiRE H shall be s and tine Pig olhe at prior to any re t meal that the uiaments of access and operation 87041 trorn a ce9isle[ed en9 roved Plans of the ce4 CQMMERC1Al. B efl:13 building UFC Sec. Eanca with the aPP 13) exlello' of a commie hydinl when and bd a cot No portion ol the the or subdivision. l uteri located more than 2501eet from a access is required the Fite Code. roved manner atouna ahea aoutside ccessof 1 e installed hat's Office for building ,uming radius and outside oved fire app KNtl]C BQX; A Kn°x So) t the Fire WS: The inslde teal and45 'eel measured in an apan app mstahation GRAD Dint NF building and along 4.2.i) 22) Please contacdinMats C 51 TURNIN Hall not be less than 25 canter P UFC Sec. 903. NTS: for this building. d instructions turning radius s e same roadway t yERA for an aPPlicahon an re actively, as (measuredf(a s on back) I.LINGS - FIRE h lacement. resP See diag LE FAMILY EWE d duplexes shall and F Sec. 902.2.2.31 SiNG h dints actions hed. eY lire appaaWS access i4) _d le tam, l y dw etli n di f CTiONS: Site insp )be r°qu Dead end rovided wish an Fite hydrants is smg Intermedate If ner arou% n 23) I .NSpE _----"`r d 7) D END ROADS: th shall be P be placed at each intersection. roved lumarounds ate it any Portion of a siwcimeoved man s 500 tee excess of 150 pia9fams 01 app 902 4) - (See are reqaired ry toads In 1eet in IenFC Sec. dramas u and along aPP aPPto e; )din an aPP roved hie by ed turnathuide district. Ill irom a available from the i,,a outside of the road'vcys- Placement of additional lira acces apparatus diagrams on back) ned, inspected and lia - - g} Bo I "approved by ab ag Staged en9ineer• the b 6d90 FORM NO.001-aAROAIN AND SALE DEED - STATUTORY FORM ndlvWwl Ora STtVEN1ME55 uw RUauswnD CA. PORRINO. oR ana NS STATE OF OREGON County of Washington SS MILES L. DOWNING - I, Jerry R. Hanson; Director of Assess- ment and Taxation and Ex-Officio County Clerk for said county, do hereby. certify that 1! LAG ('Lj;___ the within instrument of writing was received _ t m•mor~N•R••ndAea.•• and recorded In book of records of said - -~9FLSS h-.- DC3WA1~AlG---------------------- county.. ll_b_4_U _ S W_ G t3L• ~ N_~.tl-t ~ --t~--L~---------- - • _ _ - -----1-Lra D --°B---a7_223.----------------- Oranw'a Nam. and Add.- SPACE RESERVED ~ AR.rncuelno,neumw(N.R»,Adan.•,ao): FOR _ Jerry R. Hanson, Director of _ MILES L. DOWNING RECORDER'S USE "AssessnientandTaxation,Ex- _ - ,...c . - ~ 1 (Z 5 W C. C L-_N QV _C D Officio County t / C ..!e e.k 1 2 L Doc 97056444 Unuu muaaw otM'w1sa, SOW aR ta: autamanY to (Name, Addnaa, aPR Re c t : 188611 38.00 NO CHF.NGE 06/20/1997 08:38:19am Y. By DePut BARGAIN AND SALE DEED - STATUTORY FORM (INDIVIDUAL GRANTOR) MILES L. DOWNING - - Grantor, conveysto------- MILES L-. -DOWNING Grantee, , : _ , . the following real property situated in WASHINGTON County, Oregon, to-wit: j SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 'A' I - I i • (IF SPACE INSUFFICIENT, CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE) The true consideration for this conveyance is 0 , 0 0 (Here, comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030.) - - - - - II ______________________JUNE Dated this 1--9TH---- day of 19---- 9-•7 //Gr/~O~t~n~ THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGU- MILES L. DOWN IIWCi LATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT. THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO- PRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINEANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. j STATE OF OREGON, County of __WA_______SH___________INGTON _______________~9. 1 This instrument was acknowled ed before me on JUNE 91997 by - MILES L. DOWN IN~ II I OFFiCIALSEiAL ~t% DEIINNAMcKtERNAN 0 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 969ota~ry public for Oregon COMMISSION N0. 25 c f I~ nlvrpurllegION ~DIRFS JULY 11. 1997 My commission expires ___~=ll ~ a I I - '-TOE - ~ S i EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 89° 34' West 968.88 feet from the Northeast F` corner of said claim; thence South 0" 01' West 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65° 38' 30" West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 0" 01' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 88° 36' West 10 feet from an iron pipe at the i Southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOOD RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington II County, Oregon; thence South 89" 59' East 200 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 0° 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. C( , I j _ j i i i j i -26 I . ~.1HHiH HiJTH rIf~'1~ HH~ .~9 2 d4 2_ - n- Ell ILL. <Gr J I L , 24.-3) C) HLE ~H FLA 1 11 L t_. I ~ GCldn NEIGNB7R~ LEOUID BOARD NIGN CEDAR. BOARD in consideration 0~....__.i.AA.:._ « y T .T. ~.A_:L.Z...n.rt.. Dollars, be *#11f~_9L~tC3 u XA112tb1C_COSL71dLlatlaAt..__._.. to... ........paid by...~.t....e.AStDI.IlO.A...._AQ .IwuQ1AA~.._Earl.maa....bnaisand..and..atite....... do hereby grant, bargain, sell and eoiretr vxto mid .....~w.Kw...RD.billDn..t1D!1 W"r Luclnd.a. ROb. A.9A....~?psbagd .mad...1/1S.e., _-.thgl.r.-•. Aeirs and assigns, oU the foUowfng real property, with the [ee.e- . meats- heredicamrn is and appurter.i"P eitwaft•d i. the !'<r_•n!y o!......0. ashlnaton..•••• and fiats of Oregon, bounded and described as follows, to-uht. TRACT 2-- Beginning at a point ILZbe florth 11ne of th- John Ricklln jLC which bears 9.89°341 N. 388_88 feet from the NF corner of said claims thence S.01011 W. 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning or the tract herein described; thence N.65038t30ffW. 219.53 feet to a pipet thence N.0001TE. 87.50 re-t; thence S.89O591E. 200.00feet; thence S.0001tW. 180.00 feet 'o the true point of beginning. F.9STRI CT. GN IT IS AGREED th-t for h perlo,t of 20 years from : -nuary 20th. 1945 the property herein Conveyed shall b- use l'or resid^nce purposes only ana only by m-obers of the Caucasl.,n r c thrt no residence shall be constructed costinr• less than 33,500.00 anti no building shall b- constructs= less than 40 feet from 'he street line or 10 feet from the property line. MM= MEW i f I e ~ f To /are nd l Hold, the abnrr described and granted pranu..rs untn 0, an:d B.A.~ob~son ..ni Lucinda Robison,. husband una rife, f . their heirs a.-.t ~:n,. ........r... ;St,d YoTlle B. Dykes; xlaoxo. John'LexIS Dykes; dPCOasr.9, the gra Wnr above •amrd do e1 covenant to and with the above named grantees _.Ihe1r h. r. nn.t n.•a.: n~ h~ t ro ntrd premises are free from aU enoumbranees•.. . . . t -d that ....will and.. hS.r.....heirs. czseutors and administrators, shot: warrant and :.•.rr. tend the above granted premises, and every part and parcel :-Krcuf, against the /a u'/ul clams) of all persons whom-oerr _.g.. . 11itnwss....... m~............ h nd..._ and seal ...mil... fl....~ o :945 Executed in the R+sssnee of .....L'-L...... (Su!.) (StAL) ~r 7 4 ~EJ f ' 44 0,7 WARRANTY UEEL ~:`t't7i~_TT 33~~ Yoll_e B ...Dy~kee ,raj ; 3~l A.?.I y`.~" ••t + • i~gbiaon and k Lucinda Robiaeoa }1 tf ° r ,r 8iA'!Z or OEDOON, a ~i S' • 't{ ~ru7 of WuNnjtao, • .7r t ~ L W. A. IVPFM do Mn*y emury r F: U-t the tompf"f Wtnrmenl,,~{y4 n- S 3; a j, C*Ind Gx rco m the fy'l.Z.- d+f r~ « S ti• at .fsrardW . E WWW 7N.1 M10 a •ef t .yip-pry' y~~ y i~1• "1. A. D.. 111. ' i ~.i W. A. IVP C. .t7 CI,kL , • r• . II~~ 1 ! ~ I ` CL :Cn V J i • , jl~ ti ~,i )G7 ~r i.: 1J 4+~Ei:)I , r' . 'jilt I rxt;•s ~r2 uX'. Molliq B. Dykes aihdow of l a~ 5/28/45 . Jahn Lewis Dykes, decd Et.C T a. i $10.00 and ove _ B.W. Robison and Lucinda .~''.F Robison, h&w Dt: Bk 2`4'9J :;`t ...hby gbsc all the fol r ppty sit in the Co of Wash and at of Ore bd as fols t/w+ Tract 2; Baap in the k line of the John Hicklin DLC which bears H 890 349 W 988.88 ft from the NE cor of ad c1m; th 00 Olt W 1003:0 ft to a! pipe at the true pt of beg of the tr herein dtmc; thence N 650 39' 30" w 219.53 ft to a pip; th N 00 Ol' E 87.50 ft,' th S.890 591 E 200.00 ft; th S 00 01, w 180.00 ft to-the true- pt of beg. ..2estriction + It is agreed that-for a perio$ of 20 yrs from;;Jan 20th 1945 the ppty herein conveyed -shall beu.eed for res'iden'ce purposes only and only Sy. members of the Caucasian race, that no residence shall be co(n)structed costing less than 0000,00 , wld,,nb ,buildlmg sb!a11 b 'constructed less; tha 40 ft Prom the st line or Id ft frbm the ppty line. I $,55 IRS CAN, Sgd and Ack; I 8.070 Robison ~ Rt 2 ,t Sq~ ?47. , Tigard' Oreggn :r • . . 11 lJ 1! if , I • f: jJ T'i r 's .I.•i 'ti f.i 'I :p f;l1i lti~•ri ! ET J t • k Dollars, S w_._...._....__._......._. "8Z--paid by ' ' - • . ~:A ,'tdf•~_IlfBnry e.n.i rff~- de" hereby bran t, bwrmem. nail am 0 logo WWO AW 8~ licihlson . aAd Lfte~^LQ~tsgr ► hnrh.nn 47)73...r1Yt , _ v. i PA.d... at,d awNa+. aw- W Joiiowirp rod property, with the tew- f.iiiue. werirdiia.wewia ww ~YF.......ww.....~..~ , Cesittfy of 5ta.ht n~}nn and SYalsof Arepon bounded and described as follows, to wit: !j Leginning at the Northeast corner of the Juhn Hicklir_ bomtlon Land Claim, situbted in Section :5, T%,). 1S., Hbnge 1 .est of th, .:111amette kerlulan snd runnlne thence S. 89°:••t' %est 9rS.F,G r, - t; ~j thence South 0e01, .est a ulstance of 100E.0 feet; •thencr North v:•°:`! west a alstance of e7.10 fret to the true point of befinnirt; of the j trbct herein described; therice continulne,, on sblu bearlne o. G5°;.o^' .^st o oistunce of 121..,0 frety thence :out.h (i°O1' 't.rst I 61st:.nce or1t;.0 feet; thence South .7°43' .rst ~ uistanc, o.' feet to the Rortherly 11ne of Greenburt- Road; thence follcr.ini sai.: Northerly line of Greenburg Road Sou ti, ;,6011' Fast.a of rtir:cr o:' I 117.1)5 feet; thence North L8°101 East 31st:.rcr of 1.1.:7 f "t the point of beginning. I! I I ~ ll I, ~ ~1 I • To Have and to Hold, the above d,jcribrd and granted prenn:-•: r•, FA. { .u....n,...P.R.bl.aon...bltu Luciud:. hoLison, L•..siaro ..tu ..i:'c. . . LiElr. ,:,.-n,, rrr•rr i . And. ..--•--._..alGlllt...8.._LXa.eS.►•••YdUO,.t.o1'...J.ohn..Lesls..y°S:kcs...J. the pranfor eorsnrtnt to.... and.... with.. tha..ab..ove named.. h. irs an..' assign. abase flamed do, t that .•,.•.•.•~•..she•~,, _•••,,,~yate/tt1fV seized in fee Pimple of the above prnntr,: t•rr,nisrr, that Me above granted Premises are free from all entvmbratters I ° i i; r. ........1--.------, _ asd that~~iL -svf8 sad tier ' wrr,,ri~o Ora _am ad"istrators. shall warrant and foreoer defend the abew grrntad yrstnise, and aw+y pet!t and peTrd Glereof. apahst the (awful claims and denuonde of all V- Whomsoel'or -Tp ; . :ifli'J ~~~y~~~ oJ.:.._~ltyt_......__~__.....•..1945. Efilemw 11101'r IN r- SfATE OF OREGON, CovntY oJ...i1:.scfifngS.UU..... RE IT F.MRERED. _T?~--t on t"- -v ye ® helr....u, the underri d, . !I ® .n aw.f a., .nN i n.r+.ty nut .Ctn r. ..,..,.u.. .a IM. •ri:_ dui.Ll..b................................................................................. ij whn.....1 s_.......... hnorrn tome to be the identical indiridual.. desmbed in and wU cze"ted the within imerument and ae"~I- nlpeti W nN Unl :i he czee-steel the aaru freely nni rolvntan2y. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I Aare hereunto act nay hand and i~ o//tefal atal the day and year t abort written. i Ja.---.............. Natur•y P.Nze or 0-g- My cornmiucion [zyine. !If...'../ soon= - ~ Wa i a: V L~ 3018 June 12, 1946 f Mollie B. Dykes, Wid of John 5/• . /9:6 0 Lewis Dykes, decd WD a to _ .$10.0.0. and ovcs B. W. Bobison and Lucin Robison, h&w •D Bk. .260 l 1 ...hby gbsc all the fol rp sitd in the Co of flash and St of Ore, bdf, t/w: I Beg at the 14E cor of the John Hicklin DLC, sitd'in Sec 35, 1,~t..A1.{ ai the W and rng th S 89034' W M7.66 ft; Th S 0001' W a distance of 1003.0 ft; th N 65o36I-' W a distance of 94.10 ft to the tTtLe p~ of beg of the tr herein desed; th continuing on sdl bearing of N 65g38e' W s distance of 122,43 ft; th S 00011 W a distance of~ 10.0• ft; th S 27949' W a distance of 126.12 ft to the Nly lj of Greenburg lid; th folg al.g sd Nly li of Gr~enburg Rd S 560511 E a distance of 117.08 ft; th 11 28010' E a distance of 153.27 ft to the pt of beg. • ~ fiC /'1G TTl l1 n a .T a v'_,______._____-..__..___ ( - w.C Sgd & a ck" , RaQi 4on i Rt 2, Boa 241 I. Ti dard;, Oregon , y 3 s f i f 7068 r, ' B. VU;''-Robison and Nov 29, 1948 Lucinda Robison,,: h&w, to 8/='47. j• VM 291 P. Val Hoge and/or Enid M. Hoge, h&w, as 410,00 tenants by the entirety and not in community r,pty, / ....hby gbsc d1l the fol rp, sit in the Co of Via -P •a nd Sty of Ore, bdf, t/w; ' Parcel 1: Beg at the NE cor of the John Hicklin DLC sit in Sec 35, T1S R1W.X the YVM, and rng th S 890 341 W 968.88 ft; U th"S`'0'b ►"F. dis t of 1003.0 ft, th N 650 3821 W a dis t of 97.10 ft to the true ,pob of the tr hin desc; th cont on sd _ bearing of N 651 38-11 W a dist of 122.43 ft; th S 00 011 W a dirt of 10.0 ft; th S 271 491 W a list of 126.1G: ft Sm the rr . Nly li of Greenburg Rd; th fol alg sd Nly li of Greenburg Rd S 56° 511 E a dist of 117_ORft; t:h M 280 1f)i P. o riia+' oa 153.27 ft to the pob. _ i i : 1 i Parc.el._Il: Tr 2; Baap in the N li of the John Hicklin DLO which bears S 8~i° 34.1 W.968.88 ft frm the NE cor of s d clm;. th S.00 Olt ~W 1003.0 ft to• a pipe at the true pob of the tr hin. desc;th -N 650 38tr 30" W 219.53 ft to a pipe; th 1,1100 Olt E 87.50 ft; th S 890 '591•:E='•200.,00 ft; th S 0° Olt W 180.00 ft to the true pob. this t'F' conv to P. VallHoge and Enid M. Hoge, h&w, as tenants by the entirety. EFI except rest of redd as to Parcel 11: $15.75 IRS CAN Sgd & Ack T.'`and' Portland . .;Z!. { .'OT IC Page 2/3 Job "fl-I Nov-19 Tue 15:25 1996 I - I I I i i l i WARRANTY UtEO r .t ICNOW ALL WEN BY 7'li ESE I'RESrHT.S. Th., Enid H, HoF_o, a w1dgW ' and...trnmarried............. .(rants/ •,•conddetsrieeof.....T.en_And...00/100. and_.o.ttter valuable. COr.31deratlorti..-Do/Lr, •o pra........ps/dby......Lloyd. P.. Shaw ...end.Uorutt:y.J_..Sbaw, buaband.aul...wlru., psnrrr : . booby (ra n1. bargain, sill and convey unto the said Rrrrtrre A. the SSheirs and -qm, all of the lol - -In( deactibed real property, rlth the f-inenrs, herrdo-tr and appurtrn-... thr,runro belanping ..ruUed In the Coumy o/ h4DhingLOll.... Sine o/ Orraon, 6oundrd .nd described as /ollo.v~ - i- i I "areal I: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the John ilicklin j SonaEion Land claim situate In Section 35, Townsltlp 1 South, Range 1 Went of the Willamette Y.eWdlan, in the County or Washin6ton and , ~1.ate Of Oregcn, and running thence South b9° 34' West 966.86 feet; - thonce 5outri 0° Olt West a distance of 1003.0 toot: thence North 65° 369' West a distance of 97.10 feet a tno true polrtt or begin- i_ - ning of trio tract herein described; thence continuing on cold bearl'tt• ~or North 65° 3891 West a distance of 122.43 foot, trtenoe(3outh 0" 01' West a distance of 10.0 fest)thencej~outhA27° 491 West a dis- ft urK cad; thence tance of 12.12 feet, to the Northerly 11ne or roe following along Bald N herlf line of 0reenbur§ Road,(South 560 51' East a distance of 117 6 foot) tner•ce(North 28 101 E1lst a _7tanco -r 153.21 feat)tc sue point of beginning. •rarce II: Beginning at a point in trio North line jr '.no John Hiclcili .one on Land Claim which bears Soutb 89° 34' '.eat 956.68 foot from trio Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 0° 011 West 1003.0 rest to a pipe at the true point of bop,inning of the tract nerein ~tescrlAen; thence(_North 65° 361 30" West 219.$3 feat t n pip] titon ! forth 0° 01, Cast 69.0 fetiYo an Trott pipe that 1s LSp o ..th bb° 36' ! +ast 1C feejfrum an iron pipe at the Southwest corner- of Lot 9, - Dogwood n;d,te, a v:at or record in Waecington County, Oregon; thenco _ (outh 69° East rogt~to an iron pipe, said point, heirtr, tno nutrteaat corner .:f sal] ..c 4: a„ar.ce~•,tn 0° 011 'yes; 1E0.00 Cm•a j i i - ' I MOM- • STATE OF OREGON ' 11 SS 11 County of Washington 7 ~j)1 OREGON TITLE II //II Insurance Company 1. Jerry R. Hanson, Director of Assess- ant and' nd Taxation and Ex-Officio County Clark for. said county, do hereby eenify that - V the within instrument of writing was received L and recorded.in book of records'of said r/~iter Recording, Return to: county, ! rt•7iles L. Downing f 11600 Southwest Greensburg Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 Jerry R. Hanson, Director of ' Assessment And Taxation, Ex- Until achange is requested, tax statements Officio County Clerk shall be sent to the following address: SAME AS ABOVE Doc 97047536 Rect: 186933 268.00 05/23/1997 10:42:00am - STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (Individual) - (Above Space Reserved for Recorder's Use) Dorothy J. Shaw, - - conveys and warrants to " Miles L. Downing, a single person 5. the following described real property in the State of Oregon and County of Washington i - free of encumbrances, except as specifically set forth heraint 3 (Continued) n L. 9 ~ - O WASHINGTON COUNTY U Y ` RE,IL PERTY TRANSFER TAX Z s :22 .ooS Z Z~Sx Account Number(s): C> This property is free of encumbrances, EXCEPT: O 1. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Unified Sewerage Agency and is - subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 2. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. .I (Continued) i The true consideration for this conveyance is $225,000.00 - THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLA- ; TION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRU- MENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING PEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS 021 LAW- . ' SUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORE 30.930. -e I DATED this 7--Z- day of May, 1997. , I r_ Dorothy J. S I STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF Clackamas)ss.~/2 , i11+ The foregoing ins rument was acknowledged before me this c?w day of May, 1997, by Dorothy . Shaw,. Cary lic r-Oregon Commission Expires: "Jrj I OFFICIAL SEAL DR EYES NOTARY PUSUC-0 R EGON Order NO.: 565926w COMMISSION NO 02"M MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY It 1997 - 1 yc, I . _ 1 _ STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (CONTINUED) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Continued) Order No.: 865926w ~ .J PARCEL 11 ` ! Beginning at the Northeast corner of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in - Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; and running thence South 89° 34 west i 968.88 feet; thence South 0° O1' West a distance of 1003.0 feet; thence North 65° 38 1/2' West a distance of 97.10 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein _ described; thence cuutinuiny un said 'nearing of North 65° 36 1/2' West a dis'ancc of 122.43 feet; thence South 0° 01' West a distance of 10.0 feet; thence South 27- 49' West a distance of 126.12 feet to the Northerly line of Greenburg Road; thence following along said Northerly line of Greenburg Road, South 56° 51 East a distance of 117.08 feet, thence North 28° 10' East a distance of 153.27 feet to the point of beginning. _ PARCEL IL Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township i South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 89° 34' West 968.88 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 0° O1' West 1003.0 feet to a - pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65° 38' - 301 West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 0° O1' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that . is South 88° 36' West 10 feet from an iron pipe at the southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOOD RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 89° 59' East 200 feet - to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 0° 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. i i I ' STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED ii (Continued) 1 order No.: 065926-j 1 ENCUMBRANCES (Continued) 3. The rights of the public, governmental bodies, and public utilities, in and to that portion of the herein described property lying within the limits of SW 92nd Avenue i I . and Greenburg Road. ' - r I - s. 3 - I~ ~ r Eli +r F do - `~®~~p $ I I 1 D® V IO®` W SITUATED IN SECTIO WASHINGTON CC J I SURVEYED JUNE 195t e J. L. Coe Lol 75 A.MbA K FARMS lmn Ppa YEW r' N89°34'E 4311 -STREET 119.9--._' - a Nag. 34'e C~ 3a9'3{~w r 69.9 vpj . f /96.9 so /ai5.9 t /N/T/A4 PO//JT I ' e I I o3 N89•sa'w V I - ~ N ae^~1•c d 0 2 0 l Q- 1a 1: o....Denoles /ron Qad I l f jr 16 \ C -t W ~ N 2 VI~ i o W I 1&71 W , V ~ - rtRle~i Q I ; 14 I~ la - - SW Corner Lof 2 _ a o - _ I / T.gordl/1//Q Park I .88 9 n d a a Ih ,a ' o c I 1B9S , 'D 5 t' 41 NB9 •S8'W I ~ i2 a • II Z . o o :n,l1a/ fbinl a 1 p; q 1 f a pf"fharb~n'. N I , 2 Jhn!<.~..s✓y.c~~w.ie o o ~ m .ns.. Vo/. i70 P 1l6 v u n S Wesf L:ne - I 1 • ~"decila Pc~k f f P Na8'i3'E ` t94s 1 ~U 014) , - Z I .g1 a y93~' Vol..ld - 2 ~ I Hy f. Wlr+4~'+~• wast L;r,e 1 ° s so I •ts•.i^,v 8y 5 P1 `N sv.s.~ amt-'d1a,~~ANN'tjr, 156.9 1 cl ASM,N M gf1NrY~!) S Jr1l, 1 n jypnI f I W,R"o'"39 A ~N I Vo!• 149 p.519 to do! 249 7d , 2 0 1 (hct•~rrrv,n 0 ' C10,rl, ^Kr v, 1 Jc1lg4 P. St) ao - f~ / L LOt~ G q~ , 5 ` t~;~ vc:ac 8y~ SQcretorN •C`%G~h n n 16p P661 CN fi Z h ~c,,,D'°a:w per:. J'y Ojr r aerebtrwe copy ` ~a~j'OO© R~U~ 0' • cow - APPrOy6d uv'1'Q J~A,j ~ r front _ _ n pa, d nf`,C~- iSSf~ •ro,ra•T' - F~- Cam'' i i j~Var c I ~ S BROUGHT PEOp L VE IN CONSTI~TIOI~ ' GOOD TO YOU By TI3EHpMES `jOU W"O PROVV ED'fE3E To: Cathy Wheatley, City of Tigard l From: Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood f Date: September 3, 1997 Re: MLP 97-0010 - - We are submitting a copy of the report entitled Request for Tigard City Council to Review the Director's Decision of Application MLP 97-0010. Please copy and distribute the j report to the members of the Tigard City Council for review before the Public Meeting on September 9, 1997 regarding MLP 97-0010. Please note that we are also enclosing five extra copies of Figure 2-3 which should be inserted behind Page 4 of each copy of the report to be provided to the council members. Thank you. I I i { RECEIVED SEP 0 3 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT j i i • Request for Tigard City Council to Review the Director's Decision of Application NILP 97-0010 Made by Residents of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood Tigard, Oregon i 1 I I . September 3, 1997 j I~ - Table of Contents Page 1.0 introduction 1 2.0 History of Site 3 2.1 Site description 3 2. 1.1 Description of Trees on the Subject Property 3 i 2.2 History and Description of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood 4 2.3 History of Development Applications for the Subject Parcel 5 2.4 Summary of Development Proposal 6 3.0 Issue No 1: Application Processed Incorrectly as Minor Land Partition 7 f 3.1 Basis for Request for Review 7 3.2 Definitions 7 3.3 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review 8 3.3.1 The Application Meets the Definition of a Subdivision 8 3.3.2 The Application Contains Provisions to Construct "Roads" or "Streets" 9 r I 3.3.3 The Application Should be Reviewed Under the Planned Development Process 10 4.0 Issue No 2• Application not in Compliance with Comprehensive Plan 12 4.1 Basis for Request for Review 12 4.2 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review 12 4.2.1 The Preservation of Trees in the Comprehensive Plan 12 4.2.2 Impacts of Proposed Partition on Surrounding Neighborhood 15 I . 1 Table of Contents (Continued) Page 5.0 Issue No. 3: Application not in Compliance With Community Development Code 18 5.1 Basis for Request for Review 18 5.2 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review 18 j 6.0 Issue No. 4: Error in Comprehensive Plan and Zoning May 20 6.1 Basis for Request for Review 20 E 6.2 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review 20 7.0 Issue No. 5: Dedication of Right-of-Way 22 ~ I 7.1 Basis for Request for Review 22 7.2 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review 22 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 23 i" I l i I' I !'1 List of Figures Following Page Figure 2-1 Proposed Minor Land Partition MLP 97-0010 3 I Figure 2-2 Location and Caliper Width of Trees on Subject Sit- Figure Figure 2-3 Aerial Photograph of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood 4 Figure 2-4 Map of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood 4 Figure 7-1 Right-of-Way Width of SW 92nd Ave. 22 1 f E I List of Appendices Appendix A Property Deeds I B Proposal for Subject ~-te Prepared by Residents of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood C Analysis of Definitions of "Large and Unique Stands of Trees" from other Metro - Jurisdictions F I I a 1 I INTRODUCTION The residents of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood, homeowners of adjacent properties, and the East CIT have requested that the Tigard City Council review the Director's Decision to approve Mr. Miles Downing's application (MLP 97-0010) to partition a parcel of land in ' Tigard, Oregon into three lots, as a Minor Land Partition. The purpose of this report is to present the basis for our request and the findings and conclusions developed by our neighborhood to support our request for review. The development that the applicant is proposing will become an integral part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. The purpose of our request for review of the Director's Decision is not to prevent the applicant from developing his property, but to make sure that any proposed partitioning and construction will not reduce the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of the City of Tigard or our neighborhood, create unsafe conditions, or reduce the value of our properties. In accordance with the provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Community Deveiopnient Code (Code), we are I requesting that any partitioning and construction on the subject parcel be compatible with the character of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and that any construction not substantially alter the grove of fir trees which characterizes this neighborhood. Specifically, we are requesting that application MLP 97-0010 be reviewed for the 44' following: I • Issue No. I- The application has been incorrectly processed as a Minor Land I Partition. The applicant's proposed land division meets the definition of a subdivision under both the Code and the Oregon State Statues. The applicant is j proposing to construct two private accessways which meet the definition of a private road or street under both the Code and the Oregon State Statutes. Therefore, he is proposing a Major Land Partition instead of a Minor Land Partition. Furthermore, the application should have been reviewed under the ; Planned Development Process, because the Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall require development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas to be reviewed through the Planned Development process to minimize the number of trees removed. It is obvious that the established area has been planned to include the trees. v _I_ • Issue No. 2: In accordance with Section 18.162.040 of the Code, the City has not required the applicant to prove that the proposed partitioning conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. • Issue No. 3: In accordance with Section 18.162.040 of the Code, the City has not required the applicant to prove that the proposed partitioning conforms to the City's Code. i • Issue No. 4: An error exists in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the zoning for Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and the subject parcel. The zoning should be R- 3.5 instead of R-4.5, which would allow the partitioning of the subject parcel into two lots instead of three. } . • Issue No. 5: The applicant should be required to dedicate a total of 10 feet (instead of 5 feet) for the right-of-way (ROW) of the section of SW 92nd Ave. in front of the subject site. The ROW width of this section of the street is only 40 feet wide, which is not consistent with the ROW width of 50 feet on the remainder of the street in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. This causes a misalignment with the street center and east dedication. The Neighborhood does not request 1/2 street improvement, only consistency. to cnmmary, we are not trying to stop development on the subject parcel. However, we are trying to minimize the impact to our neighborhood by requesting devciuf,,ne,nt that wAl be commensurate with the character and quality of our neighborhood, that will be protective of our safety and welfare, and that will preserve as many trees on the subject parcel as possible. It is our sincere desire to reach a reasonable solution which would be profitable for the applicant and which can also become a welcome addition to our community by protecting our safety and welfare, upholding the quality of life we enjoy, as well as maintaining our current property values. Imposing conditions on the Director's Decision which would cause the applicant to develop the subject lot at a lower density than proposed should not be considered a "takings issue." Instead it is a matter of requesting the applicant to address and mitigate harmful impacts to be caused by the proposed partitioning on the surrounding neighborhood. Also to develop consistent to what has already been established for nearly 50 years, we feel both request are reasonable. We respectfully request the City Council to adopt our findings or to address any findings it does not choose to adopt. i i i I 2 HISTORY OF SITE 2.1 Site Description b The site which the applicant proposes to develop consists of approximately 0.61 acres (26,850 square feet), bordered to the north, south and east by residential property, and to the west by SW 92"d Ave. (Figure 2-1). The lot is presently undeveloped and contains a large grove of mature Douglas fir trees, as well as other species of trees. Mr. Downing purchased the property, along with an adjacent parcel in May 1997 from Mrs. Dorothy Shaw. The two parcels combined consist of approximately 1.02 acres and were purchased under a single deed (Appendix A). The deed for the purchase describes that the property consists of two parcels. Parcel 1 consists of approximately 0.41 acres j and contains a dwelling constructed in approximately 1951. Parcel 2 is the subject parcel which Mr. Downing is presently proposing to divide into three lots. The two parcels have t remained under a single deed, and under single ownership from 1947 to 1997, and at some point were combined as a single tax lot (Tax Lot 6700). Mr. Downing contends that the two parcels are two separate legal lots based on the fact J that the parcels were purchased separately in 1945 and 1946, respectively. The parcels ( were subsequently combined under a single deed in 1947 and remained under a single deed until 1997. In order to establish that Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are two separate legal lots, Mr. Downing deeded Parcel 2 to himself on June 19, 1997 (Appendix A). 2.1.1 Description of Trees on the Subject Property j The parcel which is to be partitioned presently contains 51 trees. Forty-two of the trees consist of large mature Douglas Fir trees ranging from six to 42 caliper inches. Eighteen of the fir trees are 24 caliper inches or greater. The remaining trees consist of various deciduous trees such as dogwood, cherry and alder. The grove of trees is an integral portion of the grove in which homes of the Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood have been built. Figure 2-2 shows the tree type, location and caliper inches of each tree as plotted by the applicant. -3- i . v - z it (H 0/ HOUSE ° u/vv sv vnn u:u sv M. - YAxU ' APPLICANT/OWNER 141LES DOWNING P.O BOX 230972 Y •4 Do. 106.57 48.44 o TIGARD OR 97261-0972 (q ~ LOCATION - L ❑ T 1 L ❑ -SNAP IS135DC cr, •+1 TAX LOT 6701 222 ; _ s, 220 u ct~ 1 m(v ./.e (p.w t•/w - I(`i•'(oYr urn w N r~ 7j606, v 0 T~ c(caT, En - CJ T 3 21 0 Op TAB CD h~ 9 saeo° 214 ST VATCR CATCH RALJ /lie ` wyu CD- G r~ \ EIRE HYDRANT ...loitc.-G~ 212 'b v ,pO~ `PC,y~ yi _ 210 JUNE 26 1997 b Z) 10141 DRAINS TO CURB v O ; STOP" WATER EATEN DASIr( O NORTH ° SCALE 1"=50' U ~J LOCATION 0F TREE` SCALE 1"=310' 036'r IR 6'F IR ° 101jCCIOulluS WALDCR 40'FIR Q^. 78'rIR CD 03u'r IR ID Q31'C IR CD V o13'Flk U 31-rlR N 042'r IR 022-FIR o9'FIR N 0421lR o20'f IR cl2'DUGVOOD 019•r IR ol3•r IR C~ 032'1-I11 U26• FIR 036-FIR 9'IIOLLY O olz•na ~ 0 32-r I R 0 26•F IR jy a lU'1-Ik MUCIUUOUS o 10•01CRRl 024TIR 016'rlR 014'rIR ryt F Pi! 019'FIR O 35•FIR n U4'F IR 016'r Ik 01511 lk O - 16'rIR 12',12'C'Icr 016•r IR U36-FIR "STIR 01U'FIR 024'r1R NORTH a 0i'4'fIR 024 •r I R 0 .y CD " 10'APPLC ~ O C n tt_" 1 The fir trees are a significant natural feature of the Greenburg Road area of Tigard. They can be seen from most of the homes in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood as well as from homes on nearby streets. Figure 2-3, an aerial photograph, shows that the trees on the subject parcel clearly are a part of the grove of trees which characterizes Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. 2.2 History and Description of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood Dogwood Ridge neighborhood (Figure 2-4) was developed in the early 1950's as a premier 5 1 development in what was to become a part of Tigard. Some of the homes were built as part of a "Street of Dreams" showcase. Dogwood Ridge consists of sixteen large lots located off of what is now SW 92nd Ave., north of Southwest Greenburg Road. This portion of SW 92"d Ave. is presently a quiet dead-end street winch was built solely to - provide access to the homes in Dogwood Ridge. The name of the street was originally Robinson Avenue, named after Harry L. Robinson and Bertha W. Robinson who developed the neighborhood. The street was not originally called Robison after B.W. and Lucinda Robison, the 1946 owners of the subject site, as stated in the application. The - street `vas private fior many years until t t wvn he C wity took v'r8r road. y••..• ry the - Fourteen of the 16 lots in Dogwood Ridge are approximately 18,900 square feet (sq. ft.) or larger, and two lots are approximately 16,300 sq. ft. Fifteen of the lots presently contain homes. An additional lot of approximately 10,900 sq. ft. is located adjacent to Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood on SW 92"d Ave. The neighborhood is characterized by its beauty and privacy which are a result of large, well-built homes constructed on very large lots on a dead-end street in the midst of a large and unique grove of mature Douglas Fir trees. Each large lot contains one residence located approximately 30 feet from the edge of the street, and fir trees which form a unique open and natural area in this portion of the City of Tigard. Figure 2-3, an aerial photograph, shows the nature of this neighborhood and shows that the quantity and size of the fir trees along SW 92"d Ave.- is truly unique to this i section of Tigard. The properties in this neighborhood have generally been well maintained. All of the i residents of this neighborhood have chosen to live on this street because of the large lot sizes and the quality of homes. On any given summer day, the children of the neighborhood can frequently be found riding bikes or roller blading up and down the street. Impromptu games of street hockey are frequently played in the street. The character and quality of Dogwood Ridge is unique not only to this part of Tigard but to the rest of the city as well. It is rare to find an entire street of older well-maintained homes on large lots where in-fill development has not yet destroyed the character of the neighborhood. The properties in this neighborhood generally have a higher value than i -4- i L~ i f w mmE ' C1Am`~ ulviCl~1 1 °s MEETING ATE: a i j - AGENDA 4 SEE 35MM ROLL FILM i:\records\m icrofl m\ta rgets\osdocccm. doc woo; a~bo" Ood r1e~~ L dgyQe aood Ri w 4 Map of Figure 2rl w -L c`,~cQd • 2j? ~ ¢ ~ + • cod + a' I^ 1 oTA - f-' ~ l 1. 1 ~ Q 4. I + t n 1 W. aD 1 P4+ 11~~'s~~~a7 sG Ss LOT s ~ ;;-IDtCA't FL: most other residential properties in the area located off of SW Greenburg Road because of the large lot sizes, the scenic character, and because the homes are well-built and well- maintained. Presently, all properties in Dogwood Ridge are owner-occupied. 2.3 History of Development Applications For the Subject Parcel The following is a brief history of the development proposals submitted for the subject site: • In April 1997, the City of Tigard issued a Notice of Amended Decision regarding Minor Land Partition MLP 97-0002, filed by Mr. Miles Downing on behalf of Mrs. Dorothy Shaw, the land owner of the subject parcel at that time. The premise of the application was that both parcels of land to be purchased by the applicant constituted a single lot. The applicant was proposing a Minor Land Partition in which he would divide the property into a lot containing the existing house and two lots behind the house, to access onto SW 92nd Ave. One of the later two lots was large enough that it could be further subdivided in a subsequent calendar year. In the Amended Decision, the City was requesting that the applicant construct half-street improvements along SW 92"d Ave., adjacent to the subject property. ' 1 • Un April 23, 1997, an appeal was flied un behalf of the residents of Dogrood Ridge Neighborhood, based on the fact that the application should have been processed as a Major Land Partition instead of as a Minor Land Partition. The basis of the appeal was that the applicant was proposing to construct a road from . SW 92"d Ave. to a proposed flag lot. As pari of the appeal, the appellants requested, on behalf of the applicant, that the City of Tigard remove the I requirement for half-street improvements. At a pre-application meeting with the neighborhood on December 23, 1996, the applicant indicated that he ultimately j needed to build three houses instead of two on the subject parcel, to pay for the half-street improvements. We concluded that the character of the neighborhood could be better preserved if the applicant were to build only two new homes on I the subject parcel and in return not be required to build half-street improvements. • The hearing of the appeal occurred on May 19, 1997 before the City of Tigard Planning Commission. The appellants presented their testimony at the hearing in support of the appeal. They requested that the record be held open until the next planning commission meeting, so that they could formalize their testimony in the form of a petition from the neighborhood. • At the following Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 1997, the applicant requested that the record be held open for an additional period of time so that he could offer a compromise proposal to the appellants. The Commission agreed to -5- i " keep the record open because they wished to allow the appellants and applicant to reach a compromise on their own if possible. After the hearing concluded, the applicant met with various neighbors who had attended the meeting. His offer was to allow one Douglas Fir tree to remain standing if the appellants would drop the appeal. • On June 12, 1997, the residents of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood made a counter proposal to the applicant for the partition and development of the subject site (Appendix B). The proposal was rejected by the applicant. • On June 13, 1997, the applicant withdrew application ULP 97-0002 for a Minor Land partition of the subject site. 2.4 Summary of Development Proposal The applicant is requesting approval of a minor land partition to create three lots on Parcel 2 (Figure 2-1). Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 will be 7,750 sq. ft., Lot 2 will be 8,040 sq. ft., Lot 3 will be 7,771 sq, ft. All of the parcels are intended for future single-family residential use. Five feet along SW 92nd Avenue will be dedicated to the City to widen the right-of-way (ROW) width of SW 92"d Ave. Lot 1 will be located along SW 92"d Ave., and Lots 2 and 3 will be flag lots located behind Lot 1. Lots 2 and 3 are proposed to each have a strip which will allow access from the flag portion of the lots to SW 92"d Ave. Each access strip is proposed to be approximately 16.5 feet wide. Ii I I I -6- i ' I I 3 ISSUE NO. 1: APPLICATION PROCESSED INCORRECTLY AS MINOR LAND PARTITION j-3.1 Basis for Request for Review Application MLP 97-0010 has been processed incorrectly as a Minor Land Partition instead of as a Subdivision or Major Land Partition, which should be reviewed through the Planned Development process and is able to meet that criteria for an established area. i Under the Code (15.150.025), Tree Mitigation Plans are required to accompany the applications for Subdivisions or Major Land Partitions, but not for Minor Land Partitions. The purpose of the tree plan is to assure that development will not substantially alter the character of the grove of trees, and to be sure that any trees proposed to be removed will not affect the integrity of the remainder of a grove on nearby properties. The tree plans are to he prepared by a certified arborist. The Code states that the protection of trees is preferred over removal where possible. Because the trees on the subject site are such an integral part of the community, it is vital that the application be processed correctly, so that proposed development will not severely alter the character of our neighborhood, or affect the integrity of trees on nearby properties, creating a safety problem. 3.2 Definitions The following definitions, used below in support of the appeal are from the Tigard f i Community Development Code (18.26.030): - "Flag lot" - a lot located behind a frontage lot, plus a strip out to the street for an access drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision or partitioning of a residential lot or parcel which is more than twice as large as the minimum i allowed in the underlying zone, but without sufficient frontage to allow two dwellings to front along a street. There are to distinct parts to a flag lot: the "flag" which comprises the actual building site located at the rear portion of the original lot, and the "pole" which provides access from a street to the flag. "Major partition" - a partition of land which creates three lots or less within one calendar ear and includes the creation of a road or street. -7- i I i , 1+1 i - I n - "Minor partition" - a partition of land which creates three lots or less within one calendar year, and does not include the creation of a road or street. - "Street" or "road" - a public or private way that is created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a pnvatc way that is created to provide ingress oregress to such land in conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, mining or I agricultural purposes. i - "Street, private" - an accesssway which is under private ownership. - y - "Subdivision" - either an act of subdividing land or an area or tract of land or ' an area or a tract of land subdivided as defined in this section. I " - "Subdivide land" - to divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership at the beginning of such year. 3.3 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review 3.3.1 The Application Meets the Definition of a Subdivision The applicant's proposal to partition Parcel 2 into three new lots while retaining Parcel 1 as a separate individual lot clearly meets the definition of a "subdivision" or "subdividing land" given above. Clearly Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 exist as contiguous units of land under single ownership at the beginning of the year in which the application is being made to partition the land. Furthermore, the two parcels have legally been described under a single deed, have been under single ownership from 1947 to 1997, and have been combined as a j single tax lot. Based on these facts, the two parcels have clearly been identified as a single j unit of land (if not a single legal lot) for 50 years. The definition for a subdivision or subdividing land found in the Tigard Community Development Code conforms with the definitions from the Oregon State Statutes, as given below: • "Subdivide land" means to divide land into four or more lots within a calendar year. (ORS 92.010 (15)). • "Subdivision" means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land subdivided. (ORS 92.010 (16)). -8- • "Tract" means one or more contiguous lots or parcels under the same ownership (ORS 215.010 (2)). The two parcels should be considered a "tract" because: • they are contiguous lots; they were under same ownership at the beginning of the calendar year; and • they have been identified as a single "area" or "tract" from 1947 to the present, a period of 50 years. j v The applicant is clearly proposing to create four lots in a single calendar year by dividing an area or tract of land" when such "area or tract of land exists as a unit or continuous units of land under single ownership," without classifying the proposal as a subdivision. In this case, the consequence is that the applicant can avoid preparing a tree mitigation plan and avoids having to preserve trees during the development process, if the application continues to be incorrectly classified as a Minor Land Partition. 3.3.2 The Application Contains Provisions to Construct "Roads" or 4 "Streets" ` As stated in Section 2.4, the purpose of the application to divide Parcel 2 into three iois, as a Minor Land Partition; one lot will front along SW 92nd Ave. The other two lots will be flag lots located behind the first lot. Each of the flag lots are proposed to have'separate strips out to SW 92"' Ave. for access drives. ` j The creation of a flag lot must be considered a Major Land Partition instead of a Minor 1 ' j Land Partition because a private accessway is created. We believe that the pole portion of a flag lot is a "street" for the following reasons: r t. • The pole portion of a flag lot meets the definition of a "road" or "street" given above. The purpose of the pole is to provide ingress or egress for persons to one j or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of lands. In this case, the poles will provide ingress and egress to the flag "areas" of the flag lots. Mr. Mark Roberts, a City of Tigard planner, has indicated that by this definition the driveway portions of all residential lots in Tigard must be considered "roads" or "streets". However, we j disagree with this premise, because the purpose of a standard driveway is to provide off-street parking and not ingress or egress to a lot. The street which any given house fronts is the street which provides ingress or egress to a typical residential lot. It should be noted that the City's definition of a "road" or "street" is adopted verbatim from the Oregon State Statutes (ORS 92.010 (13)). -9- • The definition of "flag lot" is a lot located behind a frontage lot, pus a stri p out to the street for an access drive. The "strip" clearly meets the definition of "private street" given above, which is an accessway under private ownership. • In the staff report written by Mr. Mark Roberts on May 8, 1997, in response to the appeal of MLP 97-0002, Mr. Roberts wrote that if more than one lot is accessed by a flag pole, "in the Director's opinion, this type of access situation would then meet the current definition of street." However, it should be noted that this is an opinion, and is not supported by the Code. in fact, this opinion contradicts the Code which defines a "road" or "street" as a public or private way j created to provide ingress or egress to one or more lots, parcels, areas etc. F • Several restrictions apply to the pole portion of a flag lot which are not applicable to standard driveways: - the area of the accessway cannot be used for lot area calculations to determine if the lot is large enough for the applicable zoning; - the accessway cannot be used for "off-street" parking; and - the accessway must meet certain width requirements for allowing emergency - vehicles (e.g. fire trucks, etc.) to access the property. The issue o `ethcr or not ot the. pole nortion of a flag lot meets the definition of a "street" fw,~cu~~. or "road" is important because the sole difference between whether an application should be processed as a Major or a Minor Land Partition is based on whether or not a "road" or "street" is to be created. The only difference in submittal criteria between a Major and a Minor Land Partition is the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan. As fully explained in j Section 4.2, the subject parcel contains mature Douglas Fir trees which form part of a I "large or unique stand of trees." The Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall ensure that development proposals do not alter the character of such "large or unique stands of trees." It is imperative to correctly process the subject application as a Major Land Partition, so that the provision is met in the Comprehensive Plan that the character of the trees be preserved. i ' 3.3.3 The Application Should be Reviewed Under the Planned Development Process The Comprehensive Plan states in Section 3.4.2 that the City shall require development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas to be reviewed through the planned development process. The Code does not have a mechanism for defining timbered or tree areas. The planning staff has indicated that the requirement in the Comprehensive Plan to "designate, by definition and not by location" "large and unique stands of trees" is met by -10- j i the tree ordinance. However, this is contradicted in Mr. Dick Bewersdorfrs letter to the City Council, dated July 2, 1997 regarding the Tree Code Standards: "After passage of the new tree ordinance provision, there was an intent to conduct a study to determine if there were unique trees or stands of trees needing protection. This has not been accomplished due to other work priorities." We also believe that Code does not have a mechanism for requiring this application to be processed as a planned development unless a zone change _ public hearing is held (See Mr. Bewersdorffs letter, July 2, 1997). Therefore, because of this and the fact that the tree ordinance does not define "large or unique" specifically nor does it define by its applicability (because lot sizes have no maximum size as a limitation) the Code is failing to uphold this provision of the Comprehensive Plan. r k. i. x. { - 1 11 -1 4 ISSUE NO. 2: APPLICATION NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4.1 Basis for Request for Review The applicant has failed to prove that the proposed partitioning conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan (Section 18.162.040.A.1 of the Code). 4.2 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review In the Code, any request to partition land shall meet all of the five criteria listed in section 18.162.040.A - Partition Approval Criteria. The first criteria in this list is to prove that _ the proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the Code states that any decision made by the "Approval Authority" (e.g., City of Tigard Director, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall be based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan (Section 18.32.250.A.1.a). Not only has the applicant not provided evidence that the application fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan, but the applicant states that he is not required to specifically address the Comprehensive Plan, since he believes that the Plan is j implemented by the Code. No doubt this premise is true in most instances. However, we believe that there are instances where the requirements of the Code and Comprehensive Plan may differ, or the Code fails to address specific items of the Comprehensive Plan, In these instances, the applicant is obligated to prove that he is in compliance with the 1 Comprehensive Plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan which deal with land development but have not been addressed by the applicant. In these instances, an explanation is provided where the Code fails to implement portions of the Comprehensive ! Plan or if the Code conflicts with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. 4.2.1 The Preservation of Trees in the Comprehensive Plan Part of the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain and improve the existing quality of life for the residents by providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which contribute to the livability of the community (See page II-1 Comprehensive Plan). The Comprehensive Plan states the following relative to natural resources: -12- I i t~ od • FINDINGS (Section 3.4): The following is a partial list of the Findings presented in the Comprehensive Plan related to "Natural Areas:" The significant plant communities and animal habitat areas are the riparian vegetation adjacent to the water resources in the community and various stands of timber and brush. I, Vegetation contributes to the aesthetic quality of the community. Vegetation controls erosion, absorbs sound and moderates temperatures. It also affects the flow and moisture content of the air, reduction of air pollution and glare, and softens the impact of the urban environment. • POLICY: i ~(Section 3.4.I.c): The City shall designate, by definition not by location, areas of significant environmental concern which include areas valued for their fragile character as habitats for plants, animal, or aquatic life, or having endangered plant or animal species or specific natural features valued for the need to protect natural areas. • INTLEMENTATION STRATEGY NO. 4 (Section 3.4.2(4)): Where there exist larize 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 1994 the City Council appointed a Tree Task Force to develop an approach of when C tree protection is important to the community and when these goals deserve more weight than private property interests. They prepared a memorandum to the City Council dated February 28, 1995 which made several points including the following: • The City will conduct a SIGNIFICANT TREE stud tY y including review of other communities' work, definition, identification and inventory. 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. • DUPING 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 other development restrictions, as appropriate. { -13- . ,l j The "tree cutting" section of the code was revised in 1995 to incorporate the findings of the Tree Task Force. However, clearly the Code as it is presently written is not meeting the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan or the Tree Task Force. The City has never conducted a SIGNIFICANT TREE inventory as directed by the Tree Task Force. As stated above, Significant Trees are not to be removed during the development process. There is presently no mechanism to define Significant Trees or to protect against the removal of Significant Trees during the development process. This is confirmed in Mr. Dick Bewersdorfl' s letter to the City Council, dated July 2, 1997 regarding the Tree Code Standards. The preamble to the revised 1995 "tree cutting" ordinance states that "the Council finds the proposed ordinance to satisfy Implementation Strategy 4 because the ordinance as f amended will continue to protect large and unique stands of trees and major vegetation j areas called for by that strategy." However, we find that the "tree cutting" code is not always protective of "large or unique stands of trees on undeveloped land" during the development process because applications for Minor Land Partitions are one type of development proposal which are not presently required to prepare a tree cutting plan. The ` subject parcel is clearly considered to be "undeveloped land" using the following definition from the preamble to the revised 1995 "tree cutting" code: Undeveloped land includes "all land which either contains no existing use or which is capable of further subdivision or partitioning." Therefore, we find that if any "large or unique stands of trees" exist on the _ property they should be protected according to both the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations of the Tree Task Force. I Because the City does not presently have any provisions for defining SIGNIFICANT TREES as recommended by the tree task force or "large and unique stands of trees" as required by the Comprehensive Plan, we have reviewed the tree cutting policies of nearby jurisdictions (Beaverton, Lake Oswego, City of Portland and Forest Grove). Based on this review, we find that the stand of trees on the subject site as well the street as a whole would be acknowledged requiring protection and mitigation. Based on these ordinances they should be defined as a significant grove. This is important because the council as an approval authoritv may take iudicial notice of implementing ordinances of other planning authorities within the metropolitan service district (18.132.210). Please see Appendix C for a detailed description of this analysis. The seriousness of this issue is compounded by the fact that Tree Mitigation Plans are required for Subdivisions and Major Land Partitions but not for Minor Land Partitions. The sole difference between whether an application should be processed as a Major or a Minor Land Partition is based on whether or not a "road" or "street" is to be created. The Oregon State Statues only distinguish between subdivisions and partitions as a means of creating new lots or parcels. The categories of Major and Minor Land Partitions are solely local distinctions. However these distinctions are based on the State definition of "road" or "street", but the Director is choosing to interpret this definition so that it does not include -14- I1 ' the pole portion of a flag lot. We have demonstrated in Section 3.3.2 that this interpretation clearly is in conflict with the State definition of "road" or "street". Mr. Dick Bewersdorff has informed us that the City recognizes that the Code is failing to require Tree Mitigation Plans in some cases where "large and unique stands of trees" exist. He told us that the City is in the process of rewriting the Code. In the revised Code, the City will no longer make a distinction between Major and Minor Land Partitions. The division of land will fall under the category of a subdivision or a land partition, which is consistent with Oregon State statutes and definitions. The "tree cutting" portion of the code will be revised so that it states that applications for "land partitions" will be required to prepare and submit Tree Mitigation Plans. Mr. Bewersdorff indicated that these i changes have been submitted to the consulting firm which is presently rewriting the code. In the future, the Code will meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan to protect large and unique stands of trees during development. In summary, we believe that we have clearly demonstrated the following: i • the subject site is presently considered "undeveloped land" and contains mature Douglas Fir trees which are part of a large and unique grove extending onto j nearby properties. • the City is required to define SIGNu ICANT TREES and "large and unique r stands of trees". However, the Code fails to address these issues. i • The grove of trees on the subject site would be considered "large and unique" or "significant" using definitions from other jurisdictions. The Code (Section III r 18.32.210(3)) states that in making a decision, the Approval Authority (e.g., f Tigard City Council) may take notice of the comprehensive plans and F " implementing ordinances of other planning authorities within the Metropolitan Service District Boundary. • the City is required to "ensure that development proposals do not substantially ! alter the character of vegetation areas through the "Tree Cutting" Code." However, the Code is failing to do this for ALL development proposals. 4.2.2 Impacts of Proposed Partition on Surrounding Neighborhood The introduction to the Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of the Plan is to maintain and improve the existing quality of life for the residents. The Plan states that this is accomplished in part by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of Tigard (see page I1-2 Comprehensive Plan). The dwellings to be constructed on the proposed partition will become a part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood because they will be adjacent to houses which are part of the u' -15- i i I i' neighborhood, and because they will access SW 92°`' Ave., which is a dead-end street that was constructed specifically to serve the Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. The proposed partition is located next to the entrance to SW 92 d Ave.; therefore these homes will be the first ones observed upon entering Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and will affect the character and feel of the neighborhood. Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood }existed long before the applicant proposed to paiiiliun ihu subject parcel. The rusldunts of tiie neighborhood have chosen to live here specifically because of the character of the neighborhood and have invested considerable time and resources upgrading and maintaining existing residences. The applicant's proposed partition will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood in several ways. Neither the applicant nor the City have addressed the impacts that the j proposed partition will have, nor has the applicant provided any measures to mitigate the serious impacts on an existing development nearly 50 years old. The applicant is required to address this issue, since one of the criteria for approval of a partition application is proof ! that the application is fully in compliance with the Plan. Furthermore, the City is required to implement the Comprehensive Plan. We find that the impacts of the proposed partition I . will be the following: a) The proposed dwellings will have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood because they will be constructed on significantly smaller lots than surrounding homes. These smaller lots do not allow any reasonable way to protect the natural and scenic features (mature Douglas Fir trees) on the subject site, which were r intentionally planned to be a part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. Presently the homes in Dogwood Ridge have a higher value than nearby homes because of the large lot sizes and the presence of mature Douglas Fir trees. We believe that the construction of homes on smaller lots without trees will cause property values to either go down, or not to rise at the same rate as previously, because the character, quality and livability of our neighborhood will be affected by the proposed partition. The small E lot sizes of the proposed partition will also affect the open and spacious feel of t Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood because the set-back distances and yard areas of the proposed dwellings will be much smaller in comparison to existing homes. Furthermore, the small lot sizes proposed for the subject site will affect the consistency in appearance from lot to lot that has existed in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood for nearly 50 years. b) The increased traffic from the proposed partition will cause a danger at the entrance to SW 92"d Ave., from SW Greenburg Road. The first 214 feet of SW 92nd Ave., from the intersection with SW Greenburg Road (along the edge of both of the applicant's properties) is only 18 feet wide. The remainder of SW 92"d Ave. is as much as 30 to 50 feet wide in places. The Code (Section 18.108.070.E) states that the minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. U -16- 1 1 Clearly the entrance to SW 92"d Ave is narrower than the minimum width allowed for a driveway exiting onto an arterial street. The danger of the narrow width of SW 92°d Ave. is compounded by the fact that children living on SW 92"d Ave. must walk this stretch of road each weekday to the school-bus stop on SW Greenburg Road, because school buses will not travel down dead-end streets. There is presently not enough room for two cars passing each other and a group of children to walk this section of the road safely at the same time. The applicant's proposed dwellings will increase traffic at the entrance to SW 92"d Ave. by almost 20 percent (3 proposed dwellings/16 existing dwellings), along this narrow stretch. This increase is disproportionate relative to the i ratio of the frontage of the subject parcel along SW 92"d Ave. (87.5 feet), to the total frontage of all lots (1869 feet), which is approximately 5 percent. c) The applicant has informed us that it is his intention to remove all trees from the subject parcel prior to construction. He has told us that it is his intention to sell all the trees for profit. The removal of all trees will have a negative impact on our neighborhood for two reasons: i • the character of the neighborhood will be affected because the entire stand of trees on the subject parcel is to be removed and the proposed new homes will not _ have trees on their properties. J the integrity of nearby trees on adjacent properties will be affected by the j~ complete removal of the buffer offered by the trees on the subject parcel. The stand of trees located on the subject site is situated upwind of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood given the prevailing wind direction from the southwest. Therefore - { the stand of trees presently act as a buffer to fir trees on the east side of SW 92°d Ave. and the west side of SW 91" Ave. Any plan to remove the trees from the _ subject parcel must consider the impact to adjacent trees on nearby properties. i ~ i t -17- _J. t j i 5 ISSUE NO. 3: APPLICATION NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE j 5.1 Basis for Request for Review The applicant has failed to prove that the proposed partitioning complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations as stated in Section 18.162.040 of the Code. 4 i 5.2 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review The introduction to the Tigard Code states its objectives are to promote the general health, i safety and welfare of the public (Section 18.020.010). To accomplish these goals, part of the purpose of the Code is to: • Ensure that the development of property within the City is commensurate with the f physical characteristics of the land, and in general, to promote and protect the i public health safety, convenience and welfare; • conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources; and • provide for review of those uses which may have a detrimental impact on the f community. 4 We believe that the applicant has not proven that the development proposal will not be harmful to the residents of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood as well as residents of SW 91" Ave., and will not be protective of natural resources. We believe that the Director's Decision of MLP 97-0010 has not addressed the following negative impacts to Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood: • increased traffic at the entrance to SW 92nd Ave, • the effects of removing all trees from the subject parcel which presently act as a buffer to trees on adjacent properties, and -18- I _ I i 4 i • the proposed land partition is not commensurate with the physical characteristics of the surrounding area (e.g., smaller lot sizes and the destruction of a portion of the grove of Douglas Fir trees which characterizes Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood). These negative impacts are explained in detail in Section 4.0, Compliance with the I Comprehensive Plan. rI i I _l i .j I i i ti j ~ i j -19- i I e 6 ISS'U'E NO. -A: ER°O° IN COIRAPREHEI.1101E 4~": Ail ZONING MAP r: 6.1 Basis for Request for Review A mistake has been made in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map as it relates to the ; c property which is the subject of the development application. 6.2 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review The current zoning for our neighborhood is R4.5, which dictates a minimum lot size of j 7,500 sq. ft. However, as discussed in Section 2.2, all of the lots are larger than 10,000 sq. ft. and all but one lot are approaching 20,000 sq. ft. in size. f We believe that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map when the City was proposing zoning for different neighborhoods. A zoning of R-3.5 (which dictates a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.) is more consistent with the nature of our neighborhood. We have clearly demonstrated that our neighborhood is characterized by large lot sizes which allowed the large and unique grove of 'Or trees to remain substantially unaltered during construction of our homes. The original developers of our neighborhood essentially designed the neighborhood to be a planned development characterized by the open and spacious feel of the area and the existence of large fir trees. A zoning of R-3.5 will clearly allow our the character of our neighborhood to remain unaffected. In-fill development which would be permitted with a zoning of R4.5 will destroy the character of I our neighborhood and will cause a decline in the livability for the residents of this street. Furthermore, development in our neighborhood at the density allowed by the current designation of R4.5 will be detrimental to the general welfare and livability of our neighborhood, and will not preserve open space and the natural and scenic resources, in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Development at densities which will permit lot sizes smaller than ours will cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of SW 92"d Ave. As a result of development at the density allowed by a zoning of R-4.5 we will suffer a loss of the following: • privacy; -20- i i i 7 • general buffering from noise from SW Greenburg Road; • aesthetic beauty; • property values; and 1 the pattern of consistency of lot sizes, front_ -A zptharlc distances, and - • sL~i,ar . construction from home to home. • Therefore because of the harmful impact development allowed under R 4.5 will render on properties accessing our street we now realize and conclude that R 4.5 ( is a mistake for our area and it should be changed to R 3.5 which would be consistent with what is established here already and would serve to promote , everyone's livability and welfare. i u -21- 7 ISSUE NO. 5: DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY i j 7.1 Basis for Request for Review The applicant should be required to dedicate sufficient land so that the right-of-way ' (ROW) width in front of the subject parcel is consistent with the ROW width of the { remainder of the street. j 7.2 Findings and Conclusions to Support Request for Review i i As stated in the Director's Decision of NMP 97-0010, SW 92nd Ave. is a local residential j street that is paved, but not improved to City standards. The Right-of-Way (ROW) width i of the section of SW 92nd Ave. that is located in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood is 50 feet wide. The ROW width of the portion of SW 92nd Avenue that fronts the subject parcel is i presently only 40 feet wide. The Director's Decision states that the applicant will dedicate an additional five feet to the City's ROW. However, as can be seen in Figure 7-1, this dedication will create a ROW that will only be 45 feet wide along the frontage of the subject parcel. The edge of the ROW on the opposite side of the street is presently in alignment with the edge of the ROW in Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. This parcel was developed at a later date than Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood and the homeowner was required to dedicate a portion of his property so that the edge of the ROW would be in alignment with the rest of SW 92nd Ave. It would not be appropriate to ask this i homeowner to dedicate an additional five feet to the City's ROW to create an ROW width f of 50 feet, since the edge of the ROW is in alignment with the rest of the street. Therefore, the applicant should be required to dedicate a total of 10 feet to the City so that the ROW width will be 50 feet, which is consistent with the remainder of the street. i `J -22- ~®S C 0 7 IC iii ~1 ~ 1 ~ IA /1 ~ ®a i'~" c~ v v ~tw~~~~r ~vvv®raG1~1 i ~ , - _ 7 v MEETING DATE: q { AGENDA E SEE 35MM ROLL FILM i:\records\microflm\ta rgets\osdocccm. doc I 1 L~ 1 l 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In summary, we are not trying to stop development on the subject parcel by requesting the Tigard City Council to review application NLP 91-0010. However, we are trying to minimize the impact to our neighborhood by requesting development that will be commensurate with the character and quality of our neighborhood, that will be protective of our safety and welfare, and that will preserve as many trees on the subject parcel as possible. It is our sincere desire to reach a reasonable solution which would be profitable for the applicant and which can also become a welcome addition to our community by protecting our safety and welfare, upholding the quality of life we enjoy as well as maintaining our current property values. Section 18.32.250 describes the decision process of the Approval Authority. This section states that land-use decisions shall be based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with: • the City of Tigard comprehensive plan; and i • the relevant approval standard found in the applicable chapter(s) of the code or I, other applicable implementing ordinances; j Consideration may also be given to: • proof of a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map as it relates to the i property which is the subject of the development application; and I (1 • factual oral testimony or written statements from the parties. f The Approval Authority in their review of an appeal may adopt the following: i i • findings and conclusions contained in the staff report; • findings and conclusions of a lower approval authority; • its own findings and conclusions; • findings and conclusions submitted by any party provided that all parties have had _ an opportunity to review the findings and comment on the same; or -23- L~ Y a I • adopt findings and conclusions from another source. Conditions may be imposed by the approval authority where such conditions are necessary to: • carry out applicable provisions of the Tigard comprehensive plan- carry out the applicable implementing ordinances; and ensure that adequate public services are provided to the development or to ensure that other required improvements are made. Conditions may include, but are not limited to: i • minimum lot sizes; • larger setbacks; • preservation of significant natural features; and • dedication of easements. Furthermore, Section 18.32.210(3) states that the Approval Authority make take notice of the comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances of other planning authorities within the Metropolitan Service District boundary. Below is a summary of our findings and conclusions which we wish the approval authority j (Tigard City Council) to consider in their review of MLP 97-0010: i ; - • The stand of trees located on the subject parcel meets the definition of "large and unique stand of trees" using definitions (as allowed in section 18.32.210) from other planning authorities within the Metropolitan Service District boundary. Furthermore, the stand of trees is an integral portion of the grove of trees in 47- which the homes of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood have been built. This grove j of trees is unique to the Greenburg Area of Tigard and is subject to protection under the Comprehensive Plan. i • In accordance with the provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Code, any partitioning of the subject parcel should be consistent with Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood in order to minimize negative impacts to the existing neighborhood and to ensure that any development does not substantially alter the character of the "large and unique" stand of trees on the subject parcel. • An error was made in the Comprehensive Plan which designated the zoning of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood to be R-4.5. The zoning should be R-3.5 so that -24- i i I . L_ J the character of the neighborhood can be preserved as intended by the original developers and any new development will be consistent with the neighborhood. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which states that its purpose is to maintain and improve the quality of life for the residents of Tigard. • The lots to be created by the applicant will become an integral part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. The lot sizes in the proposed partition should be of a size that is consistent with the character of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. The negative impacts of the proposed development will then be minimized because the aesthetics of the neighborhood will be preserved which include the following: - large lots with well-built homes; i. - preservation of fir trees which are a unique feature of Tigard, worthy to be preserved; and - the open and spacious feel of the neighborhood which contributes to the i quality of life in Tigard in general. ! I • The applicant should be required to address the impacts of increased traffic at the narrow entrance of SW 92nd Ave. Possible mitigation efforts could include _ widening the entrance of SW 92"d Ave. (without half/street improvements such as sidewalks) or reducing the number of proposed lots, which would reduce the amount of traffic. • The applicant should be required to prepare a Tree Mitigation Plan for two reasons. His application has been incorrectly filed as a Minor Land Partition. All other development proposals require the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan. ! Secondly, he must be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which states that the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of large or unique stands of trees. A Tree Mitigation Plan is critical to this development proposal to ensure protection of the City's natural resources, to - - - preserve the character of this section of Tigard, as well as Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood, and to ensure the integrity of trees located on nearby properties which will no longer be protected by wind, if all trees are removed from the subject parcel. ° . -25- i Appendix A Property Deeds f r f _ ff~ f i 1 - j j I J i STATE OF OREGON l county at Washington T SS OREGON TITLE I, Jerry R' anwn, Diector of Assess- Ill IDS LCt Company .ant and.Taaation' and Ex OKao County Clerk 10r vaid county, do hereby "Tty that q the within instrument of wrthng e and recorded.in book of mconts'.ofwd .:._ter Recording, Return to: county. Miles L. Doming -w 11600 Southwest Greensburg Rd. = - U' = r ..r " • Tigard, OR 97223 ,'jury"A'Hanso4 Director of - - Assesamentand Tafation, E o- - Until a change is requested, tax statements Ottioo County Clerk shall be sent to the following address: Doc 97047536 SAME AS ABOVE Rect: 186933 268.00 " 05/23/1997 30:42:00am - STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (Individual) (Above Space Reserved for Recorder's Use) Dorothy J. Shaw, conveys and warrants to Miles L. Downing, a single person the fo11o.1aQ dueribed zeal property In the State of Oregon and CO=ty of Washington l free of encumbrances, except as specifically set forth hereint i 3 (Continued) 9 trasNagiDn (btnrrr - U : IF£AL L)F!7' T/F.tlISf2'N T.aJf - I $ .oo S Z cli FEE FAtD M E u Tax Account Number(s): - - 0 This property is free of encumbrances, - PT. " 1. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Unified Sewerage Agency and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. i 2. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. (Continued) _ - The true consideration for this conveyance is $225,000.00 THIS 2NSTRUNENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUi@rr IN VIOLA- TION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 9EFORS SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRU- - IMT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERITY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERNIHE ANY LIMITS ON LAN- r S17ZTS A07ltDE32 FAR1@IG OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. DATED this ZZ day of May. 1997. Dorothy J. S STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF Clackamas)ss. ~i • The foregoing i -rument was acknowledged before me this 45V day of May. 1997, by • Dorothy . Sher, " ~`/tary\psbli& Pr-Oregon - - My Commission Fxpires:-//-~`~ t OFfICIAI SEAL l O of . iGOREGOw f NOTAR' VUaL ro.twss :NO t26= I Order No.: 865926. I u~ OODUISSION EJtPtRFS JULIE", _ i STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 1 (CONTINUED) ' _ i LEGAL DESCRIP-ICN (Continued) Order No.: 865926. PARCZL I Beginning at the Northeast corner of the John Y.icklin Donation Land Claim situated ir. Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 Nest of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; and running thence South 89. 34' West 968.88 feet; thence South 0. O1' West a distance of 1003.0 feet; thence North 65. 36 1/2• West a distance of 97.10 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein I described; thence continuing on said bearing of North 656 38 1/2' West a distance of i 122.43 feet; thcrco South 0. 01' West a distance of 10.0 feet; thence South 27. 49' West a distance of 126.12 feet co the Northerly line of Greenburg Road; thence following along - said Northerly line of Greenburg Road, South 56. 51' East a distance of 117,08 feet; ) thence North 28. 30' East a distance of 153.27 feet to the point Of beginning, PARA= IIa I Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of _ Tigard, Councy of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 89. 34' West 966.86 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 0. 01' West 1003.0 feet to a I pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65. 30' _ 30• West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 00 01' East 85.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 88. 36' West 30 feet from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOODc - RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 89. 59' East 200 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 0. O1' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. L.: s - f! j I 4 I j STATTTrORY WARP-Al M DEED (Continued) ' ENC~IDRANCES (Continued) Order No.: 665526. - 1J 3. The rights of the public, governmental bodies, and public utilities, in and tc that portion of the herein described property lying within the limits of Sc 92nd Avenue • and Greenburg Road. i 1. t j t. f t - r t i y 1 - 1 _ L 3 74 FORM No. 941 - EAAGAIN AND SALE GEED - STATUTORY TORY I StlVD6-N[S1 UW 1t1RD+0 co.. >ORRAMO ON ~lA. STATE OF OREGON County of Washington SS L 1 1 _ MILES L. DOWNING 1, Jerry FL'Hanson; Diredor of Assess- ment and Taxation and Ex-Officio County Clerk for said county; do".hereby cartify that the within instrument of writing was received olrlmraNU,»uwAaar... and recorded In book of records bf said county. IT, : _ ' ; ( \-~\'~G_.a+6o-.~ OtWfWti N"nM W AGtrM~ SPACE RESERVED ' w . • ^ Art.r,.~ e~y +.a o, m p~ e•Aaa... aFr• FOR Jerry R._lianson, Director of MILES L._DO_WNING RECOADER'S USE -AssessmentandTaxation,F-x- - 11 ~QQ-SIJ-G tNQV6ZC Officio County Clerk Doc 97056444 umu now.+.a ooY,++«, -4 4R Ux Fnnmwlo W PQm Ao4r.44. aa): Re c t : 188611 3 8 . 0 0 NO_CHF.NGE 06/20/1997 OE:38:19am I - " By Depun•. - e BARGAIN AND' SAI E DEED - STATUTORY FORM MCMDUAL GRANMR) _ -MILES_ L. DOWNING - - Grantor. conveysto_r MILES L. DOWNING - - Grantee, the following real property situated in __-WASHINGTON-_- County, Oregon, to-wit: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 'A' i . ~ f V{ (IF SPACE DSUFFICLEW. CONTME DESMPr1DN ON REVEASO ' 1 ; The true consideration for this conveyance is S__ 0 J (Here, comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030.) - - - - i II - - - -Y- ,I Dated this 192Hday of i I THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN _-______~_✓--_-_________________C j ( THS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGU. MILES L. DOWNIDLG i LATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT. THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO- PRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. WASHINGTON STATE OF OREGON, County of --_---------------------------1 ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on -JUNE-__ 9_ 199 7 MILES L. DOWNING i ov OFFiCIALSEAL /CEC DEANNA McK1ERNAN ` NOTARY PUBLICAREGON - otary Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO. A025989 l,tv rnutittcCU1N EXPIRES JULY 11. 1997 My commission expires ___/-7 L - 1 I 1 EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION i i Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 89° 34' West 968.88 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 0° 01' West 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the j true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65° 38' - 30" West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 0° 01' East 89.0 feet to an { iron pipe that is South 88° 36' West 10 feet from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9 , DOGWOOD RID GE, a plat of record in Washington I, County, Oregon; thence South 89° 59' East 200 fee[ to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 01 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. { i 1 ~ 'i • { I i Appendix B Proposal for Subject Parcel Prepared by Residents of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood i i . -r - I i I i To: Mr. Mark Roberts, City of Tigard Planner From: Residents of SW 92°d Avenue (North of SW Greenburg Road) Date: June 12, 1997 Re: MLP 97-0002 (Tax Lot 6700) Please find enclosed the recommendations that our neighborhood is making to Mr. Miles Downing for the partition and development of the undeveloped portion of the lot located at 11600 SW Greenburg Road, in Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this letter is to inform the City of Tigard i Planning Staff of our recommendations, so that you can advise the Planning Commission and the City Council of our position, as appropriate. We believe that our recommendations are consistent with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, for the reasons outlined in our attached recommendations. Please note that it is our sincere desire to reach a reasonable solution, which would be profitable for Mr. Downing and can also become a welcome addition to our community by upholding the quality of life we enjoy as well as maintaining our current property values. We are once again asking you to reconsider your position regarding our appeal of "Amended" { Minor Land Partition MLP 97-0002. As you know, the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to prolubit development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life. Please let us { know what information you believe is missing to make the case that our community would be harmed by Mr. Downing's current proposal. 1 _ We look forward to your response. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Terry Smith at 684-1460 or Kerry Gavett at 624-7180. C: James N.P. Hendryx Dick Bewersdorff i } j f Recommendations for Partition and Development of Undeveloped Portion of 11600 S W Greenburg Road Tigard, OR 97223 (M12 97-0002) Below are recommendations that our neighborhood (residents of SW 92nd Avenue, north of SW Greenburg Road) is making to Mr. Miles Downing for the partition and development of the undeveloped portion of the lot located at 11600 SW Grecnburg Road, in Tigard, Oregon. We I believe our recommendations are consistent with the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, as discussed below. If Mr. Downing proposes development consistent with our recommendations, we will agree not to pursue our appeal any further. It is not our intention to stop Mr. Downing from developing his property. However, we believe that it is our responsibility to make sure that any partition and construction he proposes will not reduce the quality of life enjoyed j by the residents of the City of Tigard or our neighborhood, or reduce the value of our properties. GENERAL RECOMIMENDATIONS Any plan proposed by Mr. Downing should be in conformance with the goals and purposes of the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. Specifically, the plan should comply with the following: I tt' I I 1. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain and improve the quality of life for the 4 residents, by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing I quality of life, and to provide for the retention of the stand of fir trees which contribute to the livability of the community. 2. The purpose of the Municipal Code to ensure that this development is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the Lind, to promote and protect the public welfare, to conserve needed open and green space and to protect natural and scenic resources. j Page I L~ y 1 I j 3. The purpose of implementation Strategy 4 of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that the I grove of fir trees will remain substantially unaltered by this development through the tree 1 removal ordinance. I DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL I i Preparation of Tree Mitigation Plan: The undeveloped portion of Tax Lot 6700 contains a large f grove of Douglas Fir Trees which extends onto nearby properties. We believe that a Tree } L I Mitigation Plan should be prepared before any development occurs on the subject site. The _ purpose of the plan would be to assure that development will not substantially alter the character of the grove of trees, and to be sure that any trees proposed to be removed will not affect the integrity I - of the remainder of the grove on nearby properties. Strategy 4 of the Comprehensive Plan states i that "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 vegetation areas through the planned development process and the tree cutting ordinance." In the preamble to Ordinance 95-19 (revisions to the tree removal I ordinance), the City Council "finds that the proposed ordinance satisfies 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." In the preamble, the City Council defines developed I land as "only those lots or parcels with an existing use which are not capable of being subdivided or I { partitioned." Since Tax Lot 6700 can be subdivided or partitioned, it is by definition an ( ! ( undeveloped lot. Therefore, to be in compliance with the ivfunicipal Code and to assure the integrity of the grove of trees on nearby properties, we believe that a Tree vitgation Plan must be 1 prepared, and any proposed development must be designed to minimize the removal of Douglas Fir Trees. Number of Lots and Approximate Locations of Dwellings: We believe that one (1) single or two-story (detached, single-family) house could be located facing SW 92 ad Avenue, approximately 15 to 20 feet back from the street. This location would require the removal of only 2 to 3 trees, and the set-back would be consistent with all other homes in our neighborhood. It may also'be I 1 Page 2 j I possible to locate a second single or two-story (detached, single-family) house in the southeast comer of the undeveloped portion of the site, where there is a natural clearing of trees. This would only require the removal of a few trees for the house and driveway. However, it is difficult to know how feasible this is without an accurate location of the trees on the Partition map. A second house should not be constructed if the grove of fir trees cannot remain substantially unaltered. For several reasons, the neighborhood opposes the creation of more than two lots on the undeveloped portion of the site. We do not believe that more than two dwellings can be built 4. without removing a large number of trees and substantially altering the character of the grove of trees. Furthermore, if Mr. Downing creates three lots in the undeveloped portion of the site, each lot would be less than 8500 square feet. This would not be consistent with the character of our neighborhood, in which most of the lots are in excess of 18,000 square feet. i Half Street Improvements: We recommend that the City of Tigard not require Mr. Downing to - - 1 make half-street improvements as part of the development. The improvements would not be ._.J consistent with the character of our neighborhood. Furthermore, Mr. Downing informed us at a i. meeting he held on December 23, 1996 that he would have proposed development consistent with our neighborhood, if the City of Tigard would not have required the half-street improvements. He i informed us that he needed to construct three lots on the undeveloped portion of the lot, to pay for the cost of the half-street improvements. In conclusion, if Mr. Downing proposes development which is consistent with our recommendations and the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, we would be happy to withdraw our appeal. Paee 3 Appendix C Analysis of Definitions of "Large and Unique Stands of Trees" from other Metro Jurisdictions C~ i I I I i Appendix C In the City of Tigard, all trees which are not on sensitive lands (wetlands etc.) can be removed on land that is under development, as long as the development consists of three lots or less and does not include the creation of a public or a private accessway. This is true no matter how large the lots are; for example they could be 3 acres, 10 acres, 20 acres, or 80 acres. As a result the land can be totally harvested and then the developer can re-apply to subdivide those three lots to the density of the underlying district without any acknowledgment of natural areas which are areas of significant environmental concern. This is true because although the City says in its Comprehensive Plan that it shall ensure protection by definition as a means to designate areas of significant environmental concern. It has no successful means established to discover or find whether trees are significant, large or unique whether in groves or as single trees, therefore the comprehensive plan is not being successfully or legally implemented. Because the City council as the approval authority may take iudicial notice of Comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances of other planning authorities in the Metropolitan service district boundary we have reviewed and do refer to those i ordinances regulating the removal of trees in Beaverton, Lake Oswego, Portland, and Forest Grove. In other words the point of all this will be to show that the subiect application would not be processed in any of these iurisdictions without some review and acknowledgment of the existing trees for the purposes of protection. These _ jurisdictions are Beaverton, Lake Oswego, Portland, and Forest Grove. Time did not E allow the contact and review of any others, and every jurisdiction we did contact has been included. We made the following findings: I' A The City of Beaverton has established a board of design and review which may find that tree(s) are significant with criteria on a tree by tree basis by certain criteria or in groves by the following criteria: . The grove is relatively mature and evenly aged; and 2. The grove has a purity of species composition or is of a rare or unusual nature; and. 3. The grove is in a healthy growing condition; or 4. The grove has a crucial functional and/or aesthetic relationship to a natural resource. j Development on properties where the trees meet this definition must done under requirements designed to mitigate the impact of tree removal. B. The City of Lake Oswego does not allow any tree removal without a permit. Type II permits are required for any parcel that is in a residential zone and is not occupied by a residence or development involving three or more lots. The criteria for removal include showing that removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the neighborhood, or on the protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. i I l~ now C. The City of Portland requires that all tree cutting be regulated on property which is not occupied by a residence or can be further subdivided. For trees that are not dead or dying this is accomplished by the permit process whereby the applicant must show as in Lake Oswego that removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the neighborhood, or on the protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The City requires that an adequate mitigation plan is submitted for the replacement of trees removed. There are further criteria established for , tree removal specific to the different types of development applied through the land development process. D. The City of Forest Grove by its ordinance creates a protected status for any trees over 6" diameter on land subject to development review or on land under -ainQ development review such as building permits, partitioning or subdivision review etc. Trees with this 4 . status may only be removed by the permit process. Prior to and during development trees will be approved for removal only after meeting criteria designed to preserve as many trees as is possible. The submission of a tree protection plan is required. Groves in wooded areas along property lines shall be retained to serve as buffers from adjacent properties. Also trees shall be retained in sufficiently large areas and dense stands so as to ensure against a narrow row of trees which are prone to wind damage. The necessity of removal for trees over 6" must be proven by certain criteria to the reviewing body. Additionally the applicant must show evidence that alternate designs have been _ considered. Trees may be designated as significant or historic if they are found to meet certain criteria. The criteria for these groves is as follows: 1. The grove is relatively mature and evenly aged; and 2. The grove has a purity of species composition, is of a rare or unusual nature, or is an exceptional example of a type of forest such as riparian or woodland; and. 3. The grove is in a healthy growing condition; and j 4. The grove has a crucial functional and/or aesthetic relationship to a natural resource; or j 5. The grove has a historic significance based upon its association with historic figures, properties or general growth and development of the city. I In summary we request that the council take judicial notice of the fact that the subject i application would be required to address identification as well as protection of the trees or mitigation from the impacts of any tree removal. Also, we would request the council to specifically take notice of the definitions for groves that are significant which is employed by Beaverton or Forest Grove. We request that the council adopt these to satin the Comprehensive Plan requirement that areas of significant environmental concern be designated by definition and not by location. t~ L Mod